1

From Ornament to Detail

Monica A. Rivera

Professor Paul Emmons Topics on History and Theory of the Architecture

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Introduction

As an element of the culture, which is always in continuous transformation, the language widens or narrows the meanings assigned to the words and with it our attitude towards such words. This is the case of the word “ornament”, and what is nowadays our understanding of it. This paper discusses the idea of ornament for the Reinassance architect –manifest on the thought of Alberti– in contrast to the idea of it for the modern architect –in Le Corbusier at el–, aiming to unravel the constants among ornament and detail that endow us the right to assert that the detail is the modern ornament.

The problem lies not only on the different connotations that the words had then and now, especially the key word “

ornament

”; but also in how our understanding of the relationship ornament-architecture-beauty has been transformed with the semantic of the word itself, determining the evolution of its material expression from ornament to detail. Maybe it was vice versa, maybe both evolved simultaneously.

The transformation of “Ornament”, from Alberti to the Modern Movement

It’s hard to truly grasp what Alberti connotes every time he uses the word “ornament” on his writings; it seems to be for him a very flexible concept, almost chameleonic; though, there is not contradiction in the meanings he endows to the word, only broadening in the spectrum of its use.

“On the three conditions that apply to every form of construction –

that what we construct should be appropriate to its use, lasting in structure, and graceful and pleasing in appearance- the first two have been dealt with, and there remains the third, the noblest and most necessary of all” 1

On the book six, where Alberti deals with ornament, we can appreciate that the meaning that “ornament” has for him is closely related to beauty, as if ornament and 1 Alberti, On the Art of building on ten books, translated by Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach, Robert Tavenor, 1988, pp155

2

beauty were the two components of a same element, the third element on the vitruvian triad of architecture. That this is so; we can infer when Alberti states that graceful and pleasant appearance derives “from beauty and ornament alone”1

. It doesn’t mean that he gives to beauty and ornament the same value, at least not always.

“The precise nature of beauty and ornament, and the difference between them, the mind could perhaps visualize more clearly than my words could explain. For the sake of brevity, however, let us define them as follows: Beauty is that reasoned harmony of all the parts within a body, so that nothing may be added, taken away, or altered, but for the worse”2

Although for Alberti ornament is different from beauty, their nature is something that he doesn’t clearly explain. At stating that that their nature and difference is better visualized by our mind that explained by words, he gives us the clue to its understanding. He defines beauty as a “reasoned harmony”, which is on the other hand the very purpose of Lineamenta. If lineamenta as Alberti states is “the precise and correct outline, conceived in the mind, made up of lines and angles, and perfected in the learned intellect and imagination”3 we can then infer that for the completeness of the building, beauty and ornament work together, the first being the intrinsic harmony under which the other will embellish the building at bestowing the elegance necessary to become Architecture. So, they are inherent to each other, the one being the intellectual principle, the “primary framework” described on the lineaments [lineamenta], the other “the individual expression and embellishment of this frame”4

.

The modern movement’s attitude respect ornament is quite contrasting; however it is not gratuitous. By this time the understanding of ornament had already gone under a slow, though deep change, especially the traditional appreciation of it as a component necessary to the completeness of the building. It’s hard to establish the origin of this transformation; several factors –sometimes hard to identify or indirect causes- converged on setting in motion the wheel of change that gradually would modify what we understand by ornament.

On the introduction that Alberto Perez-Gomez gives to a modern translation of Perrault’s Ordonnance des cinq espèces de colonnes selon la méthode des ancients (1683), he talks about what well might be the very starting point of such transformation, the introduction of the scientific thought on Architectural Theory by the French architect 2 Ibid, pp 156 3 Alberti, On the Art of building on ten books, translated by Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach, Robert Tavenor, 1988, pp7 4 Rykwert Joseph, Glossary on Alberti, Leon Battista, On the art of Building on ten books

3

Claude Perrault . “Perrault’s concern was to place architecture, already well established within the European tradition of disegno (design as a liberal art), into the framework of the new scientific mentality inaugurated by Galileo and Rene Descartes.”5

