1

De Stijl – Abstraction in Architecture

An essay by Anthony Zonaga examining the permeation of neoplasticism into the field of architecture and its consequent influence on modern design

Preface

Following the turn of the 20th century, a plethora of new philosophies and ideals emerged

from changing social, economic, technological and cultural factors, demanding a new way of

thinking. With this, modernism encroached on societal boundaries, questioning the

traditional and contemplating the radical. De Stijl, an avant-garde Dutch artistic movement,

advocated a rhetoric of “monumentality and collective activity”.1

The presence of De Stijl principles within architecture is, as Swiss professor of Art Yve-Alain

Bois puts it, “quantitatively far less important than is generally believed.” He then goes on to

argue that:

“De Stijl‟s architectural contribution consists in fact of the projects exhibited by Van

Doesburg and Van Eesteren in Galerie de l‟Effort Moderne… and in the work of Gerrit

Rietveld as a whole.”2

Bois significantly understates De Stijl‟s consequence on modernist architecture: its

contribution percolated deeply into successive architectural design, well beyond the

supposed „life span‟ of De Stijl. In what manner, then, have principles of neoplasticism

entered architecture beyond 1931? One needs only to look towards the works of Ludwig

Mies van der Rohe to see the characteristic use of simple form and colour, particularly the

hierarchical composition of space within space; an attribute derived from Gerrit Rietveld.

This essay will explore the impression that the principles neoplasticism made on

architecture in the early twentieth century through the exploration of not only the formal

similarities, but the varying conceptions of space within the Rietveld-Schröder House and

the Villa Tugendhat. Through the critical comparison of these two buildings, with reference

to both early and contemporary critics and writers, we can observe the diffusion of De Stijl

principles into modernist architectural thinking and its resulting effect on the configuration

of space, the relationship between interior and exterior, and the reiteration of the ground. 1 White, Michael. (2003). De Stijl and Dutch Modernism, Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp.1 2 Bois, Yve-Alain. (1990). The De Stijl Idea. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. pp.116

2

The New Plastic Art

In order to delve into the correlations between the origins of De Stijl and its pervasion into

architecture, it is important to firstly define it. Defining De Stijl proves an unexpectedly

difficult task, but Bois does so quite concisely and elegantly, confining it to three

simultaneous considerations; the journal, the group, and the idea.3 De Stijl exists as all of

these concurrently; however, for the purpose of avoiding convolution, it is only the latter

consideration, the idea, which will be explored in detail for its architectural merits.

The primary characteristics of De Stijl is a pure universality through reduction of elements to

the base essentials of form and colour, particularly the use of horizontal and vertical lines in

conjunction with black, white and the primary colours. In 1914, Piet Mondrian, an important

contributor to De Stijl, wrote in a letter to Dutch painter H.P. Bremmer:

“I construct lines and colour combinations on a flat surface, in order to express

general beauty with the utmost awareness… I believe it is possible that, through

horizontal and vertical lines constructed with awareness, but not with calculation, led

by high intuition, and brought to harmony and rhythm, these basic forms of beauty,

supplemented if necessary by other direct lines or curves, can become a work of art,

as strong as it is true.”4

Figure 1. (left) Composition with Red, Blue, Black, Yellow and Gray, 1921, Piet Mondrian. Oil on canvas; 76x52.4 cm. London, Tate Gallery.5 Figure 2. (right) Red and Blue Chair,

1923, Gerrit Rietveld. Painted wood; 86.7x83.8cm. London, Tate Gallery.6

3 Bois, Yve-Alain. (1990). The De Stijl Idea. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. pp.101 4 Blotkamp, Carel. (2001). Mondrian – The Art of Destrruction. London: Reaktion Books. pp.81 5 MOMA. Available through: http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=79002 6 MOMA. Available through: http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=4044

3

The translation of this nieuwe beelding (new plastic art) from the two dimensional plane

(Figure 1) to the three dimensional plane was explored by a select few De Stijl members, and

fewer still brought its architectural values to light. However, Gerrit Rietveld, known for his

