Van Doesburg studio-house at Rue Charles Infroit in Meudon-Val-Fleury
Van Doesburg studio-house
The Van Doesburg studio-house is one of the best known artists’ homes from the interbellum that is still in use as a studio-house. Theo van Doesburg designed it for himself and his wife Nelly towards the end of the 1920s, in Meudon-Val-Fleury, a suburb of Paris. He could finally translate his all-encompassing views on art and life into an architectural creation in the city where the international avant-garde had settled and which was so beloved by Theo and Nelly. The house was completed at the end of 1930. Even before it was furnished and the paintwork finished, Van Doesburg died, aged 47. His studio-house, which in the 1980s was named after its designer, ranks as representative of Van Doesburg’s ideas on the synthesis of the arts and his ideal to unite them with society, industry and the sciences.
After Theo’s premature death, Nelly lived on in the Meudon house for the rest of her life. When she died in 1975 the collection and studio-house were inherited by Wies van Moorsel, Nelly’s niece and sole heir. Wies and her husband, Jean Leering, decided to implement Nelly’s original idea to donate the entire collection and the house to the Dutch State. They also envisaged opening the studio-house, in keeping with Theo and Nelly’s views, for artists and researchers to live and work. These would be people active in the many areas with which the Van Doesburgs had an affinity – the visual arts, design, architecture, literature and the performing arts. The house became the property of the Dutch State in the early eighties and the Van Doesburg House Foundation was set up. The foundation’s board was charged with managing and maintaining the house properly, and making it available as residential and studio space. Work began immediately: in 1981 the house acquired listed status, after which it was thoroughly restored. In the period between 1983 and 2014 some 30 artists and researchers were to stay at the Van Doesburg house.
In the publication Het Van Doesburghuis, ontmoetingen in Meudon, [The Van Doesburg House, encounters in Meudon], several residents describe their experiences of the house. The author and poet, K. Schippers, who often visited Nelly in her latter years and who returned in the 1990s, implied that Theo did indeed design the house, but Nelly brought it to life. Architecture historian Bart Lootsma considers the house to be uncomfortable and awkward: “The house isn’t attuned to life”. The art historian and Van Doesburg authority, Evert van Straaten, states that the spatial experience has taken precedence over privacy: “(…) all the architectural elements are focused on a spiritual, aesthetic experience, at the expense of the physical and socio-functional. The colour compositions serve as vehicles for a mystical experience. In that context, this house is an apotheosis of De Stijl architecture (which as such barely exists).”
The significance of the studio-house, the only architectural work in Theo van Doesburg’s oeuvre that has been retained in its original state, intrigued not only its temporary occupants. It was also fuel for theoreticians and critics. Some art historians see the studio-house, with its simple composition of two interlocking cubes, as an example of Nieuwe Zakelijkheid or New Objectivity . Others stress the premises of De Stijl which pursued architecture as a synthesis of art forms. And therein lies the controversy which Theo van Doesburg triggered, as a person and an artist. “Art is not ‘being’, but ‘becoming’”, is one of the pronouncements quoted by Evert van Straaten to reflect Van Doesburg’s artistic skill. As a dadaist, constructivist, visionary, revolutionary, utopian and malcontent/grouser [a truculent individual], sometimes pro and sometimes contra, Van Doesburg sought to give the role of the artist and of art a prominent place in society. And that is where his qualities lie: as a trailblazer for an artist’s conviction which is still current and a source of inspiration for new generations of artists.
Are you a professional working within the field of the arts and are you interested staying at Van Doesburg studio house? Take a look for the conditions at ‘visitors information’.
---
Theo van Doesburg (Dutch 1883–1931) is best known as the founder of De Stijl, but also worked as a painter, designer, and writer. He was born Christian Emil Marie Kupper in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Van Doesburg focused on post-impressionist-style paintings until he came across the works of Piet Mondrian, whose major influence on the artist is evident throughout his entire oeuvre in the wake of their introduction.
In 1917, van Doesburg and Mondrian formed the De Stijl group and its corresponding publication. The movement emphasized the simplification of traditional forms seen in anything from architecture to furniture and Fine Art. Highlighting the importance of the line to achieve a geometrically abstract quality, their goal was to unify the world through art, by ridding works of a particular style, hence the name’s literal meaning, the style. Omitting representational forms by democratizing shape, space, and color, their art could now be seen as harmonious, giving each individual element its own identity. The De Stijl journal was released in correspondence with the movement, and van Doesburg saw great success as an art writer both for the magazine and independently. He even created a typeface, Architype Van Doesburg, which was associated with the movement.
Van Doesburg also collaborated with architects throughout his career, showing a profound interest in stained glass, floor tiles, and thematic coloring for buildings. However, in 1920, he became increasingly more involved in the promotion of the De Stijl movement, and spent less time creating, choosing to travel instead. With help from artist Kurt Schwitters, van Doesburg was introduced to the Dada movement in Germany.
The artist returned to painting in 1924, this time adding diagonals to his compositions. This angered Mondrian, who believed that the addition of these lines diminished the purity associated with their ideals; and thus he chose to reject the movement and renounce their friendship. Despite their rift, De Stijl had a profound effect on the development of Modern design. This is notable particularly in the Bauhaus movement, evident in the austere yet universal qualities of later Bauhaus designs.
