TOWARD A PLASTIC ARCHITECTURE - THEO VAN DOESBURG

This seminal piece written by Theo van Doesburg and published in the De Stjil magazine in 1924 is an important piece of writing to European architecture. It establishes the belief of many of the Dutch architects that materials would soon become synthetic, and that architecture should be more "pictorial", functional, and well-engineered. 

_________________________________________________________________________________

1.  Form. The basis for a sound development of architecture (and of art in general) is to overcome every idea of form, in the sense of preconceived type.

Instead of taking as a model earlier types of style and, in so doing, imitating earlier styles, it is necessary to pose the problem of architecture completely afresh.

2.  The new architecture is elementary, that is, it is developed from the elements of building, in the widest sense.  These elements, such as function, mass, plane, time, space, light, color, material, etc., are at the same time elements of plasticism.

3.  The new architecture is economical, i.e., it organizes its elementary means as efficiently and economically as possible, without wasting means or material.

4.  The new architecture is functional, i.e., it is developed from the accurate assessment of practical requirements that it lays down in a clear ground plan.

5.  The new architecture is formless and yet determinate, i.e., it does not recognize any preconceived formal frame-work; any mould in which are cast the functional spaces arising from practical dwelling requirements.

In contrast with all previous styles, the new architectural method does not recognize any self-contained type, any basic form. The subdivision of the functional spaces is strictly determined by rectangular planes, which possess no individual forms in themselves, since, although they are limited (the one plane by the other), they can be imagined extended into infinity, thereby forming a system of coordinates, the different points of which would correspond to an equal number of points in universal, open space. From this it follows that the planes possess a direct tensile relationship with open (exterior) space.

6.  The new architecture has freed the concept of monumentally from notions of large and small (since the word ‘monumental’ has been misused it has been replaced by the word ‘plastic’).  The new architecture has demonstrated that everything stems from relationship, the relationship of opposites.

[186]

7.  The new architecture does not recognize a single passive moment.  It has conquered the opening (in the wall).  The window possesses an active significance as openness in opposition to the closed character of the wall plane.  Nowhere does there appear simply a hole or a void, everything is strictly determined by its contrast.  (Compare the various counter-constructions in which the elements comprising architecture — plane, line and mass — have been placed loosely in a three-dimensional relationship.)

8.  The plan. The new architecture has disrupted the wall and, in so doing, destroyed the division between inside and outside.

Walls are no longer load-bearing; they have been reduced to points of support.  As a result, a new open plan has been created, differing completely from the Classical plan in that internal and external space are interpenetrating.

9.  The new architecture is open.  The whole consists of a single space, which issubdivided according to functional requirements.  This subdivision is effected by means of separating planes (interior) or sheltering planes (exterior).

The former, which separate the various functional spaces from one another, may be mobile…,’ the separating planes (former internal walls) may be replaced by moveable screens or slabs (under which category the doors may also be included).  In a later stage of its development the plan will have to disappear completely.  The spatial composition projected in two dimensions, set down in a plan, will be replaced by an accurate constructional calculation, a calculation that will have to reduce the bearing power to the simplest, but most resistant, points of support.  Euclidean mathematics will not be of any service to us in this task, which will be easily achieved, however, with the aid of non-Euclidean calculations in four dimensions.

10.  Space and time. The new architecture takes account not only of space, but also of time as an accent of architecture.  The unity of time and space gives the appearance of architecture a new and completely plastic aspect (four-dimensional temporal and spatial plastic aspects).

11.  The new architecture is anti-cubic, i.e., it does not strive to contain the different functional space cells in a single closed cube, but it throws the functional space (as well as canopy planes, balcony volumes, etc.) out from the centre of the cube, so that height, width and depth plus time become a completely new plastic expression in open spaces.

In this way architecture (in so far as this is constructionally possible — [187] task for the engineers!) acquires a more or less floating aspect which, so to speak, runs counter to the natural force of gravity.

12.  Symmetry and repetition. The new architecture has destroyed both monotonous repetition and the rigid similarity of two halves, the mirror image, symmetry.  It does not recognize repetition in time, the street wall or standardization.  A group of buildings is as much a whole as is a detached house.  The same laws apply to the building group and to the town as to the detached house.  Against symmetry the new architecture sets the balanced relationship of unequal parts, i.e., of parts which, because of their different functional character, differ in position, dimension, proportion and location.

The equal importance of these parts derives from the equilibrium of inequality and not from equality.  The new architecture has also made ‘front’ and ‘back,’ ‘right’ and possibly also ‘above’ and ‘below’ equal in value.

13.  In contrast to the frontality sanctified by a rigid static concept of life, the new architecture offers a plastic wealth of multi-faceted temporal and spatial effects.

14.  Color. The new architecture has destroyed painting as a separate, imaginary expression of harmony, whether secondary through representation or primary through color planes.

Color planes form an organic part of the new architecture as an element of the direct expression of its time and space relationships.  Without color these relationships are no living reality; they are not visible. The equilibrium of architectural relationships first becomes visible reality through color.  The modern painter’s task is to organize this into a harmonious whole (not in a plane, not in two dimensions, but in the new field: four-dimensional time-space).  In a further stage of development, color is to be replaced by denaturalized material with its own color (task of the chemists); but only when demanded by practical requirements.

15.  The new architecture is anti-decorative.  Color (and the color-shy must try to realize this!) is not decorative or ornamental, but an organic element of architectural expression.

