Adolf Loos vs Charles Rennie Mackintosh
2009, Written Essay
The story begins in 1896. Adolf Loos returns to Vienna after three years in America familiarising himself with the theoretical writings of Louis Sullivan and pioneering achievements of the Chicago school. In contrast to the modern American society Loos experienced that was full of vitality and supported by egalitarian and utilitarian aspirations, Vienna in contrast was confined and conservative in its days of the declining Austro-Hungarian empire, no doubt an atmosphere that was terribly suffocating for Loos.
Against this backdrop of Austrian geo-political turmoil enters the Viennese Secessionists, a group formed in 1897 by artists Gustav Klimt, Koloman Moser, Max Kurzweil and architects Josef Hoffmann and Joseph Maria Olbrich who objected to the prevailing conservatism of the Vienna Künstlerhaus with its traditional orientation toward historicism and resigned from the Association of Austrian Artists. Their response to this was to adopt a brand new vernacular that was free from any historical references. The Secessionists were heavily influenced by Charles Mackintosh‟s work and his radical break from the traditional vernacular to introduce new comprehensive designs as total works of art. But while Mackintosh built for the reality of the present, the Secessionists took his ideals for some symbolist utopia that looked towards the aesthetic redemption of man. The result was a pseudo-medieval spirituality that was always attached to their work, which was best illustrated in the exhibition Ein Dokument deutscher Kunst in which Olbrich showcased the living conditions of an artists‟ colony at the Ernst Ludwig House as a total work of art in 1901. The exhibition was opened with a ceremony called "Das Zeichen" (the Sign) in which an unknown prophet descended from the golden portal of the building to receive a crystalline form as a symbol of base material transformed into art, in typical Secessionist fashion.
Against this backdrop of Austrian geo-political turmoil enters the Viennese Secessionists, a group formed in 1897 by artists Gustav Klimt, Koloman Moser, Max Kurzweil and architects Josef Hoffmann and Joseph Maria Olbrich who objected to the prevailing conservatism of the Vienna Künstlerhaus with its traditional orientation toward historicism and resigned from the Association of Austrian Artists. Their response to this was to adopt a brand new vernacular that was free from any historical references. The Secessionists were heavily influenced by Charles Mackintosh‟s work and his radical break from the traditional vernacular to introduce new comprehensive designs as total works of art. But while Mackintosh built for the reality of the present, the Secessionists took his ideals for some symbolist utopia that looked towards the aesthetic redemption of man. The result was a pseudo-medieval spirituality that was always attached to their work, which was best illustrated in the exhibition Ein Dokument deutscher Kunst in which Olbrich showcased the living conditions of an artists‟ colony at the Ernst Ludwig House as a total work of art in 1901. The exhibition was opened with a ceremony called "Das Zeichen" (the Sign) in which an unknown prophet descended from the golden portal of the building to receive a crystalline form as a symbol of base material transformed into art, in typical Secessionist fashion.
Ernst Lugwig House, Darmstadt. "Das Zeichen" ceremony, May 1901
Fresh from his American travels, Adolf Loos found what the Secessionists were offering completely ludicrous and responded with harsh criticisms in the form of an anti-Gesamtkunstwerk fable, „The Story of a Poor Rich Man‟, in which Loos portrayed the story of a wealthy businessman who had a Secessionist architect design a „total‟ house for him, including the furnishings and the clothes, only to be reprimanded by the architect on his birthday for disrupting the mood of the living room by wearing slippers meant for the bedroom. It was a sardonic response to the special clothes designed for the occupant‟s wife to harmonise with the lines of the house Olbrich built at Uccle in 1895. In 1908, Adolf Loos followed up his attack on the Secessionists by publishing his most seminal work, ‘Ornament and Crime’ to elaborate on what he saw as the Viennese Secession‟s arbitrary or superfluous use of ornamentation that had no relevance to society. In his opinion, the continued use of redundant ornamentation that was no longer an expression of present-day culture was preposterous, but to create modern ornaments that were equally irrelevant to society was immoral and even less adapted to the modern world than imitations of ancient styles.
