Logo DBNL
De Stijl 1917-1931 (1956)

De Stijl 1917-1931

(1956)–H.L.C. Jaffé–rechtenstatus Auteursrechtelijk beschermd

The Dutch Contribution to Modern Art


Vorige Volgende

6 de Stijl as a signpost

From 1917 onward, the artists of ‘De Stijl’ have worked and battled in an isolation which has hardly ever been ‘splendid’. Only a few faithful admirers, among which Mr. Slijper, Mr. Sweeney a.o., have ever attempted to break into the magic circle of solitude and lack of understanding. From 1917 onward, the artists of ‘De Stijl’, those who belonged to the ‘group’ and those who, without belonging to it any longer, worked according to its inspiration, lived in anivory tower. But soon enough, this ivory tower proved to be a very lighthouse. Far from the stir of artistic business, inaccessible to almost everyone, it helped modern art and modern life to steer a straight course. ‘Most rightly so’ - as Mondriaan says - ‘as man takes, by himself, the direct way, the way of progress.’636 It is the straight road, which Le Corbusier has characterized as ‘Ia voie d'homme’ - in opposition to ‘la voie d'âne’.

The artists of ‘De Stijl’, by pointing out a straight course, by remaining on a set compass amidst the changing currents in modern art, were pioneers not only for modern art, but for modem life as well. The fact that they were striving not

only for modern painting but for a general style, should be sufficient proof that they themselves were conscious of their task and of its responsibilities. They were aware, too, of the hardships and discomforts proceeding from their task. In his retrospective article in Circle, Mondriaan writes about this task, the fact of ‘De Stijl's’ pioneering work, about its role as a lighthouse: ‘For the pioneers, the social contact is indispensable, but not in order that they may know that what they are doing is necessary and useful, nor in order that collective approval may help them to persevere and nourish them with living ideas. This contact is necessary only in an indirect way; it acts especially as an obstacle which increases their determination. The pioneers create through reaction to external stimuli. They are guided not by the mass, but by that which they see and feel. They discover consciously or unconsciously the fundamental laws hidden in reality and aim at realizing them. In this way they further human development. They know that humanity is not served by making art comprehensible to everybody; to try this is to attempt the impossible. One serves mankind by enlightening it.’637

This is how ‘De Stijl’ conceived its task towards humanity, how it saw the task of modern art. Art was to be an eye-opener for humanity and no more an affirmation of already known truths. Kok has formulated this thought in the second volume of De Stijl: ‘The work of art holds truth, it opens.’638 And Mondriaan sets up a parallel idea when writing: ‘only absolute plastics have the power to “show things as they are”. Neo-plasticism in painting has been a work of enlightenment and of purification; it can influence the whole of life, as it is born from the totality of Iife.’639

This totality of life is meant to be the totality of modern life. Mondriaan, and with him the other artists of ‘De Stijl’ have always stressed the relations of their art with modem life and modern ways of production. ‘We also had the idea that collective art might be possible for the future. We hoped to make the public aware of the possibilities of pure plastic art and endeavoured to demonstrate its relationship to and its effect on modern life.’640 Modern art, springing from modem life and its way of production is, on the other hand, capable of acting on modern life by making mankind more clearly aware of its fundamental principles. ‘Actually it is an expression of our modern age. Modern industry and progressive technics show parallel if not equal developments. Neo-plasticism should not be considered a personal conception.’641

It is Oud who has most clearly defined this development in industry and technique, by which the relation to ‘De Stijl's’ art is established: ‘Indeed, it is nowadays no more the technical imperfection, the small imperfection of all human work (as one of our architectural reviews has recently quoted with approval) that brings about the aesthetcal emotion, but it is just the marvel of technical perfection (the grace of the machine) to bring all aesthetical striving to a determined beauty.’642 This tendency to bring beauty to its definiteness, to eliminate all arbitrariness of the individual and casual circumstances, even of nature's changing aspects, has again and again been stressed by the artists of ‘De Stijb’. ‘The relative factors in our surroundings, at first dominantly natural, are

gradually taking on a mathematical aspect. Thus the absolute starts to come to shape more clearly around us. An equivalence is starting to develop between man, who is growing out of his dominantly natural condition and his surroundings. Amidst all the relative facts another relativity is slowly growing, in which the absolute takes shape as well. Greater equilibrium already shows the essence of future times. There the striving for the extremes is abolished: equivalence between the relative and the absolute is possible. But equivalent relations of the relative and the absolute have been realized much more purely than in our surroundings, in art, in the realm of intuition. The most liberal of all arts, painting, could be the most consistent.’643

Art is thus conceived as a guide for humanity, as a sign-post on mankind's way towards further perfection. This is the meaning of Mondriaan's Utopia, this is the aim of Van Doesburg's striving for realization. ‘De Stijl’ has assigned an entirely new task to the plastic arts: they were no longer to harmonize, to visualize and to propagate a period's (or a social group's) well-established beliefs and actions, but their predominant task was to be to lead the way towards a brighter, a more consciously appreciated future for mankind. The plastic arts - and painting first among them - were to open new horizons to humanity. Van Doesburg in his poignant style, explains these ideas as follows: ‘The new need not necessarily be pleasant. It can be defined as the startling discovery of a new dimension within ourselves(...) (all who have made a flight by airplane will remember the new way of physical vision and the “emotion” resulting from it).’644

