De Stijl 1917-1931

The Dutch Contribution to Modern Art

[p. 10]

2 dates and facts

The date of the birth of De Stijl has been established exactly. The introduction to the first number of the periodical, written by Van Doesburg, bears the date June 16th, 1917. And with the first number of this small, unobtrusive monthly, ‘De Stijl’ presents itself to the world as a closed whole, a dynamic and revolutionary movement. The formation of the group (as far as there can be question of a ‘group’) and the publishing of the periodical is mainly due to Theo van Doesburg who, then and later, has ever been unanimously acknowledged as the leader and the moving force behind De Stijl. The other constituent members mentioned by Van Doesburg in his retrospective survey on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of ‘De Stijl’, were the painters Piet Mondriaan and Vilmos Huszar, the architect J.J.P. Oud and the poet A. Kok.⁵ Next to these, the numbers of the first year contain contributions by the other members: the painters Bart van der Leck and Gino Severini, the architects Jan Wils and Robert van 't Hoff and the sculptor Georges Vantongerloo.

The introduction to the first number is in itself a programme. We may there-

5 De Stijl, Anniversary number, p. 59-60

[p. 11]

fore be permitted to quote some of its crucial pronouncements in order to demonstrate ‘De Stijl's’ beginning:

‘The object of this little periodical is to contribute something towards the development of a new sense of beauty. It wishes to make modern man aware of the new ideas that have sprung up in the Plastic Arts. It wants to set up the logical principles of a maturing style which is based upon a clearer relation between the spirit of the age and the means of expression, against the archaic confusion, the “modern baroque”. It wants to combine in itself the present-day ideas on modern plastic art, ideas which, though fundamentally the same, have been developed individually and independently (...).

When the new ideas on modern plastic beauty do not seem to penetrate the general public, it becomes the task of the expert to awaken the layman's sense of beauty. The really modern, i.e. conscious artist has a twofold mission. In the first place he must create the purely visual work of art; in the second place he should make the general public susceptible to the beauty of such purely visual art. for this reason, a periodical of an intimate character has become necessary (...). This will prepare the way for the existence of a profounder culture of art, founded upon a common embodiment of the new cognizance of the plastic arts. As soon as the artists in the various branches of plastic art will have realized that they must speak a universal language, they will no longer cling to their individuality with such anxiety. They will serve a general principle far beyond the limitations of individuality. By serving the general principle they will be made to produce, of their own accord, an organic style. The propagation of beauty necessitates a spiritual communion and not a social one. A spiritual communion however, cannot be brought about without sacrificing the ambitious individuality. Only by consistently following this principle can the new plastic beauty manifest itself in all objects as a style, born from a new relationship between the artist and society’.⁶

In De Stijl Van Doesburg had truly succeeded in assembling all the artists who were fanatically devoted to these principles: to eschew all manner of accidental representation and to return to the objective elements of plastic art without any specific assertion of the artist's own individuality. These principles, he knew, would inevitably produce a style - a new language of plastic art, spoken by the artist and comprehensible to the spectator. He had succeeded in assembling, in and around ‘De Stijl’, all those who were enthusiastically convinced of the objective future of the plastic arts; all the artists who were to be found in that small and secluded segment of territory that was Holland during the 1914-1918 war. But it took some time as well as the exceptional constellation of those days to complete the constitution of ‘De Stijl’. The war had brought many Dutch artists who had been working abroad, back to their native country and these came back to the Netherlands charged with the results of their studies and full of new and promising ideas. In the Netherlands they found an atmosphere of spiritual tension, generated by the fact of the country's being a neutral enclave, an oasis in a continent at war. The history of ‘De

6 De Stijl, I, p. 1

[p. 12]

Stijl’ or, at least, of its embryonic stage, therefore dates from the year 1914.

1914.

Theo van Doesburg, who had already gained some reputation as a painter, an art critic and an essayist, is called up and serves on the Belgian frontier. Piet Mondriaan, arriving in Holland for a visit, is surprised there by the outbreak of war and unable to return to Paris where he had been living since 1911, greatly⁺ under the influence of cubism. He had, towards 1914, digested this influence and turned it into a style of his own, by starting his ‘plus and minus’ paintings of that year. These he continued while living on the Dutch sea coast. He then comes to live at Amsterdam. Vilmos Huszar lives at Voorburg, where he attempts the stylizing of form. Oud, having settled in the previous year at Leiden, collaborates with the architects Kamerlingh Onnes, Dudok and Van der Steur. Van der Leck returns from a trip to Morocco where he has made drawings of the mines and the Arab workers while trying to simplify the forms as much as possible. Robert van 't Hoff, after studying in the United States, where he discovered for himself the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, comes back to Holland and remains there during the war. Jan Wils works as an architect at the Hague, in close contact with Berlage's studio. Georges Vantongerloo comes to the Hague; he is a Belgian sculptor and a refugee.

+ pl. 8aant.

1915.

Van Doesburg, still on the Belgian frontier but occasionally home at Leiden, discusses the project of a periodical with Oud. He contacts Mondriaan, but the latter's answer is negative as yet. ‘You won't take me amiss, but good things have to grow very slowly. I mention this with regard to the project for the foundation of a periodical, about which I have heard from Lou Saalborn. I believe that the time has not yet come for it. There is more to be achieved in that direction. I scarcely know anyone who really does produce our style of art, that is to say, art that has as yet attained some sort of perfection. I believe that for the time being, you will do sufficiently well in Eenheid, (“Unity”, a weekly edited in Leiden at that time). There won't be enough material for a specialized magazine or else it will be half-hearted, (that is to say, you'll have to accept things which do not wholeheartedly subscribe to ourideas.’⁷ In another letter to Van Doesburg, Mondriaan characterizes the trend of his work: ‘As you see, it is a composition of vertical and horizontal lines which, abstractedly, will have to give the impression of rising up, of height. The same idea was meant to be conveyed in cathedral construction formerly. As in this case the manner of expression, (de Beelding) and not the subject matter should express this idea, I did not name this composition. The abstract human mind will have to receive the intended impression by its own means. I always confine myself to expressing the universal, that is, the eternal (closest to the spirit) and I do so in the simplest of external forms, in order to be able to express the inner meaning as lightly veiled as possible.’⁸

In 1915 Oud designs a public baths, very much under the influence of Berlage. In the course of the same year Dr. Schoenmaekers publishes his book Het nieuwe wereldbeeld (The new image of the world), a fundamental work of ‘positive

7 Mondriaan, Letter to Van Doesburg, November 20th, 1915, Stijl catalogue, 1951, p. 71

8 Mondriaan, Letter to Van Doesburg, 1915(?), Stijl catalogue, 1951, p. 71

[p. 13]

mysticism’. Finally, Van Doesburg makes the acquaintance of Anthony Kok at Tilburg.

1916.

At the end of this year (1915, 1916?) Van Doesburg is demobilized and returns to Leiden where he takes up his painting and writing again. On his return to civilian life he finds the country ‘in a contrasting state of spiritual friction within - and material struggle without.’⁹ Mondriaan has moved to Laren, where he continues his research into plastic art. Van der Leck too, has moved to Laren and is painting in a very simplified form and in primary colours; his⁺ two principal works of that year are ‘Tempest’ and ‘Labour in the Harbour’, (both in the collection of the Rijksmuseum Kröller-Müller, Otterlo). At Laren too, Dr. Schoenmaekers publishes his second work on positive mysticism: Plastic mathematics; he is in close contact with both Mondriaan and Van der Leck. While at Laren, Mondriaan makes the acquaintance of Mr S.B. Slijper, who is to be an admirer and a collector of his work until Mondriaan leaves Europe. In Leiden, Van Doesburg starts to collaborate with the architect Oud and occasionally with Wils, while at Tilburg, in contact with Kok he writes his first elementary poems.

Robert van 't Hoff meanwhile, had built two houses at Huis-ter-Heide, near Utrecht: a residence and a small bungalow, (De Stijl, II, pl. 3, 5, 6, 15, 17 and pp. 30 and 32). The importance of these two buildings was, that they demonstrated not only the theory, but also the tangible practice of the new ideas about architecture, developed by Frank Lloyd Wright. In these two houses, horizontalism prevails, but in the matter of aesthetic importance of the horizontal parts, hitherto untried simplification of the elements of expression is achieved. And this may be considered the principal reason for the importance which was attached to these buildings, for they were acknowledged to be an important step towards the rise of a new Dutch architecture after Berlage.

9 Neue Schweizer Rundschau, 1929, p. 42 (Van Doesburg)

+ pl. 10aant.

1917.

This year was of the greatest importance for the concentration of the various efforts for reaching a common goal. Van Doesburg, completely freed from military service, talks about his project of a periodical which is to comprise the joint contributions and to stimulate the common ideal. He discusses his ideas in Leiden with the architect Oud and with the painter Huszar, then living at Voorburg. At the same time he gets in touch with the painters Mondriaan and Van der Leck at Laren. He encourages Mondriaan to put his ideas into writing and he induces Van der Leck, who had already felt the need of a periodical for painters, to join him in this effort. The tenor of the discussions is reflected in a letter by Mondriaan, addressed to Van Doesburg and dated Feb. 13th, 1917. ‘You should remember that my things are still intended to be paintings, that is to say, they are plastic representations, in and by themselves, not part of a building. Furthermore, they have been made in a small room. Also, that I use subdued colours for the time being, adapting myself to the present surroundings and to the outer world; this does not mean that I should not prefer a pure colouring. Otherwise you might think that I contradict myself in my

[p. 14]

work.’¹⁰ The contents of this letter show how the discussions were already concentrated on the principle of pure means of expression and that the relation between painting and architecture was of the first importance. Van Doesburg could point back to his articles, written as early as 1912: he then already indicated the new principles of abstraction. In his retrospective survey of 1929 Van Doesburg writes: ‘...as the entire ideology had long since preceded our creative activity and this before there could have been any question of a “Stijl” movement.’¹¹ In a number of articles, published by Van Doesburg in various reviews (Eenheid, De Avondpost, Nieuwe Amsterdammer, etc.), from 1912 onwards, the foundation of a new style has not only been sketched in principle, but even in external appearance. Thus the need for the straight line, the rectangular principle as the means of future expression in art and architecture, were demonstrated. Indeed, Van Doesburg had published an article in Eenheid in 1912, from which he later quotes: ‘where, on the pretext of beauty, the undulating line had been predominant, this line was simplified for reasons of truth until it finally attained a new basis: the straight line.’¹² He says that: ‘in the plastic use of the straight line lies the consciousness of a new culture ’¹² and he considered calling the new periodical The straight line. But the growth of the small group, with their very definite sense of their collective task, made him change his mind. And the ideas of his Laren friends, who were under the spell of Dr. Schoenmaekers' theories, may have been of some influence. Their concentration on the collective task, including both painting and architecture, produced the title De Stijl. ‘Our collective claims were based on the absolute devaluation of tradition, tradition which we had perhaps loved most of all and therefore exhausted soonest (......). It was our inner need for showing up the whole “trick” of painting, to expose the whole swindle of lyricism and sentiment.’¹³

