PART I
Contemporaneity
of Ornament in Architecture
ORNAMENT AND ITS USERS
9
CHAPTER 1
ORNAMENT AND ITS USERS:
FROM THE VITRUVIAN TRADITION TO THE DIGITAL AGE
Antoine )icon
)ranslated from the erench by kinda Fardiner
D
urig the past decade, the practice of architect re seems to have chaged much faster tha
its theory. lajor developments such as globa ization, computerization, a d the gro ig
importa ce of en ironmenta concerns have profound y
a tered the cond tions under which architects work.
Aga nst this background, theorists ind themselves compelled to explore the new topics of inq iry introduced by
progra matic a d technologica chage, a d to ta e up
old q estions that they thought had log since been dea t
ith. Amog the q estions that we supposed had been,
perhaps not a swered deinitively, but at least precisely
formulated, was that of orna ent. Recent years have
seen a igorous re iva of orna ent, but of a k nd q ite
d ferent from that we k ow from the past. aefore the
modern movement decided to d smiss it as a minor component of the architect ra project, orna ent exhibited
severa pred ctable characteristics in the Vest, which are
not necessarily in use today.
eirst, architect ra orna ent was genera ly restricted
to speciic areas in the past, concentrated at key points of
a build g. hn ma y contemporary projects, by contrast, it
covers the entire façade, applied as a overa l element, a
feat re of the sk n of the build g as a whole. his is tr e
of projects as d verse as the pharmaceutica research laboratories in aiberach designed by (auerbr ch Guton a d
the iohn ke is department store in keicester designed by
eoreign (ice Architects ig. . .
(econd, orna ent was pre iously iewed as supplementary in a partic lar sense; it was expected to be
supericia , a appendage tacked on to the rea substa ce of the build g, yet at the sa e time essentia , a l
the more so because it was possible to imagine it not
10
beig there. (rna ent was cosmetic, in both senses of
the term: it was as slight a surface deta l as ha rsyle or
ma eup, but it a so revea ed a underl ig str ct re.
he words cosmic a d cosmetic derive from the
sa e Freek root, mea ig arragement or order. he
trad tiona r les governig orna ent relected this d sconcertig eymologica connection bet een the supericia , the tri ia , a d the fragile, on the one ha d, a d
the underl ig essence of rea iy on the other. hese
r les were still beig applied to ma y nineteenthcent ry build gs: it is the only possible expla ation for
the importa t role that Karl eriedrich (chinkel assigned
to the decorative pa els of his aaua ademie in aerlin,
which were simply atached to the outside of the buildig yet essentia to the project.
hese r les no loger apply to orna ent, since it is
no loger removable either from the façade or from the
build g itself. hts new stat s reaches a extreme in the
blurrig of the trad tiona d stinction bet een str ct re
a d orna ent, as exempliied by build gs such as the
(l mpic (tad um in aeijig designed by Gerzog & de
leuron ig. . . he gia t laticework designed by
becil aa mond ca be read a most as a piece of jewelry,
as one giga tic orna ent. kast but not least, one more
d ference bet een past a d present uses of orna ent is
that whereas trad tiona ly even the simplest forms of
orna ent had s mbolic signiica ce of some sort, it is
now assumed by a rage of theorists a d practitioners,
from iesse Reiser to earshid loussa i, that orna ent
has no extrinsic mea ig. Although both contemporary theorists a d practitioners are tryig to d sta ce
themselves from the excesses of postmodernism, the
brea they wa t to ma e is just as much a rejection of
Fig. 1.1. Sauerbruch Hutton, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmacological Research Laboratories, 2002.
Biberach, Germany.
Fig. 1.2. Herzog & de Meuron,
computer image of Beijing National Stadium, 2008. Beijing.
11
Fig. 1.3. Jacques-François Blondel and Pierre Patte, Entable-
Fig. 1.4. Augustin-Charles d’Aviler, Moldings from Cours
ment Toscan de Scammozy from Cours d’architecture,
d’architecture, 1720.
ou traité de la décoration, distribution et construction des
bâtiments, 1771–77.
the pre ious ideas of architect ra decoration ith
which postmodern architect re sought to a ly itself.
hs what we are ta k g about when we spea of
orna ent now in a y sense more speciic tha simply
decoration intended to give pleasure? he h pothesis
proposed in this chapter is that, today as yesterday,
orna ent is closely linked ith the q estion of the person, or rather the people that architect re is concerned
ith. h ill try to show that the role of the ind idua s
concerned may be the ma n clue that links past a d
present—orna ent as understood in the uitr ia trad tion, before the modern movement broke ith that
heritage, a d orna ent as oten implemented in contemporary architect ra production.
(rnament and hts )eople
hn the case of orna entation, we ca d ide the variey
of people concerned ith architect re into those who
12 O R N A M E N T I N A R C H I T E C T U R E
design the orna ent, those who ma ufact re it, a d
those for whom it is intended.
eirst, the designer. At least until the eighteenth
cent ry, orna ent was supposed to revea somethig
essentia about the architect. ht relected character, both
persona a d professiona . dven the proiles of the
mold gs bear the sta p of huma character, as
iacq es-era çois alondel emphasizes in his Cours
d arch“t‘ctur‘ published startig in
, illustratig
this ith a series of plates sho ig the various ways the
ma n authors of treatises in the Rena ssa ce addressed
this topic ig. . . (rna ent is one sign of the architect s creati iy: this in t rn ra ses the q estion of the
relationship bet een the spirit of creation a d the r les
of architect re, a d of the limits of artistic license, a
issue hotly debated in the la nerist period. his issue
cast a log shadow; it comes up in the eighteenth cent ry in the case of Fia batista )ira esi, whose inventiveness was ma ifested especia ly i id y in the rea m
of orna entation, a d aga n in the late nineteenth cent ry, in the case of kouis (ulliva , of whom era k kloyd
Vright sa d that there was somethig energetic in his
way of think g about orna ent.