Art verges on the realms of science, of discovery. And as with many scientific discoveries, it is at first quite obscure and unacceptable to the layman. As a matter of fact, this development seems to deepen the gap between the artist and his public. But on the other hand, the artist's self-assigned task as a guide bridges the distance between him and humanity as a whole. The artist's discoveries, created for the benefit of humanity, will at first not be accepted - a fate they share with so many scientific discoveries and inventions: vaccination, hygiene, etc. and innovations of a cultural order, such as compulsory education. But all these innovations have been accepted in due course and by now they belong to the general pattern of our culture. It is a long way leading from the work of the pioneers to the generally accepted style, that has always been the aim of ‘De Stijl’ artists.

From the very beginning they were well aware of the fact that their pioneering work would not allow them to see the ultimate outcome of their striving. Mondriaan has explained his views on this subject in the first volume of De Stijl: ‘In a period without culture the future style can be recognized in the way of expression that is the clearest and most direct reflection of the universal - though it may only appear in a few. In a period without culture an artistic expression is not to be considered the style of the future for its being the expression of the masses: as long as civilisation does not appear universally, the expression of the masses will show characteristics that are obsolete. Only in a period of genuine civilisation we may expect a general similarity of artistic expression.’645 And

he applies these theoretical ideas to his own period and to the future of ‘De Stijl's’ pioneering work: ‘A certain culture, a certain stage of development of the universal in the masses, can only become visible in a certain period, after having ripened and been prepared in a preceding period by and in the individual. Style appears after having existed for a considerable time. Thus style is already visible, even in a period without culture: we do not need to wait for a period of culture in order to recognize style in the individual. Though our period is without culture (culture here must be understood as the unity of masses) the principles of a culture have already been developed and pronounced by individuals: they stand ready as to appear as culture - culture, that will manifest itself artistically as a new style.’646

The artists of ‘De Stijl’ have pledged themselves to the task, to the adventure of being the pioneers of style to come. They were conscious of the fact that this pioneering work could only be done by individuals; that the artist's clearsightedness and sensibility were required to accomplish this task. Yet they knew and continued to stress, that there was no greater danger to threaten the creation of a style to come, than to indulge in individual emotions and moods. The preparation, the burgeoning of a style to come, demanded an absolute selfdenial. The individual was only to be considered as the fertile soil in which the future style was ripening. And this idea should not only be applied to the individual artists, but to the different (individual) arts as well. The preface to the first volume of De Stijl already formulates these leading thoughts, which persist during the entire history of ‘De Stijl’: ‘As soon as the artists in the different plastic disciplines will have come to the recognition of the fact that they are, in principle, compeers, that they have a common language to speak - from this moment onward they will no longer jealously cling to their individuality. They will serve the universal principle, on yonder side of the limiting individuality. Byserving the universal principle, they will as if spontaneously, produce an organic style. For the spreading of beauty, a spiritual community, not a social one, is needed.’647

The essential lines in this paragraph are the words stressing the necessity - and the Virtual existence - of one universal artistic language. The creation and the perfection of this language has been ‘De Stijl's’ great and pre-eminent aim. That was how they considered the style, they were to create: as a valid, objective and usable plastic language. And ‘De Stijl's’ great adventure is the analysis, the discovery of the structure, and finally the definitions of a grammar of that language. A similar task has never before been undertaken with such rigour, with such uncompromising consistency. And the search for the greatest common denominator revealed an aspect which then became ‘De Stijl's’ leading principle: equilibrium. On its discovery, on its chemically pure isolation, the entire grammatical system of the future language of forms has been based.

Indeed, a perfect language or a conclusive grammar is no guarantee of a work of art, of a work of poetry. Neither can any plastic style prejudice the quality of artistic production. But it is here that ‘De Stijl's’ generai attitude towards life and towards culture comes in: the work of art is no more considered as an aim

in itself, as a peak of human evolution, but as a means for the further evolution of mankind. Van Doesburg has well described this missionary task assigned to art by ‘De Stijl’ artists: ‘Everything that separates humanity will be abolished in the art to come. The artist will be the unifying element, because the base of his activities is no longer an emotion which differs individually, but because this base is an emotion, general to everyone. He will break down all boundaries that have hampered him to express spontaneously these profound emotions.’648

In these lines a revolutionary change as to the social task of the artist has been sketched. The artist ceases to be the historian of his period - he no longer follows the events, historical and cultural, but he is taking an active share in the making of human history. From an onlooker, he has become an actor on the historical stage of humanity.

