Date post: | 07-Jul-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | ivan-d-marifil-martinez |
View: | 219 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 30
8/18/2019 1987 Yve-Alain Bois - Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture
1/30
Mondrian and the Theory of ArchitectureAuthor(s): Yve-Alain BoisSource: Assemblage, No. 4 (Oct., 1987), pp. 102-130Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3171039 .
Accessed: 24/01/2011 16:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Assemblage.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3171039?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3171039?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress
8/18/2019 1987 Yve-Alain Bois - Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture
2/30
Yve Alain
B o i s
ondrian n d
t h e
T h e o r y
o
Architecture
Yve-Alain
Bois s Associate
rofessorf
Art
History
t
the
Johns
Hopkins
Univer-
sity
and a
founding
ditorof Macula.
1
(frontispiece).
Collective
letter sent to Mondrian
by
the
participants
of a
ClIAM
meeting
in
Amsterdam
When
Mondrian arrived
n
New
York,
in
October
1940,
he
was
preceded by
a
reputation
as a
designer
rather han
as
a
painter.
The few
paintings
that had been exhibited
during
the
thirties at the
Gallery
of
Living
Art
(the
private
museum of A. E.
Gallatin)
or at the
Museum of Modern
Art
were not at first
recognized
as easel
paintings,
but
rather
were
seen
as
hypothetical
models that needed to be
applied.
"When I first ooked at Mondrian's
paintings,"
wrote
Charmion
von
Wiegand,
"I found
them barebut
beautifully
proportioneddesigns.
I could
see
their use for
industry,
for
typography,
or
decoration,
but
I
could
not
understand
why
he still considered
himself a
painter."'
The
young
artist
and
critic was
quick
to
modify
her
judgment
and to
discover the full
pictorial
richness
of
Mondrian's
work.
But the
importantpoint
here
is that
this "utilitarian"
interpretation
of
neoplasticistpainting
has for
quite
some
time
largely
dominated
the critical discourse.
It
is,
first of
all,
the
argument
of its detractors:
strictly
decorative
paint-
ing,"
wrote
T6riade;2
kind
of
painting
"barely
good
enough to serve as bathroomtiling for its patron,"said
ironically
another fashionable
critic after the first
public
appearance
of Mondrian's
paintings
in
Paris.3
But this
in-
terpretation apidly
became
the
reasoning
of Mondrian's
advocatesas well. No
doubt to
convince,
to
rally
the
votes
of the
Beotians,
almost
every
article that has
appeared
on
the
artist,
and
this until
recently
(it
seems
that he
is now
beginning
to be
seen as
essentially
a
painter),
has insisted
on
the
supposed
influence
that Mondrian
has
had on
our
environment. Until the
1970s,
no historianof modern ar-
103
8/18/2019 1987 Yve-Alain Bois - Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture
3/30
LES
CONGRES
INTERNATIONAUX
D'ARCHITECTURE
MODERNE
INTERNATIONALE KONGRESSE FUR NEUES BAUEN
11/6/
,5
Ams+
rdtm
Jher
Piet,Mondriaan,
R4units
dans
une
assemblee
des
del4guees
des
Congres
internationaux
d'architecture moderne
a
Amsterdam,
nous
pensons
a
vous,
et nous
vous
envoyons nos
salutations cordiales,
sincerem.-Mnt
4 L
44okai..
k i 0 0 0 - b I e k
8/18/2019 1987 Yve-Alain Bois - Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture
4/30
assemblage
4
.
..
I|.
I.
162
(52)
Doesburg:
Russian
163 (305)
Mi~is
an
dc
Rohe:
Pro-
dance,1918
(not
in
exhibition) ;
ject
for a brick
countryv
house,
plan,
(f.
Picasso,
fig.
27
1922
16 (20)
Gro is: rsor s
us. I)csau, 19"25-26:
c'f.
I),M
.
lfi igp.
1.t11.o
cr right
2.
Page
from Alfred
Barr's
Cubism
and Abstract
Art,
1936.
Barr
compares
not
only
van
Doesburg's
Rhythm
of a Rus-
sian Dance to Mies's
project
for
a
brick
country
home,
but
also
Gropius'sprofessor's
house
at
Dessau
to van
Doesburg's
Com-
position
VIII
The
Cow)
of 1917.
chitecture failed to
cite
him,
at
one moment or
another,
as
a
kind of
precursor
the
exception
being
Reyner
Ban-
ham,
whose evaluationof
Mondrian's
work took on a
po-
lemical value
in
its own
time
-
as
if
architecture
had
waited for
neoplasticism
to
glorify
asymmetry
or
horizontal/
vertical
rhythm.4
Such
a
position,
on the
one
hand,
neglects
to take
into account
the
work of Frank
Lloyd
Wright,
who from the
end of the last
century played
very
subtly
with
symmetry
and
dissymmetry
and
who had
him-
self a notable influence
on certain
De
Stijl
architects).
And,
on
the
other
hand,
it
ignores
that
architecture,
end-
ing
from the 1880s towarda
"moral"
xergue
of its anat-
omy
(the
word is
Berlage's),
quite
naturally
began
to exalt
the
majoropposition
of
weight
and
support:
an
opposition
that,
thanks
to
technical
developments
and the
appearance
of new materials
steel,
reinforced
cement)
was manifested
more than ever
in the
expression
"H/V,"
according
o the
sibylline
phrase
of Theo van
Doesburg,
that
is
to
say, by
the
relationship
"horizontal/vertical."'
Nevertheless,
it should not
be
assumed that
it is in
itself
incongruous
to examine the
possible
relations
between
Mondrian'sart and
theory
with
respect
to architecture.
De
Stijl,
after
all,
was
a
movement
that,
with van
Doesburg
as
one of its
pillars,
brought
painters
and architects
ogether
in
the
hope
of
attaining
a
collective creation. Nor should
one
ignore
that it was the architects
who were
especially
appreciative
of Mondrian's
art,
forming
de
facto
the most
important
social
group
of his
admirers,
as
well as his
most
faithful collectors
(to
name
only
a
few,
J.
J.
P.
Oud,
Philip
Johnson,
Sir
Leslie
Martin,
Charles
Karsten,
Th.
K.
van
Lohuizen,
Cornelis van
Eesteren,
Alfred
Roth,
Mart
Stam,
Pierre
Chareau,
Werner
Moser,
and
Benjamin
Mer-
kelbach,
each
of whom
possessed
at least one of the
paint-
er'sworksduringhis lifetime).It is simplynecessary o note
that the search for
Mondrianesque
"motifs"
n
such and
such a
skyscraper rofile,
in
such and such a
pattern
of
openings
in
the
facade
of a
contemporary
building,
is
much less
pertinent
than
is
generally
believed. To take one
example
that does not
directly
concern Mondrian but an-
other
De
Stijl painter:
he
comparison
hat has been made
a thousand times
between the
plan
of a
Country
House
by
Mies
van der
Rohe, 1923,
and the
Rhythmof
a
Russian
Dance, 1918,
by
van
Doesburg.6
Striking
hough
it
is,
this
104
8/18/2019 1987 Yve-Alain Bois - Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture
5/30
Bois
3. Gerrit
Rietveld,
Schr6der
house, Utrecht,
1924.
