Nineteenth International Conference on the Arts in Society

Abstract

Histories of modern architecture have portrayed the Austro-Czech architect Adolf Loos (1870-1933) as a revolutionary figure in modernism’s lineage. His Raumplan (Spaceplan) approach defied turn-of-the-century European conventions that prioritized exterior appearances by focusing on the interior experience of space. Equally radical was his outspoken rejection, publicized in his well-known essay “Ornament and Crime” (1913), of embellishing utilitarian objects—houses, toilets, clothing, shoes, umbrellas, and the like—with unnecessary ornament. Accordingly, Loos has been interpreted as standing on the functionalist side of the form/function dialectic that progressively defined the minimalist, industrial aesthetic typically associated with 1920s-30s modernism. Less studied, however, is Loos’ appreciation for the beauty of pre-industrial handcrafts and life-long effort to adapt the art of craft to the modern industrial present. This paper expands perceptions of Loos by revisiting three of his extant works: the Goldman and Salatsch Building (1909-12), Emil Löwenbach Apartment (1913), and Heubergsiedlung (1921-24). Applying a method based in phenomenology, I empirically analyze these alongside archival records that speak to the overlooked influences that shaped them. Phenomenological analysis reveals that Loos’ approach to architecture was grounded, not in a revolutionary vision of functionalism, but in his own craft upbringing and consequent receptivity to lessons imparted by Japanese contemporaries who were working to integrate Edo craft practices into a modernizing world. Complicating the canonic narrative, this paper shows how Japanese perspectives taught Loos to see through the illusions of linear progress, binary opposition, and individual innovation typically ascribed to him and recognize the beauty of mutual evolution.