second department of architecture and arts and crafts
by Rudolphine Eggink and Peter Fuhring
In writing a history of the second department of the Haagse Kunstkring one might ask why one became a member of such a society. For all departments, the society was an important factor, here one met not only other artists, but also the art-loving members, through whose actions one could get direct or in direct commissions.
It goes without saying that the painters and decorative artists had an interest in the exhibition opportunity that the Circle offered them. This applied to a much lesser extent to the architects; after all, an existing building says more about the qualities of the architect than a drawing or photograph on the wall.
Although there was much talk in the Circle about public housing and a few architects were intensively engaged in it, such as W. van Boven, W. Verschoor, A. Pet and W. Greve and, to a lesser extent, J. W. Janzen, most saw more in commissions for country houses, banks and churches.
Members of the second section generally seemed more interested in the beautiful form of the building or object than in the application of new materials or techniques. In the newspapers and architectural magazines we consulted, the architectural critics, on the one hand, advocated aesthetic design because of the educational value it would, in their view, have, on the other hand, the requirement that the architect belong to the avant-garde. In both cases, they dealt only with the aspect of form and did not in fact offer any well-founded criticism, because they ignored the function of the building, both in practical use and symbolically.
Much more than before the war, the emphasis is now on arts and crafts; in proportion to the architects, more and more arts and crafts associations have joined since the 1950s. Their activities are no longer in the field of industrial production, but in the free sector, they make tapestries and other textile work, glass mosaics, etc.
A recent survey revealed that members would like to see the Circle primarily as an interest group, only secondarily as a social club and exhibition venue, whereas in the early years of the Circle the emphasis was primarily on the latter two aspects. The advocacy then lay primarily in the exhibition opportunities offered.
The architecture department of the Haagse Kunstkring was founded in May 1892, about three-quarters of a year after the Circle came into existence. In 1931, the then honorary chairman Mr. Dr. F. W. J. G. Snijder van Wissenkerke wrote about the origins of the Circle 1):
They [the Younger painters] were not barred en bloc and as a matter of principle as members of the then art societies [including Pulchri Studio], but usually had to make the effort to see their works hung at exhibitions on the lower ranks, alias the damned corner. This experience aroused in a Théophile de Bock, a Piet de Josselin de Jong, a Veldheer, a Toorop and others the desire for a home of their own where they would be in charge. But at the same time they realized that all the arts are too closely related to live apart from each other, and they found in their striving for union support from some young architects, men of letters and musicians who together brought about the founding of the Kunstkring. A different view of this was given by Dr. G. Knuttel, director of the Department of K & W, in the introduction to the catalog of the 1940 anniversary exhibition:
‘It was by no means – as one might think – founded as a revolutionary act by young people against an older organization [in this case Pulchri], in which they could find no place, On the contrary: although many young people immediately joined it, the Circle showed the greatest admiration for the older artists of the day. These were the great masters of the Hague School. It should be borne in mind that in 1891, when one spoke of art in Holland, one first thought of painting. … And very important and characteristic of the new direction was, that these painters now indeed group around them also the artists of other means of expression, in the first place decorative artists and architects. [J. Jurriaan Kok and the architects Paul du Rieu, J. A. H Mialaret, G. Brouwer and A. van Delden].
Knuttel goes on to point out that in the Circle, the character of art is determined by the young and even the very young and that the Circle is characterized by its independent and unofficial nature.
The first activities of the architecture department include two historical exhibitions of architecture and crafts in Zeeland (in 1893 and in North Holland (in 1894). The original plan provided for an exhibition for each province, but it remained with these two. Both exhibitions came about with the cooperation of Victor de Stuers, at that time referendaris van Kunsten en Wetenschappen, one of the first persons in the Netherlands who actually devoted himself to the care of monuments. The Zeeland exhibition was accompanied by a booklet of his hand: ‘Aanteekeningen betreffende Zeelands monumenten’, which gave an overview of the most important historical and artistic monuments before and now, but which was actually mainly a complaint against the frequent neglect of monuments. De Stuers offered a large part of his own collection on loan for the exhibition. He also acted as an intermediary with the Minister of the Interior to obtain several measurements of old buildings, to which the importance of the exhibition was mainly due. On the occasion of this first exhibition, the HKK room, then still located above Café Riche on the Buitenhof, was adorned with the Frisian flag. Unlike the exhibition on Zeeland, the second, on North Holland, was poorly attended and the extensive catalog, which the then chairman of the section Van Delden had prepared, proved financially unfeasible.
Other activities at first consisted mainly of showing the work of decorative artists; these were mostly one-man exhibitions. In 1893, for example, designs by Th. A. C. Colenbrander see for carpets, runners in Smyrna and Persian weave with accompanying wall hangings, galloons, curtains, portières, etc. intended to be exported by industry in e.g. trijp, silk, satin or brocade. Colenbrander was one of the founders of the Hague plateware factory “Rozenburg” and then leader of the carpet factories in Amersfoort and Deventer, he was already an “arrived” artist at the time. 2)
In 1896, there was an exhibition of cretonnes by non-circuit member Michel Duco Crop. He was one of the first to demand that the fabrics executed to his design be affordable to the general public, unlike Zwiers’ designs for wallpapers and fabrics. 3)
Possibly in celebration of the fact that Colenbrander had been granted honorary membership in 1896, another exhibition was devoted to his work that year. This time his designs for the carpet factory in Amersfoort were on display. In 1899 an exhibition was devoted to the work of K. Sluyterman. 4) Besides executed works in the field of arts and crafts, such as silverware, there were exhibited the executed designs for the decoration of the railway station in Den Bosch and for the conversation room in the student society ‘De Phoenix’ in Delft and the designs for murals for the society ‘De Witte’ in The Hague. Especially the sketches for the hall painting with large female figures in the style of Mucha attracted attention. The writer of the exhibition review in the Bouwkundig Weekblad 5) regretted that these designs were not executed:
‘However, why not thus? Because people think it sounds more advantageous to have people come over from abroad? Because The Hague is still too conservative for the – nevertheless calm and highly distinguished – modern views of Mr. Sluyterman?