The
first
of
a row of brick
houses,
reflecting
then
in a
pond
as
a
bridge
between
city
and
countryscape,
t
functions
as a
gate
to the town.
comparison
seems
essentially suspect.
It
is
typical
of a cer-
tain formalist
deology
of
design
-
the
principalshaper
of
which was without doubt the
Bauhaus,
although
unwill-
ingly
-
where
everything
s
thought
to
be
contained
in
everything
else
and
materialdifferencesare overlooked
n
favor of
morphological
analogies.
A
luxury
cigarette
lighter,
five centimeters
high,
can
be
compared
o a
sky-
scraper,eighty
stories
high,
a
plan
of a villa to an easel
painting:
he
argument
of
similitude is held to
prove
the
case.
Curiouslyenough,
it was Gerrit
Rietveld,
the architect
most
comparable
o Mondrian
(and
how can one
not,
in
effect,
be struck
by
the formal
resemblancebetween
the
polychrome
facades
of
the
Schr6der
House
and the neo-
plasticist
worksof the Dutch
painter?),
who
clearly
warned
against
this abuse of
analogical
relationships.Having
clari-
fied
that he
had,
in
fact,
never
met
Mondrian
an
ac-
knowledgement
hat
signifies
nothing
in
itself,
save for
indicating
the tenuous
nature of
the
personal
relationships
among
the
most
important
members
of De
Stijl7
Riet-
veld conceded that the
painter
had a "direct"
nfluence
on
architecture,
above
all
on that of
the
interior,
"including,"
he
wrote,
"all the
ignominies,
now
fortunately
oncluded,
perpetrated
n
the realm of
lead-glazing."8
But he also
added,
"I
see
in
every
direct
application
of the
composi-
tions of Mondrian
to architecture he
danger
of a
rapid
shift to decorative
prettiness,
and this
precisely
by
virtue of
the
very analytical beginnings
of
De
Stijl."
Even
though
he
did
not
deny
the existence
of a certain
superficial
nflu-
ence
of
Mondrian
on
architecture,
Rietveld
refused o
grant
the least
importance
to these
"applications."
Mondri-
an's
true
influence
in this domain could
not,
he
stressed,
be
analyzed
without
taking
into account the entire theoret-
ical work of De Stijl at its inception, founded on the
analytical separation
of the different
genres
of
plastic
art
(painting, sculpture,
architecture)
a
preliminary
epara-
tion
that,
according
to the members of the
movement,
would lead
by
its
very
rigor
to the invention
of
a
common
denominatorfor all the arts.
"At the
epoch
of De
Stijl,"
wrote
Rietveld,
"one
did
not
speak
of a
translationof
picto-
rial
experience
into
architecture;
n the
contrary,
one
spoke
of
the
separation
of
space,
color,
and form
as
the
point
of
departure
or the
analysis."9
That
said,
the
misun-
105
8/18/2019 1987 Yve-Alain Bois - Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture
6/30
assemblage
4
derstanding
denounced
by
Rietveld,
still
current
enough
today,
would be of little
importance
in
regard
o the
work
of Mondrian if the
painter
himself
was not
in some
way
the first to have
generated
it,
engendering
in his
theory
many
more contradictions
on
the
question
of the
relation-
ships
between
painting
and architecture han on
any
other
matter.
In
the autobiographypublishedin the catalogueof his first
one-man exhibition
in
New
York
in
1942,
Mondrian
wrote: "Modern
architectureand
industry
responded
o our
influence,
but
painting
and
sculpture
were little
affected."'1
The
partisans
of a
"utilitarian"
nterpretation
f
Mondrian's
work
can
certainly
use this
declaration
n
support
of their
thesis,
but this would
ignore
the
context
in
which the
phrase
was uttered.
Mondrian was indeed
defending
him-
self,
but also
criticizing
what
he
saw as the
regressive
har-
acter of
contemporary
pictorial
and
sculpturalproduction.
Mondrian's
text
immediately
continues:
"They
seemed to
fear that
Neo-Plasticism
might
lead to
'decoration.'
Ac-
tually,
there
was no reason for
this fear
in
pure
plastic
art
any more than in any other artexpression.All artbecomes
'decoration'when
depth
of
expression
s
lacking.""
It was
to
fight
the
accusation of
decoration
hat Mondrian
ap-
pealed
to
architectureand
industry,
which
had not
failed,
he
stated,
while
obeying
their own
requirements,
o follow
developments
"parallel
f
not
equal"
to
neoplasticism.
His
great
disdain for
applied
arts
had not
diminished since
1930,
when he
had
responded
o the
unfavorable
udgment
of
Tdriade
(on
the
"strictly
decorative"nature of
neoplasti-
cism):
"Indeed
perhaps
no
tendency
has been more
wrongly applied,
more
vulgarized
n
advertisements,
n
decoration,
in
architecture,
etc."'2
"While Neo-Plasticism now has its own intrinsic
value,
as
painting
and
sculpture,
it
may
be consideredas a
prepara-
tion for
a future
architecture,"
Mondrian continued
in
his
autobiography.
3
Here
again,
the
"utilitarians"
eem
to
have the
right
to be
pleased;
and
nevertheless,
here
again,
despite
the
ambiguous
nature of
Mondrian's ormulation
a
"preparation"
an
in
fact be taken for a
model),
they
would
be
wrong.
For Mondrian did
not
in
any way
imply
the
simple
formal
application
of the
compositional
method of
painting
to
architecture. What
Mondrian calls
"neoplasti-
cism"is
a
group
of
principles
that
go
beyond
any
artistic
practice
in
particular:
form
of
painting
may
be its
realiza-
tion
in
painting,
a
hypothetical
building
its realization
n
architecture;
but these
visible manifestations
are
by
nature
imperfect
and
always
perfectible,
while
the
principles
are
in themselves
"intangible"
this
is a
leitmotiv of
his
writings).
As
early
as
1922,
Mondriannoted
that
the
realization
of
neoplasticism
n
architecture
was almost
impossible,given existingeconomic and technical condi-
tions,14
and declared
openly,
"What
was
achieved
in
art
must
for
the
present
be
limited to
art. Our
external envi-
ronment
cannot
yet
be
realized
as
the
pure
plastic
expres-
sion
of
harmony."'5
Certainly
this
text
precedes
by
twenty
years
the American
autobiography,
but
everythingsupports
the indication
that Mondrian
had
not
changed
his
mind
on this
point.
Until the end
of his
life,
Mondrian
thought
of the realization
of
neoplasticism
n architecture
as
something
that would
occur in
the
future.
While
he
often exhibited
his admiration
or certain
contemporary
architectural
reations,
he
accepted
none
without
qualifica-
tion,
not even those
of
Rietveld,
on which he
was
singu-
larly
silent. His
judgments
on
contemporary
rchitecture
were
always
comparative
and
relative.
The work
of Le
Cor-
busier,
for
example,
was
to
Mondrian
"already
beautiful
.
.
in
comparison
with
other
works . .
,
already
very
great
in this
epoch,
but it
is
not the
apogee
of
culture ":
his
art
was "still
too
naturalistic."16
Or
again,
if
he
wrote to
Oud,
at the
very
beginning
of
their
friendship,
that he
greatly
admired his
Project
for a
Factory
of
1919,
it was
only
to add:
"it is
the best
that
I
have seen
of its
kind.""7
This
"best"
tands
out,
but
it
was far
from
implying perfec-
tion.
