Sign In
home
models
images
videos
posts
articles
bounties
tools
challenges
events
shop

Design 101 For AI: 1.2 "Ornament and Crime"

2
duskfallcrew's Avatar
duskfallcrew
Synthwave Specter
Jul 12, 2024
musing
ornament and crimeadolf looslistcharacter packprompting
Design 101 For AI: 1.2 "Ornament and Crime"

Design 101 For AI: 1.2 "Ornament and Crime"

Introduction

Welcome to Design 101 - Part 1.2: Ornament and crime. We're stepping through history to give context on design not just because of design or art. We're poking the flames to contextualize the rise of AI and give theory to how your design methodology in AI works. Noting that i'm not a teacher, I have a degree in Communication Design. You can thank Otago Polytechnic for teaching me a lot of these concepts, there will be a bibliography at the end. Yes, I do have Llama3B helping me clarify discussions and questions - I graduated in 2019.

Adolf Loos and the Crime of Ornamentation

Adolf Loos, an Austrian architect and designer, is best known for his influential essay "Ornament and Crime," which was first published in 1908. In this provocative essay, Loos argued that ornamentation was not only unnecessary but also a crime against humanity. This idea may seem radical today, but it was a groundbreaking concept at the time, and it has had a lasting impact on the development of modern design.

The Context of "Ornament and Crime"

At the time Loos wrote "Ornament and Crime," the art world was dominated by the ornate and flowing styles of Art Nouveau. This movement, which emerged in the late 19th century, was characterized by its use of sinuous lines, flowing curves, and intricate ornamentation. Art Nouveau was a reaction against the historicism and eclecticism of the 19th century, and it sought to create a new, modern style that was based on natural forms and structures.

However, Loos saw Art Nouveau as decadent and unnecessary, and he believed that it was holding back the development of modern design. He argued that the excessive ornamentation and decoration of Art Nouveau were a waste of time and resources, and that they obscured the true nature of the materials used in a design. Loos believed that design should be functional and efficient, rather than ornate and decorative.

In addition, Loos was influenced by the rise of industrialization and mass production, which were changing the way goods were designed and manufactured. He saw that the old craft-based system of production was being replaced by new machine-based technologies, and that this required a new approach to design. Loos believed that design should be adapted to the new industrial age, and that it should be based on functionalism and simplicity, rather than ornamentation and decoration.

The Influence of Criminal Anthropology on "Ornament and Crime"

Adolf Loos' essay "Ornament and Crime" was not only a critique of Art Nouveau and ornamentation, but also a reflection of the prevailing scientific theories of ornamentation and criminal anthropology of his time. Loos was influenced by the work of criminal anthropologists such as Cesare Lombroso, who believed that tattoos and other forms of bodily ornamentation were signs of criminality and degeneracy.

Loos' essay extended the classificatory gaze of criminal anthropology from the human body to its material prostheses, the objects of everyday use. He argued that ornamentation was not only unnecessary but also a sign of cultural and social backwardness. Loos believed that the elimination of ornamentation from useful objects was a necessary step towards modernity and cultural progress.

The article "Criminal Skins: Tattoos and Modern Architecture in the Work of Adolf Loos" by Jimena Canales and Andrew Herscher provides a detailed analysis of Loos' debt to criminal anthropology and its influence on his theories of modern architecture. The authors argue that Loos' work was not only a critique of ornamentation but also a means of distinguishing between normal and deviant bodies, individuals, communities, nations, and races.

In this context, Loos' call for unornamented architecture and applied art was not only a aesthetic preference but also a way of marking social, political, and cultural differences. The unornamented architecture and applied art called for by Loos were thus not only the "liberating" equipment of modern life but also a means of distinguishing those individuals, communities, nations, and races capable of participating in that life.

The Future of Ornamentation: AI and Fashion

As we look to the future, it's clear that ornamentation is not just a relic of the past. In fact, AI is being used to reimagine and redesign fashion in ways that were previously unimaginable. Pakistani denim manufacturer Soorty has been at the forefront of this movement, using AI to generate new and innovative designs that blend traditional ornamentation with cutting-edge technology.

Soorty's HumAIn collection, created in collaboration with ORNMNTNCRM founder Volker Ketteniss, features 50 pieces of AI-generated garments made with AI Stable Diffusion, an open-source AI platform. The collection showcases the possibilities of AI-generated design, with intricate details, unique washes, and comfortable fabrics.

The company's use of AI is not just limited to design, but also extends to the production process. Soorty has developed a 3D sampling platform that helps reduce physical sampling, saving resources and speeding up processes. They've also digitized their fabrics with the Soorty Digital Library, a database of their fabric collections that allows clients to easily access and navigate products.

Soorty's journey with AI started five years ago, and they've since continued to push the boundaries of what's possible with AI-generated fashion. Their latest edition, Humain Chapter 2, features a selection of ten denim outfits curated by a joint collaboration between Volker Ketteniss and trend experts and denim influencers Amy Leverton and Shannon Reddy of Denim Dudes.

As Soorty executive director-global sales and marketing Ebru Debbag notes, "HumAIn is a representation of human interaction with technology where the human value is emphasized and enhanced by technology to discover design possibilities which will not only be relevant for the market but will also drive conscious sourcing and consumption behavior."

Automation via Ornament in Crime

The lawsuit filed by the artists against the AI companies raises important questions about the intersection of art, technology, and law. The artists argue that the AI companies are infringing on their copyrights by using their protected works to train AI models that can generate similar images. The AI companies, on the other hand, argue that their use of the images is fair use and that they are not creating copies of the original works.