This conception of art and of the artist is indeed new and quite revolutionary. It might lead - as has been pointed out before - towards a striving for the liquidation of art as a separate field of human activity. Wils has stressed this point in the first volume of De Stijl. ‘Modern art wants to address man directly, it wants to be universal. The artist, as an individual operating separately, must be eliminated. He will live among and with men and he will give shape to the spirit of the age in a form that will be generally comprehensible.’649

This revoiutionary conception of the artists's task towards human society may be one of the reasons, why the ideas of ‘De Stijl’ have met with so much resistance, why they have been opposed not only in their native country, but even have been persecuted by dictatorial regimes... and why they survive. Today's conception of the artist and his cultural task is still too much linked up with the 19th Century individualist ideas, considering the artist and his work as the flower (and the aim) of a long cultural development, than that it will accept without opposition a conception as ‘De Stijl's’ which upsets all the foundations of its doctrines. Art (and the artist) have been worshipped until today as the ultimate result of our evolution, but they have not been recognized as an active force in the history of humanity. And it is just that what ‘De Stijl’ stresses with peremptory force. Wils again gives the key in an article in the first volume of De Stijl: ‘Culture is a spiritualisation of nature. In this process of spiritualisation or deepening the human spirit plays an active, fertilizing part and nature is passive, receiving, being fertilized.’650

It is clear as well, that by taking such a definite and combative stand against the traditions of the 19th Century, ‘DeStijl’ must have felt even more fervently its task as a pioneer of a future, universal culture. Quite a lot of van Doesburg's polemics are due to this fact and his panegyric on the spiritual colour of his epoch can be accounted for by his firm belief and his conviction to fight for a new conception of art where, after a thorough purification of all traditions, the artist would be able to take an active part in the fate and the future of humanity: ‘White! There is the spiritual colour of our times, the clear-cut attitude that directs all our actions. Not gray, not ivory white, but pure white. White: There's the colour of the new age, the colour which signifies the whole epoch: ours, that of the perfectionist, of purity and of certainty. White, just that. Behind us the

“brown” of decay and of academism, the “blue” of divisionism, the cult of the blue sky, of gods with greenish whiskers and of the spectre. White, pure white.’651

This forceful hymn to a new era can only be fully understood by realizing that ‘De Stijl’ was, indeed, more than a temporary movement of purification. In the 14 years of its existence, ‘De Stijl’ has brought forward new ideas, a new approach towards art and towards nature; it has sketched a new task for the arts in human society and it has greatly changed and upset the traditional views concerning the artist and his work. It has, above all, realized some outstanding work in art, in painting as well as in architecture, sculpture and interior decoration, etc., which proves more than all theoretical argument the validity, of its attitude in regard to the problems of the plastic arts. All the views and conceptions of ‘De Stijl’ were, as we have seen, deeply rooted in its native country and in its spiritual and social circumstances at a given period. But ‘De Stijl’ is more than a merely local Dutch movement. It may rightly be considered - and its influence all over Europe and America is sufficient proof - as the Dutch contribution to modern art, a contribution by which the Netherlands gave evidence of the survival of many essential artistic qualities; ‘De Stijl’ is a contribution to modern art which, in our opinion, could have originated from no other country than the Netherlands.

But ‘De Stijl’ had and still has, an international purport. Its aims, its discoveries reach much further than its native Dutch horizon. More than ‘De Stijl's’ deeds and acts, its significance to human society is of importance. It is undeniable that ‘De Stijl’ has put forward most clearly and forcefully, in early 20th Century history, the question of the relation of the arts to human society. It has not only posed the question, but it has, by its works and writings, given an answer to it. The paintings of the three original painter-members, Van Doesburg, Mondriaan and Van der Leck, with their rigid and healthy discipline, the architectural works of Oud, of Rietveld and of Van Eesteren, as much as its town-planning, are so many answers to the question and all the members of ‘De Stijl’ have contributed, by their work, to those answers. In the writings of De Stijl the relation of art and life is the ever-recurrent problem: from the articles of Van Doesburg, Mondriaan, Van der Leck, Kok and Oud in the first numbers of De Stijl, from the introduction to the first volume and the first manifesto, this tenor continues up to andin the later writings of Mondriaan. It is from one of these, that the following lines, clearly putting the question and answering it at the same time, are extracted: ‘In our epoch full of movement and action, and burdened, moreover, with real as well as spurious exigencies, which absorb almost completely the whole of us, the question whether this essential expression of art is one of real momentous benefit and utility to life is likely to rise. We need but turn our attention towards the distress, the discord and the lack of equilibrium of our today's existence, but get aware of the “emptiness” of our time and soon we shall be fully convinced that this essential expression of art is still necessary. Though the art of the past - considered to be a thing of beauty and not even skirting life but doomed to keep quite aloof - is no longer

desirable, yet new art is, in consequence of its new expression, still indispensable to mankind because it is liable to be its propelling force towards realizing - in life - a new beauty that will be “real” in both the material and the immaterial domains.’652

It is not only Mondriaan, it is ‘De Stijl’ which gives its answer by these words, to the essential question regarding Art and Life - a question that has become more and more crucial in the course of the 20th Century. And this answer is the more startling for its period, as it reverses an old device, honoured and obeyed for centuries all over Europe and especially well-known in Amsterdam, consecrating art to the service of nature: ‘Natura artis magistra’. ‘De Stijl's’ device, meant to be the device for the future, yet springing from the past, could run thus: ‘ars naturae magistra’.


Vorige Volgende

Over het gehele werk

titels


auteurs