Adolf Loos - Ornament and Crime

Ornament and Crime, Adolf Loos
(Adam Jakubowski, Phuong Nguyen, & Emily Wang)

“Ornament and Crime,” 1908 article by Adolf Loos is a strong critique of ornament. Inspired by a three-year stay in America, where he was introduced to the modernist movement through the friendship with Louis Sullivan, Loos’ strong language is a reaction to the Art Nouveau movement, which was at its high point in Europe when he returned. He argues that the modern man should eliminate the ornament to reach the highest evolutionary potential and writes, “Since ornament is no longer a natural product of our culture, so that it is a phenomenon either of backwardness or degeneration.” Loos relates ornamentation to the deceleration of society to his own time. He uses the analogies from everyday objects (cigarette cases, clothing, etc.) to make this point.

Loos' critique of ornament takes another angle when he starts considering labour and material values that go into making the ornamental objects. Although his views make him think "ornament is wasted labor power and hence wasted health," he is making a point to recognize craftsmen's labor as the only source of joy and hence an undeniable privilege.

Loos’ essay is also interesting because the examples he uses to corroborate his argument may sometimes offer insight to his view of the human condition. In the beginning of the essay, he makes a clear analogy between the infant and a Papuan and their amorality. He also states that the urge to ornament is humans’ most basic and primitive desire. Perhaps then, it can be inferred that in order for mankind to evolve, we need to suppress our most innate desires that are most likely “criminal” if ever expressed, since ornament is the shackles that binds men.

Loos' modernistic advocacy for the smooth, un-ornate, sleek, and simple can be related to later time including today's film, art, design, and everyday life objects. Similarly, the distinction between "the aristocrat," an educated progressive person, and "the craftsman," or "the peasant" can be related to today's world. There is a big distinction between the "high design" and popular design. One still find craftsman taking pride in the work, but the distinction between what Loos would call rightful use of ornament and the one that constitutes a crime is blurred. It seems that he is much more repulsed by anachronism and “not being modern” than ornamentation itself. One wonders how Loos’ argument applies to the contemporary society, as there are still abundant examples of ornamentation that are often celebrated. Perhaps this essay can be discerned outdated in the sense that the contemporary man’s urge to express himself far exceeds many other considerations.

Would any of these items fall under the category of “degenerative”? They were created in contemporary society, by a craftsman/designer who finds joy both in and outside of his occupation. According to Loos, ornamentation can be “tolerated” if this means that laborer finds joy through his work. However, he also states that if it is possible for the laborer to also find joy outside of his work, then the ornamentation no longer has value.