Dutch Design - A History (Art Ebook)

This is what weve been waiting for: nally, an unprecedented
critical analysis of the history of Dutch design. Mienke Simon

Thomass Dutch Design is a book to have and to read: an important
and richly detailed study of the cultural, economical and social-
political context of twentieth-century design in the Netherlands.
Wim Crouwel
From the colourful abstraction of the Rietveld chair to the dry wit of the milkbottle
lamp produced by Droog, modern design in the Netherlands has always been a
hotbed of experimentation. Dutch designers have consistently pushed the limits in
everything from posters to postage stamps, home furnishings to street signage,
ceramics to city airports. Indeed, in the last decade or so, Dutch design has become a
worldwide phenomenon, almost a brand in itself, with regular publications in magazines
and books promoting the remarkable creative output of this small country.
This book takes an in-depth look not just at Dutch designs themselves but also
the history and culture behind the works created throughout the twentieth century
and beyond. Mienke Simon Thomas provides a compelling thematic account,
guiding the reader through the beginnings of crafts education, the debates of design
as art, the moral and social ideals of modernism, the new profession of industrial
designer, state-sponsored initiatives, and conceptual design objects and anti-design.
She argues that Dutch design seems to have been inspired by the wish to be
functional, simple and affordable, but she also reveals how it has simultaneously
embraced luxury, decoration and even exclusivity.
A much-needed introduction to Dutch designs and their creators as well as the
clients who commissioned them and the state initiatives that supported them this
book will be essential reading for designers, historians and the general public with an
interest in design.
with 171 illustrations, 83 in colour
mienke simon thomas is Senior Curator in the Department of Decorative Arts
and Design at the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen in Rotterdam and the author
of Dutch Ceramics, 18901940 (2002).
Cover: Tejo Remy (Droog Design), You Cant Lay Down Your Memory,
chest of drawers, 1991. Photo: Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam
reaktion books ltd
www.reaktionbooks.co.uk
DUTCH DESIGN
A History
Mienke Simon Thomas
D
U
T
C
H

D
E
S
I
G
N
A

H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
M
i
e
n
k
e

S
i
m
o
n

T
h
o
m
a
s
design
uk 17.95 rrp/us $35.00
spine
19mm
(c)

Dutch Design
001_005_Dutch Des_prelims:001_005_Des.Mod_prelims 20/8/08 12:43 Page 1


Dutch Design
A History
Mienke Simon Thomas
reakti on books

Published by Reaktion Books Ltd
33 Great Sutton Street
London ec1v 0dx, uk
www.reaktionbooks.co.uk
First published 2008
Copyright Mienke Simon Thomas 2008
This translation was supported by grants from The Prince Bernard Fund and
The Mondriaan Foundation.
All rights reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of
the publishers.
Printed in China
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Simon Thomas, Mienke
Dutch design: a history
1. Design, Industrial Netherlands
I. Title
745.209492
isbn13: 978 1 86189 380 2

Contents
Introduction 7
1 New Art, Old Craft, 18751915 13
2 Design as Art, 191540 49
3 Good Design, 192565 89
4 Design as Profession, 194580 133
5 Design for Debate, 1960s to the Present 183
Conclusion 237
References 241
Bibliography 256
Acknowledgements 261
Photo Acknowledgements 262
Index 263

Studio Mijksenaar,
visual statistics in the
TNO Report Design in
the Creative Economy
(Vormgeving in de
Creatieve Economie), for
Premsela and the Ministry
of Economic Affairs, 2005.
006_011_Dutch Des_Intro:006_013_Des.Mod_Intro 19/8/08 16:59 Page 6

