O R NAM EN TO Y SISTEM A A n d re a C a n e p a
ORNAMENTO Y SISTEMA Florencia Portocarrero I El inicio del siglo XX fue testigo de la
Con un lenguaje estético idealizadamente
separación entre el espacio público y privado.
femenino, Canepa encuentra complejidades
Definidos en oposición, el dominio de lo
en
privado fue identificado con lo femenino,
banales de nuestra cotidianeidad. La artista
lo doméstico y con lo cerrado y rutinario
entiende que la diferencia entre lo ordinario
En
público
y lo extraño, es sobretodo una cuestión de
fue asociado con lo masculino, la acción
orden y perspectiva. Entonces, utilizando
política y con la experimentación y libertad.
una amplia gama de soportes, su trabajo
La historiadora de arte feminista Griselda
persistentemente
Pollock 1
privado y los objetos que lo pueblan. Esta
contraposición,
afirma
que
el
espacio
esta
diferenciación
los
aspectos
aparentemente
distorsiona
el
más
espacio
marcó también la práctica artística. Así,
exploración
históricamente
desestabilizan las miradas que sostienen
las
mujeres
artistas
se
resulta
en
propuestas
que
dedicaron a representar asuntos y espacios
nuestra
relacionados con la vida doméstica. Esta
confrontan con lo “unheimlich” (*) que se
suerte de “exilio” en el interior produjo la
esconde en lo familiar.
experiencia
de
lo
íntimo
y
nos
exclusión social de las artistas del debate público. Al mismo tiempo, las mujeres que
II
formaron parte de las vanguardias como
En Ornamento y Sistema Canepa nos introduce
la escritora Virginia Woolf o la diseñadora
–nuevamente- a un mundo donde lo doméstico
Eileen Gray, entre otras, buscaron romper
es subvertido. Pero en este caso la subversión
con este sistema patriarcal.
de lo familiar funciona también como un dispositivo capaz de cuestionar la realidad
Justamente en la base de toda la obra
pública. La exposición presenta piezas que son
de
una
el resultado de la deconstrucción y posterior
interrogación del dominio doméstico. Se
re-sistematización de 4 elementos decorativos
trata de encontrar allí lo desconocido y
típicos del gusto burgués. Objetos que remiten
arbitrario, para cuestionar la representación
a momentos de ocio, de recreación y viajes:
de ese espacio como un lugar invariable y
un ramo de flores, una serie de bordados
natural donde las identidades quedan fijadas
con motivos hogareños, rompecabezas que
de acuerdo a
representan paisajes lejanos e idílicos y una
Andrea
Canepa
está
presente
roles y realidades sociales
preestablecidas y normalizantes.
alfombra persa.
(*) La traducción de lo unheimlich es lo siniestro. El concepto proviene de lo “heimlich-heimisch”, lo “íntimohogareño” que ha sido reprimido pero ha retornado de la represión gracias a una nueva confirmación en la realidad; produciendo una gran impresión. Freud, “Lo Siniestro” (1919) en “Obras Completas” Traducción de Ballesteros. Madrid, Editorial Biblioteca Nueva.
La propuesta de Canepa consiste en alterar dichos objetos modificando o incluso privándolos de su función decorativa. Así, siguiendo la tradición del diseño modernista de vanguardia, la artista los depura de lo accesorio para renovarlos como entidades purificadas. En The Obligation to Self-Design, el teórico de arte Boris Groys 2 afirma que el diseño moderno surgió a principios del siglo XX, en oposición a las artes aplicadas tradicionales; fijándose la tarea de revelar la esencia oculta de las cosas en lugar de diseñar sus superficies. De esta manera, el diseño de vanguardia buscaba borrar todo lo que había sido acumulado durante siglos en la superficie de los objetos para exponer su verdadera naturaleza, su esencia. Groys asocia la emergencia del diseño moderno con la “muerte de Dios”. Según el autor, en cuanto el alma dejó de ser un ideal convincente, la ética espiritual se trasladó a la realidad física o material. Como consecuencia, el hombre habría comenzado a diseñar su cuerpo y su entorno respondiendo a las ideas de pureza y simplicidad con los que previamente había “trabajado” su alma. Sea
como
fuere,
el
diseño
moderno
es
reduccionista, no añade, sino que simplifica. Es diseño negativo, para el cual lo puramente ornamental- esa manifestación visual tanto de tradición y de apego hacia las formas- aparece siempre como un exceso. Las obras presentadas en la exposición responden a este deseo de modernidad, pero a su vez lo cuestionan. Así, cuanto más se contemplan las piezas, más fuerte es el regreso de lo suprimido y lo borrado. En Ornamento y Sistema el espacio íntimo queda subvertido por la activación artística de lo decorativo gracias al impulso depurador
ECB.BC.1 FDCR.1 GBR.FS.1 HD.2 RS.BC.1
RS.BC.2 GBR.FS.2
FDCR.2
ACP. TBRS.1
ATEMR.FS.2
RNCL.1
HD.1
ACP. TBRS.3
ACP. TBRS.2
PM.ARC.3
PM.ARC.2
ATEMR.FS.1 MGRT. AMRLL.1
PM.ARC.1
de
la
modernidad.
palabras,
O
emancipado
dicho de
con
la
otras
tendencia
al embellecimiento compulsivo al que se somete a lo privado como lugar idealizado donde se inscribe lo femenino. No obstante, finalmente
la
huellas
de
lo
depurado
reaparecen, dando a las obras un carácter paradójico que problematiza las relaciones entre lo decorativo y lo artístico.