In
brief,
no
architectural
ealization
ever
existed
(nor
could
have
existed)
that
represented
or
Mondrian
an
abso-
lute exampleof that "purearchitecture" f which he
dreamed.
It
is
appropriate
o
analyze,
in
the
remainderof
this
essay,
the
many
reasons,
stemming
from
the
contradictions n
Mondrian's
heory,
why
this
was so.
The
first
resides,
as
we
have
seen,
in
the
way
in
which
Mondrianthinks
of
(refuses
and
sometimes
admits)
the
possibility
of
a
"utiliza-
tion"of the
principles
of
neoplasticism
n
architecture
a
formulation
that
must be
examined
more
closely.
The
sec-
ond,
and more
essential,
concerns
the
verynotion,
found
106
8/18/2019 1987 Yve-Alain Bois - Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture
7/30
Bois
4.
J. J.
P.
Oud,
project
for a
factory,
Purmerend,
1919
in
his
writings,
of
utility
in architecture
and,
beyond
this,
his
struggleagainst
the functionalist
conception
of
modern
architecture.The
third,
more serious
still,
and
directly
linked to Mondrian'sown
architectural
xperiments,
concerns his
blindness,
his absolute
refusalof the
spatial
givens
of
architecture.
Against Applied Neoplasticism
Mondrian,as we have said, refused the idea of appliedarts
as well
as of "decoration": The decorative
arts
disappear
n
Neo-Plasticism,
ust
as the
applied
rts."'8
r
again,
"Neo-
Plasticism
seemingly
lends itself to decoration
through
ts
planarity)
but
actually
the
"decorative" as no
place
in
the
Neo-Plastic
conception."'9
Mondrian's ole
contribution o
the domain of
the
"applied
arts"
if
we
except
the
cubist
plate
he conceived before the advent of
neoplasticism
n
1914)20
was
indeed a burden for
him:
the
layout
for the
cover of
the
unpublished
Polish translationof his
Bauhaus
book.21
And we
will
see that Mondrian's
nteriors
certainly
cannot
be classified
in
the
category
of decoration
those,
for example, of his own studio, his projectfor a Salon
pour
Madame
B
. . .
,
or his model for a
theatrical
"decor."
In
order
better
to understand
Mondrian's
position
against
the
application
of one art to
another,
and for the
applica-
tion,
in
each
art,
of the
principles
of
neoplasticism
a
posi-
tion
summarized
in
a
letter to
Alfred
Roth,
"It should not
be
believed that we
want to make
'art'
n
architecture"),22
we
should doubtless
return,
as Rietveld
indicated,
to
the
very
beginnings
of
De
Stijl,
when a true
analytic theory
of
the
differentarts was formulated
by
Mondrian,
Theo van
Doesburg,
and Bart van der Leck.
Although
he contentof all arts s
one,
the
possibilities
f
plastic
exteriorizationredifferentor each art. Eachart
discovershese
possibilities
ithin
ts own
domain
nd must
remain imited
by
its bounds.
Eachart
possesses
ts own means
f
expression:
he
transformation
f its
plastic
means
has to be discovered
ndepen-
dentlyby
each artand mustremain imited
by
its own
bounds.
Therefore
he
potentialities
f one artcannotbe
judged
ccording
to the
potentialities
f
another,
ut
mustbe considered
ndepen-
dently
and
only
with
regard
o the art
concerned.23
Such is Mondrian's
quotation,
in
1920,
of a
fragment
rom
107
8/18/2019 1987 Yve-Alain Bois - Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture
8/30
assemblage
4
the
very
first
text
that
he had
published
in
De
Stijl,
in
its
inaugural
issue.24
Even
though
in this article he insisted
on
the
specificity
of each
art,
Mondrian
did not accord the
same status
to all:
painting
was "the freest
art";
t alone
could
give
rise to
"the
most
consequential
expression
of
pure
relations."
His claim for
specificity
was
thus encum-
bered from the outset
by
an evident
dissymmetry.
Now
in
the same issue of De
Still,
Bart
van der Leck
published
an
article, still more clearlyarticulated,on the relationsbe-
tween
painting
and
architecture.25
n
substance,
van
der
Leck
proposed
that
each artist
should
occupy
himself with
his own work so that no art
would
impinge
on the
preroga-
tives of another
(on
this
pont
evidently,
at
the
beginning
at
least,
the
theory
of the members
of De
Stijl
shares
nothing
with an
apology
for a
Gesamtkunstwerk).
Let each
art,
van
der Leck
stated,
search on
its own account
for what consti-
tutes its
specific
"essence."
And van der
Leck enumerated
the differences between
painting
and architecture:
latness
/
volume;
openness
/
closure;
color
/
absence
of
color;
exten-
sion
/
limitation;
plastic
equilibrium
/ constructive
equilib-
rium. But
if
van
der Leck claimed
with
insistence
this
separation
of
roles,
it was
not
in
order
violently
to
oppose
painting
and architecture o each
other,
rather he con-
trary.
In
a
second
text on the same
problem,
published
four
months later
in
De
Still,
van
der Leck offereda more
precise explanation:
"It
is
only
when the means of
expres-
sion of each art are
applied
in
all
their
purity,
that is to
say,
according
to the
characteristics
f its nature and
end,
so that
each art attains its
own essence as an autonomous
entity,
it is
only
at this moment
that an
interlinking,
a
dovetailing,
will become
possible,
which
will
demonstrate
the
unity
of the different
arts.'"26
And
why
will this
occur,
according
to van der Leck?Because
painting
and architec-
ture have a fundamental element in common, flatness, the
"degree
zero of their art"
in
wall or
picture
plane).
In
fact,
it
is because it has become
planar (pictorial
flatness s the
watchwordof all
the
painters
of
De
Stijl)
that
painting
"has
arrived
oday
at the
point
where it
may
be
admitted
to
a
collaboration with architecture. This has
happened
because
its
means of
expression
have
been
purified.
The
description
of time
and
space
by
the means of
perspective
has been
abandoned: t is
henceforth
up
to the flat
plane
to transmit
the
continuity
of
space.
. . .
Painting
is
today
architectural
because
in itself and
by
its own means it serves the same
concept
-
the
space
and
the
plane
-
as
architecture,
and
thus
expresses
the same
thing'
but
in a different
way.'"27
The
point
of
departure
was
the same for
van
Doesburg
in
the first
major
text that
he
published
on
architecture,
n
November
1918. For
him the division
of labor was
abso-
lutely
necessary:
"Each
art,
architecture,
painting,
or
sculpture,
requires
he whole
man."28
He
repeated
he
same recriminationsas
had van der
Leck
against
hose
architects
who
would
attempteverything.29
Van
Doesburg
would
reiterate
many
times this
express
demand
for a divi-
sion of
labor,
even
though
evidently, increasingly
nterested
in
architecture,
he no
longer
obeyed
it himself.
("Many
a
misunderstanding
r mistake
has resultedwhen
painter
and
architect
did not
sufficiently
respect
one
another's
ield.
On the one
hand,
architectsrestricted
painters;
on the
other
hand,
they
presented
hem
with too much
free-
dom.")30
But van
Doesburg's
naugural
ext,
in
place
of
stressing
he
planar
charactercommon
to the two
arts,
insisted
on one of the differences
between
painting
and
architecture hat van der Leck had articulatedwithout
elaboration:
"Architecture
oins
together,
binds
-
painting
loosens,
unbinds."
