Mies Van Der Rohe and Adolf Loos

This entry comes from our history class discussion from Monday 26th. My instructor came up with the question if Mies Van der Rohe really betray the ornament and crime reading or if what he designed actually follow what it. The reading came from the last respond.

First of all, I don’t think that Mies really follow the reading even it seems like he sticks to the principle of not adding anything more than it is needed. Mies works are plain and simple as all the modern architecture is. However, if you look it closer to the detail you’ll see that his work is full of ornament. For example, The Seagram building in New York. There are elements that aren’t necessary for structure of the build but Mies still add it into the building, which is, and I-beam with out any concrete cover outside. There is a law in the US enforces all the I-beam must be cover with concrete for fire proofing reason. In that Seagram building has i-beams cover with concrete for structural reason but it is also have the additional i-beams which are made out of extruded brass on every floor of the building so it can provides the color that looks like liquor because the building belongs to a liquor company in New York. So this is the part where I think that Mies isn’t really follow what Loos said in his book. Even the extra I beams serve as structural support of the building it is still very bourgeois because i-beam doesn’t need brass as its material.

 Seagram Building ,NY

Another reason why I don’t think that Mies follow the reading is because his work is so crafty and skillful. There is a house he designed that needs a lot of craftsmanship while the ornament and crime says about using machine. That house is Fransworth House that he designed for Mr. and Mrs. Fransworth. The way columns and beams are joined is by bolting then bolts are sanded and polish so people cannot see the joints of it. This needs a skill and human to work with.

Fransworth house joint, Fransworth House, IL

From the two reasons above makes me think that Mies doesn’t agree with ornament and crime. He puts ornament his building by not make it obvious that he put it in and that helps creates the beauty in nature of building.

Is ornament a crime?

After reading Ornament and Crime by Adolf Loos, I actually agree to the author that ornament can devalue things. However, I think that ornament can make thing becomes beautiful but artificially beauty. It destroys the natural beauty of the object. I completely agree to the tattoo example that tattoo on body doesn’t really make it becomes more valuable but it devalue it. It might be because of the way our social is formed. It is because of the stereotype that we created. As I mention earlier in the last post that I love modernism with the reason that it is so pure. Some people make think that it has no aesthetic sense at all. I would disagree to this thought and agree to the reading ornament and crime. I think that by having decoration into the object can make it becomes beautiful which it give sense of aesthetic however, without having any decoration and bring out the beauty of the material it is the greater sense of aesthetic. I believe that everything that nature gives us has its own beauty. I was discussing earlier to my friends, they disagree with me and the reading that the great sense of beauty can comes with the object itself without adding on any ornaments in to it with the reason that the skilled people would have no jobs and those skilled cannot be passed on to the next generation. I completely disagree with that. To bring the beauty of nature is indeed need to take a lot of skills and precision. A diamond that isn’t polished looks like only a piece of normal gemstone. It needs a highly skill to cut it into a shape of diamond as we see. This skill is indeed a skill that could bring out the beauty of nature. Another example in architecture, Barcelona pavilion, it is a great modern art. Inside of it has beautiful pieces of marble take part as walls of the pavilion. Those walls cannot be done with any skilled workers and cannot be done by the one who discover that piece of marble. Those pieces of marble on the brown wall come from the same gigantic piece of marble. If that piece of marble was cut into the different direction, the pattern on the marble might not be as great as the way it is. 

a picture of Barcelona Pavilion and a marble wall

Modernism

I am not really a big fan of history but this book, From Bauhaus to our House by Tom Wolfe, really got my attention, as its contents are not that history. It is book that told about the author's, who is not an architect, perspective on modern architecture. I personally like architectures in international style ore other name modern architecture and I agree with what Mies Van Der Rohe said that less is more. International style is more of being less and minimal as much as possible. It is also about being honest to the building by not putting any decoration into to it. It is very practical and functional architecture. It is beautiful just the way it is. By having the frame structure, it allows us to have the lighter structure. We can put more glass into building because walls are no longer being load baring ones. They are just walls that serve as barrier or a building.

However, as I read through From Bauhaus to our House, I was reminded of some perspective that hidden in my mind for a long time. I once as a child thought the same as Robert Venturi that less is a bore. Yes it is a bore. But hey! Boredom can be very attractive, isn’t. So if a plain boring thing being among very ornamental things, it could become something interesting, beautiful and unique. On the other hand, if everything is plain and simple. That is a real boredom. Everything is the same. So what’s the point of having an architect to design a building? Buildings in modern era appeared to be only boxes with concrete, steel and glass.

At one point of the reading, I was thrilled after reading that Yale architectural students finally noticed that the building they designed and their instructors designed are all the same. They became in the same pattern. I am thankful for that. Or else, most of the same building in the present would look the same. Nothing is unique and fun. Everything will become super boring. So as the one who wants to be an architect, I think that being functional is great, it is something as the one who design have to stick with, and being decorative is also great. However, too much ornaments can be irritating and too little can be very boring. So, somewhere in the middle is the best.