Response to Ivin’s Article

     This reading reminded me of how deeply rooted design is in human history. To start, I find it interesting that Ivins compared engravers to musical composers to illustrate the idea that these original creators intended to have their works "engraved by other hands" and evolve to become "elaborations of another man's work." I've gathered that "ornament" and the decorative art has enriched human lives for centuries and continues to do so and help humans develop. Engravers drew inspiration from painters, transforming one idea to the next. Ivins provided the Raphael Loggies as a great example because it was an instance where others took the works of the great master artist and turned it into ornamentation motifs that adorned the vaults of grand structures for many to see.

     Another thing that I found interesting was that these early engravers, with the help of the printing press, recorded designs in pattern books. Later in the reading, Ivins emphasized the importance of collecting and studying these drawings, prints, and book decorations as they will prove to be effective in helping us learn more about the functional growth and development of ornament and even use them as inspiration for new design. Towards the end of the article, Ivins stated that, "Unfortunately the fine ornament of past times has to a large extent been worn out in the workshops... and is becoming so rare and expensive that it is quite impossible for any but the wealthiest worker or manufacturer to form a good collection of it." This prompted me to do more research about how ornament is perceived in our modern society and what are other's opinions of it. The lecture/essay called "Ornament and Crime" by the theorist and architect, Adolf Loos, stated that ornament in art is degenerate to society and that lack of decoration is a sign of an advanced society. His ideology lead me to think about modern art works, especially the minimal ones, and wonder how true Loos' opinion is.