Is Ornament Crime?

Adolf Loos argued that ornamentation represents a primitive stage of cultural development, unnecessary for modern humans. Loos saw it as a wasteful practice, squandering labor, time, and materials without adding meaningful value.

To illustrate this cultural shift, Loos provided a striking example:

“Mankind had reached the point where ornament was no longer a source of pleasure, where a tattooed face, instead of increasing people’s aesthetic pleasure as it does for the Papuans, diminished pleasure. People had reached the point where they liked a plain cigarette case, while they would not buy a decorated one, even if the price was the same.”

This observation underscores the modern preference for simplicity and functionality over superfluous decoration, reflecting a broader cultural transformation.

Loos's philosophy had a profound influence on modernist architecture, promoting austerity and functionalism as central tenets. However, it is essential to consider opposing viewpoints. Historical architecture demonstrates that ornament often serves as a narrative or symbolic expression, connecting structures to their era and culture.