Adolf Loos

Each age has had its own style where by style we meant ornament. Don't you think that today, we live in a fairly modern era, to overcome this need? Personally, I do not think that ornament can increase the joy of living in an educated man and I do not agree with those who argue: "But if the ornament is beautiful ...!" If I want to eat a piece of gingerbread I will choose one that is all smooth and not one of those in the shape of a heart or a baby in swaddling clothes or a knight, completely covered with ornaments. The man of the fifteenth century will not understand me. But all modern men will understand me perfectly well. The defender of ornament believes that my drive towards simplicity is tantamount to mortification. No, illustrious professor of the School of Applied Arts, I do not mortify myself at all! It's just that I like it more like this. The culinary compositions of past centuries, which exhibited all possible ornaments to make peacocks, pheasants and lobsters appear more appetizing, have the opposite effect in me. 

So, if the absence of decoration is synonymous with modernity, how do you consider those people who, even today, appreciate and desire this "superfluous element" that is decoration? 

Late! All people have different evolutionary goals: I live in a capital like Vienna and consider myself almost projected into the future, but my neighbor may still be stuck in 1900 and the farmer from Kals still lives in the twelfth century. During some events, such as the Jubilee, people appeared so uncivilized even at the time of the barbarian invasions! These latecomers slow down the cultural progress of peoples and humanity, since the ornament is not only the work of criminals, but is itself a crime, as it causes serious damage to man's well-being, to the national heritage and therefore to his cultural development. 

Wow, strong words! But don't you think that ornament is also an opportunity for economical development? 

Far from it! Decor produces poverty. The working conditions of wood carvers and turners, the starvation wages of embroiderers and lace makers are known. The decorator has to work twenty hours to reach the wage of a modern worker who works eight. Ornament, as a rule, increases the cost of the object, however it happens that an ornate object, made of same price material which takes three times the to be done, is offered at a half price than the pure object. If I pay the same price for a simple box as I pay for an ornate one, the difference is found in the necessary time taken by the worker to finish the work. Ornament is wasted labor power and therefore a waste of health. 

But not only. Changes in the ornamental style result in a rapid devaluation of the product. The working time and the used material are capital that is wasted. I coined this concept: the shape of an object resists as long, in the sense that the shape is accepted as is, as long as the object physically lasts. And I will try to explain: a suit will change shape more frequently than a precious fur coat. The woman's prom dress, intended to live only one night, will change shape more quickly than a desk. But woe to you if you have to change your desk as soon as your prom dress, because its shape has become unbearable! In that case, the money spent on that desk would be lost money.