Architectural Essay (Parallel Modernity in Architecture)

Essay Adolf Loos and Vienna

Chai Xin Yi 22559354

ARCT2010 PARALLEL MODERNITIES IN ARCHITECTURE Isabel Rousset May 06, 2019

1

Adolf Loos and Vienna Adolf Loos, Fig. 1, is known to be one of the founders of modern architecture and the best-known critic for ornamentation. This essay aims to evaluate how successful Adolf Loos’s architectural works correspond to his stand that ‘ornament is a crime’, where his stand was for architecture to abandon ornamentation. In his manifesto “Ornament and Crime”, Fig. 2, Loos elaborated the nature of his argument with the Viennese Succession. 1 The understanding of Adolf Loos’ works also reflects the relationship between architecture, culture and ornament in Vienna society. There are a few building examples presented in this comparative analysis and these include the Loos’s apartment, Goldman & Salatsch Building (Looshaus), Villa Mueller, Scheu House and contrasted with Le Corbusier’s Maison Plainex. There is a philosophy behind what it means for ornamentation to exist in architecture, and how Loos portrayed everyday life in his architectural works. It argues that Adolf Loos’ buildings represent an artistic identity of middle class in Vienna society, Fig. 3, during a period where the movement modern architecture was still to define its own identity.

Fig. 3- Adolf Loos, Otto Mayer from Wikimedia Commons (1870-1933)

1

Fig. 2- Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays, Loos and Opel (1998)

Fig. 1- 1900s Vienna, City of London Sinfonia (CLS)

Kenneth Frampton, Modern Architecture : a Critical History. 4th ed. (London: Thames & Hudson,

2007), 90.

2

Ornamentation and Labours When the ornament is present, the cost of an article tends to be increased. As ornament is not considered a “natural product of culture”, the craftsmen who crafted this ornament was not appropriately rewarded. The absence of ornament led to shorter manufacturing time and an increase in wages.2 Loos’s final argument against ornament agrees that it was wasteful in labour and material resources.3 He believed that such ornamental services and attainment were not for those craftsmen who could only find their aesthetic fulfilment in the spontaneous creation of ornament, as shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4- Architecture in Vienna, Paul Beinssen

Public Perception (Mixed-use Projects) Looshaus, Fig. 5, was an influential building that caused controversy and was seen as a “scandalous” during the period of construction and even after the building was built. It was located in a historically strategic within Vienna that is directly opposite Hofburg Palace, Fig. 6.

The Looshaus signifies the meeting of the medieval town (represents memory) and the modern city (represents creation).4 Unlike its neighbouring buildings, the Looshaus does not relate to the style of the palace. There was no ornament and it was a rejection of the ring Strasse style. This lack of ornament then aroused anger in Vienna society.5

Fig. 5- Adolf Loos, Headquarters Building, Goldman and Salatsch, also known as Looshaus, Gentlemen’s outfitters (1909-11) 2

Fig. 6- Looshaus is situated in the Michaelerplatz Plaza, directly across from the Hofburg Plaza

Ulrich Conrads, Programmes and Manifestoes on 20th Century Architecture. (London: Lund

Humphries, 1970), 22.

3

Frampton, Modern Architecture : a Critical History, 91.`

4

Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos, 116.

5

Nigel Westbrook, “Adolf Loos and Central European Modernism” (lecture, University of Western

Australia, Crawley, WA, March 19, 2019).

3

In the end, the outcome after much public debate was the compromise that the client would install three rows of windows boxes with flowers as shown in Fig. 7. Loos’s argument for lack of ornament was that “a modern man who hurries down through the streets sees only that which is at his eye level. Today nobody has the time to look at statues on top of roofs.”6 The reasons Loos explained to the public were presented as simple and logical. However, in the eyes of Viennese people back then, the simplicity resulted in ugliness and hence, disfigured the site.7 This is an example of how Loos attempted to portray his site analysis and design thinking in his works, but the public may perceive it differently and not accept this form of aesthetic.

The argument of architectural beauty and ornamentation is also evident in the building elements. Looshaus is different from the typology of the department store, the commercial and residential aspects of the store are vertically separated. The façade has 4 Doric columns and greets visitors with bronze and glass windows (public realm) which transitions to white stucco windows (residential realm) with no ornament present. The columns, Fig. 8, are neither decorative surfaces nor are they real structure and they do not serve any pragmatic functions.8 Similarly, the same effect was also achieved in Sigmund Steiner’s feather boutique (Vienna, 1906-1907). Loos defended himself by claiming that the non-load-bearing columns played no structural role and the materials used were still true to their integrity.9 Loos always selects his material palette to best represent the character of each client. Hence, these elements were not ornamental, and they are part of the architecture.

Fig. 7- Close up on façade window details

Fig. 8- Close up on columns as a form of public frontage.

