Comments on: Save the Rietveld Academy! http://swisslegacy.com/2009/05/13/save-the-rietveld-academy/ Swiss Legacy, by the initiative of Art Director Xavier Encinas, is a blog focused on typography, graphic design and inspirational matters. Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:12:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Danny http://swisslegacy.com/2009/05/13/save-the-rietveld-academy/#comment-4612 Danny Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:12:23 +0000 http://www.swisslegacy.com/?p=1290#comment-4612 Just a short reaction regarding Michelle's point - I honestly don't see why the notions of 'embedded meaning' and 'inherent meaning' are mutually exclusive, especially when we are talking about the architect who created the building. But maybe that's just a matter of definition. In my understanding, an inherent quality is a quality that's inseparable from the object. And I do believe that attributes (whether material or immaterial), embedded by the designer into an object, automatically become inseparable elements of that object. But then again, I might see it all the wrong way. After all, Michelle seems pretty sure of herself, entering a battlefield one year after the battle has been fought, retrospectively accusing people of loopholes and slippery-slidy logic, and deciding for us that we can't "have it both ways". All I can say is, the struggle over the Rietveld building was a very intense conflict, which kept the action committee fully occupied for a several months - a period in which decisions had to be made really fast, pamphlets had to be written, translated, and photocopied even faster, meetings and performances had to be improvised, and very real ugly fights had to be fought. We had to deal with a very strong opponent, and a very cynical press. In retrospect, it's always easy to criticize these ad hoc actions, and to point out the loopholes and the mistakes. But personally, I'd rather breathe through the loopholes than be choked by the critics and their hindsight views. Just a short reaction regarding Michelle’s point – I honestly don’t see why the notions of ‘embedded meaning’ and ‘inherent meaning’ are mutually exclusive, especially when we are talking about the architect who created the building. But maybe that’s just a matter of definition. In my understanding, an inherent quality is a quality that’s inseparable from the object. And I do believe that attributes (whether material or immaterial), embedded by the designer into an object, automatically become inseparable elements of that object.
But then again, I might see it all the wrong way. After all, Michelle seems pretty sure of herself, entering a battlefield one year after the battle has been fought, retrospectively accusing people of loopholes and slippery-slidy logic, and deciding for us that we can’t “have it both ways”. All I can say is, the struggle over the Rietveld building was a very intense conflict, which kept the action committee fully occupied for a several months – a period in which decisions had to be made really fast, pamphlets had to be written, translated, and photocopied even faster, meetings and performances had to be improvised, and very real ugly fights had to be fought. We had to deal with a very strong opponent, and a very cynical press. In retrospect, it’s always easy to criticize these ad hoc actions, and to point out the loopholes and the mistakes. But personally, I’d rather breathe through the loopholes than be choked by the critics and their hindsight views.

]]> By: Michele http://swisslegacy.com/2009/05/13/save-the-rietveld-academy/#comment-3696 Michele Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:25:17 +0000 http://www.swisslegacy.com/?p=1290#comment-3696 Hey Danny, My personal hope was that Rietveld would stay in the building. My intention was not to belittle anybody's efforts. My comments were specifically about two things: 1. the "exciting" nature of the area around the building, and 2. whether the building had inherent meaning of its own. I'm puzzled by this sentence you wrote, which doesn't seem logical: "believe that the Rietveld building has an inherent meaning: a historical, political and ideological dimension, embedded in the building by the architect." — Either you believe the building has inherent meaning, or — you believe the architect embedded meaning into it. You can't have it both ways. Nevertheless, an architect and community have the right to say: we embedded meaning to the building and we want to stay. Period. Here's an interesting piece from Mohamed Elshahed, an architectural student from New York University in Cairo, who is dealing with similar arguments about the "architecture = inherent meaning" logic: http://cairobserver.tumblr.com/post/8067279477/against-architecture-again He is battling quite a different situation, however, where the inside activities of the building were deemed corrupted, and therefore—because architecture = inherent meaning—the building being inherently corrupt too. You can see how this slippery sliding nature of this logic works. Glad the Society succeeded. All the best, M. Hey Danny,

My personal hope was that Rietveld would stay in the building. My intention was not to belittle anybody’s efforts. My comments were specifically about two things: 1. the “exciting” nature of the area around the building, and 2. whether the building had inherent meaning of its own.

