As long as there have been humans, there has been ornament. “The ornament … being the result of [our] natural instinct.” (Jones, 1856)
Alfred Loos argued that “The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament
from objects of daily use.” (Loos, 1908) This is evident as we can see a vast change of the amount of ornament in our culture since as late as the 19th century. In 18th century France, for instance, the royal family was obsessed with ornament and decoration. Because of this, the style of architecture and design of the period is heavily decorated, as seen in the Candelabrum (Jean-Joseph de Saint-Germain, 1750), shown below. The heavily decorated objects put large strains on the society at the time. The production costs were too high, only the higher classes could afford them and the objects could not be mass produced.
I agree with Loos on this topic. We can see a substantial decrease in the amount of ornamentation on objects. From the decline of the rococo period through to the rise of modernism, we can see a shift towards form and function rather than beauty and moral virtue. A good example of this is the Tea Pot (M. Brandt, 1926) from the Bauhaus, shown below. It is almost completely without decoration. This object is fully focused on its form, using geometrical shapes and simple materials, it is a key element in the modernistic design style.
Throughout time, the decoration of our design and architectural styles has slowly been reduced. The decline in ornamentation is directly related to the evolution of our cultures.
Loos, Ornament and Crime, 1908
Jones, Ornament of Savage Tribes, 1856
Figure 1. Saint-Germain, J. 1750. Candelabrum. Retrieved from http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/07/arts/07roco-190.jpg
Figure 2. Brandt, M. 1926. Tea Pot. Bauhaus Dessau. Retrieved from http://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2007/12/8459-tea-infuser.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment