Emma Hewitt

N0507442

Adolf Loos published Ornament and Crime in 1912, where he explained his theories about
contemporary architecture, and the use and abuse of decoration in history. His theories
were materialised in buildings such as Josephine Bakers House, Paris, or the building in
Michelaerplatz, Vienna. By analysing Loos work and comparing it with the work of a
contemporary architect, the essay should draw conclusions about the validity of Loos
statements in our contemporary context.
The revolutionary and controversial ideas of Adolf Loos reject the use of ornamentation of
functional objects, (Loos, Opel and Mitchell, 1998 p.186) although Loos admits that
ornament is necessary in some cases. (Loos, Opel, and Mitchell, 1998 p.186) Loos
explains that the functionality of ornament relies on the client and purpose of the building.
(Loos, Opel, and Mitchell, 1998 p. 186) This is supported by modern architect Venturis
claim that the building is like a glove and derives its architectural quality from the
characteristics [of the client]. (Venturi in Heathcote, 2008) Venturi also states that
modern architects end up unconsciously designing ornament, (Venturi in Heathcote,
2008) and some may argue that all architects make decisions based on aesthetic grounds,
(Heathcote, 2008) which leads to the question: What defines ornament?
In

Loos

manifesto,

the

difference

between

functional

ornament

and

unnecessary

ornament is undefined, leaving the validity of Loos argument to be questioned. Using a

cigarette box as an example, Loos explains how ornamentation makes absolutely no
difference to the quality of our lives, (Loos, Opel, and Mitchell, 1998 p.164) which seems
sensible enough, and applies to aspects of our contemporary lifestyle. For example people
buy stylish phone cases, rather than plain, functional cases which actually protect the
enclosed phone. However, Loos mentions that he finds aesthetic pleasure in his
smooth, gently curving, precisely finished cigarette case (Loos, Opel, and Mitchell, 1998
p.164) which could diminish the validity of Loos argument, since Loos himself admits to
aesthetic appeal from the plain and functional. Every architect (and client for that matter)
has their own view of what looks nice and aesthetically pleasing and no opinion is
absolutely correct, as opinion is not a factual matter. Therefore a building which Loos finds
aesthetically pleasing, another architect may prefer to adorn with decoration and find
additions necessary.

Emma Hewitt
N0507442

Loos theory on functional ornament is materialised in arguably his most famous design for
the Goldman & Salstch building in Vienna (Loos, Opel, and Mitchell, 1998. p.186). The
upper floors are plain and unadorned, designed to meet the functional demands of living
spaces. However the lower floors meet the eye-line with Greek Cipollino marble cladding
and ornamental Tuscan non-load bearing columns, (Sarnitz, 2003. p.37) which both give

Figure 1. Goldman &Salstch building. (Diaz-Griffith, 2012)

the impression of ornamentation. The design of the faade caused widespread confusion
leaving Loos credibility open to criticism, as some argue that the building is more
oriented towards classicism than towards the style of the turn of the century, (Sarnitz,
2003, p.10) despite knowing that his prior statements denounce the use of ornament in
architecture (Sabine, 1999, p.19).

Figure 2(Google, 2015)

On the contrary, one argument suggests that there is a link between the use of Tuscan
columns and the adjacent St. Michaels Church. (Schezen, 1996, p.19) Loos somewhat
validates this argument as he states we should cultivate not only classical ornament, but
also the orders of columns and mouldings, (Loos, Opel, and Mitchell, 1998. p.187)

Emma Hewitt
N0507442

establishing Loos desire to refine the use of ornament and dismiss tactless decoration.
Loos states that No foreign object should be allowed to intrude on the character of a
town, (Loos in Schezen, 1996 p15-16) illustrating how he values the historical importance
of architecture, implying that his design for Michelaerplatz was intended to sit neatly
within context rather

than stand out, justifying the design to an extent. An example could

be that the cornice height is aligned with the adjacent church. (Schezen, 1996 p.56)

Goldman & Salstch Building

Hofburg Imperial Palace

Figure 3. Map of Michelaerplatz, Vienna. (Hewitt, 2015)

Loos proposal was not well received in the design stage, and people were outraged by the
austere facades, (Sabine, 1999, p.37) challenging the integrity of Loos principles. This
reaction was fuelled by the location of the building situated opposite, The Imperial Palace
of Hofburg as shown in figures 9 and 10. The uproar was so severe that construction was
paused as planning authorities took out an injunction in September 1910, (Schezen, 1996,
p.56) During this period the building was heavily criticised in the media, being referred to
as the manhole-cover building (Sabine, 1999, p.30) which encouraged further criticism of
Loos and his theories.