7
In 2001 the Dutch government set up an Interim Advisory Committee on
Dutch design to map out the infrastructure of design culture. The aim was
to use this information as a basis from which it would be possible to make
more specic recommendations on design policy in the future. The com-
mittee advocated more synergy between the social, cultural and economic
sectors involved in design, and the establishment of a new design institute
that could offer guidance. It reasoned that the Netherlands has always
enjoyed a design tradition in which great attention has been paid to social
ideals and cultural values, but less to economic concerns. Four years later,
in 2005, the last hypothesis was put to the test by the information research
group tno, which needed to know the precise importance of design as part
of the creative economy. This exhaustive study produced remarkable
results: the astonishing conclusion was that, when grouped together, Dutch
designers were as important to the national economy as the prots accrued
from air transport or the petroleum industry.
1
This made a very surprising
outcome indeed if we consider the prevailing image of the thrifty Dutch
with their supposed lack of ostentation and small-scale production system.
The way these two reports came about invited criticism. First, the
Advisory Committee set up in 2001 was composed entirely of people from
the cultural scene, who had a limited knowledge of economic affairs. In
2005, on the other hand, professional flower arrangers were assessed in the
tno study alongside industrial designers a mismatch that many saw as
detracting from the validity of the conclusions. In short, a scholarly, value-
free analysis of design culture is an extremely difcult task, even using the
most modern research methods. These reports proved that an assessment
of the design sector depends to a large degree on the perspective, aims and
Introduction

sources at the researchers disposal. This was no different in the past. There
was, for example, a hidden agenda in 1878 when the senior ofcial of the
Ministry for Home Affairs, Jonkheer Victor de Stuers, and the State Commis-
sion he installed were asked to judge the state of the Dutch art industry.
2
The same held true in 1945 for the designers Piet Zwart and Paul Schuitema,
who had just as many predetermined motives when they drew up their
report on the future of industrial design in the Netherlands.
3
These examples show that writing a historical survey of Dutch design
culture can be a hazardous undertaking. The primary sources at our dis -
posal usually throw light on just one side of the story. Even the secondary
literature still in existence has its limitations, since until now design histo-
ry in the Netherlands has mainly been the province of art and architectural
historians. It is only natural that they have mainly described the history of
design from an artstylistic perspective. Only a small number of studies has
approached design from a different angle, by, for instance, taking an inter-
est in economic, sociological and political-philosophical views.
4
In this book the central focus is on Dutch design culture in the twenti-
eth century. This means that our attention will be xed primarily on the
cultural, economic and political-social context of design, and only in the
second instance on the products and designers that gure within these
realms. The main theme is the development of design in modern Dutch
society. We shall look at the relationship between designers and manufac-
turers, at the artistic and moral mission designers thought they had to
proselytize in the discussions they held on the subject in their specialist
journals. The content and organization of the design academy courses will
also come up for discussion, as well as the role of the Dutch government in
providing subsidies and commissioning work from designers. Finally, we
shall examine design criticism and to a certain extent the Dutch con-
sumers opinion about design.
The subject will be divided up into ve themes that cover the subjects
or issues that were foremost in peoples minds when thinking about design,
and as such provided the ideological framework within which designers
carried out their work. The main thrust of these themes occurs in different
eras and by dealing with them in chronological order we shall cover the
entire century.
The rst chapter addresses the theme of artisanal design, an issue that
was of central importance at the beginning of the twentieth century, but
crops up again regularly afterwards. In this chapter we shall discuss the
strange paradox that during this period, despite increased industrializa-
tion, the interest of Dutch designers (then still called decorative artists) was
8 Dutch Design