People were generally quick to turn to foreign artists. The founding of ‘t Binnenhuis in 1900 by Messrs. Henny, Berlage and Hoeker, with Jac. van den Bosch as its first director, should therefore be seen as a reaction to the Arts and Crafts on Kneuterdijk in The Hague, which, under the leadership of Thorn Prikker, offered too few sales opportunities to Dutch art craftsmen. How much the interest associations such as the Association for Crafts and Crafts (VANK) founded in 1904 and the 1908 Association of Dutch Architects (BNA) saw a need for, was evidenced by almost unanimous membership of decorative artists and architects, respectively.
The first and second sections jointly organized the International Invitation Exhibition in 1895, in which twenty artists from outside the circle participated including the architects P. J. H. Cuypers and L. M. Cordonnier 6) from Lille. The younger second division members, including Kromhout, Limburg and Mialaret, (the latter with a design for a building of the HKK) were given little space compared to such coryphées as Berlage (fourteen designs) and P. J. H. Cuypers (designs for the Central Station and the Rijksmuseum at Amsterdam). Cuypers was not a member of the Kring, but was invited to participate. In the arts and crafts field, there was pottery from the Rozenburg pottery, carpets, fire screens, appliqué work and chairs.
By 1894, the Heerengracht 13 building had been purchased, which was inaugurated with a joint exhibition of the first and second departments on October 23, 1897. Although the decorative artists had always been part of the second department, the department was only now officially called: architecture and arts and crafts. At this exhibition each member was given equal exhibition space with the exception of P. J. H. Cuypers for whom a place of honor was reserved, which probably had to do with the honorary membership granted to him in 1897. This exhibition was well attended.
The activities of the Circle consisted not only of organizing exhibitions but also of holding coseries, lectures and art reviews. Examples include J. Th. J. Cuypers’ lecture on Haarzuijlens and some reflections on ancient and modern Japanese arts and crafts, examples of which were brought along by the speaker.
‘… , in our country [began] at last to awaken interest in foreign art, in this too the Kring was at the forefront.’ 7) This remark by Knuttel could refer for the second section to, among other things, the exhibition of French architecture and decorative painting of 1901 which showed work by E. Chedanne, architecte du gouvernement in Paris (archaeological studies of the Pantheon in Rome, Roman paintings), by E. Vaudremer, architecte, membre de l’institut de Paris (ecclesiastical architecture) and by Ch. Lemeire, decorative painter in Paris (executed designs in cartons of vault paintings and mosaics). In the same year there was also an exhibition of Finnish arts and crafts.
On the occasion of its tenth anniversary, in January 1902, there was an exhibition of works by its own members, including, most recently, K. P. C. de Bazel, who sent in some images of executed structures and furniture. Also worth mentioning is a maquette of a rotating stage on new construction, representing the complete set of Parsifal, thought to be free-standing, by A. C. Sommer. 8)
In general it can be said of this time that the activities were poorly attended. The lecture of the then chairman of the second section Willem van Boven in 1905 on workers’ housing attracted only six interested people. However, members continued to meet informally in the well-attended society, where artists also had contact with the society members and the so-called art-loving members, who could directly or indirectly provide commissions.
The first truly major exhibition took place in 1905, twenty-nine individuals were represented with a total of 216 issues.
Submissions were not limited to circle members, including an academy design by H. J. M. Walenkamp from 1900 9) and by
J. F. L. Frowein a design for the building of the Sierkan on Stadhouderslaan in The Hague.
Many traditional designs of country houses, banks, churches, etc., as well as some designs for a royal palace in Amsterdam by Willem van Boven, were displayed by the members.
Willem Kromhout 10) does not have much appreciation for this traditional movement in The Hague:
‘… Are there no architects in the Court City, who have understood our national art-industrial movement, are in it and propagate it? There are, but certainly not the architect who made rooms in the ‘Twee Steden’ in an old-fashioned style, who, apart from something foreign-modern, could still find pleasure in complete Louis XIVth rooms, etc.’.
The architect Johan Mutters, who is mentioned here, had shown his designs for the then under construction hotel the “Twee Steden” on the Buitenhof at this exhibition. Before the outbreak of World War I, three more major exhibitions of his own work took place. The 1907 exhibition, organized together with the VANK, showed executed designs for interior art. Only three circle members participated, who were also members of the VANK.
‘… We may therefore almost speak of a non-Hague exhibition in The Hague, which appears to have its merits in an artistic sense. The large furniture firms, otherwise so proud of their up-to-date furniture, are not represented here, with a few exceptions’. 11)
However, each design did state, by which firm it was executed. Seven complete interiors were on display, including those by Penaat, de Bazel and Berlage.
In his review, Kromhout contrasts the “artist of artistic craftsmanship,” who puts himself at the service of the client with “his sincere sense of artistry,” with the profit-seeking furniture manufacturer, who bends to the desires of the public and takes credit for the design. He endorsed the VANK’s requirement that in addition to the name of the manufacturer, the name of the designer-artist should also be mentioned, as well as the fact that, for these reasons, the VANK admitted firms only as art lovers and not as working members.
This form of advocacy, union work in fact, was largely left by the HKK to organizations such as the aforementioned VANK and, for architects, to the BNA.
It is striking that around 1904 the name of the second department was changed from “architecture and arts and crafts” to “architecture and art industry,” which might indicate that the circle members were concerned with designs for machine fabrication. 12)
In addition to the usual work of its members, the 1908 Architecture Exhibition showed for the first time extension plans of several cities, including those of Arnhem, Nijmegen, Watergraafsmeer and Diemen by P. Vorkink and Jac. Ph. Wormser and those of Aalsmeer by J. H. W. Leliman. Berlage’s 1908 expansion plan for The Hague was not yet on display at this exhibition.
On the occasion of this exhibition, Kromhout 13} objected to the “silly sidesteps of some very gifted people: renaissance caprices at indeed monumental data, “14} data which, in his view, called precisely for a modern solution.
At one of the discussion evenings organized by the Kring, on the initiative of Willem van Boven, who was inspector of public health in The Hague, attention was paid to the Hague malfeasance and to the Housing Act, focusing especially on the means available to the municipal authorities through the Housing Act. For example, article 28 said that every municipality over ten thousand inhabitants had to draw up an expansion plan, something that, according to Van Boven, had to be done taking into account the existing property divisions. Each quarter was to strive for an alternation of open, semi-open and closed buildings. This was always neglected because it was wrongly believed that open buildings drove up the price of land. According to Van Boven, if the municipality also made proper use of its powers by determining the height and depth of the building blocks, a great deal would have been achieved in the interests of public hygiene. The importance of this appeared most clearly from the depredations in The Hague, of which photographs gave a terrifying picture.