The first half of 1917 was devoted to the concentration of the various efforts. The common denominator seemed, at first, to be the quest for a radical renewal. But Van Doesburg was able to point out that the various artists had more in common: ‘the need for abstraction and simplification.’ The mathematical temperament was emphasized, in opposition to Impressionism, which was rejected; everything that did not aim at ultimate consistency was called ‘baroque’. Everyone agreed that the struggle was directed against baroque in its many ramifications. The aim was the destruction of the baroque painting, of morphoplasticism, of the curve, precisely because it was unable to express the new spirit of our epoch and embody the idea of a new spiritual and manly culture (......). The brown world had to be replaced by a white one. In these two notions of colour the entire difference between the old and the new was contained. The brown world found its expression in lyricism, vagueness and sentimentality, up to the ultimate limit marked by Cubism. The white world began with Cézanne and, by way of Van Gogh and initial Cubism, led up to elementary construction, to clear structure of colour, to architectural, unsentimental plasticism (......). At the very moment that the most radical artists working in Holland had isolated themselves

10 Mondriaan, Letter to Van Doesburg, 13/II/1917, Stijl catalogue, 1951, p. 72

11 Neue Schweizer Rundschau, 1929, p. 373 (Van Doesburg)

12 De Stijl, Anniversary number p. 5

12 De Stijl, Anniversary number p. 5

13 Neue Schweizer Rundschau, 1929,p. 45/46 (Van Doesburg)

[p. 15]

from the public life of the arts, the notion was conceived to fight individualism by means of a periodical which would bring a clear picture of common activity and assemble all the creative powers which had drawn, in their proper domain, the conclusions from a new era. Out of this common need for clarity, for certainty and for order, I founded the periodical De Stijl.¹⁴ When doing so, Van Doesburg and his associates were conscious of ‘accomplishing a mission which will remain unique in the history of art and culture.’¹⁵

The new principles were first realized in painting and the first numbers of De Stijl show the results as well as the proof of a complete unanimity.⁺ Mondriaan's paintings of 1917, (De Stijl, I, pl.6) and a painting of Van Doesburg's also dated 1917, show the same characteristics: rectangles of primary colour in⁺rhythmic mutual relation, on a white background. Van der Leck's works are closely related to this pictorial scheme. It would be illogical and contradictory, in dealing with a collective movement as ‘De Stijl’ to raise the question as to who had started it. The different influences on the result will be examined later on by considering the share, each of the painters contributed through his origin and the history of his achievements.

The painters had come to a new type of painting by an absolute exclusion of subject matter and the exclusive use of primary plastic elements; the architects simultaneously endeavoured to realize the same principles. The first result is⁺Oud's design for houses on the esplanade above a beach (De Stijl, I, pl. 2). Rectilinear and rectangular of composition, this sketch arrives at an architectural solution, inspired by the same quest for clarity and order. It is based, as are the contemporary paintings, on the plastic element and nothing else. The tradition of the historic styles, still surreptitiously present in Berlage's work, is completely abolished and all individual expression has been suppressed.

This project, in its ultimate purity, was not built, but it might just as well not have been designed for building but merely in order to prove the architectural scope. In the same year though, Oud built two important houses; the villa ‘Allegonda’ at Katwijk (in collaboration with M. Kamerlingh Onnes) and the hostel ‘De Vonk’ in Noordwijkerhout. In both buildings, part af the interior decoration was entrusted to Van Doesburg. He broke with the principle of interior decoration and designed the objects in his charge (f.i. the floor of the hall at Noordwijkerhout, De Stijl, II, pl. 1 and 2), as logical parts of an architectural composition. By the clear division of work between the architect and the painter - according to Van der Leck's claims, published in De Stijl, I, p. 6 - this collaboration succeeded in realizing a counterpoint composition, indicating the way for a logical and independent collaboration of the two branches of art on the same basis and according to the same principles, that is to say, towards a new style.

Van der Leck had, in the same year, designed the furniture for a living room and Huszar did so soon afterwards. All these efforts were directed towards the same goal: the unity of the independent branches of plastic art, every one of these to rely entirely on its own elementary means of expression. By this concert

14 Neue Schweizer Rundschau, 1929, p. 43/44

15 De Stijl, Anniversary number p. 6

+ pl. 12, 16aant.aant.

+ pl. 15aant.

+ pl. 24aant.

[p. 16]

of perfectly tuned instruments, a mutual harmony would once more become possible.

Sculpture contributed its share by the work of Georges Vantongerloo. By utter simplification and by the application of mathematical laws, Vantongerloo⁺arrived at similar conclusions: his ‘composition in a sphere’ (1917) is the first work of sculpture, based entirely on elementary means of expression and completely excluding subject-matter.

Apart from the creative activity of this year, the theoretical side must not be neglected. In 1917, Van Doesburg published his book De nieuwe beweging in de schilderkunst, Delft, J. Waltman (The new movement in the art of painting) and Mondriaan started the publication of his ideas in De Stijl. His article on Neoplasticism in the art of painting (De nieuwe beelding in de schilderkunst) is the philosophical foundation for the principles of ‘De Stijl’ and not ohly as far as art is concerned. In it, he develops a far-reaching view on life and on the universe, the significance of which we will examine later. But the fact that his articles were published in the very first numbers of De Stijl and were written at the special instigation of Van Doesburg, as a result of long discussions which preceded the birth of De Stijl proves clearly that ‘De Stijl’ has been, from its very beginning, a movement reaching far beyond the traditional limits of fine art.

+ pl. 18aant.

1918.

This year brings about the consolidation of the group together with the elaboration of its ideas. ‘Gradually we began to present a closed front. By working there had been created not only a clarity in the collective consciousness of our group, but we had gained a certainty, which made it possible for us to define our collective attitude towards life and to perpetrate it according to the requirements of the period (......). As the world war was coming to an end, we all came to feel the need of securing an interest in our efforts beyond the narrow boundaries of Holland.’¹⁶ Van Doesburg's studio in Leiden became the centre of animated discussions on the new way of expression and the results were soon published in his periodical.

⁺In painting, Mondriaan reverts to the use of black lines, dividing his canvas into rectangles of mostly primary, though somewhat subdued colours. Van der⁺ Leck continues his researches in primary colour, with rectangles distributed according to a rhythmic sequence on a white plane. Van Doesburg, perhaps as⁺ a result of his work at Noordwijkerhout, begins to fill in more and more the plane. Huszar develops a form of composition (De Stijl, II, pl. 7) where the entire surface of the canvas is covered by an interplay of rectangles in various shades of grey. As the changes in the direction of the research, and above all things the important participation of architects, did not agree with Van der Leck's views, he left the group and from then on continued his researches on his own. Two compositions of 1918 show clearly, how he succeeded in consistently developing his striving for an objective way of expression (nos. 56 and 57 of the retrospective exhibition, 1949, Amsterdam, in the possession of Messrs. Nieuwenhuizen Segaar). Another important landmark in Van der Leck's personal development and in the evolution of ‘De Stijl’ is his interior design realized

16 Neue Schweizer Rundschau, 1929, p. 172 (Van Doesburg)

+ pl. 22aant.

+ pl. 20aant.

+ pl. 21aant.

[p. 17]

in collaboration with the architect P.J.C. Klaarhamer for the stand of Messrs. Bruynzeel at the Utrecht fair in the same year. It was the first realization of ‘De Stijl's’ principles in interior design (cf. Levende kunst, 1919, year II, nr. 1).

Architecture presents another aspect in this year. Oud designs a complex of standardised houses and in consequence of his appointment as city architect of Rotterdam, prepares the plan for a block of houses at Rotterdam, block nr. I of the Spangen settlement, which plan was executed in the course of the same year. Wils has been commissioned to design, the renewal of the hotel ‘De dubbele Sleutel’ at Woerden. The result (De Stijl, II, pl. 10 and p. 58-59-60) shows, how the influence of Frank Lloyd Wright has been transformed by ‘De Stijl’ movement since 1916, the year of the construction of the two houses by Robert van 't Hoff. The then prevailing horizontalism was now changed into an interplay of vertical and horizontal movements, with the chimney as most important vertical accent and the lines of the cornice as its horizontal counterbalance. In any case, the building strives after the perfection of Oud's boulevard project - though the latter design should not be compared with an executed building.

The most important fact of the year however, is not to be found in direct plastic activity: it is ‘De Stijl's’ first manifesto, published in November 1918, at the close of the first world war. It is signed by the painters Van Doesburg, Mondriaan and Huszar, the architects Van 't Hoff and Wils, the poet Kok and the sculptor Vantongerloo, i.e. by all the original members, with the exception of Oud - who never signed any manifesto - and Van der Leck. It opens with a resounding paragraph: ‘There is an old and a new consciousness of time. The old is connected with the individual. The new is connected with the universal. The struggle of the individual against the universal is revealing itself in the world war as well as in the art of the present day.’¹⁷ And it calls for the ‘Formation of an international unity in Life, Art, Culture, either intellectually or materially.’¹⁸

This manifesto was launched in order to promote ‘De Stijl's’ activity beyond the Dutch boundaries and to assemble artists and sympathizing laymen at a centre, which was already in existence when people in other European countries barely realized the need for a similar institution.

The reaction was not long in arriving: very soon after the Armistice Van Doesburg was able to take up contact with artists in other countries. Thus he realized his ideas of 1916 and earlier, namely to create a truly international movement in modern art, which was not hampered by any individual limitations, not even geographical ones. ‘De Stijl’ had aimed, from its very beginning, at an international orientation; yet it remains a fact, that the majority of its members were Dutch by birth and education and that the movement had been started in the Netherlands. The importance of these facts will have to be examined later on, when we will endeavour to draw conclusions from them.

17 De Stijl, II, p. 4

18 De Stijl, II, p. 4

1919.

