LAND Remarks on the Houses of Aldo Van Eyck
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The winter of 1990 saw the publication Aldo wandering around the catacombs of Joost Meuwissen of OASE double issue 26-27, bearing the the giant oak, like some bewildered visitor. slightly pretentious title: his job is to bring Revelling in his own prose, Joost about an IMAGINED ORDER, Aldo van whirls past Aldo’s houses without discov- Eyck. As this longish title suggests, the ering any real virtuosity. The article’s title entire issue was devoted to the work of characterises Aldo van Eyck as a master ALDO IN Aldo van Eyck. Its editorial dwelled on who, in his homes, conjures with scale and the fact that a serious architectural cri- ushers the users into a wondrous world of tique of Van Eyck’s oeuvre would be pos- changing dimensions. At the same time, sible only by avoiding Van Eyck’s person it also explicitly describes him as a giant and by steering clear of his digressions stumbling blindly through the china cabi- WONDER- on the ‘human dimension’ and ‘poetic de- net of architecture. sign’. That very same editorial indicated The homes have a unique logic that that the editorial board had set itself the is quite different from his public works, momentous task of ‘incorporating [Van because here he does not put together Eyck’s work] into the science of architec- façades. Instead the floor plan gives rise LAND ture’, which up until that point had clearly to the finished product. The façades have not been possible. The issue addressed a disappeared and the building derives range of topics, among them Van Eyck’s meaning from its surroundings and the approach to living, the journal Forum, floor plan structure. CIAM, Otterlo 1959, his urban devel- Meuwissen’s article appears to imply Remarks on opment work, Nagele and finally Joost that Van Eyck’s homes, which up until Meuwissen on Van Eyck’s private homes. that point had gone unnoticed and uncen- The inclusion of Joost Meuwissen was sored, show a weakness and ambiguity 26 something of a surprise. He had been as- that may be more interesting than the sociated with the journal Plan and at the meticulous and over-composed clarity of the Houses of OASE time of this publication he worked for the his public buildings. In fact, Meuwissen is journal Wiederhall. Meuwissen had never carried away by them. The paradox of this shown any affinity with Aldo van Eyck’s article is that whereas Meuwissen wants ideas or finished work in either of these to provide a dry, analytical description of two journals. Wiederhall had its heyday in Van Eyck’s work, Van Eyck may ultimate- Aldo van Eyck FIRST PUBLISHED IN the late 1980s. It had stressed its creden- ly have touched a chord in him. He thus tials as a platform for the kind of architec- concludes with the poetic image of Aldo ture that infuriated and terrified Van Eyck. van Eyck up in the tree like the invisible Nor does it seem likely that Wiederhall’s cat with the mysterious smile. editorial board, including the likes of Carel Weeber and Umbeto Barbieri, Juliette Bekkering would have inspired much confidence in Member of the editorial board Van Eyck. In the late 1980s Wiederhall from OASE 28 to 40 was a remarkably polished journal – seem- Translated by Laura Vroomen ingly the opposite of OASE in everything. It had a large, square layout, deliberately designed to prevent photocopying. In the first Wiederhall editorial Meuwissen wrote: ‘I love architecture because it is old. In its treatises and manuals it has preserved a dead language up until now.’ Judging by his article Joost Meuwissen appears to have little affin- ity with Aldo van Eyck’s work. The title should have read ‘Joost in Aldo’s Won- derland’ rather than evoking an image of 136 Within Aldo van Eyck’s body of work, residential buildings 1 present to us from their modern condition, their passive voice Deleuzian categories are form neither a distinct category nor, by any means, a promi- The reception history of – the same voice that speaks to us from the sparse design used here not in an applied Aldo van Eyck’s works is still manner but in a reconstructive nent one. Their role is modest. In surveys and other publica- notes, like the hermetic poet Gerrit Achterberg, singing the OASE #75 too short for us to take any dis- one. If my approach must have tions about his oeuvre, they are not usuallly presented as a tance from it. For that reason, praises of something unattainable. The only activity is that a name, therefore, reconstruc- separate group. In his architectural aesthetics, in word and not much attention is paid here of things, the sun entering, the door opening: ‘When the door tionism seems most suitable. to the secondary literature of 2 image, Van Eyck does not make a categorical distinction be- opens, spring has truly arrived!’ Truly? Living in the house is 2 prior interpretations, despite tween types of buildings. Each building is called home. His waiting for the door to open at last. Deep inside the house, the Jan Rietveld and Aldo van the frictions between the hagio- Eyck, ‘Huis aan de Herman two largest public projects, the Burgerweeshuis and Moeder- graphic (Herzberger), empa- prime numbers are keeping watch. The play of contrasts, in Gorterstraat te Amsterdam’, huis in Amsterdam (a home for orphans and a home for single thetic (Strauven) and critical the larger-scale works, reaches its limit in literary content and Forum, 1956, 118, 119. (De Heer, Barbieri) approaches. mothers, respectively), both have a residential function. Van This article attempts to trace ends with a resulting leap towards understanding – the Burger- Eyck’s aesthetics does include a theory of coming and go- the definition of building, resid- weeshuis and Moederhuis are run-ups to such a leap. In the ing, though more of coming than of going – a theory of stay- ing and thinking in the houses smaller-scale works, the monuments and pavilions, that same of Van Eyck, from an angle that ing somewhere, of ‘dwelling’, but not a theory of residing or is not so much deconstruction- play of contrasts can – through the restriction of the means of living somewhere in the strict sense. In the structure of this ist as it is Deleuzian. This is expression – be celebrated directly, as an image: the sign, em- aesthetics, each work avoids stylistically refining the previous because Gilles Deleuze has blem or logo of an idealised working method. The difficulty formulated more, and more ones; instead, the objective is to ‘merge prior experiences’ into global, descriptive categories, is that this play of contrasts in Van Eyck’s houses has neither a rich awareness, and so each work acquires a characteristic which can serve as keys to the a beginning nor an end. The mode of address is not the ‘we’ tenor that is all its own, offering a truly new and different interpretation of an aesthetic of the architect or the ‘them’ of the occupants, but reality system, especially in Différence definition of architecture. Nevertheless, houses seem to have et répéti tion (Paris, 1968). Or at itself. The game grows more fluid. There are no rules. In his played but a small role in the reception of his oeuvre.1 Per- least, it seems to me that in this houses, no connection can be made between height, breadth haps the concept of architecture that they embodied was less approach, the deconstructionist and depth. They threaten to escape not only his oeuvre, but preoccupation with destroy- timely, less historically compelling or less urban. ing dialectic and constructing architecture itself. Reality is not rescued there by a concept Van Eyck’s houses are admired, to be sure, but not often equality is coupled with a pos- or image, but because it is indicated as outside. Accordingly, discussed. I do not wish to change this situation radically. sibility that has not yet been the inside – the interior – is devoid of representation; it is va- relinquished, the possibility Rather, I would like to take their silent builtness and their that an aesthetic system is also cated; it creates an almost postmodern emptiness, posing a abstract conceptualisation as a basis, and examine what they thinkable. In this sense, the transcendental question – under what conditions is the play ALDO IN WONDERLAND JOOST MEUWISSEN Jan Rietveld and Aldo van Eyck, floor plan of the Damme House, Herman Gorter- straat, Amster- dam, 1951-1954 Jan Rietveld and Aldo van Eyck, Damme House, Herman Gorterstraat, Amsterdam, 1951-1954 Jan Rietveld and Aldo van Eyck, Damme House, Herman Gorterstraat, Amsterdam, 1951-1954 Jan Rietveld and Aldo van Eyck, Damme House, Herman Gorterstraat, Amsterdam, 139 of contrasts possible? – and answering that question by build- ing, by erecting an almost unbridled elevation. OASE #75 TWISTS Not that the houses have very different twists than the other works. The entrance recessed deeply into the house, the bayo- net reflection in the floor plan, the dominant cornice, the bub- bling domes on the roof, or the aggregation of rooms around 3 a larger space, the tectonics of the elevation – these features Because they indicate different appear in all his works. But their point differs. For instance, contents, namely inside and outside, I speak of a different the bayonet reflection in the houses is developed only in one scale, although the propor- direction, and not in multiple ones. To put it differently, an tional system does not actually orthogonal bayonet reflection can prompt a diagonal one on a differ. 3 4 different scale, but the two are not united in a single system In a recent exchange with Jan of their own, unlike in the larger-scale projects, such as the de Heer, Johan van de Beek Burgerweeshuis, or the design for the cultural centre in Jeru- refers to the self-contained compositional quality of these salem, where bayonet reflection seems to be used both length- buildings, which have a compo- wise and breadthwise, occasioning a system of swastikas that nent structure but whose com- aims to unite part and whole within itself and thus achieves ponents never become a model 4 of an infinite structure: ‘Een in- its effects through the medium of scale.