The Crisis of Ornament: Evaluation and Intercultural Divergences in the Visual Arts of the 19th and Early 20th Centuries

Barbara von Orelli-Messerli

doi:10.5965/2175234612272020011

Abstract

From the beginning of the 19th century up to the present, ornament has faced different crises because it is not an autonomous art but traditionally attached to a surface, be it architecture or applied arts. The fate of ornament has varied, according to leading theorists and critics in these fields. In 1812, Percier and Fontaine exhorted architects and artisans to use ornament with consciousness and care. Gottfried Semper could even conceive of applied arts without ornament, and his utmost concern was to show the original function of objects that they had lost over time. He wanted to clarify the purpose of an object, not only from a functional point of view, but also iconographically. Christopher Dresser, with a background as a biologist and ‘ornamentist’, was the first industrial designer to create objects without ornament, following the influence of Japanese art. The death knell apparently tolled for ornament in 1908 with Adolf Loos’ talk on Ornament and Crime. The subsequent opposition of Art Deco and Modernism was a clash of cultures, perceptible even nowadays among architects and art historians. At a certain point, as recent studies have pointed out, there was a merging of these two art movements. At present, ornament has made a comeback and been reintegrated into architecture in a new way and spirit.

Highlights

Ornament, as the subject of this contribution, has traditionally been understood in the sense of an addition and of secondary importance for the function of an object, be it architecture or applied art
The Latin adornare expresses, in the English translation ‘to ornament,’ different aspects of ornamentation—decorating, garnishing, embellishing—and turns negative with meanings like bedizened, florid, fussy, or overwrought1. According to this traditional view, ornament is not independent and was not considered to be a form of art in itself. This discusses two theses: first, that in all epochs artists and architects were conscious of the fact that richly ornamented objects or buildings existed alongside buildings scarcely or not at all decorated; and second, even oppressed by different artistic movements, especially at the beginning of the 20th century, ornament returns to architecture and art, like waves returning to shore, recurrently, though with different strength
That our research could begin even earlier, in the Renaissance for example, but this would exceed by far the scope of our contribution

Summary

Introduction

As the subject of this contribution, has traditionally been understood in the sense of an addition and of secondary importance for the function of an object, be it architecture or applied art. The Latin adornare expresses, in the English translation ‘to ornament,’ different aspects of ornamentation—decorating, garnishing, embellishing—and turns negative with meanings like bedizened, florid, fussy, or overwrought1 According to this traditional view, ornament (ornamentum) is not independent and was not considered to be a form of art in itself. This was about form, and included ornament. While the general criticism of his time primarily concerned the form and application of ornament, Semper went one step further He denounced the meaningless application of ornament in mass production, much as, forty years earlier, Percier and Fontaine had done.