Figure 4 Manhole-cover building cartoon (Fojtov, et al., 2015)

Emma Hewitt
N0507442

Eventually Loos delivered a speech explaining his decisions named Mein Haus Am
Michelaerplatz (Sabine, 1999, p.10) and a compromise was reached by adding brass
flower boxes to the windows of the upper floors. (Schezen, 1996, p.56) It can be debated
that the addition of flower boxes is futile, and is exasperated by the 6 month pause in
construction, wasting time of the client and construction workers. (Sabine, 1999, p.37).
The addition makes no difference to the function of the building, and barely affects the
aesthetic appearance. This is a strong example of how ornament can waste time and
money. Loos also states in his essay Ornament and Crime that adding ornament does not
result in an increase in the quality of our lives (Loos in Sabine, 1999, p.85) which is a valid
comment. It is ironic that such a prime example of unnecessary ornament should be
applied and featured on one of Loos most well-known buildings.
It has been argued that the Goldman & Salstch building was one of the first modern office
buildings in Vienna (Sabine, 1999, p.37) at the time of construction, meaning that the
public may have been less likely to understand Loos principles. However in our
contemporary context, expansion of the population meant architects have been forced to
gain

higher

interventions,

understanding
impacting

on

of
the

dealing
publics

with

historical

buildings,

understanding

of

restorations

modernity.

and

However,

contemporary architect I.M. Pei also received criticism after constructing a glass and steel
structure in the central courtyard of historical museum The Louvre (Kroll, 2010). This
construction is known as The Louvre Pyramids, and demonstrates clearly how historical
values are as important today as they were over 100 years ago.
Loos states that decorating architecture means wasted material and wasted capital,
(Sarnitz, 2003, p.87) which is highly topical in todays economy. Not only does wasting
material result in the client wasting money, but also construction materials account for
around 19% of the United Kingdoms greenhouse gas production (UCATT, 2015). Reducing
the amount of ornament added to buildings could reduce production costs and also
reduce

greenhouse

gas

emissions,

creating

valuable

argument

to

validate

Loos.

However, Loos also states that ornament is wasted manpower (Sarnitz, 2003, p.87)
which is made somewhat obsolete by technological advances in recent years. Loos work
was mostly completed around a century ago, (Sarnitz, 1996, p.37) from which time
technologies have advanced extensively. One example would be that a Chinese firm have
constructed a 57 storey building within 19 days, completing 3 storeys per day, (Thornhill,

Emma Hewitt
N0507442

2015) which may not have been possible back in 1912. This could suggest that if high
quality ornamentation can be achieved on a small timescale due to current technologies,
then ornament does not waste man power and therefore can be guiltlessly applied to
architecture.
Using

these

technological

advances,

modern

architect

Zaha

Hadid

claims

to

have

redefined modernism (Mertins 2006, p.33) and her designs are extravagant, highly
ornamented and neglect the aspect of function. (Brooks, 2013) However she felt this move
forward was necessary in order to rebuild the public support that modernism had lost
(Mertins, 2006 p.33) due to many modern failures such as Pruitt Igoe, a multi-million
pound housing project which barely functioned for 20 years before demolition (Moore,
2012). This leads to the conclusion that unfortunately some of Loos theories could be less
valued by many, due to failed modern designs after his time, which devalued the modern
movement and caused some to lose faith in the main principles evident in Loos buildings.
Another of Loos radical theories states that architecture [is] not counted among the arts
(Sarnitz, 1996, p.10) which is still contested today. As an example, Hadid claims to create
connections to the ideas behind Suprematist art within her architecture using geometric
shapes (Moore, 2012) as expressed by figures 5 and 6. Although it could be inferred that
Loos would argue that this ornamentation is unnecessary, (Sarnitz, 1996, p.87) there is
strong evidence that art can in some cases influence our design.