For De Stijl as a whole, the echo's and repercussions of the 1918 manifesto now become obvious. The contents of the periodical become more and more international and contacts with other countries are soon established; Van

[p. 18]

Doesburg endeavours to link up with groups of artists abroad; he gets in touch with French, Italian, German, Belgian artists and does his utmost to establish contact with the artists of the young Soviet Republic.

Meanwhile, the work of ‘De Stijl’ artists proceeds towards a further⁺ clarification of the principles. In painting, Van Doesburg and Mondriaan both pass through a short phase during which they divide their canvases into a system of squares, mathematically established. The colouring is in a less primary scale and lacks some of the splendour of the works of previous years. A good example⁺ of a painting by Van Doesburg of this period is in the collection of Mr. Rinsema. The type of composition and the colour scheme may perhaps be explained by Van Doesburg's experiments with stained glass, a technique practised by him in that year and of which his paintings of 1919 are somewhat reminiscent. Huszar in the same year designs stained glass as well - a finished specimen of white glass in different types and shades is still extant.

The year is important for architecture as well. Oud, who continues his work at the Spangen settlement, gives another proof of his advanced ideas by⁺ designing a project for a factory in his native town of Purmerend. This project (De Stijl, III, pl. 6) demonstrates, besides parts somewhat reminiscent of Berlage (left) and of Frank Lloyd Wright (right) a central portion which is a complete realization of ‘De Stijl's’ principles in architecture. The other important asset to ‘De Stijl's’ architectural side is the fact that Rietveld joins the group and contributes to the common effort by dealing with a form of art hitherto neglected: the design and execution of furniture. The first work of his hand,⁺ published in De Stijl is his armchair, a construction in standardized strips of wood, according to the aesthetic principles of the group (De Stijl, II, pl. 22). A⁺ sideboard and a chair (De Stijl, III, pl. 7) date from the same year, and another plate (III, pl. 14) gives an example (1919) of an interior, designed and coloured by Van Doesburg, with Rietveld furniture. The collaboration and the drive towards unity of the arts had gone a step further through Rietveld's inclusion.

Contributions to sculpture were Vantongerloo's first small plastic⁺ compositions entirely realized according to ‘De Stijl’ principles, illustrated in the third annual set of De Stijl, pl. 2, which were unfortunately lost at the Stockholm exhibition in 1930.

On the theoretical side of the movement, Mondriaan's articles in De Stijl are of the highest importance. In the second volume of De Stijl he publishes his articles on the ‘determinate and the undeterminate’, his ‘dialogue on neoplasticism’ (Dialoog over de nieuwe beelding) and the trialogue ‘natural and abstract reality’ (Natuurlijke en abstracte realiteit), continued in the third annual. Mondriaan, on his return to Paris in the first half of the year, keeps in touch only by frequent letters to the remainder of the group.

+ pl. 27aant.

+ pl. 23aant.

+ pl. 30aant.

+ pl. 19aant.

+ pl. 31aant.

+ pl. 29aant.

1920.

The international orientation of De Stijl becomes very obvious by a long journey of Van Doesburg, in order to spread ‘De Stijl’ ideas throughout Europe. He visits Belgium and Germany and sets up a series of personal contacts, chiefly among architects. At the same time, criticism in Holland is very

[p. 19]

severe, but it does not harm the group at all. A proof can be found in a letter addressed to Van Doesburg by Mondriaan: ‘I am very glad that the criticism is what it is. It is all right that way. In complete opposition to our direction. Otherwise we would have nothing to do. I got another impression from your letter, but it is much better this way. There we see again: we have straightly to oppose the whole to-do, à part.’¹⁹ The journey of Van Doesburg had been organised on that basis as well: he had intended to upset traditional prejudices by the force of his opposition and by the convincing clearness of ‘De Stijl's’ principles.

These principles had gained new strength in 1920 by the publication of Mondriaan's pamphlet Le Néo-plasticisme, published by Léonce Rosenberg in Paris. This small publication is of great importance to ‘De Stijl’ ideology, as it is a condensed survey of the aesthetical and philosophical ideas of the group. It must be examined in connection with Mondriaan's other articles and with the general opinions of the group.

The artistic evolution of the group continues steadily. In Paris, Mondriaan (who from now on spells his name with only one ‘a’) commences to develop his⁺ mature manner: heavy black lines divide the canvas into a rhythmic pattern of rectangles of various colours, mainly primary. Van Doesburg devotes most of this year's activity to architecture: in collaboration with the architect De Boer he builds a series of workmen's dwellings and schools at Drachten in the province of Friesland. Oud builds the blocks of the Tusschendijken settlement at Rotterdam which have since then been destroyed by the war and designs a small warehouse (De Stijl, III, pl. 12). The architects Wils and Van 't Hoff, from this year on, are slightly aloof from the other members of the group.

The main accent of the year 1920, though, is De Stijl's contact with literature. Van Doesburg, Mondriaan and Kok publish in the April issue of 1920, the second manifesto of ‘De Stijl’ on literature. The very first sentences already characterise the tenor of the whole piece: ‘The organism of our contemporary literature still continues to batten on the sentimentality of a weakened generation. The word is dead.’²⁰. The manifesto shows the influence of the Dada-movement, which had brought new life to Van Doesburg's literary experiments. After having written poems in a new style inspired by Marinetti as early as in 1913, Van Doesburg returns to poetry in 1920. Under the pseudonym of I.K. Bonset he publishes his X-beelden (X-Images) in the third set of De Stijl, as well as fragments of his novel Het andere gezicht (The other face). The first of these aphorisms is dedicated to Dadaism ‘If there hides a deeper sense than that of the rule behind “nonsense”, then “nonsense” is not only permitted but even necessary. In this way Dadaism will create new, supersensual rules.’²¹ In order not to confuse the readers and the members of ‘De Stijl’, Van Doesburg did choose not to publish his Dadaist work under his own name, but he was fully conscious of the contribution of Dadaism to the field of literature - as strictly as he denied its value in the field of the plastic arts. He gives an account of his ideas in his 1929 recapitulation of De Stijl's history: ‘Out of the chaos of the old, shattered world Dadaism created a new imaginary world by the power of the

19 Mondriaan, Letter to Van Doesburg, May 17th, 1920, Stijl catalogue, 1951, p.72

+ pl. 32aant.

20 De Stijl, III, p. 49

21 De Stijl, III, p. 84

[p. 20]

word, a world of transformation, of pure poetry. It is no accident that the two diametrically opposed tendencies, neo-plasticism and dadaism (now surrealism) formed a parallel: the creative art of the word. Thereby can be explained that the leaders of “De Stijl” movement, in spite of the violent opposition of many collaborators, sympathized with dadaism and publicly manifested this sympathy.’²² ‘De Stijl’ and dadaism found a common task in the research for an elementary means of expression in literature. The interest in the art of the word is a proof of the universal interestedness of De Stijl and it is not without importance for its further history, were it only as a balance.

22 Neue Schweizer Rundschau, 1929, p. 377 (Van Doesburg)

1921.

The main activity of ‘De Stijl’ has been transferred during this year to Germany. Van Doesburg's contact with the German architects in the previous year now yielded results. And the spirit of opposition and radicalism remained dominant. Van Doesburg finds a new centre for his activities at the Weimar ‘Bauhaus’ and gradually succeeds in spreading ‘De Stijl’ ideas there, thereby transforming the character of the ‘Bauhaus’. In the winter of 1921 the first meeting took place at the home of Bruno Taut near Berlin, where the so-called ‘Bauhäusler’ assembled with their chief, Walter Gropius and the architects Adolf Meyer, Forbat as well as many others. The Weimar Bauhaus was, as a matter of fact, a kind of an institute where postwar sensations (as Gropius himself called it) ‘were expressed by plastic means’.²³ Van Doesburg intended to change the entire atmosphere and propagate the principles of a universal expression. ‘At Weimar I have radically overturned everything. This is the famous academy, which now has the most modern teachers! I have talked to the pupils every evening and I have infused the poison of the new spirit everywhere. De Stijl will soon be published again and more radically. I have mountains of strength, and I know now that our notions will be victorious over everyone and everything.’²⁴

On the other side we have the testimony of Peter Röhl, then a pupil of the Bauhaus and later on an associate of De Stijl: ‘The year 1921 was of great importance for Weimar and for the development of German art. In that year the Dutchman Theo van Doesburg came to Weimar as our guest. His activities were devoted to the new way of expression, which he brought in his work as a stimulus. Through his periodical De Stijl (......) he made us acquainted with the work of “De Stijl” artists in Holland. He zealously propagated the best foreign artists, who have acknowledged the expression of new spirit. His lectures illustrated with slides stimulated the younger generation which at that time was assembled at the Weimar Bauhaus. Many pupils accepted the doctrine of the new expression, which has its master in Van Doesburg. I have been an enthousiastic pupil of this master and I honour him as the herald and pathfinder of the new era.’²⁵

In 1921, through Van Doesburg's German contacts, ‘De Stijl’ was expanded further still by the inclusion of Hans Richter, who had developed the first abstract films in collaboration with the Swedish painter Viking Eggeling. In the discussions with Richter about the new form of expression developed by him,

23 Neue Schweizer Rundschau, 1929, p. 536 (Van Doesburg)

24 Van Doesburg, Letter to Kok, January 7th, 1921, Stijl Catalogue, 1951, p. 45

25 De Stijl, Anniversary number p. 103

[p. 21]

the problem of the fourth dimension first came within the scope of De Stijl by the addition of time to the means of expression then available. Richter participated in ‘De Stijl’ activities during the next few years and published the results of his research in Van Doesburg's paper.

Meanwhile, the activities of the other members developed still further. Mondriaan's mature style arrived at its full ripeness during this year. The first⁺ canvases in which rectangles of pure colour alternate with the white plane on a surface, divided by black lines, date from 1921, viz. the specimen reproduced in the fourth volume of De Stijl, p. 113. In the years to come, Mondriaan only perfected and purified this method, not adding any new features until 1926. In this year Huszar constructed a mechanical theatre according to ‘De Stijl’ principles, which is reproduced on p. 127 of the fourth volume with an explanation by the author; and also designed several interiors, in collaboration with Wils (De Stijl V, p. 14-15).

The architectural side of the movement is less active in this year; both Oud and Wils are busy with projects for large settlements. Oud's important architectural programme published in his Bauhausbuch - dates from this year. Vantongerloo, the sculptor of the movement, has gone back to Belgium and then to the South of France, and has somewhat drifted away from the group.

