“De Stijl en Andere Vroege Gadachte van de Twintigste Eeuw”
De Stijl and Other Early Twentieth Century Thought
De Stijl and Other Early Twentieth Century Thought
2/24/2004 by Richard Hamming
In the early 20th century, several architectural thoughts emerged throughout Europe to develop new processes, and a ‘new reality’ for the built environment. The major examples of this during this time period were the Bauhaus, Constructivism, Futurism, Purism and De Stijl. [I chose to concentrate on De Stijl, Futurism and Constructivism instead of focusing on the Bauhaus since, in my opinion, more people are familiar with the works and thoughts of Walter Gropius and the Bauhaus.]
The movement in the Netherlands from 1917 to 1931 was called De Stijl and initially revolved around two painters, Theo van Doesburg and Piet Mondrian, and an architect/cabinet-maker named Gerrit Rietveld (Frampton, p. 142). Very little architecture was actually brought to realization during the “early phases of De Stijl”; the first structure associated with this movement was a villa from 1916 by Robert van’t Hoff who had been heavily influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright (Frampton, p. 143).
The first manifesto of De Stijl from 1918 sought to redefine architecture and create a ‘new reality’ by “calling for a new balance between the individual and universal and for the liberation of art from both the constraints of tradition and the cult of individuality” (Frampton, p. 142). This statement seems to describe how the writers truly thought that there was no longer room for individuality and uniqueness in art and architecture; they seemed to think that they had discovered real ‘architecture’ was and proceeded to influence, and be influenced by, the other major architectural thoughts of the time period. As the De Stijl movement incorporated more of the “Neo-Plastic ideal of uniting the arts and transcending the division of art and life,” Van Doesburg wrote: “If the means of expression are liberated from all particularity, they are in harmony with the ultimate end of art, which is to realize a universal language” (Frampton, p. 148).
Specific design styles of De Stijl, as they developed from thought into reality (the realization of art and architecture), have distinct attributes that differentiate this movement from the others in the early 20th century. The bright colors often used in furniture and architectural elements such as awnings have been described as “violent red, blue and yellow set in angst-ridden dissonance” (Jencks, p. 142). The color palette of De Stijl was restricted to primary colors by the influence of mathematician M. H. Schoenmaekers from his term ‘Neo-Plasticism’ (Frampton, p. 142-3). De Stijl architecture has also been described as “metaphysical space” (Frampton, p. 164) and “complex spatial and formal asymmetries” (Jencks, p. 127).
Preceding the Dutch De Stijl movement was the anti-culture ‘movement’ in Italy called Futurism started in 1909. According to Joshua Taylor: “Futurism was an impulse rather than a style” and was “fundamentally opposed to culture” (Frampton, p. 85). Major players in this movement were Antonio Sant’Elia, Umberto Boccioni, and Filippo Marinetti. The Futurists redefined the ‘reality’ of modern architecture by “gleaning every benefit of science and technology… establishing new forms, new lines, new reasons for existence” (Frampton, p. 87). Sant’Elia spoke about how architecture “must be ‘similar to a gigantic machine’, made ‘of concrete, of glass, of iron, without painting or sculpture’” (Pevsner, p. 37). These ideas seem to be visible in today’s society of always striving to use the most current technology and techniques.
The time period following the height of Futurism, however, produced critics of the movement stating that Futurism “was a contrived impetus and a vain, destructive fury, mingling good and bad elements” (Frampton, p. 203). Later still, during the Fascist era of Italy, Futurism was described as a “machine cult” (Frampton, p. 215). The Futurist, Marinetti, was even described as having a “sinister side” to his work which allowed Walter Benjamin to study fascism and war as being ‘celebrated’ and “beautiful, because it establishes man’s dominion over the subjugated machinery” (Leach, p. 21). These links between fascism, war and architecture, related to the Futurist movement is disturbing and was further discussed after Sarajevo by Lebbes Woods: “War is architecture, and architecture is war!” (Leach, p. 27).