(rna ent a so has to do ith a other sort of person, those who car e, sc lpt, a d polish—the artisa s
a d sk lled workers that art theory does not a ways
k ow q ite what to do ith. Aug stin-bharles d A iler,
author of a inluentia textbook a d d ctionary of
architect ra terms that was reprinted ma y times in
the early eighteenth cent ry, believed that it was importa t to be on good terms ith the artisa s a d other
workers in the process of creatig architect ra decoration. his was the point of the well-k o n illustration
from d A iler s textbook, presentig side by side the
terms used by artists a d those used by artisa s to na e
the d ferent ypes of mold gs ig. . .
hn mid-nineteenth-cent ry arita n, iohn Rusk n
a d his followers saw the artisa -sc lptor, whose ha d
shapes the orna ent, as a essentia element in their
ision of what orga ic architect re ought to be. tnlike
his erench contemporary uiollet-le-cuc, who tended to
reduce orna ent to the logica outcome of str ct ra
decisions, Rusk n understood Fothic orna ent to be a
sign of the artisa s creative freedom. Vhat made the
Fothic tr ly orga ic, in his iew, was its abiliy to reconcile ind idua freedom ith collective inspiration.
Rusk n a so introduced the idea that orna ent was
bound to be slightly imperfect, since it a ways bore the
mark of the ha d that fashioned it. A cent ry later,
a og ith the condemnation of useless orna ent by
the modern movement, this conception was to have a
decisive inluence on ke borbusier. hn his mat re works,
such as the tnité d Gabitation in larseille ig. . , the
marks let on poured-in-place concrete build g surfaces by the wooden formwork might be seen as evocative of Rusk nia orna ent. hndeed, their irreg lariy,
later termed br ta by the architect, reminds us
strogly of the imperfection a d even roughness advocated by the dglish theorist.
hus, second in the list of those producig ornament comes the one who act a ly ma ufact res it,
either the designer or the artisa . (ome nineteenthcent ry theorists ref sed to d stig ish clearly bet een
these t o, belie ig in a k nd of impulse to orna entation that tra scends d stinctions in job description.
here is clearly somethig a thropologica or even psychoa a tica about this atit de. Ferma architect a d
theorist Fotfried (emper is q ite ypica in this regard:
in his account, orna ent has its origins in a impulse
that is initia ly universa but ta es d ferent forms from
one sociey a d one era to a other. (uch a read g
ine itably brigs up the thorny q estion of the ornamentation of machine-made goods, such as the elaborately decorated iron stoves that reg larly feat re in the
cata og es of tniversa dxhibitions—a prominent ype
of ma ufact re in that industria cent ry. co industria ized societies still bear the traces of a age-old impulse
to orna entation? hn the sphere of build g constr ction, the q estion becomes even more pressig ith the
mass-production of orna ent, well doc mented in the
tnited (tates ith its systematic use of decorative elements in terracota, but a most as ypica of duropea
architect re as well.
Fig. 1.5. Le Corbusier, pilotis of Unité d’Habitation, 1952. Marseille.
ORNAMENT AND ITS USERS
13
Fig. 1.6. Pottery with drawings made by criminals,
nineteenth century. Museo di Antropologia Criminale, Turin.
ht is interestig that the modern movement a so
ca e to adopt the iew of orna ent as a expression of
a basic a thropologica impulse—but in order to condemn it a l the more comprehensively. he now fa ous
essay (rna ent a d brime by Adolf koos, riten in
the irst decade of the t entieth cent ry, is very revea ig in this context. hn fact, koos was d rectly inluenced
by the work of the hta ia criminologist besare kombroso, who arg ed that the use of orna ent was linked
to forms of child ood beha ior that preig red crimina iy ig. . . hndeed, ater koos, orna ent was associated ith children, women, a d crimina s: a adult,
ma e architect whose goa was to beter huma sociey
had to beware of ield g too read ly to its iles. lodernism took this image of the architect as exemplary,
even though here a d there we encounter de iations
from the norm.
kastly, there are the intended recipients of ornament, from the client who commissions a build g do n
to the casua passer-by who looks at the decoration on a
façade. Amog the trad tiona f nctions of orna ent was
that of a nouncig to the world the q a iy a d ra k of
the build g s o ner. hn the vocabulary of classica architect re, this purpose was related to the idea of decor m,
14 O R N A M E N T I N A R C H I T E C T U R E
that is, the imperative that due proportion be obser ed
bet een the efects produced by build gs a d the socia
class of their patrons, as well as that orna ent be appropriate in terms of location, whether in to ns or the countryside. biy pa ace, country estate, to n ma sion, or
ord nary house: these d ferent k nds of build g, at least
in theory, should a l relect the principle of decor m, a d
do so partly by mea s of suitable orna entation.
his f nction of orna ent beca e complicated in
the late seventeenth cent ry by the beginnig of a separation bet een public a d private life: Architect ra
orna ents must be sober on the outside, because they
are seen by a l sorts of people a d at a l times, a d one
owes it to the public not to appear before it except in
proper garb. Architect ra orna ents may be bizarre
a d even grotesq e on the inside, since no one enters
there except those who are in ited in, a d then only at
times of one s o n choosig. his remark by bharles
)errault in his )ensées chrétiennes signa s the beginnig of a much freer, even bizarre a d grotesq e, ype of
orna entation in the interiors of aristocratic a d
upper-bourgeois dwelligs that would develop durig
the dnlightenment. hntended to relect the character
a d feeligs of the occ pa ts of these interiors, this
k nd of orna entation was seen as highly gendered.
la y riters have pointed out, for exa ple, the decided y feminine character of ma y rococo interiors. his
inner-outer separation was to persist through the nineteenth cent ry, gi ig rise to the bourgeois interior a d
to extreme ma ifestations of self-expression such as
the houses of (ir iohn (oa e in kondon a d )ierre koti
in hsta bul, whose extremely complex decorative progra s are recognizably autobiographica statements.
