Ornament and Crime by Adolf Loos | Analysis

Ornament and Crime by Adolf Loos | Analysis The art of argumentation is not an easy skill to acquireà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ It is easy to name call, easy to ignore the point of view or research of others, and extremely easy to accept ones own opinion as gospel.1 The 1908 essay Ornament and Crime by Adolf Loos is a collection of contradictory, hysterical, ill-conceived rants that were fomented by a sullen elitist. Loos implores the reader to cast off the wicked ways of the old and take up the fight for a new modern and more civilized era-an era that pictures the human race at its zenith with no ornamentation whatsoever. Although he was there to ride the wave of the Modernist Movement his essay decrying the ornament of the past can best be described as a reflection of a troubled man. Instead of putting forth new ideas he directs the reader to look with derision on other ones. Ornament and Crime has no continuity and is, in large part, simply opinions with little, no or bizarre base in facts. Loose writes of a civilization where, Men had gone far enough for ornament no longer to arouse feelings of pleasure in them, of a place where if there were no ornament at allà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦man would only have to work four hours instead of eight, and of a place where people say, Thank God,' when theres a fire, now there will be work for people to do again.' Loos could not have been more wrong about the future of art, architecture and human civilization. Ornamentation is not needless expression and is indeed an integral part of modern civilization that cannot be eliminated. Ornament and Crime begins with Loos describing an overly simplistic and narrow view of humans early development that shows his relativistic and class-based thinking. The human embryo goes through the whole history of animal evolution in its mothers womb, and a newborn child has the sensory impressions of a puppy. His childhood takes him through the stages of human progress; at the age of two he is a Papuan savage, at four he has caught up with the Teutonic tribesman. At six he is level with Socrates, and at eight with Voltaire. For at this age he learns to distinguish violet, the colour that the eighteenth century first discovered before that violets were blue and tyrian was red. Physicists can already point to colours they have named, but that only later generations will be able to distinguish. Loose breaks no ground with his observation that the senses of newborns are feeble; this is the very definition of what it means to be newborn. But the comparison between humans and dogs is ludicrous; might one not also consider the inherit potential that lies inside a newborn dog on one hand, and a newborn human on the other? At age two human is like a Papuan, a dark-skinned person from what is now Papua New Guinea, an evolutionary link just above a dog. Just able to walk on two legs and form rudimentary words but apparently unable to achieve full human status. Although racism was and still is all too common, science had fully blossomed by 1908 and such concepts as the theory of evolution had already been around for over 50 years. When attempting to write a forward-thinking essay it is tragic that Loos found it necessary and thought it acceptable to use such backward examples as part of a logical argument. Papuans had developed agricultural based societies some 6,000 to 9,000 years ago. Given better resources with which to work with Papuans may have well have been the ones to put Europeans in zoos.2 At age four, Loos writes, people are like the barbarians from the north that ancient Rome fought nearly two millennia ago-heathen savages. Then, quite unexpectedly there is a great leap in learning; a six-year-old is able to philosophize on the level of Socrates. Loos then takes one of many fantastic swerves from logic and declares that at the age of Voltaire a child is finally able to distinguish subtleties in the color wheel. It is unclear why Loos would choose Voltaire, a philosopher and writer, to use as an example of the developmental level when a person can distinguish a specific color, or its relevance. It is amazing to think that Loos knew children of eight years of age that had the wit of someone as legendary as Voltaire, not to mention the six-year-old Socrates. Perhaps most amazing though, is Loos complete and total lack of evidence that any of what he writes in his opening paragraph can be substantiated. His introductory observations continue and Mr. Loos writes of amoral children, murder, cannibalism, tattoos and morality. When a tattooed man dies at liberty, it is only that he died a few years before he committed a murder. This is his tie to the argument that ornament is a criminal act? This is why no school should have a statue at its front entry; no lapel should be adorned with a pin? Will these wanton decorations lead to mass murder? According to a 2004 survey by the American Academy of Dermatology, 24% of the respondents had a tattoo.3 By Loos standard we are all in deep trouble. Is it possible that he overstates