Avant-Garde and Criticism. (Avant-Garde Critical Studies) ( PDFDrive ).pdf

#8#06)#4'
%4+6+%#.567+'5

'FKVQT
-NCWU$GGMOCP
#UUQEKCVG'FKVQTU
5QRJKG$GTTGDK$GP4GDGN
,CPFG8TKGU9KNNGO)9GUVUVGKLP
+PVGTPCVKQPCN#FXKUQT[$QCTF
*GPTK$ÃJCT*WDGTVXCPFGP$GTI
2GVGT$×TIGT4CNH)T×VVGOGKGT
*KNFG*GKPGP.GKIJ.CPF[
(QWPFKPI'FKVQT
(GTPCPFTKLMQPKPIGPŔ

#8#06)#4'
#0%4+6+%+5/
$PVWHUGDP1HZRUN1
'FKVGFD[
-NCWU$GGMOCPCPF,CPFG8TKGU

RYHUGHVLJQ$DUW-DQ%HUJVKRHII
$OOWLWOHVLQWKH$YDQW*DUGHULWLFDO6WXGLHVVHULHV IURPRQZDUGV DUH
DYDLODEOHWRGRZQORDGIURPWKH,QJHQWDZHEVLWHKWWSZZZLQJHQWDFRP
7KHSDSHURQZKLFKWKLVERRNLVSULQWHGPHHWVWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI³,62
,QIRUPDWLRQDQGGRFXPHQWDWLRQ3DSHUIRUGRFXPHQWV
5HTXLUHPHQWVIRUSHUPDQHQFH´
,6%1
(GLWLRQV5RGRSL%9$PVWHUGDP1HZRUN1
3ULQWHGLQ7KH1HWKHUODQGV
9789042021525

Table of Contents
Klaus Beekman and Jan de Vries
Introduction. Criticism and Avant-Garde 7
Jean-Roch Bouiller
Art Criticism and Avant-Garde: André Lhote’s Written Works 15
Ben Rebel
Architectural Criticism in de 8 en OPBOUW 31
Ansje van Beusekom
Theo van Doesburg and Writings on Film in De Stijl 55
Peter G.F. Eversmann
The International Theatre Exhibition of 1922 and the Critics 67
Nico Laan
The Making of a Reputation: the Case of Cobra 91
Hugo Verdaasdonk
Avant-Garde Reviewing of New Book Releases.
A Case Study from The Netherlands 119
Willem G. Weststeijn
Mayakovsky as Literary Critic 139
Gregor Langfeld
German Art in The Netherlands before and after World War II 157
Arie Hartog
Banality in Art Criticism. Comments on the Reception
of Art in the German Daily Press of the 1920s 177

Table of Contents
6
Hubert F. van den Berg
A Victorious Campaign for Dadaism? On the Press Coverage
of the Dutch Dada Tour of 1923 195
Klaus Beekman
The Inevitability of Argumentative Criticism.
Theo van Doesburg and the Constructive Review 251
Ralf Grüttemeier
On Intentionality and Avant-Garde Criticism 269
Wiljan van den Akker and Gillis Dorleijn
Resistance to the Avant-Garde. Criticism of the Avant-Garde
in Dutch Literary Periodicals 289
Sabine van Wesemael
Dutch Contemporaries on Proust and the Historic Avant-Garde 313
Hestia Bavelaar
The Writing Artists of the Magazine
Kroniek van Kunst en Kultuur (Chronicle of Art and Culture)
in the Period 1935-1941 337

Criticism and Avant-Garde
In the past, monographs have been written about avant-garde artists,
avant-garde movements and various separate forms of avant-garde art,
such as literature and the art of painting. Many avant-garde works
have been analyzed and the avant-gardes of various countries have
been put on display shown. However, in newspapers and journals,
considerably less attention has been given to reviews of avant-garde
literature, art, music and film. Of course, studies in this field do exist.
In fact, several very interesting researches have been dedicated to the
avant-garde criticism of art. Look, for example, at those by Lynn
Gamwell on Cubist Critism (1980) and Prenez garde à la peinture!
Kunstkritik in Frankreich 1900-1945 (1999). In these studies, many
sound comments on the role of criticism have been made. This goes
for, among other writings, the preface to Cubist Criticism. Here,
Donald B. Kuspit, (who was also the editor of the series on art
criticism, in which the book of Gamwell was also published), writes
that the reaction of an art critic is “the condition for all future
interpretation. His attention is the work’s ticket to history” (cit.
Gamwell 1980: XVII). Furthermore, he argues that for a work of art to
be admitted into the canon of masterpieces, it must first be given
attention by formal criticism. But art criticism is even more powerful
than this. The reviewer also has influence through ‘his naming of art’.
The labels critics apply to forms of art and to art movements provide
“an identity for future generations” and are frequently borrowed later
by art historians. Look, for example, at art critic Louis Vauxcelles,
who used classifications such as “Fauvism” and “Cubism” at a very
early stage. However, that art critics actually operate in a strategic
way is not a topic that was systematically analyzed in Cubist
Criticism, which is why this volume of Avant-Garde Critical Studies
is being made.
What was the situation with criticism at the end of the 19th
century? Dario Gamboni (1994) has given an answer to this question,
with regards to art criticism in France. There, art criticism developed
in three different directions. Firstly, there was a scientific direction, in

8
which critics tried to pass objective, valid and universal judgements.
In the end, these critics revealed themselves as art historians.
Secondly, there was a literary direction, in which a review in itself
was considered to be a piece of art. Here, the ideas of Charles
Baudelaire and Oscar Wilde that had been defended at an earlier stage
were elaborated upon. Although this literary direction was
marginalized at the end of the 19th
century, as will be illustrated
below, it had a revival among avant-garde critics at the beginning of
the 20th
century. Finally, there was a journalistic direction, which
became the dominant direction for most critics, including the avant-
gardes.
Avant-garde artists from the inter-bellum period kept their
distance from the phenomenon of journalistic criticism. This was
because they believed that art criticism had become an accomplice of
commercialism. At least this was the vision of art critics, gallery
managers, artists and art historians who were interviewed about this
by Paris-Midi in 1927 (Gaehtgens 1999: 9). An avant-garde artist like
André Breton did not like the genre of criticism, because it was too
commercial in character (Junod in Fleckner / Gaehtgens 1999: 255).
This phenomenon was also seen in film criticism. In Germany
between 1922 and 1923, the association of film journalists criticized
the effect film journalists had on the film industry. The film industry
wanted to make less space available to reviewers that were considered
displeasing. After World War I, it succeeded in doing this by
establishing its own press agencies, which advertised via dailies. The
film industry also used a gigantic number of film journals (around
eighty). Film journalism was fully determined by the conjecture of the
twenties (Heller 1990: 35 f.)
Although avant-garde artists kept their distance from
journalistic criticism, they also made use of reviews. This was because
they were aware that reviews, which were widely spread in the public
domain, increased the chances of success for new avant-garde forms
of art. So, journalistic reviews should not be considered merely as
texts in which one passes judgements on art that are grounded in
argument. In their reviews, critics also attempt to manipulate the
cultural climate in their favour. This goes for avant-garde as well as
for traditionally-orientated critics.
Quite often critics also work as artists. For instance, this was
the case with Guillaume Apollinaire. In these situations it is not

Criticism and Avant-Garde 9
uncommon for “the critic” to help out “the artist”. In his contribution
to this volume, Jean-Roch Bouiller outlines this particular situation,
when he shows how André Lhote, one of the most important
contributors to La Nouvelle Revue Française, used his position as an
art critic for reasons of self promotion. By writing reviews and
publishing them abroad, this visual artist succeeded in increasing the
market for his own paintings.
The profession of reviewer attracted avant-garde poets,
novelists, playwrights, visual artists, architects, composers and
filmmakers. Many avant-garde artists could not live from art alone, so
the decision to be active as both an artist and an art critic was often
based on financial arguments. However, there were also other reasons
that artists chose to work simultaneously as reviewers. For example,
strategic considerations quite often formed another basis for the
decision. In working as critics, artists gained a voice against people
who kept old-fashioned ideas on art, while legitimizing avant-garde
concepts. Those artists who also worked as critics were given the
opportunity to pave the way for their own art and/or for the art of
other members of the group. The artist/critic had the potential to
conquer a place in the cultural field. Ben Rebel outlines this exact
phenomenon in his article on architecture criticism in De 8 en opbouw
[The 8 and Construction]. This journal for architecture was considered
an important weapon in the propaganda battle for a rational
architecture that was rooted in the modern world. Marinetti, Breton,
Walden and other leading figures connected to the avant-garde
behaved as modern impresario. They drew attention to avant-garde art
forms by using well-known strategies, such as marketing (distribution
of manifests via dailies and pamphlets), networks, and a combination
of professions (artist, gallery holder and critic) (De Vries 2001).
To conquer a place in the cultural field it was not enough to
attack old-fashioned points of view. An avant-garde artist/critic also
had to create a distinct profile for himself in the midst of other avant-
garde artists/critics. This goes for the reviews Theo van Doesburg
wrote about films by Viking Eggeling en Hans Richter. They helped
to formulate Van Doesburg’s ‘own dynamic idea of New Plasticism’,
writes Ansje van Beusekom in her contribution to this volume. She
argues that Van Doesburg brought his ideas into action against Piet
Mondrian’s conception of New Plasticism.

10
Not only is it a fallacy to think that a review only has a
judging function – we already pointed out the strategic function - it is
also incorrect to suppose that reviewers are only guided by the work
of art they review. Critics show consideration for numerous factors
that are outside the reviewed work of art. They are often guided, for
example, by the organizers of exhibitions. Peter Eversmann shows this
in the context of the international theatre exhibition, which was
organized by H. Th. Wijdeveld in 1922 in the Stedelijk Museum
[Municipal Museum] of Amsterdam. Here, Wijdeveld succeeded in
having the critics review the exhibition in a way that his own ideas
about the theatre of the future were expressed.
Nico Laan shows that critics tune their opinions to coincide
with those of other dominant figures in the cultural field, such as
leading critics, the editorial staff of newspapers and directors of
museums. His contribution to the volume is dedicated to COBRA, a
post-war avant-garde movement, to which Karel Appel, Constant and
Corneille belonged. Laan questions why critics, who in the beginning
reacted negatively to these experimental artists, mostly because they
were merely repeating the experiments of the avant-garde artists from
the inter-bellum period, suddenly became more enthusiastic about
their works and ideas. Laan answers this question with the help of a
theory formulated by Pierre Bourdieu about orchestration in the
cultural field. He concludes that critics feed off of the opinions of
other critics.
Hugo Verdaasdonk also directs his investigations to the post-
war avant-garde, but he looks specifically at those involved with
literary endeavours. In his contribution, he states that the position
taken by individual critics largely depends on the positions of their
fellow-critics. To reach this conclusion, Verdaasdonk uses a research
model developed by John W. Mohr. Mohr elaborates on the
institutional-sociological theory of Bourdieu, but he also has his
reserves, because the connections Bourdieu sees between, for
example, various literary institutions, are mainly linear. Mohr states
that in order to describe such relationships, a more complex research
model would be needed. Following Mohr, Verdaasdonk argues that
structural qualities of social and cultural phenomena can only be
determined by methodically measuring their similarities and
differences.