Figure 5. Hadid painting. (Frearson, 2012)

Figure 6. Vitra Fire Station. (Todd, 2013)

Architects generally design for the specific requirements of their clients, however it could
be argued that Loos takes this idea a step further and removes all other elements of
design, only taking function into consideration (Schezen, 1996, p.10). To achieve this, Loos
replaces ornament with luxurious materials. (Loos, Opel, and Mitchell 1998 p.164) To
explain this idea he uses the analogy that a suit will change in fashion more often than a
valuable fur (Loos, Opel, and Mitchell 1998 p.87) which could be seen as relevant today,

Emma Hewitt
N0507442

as comparisons can be drawn between the idea of using valuable materials, and inflation
in our economy. As an example, a 20 note is a piece of paper which loses value
depending on our economic situation, whereas gold and diamonds will always be valuable.
Applying this to architecture means that a building constructed from solid and luxurious
materials will always keep some value, validating Loos analogy.
Some may state that many architects, especially in our contemporary context, are guilty of
designing to achieve a certain aesthetic instead of to meet functional demands. (Brooks,
2014) Modern architects may change the style and form of a building in order to appear as
a signature simply for purposes of marketing and recognition. For example, Hadid has a
recognisable style which appears across the globe. (Brooks, 2013) Although many of Loos
designs are similar in appearance, this is due to their similar functions. Hadid designed a
fire station for the Vitra Furniture Factory in Germany in 1994. (Brooks, 2013) This building
received high praise due to the aesthetic appearance, however the building fell short of

Figure 7(Peens, 2013)

expectations and did not function properly as a fire station. Shortly afterwards the building
was transformed into a museum for chairs, (Brooks, 2013) which demonstrates how the
addition of ornament is unnecessary, especially if the finished product is not functional.
This is supported by Venturis theory about the duck and the decorated shed (Heathcote,
2008) which states that a building designed with its purpose in mind (the duck) is more
valid than a building with a sign attached claiming the buildings purpose (the decorated
shed) (Venturi in Heathcote, 2008). It could be argued that the duck is comparable to
Loos designs and the decorated shed is more applicable to Hadids design, as the face of
her building can easily be changed from a fire station to a furniture museum, and a new
function claimed. Loos buildings still function similarly as they did many years ago (Sarnitz,

Emma Hewitt
N0507442

1999. p37). In conclusion, this gives Loos much more credibility than some of the most
highly respected star architects of today.
In 1927, Loos designed a house for the actress and entertainer Josephine Baker (Sarnitz,
2003 p.92) which caused much debate due to the unusual faade design, which left the
validity of his earlier works to be debated. The Baker House appears to be very ornamental
with the inclusion of marble horizontal striped cladding, (Brown, 2015) which contradicts
many of Loos theories and claims. There are many sources which aim to explain this
faade design, such as the argument that the stripes lighten the volume of the building, as
well as draw the eye of the pedestrian around the corner of the building. (Brown, 2015) If
this was the intention of the architect, then it could be argued that the faade design links
with theory that functional ornament is not a crime, therefore supporting his earlier
works.