(rna ent is a so a mea s of rememberig the
dead, as the nineteenth cent ry was well aware when it
la ishly decorated the graves in its cemeteries. he origin of the borinthia capita , accord g to the story told
by uitr ius, was a basket that conta ned the possessions of a youg girl who had recently d ed. he basket
was placed on top of a aca thus pla t whose leaves
grew up around it, inspirig the sc lptor ba limachus to
create a new order: the person who was lost a d then is
remembered is key to the story. hn the seventeenth
cent ry, era çois alondel, the irst professor at bolbert s
Academy of Architect re in )aris, was think g a og
the sa e lines when he cla med that capita s were a
tra sposition of the f nera urns that in former times
were placed on the tops of columns ig. . . As we have
Fig. 1.7. François Blondel, Origin of the Capitals of Columns from Cours d’architecture, 1675–83.
seen, then, whether it is designed, ma ufact red, or
perceived, trad tiona orna ent took on a strogly persona character, invol ig ma y people a og ith the
architect, the artisa , a d the client.
)he Return of the puestion of (rnament
Armed ith this ha df l of historica references, we ca
now address the issue of the reappeara ce of orna entation that was brought up at the beginnig of this
chapter. )o be more precise, what seems to be reappearig is not so much orna ent itself but a genera ly favorable atit de to orna entation, a atit de closely
linked, as we sha l see, to the q estion of its designers,
ma ers, a d users.
ket us look more closely at some of the characteristics
of what is now understood by orna ent. eirst of a l, contemporary architect ra orna ent is much more supericia , or rather surface-bound, tha trad tiona orna ent,
which oten took the form of sc lpt ra carvigs projectig out from the pla e of the wa l. here is nothig like
this today: orna ent seems to form the act a sk n of the
build g. ht may have a text red efect, look g like
scratches or scars, or be closer to tatooig. aut regard ess
of the form it ta es, it essentia ly stays on the surface of the
wa l ithout ever brea g away from it.
bontemporary orna ent a so exhibits a tactile q a iy, as if its f nction were to encourage the iewer to go
beyond the isua experience a d litera ly caress the surfaces. his tactile q a iy is present in ma y projects,
sometimes to the point of caricat re. he de xoug
luseum by Gerzog & de leuron, for exa ple, seems to
be covered by protr sions that look rather like the ara lle
a phabet ig. . . ht is as if isua perception were to be
folded into a more comprehensive experience that a so
involves the sense of touch. Vith respect to the isua
experience, ma y contemporary orna enta de ices a so
have somethig h pnotic about them. hey reca l some
ORNAMENT AND ITS USERS
15
of the techniq es of
s op art, such as the repetition of
paterns that seem to have ta en on a life of their o n.
he s irls on the façade of the iohn ke is store in keicester seem to be spinnig as the iewer looks at them.
he exa ples mentioned here a l tend to ca l into
q estion the trad tiona separation bet een the
obser er a d the object obser ed in Vestern orna ent.
ht is as if they seek to d spense ith the idea of a sigle
point of iew identiied ith a partic lar perspectiva
d sta ce bet een obser er a d object, a d instead see
the t o as continuous. la y of the designers now
explorig the potentia of d gita design tools explicitly
identiy themselves ith this position, which resonates
ith other trad tions of architect ra orna ent that
tend to blur the subject-object d chotomy, includ g
hsla ic, Africa , or Asia approaches. he use of
celeuze s notion of afect is one aspect of the new
trend, evoked by architects as d verse as Ali Ra im a d
earshid loussa i. Vithin the continuum bet een
obser er a d object, afect cond tions that low, rather
tha emotions in the trad tiona sense: d f se rather
tha concentrated afects occ r in sit ations in which
the obser er is immersed in the en ironment, whereas
emotions create a d sta ce bet een the obser er who
experiences them a d the world outside.
his ype of philosophica context in t rn connects
ith a conception of the world understood in terms of
ields, grad ents, a d lows. (uch a world is not populated
by stable entities, by d screte obser ers a d objects, but
rather by events that occ r in space a d time. his is the
world en isioned by the philosopher Alfred m. Vhitehead in the early t entieth cent ry, a d ultimately the
world as described by q a t m mecha ics, which cha leges the idea of absolute boundaries bet een a
thig—a particle or a group of particles—a d its en ironment. Vhat seems to be emergig through the d sc ssion of the q estion of orna entation both by
theorists a d practitioners is a new ype of obser er, one
who is not d stinct from his or her surround gs but continuous ith the en ironment he or she exists in, a
obser er characterized by multipliciy a d expa se. ht is
in the context of such a obser er that we should probably understa d why Filles celeuze, ar no katour, a d
more recently )eter (loterd jk are so oten invoked by
architects atemptig to work out what this perspective
mea s, concretely, for the architect ra project.
bontemporary neuroscience tells us more about
this notion of a obser er that is both multiple a d
16 O R N A M E N T I N A R C H I T E C T U R E
extended well beyond the limits of the physica body.
