The article was written in 1908, which is the era of Art Nouveu, as a response to the movement. To be mentioned, Art Nouveu is a movement in art and architecture which is inspired by natural forms. And the outcomes were fancier art pieces, interior designs and architecture. This is where the Adolf Loos comes in by first defining what the crime is for a modern man. Which really interests me is the definition, the author makes it step by step to ground his arguments.
The argument simply suggests that ornament is a waste of sources and time and he makes it more clear as he says that he prefers the smooth bread to eat. The focus is that, the time and money spent on making the ornament shouldnt be to make the object fancier but durable and functional. How could an object can improve our life quality without functions but just with ornaments? The functionality would also satisfy the aesthetic senses then no need for ornament is kept anymore. It simply becomes a economic burden that bounds people to the era but not the function. The idea fits my mind. When we look at economy of 21st century, this is still how the economy works by aging our belongings which causes community to be continued on consumerism
Adolf was a pioneer of modern art and architecture also a theorist of modernism. What he had done had a outstanding impact in his time and still is a milestone for understanding modernism an utilaritism.