Adolf Loos: Ornament and Crime

We know that the human embryo goes through all stages of animal development in the womb of its mother. A person receives the same impressions from the outside at birth as a newly born puppy. Childhood briefly repeats the individual periods of human history: at two years, a child has senses and reason like a Papuan, at four like an old German. At six years, they see the world through Socratic eyes, at eight through Voltaire's. In these eight years, they become aware of and understand the color purple, a color that was only discovered in the eighteenth century, as before that, purple shades were seen as blue and crimson. And our physicists today show us in the solar spectrum colors that even have names but whose recognition is reserved for future generations.
       A child and a Papuan live outside all morality. A Papuan kills all his enemies and eats them: he is not a criminal.
       But a modern man, who kills his neighbor and eats him, can only be a criminal or a pervert. A Papuan tattoos his skin, his canoe, his paddle, everything that comes to hand. He is not a criminal. A modern person who tattoos himself is a criminal or a pervert. In many prisons, the number of tattooed individuals rises to 80%. Tattooed individuals who live freely are hidden criminals or perverse aristocrats. It happens that their lives seem to be impeccable until the end; that is because they are dead after their crime.
       The need that primitive man feels to ornament his face and all the objects he uses is the original source of art, the initial "stammering" of painting. It is a need rooted in sensuality - the same need from which Beethoven's symphonies spring forth. The first man who painted ornament on the rocky wall of his cave felt the same joy as Beethoven composing the Ninth. However, while the foundation of art remains the same, expression changes over the centuries, and a modern person who feels the need to paint on walls is a criminal or a pervert. Such a need is normal for a child who begins to satisfy his artistic instinct by doodling erotic symbols. For a modern adult, it is a sign of illness. I express, I am and I declare this law:
       As culture develops, ornament disappears from useful objects.
       I thought I was bringing my contemporaries new joy. They did not thank me for it. On the contrary, this message filled them with sadness. They were tormented by the thought that they could no longer "create" new ornamentation. The first random black man, people of all nations and all times invented ornaments, and only we, people of the 20th century, are absolutely no longer capable of this? Indeed, the houses, furniture, simple objects produced by people of previous ages were not worthy of lasting; they perished. We have not a single carpenter's plane from the Carolingian period. Yet the least piece of wood with any ornament has been collected, cleaned, preserved, and we build palaces to store these moldy things; and we walk among showcases and blush at our impotence. "Every century," we say, "had its style: will we be the ones who will have no style?"
       We speak of style and understand it - ornament!
       And thus began my sermon. I said to the mournful:
       "Take comfort! Open your eyes and see!"
       What constitutes the greatness of our time is its incapacity to create new ornamentation. We have overcome ornament: we have learned that we can do without it. Behold, a new century is coming, in which the most beautiful prophecy will be fulfilled. Soon the streets of cities will shine like great, completely white walls. The city of the 20th century will be dazzling and naked, like Zion, the holy city, like the capital of heaven.
       But I did not count on the reactionaries, the friends of the past, who would like to see humanity continue to submit to the tyranny of ornament. And yet ornament is no longer a joy for modern man. Europeans at the end of the 19th century are already educated enough that a tattooed face causes them nothing more than ugliness. They bought cigarette cases made of polished silver, leaving the decorated cases to the merchant, even when they were of the same price. They loved their modern clothing, leaving the carnival monkeys the red velvet pants with golden trim. To these modern people, my contemporaries, I say this: "Look at the room in which Goethe died. It is far more beautiful in its simplicity than all the splendor of the Renaissance. A smooth, plain cupboard is more beautiful than all the carvings and paneling in museums."
       My good intentions displeased the friends of the past and the state, whose task is to keep nations developing, became the defender of endangered ornament.
       This is fine: it is not the business of the state to order its officials to make revolutions.
       We must then reconcile ourselves to the fact that the state maintains and supports the illness of ornament. The state believes in the future of ornament and takes credit for creating a new source of joy, preparing the rebirth of "ornamental style."
       I live to destroy and combat this absurd dogma. The invention of new ornamentation cannot bring any joy to cultured man.
       If I want to eat gingerbread, I will choose a very precise rectangle, not a piece that represents a heart, a baby, or a hussar. A man of the 15th century could not understand me. But all modern people understand me. The advocate of ornament laughs at my taste for pure simplicity and claims that I am an ascetic. But no, my dear professor of the School of Applied Arts! I assure you that I do not wear a hair shirt, nor do I deny myself anything. I eat according to my taste, and it is not my fault if the ornate cuisine of past ages, great pieces of bread, architecture made from grouse, pheasants, and crayfish take away my appetite. I walk in horror past culinary exhibitions at the thought that there are people who eat all these stuffed corpses. I eat roast beef.