The annual report of 1908-1909 mentions the intention of the second department to hold an exhibition of the work of foreign architects as much as possible every year. Initially it was the intention to ask English architects for the first exhibition with whom they felt closely related; however, due to an exhibition in England itself this could not take place and they turned to their German colleagues. The contact was not through a sister association but through the German envoy, which caused a delay in the organization due to the birth of Juliana, which completely occupied the envoy. In the end, the exhibition took place from October 7 to November 1, 1909. Of the twenty-six architects 15} contacted, fifteen had responded by submitting work, including Peter Behrens (23 numbers) with designs of Haus Obenauer near Saarbrücken and the Vortragsaal at the Folkwangmuseum in Hagen, among others. There was also work by some representatives of the Karlsruher Schule, including Herman Billing and Max Läuger. Van Boven felt that the exhibition was poorly attended with 659 visitors, and he regretted the absence of students from the Academy of Fine Arts. However, the importance of this exhibition was well recognized in the reviews, and he traveled to the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam afterwards through the mediation of Arti et Amicitae. Perhaps the fact that Arti et Amicitae paid only half of the shipping costs contributed to the shortfall of 150 guilders that was left in The Hague.
On the occasion of the exhibition of architectural sketches in 1910, the magazine Architectura criticized the lack of educational value of this exhibition, saying it would “only give the fruits of their [the architects[ sketching skill to existing works, those of their own creative power are totally lacking. According to the reviewer, the educational value for a large audience lies primarily in showing the “best” designs by the “best” architects. A building then need not be primarily practical in use, but only satisfy an aesthetic ideal.
During the war years, activities were largely at a standstill, namely because the then housing at Koninginnegracht 12a 16} lacked exhibition halls. In 1917 this problem was solved by the purchase of the Lange Voorhout 7 building. A combined exhibition of the first and second departments opened the new art rooms. Many of the drawings exhibited were studies rather than executed designs, ranging from “architectural studies” by Berlage, working-class complexes by Willem Verschoor to the eternal advice on public housing and urban expansion by Willem van Boven. 17} There was also stained glass by J. W. Gips, causeways by F. Zwolle and decorative eternite posts by Frans ter Gast.
Berlage’s design for the hunting lodge ‘St. Hubertus’ on the Veluwe (construction 1915-1919) was not on display at the March 1918 architecture and arts and crafts exhibition, but the designs for the Pantheon of Humanity (1915) and the Holland House for the firm Müller & Co. in London (1914-1916) were. Co Brandes came up with six country houses and various pieces of furniture, but the pièce de résistance was the plan by A. Broese van Groenou and S. de Clerq for a country house in Gelderland, which could accommodate five to six families. Much attention was paid to public housing with ‘Ons Limburg’ in Hoensbroek by Jan Stuijt, garden village Meerdervoort in Zwijndrecht by Willem Verschoor (1917) and a workers’ housing complex by Willem van Boven.
The second section found that ‘the people of The Hague are far short of interest in architecture and related arts, but also that this interest has never yet been aroused to a sufficient degree. They know only painters (and sculptors), who are therefore over the horse and eager to call the shots.’ 16)
Indeed, this exhibition attracted only 548 visitors; this low number was possibly due to insufficient publicity and the late appearance of Albert Oger’s poster.
Getting the exhibits done on time was a recurring problem. Members often had to be urged repeatedly to make their work available. At one point this got so out of hand that it became necessary to make it compulsory to send in work for an exhibition, unless one could prove that one was unable to attend. Moreover, the work often arrived so late that people had to work with all their might to get everything done in time. In order to facilitate the organization of the exhibition, which was done by the members themselves, contributors were requested to submit their designs in one format and framed as much as possible.
In 1916 they tried to replenish the membership, which had shrunk because of the war, by inviting architects to join. The result was that already in 1919 the number of members rose from 29 in 1918 to 51 and continued to grow to 88 in 1924. The increase in membership was partly due to the recently introduced category of aspirant members, mainly students at the technical college in Delft. The number of activities, especially lectures and exhibitions grew accordingly.
Jan Wils gave two lectures in 1918 and 1919 on “The freestanding monument in the modern cityscape” and on “Contemporary currents in architecture. 19)
In the second lecture, Wils treated Berlage, De Bazel and Kromhout as representatives of modern Dutch architecture. What strikes him in Berlage’s work is the reasonable construction and understanding of the material. In construction, however, the building does not always conform to the functional floor plan, with the exception of the Beurs, where every part of the floor plan develops logically outward.
Wils rates De Basel lower than Berlage as an architectural artist.
‘In summary, this can be said of De Bazel’s work: constructive, not always rational, carried essentially by the ethical currents of the time.’
because De Bazel also goes archaic, harking back to the last period of the 18th century, mixed with Buddhist elements.
‘Kromhout is not a social thinker like Berlage and not a deep thinker like De Bazel. Kromhout is purely a man of feeling.’
Wils characterizes Kromhout’s work as follows: “Constructive and decorative (use of oriental elements), carried by romantic influences.
With his choice of the three representatives of modern Dutch architecture, Wils was responding to the views that people had at the time around 1919 about what was modern. Now one would be more inclined to name his contemporaries Robert van ‘t Hoff 20), who like Wils was still a member of de Stijl at the time, or J. Duiker and B. Bijvoet.
The latter were represented at the exhibition of architecture and arts and crafts in February 1919 with the design awarded in February 1918 for the rijksacademie competition in Amsterdam. Their entry was incomplete, lacking perspective drawings and some details. In 1922, by which time it had been decided that the academy would not be built, the design was again exhibited in The Hague, this time with all the drawings and models.
In addition to the work of Bijvoet and Duiker, Jan Wils showed his renovation design of hotel-café restaurant ‘De Dubbele Sleutel’ in Woerden (executed 1918-1919, recently demolished) at this exhibition.
Around 1920, interest in urban expansion plans and public housing construction was at an all-time high. Willem Verschoor was represented at the aforementioned exhibition with building plans for the garden village at Voorschoten, Willem van Boven with an expansion plan for Den Helder, about which he had lectured earlier in October 1918.
