Read adolf loos' "ornament and crime"... Can't believe someone like me who holds a B.Arch has to advise an M.Arch candidate about something like this...

One of Adolfo Loos own buildings in Vienna, now a bank, is festooned with flower window boxes, signage, and multiple relief plaques, and is arguably the better for it.

BulgarBlogger: I read that book during my undergrad, that is the first book I picked up. Actually where my interest in ornamentation began. It's definitely a must read. If I didn't have that book there would be a problem. Thanks for responding. 

rob_c: 

Moscow School of Management by Adjaye Associates 

MuCEM by Rudy Ricotti

Wintergreen Facade by Studio 505

Ravensbourne College & John Lewis Department Store by FOA

Eberswalde Library and many of Herzog and de Meuron's projects

Aichi Spanish Pavilion by FOA as well

I could go on for days about which buildings, which could be a way to narrow it done if I zone in on one type of ornamentation. We can see that majority of ornamentation in contemporary architecture is flat and not an additive application we use to see. 

So far my sources are: The Function of Ornament by Farshid Mourssavi, Building as Ornament by Michiel van Raaij, Oase#65 Ornament, Ornament: The Politics of Architecture and Subjectivity by Antoine Picon, Ornament and Crime by Loos, Stories of Post Modernism by Charles Jencks, and few more I cannot remember. 

Just in case someone ask, I have not picked a thesis advisor yet, that is for later on during the semester but if someone thinks that will be beneficial to find one now let me know. I am only hesitant because I am not to sure if this can even turn into a thesis project or if I need to change my whole topic. 

 

Volunteer: I completely agree. I had one idea about a topic that was Contextualizing Architecture through ornamentation. That reminds of that because that building obviously has no ornament, and if we take the definition of ornament about applying something to make it more attractive that is what they did by adding the flower window boxes, plaques, etc. 

I'm not saying that contemporary ornamentation is bad and we need to get rid of it, I am just challenging its purpose on architecture. Is is suppose to reflect the function of the building, reflect the context, and reflect the culture? I have to say, I believe it should reflect all three. 

Just to repeat what has been said before, your thesis is too vague. 

But your list is also vague; it ranges between ornament as a representational aesthetic to performative tool. But the designers and project outcomes are not. Ornament in Herzog and de Meuron projects by itself is a topic.

As much as I like "Ornament and Crime," I'm gong to stir the pot and ask who cares if you read it. Certainly it provides some insight into how ornament was being considered then, but is that relevant now? If you're going to use it, use it well. Otherwise mentioning Loos at the expense of contemporaries might do you a disservice. It may well be the first reading, but it's not going to be the only.

Marc Miller: Exactly!! I've been having this issue about it being too vague for the past month but a lot of my peers do not believe so, that is also why I wanted to see what opinions I would get here. Ornament and crime is not what my main focus is on, I was just stating that it's an interesting read and one of the first books I grabbed just to understand another viewpoint on ornamentstion. Also, I've been looking at the function of ornament over time as one of my diagrams to see if it has changed. That's why I grabbed ornament and crime by Loos. When I wrote a paper on this subject during undergrad my professor also said it was too large of a topic so I did have to just focus on Herzog and de Meuron. I guess I was just really hoping that some how I can narrow it done into a topic since I have another year of thesis research instead of a semester but it still can't be translated into a design project. I think it's time to move on. Or like a professor said, leave it for a dissertation in the future if I'm really passionate about the topic. 

Rob_c: that is what I'm interested in! And just like you said a thesis is a question that can be tested and analyzed, and adds new knowledge. Whereas, currently any analysis I complete would just be adding to the understanding of ornamentation, what I'm looking at is more of a conceptual problem and not a research problem. Also, this topic can become subjective to my opinion which makes my opinion on valid to me and people who agree. 

Would Adolf Loos consider Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling to be "ornamentation"?  

just to look at two building types, if you have an office building with ornament, is there an extra cost to adding the ornamentation?  probably.  does that increase lease rates or tenant retention or somehow offer the building owner and management a specific, tangible, and measurable benefit?  that could give you a concrete foundation for both your thesis and a project type (spec office)

also, i would consider a hospital.  perhaps ornamentation could help with way-finding.  getting people to the right place quickly can save lives.  getting confused in a labyrinth of hallways when you're already disoriented from whatever event lead you to the hospital is problematic, and a good use of design (in some ways ornamentation) could clarify without relying on signs and potential language barriers.

most of ornamentation is just subjective bullshit right?  paint a big square and call it art.  there is no content there, so i wouldn't try to build a theses around 'i like white columns.'  if you can clearly define ornamentation and show concrete examples of how it benefits or doesn't benefit a specific project type, that would give you both your thesis and a project type to design. 

just remember, you can major in nintendo if you know how to bullshit.