Furthermore reviews tend to be highly colour biased and vary
according to the cultural context of the critic. Willem G. Weststeijn
shows this from Mayakowski’s position in the literary field:
Mayakowski hated bourgeois society and was an ardent supporter of
the revolution; he took up a position towards symbolists as well as
towards fellow futurists. Gregor Langfeld makes this clear by
comparing reactions on exhibitions of German Expressionists in
Dutch museums before and after the Second World War. In the
interbellum period, Dutch reviews of these exhibitions were
prejudiced and chauvinistic. It was not until the fifties that this began
to change, at which point Dutch critics came to have a growing
understanding of the connections between German, French and Dutch
expressionism, and their judgements became more subtle.
It is also noticeable that critics tend to comply with the
character of the periodical that they are writing for. That is
emphasized in Arie Hartog’s account of the reception of Maillol in
reviews of the sculptor’s work in democratic and nationalistic papers
from 1928. Hartog’s research shows to what degree reviews and
papers represent values which are specific to certain groups. It is
especially clear in a country like The Netherlands - which in the inter-
bellum knew a strong compartmentalization in a protestant, catholic,
socialist and liberal block - to what extent this social constellation
affected the judgment of critics.
What has been said before about avant-garde critics is no less
true for the traditional-minded opponents of avant-garde. They did not
restrict themselves merely to more or less founded value judgements.
Rather, they operated strategically, working to defend their positions
in the cultural field. They also took into account the factors outside the
works of art that had to be evaluated. The Dutch writer and critic
Carel Scharten, for instance, defended the so called “sensitivism” of
the aestheticists in the 1980s by emphasizing that they had invented
the “art of the moment” far earlier than the Italian futurists, who were
consequently depicted as “backward”.
There are numerous presuppositions and prejudices about the
manifestations of the historical avant-garde. Take, for example, the
idea that the “Dada-tour”, performed by Theo van Doesburg and Kurt
Schwitters and others in the Netherlands of 1923, was a success.
Another assumption is that avant-garde poetics, condensed in
numerous manifests, have not only had consequences for the creative

12
output of avant-gardists, but also for their style of reviewing. Still
more speculations are that the historical avant-gardists broke off from
venerable poetics when the intentions of the author were crucial and
that avant-garde critics primarily championed the more complex,
radical forms of avant-garde, like dadaism and surrealism, which were
most in need of the support. All these presuppositions have proven to
be questionable.
Hubert van den Bergh’s contribution to this volume makes
clear that the widespread observation that the Dada-tour of 1923 was a
success is primarily based on the convictions of Van Doesburg and
Schwitters themselves. However, a survey of the papers and reviews
delivers a significantly different picture. That the avant-gardists broke
off from the past, as is often emphasized, is contradicted by the rather
traditional form of Theo van Doesburg’s reviews, as they appears in
Klaus Beekman’s analysis. Furthermore, Ralf Grüttemeier has
concluded that, to a certain extent, the avant-gardists have remained
true to the past when they maintain conviction that the meaning in a
text results from the author’s intentions.
In several contributions, it is questioned in what way critics
that looked from a more conservative or avant-garde perspective, have
reacted to phenomena such as Dada or a modernist author like Marcel
Proust. In their contributions Wiljan van den Akker and Gillis
Dorleijn, as well as Sabine van Wesemael, come to the conclusion that
the reviewers, regardless of which camp they came from, were not
charmed at all by these phenomena. As these authors show, forms of
avant-gardism, which tended towards some sort of Classicism, were
preferred in the Netherlands. Besides this, there was only a moderate
form of avant-gardism, namely expressionism, that was approved by
the critics. Hestia Bavelaar shows this in her account of the criticism
of De Kroniek van Kunst en Cultuur.
Bibliography
Fleckner, Uwe und Thomas W. Gaehtgens (Hrsg.),
1999 Prenez garde à la peinture! Kunstkritik in Frankreich 1900-1945.
Berlin Akademie Verlag.

Gamboni, Dario
1994 “The relative autonomy of autonomy of art criticism”. In: Art
Criticism and its institutions in nineteenth-century France. Ed. By
Michael R. Orwicz. Manchester U.P.: 182-194.
Gamwell, Lynn
1980 Cubist Criticism. Michigan, UMI Research Press.
Heller, Heinz B.
1990 “Massenkultur und ästhetische Urteilskraft zur Geschichte und
Funktion der deutsche Filmkritik vor 1933”. In: Norbert Grob und
Karl Prümm (Hg.), Die Macht der Filmkritik. Positionen und
Kontroversen, München, Text und Kritik: 25-45.
Vries, J. de
2001 “Impresario’s van de avant-garde”. In: Kunstschrift 45, nr. 2: 18-31.

This page intentionally left blank

Art Criticism and Avant-Garde: André Lhote’s
Written Works
Jean-Roch Bouiller
André Lhote (1885-1962) was an important figure in the art world of the 20th
century.
He contributed to cubism and the “rappel à l’ordre” movement. During his whole
career, he was known for his work as a painter, as a writer and as a teacher. This triple
identity led him to mingle classical artistic references with modern revival style.
Above all, he occupied a central place in the debate on art literature. Indeed, he was
one of the most important contributors to La Nouvelle Revue Française (La NRF)
between 1919 and 1942. The problem of the “avant-garde” in his work is interesting
for an art historian. This is perceptible between 1910 and 1962 in his strategy as an
artist and writer, in his critical comments on the artistic field and in the question of his
position within or outside the avant-garde movement.
Lhote’s Strategy
The period from the end of the 19th
through the beginning of the 20th
century is a privileged period to observe the transformation of the
artistic field. The development of avant-garde, the establishment of
the “dealers-critics” system (Harrison and White: 1993), and the re-
vival of art criticism result in many innovations and confrontations
between different representations of art (Gamboni 1992: 49-54). One
of these transformations results in the opposition between “strategies
of the order” and “strategies of the rupture” throughout the first half of
the 20th
century (Bouillon 1996: 19-37). Another main transformation
is the development of artists’ written works, after several years of
conflict between artists and critics at the end of the 19th
century (Gam-
boni 1989a : 208 and Gamboni 1989b: 11; 231-236).
André Lhote participates in the last struggle between academ-
ism and avant-garde and between detractors and defenders of the art-
ists’ practice of writing. He is also involved in the debates on the stat-
ute and the role of the writing. André Lhote thus personifies the 20th
century figure of artist-author, as a creator and theoretician in a con-
text where this double status was more and more prevalent but, at the
same time, more and more criticized in the artistic field.

Jean-Roch Bouiller
16
One can find in his career a strategy in his recourse to writing
and choice of reviews. Between 1912 and 1962, André Lhote pub-
lished texts in more than sixty reviews and a score of books with ap-
proximately ten publishers. He always defends the practice of writing
as a tool at the service of the painter rather than as an element partici-
pating in the process of creation. He also defends cubism with obsti-
nacy and tenacity.
However, his writings often vary in their form. Malcolm Gee
showed that a printed text is the result of a collaboration in which
factors other than the ideas or the will of the author play a major share
(Gee 1993: 4 ff). It is thus necessary for a writer to learn how to use
the various literary genres. In the case of André Lhote, his relationship
to his texts can never be regarded as free and independent from his
career as a painter.
In the 1910s, understanding the importance of writing for the
establishment of a painter’s reputation, Lhote relies on the support of
his friends’ literary networks in order to overcome his double handi-
cap: his lack of renown and his distance from Paris. Gabriel Frizeau
(1870-1939), Jacques Rivière (1886-1925) and Alain-Fournier (1886-
1914) are then his principal relays. Frizeau connects him, from Bor-
deaux, with contacts like Paul Claudel (1868-1965), André Gide
(1869-1951) or Ary Leblond (1877-1953). Rivière and Alain-Fournier
help him with many small services and refer him to publishers and
gallery owners (Lhote, Fournier, Rivière: 1986). The fact that he lives
in Bordeaux indeed obliges him to have constant recourse to these
intermediaries to defend his interests in Paris, the only place where he
believes he can be understood.
It is thus natural that he delegates to his writer friends the
work of mediating on behalf of his painting. In 1909 and 1910 Jacques
Rivière writes two articles on his friend Lhote in La NRF before pub-
lishing two more general articles on modern painting in 1912 (Rivière
1909; 1910; 1912a; 1912b). But in 1912 Andre Lhote also discovers
the disadvantages of this delegation. Indeed, while praising Lhote as
the most promising painter of his generation in his article of March 1,
1912, “Sur les tendances actuelles de la peinture”, Jacques Rivière
criticizes the other cubists at the same time.
Other painters and critics’ hostility towards Lhote can be in-
terpreted as consequences of Rivière’s unfortunate benevolence
(Moueix 1969: 254-255). Lhote is isolated from the cubists’ small

circle and his name appears neither in Albert Gleizes and Jean Metz-
inger’s book Du cubisme, in 1912, nor in Guillaume Apollinaire’s Les
peintres cubistes, in 1913. Thus Lhote is obliged to respond and to
take charge of the promotion of his career as a painter. His first writ-
ings date back from this year and he begins to look for reviews and
editors to publish his texts.
The first text published by André Lhote is modest in its
length, in the provincial nature of the Revue de France et des pays
français which publishes it, as well as in presentation: without a title,
at the end of an article devoted by the critic Carlos Larronde to his
painting (“L’Imagerie” in Larronde 1912: 162). Lhote, however, is
already rather well known. His painting has been the subject of exhibi-
tions and publications in circles close to the Parisian avant-garde. But
it is not natural for him to be publicly presented as an author. Indeed,
André Lhote does not write a new article until “Totalisme” in 1916 in
Amédée Ozenfant’s review L’élan. This small review, with its limited
circulation, is clearly intended for a restricted audience of specialists.
In addition, the advent of the war also hinders wider circulation.
The contrast between these two texts is striking and shows
that in the meantime the author changed his opinion. Whereas in 1912
Lhote is in a defensive position in a review not intended to answer to
the avant-garde, his 1916 article places him at the forefront of the
artistic scene. Indeed, the title and brevity of this text are reminiscent
of a proclamation (Blumenkranz-Onimus 1971: 351).
L’élan is an example of an avant-garde review written by key
actors of this circle, as testified by the fact that many artists like De-
rain, La Fresnaye, Laboureur, Matisse, Picasso, Dunoyer de Segonzac,
and Ozenfant take part in it.1
Founded in 1915, early in the First
World War, with a patriotic and optimistic title, it seeks to show that
the effects of war can be surmounted by maintaining artistic activity
(Silver 1977: 56-57; Chevrefils-Desbiolles 1993: 62). Lhote’s unique
participation in this review as an author is a testimony to his hope to
be at the same time a painter and a writer. It also indicates his recon-
ciliation with the small circle of avant-gardists and the desire to find a
place among them.
Feelings of failure? Mitigated reception of his text? It is difficult to
know precisely why Lhote does not persevere more in this way of
diffusing his ideas to his peers. His letters in 1916 show a certain dis-

