[svckr]

To me, Loos' argument comes across as some grand rationalisation for a simple difference in taste. I.e. "I don't like it, but to state my opinion as a fact, I came up with this story about efficiency"

"Why do you waste all that effort (on something that I, personally, don't enjoy or benefit from)?" is an argument I read between the lines all to often …

[kelseyfrog]

The article gives too much credit to Loos.

> Loos made ornamentation sound like something practiced only by primitive peoples or criminal deviants.

Loos didn't make ornamentation "sound like" something practiced only by primitive peoples or criminal deviants. That was his main point. His argument is

1. We're more evolved than primitive people.

2. Primitive people, degenerates, and criminals ornament themselves and their environments.

3. Therefore we've evolved beyond the need to ornament our selves and environment.

A simple difference in taste doesn't quite capture Loos' racism. Loos attempts to build a reality where he and un-ornamentalists are more civilized, cultured, and morally superior to others and ornamentation is evidence of such. He uses ornamentation to construct a difference and then uses that difference to validate his superiority.

Loos' argument rests on othering "primitive people" and makes makes six total references toward the Papuans to accomplish this. It's short so I'll list each one.

1. Comparing them to children - "At the age of two he[the child] looks like a Papuan"

2. Describing them again as immoral children - "The child is amoral. So is the Papuan, to us."

3. As cannibals - "The Papuan kills his enemies and eats them."

4. As a reckless ornamenter - "The Papuan tattoos his skin, his boat, his rudder, his oars; in short, everything he can get his hands on."

5. Again compares them to children, and implies they are degenerates - "But what is natural for, a Papuan and a child, is degenerate for modern man."

6. That "we" are more progressed than primitive people. - "People progressed far enough for ornament to give them pleasure no longer, indeed so far that a tattooed face no longer heightened their aesthetic sensibility, as it did with the Papuans, but diminished it."

I can't stress enough how childish Loos himself comes across in the piece. It's a temper tantrum of an article and I'm honestly surprised it's taken seriously, or at least was. I'd encourage folks to read the original[1]. It's a five to ten minute read.

1. https://www.archdaily.com/798529/the-longish-read-ornament-a...

[svckr]

Thanks a lot for pointing this out so eloquently! Seems like the post really buried the lede there …

And I should keep my eyes more open for those things.

Funny how there's two complementary phrases that should ring the same alarm and are often used for the same (usually racist/classist/etc.) people:

- We've progressed beyond X, thus X is bad (and we're better for not doing X) - We've always done X, thus X is good (and we're better for not doing Y)

(The parenthetical obviously just being an excuse for unfounded hate.)

[incrudible]

Not just efficiency, but degeneracy and criminality. The article fails to mention his own degenerate sex crimes, however. Much of his own work is not devoid of ornament, and ironically these works stood the test of time, in my opinion. His oversimplified work may have been startling in its day, today it looks bland next to the many many utilitarian buildings that followed this trend. Reduction inevitably leads to conformity. A cube looks like a cube, no matter who specified its dimensions.