It is in this context as a criticism of the architects and artists of the Secession that Loos argued in ‘Ornament and Crime’ for his conception of ornament as the sign of an uncultured state. Loos gave the example of the tattooing of Papuans as something considered decorative while the tattooing of modern man being a mark of criminal degeneracy to show how modern man had evolved culturally to a point where he did not require any superfluous ornamentation. Thus he accused his contemporaries‟ use of ornament on their furniture, buildings and clothes in the Secession fashion as a way of masking the mediocrity of their culture and social condition, and even cites Olbrich by name as a progenitor of illegitimate ornament. "Where will Olbrich‟s work be in ten years‟ time? Modern ornament has no forebears and no descendants, no past and no future. It is joyfully welcomed by uncultivated people to whom the true greatness of our time is a closed book, and after a short time is rejected." Because of this, it struck him that it was a crime to waste the effort needed to add ornamentation, when the ornamentation would cause the object to soon go out of style. The crucial argument against such redundant ornament was not only that it was wasteful in labour and material, but that it invariably implied a form of craft slavery for the modern man who sees no value in creating such ornaments. "Today, mankind is healthier than ever before; only a few are ill. These few, however, tyrannise the worker, who is so healthy he is incapable of inventing ornament. They force him to execute ornament which they have designed, in the most diverse materials." For Loos, ornament was only for those to whom the highest achievements of bourgeois culture were inaccessible and can only find their aesthetic fulfilment in the creation of ornament.
With these provocative words, Adolf Loos created uproar among his Viennese contemporaries for his misinterpreted intention to suppress all ornamentation in modern architecture. Outside Austria where it was removed from the context of the Viennese Secessionists he was addressing, it was received as a purist manifesto with the slippage of meaning that ornament is crime, and that all those who adorn their buildings and possessions with ornaments are criminals or degenerates. The fact remains that Loos only called for suppression in ornaments from articles of daily use, or functional objects, and not in all forms of ornament. He did not criticise the grammar of classical ornament as he did with the superfluous ornamentation of the Secessionists, nor did he do so with geometric decoration inherent in materials – both of which he approved of and in fact practiced to a large degree. Thus it is important to remember that Loos did not challenge historical references in architectural ornamentation, but merely the false usage that was common to that age.
In this respect, Adolf Loos shares a similar stand point with Charles Rennie Mackintosh. Mackintosh too discarded the heavy ornamentation and inherited styles of Victorian England that had no relevance to his Scottish heritage. His firm belief was that 'construction should be decorated, and not decoration constructed,' such that only 'the salient and most requisite features should be selected for ornamentation'. In a talk he gave in February 1893 he said: "How absurd it is to see modern churches, theatres, banks, museums, exchanges, municipal buildings, art galleries etc, made in imitation of Greek temples. I am quite conscious of the dignity of Greek temples… but to be imported into this country and set up for such varied purposes, they must surely lose all their dignity…. There are many such buildings in Glasgow but to be they are as cold and lifeless as the cheek of a dead Chinaman."
It is in this context as a criticism of the architects and artists of the Secession that Loos argued in ‘Ornament and Crime’ for his conception of ornament as the sign of an uncultured state. Loos gave the example of the tattooing of Papuans as something considered decorative while the tattooing of modern man being a mark of criminal degeneracy to show how modern man had evolved culturally to a point where he did not require any superfluous ornamentation. Thus he accused his contemporaries‟ use of ornament on their furniture, buildings and clothes in the Secession fashion as a way of masking the mediocrity of their culture and social condition, and even cites Olbrich by name as a progenitor of illegitimate ornament. "Where will Olbrich‟s work be in ten years‟ time? Modern ornament has no forebears and no descendants, no past and no future. It is joyfully welcomed by uncultivated people to whom the true greatness of our time is a closed book, and after a short time is rejected." Because of this, it struck him that it was a crime to waste the effort needed to add ornamentation, when the ornamentation would cause the object to soon go out of style. The crucial argument against such redundant ornament was not only that it was wasteful in labour and material, but that it invariably implied a form of craft slavery for the modern man who sees no value in creating such ornaments. "Today, mankind is healthier than ever before; only a few are ill. These few, however, tyrannise the worker, who is so healthy he is incapable of inventing ornament. They force him to execute ornament which they have designed, in the most diverse materials." For Loos, ornament was only for those to whom the highest achievements of bourgeois culture were inaccessible and can only find their aesthetic fulfilment in the creation of ornament.
