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.