In September 1919, an exhibition was devoted entirely to public housing. On the occasion, the Kring issued an album of twenty-four plates drawn by Wils, with an introduction by Berlage. The cover was designed by Vilmes Huszar. The album contained plates of the first Rotterdam garden village Vreewijk by Granpé Molière, Verhagen & Kok, De Roos & Overeynder on a street plan by Berlage; the Mayor Vermède Park in Voorschoten by Verschoor; municipal housing in Hilversum by Dudok; housing in Velzen and Breukelen by Vorkink and Wormser. The original plan what to have this album published before the exhibition began, but financially they could not manage the publication. The HKK had to hand over the exploitation which should be done quickly because of the press readiness of another book on the same subject, presumably “Workers’ housing in the Netherlands” by Berlage, Keppler, Kromhout and Wils, published in Rotterdam in 1921 21). In the summer of 1921 and again in 1922 the HKK members visited the garden village of Vreewijk where they were shown around by the architects Kok and De Roos. In October 1922 an excursion went to the Spaarndammerbuurt in Amsterdam and to Amsterdam-Zuid to see the work of M. de Klerk, Berlage, Gratama and Versteeg. In June 1924 another group of circle members went to Amsterdam to visit, under the leadership of the director of construction and housing supervision Tjaden, a number of premium houses in the Indische buurt and the first 2000 completed concrete houses in Watergraafsmeer.
First Rotterdam garden village ‘Vreeswijk’ 1913-19
Image from G. Feenstra Garden Cities and Public Housing in the Netherlands and Abroad, Amsterdam 1920
In keeping with the exhibition, the lectures given at that time by P. Zwart on “Monumentality,” by Huszar on “Modern Art in General,” and by Oud on “Modern Architecture” attempted to give a picture of what was going on in architecture, painting and sculpture at that time much more than before.
In late 1921, a mural exhibition was held for which preparations had already begun in 1919. Great importance was attached to this exhibition because the intention was for painters and architects to work together. Besides the painting itself, the wall or part of it for which the painting was intended had to be indicated in color and purpose. Parallel to the organization of this exhibition, a committee was investigating the possibilities of closer cooperation between the departments. In addition to serving on this committee, Jan Wils also served on the committee for the mural exhibition. Wils had previously worked with painters who applied the language of form they had developed, non-figurative forms and use of primary colors in addition to black, gray and white, outside the confines of the painting. He worked with Theo van Doesburg in Alkmaar (1916) and in Woerden on hotel-restaurant “De Dubbele Sleutel,” with Huszar on Bruynzeel’s house in Voorburg (1918), in which the furniture designed by Wils was provided with color by Huszar, and with Piet Zwart on the Gaillard dance school in The Hague (1921), in which Zwart took care of a stained-glass window and the color solution.
Yet this striving for a unity of art forms, as advocated by these artists, did not appear at this mural exhibition. Only the results of the traditional views on the relationship of the painting or painting to architecture were on display, while nothing of the new development appeared.
The Cologne expansion plans by Fritz Schumacher (1920- 1923) were on display at the Kunstkring for a month at the end of 1922. People generally appreciated this design, which was seen as a good example for The Hague. Berlage, who had already worked out a plan 22) for The Hague in 1908 that was never realized, had already quoted Schumacher in a lecture on “Urbanism” in the same year.
Schumacher himself came to Holland to inaugurate the exhibition. Other foreign artists also came to the Kring at this time. In November 1922, Theo van Doesburg announced that there was a possibility of having Hans Richter from Berlin give a lecture on “The film seen from different points of view,” El Lissitsky from Moscow on “The new art in the new Russia,” while he himself could speak on De Stijl. Given the weak financial position of the Circle, these lectures should not incur any costs. As a result, only El Lissitsky gave a lecture on May 23, 1923. Thus, presumably mainly lack of money was the cause of the non-attendance of lectures by Behrens (contact via Granpré Molière in the preliminary year of 1921) and by Herwart Walden (contact via Jacoba van Heemskerk, December 1921).
On the occasion of an exhibition 23) on his work, Bruno Taut, ‘Stadsbaurat’ of the municipality of Magdeburg in Germany, held a lecture on September 22, 1923. Erich Mendelsohn was also a guest in The Hague on November 7, 1923, shortly after he had given a lecture in Amsterdam for Arti et Amicitae. At the beginning of the 1920s Max Eisler from Vienna regularly gave lectures at the Kring, some on Viennese subjects such as Josef Hoffmann and the Wiener Werkstätte in 1921 and on Anton Hanah and Gustav Klimt, but also on more general matters such as ‘Der Stadt als Kunstwerk’.
‘Life as a work of art’ might have been a title for the DADA evening of January 10, 1923 24), given by Theo van Doesburg, Kurt Schwitters and ‘a lady at the piano’ (Nelly van Doesburg), which began the DADA tour of the Netherlands. A regular part of the program was the performance of Vilmos Huszar with a mechanical doll made by himself.
At the end of 1923 it was decided to hold discussion evenings every two weeks during which, in addition to questions of a socioeconomic nature, at the request of several members, subjects exclusively related to the arts were also discussed. Suggestions for this included: dilettantism; artists and politics; art and education; modern art and romanticism; representation of movement and rest in various arts; the purpose of the Art Circle. However, there are no records of what was said at these evenings. From reports and letters, however, something is known about the attitude of the Circle and some of its members toward politics. The Circle did not think it was in its way to enter the field of politics. Nevertheless, they were not consistent in this, as was evident in 1902 when the Kring did sympathize with the try movement, while the social democrat Anseele was not allowed to speak for the HKK because of the political character of his speech.
In October 1921, Berlage and Wils called on Circle members on behalf of a Dutch committee working with the Dutch Red Cross to raise money by selling their own work to support starving intellectuals in Russia 25). However, the Kringbestuur did not want this to be done in the name of the HKK. In 1934-35, a painting by Harmen Meurs with the subject of a direct attack on Hitler’s regime was not allowed to be hung. Apparently not all members agreed with this and it was decided to hold an evening of debate about this. At a meeting of the Second Section in October 1938, they wanted the government to extend the right of asylum for German Jewish refugees, provided the Dutch labor market would not suffer. Two months later it became clear from a message that the HKK again wanted to stay out of politics on this issue.
