The return of ornament?
In 1908, the Austrian architect, designer, and theorist Adolf Loos published an incendiary treatise entitled “Ornament and Crime.”
The essay equated the use of ornamentation in late nineteenth and early twentieth century architecture and design with the destruction of culture and society.
Loos felt strongly that ornament had no meaning or place within contemporary culture, even going so far as to argue that ornament actually hindered society’s progress. Specifically, Loos viewed superfluous ornament as an epidemic, one that contributed to the obsolescence of objects. He advocated for simplicity, because simple objects never go out of style and therefore would be treasured for all time
While Modernist arguments against ornament emphasized that decoration had previously been used as a distraction from the inevitable flaws of handcraftsmanship, today’s technological innovations have allowed architects to turn this functionalist argument back on itself. Made possible by new design and fabrication techniques, is the use of ornament in today’s interior architecture a testament to today’s technological progress?
So yea, my opinion of today's ornament role is the combination of technological, cultural, economic, environmental, artistic task and so on that depends on the scenario that needed for the place of sense and the community.
With today’s technological advances and the possibility of merging ornament and form, simply assigning current architecture to one of these two camps is to misunderstand them. There has emerged a new contemporary ornamental typology, the parameters of which are worth further investigation. And one thing that mutual between traditional ornament and today's ornament which is both the sign of a decadent society, something like the icon of the place/ building with luxury cost or advance technology and etc.
For example,
National
Olympic
Stadium
BEIJING, CHINA
Although the stadium’s curving steel nest grabs the most attention, the building actually combines a pair of structures: a bright-red concrete bowl for seating and the iconic steel frame around it. Sight lines from the seats to the playing field helped determine the form and dimensions of the concrete bowl, while the need to include a heavy retractable roof (a requirement in the competition brief) informed the giant crisscrossing steel members on the outside of the building. Because the architects disliked the massive parallel beams necessary to support the retractable roof, they developed a lacy pattern for the other steel elements to disguise them.
Apparently, it’s the bird spit that makes their nests so delicious. And so with buildings, it seems. A bit of ornamental steel hasn’t done China’s or Herzog de Meuron’s reputations any harm. Nor OMA’s for that matter.
For me, the National Stadium is what Harvey described “a blend of traditional, contemporary, and newly-invented forms”.
The elements of postmodern space in the National Stadium can be seen “a symbol of Beijing's forward thinking”.
The stadium is a reflection of development of civilization; and it will, to some extent, influence and promote the development of culture in China.
Whatever happened to ornament?
Is it a crime or a legitimate form of expression?
What if a building's shape was a form of ornamentation?
It is in trying to answer questions like these that forces us to adopt a much broader perspective on the question of modernism.
‘Ornament is the language through which architecture communicates with a broader public - each remove puts another degree of separation between the profession and the public’
