Architecture, Formal Ornamentation Essay Example
Architecture, Formal Ornamentation Essay Example

Architecture, Formal Ornamentation Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 14 (3802 words)
  • Published: June 1, 2018
  • Type: Case Study
View Entire Sample
Text preview

Architecture, Formal Ornamentation Re-emergence of use of ornaments in architectural practice has occurred on a global scale over the past decade. Several architects are unwrapping a lost language that had been an intrinsic mode of communication in architecture. The language of ornament in architecture has been readily confused with the realms of decoration and pattern among others. However, ornament decoration is used in architecture and decorative art to embellish an object or part of a building. Architectural ornaments can be derived from stone carvings, wood or precious metals.

The ornaments can also be formed with plaster or even clay and then painted onto a service in the form of applied ornament. In other forms of applied arts, other objects including paint and vitreous enamel may be employed instead (Mallgrave, 2004). Other decorative styles and motifs that have been develope

...

d recently include pottery, textiles, furniture and metalwork. Mimetic ornament is common in primitive cultures while organic ornament is inherent in the materials or functions of a building (Tournikiotis, 1994). In the discussion below, I will describe and compare the ornaments of two buildings.

The first building, Loos House which was constructed by architect Adolf Loos is an example of a contemporary building while Dresden Opera House, a historical building was built by Gottfried Semper. I will also describe and compare their theories on ornament in architecture. Dresden Opera House, also commonly referred to as Semperoper due to its outstanding beauty, is one of the most famous buildings in Dresden, Germany that was built in 1838-41 by architect Gottfried Semper. It is strategically located in Dresden, Germany at Theaterplatz specifically at the banks of river Elbe. It has become

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

famous for its beautiful theatres.

In fact, it is one of the most impressive monuments in Dresden, Germany. The building has been a victim of many events including the flames of 1869 and World War II in 1945. However, the building was reconstructed in High Renaissance style in 1871-79 and 1977-85 after its bombing. The building has recently been damaged by heavy waters from Elbe floods in 2002 (Mallgrave, 2004). However the building reopened in December the same year after a substantial assistance from around the world. The Semperoper still stand up to date despite the troublesome past. The Semperoper is an example of “Dresden-Baroque” architecture.

It is a big attraction in Europe due to its striking statues and inspiring interiors. The two statues visible at the main entrance include those of famous writers Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe and Friedrich Schiller (Herrmann, 2011). Other statues present belong to several other famous architects and legends such as Moliere and the Shakespeare among others. Opera House is also famous for its beautiful sculptures such as the statue of Saxon King John that stands in front of the Semperoper. Semper was responsible for construction of the beautiful stage designs in the Opera house theatre that replaced the Old Court theatre.

The oval building features a central portal that has a panther quadriga drawn at the top. The quadriga has Dionysos that represent the Greek god of art together with his consort Ariadne. The style of building employed in Opera House is highly debated since it features three styles; Early Renaissance, Baroque and the Corinthian style of pillars. The most suitable style applicable to this building would be eclecticism whereby influences from

several styles of architecture have been employed to come up with the building (Mallgrave, 2004). The exterior of the Opera House is as beautiful as its interior.

The interior was developed by quite a number of famous architects together with skilled craftsmen from the local community. Gottfried Semper employed use of local material and local skilled craftsmen (Herrmann, 2011). Plaster has been carefully molded and polished while wood has been paneled to come up with a beautiful interior finish that is almost an exact painted replica of marble. The original Semperoper has beautiful architectural style that features styles such as Baroque, early Renaissance and the Corinthian style pillars (Mallgrave, 2004). Semper’s architectural work was adopted from archetypes from weavers, potters and carpenters.

