LECTURE 05

REYNER BANHAM, "ORNAMENT AND CRIME"

The Decisive Contribution of Adolf Loos

The theory of Adolf Loos is about architecture was the rejection of ornament and the adaption of contemporary style. He believed that the using of ornament was a banality and overly “sentimental.” He also greatly believed in restraining the passions and emotions in architecture by the expression of forms. I agree with that he felt architecture and space should be clear and rational, in order for a human to be able to think and meditate. However, I a bit disagree with the ornament that not only destroying the aesthetic development but also it is a crime against the national economy, labor, material and time.

Cathedral Nice Italian Baroque

I think ornaments still showing the aesthetic development like Italian Baroque. He was surrounded in France and Austria at the time by the height of the Art Nouveau movement, which was very flowery, heavily ornamented and expressive. As the visitors, we still feel stunning about how magnificent of these ornaments now in that century. Thus, it is not wasting the labour, material and time. It is too exaggerate to talk about damaging the national economy because it attracts the tourists to visit the place and experience the ornaments of how they decorate in such way. These already promote the economic and tourism development of the country. In the contrary, I agree that these depends on the behavior and attitude of consumers. Due to they require more money, ornaments normally belong to richer people and aristocrat. Hence, we should spend accordingly with our economic capability and do not be extravagant.

Reyner Banham offers a comparison between the structuring of his written argument and a "cafe" sensibility. In a way, it may imply a specific flow and atmosphere of collaborative mayhem. It is not a reasoned argument but a succession of fast-spieling double-takes and non-sequiturs holding together a precarious rally of clouds of witness – café-Freudianism, café-anthropology, café-criminology. Loos stated that clean cut modern architecture was the only way to go for him. However, it is interesting that he did not entirely practice what he preached because it becomes apparent that he enjoyed using many textures in his work.

Marble Cladding in the interiors of Adolf Loos

Is ornament a crime for me? I think if the ornament appeals to the eye, it is not a crime. However, if you do ornament and if it does not have any meaning or it does not change anything, it is unnecessary and it should be removed. Besides, it depends on how you look at it by using different textures, materials, shapes, forms or arranging elements properly also can be an ornament. For instance, Adolf Loos use the marble cladding in the interior space can function as easy to clean and aesthetic purpose. Another example is the metal louver exterior cladding act as ornaments of the building can play the roles as filtering the dust, aesthetic purpose and shade the building from harsh sun.

To conclude, I don’t think that ornamentation should be totally omitted from architecture. As our society evolves and gains knowledge, the use of different forms of ornamentation should be explored. Nowadays, with the introduction of technology and nature into buildings, we have to reconsider the concept and functionality of ornaments in our daily architecture. The notion of ornamentation can be altered to fit all the evolution of society. For example we use the fake grass and climbing plants as the ornament for the building nowadays. Ornamentation has definitely been evolving with human culture and society.


Written by Chiew Jing Yi, 1001644071