eor one thig, the neuroscientists pict re of the bra n is
that of a net ork str ct red in ways not unlike the
hnternet. ht is when this net ork breaks do n that we
see menta illnesses like bapgras s ndrome, a patholoy
that the America novelist Richard )owers dra atized
in h‘ Echo óak‘r. As )owers points out, the bra n has
been likened in t rn to the stea egine, the telephone
exchage, a d the computer, but is now more oten
compared to the hnternet, ith its str ct re of nearly
t o hundred modules in consta t interaction.
he obser er as net ork, as en ironment or ecoloy,
was a notion a ready present in the later stages of cybernetics. ht was the connectig theme of the series of essays
published in
by the a thropologist-cyberneticist
Fregory aateson under the title of St‘ps to an Ecology o’
ó“nd. la y other links connect the conception of the
obser er found in the later stages of cybernetics to that
which is developig today, its surface-bound character
beig only one of them. (teeped in references to cybernetics, h‘ Post od‘r Cond“tion is partic larly explicit
on this point: iea -era çois kyotard s postmodern
obser er, dra n from the concepts of neocybernetics, has
a thoroughly supericia character.
Amog the feat res shared by the cybernetic obser er
a d the obser er that contemporary architect ra ornamentation is intended for is the tendency to identiy repetitive paterns rather tha ind idua forms in the
trad tiona sense. hmages, even representationa ones, like
those on the façade of the library of the dberswa de )echnica (chool in Ferma y designed by Gerzog & de leuron, are repeated as in a mosa c or on a pavement.
As Reinhold lartin has sho n, the perception of patterns rather tha d screte forms is one of the characteristics of the cybernetic approach to isua a d spatia
phenomena. his is what brought the artist Fyöry
Kepes, who taught at the lassachusets hnstit te of )echnoloy in the
sa d
s, to rite extensively on ways
of adaptig cybernetic principles to art a d architect re.
he paterns that Kepes d sc sses share severa feat res
ith contemporary architect ra orna entation.
Gowever, the new conception of the obser er that
we see emergig today d fers in a number of respects
from that developed by cyberneticists in the period
from the
s to the
s. eor one thig, it has a new
a d somewhat contrad ctory nat re—d spersed a d
continuous ith its surround gs, but a so uniq e a d
deeply persona . Fotfried keibniz s monad òa óonad-
Fig. 1.8. Herzog & de Meuron, de Young
Museum, 2005. San Francisco.
Fig. 1.9. Gramazio & Kohler/ETH, Sequential Wall, 2008. Zurich.
olog“‘,
, sketchig out a metaphysics of simple substa ces is perhaps the only concept that combines
these t o characteristics. Gis solution to the problem
of how substa ces ca be both identiiable as such a d
in continuiy ith their surround gs is to consider
them as points of iew, ind idua perspectives on the
world. his connection bet een keibniz s problem
a d ours would help expla n the ret rn to favor of
monad c models today. Architect re for monads?
Vhat seems to be reappearig yet aga n is the link
bet een the q estion of orna ent a d the nat re of
the obser er, which in t rn brigs us back ine itably to
the problem of the ind idua .
(ome q estions, however, rema n una swered. Vho
ma es orna ent today? Vith the development of
computer-a ded ma ufact rig, are we seeig a new breed
of Rusk n s artisa s, who leave their persona imprint on
what they ma e? his is indeed the drea cherished by
ma y designers, who imagine a nonsta dard architect re rel ig on the possibiliy of creatig ininitely varied
solutions, ma ufact red ith absolute precision a d at
reduced cost, tha ks to computer-controlled machinery.
ht is interestig to note in this connection the orna enta
character of ma y experimenta str ct res that ma e use
of the possibilities of robotic fabrication, from the undulatig wa ls of Fra azio & Kohler to the surface str ct res
of lartin aechthold ig. . . (ometimes it would seem as
if the architect is tryig to ta e over the roles of artisa a d
worker by perma ently usurpig their authoriy over
what they create.
ORNAMENT AND ITS USERS
17
Ve should a so ask ourselves whether the person
who designs a d/or ma es orna ent is d ferent from
the one who encounters it, either as client, user, or mere
passer-by. Gere too, the trend is toward assimilatig
these obser ers to the emblematic ig re of the designer.
lore genera ly, the d ferent ind idua s a d their complex interplay, which architect re addressed in the past,
are apparently becomig reduced to a sigle generic
ind idua s immig in a luid rea m of paterns a d
afects. his aba donment of the trad tiona d stinctions bet een the designer, the ma er, a d the obser er
of orna ent— ith the new foc s on a luid en ironment, in which the trad tiona Vestern boundaries
bet een obser er a d object are d ssol ig—seems to
go a og ith a k nd of suspension of the historica
d mension, as if architect ra creation could no loger
be understood except in the present, a present that is
unbounded a d lack g a y rea past or f t re.
he sense that we are at the end of history, may
well be connected to our c rrent uncerta ny about the
politica signiica ce of architect re. cespite the
increasig rage of opinions about the politica or socia
efectiveness the agency, so to spea of the architect ra project, it is d ic lt to give concrete substa ce to
the need to get beyond the rea ist approach to thigs so
ypica of the past t o decades, inluenced by Rem Koolhaas a d his uncompromisig critiq e of the modernist
illusion that architect re could chage the world. ba
contemporary orna entation escape this q estion of
the relationship bet een architect re a d politics?
tntil the late nineteenth cent ry, orna ent had clear
politica signiica ce, not least because it helped to
deine the respective roles of the architect, the artisa ,
a d the client, while at the sa e time signiyig the
ra k a d a bition of the people or instit tions that
commissioned build gs. ht is clear that this k nd of
politica component has been lost. hs it possible to be
concerned ith the ind idua ithout ra sig the q estion of politics? ht would seem not. hn fact, it might be
arg ed that the sta ce of a istoriciy obser ed in contemporary orna ent is related to the c rrent politics of
globa ization, ith its d verse loca expressions.