In
this text of
1918,
van
Doesburg
for-
mulated the
theory
that he was to
hold,
with some varia-
tions,
until the end of his life:
"Architecture
rovides
a
constructed, closed,
plastic
form,
by
virtue of its balanced
relationships.Painting
is contrasted
n
relation to
architecture.
31
In
this context Mondrianelaboratedhis first
writings
on
the
question.
His insistence on the
specificity
of the
arts,
his "each
specialty
demands
complete
attention
and
study,"32
irectly
echoed the "whole man" called for
by
van
Doesburg. In the first text where he spoketo some extent
about
architecture,
"Het
bepaalde
en het
onbepaalde,"33
published
in
December
1918,
Mondrian
in
fact took
up
a
number of ideas set forth
by
van der Leckand van Does-
burg,
ideas that
might
be
summarized
n
three
postulates:
(1)
Painting, having
evolved,
is
today ready
o come to
terms with
architecture
a
principal
dea
of
van
der
Leck's);
(2)
but it is
not,
for
this,
any
more an
accessory
of
archi-
tecture,
because
it is not
constructive
Mondrian
cited
van
der
Leck's text
in
a
note);
and
(3)
architecture
always
pre-
108
8/18/2019 1987 Yve-Alain Bois - Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture
9/30
Bois
supposes
closure
and
limitation
(Mondrian
cited this
time
van
Doesburg's
text).
Now
Mondrian articulated
each of
these
theses in a
different manner than had van der Leck
or
van
Doesburg,
or
rather,
he corrected
each
by
additions.
To the
first
statement,
Mondrian added the idea that
archi-
tecture
has
always
"surpassed"
he
neighboring
arts
by
its
very
nature,
even
if in
an unconscious
way.
Architecture,
he
would write
later,
will have the shortest
part
of the
route to cover. This theme of architecture n the forefront
was
often to return in
Mondrian's
writing,
until he cor-
rected it
by
a
strange
evolutionist dialectic:
precisely
be-
cause architecture s too close to
"pure
vision"
-
that is to
say,
because it
expresses
tself
through
the relation "hori-
zontal/vertical"
architecturecannot attain it
fully.
But
this dialectical
"correction"was
already
present
in
embryo
in "Het
bepaalde
en het
onbepaalde": nly
painting
has
led
to the
expression
of
"pure relationships";
n
other
words,
the
"advance" f
architecture
serves and
will
serve
in
the
future for
nothing.
All the
subsequent
texts of
Mondrian
(but
also
those of
van
Doesburg)
would
insist on this inau-
gural role of painting.4
To the
second of
these theses Mondrian first
added the
remark,
repeated
several times
afterwards,
hat
architecture,
precisely
because it
is "constructive"s not free
(the
weight
of
materials
hinders
it).
Mondrian
opposed
it to
painting,
no
longer
constructivebut
"constructing"
construeerende].
But
this
opposition
opens up
an
entirely
differentside of
his
theory,
revealing
what differentiates
Mondrian
from
van
Doesburg
and
also,
more
radically,
what
distances
him
from
all modern architects:
architecture,
he
stated,
is con-
demned
to
volume,
its
"corporeality"
s its
curse,
its
ad-
verse
destiny.
The
only
solution is for it to be "as
planar
as
possible."It could not, in any event, avoid perspectiveor
abandon all
"naturalism.""35
The third thesis of
"Het
bepaalde
en het
onbepaalde"
was
linked to the entire
metaphysics
of
neoplasticism:
by
being
closed
in its essence
(because
it
always
remains a
shelter),
the
building
is
opposed
to
space,
to the
"continuity
of
space"
mentioned
by
van der
Leck;
it remains a
thing
apart.
By
contrast,
the
aim
of
neoplasticism
n all its do-
mains was an absolute
"neutralization"
f all
opposition,
a
dissolution of
everyparticular hing
into the whole.
From this
readjustment
of the ideas of van
Doesburg
and
van
der
Leck stem two
preoccupations
essential to the the-
oretical
work of
Mondrian:the interesthe
accorded to the
interior
and
this
interest is not
simply
theoretical);
and
the
myth,
increasingly
nsistent
in
his
writings,
of a
dissolution
of
art
in
life. We will see
that these two
preoccupations
are
linked.
To end
with the
question
of
"application,"
et us
note that
Mondrian
always
declared
himself a
subscriber o the
no-
tion of
the
specificity
of
the
arts,
even
going
so far
as to
praise
the new
architecture
because it
"excludes
painting
and
sculpture,
for it
is now
widely
admittedthat if each
one
did
not
perfect
itself
separately,
all
would
degenerate
into
decorative
or
applied
art."'36
Mondrian seemed
also to
hold to the
idea of the
common
denominatorof
architec-
ture and
painting
(the
surface)
as it had been formulated
by
van
der Leck:
this
common denominator
(the
planar)
could
permit,
should
the
occasion
arise,
the
union of these
two
plastic
domains,
because
it
was concerned
not with
a
superficial
application
but with a
common
root of the two
arts.
We must
nevertheless
recognize
that Mondrian
-
like
van
Doesburg
-
as
I
have
already
alluded
to,
did
not resist the
temptation
to
establish
a
hierarchy
of the arts. At the
very
end of his article
"De
Realiseering
van het
Neo-Plasti-
cisme,"
he
added,
in
effect,
that he had
judged
architec-
ture
from
the
point
of
view
of
painting, concluding
thus:
"The Neo-Plastic
aesthetic
originated
n
painting,
but once
formulated,
the
concept
is valid
for
all the
arts."37
This
affirmation,
a true
coup
de
force,
is, however,
in
contradic-
tion with
any
idea of
specificity,
that is
to
say,
with
the
point
of
departure
of the De
Stijl group.
It should
be
noted
that almost all the membersof De Stijl followed the same
development:
first inclined toward
collaboration,
by
virtue
of
a
common denominator
among
their
practices,
the
ar-
chitects and the
painters
decided little
by
little
to
work
alone,
but
precisely
and
paradoxically
because
they
could
not
respect
the
"specificity"
f their
domain,
because
they
could not be
prevented
from
trespassing
on that of
their
neighbor.
Thus it was
in 1922 that
Mondrian seemed
to
abandon,
whatever
he said to
the
contrary,any
idea
of
col-
laboration,
declaring
that "the
architect,
the
sculptor,
and
109
8/18/2019 1987 Yve-Alain Bois - Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture
10/30
assemblage
4
the
painter
find
their
essential
identity
in
collaborationor
are all
united
in
a
single
person,"38
he
last
part
of the
statement
clearly
contradicting
he
principle
of the
division
of
laborto
which he had
earlier
subscribed.This
contra-
diction
stemmed
without
any
doubt
from the
sense of
de-
ception provoked
n
Mondrian
by
the architectureof
his
time,
as
manifested,
for
example,
in
the
attitude of
Oud
toward
neoplasticism:"Today,
because
the
architect
is not
an artist,he is unable to createthe new beauty,"he wrote
in
1925.39
We must
now
analyze
the
history
of
this
deception.