Architectural influence from this example of ‘new reality’ could be found decades later (1970’s) and described as “all [components] are movable and express their movability” (Tzonis/Lefaivre, p. 88). Also, in the 1980’s, Futurists (and Constructivists) influence produced “precedents of exploding, of displacement, of the breaking up of the continuity of form” (Tzonis/Lefaivre, p. 222). ‘Modern consciousness’ of the Futurist’s ‘new reality’ is apparent as later 20th century architects and writers still refer to and borrow statements such as “the primitives of a new sensibility” (Jencks, p. 54).
Also during the early 20th century in Russia emerged the movement of Constructivism. After 1919, the Constructivists “took up the early militant modernism of [Futurists] Marinetti, Boccioni and Sant’Elia” (Frampton, p. 88). Constructivist architecture was supported by the younger generation because of its “commitment to free-floating asymmetry and technical innovation” (Frampton, p. 160). The common “dynamic forms” (Frampton, p. 202), “objectivity” (Frampton, p. 163), and “appeals to disorganization” (Tzonis/Lefaivre, p. 20) describe some of the common attributes and opinions of Constructivist architecture. Along with the Productivists, the Constructivists considered “’intellectual materials’, such as color, line, point, and plane, and ‘physical materials’, such as iron, glass and wood, as thematically equal elements” (Frampton, p. 170).
A major theoretical thread tying the early 20th century architectural thoughts together was to totally separate itself from the past’s classical, geometric design. Often “fragmented, anti-classical geometry” (Tzonis/Lefaivre, p. 261) was apparent throughout Constructivist design as well as the “complex spatial and formal asymmetries” (Jencks, p. 127) found in De Stijl. The major players of these movements (De Stijl, Futurism, and Constructivism), along with those of Purism and the Bauhaus, had various degrees of influence on each other since many of the architects and artists had worked with each other at some time [for example, Van Doesburg stayed within the Bauhaus in 1921] (Frampton, p. 144). These thoughts generated what can be described as the ‘new reality’ for redefining architecture into the current (modern) time.
Works Cited
Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. New York: Thames and Hudson Inc., 1996.
Jencks, Charles. The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 1991.
Leach, Neil. The Anaesthetics of Architecture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2000.
Pevsner, Nikolaus. Pioneers of Modern Architecture: From Walter Morris to Walter Gropius. New York: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1991.
Tzonis, Alexander and Lefaivre, Liane. Architecture in Europe since 1968: Memory and Invention. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 1992.
The movement in the Netherlands from 1917 to 1931 was called De Stijl and initially revolved around two painters, Theo van Doesburg and Piet Mondrian, and an architect/cabinet-maker named Gerrit Rietveld (Frampton, p. 142). Very little architecture was actually brought to realization during the “early phases of De Stijl”; the first structure associated with this movement was a villa from 1916 by Robert van’t Hoff who had been heavily influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright (Frampton, p. 143).
The first manifesto of De Stijl from 1918 sought to redefine architecture and create a ‘new reality’ by “calling for a new balance between the individual and universal and for the liberation of art from both the constraints of tradition and the cult of individuality” (Frampton, p. 142). This statement seems to describe how the writers truly thought that there was no longer room for individuality and uniqueness in art and architecture; they seemed to think that they had discovered real ‘architecture’ was and proceeded to influence, and be influenced by, the other major architectural thoughts of the time period. As the De Stijl movement incorporated more of the “Neo-Plastic ideal of uniting the arts and transcending the division of art and life,” Van Doesburg wrote: “If the means of expression are liberated from all particularity, they are in harmony with the ultimate end of art, which is to realize a universal language” (Frampton, p. 148).
Specific design styles of De Stijl, as they developed from thought into reality (the realization of art and architecture), have distinct attributes that differentiate this movement from the others in the early 20th century. The bright colors often used in furniture and architectural elements such as awnings have been described as “violent red, blue and yellow set in angst-ridden dissonance” (Jencks, p. 142). The color palette of De Stijl was restricted to primary colors by the influence of mathematician M. H. Schoenmaekers from his term ‘Neo-Plasticism’ (Frampton, p. 142-3). De Stijl architecture has also been described as “metaphysical space” (Frampton, p. 164) and “complex spatial and formal asymmetries” (Jencks, p. 127).
