After I read the Adolf Loos’ book’s chapter of “Ornament & Crime”, I found his language very strong and straightforward. He is writing his opinions just the way they are. His language is unadorned as his non-ornamented architectural works. I think it is the thing which has impressed me most about the book. Because I think I am more into the books which are more unembellished. At that moment, I decided to go over further on the book.
I read the chapter which has named “Arcitecture(1910)”. Initially, he starts his writing with thouching upon the responsibilities of architects to the environment. He points out that the products of architects should be in a rapport with the environment that that product has. He says that “Whether an architect is good or bad in his/her job, he/she should respect the holiness of a lake”. With this way, he expresses his ideas about how an architect should be. Another thing which is worth mentioning is that, he is seriously against ornament as I read at “Ornament & Crime”. The thing which has made me a little bit suprised is that he is advocating his ideas about ornament most parts of the book. In this chapter of book, he claims that ornament makes our culture destroy. Some people may claim that ornament is the thing that makes our culture pernament. They have points to think like that. Because the only objects that have survived from the past to present are the ones with lot of ornament. Whereas, there is a point that is unnoticed. They have ramained because they were out of functionality, because they were so fancy. So that, they were not wear off to melt away. That’s why they have survived to present. Loos evaluate this by saying “missunderstanding the past and the culture”.
Another noteworthy thing is that he alleges that graphical arts and architecture are contrast and very different from eachother. In other words, in those days the most well-paid architects were the ones whose projects were nice looking on the paper, not the ones who were good at building. Nevertheless, Loos points out that a good architect might be bad at thecnical sketching and in contrast, a bad architect can be a good sketcher. I think that was the thing which is surprising that I have just learned and stayed in my mind. He supports that a product cannot be succesful at branch at the same time. For instance, a novel cannot be a succesfull one in terms of both theatre and novel categories. It is same with the condition of graphical arts and architectural works.
These were the things that has made me think and realize some points that I was ot aware of. Shall I recommend this book to new architects? Yes, I would. Because of his simple and straightforward language and also the world view of Adolf Loos. I think he made me gained a different look to the architecture. Next plan: Read the whole book!