In 1908, Adolf Loos published a polemic modern architecture pamphlet titled “Ornament and Crime”. Ornamentation, he argues, is redundant, cost-intensive kitschy decoration, and an expression of the cultural backwardness which can be found in primitive cultures, and which is not representative of modern man. “The barbarian era,” the architect concludes, “is finally past.”

Only a few years later, Siegfried Kracauer showed that even the modern era, which strives for practicality and rationalization, produces ornaments on its surface. He argues that these ornamentations are an expression of modern mass society, visual representations of modern life and its realities. The ornamentation is not taken into consideration by the masses who produce it. It develops without their knowledge. They do not produce it consciously or on purpose, which is why it resembles “the aerial shots of landscapes and cities”, in which patterns only emerge for the distant viewer.

Contrary to Loos, for Kracauer, who considers ornaments to be expressions of everyday life in modern society, ornamentation is something that cannot be pushed aside. He argues that as a reflection of modern existence, the ornament is a readable expression of social structures and should be understood as an opportunity to identify patterns in modern society and face the consequences of what may have gone awry. If the modern man, however, still fails to examine the conditions of life, given this new perspective, then he will once again become subject to the unseen forces, as in nature, which determine modern life and are therefore beyond his control – e. g. the powers of capitalistic rationalization.

The theory from Kracauer to make the conditions of life readable and subject to critique through the ornamentation have not played a role in art since the Loosian critique. With the exhibition, “The Power of Ornament”, at the Orangery, Lower Belvedere in Vienna, curator Sabine B. Vogel points out that in the contemporary art of the last few years, a movement has begun which takes up Kracauer’s suggestion to use ornamentation to make the conditions of modern as well as traditional life visible and therefore subject to critique.

In the work of artists such as Adriana Czernin, Brigitte Kowanz, Sarah Morris, Raqib Shaw, Aisha Khalid, Mona Hatoum or Parastou Forouhar, ornamentation is given a voice on different levels, such as physicality, eros, violence, cultural differences, and the rhythms of modern and traditional life, and reveals its seductive power to touch upon deeper layers that lie behind the wall of the abstract beauty of the ornament.

What these artists all share is their approach of use this seductive power of ornamental beauty with a very clear intention in mind. In this exhibition, ornamentation emerges not as a hollow decoration, but rather as an allegory of the collective modern existence within mass society, and the artists use the ornament as a powerful tool for critique and rebellion. Its beauty attracts the attention of the viewers. It encourages them to look closer, in order to expose collective patterns of social standardization, brutality, and suppression of otherness in its details. According to Kracauer, “People who are separated from the community, who consider themselves singular personalities with their own distinctive souls, do not fit in to these patterns.” “The Power of Ornament”, at the Orangery, Lower Belvedere demands that one looks closer, and not to look away. (wh/jn)

In 1771, Louis Sébastien Mercier published the novel 2440, which depicts an utopia of a convenient, more ideal, distant future world. Utopias had already existed in the past. However, in Mercier’s utopia, the ideal world is not stumbled upon – for example, through a storm in which one is shipwrecked and washed up onto the shore of the ideal place – but rather a result of a linear history that is played out through human action. “Some were immediately enlightened from the beginning, but the majority of the nation was still careless and childlike. Gradually, the population became more intelligent. We still have much more to accomplish than what we have created so far. We are only halfway there,” according to the caretakers of the future regarding the intermediate conditions of the half-realized utopia. Mercier’s narration of the gradual realization of an ideal world carried out by mankind is a modern vision – with human capital, reason, and faith, as applied to technical, rational progress, as its focal points.

[6:11 min] download for: mobile | computer & iPod | send feedback

The modern visions of progress exploded upon its realizations. This we had to recognize in the centuries that followed. The modern project is halfway down a path which leads it further, however not necessarily forward, and the faith in this common path of mankind towards an ideal world, whose vision Mercier calls “The Dream of All Dreams”, eventually fades. Generally speaking, both on the large and small scale, the conception of a more optimal world multiplies, and instead of one movement towards reaching one big goal, juxtaposition and constant flux of means and ways takes its place.

The sculptures and public interventions of the Canadian artist Michel de Broin refer to a certain extent to the intermediate conditions of this halfway point. They capture those transformations that have resulted from the greater history of modern progress, objects which are already slightly outdated but still determine our everyday life: for example, the car, that status symbol of progress, which is usually only used by one person at a time, consuming gas and destroying the environment. However, at the same time, de Broin’s works also refer to the many new formulas for progress: a general slowing-down as a strategy for environmental protection, a balanced economy without a loss of energy, postindustrial visions of sustainability – and the appropriate means towards this conversion which occupy our life.

De Broin’s work translates and highlights such visions of optimization and reveals their inner tendencies and contradictions, sometimes through exaggeration, but often only through showing examples of possible realizations. He breaks down the restrictive definitions of old and new forms of dogmatic idealism without becoming didactic. His style corresponds more to that of one who is playing hooky from such lessons, summoned by his instinct for playful exploration, poking fun at the “progress” and “efficiency” that is holding back the world. (wh/jn)