New Necessities: Modernist Aesthetic Discipline (original) (raw)

Directions and Intellectual Bases of Ornament Criticism in Modern Architectural Literature

2016

Following the publication of Adolf Loos’s famous article “Ornament and Crime” in 1908, arguments against ornaments reached an unprecedented level which led to its elimination from the majority of architectural practices in western countries during the first half of the 20 century. The ornamental approach, despite being severely criticized by postmodernist critics in 1960’s, never completely ceased to exist. In an attempt to discover the reasons behind the long-lasting presence of such a practice, this paper looks into different directions of ornament criticism in modern architectural literature. Modern critics condemned ornamentation by ascribing several defects such as deception, decadence, disutility, wastefulness, recession and lack of spontaneity. As a result of such associations, designers repress in themselves what they consider as defective and internalize anti-ornament beliefs of modernism in a form of self-control. This leads to the marginalization of ornament in architectu...

The Necessary Ornament. About Decor et Ornamentum in Architecture

(sITA) studii de Istoria și Teoria Arhitecturii / studies in History and Theory of Architecture, 2020

In many European languages the word “decoration” is frequently used as a synonym of ornament, and often perceived as something superfluous and unnecessary which can be “added on.” However, the original sense of the Latin verb decēre, where the noun decor comes from, points out that every situation requires a convenient, or decent, behavior. Decoration is something “appropriate and decent,” specifically required for the occasion. Concerning decoration, this means a shift from the concept of superfluous ornament to necessary ornament, because it is appropriate. Developing from the reflections of the Gothic Revival, this hybrid nature of decoration, which is both decor (decent/appropriate appearance or behavior) and ornamentum (added on adornment), can be the key to reading all subsequent architecture, that of the bare solids and the white and smooth surfaces, for which ornament was, as it is well-known, a “crime.” This paper aims to trace back in contemporary architecture the origins of its search for decoration as “necessary ornament.” The main idea is to read architecture in the light of its relationship between convenience and aesthetics, so that, to quote a famous sentence by Auguste Perret, it can be really considered architecture and not a mere work of engineering. Especially nowadays, when advanced technological means allow architects to think what once was simply not-drawable, so also unthinkable, one should ask themselves not if it is licit but if it is “decent.”

From Ornament to Object. Genealogies of Architectural Modernism (Yale University Press, 2012)

In the late 19th century, a centuries-old preference for highly ornamented architecture gave way to a budding Modernism of clean lines and unadorned surfaces. At the same moment, humble objects of everyday life—from crockery and furniture to clothes and tools—began to receive critical attention in relationship to architecture. Alina Payne addresses this shift, arguing for a new understanding of the genealogy of architectural modernism. Rather than the well-known story in which an absorption of technology and mass production created a radical aesthetic that broke decisively with the past, Payne argues for a more gradual shift, as the eloquence of architectural ornamentation was taken over by objects of daily use. As she demonstrates, the work of Adolf Loos and Le Corbusier should not be seen only as the ignition point of modernism, but also as the culmination of a conversation about ornament and what constitutes architectural eloquence that goes back to the Renaissance. Payne looks beyond the “usual suspects” of philosophy, industry and science and identifies theoretical catalysts for architecture’s shift of attention from ornament to object in fields as varied as anthropology and ethnology; art history and the museum; and archaeology and psychology.

Is Ornament Crime? Discussing The Representative Nature of Ornament in Architecture

A+Arch Design International Journal of Architecture and Design, 2020

Ornament is a conceptual and cultural discussion. But it is generally reduced to being discussed as a formal and superficial construction. It is one of the main tools of representation. It mainly represents nature. However, the change in its source of representation from nature to culture in the early 20th century leads ornament to be redefined, and even refused in architecture. Modern architects accuse it of being a crime not capable of representing modern culture. Post-modern architects embrace ornament as the main tool of representation in the second half of the century. It is called as the return of ornament in architecture. Today, the reinvention of ornament is rather discussed in the architecture of the 21st century. It is discussed by new concepts such as mediatic, phylogenetic, chaotic, eccentric, hypnotic, photogenic, and parametric due to the developments in the digital technology. As such, ornament now represents digital culture. The aim of this paper is to reveal the fact that conceptual and cultural framework of ornament is significantly changed in architecture. It is critically important to understand this change for architects in the 21st century in which ornament is rediscovered both as a tool of design and representation. The changing representative nature of ornament is therefore discussed in the paper. It will constitute a theoretical basis for further discussions on ornament in architecture.

The Ambiguity of Ornament in Architecture: Is It a Substantive or Surface Issue ?

The Ambiguity of Ornament in Architecture: Is It a Substantive or Surface Issue ?, 2024

This article deals with the ambiguity of ornament in architecture, the historical tensions that have characterized its use, and the factors that have led to its return today. In an architectural panorama marked today by the excessive use of parametric and kinetic patterns, many architects, historians and theorists are trying to find a theoretical basis justifying a tendency to an obsession with the patterns. The systematic link between what today adorns the envelopes of parametric architecture projects is made without reference to this history full of tensions. The Grasshopper and Dynamo plug-ins operate excessively in a total break with the thinking of William Morris, John Ruskin, Gottfried Semper, Alois Riegl or Alberti. Modernist architecture has made a break that has generated a collective amnesia about the essence and purpose of certain architectural practices, particularly those relating to ornament. The reflection, therefore, engages in a genealogical investigation to trace the intimate relationships that have linked ornament to architecture. It reveals how these positions of rejection and admission have been motivated more by the technical and technological implications and the capitalist desires that carry them than by artistic impulses.