Within Aldo van Eyck’s body of work, residential buildings present to us from their modern condition, their passive

present to us from their modern condition, their passive voice Deleuzian categories are

OASE #75
1
form neither a distinct category nor, by any means, a promi- The reception history of – the same voice that speaks to us from the sparse design used here not in an applied
Aldo van Eyck’s works is still manner but in a reconstructive
nent one. Their role is modest. In surveys and other publica- notes, like the hermetic poet Gerrit Achterberg, singing the one. If my approach must have
too short for us to take any dis-
tions about his oeuvre, they are not usuallly presented as a tance from it. For that reason, praises of something unattainable. The only activity is that a name, therefore, reconstruc-
separate group. In his architectural aesthetics, in word and not much attention is paid here of things, the sun entering, the door opening: ‘When the door tionism seems most suitable.
image, Van Eyck does not make a categorical distinction be- to the secondary literature of opens, spring has truly arrived!’2 Truly? Living in the house is 2
prior interpretations, despite Jan Rietveld and Aldo van
tween types of buildings. Each building is called home. His the frictions between the hagio- waiting for the door to open at last. Deep inside the house, the
Eyck, ‘Huis aan de Herman
two largest public projects, the Burgerweeshuis and Moeder- graphic (Herzberger), empa- prime numbers are keeping watch. The play of contrasts, in Gorterstraat te Amsterdam’,
huis in Amsterdam (a home for orphans and a home for single thetic (Strauven) and critical the larger-scale works, reaches its limit in literary content and Forum, 1956, 118, 119.
(De Heer, Barbieri) approaches.
mothers, respectively), both have a residential function. Van This article attempts to trace ends with a resulting leap towards understanding – the Burger-
Eyck’s aesthetics does include a theory of coming and go- the definition of building, resid- weeshuis and Moederhuis are run-ups to such a leap. In the
ing, though more of coming than of going – a theory of stay- ing and thinking in the houses smaller-scale works, the monuments and pavilions, that same
of Van Eyck, from an angle that
ing somewhere, of ‘dwelling’, but not a theory of residing or is not so much deconstruction- play of contrasts can – through the restriction of the means of
living somewhere in the strict sense. In the structure of this ist as it is Deleuzian. This is expression – be celebrated directly, as an image: the sign, em-
aesthetics, each work avoids stylistically refining the previous because Gilles Deleuze has blem or logo of an idealised working method. The difficulty
formulated more, and more
ones; instead, the objective is to ‘merge prior experiences’ into global, descriptive categories, is that this play of contrasts in Van Eyck’s houses has neither
a rich awareness, and so each work acquires a characteristic which can serve as keys to the a beginning nor an end. The mode of address is not the ‘we’
tenor that is all its own, offering a truly new and different interpretation of an aesthetic of the architect or the ‘them’ of the occupants, but reality
system, especially in Différence
definition of architecture. Nevertheless, houses seem to have et répétition (Paris, 1968). Or at itself. The game grows more fluid. There are no rules. In his
played but a small role in the reception of his oeuvre.1 Per- least, it seems to me that in this houses, no connection can be made between height, breadth
haps the concept of architecture that they embodied was less approach, the deconstructionist and depth. They threaten to escape not only his oeuvre, but

JOOST MEUWISSEN
preoccupation with destroy-
timely, less historically compelling or less urban. ing dialectic and constructing architecture itself. Reality is not rescued there by a concept
Van Eyck’s houses are admired, to be sure, but not often equality is coupled with a pos- or image, but because it is indicated as outside. Accordingly,
discussed. I do not wish to change this situation radically. sibility that has not yet been the inside – the interior – is devoid of representation; it is va-
relinquished, the possibility
Rather, I would like to take their silent builtness and their that an aesthetic system is also cated; it creates an almost postmodern emptiness, posing a
abstract conceptualisation as a basis, and examine what they thinkable. In this sense, the transcendental question – under what conditions is the play

ALDO IN WONDERLAND
Jan Rietveld and Aldo van Eyck, Damme House, Herman Gorterstraat, Amsterdam, 1951-1954

Jan Rietveld and

Aldo van Eyck,
floor plan of the
Damme House,
Herman Gorter-
straat, Amster-
dam, 1951-1954

Jan Rietveld and Aldo van Eyck, Damme House, Herman Gorterstraat, Amsterdam, 1951-1954

139