Jean-Roch Bouiller
18
appointment due to the reactions caused by his text.2
In 1918, the “To-
talisme” of Andre Lhote still causes some smiles and the author feels
the need to declare publicly that through this text he never meant to
become an intellectual guide for the artists (Salmon 1918a: 1062;
1918b: 1203-1204; 1918c: 1253). His difficulty to be integrated in the
circle of the Parisian avant-garde is reported by Lhote in autobio-
graphical texts at the end of his life (Lhote 1953). At the end of the
1910s, he readjusts once again his position as an artist-author.
His relationship with the Swedish painter Georg Pauli after
1913 have enabled him to be involved with pedagogy. The successes
he meets in this exercise encourage him to develop this activity and to
conceive writing with an explanatory and concrete approach (Gouin
1996: 98 ff). His subsequent texts are published in reviews like Flam-
man and La Gazette de Hollande out of the field of the Parisian avant-
garde. André Lhote does not want to write any more for his artist col-
leagues but for the general public. His article “La composition clas-
sique” illustrates well this inversion of approach (Lhote 1919a) This
change is all the more important as this text can be regarded as a
predecessor of his articles in La NRF. Both the content and form of
the writings, as well as their publication in traditional reviews, are
similar.
With the passing years, Lhote became a specialist in explain-
ing pictorial problems to nonspecialists, in particular through seminars
and conferences which he gives regularly. Thus his recourse to writing
should not be understood as a simple way to gain a position in the
Parisian artistic field. It is also an illustration of his belief in a peda-
gogy for the masses. His goal is the reconciliation of the public and
modern art.
This attitude is contrary to the process for unveiling works
usually practiced for the ideas or achievements of the avant-garde.
Their innovative character explains why they are intended, at least
initially, for restricted circles of amateurs. The conversion of the pub-
lic constitutes for avant-garde artists a mythical goal more than a real-
ity. The support of a large public to an avant-garde work can even
contribute to its devaluation within these small groups that are at-
tached to the “distinction,” the intimacy and the privileged contact
with works (Gamboni 1989b: 158-159). This situation can encourage
artists to resort to a certain hermetism.

André Lhote calls this process into question. He ignores the
small groups of amateurs in order to directly reach a large audience.
One understands then why he increases his public profile and his pub-
lications in various reviews after 1917, and why he undertakes to col-
laborate with La NRF beginning in 1919. The fact of appealing to a
large audience is not incompatible, in his opinion, with holding a posi-
tion in the more restricted field of the avant-garde. At least until 1939
Lhote considers his stature as an author in one of the most prestigious
reviews of the time as gratifying, even from the point of view of his
career as a painter.
One can thus understand why Lhote writes in other reviews
devoted to the artistic question which appeal to a large audience, re-
views like L’Amour de l’art (1920-1939), edited by Waldemar
George3
, L’Art vivant (1925-1939), edited by Jacques Guenne and
Florent Fels4
, Les cahiers d’art (1925-1930), edited by Christian Zer-
vos5
. But this participation remains unimportant in spite of Lhote’s
proximity to the aesthetics of these reviews. L’Amour de l’art and
L’Art vivant, in particular, defend “l’art vivant”, in opposition to aca-
demic art and to avant-garde radical art. They emphasize the need for
maintaining a relationship with the pictorial tradition (Green 1987: 66;
146;174; 206).
One can also find articles by Lhote in traditional literary re-
views such as La vie des lettres6
, Les cahiers de la République, des
lettres des sciences et des arts7
, or Les nouvelles littéraires8
, where he
again adopts the subjects and tone of his articles in La NRF.
At the same time, André Lhote is absent from another great
type of periodical widespread after the First World War: reviews re-
lated to galleries or artistic movements (Chevrefils-Desbiolles 1988 :
88-90). Indeed, his four contributions to Le Bulletin de la vie artis-
tique, a publication related to the Bernheim Jeune gallery, are three
answers to interviews and a very short text.9
Lhote appears neither in
Les arts à Paris (1918-1935), edited by Paul Guillaume, nor in Le
Bulletin de l’Effort moderne (1924-1927), edited by Léonce
Rosenberg, nor in reviews related to the surrealist or abstract move-
ments like La révolution surréaliste (1924-1929), Le surréalisme au
service de la révolution (1930-1933), Minotaure (1933-1938), Cercle
et carré (1930), Art concret (1930), Abstraction-Création (1932-
1936). This absence is due to his marginal position among the Parisian
avant-garde.

Jean-Roch Bouiller
20
Thus Lhote’s collaboration with several daily newspapers
varies. It takes place only from 1931 and particularly in the years
1937-1938, with a total of 37 articles published in Ce Soir, an evening
daily newspaper related to the French Communist Party, created on
March 2, 1937 (Livois 1965: 524-525). Lhote’s collaboration with Ce
Soir shows his wish to directly address a readership even larger than
that of the traditional reviews. We have to emphasize the important
place in these newspapers given to an artistic literature written by
authors who acquired their reputation in more prestigious and more
specialized periodicals. André Lhote’s weekly chronicle constitutes a
bond between the journalistic world and the artistic circle. Lastly,
Lhote’s collaboration with Ce Soir shows that his ideas are close to
those of the communist press at the end of the 1930s.
In addition, André Lhote also collaborates with many foreign
reviews. Several of these reviews, like Das Kunstblatt, Der Cicerone,
and Magazine of Art, only reproduce texts already published in
France. However, several others like Flamman, Sélection, Le disque
vert, Cahiers de Belgique, and Revue du Caire are used by André
Lhote as instruments to promote himself abroad. The foreign reviews
enable him to adopt a new strategy in order to find geographically an
even wider readership.
The interest in diffusing ideas to foreign countries represents a
true case of “artistic geography” (Gamboni 1989b: 151 ff.). The for-
eign reviews seem attracted by the collaboration of an author like
Lhote, undoubtedly because of the reputation of Paris which is still
regarded as the artistic capital of the world. Lhote also finds a benefit:
the widening of his readership undoubtedly means an increase in the
number of potential collectors, in a setting where competition is less
strong than in the Parisian market (Bouiller 1999: 338). There is a
mutual benefit for the artist and the review: each one seeks a form of
legitimacy within its own artistic field and takes support from the for-
eign artistic scene (Gamboni 1989b: 152-153).
When Lhote takes part in foreign reviews, especially in the
1910s and 1920s, he is preoccupied with the construction of a career
in the long term. It is not a substitute for his search of recognition in
France. The feeling to be well understood in certain foreign artistic
circles, in particular in Spain, Sweden, Belgium, and even in Ger-
many, could consolidate his strategy. However, Lhote also thinks that
an artist must necessarily experience a phase of contempt in his own

country. Then he can triumph after having been celebrated in foreign
regions: “Les artistes actuellement en honneur en France depuis
l’impressionnisme, ont-ils été découvert par des amateurs français, ou
par des mécènes étrangers? Je penche pour cette deuxième hypothèse”
(Lhote 1929).
Finally, the presence of Andre Lhote in the non-French re-
views can be explained by the success of his modern classical aesthet-
ics abroad. The image as a reasonable and wise artist could harm
Lhote within the Parisian avant-garde, but it was undoubtedly useful
to him among foreign amateurs.
Andre Lhote’s faith in writing and in a kind of universal
pedagogy decreases however with the passing years, as is testified by
a seminar in 1938: “A-t-on jamais vu des paroles changer quoi que ce
soit à l’idée presque toujours fausse que le public se fait de la pein-
ture ?” (Lhote 1942). By then an increasing share of his texts is in-
tended neither to directly occupy a position in a restricted artistic field,
nor to contribute to the education of the public, but to convince the
readership that the author is not really a writer. The author is an artist
and Lhote becomes aware that his career as a writer could harm his
glory as a painter (Bouiller 2004a): “Il est bien entendu que je n’écris
plus. Le peintre que je suis a été trop humilié en l’honneur de
l’écrivain que je me repens d’avoir été”.10
He once again modifies his style of writing. He no longer
seeks to legitimate the recourse to writing for a painter, nor to write
for his peers or to convert a larger audience. He now relates the
imaginary end of his career as an author, in order to promote his ca-
reer as a painter. In a letter with Franz Hellens of January 15, 1946, he
explains that he nailed a warning on his door: “Ne demandez ni
préface, ni article, ni conférence” (Descargues 1950: 1; 5). This narra-
tion about the end of his writing career however is more a rhetorical
figure than a true decision. Indeed he writes in different reviews until
the end of the 1950s.
André Lhote, Observer of the Avant-Garde
André Lhote is also an observer of art at a time when it changes pro-
foundly and the opposition between academism and avant-garde gives
way to a multiplicity of artistic tendencies and individual experiences.

Jean-Roch Bouiller
22
He is one of the most virulent denouncers of academic art, but he also
sometimes criticizes the avant-garde. In 1919, in one of his first arti-
cles in La NRF, he condemns “les polémiques et manifestes d’avant-
garde” (Lhote 1919b). He explains on the one hand that works of art
are more important than texts about art and on the other hand that
artists can nevertheless resort to theories only if it is with the aim of
improving their painting. In 1933 in a general article about the artistic
scene he defends the avant-garde against academism by stating that
the avant-garde artist works on what is essential, the painting itself,
whereas academic artists focus especially on resemblance (Lhote
1933). At this time the avant-garde corresponds for him to the work-
shops of Montparnasse.
However, in 1934 he criticises again the Parisian artistic cir-
cles. In his eyes avant-garde is the cause of snobbery and speculation
in art and he regrets that the public do not understand the artists any
more (Lhote 1935). He condemns the galerists’ power as if the need to
earn money could depreciate the quality of an artist. Avant-garde often
corresponds for him to the art market.
In an obituary notice on the painter Emmanuel Gondouin he
even uses the word downfall : “Je revois ces merveilleuses salles où
éclataient de tous côtés d’allègres fanfares picturales [...] et je ressens
plus aigrement la déchéance actuelle de la peinture dite d’avant-garde”
(Lhote 1934). In 1938, in his comments on Picasso’s painting he sug-
gests that every avant-garde work looks like every other avant-garde
work : “On est un peu gêné, lorsqu’on regarde la belle femme assise
de Picasso : on a rencontré ces combinaisons de lignes et de couleurs
dans trop d’endroits où s’expose la peinture d’avant-garde” (Lhote
1938).
Nevertheless, in his comments about the 1937 Universal Ex-
hibition in Paris, André Lhote considers it necessary to establish a
hierarchy between academism and avant-garde (Lhote 1937). His
main enemy remains academism at least until the Second World War.
As an art critic André Lhote is neither in favour of the avant-
garde nor against it. For example, he writes many articles about surre-
alism and seeks to define what could be a good surrealist picture. He
obviously wants to look like a good critic without prejudice. But he is
above all interested in André Breton’s surrealist’s theory. He never
describes the surrealist movement as an avant-garde group and, as

