Posted: August 26th, 2021
Reading Response to Adolf Loos’ “Ornament and Crime”
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Reading Response to Adolf Loos’ “Ornament and Crime”
Right from the title, a reader gets the overall impression of the article’s main intention. The author, Adolf Loos, tries to compare crime (which ruins the economies of many countries) with the architectural ornaments of the 18th century. According to Adolf Loos, modern society should completely reject the usage of these ornaments in the context of architecture and design (Loos, 2019). By taking such a radical position and posing a controversial argument and views at the time, which was in 1908, the author inadvertently became famous. However, there are bits of the article that I disagree with the position taken by the author. Adolf argues that in the early 1900s, cities were filled with architectural designs that contained ornaments. Thus, in his opinion, these were the causative agents to the collapsing of the national economy.
On the contrary, I think the author might have exaggerated the statement
of ornament as a criminal act. Sinceornaments require a significant usage of labor
and material. It is nearly impossible for them to result in the complete
downfall of a country’s economy. In the present day, ornaments arguably occupy
a core position that dictates the status of a given country’s economy. Further,
the author states that the fact that his period was incapable of producing new
ornaments made it important. Personally, that idea is as ironic as it is false.
In modern-day history, the non-usage of decorations and ornaments in cities
would result in having an ugly city comprised of steel and concrete. The lack
of character and style in such a city would render it“lifeless” by both old and
current standards. Therefore, there would be no interest to have major cultural
and economic development initiatives within such settings.
References
Loos, A. (2019). Ornament and crime. Penguin UK.
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.