ornament and crime, adolf loos

response to Crime and Ornament, The Arts and Popular Culture in the shadow of Adolf Loos 

As Adolf Loos is one of the very influential and determined “modern” architects it wasn’t so surprising to see that he has written a critique on ornamentation. However, after I have read the text it seems to me that Loos is obsessed with the principle of modernism, less is more, in the same way the Bauhaus architects are (referring to my previous response on Tom Wolfe’s From Bauhaus to Our House), to the extent that he is able to claim ornament is crime. I am also someone who likes things simple and smooth but at times I also cherish ornaments. So am I a degenerate or am I not? It is the craftsmanship that I appreciate, it shouldn’t be looked at as just a waste of manpower, health, material or capital like Loos has said it to be. Ornaments such as intricate woodcarvings represent a lot of Thai culture, all the effort put into crafting our culture is no waste but instead a treasure, which not only Thais like myself but many tourists are astonished by, so to accuse of it being ‘criminal’ is unfair. On the other hand, I would have to agree with what Loos had also stated that the evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from objects of daily use. Even though I feel we should value ornament, tracing back to the history of arts and architecture it is true that the use of ornament has been diminishing along with the evolution of mankind and Thailand is no exception. I suspect part of the reason is only because the world is moving faster, everything is so compact and hurried, new technologies are invented to reduce the production time and convenience, therefore anything that employs too much time is seen as inefficient and not very worthy.