If the output of interdisciplinary dialog between psychology, art history and aesthetics was to offer a more open-ended notion of ornament, one that mediates an aesthetic “vitality”, it would still be up to artists and architects at the time to debate over what was the “vitality” that to be conveyed, what role did the artist play in this mediation and ultimately what value would this creation possess.
The inherent “modern” characteristic of such a vitality was closely intertwined with everyday culture that had a dynamic, social and cultural dimensions. Add to this the complex character of Henry Van de Velde and we get an understanding of the multifaceted relation of ornament not only to the art of abstraction but also to cultural reform in …show more content…
His early writings reveal a striking religious tone, from Eine Pedigt an die Jugend (a sermon to the youth) to Kunstgewerbliche Laienpredigten (Decorative arts Lay sermons) to his reflections in Amo (1909) which were a “result of an unexpected epiphany, a naive and ardent faith.” They also reflect his strong ethical and social concerns in relation to art, since he saw it as his mission to rebel “against the selfishness of social relations at the end of 19th century, against privileges vigorously defended by the dominant social class.” Like his precursor William Morris, he lamented degradation of handcrafts in 19th century, not because he was against machine-art per se, but because of the greed and pursuit of profit among manufacturers, swarming markets with “ugliness”. These dynamic layers of his mindset are crucial in understanding Van de Velde’s linear ornament and the supposed contradictions in his theory. Such tensions I argue, are not only the result of his spiritual and ethical tendencies, but also an attempt in transiting from painting to architecture and - in the wake of increasing criticism against surface ornaments of Jugendstil- they reveal his shift from establishing a theory of ornament related to crafts to a “new ornament” that can have a place in modern architectural theory. Nevertheless, the underlying principle of ornament remained the same for him, a …show more content…
The style had emerged in connection to “arts and craft movement”, with the aim of improving the quality of daily-used products, rejecting historicism and its “machine ornament”, and ultimately elevating the status of arts and crafts to a higher level of architecture. The sole warrior to carry out all these missions, was the “line”. It was the “pulse of time” and “birthplace” of a new style. In Jugendstil, this style-creating unit promoted itself as “modern” by simultaneously following principles of linearity and abstraction in order to reject natural representations of historicism. This presented a paradox, because they could be something external - as a “surface appeal” (Oberflachenreiz) - and at the same time internal by connecting to “essence” of objects through abstraction and stylization. However, by focusing more on their painterly principles, ornamental lines of Jugendstil were later criticized in modern theory as being an external “appearance” in contrast to the “inner essence” of form, and as a lie or sham as opposed to “true modernity”. The contrast of line and form, was of a linear art and a three-dimensional art of form. Just as the first phase of arts and crafts movement attempted to prevail over historicism with separation from its commercially produced ornament, the movement would now go through another enhancement, by detaching from linear art of painting to connect to tectonics and architecture. This
The inherent “modern” characteristic of such a vitality was closely intertwined with everyday culture that had a dynamic, social and cultural dimensions. Add to this the complex character of Henry Van de Velde and we get an understanding of the multifaceted relation of ornament not only to the art of abstraction but also to cultural reform in …show more content…
His early writings reveal a striking religious tone, from Eine Pedigt an die Jugend (a sermon to the youth) to Kunstgewerbliche Laienpredigten (Decorative arts Lay sermons) to his reflections in Amo (1909) which were a “result of an unexpected epiphany, a naive and ardent faith.” They also reflect his strong ethical and social concerns in relation to art, since he saw it as his mission to rebel “against the selfishness of social relations at the end of 19th century, against privileges vigorously defended by the dominant social class.” Like his precursor William Morris, he lamented degradation of handcrafts in 19th century, not because he was against machine-art per se, but because of the greed and pursuit of profit among manufacturers, swarming markets with “ugliness”. These dynamic layers of his mindset are crucial in understanding Van de Velde’s linear ornament and the supposed contradictions in his theory. Such tensions I argue, are not only the result of his spiritual and ethical tendencies, but also an attempt in transiting from painting to architecture and - in the wake of increasing criticism against surface ornaments of Jugendstil- they reveal his shift from establishing a theory of ornament related to crafts to a “new ornament” that can have a place in modern architectural theory. Nevertheless, the underlying principle of ornament remained the same for him, a …show more content…
The style had emerged in connection to “arts and craft movement”, with the aim of improving the quality of daily-used products, rejecting historicism and its “machine ornament”, and ultimately elevating the status of arts and crafts to a higher level of architecture. The sole warrior to carry out all these missions, was the “line”. It was the “pulse of time” and “birthplace” of a new style. In Jugendstil, this style-creating unit promoted itself as “modern” by simultaneously following principles of linearity and abstraction in order to reject natural representations of historicism. This presented a paradox, because they could be something external - as a “surface appeal” (Oberflachenreiz) - and at the same time internal by connecting to “essence” of objects through abstraction and stylization. However, by focusing more on their painterly principles, ornamental lines of Jugendstil were later criticized in modern theory as being an external “appearance” in contrast to the “inner essence” of form, and as a lie or sham as opposed to “true modernity”. The contrast of line and form, was of a linear art and a three-dimensional art of form. Just as the first phase of arts and crafts movement attempted to prevail over historicism with separation from its commercially produced ornament, the movement would now go through another enhancement, by detaching from linear art of painting to connect to tectonics and architecture. This