III En Inventory, la artista deconstruye un ramo de flores y dibuja obsesivamente cada uno de sus elementos, tallo por tallo, hoja por hoja y pétalo por pétalo. El ramo es fracturado en más de 3000 dibujos de pequeño formato presentados en orden de tamaño. Para A second chance to rephrase the question una serie de paisajes decorativos bordados en punto cruz fueron adquiridos en un mercado de pulgas,
descosidos,
y vueltos a bordar por la artista sobre la misma superficie con los hilos organizados por
color,
generando
una
composición
geométrica abstracta. Western carpet es una alfombra elementos
ornamentales
han
cuyos sido
reordenados por tamaño, de acuerdo a un principio de economía y de orden jerárquico de sus elementos. Así, en esta nueva versión de lo que alguna vez fue una alfombra persa, la herencia y la historia quedan reducidas a lo puramente formal.
Blue piece(s) y Green piece(s) son dos rompecabezas compuestos sólo por tonalidades azules y verdes respectivamente. Cada uno está ensamblando con piezas sustraidas de ocho rompecabezas de distintos paisajes naturales idílicos. Estos fueron producidos industrialmente con el mismo troquel de modo que sus piezas resultan intercambiables.
IV Esta publicación parte de la conciencia de que toda elaboración artística es susceptible de resolverse de diversas maneras. La idea es visibilizar a lo largo de estas páginas la trayectoria y el proceso creativo de la artista; incluyendo aquellos elementos que, aunque sean constitutivos, no se presentan físicamente en las salas de la galería. Hecho tanto más importante si tomamos en cuenta que en el caso particular de Ornamento y Sistema el concepto de la exposición se cohesiona en torno a la ausencia de los objetos decorativos que han sido depurados o simplificados. De esta manera, a continuación el lector encontrará las imágenes de los elementos decorativos originales, junto a dos textos que anclan teórica e históricamente la propuesta de la artista: Ornamento y Delito de Adolfo Loos 3 y The Obligation to Self-Design de Boris Groys. Esperamos que la información aquí compartida contribuya a hacer más transparente la metodología de la investigación artística y propicie entre los lectores la construcción de nuevas asociaciones y sentidos.
Notas: 1. Griselda Pollock, “Modernidad y los espacios de la feminidad” (1988) en “Critica Feminista en la Te o r í a e H i s t o r i a d e l A r t e ” . C O N A C U LTA . M é x i c o , 2 0 0 1 2 . B o ri s Gro ys, “T he Ob l i g a t ion t o Self -design ” (2008) en “ Goin g Pub lic” . S t e r n b e r g P ress @ e -fl ux j o ur n al. New York, 2010 3 . Ad o l f o Lo o s, “Or name nto y Delit o” (1908)
ORNAMENTO Y DELITO Adolf Loos (1908) El embrión humano, en el seno materno,
El impulso de ornamentarse el rostro y todo
pasa por todas las fases de desarollo del
lo que se tiene al alcance es el primer origen
reino animal. -Cuando nace un ser humano-,
de las artes plásticas, es el balbuceo de la
sus sensaciones son iguales a las de un
pintura: todo arte es erótico.
perro recién nacido: Durante su infancia se
producen
diversos
cambios
que
se
El primer ornamento que nació, la cruz,
transformaciones
tuvo un origen erótico. Es la primera obra
ocurridas en la historia de la humanidad:
maestra, la primera creación artística con
a los dos años lo ve todo como un papúa;
la que el primer artista embadurnó la pared
a los cuatro, como un germano; a los seis,
para liberarse de la energía sobrante. Una
como Sócrates y; a los ocho, como Voltaire.
línea horizontal: la mujer que yace. Una línea
Cuando tiene ocho años percibe el violeta,
vertical: el hombre que la penetra. El hombre
color que fue descubierto en el siglo XVIII,
que la creó sintió el mismo impulso que
pues antes el violeta era azul y el púrpura,
Beethoven, se encontraba en el mismo cielo
rojo. El fisico señala hoy en día que hay otros
en el que éste compuso la Novena.
corresponden
con
las
colores en el espectro solar, que ya tienen nombre, pero comprenderlo se reserva al
Pero el hombre de nuestro tiempo que, a
hombre del futuro.
causa de un impulso interior pintarrajea las
paredes
El niño es amoral. El papúa también lo es
un
delincuente
para nosotros. El papúa despedaza a sus
natural que sea en los retretes dónde este
enemigos y los devora. No es un delincuente.
impulso acometa a las personas con tales
Sin embargo, cuando el hombre moderno
manifestaciones
despedaza
un
puede medir el grado de civilización de un
delincuente o un degenerado. El papúa cubre
país atendiendo a la cantidad de garabatos
de tatuajes su piel, su barca, su remo, en fin,
pintados en las paredes de sus letrinas. Para
casi todo lo que tiene a su alcance, y no es
el niño garabatear es un fenómeno natural: su
un delincuente. El hombre moderno que se
primera manifestación artística consiste en
tatúa es un delincuente o un degenerado.
garabatear símbolos eróticos en las paredes.
Hay cárceles en las que el ochenta por ciento
Sin embargo, lo que es natural en el papúa y
de los presos llevan un tatuaje. Los tatuados
en los niños, en el hombre moderno resulta
que no están detenidos son delincuentes
ser
latentes o aristócratas degenerados. Si un
y se lo comuniqué al mundo: La evolución
tatuado muere en libertad, esto significa que
cultural equivale a eliminar el ornamento
ha muerto antes de cometer un asesinato.
del objeto de uso cotidiano. Creía con ello
y
devora
a
alguien,
es
con
símbolos o
degeneración.
un
de
eróticos,
es
degenerado.
Es
degeneración.
