Boundary Between Art and Architecture in Modern Society
Is Architecture an Art? Richard Meier says “yes.” He believes not only is architecture art, but also it is the greatest art. Or, should architecture stay away from art, and should there be a boundary between art and architecture? Adolf Loos say “yes.” He believes when art is added to architecture, not only it is not art anymore, but it would be waste of human labor, money, and material.
When Loos talks about relationship between art and architecture, he is looking at modern architecture and its evolution from ancient times to his period of time. Loos says that, “The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornaments from utilitarian objects.” What is this evolution Loos is talking about? If we take a look through architectural history, it typically starts from Egypt and their pyramids, Greece and their temples and other architectural constructions with more monumental and sculptural characteristics, and through the course of time architecture has become more spatial and functional, and become separated from sculpture and ornaments. However, there is something wrong with this point-of-view, because architectural history normally ignores the ordinary houses without any ornaments. I believe when we study Temples, Palaces, Villas, Cathedrals and Mosques we should take a look at ordinary houses of those times as well, for example we should see at the same time that Cathedral of Santaigo De Compstela was built how it was a common house. So, a surplus of money was equal to more ornaments in buildings, and it was rare to see ornaments on ordinary dwellings.
At the same time Loos talks about architecture as a utilitarian object and he believes utilitarian objects should not have ornaments. Also, Alison and Peter Smithson during one of their interviews said that the old relationship between architecture, painting, and sculpture was something they no longer wanted, not because it is too difficult to attain, but that it is no longer necessary.
Loos in his essay, Ornament and Crime, says that “all art is erotic” and it is not something to improve the quality of people’s lives. He says, “But if the ornament is beautiful, ornament does not heighten my joy in life or the joy in life of any cultivated person.” However, in the same essay he makes a distinction between art and ornament, he says, “I can tolerate the ornaments of the Kaffir, the Persian, the Slovak peasant woman, my shoemaker’s ornaments, for they all have no other way of attaining the high point of their existence. We have art, which has taken the place of ornament.” So it seems he is not in opposition to art when he said art is erotic, but he believes when art applies to architecture it becomes an ornament or applied art, and he believes it is not something acceptable or necessary for modern and educated people. He believes beauty should be in architecture itself, not added by ornaments – which I agree with, but what I do not agree is that not all the ornaments are made just for beauty and just as a decorative object. For example he mentioned Persia, the ornaments used in Persian architecture are not only for adding attraction to buildings, but also they have meaning or they are symbols of some cultural value. So, if I take a look from the point-of-view of an extreme functionalist, I would say since those ornaments do not have function, they are extra. I believe function is only part of architecture. Architecture needs some story, some fiction, or some meaning behind it and by taking those ornaments off it will miss those meanings.
Le Corbusier responding to Loos says,”Loos swept under our feet, it was a Homeric cleaning up – precise, philosophical, and logical. Through this Loos has influenced our architectural fate.” We can see his influence on Le Corbusier, Alison and Peter Smithson, and many other architects that practiced “Anti-Art Architecture.” This type of perspective had some characteristics, such as usage of ready-made materials, simplicity, and anti-art, so it would not be a surprise to say Adolf Loos influenced not only architects, but also artists. He wrote his essay, Ornaments and Crime, in 1908 and less than 10 years later we can see the Dadaism movement, which according to Hans Richter, Dada was not art, it was “anti-art,” and Dada ignored aesthetics. We can see usage of ready-made objects in Dadaist artists such as Duchamp’s, Fountain.
For Loos, art and architecture are two totally unique realms. He sees as art as un-functional, and architecture functional. He believes art is not responsible for comforting people. Art is just to arouse and stimulate the emotions of the observers, but architecture is responsible, and must make comfort for the user in a functional manner. Loos says, “ The room has to be comfortable; the house has to look habitable.” Panayotis Tournikiotis says “He (Adolf Loos) defined art as the personal affair of the artist-oriented to the future, distracting man from daily comfort: art is by its essence revolutionary.”[1] So, Loos believes not only is architecture not art, but also they should avoid each other to remain pure. However, Loos makes some exceptions for this separation, he says, “Only a very small part of architecture belongs to art: the tomb and the monument. Everything else that fulfils a function is excluded from the domain of art.”[2]
I do not agree with the separation of art and architecture, by saying architecture is functional and art is not. First take look at the definition of function: “The kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists” or “Any ceremonious public or social gathering or occasion” or “ A factor related to or dependent upon other factors.”[3] So, why then a piece of art can not have a function, the function might be personal, social, or physical. I believe even arousing emotions in a viewer can be a function. A better example of public art in the 1930s in Germany had an overwhelming symbolic theme and had a great influence on the German population, or another specific example would be “The fur-covered Dada teacup,” it was useless for serving tea, but it carried a social function in itself to protest World War I. Also, every piece of art communicates with viewer and tries to illustrate something; even this simple communication can be the function of art, which can be very personal or public.
So I respect Adolf Loos’ urge for simplicity in architecture and to lead the architect to what we now call International Style, but I would say it is not necessary to exclude art from architecture and I believe architecture is still a type of art, like it was a long time ago, and other types of art can be a great tool for an architect to tell a story, make some connection, arouse the emotion, or protest against something. If we eliminate other categories of art, such as sculpture, painting, drawing and so on, we just limit architecture. Again Richard Meier says, “Architecture is art. Every work is a work of art. “, also “You know there’s an old adage that a sculptor can make a square wheel, and architect has to make a round one. You have a certain responsibility not just to your client, not just the people using the building, but to the public at large with what you do.”
