Beauty, Ornament and Crime: Adolf Loos and Leon Battista Alberti on Ornament

Adolf Loos' Ornament and Crime is an immensely interesting essay on architecture and ornament. A close examination of this essay is vital as his views would influence those responsible for the emerging modernist movement. His inflammatory and somewhat radical views on ornament are best elucidated with the theoretical basis established by Leon Battista Alberti in On the Art of Building in Ten Books. Alberti's theories on beauty and ornament help clearly define the two concepts and their relation to architecture and provide a sound framework for considering ornament and architecture.

Adolf Loos was a man obsessed with ornament. Between 1897 and 1931 he wrote at least thirty-six different essays on the subject of ornament. The Viennese architect ruffled many feathers with his inflammatory ideas seeped in cultural and intellectual superiority. Loos did not confine himself to commentary solely on architecture. Instead he focused on all aspects of the arts and culture in their relation to the applied arts. The subjects of his essays include Chairs, Men's Fashion, Footwear, and even Underwear. His most famous essay, Ornament and Crime, written in 1908, "was the cause of riots among applied artists in Munich, but received with rapturous applause when delivered as a lecture in Berlin." [1] Ornament and Crime showcases his extensive views on culture and ornament and the title became, "a catchword for many, known even to people who never knew where it came from." [2]

Loos begins his essay relating the early stages of human development, and declares, "a child is amoral. A Papuan too, for us. The Papuan slaughters his enemies and devours them. He is not a criminal. But if a modern person slaughters someone and devours him, he is a criminal or a degenerate." [3] Loos attempts to establish moral culpability, or the lack thereof, in children and primitives in juxtaposition to that of the "modern man". He uses this argument to justify his views on ornament and illustrates it with the act of tattooing. He states, "The modern person who tattoos himself is either a criminal or a degenerate", and, "people with tattoos not in prison are either latent criminals or degenerate aristocrats." [4] Essentially, any cultured or modern man who employs or appreciates ornament is morally perverse and a criminal. Already, Loos presents a provocative and perhaps even blatantly ridiculous statement. For killing and devouring a man cannot be held equal to the use of ornament.

It seems ironic that Loos would become inseparably associated with the argument that ornament is a crime, when he readily lets the argument stand and moves on to far more reasonable arguments in the remainder of his essay. It would appear that his true motive with this statement is solely to provoke the public with inflammatory declarations with little to no substance or true relevance. Ironically, he plays the part of the amoral child who screams and cries for his parents just to receive some attention.

Loos lays the groundwork of his argument on ornament when he states that, "the development of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornamentation from objects of everyday use." [5] This is an argument that he had made years before and, while he expected that he, "would bring joy to the world", instead, "the world has not thanked me for it." [6] He believed that the people did not rejoice because they were depressed and downcast when they realized that they could no longer create new ornament. "How could this be?" they must have asked themselves. Of course, Loos has a ready answer to assuage their troubles. "But I said, 'Do not weep. Do you not see the greatness of our age resides in our very inability to create new ornament? We have gone beyond ornament, we have achieved plain, undecorated simplicity." [7] And did the people now suddenly rejoice in their greatness? No! The simple-minded culturally backwards "hobgoblins" revolted against this idea. Instead the state founded new organizations to promote ornament. The nerve of them! Somehow, Loos finds it hard to believe that his condescending views would be received in such a manner. But do not fear, Loos was there to save the world with his culturally and intellectually superior ideas.

Loos continues on and laments the craftsman's plight who must "strain under the yoke of ornament." [8] For it is the unfortunate craftsman that slaves away at his labors to produce something that is essentially worthless. The hours spent by the applied artist producing meaningless and detrimental ornament could be employed in just about any other activity and be hours more fruitfully spent. And, "since ornament is no longer a natural product of our culture, but a symptom of our backwardness or degeneracy, the craftsman producing the ornament is not fairly rewarded for his labor." [9] In addition to countless hours wasted that ornament requires, "ornamentation ... pays half the price of a plain object." [10] Loos lovingly imagines a utopia one thousand years in the future free of ornament where man would only have to work four hours a day, since currently half of all time spent at labor is producing ornament.

Having so emphatically argued for the poor craftsman and his terrible plight, Loos moves on to the true heart of his argument against ornament. He boldly declares that, "the ornament being created now bears no relationship to us, nor to any human being, or to the system governing the world today. It has no potential for development", and "modern ornament has no parents and no offspring, no past and no future." [11] Here is his ringing proclamation that ornament is dead. One can almost envision the figure of ornament, lying on the bier, surrounded by mourners with a requiem floating through the air. But do not count on Loos being one of those mourners. No, he is in the nearest cafe, toasting the death of so vile a figure as ornament, who never did society any good, glorying in this great leap that society has taken.

But where does humankind go from here? After millennia of servitude to that terrible master ornament, what is left for a liberated society? Form, of course. It is the form of the object that was truly important all along. Man was foolishly overlooking the significance of form, blinded by ornament. It is the constant subtle refinement of form that man can look forward to (of course in addition to only working four hours a day). There are other benefits to abandoning ornament, as, "the disappearance of ornament has brought about an un-dreamed of blossoming in the other arts. Beethoven's symphonies would never have been written by a man who had to dress in silk, velvet, and lace." [12]

Loos, with the greatest humility, will accept the use of ornament and those who produce it today , because, "the aristocrat lets them carry on in their own accustomed way, he knows the time they spend on their work is sacred." [13] He is even willing to go so far as to, "accept decoration on my own person if it brings pleasure to my fellow men. It brings pleasure to me, too." [14] Surely a man's greatness can be measured by his reluctant willingness to blaspheme against even himself. Loos finishes off his essay with one last reminder, lest we forget, that, "lack of ornamentation is a sign of intellectual strength." [15] Surely one could not fail to realize the unquestionable truth of a statement such as that.