Descubrí
lo
Se
siguiente
entregarle al mundo algo nuevo por lo que
tatuado del papúa no aumentaba la sensación
alegrarse, algo que no me ha agradecido.
estética, sino que la hacía disminuir. Tal
La gente estaba triste y andaba cabizbaja.
grado de desarro-llo, que se alegraba al
Lo que les preocupaba era saber que ya no
ver una pitilleralisa y que era capaz de
se podía crear un ornamento nuevo. ¿Cómo
comprársela aunque pudiese obtener una
es posible que sólo nosotros, los hombres
ornamentada por el mismo precio. Estaban
des siglo XIX, no seamos capaces de hacer
contentos con sus ropas y se alegraban de
lo que sabe hacer cualquier negro, lo que
no tener que vagar por el mundo vestidos
han sabido hacer todos los pueblos en todas
como monos de fería llevando pantalones de
las épocas anteriores a la nuestra?
terciopelo con tiras doradas.Y dije: -Fijaos. La habitación en la que murió Goethe
Todo lo que lo que el género humano había
es infinitamente más hermosa que toda la
creado miles de años atrás sin ornamentos,
pompa renacentista; y un mueble liso, mucho
fue
más bonito que todas las piezas de museo
rechazado
destruído.
No
sin
contemplaciones
poseemos
bancos
y de
con
tallas
e
incrustaciones.
El
lenguaje
carpinteros de la época carolingia, pero el
de Goethe es más hermoso que todos los
menor objeto carente de valor que estuviese
adornos de los pastores del río Pegnitz.
mínima mente ornamentado se conservó, se limpió cuidadosamente y se erigeron palacios
(...)
suntuosos para albergarlos. Los hombres
El enorme daño y devastación que produce el
entonces paseaban entristecidos ante las
resurgimiento del ornamento en la evolución
vitrinas,
propia
estética podrían olvidarse fácilmente, pues
impotencia. Cada época ha tenido un estilo,
nadie, ni siquiera un organismo estatal,
¿sólo la nuestra se quedará sin uno propio?.
puede detener la evolución de la humanidad.
Con estilo se hacía referencia al ornamento.
Sólo la puede retrasar. Sabremos esperar.
Por tanto dije: “No lloréis. La grandeza de
Pero será un delito contra la economía
nuestra época raclica en el hecho de que es
nacional pues, con ello, se echa a perder
incapaz de crear un ornameto nuevo. Hemos
trabajo humano, dinero y material. El tiempo
vencido
no puede compensar estos daños.
avergonzándose
al
ornamento.
de
su
Hemos
decidido
finalmente prescindir de él. ¡Observad! ¡Se
El ritmo del desarrollo cultural sufre con
acerca el momento en el que las calles de
los rezagados. Quizá yo viva en 1908, pero
las ciudades brillarán como muros blancos!
mi vecino vive en 1900 y aquel de allí en
Como Sión, la ciudad santa, la capital del
1880. Es una desgracia para un estado que
cielo. Entonces lo habremos conseguido.
la cultura de sus habitantes abarque un periodo de tiempo tan amplio. El campesino
Pero hay malos espíritus que no lo toleran.
de la apartada región de Kals vive en el
A su juicio, la humanidad debería seguir
siglo XII. Ya en la procesión de la fiesta
esclavizada por el ornamento. El hombre
del jubileo tomó parte gente que ya en
había alcanzado tal grado de desarrollo, que
la época de las grandes migraciones se
el ornamento ya no le deleitaba, que el rostro
hubiese considerado atrasada. ¡Afortunado
el país que no tiene este tipo de rezagados
la vajilla blanca, que le sabe bien a las
y depredadores! ¡Afortunada América! Entre
personas modernas, es barata. Uno ahorra
nosotros mismos hay aún en las ciudades
mientras que el otro se endeuda. Así ocurre
personas inmodernas, rezagados del siglo
con naciones enteras. ¡Ay del pueblo que
XVIII, que se horrorizan ante un cuadro con
quede rezagado en el desarrollo cultural!
sombras violeta, porque todavia no pueden
Los ingleses se hacen cada vez más ricos y
ver el violeta. A ellos les sabe mejor el faisán
nosotros cada vez más pobres...
en el que el cocinero trabaja durante días, y
Todavia mucho mayor es el daño que sufre el
la pitillera con los ornamentos renacentistas
pueblo productor del ornamento.
les gusta más que la lisa. ¿Y qué pasa en el
Como el ornamento ya no es un producto
campo? Vestidos y mobiliario pertenecen a
natural
siglos pasados. El campesino no es cristiano,
representa retraso o degeneración, el trabajo
es todavía pagano.
del ornamentista ya no está adecuadamente
de
nuestra
cultura,
sino
que
pagado. Son conocidas las condiciones en Los rezagados retrasan el desarrollo cultural
las industrias de los tallistas de madera y
de los pueblos y de la humanidad, pues no
de los torneros, los precios criminalmente
es sólo que el ornamento esté engendrado
bajos que se pagan a las bordadoras y a las
por delincuentes sino que es además un
encajeras. El ornamentista tiene que trabajar
delito, porque daña considerablemente la
veinte horas para alcanzar los ingresos de
salud del hombre, los bienes del pueblo y,
un obrero moderno que trabaje ocho horas.
por tanto, el desarrollo cultural. Cuando dos
El ornamento encarece, como regla general.
