I admit I've been struggling (and having a cold has not helped). I was perhaps a bit too focused on examining contemporary ornament. A look at more traditional forms of ornament has re-stimulated my interest in the subject. These are the details that enrich architectural design in their physical form but also symbolic meaning.
What went wrong:
The demise of architectural ornament was
its overuse. As ornament became a
commodity, it lost its value. Its worth
was overlooked. At the same time, the
rise of the industrial revolution reduced the architect’s palette to a
catalogue of materials. While contemporary
architecture addresses mass customization over production, today’s efforts to
reintroduce ornament into architectural design have yet to understand the
restraint required for it to resonate with the user. Sprawling ornament simply becomes white noise.
What to do:
Beyond visual delight, ornament ought to
be used selectively and provide identity, utility and articulation of the
building. By achieving this tripartite combination as well as limiting its pervasiveness, architectural ornament can reclaim its potency. What comes to mind is an ornamental acupuncture.
Strategies working towards Ornament:
Identity
- create a holistic environment
- provide a unique character
- reflect specific place and context
Utility
- merge ornament with function
- identify possible interconnections between them
- add a didactic dimension
Articulation
- choice in material
- the technology used (craft)
- placement
Glad to hear you are moving forward with your ideas – and it is interesting to hear you speak of the ornament dilemma as one of restraint. The tripartite approach to ornament that you raise needs to be refined (at the very least in how you describe it in text).
ReplyDeleteIdentity could reference matters of stylistic consistency. For example, in Garnier’s Paris Opera House the Beaux Arts ornamentation is quite identifiable and unify the space for a clear consistency. At the same time, how is that different from the standardized (and arguably discrete) consistency in the electric sockets or door knobs throughout a building? Are they not also selective and subtle ornaments that provided a clear consistency in identity? However in both the Garnier and door knob example the ornamentation does not specifically connect to context/place.
Utility could also be understood in the same way with the previous example. Door knobs and sockets are ornamental decisions that serve a utilitarian purpose, provide some interaction and connection with users, and arguably present a didactic condition. The larger question is if there is a dimension of utility in an ornament, does it remain truly an ornament? We discussed that pilasters imply a sense of a column but do not serve that compressive structural support. However a Corinthian column in a Greek temple supports the roof but is extremely ornamented. This is a potential paradox in the thesis discussion.
The “Articulation of the Building” parameter is on the one hand the closest you get to proposing an ARCHITECTURAL (as opposed to decorative) response however aside from placement, the other dimensions (choice of material, technology) are more aligned with interior design. You should also clarify the “technology used” as it implies articulation of processes (think Williamson Chong CNC works) but could also simply mean exposed nails in wood.