After spending the last few months working on a theoretical paper that will eventually (eventually being now, as I plan to return to the task after this post) my PhD theory chapter. I have been thinking a lot about how ‘academic’ writing is defined and, if creativity has a place in academic writing.

Ornament and Crime, Adolf Loos and Modernity

As is my ‘way’ of things, I begin in a non-accounting capacity. The first time I encountered the argument against ‘fluff’ (an architecture terminology for aesthetic decoration) was in an undergraduate essay on the titular architect, Adolf Loos. ‘Ornament and Crime’ is an essay composed by Loos in the early 20th century that rallies against the concept of adding ‘ornament’ (decoration) to useful objects. Having being published in the Art Nouveau era, this view at the time would have presented a stark contrast to the ornamental, free flowing and naturalistic form of this periods architects (Antoni Gaudi and Charles Rennie Mackintosh being two notable examples). Loos modernist approach of clean lines and functionality link to the concept of form is function, that an object, be it chair, vase, or building, need only to ‘be what it is’ i.e., beauty is not in the decoration but in the stark reality of ‘what is’. Furthermore, ascribing Loos ‘style’ (the concept of the aesthetic being a style would undoubtedly go against Loos view but even ‘ornament free’ is a type of style) as ‘modernism’ also suggests that ornament was a ‘backward’ choice, a regurgitating of history or something that bore no relevance in today’s world.

My essay was a critical review of Loos work and, I rather wish I had access to a copy of my essay, as I am curious to review if my own views on the subject have changed since. Here in 2023 however, my view is somewhat conflicted, I agree that ‘ornament’ can at times degrade the inherent beauty in an objects form however, to denote ornament to the realm of ‘unnecessary’ degrades the necessity, influence and beauty in art and creativity.

Keeping with architecture, consider the 21st century housing developments by house builders. Every house is the same, a variant of 3 or 4 ‘models’ arranged in a pattern that maximises the space (maximising in the sense that the space can fit the maximum number of houses not that the space is optimised for the inclusion of landscaping and green space). Having once worked for a housebuilder, it is found that to view an image of these homes without context (i.e., any view of the surrounding area), one could be anywhere in the UK, they all look the same, and they are all soulless.

Compare this with the work of Antoni Gaudi or Mackintosh, the visuality of the work of these architects is breath-taking. No two are alike (as was the point of Art Nouveau, replicating the idea of nature) and even if the aesthetic was ‘not your vibe’ the presence of visual stimuli gives the view a spark of creativity. Mackintosh in particular is an excellent example as, unlike Gaudi, Mackintosh’s work is more minimalist in its ‘ornament’ thus, showing that ornament can have a place in classical or modernist aesthetic.

So, what does this have to do with academic writing?

Academically my background has been formed from art-based fields. From Art as my favourite (and strongest) subject in school, to my 6 years of study in architecture where discussions such as the above were the norm. In any critical work I have performed, the purpose was to analyse not only viewpoints or authors/artists/architects, but to consider the impact and intention of design decisions. For example why choose red over blue in a painting, what is the artist trying to tell us, or make us feel, in choosing that particular colour or designing that space to hold light in such a way. Even in English in school, critical review of literature followed this concept. For myself, the study of the Great Gatsby is one of note, the choice of the yellow car (yellow being symbolic of death) and the green light across the way (symbolic of money and moving forward). This symbolism in literature in particular is where we reach the shores of academic literature.

In academic writing, there is (arguably, I cannot speak for all academics) there is view that ones work should be free of ‘ornament’ as creative writing (perhaps not unlike creative accounting) bears connotations of deceit. While it is absolutely true that data and factual information should not be altered to suggest something else that may be untrue, this does not mean that information cannot be presented using creative writing techniques. Research is already expanding to include creative methodology, with data being presented and analysed in collaboration with artists. If research can benefit from the vision of an artist, then why not include an artists skills in the writing?

Even if we do not use it, we should know how to find it

This is an interesting thought as, I believe that creative writing is already quite prominent in academia. This returns us to my theory paper. The paper is a discourse analysis of accounting technology literature to show why we could benefit from adopting new theories in accounting research. I wrote this paper in the same way I would have written an essay of Adolf Loos or the Great Gatsby, I was not search for the facts about technology in the literature, I wanted to know what the author felt about it. To do that I have to read between the lines, I had to analyse every word chosen and ask ‘why did they chose that word specifically?’, ‘what were they trying to say by choosing that word?’. In using this method, I unearth a treasure trove of symbology, imagery, suggestion, and creativity within the academic literature. The use of imagery and symbolism was particularly prominent throughout a number of papers. This showed me that creativity is (knowingly or unknowingly) a strong part of academic writing. It is perhaps connected to the realm of social science, or aspects that utilise a social, psychological, or human aspect as, we as humans, are far removed from ‘black and white’, there are a host of factors that come into play when discussing subjects pertaining to human behaviour.

What has created further interest however, is also the realisation that critical analysis or review of academic literature (in accounting at least) does not look to these aspects in empirical literature. I have failed to find empirical examples of literature analyses that include these deeper aspects (if you know of one, please send the details my way). Perhaps it is believed that including a creative and personal interpretation in this manner is too subjective however, it could be argued that this could point to important limitations in the research. Maybe something within the study other than the data has caused you to form a certain opinion; thus, what was it, and why would the author want you to feel that way? Even if the stance is to agree that using creative writing techniques is ‘wrong’, should it not still be common practice to look for these techniques?

Should we or Shouldn’t we get creative then?

In short, we should. However, we should be critical of how we use creativity. For example, are we using imagery to represent an event e.g., to compare an accounting scandal to a car crash. The metaphor emphasises the tragedy and trauma of the event without suggesting any misrepresentation of the factual data. The key is these elements, the data and the art, must work together to tell a factual story. Furthermore, perhaps the purpose of the study is to highlight the impact of auditing scandals and thus the intention of the paper is to evoke discussion by using certain imagery/symbolism/word choice to trigger a response in the reader. The important consideration for creative academic is that it cannot diminish the integrity of the data. You can present findings, data, and the overall message of your paper creatively, but you cannot lie.

No matter what Adolf Loos said, there is a difference between ‘ornament’ and ‘crime’…