TLDR;
This lecture explores the complex relationship between architecture and ornamentation, tracing its historical trajectory from ancient times to the present day. It examines the shifting attitudes towards ornament, from its embrace in the 19th century to its rejection by early modernists, and its resurgence in contemporary architecture. The lecture also considers the subjective and political dimensions of ornament, exploring its connection to individual expression, social hierarchies, and cultural values.
- Ornament has had a complex relationship with architecture.
- Ornament has experienced periods of popularity and rejection.
- Ornament is connected to subjectivity and politics.
Introduction: The Paradoxical Return of Ornament [0:00]
Architecture has always had a complex relationship with ornamentation. Ornament has long been an essential aspect of architecture, evident in buildings from the Middle Ages to the 20th century. However, architectural decoration has often been viewed with suspicion, leading architects to regulate it through rules. The question of ornament became more complicated in the last two centuries. The 19th century saw an extreme embrace of ornament, sometimes to an excessive degree. Around 20 years later, ornament was banished, at least in appearance, in the early 20th century. Adolf Loos's lectures, titled "Ornament and Crime," reflected this movement. However, ornament has reappeared in recent years, with practices ranging from figurative to abstract. This resurgence is linked to the digital revolution, which has transformed architectural design. The lecture aims to explore the role of ornament in architecture, focusing on subjectivity and politics. It will examine the return of ornament today, highlighting the differences between contemporary and historical ornament.
The Subjectivity of Ornament [28:12]
The lecture explores the connection between ornament and the subject, considering who designs, manufactures, and is the intended audience of ornament. It references the idea of ornament as a "becoming-face" of a building, transitioning to the notion that ornament reflects the personality of the architect. The lecture notes that ornament was once a mark of the architect's subjectivity, a key part of their creative power. However, the mechanisation and industrialisation of ornament in the 19th century obscured this connection. The lecture also touches on the complex dialectic between imagination and rules in ornament design, referencing architects like Giuliano Romano and Philibert Delorme. Delorme saw ornamental inventions as a reflection of the architect's personality.
Ornament and the Hand of the Artisan [36:44]
The lecture shifts focus to the role of those who physically create the ornament, such as sculptors. Ornament serves as a point of negotiation between different professional cultures involved in its production. In the 19th century, John Ruskin and his followers emphasised the importance of the artisan's hand, advocating for imperfection in ornament to reflect human labour. Le Corbusier, later in his career, echoed these ideas, valuing the traces of formwork as ornamentation. The 19th century also saw ornament acquire a broader anthropological dimension, viewed as a trace of both a general human condition and the social conditions of a society. This led to the idea of an "ornamental instinct" and a fascination with ornamentation in primitive cultures.
Ornament, Social Rank, and the Interior [44:37]
The lecture explores the relationship between ornament and the social rank and dignity of the client. In France, the term "convenance" described the appropriate adaptation of ornaments to the rank of the patron. The lecture notes that ornament has been linked to social status in many societies, including in contemporary luxury goods like watches and coffins. From the late 17th century, the distinction between interior and exterior ornaments emerged, with interior ornamentation becoming more closely tied to the emotions and moods of the client. This also led to the development of gendered ornamentation, with masculine and feminine interior styles. The 19th century pushed this logic to its extreme, with interior ornament becoming an expression of the owner's inner self.
Ornament and Politics [50:07]
The lecture explores the political dimensions of ornament, beginning with the example of Venetian gondolas, which were painted black to curb excessive spending on ornamentation by noble families. Ornament is linked to expenditure, ostentation, and communication, and has been regulated by sumptuary laws in many societies. Institutions like the Catholic Church and Versailles have used ornament to project social and political power. The lecture also notes that ornament has been measured quantitatively in the past, reflecting its economic value. Ornament can create a sense of order and meaning in human actions, serving as a framework for social life. Colonial empires have used ornament to stabilise complex cultural assemblages.
Contemporary Ornament: Subjectivity and the Digital Age [58:39]
The lecture returns to contemporary ornament, arguing that while subjectivity has returned, it is a different kind of subjectivity shaped by the digital revolution. Contemporary ornament has a tactile quality, inviting touch and blurring the separation between subject and object. It often functions independently of the overall composition of the building, with a hypnotic or optical art-like quality. This reflects a desire to abolish the separation between the subject and the architectural object, placing them in a continuum. This is linked to philosophical ideas of Gilles Deleuze and others, who emphasise continuity and affect. The lecture also notes the influence of cybernetics and the idea of superficiality, where the self is seen as an interface.
The Limits of Contemporary Ornament and the Need for the Political [1:11:16]
The lecture concludes by arguing that contemporary ornament often lacks a clear sense of the political. It functions in a state of happy indistinction, blurring the roles of architect, client, and worker. This contrasts with traditional ornament, which operated at different levels and recognised different roles for different people. The lecture suggests that it may be time to revisit the question of the symbolic, avoiding the errors of postmodernism. The lecture also notes that the digital age has created new possibilities for representing society in ornamental ways, with data visualisations that reveal patterns and connections. The lecture concludes by suggesting that ornament may be an epistemological category for understanding our relationship to the world today.
