nt roles in the transformation of the conception of art and architecture, the dawning of a new age in styles and composition, making a mark in the discipline of architecture.
In this paper, we will discuss and compare the similarities in the theories of Loos exhibited in “Ornament and life” to that of Le Corbusier’s “Towards a New Architecture”. We will discuss in specific, the most influential theory presented by Le Corbusier, in “eyes which do not see” in comparison to Adolf Loos’ “Ornament and Crime”, both relating to the need to emphasize the role of purpose or utility of an architectural structure and the absence of ornaments. The interesting aspect of the comparison between Loos and Corbusier lies in the two common vies they shared. On the one hand, the work of both is concerned with the autonomy of architectural means; on the other, both try, each in his own way, to place his work in a context, something which each makes particularly clear in his writing. (Risselada, Loos and Beek, 1).
In Corbusier’s reading of “eyes which do not see”, he begins with explaining the need to see the connection between architecture and the new machine age, implying that architecture must focus not on art but on needs and functionality. He explains this aspect by comparing the evolution of architecture to the evolution of a car. In the beginning, the sole purpose was transportation, later began to give importance to durability, resistance and such. Further, they went on to incorporate luxury and style on having attained the basic necessity. With the lapse of time, appearance and luxury began to delude people and the main aspects were given less importance, as if resistance and durability were aspects that were to be sidelined. He believes that architecture has taken that direction, competing in beauty and magnificence, while failing to address purpose. This may be easily compared to the view of Adolf Loos in “Ornament and Crime”, where he