Figure 8(Brown, 2015)

In opposition to this, the building remains unconstructed and there is no solid evidence
that Baker ever asked Loos to design the house, (Dahdah et al. 1995 p.75) which could
suggest that the design of this house was merely an erotic fantasy. Earlier in his career,
Loos denounces the man of our time who daubs the walls with erotic symbols to satisfy
an inner urge (Loos, Opel, and Mitchell, 1998 p.167) which Loos himself may be guilty of
in this instance, as he daubs black lines across the plain white faade of the building
(Sabine, 1999, p.37). Loos also writes that one of the first works of art is the cross [whose
horizontal line represents] the reclining woman [and whose vertical line represents] the
man (Loos in Dahdah et al. 1995 p.76). Both of these features can be seen in the form of
The Josephine Baker House; the female element being the cladding and the male element
being the vertical tower which protrudes through and above the building. (See figure 8) In
7

Emma Hewitt
N0507442

our contemporary context, other architects have been inspired by sexual ideas, creating
similar results to Loos. As an example Oscar Niemeyer explains that he is not attracted to
right angles and straight lines, but instead to free and sensual curves [which] we find
in the body of the woman we love. (Niemeyer in Glancey, 2014) Many similarities can be
drawn between The Josephine Baker House and Niemeyer designs such as The Church of
St. Francis of Assisi. (See figure7) For example, the horizontal and bulbous shape relates to
the female form, and the vertical sculpture to the male form, which is intertwined with
Loos theory of the cross being an erotic symbol. The fact that a respected contemporary
architect is using theories that Loos wrote about in 1912 confirms the validity of Loos
texts to an extent. Loos may have created an anomalous building which is omitted from
text books in comparison to his previous works, although this design was inspired by
sexual desire rather than his other dominant principles, and therefore it can be argued
that the controversy surrounding the Josephine Baker house does not devalue Loos
credibility or reputation.

Figure 9(Klauder, 2010)

Three years later, Loos created his masterpiece, the Villa Mller (Sabine, 1999, p.72).
This furthers the assertion that the Josephine Baker house was an anomaly in Loos career.
The Villa Mller was praised for its faade (Sabine, 1999, p.71) which implies that Loos
unornamented aesthetic became more accepted in his later career. The layout of the
interior was misunderstood and dismissed, (Sabine, 1999, p.71) although it could be
argued that as the building was analysed over the years, the validity of his ideas became
stronger over time. (Sabine, 1999, p.71) Looking to the past, we are able to appreciate the
full intentions behind Loos buildings which may not have been apparent at the time.

Emma Hewitt
N0507442

Figures 10, 11, 12(Dunster, 1986)

The interior of the Villa Mller uses a method known as Raumplan, a way of connecting
spaces on a three dimensional plane, (Sabine, 1999, p.71) supported by the argument that
both horizontal and vertical dimensions of a space should be considered, meaning the
lounge has a different height to the bathroom. (Sabine, 1999, p.72) This intricate spatial
layout (shown in figures 10-15) is difficult to understand when drawn in two dimensions,
and is highly focused on functionality. It can be argued that most time should be spent
designing the interior space which is used daily rather than the external appearance which
is not used, confirming the strength of Loos theories.

Emma Hewitt
N0507442

Figures 13, 14, 15(Dunster, 1986)

Loos

theories

stated

within

his

text

Ornament

and

Crime

have

been

widely

misinterpreted as Ornament is Crime, which has affected public opinion of Loos

ideology. Loos never dismissed ornament altogether, instead he looks to a future where
valuable resources are not wasted by copying ornaments of the past. (Loos, Opel, &
Mitchell p.164) Loos makes a range of valid arguments relating to topical issues of today,
such as the intention to stop material wastage. As an example, the addition of flower
boxes to the building at Michelaerplatz (Schezen, 1996. p.56) makes the most insignificant
difference

to

the

building,

supporting

Loos

previous

principles.

Loos

design

for

Michelaerplatz caused controversy due to the starkness of the faade, (Sabine, 1999. p.37)
however elements of the building suggest the design was intended to complement the
historical characteristics of the site, counterbalancing credibility in Loos favour. To an
extent, the minority of these arguments could have lost some relevance over the past 100
years due to advances in technologies, however this should not affect the overall validity
of the majority of Loos theories in our contemporary context.

10

Emma Hewitt
N0507442

*Word count: 2742

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Dunster, D. 1986. Key buildings of the 20th century. London: Architect Press.
F. Martin. 2013. Makers of Modern Architecture From Le Corbusier to Rem Koolhaas. 2. New York:
The New York Review of Books.
Heynen, H. 2000. Architecture and modernity: a critique. 1. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Hilberseimer, L., 1964. Contemporary Architecture, Its Roots and Trends. Chicago: Paul Theobald and
Company.

