Adolf Loos1870-1933

“The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from utilitarian objects.”

The chronological contextof Loo’s architecture

Chronological context in Architecture

- Modernism to Postmodernism -1890s 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

First generation

modernists

Second generation modernists

Third generation

modernistsThe pioneers of modernism.

They each treated form, space,

structure, materials and ornament in

novel ways.

These were the architects of ‘high

modernism’- the universal

International Style- as well as the

fashionable Art Deco period.

These were the architects of

Postmodernism.

They reacted against the orthodoxy of

high modernism.

Peter Behrens - Berlin Walter Gropius Frank Gehry

Auguste Perret - Paris Le Corbusier Philip Johnson

C. R. Mackintosh - Glasgow Mies van der Rohe Charles Moore

Otto Wagner - Vienna Gerrit Reitveld I. M. Pei

Adolf Loos - Vienna William Van Allen Michael Greaves

Louis Sullivan - Chicago Napier Art Deco architects Louis Kahn

Frank Lloyd Wright - Chicago and mid-western states of USA Robert Venturi

The context of his architecture

Geographical context:

Loos was an Austrian architect and social critic. He lived and worked in Vienna and Prague. His significant buildings are located mostly in Vienna, Austria.

Two major works are also located in Paris, France and in Prague, Czech Rep.

Vienna

Context continued…Historical context:

Adolf Loos was an important pioneer of the modern movement, his major buildings were all constructed in the years between 1910 to 1930. He was almost an exact contemporary of the Scottish pioneering architect and designer Charles Rennie Mackintosh. His fellow Viennese architect Otto Wagner was a friend and supporter.

Loos traveled through America for three years from 1893. He admired the simplicity and pure geometries of American agricultural buildings and the buildings of Louis Sullivan. He also admired the English Arts and Crafts tradition.

Loos harshly criticised the decorative works of the Vienna Secession (the Art Nouveau movement in Vienna) and what he considered the cultural backwardness of his native Austria for its adherence to past styles of architecture (particularly the lavish Baroque style with its superfluous ornament) which he believed had no relation to modern life.

Loos wrote numerous critical essays during his lifetime, the most notable of which, Ornament and Crime, was published in 1908.

Loos was one of the most significant prophets of modernism. His buildings are stark, abstract and rational in appearance and his ‘raumplan’ concept revolutionised the spatial design of buildings. His buildings and ideas had a significant influence on the emerging International Style architects in Europe and America.

Context continued…Social context:

Loos was a radical thinker and an outspoken critic of Austrian society. His austere buildings, particularly the Goldman and Salatsch Building on the Michaelerplatz, caused scandals at the time they were built.

Loos admired the relatively efficient, economical and unstuffy atmosphere of American life, unhindered by tradition and class division. In his publications Loos wanted to awaken his fellow Austrians and shake them out of their cultural backwardness. Upon his return to Austria from America in 1898 he started a magazine entitled The Other. A journal for the introduction of Western Culture into Austria.

Loos criticised the artists of his day who continued to revive or invent ‘applied art’. He believed that superfluous ornament was decadent and wasteful of time, money, materials and human labour. “The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from utilitarian objects” he wrote in his famous essay Ornament and Crime (1908).

Loos sought to design practical buildings for his clients. He designed buildings without a pre-conceived notion of their form. “Don’t think of the roof, but of the rain and snow” he wrote. By this he meant the designer should analyse the practical needs of the client and design the building from the inside outwards, so as to satisfy the man of the house rather than the man on the street. The architect must be as much a psychologist as a designer to determine these requirements.

Loos was not so much opposed to ornament itself, but rather to an unhealthy and uncultured concern for form or ornament for its own sake- to superfluous, applied ornament, to what ‘cultured’ Austrians termed ‘fine art’. What he really sought was truthful design, pure architecture that served and expressed function, nothing more, nothing less. He admired old fashioned objects that were sensible and workable because “truth, be it hundreds of years old, has more to do with us than the lie which walks beside us” said Loos (a swipe at work by the Secessionists).

Significant Loos buildingsThe Steiner House, Vienna, 1910

The Michaelerplatz Building, Vienna, 1910

The Müller House, Prague, 1930

Loos’ views on ornamentExcerpts from his essay Ornament and Crime (1908)

“The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from utilitarianobjects.”

“Every age had its style…by style, people meant ornament. Then I said: …See, therein lies thegreatness of our age, that it is incapable of producing a new ornament. We have outgrownornament; we have fought our way through to freedom from ornament… soon the streets ofour city will glisten like white walls.”

