ao me fiat Mertzberger Sy eY-KeCc MLA MaL cw AKO AD E-Tel Ste) a aSpatial Discoveries1 What we call spatial discoveries are mechanisms and concepts that initiate essentially different conditions, with architecture the medium par excellence to achieve them. [Architecture being eminently capable of expressing (and therefore formulating’) itself with spatial means. This is the field of activity that the architect should concentrate on categorically, certainly if he wishes to lay claim toa specific cultural task and if he wishes to produce something that changes the way people perceive, so that they see themselves and their surroundings in another light. Spat ‘open doors with which existing systems can be disrupted and new paradigms followed or perhaps even opened up in the case of a new spatial concept. Instead of limiting itself almost exclusively to the outward appearance of buildings and how they change over time, the history of architecture should concern itself more with ‘changes in thinking and the changing possibilities and circum- stances influenced by those changes, and that directly or indivectly formed both the need and the inducement for ever 4ifferent methods of building, forms, techniques and thus repeatedly provided the impetus for spatial discoveries. History is marked by moments of revolutionary breakthroughs. We then say that the time was ripe to do things differently, with other constructions, forms, spaces. Sometimes this hap- pens unexpectedly, but often it is announced long before and amounts toa final stage that in retrospect makes sense as the logical conclusion of a route embarked upon earlier. Take, for instance, Gerrit Rietveld’s celebrated red-blue chair of 1918. If in 1903 or thereabouts we can observe the back becoming an autonomous element in chairs by Mackintosh and also Frank Lloyd Wright, Rietvel6's teacher, P.2.C. Kiaarhamer, » continued this deconstruction throughout the entire chair. Although clearly influenced by Berlage, Klaarhamer’s design ‘definitely more forthright and deliberate.’ Rietveld, obviously aware of the work of his predecessors, rounded off the story in resolute and spectacular fashion. He had also come into contact with the painters of the De Stijt ‘group, in which Mondrian and more particularly Bart van der discoveries Leck were working with discrete planes. Rietveld lifted these ‘out of the two-dimensional surface and placed them as volumes ‘in space. This was a move, as much deliberate as revolutionary, away from having the elements of a structure interlock and ‘thus negatively influencing one another, instead treating them as pure volumes. El Lissitzky would later return Rietveld’s, chair structures to the flat canvas. One of Rietveld’s motives presumably was that, armed with the possibility of industrialized production, he strove to con- struct ll the elements of his chair from a single plank, with as Little material waste as possible and enabling simple assembly of the parts thus acquired, Whenever new spatial concepts emerge in response to new challenges these are often turning points. After that they become common property and then, ultimately, outmoded. Customary solutfons that were once questioned as to the pos sibility of improvement, can be thoroughly unsettled merely by a shift in emphasis. This opens the door to new ideas. These {in turn lead toa new mode of organization and then inevitably to new concepts of space. Take the library: we all know the changes it has been through. Beginning as the place where manuscripts ware kept, it later became a place where single imprints could be studied, only accessible toa select group of initiated sleuths, where intel- lectual as well as material property needed expressing above everything else, These days itis 2 ‘public’ institution, where in principle everyone is welcome to read or borrow books. So the idea of a Library evolved from preserving texts to dis- seminating knowledge. As culture and scholarship became ‘more open, both the space of the library and its organization changed accordingly. And so a lending library, rather than being an institutfon where you are obliged to know beforehand why you are visit~ {ng it, can be conceived of as a place that invites browsing or searching so as to stimulate unexpected discoveries. The resemblance to a large bookstore is then so great that it is but a small step to reorganize it as such. Then, in a chain reaction, ‘come the consequences (the consistent rules of conjugation, bh i,s0 to speak) leading toa new concept for this new paradigm. So we see that this new organization with its particular spa- tial demands and potentials causes the spatial concept to change. With the search function taken over by digitized systems, such asthe Internet which is there for everyone, the concept will evolve further ~ who know? ~ perhaps to a return to cexclusiveness, so that reading rooms, those traditfonal meet ing places, might conceivably have a new future ahead of them. ‘A new paradigm always means that the paradigm it has come to replace is forced into the background: this automatically initiates the need for a new architectural idiom. Once this fs {in place, everyone goes along with it and it is impossible to {imagine that things were ever seen differently. ‘Throughout our history there have been shifts of attention accompanied by shifts in terminology and values. Using analy- 0s of our attitude towards categories of people that depart from the norm such as the insane and the incarcerated, Michel Foucault showed that there have been times when there were deviant epistemes ~that is, coherent frameworks of discourse’ of general validity which define the conditions governing actions and judgement during a certain period of history.” Systems of collective value judgements, repeatedly exposed as prejudices during time cycles of every conceivable form, are suppressed by new ones that act as the social programme and breeding ground for changes in architecture. ‘That architecture is also subjected to change and erosion of value judgements transpires from the most obvious examples in practice, Measures that we take for granted such asthe moral and legally underpinned obligation towards invalids, simply did not exist ‘wenty-five years ago; at that time no-one gave ita thought although the phenomenon itself has not changed. ‘The same applies to our present-day concern for the environ- iment and energy, when all at once the fear of relative scarcity took hold generally. In the Netherlands these days there is the desire to give up land ~ little though we have - that once yielded a profit but has now become a millstone due to the necessary upkeep. Give it up, that is, to the water. The very land that took cen- turles to wrest from the sea is now being returned to nature Under certain conditions, a state of affairs that makes living along or on the water only too relevant. ‘Again, we are being made dizzy with new inventions, new advances, computers. Other ideas, in whatever field, keep giving fresh cause to abandon what we were busy doing for something else, We should seriously wonder whether it is possible at al for there to be fundamental changes in archi- ‘tecture that are not bound in some way to social changes ~ ‘changes in our thinking about human relations, that is. It canalso be that a change in society, even a small one, i ‘in partto spatial discoveries; these are the spatial discoveries that we architects