Gow, then, ca we reinvent a politics, if not of ornament per se, at least of architect ra orna entation? he
stregth of the links forged in recent decades bet een
architect re a d mass med a might be a clue. kike ornament in the trad tiona sense, contemporary orna enta
practices are bound up ith a desire to communicate,
18 O R N A M E N T I N A R C H I T E C T U R E
both globa ly a d loca ly. hey ca not rely on f nctiona
constra nts to ma e thigs happen, like the pa opticon
as a a yzed by lichel eoucault. hnstead, their links
ith power seem to operate through shared codes a d
va ues that orna ent has to convey a d reinforce. ht is
impossible at this stage to neglect the problem of mea ig, or of s mbolic signiica ce, a though ma y contemporary designers cla m to have aba doned it, as h have
a ready pointed out. As the theorist Robert ke it has
noted in a insightf l article, mea ig—a mea ig that
is more tha the pure play of volumes, text res, a d
paterns—a ways reappears, even when it has supposed y been eliminated in the na e of the deplo ment of
purely architect ra afects. Gow else to interpret the
neo-hsla ic a lusions in some of the projects produced by
the (ice for letropolita Architect re (lA, Rem
Koolhaas ig. . or by ya a Gad d?
hn order to f lill this agenda, architects may not
necessarily have to revert to the proliferation of signs,
torn out of their historica context or vernac lar c lt re, ith which postmodernism cla med to be
respond g to the q estion of the politica a d socia
responsibilities of architect re, even if some theorists
a d practitioners are now red scoverig the efectiveness of some a swers that postmodernism proposed.
he point should rather be to reconnect ith architect re s f nction as a mea s of communicatig politica
a d socia va ues, somethig that has to leave behind
ind idua feeligs a d experiences—d mensions
whose rise to power seem inexorable—a d ma e its
way back to the rea m of shared experience.
hn this context, the q estion of monumenta iy may
need to be addressed aga n. Ve have never before built so
ma y monumenta build gs. hey proliferate: every ciy
of a y importa ce wa ts its o n museum, c lt ra center, or library, if possible the work of a big-na e architect. hese gra d build gs are more a d more oten
orna ented, but their orna entation does not send a
clear message. All messages are event a ly doomed to
grow old, but agig is the price to pay for becomig part of
history. bontemporary architect re, like the ind idua s
it addresses, appears to deny the agig process, in favor of
seek g a nonexistent formula for eterna youth.
tltimately, relectig critica ly on architect re, ia
orna entation, may contribute to a new democratic
project that would unite ind idua s in the age of the
computer. ha ks to politica scientists a d sociologists
st d es of the hnternet, we are now beginnig to identiy
Fig. 1.10. Oice for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA), project for the New Jeddah International Airport, 2005. Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia.
some of the key feat res of this project, such as the need
for cooperation that expresses itself through enterprises
like Vik ped a or (pen(treetlap. (n a more genera
level, the socia net ork in which we live is becomig a
litle more comprehensible. ht is, for exa ple, possible to
iew in rea time the events that con lse it, as we have
learned from the recent series of politica uprisigs in
which mobile phones a d ) iter enabled the demonstrators to coord nate their actions a d the rest of the
world to watch them. Ve need to ask ourselves how to
tra slate this new k owledge into architect ra form a d
reconsider the role of orna ent.
erom the Rena ssa ce to the eighteenth cent ry,
architect ra decoration was considered to be the pri-
mary fra ework ithin which huma actions took
place. ht took on a highly politica colorig, as the philosopher )ierre baye has sho n in his fascinatig st dy
Emp“r‘ ‘t dqcor, in which he arg es that for some
huma ists, architect re was mea t to deine a huma
world in bet een the inhuma iy of nat re a d the
eq a ly inhuma perfection of the gods, ha f ay
bet een imma ence a d tra scendence. he point is
certa nly not to reinvent the vocabulary of orders, moldigs, caryatids, a d urns, but to ind out how contemporary architects ca draw upon the new resources of
architect ra orna entation so as to give new mea ig
to collective action. his is one of the tasks that critica
theory today has to underta e.
ORNAMENT AND ITS USERS
19
other countries. (ee Arinda cuta, h‘
Bur‘aucracy o’ B‘auty: D‘s“gn “n th‘ Ag‘ o’
Its Global R‘produc“b“l“ty mew xork:
Routledge,
; barol A. Gr ol elores,
Ow‘n Jon‘s: D‘s“gn, Or am‘nt, Arch“t‘ctur‘,
and h‘ory “n an Ag‘ “n Trans“tion mew
xork: Rizzoli,
.
. )a ne, From Or am‘nt to Ob”‘ct;
largaret hversen, Alo“s R“‘gl: Art H“story
and h‘ory ba bridge, lA: lh)
)ress,
.
. (ee especia ly the d sc ssion of
Ferma architect Fotfried (emper s
treatise D‘r Stil
– a d its inluence
on the nascent ield of a thropoloy in the
second ha f of the nineteenth cent ry in
)a ne, From Or am‘nt to Ob”‘ct, chaps.
a d .
. cebra (chater, h‘ Ord‘r o’
Or am‘nt, th‘ Structur‘ o’ Styl‘: h‘or‘tical
Foundations o’ óod‘r Art and Arch“t‘ctur‘
ba bridge: ba bridge tniversiy )ress,
.
