An ornament is a purely decorative element; it is the thing that can bring beauty to what would otherwise be a plain object. This is the definition of Ornament as per my reading of ‘Ornament in Architecture’ by Louis H. Sullivan and ‘Ornament and Crime’ by Adolph Loos. These essays represent opposing positions on the relevance of the decorative.

On one hand, Sullivan sees ornamentation as means of making a building whole by manifesting the meaning of the structure. While he recognises that the decorative is a luxury, he considers it a luxury that cannot be negated if the purpose is to create a building that exposes all the romanticism involved in its design and creation. It is hard not to share Sullivan’s views, his essay provides a concise narrative on the undeniable need of ornamentation to produce sublime architecture. Nevertheless, his views clearly belong to a time when the visual appeal of a building was the main priority in construction. Nowadays, visual appeal is all but a priority as a variety of particulars need to be addressed for a building to be considered outstanding.

On the other hand, Loos sees the urge to decorate as primal and amoral and, more importantly, a waste of capital. He also sees the lack of ornamentation as a sign of intellectual strength and mental assertion. Although Loos’ views were revolutionary and key in the development and ideology of modernist architecture, I cannot agree with some of his statements. For example, he states that ornaments have no future, that they are no longer and expression of our culture. He also says that when men followed the herd they had to differentiate themselves through colour, modern man uses his dress to disguise. These kind of extreme views can only lead to a future of ‘clones’ with no capability to express their identity and therefore cities with no imageability.

However much I disagree with some of Sullivan and Loos’ views, I believe they are a direct response to their time in history and can be clearly justified by the authors’ life experience. There is roughly a 40 year gap between the publication of the texts. During that period society underwent a significant transition:• ‘Ornament in Architecture’ is a direct response to the diminishment of craftsmanship in the late 1800s as

a result of the industrial revolution, a time where movements were developing to stress the importance of nature in art in contrast to unnatural machines.

• ‘Ornament and Crime’ shows how living conditions during WWI changed society and people’s mindset; for instance, people became less preoccupied with the beauty of objects, they just needed functional tools that would help them survive.

In my opinion, the rise and fall of ornamentation in architecture has a direct correlation to the socioeconomic state of the world, in particular, the Western World where beauty tends to become an afterthought when function is the priority. I also believe that society rediscovers its inherent interest in the decorative during periods of positive economic growth and social stability.

To me, today, people are desperate to find a medium to express their inner character. People, unknowingly, pigeonhole themselves by seeking products that will allow them to express their ‘individualism’. Here arises an opportunity for us as architects. We can show others how through art, in particular the art of building and decorating, we can convey something about our ideals. However, we have to respond to our post-financial crisis, technology-rich world and come up with a way of incorporating ornamentation in building construction without committing the crime of wasting capital. We shall strive to use modern technology to find ways in which a building’s structure can become its own decoration.

DS 14_Project One

Andrea VillateBackground image: sunlight responsive ornamental facade; Institut du Monde Arabe by Jean Nouvel