Adolf Loos and Weissenhof Estate

Architectural theory around the end of the 19th century was leaning towards a reduction of ornament, and a push to rationalism. We see designers like Van Der Velde during the Art Nouveau movement strive to be very functional in their designs, but still have a sense of ornament and use architecture as a form of art. We also see architects such as Le-Duc, who was also very functional, expressed materials for what they are, and had a lack of ornament. But it took Adolf Loos to take rational design to the next extreme level. He saw excessive ornament as criminal, because it was a waste of time and money as it served no purpose. He was very critical about the Art Nouveau movement because he thought that art and architecture should be separate; because art does not have to function, besides being art, while architecture is all about function. Architects before Loos have hinted at a complete lack of ornamentation, but he really implemented it in his buildings, which were shocking to the world when they were created.


Someone that followed Loos’s ideas about functionalism and ornament was Mart Stam, who was one of the architects at the Weissenhof expedition. This expedition exemplified a disregard of ornament, and a use of functionalism. Stam’s building used one simple form, repeated many times over. Looking at the façade of the building, one can notice the division of space, and notice where one house ends and another house begins. Instead of ornament, you can notice that the windows and openings repeat themselves, once large across the top, then smaller near the bottom, and possibly again with the door. This wall has no “useless ornamentation;” it only has windows, which has the function of letting light inside the room.



I feel like Adolf Loos was too harsh about the Art Nouveau movement and ornamentation. He once said that in the future, we will have cities of white walls lining the streets, because the evolution of culture is the removal of ornamentation. I think that a world where there is no artistic expression in architecture would be a terribly boring one. Buildings can become cultural icons when they are infused with art, and identify a city that they are in.

Conversely, I do respect buildings that are lacking of ornament, because they have a timeless quality to them. I can look at a building from Weissenhof, and it would not appear dated to me, even though they are nearly 100 years old. Loos also said that ornament goes out of date quickly, which I would have to agree with. I can really get behind functional design, but I think that there is some room for artistic expression in architecture to allow some interest in building form and creativity.

Hector Guimard, Victor Horta, and Henry Van Der Velde.

Art Nouveau style architecture was one of the first styles that rejected historical architecture, and instead focused on a more rational approach to design. Art Nouveau received its inspiration from theorists such as Violett-Le-Duc who praised functionality of gothic architecture, and from other movements such as the English Arts and Crafts movement. With Art Nouveau came ideas such as natural curvilinear building forms, ornament through structure and materiality, mass production, unified interiors, and designing a complete system throughout the building. Three architects who were influential in this time period were Hector Guimard, Victor Horta, and Henry Van Der Velde.

Hector Guimard made many structural innovations for his work with new materials like steel. He also designed with mass production in mind, such as his famous Paris Metro entrances, which could be molded and remade on a large scale cheaply. Also mentioning the Paris Metro, he designed the materials to be a complete system, thinking about all the connections and ornament his materials provided. This mass production of the Metro was part of his philosophy to design for public. Out of these three architects Guimard made the most connections to plant forms, with most of his designs during this period being very curvilinear and expressive.


Paris Metro, Guimard

Victor Horta also used natural curvilinear forms in his buildings, such as the Hotel Tassel, in which he explored new materials like steel to symbolize plant forms. This hotel, similar to how Guimard designed, conveyed a new style completely through the building, from the linking of volumes, to the treatment of the façade. Something that Horta was adamant about was how ornament should be handled. The system that he developed was to dissolve the structure into ornament, which is a very rational way of thinking.


Hotel Tassel, Horta

Henry Van Der Velde was much more theoretical than the other two designers, by making lots of connections to symbols and society. He was trying to individualize architecture, by infusing art with daily lives through architecture (e.g. Bloemenwerf). This personal art-life connection differs from Horta’s urban view on lifestyles and design. Van Der Velde, perhaps more than the other two, integrated his style completely when he designed, such as making even the furniture for his buildings. He was also a big believer in exposing materiality, even going so far as to expose gas and water pipes in some buildings.