I’m puzzled by this sentence you wrote, which doesn’t seem logical: “believe that the Rietveld building has an inherent meaning: a historical, political and ideological dimension, embedded in the building by the architect.”

— Either you believe the building has inherent meaning, or
— you believe the architect embedded meaning into it.

You can’t have it both ways. Nevertheless, an architect and community have the right to say: we embedded meaning to the building and we want to stay. Period.

Here’s an interesting piece from Mohamed Elshahed, an architectural student from New York University in Cairo, who is dealing with similar arguments about the “architecture = inherent meaning” logic: http://cairobserver.tumblr.com/post/8067279477/against-architecture-again

He is battling quite a different situation, however, where the inside activities of the building were deemed corrupted, and therefore—because architecture = inherent meaning—the building being inherently corrupt too. You can see how this slippery sliding nature of this logic works.

Glad the Society succeeded.
All the best,

M.

]]> By: Danny http://swisslegacy.com/2009/05/13/save-the-rietveld-academy/#comment-1679 Danny Thu, 07 Oct 2010 23:42:09 +0000 http://www.swisslegacy.com/?p=1290#comment-1679 Hello Michele, thanks for wishing us luck (here, I am so free to speak on behalf of the Rietveld Preservation Society). In fact, we won this battle. The Rietveld Academy will stay in the Rietveld building. Thanks to the combined effort of hundreds of people (and thousands who signed the petition) who, unlike you, do believe that the Rietveld building has an inherent meaning: a historical, political and ideological dimension, embedded in the building by the architect. In retrospect, we could have done better. But we aren't professional activists or lobbyist; we were a very loose collective of designers, artists and students, who believed in our cause, and spent a lot of energy and time defending it. And, against all odds, we actually managed to stop the plans of the city council and Rietveld management. And about that, I am incredibly relieved. We could argue about loopholes. In fact, I think your comment contains a huge loophole (on the one hand, you believe that areas are inherently interesting or uninteresting; but on the other hand, you don't believe that buildings have an inherent meaning. This seems contradictory). But let's not spend time on this. Let's save our energy for the next struggle. Hello Michele, thanks for wishing us luck (here, I am so free to speak on behalf of the Rietveld Preservation Society). In fact, we won this battle. The Rietveld Academy will stay in the Rietveld building. Thanks to the combined effort of hundreds of people (and thousands who signed the petition) who, unlike you, do believe that the Rietveld building has an inherent meaning: a historical, political and ideological dimension, embedded in the building by the architect.
In retrospect, we could have done better. But we aren’t professional activists or lobbyist; we were a very loose collective of designers, artists and students, who believed in our cause, and spent a lot of energy and time defending it. And, against all odds, we actually managed to stop the plans of the city council and Rietveld management. And about that, I am incredibly relieved.
We could argue about loopholes. In fact, I think your comment contains a huge loophole (on the one hand, you believe that areas are inherently interesting or uninteresting; but on the other hand, you don’t believe that buildings have an inherent meaning. This seems contradictory). But let’s not spend time on this. Let’s save our energy for the next struggle.

]]> By: Michele Champagne http://swisslegacy.com/2009/05/13/save-the-rietveld-academy/#comment-1085 Michele Champagne Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:16:09 +0000 http://www.swisslegacy.com/?p=1290#comment-1085 Hi Xavier, Thanks for this post. I'm a Canadian-born designer and student at the Sandberg Instituut (Rietveld family and campus). And I live in Bos en Lommer. I was not aware of this discussion and a few things came to mind while reading about it. Firstly, I do not find the Rietveld area very interesting. There are no galleries, community centers, cafes or restaurants nearby. Nor are there printers or hardware stores. And most of all: there are no people. It feels like a suburb or office park. After 17:00 the streets are empty. Personally, I'd rather spend time in Bos en Lommer than in the Rietveld area. Secondly, I would agree with the idea that a building is not just an empty vessel. But I'm also of the opinion that buildings have no inherent meaning of their own. It is we who add meaning to them. This reminded me of my earlier studies at the École secondaire De La Salle in Ottawa, Canada. Its a world renowned training center for gifted students and artistic achievers. But you wouldn't know it from the building: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_secondaire_publique_De_La_Salle Had my parents and I chosen a high school based on architecture, I would have missed the high-caliber education and faculty De La Salle had to offer. In the end, the building became a positive symbol of the most exciting and formative years of my life. (It also reminded me of the time I spent studying at the Design Academy Eindhoven and its fascinating Witte Dame building. It was one of the most uninspiring and depressing years of my life.) To finish, I think if The Rietveld Preservation Society wants to keep their location, they should work harder at solidifying their arguments. Their adage - of money grubbers uprooting artists from an inspiring area - is full of loopholes. I think they can do better and I wish them the best of luck. Thanks again for the post. Best, Michele Hi Xavier,

