FROM EMBODYING ORNAMENT TO FUNCTIONAL AND AESTHETIC SPACE IN EARLY 20THCENTURY ARCHITECTURE

Posted: August 27th, 2021

“FROM EMBODYING ORNAMENT TO FUNCTIONAL AND AESTHETIC SPACE IN EARLY 20^THCENTURY ARCHITECTURE”

Student’s Name

Class

Date

Origin of Modern Architecture

The origin of modern architecture started way back in the 19^thcentury. The historical period was regarded as the architect of skyscrapers with Louis Sullivan as the pioneer. The underscore concept entirely revolved around the principle of form follows function. Since modern architecture is all about simplifying form and little creation of ornament, many designers have expressed criticism concerning such a change of structural functionality[1]. Nonetheless, modern architecture’s concept of function brings about the elements of use, perception, and enjoyment that a person would derive from using a building. Therefore, this kind of modernism in structural building design helps reinforce the aesthetic, psychology, and cultural dynamism. Apart from that, the intensification of modern architecture has been promoted by the advancement of technology via the Industrial Revolution, which popularized the application of new construction materials like steel and plate glass[2]. These new materials have brought about the usefulness of structural frames, coupled with clean lines and shiny surfaces. The creation of ornament seems popular in modern architecture as many of the historians have termed this new approach to construction as amplified taste and lavish stylistic excesses of the Victorian and Edwardian Architecture. The principle of modernism in architecture is pegged on reducing buildings to just pure forms, thus eliminating historical references coupled with ornament and further inputting functional details[3]. Consequently, the pioneers of this newer approach to architecture prefer to display buildings as functional and structural elements of steel beams and concrete surfaces rather than smacking them behind ornamental forms.

Difference between Ornament and Modern Architecture

Frank Wright and Louis Sullivan view ornament specifically as a layer that seeks to beautify structural quality. It is regarded as a superficial element that tends to hide the less magnificent architectural structure[4]. In the history of revivalist architecture, the ornament was applied without its predestined function. Rather, the ornament was used to enhance myths and beliefs, which inherently define a specific culture. In modern architecture, however, the application of ornament is limited to an aspect of functionality. The pioneers of modern architecture do not visualize the relevance of previously used ornaments regarding cultural beliefs. For example, many modern architects have opined that ornamentation does not illustrate the honesty of design works as their structural faults seem concealed under layers of ornaments[5]. Therefore, the relevance of ornament in modern architecture is in doubt. It threatens the structural order that an architect intends to express through ramifications of an integrated industrial condition coupled with the cultural environment.

Art Nouveau (Total Work of Art)

It is a decorative style of architectural art that thrived between 1890 and 1910 throughout the US and across Europe. Art Nouveau was best described by applying long, twisting organic line as a measure of displaying the architectural interior design jewelry glass plates, and poster illustrations[6]. The employment of art nouveau entails a thoughtful endeavor to establish a new style free of the domination of the imitative historicism of the 19th-century artistic design[7]. With the start of this kind of style, designer Les Vingt was inspired by the animated quality of organic lines among other modern architects. Therefore, the underlining element of art nouveau was its capacity to underscore aestheticism as the most distinctive ornamental feature of modern architecture.

Theme of Nature

The willingness to do away with the 19th-century historical styles seemed a significant endeavor that inspired the founding of art nouveau coupled with its modernistic approach[8]. With widespread industrial production, there was a need to amplify the aesthetics of poorly-made objects. In this regard, the pioneers of art nouveau sought to revive architectural quality to improve craft status, hence generating honestly modern structural designs. Moreover, the theme of nature is established in art nouveau due to 3-D form involvement as a way of engulfing organic and linear interaction between structure and ornament[9]. Subsequently, there is a fusion of ornament and structure as a liberal combination of materials to create unified columns and beam interiors. 

Private (Domestic) Space in Modern Cities

Private space carries cultural information concerning the configuration of material form and space. Specifically, leisure or functional domestic spaces plays a critical role in influencing the types of form and functionalism that a designer would employ in modern cities. Public spaces have become urban policy tools useful for a broader and universal significance in private architectural space. Generally, the implementation of urban policy in modern cities stresses the potential roles of public spaces to establish inter-competition among modern cities.

Comparing Art Nouveau’s Building Ornament with Renaissance Concept of Ornament

There is a great association between Art Nouveau’s structure and the Renaissance concept of ornament. Varying from classical to modern architecture, each architectural period’s distinctive forms are a physical response to the time’s ideologies. The relationship between structure and ornament is demonstrated in the following ways. The Renaissance ornament mirrors Roman architecture’s classical principles, which seeks to combine a set of three qualities, namely beauty, structure, and function[10]. Among the Italian Renaissance reasoning of Alberti and other like-minded individuals, the idea of beauty seemed important and critical[11]. On the contrary, the Art Nouveau’s building ornament was considered a necessity on the condition that the application of ornament was symmetrical to the function of a structure.

Adolf Loos’ Raumplan (Space Planning)

Adolf Loos applies the principle of spatial planning across architectural space. Specifically, the designer believes in ornament and crime ideals, and therefore his designs are conceived through drawings but rather spaces[12]. Loos’ architectural structures involve a series of interconnected continual spaces, rooms, and halls so that there are no well-defined and partitioned floors. There is a structural interconnectedness so that the ascent cannot seem noticeable based on architectural form. Imperatively, the ideal of Raumplan brings forth visual connection among distinguished areas[13]. Furthermore, Loos blends a mix of ornamented and colored interior coupled with an abstract white-washed modern exterior to offer a theatrical quality with viewpoints of diagonal direction. Indeed, his interior spatial panning reflects the modern cubic box having an abstract combination of modern simplicity without featuring ornaments. Such a definition of culture brings about a balance between the inner and outer man, leading to an effect of tranquility and beauty[14]. Consequently, Loos’ architectural writings express excessively about dressings, fashions, and interiors.

Wittgenstein House – Philosophy for Precision of Meanings in Language

Wittgenstein offers philosophical thinking of the mind and precision language relevant for underscoring the concrete embodiment of transcendental and divine crystal order. Notably, this kind of philosophical reasoning that employs precise language to help sustain an interactive relation between architecture and language[15]. Consequently, Wittgenstein shows an interactive relationship between philosophical thinking and the perceived feeling of architecture imagination.

Bibliography

Agassi, Joseph. “Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations: An Attempt at a Critical Rationalist Appraisal.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy,vol. 2, no. 1 (2018): 1-56.

Dewidar, Khaled. “Art Nouveau Style.” Total Work of Art, vol. 1, no. 2 (2018): 121-132.

Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. London: Thames and Hudson, 1985. https://doubleoperative.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/kenneth-frampton_modern-architecture.pdf

Goriunov, Vasilii. “The Liberty Style – Italian Art Nouveau Architecture.” MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 53, no. 2 (2016): 121-321.

Imhoof, David, et al. “The Total Work of Art: Foundations, Articulations, and Inspirations.” JSTOR, vol. 12 (2016): 1-300.

---

[1]Frampton 43

[2]Frampton 43

[3]Frampton 43

[4]Frampton 56

[5]Frampton 57

[6]Frampton 149

[7]Dewidar 13

[8]Imhoof et al. 33

[9]Imhoof et al. 33

[10]Frampton 149

[11]Goriunov 124

[12]Frampton 156

[13]Frampton 156

[14]Frampton 157

[15]Agassi 9