VS.
(1).jpg)
วันอาทิตย์ที่ 27 มกราคม พ.ศ. 2556
Adolf Loos: Ornament and Crime (1908)
Art appears to take part in every
historical period. It is part of culture, and it is what culture has created.
It even shows the development of every culture. Periods of art were (obviously)
distinguished by their appearance. Ornamentation and decoration are what makes
art appeared differently. It’s like an invention for senses.
Saying “ornament is a crime” is
not completely right or wrong. It depends on what aspect does ornament involve
in. Adolf Loos obviously against ornamentation in every aspect. Loos
‘aggressively’ depicted on why ornament is a crime, which some explanations are
quite ridiculous. Ornament or anti-ornament is not a factor to evaluate how
successful one can be. Richer or poorer. Cultivated or not. People from
different culture and different acknowledgment, would have different
appreciation and preference in everything.
But Loos did point out a good
reason to not be overly-praise-all-the-ornament. He said that ornament is a
crime against economy. Ornamentation does require exhaustive labour, more money,
and materials are wasted. Decorated piece need to waste on something before it
could pleasure the eyes. For our decade, it might be more useful to get an IKEA
plain, recycled coffee table than a crafted whole trunk of teak coffee table
that work functionally the same. It is better because of the crisis of resource
reduction that we are facing now.
Moreover, mass production is way more suitable for the amount of
population.
It seems to be that our “Modern”
generation is appreciating the “art of nothing” and mass-produced outcomes. Modernism
cut out all the connection between art and culture. It mostly doesn’t (or
doesn’t want to) show the trace of past or future. No sign of history and how
the development begun nor how it would develop further. If our generation
prefer to stop developing our own style of art. That would probably a
discontinuance of the history of art. Everything from now on would be
‘nothing’.
Korapin A.
วันอาทิตย์ที่ 20 มกราคม พ.ศ. 2556
วันเสาร์ที่ 19 มกราคม พ.ศ. 2556
Tom Wolfe: From Bauhaus to Our House
As the word “Bauhaus” was said. I would think of the attempt of making the
best out of “Less is more” or “Minimalism”. The perfection that modern world is
craving for. The art of ‘nothing’.
Bourgeois, Bourgeois, Bourgeois!
Tom Wolfe is in favor of using this, "Bourgeois", word.
As well as the postwar modern architects, who despised the style of “Bourgeoisie” (ornamented style; with architrave, pediment, etc. … Somewhat quite unpopular for modern style.) According to Wolfe’s declaration, these American architects sure had their mind on avoidance of designing a bourgeois style. So they came up with so-called “International Style”, which might means the style that has no trace of cultural form or it could be said as the style that starting from zero. With no external ornamentation, of course.
Talking about anti-bourgeois style; Flat roof, flat everything, no curvy line, skeleton structure, purity of form, honest material, and earthy color, or some even expose ‘unpleasant’ structure of the building, it is the main contradiction between Wolfe’s preference and the famous architects, mainly Le Corbusier, Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe and Gropius, on his manifesto. Wolfe was clearly disgusted of this lifeless style. He pointed out that it was barely appreciated by the users of these designed buildings (he was not the only one who hated it!, as he claimed). He even called them cheap. In fact, it could be said so, it is cheap in the aspect of construction costs. Most of the materials were prefabricated and mass-produced. These machine made items were surely cost less than heeded handcrafted stuffs. This probably the consequence of the after war era, when the recession affected on everything and everywhere.
It seems like Wolfe viewed International style and Modern architecture of America as a demoniac thing. It is a little too overreacted. The Modern architecture is, in fact, clean and simple. Modern architecture has its own personality and uniqueness (even though a lot of the designs are easy to predict; pure form with bare materials, i.e.). As this simply beautiful style serves user's needs, then it would be halfway a good design! These architectures are beautiful in their own ways or at least functional.
The good thing is aesthetic is not always fixed in one perspective and standard. Some thing could be ugly in one’s eye, but perfect for the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
extra.
The weird thing is Modern style (architecture) now is what I would call "Bourgeoisie". It turns out to be even more luxurious and ornamented. The more 'nothingness' in the design, even gives the feeling of 'Haute'-style (luxurious sense). Is it because of the different meaning of "modernism" that people perceive? or is it just the trend of modern people to set this standard of being high-fashion in architecture?
Korapin A.
Bourgeois, Bourgeois, Bourgeois!
Tom Wolfe is in favor of using this, "Bourgeois", word.
As well as the postwar modern architects, who despised the style of “Bourgeoisie” (ornamented style; with architrave, pediment, etc. … Somewhat quite unpopular for modern style.) According to Wolfe’s declaration, these American architects sure had their mind on avoidance of designing a bourgeois style. So they came up with so-called “International Style”, which might means the style that has no trace of cultural form or it could be said as the style that starting from zero. With no external ornamentation, of course.
Talking about anti-bourgeois style; Flat roof, flat everything, no curvy line, skeleton structure, purity of form, honest material, and earthy color, or some even expose ‘unpleasant’ structure of the building, it is the main contradiction between Wolfe’s preference and the famous architects, mainly Le Corbusier, Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe and Gropius, on his manifesto. Wolfe was clearly disgusted of this lifeless style. He pointed out that it was barely appreciated by the users of these designed buildings (he was not the only one who hated it!, as he claimed). He even called them cheap. In fact, it could be said so, it is cheap in the aspect of construction costs. Most of the materials were prefabricated and mass-produced. These machine made items were surely cost less than heeded handcrafted stuffs. This probably the consequence of the after war era, when the recession affected on everything and everywhere.
It seems like Wolfe viewed International style and Modern architecture of America as a demoniac thing. It is a little too overreacted. The Modern architecture is, in fact, clean and simple. Modern architecture has its own personality and uniqueness (even though a lot of the designs are easy to predict; pure form with bare materials, i.e.). As this simply beautiful style serves user's needs, then it would be halfway a good design! These architectures are beautiful in their own ways or at least functional.
The good thing is aesthetic is not always fixed in one perspective and standard. Some thing could be ugly in one’s eye, but perfect for the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
extra.
The weird thing is Modern style (architecture) now is what I would call "Bourgeoisie". It turns out to be even more luxurious and ornamented. The more 'nothingness' in the design, even gives the feeling of 'Haute'-style (luxurious sense). Is it because of the different meaning of "modernism" that people perceive? or is it just the trend of modern people to set this standard of being high-fashion in architecture?
Korapin A.
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)