himself? Mariners commonly had tattoos during his time and while they might have been a rough bunch as a whole, to state that their death is the only thing preventing them from committing murder is truly odd to any steady thinker. There is also no escaping the fact that the civilization that Loos felt was nearly at the point of building Zion, the holy city, the capital of heaven, was already in the midst of a period of slaughter and genocide such as the world had never seen. Not by savages and tattooed marauders but by politicians and titans of industry.4 After Loos interprets the amoral human embryo and the tattooed man, he launches into the origins of art and ornament. All art is erotic. Loos states. The first artistic act was performed to rid oneself of surplus energy. He compares the horizontal dash with a reclining woman and the vertical dash with a man penetrating her, concluding that the first ornament to be born was the cross, which was erotic in origin. Though ancient cross symbols have been seen as phallic symbols the fact that he sees only eroticism in the simple lines is bizarre in a truly Freudian way. Loos also neglects to elaborate on the other, probably older symbol, the circle. This reflects on his view of the profane, which is his main point, apparently, in the first section of the essay. He seems incapable of thinking that images of reproduction were not eroticism but merely represented life. His next argument for ornament as a crime is by using bathroom graffiti and the drawings of young children as examples of art. As to the former, One can measure the culture of a country by the degree to which its lavatory walls are daubed. To the latter, [a childs] first artistic expression is to scrawl on the walls erotic symbols. Loos is quite obviously deeply haunted by perverse thoughts and was himself in need of an outlet for his own surplus energy. To claim that young children are scribbling erotica on the walls is troubling. In a modern setting if a child were to actually do this, an investigation into criminal acts of pedophilia would take place. Again, with nothing to back up his claim, no correlative story, one has to wonder how he came to these conclusions. In order to bring any cohesion to Ornament and Crime and Loos thesis, The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from utilitarian objects, it is necessary to take a look at the experiences Loos had and the context in which he lived. Loos traveled to America in 1893. During that year he attended the Worlds Fair in Chicago and was impressed by much of the current architecture, particularly of American architect Louis Sullivan. Sullivan is famous for his saying, form ever follows function, which would later be shortened to form follows function.5 Sullivan and fellow-minded American architect Frank Lloyd Wright had the idea that buildings themselves could become ornament. They should fit into their surroundings and become part of the landscape. They were not however, opponents of ornament. Towards the end of his career in fact, Sullivan designed a number of buildings that were highlighted by ornament and are called his Jewel Boxes.6 Frank Lloyd Wright, in additio n to being an architect, was an art collector and dealer. He also designed the furniture for many of his buildings. Though the American architects had new visions for ornament it certainly was not left out of their design work. Loos remained in America for three years and while there, he was forced to labor at menial jobs such as floor layer, brick layer and even dish washer until late in 1894 when he found a position as an architectural draftsman in New York. He returned to Vienna a changed man. Back in Vienna, Loos was confronted with a floundering empire that dwelled on old architectural styles that promoted flourishes and grand faà §ades. He responded by designing the Cafà © Museum in 1899. It was well designed yet very simple. It had arched windows looking into an arched room. The light fixtures left the light bulbs exposed and he did a novel thing by making the electrical connections to the chandeliers out of brass strips banding the ceiling. Cafà © Museum was stark for the time but by no means free of ornament-the ornament had just become more streamlined. The response to this functional design was not complimentary, Loos created this simple Viennese coffee house during the peak of the Art Nouveau period. The cafà © was nicknamed Cafà © Nihilism7 and Loos was incensed that the privileged classes of Austria werent as forward thinking as the people in America and Britain. He called his critics, hob goblins and blamed them for smothering a society he saw only evolving without ornament, Humanity is still to groan under the slavery of ornament. Loos blames the stagnant attitudes, the ornament disease on the state, which was the centuries old Austro-Hungarian Empire. Ornament does not heighten my joy in life or the joy in life of any cultivated person. So on one hand Loos decries the fact that a carpenters bench wouldnt be preserved for the ages as worthy of notice and on the other he preaches that the love of something unadorned is something only the cultivated