With these provocative words, Adolf Loos created uproar among his Viennese contemporaries for his misinterpreted intention to suppress all ornamentation in modern architecture. Outside Austria where it was removed from the context of the Viennese Secessionists he was addressing, it was received as a purist manifesto with the slippage of meaning that ornament is crime, and that all those who adorn their buildings and possessions with ornaments are criminals or degenerates. The fact remains that Loos only called for suppression in ornaments from articles of daily use, or functional objects, and not in all forms of ornament. He did not criticise the grammar of classical ornament as he did with the superfluous ornamentation of the Secessionists, nor did he do so with geometric decoration inherent in materials – both of which he approved of and in fact practiced to a large degree. Thus it is important to remember that Loos did not challenge historical references in architectural ornamentation, but merely the false usage that was common to that age.
In this respect, Adolf Loos shares a similar stand point with Charles Rennie Mackintosh. Mackintosh too discarded the heavy ornamentation and inherited styles of Victorian England that had no relevance to his Scottish heritage. His firm belief was that 'construction should be decorated, and not decoration constructed,' such that only 'the salient and most requisite features should be selected for ornamentation'. In a talk he gave in February 1893 he said: "How absurd it is to see modern churches, theatres, banks, museums, exchanges, municipal buildings, art galleries etc, made in imitation of Greek temples. I am quite conscious of the dignity of Greek temples… but to be imported into this country and set up for such varied purposes, they must surely lose all their dignity…. There are many such buildings in Glasgow but to be they are as cold and lifeless as the cheek of a dead Chinaman."
Mackintosh believed that classical architecture lived because it had purpose, but in his present day the shameless plagiarism of style had made such buildings a mere envelope without contents. Like Loos, he was dissatisfied with the false usage of styles and ornamentation. Instead, his solution was to build around the needs of the people as individuals who needed not a machine for living in but a work of art. His designs were imbued with symbolism that referred to his Glasgow roots, and this can be best seen in his now famous design for the Glasgow School of Art.
Main façade of Adolf Loos' Goldman & Salatsch building
When compared to the Goldman & Salatsch building in Vienna by Adolf Loos, also known as the Looshaus, it can be seen that Loos similarly transgressed the rules of classical composition to suit his needs. The columns of the central entrance were lengthened by shafts instead of elevating them on pedestals. The steps on the front of the building were also set out between rather than before the columns, and the too-thin lintel was clearly an iron bar. The façade of the Goldman & Salatsch building also had ornamental columns devoid of structural justification. These columns were neither in line with classicism‟s addition of form to the basic functional nature of columns, nor was it in keeping with Modernists‟ emphasis on structural integrity. These ornamental columns expressed the cultural integrity that Loos was arguing for. In this case the columns are not merely decorative, but provide the same classical grammar as the rest of the buildings in the plaza to integrate the Looshaus to the plaza. In this respect Loos demonstrated how modern architecture could have integrity and relation to the classical order without having to blindly copy classicalstyle and its superfluous ornamentation.