We must remember that for the Renaissance Architecture, theory belonged to “a universe of discourse that was founded on a totalistic understanding of reality, derived from myth and philosophy; its content was meaningless apart from the traditional understanding of a hierarchical and living cosmos (physis) that the Renaissance had inherited from antiquity”6

“Claude and Charles Perrault redefined truth, as distinct from illusion, dissociating scientific knowledge from mythical thought”

. The established scheme, backed by “divine authority”, was accepted by faith as the absolute truth that had and gave meaning to every creation. Therefore the problem of architecture was one of interpretation and reformulation, which required an understanding of such principles in order to originate new solutions.

7. Although Perrault doesn’t question the validity and authority of the classical language, he doesn’t believe there is something intrinsically beautiful on the proportions used by the ancients. The emergence of this conception can be considered as the very point of break of the classic architecture. He sustain that beauty is more about usage, than inherent to certain proportions. He tries to standardize their use, devising a set of rules that would allow a rational and easier application. This rationalization doesn’t require interpretation, only submission, what might have resulted on the progressive lost of meaningful use of the classical language, that ultimately ended on a rejection of it as a anachronism, and with it, as an essential element of its language, the utter rejection to ornament. Talking about “ornament” –on its original sense– on the use of solar symbols in Hindu’s literature, Ananda Coomaraswamy on his article “Ornament”, enlightens the process of transformation of the implications of “ornament”; “it is precisely such forms as these solar symbols, that, when the contexts of life have been secularized, and meaning has been forgotten, survive as “superstitions” and are regarded only as “art forms” or “ornaments,” to be judged as good or bad in accordance, not with their truth, but with our likes or dislikes”8

Adolf Loos, on his article “Ornament and Crime”(1908) give us a preview of the position the modern architect would take in respect to the use of ornament not only on architecture, but also on design as a whole,

5 Perez-Gomez, Alberto, on the Introduction to Perrault, Claude, Ordonnance for the five kinds of Columns after the method of the ancients, Translation by Indra Kagis McEwen, Getty Center Publication Programs, 1993, pp1 6 Ibid 7 Ibid 8 Ananda, Coomaraswamy, “Ornament”, in The Art Bulletin, Vol. 21, No.4 (Dec., 1939), pp379

4

“I have made the following discovery and I pass it on to the world: The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from utilitarian objects” 9

Loos understand the elimination of ornament as the natural evolution of the culture. The modern man rejects it because he cannot find any beauty on it, just as the Renaissance man wouldn’t find beauty on a naked building. The ornament doesn’t represent anymore the thought of the modern man; it doesn’t express the longing of the age.

“Every age had its style, is our age alone to be refused a style? By

style, people mean ornament. Then I said: Weep not! See, therein lies the greatness of our age, that it is incapable of producing a new ornament. We have outgrown ornament; we have fought our way through to freedom from ornament. See, the time is nigh, fulfillment awaits us. Soon the streets of the city will glisten like white walls. Like Zion, the holy city, the capital of heaven. Then fulfillment will come.”10

For the modern architect in opposition that for the Renaissance man, beauty and ornament are dislocated ideas. Ornament is simply something “accessory”. Architecture can do without it. What is more, it must refuse its use, in order to find the language of its own age. ‘We’ve had enough of looking in the past for forms; the history is a used up quarry of “styles”.

So, what was the aim of the modern man? Which the paradigm to follow? LeCorbusier is a good source to seek an answer to these questions. On “Towards a New Architecture” (1931) he extensively talks of it on “Eyes which do not see”, one of the chapters of his book. With great enthusiasm he talks about the creations of the modern man, his machines, splendid examples of rationality, economy and function, to be imitated by architecture.

“If we forget for a moment that a steamship is a machine for transport and look at it with a fresh eye, we shall feel that we are facing an important manifestation of temerity, of discipline, of harmony, of a beauty that is calm, vital and strong.

A seriously-minded architect, looking at it as an architect (i.e. a creator of organisms), will find in a steamship his freedom from an age-long but contemptible enslavement to the past.