But literature is even more important than the year before. There are several contributions from German dadaist authors, an important share is that of Van Doesburg's second ego, Bonset and, by a splendid mystification, he has even developed a third, the Italian author Aldo Camini, whom he presents in De Stijl with a short introduction, brilliantly written (De Stijl IV, p. 65). Bonset and Kok publish poetry, Bonset's Letterklankbeelden are an entirely new form of musical poetry; Camini publishes a novel. Apart from his writings in De Stijl, Van Doesburg publishes a series of dadaist pamphlets in collaboration with Arp, Til Brugman, Tzara, Ribemont Dessaignes, Schwitters, Hausmann and others. A letter addressed to Anthony Kok gives us an indication of the state of mind in which Mecano was produced: ‘I intend to edit a splendid bulletin, on the meanest paper existing, but still very modern. If you happen to have a spiritual dadaist piece, do send it to me for this bulletin.’²⁶

But in general, the fourth annual set of De Stijl is characterized by a new interest in modern technique, in the work of the engineer. The new attitude is clearly expressed in the third manifesto of ‘De Stijl’, starting with the words: ‘The reign of the spirit has begun’ and closing, after an emphatic rejection of all other movements, with the imperative command: ‘Work!’²⁷

+ pl. 33aant.

26 Van Doesburg, Letter to Kok, February 24th, 1921, Stijl Catalogue, 1951, p. 45

27 De Stijl, IV, p. 123/126

1922.

After four years of constructive work and after many sacrifices by its members - and especially by Van Doesburg who cared for the regular publication of the periodical and paid all the expenses - the fifth year of De Stijl brings a consolidation of ideas and activities. When publishing a retrospective article on five years of ‘Stijl’ activity, in the last issue of that year, Van Doesburg could write: ‘So “De Stijl” honouring in Mondriaan the father of neo-plasticism, became the common profession of a non-national and non-individualistic (and

[p. 22]

in its ultimate consequences collective) power of expression.’²⁸ The various participants had merged into one body which directed their activities towards the common goal.

The facts confirm Van Doesburg's ideal. Since 1922 ‘De Stijl’ has become more of a reality, its realizations more and more visible. Van Doesburg, during this period, concentrates less on the plastic arts, as he is entirely absorbed by his literary research. 1922 sees his dadaist tour through Holland, where he lectures on the dada movement in collaboration with Schwitters. Both he and Schwitters recited poems, with Mrs. Petro van Doesburg giving piano recitals of contemporary music. He furthermore holds a series of lectures at the Weimar Bauhaus. Anyhow, the last months of the year bring up a renewal of his architectural researches, which were furthered by the fact that he was joined by Van Eesteren, a young Dutch architect who had just won his Prix de Rome but had gone over entirely to modern conceptions. In Paris, Mondriaan elaborates his style, attaining even greater maturity. At the same time he completes his universal conception of neo-plasticism by dealing with the possible consequences and the parallel phenomena of neo-plasticism on the domains of music and architecture. Huszar continues his researches in interior decorating and reaches results in the applied arts: a set of chessmen, designed in 1921, is made during 1922, as the interior of a bedroom (De Stijl V, p. 76 and after p. 208).

Architecture shows a series of new results, published in the summary of the 1922 annual and elsewhere in the other numbers of that year: Wils' settlement of ‘Daal en Berg’ at The Hague, the complex of Oud-Mathenesse in Rotterdam by Oud, and the architectural modernization of a jeweller's shop in Amsterdam by Rietveld, which has since been completely spoiled (De Stijl V, opp. pp. 24 and 25). In 1922, at the opening of the Bauhaus Oud delivered a lecture stating his artistic principles. In 1922 Van Doesburg, Huszar and Schwitters, each painted one room in the apartment of Til Brugman in the Hague - the fourth room was left white - it housed a painting by Mondriaan.

A new asset to De Stijl was the brief collaboration of the Russian constructivist El Lissitzky, whom Van Doesburg had met in Berlin and in Weimar. The double issue, nr. 10/11 of De Stijl was dedicated entirely to his work, attention to which had already been drawn in earlier numbers.

Richter's film researches continued and found publication in De Stijl. The literary movement in ‘De Stijl’ is again represented by Van Doesburg's ‘twin brothers’ Bonset and Camini.

As to ‘De Stijl's’ expansion in Europe, the international congress of progressive artists in Düsseldorf in May 1922 furnished a welcome opportunity to launch a resounding declaration of principles. There, Van Doesburg established new contacts for De Stijl which were, later on, to prove to be important for ‘De Stijl's’ spreading across Europe. Though in straight opposition to the general attitude of the congress, Van Doesburg succeeded in cutting a path for ‘De Stijl's’ principles with an important minority.

28 De Stijl, V, p. 178

1923.

The new year brings an important revival of ‘De Stijl's’ architectural

[p. 23]

activities. The centre of gravity is transferred, in 1923, from Germany to Paris, where Van Doesburg and Mondriaan meet again. Two reasons account for the predominance of architecture in that year's activities: in the first instance an invitation by Léonce Rosenberg to exhibit in a comprehensive show the architectural results of ‘De Stijl’ and secondly the fact that ‘De Stijl’ architects of the first period, Oud, Wils and Van 't Hoff have gradually withdrawn to the background. Their place was filled, in the architectural section of the group, by the collaboration of Van Doesburg, Van Eesteren and Rietveld. It is important, in this context, to peruse carefully the proclamation issued by the architects; in it a new note is sounded: ‘By our collective work we have examined the architecture as a plastic unity of all arts and we have found that the consequence will bring a new style. We have examined the laws of space(......) and we have found that all the variations of space can be governed as an equilibrated unity.’²⁹

‘We have examined - and we have found’... there is a new trend within ‘De Stijl’: up to now it had deduced its principles from speculative reasoning. Now the method of experimentation enters into their system and this new approach is mainly due to Van Eesteren's collaboration with Van Doesburg. When we consider the architectural design, resulting from the collaboration of the two artists, we can trace a gradual development from a Utopian scheme (the ‘idea’ of a house as an architectural problem) towards a design which could be made a fact by building it. This analysis of architecture, this search for the elements of architectural creation, is an act logically related to ‘De Stijl’ principles and highly important to the development of modern architecture.

The exhibition of ‘De Stijl’ at the Paris gallery of Léonce Rosenberg was a revelation to modern architects. The most important pieces (all ill. in De Stijl⁺ VI, issue 6/7) were: the model and drawings for a private house, commissioned by Léonce Rosenberg, a result of the collaboration of Van Doesburg, Van Eesteren and Rietveld; the designs for the hall of a university by Van Doesburg and Van Eesteren; and the project for an artist's house, also a result of the collaboration of both artists. Drawings and reproductions of the work of the other ‘Stijl’ architects completed the exhibition. Van Doesburg writes about the architectural activity of this year: ‘The house has been analysed, it has been dissected into its plastic elements. The static axis of the old construction has been destroyed: the house has become an object, one can circle on all sides. This analytical method led to new possibilities of construction and to a new ground plan. The house was detached from the soil and the ceiling became a kind of roof-terrace, a second story laid open. At that time these questions were completely novel and no one had considered them as seriously as these young Dutch architects and painters did.’³⁰

The results of this analytical method were not only manifested at the Paris exhibition. While Van Doesburg and Van Eesteren worked in Paris, Rietveld executed several works in Holland which expressed the same spirit: the interior decoration and the furniture of a doctor's house at Maarssen (ill. De Stijl VI, opp. p. 40) and several examples of his furniture, viz. a child's chair (ill. De

29 De Stijl, VI, p. 91

+ pl. 40, 41aant.aant.

30 Neue Schweizer Rundschau, 1929, p. 537 (Van Doesburg)

[p. 24]

⁺Stijl VI, p. 64). Oud built the small administrative building for the Rotterdam Oud-Mathenesse settlement.

The pictorial activities of ‘De Stijl’ are limited to the architectural side. Yet, Mondriaan is now reaching a further evolution of his style. Van Doesburg only creates a few paintings in this year, where squares in primary colours are combined in a rhythm, though without any dividing black lines. This scheme of composition heralds his later period.

The literary activity of ‘De Stijl’ continues, reinforced by contributors from Holland and from abroad, as the poetess and essayist Til Brugman, and the French writer Ribemont Dessaignes. In other fields, the activity of ‘De Stijl’ is completed by the support, after Van Eesteren, of the Austrian scenic designer and architect F. Kiesler, and of Werner Graeff, a pupil of the Bauhaus.

+ pl. 24aant.

1924.

The exhibition of 1923, at Léonce Rosenberg's gallery ‘L'Effort moderne’ had been such a success, that it had to be repeated and so furthered by a second exhibition at the Paris ‘Ecole spéciale d'Architecture’. Simultaneously, copies of the architectural drawings were exhibited with Van Doesburg's drawings at the Weimar museum in a personal show of Van Doesburg's work. Later in the year, the Paris exhibition was transferred to Nancy, where it had considerable influence on the younger generation of the eastern part of France.

While other members worked abroad, an important piece of ‘Stijl’ work was⁺ executed in the Netherlands: Rietveld's house at Utrecht (ill. De Stijl VI, p. 160 and 140 bis). It was the first house, built according to the new architectural principles of ‘De Stijl’, established by the cooperation of Van Doesburg, Van Eesteren and Rietveld, while executing Léonce Rosenberg's commission. Rietveld had worked out the project a year before and he supervised the actual building in 1924. Here one of the masterpieces of ‘De Stijl’ was created, a building which even today, after thirty years, not only impresses the spectator by its clarity and open structure, but which since its construction has remained the paradigm of a new conception of building. Oud had previously initiated in his early projects on paper what Rietveld now realized in this building - a completely elementary creation, a manifestation of architectural ideas; by the same means of expression Oud's blocks of houses at Hoek van Holland, dating from the same year, give a parallel of the development of the earlier phase of ‘Stijl’ architecture, and show the great influence of the analytical research done by the collective work of the three ‘Stijl’ members in the previous year. 1924 may therefore be considered as the year of the Rietveld house, the first - and unsurpassed - realization of ‘De Stijl's’ newly developed architectural principles; and, on the other hand, as the year of this first realization on a large scale of ‘De Stijl's’ principles in their social context: Oud's Hoek van Holland blocks.

In 1924, Van Doesburg lectured at Prague, at Vienna and at Hannover. There, he met the painter Vordemberge-Gildewart, saw his work and invited him to join ‘De Stijl’. From this year also, date Van Doesburg's studies, in collaboration with Van Eesteren, for a new type of city, where traffic is directed along

+ pl. 36, 37aant.aant.

