ADOLF LOOS : Ornament and crime SUMMARY

1. “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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 Papuan1 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.

5. 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 anachronism2 and “not being modern” than
ornamentation itself.
Adolf Loos “Ornament and Crime” 1908 CONCISED ARTICLE

For the best site showing images of Loos’s work go to

http://agram.saariste.nl/scripts/index.asp?dir=loos&pics=lo&tekst=Adolf%A0Loos

1. The embryo passes through the stages of the development of animals and the child
through the stages of development of mankind, Papuan [a tribal society in New
Guinea], Teuton [a Germanic tribe], Socrates, Voltaire [the French enlightenment
intellectual], at which point he becomes aware of the color violet which wasn’t
th
known before the 18 century as some of today’s colors will not be recognized until
the future.

2. The child, like the Papuan, is amoral (the latter eating his enemies), but not criminal,
whereas a modern man who ate his enemies would be. The Papuan tattoos everything
in reach, but the modern man who tattoos himself is criminal or degenerate, most
prisoners bearing tattoos, and the rest are latent criminals or degenerate aristocrats.

3. The urge to ornament one’s face and other things is the origin of fine art. All art is
erotic. The cross was the first ornament and was erotic. The first artwork was to rid
the artist of natural excesses. The first piece of art was a croos. Horizontal and
vertical lines represented male penetration, and the creative joy was the same as
that of Beethoven.
4. But a man who covers walls with erotic symbols today through inner urge is criminal
or degenerate. Less cultured countries have more graffiti on lavatory walls. It is
natural for children and Papuans to ornament, not modern man. “The evolution of
culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from objects of daily use.” This
idea should have given rise to a new joy but it gave rise to sadness at ornaments not
being produced.

5. Objects without ornament in the past were carelessly thrown away, and any rubbish
with the smallest ornament was collected and displayed.

6. Every period had a style, which meant ornament.

7. Our period however does not: it is important because it cannot produce new
ornament, has out-grown ornament. The streets will now glow like white walls.
But humanity still groans under the slavery of ornament, although ornament at
least no longer produces erotic sensations, and tattooing is considered to
decrease the aesthetic value of a face. We are pleased by a plain cigarette case
and not having to wear red velvet trousers, etc.

8. Plain piece of furniture is more beautiful than inlaid museum pieces. The language of
th
Goethe [the 18 century German literary figure] is more beautiful than ornamented
language.

9. He state [believing] its duty is to impede cultural development reintroduced

ornament. The Austrian state introduced ornamented pieces into the Viennese
Museum of Applied Arts, and it forces young men to wear outdated footwear [in the
military] so as to be more easily governed.

10. I reject the argument that ornament increases the pleasures of life of a cultivated
person, or that it is beautiful. I prefer undecorated gingerbread. Modern people will
understand.

11. Ornament supporters think that this urge for simplicity is self-denial. But un-
ornamented food tastes better, and decorations used to make food appear
more appetizing are not for me. But nothing can stop the evolution of
humanity. Ornament is a crime against the national economy.

12. “The rate of cultural development is held back by those that cannot cope with the
th
present.” Some people in Austria live in earlier times than now, even to the 12
century. It is bad for a government if the culture is dominated by the past. America
is happy not to have this problem. Even people in our cities sometimes are appalled
by our painters’ use of violet shadows. They prefer food that takes days to prepare
and decorated cigarette covers. And in the country clothes and utensils are from
previous centuries.
13. To measure everything by the past slows cultural development. [He then compares
th th
the man of the 20 century and the man of the 18 century, both living today.] The
th
20 century man can use less money in food and plates. And whole countries are like
this, the English becoming richer and the Austrians poorer.

14. In highly productive nations producers of ornament are no longer justly paid and,
although usually ornament increases the price, sometimes it is offered at half the
price.

15. Eliminating ornament reduces working hours and increases wages. Compare the
Chinese carver and the American laborer.

16. If there was no ornament at all men would only need to work four hours a day.
“As ornament is no longer organically related to our culture, it is also no longer the
expression of our culture.” It does not relate to us. The modern producer of ornament is
left behind. The ornamented products are found intolerable right away or over time.

17. The few today who are ill tyrannize the worker forcing him to execute ornament.
The worker’s time is wasted.

18. The Austrian promoters of decoration think that buying furniture every ten years
increases employment [planned obsolescence]. And people say that a fire produces
work. [He then goes into an ironic riff about burning the entire Austrian Empire.]

19. I would be glad to pay more money for a better quality boots: no one is prepared to
pay for value. in fact ornamented objects are only bearable if shabbily produced. I am
happy to hear that [ornamented] rubbish was burnt in a fire, and would be happy if
the art gallery was burnt, but waste appears unaesthetic.

20. Ornamented objects appear unaesthetic if executed in the best material with much
labor time.

21. Even if a modern man who finds past ornamentation to be an artistic achievement
will recognize the tortured nature of modern ornament.

22. I preach to the aristocrats, the pinnacle of humanity, who still understand those
below. [He recognizes that the work of good craftsmen is sacred just as, when he is
an atheist, he still respects religion.]

23. [He then tells a story about going to a cobbler with the offer to pay more for
unornamented shoes, shoes that are completely smooth, but observes that this
makes the cobbler feel like he is in Hell and that his pleasures have been robbed,
 since it is a pleasure for the cobbler to produce highly ornamented shoes, it is his
business to do so].

24. Aristocrats should allow decoration if it gives pleasure to other humans, e.g. the
cobbler, i.e. if this is their only means of expressing their full potential, since they
cannot, for example, go to hear great music. But someone who can listen to
Beethoven and then works on wallpaper patterns is degenerate.

25. Absence of ornament has raised the other arts [e.g. Beethoven’s symphonies] to great
heights. A man who runs around in a velvet suit is a mere decorator. The nomads had
to distinguish themselves by different clothes, modern man uses clothes as a mask.
Our clothes are more refined: the individuality of a man now is inexpressible in terms
of clothing. Freedom from ornament is a sign of spiritual strength. And so lack of
ornament shows intellectual power.