Loos, A., Opel, A. and Mitchell, M. 1998. Ornament and crime: selected essays. Riverside, CA:
Ariadne Press.

Martin, F. 2013. Makers of Modern Architecture from Le Corbusier to Rem Koolhaas. 2. New York:
The New York Review of Books.

Sarnitz, A., 2003 LOOS. Germany: Taschen GmbH.

Schezen, R. 1996. Adolf Loos Architecture 1903 1932. New York: The Monacelli Press.
T.S. Sabine. 1999. Icons of Architecture The 20th Century. Munich: Prestel.

11

Emma Hewitt
N0507442

DRAWINGS & IMAGES

Figure 1. Diaz-Griffith, M. 2012. The Poetics of Imperfection. Wordpress: New York. Available at:
http://theantefix.com/2012/12/11/the-poetics-of-imperfection/ [Accessed 02/05/2015]

Figure 4. Fojtov, R., et at., 2015. LIBEREC:REICHENBERG - architektura na severu ech. [Online illustration]
Available at: http://liberec-reichenberg.net/autori/karta/jmeno/44-adolf-loos [Accessed: 02/05/2015]

Figure 5. Frearson, A. 2012. Beyond Boundaries, Art and Design by Zaha Hadid at Ivorypress Space. [Online
image] Dezeen: London. Available at: http://www.dezeen.com/2012/08/23/beyond-boundaries-art-anddesign-by-zaha-hadid-at-ivorypress-space/ [Accessed 02/05/2015]

Figure 2. Google, 2015. Google Street view Google: California. [Online image] Available at:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Looshaus/@48.208153,16.366544,17z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x476d0799
b1995157:0x94872b01f4dd816e [Accessed 01/05/2015]

Figures 13, 14. Adapted by Hamdan, R., Hewitt, E., Sparrow, V., Stapleton, A. from Dunster, D. 1986. Key
buildings of the 20th century. 1. London: Architect Press. Pages 56-57. [Architectural drawings]

Figure 8. Adapted by Hewitt, E. 2015., from: Brown, D. 2015. Adolf Loos [online image] New Zealand: Cargo.
Available at: http://cargocollective.com/adolfloos

Figure 9. Adapted by Hewitt, E., from: Klauder, J. 2010. Sketches from Brazil. James Klauder: Washington.
[Online illustration] Available at: http://www.jamesklauder.com/projects/?cat=13 [Accessed 01/05/2015]

Figures 10, 11, 12, 15. Adapted by Hewitt, E. Stapleton, A., from Dunster, D. 1986. Key buildings of the 20th
century. 1. London: Architect Press. Pages 56-57. [Architectural drawings]

Figure 7. Peens, I. 2013. Ornament as Craft, the Articulation of Surface. [Online illustration] Academia: Cape
Town. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/3531787/Ornament_as_Craft_The_Articulation_of_Surface
[Accessed 02/05/2015]

12

Emma Hewitt
N0507442

Figure 6. St. Paul, L. and Todd, H. 2013. The A-To-Zaha List: 7 Of Hadids Best Buildings. Co.Design. Mansueto
Ventures: New York. [Online image] Available at: http://www.fastcodesign.com/1673188/the-a-to-zaha-list-7of-hadids-best-buildings [Accessed 01/05/2015]

WEBSITES
Andrews, B. 2015. Ornament and Materiality in the Work of Adolf Loos. [online] Nebraska: University of
Nebraska Lincoln. Available at:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ll39XussVzQJ:apps.acsaarch.org/resources/proceedings/uploads/streamfile.aspx%3Fpath%3DACSA.AM.98%26name%3DACSA.AM.98.
53.pdf+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk [Accessed 30/04/2015]

Barreneche, 2012. Oscar Niemeyer, 1907-2012. [online] New York: Architectural record. Available at:
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/12/121211-Oscar-Niemeyer-190782122012.asp [Accessed
29/04/2015]

