Modern Architecture - Alan Colquhoun

Reading aligned with lecture: European modern agendas – DeStijl, Russian Constructivism, Italian Rationalism, Spanish regionalism vs modernism, French Purism 22/10/2014

Personal summary of reading pages 73-86: 

The Urn and the Chamberpot: Adolf Loos 1900-30

In this chapter Colquhoun enlightens the reader as to why Adolf Loos stood out from the rest in his time in the architecture industry, Loos is described as ‘ a maverick that refused to join any club.’ Loos didn’t believe or follow the art style of his era, especially the jugenstil movement that ‘wanted to eliminate the distinction between the craftsman and the artist.’ Instead Loos saw a distinct separation between the two, in a sense of everyday objects made by a craftsman and creative pieces made by artists.    

Looshaus, Machealerplatz 1909-1911.

Behrens' Turbine Factory

Loos sees objects for their purpose and relates his architecture in a similar manner, for example he applied his ideas of decorum for ‘Loohaus’ in Michealerplatz. This was a piece of architecture designed intentionally for mixed use; the ground floor contained fashionable gentlemen outfitters while the upper floors consisted of apartments. Loos decorated the ground floor with Tuscan orders set in marble while the façade upon the upper floors was exposed and bare of ornament and decoration. Intentionally done so to represent the different uses of the architecture; the marble is a true representative to its client, the luxurious outfitters, while the bare skin of the apartments allows them to be personalised by their owners. 

Loos hasn’t in my opinion tried to combine classical architecture with modern how Behrens does with his Turbine Factory; I can truly see the form of an order through Behrens’s piece, a false façade. With ‘Loohaus’ Loos creates facades true to their use in his opinion, attacking other styles of architecture which decorate facades with decoration unjust to their uses.

Loos also had a different approach to his interior architecture compared to the current trends in society at his time. For example he created a ‘miniature social space, surrounded by private sub-spaces’ in his apartment designs; this style developed into ‘hermetic cubes’ in future works. Loos would refrain from allowing large extensive openings externally but would also encourage passive light throughout the internal spaces and walls through small pierced windows. Loos shared the Romantic idea that architecture ‘should be a natural and spontaneous language.’

I admire how Loos was not afraid to go against trends and the norm of his time. For example he rejected in his interiors the ‘total design’ philosophy, which incorporated separate, but matching pieces of furniture in relation to the architecture; instead Loos’ interiors ‘were made up of found objects.’ He believed that ‘Walls…belong to the architects’ and in return the ‘mobile items are made by our craftsmen.’ This backs up his ideas of keeping the distinction between art and everyday objects separate.