2. What was Loos / Banham / Rykwert arguing for and against? What excerpt/quotation best represents this? - Yan Chyuan Kai 1001542562

What was Loos / Banham / Rykwert arguing for and against? What excerpt/quotation best represents this?

"We have gone beyond ornament , we have achieved plain , undecorated simplicity" by Adolf Loos. " by Adolf Loos. Ornament were once said to be the decoration of the outer looks of a specific building , but according to this guy , stating that ornamentation is crime . What he means by that focusing on the function of the particular objects to the fullest is more aesthetic rather than carving the ornamentation which would cost more money for instance , and of course time comsuming . What he argued for is that he focused more on the quality that is produced instead of using the time wasted on the ornamentation which does not carries any function in it . As for Adolf Loos , he against artistic carving or ornamentation on the exterior wall . This is what he said , “The urge to ornament one’s face and everything within one’s reach is the origin of fine art. It is the babble of painting. All art is erotic.”  he reject the uses of lavishly carved ornament  on the outer building structure which has no practical purposes in such .

             "Ornament is no longer , organically integrated into our culture , it has ceased to be a valid expression of that culture . The ornament that is designed to-day has no relevance to ourselves to mankind at large , nor to the ordering of cosmos "  by Reyner Banham . He support the idea of Adolf Loos rejecting the concept of ornament on the outer looks of building structure because it does not bring any meaning to our current culture now , modern culture . So , in his articles he strongly against the idea of Adolf Loos , the writer for "Ornamentation is crime" for his harsh judgement straight to the point for ornamentation and no room given for debating about it . 

                     As for Joseph Rykwert , an england architect has wrote the way of viewing the ornamentation by writing " Ornamentation is not crime " a direct reflection on Adolf Loos article . So this is what he said , "such a development will only be valid if it is seen to be necessary, not gratuitous: as long as it will be seen not as a problem of ornament or not ornament, but as a problem of meaning." he emphasize the way of viewing how ornaments work on the building in the modern era .