their capacity for pleasing. This gives us one of the great underlying
principles that should characterize all ornament, viz., _it must be
subordinate to the object which it adorns, and must not detract from its
use_. We often see this rule violated in personal, household, and
architectural decoration--windows so overloaded with projecting cornices
and lattice work as to almost exclude light and air; knife handles carved
so elaborately that it is impossible to grasp them firmly; styles of dress
in form or color that impede the motions of the wearer, and make the
clothes, rather than the personality of the wearer, the most noticeable
feature. From this principle there is but a step to another: _All ornament
should be modest and moderate_. It must not obtrude itself, and a great
profusion and ostentation in its application is always a sign of degeneracy
and bad taste. Of course some objects, from their nature, position, and
use, will admit of greater and more elaborate ornament than others.

Ornament, being entirely subordinate, should not conceal the construction
of the object. In architecture it should follow the leading lines of the
building, and should emphasize, or at least suggest, the construction. If
architectural in character, it should so enter into the construction of the
building that it could not be taken away without injuring it.

We must feel that a column, no matter how beautiful, is supporting
something. A floor, always a plane surface, must not be tiled or decorated
in any way to express relief. This would apparently destroy the essential
constructive quality of a floor, viz., flatness. For the same reason, all
shams, such as painted arches, pillars, etc., are not legitimate. As long
as they do not actually exist, they are evidently not necessary to the
construction, and have no purpose save an imaginary decorative one, and in
the words of Owen Jones, _construction must be decorated--not decoration
constructed_.