Thanks for this post. I’m a Canadian-born designer and student at the Sandberg Instituut (Rietveld family and campus). And I live in Bos en Lommer. I was not aware of this discussion and a few things came to mind while reading about it.

Firstly, I do not find the Rietveld area very interesting. There are no galleries, community centers, cafes or restaurants nearby. Nor are there printers or hardware stores. And most of all: there are no people. It feels like a suburb or office park. After 17:00 the streets are empty. Personally, I’d rather spend time in Bos en Lommer than in the Rietveld area.

Secondly, I would agree with the idea that a building is not just an empty vessel. But I’m also of the opinion that buildings have no inherent meaning of their own. It is we who add meaning to them.

This reminded me of my earlier studies at the École secondaire De La Salle in Ottawa, Canada. Its a world renowned training center for gifted students and artistic achievers. But you wouldn’t know it from the building: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_secondaire_publique_De_La_Salle

Had my parents and I chosen a high school based on architecture, I would have missed the high-caliber education and faculty De La Salle had to offer. In the end, the building became a positive symbol of the most exciting and formative years of my life.

(It also reminded me of the time I spent studying at the Design Academy Eindhoven and its fascinating Witte Dame building. It was one of the most uninspiring and depressing years of my life.)

To finish, I think if The Rietveld Preservation Society wants to keep their location, they should work harder at solidifying their arguments. Their adage – of money grubbers uprooting artists from an inspiring area – is full of loopholes. I think they can do better and I wish them the best of luck.

Thanks again for the post.

Best, Michele

]]> By: Danny http://swisslegacy.com/2009/05/13/save-the-rietveld-academy/#comment-1084 Danny Fri, 22 May 2009 14:52:08 +0000 http://www.swisslegacy.com/?p=1290#comment-1084 Hello Julia Maria, Everybody deserves to study, but not everybody has to study at the same academy. An academy doesn't have to be forced to just grow and grow without limits. The idea of several smaller, flexible academies is much more interesting than the idea of one colossal factory of mass education. If students are rejected at the Rietveld Academy, they can just go to one of the other art academies in The Netherlands, all of which are excellent. It's a much healthier model: several small academies, not one big dominating academy. Not "education just for special people", but special education for everybody.This can only be achieved by downscaling, not upsizing. Hello Julia Maria,
Everybody deserves to study, but not everybody has to study at the same academy. An academy doesn’t have to be forced to just grow and grow without limits. The idea of several smaller, flexible academies is much more interesting than the idea of one colossal factory of mass education.
If students are rejected at the Rietveld Academy, they can just go to one of the other art academies in The Netherlands, all of which are excellent. It’s a much healthier model: several small academies, not one big dominating academy.
Not “education just for special people”, but special education for everybody.This can only be achieved by downscaling, not upsizing.

]]> By: julia maria http://swisslegacy.com/2009/05/13/save-the-rietveld-academy/#comment-1083 julia maria Wed, 20 May 2009 23:38:31 +0000 http://www.swisslegacy.com/?p=1290#comment-1083 ‘‘That there is a lack of space is undeniable, but moving to another building is not the solution. The lack of space is caused by the current increase of students; a more logical solution for the lack of space would be to control this increase of students. ‘‘ What do you mean with that? Education just for special people? And what about universal educational? Doesn‘t everybody desearves to study? ‘‘That there is a lack of space is undeniable, but moving to another building is not the solution. The lack of space is caused by the current increase of students; a more logical solution for the lack of space would be to control this increase of students. ‘‘

What do you mean with that? Education just for special people? And what about universal educational? Doesn‘t everybody desearves to study?

]]>