1917 Red and Blue Chair (Figure 2), designed what has been considered as a manifesto of the

ideals of De Stijl and “one of modernism‟s most iconic buildings”: the Schröder House.7

Figure 3. Colour Design for a Shopping Parade and Café-Restaurant, 1924,

Theo van Doesburg and Cornelis van Eesteren.8

While other members of De Stijl, such as Theo van Doesburg in his theoretical art (Figure 3)

and models in the Galerie de l‟Effort Moderne, made suggestions towards a De Stijl

architecture, it was Rietveld who realised the first large-scale, physical consolidation of De

Stijl. Van Doesburg himself claims the Schröder House was the only building which achieved

the De Stijl principles sought to be achieved in his own design for the private villa for

Léonce Rosenberg, which never pushed past the stage of architectural models, and to which

Rietveld himself contributed. 9 Indeed, the De Stijl journal reiterated the importance of

architecture reaching a point of „self-purification‟ in order to produce a properly modern

monumental form.

Therefore it is only logical to look to Rietveld‟s Schröder House for insight into the De Stijl‟s

principles in architectural form. However, no other building following its construction can be

attributed as following concepts of neoplasticism completely. Architect Richard Padovan

remarks that “the movement‟s total realisation in three dimensional space was pitifully

small... the rest remained on paper, as unrealised projects and manifestos”.10 Mies van der

Rohe‟s Tugendhat House will serve, then, as a study on both De Stijl‟s successes, and its

failings.

7 Rietveld-Schröder House. UNESCO. Available through: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/965/ 8 Lemoine, Serge. (1990) Theo van Doesburg: Peinture, architecture, théorie . Paris: Sers 9 Van Doesburg, Theo, (1927). “Dada en Feiten,” De Stijl, “Jubilee Number”. pp.56 10 Padovan, Richard. (2002). Towards universality: Le Corbusier, Mies and De Stijl. London: Routledge. pp.2

4

New Ground for Modernity

Before approaching the house‟s role in De Stijl‟s contribution to modernist architecture, we

must consider two notions. Firstly, it is undeniable that the Schröder House connoted

modernity; however, one must also consider that the modernity of the 1920s is far removed

from modernism today, which is as art historian Paul Overy states, “drained of the idealism

and fantasy of the early modernism represented by icons of the modern movement”.11

Secondly, we must understand that Rietveld viewed his architecture as a sculptural form

comprised of many elements, each “separating, limiting and bringing into human scale a part

of unlimited space”, as he stated himself in his autobiography in 1957. 12

Rietveld‟s Schröder House (Figure 4) was constructed in 1924 in the Prins Hendriklaan in

Utrecht for his client and close friend, Truus Schröder (1889-1985); it was his first design for

an entire domestic residence and is viewed as a successful realisation of De Stijl

composition within three-dimensional space. All the elements defined by Van Doesburg in

his 1924 thesis Towards a Plastic Architecture are present; spaces dictated by the straight line

bound by planes coloured red, blue, yellow, white or grey: delineating space without

providing enclosure and giving the appearance of floating or sliding without meeting at the

corner. Padovan argues that the house could even be considered within “four-

dimensionality”13 due to the sliding screens that distinctively characterise the space, which

can be used to either divide or unite based on the time of day.

Figure 4. Schröder House (reconstructed) street photo, 1924, Gerrit Rietveld. Photograph source: © Ernst Moritz 2011

11 Overy, Paul et al. (1988). The Rietveld Schröder House. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. pp.13 12 Rietveld, Gerrit. (1957). View of life as historical background for my work. pp.162 13 Padovan, Richard. (2002). Towards universality: Le Corbusier, Mies and De Stijl. London: Routledge. pp.17

5

Padovan relays the largest problem that faced Rietveld:

“The Schröder House presented Rietveld with the same problem [as Van Doesburg] of

reconciling an open, floating external expression with the need for a functionally and

aesthetically viable interior space.”14

Truus Schröder, recently widowed, wanted a space in which she could share with her

children‟s lives. The sliding partitions, while not at all favoured by Rietveld himself,15 were in

actuality conceived by Schröder; and her contribution of functionality may well have been

the final piece that secured the house‟s place in modernity. As a result, the house

demonstrated a life freed from the barriers commonly imposed on domestic and private

residences, where a „family of individuals‟ now was transformed into (mirroring Van

Doesburg‟s description of De Stijl) as a geestelijke gemeenschap (spiritual community).