Relationship between the Goldman & Salatsch building and its context
Both Mackintosh and Loos believed in truth in ornamentation. This is not to be confused with the Modernists rhetoric of truth in construction. Loos had used ornament where he felt appropriate to preserve the cultural integrity of the building, but where there was no perceived purpose, he was not compelled to provide decoration. Loos observed that "on the ground floor and mezzanine, where the shop has established itself, that is where modern commercial life demands a modern solution" yet at the same time "modern man, who hurries through the streets, sees only that which is that his eye-level. Today, nobody has the time to look at statues on top of roofs." Thus the residential suites in the upper portion of the Goldman & Salatsch building was deliberately left unadorned, with only three-pane windows piercing the smooth stucco walls, making the building a combination of these two different zones, residential and commercial, as two materially autonomous halves. In doing so, Loos was being highly specific in his treatment of each space and demonstrating an honesty in his use of ornamentation where required. This too was prevalent in Mackintosh‟s Glasgow School of Art.
As much as it was hailed as a total work of art, the Glasgow School of Art is in fact hardly ornamented as compared to the Gothic Revival buildings of the same period. Mackintosh believed more in restraint and economy of means and simplicity of form rather than ostentatious accumulation of patterns and ornament. The main façade of the school is mostly unadorned, apart from the arch over the main entrance detailed as two women holding roses, whose dresses flow down to form the surrounding moulding. Where there was ornament, it was cleverly integrated into the structure, like the rosebuds in the detail of the brackets on the studio windows and the main entrance which were adopted by Mackintosh as the symbol of the Scottish art movement (as opposed to the tree of life as the symbol of the English Arts and Craft movement), or the lightning mast fashioned as a tree with a bird atop, symbolic of the coat of arms of Glasgow. The walls, ceilings and floors of the studios in the school remain bare and white-washed, while perhaps the library is the only space that is fully decorated by Mackintosh. Thus in this respect, Mackintosh is also practising the same sensibility in his specific treatment of the various spaces within the school as Adolf Loos did with the Goldman & Salatsch building, instead of plastering the building with a homogenous coat of irrelevant ornaments.
As much as it was hailed as a total work of art, the Glasgow School of Art is in fact hardly ornamented as compared to the Gothic Revival buildings of the same period. Mackintosh believed more in restraint and economy of means and simplicity of form rather than ostentatious accumulation of patterns and ornament. The main façade of the school is mostly unadorned, apart from the arch over the main entrance detailed as two women holding roses, whose dresses flow down to form the surrounding moulding. Where there was ornament, it was cleverly integrated into the structure, like the rosebuds in the detail of the brackets on the studio windows and the main entrance which were adopted by Mackintosh as the symbol of the Scottish art movement (as opposed to the tree of life as the symbol of the English Arts and Craft movement), or the lightning mast fashioned as a tree with a bird atop, symbolic of the coat of arms of Glasgow. The walls, ceilings and floors of the studios in the school remain bare and white-washed, while perhaps the library is the only space that is fully decorated by Mackintosh. Thus in this respect, Mackintosh is also practising the same sensibility in his specific treatment of the various spaces within the school as Adolf Loos did with the Goldman & Salatsch building, instead of plastering the building with a homogenous coat of irrelevant ornaments.
Interior of the Goldman & Salatsch building
Detail of book-matched marble and stair banister
However, perhaps the only point where Mackintosh and Adolf Loos differed was in their treatment of these specific spaces. As a man with a passion for understated elegance in fashion, Loos‟ taste was similarly seen in his architecture. He combined practicality and English elegance with rare textures and finely worked materials in his treatment of interiors. In the Goldman & Salatsch building, Loos worked with a variety of materials to lend it an air of extravagance and grandeur. There was a predominance of unified surfaces (walls and draperies) and ornamentation in the presence of certain abstract patterns inherent in the cladding materials. Floors were made from veined marble, while walls were panelled with polished wood up to picture-rail level, above which mirrors, fabric and shiny copper fittings were combined to create an atmosphere of warmth and opulence that referred to Anglo- Saxon interiors. Thus in his choice and combination of materials, Loos had used ornaments to create an atmosphere and quality of space, rather than simply a means of meaningless decoration.