Preceding the Dutch De Stijl movement was the anti-culture ‘movement’ in Italy called Futurism started in 1909. According to Joshua Taylor: “Futurism was an impulse rather than a style” and was “fundamentally opposed to culture” (Frampton, p. 85). Major players in this movement were Antonio Sant’Elia, Umberto Boccioni, and Filippo Marinetti. The Futurists redefined the ‘reality’ of modern architecture by “gleaning every benefit of science and technology… establishing new forms, new lines, new reasons for existence” (Frampton, p. 87). Sant’Elia spoke about how architecture “must be ‘similar to a gigantic machine’, made ‘of concrete, of glass, of iron, without painting or sculpture’” (Pevsner, p. 37). These ideas seem to be visible in today’s society of always striving to use the most current technology and techniques.
The time period following the height of Futurism, however, produced critics of the movement stating that Futurism “was a contrived impetus and a vain, destructive fury, mingling good and bad elements” (Frampton, p. 203). Later still, during the Fascist era of Italy, Futurism was described as a “machine cult” (Frampton, p. 215). The Futurist, Marinetti, was even described as having a “sinister side” to his work which allowed Walter Benjamin to study fascism and war as being ‘celebrated’ and “beautiful, because it establishes man’s dominion over the subjugated machinery” (Leach, p. 21). These links between fascism, war and architecture, related to the Futurist movement is disturbing and was further discussed after Sarajevo by Lebbes Woods: “War is architecture, and architecture is war!” (Leach, p. 27).
Architectural influence from this example of ‘new reality’ could be found decades later (1970’s) and described as “all [components] are movable and express their movability” (Tzonis/Lefaivre, p. 88). Also, in the 1980’s, Futurists (and Constructivists) influence produced “precedents of exploding, of displacement, of the breaking up of the continuity of form” (Tzonis/Lefaivre, p. 222). ‘Modern consciousness’ of the Futurist’s ‘new reality’ is apparent as later 20th century architects and writers still refer to and borrow statements such as “the primitives of a new sensibility” (Jencks, p. 54).
Also during the early 20th century in Russia emerged the movement of Constructivism. After 1919, the Constructivists “took up the early militant modernism of [Futurists] Marinetti, Boccioni and Sant’Elia” (Frampton, p. 88). Constructivist architecture was supported by the younger generation because of its “commitment to free-floating asymmetry and technical innovation” (Frampton, p. 160). The common “dynamic forms” (Frampton, p. 202), “objectivity” (Frampton, p. 163), and “appeals to disorganization” (Tzonis/Lefaivre, p. 20) describe some of the common attributes and opinions of Constructivist architecture. Along with the Productivists, the Constructivists considered “’intellectual materials’, such as color, line, point, and plane, and ‘physical materials’, such as iron, glass and wood, as thematically equal elements” (Frampton, p. 170).
A major theoretical thread tying the early 20th century architectural thoughts together was to totally separate itself from the past’s classical, geometric design. Often “fragmented, anti-classical geometry” (Tzonis/Lefaivre, p. 261) was apparent throughout Constructivist design as well as the “complex spatial and formal asymmetries” (Jencks, p. 127) found in De Stijl. The major players of these movements (De Stijl, Futurism, and Constructivism), along with those of Purism and the Bauhaus, had various degrees of influence on each other since many of the architects and artists had worked with each other at some time [for example, Van Doesburg stayed within the Bauhaus in 1921] (Frampton, p. 144). These thoughts generated what can be described as the ‘new reality’ for redefining architecture into the current (modern) time.
Works Cited
Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. New York: Thames and Hudson Inc., 1996.
Jencks, Charles. The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 1991.
Leach, Neil. The Anaesthetics of Architecture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2000.
Pevsner, Nikolaus. Pioneers of Modern Architecture: From Walter Morris to Walter Gropius. New York: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1991.
Tzonis, Alexander and Lefaivre, Liane. Architecture in Europe since 1968: Memory and Invention. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 1992.
No comments:
Post a Comment