De Stijl

Math has been thought to carry some sort of formula that can say a lot of everything that pertains to this world. Some experts may also declare that everything in nature can be explained with math. In the case of the Russian art movement, De Stijl, geometry and precise measurements were used to create art that was used to represent it all. It can be said that geometry was taken to the ultimate expression as far as art is concerned. Artists Théo Van Doesburg and Piet Mondrian most importantly represented this movement and all of their work revolved around this De Stijl concept. Many artists at the time were drawn to join the group but most of them didn’t make it until the end in 1931. This paper will discuss the De Stijl doctrine and some of the internal conflicts that occurred within the group. I will mostly concentrate it in relationship with Van Doesburg Mondrian, and architect J.J.P. Oud. I will conclude with the influence and legacy of the De Stijl.
To place us in context, I will begin by describing what De Stijl was about and the historic background that was occurring at the time. The De Stijl came to being at a time when industrialism was thought to be dehumanizing people and concentrating them as work force in mass rather than to be looked as individuals. Members of the movement believed in utopian ideals and in the start of new era at the break of WWI. (Gardner’s Art through the ages, Fred S. Kleiner, 1048)
The journal De Stijl initial edition was published in November 1917 in the Netherlands. The usual people who usually supplied this publication with editorials and illustrations were among them painters Piet Mondrian, Vilmos Huszár, Bart van der Leck and Theo Van Doesburg. (De Stijl and Dutch modernism, M.White, XII) Architects where also involved in the journal, such as J.J.P Oud and Jan Wils. In fact, a significant amount of importance was given to the relationship among visual art and architecture. Theo Van Doesburg was the editor of the journal from the first edition to the last. It was his publication in a sense and he was also the heart and soul of this movement. The actual De Stijl manifesto didn’t make it to the journals pages until November of 1918. This manifesto expressed the movements’ intentions towards the field:
There is an old and a new consciousness of the age. The old one is directed toward the individual. The new one is directed toward the universe […] we must realize that life and art are no longer separate domains. This is why the “idea” o “art” as an illusion separate from real life must disappear. The word “art” no longer means anything to us. In its place we demand the construction of our environment in accordance to creative laws based upon a fixed principle. These laws, following those of economics, mathematics, technique, sanitation…are leading to a new, plastic unit. (Kleiner, 1048)
Conflict began to develop after the manifesto was published and some of the artist decided to pull their names out of the list. The other reason why some of them withdrew from the group was mostly due to differences with van Doesburg. (De Stijl: The formative years, Carel Blotkamp, IX) This can be said in relationship to architect J.J.P. Oud who refused to sign the manifesto in 1918. He believed that the rhetoric of it was too radical and that it might be to open to be read as communist, and that his career might be at stake. The truth is that van Doesburg and Oud represent another issue inside the group; the rivalry between the painters and the architects was pretty obvious. Van Doesburg thought of him more than just an overvalued decorator, whereas Oud deemed architecture to be primary and color as a complement. (White, 56)
Mondrian and Oud met in the summer of 1920 for the first time. It is also possible that it was the only time they ever did (Blotkamp, 70) Members of De Stijl didn’t really interact much with each other or even live close. Van Doesburg wasn’t really enthusiastic about Mondrian and Oud meeting because he knew that Mondrian wasn’t really interested in architecture. At this time, Mondrian was experimenting with color and this is when van Doesburg advised Oud to pay the visit. Oud rejected Mondrian’s color designs for the housing at Spangen and van Doesburg infuriated. This was the determinant on the departure between van Doesburg and Oud, as well as the beginning of the end with Mondrian. (Blotkamp, 70)
Mondrian’s thoughts on architecture were play a part on the decline of his bond with van Doesburg, but it wasn’t all. In 1922, Van Doesburg expressed an idea that involved the many areas of art in a macro picture. Some of the points that van Doesburg required with this new concept appeal with Mondrian’s theory of Neo-Plasticism¬¬¬–painting of relationships through line and color alone, completely free of limited form or a particular representation¬¬– (The new art–the new life, the collected writings of Piet Mondrian, Piet Mondrian, 227), except for one. He thought that an artist should contemplate the new scientific finding that perception is reliant on place and time; he had a “dynamic picture of realty”. As Carel Blotkamp explains: “Movement in space and time implied that there was no constant, fundamental idea any more; with time, the standard according to which reality could be tested changed. Mondrian’s theory was based on the opposite principle. He was convinced that there existed one universal reality, which as the same in all places at all times”. (72) In 1923, van Doesburg declares his amendment of the Neo-Plastic ideology by adding Elementarism. This involves the introduction of the oblique to convey a “dynamic opposition to nature” (Mondrian, XXIII), also known as Counter-construction. Mondrian’s last appearance in De Stijl journal was back in 1924.
But De Stijl wasn’t all about conflict. The group didn’t only create a drawing simplified geometric approach, but it also endorsed the idea that art should be deeply built-in into living surroundings. As Piet Mondrian once stated “Art and life are one; art and life are both expressions of truth”. Architect Walter Gropius took this concept as his own and made it the basis not only of his own production but also of many generations of students that were deeply influenced at the Bauhaus. The first steps towards modern design were taken by De Stijl in many ways and they carried a defined style that has influenced many generations and more to come.
“As enemy of all theory – objectionable because it is stagnant – I am of
the opinion that an attempt at innovation is only justifiable when it originates from the living impulse of an individual or a nation. This is what I have taken for all I could detect in various countries… The ‘new’ can only be found where a sacrifice is made, and this enables us to distinguish the true new vitality from humbug and snobbism.”
Theo Van Doesburg
Bibliography
1. Blotkamp, Carel “De Stijl: The formative years 1917-1922”, translated by Charlotte I. Loeb and Arthur L. Loeb. 1982. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
2. Kleiner, Fred S. “Gardner’s Art through the Ages” Eleventh edition, Volume II. 2001. Harcourt College Publishers, Orlando, Florida.
3. Mondrian, Piet “The new art – the new life, the collected writings of Piet Mondrian”, edited and translated by Harry Holtzman and Martin S. James. 1986. G.K. Hall & Co. Presses, Boston Massachusetts.
4. Doesburg, Theo van “On European architecture, Complete Essays from Het Bouwbedrijf 1924-1931”, translated by Charlotte I. Loeb and Arthur L. Loeb. 1990. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel.
5. White, Michael “The Stijl and Dutch Modernity”, Critical Perspective in Art History series. 2003. Alden Press, Great Britain.