well as other authors of La NRF, he refers to surrealist works as indi-
vidual paintings (Mourier-Casile 1987: 920-925).
André Lhote and Avant-Garde
The fact that André Lhote can be seen at the same time as a partner
and as an enemy of the avant-garde raises the question of his position
as an insider or outsider. One could answer: neither one nor the other.
In 1912, Lhote is invited by the art critic Roger Fry (1866-
1934) to form part of an avant-garde group in Grafton Gallery in Lon-
don, and he also participates in the avant-garde exhibition La Section
d’Or, in the gallery de la Boétie, in Paris. He is not yet thirty. It is a
promising beginning. At the time his bonds with the artistic Parisian
circles and in particular the “Groupe de Puteaux” and with the review
L’élan in 1910s remain for him important. In 1924 Robert Rey re-
marks: “parmi les peintres d’avant-garde, André Lhote est un de ceux
dont la foule connaît le mieux le nom”. But he adds: “André Lhote
semble avoir renié les derniers survivants du cubisme, qui le lui ren-
dent” (Rey 1924: 92). At the end of his life, Lhote can still be seen as
an avant-garde artist. In 1958 Jean Cocteau and Pierre Courthion refer
to his “fureur combative pour défendre l’avant-garde” (Cocteau, Cour-
thion 1958: 4).
Indeed his ideas were close to those of a lot of avant-garde
artists. Firstly Lhote denounces impressionism like them: it’s a com-
monplace opinion in the artistic field in the first half of the 20th
cen-
tury (Silver 1981 and Silver 1991: 181-182). Secondly he uses words
and concepts that he borrows from the avant-garde vocabulary. For
example he often speaks of music and musicality in paintings. We
know that this parallelism between music and painting constitutes,
along with the question of the autonomy of visual art, one of the main
ideas defended by avant-garde artists. Wassily Kandinsky, Vladimir
Baranoff-Rossine, abstract painters and French “musicalistes” all had
recourse to it (Kandinsky 1989: 62, 79, 84; Catalogue Max Jacob et
Picasso 1994: 166, note 13).
When Lhote states that the artist must not try to please the
public, he also can be seen as an avant-garde artist: “Ainsi dans le
domaine de la technique comme dans celui de l’esprit, il faut se rési-
gner à déplaire d’abord” (Lhote 1932b ; see Lhote 1932a. “[...] L’Art

Jean-Roch Bouiller
24
véritable ne peut être atteint de nos jours que contre le gré du public et
au risque d’y laisser sa vie” (Lhote 1933: 330). In other words it signi-
fies that concerning art the small circle of artists is right when the
public is wrong. He often tries to show that artists are right in the long
term. Like Kandinsky, he thinks that the artist can be a precursor and a
guide (cf Kandinsky 1989: 61-68). In 1922, he writes “les peintres
[...], peu à peu, forment l’opinion” (Lhote 1922: 115) and ten years
later: “Il faut des générations pour que le langage singulier des nova-
teurs soit compris par la foule. (Il est perçu d’abord par des gens du
métier qui le vulgarisent [...])” (Lhote 1932a).
But André Lhote also takes positions against avant-garde ideas. One
of his most important convictions is his admiration for art from the
past. According to him Fouquet, Ingres, Renoir and especially Cé-
zanne should be models for young artists. It is not exactly the avant-
garde view.
Lhote also defends monumental heritage and contributes to
the restoration of many small French villages (Mirmande, Gordes, La
Cadière d’Azur) between the 1920s and the 1950s. This causes a lot of
debate at the time. Avant-garde artists, like futurists, surrealists or
modern architects publicly demonstrate that they have to destroy heri-
tage in order to build something new (Ferri 2003: 146). On the con-
trary, Lhote proposes a synthesis between tradition and modernity.
The fact that he pleads in favour of heritage causes many controver-
sies especially with Louis Aragon and Le Corbusier.11
Lhote’s arguments in favour of heritage and tradition is a cen-
tral element in his writings and does not entitle him to really be
counted among avant-garde artists. In other respects, there are in his
way of thinking a lot of similarities of ideas, of vocabulary, or of
strategy with avant-garde positions.
It is difficult to find other artists or other writers who can be compared
with André Lhote. Like him, Albert Gleizes (1881-1953) or Maurice
Denis (1870-1943) were painters, authors and teachers. Among the
critics, René Huyghe (1906-1997), Claude Roger-Marx (1888-1977),
Maurice Raynal (1884-1954) or André Salmon (1881-1969) can also
be seen as independent authors neither partners nor enemies of the
avant-garde (cf Green 1987: 46; 64-66; 104; 126; 146; 158-162; 187;
210). The analysis of Lhote’s written works in their diversity -- art

criticism, art theory, pedagogy, museology, defence of cultural heri-
tage in the artistic and literary context of his time -- confirm the exis-
tence of a third way (cf Green 1987) between avant-garde and aca-
demism. “Art vivant”, “Réalismes” (cf Clair 1981) or simply modern
art? For this third way reference to tradition, reference to reality and
autonomy of art are not only compatible but simply essential.12
Notes
1
Cf. Ozenfant 1968: 84-86 : “je voulais que mon journal soit un lien entre artistes et
écrivains mobilisés et ceux restés chez eux”.
2
Letter with Joseph Granié, May 24, 1916, cf Gouin 1996: 152; Letter with Georg
Pauli, April 24, 1917, ibid. : 152.
3
Three articles in 1923, 1925 and 1933.
4
Three articles in 1928 and 1929.
5
One article in 1933.
6
Two articles in 1923.
7
Two articles in 1926 and 1931.
8
For articles in 1934 and 1935.
9
Lhote 1923a: 472-473; 1923b: 542-543; 1924a: 12-13; 1924b: 552-554.
10
IMEC, Fonds Jean Paulhan, Letter of André Lhote with Jean Paulhan, November
21, 1945.
11
Cf. for example Lhote 1935b: 941; Lhote 1943: 38. Some letters of André Lhote
also testify to these controversies. Cf Bouiller 2004b: 306-308.
12
I thank Yuka Amano and Ravi Montenegro, Estelle Minassian, Monique Nonne and
Caroline Stanchina, and Isabelle Reiher.

Jean-Roch Bouiller
26
Bibliography
Blumenkranz-Onimus, Noëmi
1971 « Quand les artistes manifestent ». In: Liliane Brion-Guerry (dir.),
L’année 1913. Les formes esthétiques de l’œuvre d’art à la veille de
la première Guerre Mondiale, Paris, Klincksieck.
Bouiller, Jean-Roch
1999 “De la lune aux nuages. André Lhote vu et lu par Paul Westheim et
les rédacteurs de la revue Das Kunstblatt, 1917-1933”. In: Uwe
Fleckner and Thomas W. Gaehtgens (dir.), Prenez garde à la pein-
ture! Kunstkritik in Frankreich 1900-1945, Berlin, Akademie
Verlag.
2004a “Articles, conférences et anthologies: les ricochets des écrits
d’André Lhote après 1940”. In: Yves Chevrefils-Desbiolles, Phi-
lippe Dagen, Thierry Dufrêne, Françoise Levaillant (dir.), Les écrits
d’artistes depuis 1940, Paris / Caen, Institut Mémoire de l’Edition
Contemporaine.
2004b Définir et juger l’art moderne. Les écrits d’André Lhote (1885-
1962), Thèse, Paris I
Bouillon, Jean-Paul
1996“1900-1914 Naissance de l’art contemporain”. In: Jean-Paul Bouillon,
Paul-Louis Rinuy, Antoine Baudin, L’art du XXe siècle, 1900-1939,
Paris, Citadelles.
Catalogue
1994 Max Jacob et Picasso, Paris, Réunion des musées nationaux..
Chevrefils-Desbiolles, Yves
1988 “Les revues d’art (première partie : histoire et variantes, des origi-
nes à 1970)”. In : La revue des revues, n° 5.
1993 Les revues d’art à Paris 1905-1940, Paris, Ent’revues.
Clair, Jean
1981 “Données d’un problème”. In: Catalogue Les réalismes 1919-1939.
Entre révolution et réaction, Paris, Centre Georges Pompidou : 8-
14.
Cocteau, Jean et Courthion, Pierre
1958 André Lhote, Paris, Presses artistiques Weber, “Les cahiers de la
peinture”, n°5.
Descargues, Pierre
1950 “André Lhote: je reste au bord des contrées interdites”. In: Arts, n°
250, February 17.

Ferri, Laurent
2003 “Les intellectuels s’intéressent-ils au patrimoine monumental et ar-
chitectural ? Un siècle de pétitions en France”. In: Livraisons
d’histoire de l’architecture, n° 5.
Gamboni, Dario
1989a “Après le régime du Sabre, le régime de l’homme de lettre» : la cri-
tique d’art comme pouvoir et enjeu”. In: Jean-Paul Bouillon (dir.),
La critique d’art en France 1850-1900, Saint-Etienne, CIEREC -
Université de Saint-Etienne, “Travaux LXIII”.
1989b La plume et le pinceau. Odilon Redon et la littératur, Paris
1992 “L’impératif de nouveauté, le rejet de la convention et la recherche
d’un langage universel dans les arts des années 1880 et 1890”. In:
Sociologie de l’art, n° 5.
Gee, Malcom
1993 “The nature of twentieth-century art criticism”. In: Malcolm Gee
(dir.), Art Criticism since 1900, Manchester et New York, Manches-
ter University Press: 3-21.
Gouin, Yvonne
1996 André Lhote, un individuel du cubisme (1910-1920), thèse, universi-
té Paris IV.
Green, Christopher
1987 Cubism and its Enemies. Modern movements and Reaction in
French Art, 1916-1928, New Haven, London, Yale University
Press.
Harrison C. and Cynthia A. White
1993 (1965) Canvases and Careers: Institutional Change in the French
Painting World, University of Chicago Press.
Kandinsky, Wassily
1989 (1910) Du spirituel dans l’art, Paris, Denoël (Folio essais).
Larronde, Carlos
1912 “Courrier des marches du Sud-Ouest: le peintre André Lhote”. In:
La revue de France et des pays français, n° 4, May.
Lhote, André
1919a “La composition classique”. In: Gazette de Hollande, April 16.
1919b “De la nécessité des théories”. In: NRF, n° 75, December 1: 1002-
1013.