Other craftsmen who created archetypes that were adopted by Semper were masons and metalworkers. Semper transformed the archetypes into patterns and ornaments that could be used to produce textiles in order to appear on surface made of other materials. Semper struggled throughout his life trying to come up with a fundamental principle of innovation. He at one time found himself at a dilemma of continuity and innovation. His investigation was structured around the four key elements of architecture that include the wall, hearth, mound, and the roof (Herrmann, 2011).

The hearth was the most important plan form that Semper theorized. Semper found the four elements of architecture expressed in a Caribbean hut he witnessed at a great exhibition. He believed that the four elements could be subject to transformations either separately or together. He believed that the transformations could occur fast in a period of industrialization since evolutionary processes were subjected to various outside pressures. Semper

proposed the idea that artifacts and architecture develop meaning depending on their functions or through the ways in which they are made.

Thus he developed a theory on the four fundamental categories of coming up with artifacts which included weaving, molding, carpentry and masonry. He also added another category of working with metals and concluded that majority of the forms used in architecture originated in those five processes (Mallgrave, 2004). From the five processes of making artifacts, Semper derived the theory of style whereby he postulated that architecture could be reduced to the processes and materials correlated with their uses.

Semper believed that before a person made a building he must have evolved patterns such as weaving and this usually preceded structural form evolutions and thus ornament was more basic than structure (Herrmann, 2011). Semper pointed out that ornaments and patterns that are used to produce textiles could reappear on walls made of different materials whereas garlands or swags on other buildings usually reappear as painted or sculpted elements on friezes. Gottfried Semper developed four elements of architecture in the famous Dresden Opera House which include; ceramics, roofing, mounding and weaving.

Thus this formed his first theory of architecture that had the notion that architecture derives its forms from the four technical arts which include ceramics, carpentry, walling and terracing and masonry. His second architectural theory was derived from Bekleidung or rather “dressing” thesis. This archeological theme suggested that textile patterns of the wall underwent an intricate process of development just as weaving evolved into a wall hanging to become a solid wall dressing that is similar in style as the original textiles (paneling and paint).

His four elements

of architecture were depicted in a “Caraib hut” that he had witnessed in a certain great exhibition in London in 1851. His theory of dressing is currently being taken in advanced approaches of design. His ideas on textile have been borrowed to articulate architectural ideas especially in tectonics, structure and ornamentation (Mallgrave, 2004). According to Semper, it was through advances of textile and with the invention of newer materials that older ones came to be forgotten. For instance, textile technique just like weaving made sense due to the fact that there was stone technique just like carving.

Thus the change of one material to another can be done through meaning or motifs. The theory of art-form or core-form by Botticher influenced Semper greatly though he did not seem to differentiate between ornament and structure (Herrmann, 2011). However he talked more about motifs and elements. Textile technique played a number of fundamental functions in the art of architecture including protecting, enclosing, covering stringing, and binding. Solid regular bodies were arranged in series in the Semperoper according to the eurhythmy laws. Thus this formed an active chain.

Semper used leaves or flowers by arranging them in an analogous manner to point up and down, a type of molding commonly referred to as egg-and-dart molding. Strings were also fixed to the central reference point to form a band thus this provided absolute strength to the building. Fluttering bands were used for decoration. This was done through making embroidery on the bands (Mallgrave, 2004). Semper used ceramics work in Opera house as ornamental outfitting and construction. He used the principles of style and beauty in ceramics to express aesthetics (for instance

joining a belly and a vase neck) and symbolism (signs and emblems).

Ceramics technique was used in making of containers, vessels and kraters. For instance, there were echinus-shaped urns that were carefully decorated to represent an evolved classical art. Other vessels were beautifully painted by use of fine terra-cotta. The art of metal work was heavily used in this building. Semper used gold to make sheet metal for decoration. He also used gold as a metallic dressing for weapons and utensils. Gold was highly recommended in those ancient times because it was the only pure metal found naturally and also due to its ductility and elasticity.