can understand. He blames the slow speed of cultural-revolution on stragglers and gives as examples his neighbors that are stuck in the years 1900 or 1880, the peasants of Kals (a secluded mountain town in Austria) are living in the twelfth century, and the man of the fifteenth century [who] wont understand me. These very people who are stuck in the past and are keeping society from moving forward also seem to be the focus of a contradiction Loos is unable to explain away, try as he might. And somehow, through this narcissistic attitude of preaching to the aristocrat, Loos seems to have stumbled upon a rational argument and an undeveloped reasoning behind his thesis. Ornament is a crime against the national economy that it should result in the waste of human labour, money and material. Loos recognizes, however briefly, that people naturally tire of objects before their use is done, and if gone unchecked, the need to consume could become problematic. As an example of this wastefulness, Loos points to a mans suite or a ladys ball gown but he then irrationally compares them to a desk. But woe if a desk has to be changed as quickly as a ball gown because the old form has become intolerable. Loos inability to give the credit of common sense to his audience is only exasperated by his next argument. If all objects would last aesthetically as long as they do physically, the consumer could pay a price for them that would enable the worker to earn more money and work shorter hours. Loos does however scrape the surface and begin to relate how craftspeople are paid poorly and how changing tastes are causing some items that are completely unadorned to be priced the same as items with a high degree of ornament. He points out that productivity can increase with an end to frills and filagree. What economic paradigm was he using that would allow greater compensation for more productivity in less time? I will grant that I have one hundred years of economic history to look on that Loos wasnt privy to, but thinking that workers would benefit from working less defies logic. In addition, didnt Loos argue that the birth of ornament sprang from mankinds surplus energy? His point then becomes ridiculous-remove ornamentation from all utilitarian objects in order to save time and money thus providing mankind with the surplus energy necessary to ornament. This is where Loos argument completely falls apart. It is ironic and a pity that what seems to keep Loos from realizing that he is against consumerism and greed and not necessarily ornamentation seems to be his own fear to take a stand for what he believes in instead of what he is against. But he then compares a Chinese carver working for sixteen hours to an American worker, a product of the Industrial Revolution, working just eight hours. Of course the workers will make more money due to increased productivity. Yet, with this seemingly benevolent view of the working class he reminds us of his true thoughts, Loos touches on this when he recognizes that, people on a lower footing [are] easier to rule. Is it that the mason is too closely aligned with the working class and so is worthy of derision? So even with a plausible argument, that wasteful design is criminal, Adolf Loos goes off track and gets wrapped up in outlandish statements like, set fire to the empire and everyone will be swimming in money and prosperity and ornamented objects are tolerable only when they are of the most miserable quality. In his misdirected logic, Loos takes on some of the biggest names of the day, artist Otto Eckman and architect and designer Henry van de Velde, but he only weaves himself into further contradictions and confusion regarding ornament and crime. Loos claims that their works are not only a waste but that they fall out of fashion so quickly that furniture, clothing, entire households must be thrown out to make way for the new designs but he then goes on to say that the time is incapable of producing new ornament. You cant have it both ways, incapable of producing and producing too much. His entire argument that mankind was beyond ornament disregards the vibrant atmosphere around him; Art Nouveau, Arts and Crafts, Deutscher Werkbund, The Secession even the advent of Modernism. Although some of the buildings he designed had some redeeming points to them his obsession with a purity of design resulted in his writings getting more attention than the buildings he designed. White and boxy with no aesthetic would be one way to describe the later Loos style. His low point probably came when he designed the Rufer House in 1922. Loos tried very hard to make a point but when his buildings are taken as point of reference I find it difficult to believe he made one. In the end is Queen Capitalism to be our sovereign? Is the capitalist a more advanced human than the artisan? How dare an architect refuse to acknowledge the suffering of his companions, his peers. That one can draw an interesting collection of boxes and with the other can carve beautiful scrollwork into marble, are they both not working to create a more visually distinctive and enjoyable world? Indeed, Loos himself admits that