personas viven cerca y tienen unas mismas
el objeto; sin embargo, se da la paradoja de
exigencias, las mismas pretensiones en la
que una pieza ornamentada con el mismo
vida y los mismos ingresos, pero no obstante,
coste de material que el objeto liso, y que
pertenecen a distintas civilizaciones, puede
necesita el triple de horas de trabajo para
observarse, desde el punto de vista de
su realización, cuando se vende, se paga
la economía de un pueblo, el siguiente
por el ornamentado la mitad que por el
fenómeno: el hombre del siglo XX se va
otro. La carencia de ornamento tiene como
haciendo cada vez más rico, el hombre del
consecuencia una disminución del tiempo de
siglo XVIII cada vez más pobre. Supongo
trabajo y un aumento del salario. El tallista
que ambos viven a su gusto. El hombre del
chino trabaja dieciseis horas, el trabajador
siglo XX puede cubrir sus necesidades con
americano sólos ocho. Si por una caja lisa
un capital mucho más reducido y, por ello,
se paga lo mismo que por otra ornamentada,
puede ahorrar. La verdura que le gusta está
la diferencia, en cuanto a horas de trabajo
simplemente cocida en agua y condimentada
beneficia al obrero. Si no hubiera ningún tipo
con un poco de mantequilla. Al otro hombre
de ornamento -algo que igual sucede dentro
no le sabe tan bien hasta que, además, esté
de unos cuantos miles de años- el hombre
mezclada con miel y nueces, y alguien se
sólo tendría que trabajar cuatro horas en vez
haya pasado horas cociéndola. Los platos
de ocho, ya que, hoy en día, todavía la mitad
adornados son muy caros, mientras que
del trabajo se va en realizar ornamentos.
(...) El
cambio
del
ornamento
tiene
como
consecuencia una pronta desvalorización del producto. El tiempo del trabajador, el material empleado,
son
capitales
que
se
malgastan.
He enunciado la siguiente idea: la forma de un objeto debe ser tolerable durante el tiempo que físicamente dure dicho objeto. Trataré de explicarlo: Un traje cambiará muchas más veces su forma que una valiosa piel. El traje de baile creado para una sola noche, cambiará de forma mucho más deprisa que un escritorio. Qué malo seria, sin embargo, si tuviera que cambiarse el escritorio tan rápidamente como un traje de baile por el hecho de que a alguien le pareciera su forma insoportable; entonces se perderia el dinero gastado en ese escritorio. Esto
lo
saben
bien
el
ornamentista
y
los
ornamentistas austríacos intentan resolver este problema.
Dicen:
“Preferimos
al
consumidor
que tiene un mobiliario que, pasados diez años, le resulta insoportable, y que, por ello, se ve obligado a adquirir muebles nuevos cada década, al que se compra objetos sólo cuando ha de substituir los gastados. La industria lo requiere. Millones de hombres tienen trabajo gracias al cambio rápido”. Parece que éste es el secreto de la economía nacional austriaca; cuántas veces, al producirse un incendio, se oyen las palabras: “¡Gracias a Dios, ahora la gente ya tendrá algo que hacer!”. Propongo un buen sistema: Se incendia una ciudad, se incendia un imperio, y entonces todo nada en dinero y abundancia. Que se fabriquen muebles que, al cabo de tres años, puedan quemarse; que se hagan guarniciones que puedan ser fundidas al cabo de cuatro años, ya que en las subastas no se logra ni la décima parte de lo que costó la mano de obra
y el material, y así nos haremos cada vez más ricos. La pérdida no sólo afecta a los consumidores, sino, sobre todo, a los productores. Hoy en día, el ornamento, en aquellas cosas que gracias al desarrollo pueden privarse de él, significa fuerza de trabajo malgastada y material profanado. Si todos los objetos pudieran durar tanto estéticamente como lo hacen físicamente, el consumidor podría pagar un precio que posibilitara que el trabajador ganara más dinero y tuviera que trabajar menos. Por un objeto del cual esté seguro que voy a utilizar y obtener el máximo rendimiento, pago con gusto cuatro veces más que por otro que tenga menos valor a causa de su forma o material. Por mis botas pago gustoso cuarenta coronas, a pesar de que en otra tienda encontraría botas por diez. Pero, en aquellos oficios que languidecen bajo la tiranía de los ornamentistas, no se valora el buen o mal trabajo. El trabajo sufre a causa de que nadie está dispuesto a pagar su verdadero valor. (...) La carencia de ornamento ha conducido a las demás artes hasta alturas insospechadas. Las sinfonías de Beethoven no hubieran sido escritas nunca por un hombre que tuviera que ir metido en seda, terciopelo y puntillas. El que hoy en dia lleva una americana de terciopelo no es un artista, sino un bufón o un pintor de brocha gorda. Nos hemos vuelto más refinados, más sutiles. Los miembros de las tribus tenían que distinguirse por medio de los colores, el hombre moderno necesita su vestido como máscara. Su individualidad es tan grande que ya no la puede expresar en prendas de vestir. La falta de ornamentos es un signo de fuerza intelectual. El hombre moderno utiliza los ornamentos de civilizaciones antiguas y extrañas a su antojo. Su capacidad de invención la concentra en otras cosas.
Ornamento y Delito se presentó por primera vez como una charla pública pronunciada por el arquitecto
austríaco Adolf Loos en la Akademischer Verband für Literatur und Musik de Viena. El manuscrito fue posteriormente publicado en Cahiers d’aujourd’hui 5/1913 bajo el título alemán “Ornament und Verbrechen”.
The Obligation to Self-Design Boris Groys (2008) Design, as we know it today, is a twentieth-
and set itself the task of revealing the hidden
century phenomenon. Admittedly, concern
essence of things rather than designing
for the appearance of things is not new.
their surfaces. Avant-garde design sought to
All
with
eliminate and purify all that had accumulated
making clothes, everyday objects, interiors
on the surface of things through the practice
of various spaces, whether sacred spaces,
of the applied arts over centuries in order to
spaces
expose the true, undesigned nature of things.
cultures
of
have
power,
been
or
concerned
private
spaces,
“beautiful and impressive.”