6

Westbrook, “Adolf Loos and Central European Modernism”.

7

Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos, 17.

8

Westbrook, “Adolf Loos and Central European Modernism”.

9

Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos, 49, 51.

4

Everyday Life (Domestic Projects) In terms of how Loos used different materials to its fullest potential, there was always a question if Loos contradicted himself about the necessity of removing the ornament from functional objects. Some factors of consideration included if the furniture was integrated with the structure, if so, then it cannot be truly considered furniture. 10 This resulted in the fine distinction between decoration (which reinforces the structural logic) and ornamentation (a parasitic after-thought which upsets the constructive logic). He still used simple forms with a purpose and honest use of materials proposed. In other words, how he introduced decoration during his time was acceptable in today’s context, but it may be misunderstood as lacking ornamentation and deemed as so by the Viennese society back then.

Firstly, Loos made changes to the existing structural elements of his existing house to achieve a sense of continuity between the main areas- living room and dining room, Fig. 9-11.

He had the intention to join the reception and intimate spaces. To realize this, he introduced false ceilings to reduce and define volumes. Loos emphasizes on his position that “different rooms require different heights according to their function” more than simply fully utilizing the spaces.11

Fig. 9- Interior view of Loos’s living room

10 11

Fig. 10- Continuous view depicting sense of connection between spaces

Fig. 11- Interior view of Loos’s dining room

Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos, 56, 58.

Panayotis Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos. (New York, N.Y: Princeton Architectural Press, 1994), 33.

5

There are a few common characteristics amongst Loos’ apartment renovations: the majority of the walls are unified surfaces, an axial arrangement of space, and removal of ornament, with certain abstract patterns present that make up for it.12 He followed the concept of home and respect that its entity should only answer to the well-being of the inhabitants.13 The internal spaces look through a framed opening to view the main living space and this example of framing the view is much like Frank Lloyd Wright did, Fig. 12, internal glimpses and vistas.

Fig. 12- Freeman House, Frank Lloyd Wright’s least famous textile-block home (1953)

A sense of poetry and theatrical quality were present in Loos’s Mueller House built in Prague, 1930.14 It is evident that there is a contrasting relationship present between the interior and exterior. The complexity of spatial qualities can be seen in the section drawing, Fig. 13, and it brings out many of Loos’s design and concepts. Firstly, the exterior, Fig. 14, is conceived in a cubic form. Secondly, the raumplan plays with different levels in a large space according to the habitation needs. The transition between public and private spaces and layering of both light and spaces are also expressed from how “a simple cubic white plan with windows are arranged to suit the interior”.15 The manner in which Loos used the free arrangement of levels within the interior spaces to create gradual levels of intimacy shows that his design gestures are in line with his ideologies of abandoning ornamentation.

Fig. 13- Section drawing of Villa Mueller

Fig. 14- Villa Mueller, Adolf Loos, Prague (1930), displaying its cubic shape, white and austere façade

12

Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos, 33.

Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos, 40.

14 Benedetto Gravagnuolo and C. H. Evans, Adolf Loos, theory and works. (New York: Rizzoli, 1982), 13

201-203.

15

Westbrook, “Adolf Loos and Central European Modernism”.

6

The Scheu house, Fig. 15, built in Vienna in 1913 by Loos was a pioneering European example of a flat roof used as an outdoor terrace and later interpreted by modernists as anticipation of cubism. This was a key building that played an important role and contributed to the development of early 20 th-century architecture, in a time when the worth of flat roofs was widely discussed. The antiqued form of a flat roof redefined itself innovations of new construction and materials.

Fig. 15- Scheu House, Adolf Loos, Vienna (1913), photographed by Margherita Spiluttini

The interiors of these simple houses, Fig 16-17, are warm and comfortable, even traditional in character, originating from an interpretation of the English Arts and Crafts movement. Although it came out to the world as an architecture “without qualities, rejecting Art Nouveau and the picturesque,16 the house was still successful because there is no avantgarde experience of how people lived, which shows that Loos accepts the realities of everyday life. Looking from a client’s perspective, Mr Scheu, a lawyer had forward-thinking sensibilities and Viennese mentality in line with the garden city movement, which brought the client and the architect on the same frequency to understand and accept of Loos’s rational choices. The Scheu House seems to be more successful in terms of being well received by the private client as compared to the Looshaus which created debates by the public.

Fig. 16- Interior view of Scheu House living area

16

Fig. 17- Interior view of Mueller House’s living area

Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos, 79, 81.