ornaments produce joy-only not for him. When he concedes that he is not above wearing ornament for the sake of others he is truly exposed as a fraud. As far as making a point in debate however, it is quite skillful of Loos to infer that any who oppose his view are simply lower forms of life, possibly even sub-human. If in discussion, someone dared disagree, Mr. Loos could simply fall back on the intellectually fraudulent, You obviously dont understand or Maybe the concept is beyond you. These tactics are well known to debaters but they are hollow in that they accept a theorem without a firm foundation of facts, and Ornament and Crime is fraught with ideological foundation issues. Had he said, How can so much wealth and effort go into a theatre when people are starving? That is an argument for ornament being a crime. Woman giving birth to children on the street and not being cared for at the expense of some filigree, that could be argued to be criminal. The people with plenty spend their time shirking their duty to their fellow human beings; that could be considered criminal. It sounds like this son of a stonemason was trying too hard to impress his friends. In the end he has been remembered, not so much for his building designs but for this argument. Bringing aesthetic value to something is a gift, not a crime. To make an object that is already useful, graceful and a delight to the senses enhances the value of that object. The true crime is to deny or suppress the human desire to create, beautify, fashion into something that can only be seen in the mind. Of the question Is Ornament a Crime? I will retort by asking my own questions. Is a flower ostentatious? Is the plant much more pleasing before it has bloomed? I would boldly state that flowering plants are indeed not cultivated for their leaves and stalks. Is a bird, bright with plumage, blight on the horizon? Does water flow in such an objectionable way as to create eddies and whirlpools to offend the senses? I must answer no to these questions and simply say that ornamentation is the flower of humankind, a necessary expression for all civilizations that cannot and will not be eliminated while there is still a creative spark in us. -A note about the lack of accompanied imagery- There are a multitude of images that could be displayed as examples of ornament that could be viewed as good or bad. Humanity has created a myriad of expressions since self-realization happened. The expression itself is not the point, it could be any expression at any point in the history of mankind. The fact that humans should not be inhibited to create is what is at issue whether it be in architecture, dance, art, song; therefore I felt it would be superfluous to include snippets of creativity that could never encompass what all peoples have created in the last. 20,000 years.

Alice Walkers Roselily - Two Stories in One :: Walker Roselily Essays

Alice Walker's Roselily - Two Stories in One In the short story "Roselily", Alice Walker tells two stories in one. The most obvious story is the one about the Black American woman Roselily, who stands before the alter, just about to marry a muslim, while she thinks about her past, wonders about the future and is questioning wheter she is making the right choice. The other, hidden story is the story about Black American women in general, their history and their ongoing search for something better. The way I understand the short story, Roselily`s story is, as it is presented to the reader through Roselily's thoughts as she is in the middle of her wedding, a reflection of Black Americans` (and women`s in particular) situation around the 1960s. At this time, Blacks are free Americans with the equal rights as other Americans, in theory. Roselily is an independent woman of her time, but being a single mother of four children, working long hours for most likely lousy wages in a sewing plant, she is far from free. The Blacks are no longer slaves in the cotton fields, they are now paid slaves in the refinement industry. Roselily is most aware of her situation, and she is willing to leave her past and start a new life with a new man. She has probably been searching for a better life for quite some time, by being with different men, who all could give her a child, but not a new life. I am sensing an urge in Roselily, to move on, symbolized by all the cars described in the short story: They are constantly moving from one place to another, they give you mobility, prevent you from being stuck somewhere you do not want to be. Roselily knows that she does not want to stay in the sewing plant, she knows that she wants to move on to something better, but she does not know what better is, and she certainly doubts if what she has chosen will be better than what she had. Her divided personality is like the different groups of Blacks in the civil rights movements. Some Blacks wanted segregation, some wanted their own nation, some wanted to be more African, some wanted to live like the White Americans, some were Muslims and some were Christians. They all agreed that their current situation was not acceptable, but they did not know how to improve it.