Although the Kring was not a trade union in the sense of the VANK or the BNA, it devoted itself to representing the interests of its members in the form of addresses to the government. In 1922 it wrote a letter to the House of Representatives drawing attention to the unimproved position of the visual artist and requesting the intervention of the House. Three years later, in June 1925, the HKK board sent an address to B & W of The Hague, to the Chamber of Commerce and to the Hague Department of Trade and Industry, with the intention of promoting the granting of commissions to architects and artists. In the address published in the Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant of June 27, 1927, they would like to see the government as an example to the private client and made some suggestions as to the situations in which artists could be engaged:
‘… Your colleague (has) commissioned private architects to make sketch designs for the construction of parts of new sites 26). If this exception were made the rule, it would both benefit the external appearance of the municipality and satisfy the purpose set here:
The possibility of adding sculpture, terracotta, ceramic work and decorative components to the interior of buildings was also noted. It was noted that artistic care was considered something distinctive in these times of great austerity.
‘… What a desolate time we would be entering … if every design, born of the need to express the ideal purpose of the founded, were to be stifled, in that, disregarding its significance, it were ruthlessly deleted for reasons of economy, as a superfluity.’
Finally, they pointed out the role the artist could play in the presentation of an institution through the care of printed matter, advertising, packaging materials, etc.
Quite soon, the B & W responded that, in principle, they were willing to cooperate on a limited scale in the decoration of bridges, buildings, gates, etc. At the end of the 1920s, the accent in the second section shifted more and more to architecture. Huszar protested against this several times in vain, wanting to organize exhibitions especially dedicated to arts and crafts. However, the board of the department did not accede to this request, expecting lack of interest. Just after the First World War the situation was quite different. There were exhibitions in 1918 and 1920 devoted to designs for wall hangings, fabrics, etc. by L. Zwiers, to stained glass by Jacoba van Heemskerk and to stage designs by Herman Rosse. In 1922 they held an honorary exhibition of Colenbrander’s work, which attracted 62 visitors. Herman Rosse was a student of K. Sluyterman and had already created stage sets in Hollywood. He wrote several articles in the monthly magazine Wendingen on matters related to theater. He also participated in the 1921 International Theater Exhibition at the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam. Probably on his initiative came the proposal to organize a sequel to this exhibition in The Hague. The idea was to try to get the cooperation of theater companies for demonstrations and special propositions. The exhibition itself would include designs for stage decoration and lighting, costumes, masks and puppet and shadow theater. However, this initiative bled to death as happened more often than not.
At the January/February 1926 exhibition of executed designs in textile crafts for clothing and interiors, little remained of the original plan to furnish interiors in existing middle-class homes with objects, which were then available in the trade.
Immediately after the competition for a League of Nations building in Geneva in 1927, the Kring wanted to show the Dutch entry in The Hague. The BNA, which had initially been asked to participate in the organization, did not feel much inclination to do so because they preferred to give people who had not exhibited their sketches the opportunity to do so in front of the Dutch public. The Kring then did it alone and in March 1928 the designs by Luthman and Wouda, by Roosenburg, Bremen, Van Rood and Klijnen and the two prize-winning designs by Wijdeveld and Van Lingen could be seen in the Tomb rooms of the Binnenhof.
For the first time in the late 1920s attention was paid to the technical aspects of the building trade, to the practical problems facing the architect. Thus J. W. Janzen held a series of lectures on this subject, including one on “The insulating capacity against noise, heat and cold of partitions of storey houses” (February 9, 1927). This led to discussions in the Circle, which led to the drafting of a report that was sent to B & W. In the minutes of 1928 we find a report of a series given by Janzen on ‘Architecture controlled by the technical possibilities’ illustrated with slides. He pointed out the very important influence that can be exerted on design by replacing wood with Bakelite. The speaker expressed his preference by showing examples of so-called international architecture. A discussion followed in which: ‘Janzen pointed to a place which, in his opinion, Le Corbusier is trying to occupy in the new architecture that is not sufficiently justified. We Dutch have known for years the principles of rational architecture. For us, the word “new” for pragmatism can conveniently be dropped. Fokker 27) pointed out that in a building like the Zonnestraal sanatorium, while all material requirements may have been taken into account, the psychological factors are also of great importance. From his own experience, the speaker believed that with respect to the Zonnestraal [by the architects Joh. Duiker and B. Bijvoet, 1926-28] he had to doubt that. The speaker is also of the opinion that, as Dutchmen, we can build on what, among others, Berlage has already indicated as the basis of architecture, namely the pragmatism of the solution and purity with respect to the materials used.’ 28) Janzen’s opinion was probably shared by several people because the opportunity to have Le Corbusier give a lecture in 1925 was not taken. A practical objection was the fifty guilders (twice as much as usual) one had to pay for this.
The so-called international architecture was further discussed by Janzen in November 1927 on the occasion of the Werkbundt exhibition “Die Wohnung” in Stuttgart, the Weissenhofsiedlung, on the basis of the exhibition catalog. The report of Janzen’s lecture mentions without further argument that he highly appreciated J. J. P. Oud’s housing block and liked those by Le Corbusier and Taut the least.
At the invitation of the Kring, Cornelis van Eesteren talked about his 1925 award-winning reconstruction plan (“ombeelding”) for Unter den Linden in Berlin. He presented the historical development of Berlin and explained his own design using bird’s eye perspective drawings and street profiles.
In the period 1929 to 1940 the membership of the Kring dropped from 226 to 167, for the second section from about 60 to about 40. People themselves saw in the circumstances of the time the cause for the decline in membership and the lack of activities within the Kring. Due to the economic crisis, fewer commissions were given to visual artists. The Kring tried to retain its members by lowering the membership fee to f 18 per year for working members. Unemployed people could visit certain exhibitions for free by showing their pass. In the spring of 1934, despite these concessions, some members were forced to cancel their membership because of their weak financial position. Like its members, the Kring was suffering from a lack of money. Negotiations in 1930-31 with Willem Arntz, city architect of Cologne and successor to F. Schumacher, about an exhibition of Cologne’s expansion plans, for which there was still a great deal of interest in The Hague, came to a dead end because of the excessive transport costs of DM 1200. The Kring was also affected by the move to Lange Houtstraat in 1932-33. They were forced to repay part of the bond loan they had taken out at the time. Forty-two members gave up work to raise the necessary f 10,000. The fortieth jubilee in 1931, for which grand plans had been made at first, had to be celebrated on a modest scale because of the frugality offered, with an exhibition and several festive meetings spread over the year.