Gold was also used in weaving and embroidery (Herrmann, 2011). In the Dresden Opera House, hems were used whereby a hem stood logically midway between a seam and a band or else expresses both tendencies. This satisfied the demand for framing a dress or a garment. Open air canopies were also used with words inscribed indiscriminately on both the horizontal and vertical fabric coverings. Wall paintings have been used to provide information about the free hanging canopies and baldachins available in the Semperoper. Ceilings have been paneled with cedar, gold and ivory (Mallgrave, 2004).

Walls have been glittered with precious stones and metallic ornaments. Marble and porphyry columns are hidden partially behind embroidered tapestries. The tapestries enclose them tightly. During festivals, drapery screens were placed in front of the heavily decorated architectural walls to make the Semperoper more habitable and more festive. Adolf Loos was a Moravian-born architect who was very influential in the European contemporal architecture. He became more famous for his ideas rather than for his buildings. Loos believed that

reason should influence the way we build.

Loos was very much opposed to decorative Art Nouveau. He supported the suppression of decoration in order to ensure regulation of passion. Loos took part in construction of a number of buildings including Steiner house and Rufer house in Vienna among others but of particular concern is the Loos house. The construction of Loos house ended in 1911(Loos, 1998). It was completed as a tailor shop with no symbols of commerce or clothing. This is because after its completion, the building only became a bank. Loos House has striking rooftop statues that depict what lies inside.

However, its plain windows and gray marble pillars suggest nothing of this building. It is also characterized by two frames that are stitched vertically. Adolf Loos was not only an architect but also a philosopher who regarded the Viennese society as corrupt. He has presented much critique in the society and in his own creatures evident in his structures and essays that he wrote. Loos came up with a clear difference between art and architecture. In his definition of art, he referred to art as one comprising of nonfunctional creations that that are born to arouse a viewer’s emotions.

It either attempts to disturb or cause an emotional response of a viewer. Good art is expected to be aesthetically pleasing though may cause discomfort to a viewer (Mallgrave, 2004). In contrast, architecture is an enclosure of space that attempts to efficiently accommodate the structural need of someone in the best functional way possible. According to Loos, architecture cannot be art. It accommodates the requirements of a client in order to functionally and emotionally to provide

comfort. Given this understanding of architecture by Loos, he therefore constructed Loos House in order to please everyone contrary to the art works.

Here, Loos contradicts Gottfried Semper for using ornament decorations in his architectural work. To Loos this is a form of art. The work of art is a private work to an artist but in this case his house was not. The house was to satisfy a requirement contrary to the work of art that is brought to being without a need (Loos, 1998). Adolf Loos was to serve a comfort in contrast to Semper’s work that might draw people out of their comfort. Loos loves his own house and hates the work of art. According to Loos only a small part of architecture borrows from art, that is, tombs and monuments (Tournikiotis, 1994).

Adolf Loos was very much opposed to ornamented objects. In his essays on ‘ornaments and crime’, he cited that ornamented objects that were made of the best material and in the highest degree of detail were unaesthetic (Loos, 1998). Adolf Loos’ theories of architecture were amusing and almost absurd to take seriously. He criminalized ornaments in his essays of ‘Ornament and Crime’ of the 1908. During this time, tattoos were the oldest ornaments and majority of the prisoners (about eighty percent) had tattoos. Loos viewed those who had tattoos and were not in prison as degenerate aristocrats.

To him, ornament was a sign of moral degeneracy. The cross (+) was the first work of art, and this, he said was an erotic symbol. The horizontal line, according to Loos, symbolized a woman while the vertical one represented a person who was in

heaven as Beethoven at the time he created ninth symphony (Tournikiotis, 1994). Loos also argues that the art of ornament is obsolete and exhausted. His economic argument on ornaments was that they waste time and materials and they depress the wages of workers. To him, the working class could enjoy more time without the ornaments.

