Adolf Loos's article was very passionate about the destruction of ornament. Loos mentions serveral times that just looking at ornament makes him feel sick. He looks down upon it so strongly and it wasn't just about the ornament but the artist and the consumer had major fault in his eyes. He felt the artists were wasting their time but as long as there were rich people to buy it they would still make their art. For whatever reason artists create they create unto themselves.If they make ornament for money then fine but personally Loos has generalized every artist into that category without taking into consideration that some artists make ornament because it is their pride and joy.
Before I rant on Loos's take on the separation of classes I will say that I appreciated the fact that the woman who were making lace were mentioned as people who never got what they should've been paid. What they were doing was art but people did not see it as such. Shoemakers were also mentioned and how the holes in his shoes were his adornment...that is something I found kind of beautiful. Now back to the rant, Loos mentions several times how ornament separates the rich from the poor because the poor can't afford such luxury but this is a foolish statement because with or without ornament there will still be a division in class. Isn't it ok for someone who is poor to want to save up and buy themselves something that they find aestheticly pleasing? It is mentioned in the article that things that are adorned do not last as long as something simple and although that may be the case for most utilitarian objects it doesn't have to be for everything. He even goes as far to say that an adorned plate makes him not want to eat his food. This man is clearly someone who will not budge on their opinion.
(All in all this was a very fun article.)
No comments:
Post a Comment