Weekly assignment 4 - Ornament and Crime

In “Ornament and Crime”, 1908, Adolf Loos argues “The evolution in culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from objects of daily use”.

He believed that there were no need for ornaments in both functional and form wise, and that it would only affect economics to go down and labour to be wasted while trying to create something ornamental. Furthermore, he sees that it is more important for designers to focus more on showing their creativity rather than trying to create ornaments in their works. He believed by having high levels of architectural utilities, it helps to express more beauty more than having decorations on the architecture.

http://www.homedosh.com/search/minimalist+desk

Loos’ idea is the origin of the minimalistic styles we see today. I believe that our generation have carried Loos’ style too far, even to the stage of omitting out not only unnecessary ornaments but also necessary parts as well, as seen on the image above. Above image is a minimalistic desk, designed by Peter Petersen. This desk is sleek and fashionable, but functionally, it lacks from other desk designs that are not minimalistic style. This desk has three drawers and nothing else, even the handle knob of the drawers which are necessary. Therefore, I do not agree with Loos statement, that evolution in culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament. Even though he stated that ornaments do not serve any functions, ironically the style he has resulted in ignores the function-ability of the product in-order to achieve beauty. He stated that designers should focus more on trying to depict their creativity rather than to create ornaments; however, I believe that taking ornaments from design is like taking away a part of designers’ creativity and limiting it to a certain amount.