Jean-Roch Bouiller
28
1922 “Les dernières rétrospectives”. In: NRF, n° 106, July 1.
1923a “Arts mineurs” (réponse à une enquête). In: Le bulletin de la vie ar-
tistique, November 15 : 472-473.
1923b “La nature devant l’art” (réponse à une enquête). In: Le bulletin de
la vie artistique, December 1, 1923: 542-543.
1924a “La querelle des Indépendants”. In: Le bulletin de la vie artistique,
n° 1, January 1, 1924: 12-13.
1924b “Chez les cubistes” (réponse à une enquête). In : Bulletin de la vie
artistique, n° 24, December 15: 552-554.
1929 “Exposition Raoul Dufy (Le Portique); Raoul Dufy, par Pierre Cour-
thion; Raoul Dufy, par Christian Zervos”. In: NRF, n° 186, 1er
mars: 418-419.
1932 a “Sauve-qui-peut”. In: NRF, n° 220, January 1: 130.
1932 b “Kisling (galerie Girard)”. In : NRF, n° 220, January 1: 156.
1933 « A Bâtons rompus ». In : NRF nr. 233, 1er
février: 329-334.
1934 “Emmanuel Gondouin”. In : NRF, n° 246, March 1: 560-561.
1935a [“Propos”], in L’art et la réalité. L’art et l’Etat. Entretiens, Paris,
Institut international de coopération intellectuelle, Société des Na-
tions. Talks in Venice from the 25 to July 28 1934 printed in March
1935: 37-47.
1935b “De l’art utile”. In : NRF, n° 261, 1er juin 1935: 941
1937 “Première promenade à l’exposition”. In: NRF, n° 288, September
1: 491-492.
1938 “Art mural”. In: NRF, n° 299, August 1: 341.
1942 “La peinture « inspirée » et le public français”. In: Peinture
d’abord; essais, Paris, Denoël.
1943 Petits itinéraires à l’usage des artistes, Paris, Denoël, 1943: 38.
1953 “Préface” in catalogue André Lhote, Paris, galerie Art vivant, May.
Lhote, André, Fournier, Alain, Rivière, Jacques
1986 La peinture, le cœur et l’esprit, correspondance inédite (1907-
1924), Bordeaux, William Blake and co. and musée des Beaux-Arts.
Livois, René de
1965 Histoire de la presse française (de 1881 à nos jours), Paris, CFA.
Moueix, Jean-François
1969 Un amateur d’art éclairé à Bordeaux: Gabriel Frizeau 1870-1939,
thèse, Université de Bordeaux.
Mourier-Casile, Pascaline
1987 “La NRF et le surréalisme (1924-1940) ou la neutralisation d’une
avant-garde”. In: Revue d’histoire littéraire de la France: Les avant-
gardes et la critique: le rôle de Jacques Rivière 1900-1925, Sep-
tember - October 1987: 920-925.

Ozenfant, Amédée
1968 Mémoires 1886-1962, Paris, Seghers.
Rey, Robert
1924 “André Lhote”. In: Beaux-Arts, March 15, 92
Rivière, Jacques
1909 “André Lhote”. In: NRF, n° 5, May 1: 393-394.
1910 “André Lhote”. In: NRF, n° 12, December 1: 806-808.
1912a “Le Salon des Indépendants”. In: NRF, n° 41, May 1: 890-893.
1912b “Sur les tendances actuelles de la peinture”. In: Revue d’Europe et
d’Amérique, Paris, March 1: 384-406.
Salmon, André
1918a “Le totalisme”. In: L’Europe nouvelle, n° 22, June 8: 1062.
1918b “La jeune peinture française (suite): De dame nature à dame pein-
ture, ou l’angoisse d’un classicisme”. In: L’Europe nouvelle, n° 25,
June 29: 1203-1204 .
1918c “La jeune peinture française – Toute la vérité sur le totalisme”. In:
L’Europe nouvelle, n° 26, July 6: 1253.
Silver, Kenneth E.
1977 “Purism: straightening up after the great war”. In: Artforum - 15, n°
7, March: 56-57
1981 Esprit de corps: The Great War and French Art, 1914-1925, Ph.D.,
Yale University.
1991 Vers le retour à l’ordre. L’avant-garde parisienne et la Première
Guerre mondiale 1914-1925, Paris, Flamarion.

Architectural Criticism in de 8 en OPBOUW
Ben Rebel
It is a well-known fact that the Dutch architectural avant-garde magazine de 8 en
OPBOUW, founded in 1932 by a number of functionalist architects from Amsterdam
and Rotterdam, was very critical towards opposite architectural streams like the ex-
pressionist Amsterdam School. By analysing a selection of representative and critical
articles from the initial period of that magazine about both functionalist and non
functionalist buildings in the Netherlands, an answer was sought to the question if de
8 en OPBOUW in fact contained actual and regular architectural criticism, what was
the object of that criticism and which were the criteria used. A real objective and
impartial criticism in the magazine however was not probable because the main aim
of the two founding associations of the magazine (“de 8” from Amsterdam and
“OPBOUW” from Rotterdam) was the enhancement of Functionalism and the opposi-
tion against non functionalist architecture.
An analysis of comparable projects by architects of the Amsterdam School and
by prominent functionalist architects like Duiker and Rietveld made it very clear that,
in judging their own functionalist architecture the critics (all architects) were inclined
to neglect evident technical shortcomings, so fiercely criticised in the case of the
houses and schools of the expressionist Amsterdam School. Mostly they pointed in a
general way at the intended qualities of their own buildings in the field of efficiency,
hygiene, sunlight et cetera. And always they emphasised in particular the modern
character of these buildings, reflecting the modern world.
Introduction
The first proposition in the aggressive manifest of the architectural
avant-garde association “de 8” from Amsterdam, founded in 1927,
runs as follows: “DE 8 IS de kritische reactie op de architectonische
vormgeving van dezen dag” [DE 8 IS the critical reaction to the archi-
tectural forms of today] (“de 8” 1927: 126). There are two striking
aspects. In the first place this proposition suggests being the herald of
fierce architectural criticism in the field of contemporary architecture
and in the second place it looks like criticism was considered to be a
matter of discussing forms. Other propositions from the manifest dem-
onstrate, however, that the architects of “de 8” were especially
interested in rationality, functionality and social reform. They admit-
ted it was already possible to design beautiful buildings, but for the
time being they preferred ugly architecture to non-functional architec-

Ben Rebel
32
ture. One wonders if this attitude was of any consequence for the ar-
chitectural criticism in their own architectural avant-garde magazine
de 8 en OPBOUW. The architects of “de 8” founded that magazine in
1932 in co-operation with their colleagues from the Rotterdam asso-
ciation “OPBOUW”.1
By analysing a small selection of representative
and critical articles in that magazine about architectural objects in the
Netherlands, I will investigate if de 8 en OPBOUW in fact contained
actual and regular architectural criticism, what was the object of that
criticism and which were the criteria used, like for example in the
field of design (form), construction and function. I will do this against
the background of the ideas and theories on architecture and town
planning as formulated by the architects of “de 8” and “OPBOUW”.
I will restrict myself to the first three years of the magazine
(1932 to 1934), because that was the time the trend was set, but also
because after that period a process started that asks for special investi-
gation of the period 1934-1938. In 1934 Jan Duiker died. Until the end
of 1933 he was the chairman of “de 8” and one of the most outspoken
architects of the first generation of Dutch Functionalism.2
After him
Ben Merkelbach became the chairman. Still more important was the
fusion that took place in 1934 with the so-called “Groep ’32” (Rebel
1983: 122-126 en 147-162 / Bock 1983). This group was formed by a
number of young and modern Amsterdam architects, all members of
the Society “Architectura et Amicitia”, that was dominated by archi-
tects of the expressionist Amsterdam School. Without any exception
these young architects of the “Groep ’32” had a limitless admiration
for the Swiss architect Le Corbusier. After in vain attempts, from
1931 on, to gain influence in “Architectura et Amicitia” and to propa-
gate the cause of Functionalism, they left that society in 1932 and in
1934 they joint “de 8”. But that evoked a lot of problems because the
young architects refused to support a number of propositions of the
“de 8” from 1927 such as “DE 8 IS A-AESTHETISCH” [DE 8 IS A-
AESTHETICAL]. On the contrary, they said it was time to stop con-
centrating on rationality and functionality alone and that it was now
urgent to give form to the modern world by means of architecture. The
founders of “de 8”, however, said that not all problems were already
analysed and that the question of aesthetics had to wait for the time
being. Eventually in 1936 the architects of the “Groep ‘32” took over
the lead in the editorial staff of de 8 en OPBOUW. And after a very
critical article of their foreman Arthur Staal (1937: 82-84) about a

very pragmatic and functional office by Willem van Tijen, one of the
Rotterdam leaders of the old generation, a violent discussion arose
about the role of aesthetics within the design process. The reason was,
that Staal openly demanded more and more attention for notions like
monumentalism. And - being an aspect of feudal times from the past -
that was an absolute taboo for the architects of the old generation.
Eventually it came to a break in 1938 and most of the young archi-
tects, together with some older ones, left “de 8”. After that crisis de 8
en OPBOUW returned back to normal until the liquidation of the
magazine in 1943.
Vitruvius and the Complexity of Architectural
Criticism
It is useful to realise that architectural criticism is a complex business
as compared to criticism in the field of the visual arts. This is directly
connected with the complex character of architecture itself, having a
relationship with art and engineering. The roman architectural theorist
and architect Vitruvius referred already in the first century BC in his
publication De Architectura Libri Decem [Ten books on architecture]
to that aspect.3
Until today Vitruvius influenced in a direct and indi-
rect way many architectural theories and architectural education sys-
tems. In the first book about architectural theory and town planning,
he mentioned three branches of architecture: Buildings (public and
private), clocks and machines. As far as the building process was con-
cerned, he remarked that the architect always had to pay attention to
three important aspects: “Firmitas” [durability], “Utilitas” [suitability]
and “Venustas” [aesthetics]. In connection with durability he stressed
the importance of sufficient foundations (the base of construction) and
a correct use of building materials. In connection with suitability he
mentioned the importance of a well sought-out situation of the build-
ing and a functional lay out of rooms within the building. As far as
aesthetics were concerned, he stated that a building should be attrac-
tive and elegant for the eye and that the graduation of the different
parts of the building should be the result of a correct calculation of
well-balanced proportions. In addition thereto building in the right
way was - according to Vitruvius - a question of “Ordinatio” [ordina-
tion], “Dispositio” [arrangement], “Eurythmia” [harmony], “Sym-

Ben Rebel
34
metria” [well-balanced proportions], “Decorum” [appropriation] and
“Distributio” [economy, by which he meant a rightful distribution of
building materials and building land and a rational control over the
building costs]. As we understand that the architect, according to
Vitruvius, not only had to be an expert in handicraft and architectural
theory, but that he also had to obtain more overall knowledge of other
disciplines like draughtsmanship, history, philosophy, music, medi-
cine, law and astronomy, the big difference with for instance the vis-
ual arts becomes obvious. Architecture obviously is - even when one
leaves aside clocks, machines, music and astronomy - a versatile dis-
cipline. And that should force the architectural critic to be as versatile
as the architect. His judgement will after all be based on a conscien-
tious analysis of important aspects like construction, function and
form.
Despite provoking statements in the founding manifest of 1927
about the limited importance of the problem of form in the design
process, these were exactly the three main aspects of architecture the
architects of the avant-garde in the Netherlands wanted to deal with in
actual practice. This design attitude stemmed from the character of
their architectural training in the beginning of the twenties in their
school Haarlem (Rebel 1983: 47-48). Most succinct this was visible in
one of the concluding statements of the manifest of “de 8”: “DE 8 IS
RESULTANTE” [DE 8 IS THE RESULTANT]. This statement, that
was indirectly based on the inheritance of Vitruvius, but directly bor-
rowed from dynamics, is the key to the understanding of the design
attitude of the first generation of architects from the Dutch avant-
garde. This attitude implied that the architects saw the different prob-
lems they had to solve during the design process - including the prob-
lems in the field of aesthetics - as forces. And these equivalent forces -
although very different in character - were comparable with the vec-
tors within a parallelogram of forces. The resultant of these forces was
the eventual architectural form in which all conflicting problems were
solved in harmony with each other (Rebel 1998: 273).4

