Tugendhat House, designed by Mies Van der Rohe, interior by Lilly Reich

Home to Grete and Fritz Tugendhat

This building shows the disappearance of ornament
Design is much more simplistic whilst maintaining luxury
- This is achieved through use of industrial materials, namely steel and glass
- Use of industrial materials signals shift from intense craftsmanship of ornamental
design to increased use of machinery. Links to Loos comments about labour
resources and efficiency, how ornament is an economic hindrance in that it uses
more labour hours to produce a result that is no more desirable than a simplistic
alternative. The Tugendhat House exemplifies how low craftsmanship and machinery
use can more efficiently produce something still considered elegant and luxurious.
- Also links to Wagners ideas in Modern Architecture of a break in the continuity of
architecture from its past and that architecture’s future basis lies in construction and
technology and through this modern luxury can be attained (as seen in metropolitan
London Paris etc.)
- Industrial materials of Tugendhat House indicate this shift from symbolism and
embellishment to construction/technological focus
- Tugendhat also achieves sense of luxury through use of naturally patterned
materials, onyx and Macassar veneer and other exotic wood
o The luxury of this house comes from a combination of the simplicity and the
beauty of nature
o conflict between the idea that ornament no longer has a place in architecture
because it is outdated in that it is no longer aesthetically pleasing or whether
it is outdated because of technological advances and the comparative
inefficiency of craftsmanship, or because of cultural evolution.
o This house shows the beauty of nature through simplicity, however this
beauty can also be capture through ornament eg. Floral embellishments
 Something to be said for ornamental beauty regardless of whether a
smooth plain alternative is equally functional and uses less labour.
 There were complaints that the design of the Tugendhat house
dictated its function too much, left no room for the inhabitants to
decide how they used and interacted with the space – perhaps lack of
ornament led to too much of a focus on functionality.
o Loos says ornaments have no natural place in culture anymore, tattoos =
degenerates, no longer the case in modern day period, but even in the early
20th century, this wasn’t true, but the result of eurocentrism. In Native
American culture and many non-Western cultures tattoos and clothing are
ornamental and represent, lineage, status, mythology, not just crime and
degeneracy as Loos suggests. Thus, ornament continues to be a natural
product of many cultures if not upper-class western Europe.
 However, westernisation means even cultures in which ornament is
still a natural product, it is being diminished (unnaturally) in efforts to
mirror western architectural styles/movements.
o Ultimately, Tugendhat is evidence of the disappearance of ornament in
favour of achieving elegance through simplicity and industrial techniques.
However, it highlights the beauty of natural elements. If ornaments can still
be used as another method to replicate nature’s beauty, then they should
not be condemned as completely as they are by the Modern Architecture
movement – cultural development is not necessarily linear.