Modern design thus did not see its task as creating the surface, but rather as eliminating
The history of the applied arts is indeed long.
it—as negative design, antidesign. Genuine
Yet modern design emerged precisely from
modern design is reductionist; it does not
the revolt against the tradition of the applied
add, it subtracts. It is no longer about simply
arts. Even more so than the transition from
designing individual things to be offered to
traditional art to modernist art, the transition
the gaze of viewers and consumers in order
from the traditional applied arts to modern
to seduce them. Rather, design seeks to
design marked a break with tradition, a
shape the gaze of viewers in such a way that
radical paradigm shift. This paradigm shift
they become capable of discovering things
is, however, usually overlooked. The function
themselves. A central feature of the paradigm
of design has often enough been described
shift from traditional applied arts to modern
using
opposition
design was just this extension of the will to
between appearance and essence. Design,
design from the world of things to that of
in this view, is responsible only for the
human beings themselves—understood as
appearance of things, and thus it seems
one thing among many. The rise of modern
predestined to conceal the essence of things,
design is profoundly linked to the project of
to deceive the viewer’s understanding of the
redesigning the old man into the New Man.
true nature of reality. Thus design has been
This project, which emerged at the beginning
repeatedly interpreted as an epiphany of the
of
omnipresent market, of exchange value, of
dismissed today as utopian, has never really
fetishism of the commodity, of the society of
been abandoned de facto. In a modified,
the spectacle—as the creation of a seductive
commercialized form, this project continues
surface behind which things themselves not
to have an effect, and its initial utopian
only become invisible, but disappear entirely.
potential has been updated repeatedly. The
the
old
metaphysical
the
twentieth
century
and
is
often
design of things that present themselves to Modern design, as it emerged at the beginning
the gaze of the viewing subject is critical to
of the twentieth century, internalized this
an understanding of design. The ultimate
critique aimed at the traditional applied arts
form of design is, however, the design of
the subject. The problems of design are only adequately addressed if the subject is asked how it wants to manifest itself, what form it wants to give itself, and how it wants to present itself to the gaze of the Other. This question was first raised with appropriate acuity
in
the
early
twentieth
century—after
Nietzsche diagnosed God’s death. As long as God was alive, the design of the soul was more important to people than the design of the body. The human body, along with its environment, was understood from the perspective of faith as an outer shell that conceals the soul. God was thought to be the only viewer of the soul.
To him the ethically correct, righteous soul was supposed to look beautiful—that is, simple, transparent, well constructed, proportional, and not disfigured by any vices or marked by any worldly passion. It is often overlooked that in the Christian tradition ethics has always been subordinated
to
aesthetics—that
is,
to
the
design of the soul. Ethical rules, like the rules of spiritual asceticism—of spiritual exercises, spiritual training—serve above all the objective of designing the soul in such a way that it would be acceptable in God’s eyes, so that He would allow it into paradise. The design of one’s own soul under God’s gaze is a persistent theme of theological treatises, and its rules can be visualized with the help of medieval depictions of the soul waiting for the Last Judgment. The design of the soul which was destined for God’s eyes was clearly distinct from the worldly applied arts: whereas the applied arts sought richness of materials, complex ornamentation, and outward radiance, the design of the soul focused on the essential, the plain, the natural, the reduced, and even the ascetic. The revolution in design that took place at the start of the twentieth century can best be characterized as the application of the rules for the design of the soul to the design of worldly objects. The death of God signified the disappearance of the viewer of the soul, for whom its design was practiced for centuries. Thus the site of the design of the soul shifted. The soul became the sum of the relationships into which the human body in the world entered. Previously, the body was the prison of the soul; now the soul became the clothing of the body, its social, political, and aesthetic appearance. Suddenly the only possible manifestation of the soul became the look of the clothes in which human beings appear,
the everyday things with which they surround
this quotation is the fact that Loos makes no
themselves, the spaces they inhabit. With
distinction between tattooing one’s own skin
the
the
and decorating a boat or an oar. Just as the
medium of the soul, the revelation of the
death
of
God,
modern human being is expected to present
subject
body.
him or herself to the gaze of the Other as an
Thus design took on an ethical dimension
honest, plain, unornamented, “undesigned”
it had not had previously. In design, ethics
object, so should all the other things with
became aesthetics; it became form. Where
which this person has to deal be presented
religion once was, design has emerged. The
as honest, plain, unornamented, undesigned
modern subject now has a new obligation:
things. Only then do they demonstrate that
the obligation to self-design, an aesthetic
the soul of the person using them is pure,
presentation as ethical subject. The ethically
virtuous,
motivated polemic against design, launched
Loos, the function of design is not to pack,
repeatedly over the course of the twentieth
decorate, and ornament things differently
century
hidden
and
design
inside
became
the
formulated
human
in
ethical
and
unspoiled.