       Moreover, I have given up all attempts that have been made to artificially revive ornament - even when it comes to aesthetics. These attempts are condemned right at their birth: no power in the world, neither state nor otherwise, can stop the development of human culture. It is only a matter of time. What angers me is not the aesthetic damage; it is the economic harm that arises from this ridiculous cult of the past. Ornament makers are grinding down ornamentation from materials, from silver, and human lives. That is the real evil, that is the crime itself, over which we must not stand with our arms crossed.
       The progression of culture resembles the march of an army that has a majority of saboteurs. Perhaps I live in the year 1913. Yet one of my neighbors lives in the year 1900 and another in the year 1880.
       This is the misfortune of Austria, that the culture of its inhabitants stretches over too extensive time periods.
       A villager from the high Alps in Tyrol lives in the 12th century, and we discovered in horror - seeing the jubilee imperial procession march by - that we still have in Austria tribes from the fourth century.
       Happy lands where there are no saboteurs and invalids! Perhaps only America is this exception. Even in our cities, we have laggards, people from the 18th century who scream in horror at the purple shadows of modern paintings because they have still not learned to see the color purple, people who smile blissfully at a stuffed pheasant decorated with culinary aesthetics; people who buy cigarette cases adorned with Renaissance motifs.
       Villagers are generally behind by many centuries, and many among them are still pagans who should be converted at least to Christianity.
       I said that these saboteurs delay not only aesthetic development but, what is worse, even the economic development of humanity.
       Indeed, when we observe two people today, living in the same environment and having the same income and needs, but belonging to different cultural periods, we discover this phenomenon: a person of the 20th century enriches himself, a person of the 18th century becomes impoverished.
       I assume that both can live according to their taste.
       The person of the 20th century satisfies his needs with the least expenses and can save. He likes vegetables boiled in water and lightly greased. The person of the 18th century must have vegetables stewed with all possible additions, under the careful supervision of a cook who sacrifices whole hours to prepare a single dish. The former eats off merely white plates, the latter demands decorated ones, which are much more expensive. The former has savings, the latter debts. What applies to individuals also applies to entire nations.
       Modern nations are becoming rich, backward nations are becoming poor.
       The English accumulate immense capitals.
       In Austria, despite all the hard work, we grind poverty.
       Such is the damage that consumers pay for their ornamental taste; however, the confusion it causes in production has even more lamentable consequences. From the fact that ornament is no longer a natural product of our culture but a relic of the past or a sign of decline, it follows that the work of an ornamentalist cannot be normally paid.
       The wages of carvers and woodturners are constantly falling, and the prices paid to embroiderers and lace-makers are a public scandal.
This outdated profession forces its victims to work twenty hours to earn a wage corresponding to the eight-hour work of a modern worker.
       The suppression of ornament results in a shortening of the daily working hours and an increase in wages.
       A Chinese carver works sixteen hours, an American worker eight.
       If I pay the same price for a polished silver case as for a engraved case, the difference in production time benefits the worker. And if ornament completely disappeared from the world market - a progress that may take place after a thousand years - the normal working time would decrease from eight to four hours for this reason alone.
       For even today, half of all work that takes place in the world is devoted to creating ornament.
       This mere decorative work means throughout time a waste of health and human energy.
       In our days, it also means a waste of original materials.
       No advantage, no need can justify this double destruction of significant economic values. Ornament, no longer connected to our culture by any organic bond, has ceased to be an expression of our culture. The ornament produced today is no longer a living fruit of society or tradition; it is a plant without roots, incapable of developing and renewing itself. What are the ornaments of Otto Eckmann today, what are the ornaments of Vandeveld? He who invents modern ornaments is no longer a powerful and healthy artist who speaks in the name of his nation; he is a solitary dreamer, a laggard, a sick person.
       And every three years he denies the frail fruits of his work.
       Cultured people throw away these impossible decorations, these flowers of nothingness from their very birth.
       Most people throw them away after a few years. Where are today the "works" of the school in Nancy? Who can bear after ten years the "works" of Olbrich?
       Modern ornament has neither parents nor offspring, neither past nor future.
       Blind are those among our contemporaries for whom the greatness of our time is a book sealed with seven seals, who once greeted with joyful shouts the "new art" - which they now dread.
       Humanity, as a whole, is doing as well today as never before. The sick are in the minority. But this minority tyrannizes the well-off worker, who can no longer invent ornaments, and forces him to execute a handful of invented ornaments in various materials. It forces the worker to waste his time and spoil the material. It devalues his labor.
       Handcrafted objects change their shape according to a law that I will state as follows: the durability of shapes is in direct proportion to the quality of materials. In other words, the shape of a handcrafted object is satisfying only as long as it can serve as long as the item itself can serve.
