Ornament: Raison D’Être?

When talking about ‘ornament’, what usually comes to mind is that gothic or baroque style church we’ve once visited. The overly adored pillars from the greek temples, or even an accessory fashion related. In other words - a element that has a visual function. 

The use of ornament in architecture has been under investigation for over a century now, when pre-world war Sant’Elia, Marinetti and Loos amongst others, decided to call attention on how ornament was still being ‘wrongfully’ implemented . In their statements they strongly denied ornaments as how they were being worn for elements of construction. 

"Decoration is something imposed upon architecture, an absurdity (…) The decorative must be abolished."

They believed that there was nothing different in architecture since the 18th hundreds, as though as they were still living in the past. The classical way of constructing was loosing sense in the modernity of the technologies and the new necessities of the users, and together with it was the external elements that seemed to have no fundamental or structural functions.

"Architecture is breaking free from tradition. It must perforce begin from the beginning."

As a result, they proposed a new approach for architecture: the elements should reflect solely on the choice of the materials, the functions and the form. They believed that the future was to be constructed by the ‘scientific and technological experiences’ embracing new materials.

"The house of concrete, glass and iron, without painting and without sculpture, enriched solely by the innate beauty of its lines and projections."

The determination of extinguishing decoration in architecture by remaining only the form itself gave way to a new era in the architectural field where a series of new styles appeared. But what’s intriguing is how this denial created a new stylistic method of construction, and  therefore a new conception of ‘ornament'.