A. H. Wegerif wrote a letter to the board of the Art Circle in 1931 in which he criticized the inactive state of affairs within the association. He noted that other associations, without naming them by the way, were taking over more and more work, and he asked the general board to use its influence to change this.
In 1932, Jan Wils, who had rejoined that year as a working member, was asked to assume the presidency of the second section. He agreed to this request on the condition that collegial cooperation between the members and the board would be possible.
‘The aim should be, besides pleasant intercourse, to make the department a body again whose voice may be heard in the world of architecture, whose instructions are appreciated and whose exhibitions arouse interest. By this we not only cultivate good camaraderie, but we strengthen our social position together and each for himself. 29) By having a propaganda committee work out an exhibition schedule, Wils tried to achieve his goal, which did not prevent him from repeatedly exhorting the members to greater interest. Moreover, by encouraging members to hold lectures after meetings, Wils hoped to make them attractive again. Wils’ statement quoted above was somewhat idealistic, though. It is therefore doubtful whether the voice of the Second Department was heard in “the world of architecture” in the past. However, it was the only association in the Netherlands to regularly organize architecture exhibitions. This usually involved work by its own members, but occasionally a thematic exhibition, such as one on public housing (1919), wall painting (1921) or one on The Hague over the last 25 years (1923).
In the same year, Co Brandes drew attention to the “more than unsympathetic” criticisms of Piet Zwart and asked if nothing could be done about it. The honorary chairman of the Second Department W. van Boven believed that only good exhibitions would help against such criticism.
When the building on Lange Houtstraat was occupied, an opening exhibition of work by second department members was held. People had wanted to reoccupy this building as early as 1925 after remodeling it because the Grave halls did not offer good exhibition space, but this had then fallen through due to the high rent. In general, it can be said that the architects showed old designs, for example the flat at Jozef lsraëlsplein in The Hague (1926) by Wils and Lourijsen and six design drawings by Berlage of the Gemeentemuseum. For the construction of a new museum, the HKK had pleaded with B & W as early as 1909. One apparently disagreed with the advice of fellow member Jurriaan Kok that the art should be housed in the archives. Yet it was Jurriaan Kok who had given Berlage the commission for the museum in 1919.
On April 14, 1936, the HKK and the BNA addressed a joint address to B&W expressing their objections to the reorganization of the beauty commission. The objection came down to the fear that the new commission would disregard critical-aesthetic assessment and look only at the technical aspect of the building. The discussion evening of May 9 was entirely devoted to this issue. In response to the address, they received a letter on July 13 regarding the “Regulations on the application of the building and housing ordinance’s welfare provision,” reporting the decision to convert the beauty commission into a welfare commission effective May 4. The director of building and housing supervision was in charge and it would be decided on a case-by-case basis whether to involve the committee or not. Not surprisingly, the HKK declined when asked to provide names of its members who could serve on this committee.
In late 1933, Ir. E. van Genderen Stort gave two lectures on steel and frame construction, and in early 1934 he showed a film of the Empire State Building in New York that he made himself. Compared to other lectures, the number of interested people, namely forty, was large. In April 1934 followed a combined exhibition of HKK (with Wils, Prent, Van Heijningen on the committee) and BNA (with Van Rood, Hekker and Abspoel) with the aim of making propaganda for good architecture. The exhibition was arranged by subject and there was still quite a lot of unpublished work on display, such as the design drawings for the new academy of fine arts by Dr. Ir. J. A. Plantenga, Ir. Jan W. E. Buys and J. B. Lürsen. Of these, it was hoped in the criticism 30) that the execution would not be too bad, because it was feared that the building would occupy too dominant a place in the house front on the Prinsessegracht. There were also a large number of country house designs, including a villa at Voorthuizen by F. Gerretsen and Chr. Wegerif. The unusual design, stemming from the anthroposophical philosophy of life of these architects is also expressed in their design for the Free School on Waalsdorperweg in The Hague.
Wils was represented with some designs for buildings for life insurance companies, probably the now demolished OLVEH building on the corner of Anna Paulownastraat and Piet Heinplein (1930) and the office of the Centrale Onderlinge (1934).
Interiors and applied art were by P. A. H. Hofman and Bas van Pelt. The design of the exhibition, according to the critic, was only partially successful. He objected that there was work of inferior quality, while in his opinion only the best work has educational value. The hung material further assumed a highly skilled layman, since the work’s incompleteness made orientation only partially possible. It has always been a problem to exhibit architecture attractively for a large audience, because one has to rely on photographs, plans, models, etc., where it is not easy for a layman to imagine the executed design, let alone that he would become more clear about the design decisions of the architect, why a building looks the way it does.
An alternative would seem to be to make a film of the building, as Van Genderen Stort had done with the Empire State Building, but the best way remains to visit the building itself. Led by Herman van der Kloot Meijburg, sixty members of the circle went to Delft to see for themselves the restoration of the Nieuwe Kerk and the Gemeentelandshuis van Delfland, the results of which were shown at the last exhibition.
In September 1936, an excursion went to the Provincial Gelderland Electricity Company, a building owned by fellow member Fels. A month later, Fels showed a smalfilm in the Kring about the construction of this power plant.
In 1938, the 35th anniversary of the HKK was celebrated somewhat belatedly with an anniversary exhibition at the Hague Municipal Museum. The halls were given a lighter color especially for this purpose against which the exhibited work stood out better. The catalog reveals that Fels had portions of the interior of his buildings for the Gelderland power plant taken care of by Bas van Pelt and had a stained glass window made by the decorative artist Pieter Hofman.
C. A. Abspoel is called by the critic Gruyters 31) as, the clearest representative of the “new building,” i.e. of “functional” architecture in the strict sense.