       Therefore, ordinary clothing goes out of fashion more quickly, that is, changes shape more quickly, than a fur winter coat. A ball gown made for one night changes shape more often than a writing desk. For a writing desk, it would be a great mistake if it were no longer tolerable than a ball gown. If we find the furniture ugly before it wears out - we have wasted our money when we bought it.
       Ornamentalists and manufacturers do not deny this law; they even claim that it is advantageous for them. They say that a customer who must change his furniture every ten years is an excellent customer. A bad customer is one who only buys new furniture when the old one is worn out.
       These fashions that we dislike so quickly, these rapid following of ephemeral "styles" are advantageous for industry and provide work for millions of workers.
       This is the great secret of economic policy in Austria. It comes to fruition when a fire turns ten houses to ashes: Blessed be God, it will be exclaimed, workers will have work.
       A marvelous recipe!
       So let's set fire to all four corners of the empire and we will wade through gold and prosperity.
       We produce furniture that sells in three years like firewood; we make silver utensils that will need to be melted down again after four years, as the pawnshop will not give even a tenth of the purchase price for them. Let us do the same in business - and we will get rich, astonishing the world.
       In reality, the permanence of ornamentation on objects that cultural development has already shed of ornament simultaneously destroys both the producer and the customer. If all the goods of our industry had aesthetic quality corresponding to the quality of materials, the customer would pay for them the price they actually have and would get his worth for his money. And this price, I repeat, would allow the worker to earn more while working less.
       In what we call "artisanal work", the words "good" and "bad" no longer have meaning.
       Prices depend on the novelty of shape and not on the quality of material. Because decent furniture should not last longer than flimsy furniture, who would think to pay four times as much for it?
       The disappearance of good work and the elimination of durable materials logically resulted in an artificial resurrection of ornament. It is remarkable that the "works" of the new art are much less tolerable because they are made from inferior materials. For a ball gown to satisfy my aesthetic taste, it does not have to be cut from durable fabric, nor does it have to be carefully sewn; I know that, according to all customs, it will only be worn for one night. I can tolerate if the decorator's imagination is tested on exhibition buildings made of pasteboard that can be built and destroyed in a few days. But throwing golden coins at frogs on water, lighting a cigar with banknotes, grinding a pearl and drinking it - these are tasteless actions.
       Therefore, modern ornament has not reached the final degree of ugliness unless it has been executed in valuable materials and with the care of a good worker. There is nothing uglier than a momentary thing that seems to last: imagine a women's hat that would be unwearable, a universal exhibition whose pavilions would be built of white marble.
       The modern person is still isolated in our society like a front guard, like some aristocrat.
       He values ornaments that past ages normatively created. He respects the taste of individuals and nations who have not yet reached our level of culture. However, he does not need ornaments for his benefit, he knows that a person of our century cannot invent them - so they may be alive. He completely understands the mental state of some Kafirs, who adorn a strip of fabric with ornaments, the mental state of a Persian craftsman who weaves his carpets, a Slovak woman who strains her eyes over intricate lace, an old lady who embroiders silly poems with glass beads and colorful silk.
       And he leaves them to satisfy, as best they can, that need for art that they have within them.
       He does not spoil their enjoyment, does not shout out ugliness over what they admire, just as he does not tear the crucifix from an old woman who is praying.
       The modern person conserves their neighbors’ tastes and convictions, which he no longer has himself, but he does not spare the hypocrites and deceivers.
       I can tolerate around me, even in my clothing, certain adornments: if they bring joy to others, they bring joy to me as well. I can tolerate tattoos on Kafirs, ornaments on Persians, lace and perforation from my shoemaker.
       We, the isolated aristocrats, have our modern art, the art that has replaced ornament. We have Rodin and Beethoven.
       If my shoemaker is not yet capable of understanding them, we must pity him: but why should I take away his religion if I cannot give him anything in return?
       My shoemaker has a decent and respectful taste.
       But the architect who has just heard Beethoven and sits down at his desk to design a carpet of "new art" cannot be anything but a swindler or a pervert.
       The end of ornament has greatly helped the development of all arts.
       Beethoven's symphonies could not have been written by a man dressed in satin, velvet, and lace.
       And when we see a man on the street wearing velvet clothes á la Rubens, we do not think he is an artist, but a dandy or a fop.
       In times of weak individualism, our ancestors expressed their originality through clothing. We have become far more refined. We no longer display our personalities for everyone to see; we hide it under a common mask of modern clothing!
       A person today uses or discards, according to his whim, the ornaments of old or exotic cultures.
       He no longer invents new ones.
       He conserves and concentrates his inventive ability for higher matters.

Adolf Loos, Ornament and Crime. Prague 1929, pp. 139-151