Some Defining Remarks about Architectural Criti-
cism
Before discussing the content and the nature of architectural criticism
in de 8 en OPBOUW en before analysing some articles about architec-
ture in that magazine, I first want to refer to a publication by A.W.
Reinink from 1975 about the Amsterdam Exchange building by H.P.
Berlage. The reason therefore is that the author does not emphasise so
much the Exchange itself as well as the critical reactions to that con-
troversial building. Besides that he also wrote about architectural criti-
cism in general. In chapter two about the nature of criticism Reinink
distinguished different kinds of criticism. Because de 8 en OPBOUW
was an outspoken specialist journal, written by and for architects, in
this connection only the so-called serious criticism is relevant.5
Refer-
ring to J. Stolnitz (1960: 442), who quoted T.M. Greene, Reinink
stated that all serious criticism regardless of mutual differences in
character6
, always had to contain an analysing and an evaluating as-
pect (“What is it” and “What is it worth?”). Further Reinink said, re-
ferring to R. Wellek (1963: 30-32), that it was advisable to reserve the
expression architectural criticism for written, critical discussions about
material architectural objects, although almost every discussion about
architecture including architectural criticism contained a mix of com-
ponents of architectural theory, history and criticism. Finally Reinink
discerned in the field of serious architectural criticism, dealing with
real architectural objects, three main components: Style, suitability
and construction. And there we have Vitruvius again, although he
spoke about beautiful forms and not about Style. But Vitruvius was an
architect and an architectural theorist, whereas Reinink is an architec-
tural historian.
The Trend Set by the Avant-Garde Magazine ABC
Taking into consideration the obvious militant character of the archi-
tectural avant-garde during the inter-bellum period in the Netherlands
and the above-mentioned first statement of the founding manifest of
“de 8”, one could expect a substantial contribution to Dutch architec-
tural criticism from the architectural magazine de 8 en OPBOUW. Six

Ben Rebel
36
years before the start of that periodical in 1932, however, the Swiss
avant-garde magazine ABC published a remarkable critical article
written by both editors, the Swiss architect Hans Schmidt and the
Dutch architect Mart Stam, who later became a member of
“OPBOUW” (Schmidt and Stam 1926, nr. 1: 1). Under the headline
KRITIK [Criticism] and referring to Adolf Behne’s Der moderne
Zweckbau [Modern utilitarian architecture] (1923: 18)7
, they put for-
ward four requirements, modern buildings should comply with. In the
first place the architect had to fulfill even the smallest functional
wishes of the client. In the second place he should be very careful in
choosing building materials with a view to treatment, durability and
economy. And in the third place the construction had to be uncompli-
cated and financially wise. Only after these demands were satisfied,
form could arise as if by itself.
As a consequence a black cross was drawn upon some photo-
graphs of recent projects of traditionalist designs such as the Town
hall in Stockholm by Ragnar Ostberg from 1909-23 and the central
station in Stuttgart by Paul Bonatz from 1914-17. The first design was
characterized as an ethical and sentimental piece of architecture made
by an unsocial architect and the second as an example of pathetic
monumentality. Surprisingly, however, Stam and Schmidt also at-
tacked in the same article two modern Dutch designs. The first one
was a model of a private house [“Maison Particulière”] from 1923 by
Cornelis van Eesteren and Theo van Doesburg and the second one a
model of the prize-winning design for an academy of art in Amster-
dam from 1919 by Jan Duiker. Although Van Eesteren and Duiker
would dominate the scene of modern architecture in the Netherlands
and abroad a short time after that, Stam and Schmidt did criticise also
these architects who were related to them, because they wanted to
warn them about the dangers of wrong tracks such as escape routes to
modern forms without the foundation of clarity of structure, construc-
tion and building process. In their opinion both designs were by far
too much preconceived compositions of cubes, colours and materials
and this they considered a sign of weakness. And they continued:
“Wichtig sind die Funktionen, und diese werden die Form bestim-
men”.8
Moreover, the design by Duiker was an outspoken symmetrical
composition referring to monumental buildings of the past.9
It is
strange that ABC didn’t pay any attention to the fact that both designs
were only models and by no means elaborated plans. In the case of

Van Eesteren and Van Doesburg it only was an experimental sketch
with space, form and colour without any indication of plans. In the
case of Duiker, Schmidt and Stam neglected the plans that were actu-
ally available. Probably the evident symmetrical composition was
reason enough for them to give a negative judgement. And that is
remarkable because this was a contradictory attitude. On the one hand
they stated that modern architects didn’t put forms first and foremost,
but on the other hand they rejected Duiker’s design only on the basis
of an analysis of the forms. We are not informed about the functional
and constructional qualities of the design. In other words: This article
is, although of a very serious character, not an example of real archi-
tectural criticism, but an over-simplified provoking manifest.
The Negative Effect of the “BNA” on Architectural
Criticism in The Netherlands
Anyway, the critical attack by an architect on colleagues was by
Dutch standards remarkable. To understand this, one has to realise that
by far the greatest number of architectural criticism was produced by
architects themselves. The then most important magazine was the
Bouwkundig Weekblad [Architectural Weekly] of the “Maatschappij
ter bevordering van de Bouwkunst” [Society for the Advancement of
Architecture] and the employer’s association, the “Bond van Neder-
landse Architecten” (“BNA”) [Federation of Dutch Architects].10
Most of the Dutch architects were members of the “BNA”, that, being
an employer’s association, had to look after the interests of its mem-
bers. Of course, this task could come into conflict with the task of the
Society that had to advance the quality of architecture. This ambiva-
lence was strengthened by the fusion with the honourable Amsterdam
society “Architectura et Amicitia” [Architecture and Friendship] in
1927. After all this society had as main task the improvement of “de
bloei der bouwkunst en aanverwante vakken te bevorderen” [to pro-
mote the flowering of architecture and related disciplines]. Therefore
the members of the “BNA” initially rejected a former fusion plan in
1924, referring to the disloyal behaviour of architects in the magazine
Architectura11
. In this connection it is important to know the “BNA”
had a code of honour that prohibited members to speak and write in an
offensive way about colleagues and their work. And indeed, architec-

Ben Rebel
38
tural criticism of a certain fierceness was as good as absent in the
Bouwkundig Weekblad. In most cases the articles about recent archi-
tecture had a strongly describing character with a positive judgement.
Many articles were even written by the architects of the reviewed
building. And even when an authoritative critic like J.P. Mieras, who
as an exception to the rule was not an architect, was very negative
about the enlargement by the architect W.A. Lensvelt (“BNA”) of the
old museum ‘de Lakenhal’ in Leiden, which he described as a mutila-
tion, a storm of protests arose. In a general meeting of the “BNA” on
the 28th
of October 1922, Mieras was urged to restrain himself in the
future, in order that the public would not get the impression that the
architects were in a permanent state of war with each other.12
At that time the only thirty-one years old architect Albert
Boeken was a member of the editorial staff of the Bouwkundig Week-
blad. Being an outspoken supporter of Functionalism, he was not
really at home there. In vain he tried to propagate the cause of modern
architecture, the first promising examples of which just appeared in
the Netherlands that time, in the Bouwkundig Weekblad.13
Given the
aim of the magazine to look after the interests of all of its members
and not of those of a specific movement, that was not surprising. This
was for Boeken a reason to withdraw from the editorial staff in 1924.
In 1928, together with J. Duiker he became a member of “de 8”. From
1932 on he was a frequent writer in de 8 en OPBOUW. And there he
could contribute to the enhancement of Functionalism, because that
was the main aim of that magazine. Strangely enough this was not
explicitly mentioned at all in the magazine itself, but in the draft Arti-
cles of Association of “de 8” from 1928 on this association is formu-
lated as main object: “The enhancement of the flowering of rational
architecture in the Netherlands and the opposition against not rational
architecture and town-planning” (Rebel 1983: 132-138 and 126).14
In
practice this meant that the articles were mostly about outspoken ex-
amples of Functionalist architecture in the Netherlands and other
countries, about the ideas as formulated during the different CIAM-
congresses in the field of social housing, town-planning, new techni-
cal developments, functionalist theories about design in general. Only
now and then special articles were published about architectural
movements conflicting with Functionalism. Within the scope of this
article especially the first and the last categories are interesting, al-
though also the development of the own design attitude deserves at-

tention, because most likely this influenced the character of not only
the architectural production itself but also the nature of architectural
criticism in de 8 en OPBOUW.
The Standard of Architectural Criticism in some
Representative Articles in the Initial Phase of de 8
en OPBOUW
Housing, the Amsterdam School versus Gerrit Rietveld
Already in the first issue of de 8 en OPBOUW the trend was set, al-
though, as has been said before, there was no trace of a standpoint by
the editorial staff. The first article entitled WONEN [housing] was
written by Ben Merkelbach (fig. 1). He made a vicious attack on the
much-praised housing projects designed by architects of the Amster-
dam School (1932: 1-5). His most important objection was the fact
that the architects in his opinion only were interested in the external
care of the facades and that they had left the elaboration of the floor
plans and the rear elevations to the building contractors. Despite the
fact that he argued that it was impossible to live in these houses in an
appropriate way, he didn’t discuss any actual building let alone the
floor plans. This implied that the reader was not able to gain a real
insight into the quality of the housing conditions of actual projects on
the basis of this article. With the help of close-ups on the other hand
Merkelbach did mention a number of general objections such as the
dominance of the streets in the townscape by using closed building
blocks and the absence of room for drying the wash and the storage of
bicycles and baby buggies.
As a counterexample Merkelbach discussed subsequently a
small row of houses in Utrecht by Gerrit Rietveld from 1931 (fig. 2).
And he was very positive about them. With the help of photos of the
exteriors and the interiors and of floor plans and a cross section, he
analysed the houses and drew the conclusion that the quality of hous-
ing, realised by Rietveld was much higher than in the so-called
“Mekka van de woningbouw” [Mekka of housing] in Amsterdam. In
the basement there was enough room for the storage of bicycles and
for washing and drying. The ground-floor had a kitchen with a special
window for the deliverance of purchases and with a locker with one

Ben Rebel
40
door opening to the kitchen and one to the exterior for the storage and
collecting of garbage. Further there was a spacious living-room which
fig. 1. Cover of the first issue of de 8 en OPBOUW, 1932 nr.1 with the article by Ben
Merkelbach about Wonen [Housing].

according to one’s needs could be subdivided into different smaller
compartments by means of sliding walls. The second and the third
floor had six bedrooms, a bathroom, a shower cabinet, a balcony and
two terraces. Big windows provided the houses with plenty of light
and air. Of course the comparison with the big Amsterdam building
blocks fell short, because - and Merkelbach himself admitted it - the
houses by Rietveld were by no means low-cost houses as was the case
in the social housing projects in Amsterdam. On the contrary, Riet-
veld’s project contained only four luxurious and spacious terrace
houses. Merkelbach’s article was therefore only partially an example
of architectural criticism. In the case of the Amsterdam housing
fig. 2. Gerrit Rietveld, 1932. Four terrace houses in the Erasmuslaan in Utrecht.
blocks it had the character of an impressionist manifest without any
analysis of actual buildings and therefore also without a careful
judgement on the basis of clear criteria. That was not the case with the
houses by Rietveld, but there on the other hand a critical distance was
completely absent. The article was an example of propaganda in ac-
cordance with the already mentioned objectives of “de 8”, namely the
“the enhancement of the flowering of rational architecture in the