16.   Architecture as a synthesis of the new plasticism. In the new architecture, building is understood as a part, the sum of all the arts, in their most elementary manifestation, as their essence.  It offers the possibility of thinking in four dimensions, i.e., the plastic architect, under which heading I also include the painter, has to construct in the new field, time-space.

Paris 1924 [From De Stijl, Vol. VI, No. 6/7, pp. 78-83]

OUTSIDE OF DE STIJL: OTHER IMPORTANT FIGURES

 FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT 

Perhaps one of the greatest architects of the century - Frank Lloyd Wright was a great inspiration to the De Stjil movement. Having pioneered the use of reinforced concrete, extreme cantilevers, and a theory of using geometry, specifically intersecting horizontal, and vertical lines/planes, Wright's ideas would prove to be show up occasionally in Rietveld's work. This is especially true in the Rietveld-Schroder House where Rietveld uses cantilevered concrete balconies, and develops a structure created of intersecting lines and planes which help define the space that house was built in.






 H.P. BERLAGE 

Born in 1856, Berlage was one of Netherland's most famous and important architects. Having originally studied with Gottfried Semper in Switzerland, Berlage soon came back to the Netherlands to practice architecture. Berlage visited the United States in 1911, and was greatly inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright's work. Upon his return to the Netherlands, he continued to disseminate Wright's ideas and theories into Dutch architecture. Many of the De Stijl architects such as Oud and Wils worked with Berlage, and were similarly enthused by Wright's work.


 WALTER GROPIUS 

Gropius is the famed German architect who founded the Bauhaus in 1919. Together with Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, and Frank Lloyd Wright,Gropius is often considered as one of pioneers of modern architecture as we know of it. The founding of the Bauhaus was critical as it allowed the generation of a new architectural vocabulary in the post World War I era. When the Nazis took over Germany and World War II broke out, Gropius, under pretext emigrated to Britain, and then to the United States to teach at Harvard. He remained outside of Germany for the rest of his life.






 LE CORBUSIER 

Born as Charles-Edouard Jeanneret in 1887, in Switzerland, Le Corbusier would prove to be one of the most important architects of the twentieth century. A contemporary of the De Stijl members, Le Corbusier produced many important pieces of writing that helped European architects of the late 1920s to fully develop the new architectural syntax that they wished to produce. Pieces such as the Five Points of Architecture, Towards a New Architecture and the founding of CIAM are critical points in the architectural history of the 1920s. Rietveld himself broke with De Stijl in 1928 to join CIAM.





 EL LISSITZKY 

El Lissitzky was a Jewish-Russian artist, and architect who was a major figure of the Russian avant-garde movement. As a member of the Russian Constructivists - a group that formed in response to, and after the October Revolution - El Lissitzky subscribed to the ideals that art should be in service to social needs. The new aesthetic in art, according to the Constructivists should be governed by strict geometry and simple colours. This placed El Lissitzky and the Constructivist movement quite parallel to the De Stijl movement in Holland. In fact, in 1922 when van Doesburg was in Germany, he and El Lissitzky met, and became close friends with their shared ideals. Lissitzky also visited the Rietveld-Schroder House in 1926, and was full of praise for its design, open plan, and colours. 

THE ARCHITECT: GERRIT RIETVELD

Gerrit Rietveld was born in 1888 in the Dutch city of Utrecht. As the son of a carpenter, he was apprenticed by his father at the age of 11 until he was 15. By 1906, he was taking night courses where he learned draftsmanship under the architect P.J.C. Klaarhamer.  This allowed him to work as a draftsman for the jeweller C.J.A. Begeer until 1913. In 1917, Rietveld started his own furniture store with the hopes of one day mass producing his furniture designs. This led to him designing the famous Red and Blue chair in 1917, although it did not have its signature colour until later on. Soon after, he joined with the painters Theo van Doesburg, Piet Mondrian, Vilmos Huszar and architects Robert van’t Hoff and J.J.P. Oud, to form the artistic movement ‘De Stijl’. Following this in 1923 he famously repaints his Red and Blue chair to the colours it so famously has today. 

In 1921 he was commissioned by Truss Schroder to remodel the study in her Bilstraat home. The room was designed after Schroder’s ideals of living, a topic of debate between her and her husband. In 1924, Schroder commissioned Rietveld again to design an entire house for her, this time after the death of her husband. The house was radical for its time, both in its construction and design ideals; it included a great transformable upper floor, representing Schroder’s desire for liberation and openness. Rietveld continueed to work with Schroder in later years. Examples include the Glass Radio Cabinet in 1925, the Hanging Glass Cabinet in 1926 and the Erasmuslaan Houses from 1930 -1934.

  In 1928 Rietveld left the De Stijl movement after the need to persue a more functionalist style of architecture. He joined the Congres Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM) later that year. During this time Rietveld continued to produce furniture, including the Zig-Zag Chair in 1934. 

Vincent van Gogh Museum

For the rest of his life he continued to build his portfolio as a successful architect. In the 1950s he was able to take his personal ideals on social housing into practise by designing in Utrecht and Reeuwijk. He was also given many significant commissions, many including designing pavilions for events such as the Venice Biennial the Brussels World Exposition. At the end of his life, Rietveld was commissioned to design a museum for the work of Vincent van Gogh. He was only able to complete sketches before passing away. The designs were carried out by his partners in the firm he set up in 1961.