The HKK supported Luthmann’s Hague City Hall plans. In an appendix to the 1938 catalog, the architect explained in detail his designs, which were exhibited in a separate room at this exhibition. Luthmann had been commissioned to elaborate on his design following a town hall competition (1929-1933). This plan, with its traditional design, came in for criticism, including from A. J. Kropholler, who unsolicited an alternative design, and from Ir. A. Boeken. The latter, a member of the 8 and Opbouw, felt that J. F. Staal’s design equally met the jury’s requirements and was even better in terms of architectural design. He therefore feared that the jury could not free itself “from the idea of the schablone building with the necessary monumental attributes (tower) as it has developed in the formal ‘modern’ Dutch architecture and therefore could not recognize in Staal’s design the grand council house of today. 32)
In his review 33) of the 1938 exhibition, Jos Gruyters notes such a leaning toward traditional views among the young painters:
‘This process, which involves both a leveling and a becoming calmer and broader, will probably continue for quite some time; probably, because in today’s Europe one is never sure.’
In February 1939, Peter Meyer, editor of the magazine “Das Werk,” talked about modern Swiss architecture. 34) To explain contemporary architecture, in his opinion, a general overview of European architecture is first necessary. Then it is noticeable that the need for change is one of the main factors of art, but that mainly due to population growth and new technical means, building is done differently now than twenty-fifty years ago. The cure for building in which a building that in terms of its purpose did not ask for it at all was given a monumental form, was based on factory building, because there were no traditions for it yet.
In 1939, Bas van Pelt spoke about interior art and furniture design and illustrated this with a film he made himself. On this so-called “round table evening,” people discussed, on the basis of the examples shown, the relationship of machine craftsmanship, the work ethic of the worker and whether or not the use of veneers was permissible. These round table evenings were a continuation of the discussion evenings, which had started in 1923-24, but for which interest had declined sharply over the years.
As part of the lecture cycle “The Serving Nature of Art, “35) for the second section, architect Dudok spoke about urban planning and the expansion of The Hague, for which he had designed in 1932. According to him, the serving element in the city plan is to build the best possible housing, because the architectural beauty of the ordinary dwelling determines the architectural beauty of the city. Urban planning has four points to consider: placement, work, housing, and recreation. 36)
New ways of thinking in these areas arise in particular from changed means of transport: railroads encourage concentration of cities; the automobile, radio and cinema encourage decentralization. People return to medium-sized cities (housing advantage).
It is desirable to “expand” the size of the city; Dudok sees an optimum above which housing becomes uninviting. According to him, The Hague is a characteristic residential city. With urban expansion, however, one must also consider the interests of the “gifted land. The problem of recreation will become more and more important. Every building regulation should begin with: it is forbidden to build, provided …. For The Hague, primary traffic requirements imply a rectangular street plan, with attention to sufficient playgrounds, sports fields and, above all, greenery. The latter he considers very important in connection with so-called passive recreation.
By labeling the building of the best possible housing as the serving element in the city plan, Dudok evades, as it were, the time-bound, crisis-related content of the term “serving character” used. He gives it a general, always valid interpretation.
The central committee of artists’ associations asked about the HKK’s wishes in connection with the war situation in early 1940. Assignments had become scarce, and those that were available were often cancelled. It was also no longer possible to exhibit abroad and there were difficulties in obtaining building materials.
The HKK itself addressed an address to the City Council, requesting that construction of the City Hall on Alexanderveld begin in order to reduce construction unemployment. Workers were virtually unsupported by government coffers and were in dire straits due to the lack of construction orders. This would set a good example for the municipality to allow other construction plans to go through as much as possible. 37)
The archives reveal almost nothing of the reaction of the Circle members to the war situation. Lectures were still held regularly, and in May 1941 the fiftieth anniversary of the Circle was celebrated with an exhibition in the Gemeentemuseum in The Hague and a play was performed by some of the Circle members. The exhibition, which also went to the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, showed comparatively little work by architects and decorative artists, probably because they were unable to show much new work due to the war. During the war, official circle life lay further at a standstill. A small group of members of the Second Section, however, enlarged by a few guests, made a study of housing construction during the war years at weekly meetings at each other’s homes, as it should take place after the war in close contact with other groups in The Hague and elsewhere. In addition, meetings were still held at which members alternately showed or heard something about their work or held a small coseries on an artistic subject.
By 1945, the membership, which had declined during the war, had soon risen again to 40 “pre-war” members, augmented by ten new ones. In addition, about 20 renowned architects were invited for membership. The first board after the war, consisting of Thunnissen (chair), Hofman (second chair), Jan Piets (sec.), Roeters van Lennep (second sec.) and Abspoel (member), drew attention to the reconstruction of The Hague and called for cooperation in resurrecting the city. The emphasis was on the question of whether to restore all or part of the Voorhout, the Smidsplein and the Smidswater. A meeting was called about this, at which M. D. Ozinga gave an introduction on the history of that part of the city and then gave his view on this problem. One was particularly committed to this because there was a possibility that many members could participate in the restoration work. At the same time, a building of historical and aesthetic value was sought for the Circle. The municipality made the building at Korte Vijverberg 7 available.
After the war it proved difficult to continue as before. Many members considered the Kring to be a conduit, so it was more difficult financially than other societies.
Abspoel, in his capacity as general chairman, notes in his preface to the catalog of the 1951 jubilee exhibition, that in comparison with the period when the Circle was founded, real interest in art has generally declined sharply. He sees the reason for this in the enormous development of the natural sciences and technology, which has supplanted interest in art. Added to this is the fact that art is now no longer stimulated by patrons or “wealthy citizens. For Abspoel, an association of artists is therefore necessary and he sees the unique composition in four sections of the Kring as a good opportunity to achieve this, although the support of the government and the citizens of The Hague cannot be missed.
Abspoel is the first circle member to speak publicly about the position of art in society. It is clear from his story that he sees art as a fixed fact and that he believes that the solution to the diminished interest should not primarily be sought in “educating” the public but in collaborating with the artists.
At the jubilee exhibition at the Haags Gemeentemuseum, the architects were given as much room space as the painters, which was a lot compared to previous combined exhibitions. Besides work by old members such as Hofman, Zaalberg, Abspoel, Brandes, Van der Kloot Meyburg and Roeters van Lennep, the exhibition also included designs by some post-war members. Among these we mention Steltman, with gold and silver forging, and Ir. Jan Buys and Joan Lürsen with a workers’ housing complex for the BPM in Vlaardingen (1949-1951 ).