Against
Functionalism in
Architecture
When
Mondrian
began
to
assemble his
scattered deas on
architecture,
in
the
celebrated
"trialogue,"
s he
called
it,
"Natuurlijke
en
abstracte
realiteit"
Natural
reality
and
ab-
stract
reality],
he attributeda
kind of
unconscious
scouring
force to
practical
necessity
n
ordinary
architecture:
"We
see
pure beauty
arising
of
its own
accord
in
architectural
structures
built for
utility
and
from
necessity:
n
housing
complexes, factories,warehouses,etc. But as soon as 'lux-
ury'
enters,
one
begins
to think
of
'art,'
and
pure
beauty
is
compromised.
40
A
few
months
before
Le
Corbusierwas to
invent
the
"good
savage"
of
modern
architecture
n
his arti-
cles
for
L'Esprit
Nouveau,
Mondrian said
of
the
engineer
that
he was
(without
knowing
it)
in
advance of
the
artist.
"So
long
as we
are
incapable
of
conscious
aesthetic
plastic
expression,
it is
better
to
devote our
attention
to
utility,"
he
wrote in
"Realiteit."'41
And
Mondrian
acclaimed
objects
of
necessity,
exactly
as Le Corbusier
would
do: "A
simple
drinkingcup
is
beautiful
and so
is an
automobile or an
airplane.'"42
There
is,
of
course,
nothing very
original
in
this
formulation;
t is a
commonplace
of
the
epoch.
Writ-
ing
shortly
after
Mondrian,
in
the
same
terms,
and
draw-
ing
his
support
directly
from
the
texts
of Le
Corbusier,
van
Doesburg
advancedhis
plea
on
behalf of
a
"mechanical"
aesthetic
and
refuted
the
"Gothic"
arguments
of
Berlage.43
More
interesting
s to
see how
Mondrian
little
by
little
de-
tached
himself
from
this
"functionalist"
ision.
The
first
text
that
he
devoted
exclusively
to
architecture,
he
two-
part
"De
Realiseering
van
het
Neo-Plasticisme,"
dated from
1922.
Dedicated to
the
question
of
the
"function"
of
archi-
tecture,
of
its
practical
necessities and
technical
problems,
the article
grew directly
out
of a
long epistolary
debate
be-
tween the artistand
J. J.
P. Oud
(then
in the
process
of
breaking
with
van
Doesburg
because of
the latter's
ntru-
sions
into the domain of
architecture).
ElsewhereMon-
drian thanked
his friend
for
havinghelped
him,
through
his
letters,
to
reflect on
architecture.44
his
correspondence
must be
examined in
detail,
because in it
is
revealed
the
entiregenesis of Mondrian'sarchitectural heory.
Everythingbegan,
in
fact,
with
a
lecture
by
Oud
entitled
"Over
de Toekomste Bouwkunst
en hare
Mogelijkheden,"
given
in
February
1921 and
published
the
following
June.
Oud's
text,
immediately
translated
nto German
and
two
years
later into
French,
under the
title
"L'Architecture
e
demain
et ses
possibilit6s
architectoniques,"
was to
gain
considerable
attention.45
t
articulated,
doubtless
for
the
first
time,
whatwas
to become the
credoof the
architects
belonging
to what
is now called
the
International
Style.
If
most of Oud's
theses seem
today extremely
banal,
it is
pre-
cisely
because
they
were
immediately
taken
up
by every
architectof the Modern Movement, and because, above
all,
his text
anticipated
by
a
number
of
years
the
multipli-
cation
of
manuals
and manifestoes
producedby
the
archi-
tects of the
1920s. Oud
denounced the
anachronism
of
contemporary
architecture
with
regard
o its technical
pos-
sibilities
(while,
by
contrast,
the
engineers
knew
how
to
exploit
the new materials
such as
glass
or
metal).
He
de-
cried
the
leprosy
of
ornament,
since
its
origins
the
veritable
sign
of the decadence
of architecture.
And he
articulated
the need
for a
transparent
rchitecture,
n
the double
sense
that architecture
hould
no
longer
seek
to hide its
con-
struction,
"beautiful
n
itself,"
and
that,
utilizing glass
in
wide,
glazed bays,
it should
open
itselfto
the
light.
Noth-
ing
is more common to the historianof this
period
than
these
maxims;
in
any
event,
Oud innovated
ess in
the
ideas
themselves
than
in
their
conjugation.
But
what is
less
known,
and what
seems to
have
escaped
even
Mondrian,
is the
similarity
of
language
between
this text
by
Oud
and
the first articles
by
the
painter.
(Oud
even
speaks
of
the
"tragic,"
principal concept
of
neoplasticist heory.)
The
architect
was
visibly
a
great
reader
of Mondrian
during
this
period;
whence
Mondrian'sown
astonishment
n
discover-
ing
that Oud did
not mention
neoplasticism
n
his
lecture.
110
8/18/2019 1987 Yve-Alain Bois - Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture
11/30
Bois
5. J. J. P.
Oud,
Spangen
VIII,
Rotterdam,
1921.
Oud's
refusal
of his coloristic
design
for
this
housing
complex prompted
van
Doesburg
to
break with the
architect.
Instead,
taking up
an idea that had been dear to
him
from
1916,
Oud made
of cubism one of the sources of the ar-
chitecture
of the future.46Even
though
he characterized t
as "the
tragic image
of
an
epoch
in
transition,"
Oud wrote
that cubism
led
to
an art that was
"essentiallypictorial"
a characterization
ollowed
by
a
description
hat evoked
neoplasticism
more than
it did cubism.
Cubism,
he
avowed,
was an art
whose works"lose their
right
to exist
as
paintings
but
gain
a considerable
nterest
n
anticipat-
ing
the role that color
will
play
in
the architectureof
tomorrow.
"47
"Allow me one
remark,"
wrote Mondrian to the
architect,
"you
write
very prudently
of
a
new
art,
purer,
that is
in
the
process
of
developing
out of cubism. Would
it not have
been better to
clearly
define
neoplasticism
as the
principle
of all artistic
expression
at
this
epoch).
.
.
. You
would
have even been able to
remain outside the
argument
by
referring
imply
to
my
brochure,
where
I
have transferred
the
principles
of N.P. to
architecture."48
Mondrian,
we
note,
still
thought
that a
transferral
f the
principles
of
neoplasticism o architecturewas possible.A little laterin
the
correspondence,
he would
say
he
did
not understand
that
Oud
did not
accept
an
application
of these
principles
to Bouwkunst.49
He
still,
some
months
later,
even dreamed
of
being
able to
put
these
principles
into
practice
himself:
"Even as
you
like
my painting
(which
is a close
enough
reflection of
neoplasticism
n
painting),
so,
I
hope, you
would like a
building
of mine
-
if
only
I could realize
it."750
ut he was
gradually
o
abandon such fantasiesof
immediate
application,
and his
correspondence
with
Oud
must have counted
for
something
in this evolution. What-
ever the
case,
the architect had
doubtless
responded
o
Mondrian's
reproaches
with an initial
justification
of the
kind,
"neoplasticism
s
impossible
in architecture or
prac-
tical reasons."Mondrian
announced to
Oud,
indeed with
a certain
jubilation,
that
he seemed to have found
the the-
oretical
solution
for
their difference:
After
having
ead
your
etter,
suddenly
nderstood here he
difficulty
was.
