Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 April 2016
Adolf Loos’s famous essay, ‘Ornament and Crime’, decisively linked unornamented architecture with the culture of modernity and, in so doing, became one of the key formulations of modern architecture. To a great extent, the essay’s force comes from arguments drawn from nineteenth-century criminal anthropology. Nevertheless, Loos’s work has been consistently understood only within the context of the inter-war avant- gardes. In the 1920s, Le Corbusier was particularly enthusiastic in bringing Loos’s work to the fore, thereby establishing its future reception. ‘Ornament and Crime’ became an essential catalyst for architecture’s conversion away from the historicism of the nineteenth century to modernism. At the turn of the century, Loos’s essay already foreshadowed the white abstraction of ‘less is more’ architecture and the functionalist rigour of the International Style which would dominate the twentieth century.
1 The first publication of ‘Ornament und Verbrechen’ is unknown, but before it was published Adolf Loos presented lectures with that name, which he retrospectively dated to 1908. ‘Ornament und Verbrechen’ lectures were reported in Fremden Blatt, 22 January 1910, p. 21, and Der Sturm, 1, 3 March 1910, p. 8. French translations appeared in the Cahiers d’aujourd'hui (June 1913), and L'Esprit Nouveau, 2,15 November 1920, pp. 159-68. It appeared in German in the Frankfurter Zeitung, 24 October 1929. Citations taken from Trotzdem (Innsbruck, 1931), pp. 79-92.
2 Le Corbusier’s assessment was typical: in his forward to the publication of ‘Ornement et Crime’ in L'Esprit Nouveau, he wrote, ‘Loos is one of the predecessors of the new spirit. Around 1900, when the enthusiasm for Jugendstil was high, in the time of excessive decor, Loos began his crusade against the redundancy of these tendencies’. Le Corbusier, L'Esprit Nouveau, 2 (1920), p. 159.
3 Nietzsche, Friedrich, Unzeitgemässe Betrachtungen: Vom Nutzen und Nachtheil der Historie für das Leben, 2 (Leipzig, 1874; citation taken from ‘On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life’, in Untimely Meditations, ed. Daniel Breazeale, trans. R. J. Hollingdale (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 58–123 (p. 123)).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Amongst those who notice a homology between Loos’s reading of tattoos and the work of Cesare Lombroso, but who have not analyzed Loos’s actual connexions and debt to criminal anthropology are: Oettermann, Stephan, Zeichen auf der Haut: Die Geschichte der Tätowierung in Europa (Frankfurt, 1979), pp. 64–65 Google Scholar; Amanhauser, Hildegund, Untersuchungen zu den Schriften von Adolf Loos (Vienna, 1985), p. 29 Google Scholar; Anderson, Mark, Kafka’s Clothes: Ornament and Aestheticism in the Habsburg Fin de Siecle (Oxford, 1992), pp. 180–82 Google Scholar; Peplow, Michael R., ‘Adolf Loos: Die Verwefung des wilden Ornaments’, in Ornament und Geschichte: Studien zum Strukturwandel des Ornaments in der Moderne, ed. Ursula Franke and Heinz Paetzold (Bonn, 1996), pp. 173–89 (pp. 178–79)Google Scholar; Hersey, George L., The Evolution of Allure: Sexual Selection from the Medici Venus to the Incredible Hulk (Cambridge, 1996), p. 123 Google Scholar; and Damisch, Hubert, ‘L'Autre “Ich”, L'Autriche—Austria, or the Desire for the Void: Toward a Tomb for Adolf Loos’, Grey Room, 1 (Fall 2000), pp. 26–41 (p. 40, n. 14).Google Scholar For contemporary interpretations of Loos’s views on ornament, see Lahuerta, Juan José, ‘Reclamación: Nota a favor del ornamento’, Architectura Viva, 87, pp. 23–25 Google Scholar, and the various essays in Crime and Ornament: The Arts and Popular Culture in the Shadow of Adolf Loos, ed. Bernie Miller and Melony Ward (Toronto, 2002). For Loos’s theory of ornament in historical context, see María Ocón Fernandez, Ornament und Moderne: Theoriebildung und Ornamentdebatte im deutschen Architekturdiskurs (1850-1930) (Berlin, 2004).
