| 摘要: | 奧地利建築師阿道夫．魯斯（Adolf Loos, 1870-1933）在20世紀初發表裝飾與罪惡論文，提出嚴重警告：無論從美學、經濟、及社會文化等角度考量，裝飾均是罪惡的行為，造成人類進化之墮落。其主張之動機由其當時歐洲中產階級勢力抬頭主張簡潔型式之時代背景不難理解。但此看法是否客觀正確？建築界各有不同之見解。建築理論家萊克瓦（Joseph Rykwert, 1926-）即提出「裝飾非罪惡」之相反主張。愛美是人類的天性。裝飾主要目的在吸引鑑賞者注意的眼光，期望裝飾能產生美感，進而給鑑賞者及自己帶來愉悅感覺。自古人類已發展出諸多哲學、心理學、或社會學等方法體認裝飾美感，只能為客觀標準的審視，並無法作絕對美感的論斷。因此，就建築裝飾之實質存在價值而言，無法滿足建築在空間機能及結構堅固方面之需求，在美感方面也無法作絕對論斷。但檢視五千年以來西方建築型式歷史之發展，各種形式之裝飾仍出現在建築之外表造型、內部空間、甚至量體構造上。究其原因，不單是因「愛美是人類的天性」之所致，在各式裝飾深層處所代表各種宗教及社會象徵之意涵，實具不可抹滅之形而上存在價值。從魯斯之論述中並不否認裝飾存在象徵意義功能之觀念，亦可得到印證。
During the turn of the twentieth century, Austrian architect Adolf Loos (1870-1933) issued a thesis entitled Ornament and Crime, from which he put a serious warning that, whether in terms of aesthetics, economics, or socio-culture, the employment of ornament is criminal behavior and will cause mankind to devolve. Judging from the fact that the influential European bourgeois proclaimed the simplicity of form at that time, the motive behind the disclosure is understandable. However, is the proclamation objectively correct, or not? Theorist Joseph Rykwert (1926-) made an opposite assertion, Ornament is No Crime. The love for beauty is part of human nature. The main purpose of ornament is to attract the appreciator, in hopes of bringing forth the feeling of beauty, and to develop the sense of pleasure for oneself and the appreciator. For centuries, there have been innumerable ways developed, in terms of philosophy, psychology, and social science, etc., in order to define beauty. The appreciation of beauty, nevertheless, can only be evaluated objectively and cannot be explained subjectively. Therefore, as far as the physical existential value of architectural ornament is concerned, ornament basically cannot fulfill any functional and structural requirements, and the fulfillment of the aesthetic requirement remains uncertain. However, throughout the development of the formal history of Western architecture, all kinds of ornament have been articulated on façades, interior spaces and structural volumes. By inference, the result does not reach only from the simple reason that it is in human nature, but from deeply embedded religious and social meanings which fulfill its metaphysical existential value. The conclusion can also be justified in Loos's perspective by acknowledging that ornament does possess essentially a metaphysical function. |