We
can
be
pure
only
if
we see architecture
[bouwkunst]
newas art
[kunst].
t is
only
as art that
t
can
fully
respond
o the aesthetic emands
f
neoplasticism.
rchitecture,
or,
above
all,
the
'construction
nd
coloring'
hatmustbe accom-
plished
or thatwhich s
already
xistant,
an be
purified
y
the
111
8/18/2019 1987 Yve-Alain Bois - Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture
12/30
assemblage
4
6. Theo van
Doesburg,
photo-
montage
of various
views of
the model for a
Maison d'art-
iste he realized and
exhibited
with
Cornelisvan
Eesteren at
the Galerie de "L'EffortMod-
erne,"
1923
GALERIE
"L'EFFORT
MODERNE"
LtONCE
ROSENBEItG
19,
Rue de La
Baume
-
Paris
(vxxi~)
rez-de-chaussde
Les Architectes
u
Groupe
de
Styl"
(HOLLuNDE)
PROJETS ET
MAQUETTES
AR
THQOVAN
DOESBURG,
C. VAN
EESTEREN,
HUSZAR
W.
VAN
LEUSDEN,
J-J.
P.
OUD,
G.
RIETVELD,
MIES VAN
DER
ROHE,
WILS.
Exposes
du 15
Octobre au
15
Novembre 1923
de
10
h.
&12 h. et
de
14
h.
17
h.
30
INVITATION
(dimanches
et
fdtes
exceptis)
7. Invitation or De
Stijl's
architectural how in
Paris,
1923
N.P.
but
scarcely
more.
Certainly
ot
attain
beauty.
The Neo-Pl.
demands
oo
much,
and
this s not
yet
possible
ecausemen are
not
yet
ready.
Your ecture
was herefore
ery
good,
n
this
sense,
concerning
onstruction
het
bouwen],
nd in
general
ou
would
be
right
o continue
working
n
this
way.
Let us call
this,
for
example,
Architectuur'
nd
the other
Bouwkunst'
this
distinc-
tion is
possible
etween
us,
but
I think hat he two have
he
same
meaning,
hus,
officially,
t is not
possible).
.
.
The solu-
tionis to be found
n this distinction
hat
I
make,
his eliminates
thedifficulty.As forthe bouwkunstskunst,I already ada
solution,
and
I
described
t
in De
Still
and
n
the brochure.
[Mondrian'smphasis]51
This is an
important
etter,
despite
its
obscurities,
because
it
enunciated
for the
first time a radical
distinction
between
a
"practical,"
useful"
architecture
construction,
het bou-
wen,
architectuur)
nd an
experimental
architecture
(bouwkunst).
This
distinction,
which Mondrian
did
not
yet
dare to formulate
n
the same
terms as Malevitch
("Archi-
tecture
begins
where
there are no
practical
aims.
Architec-
ture as
such."),
was essential
for
the evolution of
modern
architecture.
2
We
know,
in
effect,
that the
audacity
of
pure experimentation, hat the elaborationof theoretical
models
(such
as the two
final
projects
hat
Theo van Does-
burg
and
Cornelis
van Eesteren
realized
for the
exhibition
of
De
Stijl
architects
at the Galerie
de
"L'Effort
Moderne"
in
1923)
did
as
much,
if
not
more,
for the evolution
of the
"practical"
rchitecture
of
this
century
as the demands
of
necessity.
J. J.
P.
Oud
felt himself
condemned,
if
not
excluded,
by
such
a distinction
between two
types
of architectural
work,
and refused
t
categorically:
"I
am
convinced that one
should
construct
nothing
that
-
in
one
sense or another
-
is not
art,"
he
responded
o
Mondrian.53
Certainly,
Mondrianreplied,but then neoplasticismwill never be
reached this
way:
"The so-called
practice
could never
pro-
duce an architecture
as
N.P.
Only
an
entirely
new
practice
could do this.
And this
practice
s
completely
inaccessible
to
us
in
the
present
circumstances."
And earlier
in
the
same
letter,
Mondrian reaffirmed
hat
"concerning
he dis-
tinction that
I
made between
practical
and
pure
architec-
ture,
I
do not
think that for
the moment
there is
any
other
solution."54
For some time after this
exchange,
Oud and Mondrian
112
8/18/2019 1987 Yve-Alain Bois - Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture
13/30
Bois
seemed
to abandon furtherdiscussion of this
point.
Oud,
in
fact,
had
just
quarrelled
with
van
Doesburg,
and as
their
sharp argument
had
begun
after their collaboration
on an
architectural
project,
it is
probable
hat
Mondrian
(who
nevertheless ook van
Doesburg'spart)
did not want
to worsen
things.
He even tried to reconcile the architect
and the
founder of De
Stijl,
but
apparentlypreferred
o
leave
on
one
side,
provisionally
at
least,
the
burning
issue
of architecture. The discussionwas renewed after the pub-
lication of
an interview that
Mondrian had accorded a
Dutch
journalist,
in
which
he
declared,
"In
Holland,
there
are no
longer
any
artists
who like and follow
my
work."55
Though
he mentioned van
Doesburg
(then
in
Weimar)
and
Vantongerloo
(then
at
Menton),
Mondrian
made
no
allusion to Oud:
"I
still do
not
know,
in
effect,"
Mondrian
wrote to
him,
"if
you
are
in
agreement
with
me
and
if
aesthetically
you
search
in
the
same
direction.
.
. this is
why
I
did not cite
you."56
As
early
as
the
appearance
of
the first
part
of
"De
Reali-
seering
van
het
Neo-Plasticisme,"
Oud
had
explained
his
reactionsto his friend. He did not want to limit himself to
neoplasticism,
he said
(just
as
later,
in
1925,
he would
say
that
he did not wish
to
limit
himself
to
the functionalist
credo of
the Modern
Movement
in
architecture,
of
which
he
had
been
one of
the
principal artisans).57
he
statement
provoked
Mondrian's
wrath.
Not to
want "to
be
limited to
neoplasticism"
was
not to
understand
t,
Mondrian
wrote
in
substance
("By
this
limitation,
I
do not
feel
myself
infe-
rior
-
on
the
contrary,
t is
my strength"),
becausethe
principles
of
neoplasticism
did not
admit of
limitation.
58
His next letter
clarified
the
painter's
houghts
a
little
more:
"Neoplasticism
s
in advance
of us
because
it
is
entirely
pure.
This
is
the
reason
why
it does
not need
to
change,
and
cannot
do it.
Only
its realization
can
evolve."59
Oud
had
by
then read the second
part
of Mondrian's
ext,
and
had
certainly
made
known to the
painter
his views
on
the
question
of
technique.
Mondrian
responded,
"All
these
technical
difficulties
you speak
about
cannot debase
the
plastic
idea, but,
on
the
contrary,
hey
construct
it.
...
But
if
you
wait
in
order
to
accept
the
truth,
you
will
lose
yourself
in
technique
alone.'"60
here were thus for
Mon-
drian two
possible
attitudes
n
the face
of constructional
technique:
an active
attitude
(which
would
oblige
tech-
nique
to
renew
its
methods,
to
improve
itself
by
new
in-
ventions
that,
in
return,
would
enlarge
the
possibilities
of
the
"plastic
dea")
or a
passive
attitude
(to
follow
in
the
wake of
technique),
a stance that
held no interestfor him.