Ben Rebel
42
Netherlands and the opposition against not rational architecture and
town-planning”. Merkelbach discussed the houses by Rietveld also in
the newspaper De Groene Amsterdammer and it is striking that there
he did put forward some critical remarks. So, although he stated that
Rietveld clearly did express his feelings for the needs of modern man
for light, air, sun and comfort, he also criticised the unpractical big
windows in the bathrooms [Merkelbach 1931: 17-10-1931). Only
much later he admitted in de 8 en OPBOUW, that the designs by Riet-
veld - as is well known - more often than not had practical and techni-
cal weaknesses (1940: 137). But: “One can differ in opinion about the
chosen solution, one can prefer some other details on technical
grounds, but always one will come under the spell of the lively, ingen-
ious spirit, appearing in the works designed by him”.15
This attitude
was characteristic for the opinion of many members of “de 8” about
Rietveld, who indeed sometimes violated one of the dogma’s of “de
8”, namely that the form never should dominate the practical demands
of the assignment. But they backed him up because Rietveld pre-
eminently was able to give a real impression of the environment of
modern man. And that aspect was considered to be of great impor-
tance in the functionalist propaganda battle. In other words: The arti-
cle by Merkelbach was also especially a weapon in the battle against
non-rational architecture with the characteristics of a functionalist
manifest and not so much an example of serious architectural criti-
cism.
Schools, an Analysis of a Design by Jan Duiker
In the fourth issue of de 8 en OPBOUW again one of the buildings by
an important architect of Functionalism, Jan Duiker, was analysed
(fig. 3). At that time Duiker was the chairman of “de 8”. The article
was written by Ben Merkelbach, at that time the secretary of the same
association (1934: 33-39). In fact the article had the same character as
the one about housing in the first issue. For Merkelbach started with a
general dissertation on the supposed poor qualities of the 156 schools
that were built in Amsterdam during the period between 1920 and
1928. It is useful to realise that in this connection the Department of
Public Services was the responsible authority and that the architects in
service of that department were almost all related to the Amsterdam
School. At that time one could rightfully say that almost all schools in
Amsterdam were Amsterdam School schools. In fact Merkelbach re-

produced his method as used in his article about housing. But in this
case he did not only criticise the schools in a general way, but he
fig. 3. Jan Duiker and Bernard Bijvoet, 1930. Third Technical school in the Zwaard-
straat in Scheveningen
didn’t even publish any explaining photograph, let alone a floor plan.
And also in this case the message was that the architects had paid
more attention to their monumental facades than to the real problems
they had to solve, namely the fulfilment of the needs of the schools
and the children for space, light, hygiene, rationality et cetera. After
all, according to Merkelbach, a school was not a monument but an
item of everyday use. But by not discussing any floor plan, his argu-
ment was reduced to impressionist criticism and therefore the question
if the criticised schools were actually inefficient, remained unan-
swered. Looking at floor plans of these schools, one sees immediately
that the architects of the Department of Public Services in general paid
much attention to the position of the classrooms, the corridors, the
toilets and the playgrounds in relation to each other and also to the sun
and the street. Of course the architects not always succeeded in find-
ing the ideal solution on the given location with the classrooms on the
sunny side (south) of the building, overlooking the playground within

Ben Rebel
44
the building block (detached schools were hardly ever possible) and
with the corridors and the toilets on the north side of the building
along the street. But they always tried to find a well-considered solu-
tion on the basis of security, tranquillity and sunlight. In fact the ques-
tion arises if the functionalist architects themselves always succeeded
in finding perfect solutions. Duiker for instance situated his renowned
open-air school in Amsterdam from 1930 as a detached unit in the
northern corner of a closed housing block, thus providing the school
and the playground in front of it with sufficient sunlight, but at the
expense of the houses directly behind the school that remained in the
shadow.
Merkelbach confronted the criticised Amsterdam School
schools with the third technical school in Scheveningen of Jan Duiker
en Bernard Bijvoet from 1930, which he considered a typical example
of an explicit clear-cut building method. What he meant by that was
that the architect, uninhibited and not hindered by preconceived ideas
about form, had carefully analysed all problems in the field of use,
hygiene, internal traffic, toilets, wardrobe, supervision and storage and
had solved them with an open mind. Noticeable were his remarks on
the strong relationship between the demands in the field of use and
construction such as the coherence between the dimensions of the
classrooms and those of the standardised and for that reason cheap
skeleton construction of reinforced concrete and the steel framed win-
dows. (Bak 1982: 168-180). Merkelbach’s conclusion was that in this
case the building was not so much a monument in honour of the archi-
tect himself as well a humane building meant for the users: the chil-
dren and the teachers.
The article was as far as the school by Duiker is concerned
richly illustrated with photographs, floor plans and an axonometrical
drawing of the reinforced concrete skeleton. Together they gave in the
Vitruvian sense an impression of form, function and construction. But
actually Merkelbach didn’t analyse these depicted floor plans at all.
Otherwise he would have noticed that the plans of the first and the
second floor were exchanged and that a great number of classrooms
were located at the unfavourable north side of the building, regarding
the sunlight. And notwithstanding the beautiful photographs, Merkel-
bach didn’t discuss the form of the school either, that betrayed out-
spoken preconceived intentions. The elegant play of geometrical vol-
umes, shifted in relation to each other, was not the direct result of

functional considerations. In fact it still showed Duiker’s fascination
for the form experiments by Cornelis van Eesteren and Theo van
Doesburg in 1923. And, as said before: In 1926 Mart Stam drew a
black cross on that De Stijl design. Similar remarks can be made about
the small tower on top of the building. There were no functional rea-
sons for this tower with its elegant steel stair and railings, except that
it could function as a basis for a flagstaff. In fact Duiker’s forms re-
ferred to the atmosphere of the architecture of ships, a much-used
metaphor in modern architecture, because, according to modern archi-
tects, especially modern ships were able to give an impression of
modernity. In particular the Swiss architect Le Corbusier, who was
very much admired by the Dutch functionalist architects, had set th.e
example in his buildings and in his theories (Le Corbusier 1923). And
in 1934 Duiker wrote that Le Corbusier gradually had developed a
theory, based on the living conditions of today, a theory spread over
the whole world by hundreds of young architects. And he quoted him
with approval: “We must create the present day [...]. First creating.
Then constructing”,16
with, according to Duiker, as ultimate purpose
to produce architecture, pure like an organism and with new functions,
related to the Machine-Age (Duiker 1934: 133-140). Duiker’s school
was just like the criticised but beautiful schools of the Amsterdam
school a monument, but in his case a monument for the modern men
of the Machine Age. Therefore Merkelbach concluded his article with
the words: “[...] but it is the clarity of spirit, that with the help of mod-
ern means succeeded in realising a building, that for the people of
today seems to represent richness”17
. Merkelbach didn’t say it explic-
itly, but implicitly he admitted that the school demonstrated in a per-
fect way the meaning of one of the statements of the founding mani-
fest of “de 8” from 1927: “de 8 IS RESULTANTE” [de 8 IS THE
RESULTANT]. For Duiker tried to find a solution for all demands in
the field of function, construction and form, which he treated as
equivalent components. Here was no question of the often misused
slogan that was attributed to the American architect Louis Sullivan:
“Form follows Function” (Rebel 1983: 57 en 114-116). The conclu-
sion again can be no other than that Merkelbach saw the school in the
first place as a monument of modernity and also as an illustration to
the founding manifest of “de 8” en therefore as an argument in the
propaganda battle against the non-rational architecture mentioned in

Ben Rebel
46
the objectives of “de 8”. Again: This article therefore was no example
of real architectural criticism.
Questioning Rietveld
On the 11th
of December 1933 a remarkable article was published in
de 8 en OPBOUW, written by the Rotterdam architect J.H. van den
Broek entitled Vragen aan Rietveld [Rietveld Questioned] (Van den
Broek 1933: 221-224) (fig. 4). Because of its extreme critical tone
fig. 4. Gerrit Rietveld, 1933. Design of a country house for H. Buys in Laren. Not
realized [Küper 1992: 152].
towards the work of Rietveld, anyway one of most prominent repre-
sentatives of Functionalism in the Netherlands, it’s an exceptional
phenomenon in the magazine. Van den Broek wrote his article as a
result of an editorial article, entitled: GOOISCHE SCHOONHEIDS-
COMMISSIE MISÈRE [Misery of the Planning Authority in het Gooi]
(Editors of de 8 en OPBOUW 1933: 191). In this article a letter to the
editor was published by the architectural critic and kindred spirit H.
Buys about the problems Gerrit Rietveld met from the side of the

Planning Board in connection with two small country houses he
wanted to build in het Gooi. By the way, Buys himself was the client
of one of them. (Buys 1933: 191-195).18
On the basis of a negative
advice of the Planning Board, the municipality of Laren refused to
give a building permit because the houses were considered as not ap-
propriate in relation to the rustic scenery of het Gooi. In this district
the municipality preferred traditional, rural building types and by no
means modernist experiments. The editors also published, with ap-
proval, the report of a meeting on October the 11th
1933 of the local
section of the “BNA”. In this report a member of the “BNA”, F.
Hausbrand, expressed his concern about the fact that the members of
the Planning Board (mostly also members of the “BNA”) had adopted
too critical an attitude towards functionalist architecture and that as a
result a conflict of interests threatened between the aesthetical judge-
ment and the objective of the “BNA”, to look after the interests of all
architects, including the young ones, who were more and more in-
clined to leave the “BNA”. Therefore he advocated accepting Riet-
veld’s houses. Without further comment the editors of de 8 en
OPBOUW also published floor plans, cross sections and photographs
of the models of both country houses.
Obviously this uncritical attitude was unacceptable to Van den
Broek, because in his article he asked if it was justifiable to bring up
the heavy artillery to defend Rietveld’s designs as part of the battle for
the cause of Functionalism: “Because we cannot continue for ever to
use the argument, that although the project is not perfect and the ac-
tual building has shortcomings, the demonstration of these ideas is of
such an extreme importance [...] that realisation has to be considered
as of great value [...]”.19
Thereupon Van den Broek advocated a criti-
cal attitude as well towards functional architecture, because white
walls, flat roofs and horizontal slabs did not automatically produce
functional architecture, just as brick walls were not not-functional by
definition. To illustrate this he formulated 18 very critical questions
about the country houses by Rietveld. And doing so he implicitly, but
in vain, gave the green light for a more serious architectural criticism
in de 8 en Opbouw also in the case of the architecture of kindred spir-
its. Examples of his critical attitude towards Rietveld’s houses were
the extreme minimal dimensions of the sleeping rooms, which were in
addition located on the unfavourable west side of the building, while
according to functionalist ideas and for known reasons sleeping rooms