He also advocated for the complete separation of art and the creation of useful objects. He argued that ornamentation was a woman’s personal adornment and that it would last forever (Loos, 1998). The understanding of Bekleidung by Adolf Loos in one way or another contradicts Semper’s understanding. The protective coating (woven walls and mats) by Semper are viewed by Loos as dressing rather than a structure. In his “law of dressing” he insists that the material used for “dressing” should not be confused with its “dressing” (Herrmann, 2011). In other words, the color of wood should not be confused with the wood itself.

Loos argued that lesser architects will first of all design a wall and then look for a dressing that seems appropriate to them to cover the wall. However, better architects will do the opposite. Thus, this provides a clear division between “the architect” and ‘some architects” (Loos, 1998). However, Adolf Loos had four recognizable elements of architecture that composed his building, the Loos House. Firstly, the visible surface, which conveys the image of the building. It shows the visible realm including color, light and its facades and it portrays the structure of the interior and exterior walls of the building like membranes.

Secondly, the material structure, which comprises of stones, columns, beams and bricks among others (Tournikiotis, 1994). Thirdly, space

volume, which is the placement surrounded by the material structure of the building on both the inside and the outside and lastly finality which conveys the functional and emotional component of the building. It also designates the social or psychological purpose of a building. Adolf explained that architecture should not only be efficiently functional but also recognizable in itself. The concept of Loos’ Raumplan suggests that a functional building is built according to the favored end result.

Loos built his arouse to arouse a sentiment. For instance, the Loos House hosts a bank that has rooms that are comfortable and look habitable. Loos seemed to have been successful in joining the sentiment s of people to the intended role of the building. The architectural structures of Loos House involved sentiments for he intended role of the building (Loos, 1998). The interiors and exteriors in Loos house have a radical difference. To Loos, the outside is like a mask and it should coincide to a dinner jacket. The inside of a building should present all its wealth.

The interior and exterior distributions were made simultaneously. The ornamentation used in exteriors was very much simplified. In contrast, the interiors were materially luxurious. The interior of the rooms was different depending on purpose and significance. They had different sizes and different heights. Adolf removed ornaments in the interiors to bring a new look to the interior space. Loos believed that through evolution of culture, ornament could also be eliminated from useful objects. To him, what is beautiful must also be useful (Tournikiotis, 1994).

Strips of brass were the only decorative components of the interior. They were also used as electrical conductors.

The dining room has a gaze that is directed towards the window. The gaze is also folded back by a mirror beneath it which transforms the interior into an exterior view. Loos employed structure as ornament in Loos house. The rooms, as quoted previously, had different heights and sizes depending on their significance and purpose. He used the same building materials to create a more living space. He maximized the use of material and block hrough accommodation of several rooms under one cube and in the same foundation (Loos, 1998). Plenty of glass could be an ornament according to Loos even when it was extraneous or even useless. Gottfried Semper presented a totally different origin theory compared to his predecessors, including Adolf Loos. According to Semper, the wall was a spatial enclosure (‘wand’) rather than a structural tectonic member (‘mauer’). The building’s envelop was to him, an example of ‘clothing’. To Semper, textile as ornament was more critical than structure because it represented essential cosmogonic function of architecture.

It was only in late 1830s when Semper’s classical architecture of structural and tectonic aesthetics came to be understood (Mallgrave, 2004). This came about when Karl Botticher (after getting advice from Schinkel) started exploration of ornamental forms that were of Greek architecture, in reference to their symbolic meaning. He distinguished between “art-form” and “core-form” which later became the basis of German tectonic theory, thus giving rise to many theoretical applications of these concepts to technologies and materials.

Gottfried Semper’s theory of patterns is derived from dressing and textile whereby he sees patterning as a structural process generative from joining of parts together (what is referred to as the knot).

Semper views pattern and ornamentation in Dresden Opera House as decoration (Tournikiotis, 1994). According to Loos, the use of ornament signified backwardness since evolution of culture was synonymous following the removal of ornament. Ornaments also represented degenerative tendency and a waste of wealth. It was a form of wasted man power.

