Aldo van Eyck

Report concerning the interrelation of the plastic arts and the importance of
cooperation
CIAM 6th Congress, Bridgwater (1947)

Aldo van Eyck, Report Concerning the Interrelation of the Plastic Arts and the Importance of
Cooperation (Bridgwater: CIAM 6th Congress, 1947).
in: Aldo van Eyck et al., Collected Articles and Other Writings 1947-1998 (Amsterdam: SUN,
2008), 32- 39.

Let us be careful not to misapprehend the true nature of a question! We shall have advanced
considerably the moment we succeed in formulating really essential questions; for these result
spontaneously as the essence of a problem is fully recognised. Questions that result otherwise
are irrelevant. It is our business to formulate essential questions collectively, hardly to answer
them. Historians must be patient! Let us avoid going against the grain; answering essential
questions prematurely is putting the cart before the horse. As the questions become clearer and
more precise the ensuing course becomes sounder.

That this course is by no means rectilinear is obvious; that it varies according to each
individual is equally obvious. This does not imply, however, that the goal varies according to
each individual, for there is only one goal though there are several ways of getting there.
Essential questions acquire shape in the course of creative activity: it seems cold-blooded to
force a different sequence. Question marks are impertinent decorations. Ready-made answers
are generally downright nonsense; they artificially straighten out an otherwise natural course,
with the result that multitudes fly off at a tangent at the very first bend; not that they mind
particularly for they make a lot it seems a lot of money!

The relation between architecture, painting and sculpture is a very alluring subject indeed: let
us therefore be particularly careful not to nail down details.

We shall have to decide from the very start whether we intend to use the word architecture
without restriction or whether we prefer it to mean CIAM architecture in particular. As soon
as we reject the former in favour of the latter it seems obvious that we should do we are
obliged to use the words painting and sculpture analogously, i.e. to accept merely those forms
of expression as result from a more or less analogous creative attitude. Those who refuse to
comply with this, reject style in favour of limited effects, whereas limited effects should always
be sacrificed in favour of style.

The revelation of style is and remains the primary object of all art.
As long as we are able to serve this primary object through cooperation with painters and
sculptors all is well. As soon, however, as this becomes uncertain in a particular case it is our
duty to abstain. Those that serve limited effects are merely active: those that serve style are
creatively active. It requires courage to abstain from mere activity in favour of creative activity
should the later prove beyond reach at a given moment. But abstinence is the hallmark of
every true constructive artist.
It is style that matters for style is more than form. Without style there can be no grace: in fact
what is style else but grace? A quality so illusive that we encounter it best not through form
but in spite of form, as it were.

Form is a medium, not an end. The difference between limited forms and elementary forms lies
exactly in this distinction. The former merely tickle the primary senses which explains their
universal popularity: the latter penetrate the infinite resources of the imagination, the only
faculty with which we are able to receive and transmit style or grace. Yes, to sense these
qualities in elementary forms calls for more than the use of the primary senses; it demands the
discovery of the imagination.

Imagination is the common denominator of man and nature.

If it is to reveal itself through man as naturally as it does through nature it must be allowed to
do so as directly, as unhesitatingly. Art should always take a short cut, it should resist all
impurities, everything secondary to its purpose.

Art should always be natural, it should produce its own forms naturally instead of
reproducing those of nature artificially.
Art should reveal the elementary whether the elementary be complex or not.
Art should reveal the mysteries of the universe or else cease to exist.
Art should be anonymous, as nature is anonymous.
Art should be liberated from the tyranny of limited forms: from the tyranny of causality; from
the tyranny of metronomical time; from the tyranny of classical harmony and other static
values; from the tyranny of virtuosity; from the tyranny of common sense, for common sense
was always the enemy of imagination.

Although architecture answers more tangible functions, its ultimate function differs in no way
from that of painting and sculpture, nor from poetry, music and religion; its object is to reveal
the grace of nature through and for men. Its more tangible functions are only relevant in so far
as they adjust environment more accurately to the elementary inclinations of mankind, which
is no more than a preliminary to the fulfilment of the supreme object.

In discussing the cooperation of architecture, painting and sculpture the question as to why
they gradually drifted apart arises; the answer is a long and tragic story. The question as to
why all three drifted away from the public is also a long and tragic story the same story no
doubt. That architecture, painting and sculpture can hardly be reconciled prior to their
reconciliation with the public is only partially true. To bridge the gulf between the artist and
the public is to do away with the gulf. Every attempt to construct a bridge is doomed to defeat
its own ends. So let this be a warning to all those who find a sentimental satisfaction in forcing
an artificial reconciliation. Only universal recognition of a single collective idea can possibly
bring about the desired reconciliation.