[p. 25]

specially constructed viaduct roads. These projects are of great importance, as they imply the first efforts of ‘De Stijl’ in the direction of town planning.

In painting, there are new results of Van Doesburg's further development of⁺ the rigid theory of neo-plasticism: his ‘counter’-composition, now in the Municipal Museum at Amsterdam, is the first work pointing in the new direction. In this canvas a scheme of composition based on diagonal lines is at first employed. This painting starts a new phase in the evolution of both Van Doesburg and ‘De Stijl's’: Van Doesburg calls it ‘Elementarism’.

As regards the realizations of the group in other centres, Kiesler's design for the Vienna theatre exhibition (ill. De Stijl VI, pp. 140, 143, 145, 147) must be mentioned. The activities of the group have been further augmented by the fact that the musician George Antheil joins the group and publishes his ideas on musical composition in the review.

The theoretical work of ‘De Stijl’ is enhanced by the publication of Mondriaan's book Neue Gestaltung (a translation of his Neo-plasticisme and of several articles published in De Stijl) and of Van Doesburg's Grundbegriffe der neuen gestaltenden Kunst (a translation of his articles in the Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte of 1919). Both appeared in the series of the Bauhausbücher.

+ pl. 42aant.

1925.

The most important event in this year is Mondriaan's leaving ‘De Stijl’. This happened mainly on account of Van Doesburg's version of neo-plasticism, which developed towards the new tendency he was to call ‘elementarism’, that is to say the use of the diagonal in a rectilinear composition. For Mondriaan the principles of neo-plasticism and their philosophical and speculative implications had become so much a part of his existence, that he could not forgive any heresy. Van Doesburg, on the other hand, could not forget that Mondriaan had not sufficiently expressed his disapproval at the exclusion of ‘De Stijl’ from the exhibition of decorative arts in Paris 1925.

This fact in itself was not very important: the Dutch Government and the commission appointed for the organisation of the Dutch participation had not invited ‘De Stijl’ as Van Doesburg might have expected. But this exclusion meant that ‘De Stijl’, and therefore the most radical movement of nonfigurative art, was not presented by the country of its origin, but that its principles were applied elsewhere, for instance in the Austrian pavilion, designed by ‘De Stijl’ member Kiesler. The fact caused a violent commotion among the collaborators of ‘De Stijl’ and the people who sympathised with them and it became an indirect incentive for organising all those whose work had been refused for the official contribution. ‘De Stijl’ and its work was one of the most important items in the exhibition ‘L'art d'Aujourd'hui’, organised in December 1925 in the gallery in the rue Ville l'Evèque in Paris. The members of ‘De Stijl’ exhibited their recent work and for some, as Vordemberge-Gildewart, the exhibition was a welcome opportunity to come to Paris in order to contact the assembled members of the group. Vordemberge, who had up till then lived somewhat⁺ apart, exhibited four of his paintings and practically joined in the work of ‘De Stijl’ from that time on.

+ pl. 45aant.

[p. 26]

In painting Van Doesburg's new development of the diagonal is presented in this year's most important work, the ‘counter-composition 1925’, now in⁺ The Hague Municipal Museum. The diagonal pattern is emphasized by heavy black lines, such as Mondriaan had employed hitherto in his paintings. On the other hand, Mondriaan seems to have taken up Van Doesburg's challenge: in his composition of 1925, now in possession of Ir. Cabos at Utrecht, he tackles the problem of the diagonal. Using a square canvas, but held at an angle of 45°, so that it rests on one of its corners, he arrives at a composition which still is entirely based on the fundamental equilibrium of horizontal and vertical lines. Why he stuck with such persistence to this pre-established scheme, will have to be discussed is a later chapter.

In the field of architecture, several important facts have to be noted. The first trend of ‘Stijl’ architecture produced two important buildings by Oud: his restaurant ‘De Unie’ in Rotterdam, since destroyed by the war, which was one of the purest specimens of architecture according to the early principles of ‘De Stijl’ and his ‘Kiefhoek’ settlement at Rotterdam. The new tendency of ‘Stijl’ architecture, on the other hand, developed more consequently towardsurbanism: Van Eesteren, realizing that a satisfactory solution for the single house in a town could never be found, as Oud had clearly stated in the first issues of De Stijl, attacked the problem of modelling a whole street. The occasion was furnished by an alteration in the lay-out of one of Amsterdam's principal streets. In view of the fact, that this alteration would change the street's entire function and aspect, it meant to Van Eesteren that the architect in charge had to create a new equilibrium by elementary means of expression. He published this solution in De Stijl VI, p. 161 sq., and 138 bis. In the same issue of De Stijl, p. 147 bis, are reproduced the projects for a shopping arcade with a restaurant, designed by Van Eesteren, in collaboration with Van Doesburg. Moreover Van Eesteren took part in a competition for a new project for ‘Unter den Linden’⁺ in Berlin; he won the first prize. His plan, published in Bouwbedrijf, November 1925, shows the same preference for a radical solution with elementary means, thus entirely recreating the aspect of a street according to its function, which has been precisely and scientifically analysed before. Out of these projects and experiments the new conception of town planning was born, a conception which could not have been achieved without the fundamental and essential experiences of ‘De Stijl’.

+ pl. 43aant.

+ pl. 39aant.

1926.

This year's outstanding event is the constitution and theoretical justification of elementarism. The influence of the Italian review Valori Plastici, edited by M. Broglio, has to be stated in this context. Van Doesburg publishes an article From composition to counter-composition on p. 17 sq. of the seventh annual of De Stijl, and fragments of a manifesto on elementarism on p. 35 sq.. In 1929, when looking back on this period, he writes in his retrospective article: ‘By the lively and most articulate evolution the principles, developed mainly by P. Mondriaan in De Stijl could not any longer be considered as generally characteristic of the opinion of the group. The realization becoming richer and

[p. 27]

more manifold, we succeeded in enriching new domains; as a sum of the newly conquered insights and possibilities, elementarism was constituted. In the idea of “elementary design” everything we had acknowledged in our work as being essential and universally valid, from the very beginning until today was united.’³¹

Another excerpt may be quoted in this connection in order to explain the reason for Van Doesburg's alteration of the theory of neo-plasticism: ‘Elementarism is born, partly from a reaction against a too dogmatical and often narrow-minded application of neo-plasticism, partly as its consequence and finally and chiefly from a rigid correction of neo-plastic ideas. Elementarism rejects the claim of absolute statics, which leads to obduracy and paralyses the creative powers (......). Elementarism's method of construction is based on the neutralisation of positive and negative directions by the diagonal and, as far as colour is concerned, by the dissonant. Equilibrated relations are not an ultimate result. Elementarism rejects the mutual balance of colours and of each colour to the whole (the classical principle of composition.)’³²

Mondriaan's answer to this manifesto is not made until the next year: ‘After your high-handed improvement(?) of neo-plasticism any co-operation is quite impossible for me (......). For the rest sans rancune. Piet Mondriaan’³³, and in an article published in the Dutch review i 10 (edited by A. Lehning, Oud, Moholy-Nagy a.o.): ‘As an opposition to nature can be created by these relations (horizontal-vertical) they have to be considered as the culmination of neo-plasticism.’³⁴

Meanwhile, Van Doesburg had found occasion to apply the newly constituted principles to an important work. At the instigation of Hans Arp he was commissioned to rebuild and to redecorate the restaurant and dancing ‘Aubette’ at Strasbourg. The restaurant was located in an 18th Century building which happened to be listed as an historical monument; he therefore was not allowed to change the front or the arrangement of windows. The projects for this large and complicated work, made in collaboration with Hans Arp and Sophie Täuber-Arp, take up most of his time during this and the next year. He moves to Strasbourg, where he rebuilds a book-shop in the rue du Vieux Marché aux Poissons, and executes a few other commissions.

In Holland the activity of ‘De Stijl’ members is restricted - and even frustrated - by a lack of contact with Van Doesburg. In 1926 Oud designs a project for the building of the Rotterdam Stock-Exchange, which is not awarded the first prize. In 1926, Oud's Bauhausbuch was published. Only one number of the review was published in this year; it contained recent work by Rietveld and Mrs. Schröder, who had become a member of ‘De Stijl’, as well as a painting⁺ by Cesar Domela, who had joined ‘De Stijl’ in the same period. The literary activity of the group is strengthened by the participation of Hans Arp, whose poems are published but who did not join ‘De Stijl’ is his quality as a painter or as a sculptor.

31 Neue Schweizer Rundschau, 1929, p. 540 (Van Doesburg)

32 De Stijl, VII, p. 82

33 Mondriaan, Letter to Van Doesburg, December 4th, 1927, Stijl Catalogue, 1951, p. 72

34 i 10, no. I, 1. 1927, p. 17 (Mondriaan)

+ pl. 44aant.

1927.

The year 1927 brings the 10th anniversary of ‘De Stijl’ and thus creates an opportunity for looking back on the past decade, as well as considering the

[p. 28]

work of purification and renewal accomplished by ‘De Stijl’. Van Doesburg publishes a number of De Stijl entirely dedicated to this purpose. He has every reason to be jubilant, as the efforts and successes of ‘De Stijl’ were to a great extent if not his work, at least due to his activities. When summing up the results, he stresses once more the recent development of the principles: ‘The demand for purification of the means, at first consistently formulated by “De Stijl”, has become a fact. It is therefore useless to claim it as a base for further evolution, as there is no possibility of further evolution without it. In a further evolution of plastic principles, in elementarism, this purity of means is presupposed; therefore in the new stage of plastic expression (which only began in 1924) the development of pure means of expression is not the aim but, on the contrary, the point of departure.’³⁵

He looks back on the evolution of ‘De Stijl’ as a group and as an activity: ‘From “De Stijl” as an idea, “De Stijl” as a movement was gradually developed. And the latter has expanded rapidly from year to year; while it was originally constituted by a small, almost sectarian, timid group, this “group” is now for a greater part dissolved and supplanted by fresh forces and “De Stijl” clearly and internationally comes to light as a claimant.’³⁶ And in opposition to possible limitations and dangers, he formulates his outlook on the future: ‘If the idea of “De Stijl” were limited to a completely dogmatic and purely static conception (Mondriaan) it would not only exclude the possibility of development, but it would shrivel and in times to come be considered a barren document of human error, owing to lack of vitality. The idea of “De Stijl”, however, as I intend it, as a “mouvement perpétuel” of our creative powers, has an unlimited meaning; the idea of “De Stijl” on the other hand as a limiting dogmatic system of thought and production is meaningless, today and in the future.’³⁷

This is the vitality which was at the base of Van Doesburg's resumée and behind his outlook on the future. In ‘De Stijl's’ jubilee number he publishes a series of documents proving the influence and the expansion of ‘De Stijl’ and its important contribution towards the shaping of our contemporary world.