. drnst Kühnel, h‘ Arab‘squ‘:
ó‘an“ng and Trans’or ation o’ an
Or am‘nt, tra s. Richard dtighausen
Fraz: uerlag für (a mler,
; origina ly
published as D“‘ Arab‘sk‘: S“nn und
Wandlung E“n‘s Or am‘nts Viesbaden:
cietrich sche uerlagsbuchha d ug,
;
André bhastel, òa grot‘squ‘ )aris:
Fa limard,
; Alessa dra ya perini,
Or am‘nt and th‘ Grot‘squ‘: Fantastical
D‘coration ’rom Antiqu“ty to Art ôouv‘au
kondon: ha es a d Gudson,
.
. (ir aa ister eletcher, A H“story o’
Arch“t‘ctur‘ on th‘ Comparativ‘ ó‘thod ’or
th‘ Stud‘nt, Cratsman, and Amat‘ur, th ed.
kondon: a. ). aatsford; mew xork: bharles
(cribner s (ons,
,
. he )ree
appeared in numerous ed tions bet een
a d
. (n the concept a ization of
non-Vestern isua trad tions as
essentia ly decorative a d timeless, see
Fülr mecipoğlu, he boncept of hsla ic
Art: hnherited ciscourses a d mew
Approaches, in Islam“c Art and th‘ óus‘um:
Approach‘s to Art and Archa‘ology o’ th‘
óusl“m World “n th‘ Tw‘nty-F“rst C‘ntury,
ed. aeno“t iunod, Feorges Kha il, (tefa
Veber, Ferhard Volf kondon: (aqi aooks,
, – .
. he Fra d losq e of Abu chabi
–
is a unusua exception, ith
its preference for deplo ig nat ra istic
lora orna ent, combinig motifs
borrowed from (toma hznik tiles, lugha
p“‘tra dura inlays, a d other nat ra istic
bota ica designs: Robert Gillenbra d, h‘
Sh‘“kh Zay‘d Grand óosqu‘: A òandmark o’
350 N OT E S TO PA G E S 0 0 0 – 0 0 0
óod‘r Islam“c Arch“t‘ctur‘ Abu chabi,
cuba : (hawati,
.
. )hilip iod d o, óus‘um o’ Islam“c
Art, Doha–Qatar lunich: )restel,
,
– , , .
. hough pioneerig in its time, such
a universa izig ision informs drnst
Fombrich, h‘ S‘ns‘ o’ Ord‘r: A Study “n th‘
Psychology o’ D‘corativ‘ Art (xford:
)ha don,
.
. tnfort nately, the authors of three
add tiona pla ned essays on hberia ,
iapa ese, a d Africa orna ent were
unable to submit their work to this volume.
bhapter
. eor a philosophica d sc ssion of this
idea of the supplementary, see, for
exa ple, iacq es cerrida, D“ss‘m“nation
bhicago: tniversiy of bhicago
)ress,
.
. bf. aarry aergdoll, Karl Fri‘drich
Sch“nk‘l: An Arch“t‘ctur‘ ’or Pruss“a mew
xork: Rizzoli,
.
. (n Gerzog & de leuron, see uitoria
ci )a ma s essay in the present volume.
. iesse Reiser a d ma a o tmemoto,
Atlas o’ ôov‘l T‘cton“cs mew xork:
)rinceton Architect ra )ress,
;
earshid loussa i a d lichael Kubo, h‘
Function o’ Or am‘nt aarcelona: Actar,
.
. iacq es-era çois alondel a d )ierre
)ate, Cours d arch“t‘ctur‘, ou tra“tq d‘ la
dqcoration, d“stribution ‘t construction d‘s
bâtim‘nts )aris: cesa nt,
– , vol. ,
plates – .
. bf. cid er karoq e, Le discours de
P“ranps‘: òor ‘m‘nt subl“m‘ ‘t l‘ susp‘ns d‘
l arch“t‘ctur‘ )aris: ùd tions de la )assion,
.
. era k kloyd Vright, kouis
G. (ulliva : Gis Vork, Arch“t‘ctural R‘cord
iuly
: – .
. Aug stin-bharles d A iler, Cours
d arch“t‘ctur‘ )aris : iea lariete,
,
plate A.
. bf. lichael V. arooks, John Ruskin
and V“ctorian Arch“t‘ctur‘ kondon: ha es
a d Gudson,
.
. (n Fotfried (emper, see, for
exa ple, the introduction by Garry era cis
la lgrave to his Styl‘ “n th‘ T‘chn“cal and
T‘cton“c Arts; or, Practical A‘sth‘tics kos
Ageles: Fey Research hnstit te,
.
. bf. ua érie mègre, òor ‘m‘nt ‘n sqri‘:
Arch“t‘ctur‘, t‘rr‘ cu“t‘ ‘t carton-p“‘rr‘
ar ssels: lardaga,
.
. iimena ba a es a d Andrew
Gerscher, brimina (k ns: )atoos a d
lodern Architect re in the Vork of Adolf
koos, Arch“t‘ctural H“story
:
– .
. (ee, for insta ce, Alina )a ne, h‘
Arch“t‘ctural Tr‘atis‘ “n th‘ Ital“an
R‘na“ssanc‘: Arch“t‘ctural Inv‘ntion,
Or am‘nt, and ò“t‘rary Cultur‘ ba bridge:
ba bridge tniversiy )ress,
; Antoine
)icon, Fr‘nch Arch“t‘cts and Eng“n‘‘rs “n th‘
Ag‘ o’ th‘ Enl“ght‘nm‘nt ba bridge:
ba bridge tniversiy )ress,
.
. bharles )errault, )ensées chrétiennes, in )apers on erench (eventeenthbent ry kiterat re, ed. iacq es aarchilon
a d batherine uelay-ua la tin, specia issue,
B“bl“o , no.
.
. bf. Katie (cot, h‘ Rococo Int‘rior:
D‘coration and Soc“al Spac‘s “n Early
E“ght‘‘nth-C‘ntury Paris mew Gaven, b):
xa e tniversiy )ress,
.