Van Doesburg died in Davos, Switzerland in 1931. His work is now in prestigious institutions worldwide, including the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum and The Museum of Modern Art in New York. www.artnet.com/artists/theo-van-doesburg/biography
Van Doesburg studio-house at Rue Charles Infroit in Meudon-Val-Fleury
Van Doesburg studio-house
The Van Doesburg studio-house is one of the best known artists’ homes from the interbellum that is still in use as a studio-house. Theo van Doesburg designed it for himself and his wife Nelly towards the end of the 1920s, in Meudon-Val-Fleury, a suburb of Paris. He could finally translate his all-encompassing views on art and life into an architectural creation in the city where the international avant-garde had settled and which was so beloved by Theo and Nelly. The house was completed at the end of 1930. Even before it was furnished and the paintwork finished, Van Doesburg died, aged 47. His studio-house, which in the 1980s was named after its designer, ranks as representative of Van Doesburg’s ideas on the synthesis of the arts and his ideal to unite them with society, industry and the sciences.
After Theo’s premature death, Nelly lived on in the Meudon house for the rest of her life. When she died in 1975 the collection and studio-house were inherited by Wies van Moorsel, Nelly’s niece and sole heir. Wies and her husband, Jean Leering, decided to implement Nelly’s original idea to donate the entire collection and the house to the Dutch State. They also envisaged opening the studio-house, in keeping with Theo and Nelly’s views, for artists and researchers to live and work. These would be people active in the many areas with which the Van Doesburgs had an affinity – the visual arts, design, architecture, literature and the performing arts. The house became the property of the Dutch State in the early eighties and the Van Doesburg House Foundation was set up. The foundation’s board was charged with managing and maintaining the house properly, and making it available as residential and studio space. Work began immediately: in 1981 the house acquired listed status, after which it was thoroughly restored. In the period between 1983 and 2014 some 30 artists and researchers were to stay at the Van Doesburg house.
In the publication Het Van Doesburghuis, ontmoetingen in Meudon, [The Van Doesburg House, encounters in Meudon], several residents describe their experiences of the house. The author and poet, K. Schippers, who often visited Nelly in her latter years and who returned in the 1990s, implied that Theo did indeed design the house, but Nelly brought it to life. Architecture historian Bart Lootsma considers the house to be uncomfortable and awkward: “The house isn’t attuned to life”. The art historian and Van Doesburg authority, Evert van Straaten, states that the spatial experience has taken precedence over privacy: “(…) all the architectural elements are focused on a spiritual, aesthetic experience, at the expense of the physical and socio-functional. The colour compositions serve as vehicles for a mystical experience. In that context, this house is an apotheosis of De Stijl architecture (which as such barely exists).”
The significance of the studio-house, the only architectural work in Theo van Doesburg’s oeuvre that has been retained in its original state, intrigued not only its temporary occupants. It was also fuel for theoreticians and critics. Some art historians see the studio-house, with its simple composition of two interlocking cubes, as an example of Nieuwe Zakelijkheid or New Objectivity . Others stress the premises of De Stijl which pursued architecture as a synthesis of art forms. And therein lies the controversy which Theo van Doesburg triggered, as a person and an artist. “Art is not ‘being’, but ‘becoming’”, is one of the pronouncements quoted by Evert van Straaten to reflect Van Doesburg’s artistic skill. As a dadaist, constructivist, visionary, revolutionary, utopian and malcontent/grouser [a truculent individual], sometimes pro and sometimes contra, Van Doesburg sought to give the role of the artist and of art a prominent place in society. And that is where his qualities lie: as a trailblazer for an artist’s conviction which is still current and a source of inspiration for new generations of artists.
Are you a professional working within the field of the arts and are you interested staying at Van Doesburg studio house? Take a look for the conditions at ‘visitors information’.
---
Theo van Doesburg (Dutch 1883–1931) is best known as the founder of De Stijl, but also worked as a painter, designer, and writer. He was born Christian Emil Marie Kupper in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Van Doesburg focused on post-impressionist-style paintings until he came across the works of Piet Mondrian, whose major influence on the artist is evident throughout his entire oeuvre in the wake of their introduction.
In 1917, van Doesburg and Mondrian formed the De Stijl group and its corresponding publication. The movement emphasized the simplification of traditional forms seen in anything from architecture to furniture and Fine Art. Highlighting the importance of the line to achieve a geometrically abstract quality, their goal was to unify the world through art, by ridding works of a particular style, hence the name’s literal meaning, the style. Omitting representational forms by democratizing shape, space, and color, their art could now be seen as harmonious, giving each individual element its own identity. The De Stijl journal was released in correspondence with the movement, and van Doesburg saw great success as an art writer both for the magazine and independently. He even created a typeface, Architype Van Doesburg, which was associated with the movement.
Van Doesburg also collaborated with architects throughout his career, showing a profound interest in stained glass, floor tiles, and thematic coloring for buildings. However, in 1920, he became increasingly more involved in the promotion of the De Stijl movement, and spent less time creating, choosing to travel instead. With help from artist Kurt Schwitters, van Doesburg was introduced to the Dada movement in Germany.
The artist returned to painting in 1924, this time adding diagonals to his compositions. This angered Mondrian, who believed that the addition of these lines diminished the purity associated with their ideals; and thus he chose to reject the movement and renounce their friendship. Despite their rift, De Stijl had a profound effect on the development of Modern design. This is notable particularly in the Bauhaus movement, evident in the austere yet universal qualities of later Bauhaus designs.
Van Doesburg died in Davos, Switzerland in 1931. His work is now in prestigious institutions worldwide, including the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum and The Museum of Modern Art in New York. www.artnet.com/artists/theo-van-doesburg/biography