Besides the anniversary, 1927 brings few new realizations of ‘De Stijl’ principles. Van Doesburg is still at work at Strasbourg, Van Eesteren has been appointed lecturer on town planning at the Weimar Academy of Architecture. Of the architecte only Oud has an opportunity of realizing his ideas, i.e. in the houses of the ‘Weissenhof-Siedlung’ at Stuttgart and in the completion of the villa ‘Allegonda’ at Katwijk, which he had started in 1917.

The group of ‘Stijl’ members was reinforced in 1927 by the sculptor C. Brancusi and by the poet Hugo Ball, who died only a short while later. Brancusi did not adhere strictly to ‘De Stijl’ principles but the great sympathy for the pure and elementary work of the sculptor induced van Doesburg to include him in the group of collaborators. In the anniversary number on p. 59, Van Doesburg prints a table, showing the development of ‘De Stijl’ and its members. The list shows an important change in the 10 years of its existence. But the essential and characteristic nature of ‘De Stijl’ which remained unchanged is contained in the words, printed on the left of the list: ‘And it goes ever farther and farther.’

35 De Stijl, Anniversary number p. 4

36 De Stijl, Anniversary number, p. 5

37 De Stijl, Anniversary number, p. 3

[p. 29]

1928.

This year sees the completion of the work on the Strasbourg ‘Aubette’; the most important and the most complete realization of the new principles of ‘De Stijl’, and a work of great significance. It shows convincingly that the organization of space, colour and its expert repartition can be as important as the architectural possibilities are. It must therefore be deeply regretted that this work of the very first importance has been destroyed and that it remains extant only in the photographs published by Van Doesburg in the issue of De Stijl, dedicated to the Aubette, in 1928. They show the various rooms and aspects of the building, the most important halls such as the large festival hall and the cinemadance hall; this was executed by Van Doesburg, while some of the other rooms were decorated by Arp and his wife, Sophie Täuber-Arp. The cinema-dance hall is the most striking achievement of all; Van Doesburg organized the mural⁺ space of this large room by a composition of diagonally arranged rectangles, covering the three walls of the room and the entire ceiling, (De Stijl, the Aubette number, p. 19 sq.) This composition is somewhat reminiscent of his counter-composition⁺ 1925, now in the The Hague Municipal Museum, (ill. De Stijl VII, p. 42) but rather more vigorous and with a verve which, up to that time had been unprecedented in the annals of De Stijl.

Back in Holland, the former architects of ‘De Stijl’ executed two important buildings, which could not have been conceived without the underlying influence of ‘De Stijl’ principles. Jan Wils built the Olympic Stadium for the 1928 Olympic Games and Oud designed the small chapel for the Reinstated Apostolic Community in his Kiefhoek settlement in Rotterdam, a work of great purity and unusual simplicity.

+ pl. 47aant.

+ pl. 43aant.

1929.

After the completion of the Aubette, Van Doesburg returns to Paris and in Paris again becomes the centre of ‘De Stijl’. There he intends to intensify and to expand even more ‘De Stijl's’ future activities. For this purpose he commences the construction of a studio, where he intends to teach the principles of elementarism and where there will be an opportunity for collective work of ‘De Stijl’ group. He designs the plan for a house, to be built near Meudon-Val-Fleury, near Paris, with the aid of Van Eesteren. In painting he develops the principles of elementarism towards his ‘simultaneous composition’ in which a movement of lines co-operates with a different composition of colour and planes.

In 1929 Van Eesteren came back to Amsterdam, as he had been appointed chief civil engineer of the town planning department of Amsterdam. The other members continued their activities, there was not much mutual contact and only a single number of the review was published.

1930.

The building of the studio at Meudon nears completion. While waiting for the removal and the founding of a new centre of ‘Stijl’ activity, Van Doesburg concentrates again on painting. He develops the principle of his latest simultaneous composition and arrives at substituting the diagonal by a mere oblique: ‘simultaneous counter-composition 1930’, illustrated in the last number of De Stijl, p. 12. Having abandoned this quest, which he must have considered

[p. 30]

as too arbitrary and uncertain, he started in search of more certainty and an absolutely objective and controllable way of expression. Via his experiments during this year he arrived at the arithmetical composition of 1930 (ill. De Stijl, last number, p. 13).

The general activity of the group in 1930 was rather restricted; Van Doesburg had attempted to form a small union of Parisian painters and sculptors who all subscribed to the principles of abstraction, the group was to be called ‘Abstraction-création’. A periodical of this group, under the title of Art Concret, had already been published by Van Doesburg with the collaboration of Carlsund, Tutundjan, Hélion. Forgetful of his old feud, he had already invited Mondriaan to join them and received this characteristic answer from the latter: ‘Though I do, of course agree with the principles you have mentioned, I am returning the paper unsigned as I do not want to belong to a group. A group of people with one aim is not as yet a single-minded group and as this does not exist, a consistent group remains impossible. And a larger group only makes sense for joint exhibitions and for spreading ideas. I will therefore not participate in the other group either, but I have promised my collaboration in this respect. If you definitely want to form a group, you can always invite myself and others who are proved to be suitable. Only on such a basis I will collaborate with the other group as well.’³⁸

38 Mondriaan, Letter to Van Doesburg, 1930 (?), Stijl Catalogue, 1951, p. 72

1931.

The Meudon studio - to be the centre of the new ‘Stijl’ activity - was ready in the early winter. But Van Doesburg lay ill at home and had to recuperate at Davos for an asthmatic complaint from which he had been suffering for years, and there he died on March 7th 1931. His death was the end of ‘De Stijl’ as a movement, a group and a review. The last issue of the periodical was published in January 1932 as a memorial number dedicated to ‘De Stijl's’ founder and leader, the last works, such as the house in Meudon and the last pictures are published in it. But from the articles, written by the then members and former members of the group, one fact emerges clearly: ‘De Stijl’ as a movement, an idea, as a programme will survive.

Now that we have established the principal facts, we can consider the structure of the group and the biographies of its members. We can scarcely describe ‘De Stijl’ as a group, for the necessary stability was sadly lacking. Now and then members resigned, others again, quietly disappeared from the circle, while others joined and after a short time left again. Even the contents of the review are not always a reliable record of the composition of the ‘group’, as some members did not feel inclined to writing.

‘De Stijl’ can at best be compared with a kind of planetary system: the most important point was its centre, and that centre had always been Van Doesburg. This fact had its advantages as well as its drawbacks. The enormous advantage was the fact that Van Doesburg had identified himself with ‘De Stijl’ he was ‘De Stijl’, with all his incredible energy, creative powers and resource. He really ‘drove’ ‘De Stijl’ from its very beginning, and it is quite understandable that ‘De Stijl’ as a movement, as a concentration of people did not survive him.

[p. 31]

The disturbing aspects of Van Doesburg's leadership however, were due to the same fact, i.e. that he had identified himself with ‘De Stijl’. The fact by itself is true and can be proved by a number of incidents. Van Doesburg was the only one who cared for the editing of the numbers of De Stijl, who paid for the printing, who corresponded with the members - he was the only one who knew them all personally. But still, the psychological effect of this fact sometimes became disturbing; although he considered himself, and was in fact, the servant of his ideas he could not always restrain his explosive and dynamic temperament. Some of the disputes, which estranged more than one of the original members of ‘De Stijl’, were partly due to the authoritative attitude which, in all fairness, he was probably entitled to take. But his dynamic and stirring temperament, the spontaneous and violent quarrels it could evoke, sometimes made it difficult to accept his leadership, though it was never actually contested by anyone.

Van Doesburg knew that he was the ideological founder of ‘De Stijl’ and its driving force. But he was sincere and open-hearted enough to admit of the merits of his collaborators. He writes: ‘Though I know perfectly well that the idea on which “De Stijl” was founded as a movement and as review has not been the private property of any person - since the atmosphere of ideas, whereín a movement can succeed has to be present, as in a revolution - yet the embryo of what was realized five years later, in the idea and in the periodical De Stijl, was at the base of the thought I had formulated in 1912: strip nature of its forms and you will have style left.’³⁹ And in the same issue ‘Though the international spreading of the idea of “De Stijl” has been entirely the idea of the editor and his alone, “De Stijl” as a collective striving after style, was only possible as a group.’⁴⁰ He does not have to pretend to have launched ‘De Stijl's’ own type of abstract painting: ‘Though various artists in different countries have worked consciously or unconsciously in order to realize a new way of plastic expression, the painter Piet Mondriaan was the first to realize, in 1913, by a consistent elaboration of cubism, this new plasticism as a painting.’⁴¹

The other members of the group have always acknowledged his leadership and have been conscious of the fact that ‘De Stijl’ and Van Doesburg were identical. Van 't Hoff, the avant garde architect, who left ‘De Stijl’ as early as 1919, writes in the memorial issue: ‘Van Doesburg has died - and as he and “De Stijl” have always been essentially one and the same as the group's efforts, we feel the need to meet together in this last number. Van Doesburg and “De Stijl” - inseparable from each other, will keep their importance by the spirit which emanated from him and his work. For here was indeed question of a spirit, a spirit in search of new relations of life. Everyone who carries this spirit and enters the existing circumstances as Van Doesburg did so forcefully, will come up against these circumstances and not always gently. So Van Doesburg and “De Stijl” have both led a life of constant commotion.’⁴² Van 't Hoff wrote these lines after Van Doesburg's death, but even during his life the fact of his leadership was acknowledged: Peter Röhl, one of his pupils at the Bauhaus, when sending his congratulations on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of

39 De Stijl, Anniversary number, p. 4 sq.

40 De Stijl, Anniversary number, p. 6

41 De Stijl, V, p. 177

42 De Stijl, last number, p. 45

[p. 32]

‘De Stijl’, tried to explain Van Doesburg's unique position: ‘I discern the strength of Van Doesburg in the versatility of his creative activity. There may have appeared, during the period of evolution, stronger individual personalities in the various branches of art, but in the totality and the conclusiveness of the spirit, Theo van Doesburg surpassed even the most eminent members of this movement.’⁴³ This little sketch is the key to Van Doesburg's personality and to his success. Indeed, his genius consisted of the fact that he could arrange into a pattern facts and ideas which did not only seem to be different, but even quite contradictory. And this pattern, by his singular vivacity always remained alive, changing, full of sense and meaning. He never contented himself with a ready-made solution, he always went further. Thus Van Eesteren could write in the memorial issue: Van Doesburg was a renewer of life. He lived in a world that was only accessible to a few. Van Doesburg and Mondriaan, two figures not as yet fully understood, have each in his own way endeavoured to disclose the new pattern to their fellow men. Mondriaan in his quiet and static way, Van Doesburg dynamically as he expressed himself: ‘By having the courage to renew life constantly by destruction, by continually destroying our old self, in order to be able to build up a new self.’⁴⁴ And Anthony Kok, ‘De Stijl's’ essayist, who took the place of its philosopher and sage, has characterized Van Doesburg's role by means of an epigram: ‘Van Doesburg and Mondriaan are the two pillars that form the porch to a new world. It was he (Van Doesburg) who brought Mondriaan to the place which he now occupies with honour. It was he who time and again has filled us with enthusiasm.’⁴⁵

This inspiring quality, this contagious vivacity of the spirit was the key and the secret of Van Doesburg's personality and to some extent of the character of ‘De Stijl’ as well. These qualifies entitled him to the leadership of a group which counted many splendidly endowed members and these qualities enabled him to become the axis around which all the others gravitated.

