Assigned Reading

Adolf Loos Ornament and Crime.


Background
Eldest child of 3 born in 1870 in Brno, Moravia.
Stonemason father died when he was 8, his mother carried on the family business.
Headstrong and rebellious at school though still got good grades.
Studied architecture on several occasions but failed to complete a degree.
Contracted syphilis from a brothel in Vienna and was sterile by 21.
At 23 his mother disowned him for refusing to support her in the family business.
1893 went to America for 3 years, did some odd jobs in NY.
Returned to Vienna in 1896 via London as a gentleman with refined tastes.
His friends included Ludwig Wittgenstein, Arnold Schrönberg and Karl Kraus.
Quickly established as preferred architect of Viennas cultured middle class.
Interested in decorative arts.
Collected sterling silver and high quality leather goods for their plain but luxurious appeal.
Love for custom-made clothing “What use is a brain if one doesn’t have the decent clothes to set it off?”
Surprisingly Loos architectural style is often elaborately decorated. In his essay ornament and crime, his argument is between “organic” and superfluous decoration.
1918 diagnosed with cancer, half his digestive system removed. Only able to eat ham and cream the rest of his life.
Several unhappy marriages.
By 50 he was almost completely deaf.
In 1928 was disgraced by a paedophilia scandal.
Died penniless in 1933 in Kalksburg, near Vienna.



Overview of Essay
Loos argues that the evolution of a culture can be measured by the degree to which it has rejected ornamentation.
Peoples need to decorate themselves is primitive and degenerate. Therefore anyone with tattoos is a criminal or will be one.
Ornament is not only produced by criminals, it commits a crime itself.
Ornamentation wastes time and manpower only to produce something which will become obsolete.
People who prefer ornament live in the past and it is a misfortune for any government if it’s people are dominated by the past.
Loos likens the evolution of a culture to the stages of a child growing up and that anyone who feels the need to decorate everything around them is amoral and have not reached the same level as modern man.
Loos looks down on anyone who uses ornament saying “I suffer the ornaments of these people because they have no other means of expressing their full potential” (referring to his cobbler putting ornamentation on his shoes.
He even goes on to say that modern man has become so refined and that his individuality is so strong that he now uses his clothes as a mask for this.

My Response
Adolf Loos makes valid points about how ornament wastes time and effort to produce something that is only going to go out of fashion. He says himself that it is better to buy a plain, well made product which will last a long time than to buy something which has had the quality compromised for decoration.
Personally I can appreciate a certain amount of ornamentation but I can understand how Loos perceives it as an immature need to decorate everything around us. There is something refined about being able to appreciate a piece of work for its simplicity and material qualities rather than being distracted by the decoration painted over the top.
To a point I agree with Loos ideas about people feeling the need to decorate themselves. But for the most part I don’t think this means a person has a criminal nature, it is more a desire to express themselves, remember a time in their life or even just a be that they like an image so much that they tattoo it on themselves.
It is fair enough to say that is bad to live in the past but I think that it is good to have reminders of the past around us so that we can learn and grow from it rather than dwell on it.

Reference list
“Adolf Loos works and projects.” Ralf Bock. Skir a Editore S.P.A. Italy 2007.

http://arqudec.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/l846666b.jpg