where it is built. Architects who take their profession seriously will be sensitive to
the historical background provided by the old masters, while adapting their manner
of building to contemporary requirements. There are enough grounds for change—
old crafts have vanished, technological advances make their demands, and func-
tional requirements evolve over time. Tradition is not a sacred cow but a vital principle
of development that should be able to adapt naturally to the demands of the indus-
trial epoch.
Tradition, argues Loos, is the essence of architecture, but it should not be con-
fused with superficial aspects of form. Tradition does not mean clinging to the old
just because it is old, any more than it means copying themes from folklore or ap-
plying a pastoral style in the city. Loos was uncompromising in his condemnation of
the practitioners of Heimatkunst.^26 Tradition for him had to do with ensuring that cul-
ture advances on the road to an increasing distinction and perfection. This was the
proper notion of tradition for an architect.
None of this, however, should be applied to the realm of art. Art belongs to an-
other order of things. Art is superior to culture, or rather, artists are ahead of their
time. Architecture, therefore, is not an art, for it is concerned above all with decorum,
with homeliness and with dwelling:
The house has to please everyone, contrary to the work of art, which
does not. The work of art is a private matter for the artist. The house is
not. The work of art is brought into the world without there being a need
for it. The house satisfies a requirement. The work of art is responsible
to none; the house is responsible to everyone. The work of art wants to
draw people out of their state of comfort. The house has to serve com-
fort. The work of art is revolutionary, the house conservative. The work
of art shows people directions and thinks of the future. The house thinks
of the present. Man loves everything that satisfies his comfort. He hates
everything that wants to draw him out of his acquired and secured po-
sition and that disturbs him. Thus he loves the house and hates art.
Does it follow that the house has nothing in common with art and is ar-
chitecture not to be included among the arts? That is so.Only a very
small part of architecture belongs to art: the tomb and the monument.
Everything else that fulfills a function is to be excluded from the domain
of art.^27Architecture belongs to the domain of culture; art transcends it. It is by this criterion
that every form of “applied art” should be judged: applying art to the domain of prac-
tical everyday life means both prostituting art and failing to appreciate the practical.
To give culture the space it requires, one must first be capable of distinguishing be-
tween an urn and a chamber pot, as Karl Kraus argued.^28
3
Reflections in a Mirror