The “Rootless” Man

The Schism Between the Objective and Subjective World

Adolf Loos was an Austrian descent architect and influential European theorist of Modern architecture. His work, “advocated smooth and clear surfaces in contrast to the lavish decorations of the Fin de siècle and also to the more modern aesthetic principles of the Vienna Secession. Loos became a pioneer of modern architecture and contributed a body of theory and criticism of Modernism in architecture and design.”[i] His critique among the perceived concepts of ornamentation, art and architecture was not widely accepted at the beginning of the 20th century. His critique however, sparked a discussion which is present until today. Among the many essays he wrote, “Ornament and Crime” was the one that sparked the biggest riot among applied artists in Munich, summarizing his whole essay in one phrase, “The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornamentation from objects of everyday use.”[ii] However, personally, the most intriguing fact about Loos’s essays is that at the time when art nouveau stimulated people souls with its movement and fluidity, Adolf Loos was among the few if not the only one who was so forthright about what is modern, what is style and the “lavishness” of the excess,[iii] and that is what will be discussed in this paper.

Every era has its own style and the 19th century should not be denied one. As Loos points out in his essay, “Ornament is no longer an expression of our culture.[iv] The Greatness of our age resides in our very inability to create new ornaments.”[v] He claims that mankind in the 19th century reached a point where “ornament was no longer a source of pleasure”. He used tattoos as a paradigm, where a tattooed face, instead of increasing people’s aesthetic pleasure as it does for the Papuans, diminished pleasure.”[vi] There is a strong logic in the deconstruction of ornament is Loos notion about the 19th century. It is not however something that can be perceived without further analysis, as the very nature of the essay is to come in contrast with the common conception of the time and thus an amount of exaggeration has been applied.

At this point, it is necessary to define the two terms that act as a catalyst in analyzing Adolf’s essay. Art and culture. For Loos’, “culture is the balance between our physical, mental and spiritual being which alone can guarantee sensible thought and action.”[vii] Art on the other hand, is not something that can be utilized to a practical purpose.[viii] It is something that one created without being a need for it. From its nature, it lacks responsibility and thus sometimes its responsibility is to unsettle us.[ix]

The Poor Little Rich Man is a great narrative, helping Loos’ point to be established in the “solid” society of the 19th century, implementing the role of the architect in the existing frame. In his story Loos describes how the architect captured art, “boxed in, and taken into good custody within the four walls of the rich man’s home.” He further articulates how “the individuality of the owner was expressed in every ornament, every form, every nail.” [x] Hence, such person, someone “who regards ornament as symptom of the artistic superfluity of previous ages and for that reason holds it sacred, will immediately recognize the unhealthy, the forced – painfully forced- nature of modern ornament.”[xi]

“Until now there has been no period of non-culture in the history of mankind.”[xii] However, for Loos, there is a terrible misconception and misunderstanding of earlier epochs. Objects with “pointless” ornamentation have been preserved as less practical and thus not used as much, raising the delusion among many that in the past objects despite usage or function had excess ornamentation. As civilizations evolved and our horizons expanded, people of the present are more advanced, or defined some can argue, than people of previous periods. Thus, “the path of culture leads away from ornamentation to unadorned plainness.”[xiii] We have learned not only to appreciate, but also admire the sensitivity of a form, the bare material or the “accident” in-between.

“Our culture is founded on the recognition of the all-transcending greatness of classical antiquity. Architecture arouses moods in people, so the task of the architect is to give these moods material expression.”[xiv] If we were to take of most of the ornamentation from the building that so vibrantly cannot exist without them in our heads, it would definitely be a task to accurately define and distinguish them according to their construction century.[xv] In many ways then, Adolf’s essays act like a mirror, mirroring the seemingly similar design principals of the era in completely the opposite (flipped) way. Hence, providing an approach that completely disrupts the existing spatial position of the architect as a rootless man in the 19th century, making Mie’s statement “less is more” more ambiguous than ever?

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Loos

[ii] “Ornament and Crime” (1908), from Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays, ed. Adolf Opel (Ariadne, 1998), p.167

[iii] “Ornament and Crime” (1908), from Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays, ed. Adolf Opel (Ariadne, 1998), p.175

[iv] “Ornament and Crime” (1908), from Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays, ed. Adolf Opel (Ariadne, 1998), p.171

[v] “Ornament and Crime” (1908), from Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays, ed. Adolf Opel (Ariadne, 1998), p.168

[vi] “Ornament and Crime” (1908), from Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays, ed. Adolf Opel (Ariadne, 1998), p.18

[vii] Architecture” (1910), from On Architecture, ed. Adolf Opel (Ariadne, 1995), p.74

[viii] Architecture” (1910), from On Architecture, ed. Adolf Opel (Ariadne, 1995), p.83

[ix] Architecture” (1910), from On Architecture, ed. Adolf Opel (Ariadne, 1995), p.82

[x] Adolf Loos, “Potemkin City” (1898) and “The Poor Rich Man” (1900), from Spoken into the Void: Collected Essays 1897–1900, ed. Joan Ockman (MIT Press, 1982), p.125

[xi] “Ornament and Crime” (1908), from Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays, ed. Adolf Opel (Ariadne, 1998), p.173

[xii] Architecture” (1910), from On Architecture, ed. Adolf Opel (Ariadne, 1995), p.74

[xiii] Architecture” (1910), from On Architecture, ed. Adolf Opel (Ariadne, 1995), p.75

[xiv] Architecture” (1910), from On Architecture, ed. Adolf Opel (Ariadne, 1995), p.84

[xv] Architecture” (1910), from On Architecture, ed. Adolf Opel (Ariadne, 1995), p.79