Page 32 - Studio International - March 1969

ing collaboration of myself and van Does-
burg'. — van Eesteren, 1968.
In his work with the young architect van
Eesteren (models for `Rosenburg House',
1922-3; 'Private House', 1923; 'House for an
artist', 1923) there was an attempt at real
collaboration between artist and architect.
But as in most other attempts since then, there
was an enormous gap in basic aims.
Van Doesburg did not reformulate the archi-
tect's position, task or function. He only used
the architect for what the architect could
traditionally do. It is surprising that he did
not consider collaboration with an engineer
who could have contributed the experience of
structural building which he lacked. Perhaps
such a collaboration would have been more
fruitful. What he proved in effect was that
collaboration between artist and traditional
architect cannot work for today, though it had
been possible in the past when the artist's role
was to embellish an already fully worked-out
building.
This collaborative work with van Eesteren
was about architecture. They collaborated on
house projects. What if they had worked
together on a human-scale construction, a
space/time construction diagram made real ?
How much would the architect have been
able to contribute? As it was, van Doesburg
pushed van Eesteren's architecture to the
limit of the idea contained within architectural
terms. What he did not do, however, was to
develop the space/time concept in its own
terms.
Perspective study of a university hall 1923 `The word art no longer means anything—
(Architect: C. van Eesteren, 1921-2)
Gouache and collage instead thereof we demand the construction
2 of our surroundings according to creative
Interior view of the Café Aubette 1928
laws. It is impossible to regard these laws as
3
Diagram for an artist's house 1923 imaginary. They exist. One can only define an
Gouache and collage experience by collective work.' —van Doesburg.
has failed'—from van Doesburg's The End of After this period of collaboration van Does-
Art, 1924. burg and van Eesteren published the following
From 1917 onwards he had worked on some statement :
ideas for architecture—floor designs, stained- 1. Working collectively we have examined
glass windows, house interiors—and by 1923 architecture as a unity created by all the arts,
painting alone was insufficient to contain the industry and technology.
development of his ideas of space. This was 2. We have examined the laws of space and
the year of his break-through. Working with their infinite variations.
the young architect van Eesteren on models 3. We have considered the laws of colour in
for houses, and becoming fully aware of this space and continuity.
need to put his spatial ideas to use in a human- 4. We have examined the relationships of
major artist, but his work was always more scale form, he started making diagrams for Space and Time, and find that the manifesta-
than the actual object. He was commited to space/time constructions. 'The aims of art—to tion of these two elements through colour gives
the 'fine' art of painting, never set out to make place man amid plastic art, thereby letting a new dimension.
painting an entity in its own right. Painting him take part in it.' 5. We have examined the reciprocal relation-
was a means • of exploring an idea; each He continued a parallel development between ships of measure, proportion, space and time.
painting was his understanding taken as far painting and architectural projects, where 6. We have (by the destruction of enclosure)"
as possible within the terms of painting—a ideas were often transferred from one field of removed the duality of interior/exterior.
complete step, sometimes a leap. In this his activity to the other. Had he constructed from 7. We declare that painting without construc-
approach was totally different from that of his the space/time diagrams he would definitely tion (i.e. easel painting) has no further reason
colleague Mondrian, who was concerned with have given up painting. Because these dia- for existence.
painting as the development of a theme in two grams remained ideas, however, he continued 8. The period of destruction is totally finished.
dimensions. 'For the sake of progress we must to paint in response to his need to make some- A new period begins; one of construction.'
destroy art. Because the function of modern thing physically. 'The real work, the physical Collective Construction, Paris 1923.
life is stronger than art—every attempt to making, came first— the ideas or concept fol- As the ideas expressed in the diagrams for
renew art (Futurism, Cubism, Expressionism), lowed. The best that happened was the work- space/time construction were not realized in