ADOLF LOOS

Adolf Loos was an Austrian architect born in 1870 in Brno, Moravia, an area that now belongs to the Czech Republic but used to be part of the AustroHungarian Empire. He received a technical education at the Royal and Imperial State Technical College and then continued his studies at the Dresden College of Technology, but he never completed the course.65

In his early years, he travelled to America. He stayed in Chicago, where he visited the World’s Columbian Exposition, to which attended a diverse range of renowned architects such as Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright. He stayed in the country for three years and worked different jobs that were not related to architecture. Nonetheless, his stay in the country allowed him to develop his architectural ideas, thanks to the influence of American architects, and a refined taste in clothing.66 Then he returned to Europe in 1896, more specifically to Vienna, where he started to work designing interiors and wrote his first essays and articles focused on architecture. 67

Loos is known for his criticism of all aspects of life, which he published in different articles and essays. At the beginning of his career, he associated with the Vienna secession, but as he did not share the same aesthetic values as his colleagues, he distanced himself from the Secession and rejected their views. His later writings criticising the values and ideals that the Viennese Secession defended, similar to those of the Art Nouveau, caused a dispute between the two that persisted throughout his life.68

The numerous writings he published during his life show how highly he thought of the American and Anglo-Saxon culture, believing that the AngloAmerican culture was fundamental to improving life quality.69 In 1903, he published Das Andere – The Other – a small journal that was a supplement to the art magazine Kunst and which aimed to, as it says in its cover, introduce the Western culture into Austria.70 Only two issues of the journal were published, in which he discussed a diverse number of topics, from furniture, architecture, and wallpaper, to suicide, sex and gambling. On the first issue, he shows his interest in fashion by writing a column on clothing, defending that people should always be well dressed, and explaining what it was to be correctly dressed. Additionally, his interest in fashion is also seen in the advertisements he designed for the cover. The businesses did not pay for these commercials; they were recommendations that Loos believed people should know about because of the quality of their work, so he designed the advertisements and published them without any compensation.71 In the two issues that were published, the only business that appears twice on the cover (fig.15 and 16), and with not less than half a page each time, is Goldman and Salatsch, his tailors of choice and for whom he would end up designing a store a few years later, showing his interest in fashion since his early years.

Although Das Andere only had two issues, Loos continued writing essays for most of his life, which he had time for as his practice was relatively small. In contrast to Henry van de Velde, who only published a few written works, the recollection of writings is broad and diverse.72

Adolf Loos and Henry van de Velde practised architecture during the same time, but their ideas on the profession differed enough to cause an antipathy towards each other, which Loos was not afraid to show. In 1900, Loos wrote a story named The Poor Little Rich Man, published along with his recollection of essays in Spoken into the Void. The story was a critique of Henry van de Velde’s design of Bloemenwerf and the design principles behind it; he described how ridiculous the idea of a total work of art is and explains explicitly how people will be unhappy when functional disciplines - such as architecture - are treated as art, and when someone tries to include art in their everyday life. 73

Nevertheless, Loos and Van de Velde also share some views in both disciplines. Although with slight differences, they share similar architectural principles concerning the application of ornament and the way of approaching building design. In fashion, they coincide in ideals as the simplification of female dressing. Furthermore, Semper’s theories on the origins of architecture influenced both of them, provoking that both of them considered fashion as functional as architecture.

In contrast to van de Velde, whose implication in fashion is a consequence of his desire of reforming all the applied arts and his wife’s involvement with the dress reform movement, Loos shows a broad interest in clothing and covers a wide range of issues on the topic, usually referring to the Vienna context. However, although Loos uses fashion repeatedly in his life, not only when writing about it but also in metaphors to discuss other topics, he does not have any garment designs attributed to him, so it is assumed he only approached fashion from a theoretical view, opposite to van de Velde, who designed various dresses as well as gave lectures on fashion.

This chapter will revise how the ideas that Loos applied to fashion were in synchrony with his ideas on architecture as he formulated a general theory to apply to every aspect of life. Furthermore, these ideas will be analysed and contrasted to those of van de Velde’s, which were analysed in the previous chapter.

What Is to Be Well Dressed?