“…the ornament disease is recognised by the state [Austria] and funded by state funds.”

“I don’t accept the objection that ornament heightens a cultivated person’s joy in life, I don’taccept the objection contained in the words “But if the ornament is beautiful!” Ornament doesnot heighten my joy in life or the joy in life of any cultivated person… The show dishes of pastcenturies, which display all kinds of ornaments to make the peacocks, pheasants and lobsterslook more tasty, have exactly the opposite effect on me. Am horrified when I go through acookery exhibition and think that I am meant to eat these stuffed carcasses. I eat roast beef.”

“Omission of ornament results in a reduction in the manufacturing time and an increase inwages. The Chinese carver works for sixteen hours, the American worker for eight. If I pay asmuch for a smooth cigarette case as for an ornamented one, the difference in working timebelongs to the worker. And if there were no ornament at all… man would only have to workfour hours instead of eight, because half the work done today is devoted to ornament.Ornament is wasted labour power and hence wasted health.”

Stylistic features -exteriors Reinforced concrete

construction with a smooth WHITE plaster finish.

Clean lines and crisp edges.

Unmoulded, simple window openings.

Flat roofs and severe, cubic, austere, geometric forms.

No historical or applied ornamental effects.

No indoor-outdoor flow. Interior and exterior space is strictly separated. The only function of the windows is to admit light.

Windows of different sizes are usually arranged in an asymmetrical manner and partially suggest the raumplan arrangement of space within.

Stylistic features -interiorsStylistic features -interiorsClick Click herehere to view a webpage illustrating stylistic features of Loos’ to view a webpage illustrating stylistic features of Loos’

interiors.interiors.

Partially or wholly mirrored ceilings orwall surfaces that visually extend space.

Oriental rugs on the floors.

Wooden paneling on the walls.

Marble veneer on walls or floors.

Wooden parquet floors.

Severe, geometric, austere architectural forms softened with comfortable furnishings, often varied in style.

In-built fixtures and furnishings(eg. bookcases, seating, shelves, heaters).

Stylistic features -interiorsStylistic features -interiors No indoor-outdoor flow of

space. Windows only exist to admit light into the internal spaces.

Internal spaces tend to flow vertically with rooms of different shapes, sizes, heights and levels as dictated by functional and socially hierarchical requirements (Loos’ famous Raumplan concept)

Straight or right-angled steps or stairwells of varied height that connect the internal spaces, sometimes bordered with stepped terraces.

Matching grid patterns in the walls, floors, and/or ceilings

“The building should be dumb on the outside and reveal its wealth only on the inside."

Context, style and iconography in Loos’ houses.

Click here to view a webpage that enables you to answer the following questions.(The language used is challenging, but the concepts outlined in this article are

excellent.)

Paragraph 1: State, in your own words, THREE points made about Loos’ architecture.

Paragraph 2: Here the author states that Loos’ buildings “…one moment are near to those of other icons of modern architecture and the next moment far

from them”. State ONE stylistic aspect of Loos’ buildings that are similar to the works of mainstream modernists and ONE stylistic aspect of Loos’ buildings that distanced him from mainstream modernists.

Explain what the author means when he states that mainstream modernists wanted to create interior spaces that were ‘centrifugal’, whereas Loos’ architecture was ‘centripetal’..

Paragraph 3: What sort of individuals commissioned early modernist buildings?Paragraph 4: List THREE social functions of Loos’ houses.Paragraph 6: Why is the Müller house significant?Paragraph 7: Quote THREE phrases, each no more than ten words in length, that

illustrate Loos’ Raumplan concept.Paragraph 8: Identify FOUR architectural elements of the Müller House living space

that serve to distinguish it from the more intimate, less public, function of the adjoining dining space.

Context and stylistic features- the Müller House -

Click here to view the official website of this house and to find answers to the

following questions about this building’s context and style:

1. Who commissioned this house and how was his profession related to the material construction of the house?

2. State TWO personal associations Loos himself had with this house.3. Identify FOUR different materials used in the construction of the

house.4. State TWO spaces that flow, via stairs, from the living room.5. Give ONE other specific example of Loos’ raumplan concept in this

house.6. Loos was the son of a stonemason. Give two pieces of evidence of

this influence/legacy in Loos’ Müller house.7. Identify THREE functional objects that express utilitarian efficiency.8. Describe the main colours used on the walls, floors and ceilings of this

house. What modern effect do these create?9. List FOUR specific examples of in-built furniture.10. Give THREE examples of lavish or opulent materials used in the

house. Why does Loos use these?