Design Theory in “Ornament and Crime” Essay by Loos

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Historical Background and Influences
Ornament and Crime
Café Museum
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

The beginning of the twentieth century was marked by many cultural changes reflected in both society and art. Human lives have been transformed with the advent of the industrial age, so many creators have tried to find a new path that would correspond to these changes. Artists worldwide tried to overcome previous generations’ eclecticism to find harmony, combining artistic and practical functions. This movement also affected architects who attempted to incorporate new cultural trends with the utilitarian requirements of society. Among such personalities, it is worth highlighting Adolf Loos, who occupies one of the most critical places in European architecture history at the beginning of the 20th century.

He became famous as an architect and as the author of numerous articles and essays, including the renowned Ornament and Crime, in which Loos explored modernism. However, one of his most essential theses is the rejection of pretentious decorations in the direction of precise forms. While Loos accepted the set entirely, he made a clear distinction between natural-looking decorations and superfluous, meaningless ones. The purpose of this paper is to analyze Loos’s essay Ornament and Crime. Through a historical context, this essay aims to examine the architect’s position on design theory and then explore the implementation of his perspective through one of his works, the design of the Café Museum.

Historical Background and Influences

To clarify the architect’s position, it is necessary to consider his life in the historical context. The Western community during this period experienced many changes associated with the growth of industrialization and urbanization. Such a rapid change in the world order led to the fact that creators worldwide tried to adapt to the changing reality, reflecting it in art. Thus, modernism appeared – a trend characterized by a denial of the past, a distance from classical traditions and a search for renewed artistic forms.

In a way, modernism was not a specific art style. Instead, it was the desire to find a new way. The Art Nouveau movement representatives, a more specific subdivision, sought to use more natural, flowing lines. One of the striking examples of this opinion is the desire to combine the interior and exterior decoration of the building, making them a logical continuation of each other.

In every country and every region, modernism elements appeared at different times, in large part because many of the artists were not familiar with each other. However, artists in all countries were united by the same ideas, which ultimately laid the foundation for an international style with no specific boundaries. This factor is significant in the analysis of the architectural work of Loos. Because modernists’ ideas in many respects intersected, the architect’s travels allowed him to gain knowledge and find inspiration in entirely different cultures. The information received then showed itself both in the developed buildings and in the written works.

Ornament and Crime

Loos’ wanderings and his study of other cultures have resulted in many works. However, Ornament and Crime deserve a separate mention. In this text, the architect puts forward a very bold and unusual position. As the name of the theory suggests, the author’s thoughts are centered around the ornament and its place in the modern world for Loos. The Viennese architect proclaims the formation of a new era, the time of the individualized personality.

According to Loos, this time’s main feature should be a decrease in the number of ornaments used by humanity. From the author’s perspective, household and architectural objects in modern society should have a practical meaning. It is indecent to scatter valuable resources on items and decorations that do not carry any value. Such a fate, according to Loos, can be understood in the case of the Papuan savages or children who cover the walls with drawings.

In a sense, Loos denies the artistic essence of architecture, seeking to subordinate it to functionality. Instead of using ornaments, the architect proposes turning to high-quality materials processing, thereby demonstrating intelligence’s power. Besides, Loos states that at the current level of development, humanity has grown out of ornaments and cannot come up with anything new, and therefore, this technique should be discarded as a relic of the wild past. Finally, the final argument, which Loos seeks almost wholly to destroy the culture of using ornaments, is the waste of their use. A product with an ornament is much more labor-intensive, while its price will not reflect the human labor invested. According to Loos, if this part of production were removed, the operating time could be halved, which would positively affect all spheres, both culture and economy.

Loos’s rhetoric is extraordinarily categorical and characteristic of the modernist direction; however, certain flaws exist. Despite the rich travel history, the architect’s opinion was formed only based on those aspects of architecture that he saw in his travels in Europe. Although there is a certain logic in this approach, since Loos worked within the framework of Austrian architecture, at the same time, the architect extends his theoretical research to architecture and creativity in general. In his works, there is no division into, for example, Eastern and Western cultures, European and American. Consequently, Loos does not take into account the characteristics that may be present in other regions and does not take into account the cultural value of some types of ornaments.

It is in this context that Loos’s arguments about the value of ornaments can be improved. In the historical context, the architect’s position manifests itself as too radical; therefore, it requires a certain softening and modification. Rather than completely deny the concept of ornaments, it may be worthwhile to limit their use to what is prudent. Indeed, sometimes in the weather, much more resources are spent than necessary for decorations on particular objects, which is too irrational for material resources and human labor. Consequently, Loos’s argumentation can be improved by reducing the statements’ radicalism, combined with attempts to change society’s views concerning unnecessary jewelry.