On the contrary, Mackintosh was more concerned with the symbolic potential of architectural ornament to create relevance in his present-day context. In particular, he was highly influenced by Lethaby‟s Architecture Mysticism and Myth of 1892 and sought to express the universal metaphysical basis of all architectural symbolism through his design, forming a bridge between the other-worldliness of Celtic mysticism and the more pragmatic Arts and Crafts approach of creation of form. Mackintosh derived a system of symbols of his own. He believed that the square and the circle were two symbols that were constant to all races, societies and countries, and used them throughout the school to symbolise the universal constant of body and reality. Mackintosh also loved nature and often drew inspiration from it for his art. As such he also included many motifs of ants, insects and birds in the doors and fixtures in the school to symbolise art workers in nature. But it is only in the library of the Glasgow School of Art where all these symbols truly come together. The library is austere and geometrical and executed in dark wood throughout, with Mackintosh‟s symbols embedded in the desk, chairs, light fittings and window panels of the library to create a total work of art. Even with Mackintosh‟s symbolic approach to ornamentation, when considered as a totality in this manner, the ornaments likewise were able to transcend from being mere decoration to having an ability to evoke an atmospheric quality of space, as with the interiors of the Goldman & Salatsch building.
On the contrary, Mackintosh was more concerned with the symbolic potential of architectural ornament to create relevance in his present-day context. In particular, he was highly influenced by Lethaby‟s Architecture Mysticism and Myth of 1892 and sought to express the universal metaphysical basis of all architectural symbolism through his design, forming a bridge between the other-worldliness of Celtic mysticism and the more pragmatic Arts and Crafts approach of creation of form. Mackintosh derived a system of symbols of his own. He believed that the square and the circle were two symbols that were constant to all races, societies and countries, and used them throughout the school to symbolise the universal constant of body and reality. Mackintosh also loved nature and often drew inspiration from it for his art. As such he also included many motifs of ants, insects and birds in the doors and fixtures in the school to symbolise art workers in nature. But it is only in the library of the Glasgow School of Art where all these symbols truly come together. The library is austere and geometrical and executed in dark wood throughout, with Mackintosh‟s symbols embedded in the desk, chairs, light fittings and window panels of the library to create a total work of art. Even with Mackintosh‟s symbolic approach to ornamentation, when considered as a totality in this manner, the ornaments likewise were able to transcend from being mere decoration to having an ability to evoke an atmospheric quality of space, as with the interiors of the Goldman & Salatsch building.
Left: Catalogue of symbolic ornaments in the Glasgow School of Art. First row: the square. Second row: nature‟s art workers. Third row: Mackintosh‟s rosebud. Last row: Glasgow coat of arms.
Right: Interior of library at Glasgow School of Art
Right: Interior of library at Glasgow School of Art
Therefore Charles Mackintosh and Adolf Loos were in fact highly similar in their view towards architectural ornamentation. Yet as history would have it, Mackintosh was hijacked by the Viennese Secessionists as an example of their cause, thus placing Mackintosh and Loos in two directly opposing camps regarding the topic of ornamentation. Disregarding such historical prejudice and comparing them side-by-side, we have seen that both men realised the need for relevance in ornaments to their present-day context. They referred to and adapted the classical language to their needs where necessary, yet were careful not to copy the classical style without reason. They were both also very specific yet sensitive in their treatment of spatial qualities. What Mackintosh and Loos presented were in fact two methods of architectural ornamentation, one symbolic and the other atmospheric, that were more than just aesthetics. In our present day where architecture has become increasingly preoccupied with program and function as well as the cold pragmatic problems of environmental sustainability and economy, perhaps we should look back at the two examples of Charles Mackintosh and Adolf Loos to ask ourselves how ornaments may add to our architecture, and more importantly, how do we use ornaments in the 21st century.
