3 ms·
He's correct and not correct. First, 'Industrialisation' also implies a fairly capitalist attitude towards everything and ornamentation may be costly in that c
by jariel 6y ago
He's correct and not correct.
First, 'Industrialisation' also implies a fairly capitalist attitude towards everything and ornamentation may be costly in that context.
Second, labour used to be 'cheap and plentiful', or rather, power was so concentrated, that the people who built such buildings could 'afford' the ornamentation (or maybe compel their serf-like workers to do it). And they cared about it because 'class' was a different thing altogether way back when.
Third, ornamentation in many areas is still very expensive. To ornament, a building of any size would require designers, workers, and a lot of time and many. 'Some' products could be ornamentalized, but others, far less so. Suppose you built an office building with nice domed interior, and you wanted to have it 'ornamented' like a Cathedral. I wager it would be expensive.
- lakeWater 6y agoI would like to add/adjust your point a bit. In many Midwestern cities many buildings of all income levels had ornamentation since the brick layers and other masons built or worked on their own homes. St. Louis in particular was well known for this although I was unable to find the original article speaking about it. The masons that utilized these ornamental techniques no longer seem to exist in even moderate quantities. http://dynamic.stlouis-mo.gov/history/wabmobricksinstl.cfm http://dynamic.stlouis-mo.gov/history/wabmobricksinstl.cfm