Does it follow that the house has nothing in common with art and is architecture not to be included in the arts? Only a very small part of architecture belongs to art: the tomb and the monument. Everything else that fulfils a function is to be excluded from the domain of art.

The quote by Adolf Loos challenges conventional assumptions about the relationship between architecture and art. Loos, a radical and influential figure in early modern architecture, argues that the functional aspects of architecture—such as homes and everyday buildings—should not be considered part of the artistic domain. Instead, he draws a sharp distinction, claiming that only structures that serve no utilitarian purpose, like tombs and monuments, truly belong to the realm of art.

At the core of this quote is Loos’s belief in functionalism, the idea that the value of architecture lies in its usefulness rather than its aesthetic or symbolic appeal. By excluding buildings that “fulfil a function” from art, Loos critiques the tendency to treat all architectural work as artistic expression, suggesting instead that architecture should prioritize efficiency, form following function, and material honesty over ornamentation or artistic flourish.

This viewpoint is rooted in Loos’s broader rejection of ornament, famously expressed in his essay “Ornament and Crime”, where he argued that decorative excess was a sign of cultural regression. His statement here continues that line of reasoning, emphasizing that the essence of architecture is practical, and that only when buildings cease to serve functional purposes—like in commemorative structures—can they be judged as pure art.

The quote originates from Loos’s broader critique of 19th-century historicism and the arts-and-crafts movement, both of which heavily blurred the lines between architecture and fine art. As one of the forerunners of modern architecture, Loos laid the intellectual groundwork for later Bauhaus and International Style architects by asserting that design integrity should come from purpose, not from artistic aspiration. His distinction remains influential in architectural theory and continues to provoke debate about where function ends and art begins.