In Loos' essay, Ornament
and Crime, "passion for smooth and precious surfaces" he
explains his philosophy, describing how ornamentation can have the
effect of causing objects to go out of style and thus become
obsolete. It struck him that it was a crime to waste the effort
needed to add ornamentation, when the ornamentation would cause the
object to soon go out of style. Loos introduced a sense of the
"immorality" of ornament, describing it as "degenerate",
its suppression as necessary for regulating modern society. He took
as one of his examples the tattooing of the "Papuan" and
the intense surface decorations of the objects about him—Loos says
that, in the eyes of western culture, the Papuan has not evolved to
the moral and civilized circumstances of modern man, who, should he
tattoo himself, would either be considered a criminal or a
degenerate.
'degenerate'?
If
one ponders the history of architecture and its decoration, (see Sir
Banister Fletcher, A History of Architecture on the
Comparative Method for
a broad overview), one is humbled by its diversity and wonder,
and becomes embarrassed by today’s cheek that seeks to justify the
slick blandness of our era with its flashy, smartly-distorted,
different forms that lack any ideas from relevant theory, by mocking this
past, as if this approach might be useful, even clever. The visions
and concepts that have been framed by the twentieth century have all
sought to make a virtue out of the sheer, stark void of our naked
designs, whatever unique form they might be given, even suggesting
that the lack of any decoration is superior to what is seen as the
past’s frivolous, nonsensical whimsy: ‘more honest’ is the term
used, ‘functional,’ suggesting that there is some guile in
decorating that gets close to cheating, being immoral: a wasteful,
useless indulgence, a perversion of expression, as if our efforts are
not. This sermonising has nothing to do with the subject, nude bodies or otherwise; rather it involves only the methodology of
past eras and their beliefs that are said to have ignored the simple
purity of basic material form in favour of things flippantly
excessive, misguided, ‘decorative’ and useless. The descriptive
terms have become synonymous with the word ‘decoration’ itself.
That there might be some rigorous symbolism in the works of other
times means nothing to the ‘new’ thinking. There is something of
the work efficiency factors here: time and motion relevance. The
latent message is the cliché ‘less is more.’ In time and motion
studies, this equated to ‘less time/effort, more output/profit.’
Architecturally, it referred to a minimalist approach, at least the
stylistic appearance of things sparse and elemental. Was this Miesian
term invented to legitimise the mockery, to justify it, in a similar
fashion to the Hertzog analysis of his firm’s work that established
a schedule to rationalise its bespoke, avant-garde
quirkiness?: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2017/01/herzog-de-meuron-architecture-with-no.html
Vitrahaus Herzog & de Meuron
Our
age seems happy with ad hoc, what might be called ‘decorative’
fantasies, those ‘visionary’ forms pieced together by Gehry and
Hadid, et.al. These huge icons of random, self-centred,
self-expression are used as if in the self-promotion of genius that
is really just offbeat difference, unusual and unexpected distortions
of forms once known as the ‘International’ style, now adopted,
adapted and manipulated otherwise by computers: ‘morphed’ to
surprise the eye. The concerns with this development that ironically
dismisses historic decoration and seeks out its own bespoke
characteristics in brazen, de-materialised, de-formed identity, have
been sketched in other pieces, see:
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/zahas-architectural-car-design-strategy.html
;
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/ha-ha-ha-hadid-designs-for-world-class.html
;
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/new-gehry-projects-in-aleppo.html
; and
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/pairs-16-gehry-inspires-hadid.html
The approaches are all based on attitudes like that expressed in
Adolf Loos’s pronouncement, ‘Ornament is a Crime.’ They all appear
to adopt the narrow, cliché interpretation of Louis Sullivan’s
dictum, ‘Form follows function,’ and use this as a basis for
diversions and inversions; deviations and variations. Sullivan
scoffed at the stupidity of the awkwardly huge, heavily sculptured,
‘non-functional’ Victorian parapets, preferring things rigorously
‘Gothic’ and rationally ‘Greek.’ Yet he decorated his
buildings. The difference with his approach was, as he explained, that the parapet expressed itself as an unwieldy
chunk of frivolous, unnecessary decoration with no essential function
beyond being there as an additional, clumsy replica, a theatrically-styled copy to give an ‘historic’ image: a true
irrelevance.