Theo van
Doesburg
was to
formulate
the
same idea
two
months later.61
Again
Oud showed
his irritation.
The tone
of the
letters between the
two friends
grew
increasingly
sharp. In the following letter, Mondrianwrote, "It is evi-
dent that
neoplasticism
should
envisage
a
union
between
technique
and
aesthetics;
his is also the
idea of
N. P.
That
you
end
up
in
affirming
the
opposite
is for me
an
enigma."
And he added that it
was useless to continue to
correspond
on the
question
of architecture:
"We now know
more or
less our
reciprocalpoints
of
view and we
should
let
time do
its
work.'"62
Oud,
nevertheless,
could not
prevent
himself
from
reopen-
ing
the
debate,
in
a
letter
of recrimination
on an
entirely
different
subject
(a
picture
that
he wished
to
buy
from
Mondrian).
After
having
accused
van
Doesburg
of
every
sin, and having stigmatized"hisdestructivearchitectural
prophesies,"
Oud
wrote:"Your
ife
is
to
paint,
mine to
construct."63
Confronted
with
this laconic
phrase
Mon-
drian
was
flabbergasted,
hough
it in
no
way
contradicted
the
analytic
program
of
De
Stijl
at its
inception,
to which
the
painter
had subscribed.
"I
do not
know how
you
arrive
at the traditional
dea of
separating
construction
and
paint-
ing "
cried Mondrian
-
who said
he did
not understand
either the
persistence
of
the technical
arguments
advanced
by
Oud
against
neoplasticism
in architecture
"when
I
have done
everything
to
explain
to
you
that
my
ideas
will
be
possible
in the
future.'"64
This
suspended
the
correspon-
dence
between the two
friends
for
nearly
a
year,
and
defin-
itively
closed the discussion
of
these
questions.
Let
us now return to
the
article
around
which this corre-
spondence
was
woven,
Mondrian's
"De
Realiseering
van
het Neo-Plasticisme."
The
first
part,
which
he
had charac-
terized for
Oud
as
"idealist,"65
as
in
some
way
a
summary
of his
theory
about the
context
of life as
a
whole,
the
func-
tion of art
in
society,
the
"unshakable
volution"
of human
civilization.
Mondrian
elaborated
irst on
the
"metropolis,"
the dreamland
and
breeding
ground
of
modernity,
but also
113
8/18/2019 1987 Yve-Alain Bois - Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture
14/30
assemblage
4
on the "liberation
of labor
by
the
machine,"
on
the
provi-
sionally
reactionary
role
of "the
masses,"
on the dialectical
necessity
for
destruction
n
every
historical
process.
He se-
riously
criticized the
conception
of art as a
luxury,
which
he
replaced
with that of art as
surrogate:"Throughout
he
centuries,
art has been
the
surrogatereconciling
man with
his
outward
life.'"66
He
developed
at
length
the
(mythical)
theme of
the end of
art,
of
its
dissolution
in
life,
and this
was the only theme within which he evokedarchitecture: t
will be
founded,
Mondrian
stated,
in
the same
way
as
painting,
sculpture,
and the
decorative
arts,
in
a
much
vas-
ter
totality,
a
new
category,
"architecture-as-environment."
But this would concern
only
the future.
"The end
[of
art]
now would be
premature.
Since its
reconstruction-as-life
s
not
yet
possible,
a new art
is still
necessary.'"67
Art,
includ-
ing neoplasticist painting,
was indeed a
surrogate
or
Mon-
drian. He concluded
-
a
direct echo of
his
long
epistolary
dispute
with Oud
-
with an evaluation
of cubism as an
art of the
past
and with a
hommage
to
van
Doesburg
as
the founder
of the De
Stijl
group.
In
the
second,
"practi-
cal"
part
of
"De
Realiseering,"
Mondrian
entered
immedi-
ately
into the
subject
announced
by
the full title of the
article:
"The Realization
of Neo-Plasticism
in
the Distant
Future and
in
Architecture
Today."
He raised
many
kinds
of
problems
-
to
which we shall return
including
the
"point
of
view"
of
the
"spectator"
n
architecture,
and the
opposition
of the
neoplastic
work of artwith the unhar-
monious
totality
of the exterior
environment.
But
the es-
sential text addressed he
questions
that Mondrian
had
discussed with
Oud
and
was intended as a direct
response
to
the architect's
"objections."
f
Mondrian
abandoned,
as
he had
foreseen,
the too subtle
distinction between
archi-
tectuur
and
bouwkunst,
it is
because
through
his
corre-
spondence with Oud he had found a bettersolution: the
bouwen
belonged
to the
world
of the
useful,
the bouw-
kunst to the
world
of
art.
"Some
[architects]
were
truly
convinced
of
the
necessity
of a new
architecture,"
wrote
Mondrian,
referring
o
his
friend's
ecture,
but
they
"doubt
the
possibility
that
the Neo-Plastic idea
can
achieve
real-
ization-as-architecture
oday."
We should
note
this
today,
already
ncluded
in the
title,
which
carries n
itself the
es-
sential contradiction
of his
text:
"The
architect
today
lives
at the
level
of
the
'practical-building'
of
bouwen] from
which art is excluded. Thus
if
he is
responsible
o Neo-
Plasticism
at
all,
he
expects
to
realize
it
directly
n that
kind
of
building
[bouwen].
But
...
Neo-Plasticism
has
first
to be createdas the 'workof art'
[kunstwerk]."68
n
sum,
the architect is too
busy,
desiring
immediate solu-
tions.69
According
to
Mondrian,
two
possibilities
remained
open
to
him.
The
first
was for the architect to abandon
all
aspirations
or
utility
and
to strive
to construct his
building
as a work
of
art
in
itself
This was
a
necessarystage
in
the evolution of
architecture,
an
experimentalpreface
to
the "dissolution
of
architecture-as-art"
n
the "environment-as-life." ut
this
alternative,
Mondrian
admitted,
was
at the
time almost
impossible:
oremost
for
reasons
that
were
economic
(those
who
had the
power
and the
money
were,
with rare
excep-
tions,
hostile to
the
new);
but also because to
put
an end
to the work of art
required
a
long
preparation
we
again
encounter the
term used
by
Mondrian
in his
retrospective
text
of
1942).
An
"experimental
nstitute"
was
needed,
a
technical and
formal
laboratory
Mondrian
would
claim
later that he was unaware of the existenceof the Bauhaus
when he wrote these
lines);
while,
instead,
architectswere
condemned
to
dream
of
their
projects
on
paper:
"How
can
[they]
solve
every
new
problem
a
priori?"
e asked
(a
ques-
tion whose theoretical
implications
are
considerable,
since
it
concerns no less than
a
fundamental
criticism of
every
form
of
projection).