5 Loos, Ins leere gesprochen (Paris and Zurich, 1921). The attribution of first ‘battle cry against ornament’ appeared in a note to the 1932 edition of Ins leere gesprochen (Innsbruck, 1932).
6 It is important to note that Loos focused on the acanthus motif, whose significance in art theory can be traced back to Vitruvius.?
7 Loos, , ‘Das Luxusfuhrwerk’, Neue Freie Presse, 3 July 1898; citations taken from Sämtliche Schriften, ed. Franz Glück (Vienna, 1962), 1, pp. 62–69 (p. 65).Google Scholar
8 Loos, ‘Das Luxusfuhrwerk’, p. 69.
10 Nevertheless, Darwin cautioned how ‘there is no evidence in favor of this belief’. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (London, 1871; citations taken from 2nd edn, Amherst, NY, 1998), p. 605.
11 Darwin, The Descent of Man, p. 603.
12 For recent studies on Darwin and the visual arts, see ‘The Darwin Effect: Evolution and Nineteenth- Century Visual Culture’, Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide, ed. Linda Nochlin and Martha Lucy, 2 (2003), and Kohn, David, ‘The Aesthetic Construction of Darwin’s Theory’, in The Elusive Synthesis: Aesthetics and Science, ed. Alfred I. Tauber (Dordrecht, 1996), pp. 13–48.Google Scholar
13 Loos, ‘Damenmode’, Neue Freie Presse, 21 August 1898. Republished in Dokumente der Frauen, 6. 23, 1 March 1902, pp. 660-61. Citations taken from Sämtliche Schriften, 1, pp. 157-64 (p. 161).
14 For perceptions of New Guinea at the time, see Janet Stewart, Fashioning Vienna: Adolf Loos’s Cultural Criticism (London, 2002).
15 Although due to their lower development, it was acceptable — and even desirable — for women to dress in the style of prostitutes, it was unacceptable for anybody else to do so. References to prostitutes as embodiments of arrested development abound in Loos’s work. As early as 1897, Loos insulted the Lefler room at the Christmas exhibition of the Austrian Museum by saying it was worthy of a ‘cocotte’. Loos, ‘Weihnachtsausstellung im Österreichischen Museum’, Die Zeit, Vienna, 13. 168, 18 December 1897, P- Citation taken from Loos, Escritos I, ed. Adolf Opel and Josep Quetglas, trans. Alberto Estévez, Josep Quetglas and Miquel Vila (Madrid, 1993), pp. 21-27 (p- 27)•
16 Loos, ‘Damenmode’, p. 159.
17 Loos, ‘Damenmode’, p. 159. Proof for the latter trend was ‘that just now the number of court cases involving crimes against children is increasing in the most frightful way’. In 1928 Loos was arrested for allegedly soliciting sex from minors.
18 Loos, ‘Ornament und Erziehung’, Wohnungskultur, 2-3 (1924), p. 81. Citation taken from Trotzdem (Innsbruck, 1931), pp. 200-07 (P- 2°5)
19 Loos, Wohnungswanderungen (1907). Partially republished in Loos, ‘Wohnungs-Moden’, Frankfurter Zeitung, 8 December 1907. Citations taken from Die Potemkin’sche Stadt: Verschollene Schriften 1897-1933 (Vienna, 1983), pp. 106-15. Loos finished his ostensibly ornament-free ‘Café Museum’ in 1907.
20 Loos, Wohnungswanderungen, p. 108. When compared to ‘orientals’, Loos particularly worried that Austria was falling behind Japan with respect to its cultural level. See Loos, ‘Die Plumber’, Neue Freie Presse, 17 July 1898.
21 Loos, Wohnungswanderungen, p. 108.
22 Loos, ‘Ornament und Verbrechen’, p. 80. Italics original.
23 Throughout the late nineteenth century Lombroso’s criminology passed through various stages of popularity. Although at the third international congress of criminal anthropology (1893) Lombrosian anthropology suffered a marked setback from the attack of the ‘French school’ of criminology, it nevertheless remained extremely influential well into the twentieth century.