7

Raumplan (Adolf Loos) vs Plan Libre (Le Corbusier) The Raumplan, or ‘plan of volumes’, a complex system of internal organization that culminated in the split-level houses realized towards the end of Loos’s life.17 Loos was quoted as saying, “My work does not really have a ground floor, first floor or basement. It only has connected rooms, annexes, terraces. Each room requires a particular height… The rooms must then be connected in such a way as to make the transition imperceptible, and to effect it in a natural and efficient fashion.”18 He is an expert in the art of spatial arrangement- circulation, built-in furniture and cladding, Fig, 18-19- which he perceived to be the first role of “living conditions”.19 It would mean the same to equip accommodation and providing advice.

Fig. 19- Villa Mueller, Adolf Loos, Prague (1930), capturing the cabinet as this space is the most articulated room of the house

Fig. 18- Villa Mueller, Adolf Loos, Prague (1930), showing the living room as the center of the cultural life of the family

There is a sense of distinction between Loos’s and Le Corbusier’s theories which focus on the purpose of rationalism and materiality, on the needs and means of function. For Loos, it was the idea that fittings, utensils and “raumplan” fundamentally fit together; for Le Corbusier, it was the idea that standardized objects in “plan libre” orientates itself in forms of cube, cone and sphere as its basis for composition. The main differences between these two architects can be concluded as: firstly, Le Corbusier’s utopian beliefs in the industry and machine.

17

Frampton, Modern Architecture : a Critical History, 93.

18

Cynthia Jara, "Adolf Loos's "Raumplan" Theory." (Journal of Architectural Education (1984-) 48, no.

3, 1995: 185-201. doi:10.2307/1425353), 188.

19

Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos, 32.

8

Secondly, Le Corbusier’s stand that architecture belongs to the realm of “art”. 20 Le Corbusier rejected decoration in a similar manner as to how Loos rejected ornamentation and chose to place utilitarian objects beyond the realms of “art”. This further brings forward the idea that Le Corbusier stands that architecture falls under the artistic realm, which contrasted with Loos’s stand that only architectural forms such as the tomb and monument belong to art and everything else that serves a purpose were to be excluded from the artistic realm. 21

Towards the end of Loos’s career, he was designing houses with facades that look similar to the works of Le Corbusier. For example, Loos’s Mueller House built in Vienna in 1928, Fig. 20 can be studied together with Le Corbusier’s Maison Planeix built in Paris in 1927, Fig. 21. Both buildings appear to be almost the same, but they both have very different concepts. Loos’s raumplan was constructed by accessing the existing needs of the inhabitants, and the existing pattern of life of the clients; while Le Corbusier’s free plan was constructed to invite and encourage its inhabitants to live in a new way.22 The raumplan different from the free plan in terms of their nature against simplistic functions that would lessen the complications of human lifestyles to a machine culture. Loos’s works were briefly in line with the international style, while Le Corbusier’s works are more towards the technological aspect.

Fig. 20- Loos Mueller House, Adolf Loos, Vienna (1928)

20

Fig. 21- Maison Planeix, Le Corbusier, Paris (1927)

Max Risselada and Beatriz Colomina. Raumplan Versus Plan Libre : Adolf Loos and Le Corbusier,

1919-1930. (New York: Rizzoli, 1989), 22-24.

21

Frampton, Modern Architecture : a Critical History, 92.

22

Westbrook, “Adolf Loos and Central European Modernism”.

9

Lessons from Adolf Loos There are a few lessons from Adolf Loos because his works reflect the rational thinking and straightforward personality. He has shown examples of how his works exemplify the dualities of both being traditional and modern, by paying attention from the details of understanding the client’s lifestyle, to reject ornamentation and adhering to the functional clarity. Loos “chose authentic marble because all imitation displaces him, and he reduced the decoration to a minimum because the Viennese bourgeoisie constructs simply…” He was making all these design decisions with rational thinking that motivated him and it further highlights his honesty to the integrity of the material palette. In his own right, Loos was a successful architect in Vienna although his works might not be fully appreciated understood at that point in time.

In conclusion, some of Loos’s key works were grounded in doubt, irony and faced rejection and negativity in Viennese society. Despite this, he had also placed great emphasis on everyday life and the importance of the role of an architect, more so than any romantic ideal of how the inhabitants live. This draws a parallel connection to our contemporary lives today and it makes me reflect upon what do these ornament in architecture mean today? Do they define and represent our society or would minimalistic forms that respect the functions of the architecture and way of life be how we move forward? For me, perhaps architecture is a form of art, and art takes different forms in realities from the way we dress to the way we live and what we do in different spaces. For Loos, architecture is both deep in its connection to existence and the possibility in the world of modernity. In my opinion, the definition of what is modern is not universal, as what is modern for one individual might not be perceived as the same for another individual. In today’s context, a good design is one which meets the client’s needs, and the intervention is also a balance between incorporating the existing lifestyle of people and encouraging new ways of looking at how to use the spaces.

10

Endnotes 1.

1

Kenneth Frampton, Modern Architecture : a Critical History. 4th ed. (London: Thames &

Hudson, 2007), 90.