mainly in producing products manually, with the Middle Ages providing an
important source of inspiration. Even when design education was reformed
and the Vereniging voor Ambachts- en Nijverheidskunst (vank) was set up
in 1904, it was initially handmade crafts that were the focus of attention.
Thus around 1900 Dutch design was in a certain sense conservative, but it
would, surprisingly enough, be proudly presented to the following genera-
tion as part of the developmental history of typically Dutch Nieuwe Kunst
(New Art). At the same time this traditional, crafts-based movement was of
marginal importance for the growth of industrialization, and for innova-
tion in a wider sense. Unopposed, modernization continued its course.
In chapter Two some light will be shed on the designers in the 1920s
and 30s who made frenetic attempts to promote their opinion that design
should be art. All the same, some of them did begin to see at this point that
collaboration between designers and industry was inevitable, and possibly
desirable, but nevertheless for many of those involved the products result-
ing from this collaboration still had to remain art. This was the opinion of
many vank members at the time and was also common among designers
of the Amsterdam School, but was apparently also upheld by the more
progressive artist-designers of De Stijl movement and members of the
Bond voor Kunst in Industrie (bki). In these circles their great longing for
art and artistry continued undiminished. So for a long time, and in a cer-
tain respect up to the present day, they have recognized a fundamental
difference between artistic products emerging from a collaboration between
designer-artists and ordinary industrial bulk goods. Only a few progressive
designers, like Piet Zwart and Willem Gispen, had already managed to
liberate themselves from these artistic aspirations before the Second
World War.
An important theme that dominated Dutch design throughout almost
the entire twentieth century was the need to make the world a better place
through beautiful design: beauty and ugliness in the Netherlands have
often been synonymous with good and bad. In chapter Three it is argued
that the main thrust behind this issue is modernism before and after the
Second World War. This Moral Modernism concentrated on the virtues:
simplicity, honesty and functionality. The politically committed architects
of Nieuwe Bouwen (New Building) and the designers connected with them
were motivated to aspire to what was morally classied as a good form by
adhering to these values. The same held after the war for architects and
designers involved in the reconstruction of the Netherlands. The Goed
Wonen Foundation is the clearest manifestation of this Moral Modern ism in
the 1950s and 60s.
9 Introduction

The exhibition Dutch Design
Port by Rotterdams VIVID
gallery at the International
Contemporary Furniture Fair
(ICFF), New York, 2007.
Chapter Four deals with the way in which, from the 1950s onwards, the
Netherlands brought the process of professionalizing design as a discipline
to completion, and in so doing made industrial design a factor of real social
importance. Design culture in the post-war reconstruction years was char-
acterized by, at long last, the arrival of a flourishing industry, more and
better design courses, enthusiastic designers and, above all, far more prod-
ucts made with the involvement of a designer. The Instituut voor Industrile
Vormgeving (iiv), with its showroom in Amsterdam, played a major role in
giving design culture the necessary exposure. Industrial design became an
important part of the policy pursued by manufacturers of electric house-
hold appliances and was gradually adopted by the furniture industry too. It
seemed as if the whole of the Netherlands was being redesigned in those
years. There was evidence of this at Schiphol airport, in trains, at stations,
on motorways, the money in our purses, in post ofce design and products,
in supermarket design and packaging, and in department stores designs
and wares: well-considered modern design was ltering through on all
sides. For that matter we must not neglect to mention that in getting the
public to accept modern design an important role was reserved for a few
large design studios, as well as stores such as Metz & Co. and the Bijenkorf,
and later hema and ikea.
In the last chapter reactions to the issues handled earlier come up for
discussion. It then becomes clear how much some themes have constantly
continued to dominate the design culture debate. In addition, we shall also
see that in the last three decades of the twentieth century a number of design-
ers and critics begin to loathe the perfect, but boring Modernist design in
evidence all around them. Running parallel to this reaction is their criticism
of the over-commercial character of design and designers, and the total lack
of concern shown by manufacturers for conserving the environment. This
sparks off debates and counter-cultural or oppositional movements all over
the place. At the same time, the dividing lines between design, fashion and
art become more indistinct. New anti-design becomes internationally
famous thanks to the generous, progressive subsidy policy pursued by the
Dutch government. Thus Dutch design currently stands for critical, ironic
and conceptual in other words, intellectual design. However, the question
posed at the beginning of this book about the concrete economic impor-
tance of design at the start of the century could equally well apply to
present-day, celebrated Dutch design.
10 Dutch Design