24 Lombroso’s work was a key influence to the ‘Viennese school’ of criminal anthropology associated with Moritz Benedikt, who sought the origins of in criminality in the brain. Cesare Lombroso, L'Uomo Delinquente (Milan, 1876; citations taken from 4th edn, Turin, 1889). Translated into German as Lombroso, Der Verbrecher, in anthropoligischer, ärztlicher und juristischer Bezeihung (Hamburg, 1887-90). For Moritz Benedikt, see Die Wiener Schule und die Criminal Anthropologie (Vienna, 1902). On the relationship between Benedikt and Lombroso, see Bondio, Mariacarla Gadesbusch, Die Rezeption der kriminalanthropologischen Theorien von Cesare Lombroso in Deutschland von 1880-1914 (Husum, 1995), pp. 129–31.Google Scholar
25 Loos’s private correspondence contains references to the work of Richard von Krafft-Ebing, author of Psychopathia Sexualis (Stuttgart, 1886). See Loos to Karl Kraus, n.d., Semmering, Germany, Wiener Stadt- und Landesbibliothek, 138833. For references to Nordau, see Loos, Presentation Card, Wiener Stadt- und Landesbibliothek, 138830/2.
26 The Austrian explorer Andreas Reischek furnished the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna with Maori art. In 1907, the year of Loos’s first reference to tattoos, the Viennese ethnologist Rudolf Poch, began to publish the results of his explorations in New Guinea and disseminate in the Viennese press the image of the tattooed Papuan. Pöch, Rudolf, ‘Einige bemerkenswerte Ethnologika aus Neu-Guinea’, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 37 (1907), pp. 57–71.Google Scholar This publication was preceded by Rudolf Virchow’s work on tattoos. Other scientists who focused on New Guinea tattoos included Guise, R. E., ‘On the Tribes Inhabiting the Mouth of the Wanigela River, New Guinea’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 29 (1899), pp. 205–19 Google Scholar, and Barton, Francis R., ‘Tattooing in South Eastern New Guinea’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 48 (1918), pp. 22–79.Google Scholar For recent work on tattoos in New Guinea, see Alfred Gell, Wrapping in Images: Tattooing in Polynesia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993); Thomas, Nicholas ‘Marked Men’, Art Asia Pacific, 13 (1997), pp. 66–73 Google Scholar; and Christopher Wright ‘Supple Bodies: The Papua New Guinea Photographs of Captain Francis R. Barton, 1899-1907’, in Photography’s Other Histories, ed. Christopher Pinney and Nicolas Peterson (Durham, NC, 2003), pp. 146-69. For a general history of tattooing, see Written on the Body: The Tattoo in European and American History, ed. Jane Caplan (London, 2000).
27 Kant compared architectural ornament to the tattooing of a New Zealander, each constituting an extraneous supplement to a purposefully-arranged form. Kant, Immanuel, Critik der Urtheilskraft (Berlin, 1790; citation taken from Critique of Judgement, trans. Wemer S. Pluhar (Indianapolis, 1987)), p. 77.Google Scholar
28 ‘Not one great country can be named ... in which the aborigines do not tattoo themselves. This practice was followed by the Jews of old, and by the ancient Britons.’ Darwin, The Descent of Man, p. 595.
29 Darwin, The Descent of Man, p. 606.
31 The main authors linking tattoos and primitives were Mantegazza, Lubbock, Darwin and Scherzer. Both Darwin and Lombroso read Mantegazza and Lubbock on tattoos. For Darwin’s references to Mantegazza and Lubbock, see Darwin, The Descent of Man, p. 594, n. 42.
32 Authors on the tattoos of criminals were Lacassagne, Magitot, Tardieu, Berchon, Parent-Duchatelet, Marro, Boselli and Salillas. The study of tattoos was not limited to the anthropological or criminal perspective. Other authors studied tattoos in history, noticing a proclivity for tattoos in ancient and medieval peoples (Ewald, Isidoro, Cesare, Luciano), and yet others focused on the use of tattoos by the insane.
33 ‘Ma la prima, principalissima cause della difusione di questo [tattuaggio] uso fra noi, io credo sia l'atavismo, o quell'altra specie di atavismo storico, ehe e la tradizione, comechä il tatuaggio sia uno dei caratteri speciali dell'uomo primitivo, e di quello in istato di selvatichezza.’ Cesare Lombroso, L'Uomo Delinquente, p. 319.