While the house follows De Stijl principles in the aesthetic sense, the conception of space

hints at something deeper; a play on the relationship between the interior and exterior, the

public and the private. From the dialogue between Rietveld‟s strong neoplastic rhetoric and

Schröder‟s own functional specifications, the house shatters boundaries both architecturally

and transcendentally, bringing it into a previously unseen modernity. The ground plane no

longer exists in two dimensions but three, extending into the walls and the ceilings,

balconies and roofs.

As a result, we now gain an understanding of the importance of De Stijl‟s architectural

presence in modernism. Expanding Rietveld‟s concept of verbinding (joining), which we

observe in his earlier furniture such as the Red and Blue Chair, the Schröder House

connotes both conjunction and union of not only space and colour, but within the

samenwerking (collaboration) with Truus Schröder. Bois argues that “The Schröder House is

full of those inversions that continually pervert the functionalist ethic of modernist

architecture”16, but it can equally be argued that functionalism was met in its purest form: the

house was designed with close cooperation with the intended resident, and therefore the

building successfully achieves its purpose as both a sculptural masterpiece of De Stijl art-

turned-architecture, and a functional home designed specifically for the needs of its

inhabitants. With this, De Stijl became part of Modernism, as a prosthetic which changed the

relationship between space and person, and as an extension, person and the ground.

14

Ibid. pp.98 15

Schröder, Truus (1982). Interview with Truus Schröder. from Overy, Paul et al (1988) The Rietveld Schröder House. pp.56 16 Bois, Yve-Alain. (1990). The De Stijl Idea. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. pp.101

6

The Transparent Mirror

The Villa Tugendhat is not an exemplary illustration of Mies van der Rohe‟s contribution

towards the development of De Stijl architecture; in fact, the 1929 Barcelona Pavilion

represents Mies‟ greatest attempt at resolving the dilemma inherent in De Stijl principles17

(to be expanded upon later). Indeed, Mies‟ 1923 brick country house project, revolutionary in

its development of Modernist spatial design, represents De Stijl in a manner far surpassing

any architecture that predated it.

However, the Villa Tugendhat has been chosen specifically for that point: it is already known

that Mies was, as Padovan asserts: “…one of the most serious, as well as the greatest,

contributors to the architecture of De Stijl, and the one who carried forward its development

significantly beyond 1927.”18 Therefore, by examining more closely a building less known for

its De Stijl principles, constructed several years after the Schröder House, we can gain a new

insight into De Stijl‟s subtleties and its delicate integration with International style.

Figure 5. Villa Tugendhat (reconstructed) from the garden, 1928, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Photograph source: © David Židlickz 2012

The Villa Tugendhat (Figure 5) was conceived and built from 1928-30 by Ludwig Mies van der

Rohe for clients Grete Weiss Löw-Beer and Fritz Tugendhat. Its construction from steel

frames (which was, at the time, unconventional in private dwellings) facilitated the

application of a free flowing space that he had only recently achieved in the Barcelona

Pavilion. As a result, Mies created a transparent space which blurred the boundaries between

traditionally separated functional zones, drawing parallels with Rietveld‟s Schröder House

and expressing Mies‟ own De Stijl influences.

