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.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น