Ornament and Crime

In 1908 Adolf Loos published his famous and widely-studied Ornament and Crime. The purpose of this essay was to admonish his fellow architects and designers for their tendencies to hang on to Historicist ideals and decorating everything for the sake of aesthetics. He compared ornamentation to criminal acts, stating that in decorating objects of our lives, we are committing a crime by wasting the time and effort that could be used to make something more useful.
Since then, we have seen a wide variety of architectural (and design) movements that were mainly products of thinkers such as Loos, Sullivan and Le Corbusier. Modernity was founded on the principle that objects and buildings do not have to use ornamentation, and designers frowned upon any extra element that could have contributed to something that could be construed as decoration.
Now, I have to say that I think we have slipped back into our old standards of architectural decoration, though it may not be as obvious now as it was 100 years ago. While some may think that we have made tremendous progress in design over the last several decades, I have to say that I must disagree. I will attempt to not mention any names or specific projects in this blog, because as it has been pointed out to me, negativity and finger-pointing is a waste of time. However, what I see in architecture now is not an application of historic decoration, but rather a decoration of form itself. Some architects, many of the more famous and prominent ones included, it seems to me have manipulated and changed buildings from being the functional apparati that they are into a form of sculptural decoration. Some of the most famous buildings in the world seem to be to be no more than one big decoration, taking no account of the program they are built to encompass, the climate in which they are situated, or even the basics of practicality.
With that said, I know that there are exceptions to this rule, but what bothers me most is that these are the 'iconic' buildings that people want, and will pay dearly for. I wonder why this latest development in architectural history has come about, and I can see some form of logic in the progression. Despite all the upbraids and tirades that were made by early 20th century designers and architects, they were most certainly not always living up to their word. Even Mies van der Rohe used steel I-beams to 'decorate' (i.e. articulate the verticality) his Seagram Building in New York while also being the paragon of Modern design. From these small moves to emphasize or articulate, it can be understood that the line between what was good 'decoration' and what was bad became blurred, but it was understood that plastering Corinthian capitols all over a building would not do.
Nowadays, I think that buildings use the materials and formwork to make decoration, the very thing we are taught to abhor. Buildings flow like water and form spikey mountains cascading out of the ground, though for what purpose? I would argure that people can't live without decoration. Is there are architecture that can be made without ornament? Yes. Look at warehouses, parking garages, and bridges. The real question is: can we make an architecture that is without ornament but that is also inherently beautiful? Does one defy the other? I would like to think that it is possible, but it is not for the weak-hearted and not for those simply looking to impress. This architecture is comfortable yet practical, beautiful yet functioning. It is easy to sketch out a soaring skyscraper that looks as though it might take off from the ground it is rooted in, but the difficulty in designing a house, an apartment building, or a train station that comprises all of these things is limitless and can and will only be achieved by few.
One theme I will continue to underscore is balance. We tip the scales this way and that, though very few can attain true balance. Being an architect means having to master an almost infinite number of skills, but one that I feel that is constantly overlooked is that of understanding the importance of balance. While physical beauty is important, what makes a building functional and usable must always take precedence over something that will make it nicer to look at. I hope that this is where the future lies and that architects and designers will one day help the world to see that we do not need excessively designed and 'decorated' buildings, but we need buildings that are sustainable, recyclable, functional, practical, changeable, flexible and all at the same time, beautiful.