Ben Rebel
48
always should be located on the eastern side. Further he wrote, that the
construction of the sliding windows was such that it was impossible to
open the window of one room without letting the air in, in the adjacent
room. Moreover the bathrooms obstructed - when used - the entrance
to the toilet in one house and in the other house not only the entrance
to the toilet but also the entrances to both sleeping rooms. To make it
even worse Van Broek remarked that the casement doors in the living
rooms obstructed the entrance to the kitchens and that the floor plans
didn’t match with the models. And again he alerted his readers to the
danger of an uncritical attitude towards the products of kindred spirits.
Rietveld replied immediately in the same issue (1933: 224) and
in a way that was typical for him. He wrote that, when people were so
much in love with each other that they wanted to live in the same
house, he was inclined to give the house the character of a personal
feast and that he didn’t want to pay too much attention to rationally
calculated regulations.20
Also the editors of de 8 en OPBOUW replied in the same issue
with an article written by Duiker (1933: 226). Duiker trivialised Van
den Broek’s objections and emphasised the prejudiced attitude of the
Planning Authority towards Functionalism. And he concluded with
the words: “Therefore, Dear Van den Broek […] We must all be very
diligent indeed and do our best not to let it leak or crack [...], but you
can be sure that, even if it would have been possible to use the toilets
[...], the judges - because of their education - still would have been
limited by the spatial perception of a frog”.21
Buys concluded the discussion (1933: 227-229) by complaining
that the Planning Authorities always made their decisions referring to
beauty and that - in his opinion - it was impossible to judge beauty.
What Buys meant was that the concept of beauty - in contrast with
function and construction - could not be judged on the basis of objec-
tive criteria. And by stating that, he denied - just like all functionalist
architects did - the significance of the Planning Authorities. Therefore
he started his article with a revealing quote from Le Corbusier’s Vers
une Architecture from 1923: “Les yeux qui ne voient pas” [Eyes that
do not see]. Le Corbusier meant that traditionalist architects did not
understand that the nucleus of modern architecture was present in the
products of the Machine Age, like ships, cars and aeroplanes, because
- contrary to houses - they were produced as a result of a rational
analysis of the problems that had to be solved and not as a result of

prejudice with regard to form. This statement of course had nothing to
do with the ramshackle houses of Rietveld and thus it became in an
unintentional way a self-critical impact.
Conclusion
It was evident that, in judging functionalist architecture, a rational,
coherent and critical analysis of Form, Function and Construction had
no priority during the first years of de 8 en OPBOUW. On the con-
trary, one was inclined to neglect the own technical shortcomings, that
were fiercely but only generally criticised in the case of a discussion
about the products of non-rational architecture such as the houses and
schools of the expressionist Amsterdam School. And only in general
words the authors of de 8 en OPBOUW pointed at the intended quali-
ties of their own buildings in the field of efficiency, hygiene, sunlight
et cetera. But always they emphasised in particular the modern charac-
ter of these buildings, reflecting the modern world. And by doing so
they reduced these buildings to their forms, loaded with symbolical
values in relation to the modern world. This confirmed Reyner Ban-
ham’s characterisation of the designs in the so-called First Machine
Age (Banham 1960). The architectural magazine de 8 en OPBOUW
was - at least in its first years and in conformity with the objective of
“de 8” - seen as an important weapon in the propaganda battle for a
rational architecture, that was rooted in the modern world. In that bat-
tle there was no need for objective and critical discussions about the
technical and functional qualities of modern architecture. At the very
best, one praised a modern architect in a general way for having
solved all the problems in harmony with each other. Therefore there
was no room for serious architectural criticism in de 8 en OPBOUW.
Van den Broek was the exception and by Duiker, the chairman of “de
8”, he was called to order by the editors.

Ben Rebel
50
Notes
1
“OPBOUW” was a Rotterdam association of artists and architects, founded in 1920.
It also rejected the dominant role of aesthetics in the discussions about architecture. In
1927 its members published five statements about town planning in i 10. They stated
that traffic and not beauty should be the starting point for all town planning designs.
From 1932 on “OPBOUW” cooperated with the Amsterdam architectural association
“de 8 in publishing the avant-garde magazine about architecture de 8 en OPBOUW
(1932-1943). In addition thereto, the members of both associations worked together at
an international level within the CIAM-congresses [Congrès Internationaux
d’Architecture Moderne], founded in 1928.
2
In this article I will use the common international word “Functionalism”. In the
Netherlands, however, most architects of that movement used the phrase “Nieuwe
Bouwen” (In German “Neues Bauen”), because they considered “Functionalism” or
“Nieuwe Zakelijkheid” [New Objectivity (In German Neue Sachlichkeit)] as too
much restricted to only one of the many aspects of the design-process: function.
3
I refer as regards quotations of text fragments to a Dutch translation: Peters, T,
‘Vitruvius, Handboek bouwkunde [Handbook Civil Engineering]’, Athenaeum - Polak
Van Gennep, Amsterdam 1998. The translation of the title ignores the complexity
of architecture as mentioned above.
4
See also: Th.W., Adorno, “Funktionalismus heute”. In: Ohne Leitbild, Frankfurt am
Main 1967 (originally in Neue Rundschau, 1966, heft 4: 585).
5
Reinink also mentions “non written criticism”, “vulgar, humorous criticism”, “blunt
criticism” and “criticism as an instrument of popular education”. As a matter of fact
also serious criticism can be blunt or educating.
6
In this connection he mentions criticism with fixed rules and further contextual,
impressionistic, intentional (which was the objective) and intrinsic criticism (an
analysis of the object). In practice, however, many examples of criticism contain a
mix of some of these aspects.
7
The text of Der Moderne Zweckbau by Adolf Behne was finished in 1923, but only
published in 1926.
8
Important are the functions and they will produce form.
9
One didn’t say so explicitly, but by placing Duiker’s design within the context of
monumental, historical palaces one certainly suggested it.

10
In 1919 forty members of the “BNA” joined the “Maatschappij tot bevordering van
de Bouwkunst, vakvereniging van Architecten” [Society for the Advancement of
Architecture, trade union of architects]. The last addition was the result of an amend-
ment of the Articles of Association in 1915. From that moment on the name was
“Maatschappij tot bevordering der Bouwkunst, Bond van Nederlandse architecten”
[Society for the Advancement of Architecture, Federation of Dutch architects]. In
1927 another fusion took place with the society “Architectura et Amicitia” [Architec-
ture and Friendship] that was dominated by architects of the “Amsterdam School”. Its
magazine was Architectura and after the fusion the common magazine was called:
Bouwkundig Weekblad Architectura [Architectural Weekly Architectura].
11
Report of the general meeting of the “BNA” on September the 26th
1924, published
in the Bouwkundig Weekblad 1924: 395.
12
Report of the general meeting of the “BNA” on the 28th of October 1922. Pub-
lished in the Bouwkundig Weekblad 1922: 436. Anyway it was decided not to hand
over the critical remarks because of the important role Mieras played in the magazine.
13
The first important building in the Netherlands was the combination of the senior
secondary technical school and the technical school in Groningen by J.G. Wiebenga
and L.C. van der Vlugt from 1922.
14
“De bevordering van den bloei der rationeele architectuur in Nederland’ en het
‘ageeren tegen niet rationeele architectuur en stedebouw.”
The reason for the unclear position in the magazine could have been the fact that it
was formally integrated in the existing but insolvent magazine Bouw en Techniek
[Construction and Technique] and that its editor wanted to keep up the appearance of
continuation of this rather innocent magazine in front of the original subscribers.
Therefore the official name of the new magazine was (not very attractive):
14-DAAGSCH TIJDSCHRIFT VAN DE VER. ARCHITECTENKERN “DE 8
AMSTERDAM EN “OPBOUW” ROTTERDAM, OPGENOMEN IN “BOUW EN
TECHNIEK [BIWEEKLY MAGAZINE OF THE SOCIETY ARCHITECTURAL
GROUP “DE 8 AMSTERDAM AND “OPBOUW” ROTTERDAM, INCLUDED IN
BOUW EN TECHNIEK]. To illustrate this, the first volume was indicated as third
volume. Only in 1934 the mentioning of Bouw en Techniek disappeared. The name of
the magazine changed several times after that, but the phrase de 8 en OPBOUW was
the permanent factor and is - for practical reasons - consequently used in this article.
Only in 1936 “de 8 established its Articles of Association. Documents in this regard
are kept in the archives of the NAi [Dutch Architectural Institute] in Rotterdam.
15
“Men kan over de gekozen oplossing van mening verschillen, men kan bouwkun-
dig een ander detail prefereeren, maar steeds zal men onder de bekoring komen van de
levendige, vindingrijke geestkracht die uit het werk van zijn hand spreekt”.

Ben Rebel
52
16
“Wij moeten heden scheppen [...] Eerst scheppen. Dan construeren”.
17
“[...] maar het zit in de klaarheid van geest, die met de middelen van dezen tijd een
gebouw wist te zetten dat voor menschen van dezen tijd een rijkdom lijkt”.
18
“Schoonheidscommissies” [Planning authorities] were official committees estab-
lished after the housing act of 1902. Their task was to advise local authorities about
the aesthetical qualities of new projects with the purpose to prevent undesired devel-
opments. Not only officials were members of these committees but especially a lot of
architects. At this moment they still exist under the name “Welstandscommissies”
[Committees regarding the external appearance of buildings].
19
“Want wij zullen niet eeuwig kunnen doorgaan met het gebruik van het argument,
dat het project weliswaar geen gaaf geheel is en dat de verwerkelijking tekortkomin-
gen vertoont, maar dat de demonstratie van deze inzichten van zoo intens belang is
[...], dat de totstandkoming daarvan van de grootste waarde moet worden geacht [...]”
20
An analysis of the Schröderhuis in Utrecht from 1924 learns that this certainly was
the case with this house, that was shaped according to the special wishes of Mrs
Schröder who apparently had not much need for privacy.
21
“Dus, waarde Van den Broek [...]. We moeten inderdaad allemaal erg vlijtig zijn en
erg ons best doen om het niet te laten lekken of barsten [...], maar wees er van over-
tuigd, dat òòk als de W.C. nu eens werkelijk te gebruiken was geweest [...], dan nòg
zouden de beoordeelaars uit de aard hunner opleiding niet verder zijn gekomen dan de
optische ruimtebeleving van de kikker”.
Bibliography
Adorno, Th.W.
1967 “Funktionalismus heute”. In: Ohne Leitbild. Frankfurt am Main
Bak, P. et al. (ed.)
1982 J. Duiker bouwkundig ingenieur. Rotterdam: Stichting Bouw: 168-
180.
Banham, R.
1960 Theory and Design in the First Machine Age. London: Architec-
tural Press.
Behne, A.
1926 Der moderne Zweckbau, München: Drei Masken Verlag A.G.

Avant-Garde and Criticism. (Avant-Garde Critical Studies) ( PDFDrive ).pdf

Avant-Garde and Criticism. (Avant-Garde Critical Studies) ( PDFDrive ).pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Avant-Garde and Criticism. (Avant-Garde Critical Studies) ( PDFDrive ).pdf

Similar to Avant-Garde and Criticism. (Avant-Garde Critical Studies) ( PDFDrive ).pdf (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Avant-Garde and Criticism. (Avant-Garde Critical Studies) ( PDFDrive ).pdf