De Stijl Abstraction in Architecture

An essay by Anthony Zonaga examining the permeation of

neoplasticism into the field of architecture and its consequent
influence on modern design

Preface
Following the turn of the 20th century, a plethora of new philosophies and ideals emerged
from changing social, economic, technological and cultural factors, demanding a new way of
thinking. With this, modernism encroached on societal boundaries, questioning the
traditional and contemplating the radical. De Stijl, an avant-garde Dutch artistic movement,
advocated a rhetoric of monumentality and collective activity.1

The presence of De Stijl principles within architecture is, as Swiss professor of Art Yve-Alain
Bois puts it, quantitatively far less important than is generally believed. He then goes on to
argue that:

De Stijls architectural contribution consists in fact of the projects exhibited by Van

Doesburg and Van Eesteren in Galerie de lEffort Moderne and in the work of Gerrit
Rietveld as a whole.2

Bois significantly understates De Stijls consequence on modernist architecture: its

contribution percolated deeply into successive architectural design, well beyond the
supposed life span of De Stijl. In what manner, then, have principles of neoplasticism
entered architecture beyond 1931? One needs only to look towards the works of Ludwig
Mies van der Rohe to see the characteristic use of simple form and colour, particularly the
hierarchical composition of space within space; an attribute derived from Gerrit Rietveld.

This essay will explore the impression that the principles neoplasticism made on
architecture in the early twentieth century through the exploration of not only the formal
similarities, but the varying conceptions of space within the Rietveld-Schrder House and
the Villa Tugendhat. Through the critical comparison of these two buildings, with reference
to both early and contemporary critics and writers, we can observe the diffusion of De Stijl
principles into modernist architectural thinking and its resulting effect on the configuration
of space, the relationship between interior and exterior, and the reiteration of the ground.
1
White, Michael. (2003). De Stijl and Dutch Modernism, Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp.1
2
Bois, Yve-Alain. (1990). The De Stijl Idea. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. pp.116

1
The New Plastic Art
In order to delve into the correlations between the origins of De Stijl and its pervasion into
architecture, it is important to firstly define it. Defining De Stijl proves an unexpectedly
difficult task, but Bois does so quite concisely and elegantly, confining it to three
simultaneous considerations; the journal, the group, and the idea.3 De Stijl exists as all of
these concurrently; however, for the purpose of avoiding convolution, it is only the latter
consideration, the idea, which will be explored in detail for its architectural merits.

The primary characteristics of De Stijl is a pure universality through reduction of elements to

the base essentials of form and colour, particularly the use of horizontal and vertical lines in
conjunction with black, white and the primary colours. In 1914, Piet Mondrian, an important
contributor to De Stijl, wrote in a letter to Dutch painter H.P. Bremmer:

I construct lines and colour combinations on a flat surface, in order to express

general beauty with the utmost awareness I believe it is possible that, through
horizontal and vertical lines constructed with awareness, but not with calculation, led
by high intuition, and brought to harmony and rhythm, these basic forms of beauty,
supplemented if necessary by other direct lines or curves, can become a work of art,
as strong as it is true.4

Figure 1. (left) Composition with Red, Blue, Black, Yellow and Gray, 1921, Piet Mondrian.
5
Oil on canvas; 76x52.4 cm. London, Tate Gallery. Figure 2. (right) Red and Blue Chair,
6
1923, Gerrit Rietveld. Painted wood; 86.7x83.8cm. London, Tate Gallery.