Seven events that shaped the New Testament world Essay

The conviction of the group that Jesus comes in contact with when at Matthew’s is that â€Å"one who claims to be holy should not have dinner with tax collectors and sinners.† In those ancient times, tax collectors were perceived a bad lot that was made up of sinners. To the Pharisees who thought of themselves as the holy lot, associating or even talking to tax collectors was an abomination. They identified themselves as the only holy people and the most clean spiritually and thus could not associate with sinners. Their group was made of the Pharisees and anybody who did contrary to their beliefs was considered unholy (Carter, 2013). Some of the people whom they did not associate with were the sick, prostitutes and the tax collectors. The sick were considered unholy because the Pharisees believed that sickness was caused by sins, prostitution was a condemnation because it was a sin and the tax collectors were considered sinners because of their couth ways of collecting taxes. Jesus came to make the wrongs right, He thus does complete opposite of what the Pharisees believed in. This brings a lot of misunderstandings between Jesus and the Pharisees because they care most about maintaining their religious holiness than reaching out to those in need of being whole again, that is, without sins or diseases as a result of their preaching and works of mercy to those in need (Holy Bible, 2007). In the text, at its most basic, the conflict between Jesus and the leaders is about doing against the set religious rules. The rule that Jesus breaks in this context is that a holy person should not eat from the same table with sinners. In this case, Jesus was eating together with Matthew in his place and Matthew is a tax collector. This is so because tax collectors were not only disreputable sinners but also were considered as spies of the Romans against their associated Jews. Nobody loved any man who worked at the levy office. Thus, they lived a secluded life like outcasts in their own community. Matthew sought to bring his old acquaintances to hear the Christ. After his calling, he now understands how powerful the grace of Christ was and would like his fellow tax collectors to experience the same. This portrays that the ones who have an experience with the Christ develops a desire that others be brought to him to have the same experience. As Jesus points out, those who think that their souls are not ailing do not long for a spiritual physician (Holy Bible, 2007). This was a direct hit to the Jews since they could not understand that Jesus, as John the Baptist said, was coming to heal the sick, to cleanse the sinners and to give hope to those who were in despair. Jesus demonstrated that he came for all by incorporating all in His teachings and day to day encounters but the Jewish despised Him because they held a view that they are whole. The that the poor publicans and sinners felt that they were in need of amendment and instruction but could not get it from the Pharisees and that is why Jesus kept them close to make them whole against. This was a regular cause of misunderstanding between him and the Jews (Holy Bible, 2007). There are several things we need to know about the historical world to understand the conflict between Jesus and the leaders at the Matthew’s. First, the Jewish people out rightly regarded tax collectors as conspirators because they worked for the Roman regime, and had the power of Roman militaries behind them so as to brutally compel people to pay levies. They were most eminent traitors with Roman regime (Carter, 2013). Secondly, Jewish regarded tax collectors to be extortionists because they kept everything they collected. Since tax collectors bid for a contractor to collect taxes in particular areas, the Romans gave the contracts to the person with the highest bid. The bidder would collect levies, give the Roman Empire what he had promised and would keep the rest. Therefore, there were many instances where the tax collectors levied high taxes and cheating with any opportunity they found so as to amass as much money as they could. For them, this was a business with wholesome profit making as they deemed necessary (Holy Bible, 2007). Thirdly, when a Jew got into the duties’ service, he was considered a cast away from the society. He was banned as a judge or an eye witness in a law court hearing, was barred from the synagogue and in the face of the public, his discredit prolonged to his kinfolks. This shows how bad the Jews hated the tax-leviers to an extent of considering them sinners, an abomination in the society and this hatred protracted to their family. Their grounds on which this kind of hate was based were genuine no wonder they were so bitter on Jesus when he associated with sinners and even went to an extent of dinning with them (Kraybill, 2003). The bone of contention here is the cause of misunderstanding between Jesus and the Jewish. What the Jewish do not seem to understand is that Jesus had come to make right that which is wrong. The knowing of the above past practices informs me in several ways in the process of reading the Matthew gospel. First, I now understand that the Jews were real fanatics of their religious dogmas. They highly valued conformation to their religious practices with an aim of staying clean and straight. Secondly, I now understand that every misunderstanding between Jesus and the Jews had a cause and it had something to do with a contradiction of the Jewish existing religious doctrines. Lastly, the misunderstandings were always eminent between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders because the Jews were not ready to accept the purpose for the coming of Christ. If only they understood, they would have compromised to accommodate His teachings (Carter, 2013). References Carter, W. (2013).Seven events that shaped the New Testament world. Holy Bible: NRSV, New Revised Standard Version. (2007). New York: Harper Bibles. Kraybill, D. (2003). The upside-down kingdom.Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press. Source document