17

Padovan, Richard. (2002). Towards universality: Le Corbusier, Mies and De Stijl. London: Routledge. pp.105 18 Ibid. pp.103

7

Figure 6. Villa Tugendhat (reconstructed) living space, , 1928, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Photograph source: © David Židlickz 2010

However, in stark contrast to the Schröder House, there is substantial evidence of Mies‟

approach towards demarcation: as art historian Wolf Tegethoff points out, “[from the street],

the building appears hermetically closed”.19 Architecture historians Dr. Lenka Kudelková and

Dr. Otakar Máčel cite Mies‟ convictions as proof of this:

“[Mies] resolutely refused to change the ceiling-height doors, which Fritz Tugendhat

feared might lead to the collapse of the ceilings. After all, the clear demarcation of

the room‟s surfaces was an essential part of his design concept.”20

Despite the boundaries Mies imposed within the house, De Stijl‟s presence still emanates

through the multitude of transparencies that are created through the interplay between

surface and volume both internally and externally. The continuation of the large glass panel

transforms the upper level into a plane which floats above the ground, while the glass itself

acts as both a mirror in which we see ourselves reflected21, and a portal through which we

see can look inward or outward. The use of pure white on the façade doubles as a mirror

and a series of planes; similarly to Japanese architect Yasuhiro Yamashita‟s Penguin House,

there is a doubling of reflection of both structure and man. The principle of flowing space

was achieved through continuity: “the blurring of boundaries between interior and exterior…

the openness of the house encouraged an intense experience of space which stimulated the

imagination.”22 The De Stijl influence, physically diffuse, still radiates throughout the whole

building through its distinct articulation of parts, conveyed as whole.

19

Wolf Tegethoff. (1999). Ludwig Mies van der Rohe: The Tugendhat House. Wien: Springer-Verlag. pp.72 20

Dr. Lenka Kudelková and Dr. Otakar Máčel (1998). Mies van der Rohe: The Villa Tugendhat. New York: Skira. pp. 181 21 Hammer-Tugendhat, Daniela et al. (1999). Ludwig Mies van der Rohe: The Tugendhat House. Wien: Springer-Verlag. pp.18 22 Ibid. pp.189

8

Drawing Parallels

While spatial composition varied between the two, the same overarching architectural

vocabulary prevailed: the disintegration of the boundaries between interior and exterior,

creating a transparency which expressed De Stijl‟s aspirations towards a spiritual harmony

and order. Modernity called for the avant-garde; dissolution of the outdated Classical

elements which did not express the technology of the time and ignored functional needs.

De Stijl‟s foray from art to architecture (which it had intended from the beginning) heralded a

collective style, emphasizing the flatness of the picture plane, autonomy of colour and

banishment of literary subject matter23 that helped define modernity in its early stages.

Through subtle gestures and formal similarities balanced with differences in the

composition of both two dimensional and three dimensional spaces, both projects embody

De Stijl in their own characteristic style: Rietveld, adhering to the principles of new plastic art

to form a new ground, and Mies, utilising an unconventional structure to create a

transcendental space. The corner window in the Schröder House that “disrupts the structural

axis constituted by the intersection of two walls”24 is almost identical in function to the Villa

Tugendhat‟s glass façade, which retracts into the floor (as seen on the right of Figure 6). Both

exemplify the dialogue between interior and exterior; Kudelková and Máčel refer to this

directly, stating that: “the blurring of boundaries between interior and exterior was

underscored by the fact that the window panes could be retracted into the floor so that they

completely disappeared”.25

Figure 7. (left) Rietveld, Gerrit. (undated). Axonometric Projection, Schröder House.26 Figure 8. (right) Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig. (1928). Ground Floor Plan, Tugendhat House.27

23 White, Michael. (2003). De Stijl and Dutch Modernism, Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp.12 24 Bois, Yve-Alain. (1990). The De Stijl Idea. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. pp.119 25 Dr. Lenka Kudelková and Dr. Otakar Máčel (1998). Mies van der Rohe: The Villa Tugendhat. New York: Skira. pp. 189 26 White, Michael. (2003). De Stijl and Dutch Modernism, Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp.112 27 MOMA. Available through: http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=89535

9

This blurring of boundaries approaches De Stijl in a manner different to the Schröder House:

the coloured planes (Figure 7) have been replaced with the tactility of onyx and tropical

wood, and the interior-exterior relationship is blurred by the transparency of the glass

façade as opposed to the Schröder House‟s floating verbinding. The open, flowing interior

(Figure 8) is no longer dynamic in its ability to change, but rather, in its spatial composition.