[1] Tournikiotis, 30.
[2] Loos, Adolf. "Architecture," 1910. from Schezen, Roberto. Adolf Loos: Architecture 1903-1932, 15.
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/function
When Loos talks about relationship between art and architecture, he is looking at modern architecture and its evolution from ancient times to his period of time. Loos says that, “The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornaments from utilitarian objects.” What is this evolution Loos is talking about? If we take a look through architectural history, it typically starts from Egypt and their pyramids, Greece and their temples and other architectural constructions with more monumental and sculptural characteristics, and through the course of time architecture has become more spatial and functional, and become separated from sculpture and ornaments. However, there is something wrong with this point-of-view, because architectural history normally ignores the ordinary houses without any ornaments. I believe when we study Temples, Palaces, Villas, Cathedrals and Mosques we should take a look at ordinary houses of those times as well, for example we should see at the same time that Cathedral of Santaigo De Compstela was built how it was a common house. So, a surplus of money was equal to more ornaments in buildings, and it was rare to see ornaments on ordinary dwellings.
At the same time Loos talks about architecture as a utilitarian object and he believes utilitarian objects should not have ornaments. Also, Alison and Peter Smithson during one of their interviews said that the old relationship between architecture, painting, and sculpture was something they no longer wanted, not because it is too difficult to attain, but that it is no longer necessary.
Loos in his essay, Ornament and Crime, says that “all art is erotic” and it is not something to improve the quality of people’s lives. He says, “But if the ornament is beautiful, ornament does not heighten my joy in life or the joy in life of any cultivated person.” However, in the same essay he makes a distinction between art and ornament, he says, “I can tolerate the ornaments of the Kaffir, the Persian, the Slovak peasant woman, my shoemaker’s ornaments, for they all have no other way of attaining the high point of their existence. We have art, which has taken the place of ornament.” So it seems he is not in opposition to art when he said art is erotic, but he believes when art applies to architecture it becomes an ornament or applied art, and he believes it is not something acceptable or necessary for modern and educated people. He believes beauty should be in architecture itself, not added by ornaments – which I agree with, but what I do not agree is that not all the ornaments are made just for beauty and just as a decorative object. For example he mentioned Persia, the ornaments used in Persian architecture are not only for adding attraction to buildings, but also they have meaning or they are symbols of some cultural value. So, if I take a look from the point-of-view of an extreme functionalist, I would say since those ornaments do not have function, they are extra. I believe function is only part of architecture. Architecture needs some story, some fiction, or some meaning behind it and by taking those ornaments off it will miss those meanings.
Le Corbusier responding to Loos says,”Loos swept under our feet, it was a Homeric cleaning up – precise, philosophical, and logical. Through this Loos has influenced our architectural fate.” We can see his influence on Le Corbusier, Alison and Peter Smithson, and many other architects that practiced “Anti-Art Architecture.” This type of perspective had some characteristics, such as usage of ready-made materials, simplicity, and anti-art, so it would not be a surprise to say Adolf Loos influenced not only architects, but also artists. He wrote his essay, Ornaments and Crime, in 1908 and less than 10 years later we can see the Dadaism movement, which according to Hans Richter, Dada was not art, it was “anti-art,” and Dada ignored aesthetics. We can see usage of ready-made objects in Dadaist artists such as Duchamp’s, Fountain.
For Loos, art and architecture are two totally unique realms. He sees as art as un-functional, and architecture functional. He believes art is not responsible for comforting people. Art is just to arouse and stimulate the emotions of the observers, but architecture is responsible, and must make comfort for the user in a functional manner. Loos says, “ The room has to be comfortable; the house has to look habitable.” Panayotis Tournikiotis says “He (Adolf Loos) defined art as the personal affair of the artist-oriented to the future, distracting man from daily comfort: art is by its essence revolutionary.”[1] So, Loos believes not only is architecture not art, but also they should avoid each other to remain pure. However, Loos makes some exceptions for this separation, he says, “Only a very small part of architecture belongs to art: the tomb and the monument. Everything else that fulfils a function is excluded from the domain of art.”[2]
I do not agree with the separation of art and architecture, by saying architecture is functional and art is not. First take look at the definition of function: “The kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists” or “Any ceremonious public or social gathering or occasion” or “ A factor related to or dependent upon other factors.”[3] So, why then a piece of art can not have a function, the function might be personal, social, or physical. I believe even arousing emotions in a viewer can be a function. A better example of public art in the 1930s in Germany had an overwhelming symbolic theme and had a great influence on the German population, or another specific example would be “The fur-covered Dada teacup,” it was useless for serving tea, but it carried a social function in itself to protest World War I. Also, every piece of art communicates with viewer and tries to illustrate something; even this simple communication can be the function of art, which can be very personal or public.
So I respect Adolf Loos’ urge for simplicity in architecture and to lead the architect to what we now call International Style, but I would say it is not necessary to exclude art from architecture and I believe architecture is still a type of art, like it was a long time ago, and other types of art can be a great tool for an architect to tell a story, make some connection, arouse the emotion, or protest against something. If we eliminate other categories of art, such as sculpture, painting, drawing and so on, we just limit architecture. Again Richard Meier says, “Architecture is art. Every work is a work of art. “, also “You know there’s an old adage that a sculptor can make a square wheel, and architect has to make a round one. You have a certain responsibility not just to your client, not just the people using the building, but to the public at large with what you do.”
[1] Tournikiotis, 30.
[2] Loos, Adolf. "Architecture," 1910. from Schezen, Roberto. Adolf Loos: Architecture 1903-1932, 15.
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/function