I personally side with the whole concept of ornamentation and therefore found the speech by Adolf Loos very provoking and debatable. It is the art of ornamentation that has rescued us from the banality in the way we live. It is an important outlet for our accumulating creativity and has facilitated us innovate.

As is said, the unfolding of Art Nouveau's flowing line may be understood as a metaphor for the freedom and release sought by its practitioners and admirers from the weight of artistic tradition and critical expectations.

Eva Hesse's work

It makes me wonder whether there is a line between something being ornamental and something being called art? We always look for a strong concept behind every piece of work and if it qualifies, it is labeled as art. If not, it is trashed as being a mere decorative craft work. At this point, it is interesting to note what William Morris says: 'All art should be ornamental, and when it is not ornamental, and in the degree in which it is not, it fails of a part of its purpose.It is the art of the people: the art produced by the daily labour of all kinds of men for the daily use of all kinds of men: surely therefore we may at the outset suppose that it is of importance to the race of man, since on all sides it surrounds our life and our work.'

If that is the case, then why is it that Sheila Hicks' work is abhorred as being craft when Eva Hesse is greatly eulogized. What makes it even more ludicrous is the fact that the former's works were considered to be minimalistic.

SheilaHicks' work

Art Nouveau was an ornamental style of art that flourished between 1890 and 1910 throughout Europe and the United States. Originated from the Arts and Crafts movement of William Morris, it was a scrupulous attempt to create a new style that was free from imitation of previous works. It advocated nature as the primary source of inspiration for a generation of artists seeking to break away from past styles.  One of the very popular artists who influenced art nouveau was Paul Gauguin.

Paul gauguin's painting

Talking about art and style of the artists, dressing is an art for common man. and different textiles and clothing represent different identity. Say, for instance, someone wearing silk maybe considered rich compared to someone wearing cotton. Furthermore, khadi was seen as the cloth of swaraj i.e. self dependance and was endowed with much deeper symbolism in Indian History. During the times of industrialization and colonized India, the trend was to wear mass produced and standardized clothes produced by machines and powerlooms. However, the richer class still preferred hand woven textiles for they were customized, one of a kind and therefore held greater status symbol.  In a more mythological context we have Arachne vs Athena, Draupadi's sari, the Bayeux Tapestry made by the faithful wife of the conquerer William, are to name some.

Arachne vs. Athena depiction

A country as diverse as India is a classic example of cloth as identity for each state is known for its own special textile.With such complexities and judgement through such scrutiny prevailing, our politicians decide to opt for very simplistic clothing so they don't give unintentional undue support to anyone.

Now think about the difference in dressing sensibilities of a man and a woman. Where for a woman it is much needed to 'doll up' and make that extra conscious effort, ornamentation is kept to a bare minimum for a man. This susceptibility is likely to point to the fact that good looking is inversely proportional to intellectuality, which has now turned into a very strongly prevalent prejudice. A classic example for this is the phrase 'dumb blonde'. In other words, the more you delve into ornamentation lower you stand in the hierarchy of human race.

Ornamentation is shunned possibly because it is stripped down of maximum conceptions but is visually pleasing which is ofcourse feminine. This is used, under the disguise of abstraction, to represent utopianism. 

The question to be asked now is, what makes us differentiate between something that is a representation and something that is abstract. For me, the very fact that something is being represented, and involves the whole process of deciding what must go in and what must not in that representation, leads to some degree of abstraction coming in. One must therefore think of abstraction and representation going hand in hand. Yinka Shonibare's works can be a beautiful example for effective representation through abstraction.

I can go on and on, but, I would rather end to allow us all to think, how important something as simple as ornamentation could be. Or is it even that simple a concept with such deep layers of meaning to unfold.