Ornament & Decoration
249. Ornament
Fine arts and decorative arts
Chapel of St. Ignatius, Seattle, 1995–7
- Bells
Presentable
I have sometimes wondered whether our unconscious motive for doing so much useless work is to show that if we cannot make things work properly we can at least make them presentable.
Sine qua non
What we see of a device is rarely the essential part, the sine qua non, but nearly always the superstructure which economy has imposed on it.
It seems that the work we call purely utilitarian is not more useful than its more ornamental counterpart. It is merely more economical.
Merely ornate
There is nothing merely ornate about nature: every branch, twig, or leaf counts.
Errors & Crimes
"A builder who hides any part of the building frame, abandons the only permissible and, at the same time, the most beautiful embellishment of architecture. The one that hides a loadbearing column makes an error. The one who builds a false column commits a crime."
— Auguste Perret
The problem with ornament
An ArticleContemporary architects are, however, increasingly engaging with ornamentation. The zenith was Grayson Perry and Charles Holland of FAT’s fairytale House for Essex (p64), but it does not serve as an indicator because the involvement of an artist has allowed an enhanced engagement with ornament until it surpasses mere decoration and becomes embodied in the architecture in a way that architects do not allow themselves to do. Think of FAT’s old work: the ornament is all contained within a surface - a facade - which allowed them to separate out the (Modernist) architecture from the (kitsch) superficiality of the elevation. Like Venturi before them, their ornament allowed them to have their ornamentally iced cake - and eat the Minimal Modernist sponge underneath.
The small web is beautiful
I believe that small websites are compelling aesthetically, but are also important to help us resist selling our souls to large tech companies. In this essay I present a vision for the “small web” as well as the small software and architectures that power it.
Why aim small?
Why aim small in this era of fast computers with plenty of RAM? A number of reasons, but the ones that are most important to me are:
- Fewer moving parts. It’s easier to create more robust systems and to fix things when they do go wrong.
- Small software is faster. Fewer bits to download and clog your computer’s memory.
- Reduced power consumption. This is important on a “save the planet” scale, but also on the very local scale of increasing the battery life of your phone and laptop.
- The light, frugal aesthetic. That’s personal, I know, but as you’ll see, I’m not alone.
Features and complexity
Niklaus Wirth of Pascal fame wrote a famous paper in 1995 called A Plea for Lean Software. His take is that “a primary cause for the complexity is that software vendors uncritically adopt almost any feature that users want”, and “when a system’s power is measured by the number of its features, quantity becomes more important than quality”.
Solving the problem of software bloat
But instead of just complaining, how do we actually solve this problem? Concretely, I think we need to start doing the following:
- Care about size: this sounds obvious, but things only change when people think they’re important.
- Measure: both your executable’s size, and your program’s memory usage. You may want to measure over time, and make it a blocking issue if the measurements grow more than x% in a release. Or you could hold a memory-reduction sprint every so often.
- Language: choose a language that has a chance.
- Remove: cut down your feature set. Aim for a small number of high-quality features. My car can’t fly or float, and that’s okay – it drives well.
- Say no to new features: unless they really fit your philosophy, or add more than they cost over the lifetime of your project.
- Dependencies: understand the size and complexity of each dependency you pull in. Use only built-in libraries if you can.
Raw size isn't enough
A few months ago there was a sequence of posts to Hacker News about various “clubs” you could post your small website on: the 1MB Club, 512KB Club, 250KB Club, and even the 10KB Club. I think those are a fun indicator of renewed interested in minimalism, but I will say that raw size isn’t enough – a 2KB site with no real content isn’t much good, and a page with 512KB of very slow JavaScript is worse than a snappy site with 4MB of well-chosen images.
...[Instead, it's about] an “ethos of small”. It’s caring about the users of your site: that your pages download fast, are easy to read, have interesting content, and don’t load scads of JavaScript for Google or Facebook’s trackers.