9 Loos, Adolf, “Ornament and Crime” on Conrads Ulrich, Programs and manifestos on 20th Century, translated by Michael Bulloc, 1964, pp20 10 Loos, Adolf, “Ornament and Crime” on Conrads Ulrich, Programs and manifestos on 20th Century, translated by Michael Bulloc, 1964, pp20

5

He will prefer respect for the forces of nature to a lazy respect for tradition…”11

Le Corbusier resolutely expresses his admiration for the grandeur of products of the modern age, and deplores the architect who by perpetuating “respectful attitude towards mere decoration”12

Beauty and materiality are indissolubly fused for Modern Architecture, because they are the natural response to a well-stated problem. Both have emerged simultaneously from “a logical construction and congruous with the world around [them]”

lives on the ignorance and the negligence of the needs of its own time. The machine embodies the paradigm yet to be resolved by Architecture. Nothing is superfluous in its construction, every piece is necessary, and all together accomplish the function for which it was created in first place; herein its beauty is to be found.

13

; thus they’re endowed with harmony. Notice that here materiality doesn’t need of ornament to contribute to enhancement of beauty, but only of harmony, aroused from the fulfillment of the need, and articulated on its material expression. Ornament doesn’t have any part on it; so, it doesn’t have reason to exist.

Although for Alberti beauty and materiality form also a unity, in some way they can be separated, in the same way that for effects of construction the ornament should be separated from the rest of the building. Nonetheless ornament can be divided during construction, it has being conceived simultaneously in the mind of the architect with the rest of the building, and ultimately they will form a single body. In conclusion, although ornament is something “attached”, it is a quality of the building, inherent to its beauty, and governed by the same laws of harmony [concinnitas] that have generated the whole body.

“If it is conceded, ornament may be defined as a form of auxiliary

light and complement to beauty. From this it follows, I believe, that beauty is some inherent property, to be found suffused all through the body of that which may be called beautiful: whereas ornament, rather than being inherent, has the character of something attached or additional”14

11 Le Corbusier, Towards a new Architecture, Dover Publications, INC, New York, 1986, pp102-103 12 Le Corbusier, Towards a new Architecture, Dover Publications, INC, New York, 1986, pp95 13 Le Corbusier, Towards a new Architecture, Dover Publications, INC, New York, 1986, pp102 14 Alberti, On the Art of building on ten books, translated by Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach, Robert Tavenor, 1988, pp156. An old English translation by John Leoni instead of “attached of additional reads”, “added or fastened on, rather than proper and innate.

6

When Alberti refers to ornament as something “additional”, he is explaining the very nature and difference between beauty and ornament. Beauty as an abstraction doesn’t need the help of any material body to exist. However, to be perceived, it does need that “auxiliary light” or “attached” ornament that wasn’t necessary at the beginning. Therefore we may consider Beauty as a veil covering the whole building, invisible to our senses, but not to our soul. Ornament is on the other hand, the confirmation of the existence of what we perceive, for which reason a building couldn’t rescind its use.

It is important to understand that “ornament”, that now is understood as something added that can be omitted at will, and which is not essential to the efficacy of and object, “originally implied a completion or fulfillment of the artifact or other object in question; that to “decorate” an object or person originally meant to endow the object or person with its or his “necessary accidents,” with a view to “proper” operation”15. We can see that there exists in this a tight interweavement among the physical and the metaphysical world, “the simultaneous satis-faction of practical and spiritual requirements”16

To illustrate this point Coomaraswamy tells us about the Hindu women, and how all the jewelry she uses constitute a fundamental element of her dressing. Further more of its aesthetic values, the jewelry she uses constitute a necessary “equipment” for her performance as woman. “To be seen without her gear would be more than a mere absence of decoration, it would be inauspicious, indecorous, and disrespectful, as if one should present at some function in “undress”

.

17

We may find the same relationship among ornament and architecture on the Renaissance. The style of the ornament would endow a definite character to the building, suitable for its function. Hence that one of the practical uses of “ornament” was to express the function and character of the Building. Notice the tight relationship among function and character, since Alberti makes strong emphasis on the appropriate use of ornament in conformity with it.