How should one interpret Loos' views on ornament? Through what lens should they be viewed? Perhaps examining one of the most definitive and influential treatises on architecture, Alberti's On the Art of Building in Ten Books, one can come to a greater understanding of Ornament and Crime.

Leon Battista Alberti was a fifteenth-century Florentine architect and theorist. Like Adolf Loos, Alberti's interests encompassed more than just architecture. He wrote additional treatises including the subjects of painting and family life. His architectural treatise, De Re Aedificatoria or On the Art of Building in Ten Books, is surely his most influential work. It was to inform countless architects for centuries to come. Of the ten books, Books Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine are devoted to ornament, and will provide the theoretical basis for the analysis of Loos' Ornament and Crime.

Alberti places beauty and ornament in equal positions, and treats them as inseparable. He writes, "now graceful and pleasant appearance, so it is thought, derives from beauty and ornament alone." [16] He defines beauty as, "that reasoned harmony of all the parts within a body, so that nothing may be added, taken away, or altered, but for the worse." [17] Concerning ornament, he writes, "ornament may be defined as a form of auxiliary light and complement to beauty. From this it follows, I believe, that beauty is some inherent property, to be found suffused through all the body of that which may be called beautiful; whereas ornament, rather than being inherent, has the character of something attached or additional." [18] The relationship between beauty and ornament is further clarified by Joseph Rykwert when he explains, "the distinction between beauty and ornament is clear here: beauty is the overall intellectual and primary framework – the essential idea – while ornament is the phenomenon – the individual expression and embellishment of this frame." [19] At the end of Book Six, Alberti declares that, "in the whole art of building the column is the principal ornament, without any doubt", for, "it has grace, and it confers dignity." [20]

In Books Seven, Eight, and Nine, Alberti elaborates on the ornament to sacred buildings, public secular buildings, and private buildings, respectively. Ornament becomes a form of articulation in a building, at least partially used to signify the importance of a building, and writes that, "everything is best when it is tempered to its own importance." [21] His thoughts on ornament and the three different building types described in Books Seven through Nine are as follows: "Sacred buildings ought to be so designed that nothing further may be added to enhance their majesty or cause greater admiration for their beauty; the private building, on the other hand, must be so treated that it will not seem possible to remove anything, because everything has been put together with great dignity. To the other, that is, the profane public, must be left, I feel, a position midway between these two." [22]

One of Alberti's chief concerns is the employment of moderation in ornament. In Book Six, he states that, "all care, all diligence, all financial consideration must be directed to ensuring that what is built is useful, commodious, yet – but also embellished and wholly graceful, so that anyone seeing it would not feel that the expense might have been invested better elsewhere." [23] When considering the process of design, Alberti writes that, "the work ought to be constructed naked, and clothed later; let the ornament come last, on then will you have the occasion and opportunity to do it conveniently without any form of hindrance." [24]

Alberti's and Loos' views on ornament are not quite as incongruous as they might seem. If one is able to look past the condescending tone and ludicrous declarations in Ornament and Crime, one will find that Loos' concept of subtly refined form is similar in nature to Alberti's concept of beauty. Both seek architecture free of all that is superfluous and extravagant. Yet, they fundamentally differ concerning ornament. Loos believes that it is the ornament that is superfluous and must be discarded, while Alberti places beauty and ornament as equally important and necessary. Loos essentially asserts that beauty can only be attained with the abandonment of ornament. While, from an Albertian viewpoint, Loos is dismissing half of the necessary equation. He is willing to establish the framework, yet rejects the means of its expression. His theory is incomplete and lacks any true relevant thought or depth.

In the end, it would appear that Loos is the victim of his culture and his time. The Germanic culture at the beginning of the twentieth-century was notorious for its cultural and intellectual superiority, and this philosophy is intricately woven throughout Ornament and Crime. He represents a time when the quickly changing world left many questioning numerous aspects of society, including architecture. The overwhelming response was that of rejection of the past and a movement forward constantly searching for new ideals. Many in society near-sightedly saw themselves as creators of a new age, as opposed to continuing on in the ever-expanding spectrum of time. Two world wars would only compound this feeling of alienation from the past, and we are left today still struggling to emerge from the cultural mire of the twentieth-century.

[1] Loos, Adolf. Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays. Ed. Opel, Adolf, Trans. Mitchell, Michael. Riverside, California: Ariadne Press, 1998. p. 175.

[2] ibid. p. 175.

[3] ibid. p. 167.

[4] ibid. p. 167.

[5] ibid. p. 167.

[6] ibid. p. 167.

[7] ibid. p. 168.

[8] ibid. p. 168.

[9] ibid. p. 170.

[10] ibid. p. 171.

[11] ibid. p. 171.

[12] ibid. p. 175.

[13] ibid. p. 174.

[14] ibid. p. 174.

[15] ibid. p. 175.

[16] Alberti, Leon Battista. On the Art of Building in Ten Books. Trans. Leach, N., Rykwert, J., & Tavenor, R. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1988. Bk. 6.2.

[17] ibid. 6.2.

[18] ibid. 6.2.

[19] ibid. p. 420.

[20] ibid. 6.13.

[21] ibid. 9.1.

[22] ibid. 9.1.

[23] ibid. 6.1.

[24] ibid. 9.8.

Bibliography

Alberti, Leon Battista. On the Art of Building in Ten Books. Trans. Leach, N., Rykwert, J., & Tavenor, R. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1988. Bks. 6-9, p.420.

Loos, Adolf. Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays. Ed. Opel, Adolf, Trans. Mitchell, Michael. Riverside, California: Ariadne Press, 1998. pp. 167-176.

© D. R. Rinehart 2007

All Rights Reserved