3
Bois, Yve-Alain. (1990). The De Stijl Idea. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. pp.101
4
Blotkamp, Carel. (2001). Mondrian The Art of Destrruction. London: Reaktion Books. pp.81
5
MOMA. Available through: http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=79002
6
MOMA. Available through: http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=4044

2
The translation of this nieuwe beelding (new plastic art) from the two dimensional plane
(Figure 1) to the three dimensional plane was explored by a select few De Stijl members, and
fewer still brought its architectural values to light. However, Gerrit Rietveld, known for his
1917 Red and Blue Chair (Figure 2), designed what has been considered as a manifesto of the
ideals of De Stijl and one of modernisms most iconic buildings: the Schrder House.7

Figure 3. Colour Design for a Shopping Parade and Caf-Restaurant, 1924,

8
Theo van Doesburg and Cornelis van Eesteren.

While other members of De Stijl, such as Theo van Doesburg in his theoretical art (Figure 3)
and models in the Galerie de lEffort Moderne, made suggestions towards a De Stijl
architecture, it was Rietveld who realised the first large-scale, physical consolidation of De
Stijl. Van Doesburg himself claims the Schrder House was the only building which achieved
the De Stijl principles sought to be achieved in his own design for the private villa for
Lonce Rosenberg, which never pushed past the stage of architectural models, and to which
9
Rietveld himself contributed. Indeed, the De Stijl journal reiterated the importance of
architecture reaching a point of self-purification in order to produce a properly modern
monumental form.

Therefore it is only logical to look to Rietvelds Schrder House for insight into the De Stijls
principles in architectural form. However, no other building following its construction can be
attributed as following concepts of neoplasticism completely. Architect Richard Padovan
remarks that the movements total realisation in three dimensional space was pitifully
small... the rest remained on paper, as unrealised projects and manifestos. 10 Mies van der
Rohes Tugendhat House will serve, then, as a study on both De Stijls successes, and its
failings.

7
Rietveld-Schrder House. UNESCO. Available through: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/965/
8
Lemoine, Serge. (1990) Theo van Doesburg: Peinture, architecture, thorie . Paris: Sers
9
Van Doesburg, Theo, (1927). Dada en Feiten, De Stijl, Jubilee Number. pp.56
10
Padovan, Richard. (2002). Towards universality: Le Corbusier, Mies and De Stijl. London: Routledge. pp.2

3
New Ground for Modernity
Before approaching the houses role in De Stijls contribution to modernist architecture, we
must consider two notions. Firstly, it is undeniable that the Schrder House connoted
modernity; however, one must also consider that the modernity of the 1920s is far removed
from modernism today, which is as art historian Paul Overy states, drained of the idealism
and fantasy of the early modernism represented by icons of the modern movement. 11
Secondly, we must understand that Rietveld viewed his architecture as a sculptural form
comprised of many elements, each separating, limiting and bringing into human scale a part
of unlimited space, as he stated himself in his autobiography in 1957. 12

Rietvelds Schrder House (Figure 4) was constructed in 1924 in the Prins Hendriklaan in
Utrecht for his client and close friend, Truus Schrder (1889-1985); it was his first design for
an entire domestic residence and is viewed as a successful realisation of De Stijl
composition within three-dimensional space. All the elements defined by Van Doesburg in
his 1924 thesis Towards a Plastic Architecture are present; spaces dictated by the straight line
bound by planes coloured red, blue, yellow, white or grey: delineating space without
providing enclosure and giving the appearance of floating or sliding without meeting at the
corner. Padovan argues that the house could even be considered within four-
dimensionality13 due to the sliding screens that distinctively characterise the space, which
can be used to either divide or unite based on the time of day.

Figure 4. Schrder House (reconstructed) street photo, 1924, Gerrit Rietveld.

Photograph source: Ernst Moritz 2011

11
Overy, Paul et al. (1988). The Rietveld Schrder House. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. pp.13
12
Rietveld, Gerrit. (1957). View of life as historical background for my work. pp.162
13
Padovan, Richard. (2002). Towards universality: Le Corbusier, Mies and De Stijl. London: Routledge. pp.17

4
Padovan relays the largest problem that faced Rietveld:

The Schrder House presented Rietveld with the same problem [as Van Doesburg] of
reconciling an open, floating external expression with the need for a functionally and
aesthetically viable interior space.14

Truus Schrder, recently widowed, wanted a space in which she could share with her
childrens lives. The sliding partitions, while not at all favoured by Rietveld himself, 15 were in
actuality conceived by Schrder; and her contribution of functionality may well have been
the final piece that secured the houses place in modernity. As a result, the house
demonstrated a life freed from the barriers commonly imposed on domestic and private
residences, where a family of individuals now was transformed into (mirroring Van
Doesburgs description of De Stijl) as a geestelijke gemeenschap (spiritual community).

