|WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Architecture||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
See write up on Barnes and Noble web site in section on book Ornament and Crime, a colletion of Essays. Kd4ttc 03:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I just cut this out.
- ," at one point holding a position in the office of Louis Sullivan (according to Robert Hughes's Shock of the New)"
Here is why. The citation for including it is Robert Hughes and here is what Hughes has to say.
- "The architect who launched the attack on decorated architecture was Adolf Loos (1870-1933), a Czech who lived in Vienna. Between 1893 and 1896, Loos worked for a time in Louis Sullivan’s office in Chicago."
At various other web site (sorry, didn't get addresses) I discovered:
"He (Loos) moved to the United States, and stayed for 3 years. Loos was very impressed by the architecture of Louis Sullivan, and the efficiency of buildings in the U.S."
...and (Loos) then went to the United States, where he worked as a mason, a floor-layer, and a dishwasher. Loos was impressed by the efficiency of American architecture, and he admired the work of Louis Sullivan.
No mention of working for Sullivan.
Trombly, author of (in my opinion) the best biography of Sullivan, only says: "Adolph Loos, who had been inspired by Sullivan during his 1890s sojourn in America . . . ... "
Could Hughes have been mistaking Irving Gill, another of thew stripped down modernests, and who worked for Sullivan from 1891 to 1893 with Loos? Hines, in his book, Irving Gill:and the Architecture of Reform, while discussing Loos' visit to America mentions that Loos visited Chicago where he
- "encountered the elemental geometry and organic ornamentation of Gill and Wright's mentor, Louis Sulllivan, at precisely the same time that the young Americans (Gill and Wright) were working in his office. "
No mention of Loos actually working for Sullivan. So, anyway, I took it out and am interested if anyone else has opinions. Carptrash 22:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
secession "florid" ?
perhaps the early secession could be described as a version of the "art nouveau," but later tendencies would not be best described as "florid" in my opinion. Hoffmann, for example, was very geometric-- concentric rectangles were a recurring motif in many of his patterns —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
anyone else bothered by the somewhat hyperbolic sentences about health and deviance in the "life" section for Loos? Seems a bit over the top - I know he was odd, but perhaps some stronger corroboration of organs being removed and pedophilia is called for.... (hope this isn't out of line style-wise, etc) hseneff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hseneff (talk • contribs) 16:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
masters of modernism
Oh, do try to get your dates right!
It says: (Loos) returned to Vienna in 1896 a man of taste and intellectual refinement, immediately entering the fashionable Viennese intelligentsia. His friends included Ludwig Wittgenstein, ... Well, Wittgenstein was born in 1889 and clever though he undoubtedly was, I doubt they were meeting when Wittgenstein was only seven years old. My memory is that they knew each other before WW1, when Ludwig was in his twenties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JO 24 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Former Austrian but Czech (was: not Czech)
- Until 1918 Loos was an Austrian citizen with Czech nationality but due to postwar policies Loos became a Czech citizen as he was born in Brno. --Popmuseum (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Loos was Czechoslovak architect with German ethnicity. He worked all around Europe, but he had Czechoslovak citizenship until his death. --Wrahowitz (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Interior vs Exterior Ornament
I think the theory section could use a bit of expanding. It's not entirely clear from this what his problem with the Secession really was. This sentence seems confusing: "Perhaps surprisingly, Loos' own architectural work is often elaborately decorated. The visual distinction is not between complicated and simple, but between "organic" and superfluous decoration."
Loose did argue for buildings with "dumb", plain exteriors but he wanted the interior spaces to be lavish and homely. These "decorations" were always foregrounding the materials (stone, onyx etc.) and technique, not style. All of his decorations had to have a practical utility. Also, unlike Hoffman he didn't design every aspect of the home (silverware etc.) to match, he preferred standard, mass produced furniture - creating a blank canvas for the residents to make the space their own (as discussed in "The Poor Little Rich Man").
If everyone's amenable, I'll grab some sources and add a couple paragraphs. Let me know what you think. Archman2010 (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)