After returning from the United States, Loos writes an essay on male clothing, in which he criticises the way German men dress and explains how they should dress. In this essay, he describes his ideas on fashion and defends a change, a development, in the way men should dress. He based these ideas on the practical and correct fashion of the English, more specifically on the clothes used in London, which he considered to be the centre of European culture.74

Loos disapproves of the outdated clothes used in the countryside of Germany, but as it is an uncultured part of society, there is not much that can be done about it, and therefore he does not dedicate much of his writing to discuss it. However, he found it outrageous that the civilised citizens of the German cities were still dressing in ornamented and unpractical garments that drew attention to themselves instead of following the fashion of the great modern nations, England and the United States.75

Years later, he addressed this topic again in Das Andere, referring to both genders’ clothes. In the magazine, he answered what it meant to be dressed in a modern way, which he equated with being correctly dressed: “One is dressed in the modern fashion when one is not conspicuous in centres of Western culture on a specific occasion in the BEST company”. 76 Furthermore, Loos defined what could be considered a modern garment that would be correct to wear: “An article of dress is modern if, when wearing it on a particular occasion in the best society at the centre of one’s culture, one attracts as little attention to oneself as possible”. 77

Loos defended uniformity and formality in street fashion, inspired by the English culture. These ideas have a close connection to van de Velde’s own ideas on fashion, such as what women should wear depending on the context, but with the difference that Loos applied his ideas to both female and male clothing, writing essays on both and giving advice on how to improve them.

Ornament, Crime and Ladies’ Fashion

One of his most famous essays, which clearly described his views on the application of ornament, is Ornament and Crime, written in 1908 but not published until 1913.78 In this piece, he defended that ornament is a crime and only criminals use it; he alluded to the ornament of the past, which was acceptable because it was part of the culture and it was not an evolved society. However, he defended that society needed to remove ornament from daily life objects for cultural evolution.79

Loos equates ornament with a waste of health, being harmful to society and culture, and therefore rejects its use when it is not necessary. This idea of using ornament only when is necessary is similar to van de Velde’s position on the topic. Still, Loos did not believe that ornament were needed in objects to emphasise their structure, nor differentiated between ornament and ornamentation; for him, both were the same. Loos argued that ornament was not necessary in any objects of daily use as it was a waste of health, capital, and it would only delay cultural development. Ornament did not have a purpose in a common object, and therefore in the making of it, there was a waste of manpower, which equated to a waste of health; the materials used on it will also be a waste, so it was also a waste of capital; and finally, as it was no longer a representation for culture, the use of ornament would only delay the development of civilisation.80

This essay was problematic because, at the time, the German State was promoting the creation of a new form of ornament in order to define a style that would match the culture and the society of the moment, but Loos affirmed that society had overcome ornament and there was no need to create a new kind of ornament, going against popular opinion. He did not only defend that the “modern style” had overcome ornament but that it was what had made the style special, as all the other styles were mainly differentiated from each other because of the ornament they applied but the modern style, as it was bare of decoration, it was its characteristics what differentiated it from other kinds of architecture.81

Furthermore, Loos rebels against the state’s remark on how ornament improves the quality of life by pointing out how he and the cultured people that surrounds him did not notice any increase in their quality of life when ornament was added to it. Although the advocates of ornament thought that the taste for simplicity was a mortification, he stayed firm on his view and continued to express how cultured people, the modern people, would have a more refined taste and keep moving apart from ornament.82

In the beginning of his essay, he mentions how all art is erotic, considering the first ornament, the cross a representation of sexuality. Considering his essay Ladies’ fashion, there is a connection between his view of ornament as erotic and its use on female clothing. On Ladies’ Fashion he firstly determined that women’s deeper desire is to “take her rightful place at the side of a great, strong man”. 83 Then, he describes how for this, women had used clothing, covering themselves in highly adorned, sensual garments that would make men curious about the underneath. Fashion followed fluctuations in sensuality, changing its appearance according to trends so women could always achieve their goal of seducing men.84

79. Loos, Ornament and Crime : Selected Essays, chap. Ornament and Crime.

80. Loos, chap. Ornament and Crime.

81. Loos, chap. Ornament and Crime.

82. Loos, chap. Ornament and Crime.

83. Loos, chap. Ladies’ Fashion.

However, Loos saw this as a barbarity claiming that women’s clothes allowed seeing the secret lust of mankind. He advocated a love based on women and men being companions, sharing a platonic love such as that described by the ancient Greeks, and he believed that in order to achieve this relationship, a development in female fashion was necessary.

He regrets the immense gap between the clothes of a free woman and that of a free man, which was more visible than ever before. Male clothing was formal and sober, creating a serious masculine image, while women’s clothes were saturated with lace and satins, emphasising the decorative and colourful long and pompous skirts, being a simple demonstration of sexuality.85

Loos saw that society was progressing towards a more restrained fashion as higher-class women were leaning towards a restrained and sober taste. In his essay mentions how women were finally on the right path, moving away from ornament, which would ultimately lead to their economic and intellectual independence.86 In Ornament and crime, he specifies that to be stripped of ornament was to be mentally strong, and in Ladies’ Fashion this might be interpreted as how women will become stronger, more independent once they are able to remove all ornament. Although Loos was not associated with the Dress Reform or feminism, in contrast to van de Velde, his arguments and reasons for reforming female clothing coincided more with the feminist ideals laid under the movement. As well, Loos does not allude to the need of a man, an artist in van de Velde’s case, for women to reach independence, not on life or in clothing.