What Is Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the practice of taking credit for someone elses words or ideas. Its an act of intellectual dishonesty. In colleges and universities, it violates honor codes and can cause irreparable damage to a persons reputation. It also comes with serious consequences; a plagiarized assignment may lead to a failing grade, a suspension, or an expulsion. Clearly, the issue  is not to be taken lightly. However, if you act with academic integrity, its also nothing to fear. The best way to avoid plagiarism is to understand the concept itself.  Ã‚   Types of Plagiarism   Some forms of plagiarism are obvious. Copying someone elses  essay word for word and submitting it as your own? Plagiarism, of course. Turning in an essay you bought from a paper mill is too. The issue is not always so blatant, however. In addition to  overt acts of academic dishonesty, other, more complex forms of plagiarism exist, and they lead to similar consequences nonetheless. Direct plagiarism  is the act of copying another persons work word for word. Inserting a paragraph from a book or article into your essay without including attribution or quotation marks, for example, is direct plagiarism. Paying someone to write an essay for you and submitting it as your own work is also direct plagiarism. If you commit direct plagiarism, youre likely to be caught thanks to software and  tools such as  Turnitin.Paraphrased plagiarism  involves making a few (often cosmetic) changes to someone else’s work, then passing it off as your own. Unless a specific idea is common knowledge, you cannot include it in your paper without providing a citation—even if you do not include any direct quotes.  Mosaic plagiarism  is a combination of direct and paraphrased plagiarism. This type involves tossing various words, phrases, and sentences (some word for word, some paraphrased) into your essay without providing quotation marks or attributions.  Ã‚  Acc idental plagiarism  occurs when citations are missing, sources are cited incorrectly, or an author shares an idea without a citation that isnt as common of knowledge as they thought. Accidental plagiarism is often the result of a disorganized research process and a last-minute time crunch. Ultimately, if you fail to cite your sources appropriately, youve committed plagiarism—even if you had every  intention of giving credit. How to Avoid Plagiarism   Not everyone who plagiarizes starts out with the goal of stealing  someone elses work. Sometimes, plagiarism is simply the result of poor planning and a few bad, panicked decisions. Dont fall victim to the plagiarism trap. Follow these tips to  produce successful,  original academic writing. Begin the research process as early as possible,  preferably as soon as you receive a new assignment. Read each source carefully. Take breaks between reading sessions to absorb the information. Explain each sources key ideas out loud, without referencing the original text. Then, write down each source’s main arguments in your own words. This process will ensure you have plenty of time to both absorb your sources ideas and formulate your own. Write a thorough outline.  After you’ve spent time researching and brainstorming, write a detailed  outline  of your paper. Focus on  pinpointing your own original argument. As you outline, imagine yourself in conversation with your sources. Instead of restating your sources ideas,  examine them and consider how they relate to your own. Paraphrase â€Å"blind.†Ã‚  If you plan to explain an author’s ideas in your paper, write the explanation without looking at the original text. If you find this process tricky, try writing out the ideas in a conversational tone, as though you’re explaining the idea to a friend. Then  rewrite the information in a more appropriate tone for your paper.   Keep track of your sources.  Make a list of every source you read, even the ones you don’t expect to refer to in your paper. As you write, create a running bibliography using a free bibliography generator tool.  Anytime you quote or paraphrase an author’s ideas in your draft, include the source information right next to the relevant sentence. If you’re writing a long paper, consider using a free citation organization tool such as  Zotero or EndNote. Use an online plagiarism checker.  Although online tools are not foolproof, it’s a good idea to run your paper through a plagiarism checker before submitting it. You may discover that you’ve unintentionally composed a sentence that closely resembles something written by one of your sources or failed to include a citation for one of your direct quotes. Free resources such as  Quetext  compare your work to millions of documents and search for close matches. Your professor probably uses these tools, and you should too.