Architectural Designs

Are there any other people left that consider architectural ornamentation a positive thing?

Since the beginnings of the Modernist artistic current, ornament has been rejected as frivolous, tasteless and lacking any aesthetic value. Austrian architect Adolf Loos even wrote an essay called "Ornament and Crime", in which he argued that architectural ornament is primitive and morally degenerate, and compared it to facial tattoos, a common form of body ornamentation in primitive cultures. I do not agree with this. In my opinion, ornamentation (when it is not excessive) only adds to the beauty of a building. I find modern architecture too rough, too geometric, unpleasantly contrasting with the natural environment. It seems... I don't know, cold and unwelcoming. All in all, I do not like it. My favorite architectural styles are Classical (especially Roman architecture) and Neoclassical, Gothic and a few fictional styles (like some of the styles from, say, Aion or WoW). Problem is, my opinion seems to be shared by very few people today. The exclusion of ornament from architecture is quasi-dogmatic, so to say. If I am ever to become an architect and want to design such a building, I'm afraid nobody would accept to have it designed like that. The International style seems to be the only one allowed. I wonder if there's anyone else that has the same views about this. I'm also interested in others' opinions on architectural ornamentation in general. Do you consider ornamentation a positive thing? Why?/Why not? @bigMik: Compare Marie Antoinette's bedroom with Gothic cathedrals and see which has more ornaments per square meter. That's the excessive ornamentation I was talking about. Also, I can imagine how much time and money it would take to build such a structure. I'm just saying that I think it's worth it-- some extra effort in exchange for wonderful buildings that would last over centuries. It's a luxury, one that humanity perhaps can't afford right now in these hard economic times, but maybe someday it will. Plus, I can't see why we couldn't use modern techniques to improve the process of ornamenting, to save money and time. I was looking for more like an aesthetic approach to this, not an economic one. You said you didn't like ornamentation, but didn't bring any arguments as to how beautiful/ugly you consider them.

Public Comments

1. Hello, I was just looking at a plain, angular lamppost today that the city has copied over and over and over down every street to try to make things pretty and it made me sad because it had no real attempt at beauty or ornamentation, just a pretty light filled geometrical shape. Mass produced does not have to be plain or lifeless, the beautiful entrances to the Paris Metro are incredible pieces of architecture that no city today would be able to make. I think that three causes in particular have lead to the bland, sad style of modern buildings. One is the need to make everything as cheaply and quickly as possible to bid under budget for projects. Curves and ornamentation cost money because they can not easily be extruded. There is some hope, even modest pressure, for example the Colorado "one percent for art" initiative, can result in a few surprisingly beautiful buildings. Budget is only one factor though, some of the things that can be done with straw bale buildings for instance can be very cheap and striking and beautiful but are difficult to describe in detail to a client. A second factor is the ubiquitous use of CAD programs to design and sell buildings and landscapes. It depresses me to a great extent to see an entire field graded within a few inches of what it previously was just to fit an autocad model. It is essential that the buildings and land work well and the tool that we currently use is just not up to the task of modeling complex shapes and real data (including interesting ornamentation). There is some home here too though as programs get more sophisticated the precision demanded by building codes and economists can be met by more interesting design now that programs are getting better and better, Look at the interesting work done with structural beams as ornamentation lately. The Bird's nest stadium in Beijing is not yet anywhere near as beautiful as some of the buildings of the past but it and others like it have pointed the way for people to use autocad and computer modeling to rediscover bold and beautiful art. The new wing of the Denver Art Museum is another example of a building built beyond the interational style and hinting at ornament and beauty to come. Finally I think that it is hard to convince committees that make decisions for the corporations who have the money to build great buildings that ornament or art that says anything bold or interesting. In the past great buildings have often been built at the behest of a single person with a single taste not needing to compromise on all levels before ground breaking. Sure you get some remarkably ugly buildings but you also get beautifully bold ones. So much of modern public art shows these three actions at work. Committees agree on an autocad rendering of a big, nice, and simple (so it does not break the bank) art piece or architecture. Compare with the bizarre and beautiful work of Gaudi in Barcelona, A single man, given license to work from his own vague plans, and unconventional materials made buildings that have not been replicated since. I guess you gotta find a single rich person and convince them to let you build a building so complex that it cant' all be laid out before hand using materials that don't model well in CAD. Happens here and there. There is hope in new technologies that make curves and ornamentation cheaper to model and to produce. I think that we will see a surge of ornamented building soon. You and I are not alone. :) Have a good day.
2. tl;dr yes i know i'm trolling your question but i don't have any legitimate answer. kthxbai
3. No, I don't consider architectural ornamentation to have a positive aesthetic value. I also find it funny that you do not like excessive ornamentation yet you are a fan of the Gothic style which was all about furthering excess in architectural design and construction, I personally think that specifically in the periods you mention that excess of ornamentation produced more aesthetically pleasing designs. It's not until the Rococo period in France that I think ornamentation reaches it's peak of "bling bling" and with the corresponding social revolutions that occur in France I think that designers and the general populace in general find the excessive ornamentation a thing for the elite as well as "frivolous, tasteless and lacking any aesthetic value" as you mention. Also, the rise of industry and the use manufactured materials such as concrete and steel lend themselves to the downfall of ornamentation. Before steel and concrete artisans had to hew their building materials out of stone and wood giving rise to the master-craftsman: a builder who's skills transcend mere construction and move into works of art. There were no machines, everything was done by hand and I truly believe that you can see the difference in buildings worked by master-craftsmen and that you can see their handiwork just as you can see a painters brushstrokes. Back to the modern industrial age and you have semi-skilled laborers setting up concrete forms and or guys riveting or welding steel together as fast as possible because time is money. To have ornamentation that is aesthetically pleasing you'd have to revert to the Gothic time period and have artisans build by hand using the best materials available and that takes time and lots and lots of money. Building is a business and businesses like to make money, that's pretty much rule number 1. So if your designing a Multi-million dollar house or office building whoever is footing the bill or trying to get the contract to build is going to want and use the least expensive proposal. It's that simple. About the only place I can think of where ornamentation really is accepted and used quite adamantly would be places for the Uber elite such as the Yellowstone Club in Montana where I live. The fact that these people have all the money in the world coupled with the fact that people get this obsessive "Western cabin" idea in their heads, lends itself very well to ornamentation like: $80,000 hand carved front door depicting a black bear climbing a tree, or $500,000 worth of boulders shipped from Canada because they match the gutters-mind you they served no other purpose than sitting in the yard. You might say that's excessive, and you'd be right, but isn't that the point of ornamentation, to make something excessive for the sake of aesthetic value? I completely agree with the idea of designing things that are aesthetically pleasing but to temper excess with functionality and cost. I think the challenge today is to come up with designs that can meld both ideas together in a way that ornamentation can be a part of a successful design and not be too excessive in cost or construction time.