34 Loos, ‘Ornament und Verbrechen’, pp. 79-80.
35 Loos, ‘Ornament und Verbrechen’, p. 80.
36 Loos, ‘Ornament und Verbrechen’, p. 80.
37 Both Loos and Nordau focused on the use of the colour violet in art as a mark of evolutionary development. According to Nordau ‘the violet pictures of Manet and his school’ were signs of the physical degeneration of the nervous system of the artists. For Loos, the use of violet entered art in the eighteenth century, when the evolutionary development of man corresponded to that of an eight-year-old child. Loos, ‘Ornament und Verbrechen’, p. 79.
38 Lombroso, Palimsesti del Carcere (Turin, 1888; citation taken from Florence, 1996), p. 37.
39 Darwin, The Descent of Man, p. 560.
40 Loos, ‘Ornament und Verbrechen’, p. 79.
41 Nordau, ‘Nouvelle Theorie Biologique du Crime’, La Revue, 42 (1902), pp. 150-64 (p. 153). Max Nordau’s view of the criminal differed from Lombroso’s in some minor respects. For example, Nordau was responsible for describing the habitual criminal as parasitic and not only atavistic. Overall, however, the similarities between the two criminologists were more overwhelming than the differences. In Nordau’s words: ‘Je suis heureux de constater qu'au fond, mon illustre maitre et ami M. Lombroso et moi, nous sommes tout ä fait d'accord.’ See their ‘debate’ in Lombroso and Nordau, ‘Parasitisme ou Atavisme’, La Revue, 43 (1902), pp. 456-60 (p. 459).
42 Loos, ‘Ornament und Erziehung’, p. 200.
43 Darwin to A. R. Wallace (Down, 28 May?] 1864), pp. 271-73; Darwin to Wallace (Down, 22 February 1867?), pp. 274-75; Darwin to Wallace (Down, 23 February 1867), p. 275; Darwin to Wallace (Down, 26 February 1867), pp. 276-77; Darwin to Wallace (Down, March 1867), pp. 277-78; Darwin to F. Miiller (Down, 22 February 1869?), pp. 292-93; Darwin to Wallace (Down, 16 March 1871), pp. 317-20. In Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin, 2 (New York, 1887; citations taken from New York, 1911).
44 Argyll, Reign of Law (London, i860).
45 Darwin, The Descent of Man, p. 594.
46 Gottfried Semper, Der Stil in den technischen und tektonischen Künsten oder praktische Ästhetik: Ein Handbook für Techniker, Künstler und Kunstfreunde, 2 vols (Frankfurt, i860, 1863), trans. Henry Mallgrave and Wolfgang Herrmann as ‘Style in the Technical and Tectonic Arts or Practical Aesthetics: A Handbook for Technicians, Artists, and Patrons of Art’, in Semper, The Four Elements of Architecture and Other Writings (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 181-263 (p. 255).
47 Semper, Der Stil, pp. 216-17.
48 Semper, Der Stil, p. 241.
49 ‘Some cultures actually have a correct knowledge of the position and functions of muscles which are covered by the skin, so that these activities on the surface of the skin could in a similar way be represented, or could be represented even more through graphic linearity; because of this it appears that the ornament of these cultures is already conceived in a structural-symbolic sense.’ Semper, Der Stil, pp. 97-98.
50 Semper is known to have held Cuvier’s work in high esteem. His first written reference to Darwin appeared in 1869. See Mallgrave, Gottfried Semper: Architect of the Nineteenth Century (New Haven, CT, 1996), p. 305, and Mallgrave, ‘Introduction’, in The Four Elements of Architecture and Other Writings (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 1-44 (pp. 30-32). On Semper’s anthropological sources, see Rykwert, Joseph, ‘Semper and the Conception of Style’, in Gottfried Semper und die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts, ed. Eva Börsch Supan (Zurich, 1974), pp. 67–81.Google Scholar
51 Riegl, Alois, Stilfragen: Grundlegungen zu einer Geschichte der Ornamentik (Berlin 1893; citations taken from Problems of Style: Foundations for a History of Ornament, trans. Evelyn Kain, Princeton, 1992), p. 4.Google Scholar
