b
c
Fig. 235
Consider these illustrations. Arrangement “b” is more orderly than arrangement “a,” so I am justified in making the additions. The additions have brought occult balance into the composition with Direction and Interval-Harmony. Arrangement “c” is less orderly than “b,” less orderly than “a.” It has, therefore, no value for us. There is no merit in the multiplication of features which it exhibits. The surface is “enriched” at the expense of Direction-Harmony, Interval-Harmony, and Shape-Harmony. There may be an approximation to an occult balance in arrangement “c,” but you cannot feel it unmistakably as you do in “b.” Its value is, therefore, less.
186. I object to the word “decoration,” as commonly used by designers, because it implies that additions are likely to be improvements, that to multiply features, to enrich surfaces, is worth while or desirable. The fact is, that additions are, as a rule, to be avoided. There is no merit in the mere multiplication of features. It is a mistake. The rule of Pure Design, and it is the rule for all Design, is simplification rather than complication. As designers we ought to avoid additions, if possible.
We ought to make them only when in so doing we are able to increase the order of the whole. We make additions, indeed, to achieve the greater simplicity of Order, and for no other reason. Our object in all cases is to achieve Order, if possible a supreme instance of Order which will be beautiful. We aim at Order and hope for Beauty.