2.

1

Ulrich Conrads, Programmes and Manifestoes on 20th Century Architecture. (London: Lund

Humphries, 1970), 22.

3.

1

Frampton, Modern Architecture : a Critical History, 91.

4.

1

Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos, 116.

5.

1

Nigel Westbrook, “Adolf Loos and Central European Modernism” (lecture, University of

Western Australia, Crawley, WA, March 19, 2019).

6.

1

Westbrook, “Adolf Loos and Central European Modernism”.

7.

1

Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos, 17.

8.

1

Westbrook, “Adolf Loos and Central European Modernism”.

9.

10.

11.

1

12.

13.

14.

1

Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos, 49, 51.

Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos, 56, 58.

1 Panayotis Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos. (New York, N.Y: Princeton Architectural Press, 1994), 33.

1

Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos, 33.

Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos, 40.

1 Benedetto Gravagnuolo and C. H. Evans, Adolf Loos, theory and works. (New York: Rizzoli, 1

1982), 201-203.

15.

1

Westbrook, “Adolf Loos and Central European Modernism”.

16.

1

Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos, 79, 81.

17.

18.

1

Frampton, Modern Architecture : a Critical History, 93.

Cynthia Jara, "Adolf Loos's "Raumplan" Theory." (Journal of Architectural Education

1

(1984-) 48, no. 3, 1995: 185-201. doi:10.2307/1425353), 188.

19.

20.

1 1

Tournikiotis. Adolf Loos, 32.

Max Risselada and Beatriz Colomina. Raumplan Versus Plan Libre : Adolf Loos and Le

Corbusier, 1919-1930. (New York: Rizzoli, 1989), 22-24.

21.

22.

1 1

Frampton, Modern Architecture : a Critical History, 92.

Westbrook, “Adolf Loos and Central European Modernism”.

11

Bibliography Conrads, Ulrich. Programmes and Manifestoes on 20th Century Architecture. London: Lund Humphries, 1970.

Frampton, Kenneth, Modern Architecture : a Critical History. 4th ed. London: Thames & Hudson, 2007.

Gravagnuolo, Benedetto., and Evans, C. H. Adolf Loos, theory and works. New York: Rizzoli, 1982.

Jara, Cynthia. "Adolf Loos's "Raumplan" Theory." Journal of Architectural Education (1984-) 48, no. 3, 1995: 185-201. doi:10.2307/1425353.

Opel, Daniel., and Loos, Adolf. On Architecture. Riverside, Calif: Ariadne Press, 2002.

Loos, Adolf. Spoken into the void : collected essays, 1897-1900. Cambridge, Mass: Published for the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts Chicago, Ill. and the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies New York, N.Y. by MIT Press, 1982.

Masheck, Joseph. Adolf Loos : the Art of Architecture. London: I.B. Tauris, 2013.

Picon, Antoine. Ornament : the Politics of Architecture and Subjectivity. Chichester: Wiley, 2013.

Risselada, Max., and Colomina, Beatriz. Raumplan Versus Plan Libre : Adolf Loos and Le Corbusier, 1919-1930. New York: Rizzoli, 1989.

Tournikiotis, Panayotis. Adolf Loos. New York, N.Y: Princeton Architectural Press, 1994.

Westbrook, Nigel. Adolf Loos and Central European Modernism. Lecture, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, March 19, 2019.

12

Image References 1900S Vienna. 2019. Image. https://cityoflondonsinfonia.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/1900svienna-a-whos-who/.

2019. Image. https://looshaus.wordpress.com/author/looshaus/.

2019. Image. http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/michaelerplatz/index.html.

2019. Image. https://www.vienna-unwrapped.com/adolf-loos-vienna/.

2019. Image. https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/adolf-loos-pilsen-czech-republic.

2019.

Image. https://www.pilsen.eu/tourist/visit/the-best-from-pilsen/loos-sinteriors/chap_71278/looss-interiors.aspx.

2019. Image. https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/villa-mueller/.

2019. Image. https://www.azw.at/en/event/haus-scheu/.

Beinssen, Paul. 2019. Image. https://www.thoughtco.com/architecture-in-vienna-for-casualtraveler-177742.

Loos, Adolf, and Adolf Opel. 1998. Ornament And Crime. Riverside, CA: Ariadne Press.

Mayer, Otto. 2019. Adolf Loos. Image. https://www.archdaily.com/576187/spotlight-adolfloos/5486a564e58ecec795000127-adolfloos-2-jpg.

“I Do Not Draw Plans, Facades Or Sections”: Adolf Loos And The Villa Müller. 2019. Image. http://socksstudio.com/2014/03/03/i-do-not-draw-plans-facades-or-sections-adolf-loos-and-the-villa-muller/.

2019. Image. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/527554543822457108/ 2019. Image. http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/planeix/

13