According
to
and
each time, that is, to constantly design a
political terms, can only be understood on the
supplementary outside so that an inside, the
basis of this new definition of design; such
true nature of things, remains hidden. Rather,
a polemic would be entirely incongruous if
the real function of the modern design is to
directed at the traditional applied arts. Adolf
prevent people from wanting to design things
Loos’ famous essay “Ornament and Crime” is
at all. Thus Loos describes his attempts to
an early example of this turn.
convince a shoemaker from whom he had ordered shoes not to ornament them. 2 For
From the outset, Loos postulated in his
Loos, it was enough that the shoemaker
essay a unity between the aesthetic and the
use the best materials and work them with
ethical. Loos condemned every decoration,
care. The quality of the material and the
every ornament, as a sign of depravity, of
honesty and precision of the work, and not
vices. Loos judged a person’s appearance,
their external appearance, determine the
to the extent it represents a consciously
quality of the shoes. The criminal thing about
designed
immediate
ornamenting shoes is that this ornament
expression of his or her ethical stance. For
does not reveal the shoemaker’s honesty,
example, he believed he had demonstrated
that is, the ethical dimension of the shoes.
that only criminals, primitives, heathens,
The
or
the product are concealed by ornament
exterior,
degenerates
to
be
ornament
an
themselves
by
ethically the
dissatisfactory
ethically
impeccable
aspects are
of
tattooing their skin. Ornament was thus an
and
made
expression either of amorality or of crime:
unrecognizable by it. For Loos, true design
“The Papuan covers his skin with tattoos, his
is the struggle against design—against the
boat, his oars, in short everything he can lay
criminal will to conceal the ethical essence
his hands on. He is no criminal. The modern
of things behind their aesthetic surface. Yet
person who tattoos himself is either a criminal
paradoxically, only the creation of another,
or a degenerate.” 1 Particularly striking in
revelatory layer of ornament—that is, of
design—guarantees the unity of the ethical
they are. The designer wants here and now
and the aesthetic that Loos sought.
the apocalyptic vision that makes everyone New Men. The body takes on the form of the
The messianic, apocalyptic features of the
soul. The soul becomes the body. All things
struggle against applied art that Loos was
become heavenly. Heaven becomes earthly,
engaged in are unmistakable. For example,
material. Modernism becomes absolute.
Loos wrote: “Do not weep. Do you not see the greatness of our age resides in our very
Loos’ essay is, famously, not an isolated
inability to create new ornament? We have
phenomenon. Rather, it reflects the mood
gone beyond ornament, we have achieved
of the entire artistic avant-garde of the
plain, undecorated simplicity. Behold, the
twentieth century, which sought a synthesis
time is at hand, fulfillment awaits us. Soon the
of art and life. This synthesis was supposed
streets of the cities will shine like white walls!
to be achieved by removing the things that
Like Zion, the Holy City, Heaven’s capital.
looked too arty both from art and from life.
Then fulfillment will be ours.” 3 The struggle
Both were supposed to reach the zero point
against the applied arts is the final struggle
of the artistic in order to achieve a unity. The
before the arrival of God’s Kingdom on Earth.
conventionally artistic was understood to be
Loos wanted to bring heaven down to earth;
the “human, all too human” that obstructed
he wanted to see things as they are, without
the gaze to perceive the true inner form of
ornament. Thus Loos wanted to appropriate
things. Hence the traditional painting was
the divine gaze. But not only that, he wanted
seen as something that prevents the gaze of
to make everyone else capable of seeing the
a spectator to recognize it as a combination
things as they are revealed in God’s gaze.
of shapes and colors on canvas. And shoes
Modern design wants the apocalypse now,
made in the traditional way were understood
the apocalypse that unveils things, strips
to be a thing that prevented the gaze of a
them of their ornament, and causes them to
consumer to recognize the essence, function,
be seen as they truly are. Without this claim
and true composition of the shoe. The gaze
that design manifests the truth of things, it
of the New Man had to be freed of all such
would be impossible to understand many of
obstructions by the force of (anti)design.
the discussions among designers, artists, and art theorists over the course of the
Whereas Loos still formulated his argument in
twentieth century. Such artists and designers
rather bourgeois terms and wanted to reveal
as Donald Judd or architects such as Herzog
the value of certain materials, craftsmanship,
& de Meuron, to name only a few, do not argue
and individual honesty, the will to absolute
aesthetically when they want to justify their
design
artistic practices but rather ethically, and in
Constructivism, with its “proletarian” ideal
doing so they appeal to the truth of things
of the collective soul, which is manifested
as such. The modern designer does not wait
in
for the apocalypse to remove the external
Russian Constructivists, the path to virtuous,
shell of things and show them to people as
genuinely proletarian objects also passed
reached
industrially
its
climax
organized
in
work.
Russian
For
the
through the elimination of everything that was
to design the whole of society. In a certain
merely artistic. The Russian Constructivists
sense, the Soviet artists had no choice at
called for the objects of everyday communist
the time other than to forward such a total
life to show themselves as what they are:
claim. The market, including the art market,
as
serve
was eliminated by the Communists. Artists
only to make their ethics visible. Ethics as
were no longer faced with private consumers
understood here was given an additional
and their private and aesthetic preferences,
political
collective
but with the state as a whole. Necessarily, it
soul had to be organized politically in order
was all or nothing for artists. This situation
to act properly in accordance with ethical
is clearly reflected in the manifestos of
terms. The collective soul was manifested
Russian Constructivism. For example, in his
in the political organization that embraced
programmatic text entitled “Constructivism,”
both people and things. The function of
Alexei Gan wrote: “Not to reflect, not to
“proletarian” design—at the time, admittedly,
represent and not to interpret reality, but to
people spoke rather of “proletarian art”—
really build and express the systematic tasks
must therefore be to make this total political
of the new class, the proletariat… Especially
organization visible. The experience of the
now, when the proletarian revolution has
October Revolution of 1917 was crucial for
been victorious, and its destructive, creative
the Russian Constructivists. They understood
movement is progressing along the iron rails
the revolution to be a radical act of purifying
into culture, which is organized according
society of every form of ornament: the finest
to
example of modern design, which eliminates
everyone—the master of color and line,
all
the builder of space-volume forms and the
functional
things
dimension,
traditional
whose
since
social
forms
the
customs,
rituals,
a
grand
of
plan
social
production,
conventions, and forms of representation
organizer
in order for the essence of the political
become constructors in the general work
organization to emerge. Thus the Russian
of the arming and moving of the many-
Constructivists called for the abolition of
millioned human masses.” 4 For Gan, the goal
all autonomous art. A r t sh ou ld r a t h e r b e
of Constructivist design was not to impose
pl aced e n t i re l y a t t h e s e rvic e of t he d e sign
a new form on everyday life under socialism
o f uti l i t a r i a n o b j e c t s . I n e sse nc e , it wa s a
but
cal l to c o m p l e t e l y s u b s ume a rt t o d e sign.