He condemned ornament in his published works “Ornament and crime”. He also connected ornamentation with tattoos, waste of money and material, criminals and degeneration. He further extended this to architecture whereby he viewed the bashing ornament as having no potential for development in the current times (Tournikiotis, 1994). He stereotypes modernism as anti-pattern and dogmatically against decoration and views ornament as inaccurate. Use of excessive ornamentation was in itself pointless if it is passed by time since it will no longer be pleasing to anyone or else it will not be desired.

Loos House was a simple building in contrast to Dresden Opera house that was more complex in terms of its beautiful theaters. Loos house was secretive whereas Semperoper is famous and forms part of tourist attractions in Europe. After its completion, Loos House was just a tailor shop that had no symbols or sculptures to suggest business or commerce. However Opera House was magnificent in Dresden city strategically located at Theaterplatz and has striking statues and sculptures. It was full of ornamental decorations in contrast to Loos house that lacked art decorations with few statues and preferably few sculptures (Herrmann, 2011).

The stylistic features employed by Adolf Loos in the construction of Loos House included use of clean curves and straight lines. Each room was built on a different level. Floors and ceilings were set

at different heights (Loos, 1998). Windows and planar walls were plain and clear. He also employed plan of volumes commonly known as “Raumplan” that consisted of merging spaces and the system of contiguous. However, the stylistic features in Opera House are highly debated since it features three styles; Early Renaissance, Baroque and the Corinthian style of pillars.

The most suitable style applicable to this building would be eclecticism whereby influences from several styles of architecture have been employed to come up with the building (Mallgrave, 2004). The four elements of architecture employed by Gottfried Semper in the construction of Dresden Opera house were ceramics, roofing, mounding and weaving while those employed by Loos in architectural structure were the visible surface, the material structure, the space volume and finality (Loos, 1998).

The four elements by Semper formed his first theory of architecture that had the notion that architecture derives its forms from the four technical arts which include ceramics, carpentry, walling and terracing and masonry. Gottfried Semper’s second architectural theory was derived from Bekleidung or rather “dressing” thesis which suggested that textile patterns of the wall underwent an intricate process of development just as weaving evolved into a wall hanging to become a solid wall dressing that is similar in style as the original textiles (paneling and paint).

Loos argues that if a dressing precedes the structural framework then it does not fulfill the work of an architect since it does not bring desired sentiments to the building. Semper imposed high art to his building in contrast to Loos who only limited his craftsmanship to dressing (Mallgrave, 2004). Loos considers the notion of dressing in its symbolic mode as

a theatrical mask. He traces dressing motives to early industrial weaving or in the creation of a cover. This is also found in Semper’s theory. To both Loos and Semper, dressing precedes structural framework. Thus ornament precede structure in oth Loos’ and Semper’s theories of dressing. However the protective coating by Semper is considered by Loos as a dressing rather than a structure. In his “law of dressing”, Loos insists that the material used for “dressing” should not be confused with the “dressing” (Loos, 1998). Loos was very much against ornament art Nouveau as opposed to Semper who impressed the art of ornament decoration. From the discussion above, there is clear evidence that there is need for clarification of the notion of ornamentation in architecture especially at this time when this essential part of architecture is being jeopardized by misguided interpretations.

A theoretical framework should be developed in order to have a productive dialogue that should be aimed at creating a new design discipline. References Mallgrave, FH & Semper, G 2004, Style in the technical and tectonic arts, or, Practical aesthetics, Getty Publications, Los Angeles. Herrmann, W & Mallgrave, FH, 2011, The Four Elements of Architecture and Other Writings, 3rd edn, Cambridge University Press, London. Loos, A & Opel, A 1998, Ornament and crime: selected essays, Ariadne Press, Carlifonia. Tournikiotis, P 1994, Adolf Loos, Princeton Architectural Press, New York.

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New