This collective idea unites a group of architects (whether this group can be identified with
CIAM at large seems problematic!) furthermore several painters and sculptors, several poets
and composers, several historians and scientists, several sociologist and individuals in general.
In view of what has already been achieved we are justified in regarding our collective idea
the idea we call CIAM or Neues Bauen, which Appollinaire called Esprit Nouveau and van
Doesburg's Stijl group La Nouvelle Realit as the seed of a collective idea that may
ultimately prove universally valid. The work of men like Mondrian, Arp, Rietveld and Van der
Vlugt to name a few at random compels us to believe that we are approaching a
civilisation in which gladness and brightness are a rule rather than an exception, in which let
us add this to keep alive grace is expressed in life as it is in art.

Today, if we were able to borrow natures dictionary, it is quite likely that we should discover
under the V as synonym for vermin the tiny word man. Yes, in the vast garden of reality we
alone deserve to be regarded as vermin. Foolishly addicted to profit and common sense man
has become a ridiculous insult. His vile vanity surpasses every limit. Can the ingenuity with
which he artificially tries to outstrip nature become more disgustingly tasteless? Can the
ingenuity with which he equally artificially tries to outstrip his neighbours be more
disgustingly diabolical? When man was allowed to choose between the making of things and
the making of money he enthusiastically embraced the latter. Art became the instrument of
common sense, the slave and mirror of vanity. Art and utility were torn apart as wantonly as
work and responsibility. Gradually a few begun to liberate themselves from this commercial
nightmare; they were forced into splendid isolation preferring the nobility of material poverty
to the vulgarity of spiritual bankruptcy. The face of mankind has been shamefully disfigured:
Picassos Guernica shows us to what extent. Man still insanely stumbles in pursuit of material
progress; all those quasi modern architects who put the wrong stress on functionalism should
keep this in mind!

To insist that the wounds man has inflicted upon himself and his surroundings can be cured
economically is putting the cart before the horse again. We can never correct spiritual
aberration caused by negative common sense by introducing positive common sense, for
there is no such thing as either! Common sense can never transcend common sense: there is
imaginative thinking and unimaginative thinking: grace and no grace Grace is the only cure!
All those quasi socially minded who put the wrong stress on social and economic
functionalism should keep this in mind!

A new consciousness is very slowly beginning to permeate mankind: that it should have struck
root in the fertile hearts of artists cannot surprise us. But not until it has broken through will
nature's dictionary contain an obsolete synonym! At first sight it may strange that only few so
far are conscious of this sanctifying current, let alone succeed in expressing it through art. The
difficulty is due to the fact that it uses a language of its own, a language that of necessity is
quite unintelligible as long as the basic current remains undetected. It is just as futile for an
imaginary two dimensional being to try experiencing the dimension of mass as it is futile for
the unimaginative to try experiencing the dimension of this current. For not until he has
discovered the only antenna really capable of its detection the imagination can there be any
question of its language becoming intelligible and the resulting transformations becoming
significant. We are convinced that this current, the recognition of which we call our collective
idea, is universally latent. As soon as it approaches the brink of consciousness, more contact
with its manifestations will suffice to bring it to the surface. Thus a particle of a new
civilisation is born.

With this in mind who dares suggest that CIAM should not be continued? That experiment is
no longer imperative? That cooperation between the arts should be fostered in order to make
architecture more palatable? That ultimately compromise is not anti-cultural and anti-social?

Everything the architect, the painter and the sculptor makes must necessarily be a reflection of
a collective idea if it is to be relevant to civilisation. That is why we must sacrifice everything
in favour of style. Those that have failed to detect the current that is busy transforming art,
language, science and even life itself invariably mistake Style for formalism and their own
formalism for style! Style is the result of a collective idea; formalism of a limited idea. This
current sustains our collective idea and finds its expression in style. It is naturally subject to
flux: it is in fact flux itself. It follows, that what is style at a given time may become formalism
at the next. This process, however, is not so rapid that a continuation along the lines already
followed by men of advanced insight could ever justify the general accusation that what we
recognise as style is in actual fact much less.

Some architects believe that it is their divine right to protect and direct painters and sculptors!
They are guilty of megalomania. Architecture, painting and sculpture are intrinsically of
absolute equal importance. Then there are some architects they usually coincide with those
already mentioned who believe it to be the duty of painters and sculptors to underline a
buildings function by adding symbolical representations. All these have misunderstood the
significance of art entirely.

Let us never overlook the fact that we are approaching a new era and that initial work is
inevitably constructive and experimental. Countless voices are trying to convince us that we
have experimented long enough and that creative research work is all well and good but that
the time has come to settle down and do some sound work! Fools! That this conceited
and impatient attitude has already poisoned many who were and perhaps still are CIAM
members (not to mention painters and sculptors) is indeed tragic: that they should have
become our most dangerous antagonists though often in disguise is more than tragic.

Real cooperation between the three arts hardly ensues hocus-pocus the moment it is thought
expedient. Goodwill alone is insufficient. And yet cooperation has become a market-cry
among architects. To play trio before we are able to play solo may be a cosy pastime but the
result is appalling, especially as soon as we are obliged to employ a completely new scale of
values.