revolutionary reduction and to avoid making
rather
mass
of
to
productions—must
remain
loyal
to
all
radical,
new ornaments for new things. Hence Nikolai At the same time, the project of Russian
Tarabukin
Constructivism was a total project: it wanted
essay “From the Easel to the Machine” that
to design life as a whole. Only for that
the Constructivist artist could not play a
reason—and only at that price—was Russian
formative role in the process of actual social
Constructivism
exchange
production. H is role was rath er th at of a
autonomous art for utilitarian art: just as the
p rop a ga ndis t wh o defen ds an d prais es th e
traditional artist designed the whole of the
b e a ut y of in du s trial produ ction an d opens
artwork, so the Constructivist artist wanted
the public’s eyes to this beauty. 5 The artist,
prepared
to
asserted
in
his
then-famous
as described by Tarabukin, is someone who
his thoroughly designed house is finished,
looks at the entirety of socialist production
the man can no longer change anything in it
as
socialist
without the designer’s permission. Everything
Duchamp who exhibits socialist industry as
a
ready-made—a
kind
of
that this man would later buy and do must fit
a whole as something good and beautiful.
into the overall design of the house, not just literally but also aesthetically. In a world of
The modern designer, whether bourgeois or
total design, the man himself has become a
proletarian, calls for the other, divine vision:
designed thing, a kind of museum object, a
for the metanoia that enables people to see
mummy, a publicly exhibited corpse. Loos
the true form of things. In the Platonic and
concludes his description of the fate of the
Christian traditions, undergoing a metanoia
poor rich man as follows: “He was shut out of
means making the transition from a worldly
future life and its strivings, its developments,
perspective to an otherworldly perspective,
and its desires. He felt: Now is the time to
from a perspective of the mortal body to a
learn to walk about with one’s own corpse.
perspective of the immortal soul. Since the
Ind e e d ! He is fin is h ed! H e is com plete!” 6
death of God, of course, we can no longer
I n his essay “Design and Crime,” whose title
believe that there is something like the soul
was inspired by Loos’, Hal Foster interpreted
that is distinguished from the body in the
this passage as an implicit call for “running
sense that it is made independent of the
room,” for breaking out of the prison of total
body and can be separated from it. However,
design. 7 It is obvious, however, that Loos’
that does not by any means suggest that
text should not be understood as a protest
a metanoia is no longer possible. Modern
against the total dominance of design. Loos
design is the attempt to bring about such a
protests against design as ornament in the
metanoia—an effort to see one’s own body
name of another, “true” design, in the name
and one’s own surroundings as purified of
of an antidesign that frees the consumer from
everything earthly, arbitrary, and subjected
dependence on the taste of the professional
to a particular aesthetic taste. In a sense,
designer. As the aforementioned example of
it could be said that modernism substituted
the shoes demonstrates, under the regime
the design of the corpse for the design of
of avant-garde antidesign, consumers take
the soul.
responsibility for their own appearance and for the design of their daily lives. Consumers
This funeral aspect of modern design was
do so by asserting their own, modern taste,
recognized by Loos even before he wrote
which tolerates no ornament and hence no
“Ornament and Crime.” In his text “The Poor
additional artistic or craft labor. By taking
Little Rich Man,” Loos tells of the imagined
ethical and aesthetic responsibility for the
fate of a rich Viennese man who decided to
image they offer the outside world, however,
have his entire house designed by an artist.
consumers become prisoners of total design
This man totally subjected his everyday life
to a much larger degree than ever before,
to the dictates of the designer (Loos speaks,
inasmuch as they can no longer delegate
admittedly, of the architect), for as soon as
their aesthetic decisions to others. Modern
consumers present the world the image of their own personality—purified of all outside influence
and
ornamentation.
But
this
purification of their own image is potentially just as infinite a process as the purification of the soul before God. In the white city, in the heavenly Zion, as Loos imagines it, design is truly total for the first time. Nothing can be changed there either: nothing colorful, no ornament can be smuggled in. The difference is simply that in the white city of the future, everyone is the author of his own corpse— everyone
becomes
an
artist-designer
who has ethical, political, and aesthetic responsibility for his or her environment.
One can claim, of course, that the original
the political convictions of their authors—
pathos of avant-garde antidesign has long
and it is primarily on that basis that they
since faded, that avant-garde design has
are judged. The debate over headscarves
become a certain designer style among other
demonstrates the political force of design. In
possible styles. That is why many people
order to understand that this is primarily a
view our entire society today—the society
debate about design, it suffices to imagine
of commercial design, of the spectacle—as
that Prada or Gucci has begun to design
a game with simulacra behind which there is
headscarves.