012_047_Dutch Des_Chap1:014_045_Des.Mod_Chap1 19/8/08 16:55 Page 12

The Paris Exposition Universelle of 1900 offers a useful starting point for a
view of Dutch design at the turn of the twentieth century.
1
The Dutch entry
gives an idea of the products then considered interesting, representative
and beautiful enough to be presented internationally. However, it is almost
just as fascinating and revealing to consider what was not selected for this
special occasion.
2
The organization of the entries was in the hands of a
committee set up and funded by the Dutch government, comprising mem-
bers of parliament, ex-ministers, a member of the Amsterdam Chamber of
Commerce and the chairman of the Advisory Council of the Museum of
Applied Arts, Haarlem, as well as the chairman of the venerable Pulchri
Studio artists society in The Hague.
The Netherlands was represented in Paris by no fewer than 559
exhibitors. While this may appear to be a large number, when set against a
grand total of 83,071 participants this was in fact rather small. Despite this
modest number, however, the Dutch economy was then flourishing. One
should not forget that ever since the seventeenth century it had been based
on trade. Around 1900 this state of affairs was even consolidated by the
opening of the Dutch East Indies for exploitation by private enterprises and
the growing coal and steel industries in Germany.
The 1900 Exposition Universelle was still organized along nineteenth-
century lines in that every branch of industry in the widest sense of the
word was represented. Thus exceptionally designed, artistically decorative
and functional objects formed but a small part of the entry. Agriculture
and livestock businesses were also represented with their products, even
including a number of cattle and horses. Visitors in Paris could also study
new developments in the shipping and shing industries, get acquainted
1
New Art, Old Craft, 18751915
13
H. P. Berlage, tile design
based on Ernst Haeckels
Kunstformen der Natur,
c. 1905.

with the results of the new and flourishing chemical and mechanical indus-
tries, or view products by the then rapidly expanding Dutch food and drink
manufacturers, including the attendant packaging industry. And, not least,
they could sample the results of the Netherlands famous genever (gin)
distilleries and breweries.
Among more than ve hundred participants, only a few dozen displayed
products categorized as industrial art or applied art products that because
of their extra attention to design, artistic decoration, costly materials and
skilled nish put them above everyday functional objects. These were main-
ly to be found in the Decoration and Furnishings department, a section of
the Dutch entry selected by a subcommittee that included, among others,
Adolf Le Comte, who had formerly taught at the Polytechnic School in Delft,
and E. A. von Saher, director of the School of Applied Arts in Haarlem.
In this department nearly all the space was reserved for entries from
the Dutch ceramic industry. In addition to a few smaller pottery manufac-
turers, De Porceleyne Fles from Delft and the Haagsche Plateelbakkerij
Rozenburg proudly showed their large and varied collections of modern
decorative pottery. The same department presented colourful carpets,
stained-glass windows, furniture, decorative silver objects and various base-
metal items.
The entire Dutch exhibit was housed in a series of individual pavilions
designed by Karel Sluyterman, lecturer in decorative art and theory of orna-
ment at the Polytechnic School, Delft, who was assisted in this by The Hague
architect Joh. Mutters. Sluyterman chose an exuberant, contemporary version
of International Art Nouveau the so-called Congo style. This imaginative
blend of Art Nouveau and Exoticism came into vogue following the Exposition
Internationale in Tervuren, close to Brussels, in 1897, where the Belgian Congo
pavilion had been executed in this arresting style. At the committees request,
Sluytermans remarkable design, including decorative batik fabrics, striking
colours and contemporary lettering, had attempted to create uniformity
among the somewhat disparate Dutch departments. The result evidently met
with the approval of the international jury, which presented him with highest
possible award for his design at the end of the exhibition.
3
None of the leading industrialized companies from the Netherlands
producing decorative or functional objects was represented at the Paris
Exposition Universelle. Both the Dutch organizers and potential entrants
obviously felt that products should be handcrafted, or at least partly so,
in order to fall into the industrial art or applied arts category. An artistic
product had to be unique and not mass-produced in a large factory. For this
reason neither of the two largest ceramic factories in the Netherlands, The
14 Dutch Design

Sphinx (formally Regout) and Socit Cramique, both in Maastricht, were
present. At the time these two companies belonged to a handful of truly
large industrial manufacturers in the Netherlands. With more than 3,000
employees, including many children, these rms, with the help of steam
power, produced virtually anything to do with ceramics around the clock.
4
The well-developed Dutch textile industries were also noticeable by
their absence, including not only the wool factories and damask weaving
mills in Brabant, but also the cotton textile factories in Twente, which were
then among the countrys largest industrial companies. Like the four lead-
ing calico printers in Haarlem, Leiden, Rotterdam and Helmond, they
exported virtually all their production to the former Dutch East Indies.
5
Also absent from Paris were the equally large and important furniture
Karel Sluyterman,
Heineken pavilion at the
Exposition Universelle
in Paris, 1900.
15 New Art, Old Craft, 18751915