Bloemenwerf, Velde

Each one of these architects made the first movement towards modern understanding, anatomy, and character of architecture. They made contributions to modern architecture such as developing the first free floor plan, expressing materiality instead of ornamentation, and having functional and rational opinions about space. Art Nouveau may have been short lived, but its ideas were so new and influential that they are timeless to this day.

Semper, Ruskin, Le-Duc

The big names associated with modern architecture are the master designers of the 20th century: Mies Van Der Rohe, Le Corbusier, and Frank Lloyd Wright. They had new and progressive ideas about architecture, such as functionalism, taking forms from nature, and showing structural elements instead of hiding them. These branches of thought are often accredited to these designers, along with other modern architects, but these concepts were originally planted by 19th century designers from Europe; three of which were Viollet-Le-Duc, John Ruskin, and Gottfried Semper. These three designers and philosophers came up with the original ideas which created the modern movement as we know it today, but they all had their own opinions and differences.

If you showed Le-Duc, Ruskin, and Semper the same Gothic cathedral, they would have entirely different experiences of the building.

Le-Duc would focus on the tectonics and structure of the Gothic cathedral, explaining how the arches and the form of the building is the most rational method for a church. He would go on to say how he loved Gothic architecture because it functions so perfectly, letting light in the correct places, showing the structural components, and how it succeeded scientifically on being a great building.

Ruskin would also state his love for this Gothic cathedral, but he would focus not on the functionality, but instead the feeling and character of the space. He would explain his lamps of architecture to try and understand the cathedral, using feelings such as beauty, power, life, and sacrifice. He would marvel at the hand crafted embellishments of the exterior, and have great respect for the builders and craftsmen. And most of all, he would enjoy the age of the cathedral, because to him, the age and history of a building was one of the most important pieces.

Semper would first see the Gothic cathedral, and immediately look at the bigger picture. He would comprehend what the cathedral stands for as a symbol; which for him was hierarchy and authority of the Church. He would see the cathedral in terms of its sociological implications. If, on the other hand, he were to examine the gothic style further, he would hail the craft, the function, and the structural components of the cathedral.

These three different views on the same style of architecture reflect how Le-Duc, Ruskin, and Semper have different definitions of what architecture is. Le-Duc says that great architecture is how designer creates the most logical building with its materials. (And the materials could be anything, not just traditional ones) Ruskin says that great architecture relies in the hands of the designer and builder, to create something that not only functions, but is beautiful. He goes on to say that deciding the height and direction of a building is not architecture, but rather it is adding unnecessary features. Semper says that great architecture is a building that embodies socio-political values. These different outlooks on architecture eventually transform into what we consider modern architecture today.

One thing that Le-Duc, Ruskin, and Semper had in common was a system that they created to attempt to explain and understand architecture in ways never done before. Le-Duc once again focuses on rationality and functionality, using scientific means to try and classify and define architecture. In his writing, Dictionnare, he would categorize and explain every method of construction and style of architecture to better understand it. Semper also put an emphasis on functionality in his method of understand architecture. He created an algebraic formula that represented function, local crafts, religion, and personal influences. He also explained the basic functions that buildings should provide, which were: hearth, platform, roof, and enclose. Ruskin went in a different direction when explaining architecture, because he focused on feelings rather than functions. His writing, the Seven Lamps of Architecture, express sacrifice, truth, power, beauty, life, memory, and obedience. All of these writings were ways that designers attempted to explain architecture, but they vary differently.

One last major difference between these three was their opinions of time-frame in architecture. Ruskin was concerned with the past, loving historic forms and styles because of their history and beauty. He also disliked future advancements on building materials, such as steel and mechanized materials. He once explained his distaste for the Crystal Palace because its mechanized steel required no craftsmanship or thought. Le-Duc looked forward into the future, using new materials in interesting ways, such as combining steel and masonry in the same building, or changing the style of the city of Carcassonne because he felt it was better. Semper was somewhere between the past and the future, getting influence of structure and form from Greek temples, but at the same time utilizing those forms to create a new functional and social building, such as when he designed the Semper Opera House in Dresden with many classical styles of structure along the outside.