.

“The temporal ought to concede to the sacred in dignity as far as

in reasonable, so in refinement and quantity of ornament, private buildings should allow themselves to be surpassed easily by public ones.”18

Ornament assists on sustaining and reflecting –in Architecture– the established cosmological hierarchy. In this context we should consider the observation of Alberti when he states, “In the whole art of building the column is the principal ornament 15 Ananda, Coomaraswamy, “Ornament”, in The Art Bulletin, Vol. 21, No.4 (Dec., 1939), pp376 16 Ibid 17 Ibid 18 Alberti, On the Art of building on ten books, translated by Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach, Robert Tavenor, 1988, pp293

7

without any doubt”19

. The “Orders” constitute the major, strongest and most direct element to provide order, appropriateness and character to the building. Consequently, however structural, columns are mainly considered as “ornament” in the building, not as something “attached”, but as the a “auxiliary light” that enhance beauty and gives character to the building. More than structural elements the Renaissance architect sees “authority” on the orders. When talking about its dimensions, they are not thinking about the bearing load; but mainly about character, proportions, and relations among the parts of the building.

The spirit of the modern architect is different. His first concerning is about the “support” [columns and beams], but he doesn’t conceive the column as “order” but as “bearer”, not as the giver of character; but as the access to a whole new language. On “Five points towards a new Architecture” Le Corbusier states what is one of the key differences among renaissance and modern architecture [inspired by classical architecture], the division of the body of the building on structural and non-structural elements, which would allow the development of other four points Le Corbusier proposed (roof gardens, free designing of the ground-plan, horizontal window, free design of the façade), which ultimately formulated the language of Modern Architecture.

“May our eyes be opened: this harmony already exists, the result of work governed by economy and conditioned by physical necessities. This harmony has its causes; it is not any way the effect of caprice, but is of a logical construction and congruous with the world around it…The creations of mechanical technique are organisms tending to a pure functioning, and obey the same evolutionary laws as those objects in nature which excite our admiration”20

Although both, the Renaissance and the Modern architect observe to Nature as the model of Beauty, aiming to decipher the Universal Law that generates beauty, they look with different eyes. The first aims to re-interpret the complexity of the forms of Nature on Architecture; the other emphasizes on the generation of the purest and more logic forms that give testimony of the law of Economy that also rules the forms in Nature. Hence that ornament as already understood at that time happened to a needless extravagance, “a respectful and servile salute to the past; disquieting modesty!”21

19 Alberti, On the Art of building on ten books, translated by Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach, Robert Tavenor, 1988, pp183 20 Le Corbusier, Towards a new Architecture, Dover Publications, INC, New York, 1986, pp102 21 Le Corbusier, Towards a new Architecture, Dover Publications, INC, New York, 1986, pp100

8

[A seriously-minded architect] will prefer respect for the forces of nature to a lazy respect for tradition; to the narrowness of commonplace conceptions he will prefer the majesty of solutions which spring from a problem that has been clearly stated –solutions needed by this age of mighty effort which has taken so gigantic a step forward.”22

This sentiment is not new to age of Le Corbusier, in someway it was announced by the same Perrault on the chapters VII and VIII of his book, where he warns about some unacceptable abuses that were in contradiction with the practice of the masters that was “governed by the imitation of wood construction”. As “abuses” increased, they became the norm, and “when the eighteenth century critics looked about them at contemporary architecture, what they saw was walls that swelled in and out, plaster masquerading as stone, and ornament so thick it obscured the structure”23

On the teachings of the Franciscan friar Carlo Lodoli’s we can find the germ of what later would result on the functionalism. His maxim, “quanto e in representazione, deve essere sempre in funzione” seems to be the origin of the phrase that later was object of the most diverse interpretations on the modern architecture, “forms follows function”, although it wasn’t exactly what Lodoli tried to say. Whatever the case may be, the fundamental on the teaching of the friar was that “nothing would be put on show (in representazione) that was not in funzione, a working part of the structure”

. Ornament had to be stripped away; architecture had to get back to essentials. The seeking for of a more “honest” architecture became with the time a true moral responsibility.