52 Riegl, Problems of Style, p. 21.
53 While Riegl denied a materialist interpretation of art, he still believed that there was some correlation between ornament and culture. Riegl speculated that the need for ornament could die out altogether in some distant time, leaving functional objects plain and unadorned; until that time, however, he recommended that designers employ historical ornament, rather than invent ornaments anew or copy from nature. Riegl, ‘Das Moderne in der Kunst’, Graphische Kunst, 22 (1899), pp. 9-12 (p. 12). In Stilfragen, he argued that ‘if, following the spirit of today’s natural science, we are justified in assuming that contemporary primitive cultures are the rudimentary survivors of the human race from earlier cultural periods then their geometric ornament must represent an earlier phase of development in the decorative arts and is therefore of great historical significance’. Yet ornament could not be a precise index of cultural development because ‘the mimetic impulse is so powerful that there is no stopping less talented cultures from borrowing from those with more ability.’ Riegl, Problems of Style, pp. 16, 21, 22. Otto Wagner also grouped Semper and Darwin together in Moderne Architektur (Vienna, 1902), p. 93.
54 Riegl, , ‘Über neuseeländische Ornamentik’, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 20 (1890), pp. 84–87.Google Scholar
55 This argument was reiterated in Riegl, Problems of Style, pp. 77-78.
56 Riegl, Problems of Style, p. 5.
57 Riegl claimed that this aesthetic conception of ornament was present — yet ignored — in Semper’s examples, especially those on tattoos: it is the urge to decorate that is one of the most elementary of human drives, more elementary than the need to protect the body. This is not the first time such a proposition has been made; Semper himself expressed it several times. It is thus even more difficult to understand why, in the face of all this evidence, the origin of creative activity is still believed to postdate the invention of the techniques used to create protection for the body. Riegl, Problems of Style, p. 31.
58 Riegl, Problems of Style, pp. 31-32.
59 In 1898 Vienna, Kamillo Windt implemented the prison system of the famous French criminologist Alphonse Bertillon after studying with him in Paris. For his work on fingerprinting, see Kamillo Windt, Daktyloskopie; Verwertung von Fingerabdrucken zu Identifizierungszwecken (Vienna, 1904); Windt and Siegmund Kodicek, Daktyloskopie, Verwertung von Fingerabdrücken zu identifizierungszwecken; Lehrbuch zum Selbstunterricht für Richter, Polizeiorgane, Strafanstaltsbeamte, Gendarmen etc., 2nd edn (Vienna, 1923).?
60 Loos believed that ‘every implement [object of daily use] can tell something about the customs and characters of a people’. He learned this lesson from Semper, who believed that ‘by looking at the pots that a certain people produced, we are able to tell in a general way what kind of race they were and how advanced their civilization was’ (Loos, ‘Glas und Ton’, Neue Freie Presse, 26 June 1898; citation taken from Sämtliche Schriften, 1, pp. 55-61 (p. 55)). In Loos, the reading of cultures from their products was taken to a further extreme. He wrote: ‘even if the only object that survived from a town which disappeared was a button, I could, by its form, deduce the clothing and customs of that town, their morals, religion, their art and spirituality.’ According to Loos legitimate ornaments were signifiers through which the culture of a people and their level of civilization could be read (Loos, ‘Antworten auf Fragen aus dem Publikum’, Neues 8 UhrBlatt, 21 June, 9, 16, 23 August, 20 September, 4, 18 October 1919; citations taken from Loos, , Escritos II, ed. Adolf Opel and Josep Quetglas, trans. Alberto Estevez, Josep Quetglas and Miquel Vila (Madrid, 1993), pp. 132–56 (p. 145)).Google Scholar
61 Loos, ‘Ornament und Verbrechen’, p. 86. Loos’s evolutionary thesis of ornament had consequences for theories of language, and he adamantly condemned artificial languages. According to him, language, like ornament-use, was ‘organically connected’ to a specific cultural level. Primitive cultures could not become modern simply by rejecting ornament or adopting a more advanced language; this process could not be forced. Language, architecture and fashion had to evolve naturally: ‘Modern clothing is not enough. One should also have modern customs and speak modern German. If not, the effect is the same as the black soldiers in Central Africa, who take themselves for moderns simply because they wear hats.’ Loos, ‘Antworten auf Fragen aus dem Publikum’, p. 132.
