It is not a problem of ornament or not ornament, but as a problem of meaning
In architecture and decorative art, ornament is a decoration used to embellish parts of a building or object. Ornament began and known as luxury in history. The more ornamented a building, a piece of clothing or an item of jewellery, the more labour has gone into its production and the more expensive it is. This was then opposed in 1908 when Architect Adolf Loos have published an article "ornament and crime" which defined ornament ‘a crime’.
According to the first text, “Original Text”, Adolf Loos supports simplicity and minimalism (removal of ornamentation) in modern architecture in which concerned of economic aspect such as for the price of human labor, money and materials. It is true that economic aspect is one of the critical reason to less demand for ornamentation today but however, a consumer is not aware of the values an ornament beholds in the future; just like antiques. As these are kept and preserved over time, its age is a key determinant of its value. An ornament leaves a visual legacy for the future generations, it is something money cannot buy; priceless. But that is if and only if the ornament stands for a reason or else it values nothing as phrased, “Modern ornament has no parents and no offspring, no past and no future” in Original Text by Adolf Loos, “Ornament and Crime”.
Unfortunately, in my point of view, the role of ornament in architecture today is predominantly done for the sake of artistic and beautification purposes only as emphasized in “Reflective Text” by Reyner Banham, “Ornament and Crime: The Decisive Contribution of Adolf Loos”. The current modern ornamented building are designed solely for attraction than a plain, undecorated building but this comes into argument with the philosophy “Less is more” by Ludwig Mies Van Der during the contemporary architecture in 21st century which later then, became a huge influential architectural style. The Miesian paradox “Less is more” was replaced with the jibe “Less is a bore” when Robert Venturi wrote Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (1966). By right, we should understand that especially with new technologies and etc, a building can be expressed and represented in many ways, such as its design form, concept, style, movement etc and not only with ornamentation depending individual’s preferences.
So, is it…
Less is more or Less is a bore?
In Philosophical Text by Joseph Rykwert, “Ornament is No Crime” states “Architecture was concerned primarily with necessity, and its true essential beauty depended on a direct and economic satisfaction of man’s most urgent physical needs.” It is not a problem of ornament or not ornament, but as a problem of meaning. Consumer should not forgets the origin purpose of ornamentation, which is to symbolize and signify the cultural values of a place as quoted by Adolf Loos,
‘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’
As for that, the idea of ornamentation should be continue in both traditional and modern way.
