21 Mar, 2021
Adolf Loos' 1910 lecture "Ornament and Crime" responds to the art nouveau trends present in Vienna, expressing his distain in excessive ornamentation, aruging that it inhibits the advancement of mankind by using precious time and resources. He argues that people often mistake ornament with style and vice versa, but he claims that an era can have style without ornament. He adds that the quality of a good can often be sacrificed with quantity of ornament purposefully, so that artisans can continue to make money; if the ascetic lasted as long as the good itself, consumers would be willing to pay a price for the artisan to stay in business. I agree with Loos’ arguments about style and quality, but I disagree about many of his points about individuality and creativity.
To start, Loos argues that ornament inhibits human evolution because it is wasting time and resources that could have gone to advancing mankind. He states that all art is erotic, using examples like tattoos that do not increase aesthetic; that it is even criminal. He then goes on to explain that art is simply a way for men to exert energy, and it is normal for children to do so.
Loos argues that ornament is prohibiting the advancement of society, stating, “the evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from utilitarian objects” (page 20); other civilizations have progressed without the use of ornaments, and we should do the same. He explains that style is often confused with ornament, and overuse can result in a lack of beauty, genuineness, and overall joy.
Loos criticizes Austrians' habit of updating their furniture every 10 years to support laborers, arguing that if an object's acetic lasted as long as its lifetime, consumers would pay a higher price for the manufacturer to stay in business “If all objects would last aesthetically as long as they do physically, the consumer could pay a price for them that would enable the worker to earn more money and work shorter hours” (page 23)
There are many sound arguments that Loos makes that I agree with. I agree that style does not require ornament. Many modern buildings and art pieces are very minimal that also have a distinct style. Loos argues that a minimalist style is timeless, and people would not need to buy new goods every few years because of a style change. This is also pertinent to today’s society with waste reduction.
While not expressing explicitly, I understood some of his points about excess ornaments—particularly with tattoos and art—as being against individuality. While the style of a certain time period can be minimal without much ornament, people should still feel able to express themselves with art. He portrays art as childish and something of a lesser society, stating, “All art is erotic.” (page 19)
In conclusion, Loos made many arguments against ornament and for minimalism. While I agree with his points about style not needing ornament, I disagree with the fact that art and self-expression is seen as inferior.