Secondly, through his writings, he constantly remarked on the unnecessary use of ornament because of its lack of function and in female dresses, he justifies the elimination of ornament with the same argument; clothes is still a daily used object which does not require ornament as it does not contribute anything functional to the design.87

Functionality

Loos firmly believed that applied art does not exist.88 In his essay Art and Architecture, this is the first thing that was established, he defended that there is only art, there is nothing that could be an applied art, and architecture does not fall in the category of art. Loos defined architecture as a discipline created to meet society’s need for shelter; therefore, as buildings meet requirements, they have a function, and it cannot be considered art. A work of art does not need to meet the expectations of anyone but the artist, but a building needs to be at the standard of all its users and be functional for what it was built.89 This is probably the most significant difference between Loos’ and van de Velde’s ideas on architecture. Van de Velde, who was trained as an artist, defended the reform of the applied arts, including architecture, to improve society, while Loos simply rejected the existence of applied arts.

Furthermore, Loos sees functionality in architecture as a priority. Indeed, he claims that architects should strive to first know what effect they want the building to produce, then if it will meet the function and finally design the rooms accordingly. Loos followed these steps to create his characteristic floor plan model, the Raumplan. This form of designing buildings consisted of a spatial plan that changed the height and sizes of rooms depending on the room’s function; this way, waste of space would be avoided. According to him, this floor plan form should be more valued in terms of morality, as it was more economical, efficient, and therefore more functional.90

Although van de Velde and Loos considered architecture to belong in different categories, they approached architectural design in exceptionally similar ways. Van de Velde approached the design of Bloemenwerf by thinking first of all the functions it needed to be satisfied and then designing the rooms accordingly, resembling Loos’ Raumplan idea.

Loos applied functionality to everything in life, including his clothes. In his essays dedicated to fashion, he remarked how clothes needed to be practical. He condemned Germany for staying behind in fashion, claiming that no one could dress as nicely and practically as they could at the time, and still they continued to wear the unfunctional clothes from the past because they were too concerned with beauty.91 Taking as inspiration the Americans and the English once again, he expressed how in “the modern countries”, every man was expected to be well dressed, and a correct attire would not only reveal the man’s common sense but would be beautiful because it accomplished its function. Therefore, Loos saw fashion as a way to portray a polished and rational image proper of a modern man, including it in the same category that architecture falls as it has a function and it cannot be art.

Comparing Loos’ ideas on architecture, fashion, and function to van de Velde’s, it is possible to draw a connection for how they saw functionality in clothing. Firstly, as mentioned above, they both strive for functional buildings that will meet the required needs. And secondly, although their aim is different, they both use clothes to portray images and to achieve a beauty that would develop from practicality and logic.

Exterior and Interior

Loos criticises the German because they express their individuality by wearing odd and unusual clothes, using adventurous neckties, instead of appreciating the uniformity of delicate dress as the English and Americans do.92

When referring to architecture, Loos advocated a disparity between the interior and the exterior of a building, arguing that “the house should be silent to the outside, inside it should reveal its wealth” 93 He applied this principle to the design of his buildings, creating plain, simple façades that protect thoroughly considered interiors that showed the owners’ wealth. In his essay Architecture, he already connects this idea of differentiating the interior and the exterior of a building with fashion, creating a comparison about how the external appearance of buildings had changed as little as the tailcoat:

“And I looked at the old buildings, and saw how they emancipated themselves from ornamentation from century and year to year… had to become significantly less complicated in order to remain within the line of development. I had to replace the gold buttons with black ones.” 94

Various Scholars have argued the possibility of this separation between the interior and the exterior of a building being a gender separation; the exterior seen as a male, which needs to signify rationality and discipline, and the interior exemplifying the comfort, privacy and subjectivity of the female. However, this becomes a problem when analysing his interiors, mostly in his early designs which are designed resembling the interiors of English Men clubs. Nevertheless, although the interiors have a masculine feeling, they are comfortable and welcoming, which has been compared to men’s intimate apparel, such as silk smoking jackets.95 This connection between the interior and exterior of a building and the clothes a man uses depending on the context show once more how Loos ideas on fashion align with his ideas on architecture.

Likewise, this interpretation can be related to van de Velde’s own ideas on architecture. In his lecture on fashion, although originally addressed to women’s clothing, he mentions the different clothes women should wear depending on the context. In the street, women should wear clothes that were sober and do not give away their personality, while inside the house, their clothes should be the highest expression of themselves. Applied to men, Loos defended the same idea of changing appearance depending on the situation, but he did not apply it only to clothing, he translated this idea into an architectural principle.