The concept of "ornament and crime" is relevant to this lawsuit, as it highlights the tension between creativity and automation. The artists are arguing that the AI companies are using their works as mere ornaments, without understanding or respecting the creative process that went into creating them. The AI companies, on the other hand, are arguing that they are using the images in a transformative way, to create new and original works.

However, the lawsuit also raises questions about the role of automation in creativity. Is it possible to create truly original works using AI, or are they simply generating variations on existing themes? And what does it mean for the future of art and creativity if AI models can generate images that are indistinguishable from those created by humans?

The lawsuit is not just about copyright law, but also about the value of creativity and the role of humans in the creative process. As AI models become more sophisticated, we will need to re-examine our assumptions about what it means to be creative, and what role humans will play in the creative process.

The Crime of Ornamentation: A Counterargument

But is the use of AI-generated art really a crime? Or is it simply a new form of creativity that challenges our traditional notions of ownership and originality?

In the past, automation was seen as a way to free humans from menial tasks and allow them to focus on more creative pursuits. From bakeries to clothing factories, automation was hailed as a revolutionary force that would bring prosperity and efficiency to industries.

So why is it that when it comes to art, automation is suddenly seen as a threat? Is it because we're afraid that AI-generated art will replace human artists? Or is it because we're uncomfortable with the idea that a machine can create something that's indistinguishable from a human-made work?

The truth is, AI-generated art is not a replacement for human creativity, but rather a new tool that can be used to augment and enhance it. And as we explore the possibilities of AI-generated art, we must also confront our own biases and assumptions about what it means to be creative.

The idea that we must only create original and traditional art is a narrow and restrictive view that stifles innovation and progress. Why can't we use AI-generated art to explore new styles and themes? Why can't we use it to challenge our assumptions about what is "good" art and what is not?

But what's even more problematic is when we use AI-generated art to prove a point in a copyright lawsuit. If we're prompting an AI model to recreate a style or theme solely to demonstrate that it can be done, are we not perpetuating the same restrictive view of creativity that we're trying to challenge?

The art world has a history of dismissing digital tools as "ornamental" and inferior to traditional methods. From digital painting to music production, there's a lingering notion that anything created with digital tools is somehow less authentic or original.

But this is a flawed argument. Digital tools are not inherently inferior to traditional methods. They're simply different. And it's time we recognize the value of innovation and creativity, regardless of the tools used to create it.

The crime of ornamentation is not the use of AI-generated art, but rather the way we choose to use it. It's the way we prioritize proving a point over creating something new and original. It's the way we restrict our own creativity by adhering to traditional norms and expectations.

Let's be mindful of laws and ethics, but let's also continue to develop and innovate. Let's not stifle creativity by promoting traditionalism and dismissing digital tools as inferior. Let's embrace the possibilities of AI-generated art and music, and recognize the value of innovation and creativity, regardless of the tools used to create it.

You do you, if you make AI art - you're valid, as long as you're conforming to laws that exist, not conforming to society. If you make music via traditional or digital means - cool! Just don't try to reproduce something 1:1 just because you can. Let's focus on creating something new and original, rather than trying to prove a point.

Conclusion

As we've seen, the concept of "ornament and crime" is more than just a provocative title. It's a reflection of the tension between creativity and automation, between human expression and mechanical reproduction.

Adolf Loos' essay was a critique of the excesses of Art Nouveau, but it also spoke to a deeper anxiety about the role of ornamentation in art and design. For Loos, ornamentation was a crime because it was unnecessary, because it distracted from the true purpose of a building or a work of art.

But what happens when we apply this idea to the world of AI-generated art? Is the use of AI-generated art a form of ornamentation, a way of adding unnecessary complexity to an already-complex world?

Or is it something more? Is it a way of exploring new possibilities, of pushing the boundaries of what we thought was possible?

As we've seen, the answer is not a simple one. AI-generated art is both a reflection of our own creativity and a challenge to it. It's a way of exploring new possibilities, but it's also a way of confronting our own biases and assumptions about what it means to be creative.

In the end, the crime of ornamentation is not the use of AI-generated art, but rather the way we choose to use it. It's the way we prioritize proving a point over creating something new and original. It's the way we restrict our own creativity by adhering to traditional norms and expectations.

As Loos wrote, "The modern person uses the ornament of the past, but it must be a repetition, a quotation, a reference to the past." In the world of AI-generated art, we're not just repeating the past, we're using it as a starting point for something new.

Bibliography

Articles

Academic Papers

Books

  • Loos, A. (1908). Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays. Riverside, CA: Ariadne Press. Retrieved from <https://www2.gwu.edu/~art/Temporary_SL/177/pdfs/Loos.pdf>

  • Sarnitz, A. (2003). Adolf Loos, 1870-1933: Architect, Cultural Critic, Dandy. Taschen. Referenced in "Dream Big: Seek Far Get Creative and Explore: Design Culture and context" 20th Century Design History Design Loci, compiled by Otago Polytechnic Design department for the 2017 Design culture and context lecture series for the Communication Design, and other Design degrees such as Fashion, Interior and Product.)

Online Resources

About Us

We are the Duskfall Portal Crew, a DID system with over 300 alters, navigating life with DID, ADHD, Autism, and CPTSD. We believe in AI’s potential to break down barriers and enhance mental health, despite its challenges. Join us on our creative journey exploring identity and expression.

Join Our Community

Community Groups:

Extensions

  • ADetailer: ADetailer GitHub

    • Usage: Use this extension to enhance and refine images, but use sparingly to avoid over-processing with SDXL.

  • Batchlinks: Batchlinks for A1111

    • Description: Manage multiple links when running A1111 locally or on a server.

    • Addon: @nocrypt Addon (The link is broken for now i'll find it later OOPS)

Additional Extensions:

Backups for Loras on SDXL & Pony XL:

2

Comments