. uitr ius, h‘ T‘n Books on
Arch“t‘ctur‘, tra s. lorris Gicy lorga
ba bridge, lA: Gar ard tniversiy )ress;
kondon: Gumphrey lilford a d (xford
tniversiy )ress,
, bk. , chap. , sec. .
. era çois alondel, Cours d arch“t‘ctur‘
)aris: ). Aubouin a d e. blouzier,
– : : – .
. Ali Ra im, Catalytic For ations:
Arch“t‘ctur‘ and D“g“tal D‘s“gn kondon:
)aylor a d era cis,
; loussa i a d
Kubo, h‘ Function o’ Or am‘nt.
. Richard )owers, h‘ Echo óak‘r
mew xork: )icador,
,
.
. Fregory aateson, St‘ps to an Ecology
o’ ó“nd: Coll‘ct‘d Essays “n Anthropology,
Psych“atry, Evolution, and Ep“st‘mology
mew xork: bha d er,
.
. iea -era çois kyotard, h‘
Post od‘r Cond“tion: A R‘port on Knowl‘dg‘
linneapolis: tniversiy of
linnesota )ress,
.
. Reinhold lartin, h‘ Organ“zational
Compl‘x: Arch“t‘ctur‘, ó‘d“a, and Corporat‘
Spac‘ ba bridge, lA: lh) )ress,
.
. Fotfried Vilhelm ereiherr von
keibniz, D“scours‘ on ó‘taphys“cs; and, h‘
óonadology
a d
, tra s. Feorge
R. lontgomery aufa o, mx: )rometheus
aooks,
.
. (ee erédéric liga rou a d ye nep
lenna , eds., Arch“t‘ctur‘s non standard
)aris: ùd tions du bentre )ompidou,
.
. h have expa ded f rther on this idea
in Antoine )icon, Cultur‘ numqriqu‘ ‘t
arch“t‘ctur‘: Un‘ “ntroduction aasel:
airk aüser,
.
. lichel eoucault, D“sc“pl“n‘ and
Pun“sh: h‘ B“rth o’ th‘ Prison, tra s. Ala
(herida mew xork: uintage aooks,
.
. Robert ke it, bontemporary
(rna ent: he Ret rn of the ( mbolic
Repressed, Har ard D‘s“gn óagazin‘
(prig–(ummer
: – .
. eor exa ple, cominiq e bardon, La
dqmocrati‘ Int‘r ‘t: Prom‘ss‘s ‘t l“m“t‘s
)aris: (euil,
.
. )ierre baye, Emp“r‘ ‘t dqcor.
ò arch“t‘ctur‘ ‘t la qu‘stion d‘ la t‘chn“qu‘
à l âg‘ human“st‘ ‘t class“qu‘ )aris:
urin,
.
bhapter
. his chapter develops arg ments irst
adva ced in my article alurs, alots, a d
blouds: Architect re a d the cissolution of
the (urface, AA F“l‘s
(ummer
:
– . h would like to express my tha ks to
lary lckeod for her ast te comments a d
helpf l sugestions on a earlier version of
this chapter. (ome other recent d sc ssions
of orna ent a d surface in contemporary
architect re include Fiulia a ar no,
Sur’ac‘: óatt‘rs o’ A‘sth‘tics, óat‘rial“ty,
and ó‘d“a bhicago: tniversiy of bhicago
)ress,
; Andrea Fleiniger a d Feorg
urachliotis, Patt‘r : Or am‘nt, Structur‘,
and B‘hav“or aasel: airk äuser,
;
(yl ia ka in, K“ss“ng Arch“t‘ctur‘ )rinceton, mi: )rinceton tniversiy )ress,
;
ca id keatherbarrow a d lohsen
lostafa i, Sur’ac‘ Arch“t‘ctur‘ ba bridge,
lA: lh) )ress,
; Robert ke it,
bontemporary (rna ent: he Ret rn of
the ( mbolic Repressed, Har ard D‘s“gn
óagazin‘
(prig–(ummer
:
– ; Freg k nn, he (tr ct re of
(rna ent, in D“g“tal T‘cton“cs, ed. meil
keach, ca id )urnbull, a d bhris Villia s
bhichester: Viley-Academy,
,
– ; earshid loussa i a d lichael
Kubo, h‘ Function o’ Or am‘nt aarcelona:
Actar,
; Antoine )icon, D“g“tal Cultur‘
“n Arch“t‘ctur‘: An Introduction ’or th‘
D‘s“gn Pro’‘ss“ons aasel: airk äuser,
;
a d )icon, Or am‘nt: h‘ Pol“tics o’
Arch“t‘ctur‘ and Sub”‘ctiv“ty, AD Prim‘r
bhichester: Viley,
.
. larc s uitr ius )ollio, h‘ T‘n
Books on Arch“t‘ctur‘, tra s. lorris Gickey
lorga mew xork: cover,
,
– .
. (ee bharles-micolas bochin,
(upplication aux orfè res, ciseleurs,
sc lpteurs en bois . . . , ketre à l. l Abbé
R*** sur une très-mauva se pla sa terie . . . , a d A is aux da es, in R‘cu‘“l
d‘ qu‘lqu‘s p“pc‘s conc‘r ant l‘s arts
)aris,
.
. Alina )a ne, From Or am‘nt to Ob”‘ct:
G‘n‘alog“‘s o’ Arch“t‘ctural óod‘r “sm mew
Gaven, b): xa e tniversiy )ress,
, .
(n the publication history of (rna ent
a d brime, see bhristopher kog, he
(rigins a d bontext of Adolf koos s
(rna ent a d brime, Jour al o’ th‘
Soc“‘ty o’ Arch“t‘ctural H“storians , no.
iune
:
– .
