Loos Ornament And Crime Analysis

“In Adolf Loos’s Ornament and Crime he prefaces his argument by lending an understanding to the psychological perceptions of individuals varying views on diversified groups that encounter similar behaviors. He explains that the adolescent years are for learning and evolving generic understandings, and that knowledge is reserved for the men of the future. Austria in the year 1908 was a time where modern day men with tattoos were seen as criminals or degenerates. The conflicting factor arises then that Papuans, or indigenous peoples, who had tattoos and committed murder were not seen as criminals or degenerates. Even those who wore tattoos, but were not yet in prison, were seen as latent criminals and degenerates. Loos compares the views on the

The Austrian state was not pleased with this sudden change. Their task was to halt the cultural development of the peoples, so they went after individuals on a lower footing that were easier targets. The lack of ornament was apparent to the state, which was then subsidized with state funds. Loos sees ornament as a crime against the national economy by wasting human labor, money, and materials. There is need for a cultural evolution, only to be slowed down by stragglers who are still in support of ornament due to monetary ties. If all objects would last aesthetically as long as they do physically, the consumer could pay a price for them that would enable the worker to earn more money and work shorter hours. Loos states that the modern man who holds ornament sacred as a sign of the artistic superabundance of past ages will immediately recognize the tortured, strained, and morbid quality of modern ornaments. He believes that no ornament can any longer be made today by anyone who lives on our cultural level and that the absence of ornament has brought the other arts to unexpected

The house is a stark mass stripped of ornament. The windows are purely functional, having no decoration or trim. Loos called for the abolition or ornament, but could not forget it due to the psychological needs of people. He made up for the loss of ornament with a sense of comfort achieved in other ways, such as the use of wood and brick materials for warmth. Although Loos rebelled against the current style conformed by the people of his time, he did not completely abandon it. He compromised by putting his own modern twist on the house, while still blending into the current neighborhood. The frontal exterior of the house reveals two stories, while the downward sloping site creates the opportunity for three stories in the back. The roof mimics the site, curving downward to the front, making the house seem smaller, allowing it to be appropriately scaled for the neighborhood. Loos ultimately wanted to create a comforting space that was a stage for domestic life. He wanted attention to be directed internally with a focus on family, which could not be done with ornament present. He successfully implemented his ideas, while still harmonizing with the style of his time, proving that ornament is not necessary after