Here are a couple statements linking morality with aesthetic issues.
"..there was no decoration in the houses; people lived with a robust simplicity- proof of their moral wholesomeness."
-Le Corbusier
"A pressed glass bowl trying to look like crystal, a machine-made coal scuttle trying to look hand-beaten, machine made mouldings on furniture, a tricky device to make electric fire look like a flickering coke fire, a metal bedstead masquerading as wood- all that is immoral. So are sham materials and sham techniques. And so is all showy, pompous, blatant design."
- Nikolaus Pevsner
"To us clarity means the definite expression of the purpose of a building and the sincere expression of its structure. One can regard this sincerity as a sort of moral duty..."
- Marcel Breuer
"Freedom from ornament is a sign of spiritual strength."
-Adolf Loos
These are just a few that came to mind, but they serve to frame the discussion. Claims of morality focus on either honesty in the use of materials, the removal of ornamentation, or the expression of structural forces. An example of the latter would be Ruskin's description of colonetes in Gothic architecture as honest, because they express the way gravitational forces are transferred to the ground. Therefore the entirely non-structural colonetes (fake columns attached to the actual columns) are an example of how Gothic is the only true and Christian architecture.
Top 15 Best Sports Streaming Websites to Stream Sports Like CrackStreams
-
Other alternatives to CrackStreams Sites to stream Sports for free: Anyone
could utilize CrackStreams to watch live streamings of their favorite
sporting...
1 year ago
7 comments:
the problem i see is that these statements, like our own, seem to be based on personal taste and feeling. nothing wrong with those, and something could be said about the amount of this involved in aesthetics. i would be surprised to read opposing quotes from peers of each author.
this doesn't diminish their thought, or ours either. but, going back to the original question about ethics and aesthetics, these statements reveal the subjective manner of the question. aesthetics has some established criteria, but it's still a lot about taste.
Pevsner's quote is nice. I like the idea of not having things emulate other things. Truth.
Loos' quote is ridiculous. It's out of context, so I would like to read what he said to lead up to that, but if he just blurted that out, I would slap him. I'd have to be eased into that statement, like a frog in cool water that slowly boils. How do you define spiritual? How do you define strength? How do you define ornamentation? Freedom from ornament may be a sign of spiritual strength, but it could also be a sign of disinterest or lack of creativity. (I'm thinking of my house)
I feel a little the same about the LeCorb quote. I could misbehave just as well if I were in a simple house as in a rococo manor. Maybe that's just my special talent, though.
Here's the crux: Pevsner is talking about imitation and deception-- the others are about decoration vs. austerity. I think if there's an ethical/moral/spiritual aspect to decoration, then since ethics/morals/spiritualities are very internal things, there's gonna be trouble trying to judge the book by its cover. I can't say simplicity has a corner on the ethical decor market any more than Baptists do in the spiritual realm.
I could go on, but I won't. Happy Columbus Day-- There's some ethics for you.
Loos' comment is part of a longer diatribe against anything that is not historical. One of his famous comments is about tatoos. He says that the Papuan that is tatooed is amoral, because it is part of his culture (along with killing and eating his enemies). However the modern man (1908 Vienna) who tatooes himself is either a criminal or a degenerate. If he dies outside of jail it is only because he died before he could commit murder. It is all part of a larger argument that ornamentation is by its nature erotic (including the cross) and that because modern man has evolved beyond smearing the walls with erotic symbols (he did't know about NY Subways) it should not indulge in smearing buildings with erotic decoration.
Sounds like Loos just lost most of his credibility with that last summary. Can you say nutball?
The idea of morality seems to be based on so many factors such as spirituality, context, influences, culture, and even how you feel in your current state. Maybe it's less about morality and more about what you value and experience. For instance, I value my friendship with Ed. I see him as a moral person based on his experiences. Thus in my associations, I take on many of characteristics that make him moral because I value his company. I can say the same thing for Jay and Justin and Adam and everyone else. What I believe to be moral is not only based upon my own experiences, but also my associations. You are the company you keep. Just an unorganized thought.
The thing about Loos is that he had a huge impact on the modern movement. Le Corbusier published his article "Ornament and Crime" (tattoo comment) in his journal L' Esprit Nouveau. In many ways Loos is responsible for the removal of ornament from the International Style, and "Modernism" in general.
I guess every movement needs its radicals.
Post a Comment