Having examined ‘De Stijl's’ structure, we will now present short biographies of its members, before we start dealing with its origin and character.

43 De Stijl, Anniversary number, p. 103

44 De Stijl, last nr., p. 51

45 De Stijl, Anniversary number, p. 34

1. Antheil, George

Born 1900, in the United States; composer, pupil of Ernst Bloch. One of the forerunners of modern movement in music; reverts later on towards neo-classicism. Works in Hollywood, composer of music for Paramount Pictures.

2. Arp, Jean

Born in Strasbourg, 1887, painter,poet,above all sculptor.

1907 Studies at Weimar.

1907-08 Académie Julian, Paris.

1912 Contact with Kandinsky and the ‘Blaue Reiter’.

1914 In Paris, contact with Apollinaire and his friends.

1916 One of the founders of Dada in Zürich.

1919 In Cologne, with Max Ernst.

1921 Marries Sophie Taeuber.

1922 Resident in Paris, takes an active part in surrealism.

1926 Lives in Meudon.

1930 Concentrates on sculpture.

1931 One of the founders of ‘abstraction création’.

1940 Flees ta Grasse, Southern France.

1942-45 Lives in Switzerland.

1945 Return to Meudon.

[p. 33]

3. Ball, Hugo

Born 1866 in Germany, writer and poet, one of the pioneers of expressionism. In 1916 founder of the review Dada in Zürich. Died 1927 in Locarno. His most important book: Die Flucht aus der Zeit.

4. Bonset, I.K.

Viz. Th. van Doesburg.

5. Brancusi, Constantin

Sculptor, born in Pestisani Gozj, Roumania,

1876, lives in Paris.

1894-98 Studies at Crakow art academy.

1898-1902 Pupil at the Bucharest academy.

1904-07 Works with A. Mercié in Paris, guidance of Rodin.

1906 Exhibition in Paris.

1907 Utter simplification of farms and abstract expression.

1920 His exhibition at the ‘Indépendants’ in Paris causes scandal.

1926 A proces is commenced against him by the American customs authorities, as they do not want to accept his sculptures as works of art. 1937-38 Travels to India; he is commissioned a work for a temple in Haiderabad: ‘bird in the air’.

Brancusi is the pioneer and forerunner of the abstract movement in sculpture.

6. Camini, Aldo

Viz. Th. van Doesburg.

7. Doesburg, Theo van (pen-name of C.E.M. Küpper)

Born at Utrecht, August 1883. Starled painting in 1899. First exhibition at the Hague, 1908. About 1912 works as an art critic for several periodicals, among others for ‘Eenheid’. Called up 1914-1916, during first world war. Commences his collaboration with the architecte Oud and Wils in 1916. In this period group ‘De Sphinx’ with Oud. 1917 foundation of ‘De Stijl’. In the same year collaborates with Oud on a house at Noordwijkerhout. 1919, project for a monument. 1920, architectural projects at Drachten. 1921, visit to Berlin and Weimar. 1922, teaches at Bauhaus, Weimar. Dada influence and lecturing tour. Mecano.

1923 Exhibition of architectural projects with Van Eesteren and Rietveld at the Galerie de l'Effort Moderne, Paris, and later at the ‘Ecole spéciale de l'Architecture’.

1924 Exhibition in Weimar, first studies in town planning. Commencement of counter-compositions.

1925 Architectural exhibition at Nancy.

1926 Publication of manifesto of elementarism. Is commissioned to reconstruct l'Aubette at Strasbourg.

1927 Construction of l'Aubette.

1928 Publication of the results of the Aubette project.

1929 Further development of elementarism; project for a house at Meudon. Becomes editor of ‘l'Art Concret.’

1930 Lectures in Spain. First arithmetical compositions.

1931 Dies at Davos on March 7th.

Articles in De Stijl.

Publications: De Nieuwe beweging in de schilderkunst, Delft, 1917. Drie voordrachten over de nieuwe beeldende kunst, Amsterdam, 1919. Grondbegrippen der nieuwe beeldende Kunst, Amsterdam, 1919.

(German translation: Grundbegriffe der Neuen gestaltenden Kunst, Bauhausbücher no. 6, München, 1924).

Klassiek, barok, modern, the Hague, 1920.

Wat is Dada? the Hague, 1924.

L'Architecture vivante, Paris, 1925.

8. Domela Nieuwenhuis, Cesar

Born at Amsterdam, 1900. Starts painting from nature, 1919-1922.

1922-1923 In Ascona and Bern; first attempts in pure plastic art and in constructivism.

1923 Participates in the exhibition of the November Group exhibition at Berlin, with non-figurative work.

1924-1925 In Paris, contact with Mondriaan and Van Doesburg.

1924 Personal exhibition at the Hague.

1925 Joins ‘De Stijl’.

1927-1933 In Berlin.

After 1928 he turns, next to painting, to the technique of reliefs. He gradually draws away from neo-plasticism in search of subtler forms.

Moves to Paris in 1933 where he commences to make multi-coloured reliefs, using the contrasting effects of different materials. Publications in De Stijl.

[p. 34]

9. Eesteren, Cornelis van

Born at Alblasserdam, 1897. Studies architecture at the Rotterdam Academy and town planning in Paris at the Sorbonne and the Ecole des Beaux-Arts.

1921 Prix de Rome.

1922 First contact with Van Doesburg.

1923 Joins ‘De Stijl’, exhibits architectural projects with Van Doesburg in Paris; project for house on the river.

1925 First prize in the Unter den Linden competition, City of Berlin.

1927-1930 Lecturer in town planning at the Weimar Academy for architecture.

1929 Chief civil engineer-town planner to the City of Amsterdam.

1947 Professor at the Technical University at Delft.

1952 Head of the Department of Town Planning of the City of Amsterdam. Honorary President of the C.I.A.M.

Publications in De Stijl.

10. Graeff, Werner

born at Wuppertal-Elberfeld, 1901. Joined the Bauhaus in 1921, where he was greatly impressed by van Doesburg's lectures. Concentrated on industrial designing and was in close contact with the Stijl in the years 1922-1923. Continued his technical studies at the Technical University of Berlin-Charlottenburg. Co-founder of the review ‘G’ with Mies van der Rohe and Richter. Press officer of the ‘Werkbund’ exhibition at Stuttgart in 1927, also edited the books on the Weissenhofsiedlung. Makes abstract films with Richter. Leaves Germany in 1934; returns there in 1951. Professor at the Folkwang-Werkkunstschule, Essen. Has created abstract murals.

11. Hoff, Robert van 't

born 1887 at Rotterdam, son of an eminent bacteriologist. Studied architecture. Visited the U.S. before world war I. where he was much impressed by Frank Lloyd Wright and his work Joined the Stijl after his return to Holland (in 1917). Built two important houses at Huis ter Heide in 1916. Left the Stijl in 1920. Now lives in England.

Publications in De Stijl.

12. Huszar, Vilmos

Born at Budapest, 1884. Studied in Studio Hollosy, Munich and at the School of Decorative Arts in Budapest. Lives in the Netherlands since 1905. Co-founder of ‘De Stijl’. Has designed stained glass and elaborated the application of ‘De Slijl’ principles to interior decoration projects. Left ‘De Stijl’ in 1923.

Lives at Hierden, Netherlands.

Publications in De Stijl.

13. Kiesler, Frederik

born in Austria, 1896. Contact with the Stijl in 1923; created the new Space theatre in Vienna, 1924. In 1925 demonstrated new spacial conception of housing and town planning in the Austrian Pavilion at the Great Exhibition in Paris; development of a new system of construction and tension in free exhibition units. Moved to the U.S. in 1926. 1933, Space house, New York City. 1937, Director of the Laboratory at the School of Architecture, Columbia University. Designed the ‘Hall of Superstition’ at the Galerie Maeght, Paris, in 1947. Lives in New York.

14. Kok, Antony

born 1S82 in Rotterdam, lived in Blerik and at Tilburg, since 1952 in Haarlem. Until 1943 he was employed by the Netherlands State Railways. He met van Doesburg in 1915, when they became close friends; these feelings being extended to the ‘Stijl’. He made contributions to the Stijl's literary propaganda. Kok was the model of Verwey's portrait studies ‘40X 1’.

15. Leck, Bart van der

Born at Utrecht, 1876, studied at the State School for Decorative Arts and at the Academy in Amsterdam.

1905 Illustrations for the ‘Song of Songs’, in collaboration with P.J.C. Klaarhamer. 1910 First realistic studies.

1911 Development towards the accentuating of the plane.

1914 Stained glass window ‘Mining Industry’.

1916 His stylisation reaches a culminating point in ‘The Tempest’ and ‘Harbourworks’.

1917 Abstract compositions, projects for an interior. Joins ‘De Stijl’.

[p. 35]

1918 Designs interior of stand for Bruynzeel at the Utrecht Fair. First figurative compositions by elementary means.

1919 Makes studies in textile technique.

1928 Designs textiles.

1934 First attempts in interior decorating by means of the distribution of colours, (house at Hilversum).

1935 Makes his first studies in ceramics.

1940-1941 Book illustrations.