Brooks, X. 2013. Zaha Hadid: I dont make nice little buildings [online] London: The Guardian. Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/sep/22/zaha-hadid-dont-make-nice-little-buildings
[Accessed 30/04/2015]

Brown, D. 2015. Adolf Loos [online] New Zealand: Cargo. Available at: http://cargocollective.com/adolfloos
[Accessed 29/04/2015]

Colquhoun, A. 2002. Oxford History of Art: Modern Architecture. [eBook] Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Available via: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/nottinghamtrent/reader.action?docID=10613800 [Accessed
28/04/2015]

13

Emma Hewitt
N0507442
Dahdah, F. and Atkinson, S. 1995. The Josephine Baker House: For Looss Pleasure. [eBook] 26. New York: The
MIT Press. Available via: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3171418?seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents [Accessed
28/04/2015]

Davies, P. 2013. Adolf Loos [online] London: EMAP Publishing Limited. Available at: http://www.architecturalreview.com/reviews/reputations/adolf-loos/8653892.article [Accessed 28/04/2015]

Diaz-Griffith, M. 2012. The Poetics of Imperfection. Wordpress: New York. Available at:
http://theantefix.com/2012/12/11/the-poetics-of-imperfection/ [Accessed 02/05/2015]

Fojtov, R., et at., 2015. LIBEREC:REICHENBERG - architektura na severu ech. Available at: http://liberecreichenberg.net/autori/karta/jmeno/44-adolf-loos [Accessed: 02/05/2015]
Glancey, 2014. Erotic Architecture: The Sexual History of Great Buildings. [Online] Washington: The New
Republic. Available at: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119115/erotic-architecture-sexual-history-greatbuildings [29/04/2015]

Heathcote, E. 2008. The Argument for Ornament. [Online] London: The Financial Times Limited. Available at:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/696796d0-e009-11dc-8073-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz3YgyKbu5F [Accessed
29/04/2015]

Kroll, A. 2010. AD Classics: Le Grande Louvre / I.M. Pei. [Online] Archdaily: New York. Available at:
http://www.archdaily.com/88705/ad-classics-le-grande-louvre-i-m-pei/ [Accessed 02/05/2015]

Louvre Museum. 2015. History of the Louvre. Paris: Louvre Museum. Available at:
http://www.louvre.fr/en/history-louvre [Accessed 02/05/2015]

Menz, C. 2011. There is no modern furniture!: Adolf Loos and the Viennese apartment of Jakob and Melanie
Langer [online] Melbourne: National Galley of Victoria. Available at: https://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/essay/thereis-no-modern-furniture-adolf-loos-and-the-viennese-apartment-of-jakob-and-melanie-langer-2/ [Accessed
28/04/2015]

14

Emma Hewitt
N0507442
Song, S. 2011. Architecture in the Givenness Toward the Difficult Whole Again: Part 1. Florida: Archinecht.
Available at: http://archinect.com/features/article/2216621/architecture-in-the-givenness-toward-thedifficult-whole-again-part-1 [Accessed 29/04/2015]

Stewart, J. 2012. Is Ornament Really a Crime?. [Online] Cincinnati: Print. Available at:
http://www.printmag.com/about-us/ [Accessed 29/04/2015]

Thornhill, T. 2015. Chinese firm builds 57-storey block in a record 19 days. [online] London: Associated
Newspapers Ltd. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2989769/Building-skyscraper-Legostyle-Chinese-firm-builds-57-storey-block-record-19-days-rate-three-floors-day.html [Accessed 01/05/2015]

UCATT. 2015. Facts and Figures. [Online] London: Infobo. Available at: http://www.ucatt.org.uk/facts-andfigures-green-at-worr [Accessed 02/05/2015]

Venturi, R. and Brown, D. (2015) The building as the decorated shed and the duck. [Online video] London: Web
of Stories. Available at:
http://www.webofstories.com/play/robert.venturi.and.denise.scott.brown/65;jsessionid=35424030AEF1760E
F6F733D60E489D32 [Accessed 30/04/2015]

15