. Adolf koos, (rna ent a d brime,
in h‘ h‘ory o’ D‘corativ‘ Art: An Anthology
o’ Europ‘an and Am‘rican Writings,
–
, ed. hsabelle era k, tra s. ca id
arit mew Gaven, b): xa e tniversiy
)ress,
,
.
. eor importa t d sc ssions of the
gendered implications of koos s architect re, see xehuda (afra , ed., Adol’ òoos: Our
Cont‘mporary uienna: lAK,
; Anne
bheg, S‘cond Sk“n: Jos‘ph“n‘ Bak‘r and th‘
óod‘r Sur’ac‘ (xford: (xford tniversiy
)ress,
; aeatriz bolomina, he (plit
Va l: comestic uoyeurism, in S‘xual“ty
and Spac‘, ed. aeatriz bolomina mew xork:
)rinceton Architect ra )ress,
,
– ; baroline bonsta t, Adolf koos a d
the Voma )roblem : cecor m a d
lodern Architect re, APPX
:
– ; a d lary lckeod, tndressig
Architect re: eashion, Fender, a d
loderniy, in Arch“t‘ctur‘: In Fash“on, ed.
cebora eausch, )aulete (igley, Rodolphe
dl-Khoury, a d y i dfrat mew xork:
)rinceton Architect ra )ress,
,
– .
. mor, for that mater, if we reca l the
sugestive f rry cladd g of the a l-white
bedroom he designed for his nineteen-yearold ife, kina, does koos seem to have been
averse to the haptic pleasure of text re. (n
koos a d color, see la Risselada, )a nt as
bladd g: (ome (bser ations a d
(pec lations on the tse of bolor in the kate
hnteriors of Adolf koos
– ,
Raumplan vs. Plan ò“br‘: Adol’ òoos ò‘
Corbus“‘r, ed. la Risselada Roterda :
)ublishers,
,
– .
. Adolf koos, he )rinciple of
bladd g, in Spok‘n “nto th‘ Vo“d: Coll‘ct‘d
Essays
–
, introduction by Aldo
Rossi, tra s. ia e (. me ma a d iohn G.
(mith ba bridge, lA: (ppositions
aooks/lh) )ress,
, – .
. A similar but not identica
photograph of Ach“ll‘a umb‘llata umbellata
yarrow enlarged thiry times was
published in the second ed tion of Karl
alossfeldt s Ur’or ‘n d‘r Kunst: Photograph“sch‘ Planz‘nb“ld‘r aerlin: d. Vasmuth,
.
. bra g-lartin a so designed the large
mura that stretches across one of the wa ls
in kaba s entra ce area. (ee ó“cha‘l
Cra“g-óartin: Sur’ac“ng, ed. dmma cea
a d lichael (ta ley lilton Ke nes:
lilton Ke nes Fa lery,
.
. iefrey Kipnis, he bunnig of
bosmetics, hn H‘rzog & d‘ ó‘uron
–
, vol. + , ed. eerna do
lárq ez becilia a d Richard kevene
ladrid: dl broq is,
,
– .
. ly use of this term is intended not
only as a reference to (ir era cis aacon, but
a so to the
exhibition a d cata og e
devoted to Gerzog & de leuron s work:
H‘rzog & d‘ ó‘uron: ôatural H“story, ed.
)hilip trspr g lontrea : ba ad a
bentre for Architect re; yurich: kars
lüller,
.
. (t art a d Revet had published a
few scatered references to colored
orna ent: ia es (t art a d micholas
Revet, h‘ Antiqu“ti‘s o’ Ath‘ns kondon,
, vol. .
. iacq es-hgnace Gitorf, ce
l architect re polychrome chez les Frecs, ou
restit tion complète du temple
d dmpédocle da s l acropole de (élinunte:
dxtra t d un mémoire lu aux académies des
inscriptions et belles-letres et des
beaux-arts, Annal‘s d‘ l Institut d‘
Corr‘spondanc‘ Archqolog“qu‘
:
– . eor more on the nineteenthcent ry interest in polychromy, see
larie-era çoise aillot, Research in the
dighteenth a d mineteenth bent ries on
)olychromy in Freek Architect re, in
larie-bhristine Gellma n, )hilippe
era sse, a d Annie iacq es, Paris–Rom‘–
Ath‘ns: Trav‘ls “n Gr‘‘c‘ by Fr‘nch
Arch“t‘cts “n th‘ ô“n‘t‘‘nth and Tw‘nti‘th
C‘nturi‘s, exh. cat. )aris: ùcole mationa e
(upérieure des aeaux-Arts; Gouston, )W:
luseum of eine Arts,
, – ; Robin
lidd eton, bolor a d bladd g in the
mineteenth bent ry, Da“dalos larch
: – ; lidd eton, Gitorf s
)olychrome ba pa gn, in h‘ B‘aux-Arts
and ô“n‘t‘‘nth-C‘ntury Fr‘nch Arch“t‘ctur‘,
ed. Robin lidd eton kondon: ha es a d
Gudson,
, – ; a d ca id ua
ya ten, Architect ra )olychromy: kife in
Architect re, in ibid.,
– .
. iohn Rusk n, h‘ Ston‘s o’ V‘n“c‘
kondon: (mith, dlder, a d bo.,
– ,
: – .
. hbid.
. hbid.
. cebora Goward, h‘ Arch“t‘ctural
H“story o’ V‘n“c‘ mew Gaven, b): xa e
tniversiy )ress,
, .
. Rusk n, Ston‘s o’ V‘n“c‘, : .
. eor a more extensive appra sa of
N OT E S TO PA G E S 0 0 0 – 0 0 0
351