Sullivan’s
Kindergarten Chats should remain required reading for
architects of all eras. It remains an inspirational work. Every concept of ‘progress,’ that
apparent perpetual movement of things inexorably becoming ever better
and better than any past, and anything in any past, should be
abolished, dismissed as an irrelevant and misguiding concept. There
is nothing in any future that requires that it must be better than
any past other than when accompanied by those concepts and beliefs
rooted in the dull notions of self-centred blind hope and rude
optimism that sees things ‘new’ as always being better, superior.
Our era rushes ‘forward’ with the idea that everything will be
and must be improved in the future, if we only ‘move forward’
away from things past as quickly as possible: a movement we describe
as ‘progress.’ The whole notion holds an irrationally expectant
presence, labelling things ‘past’ as inadequate, inferior, prior
to any future being envisaged, let alone experienced. All that is wished for is that these ‘past’ things will go, fade away into history, as history, the very minute they appear, to make way for
the ‘next’ whatever. That the new technologies make everything
today look so perfectly slick, and that of the past so clumsy,
crude and crass – like the appearance of freehand graphics and hand writing – does
nothing to help change ideas of and the demand for perpetual advancement that pass rude
judgement on these ‘inferior’ formats and expressions whatever
their real substance might be.
“To banish imperfection is to destroy
expression, to check exertion, to paralyse vitality.”
John Ruskin The Stones of Venice
There
is no value given to the notion of learning from experience, the
past; the immediate past or any of its eras. In technology, this reforming, anticipatory
attitude means things becoming ever smaller, bigger, thinner,
lighter, cheaper, faster, smarter, slicker, etc., anything different,
even though we still have very little understanding of the impact
that these gadgets and their instant obsolescence have on our lives.
We carry this prompt redundancy attitude, this expectation of needed
fast change, with its continuous, almost immediate dilapidation,
degeneration, into every aspect of our existence, even architecture,
only to frequently discover silent gaps, dark unknowns that we appear
happy to ignore rather than explore. Indeed, our gadgets help us
disregard these concerns, these doubts, intellectual chasms, with
their entertaining distractions that lead to ever-new attractions and
growing expectations: the next model; the upgrade; tomorrow’s
anticipated, transformative secret. Technology supports our naive
enthusiasm for a grand, ‘Star Wars’ future, the ever better and
better, as it is in its own interests to do this; and we support
technology in this game by allowing it to seek to achieve, even to
promote this expectation without really knowing why, other than as
some broad notion of advancement, improvement - ‘progress’: “as
if this were necessarily so,” as Wittgenstein once said of
‘10-year’ scientific predictions. It may not be necessarily so at
all. When might we be content? - see:
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/are-smart-cities-numb-to-possibilities.html
So
it is that, with this same dismissive attitude to things of the past,
Kindergarten Chats has been allowed to disappear from the
reading lists of the young today, to become part of a forgotten
‘past,’ history, understood as an ‘old and irrelevant’
out-of-print publication. That Sullivan was addressing the ‘young
architect’ as an educator makes no difference to the young or old
today. This is not the only book to be so rudely treated. There are
many, very many that have been shoved aside by the hype of the new.
Trystan Edward’s Manners in Architecture has suffered the
same fate. Manners no longer seem to matter in any field of interest
today: they present as a show of weakness. Social media makes this
clear; and Howard Robertson’s The Principles of Architectural
Composition gets laughed at for its 1924 naivety by those who
consider themselves superior in every and any way, without knowing
why. The annoyance is that the young always believe that they all
know better, that their opinion alone is ‘gospel.’ We have all
been there in one way or another. One admires the new ambitions,
visions, and the energy, but there is no guide today other than
social responses to their ‘selfies’ - their self-expression and
self-impression. If the books or works of past times do ever happen
to be ‘rediscovered,’ they are perceived to be a part of the
genius of the discoverer – ‘I recognised this’ - and are used
for self-promotion, al la Gahry/Hadid-style: and why not? - c.f.
Andrew Kudless at the Abedian School of Architecture, Bond University
talk; and Dagmar Reinhardt, also at Bond, see:
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/exploring-definition-edge-condition-of.html who both speak of their work with the apparent attitude: “clever me, extending the work started
by others whom I have ‘discovered’ and reinterpreted in my new
and exciting work” - as just more ‘selfies’ praising
‘selfies.’