What seapartes ornament from a repeating detail-full pattern? Why is  parametric facade ornament (or not ornament). 

I think you need to define ornament and understand its evolution over time in order to make any statement that defines a position or thesis on this subject,.. Ornament in a classic sense may not apply in today's context... 

I find it really strange that you began your post using the phrase  "the return of ornament".... That within itself is a position... How did you come to that position? Return of ornament in what sense? 

BulgarBlogger that's a good point. It means the OP has been reading more than just Loos (or at least listening). There's another good point of departure, the annotated bibliography.

Curtkram, how do you establish value across types? Wouldn't the metrics for each type be so different that you could not establish a baseline? Sure, we know that over-inflated ranch houses adorned with material to make them appear to be English country estates boost the asking price, but what does that have to do with the hospital down the street?

Because I don't have time to deal with it, here's the question I've been mulling-

Arup 3D printed the connection on the right to respond to stresses with no waste involved. Sure, it's pricey, but it's exactly what is needed to address the problem. This calls the connection on the left into question, given that there's a great deal of material waste. So costs aside, which connection qualifies as ornament?

I think 'ornament' implies human art, else what is the point? The art can be applied to an existing building, like the mural on the Mexico City University library building, or can be an integral structural part of the building, like the caryatids, the sculpted figures that act as columns, on early Greek buildings. If you have someone with the soul of an Adolf Loos how do you replace the caryatids? If you use any of the Greek order columns you have replaced one 'ornament' form with another. You are left with sticking in a group of square-sectioned straight columns? In that case you have something that may look like the Federal Reserve Building in DC, one of he most brutal-looking structures imaginable.

if I were you, I would start by asking why ornamentation died since the 2nd mid of the 19th century during the search for an "American Style" apart from Adolf Loos influence?...but you know ornamentation now appear in another forms like "Mashrabiya" or building skin design...

marc, I think for the proposed thesis the OP would have to define the type they want to work with at the start.  that's why i divided my post into office/ hospital, to suggest that it means different things in different contexts.

so, when the OP defines what they mean by "ornament," i think they first have to define a particular project type to work with.  even when explaining how ornament has changed, or if it went somewhere or something, are they talking about religious architecture?  civic architecture?  rich country homes?  low income housing?  all of those have existed as project types for quite some time, and ornament has been implemented for each in different ways and probably for different reasons.

if greek ordered columns were developed for religious structures, why are they now used more often in banks, and why is it that chirstopher wren's steeple is more of a religious symbol than the greek column?

I think I understand now. You weren't suggesting that the op look across types, but at a type and how ornament used or has evolved.

This made me think of Jefferson's exploration with ornament at UVa and the ever evolving matter of interpetation of intent as the campus continues to grow. 

" if greek ordered columns were developed for religious structures, why are they now used more often in banks"

Thomas Jefferson brought over to the new world a type of architecture associated with Greek civilization for this nation's public buildings, Greece being the birthplace of democracy, of course. If he had brought over the gothic style whose greatest achievement is usually associated with churches in Europe, it would have been an entirely different, ecclesiastical  feel, which is the one thing Jefferson most certainly did not want. UVa, for example, is the world's first non-church affiliated university.  

Agreed, but it's Jefferson's experimentation with the orders that is relevant. He "brought the orders over," but he didn't follow the rules.

Another layer of information/research that could be built into this research is the idea of "agency". In other words: who actually has control over the design - who is the decision maker behind whether or not ornamentation makes it into the end product or building. I believe that many architects discuss architecture as a product of only one person's views and ideas. However, this is rarely the case. I would wager that organmentation becomes part of the design of a building because a group of people share the same idea for what the building needs to look like. The architect alone does not have the power to unilaterially decide on the question of whether or not to incorporate ornamentation into the design. I am not suggesting to make your argument based on real-world conditions, but just understand that ornamentation is more than just an architectural decision. It is a cultural one as well. 

In many of the great historical buildings the artists worked with the architects in developing the building. The cathedrals come to mind with their stone tracings of the windows, the windows themselves, and the statues incorporated into the structure. Even the massive doors were farmed out to artists. Today it seems that buildings are designed to house already completed art (museums) with no input from the artists, or artists are commissioned to fill an already existing space in a completed building. The idea that the architect must design every single detail of a building seems to be fairly recent as well as unfortunate.