against “ornament and crime”

Hi. I’ve read an article this morning. Basically some guys against modernism and calling it a fascist movement. He critized a very fundamental text that is one of the essence of all the contemporary architecture we see today : ornament and crime by A. Loos. (at least, not counting economical, because economy is a theory on its own). I’ve thought about this text since quite a long time now. I’m just going to make a very quick response to this (I’m kind of in the middle of something important) and why, I think, fundamentally, the reasoning was wrong. Utterly wrong.

So. Last week, I went to Europa Allee, in Zürich. Funny enough, the architect who drew it is named “Dudler” as in, doodler. Yeah, whatever. But, I find the building okay. It’s not pretty nor ugly. But the general public opinion is “oh, capitalistic and strict Zürich” “oh, monstrosity without any esthetical sensibility”. There is nothing wrong with this building. It is okay. But, the problem is, it is .only. okay. It functions. As about almost everything that people teach in architecture now. “form follows functions” or “form follows finance”. In the academy, we don’t say “it’s cool” or “it’s beautiful”. We say “it works”. as in “ça marche” or “es funktionniert”. I think it is a fundamental flaw.

–

Let’s just quickly trace back to one of the guys who started it all. Adolf Loos. Most people regards this guy as very good. He critisized traditional architecture and its archaic way of doing. He made this:

–

Yeah, whatever. He didn’t really know what he wanted. This was to “seduce” the jury of one competition.

Anyhow, he made two important arguments against “pretty” or “beautiful” in his very famous text “ornament and crime”.

The first argument was: decorations, of churches and religions and nationalism or other dogmatic things lead people to be stupid and violent. Yes, I do understand that a symbol has a very important connotation, but common’, erase all symbols from design because some people made mistakes and wars? I mean. All? That is not a valid argument. A drawing is a drawing, it is up to the designer and the people to use it at their advantages. If some people stupid people follow it too stupidly, be it. It is then the fault of humans and not of the art itself. So the art has the right to exist. We make symbols the way we want them to be. Street art is a form of “decorations”. According to Loos: NO STREET ART, NO GRAFITI. Who’s the Nazi now?

The second argument was: if a building was a suit (yes, yes… haha), then it should be neat. The gentleman, as Adolf was, should not have a public display of his sensuality. His sensuality should be kept inside. So, on the outside, you shouldn’t be beautiful. You should be bland, you should be correct and well kept. And polite. And boring as fuck. But on the inside, you could be a whore, you could be whatever you want. So the postulate is: in order for buildings to be “modern” or “cultured”, it shouldn’t display any sensuality. Nor prettiness, nor beauty. This is reflected extremely well in his villa Müller. A marvel of modern architecture and what was to follow. But the problem is: a building is not a suit. Nor it is human, nor it is you. You perceive it. Don’t you have the right to be pleased?

I have a question: does it inspire you? The answer is probably no. It is boring. Oh, but unless, you “understand” it. There’s nothing to understand. You don’t feel anything. It is boring as fuck. This was one of the foundations of what was to come. Clean, neat, minimalistic. And since most generations after either copied it or derived from it (post-modernism), it is, in my opinion, still until today’s thinking, fundamentally flawed.

–

Now, I think that there’s no shame in displaying public sensuality. We all do it to a certain extent. Every humans and every animals. Even plants. Fruits and flowers are beautiful. So why not… what we make? The reason why building design has failed to inspire the public for almost more than a century now, is because, I think, of the lack of beauty. We are not allowed to be enchanted and mesmerised by beautiful environments anymore. Designers are not allowed to create the useless. Everything has to be “less is more” or “function”. That’s it? We function? Like machines? So what? wake up, go to “function” and sleep? Does everything needs to be “useful” ?

I believe that beauty and aesthetics need to be reintroduced into architecture, if we want to save our mental health and public opinion. I believe that we have the right to be publicly and privately sensual. That we have the right to be marvelled at art. Even when it is embedded in a building. For I think that we are tired of this “smart” way of living. The “less is more” “wise” and boring way of living. Because that is not living. Living is full of colours. It is vivid. And I think that I have proven pretty much “ornament and crime” wrong.

Life is sometime useless. But it is the uselessness that make it beautiful. A very good quote from Oscar Wilde: Art for art’s sake. Not to be snob. But it is precisely art and beauty that enhance our life. And not just “functioning” like robots. We don’t function. We are alive. As in… real humans, you know.

–

One of the main issue remain. After almost a century of not knowing how to make beauty. Outside of classical order. Outside of the church. Outside of Vitruvius, Outside “form follows functions”… we don’t know how to make it anymore. But I believe that it is time to explore an unknown field that is the intrinsic human sense of beauty. For, without it, we will be lost and depressed. But, we can still buy Prozac, you know.

The next step can be either by a re-education of designers. Or a participation by the public. Time to start to re-learn how to make seductive places (not fucking spaces – places, as in, space with emotional bonding… again, an aberration), either the designers will make it. Or we all do this together. I prefer the second option. Let’s relearn to, oh the forbidden words in design, that 7 years after I still use, “love” the “charming”.