Standing at any one point in the first floor living space reveals new perceptions and masks

others. From this, Mies has achieved universality in architectural language. As Richard

Padovan aptly states, “…while progressively abandoning the outward forms of De Stijl – the

asymmetrical arrangements of shifting planes – [Mies] remained true to its central doctrine:

the replacement of the individual and the particular by the universal and the general.”28

The Fate of De Stijl in Modernism

The similarities that we can draw between Rietveld‟s Schröder House and Mies‟ Villa

Tugendhat are by no means questionable; Rietveld was a proponent of De Stijl and Mies was

heavily influenced by their principles and doctrinism. Both the Schröder House and the Villa

Tugendhat convey De Stijl principles in architecture; and both are Gesamtkunstwerks29

viewed almost unanimously as icons of modernism. Where then, is De Stijl‟s presence now?

As was previously alluded, De Stijl as architecture harboured inherent flaws; exposed most

evidently in Mies‟ 1923 brick country house. It was the lack of interruption between interior

and exterior from which the very problem arose; the long walls, as a drawing, extended

indefinitely outwards. As a building, they would have to end somewhere. And thus results a

conflict that was only partially resolved in both Mies‟ Barcelona Pavilion and concurrently, Le

Corbusier‟s Villa Savoye. Indeed, the Schröder House, while a masterpiece in itself, could not

solve Van Doesburg‟s principle of endless variation. Consider Padovan‟s scenario: “If Rietveld

had to design the whole row of houses… it is hard to see how he could have avoided

resorting to either repetition or arbitrary variation. This was the flaw that Le Corbusier

diagnosed in the De Stijl aesthetic: its arbitrariness.”30

De Stijl successfully integrated its concepts into architecture through Rietveld, Mies van der

Rohe, and others. However, its philosophies could never be completely resolved, and as De

Stijl as a group and journal collapsed in 1931, modernity moved forward. However, the idea,

as we have seen, lived on, albeit subtly, through Mies and his successors.

28

Padovan, Richard. (2002). Towards universality: Le Corbusier, Mies and De Stijl. London: Routledge. pp.163 29

Weston, Richard. (2004). Key Buildings of the Twentieth Century. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp.48-49, 60-61 30 Padovan, Richard. (2002). Towards universality: Le Corbusier, Mies and De Stijl. London: Routledge. pp.99-100

10

Bibliography

Books

Tegethoff, Wolf. (1985) Mies van der Rohe: The Villas and Country Houses. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. pp.90-99

Overy, Paul et al. (1988). The Rietveld Schröder House. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Bois, Yve-Alain. (1990). The De Stijl Idea. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. pp.101-122

Kries, Matthias et al. (1998). Mies van der Rohe: Architecture and Design in Stuttgart, Barcelona and Brno. New York: Skira. pp. 181-213

Hammer-Tugendhat, Daniela et al. (1999). Ludwig Mies van der Rohe: The Tugendhat House. Wien: Springer-Verlag.

Bertoni, Franco. (2000). Minimalist Design. Birkhäuser pp.60-63

Padovan, Richard. (2002). Towards universality: Le Corbusier, Mies and De Stijl. London: Routledge.

White, Michael. (2003). De Stijl and Dutch Modernism, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Weston, Richard. (2004). Key Buildings of the Twentieth Century: Plans, Sections, Elevations. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp.48-49, 60-61

Online Sources

UNESCO. (2000). Rietveld Schröderhuis, World Heritage List. Available through: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/965

UNESCO. (2001). Tugendhat Villa in Brno, World Heritage List. Available through: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1052

Brno City Museum. (2012). Villa Tugendhat Official Website. Available through: http://www.tugendhat.eu/en/