Café Museum

The Café Museum, located in Vienna, is one of the brightest manifestations of the principles that the architect expounded and adhered to in his work. Opened in 1899, the establishment became an example of architecture that Loos considered modern. The main design element of the building is its maximum simplicity and asceticism.

The front part of the café, located at the corner of two streets, is practically devoid of any decorations and additional elements. Unlike the then-popular opulent coffee houses that boasted of their on-display design, the Café Museum stands out for its austere exterior, using light, desaturated tones. Even against the background of other floors of the building, the café stands out for its simplicity.

While the frames of the windows of the third and fourth floors are decorated with many bas-reliefs and decorations imitating a colonnade, the windows of the café are a strict black frame. Loos actively emphasizes this simplicity throughout the exterior design, thereby specifically highlighting his work against the background of ostentatious Wilhelminian style coffee houses.

Minimalism and practicality are two main terms that can be used to describe the Café Museum’s appearance. In this context, this cafe’s architecture is entirely consistent with all Loos principles outlined above regarding the lack of ornaments. The absence of any decorations makes the building even somewhat nihilistic as if deliberately denying the richness of ornaments around.

However, even despite such nihilism, consistency and strict subordination to the practical side, the café still looks attractive, which is confirmed by critics’ words. Despite the use of a minimal number of color tones and design elements, Loos created a strict but simultaneously friendly atmosphere due to their successful arrangement and combination.

A similar impression is created by the interior of the café, designed in the same style. There are some deviations from the categorical radical denial of ornaments. For example, the walls and furniture, particularly the chairs, have a striped pattern. Although this painting method is extremely simple, technically, a series of stripes can still be considered an ornament. This contrast is noticeable against the exterior background, in which there are absolutely no hints of even the most straightforward patterns. Besides, the interior is made in much brighter and warmer colors, which are combined and the facade’s design, thereby in line with the concepts that Loos adhered to.

Thus, Café Museum is a combination of opposites: nihilism and minimalism are combined with humanity, which follows the theory of modernism, and the ascetic, almost Spartan appearance of the establishment creates an impression of coziness, comfort and a welcoming atmosphere. This atmosphere and the combinations described above persist even more than a hundred years after establishing the café and after two renovations under the supervision of various architects. Although each of them made their changes to the establishment, the general concept remained the same, maintaining the spirit of modernism and refusal from unnecessary decorations.

Conclusion

Modernism as a trend can be divided into many small, more specific directions, such as Art Nouveau or modern, but in general, it is not a particular style but a search for it. This analysis and attempts to create something new are a logical continuation of the changes that have come to the Western world. Given the pace at which life was changing, society realized that the ancient ossified principles no longer work and do not reflect the essence of events taking place in the world. That is why modernism’s movement was born as a consequence of throwing away the shackles of the past to find the future.

Adolf Loos was one of the most prominent representatives of this movement, entering the Austrian variation of modernism called the Viennese Secession. The architect and theorist actively used this movement’s traditions, fighting against the foundations accepted in society.

In particular, in the architectural context, Loos chose the radical path of rethinking architecture as a utilitarian tool. As a result, the architect strongly opposed the use of decorations and ornaments. Loos actively promoted the idea of abandoning ornaments as a manifestation of humanity’s spiritual and intellectual power, which has reached a new level of development.

Then, the Café Museum is a near-perfect example of this concept, showcasing Loos’ architectural thought in action. Both the exterior and the building’s interior follow this idea, combining minimalism and severity with coziness and comfort. There are practically no unnecessary, pretentious details in the cafe’s design, and there are organic forms combined. Thus, Loos’s works are entirely consistent with the concepts he expressed since the architect refused unnecessary decorations, leaving only those that organically fit into the surrounding environment.

Works Cited

Ledl, Thomas. 2009. “Cafe Museum Innen.”

Loos, Adolf. 1998. Ornament and Crime. Ariadne Press.

Mildenberg, Ariane. 2017. Modernism and Phenomenology: Literature, Philosophy, Art. Springer.

Sármány-Parsons, Ilona. 2008. “The Art Criticism of Ludwig Hevesi in the Age of Historicism.” Austrian Studies 16: 87-104.

Wiener Zeitung. 2012. “Café Museum, View from Outside.”

Williams, Richard J. 2018. “Architecture’s Modernisms.” In A Companion to Modern Art, edited by Pam Meecham, 263-281. Hoboken: Wiley.

Click Here To Order Now!