This week, I was inspired to further dig into one of the readings: Adolf Loos’ essay “Ornament and Crime.” A man of the early 20th century, Loos comes off as a classist and racist man, comparing the earliest stage of life to the Papuan, the indigenous people of New Guinea, and referring to them as amoral people who kill and eat their enemies and tattoo themselves and all their possessions. Loos expresses several times throughout the essay his disdain for tattoos. He claims any modern man who tattoos himself is a criminal, or will someday become a criminal unless he dies before he can do so. This caused me to determine Loos as a rather ignorant man. Tattoos today are a celebrated form of art and a way of self expression. Some people may have a personal preference against tattoos, but many people choose to decorate their bodies whether it be a full body art piece or a small sentimental detail. Not to mention how important tattoos are in many, many cultures. Like the Papuans, many other cultures used and continue to use tattoos to tell stories and show their accomplishments. Tattoos can be sacred and many can be earned. Unfortunately, Adolf Loos seems incapable of even considering the vibrancy of different cultures. This leads me into my next issue of his thinking process: that the existence of people from different generations and mindsets is detrimental to the evolution of a country? Obviously, some outdated thinking is extremely harmful and wrong and should be eradicated. But older generations also carry wisdom, culture, and traditions that they pass onto us. Would a country be better off without these “stragglers,” or would it be losing something by not having these gateways to the past and living histories of a different time? Loos seems to think these older generations hinder our progress as humans. His stance on this made me think. While we probably would evolve and change faster without connection to the past, that connection to the past is important. Without it, we would never learn from our m mistakes or be able to draw inspiration and learn from our ancestors. Sure, we would evolve quickly, but what would we turn into? We would loos cultural identities and so much more. Loos also thinks that as a modern group of people, we have no connection to the ornament of the past and therefore don’t need it. I disagree completely. Of course we have a connection. All these things we have that come from past civilizations and cultures and peoples are a part of our human history. They should be integrated into our daily lives and celebrated. That is where we came from. How would it even make sense to forget about the past as if it never happened? Clearly he has a hatred for unnecessary ornament, but does he hate history as well? He thinks we would prosper without links to the past, I think we need those links to the past in order to prosper further. Of course, preferring minimalist style is valid, everyone is entitled to what they like, but I think the most beautiful and interesting spaces come from when the modern is married to the antique. Lastly, Loos thinks ornament is a waste of labor and material. This is one of his opinions that can be fairly argued. Yes, in utilitarian objects, ornament is rather unnecessary. Yes, it takes more time and materials to produce. Yes, it makes objects more expensive. But it also adds beauty, passion, and joy into our world. While Loos may think ornamented objects take too much unnecessary time to produce, the craftsmen and artists creating these things find joy in their process and take great pride in their finished pieces. No one forces anyone to choose to buy the elaborate, the hand crafted, or the expensive, why does it anger him so much that they exist? He has his own personal tastes, that does not invalidate those who find beauty in the ornamented, and that should never invalidate those who truly love creating. I think Loos’ minimalist aesthetic stretches too far into a lack of individuality, history, culture, and passion. While I can appreciate minimalism and modernism, I cannot appreciate his ignorant and condescending attitude.
