Schoenberg and Loos as Divergent Artists in Fin-de-siecle Vienna

Hi all! Here is my piece I've put together. My topic was musical tastes in Vienna and I found that art, architecture and music were so closely linked- so close that it is impossible to investigate the tastes of the musical output without cross-referencing. I found some stunning connections between Schoenberg and Adolf Loos, architect, which led me to write the following piece on their connection as divergent artists during fin-de-siecle Vienna! Hope you enjoy!

- Susannah Thornton

    

Adolf Loos, left, and Arnold Schoenberg

“Freedom from ornament is a sign of spiritual strength.” -Adolf Loos

Vienna at the turn of the 20^th century, or fin-de-siecle Vienna, and the surrounding metropolis of the Austro-Hungarian empire was a locale of lush cultural outpourings. When we reflect back on this golden era today- more than a century later- we admire incredible creators: Gustav Mahler, Gustav Klimt, Arnold Schoenberg, Max Kurzwell, Adolf Loos, Alban Berg and countless others. As with so many other periods of remarkable production, much of these artists’ creativity arose from cultural movements which inspired them to innovate past the boundaries of older forms from the Romantic era and transcend the public’s conceptions of art. One of the most prominent musical developments of fin-de-siecle Vienna was the formation of the Second Viennese school and, subsequently, new atonal systems for concert music. Arnold Schoenberg, the pioneer of the twelve tone serial style, was deeply connected to the cultural and philosophical movements of his day. The idea of the Viennese Moderne as posed by the architect Adolf Loos in his monumental essay/manifesto Ornament and Crime (1908) was deeply influential to Schoenberg’s compositional landscape.

Looshaus (Vienna), constructed 1911

Adolf Loos was born in 1870 in the Moravia region of the Austro-Hungarian empire to working class parents. He studied briefly at a technical school in Liberec (now in Czech Republic) and the Dresden University of Technology before relocating to the United States for three years. During his travels to the US he visited large cities such as New York, Chicago, and St. Louis, doing odd jobs as he absorbed the cultural and architecural landscape of the unfamiliar nation. He was married three times to similarly artistic women; each of the marriages ended in divorce rather quickly. He died at age 62 and his body lies in the famous Zentralfriedhof along with many of his contemporaries.

Loos' grave, left, and Schoenberg's, both at Zentralfriedhof

Loos first began to move away from the post-Romantic notions of the Secessionist movement in 1900 with his essay Spoken in the Void. The Secessionist movement was headed by Gustav Klimt, whose iconic portraits such as “The Kiss” and “Adele Bloch-Bauer I” are heeded as some of the great Viennese masterpieces. The Secessionist movement’s credo was “Art for art’s sake”. They wanted to create a style which was completely theirs, owing nothing to historial tropes or the forefathers of the genre. Klimt’s art in particular is very representative of the aesthetic of fin-de-siecle Vienna: luxurious gold leaf laid in a landscape of jewel tones and crème skinned women. Loos formally denounced all association with these lavish ideals in his manifesto Ornament and Crime. The main ideals of the essay can be summed up in the following quote:

“The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from utilitarian objects.”

Loos despised the idea of ornate, unncesessary detail in cultural objects, particularly in furniture, clothing, and, unshockingly, architecture. In his opinion, these added details lengthened the process of the artisan’s creations to no significant benefit. A lacemaker, for example, goes to lengths to produce a tiny piece of textile which is sold for a small amount and is not functional on its own. A designer with a sewing machine, however, can create an entire body of work in the same amount of time the lacemaker spends producing one small textile and can also demand a higher price for it. Loos hypothesized that if “all objects would last as long aesthetically as they do physically, the consumer would pay a price for them that would enable the worker to earn more money and work shorter hours,” (Loos). The idea of frivolous ornament is thus impractical and simply foolish as it is not as appreciated as fine, simple craftsmanship. He observed these ideas from here on out in his buildings’ exteriors: simple, unobstructed, but still carefully crafted from fine materials. He did not limit this idea to architecture and physical art alone: “Absence of ornament has brought the other arts to unsuspected heights. Beethoven’s symphonies would never have been written by a man who had to walk about in silk, satin, and lace,” (Loos). Ornament and Crime acted as a catalyst to the ideas of the Viennese Modernist movement and subsequently to Schoenberg’s new evolution of the atonal school.

"The Next Schoenberg Concert"
by unknown
Caricature of Schoenberg's "next" concert, following the infamous Skandalkonzert of 1913

            Loos and Schoenberg first met in 1905 at a gathering at the home of of none other than Gustav Mahler, a composer who identified with neither the Secessionist or Modernist style completely. At this time- five years before Loos’ essay- both men rejected the idea of bourgeois. Loos wanted to sever the ties between the interior and exterior of a building or space so that the dweller of the habitation could savor their privacy and flourish within it on their own accords, free of the associations and pressures of societal claims. Schoenberg, however, wanted to put the inner-most feelings of a person (himself) on display by using music making and an organic expression of “innermost nature”. As their friendship continued through the years, Schoenberg prescribed to the ideas posed by Loos in his manifesto and beyond. Schoenberg’s eventual “emancipation of dissonance” through the creation of the twelve-tone serial system can be paired with Loos’ critique of ornament as parallel examples of critique on the luxe Viennese aesthetic of the fin-de-siecle period.

From left: Loos, Schoenberg, Gertrude Schoenberg, and Oskar Kokoschka (artist)
at a bar in Berlin, date unknown
Image credit: photographersdirect.com

When Schoenberg relocated to Los Angeles in the 1930s, he decided to undertake designing his own house rather than purchasing an already existing one. Loos had passed away in 1933 and, in tribute of his great admiration, Schoenberg specifically chose to design all of his home in the architect’s iconic style. This could be seen, for example, in the wall coverings: thin sheets of marble and wood rather than intricate wallpaper designs. Although Schoenberg’s works can hardly be seen as containing the “plain, undecorated simplicity” of Loos’ diatribe, their ideologies produced similar processes of creation which diverged greatly from the norm of their fin-de-siecle Vienna contemporaries. The outcome were styles that are still questioned by listeners and viewers today as abstract, unique, and revolutionary.