In the years following the anniversary exhibition, the Second Department did not hold any more exhibitions of its own work until its move in 1957 to 64 Denneweg.
* In order to get some idea of the activities after the thirties, talks were held with some circle members, with W, H, Gispen, Jan van Heel, _Ir. A. W, P. Thunnissen, D. J. Brouwers and Mrs. J. H. van Pelt-Jansen.
Unfortunately, it was not possible to include the supplement we provided 1 “Jubilee Haagsche Kunstkring,” review in Het Vaderland Nov. 6. 1931
2 “The exhibition ‘Colenbrander’ at The Hague,” review by J. Jurriaan Kok, dir. of the Hague Plateelbakkerij ‘Rozenburg,’ in Bouw kundig Weekblad 13 (1893) p. 118
3 In practice, this worked out differently. The English cretonne was in fashion, hence the Dutch cretonne had to enter Holland over England, because people did not want the national and less costly manufacture without this label.” (from: H. P. Berlage. Introduction to the Knowledge of the Development of Applied Art, Rotterdam 1923)
4 This exhibition was also later shown at Arti et Amicitiae in Amsterdam
5 ‘Exhibition of designs and drawings by K. Sluyterman,’ BW 19 (1899) 28; two designs for the hall are pictured in BW 19 (1899) 40
6 Cordonnier had made designs for the Stock Exchange in Amsterdam in 1884-85. In 1905, he received first prize for his design for the Peace Palace in The Hague
7 Introduction to the catalog of the HKK anniversary exhibition at the Hague Gemeentemuseum 1941
8 We know nothing further of this design
9 This design was not published until 1905, see “Architectura 1893-1918,” exhibition catalog of the Architecture Museum, Amsterdam, 1975, pp. 55-56
10 “Interior art at the Haagschen Kunstkring,” Architectura 15 (1907) 38, review by Willem Kromhout, architect, HKK member and editorial board member of the weekly magazine Architectura, organ of the society Architectura et Amicitia in Amsterdam
11 See note 19
12 The name changes of the second section are a good illustration of the problems that the decorative arts/craftsmen/decorators/indoor architects/artisans had in naming the types of products they made. We leave herewith an overview of the names, as far as we could find out
From 1897 architecture and arts and crafts, ca. 1904 – ca. 1918 architecture/building and arts and crafts, ca. 1918-1938 architecture/building and arts and crafts, 1938 architecture and decorative arts
1941 architecture, craft and applied sculpture, 1951 architecture and decorative arts,
ca. 1960- ca. 1970 architecture and bound art, ca. 1970-present architecture and applied art
13 ‘The architecture exhibition at The Hague,’ Architectura 16 (1908) 36
14 Kromhout is probably referring here to the plan for a World Center near The Hague by K. P. C. de Bazel present at this exhibition
15 The invitation had been declined by, among others, B. Pankok, J. Hoffmann, B. Paul, K. Moser and J. M. Olbrich (died 1908)
16 The property Koninginnegracht 12a purchased in November 1913, occupied on May 1, 1914
17 So far, we have not been able to find any designs, executed or otherwise, by Willem van Boven
18 BW 39 (1918) p. 69-70
19 “Contemporary currents in architecture,” text in the Wills archive, NOB, Droogbak 1a, Amsterdam (unpublished manuscript)
20 HKK member in 1908-09; represented at the 1908 architectural exhibition with a design for the country house ‘De Leye’ at De B21 J. P. Mieras: ‘The literature on public housing construction in our country is increasing faster than the construction of housing itself’; the government provided support for books, but not for workers’ books themselves. From: BW 41 (1921) p. 318
22 This commission had been given to Berlage at the suggestion of Jurriaan Kok, who, like Berlage, was a member of the HKK. Jurriaan Kok would see to it in 1919, when he had by then become alderman of public works in The Hague, that Berlage received the commission for the Hague Municipal Museum
23 Organized in cooperation with the Hague branch of the Netherlands-Germany Association and the Deutsche Verein. For a general report, see Bruno Taut, Architektonische Vortragsreise (Februar 1923) im besetzen Gebiet Deutschlands und in Holland, in: BW 44 (1923) 25
24 Review in Het Vaderland January 12, 1923
25 Founded at the initiative of P. Alma. Officially, however, it was called: The Dutch branch of the international organization for support and assistance to the starving peasants and workers
26 An example is the Marlot villa district in The Hague (“outdoor living in The Hague”) by architects Brandes, Hellendoorn and Verschoor
See: Residencebode Jan. 24, 1923
27 Ir. J. P. Fokker, member of the Second Department from 1916 to 1934
28 Unpublished report of the lecture in the HKK, minutes book 1928-29, no. 12
29 Portion from an unpublished letter from Jan Wils to members of the Second Ward, in: HKK Yearbook 1932-33, p. 55
30 NRC April 27, 1934, “Exhibition at the Hague Art Circle.
31 Het Vaderland June 12, 1938
32 The 8 and Construction, 15 (1934) p. 113-118
33 Het Vaderland June 12, 1938. Incidentally, Gruyters himself here seems to answer to his own description of the critics of his time, who would write less individualistic-emotional and more art histories
34 The Circle had subscribed to an art and literary magazine portfolio since 1938, which included 33 other magazines besides Das Werk
35 The following spoke as part of the lecture cycle ‘The serving function of art’: 30-11-39 W. M. Dudok; 19-12-39 S. van Ravesteyn, ‘The serving architecture’; 9-01-40 W. F. Gouwe, ‘Applied and decorative art’; 30-01-40 E. F. van Royen, ‘The serving function of artists’; 20-02-40 G. Knuttel, ‘Painting’; 5-03-40 Sem Dresden, ‘The serving element in music’; 19-03-40 P. A. H. Hofman, “Glass and glass painting”; 9-04-40 Chris de Moor, “Tapestries”; 23-04-40 Jan Walch, “The servant nature of the stage”; 14-05-40 Ben van Eysselstijn, “The servant element in literature
36 Compare the 1933 CIAM congress on the theme “The Functional City,” which promoted the same division of functions. See the report of this congress (Le Corbusier), La Charte d’Athènes, 1941-42
37 The city council did not accede to this request from the HKK: construction began ca. 1953