While the house follows De Stijl principles in the aesthetic sense, the conception of space
hints at something deeper; a play on the relationship between the interior and exterior, the
public and the private. From the dialogue between Rietvelds strong neoplastic rhetoric and
Schrders own functional specifications, the house shatters boundaries both architecturally
and transcendentally, bringing it into a previously unseen modernity. The ground plane no
longer exists in two dimensions but three, extending into the walls and the ceilings,
balconies and roofs.

As a result, we now gain an understanding of the importance of De Stijls architectural

presence in modernism. Expanding Rietvelds concept of verbinding (joining), which we
observe in his earlier furniture such as the Red and Blue Chair, the Schrder House
connotes both conjunction and union of not only space and colour, but within the
samenwerking (collaboration) with Truus Schrder. Bois argues that The Schrder House is
full of those inversions that continually pervert the functionalist ethic of modernist
architecture16, but it can equally be argued that functionalism was met in its purest form: the
house was designed with close cooperation with the intended resident, and therefore the
building successfully achieves its purpose as both a sculptural masterpiece of De Stijl art-
turned-architecture, and a functional home designed specifically for the needs of its
inhabitants. With this, De Stijl became part of Modernism, as a prosthetic which changed the
relationship between space and person, and as an extension, person and the ground.

14
Ibid. pp.98
15
Schrder, Truus (1982). Interview with Truus Schrder. from Overy, Paul et al (1988) The Rietveld Schrder House. pp.56
16
Bois, Yve-Alain. (1990). The De Stijl Idea. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. pp.101

5
The Transparent Mirror

The Villa Tugendhat is not an exemplary illustration of Mies van der Rohes contribution
towards the development of De Stijl architecture; in fact, the 1929 Barcelona Pavilion
represents Mies greatest attempt at resolving the dilemma inherent in De Stijl principles17
(to be expanded upon later). Indeed, Mies 1923 brick country house project, revolutionary in
its development of Modernist spatial design, represents De Stijl in a manner far surpassing
any architecture that predated it.

However, the Villa Tugendhat has been chosen specifically for that point: it is already known
that Mies was, as Padovan asserts: one of the most serious, as well as the greatest,
contributors to the architecture of De Stijl, and the one who carried forward its development
significantly beyond 1927.18 Therefore, by examining more closely a building less known for
its De Stijl principles, constructed several years after the Schrder House, we can gain a new
insight into De Stijls subtleties and its delicate integration with International style.

Figure 5. Villa Tugendhat (reconstructed) from the garden, 1928, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.
Photograph source: David idlickz 2012

The Villa Tugendhat (Figure 5) was conceived and built from 1928-30 by Ludwig Mies van der
Rohe for clients Grete Weiss Lw-Beer and Fritz Tugendhat. Its construction from steel
frames (which was, at the time, unconventional in private dwellings) facilitated the
application of a free flowing space that he had only recently achieved in the Barcelona
Pavilion. As a result, Mies created a transparent space which blurred the boundaries between
traditionally separated functional zones, drawing parallels with Rietvelds Schrder House
and expressing Mies own De Stijl influences.

