Theory of Architecture (NAR 609)

Ornament and crime by Adolf Loos

Pre modern Seven lamps of Architecture by John Ruskin

Towards a new Architecture by Le Corbusier

Modern In the cause of Architecture by Frank Lloyd Wright

Post-modern Complexity and contradiction in Architecture by Robert Venturi

The Architecture of a city by Aldo Rossi
Thinking Architecture by Peter Zumthor
 Ornament and crime by Adolf Loos

1870- Born in the Czech Republic to German parents, a sculptor and stonemason.

1880 - 1893 Attends series of Austrian and Czech technical colleges, including
architecture at Dresden Technical University.

1893 - 1896 Travels and works as a mason and floor-layer in the U.S., where he
becomes enamored with the efficiency of American architecture. In particular, he
comes to admire the work of Louis Sullivan, whose aesthetic was based on the
premise that form should follow function.

1897 - First solo design at Ebenstein Couturier, beginning of theoretical and critical
activity.
Art Nouveau Architecture
“Ornament and Crime,” 1908 article by Adolf Loos is a strong critique of
ornament. Inspired by a three-year stay in America, where he was introduced to
the modernist movement through the friendship with Louis Sullivan, Loos’ strong
language is a reaction to the Art Nouveau movement, which was at its high point
in Europe when he returned.

He argues that the modern man should eliminate the ornament to reach
the highest evolutionary potential and writes, “Since ornament is no
longer a natural product of our culture, so that it is a phenomenon either
of backwardness or degeneration.”Loos relates ornamentation to the
deceleration of society to his own time. He uses the analogies from
everyday objects (cigarette cases, clothing, etc.) to make this point.
Loos' critique of ornament takes another angle when he starts considering labour and material
values that go into making the ornamental objects. Although his views make him think "ornament
is wasted labor power and hence wasted health," he is making a point to recognize craftsmen's
labor as the only source of joy and hence an undeniable privilege.

 In the beginning of the essay, he makes a clear analogy between the infant and a Papuan and
their amorality. He also states that the urge to ornament is humans’ most basic and primitive
desire. Perhaps then, it can be inferred that in order for mankind to evolve, we need to suppress
our most innate desires that are most likely “criminal” if ever expressed, since ornament is the
chain that binds men.
Loos' modernistic support for the smooth, un-ornate, sleek, and simple can be related to later time
including today's film, art, design, and everyday life objects. There is a big distinction between the "high
design" and popular design. One still find craftsman taking pride in the work, but the distinction between
what Loos would call rightful use of ornament and the one that constitutes a crime is blurred. It seems
that he is much more repulsed by anachronism and “not being modern” than ornamentation itself. 

Loos’ argument applies to the contemporary society, as there are still

abundant examples of ornamentation that are often celebrated. Perhaps
this essay can be discerned outdated in the sense that the contemporary
man’s urge to express himself far exceeds many other considerations.

 According to Loos, ornamentation can be “tolerated” if this means that laborer finds joy through his
work. However, he also states that if it is possible for the laborer to also find joy outside of his work, then
the ornamentation no longer has value.