Redefining the Meaning of 'Ornamentation' in Architecture through the Indian Context
Pruthvi Thakur
Co-founder at Xen Communication | Specializing in Communications, Branding and Strategy for Architects, Designers, and the Real Estate Industry
“In a highly productive nation ornament is no longer a natural product of its culture, and therefore represents backwardness or even a degenerative tendency.” (Loos, 1970). These are the words of Adolf Loos, a modernist architect from Vienna. He wrote this piece called ‘The Ornament and Crime’ in 1910 when the Art Nouveau moment was at its peak in Vienna. Loos opposed his counterparts like Otto Wagner, Victor Horta, etc. by saying that anything that was non-functional to a building and was added for the sole purpose of aesthetic appeal or to follow a certain style was as good as a crime.
This is the Linke Weinzel apartment building in Vienna designed by Otto Wagner in 1898 and follows an Art Nouveau style. The white building is decorated with golden ornaments, which were done by Koloman Moser – who was a well-known Art Nouveau artist and painter. Each ornament is intricately crafted to perfection such that, each looks exactly similar to the other. The material used in this case is the painted stucco.
Now let us consider a few examples of highly articulated buildings in the Indian context.
Fatehpur Sikri, which was once considered the capital of the Mughal Empire during the reign of King Akbar in the year 1571; displays stupendous architecture and craftsmanship carved in red sandstone. The complex is made up of several palatial buildings of residential, administrative, religious, and recreational nature. One of the most well-articulated buildings in the palace complex is the Deewan-E-Khas. The building has a rectangular plan. Internally, it is a single chamber whose principal feature is a large pillar occupying the central position with a massive expanding capita supporting a circular
Platform. The shaft of the central pillar branches out into thirty-six pendulous brackets carrying the king’s throne. This platform has four pathways leading to each corner of the room. Brackets of a similar fashion exist at each of the corners supporting the pathways.
The column, at first glance, looks like it is highly ornamented. Though, the brackets serve the purpose of carrying the load at the center as well as the corners. The ‘ornamentation’ or in this case the brackets, are very much a part of the structure. Moreover, the so-to-say ornament and the structure are derived from the same material.
Yet another interesting example is the step wells in Gujarat. The architecture of the step wells is the only kind that completely subverts the idea of looking up at the architecture. Step wells are very unique to India and were constructed mostly in the northern and northwestern parts as means of water repositories as these regions have always faced water shortages due to climatic and geographical reasons. Other than being used as a source of water, they were also used as spaces to rest and congregate.
Adalaj is one of the many step wells in Gujarat. This multi-storeyed, subterranean structure forms multiple frames through highly articulated rows of columns that support the superstructure. While the structure is a combination of brick and stone, the structural members are mostly made of stone. The ornamentation, in this case, does not try to hide the structural system but highlights it. It is tied to the structure in such a way that it is almost impossible to imagine the structure without it. It helps design something as mundane as climbing down and collecting water from the well, which was almost a daily activity for at least the women of that time into a celebrated experience. Most of the carving done on the stone columns except for the capitals; is carved out of the same stone. Nothing about which involves any external addition.
If we were to consider, why Loos thinks in the case of the residential building as the ornaments are mere decorations and have no functional value, concerning which they should be completely done away with; has a lot to do with its making in the first place. Just like Richard Sennett mentions, how important it is to study material culture because our process of making concrete things may reveal a lot about us. (Sennet, 1943) The material used for ornamentation is stucco as discussed above. Though stucco gives the material qualities of play and fantasy and displays ethics of freedom, at least to the craftsman; one cannot deny that it is not infused with the core structure of the building in any way. Though the process of making the ornaments in stucco is a craft of high value, it is an add-on. This makes it completely possible to separate the ornamentation from the structure, which was the modernist approach to architecture.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Whereas, in the case of both the column in the Deewan-e-Khas in Fatehpur Sikri and the Adalaj ni vav, the structure and the ornamentation are infused with each other in such a way that it is almost impossible to separate the structure and the ornament.
This just shows how in the end, the difference between two things, in this case ornaments; comes from the process of making them. The difference also lies in the way the term ‘ornament’ or ‘ornamentation’ is defined. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as, ‘A thing used or serving to make something look more attractive but usually having no practical purpose’ (Oxford). While, most of the time, ornament and decoration are used as the same words; they have different meanings. Decoration is defined as, ‘The process or art of decorating something’ (Oxford). There have been several perspectives and debates about the two terms ‘Ornamentation’ and ‘Decoration’ in the architectural discourse. Though, by and large, ornamentation has always been considered separate from the body of a building. It is often called as something which completes, embellishes, or refines the tectonics of a building. Though, from the comparison above, it is clear that the same definition of ornamentation might not apply to the Indian context.
Another factor that distinguishes the ornamentation between the Western and the Eastern context could be the perception of perfection and beauty.
‘For the finer the nature, the more flaws it will show through the clearness of it; and it is a law of this universe, that the best things shall be seldomest seen in their best form.’ (Ruskin, 1854)
‘The work of the craftsmen is oriented towards an end that is not the perfect implementation of the concept of the architect but the self-enhancement of life. Therefore the aesthetic freedom is no longer located in the apparent lack of finality of the “free beauties of nature.” It is located in the very distance between the concept and the thing. Perfection is not only a limit to the feeling of the beautiful. Much more radically, perfection is the contrary of the nobility of art.’ Ranciere quotes Ruskin. (Rancière, 2015)
How does the construct of the terms beauty and perfection affect the kind of ornament that is crafted? In some cases, beauty and perfection are the same thing. The material also becomes a major deciding factor in this. Stucco as a material is malleable; it has no character of itself. In this case, to use it to its best capacity, one has to adopt perfection as a skill. When a material is mouldable, it is always expected of it to be molded into nothing but perfection. Also, there is an option of making a mold to make multiple pieces of the same kind. This can be observed in the ornamentation of the West. Perfection forms a huge part of this kind of ornamentation as it has been adopted from the Romans; for whom perfection was one of the major aspects of art and architecture.
In opposed to that, when a craftsman works with a stone he does not have the option of using a mold but has to chisel his way through. This is not to say that the perfection in this craft is lacking. However, there is always space for imperfection. Unlike stucco, every stone has its own material and chemical properties since it is a natural material, which a craftsman has to adapt to. He has to fully engage himself with the material. As in the case of stucco, the artist needs not to possess any knowledge of the main structure as his ornament exists in complete isolation from it. Whereas, the craftsman who carved the stone pillars in Adalaj; could not have been able to carry out his task without being fully aware of the core structure. The same detail made in stone by one craftsman is bound to differ from the other craftsman. In this way, there is more freedom of expression and space for imperfection.
“The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from objects of daily use.” (Loos, 1970). In the context of India, it would be ideal to say, “The evolution of culture is synonymous with being able to integrate ornament and the object of daily use (in this case architecture) to be able to create a far more holistic experience of life in a space.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY