114 THEO VAN DOESBURG

From Towards Plastic Architecture (1924)

The years 19212 were crucial to the development of De Still theory. In 1921, after his break-up with Oud, Van Doesburg took his (nearly) one-man show on the road and met El Lissitzky and others in Berlin. Out of these meetings came his artistic alliance with Soviet Constructivism and German Dadaist circles. The Dutch artist shortly thereafter relocated his journal and studio to Weimar again in search of disciples where he gave a series of lectures opposing the Bauhauss original curriculum of crafts-based studies. While in Weimar, van Doesburg met the Dutch architect Cornelius van Eesteren, who was touring Germany in 1922. The result was a new collaboration, in which the two men began a series of axonometric drawings of three-dimensional planes suspended in space. In Paris in the following year, they collaborated again on the design of three houses for a De Still exhibition in Paris. The models for these projects were made by Garrit Rietveld, who had been active in De Stiji circles since 1917. The gallery drawings, in turn, became the basis for Rietvelds famous design for the Schrder House. All of this activity led a reformulation of De Still thought in 19234, as seen in this statement penned by van Doesburg. This melding of De Still and constructivist theory marks the first great synthesis of postwar European theory. Van Doesburgs characterization of the new architecture as anti -cubic, for instance, would offer a formal alternative to the frontally-conceived villas of te Corbusier, while his emphasis on space-time introduces a concept into modern theory that also would be later seized by others. 1 Form. The basis for a healthy development of architecture (and of art in general) is the suppression of all form-ideas insofar as this concept implies a predetermined type. Instead of using earlier style types as models and thus imitating previous historical styles, one necessarily must pose the problem of architecture entirely anew. 2 The new architecture is elementary, which signifies that it develops from the elements of construction as understood in the most comprehensive sense. These elements are for example, function, mass, plane, time, space, light, colour and material, and they are, moreover, also plastic elements. 3 The new architecture is economical, which signifies that the elementary means are organized either as efficiently and economically as possible or by wasting neither these means nor the material. 4 The new architecture is functional, which signifies that it develops from the precise determination of practical necessities which it embodies in a clear groundplan. 5 The new architecture is formless, yet defined, which signifies that it is not characterized by any predetermined aesthetic form-type or mould (like those used by pastry-cooks) into which it casts the functional spaces derived from practical living demands. In contrast to all earlier historical styles, the new architectural method imposes no standard or basic type. The division of functional spaces is strictly determined by rectangular planes which possess themselves no individual shapes, since, although defined (one plane by the other), they can be extended infinitely by the imagination. Thus they can create a coordinated system in which all points correspond to an equal number of points in universal, unlimited open space. It follows that the planes possess a direct relationship with open (exterior) space.

6 The new architecture has rendered the concept of the monumental independent of largeness and smallness (since the word monumental has been abused, it is replaced by the word plastic). This architecture has demonstrated that everything exists in terms of relationships, through the principle of interrelationship. 7 The new architecture possesses no passive moment. It has abandoned the use of dead spaces (holes in the wall). The openness of the window has an active meaning as against the closure of the wall.surface. Nowhere does a hole or a void issue forth, everything is strictly determined by means of contrast. See the various counter-constructions, in which the elements of architecture, such as, plane, line and mass, have been freely arranged into a three-dimensional relationship. [. . . 8 The groundplan. The new architecture has opened the walls, thus eliminating the separateness of the interior and the exterior. The whole wall no longer carries, it is reduced to points of support. The result is a new, open groundplan, which is completely different from the traditional usage, since interior and exterior space interpenetrate. 9 The new architecture is open. The whole consists of one space, which is divided according to the various functional demands. This division is accomplished through the use of separating planes (in the interior) or by projecting planes (on the exterior). The former planes, which separate the different functional spaces, can be mobile, which means that the separating planes (formerly the interior walls) can be replaced by movable screens or slabs (doors can also be treated in this manner). In the following phase of this development in architecture, the groundplan must disappear completely. The principle of two-dimensionally projected space-composition, asfixed by a groundplan, will be replaced by exact calculation of the construction, a calculation which must transfer the carrying capacity to the simplest but sturdiest points of support. Eudidean mathematics will no longer serve this purpose; yet by using NonEucidean calculations in four dimensions, this calculation can be accomplished quite easily. 10 Space and time. The new architecture calculates not only with space but also with time as an architectural value. The unity of space and time will give architectural form a new and completely plastic aspect, that is, a four-dimensional, plastic spacetime aspect. 11 The new architecture is anti-cubic, which specifies that it does not attempt to combine all functional space-cells into one closed cube, but projects the functional space-cells (as well as overhanging planes, the volumes of balconies and so forth) centrifugally, or from the core of the cube outward, thereby giving a completely new plastic expression in open space to the dimensions of height, width, depth + time. In this manner architecture takes on a more or less hovering aspect (insofar as this is feasible from a structural point of view, which is a problem for the engineer!). This aspect, so to speak, challenges the force of gravity in nature. 12 Symmetry and repetition. The new architecture has suppressed symmetrys monotonous repetition as well as the rigid equality which results from division into two halves or the use of the mirror image. It employs neither repetition in time, street walls, nor standardized parts. A block of houses is as much a whole as a single house. The laws governing single houses apply also to both blocks of houses and the city as a whole. In place of symmetry, the new architecture proposes a balanced relationship of unequal parts; that is to say of parts which, because of functional characteristics, differ in position, size, proportion and situation. The equivalence of these parts is gained through an equilibrium of unequality rather than of

equality. In addition, the new architecture has granted equal value to the front, back, right, and possibly also to the above and below. 13 In contrast to frontalism, which was born out of a rigid, static concept of life, the new architecture offers the plastic richness of an all-sided development in spacetime. 14 Colour. The new architecture has suppressed painting as a separate, illusory expression of harmony, whether as embodied indirectly in representational art or directly in an art of coloured planes. The new architecture employs colour organically as a direct means of expression of relationships in space and time. Without colour, these relationships are devoid of the aspect of living reality; they are invisible. The equilibrium of the architectural relationships becomes a visible reality only through the use of colour. The task of the modern painter is to integrate colour into a harmonic whole (by placing it not on a plane-surface of two dimensions, but within the new realm of fourdimensional spacetime). In a succeeding phase of development, colour might also be replaced by synthetic materials which possess their own specific colours (this is a problem for the chemical scientist), but only if practical demands require such materials. 15 The new architecture is anti-decorative. Colour and colour-shy people must strive to realize this is not a decorative or ornamental part of architecture but its organic means of expression. 16 Architecture as the synthesis of Neo-Plasticism. Construction is only one part of the new architecture; by including all the arts, in their most elementary appearance, the new architecture manifests its very essence. This architecture presupposes a capacity for thinking in four dimensions, so that the plastic architect, who might also be a painter, must construct in the new realm of space time. Since the new architecture prohibits representation (such as easel-painting or sculpture as separate elements), its purpose of creating a harmonic whole from all the above mentioned essential means is inherent in its very nature. In this manner every architectural element contributes to the maximum vitality of plastic expression, accomplished on a practical and logical basis, without prejudice to utilitarian demands. Paris 1924 Theo van Doesburg, from Towards Plastic Architecture De Still 12:6-7 (1924), trans. Joost Baljeu, in Theo van Doesburg. New York: Macmillan, 1974, pp. 142, 144-5, 147.