wright vs loos
Frank Lloyd Wright and Adolf Loos had their own views on ornamentation, which could be quite similar and different in some ways.
In Adolf Loos’ essay on “Ornament and Crime”, he had a strong and critical stand against ornamentation. He argued that ornamentation was redundant and useless, as it no longer expressed our culture. It became “a phenomenon either of backwardness or degeneration”. Wright also related ornamentation to our culture and appreciation. He thought that ornament “is primarily a spiritual matter, a proof of culture, an expression of the quality of the soul in us”.
Loos also believed that ornamentation was a waste of resources, time and effort and the work of ornamentation was “no longer adequately remunerated”. Wright shared the same view that ornamentation was wasteful as it “is consuming at least two-thirds of our economic resources”. He might have been exaggerating but this showed his firm stand on the matter.
Ornamentation was not aesthetically pleasing to Loos as well. Thus, he saw no need and meaning in ornamentation and that the removal of it was more sensible and “a sign of spiritual strength”. Similarly, Wright believed that it was exaggeration that governed ornamentation, instead of interpretation, and that “imitation and prettifying externals combine in a masquerade of flimsy finery and affection outrages sensibility”.
We concluded that Loos’ definition of ornamentation was any physical elements that were added with the aim of beautifying or improving the appearance of the surface.
To us, we see ornamentation as any element that increases the aesthetic value of the object. Thus we think that Loos did use ornamentation in his works, just that it was a different form of ornamentation, which Loos did not consider as ornamentation. Loos used the nature and appearance of the material itself to beautify the interior. The purity of the material brought out a certain quality and created the atmosphere and ambience of the
In Adolf Loos’ essay on “Ornament and Crime”, he had a strong and critical stand against ornamentation. He argued that ornamentation was redundant and useless, as it no longer expressed our culture. It became “a phenomenon either of backwardness or degeneration”. Wright also related ornamentation to our culture and appreciation. He thought that ornament “is primarily a spiritual matter, a proof of culture, an expression of the quality of the soul in us”.
Loos also believed that ornamentation was a waste of resources, time and effort and the work of ornamentation was “no longer adequately remunerated”. Wright shared the same view that ornamentation was wasteful as it “is consuming at least two-thirds of our economic resources”. He might have been exaggerating but this showed his firm stand on the matter.
Ornamentation was not aesthetically pleasing to Loos as well. Thus, he saw no need and meaning in ornamentation and that the removal of it was more sensible and “a sign of spiritual strength”. Similarly, Wright believed that it was exaggeration that governed ornamentation, instead of interpretation, and that “imitation and prettifying externals combine in a masquerade of flimsy finery and affection outrages sensibility”.
We concluded that Loos’ definition of ornamentation was any physical elements that were added with the aim of beautifying or improving the appearance of the surface.
To us, we see ornamentation as any element that increases the aesthetic value of the object. Thus we think that Loos did use ornamentation in his works, just that it was a different form of ornamentation, which Loos did not consider as ornamentation. Loos used the nature and appearance of the material itself to beautify the interior. The purity of the material brought out a certain quality and created the atmosphere and ambience of the