Louis Sullivan decoration
Sullivan
might have mocked gaudy excrescences under his dictum ‘Form Follows
Function,’ as he argued for a functional poetic in his work that
was itself beautifully, eloquently decorated, as he noted, with
florid work that was integral and relevant, expressive of the whole,
touching on nature and its ideas and origins while enriching the
expression organically. His understanding was never a single, limited, practical
notion of essential purpose. It embodied the inverse to this cliché
in the lesser known, even forgotten phrase, ‘Function Follows
Form,’ a notion that spoke of a unique integrity and wholeness, a
poetic synthesis (see Kenneth White poem in
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/experiencing-things-poetic.html
and THE AIM OF ART in the sidebar), where “the function of the rose
is the form of the rose; the form of the rose is the function of the
rose.” Surprisingly, it was Sullivan who predicted the death of
decoration, but only for an era. He saw that time was needed to
re-establish the rigour; to re-discover the purpose; to be able to
see things more clearly yet again. This era has now passed, or is
coming to its conclusion, but decoration does not appear to have any
resurgence. Why? What is going on? What might be needed for
decoration to once again flourish with its own power and coherence,
inner strengths, enrichments that lie beyond bland and bold, clever
self-expression, no matter how many distortions and surprising
differences this might involve?
One
does indeed become embarrassed with today’s attitudes to the beauty
and wonder of the past; for example, the classical forms with their
complexities of inter-related decoration: see George Hersey The
Lost Meaning of Classical Architecture
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Meaning-Classical-Architecture-Speculations/dp/0262580896
Over many eras, from ancient times to those recently modern, things
classical have been built, and built again, never losing their power
or authority. Why is it that we, today, (apart from Prince Charles
et.al.), see this expression as a flippant farce, but have nothing
similar to this coherence and authority in our architecture? Are we
merely making sense out of our poverty of expression because we know
and can do so little else? Are we placating our lazy ignorance with
fabricated theory that excludes the complications of decoration,
demeans it? One cannot but stand on the edge of the gulf, the void,
and despair without some rationalisation that boasts a new
understanding, a new hope, even if generated out of such doubt and
poverty, despite the risks involved. But tattoos are now seen everywhere as
body decoration. Is this the new beginning? Are we scared of the
question: ‘What do I put where?’ in our architecture, and 'Why?' There appears to be little doubt with the marking of our bodies, given the remarkable diversity of images on display and their variety of locations. Do
the architectural ‘tattoo’ decisions scare us; challenge us too
much?
Papuan tattoos
Can
decoration help us regain some mental rigour; help us cope with the
complexities of life that might be baffling us into excusing
ourselves? The Gothic world knew how such stories and coherence in
buildings could enrich, as did the Greek rigour too. When might we
seek out a similar ‘life support’ beyond drugs and personal
‘selfie’ expression? Do other things have to come into place
first?
“The purest and most thoughtful minds are those
which love colour the most.”
John Ruskin The Stones of Venice
A
culture needs to have and to know its stories before it can celebrate
them. Have we lost these and become as singular, lost souls
meandering around in a fragmented solitude (see Kenneth White THE AIM
OF ART in sidebar) screaming at the world, becoming stimulated by
difference, claiming genius in anything strange, odd and unusual just
to mark our place, MY place, as self-expression in a chaotic void of
uncertainty? Does this mesmerising mess generate the interest in the
tattoo – the markings, the makings, of ME, on ME?
Where
are we? Who are we? What can we celebrate as a society, a culture?
Consider Rosslyn Chapel and ask: ‘What is man?’
Rosslyn Chapel
‘What
is man that thou art mindful of him?’ (Psalm 8:4)
What
is decoration?
What
might it be?
What
might it become today beyond an excused blandness, a baldness of bold form?
'spiritual strength'?
Loos concluded that "No ornament can any
longer be made today by anyone who lives on our cultural level ...
Freedom from ornament is a sign of spiritual strength".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_and_Crime
TATTOOS
Hopefully tattoos don't represent a new beginning in architectural decoration
25 March 2017
NOTE:
The architects featured
in the show (Rejected Architects) relied upon function rather
than symmetry, with an emphasis on flexibility, lightness, and
simplicity. "Ornament has no place," the pamphlet
explained, "since hand-cut ornament is impracticable in an
industrial age. The beauty of the style rests in the free composition
of volumes and surfaces, the adjustment of such elements as doors and
windows, and the perfection of machined surfaces.”
Hugh Howard
Architecture's Odd Couple Frank Lloyd Wright and Philip Johnson
Bloomsbury Press New York 2016
p.75
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.