Indirectly cooperation between the three plastic arts ensues as soon as a single idea pervades
all three alike: direct cooperation ensues as all three independently have learnt to express this
collective idea in their own media. During the last 40 years or so the indirect cooperation
between the arts has been enormous, in spite of marked differences of opinion; a symptom
clearly compatible with the nature of an experimental period. Cooperation in this form is
imperative and should therefore be continued. We must learn to recognise the different basic
problems that have occupied the advanced men of our time, from architect to poet, from
astronomer to biologist, as different manifestations of one and the same current. It will help us
to become more accurately conscious of the course we regard as the right one. The study of
parallel phenomena is indispensable; those who thought otherwise have already gone astray.

To indulge in advanced architecture more or less unconsciously means hit and miss!

Again: the primary object of cooperation is the revelation of style: that this is no more than
equivalent to the primary object of the arts independently need not worry us; it merely stresses
the fact that a special function cannot possibly be allotted to cooperation unless it be one of
grade.

The breach between architecture and the people whom it ultimately serves is considerable: but
the breach between the two other plastic arts and the people whom they ultimately serve in no
less degree is even more considerable. It follows that cooperation with painters and sculptors
will temporarily tend to enlarge the breach between architecture and the people. This is
unfortunate enough, but there is no reason why it should discourage us or cause us to waver.
It has always been extremely difficult to circumvent public taste in public buildings! We have
only to remember what became of the Aubette in Strasbourg, perhaps the best example of
cooperation so far. Let us therefore abstain the moment concessions to public taste become
unavoidable, for it is the object of cooperation to achieve more, hardly less, than can be
achieved independently.

During experimental stages of development such as the one we are in now it is a natural
tendency to avoid dovetailing the different plastic arts too rigorously, a certain degree of
independence as to spacial relations seems expedient in order to prevent the merging of one
into the other.

In the course of time architecture, painting and sculpture lost sight of their most fundamental
qualities; their elementary limits became hopelessly blurred. The process of reintegration must
be continued at all costs, for integration and style go hand in hand. As soon as this is neglected
cooperation defeats its own end.

Cooperation is a dangerous necessity: both its danger and its necessity should continually be
kept in mind.
It hardly matters in the long run whether the experimental stage in the development of the
coming era covers 40 of 400 years! It is obviously a fallacy to either check or stretch a stage of
development artificially.
Style transcends birth and death; it is the imprint of civilisation upon nature; it is the final
reward of collective consciousness.
Not until the basic current of which we have spoken has been detected universally can the
reconciliation between the plastic arts and the people find fulfilment. In the meanwhile let us
continue.
Amsterdam 1947.
BEGELEIDENDE CITATEN

Hans Arp: L'art concret veut transformer le monde. Il veut rendre l'existence plus
supportable. Il veut sauver l'homme de la folie la plus dangereuse: la vanit. Il veut simplifier
la vie de l'homme. Il veut l'identifier avec la nature. La raison dracine l'homme et lui fait
mener une existence tragique. L'art concret est un art lmentaire, naturel, sain, qui fait
pousser dans la tte et le coeur, les toiles de la paix, de l'amour et de la posie. O entre l'art
concret, sort la melancolie, trainant ses valises grises remplies de soupirs noirs.

Arnold Schnberg: Der Knstler tut nichts was andere fr schn halten, sondern nur, was ihm
notwendig ist.

Constantin Brancusi: La simplicit n'est pas un but dans l'art mais on arrive la simplicit
malgr soi, en s'approchant du sens rel des choses.

Vordemberge-Gildewart: Die absolute knstlerische Gestaltung ist unvirtuos, darauf beruht

ihre unpopularitt.

Hans Arp: Les oeuvres de lart concret devraient rester anonymes dans le grand atelier de la
nature comme les nuages, les montagnes, les mers, les animaux, les hommes. Oui! les hommes
devraient rentrer dans la nature! Les artistes devraient travailler en communaut comme les
artistes du moyen-age.

Hans Arp: Alles funktioniert, nur der Mensch selber nicht.

Hugo Ball: Die Menschen bluten aus ihren sten.

Kandinsky: Toute poque reoit une physionomie propre elle seule, pleine dexpression et de
force. Ainsi hier se transforme en aujourdhui dans tous les domaines spirituels, mais lart
possde outre cela une qualit exclusive de devenir dans laujourdhui le demain.
Force cratrice et prophtique.

Henri Bergson: Ob nun Materie, ob Geist, die Wirklichkeit erscheint als eine stete
Verwandlung, sie wird oder sie entwird, sie ist nie ein fertig gewordenes.

Vantongerloo: Nous avons besoin de lespace pour situer les choses. Lespace dont nous ne
pouvons nous passer sans toutefois le dfinir, est insparable de la vie.

Piet Mondrian: The culture of particular form is approaching its end. The culture of
determined relations has begun.

Rietveld: For the coming style that which people have in common is more important than
their differences.

Max Jacob: Le monde dans un homme, tel est le pote moderne.

Eric Gill: Holiness is not a moral quality at all, it is above and beyond prudence, it is
loveliness itself, it is the loveliness of the spirit.