1949 Design and execution of interior in colours, Amsterdam.

1952 Design and execution in colours of canteen interior at a factory in Amsterdam.

Lives at Blaricum, near Amsterdam.

Publications in De Stijl.

16. Lissitsky, El (Lasar) Markovitch

Born in Smolensk, Russia, 1890.

1909-14 Studies engineering at Technical University, Darmstadt.

1914 Returns to Russia.

1919 Creates the ‘Proun’; joins the constructivist group in Moscow, founded in 1913 by Tatlin.

1921 Professor at the State Art School, Moscow. Starts the constructivist movement in Germany with L. Moholy Nagy. Contacts with Van Doesburg and Mies van der Rohe: they start the group ‘G’.

1922-23 Editor of the periodical Der Gegenstand in Berlin.

1923-25 Lives in Switzerland; founder of the group and the review ABC.

1925-28 Works in Hannover as a guest of the Kestner Gesellschaft; designs the cabinet of abstract art at the Landesmuseum.

1928 Return to Moscow; teacher of visual education at State School.

1941 Dies in Moscow.

17. Mondriaan, Pieter

Born at Amersfoort March 7th 1872. His first studies in drawing were made under the guidance of his father and an uncle.

1892-1894 Studies at the Amsterdam Academy.

1895-1907 Naturalistic period; landscapes around Amsterdam, copying in museums, scientific drawings for the Leiden University. 1908-1910 Moves to Domburg, (Zeeland). Comes under the influence of Jan Toorop. Simplification of means of expression, primary colours (pictures of dunes and towers). Symbolist period (viz. his triptych ‘evolution’).

1911 Moves to Paris. Influence of Picasso and Léger. Cubist period, (paintings of cathedrals, harbours and scaffoldings in a simplified cubist manner; colours grey, brown and blue).

1914 Is surprised by world war while on a visit to Holland.

1915 Further steps towards abstraction; plus-minus paintings.

1917 Complete abstraction. Founding of ‘De Stijl’.

1919 Returns to Paris.

1920 Publication of Le neo-plasticisme.

1924 Publication of Die neue Gestaltung, (German translation of Neo-plasticisme and other articles).

1925 leaves ‘De Stijl’.

1938 Moves to London.

1940 Bombed out in London, leaves for New York. Late period of ‘New York City’ and ‘Boogie-Woogies’.

1944 Dies at Murray Hill Hospital, New York on February 1st. Publications: in De Stijl.

Neo-plasticisme, Paris 1920.

Neue Gestaltung, Munich 1924.

Plastic art and pure plastic art. NewYork, 1945.

18. Oud, Jacobus Johannes Pieter

Born at Purmerend, 1890. Studied at the School of Decorative Arts Quellinus and at the Amsterdam Rijksnormaalschool voor Tekenonderwijs, afterwards Technical University at Delft. Works with architects Stuyt and C. Cuypers, later with Th. Fischer, at Munich. Returns to settle as architect in his home town.

1913 At Leiden.

1915 Project for a public baths designed under the influence of Berlage.

1916 Houses at Velp and at Broek in Waterland.

1917 Holiday hostel at Noordwijkerhout and the villa ‘Allegonda’ at Katwijk. Becomes cofounder of ‘De Stijl’. Designs the project for a sea esplanade - the first architectural venture inspired by ‘De Stijl’.

1918 Becomes City architect of Rotterdam. Project for workers' standardized dwellings; first block of the Spangen settlement at Rotterdam.

[p. 36]

1919 Project for factory al Purmerend; second block of the Spangen settlement.

1920 Blocks of the Tusschendijken settlement at Rotterdam.

1921 Leaves ‘De Stijl’.

1922 Project for a country house near Berlin. Blocks of houses at Oud-Mathenesse, Rotterdam.

1923 Oud-Mathenesse, administr. building.

1924 Blocks of houses at Hoek van Holland.

1925 Restaurant ‘De Unie’ at Rotterdam, and blocks of the Kiefhoek settlement, Rotterdam.

1926 Project for the Rotterdam Stock Exchange.

1927 Weissenhoff settlement in Stuttgart, Gcrmany. Extension of the villa ‘Allegonda’ at Katwijk.

1928 Chapet at Kiefhoek settlement, project for a house at Brno, Czecho-Slowakia.

1931 Project for country house at Pinehurst, North Carolina, (U.S.A.); design for an interior for Jonkheer de Jonge van Ellemeet.

1934 Projects for a house for Mr. D. and another dwelling house.

1934-1936 Reconstructions of house for Dr. H.

1935 Project for studios at Hillegersberg.

1936 Country house at Blaricum.

1937 Interiors for the S.S. ‘Nieuw Amsterdam’.

1938-1942 Office building for Shell-Nederland at the Hague.

1942-1943 Project for reconstruction of Hofplein at Rotterdam.

1947 Workers standardized dwellings.

1947-1948 Competitive design for the Head Office Royal Netherlands Steel Furnaces Co. IJmuiden.

1948 National Army Monument at the Grebbeberg, Holland; Office building for S.V.H., Rotterdam; project religious centre, The Hague.

1949 National War Memorial Amsterdam.

1950 Project for house at Bloemendaal, project for the reconstruction of the St. Laurenskerk of Rotterdam; office building for S.V.H. Rotterdam.

1951 Project Assembly-housc for provincial states of the province of South Holland at the Hague.

1943-1955 Spaarbank, Rotterdam.

1950-1955 Lyceum, The Hague.

1952 Project Bio-vacantieoord, Arnhem.

1954 Project Office building ‘The Utrecht’, Rotterdam.

Publications in De Stijl.

Holländische Architektur, Munich, 1926.

Nieuwe Bouwkunst in Holland en Europa, Amsterdam 1935.

19. Richter, Hans

Born in Berlin, 1888.

1912 First contact with modern art through the ‘Blaue Reiter’.

1913 During the Salon d'Automne, he gets in contact with Marinetti. Cézanne and cubism exert some influence on his art.

1916 First exhibition in Munich. Joins the Dadaist movement in Zürich.

1917 First abstract works.

1918 Through Tristan Tzara, Richter makes the acquaintance of Viking Eggefing, whose work shows n parallel development.

1921 First abstract film: rhythm 21, with Eggeling.

1926 Stops painting, devotes his time entirely to motion pictures.

1929-30 Organizes Berlin film League.

1933 Emigrates to France.

1941 Professor at City College, New York; director of the Film Institute.

1947 Realisation of ‘Dreams that money can buy’ in collaboration with M. Duchamp, F. Léger, M. Ernst, Man Ray and A. Calder.

1950 Exhibits his scrolls, a new type of plastic compositon, in various European galleries.

20. Rietveld, Gerrit Thomas

Born ut Utrecht, 1888, was working as a cabinet maker as from 1899. From 1906 onwards he works as a designer for jewellers (gold, silver, jewels and medals.)

Studies theory aided by P.J.C. Kiaarhamer. 1918 Produces first wooden furniture after his own designs; he joins ‘De Stijl’.

1920 Improves on his wooden constructions.

1923 Co-operates with Van Doesburg and Van Eesteren.

1924 Builds house at Utrecht after his own plans. This is the first realization of ‘De Stijl's’ architectural principles.

1928 Block of houses at Utrecht.

1934 Designs sets of furniture.

1953-54 Netherl. Pavilion Biennale Venice.

[p. 37]

21. Severini, Gino

Born in Cortona (Italy) 1883; lives in Paris.

1901 Studies in Rome, contact with Boccioni and Balla.

1906 Comes to Paris: friendship with Modigliani and Braque.

1910 Signs the manifesta of futurism, meets Picasso.

1915 Turns to neo-classicism.

1917 Contact with ‘De Stijl’.

1930 Reverts to a more decorative form of cubism.

1950 Prize at the Biennale, Venice.

22. Schröder-Schräder, Madame T.

born at Deventer, 1889; studies at the Technical University of Hannover. In close collaboration with Rietveld from 1924 onwards. As early as 1920 she designed an interior with Rietveld to demonstrate the new principles of space. Her own house at Utrecht designed jointly by Rietveld and herself, is the outstanding monument of the new conception.

23. Vantongerloo, Georges

Born at Antwerp, 1886. Studied at Brussels and at Antwerp Academy. After having been wounded early in the first war, he comes to Holland, where he is interned.

1917 First abstract sculptures; joins ‘De Stijl’.

1919 Brussels, sculptures; the ‘interrelation of masses’. He moves to Mentone.

1921 Leaves ‘De Stijl’.

1924 Publishes his book ‘L'Art et son avenir’. First production of sculptures based on mathematical formulae.

1927 He moves to Paris.

1929 Study for a bridge over the river Scheld.

1930 Project for an airport.

1931 Vice-President of the group ‘Abstraction-Création’.

Lives in Paris.

Publications in ‘De Stijl’.

L'art et son avenir, Antwerp, 1924

Paintings, sculptures, reflections, New York, 1948.

24. Vordemberge-Gildewart, Friedel

Born at Osnabrück, Germany, 1899. Commenced to paint in 1919, his work being non-figurative from the very beginning.

1919 Settles in Hannover, where he is in close contact with Kurt Schwitters.

1924 He is invited by Van Doesburg to join ‘De Stijl’.

1925 Exhibits with the other members of ‘De Stijl’ at the exhibition ‘L'Art d'aujourd'hui’ in Paris. Since 1931 he is a member of the group Abstraction-Création.

1936 Moves to Berlin.

1937-1938 Works in Switzerland.

1938 He moves to Amsterdam.

1953 Professor Hochschule Neue Gestaltung Ulm.

Besides his activities as a painter, he is engaged in typographical designing and writes poetry.

Publications in De Stijl.

25. Wils, Jan

Born at Alkmaar, 1891. Studied at Amsterdam, made some trips for study purposes to Germany. Begins his architectural career in the studios of Mullers and Berlage. He is finally established as an architect at the Hague.

1916 Co-operates with Van Doesburg.

1917 Joins ‘De Stijl’.

1919 Designs and carries out the reconstruction of the hotel ‘De dubbele Sleutel’, at Woerden.

1920 Papaverhof at the Hague.

1920 The Protestant Church at Nieuw Lekkerkerk.

1921 Blocks of houses at Daal en Berg.

1922 Centrale Onderlinge.

1926 Apartment house, Josef Israelsplein, the Hague.

1928 Olympic Stadium at Amsterdam.

1930 OLVEH building, the Hague.

1935 The City Cinema, Amsterdam.

Publications in De Stijl.