Prompt #1: Loos argues that "the evolution of ornament is synonymous with the removal of ornament from utilitarian objects" (Loos 1908, 20). Can society evolve by the discarding of ornamentation? If so, how? If not, why not? Can you identify contradictions in Loos' writing or built work that invalidate these statements? Provide your working definition of ornament for clarity. Prompt #2: Consider the role of symbolism and cultural identity through the words of Loos. Are there any ideas that are incorrectly valued? Refer to the specific passages in both "Ornament and Crime" and "Criminal Skins Tattoos and Modern Architecture in the Work of Adolf Loos." What cultural perspectives do you see embedded in these writings? What could be the implications for cultural identity, if ornamentation is removed? Prompt #3: According to Loos, is ornamentation a disease, a crime or both? Do you agree or disagree with Loos' assessment? Explain your reasoning. Find particular passages that support your assessment. What is the role of ornament in architecture today? Are there certain types of structures/buildings that benefit/deserve/need it more than others? 8:53 Assignment Details ARCH 3214-001: Hist & Thry of Architecture 2 < To Do Prompt #4: ا 100 Compare and contrast Loos' position on ornament through the work of Canales and Herscher "Criminal Skins Tattoos and Modern Architecture in the Work of Adolf Loos" and "Ornament and Crime." When asked to design a building for the Mexican parliament what does he do and why? How does modern ornament differ from that embedded cultural ornament? Discussion Framework: Part 1 (your initial post): Your initial post must meet the following: 1. Respond to one of the prompt options for the week. (That is not a free-write or write whatever you want). 2. Title the post to correspond to the chosen prompt. 3. Compose a response that consists of at least 200 words, of your own writing, which critically examine the reading(s) and engage the prompt. (Please omit any unnecessary fluff to reach a particular word count.) 4. Express your thoughts in clear and careful writing. Make sure to type, review, and edit before posting. (Please do not write like you are Snapchatting or texting a friend.) Use complete sentences and appropriate terminology. Provide evidence from the text to support your position. Where relevant, refer to direct passages using the Chicago Manual of Style Author Date parenthetical citation. These quotations are not included in your reflection word count. 5. Thoughtfully engage with peers' work. Some responses may include concluding questions to further discussion. For Part 2 (your engagement post): 1. You then reply to at least one person with a substantive post, which is around at least 150 words. (No fluff). 2. Your reply must do the following: 1. The engagement response utilizes one technique of Bailey's guide to participating. 2. Your reply begins by identifying which technique that you are doing (e.g. #5 Offer an Objection) 3. Express your thoughts in clear and careful writing. Make sure to type, review, and edit before posting. (Please do not write like you are Snapchatting or texting a friend.) Use complete sentences and appropriate terminology. Provide evidence from the text to support your position. Where relevant, refer to direct passages using the Chicago Manual of Style Author Date parenthetical citation. These quotations are not included in your reflection word count. 4. Your response is respectful, charitable, kind, and displays a concerted effort to avoid defensive or aggressive reactions. 5. Your reply adheres to all the expectations of the classroom behavior outlined in the syllabus.

Solved: Prompt #1: Loos argues that "the evolution of ornament is synonymous

Home
questions and answers
prompt 1 loos argues that the evolution of ornament is synonymous with

Question

Prompt #1: Loos argues that "the evolution of ornament is synonymous with the removal of ornament from utilitarian objects" (Loos 1908, 20). Can society evolve by the discarding of ornamentation? If so, how? If not, why not? Can you identify contradictions in Loos' writing or built work that invalidate these statement