17
Padovan, Richard. (2002). Towards universality: Le Corbusier, Mies and De Stijl. London: Routledge. pp.105
18
Ibid. pp.103

6
 Figure 6. Villa Tugendhat (reconstructed) living space, , 1928, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.
Photograph source: David idlickz 2010

However, in stark contrast to the Schrder House, there is substantial evidence of Mies
approach towards demarcation: as art historian Wolf Tegethoff points out, [from the street],
the building appears hermetically closed.19 Architecture historians Dr. Lenka Kudelkov and
Dr. Otakar Mel cite Mies convictions as proof of this:

[Mies] resolutely refused to change the ceiling-height doors, which Fritz Tugendhat
feared might lead to the collapse of the ceilings. After all, the clear demarcation of
the rooms surfaces was an essential part of his design concept.20

Despite the boundaries Mies imposed within the house, De Stijls presence still emanates
through the multitude of transparencies that are created through the interplay between
surface and volume both internally and externally. The continuation of the large glass panel
transforms the upper level into a plane which floats above the ground, while the glass itself
acts as both a mirror in which we see ourselves reflected21, and a portal through which we
see can look inward or outward. The use of pure white on the faade doubles as a mirror
and a series of planes; similarly to Japanese architect Yasuhiro Yamashitas Penguin House,
there is a doubling of reflection of both structure and man. The principle of flowing space
was achieved through continuity: the blurring of boundaries between interior and exterior
the openness of the house encouraged an intense experience of space which stimulated the
imagination.22 The De Stijl influence, physically diffuse, still radiates throughout the whole
building through its distinct articulation of parts, conveyed as whole.

19
Wolf Tegethoff. (1999). Ludwig Mies van der Rohe: The Tugendhat House. Wien: Springer-Verlag. pp.72
20
Dr. Lenka Kudelkov and Dr. Otakar Mel (1998). Mies van der Rohe: The Villa Tugendhat. New York: Skira. pp. 181
21
Hammer-Tugendhat, Daniela et al. (1999). Ludwig Mies van der Rohe: The Tugendhat House. Wien: Springer-Verlag. pp.18
22
Ibid. pp.189

7
Drawing Parallels

While spatial composition varied between the two, the same overarching architectural
vocabulary prevailed: the disintegration of the boundaries between interior and exterior,
creating a transparency which expressed De Stijls aspirations towards a spiritual harmony
and order. Modernity called for the avant-garde; dissolution of the outdated Classical
elements which did not express the technology of the time and ignored functional needs.
De Stijls foray from art to architecture (which it had intended from the beginning) heralded a
collective style, emphasizing the flatness of the picture plane, autonomy of colour and
banishment of literary subject matter23 that helped define modernity in its early stages.

Through subtle gestures and formal similarities balanced with differences in the
composition of both two dimensional and three dimensional spaces, both projects embody
De Stijl in their own characteristic style: Rietveld, adhering to the principles of new plastic art
to form a new ground, and Mies, utilising an unconventional structure to create a
transcendental space. The corner window in the Schrder House that disrupts the structural
axis constituted by the intersection of two walls24 is almost identical in function to the Villa
Tugendhats glass faade, which retracts into the floor (as seen on the right of Figure 6). Both
exemplify the dialogue between interior and exterior; Kudelkov and Mel refer to this
directly, stating that: the blurring of boundaries between interior and exterior was
underscored by the fact that the window panes could be retracted into the floor so that they
completely disappeared.25

26
Figure 7. (left) Rietveld, Gerrit. (undated). Axonometric Projection, Schrder House.
27
Figure 8. (right) Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig. (1928). Ground Floor Plan, Tugendhat House.

23
White, Michael. (2003). De Stijl and Dutch Modernism, Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp.12
24
Bois, Yve-Alain. (1990). The De Stijl Idea. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. pp.119
25
Dr. Lenka Kudelkov and Dr. Otakar Mel (1998). Mies van der Rohe: The Villa Tugendhat. New York: Skira. pp. 189
26
White, Michael. (2003). De Stijl and Dutch Modernism, Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp.112
27
MOMA. Available through: http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=89535