In
only a void. That is indeed how this society
between
headscarf
presents itself, but only if one takes a purely
Islamic convictions and the headscarf as
contemplative position, sitting in the lodge
a commercial brand becomes an extremely
and watching the spectacle of society. But
difficult aesthetic and political task. Design
this position overlooks the fact that design
cannot therefore be analyzed exclusively
today has become total—and hence it no
within
longer admits of a contemplative position
commodities. One could just as soon speak
from the perspective of an outsider. The
of suicide design—for example, in the case
turn that Loos announced in his day has
of suicide attacks, which are well known to
proven to be irreversible: every citizen of the
be staged according to strict aesthetic rules.
contemporary world still has to take ethical,
One can speak about the design of power but
aesthetic, and political responsibility for
also about the design of resistance or the
his or her self-design. In a society in which
design of alternative political movements.
design has taken over the function of religion,
In these instances design is practiced as a
self-design becomes a creed. By designing
production of differences—differences that
one’s self and one’s environment in a certain
often take on a political semantics at the
way, one declares one’s faith in certain
same time. We often hear laments that politics
values, attitudes, programs, and ideologies.
today is concerned only with a superficial
In accordance with this creed, one is judged
image—and that so-called content loses its
by society, and this judgment can certainly
relevance in the process. This is thought to
be negative and even threaten the life and
be the fundamental malaise of politics today.
well-being of the person concerned.
More and more, there are calls to turn away
the
the
such
context
of
a
case, as
the
a
deciding
symbol
economy
of
of
from political design and image making Hence modern design belongs not so much
and return to content. Such laments ignore
in an economic context as in a political
the fact that under the regime of modern
one. Modern design has transformed the
design, it is precisely the visual positioning
whole of social space into an exhibition
of politicians in the field of the mass media
space for an absent divine visitor, in which
that makes the crucial statement concerning
individuals appear both as artists and as
their
self-produced works of art. In the gaze of
politics. Content, by contrast, is completely
the modern viewer, however, the aesthetic
irrelevant, because it changes constantly.
composition of artworks inevitably betrays
Hence the general public is by no means
politics—or
even
constitutes
their
wrong to judge its politicians according to
thing that promises an experience of truth
their appearance—that is, according to their
as living intensity. The debate now is only
basic aesthetic and political creed, and not
over the question whether such an encounter
according to arbitrarily changing programs
with the real is still possible or whether the
and contents that they support or formulate.
real has definitively disappeared behind its designed surface.
Thus modern design evades Kant’s famous distinction between disinterested aesthetic
Now, however, we can no longer speak of
contemplation and the use of things guided
disinterested contemplation when it is a
by interests. For a long time after Kant,
matter
disinterested contemplation was considered
and self-positioning in the aesthetic field,
superior to a practical attitude: a higher,
since the subject of such self-contemplation
if not the highest, manifestation of the
clearly has a vital interest in the image he
human spirit. But already by the end of the
or she offers to the outside world. Once
nineteenth century, a reevaluation of values
people had an interest in how their souls
had
of
self-manifestation,
self-design,
contemplativa
appeared to God; today they have an interest
was thoroughly discredited, and the vita
in how their bodies appear to their political
activa was elevated to the true task of
surroundings. This interest certainly points
humankind. Hence today design is accused
to the real. The real, however, emerges
of seducing people into weakening their
here not as a shocklike interruption of the
activity, vitality, and energy—of making them
designed surface but as a question of the
passive consumers who lack will, who are
technique and practice of self-design—a
manipulated by omnipresent advertising and
question no one can escape anymore. In his
thus become victims of capital. The apparent
day, Beuys said that everyone had the right
cure for this lulling into sleep by the society
to see him- or herself as an artist. What was
of the spectacle is a shocklike encounter
then understood as a right has now become
with the “real” that is supposed to rescue
an obligation. In th e m ean tim e we h av e
people from their contemplative passivity
b e e n c ondem n ed to bein g th e des ign ers of
and move them to action, which is the only
our se lve s.
taken
place:
the
vita
Translated from the German by Steven Lindberg. e-flux, journal #0, 11/2008 Notes 1. Adolf Loos, “Ornament and Crime” (1908), in Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays, ed. Adolf Opel, trans. Michael Mitchell (Riverside, CA: Ariadne Press, 1998), 167. 2. Ibid., 174. 3. Ibid., 168. 4. Alexei Gan, “From Constructivism,” in Charles Harrison and Paul Wood, eds., Art in Theory, 1900–1990: An Anthology of Changing Ideas (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1993), 320 (translation modified). 5. Nikolai Tarabukin, “From the Easel to the Machine,” in Francis Frascina and Charles Harrison, eds., Modern Art and Modernism: A Critical Anthology (New York: Harper and Row, 1982), 135–42. 6. Adolf Loos, “The Poor Little Rich Man,” in August Sarnitz, Adolf Loos, 1870–1933: Architect, Cultural Critic, Dandy, trans. Latido (Cologne: Taschen, 2003), 21. 7. Hal Foster, “Design and Crime,” in idem, Design and Crime (and Other Diatribes) (London: Verso, 2002), 17.
www.andreacanepa.com
Impreso en Forma e Imagen Lima, julio de 2013 Edición 500 ejemplares © 2013 Florencia Portocarrero © 2008 e-flux y el autor © de las imágenes, Andrea Canepa
Gracias a:
Jorge Ramos, Florencia Portocarrero, Camila Peralta, María Rosa Olaechea de
Canepa, Juan Manuel Sánchez, Miguel Ramos, Adriana Ciudad, Nancy La Rosa, Juan Salas, Ramón Louro, Ignacio Uriarte, Martín Aramburú, Bruno Canepa, Cecilia Canepa, Santiago Quintanilla y un agradecimiento especial a Boris Groys por permitirme incluir su texto en esta publicación.
Publicaci贸n con motivo de la exposici贸n
ORNAMENTO Y SISTEMA en Wu Galer铆a, Lima 2013
www.andreacanepa.com