24

The appearance of the denomination of detail [an element of the modern architecture] must have appeared then by the need to distinguish the superfluous –the ornament– from the needed –the detail– that performed a true function in the building. The rising of its material expression as well as of its importance as the “Modern Ornament” well might have first given by the same Lodoli on his intervention on the hospice for the Pilgrims at San Francesco della Vigna. One of his disciples, Memmo, exposes the thought of the friar Lodoli and his attention to the “detail” at describing particulars of the construction:

, which condemned the unnecessary use of the “ornament” on ancient as well as on modern architecture.

“Father Lodoli was also concerned that great care should be taken

about the joining of those stone slabs whose office is that of the defending us from water; and in his ingenuity he realized that these stones should be

22 Le Corbusier, Towards a new Architecture, Dover Publications, INC, New York, 1986, pp103 23 Roth, Leland M., Understanding Architecture; its elements, history , and meaning; Westview Press, Colorado, 1993 24 Rykwert, Joseph, “Lodoli on Function and Representation”, The Necessity of Artifice

9

more firmly fixed, so that the joint should never open, not the water seep through to make (as often happens in the joints of a cornice or gutter) some stain or deposit”25

The attention that was before given to the creation of ornament now seems to shift to the solution of the detail; but again as it was on the beginning ornament, detail exists to facilitate the correct functioning of architecture; to achieve “the simultaneous satis-faction of practical and spiritual requirements”26

, not merely to adorn it.

For the before discussed, I think we are not wrong on asserting that the “ornament” that now we repudiate it’s the same “detail” that with so much care we refine, looking for that “minimal unit of signification” on our architecture. If some difference, it may be that the ornament has as essential “function” to aggregate beauty to architecture; whereas that the fundamental function of “detail” is to reflect a process of construction, and ultimately to render a practical service. Ornament and Detail are the reflection of ceaseless search of man for meaning on architecture. Both show the attention of the architect to the joint, which ultimately constitutes only a pretext for spilling over it all the ingenuity that he/she needs to express. In both cases he/she trust on it to “tell the tale” that other wise he/she would have to write on the walls.

25 Memmo (Lodoli disciple), quoted in Rykwert, Joseph, “Lodoli on Function and Representation”, The Necessity of Artifice 26 Ananda, Coomaraswamy, “Ornament”, in The Art Bulletin, Vol. 21, No.4 (Dec., 1939), pp376

10

Bibliography

• Alberti, On the Art of building on ten books, translated by Joseph Rykwert, Neil

Leach, Robert Tavenor, 1988 • Le Corbusier, Towards a new Architecture, Dover Publications, INC, New York,

1986 • Conrads Ulrich, Programs and manifestos on 20th

• Ruskin John, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, Dover Publications, New York, 1989

Century, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1970

• Frampton Kenneth, Modern Architecture, A Critical History of Modern Architecture, Thames and Hudson, third edition, London, 1992

• Miller Bernie and Ward Melony, Crime and ornament: the arts and popular culture in the shadow of Adolf Loos, YYZ Books, Toronto, Ontario, 2002

• Adolf Loos, “Architecture”, in Midgard journal, Vol 1, Issue 1, 1987, pp 49-56, University of Minnesot, Minneapolis, 1987

• Frascari, Marco, “The tell-the-tale detail”, in VIA No.7, pp22-37, 1984 • Frascari, Marco, Monsters of Architecture, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc,

Savage, MD, 1991 • Coomaraswamy, Ananda, “Ornament”, in The Art Bulletin, Vol 2, No. 4 (Dec.,

1939), 375-382 • Roth, Leland M., Understanding Architecture; its Elements, History, and

Meaning; Westview Press, Colorado, 1993 • Rykwert, Joseph, “Lodoli on Function and Representation”, in The Necessity of

Artifice, Rizzoli, New York. 1982