Loos compared modern ornament to modern artificial languages, in particular Volapük and Esperanto. When he commented on Otto Wagner’s turn to the ornamentation of the ‘Belgian school’ in his creation of a train station, Loos described it as an unfortunate move away from ‘the formal language of antiquity’ towards a ‘personal language’ which he compared to ‘an extravagant Volapük’. According to him, the crises of ornament and architecture arose because modern architects tried to speak in an artificial language. ‘Modern architects’, Loos wrote, ‘resemble Esperantoists.’ In his criticism of artificial languages, Loos was working in the tradition of earlier German linguists, such as Herder, who believed there was an inseparable and natural connexion between language, culture and evolutionary development that could not be artificially altered. For Loos on artificial languages, see Loos, ‘Otto Wagner’, Reichspost, 13 July 1911; on Esperantoists, see Loos, ‘Ornament und Erziehung’, p. 205. This line was erased in the version reprinted in Loos, ‘Ornament and Education’, in Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays, trans. Michael Mitchel (Riverside, Ca., 1998). For other allusions to language, see Loos, Foreword to Ins leere gesprochen; Loos, ‘Antworten auf Fragen aus dem Publikum’; Loos, ‘Die Emanzipation des Judentums’, 1900, published for the first time in Loos, Escritos 1, p. 251; ‘Loos, Arnold Schönberg und seine Zeitgenossen’, Anbruch (August and September 1924).
62 It is probable that many of his criticisms were also directed against Dagobert Peche, although he did not mention him by name. See Plakolm-Forsthuber, Sabine, ‘Dagobert Peche and "the Viennese Women’s Crafts'", in Dagobert Peche and the Wiener Werkstätte, ed. Peter Noever (Vienna, 1998), pp. 79–95.Google Scholar
63 In this respect Loos has been widely misread, being categorically known as ‘der Ornamentenfiend’. Even the essay ‘Ornament and Crime’ was translated as ‘Ornament is Crime’ in the French and Spanish versions. Later in his life Loos lamented about how the ‘wrong interpretation’ of his teachings was taken up by the ‘neue Sachlichkeit’ of the Weimar Bauhaus. ‘Adolf Loos über Josef Hoffmann’, Das neue Frankfurt (February 1931); reprinted in Loos, ‘Modern angezogeri, Prager Presse, 19 March 1931. Citations taken from Escritos II, pp. 284-85 (p. 285). Loos differed from other enemies of ornament, such as the American Louis Sullivan, because behind his theory of ornamentation stood a stark scientific structure. He also distanced himself from the unornamented work of Joseph Hoffmann, where ‘all that was superficial, in truth, his lack of ornaments, both past and present... was really only an ornament’ (Loos, Über Joseph Hoffmann (1931; published for the first time in Escritos II), pp. 282-83 (p- 283))- The term ‘der Ornamentenfiend’ referring to Loos appeared in Der Sturm, 6, 7 April 1910, p. 44.
64 Loos, ‘Otto Wagner’, Reichspost, 13 July 1911; citation taken from Escritos II, pp. 37-42 (p. 41).
65 Loos, ‘Otto Wagner’, p. 41.
66 Schorske, Carl E., Fin-de-siecle Vienna: Politics and Culture (New York, 1981), pp. 338–39.Google Scholar
67 Loos, ‘Die Überflüssigen’, März, 15, 3 August 1908, p. 185; citation taken from Trotzdem, 2nd edn (Innsbruck, 1931), pp. 70-73 (p. 72).?
68 Loos, ‘Kulturentartung’, Trotzdem (Innsbruck, 1931), pp. 74-78 (p. 78).
69 Loos, ‘Unsere Kunstgewerbeschule’, Die Zeit, 13.161, 31 October 1897, p. 78; citation taken from Escritos I, pp. 11-15 (p- 14)-
70 Loos, Richtlinien für ein Kunstamt (Vienna, 1919; citations taken from Die Potemkin’sche Stadt: Verschollene Schriften 1897-1933, Vienna, 1983), pp. 148-66 (p. 157). Separata from Der Friede, 29 March 1919.
71 Loos, ‘Ornament und Verbrechen’, p. 80.
72 Loos, ‘Ornament und Verbrechen’, p. 91.
73 Loos, ‘Ornament und Erziehung’, p. 203.