Architects
should
be able to make
large-scale
models
in
wood and
metal,
advised
Mondrian;
a
small monochrome
plaster
model that showed
only
mass-
ing
was
ridiculously
nsufficient
for
an
interior
project.70
The second
possibilityopen
to
the
architect
was to
correct,
today,
taking
into account the
principles
of
neoplasticism,
the faultsof existingarchitecture.This concernedonly the
aspects
of the "Neo-Plastic
conception
[that]
can
already
be
realized
in
currentconstruction.""71The "all
or
nothing"
that Mondrian asked
of Oud was not
reciprocal:
one could
already
integrate
certain
"aspects"
f
neoplastic
principles
into architecture.This
was,
in
fact,
a concession that
Mondrian had
granted
Oud: the
"aspects"
n
question
were
precisely
the "traits" f modern
architecture
isted
by
the
architect
in
his
lecture,
the
most
essential
of
which
was the
abandonment
of ornament. To
this exact
proposition
114
8/18/2019 1987 Yve-Alain Bois - Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture
15/30
Bois
Mondrian related once
more the
myth
of the
engineer
as
"noble
savage"
and of
unconscious
utilitarian
beauty:
"Utilitarian
objects
become
beautiful
through
their basic
form,
that
is,
in
themselves.
Yet
they
are
nothing
in
them-
selves:
they
become
part
of
the
architecture
hrough
their
form and color.""72evertheless
he renounced
the idea of
according
an
exclusively positive
role to
utility:
"It can
even limit
beauty."
Though
the
example
he
gave
of
the
wheels and circularforms of certainmechanical installa-
tions
in
factories
might
give
rise to
a
smile.)
Such
for
Mondrian in
1922
were the
two
options
offered
to the architect
by neoplasticism,
"in
present
circum-
stances."
But
Mondrian
did not
stop
his
discussion
there,
wishing
precisely
to address
hese "circumstances"
the
technical difficulties
invoked
by
Oud)
and
functionalist
theory. Many
assertions,
gently
contradictory,punctuate
the
painter's
ext
at
this
point.
The first is
the desire
of
neoplasticism
to
separate
tself from
the "anatomical" on-
ception
of
functionalism,
a
concept
that
stresses oo
much
the structureof a
building
and
lays
claims
to
its construc-
tive purity [constructiev uiverheid];t was doubtlesson this
subject
that Mondrian
penned
this
enigmatic
sentence to
Oud:
"I
believe
that
it is
dangerous
to search
exclusively
for
purity."73
On
these
lines,
it
is
interesting
o note
that
Mondrian
did
not
seem
at all adverse
to the
idea of
a con-
testation of
the constructive
givens
of architecture
by
color
("The
color
is
supported
by
architecture,
or annihilates
it,
as
required").
For
it is known that
the
principal
reason
for Mondrian'sdeclared
hostility
to
"elementarism"
the
elementarism
of
van
Doesburg,
which
displaced
the
right
angle
of
neoplasticism
to
forty-fivedegrees,
and
made a
bundle
of
dynamic
oblique
lines
out of the horizontals
and
verticals
would be that
it is
opposed
to architecture.
Now in
1926,
shortly
after
having
officially
takenhis
posi-
tion
against
elementarism,
Mondrian
stressed
his
anti-
anatomical
position
and
even
spoke
of
the need
for
a
counter-construction
the very
term
was
drawn
from
van
Doesburg)
that would
destroy
the
"natural
organism"
of ar-
chitectural
construction:
"This has
present
importance,"
he
added,
"because,
in
architecture
also,
the
new movement
sometimes
appears
oo
quick
to
follow
natural
organism."75
Thus
that Mondrian
was
so
opposed
to
van
Doesburg
on
this
point
is
uncertain.
Indeed,
in 1933
he wrote
to the
architect
AlfredRoth that
"to
give
architecture
an
'open'
aspect,
that is
something
already
striven for
today,
but this
problem
can
only
be resolved
to
a certain
point
by
archi-
tecture
itself,
because
of
its constructive
imitationsand
utility.
By
the
introduction
of
many
windows,
some
doors,
by
the
placement
of
furniture
and
equipment
for
light
and
heat, etc.,
much
can be
done
with
respect
to real
con-
struction,
but
why
not
make
use of a
fictive construction
that reinforcesreal construction,or else is opposedto
it . . .
destroys
t?"76
In
this
process
of consolidation
/
de-
struction,
the active
role
is reserved
or color:
"Neo-Plastic
architecture
requires
color,
without
which the
plane
can-
not
be a
living
reality
for
us.77
Following
examples
of
new
materialscited
in
Oud's
lec-
ture
-
iron,
concrete
-
and
a
depreciation
of
brick,
the
"national"
material
of
Holland,
Mondrian
asserted
hat
"the idea
. .
. that structure
must be 'revealed'
has
already
been discarded
by
'recent
technology.'"'7
Here, too,
there
is some
contradiction.
First,
because
Mondrian
gave
to ce-
ment
and to
metal
anticonstructive
and anti-anatomical
possibilities(he proposedas an example, the flat roof,
otherwise
favored
by
the theoreticians
of functionalism
for
its "structural
ruth"),
but at the
same time
held
that brick
remained
the slave
to
anatomy
(Was
Mondrian
here
mak-
ing
an
implicit
reference
to
Berlage?
Nothing
is less cer-
tain).79Secondly,
because Mondrian
also restated
what he
had written to
Oud,
to
the effect
that
technique
should
follow:
"If the
plastic
concept
demands
that the structure
be
neutralized
plastically,
then
the
way
must be found
to sat-
isfy
the demands
both
of structure
and of
plastic."80
Many
other
questions
are
raised
in this
article,
but its
im-
portance
lies
in
the
fact
that for the first
time Mondrian
was confrontedwith the architectural heoryof the zake-
lijkheid,
or
in
German
the
Sachlichkeit,
which would
lead
to
the
abuse of
the International
Style.
Mondrian
did not
develop
this
point
after
"De
Realiseering,"
he
only
rein-
forced
his
suspicion
of
"utilitarianism,"
simple
"adoration
of
function,"
according
to the
phrase
of Theo van
Does-
burg."s
Certainly,
Mondrian
admitted,
modern
architecture
is
"purified"
nder
the
pressure
of
necessity,
"but without
new aesthetic
insight
this
remains
accidental,
uncertain;
or
it
is
weakened
by impure
ideals,
by
concentration
on non-
115
8/18/2019 1987 Yve-Alain Bois - Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture
16/30
assemblage
4
essentials"
1923).82
Or
again,
"Intellect
confuses
intuition.
Tradition also exerts
its
influence.
For lack of
plastic
un-
derstanding,
the new
materialsare
badly
used. For
exam-
ple,
reinforced concrete is
used
to
produce
'form,'
instead
of
being
used
'constructively'
o create
a
'composition
of
planes'
that neutralize one another
and
destroy
imiting
form"
(1924).83
Finally,
"At
present,
I see no chance
of
achieving
a
perfect plasticexpression
by simply
following
the structureof what we build and studyingits utility
alone"
(1927).
84
Mondrian
would
maintain
this
position
until his death. He
even
stressed,
in
his
last
texts,
the
distinction
between
practical
architecture"where
aesthetics has to be
largely
ex-
cluded,"8s
and
architecture-as-art,
earing
that the abuse of
functionalist
theory
tended
to
"suppress"
esthetic
feel-
ings."86
s
this
to
say
that the
appeal
to
architecture
and
industry
n
Mondrian's
American
autobiography
was
only
a
rhetorical
ruse,
a
defensive
argument?
Is
this
to
say
that
Mondrian
had lost all confidence
in
the
practice
of archi-
tecture?What then
are
we to make of Mondrian'sown
forays nto the architecturaldomain? To answer these
questions,
we must first return to
one
of the fundamental
axioms
of Mondrian's
theory
of
art,
one that
essentially
concerns the fu