dream of. Yet the entire world-view does not have to change for there to be innovation in architecture. It goes without saying that there is repeated cause for change, particularly on the smaller scale, to constituent parts ofthat world-view. In the designer's day-to-day practice these present an undercurrent ‘of impulses to come up with new ideas from one project to the next, ideas that Lead in turn to other concepts. New paradigms need not always lead to other goals; frequently ‘these are achieved by other means, often making more effi- cient use of new possibilities. We see things differently and those same goals then appear in a new light. ‘culture develops because we, influencing and inspiring each ‘other, continue to build step by step on what has come before and theoretically it means an ever greater degree of perfection. But the greater the perfection of a system or principle, the less need there is for change and the more hermetic things get. Until all at once it transpires that we have been hammer- {ng away at something that is Long out of date. We need ‘external impulses all the time to upset the balance, so as not to get bogged down in prejudices. And to keep all the options ‘open on space. Prune a tree or bush at the right moment and it gives ita renewed vitality that you previously did not think possible. dueSo it seems that innovation not only generates renewal but itself has.a renewing impact, if only because of the panache ‘it gives off in the process. Changes, small ones as well as big, ae the sparks that feed ‘fresh impulses to the motor of architecture and keep it ticking ‘over. They enable things to happen that were not originally within the frame of attention and therefore not among the options. Whereas the panache of the Herofc Period of architecture was unthinkable without the underlying social optimism, and the physical space produced was more or less equal to the psycho- logical space that accompanied it, these days itis mainly the capacity of production that unleashes the optimism and gen- crates panache, its true, but a good deal less space. This is the very reason why itis al the more important for us to pick out and explore less naively and more levetheadedly what itis ‘that has changed in the world-view within which we operat New generatfons continue to draw motivation and enthusiasm from the conviction that they can contribute to new formula- tions and new images. ust as our economy seems unable to function without growth, s0 too architecture cannot survive without change and it Looks a5 though the process of aging and replacement, not only of buildings but equally of values and ideas, is rapidly gathering ‘momentum. We seem to get even more quickly bored with what was new yesterday, and these certainly are golden years for young architects who, with a repeatedly new view of things, are falling over each other to take the helm with new {ideas and to create new challenges that in turn req responses. With change and the perpetual challenge of regeneration as parameters of architecture, every young architect is obliged to hurl himself into this maelstrom. He has the opportunity to shine and he has to grasp that opportunity if he isnot to fall by the wayside, We must remember that his clients are in the same boat, they too must stand out if they are to get work. We are in fact all condemned to change. Whereas change and renewal meant improvement by the old standards, if these are not specifically aimed at the future there is no progress, ‘merely change for change’s sake; in which case itis about the excitement of the new, the unexpected, the previously ‘unimagined, without the question of quality being fore- ‘rounded. New is necessary, while the predecessors were rather hoping that progress would be made on the strength of their discoveries. Not only is each generation out to prove itself and can only do that by declaring what their forebears ‘thought and did to be invalid and useless and therefore out of date, but it is quick to lose interest and keeps needing new things all the time, Which is why each new generation of architects seizes on new needs, demands and challenges: ‘this gives them a welcome alibi for their craving for change and stimulates inventiveness. Exaggeration is inevitable. It could hardly be otherwise with new aspects being continually moved into the foreground, forcing old aspects into the background. A good many theories ‘get concocted not because they are better but simply because ‘old ones have lost their appeal: That's that out of the way. ‘The upshot is that so much that is worthwhile ‘disappears’ into history, although there is admittedly plenty to take its place. Luckily, besides the inevitability of the new, there is stll the persistent feeling of ‘there's always room for improvement’! ‘And when ambition proceeds in concert with critical acuity new discoveries ensue. Itishere that we must seek real, i.e. genuine, renewal and the only standard in architecture against which we can measure that renewal is the space that is freed by it. Everything that architects make can be judged according to this standard, I would like to demonstrate that here using ‘a number of examples of the incomparably large quantity of space yielded by twentieth-century modernism (a name with staying power, it seems), despite the scepticism often voiced on the matter. It is only where architecture generates other space, creates other experiences and satisfies other conditions which cause sensibilities to change, that it signiffes anything of value. Architecture is more than just a free-ranging, narcissistic phenomenon.Itis such moments as these that we look forward to, when spatial themes, inspired by ideas from beyond architecture, come into being, 1deas that are brought to expression and if possible reinforced by the medium of architecture, recogniz- able steps in an advancing civilization. Architecture not merely in spite of itself but, moreover, as the moving force behind shifts in thinking, however slight these shifts may be. In rare instances, then, architectural space can act as a model for social change. Nobody, I hasten to point out, claims that architecture can change the world, but the two do change each other, step by step, one grain of sand ata time. You have to step outside the context of your profession and be in a position to draw your ideas from a wider context than that of architecture which although itself revolving keeps taking its arguments from other arguments within its own system. Ideas relating to form or space can never derive from architecture alone. This raises the crucial discussion of whether there is any real point to such ideas, What are the things you can and cannot say with architectural means, and do they lead anywhere? As an architect you must be attuned to what goes on around you; open yourself to the shifts of attention in thinking that bring certain values into view and exclude others. The extent to.which you allow yourself to be influenced by these shifts {sa question of vitality. That architecture changes is not just a hedonistic, narcissistic, unconditional hankering, asin fash- jon, forthe spectacularly original in the design of the exterior, but over and above that its ability to capitalize on what itis that shifts in society and in the thinking on society, and the new concepts that are discovered as a result. Architects must react to the world, not to each oth