8
This blurring of boundaries approaches De Stijl in a manner different to the Schrder House:
the coloured planes (Figure 7) have been replaced with the tactility of onyx and tropical
wood, and the interior-exterior relationship is blurred by the transparency of the glass
faade as opposed to the Schrder Houses floating verbinding. The open, flowing interior
(Figure 8) is no longer dynamic in its ability to change, but rather, in its spatial composition.
Standing at any one point in the first floor living space reveals new perceptions and masks
others. From this, Mies has achieved universality in architectural language. As Richard
Padovan aptly states, while progressively abandoning the outward forms of De Stijl the
asymmetrical arrangements of shifting planes [Mies] remained true to its central doctrine:
the replacement of the individual and the particular by the universal and the general.28

The Fate of De Stijl in Modernism

The similarities that we can draw between Rietvelds Schrder House and Mies Villa
Tugendhat are by no means questionable; Rietveld was a proponent of De Stijl and Mies was
heavily influenced by their principles and doctrinism. Both the Schrder House and the Villa
Tugendhat convey De Stijl principles in architecture; and both are Gesamtkunstwerks29
viewed almost unanimously as icons of modernism. Where then, is De Stijls presence now?

As was previously alluded, De Stijl as architecture harboured inherent flaws; exposed most
evidently in Mies 1923 brick country house. It was the lack of interruption between interior
and exterior from which the very problem arose; the long walls, as a drawing, extended
indefinitely outwards. As a building, they would have to end somewhere. And thus results a
conflict that was only partially resolved in both Mies Barcelona Pavilion and concurrently, Le
Corbusiers Villa Savoye. Indeed, the Schrder House, while a masterpiece in itself, could not
solve Van Doesburgs principle of endless variation. Consider Padovans scenario: If Rietveld
had to design the whole row of houses it is hard to see how he could have avoided
resorting to either repetition or arbitrary variation. This was the flaw that Le Corbusier
diagnosed in the De Stijl aesthetic: its arbitrariness.30

De Stijl successfully integrated its concepts into architecture through Rietveld, Mies van der
Rohe, and others. However, its philosophies could never be completely resolved, and as De
Stijl as a group and journal collapsed in 1931, modernity moved forward. However, the idea,
as we have seen, lived on, albeit subtly, through Mies and his successors.

28
Padovan, Richard. (2002). Towards universality: Le Corbusier, Mies and De Stijl. London: Routledge. pp.163
29
Weston, Richard. (2004). Key Buildings of the Twentieth Century. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp.48-49, 60-61
30
Padovan, Richard. (2002). Towards universality: Le Corbusier, Mies and De Stijl. London: Routledge. pp.99-100

9
Bibliography

Books

Tegethoff, Wolf. (1985) Mies van der Rohe: The Villas and Country Houses. Massachusetts:
The MIT Press. pp.90-99

Overy, Paul et al. (1988). The Rietveld Schrder House. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Bois, Yve-Alain. (1990). The De Stijl Idea. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. pp.101-122

Kries, Matthias et al. (1998). Mies van der Rohe: Architecture and Design in Stuttgart,
Barcelona and Brno. New York: Skira. pp. 181-213
Hammer-Tugendhat, Daniela et al. (1999). Ludwig Mies van der Rohe: The Tugendhat House.
Wien: Springer-Verlag.

Bertoni, Franco. (2000). Minimalist Design. Birkhuser pp.60-63

Padovan, Richard. (2002). Towards universality: Le Corbusier, Mies and De Stijl. London:
Routledge.

White, Michael. (2003). De Stijl and Dutch Modernism, Manchester: Manchester University
Press.

Weston, Richard. (2004). Key Buildings of the Twentieth Century: Plans, Sections, Elevations.
New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp.48-49, 60-61

Online Sources

UNESCO. (2000). Rietveld Schrderhuis, World Heritage List.

Available through: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/965

UNESCO. (2001). Tugendhat Villa in Brno, World Heritage List.

Available through: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1052

Brno City Museum. (2012). Villa Tugendhat Official Website.

Available through: http://www.tugendhat.eu/en/

10