rms, such as Pander, Mutters and Eckhart, and the leading metalware
rms, like Daalderop and dru. All these manufacturers seem to have had
little condence in the commercial advantages to be gained in Paris and,
despite the organization committees urgings, they were not prepared to
spend time and money on proper representation there.
Despite these omissions, a review in LArt dcoratif declared that Holland
is presented at the Exhibition as one of the nations most active in pursuing
a new style.
6
Fifty years of ofcial endeavours to take applied art to a high-
er level had reaped results. Thus the jury concluded with a certain satisfaction
that, artistically speaking, the Netherlands could compete with the rest of
Europe; even the President of France, who visited the Dutch exhibit on 30
May 1900, described it as a huge success.
7
Looking Back: Design in the Mid-Nineteenth Century
Half a century earlier at the Great Exhibition, the rst international exhibi-
tion, held in Kensington, London, in 1851, it had been a different story.
Time and again this exhibition has been seized upon to highlight the abom-
inable quality of Dutch industry at the time.
8
It is indisputable that from the
16 Dutch Design
Jurriaan Kok (Haagsche
Plateelfabriek Rozenburg),
teapot and three vases,
eggshell porcelain, c. 1900.

eighteenth century the once flourishing industry, artisan skills and
favourable trading position of the Netherlands markedly declined due to
the ascendancy of Great Britain. The abolition of the guilds in 1798, fol-
lowed by the division of the Low Countries and the establishment of
Belgium in 1830, meant that little now remained of this industry. Well-to-do
Dutch preferred to obtain artistic, well-made consumer goods from abroad.
Luxury furniture from France, Belgium and Germany was considered more
appealing than that of Dutch manufacture.
While it is true that industrialization and modernization occurred
more slowly in the Netherlands than elsewhere in Europe, recent research
shows that developments there had their own specic character.
9
It is inap-
propriate to link industrialization solely to the introduction of steam
power, as is often the case. For a long time the hundreds of windmills all
over the Netherlands, as well as the smaller gas engines, were simply much
cheaper and more efcient for most of the small Dutch factories. This places
a different light on the batik decorative friezes designed by Karel Sluyterman
for the 1900 Paris Exposition Universelle: windmills, represented in a decora-
tive Art Nouveau style, were a generally accepted feature of Dutch industry at
the time and had not yet become a hackneyed traditional symbol. The small
scale and versatility of Dutch industry also gave it a flexibility that ensured
that modernization would ultimately make its way there too.
In retrospect, the Dutch entry for London in 1851 was not representative
of the situation in the Netherlands. It was not the stagnant industry but rather
the lack of interest by the Dutch government that was the chief reason for the
sparse representation. Prime Minister Thorbecke had handed over responsi-
bility for Dutch participation to private initiative, with the result that only 115
companies were prepared to send products to London at their own expense.
Unlike other countries, the Netherlands still did not consider a good inter-
national display of its national industry to be a government matter.
During the second half of the nineteenth century, however, the artistic
quality of Dutch decorative and functional objects became a cause for
concern among the cultural elite. Triggered by subsequent international
exhibitions in Paris (1855, 1867, 1889), a second in London (1862) and
others in Vienna (1873) and Chicago (1893), a debate had begun about the
languishing state of Dutch design.
10
In ofcial reports and cultural maga-
zines the reason for this was sought in the immense lack of feeling for art,
be it among employers, workers or consumers. Moreover, it was customary
to point out how this contrasted sharply with the Netherlands glorious
past, particularly the Golden Age of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Thus, art and architectural history were brought to bear in an attempt to
J. M. van Kempen, Utrecht,
silver goblet decorated
with representations of
medieval ancestors of the
Orange and Nassau Houses,
1847, shown at the Great
Exhibition, London, 1851.

raise national awareness in the eld of industrial art. In so doing the critics
hoped that the industrious and down-to-earth Dutchman would nally
emerge and be a match for the inventive Englishman, the rened
Frenchman and the practical American. That way the greatness of former
times could undoubtedly be recaptured.
For these reasons illustrious Old Dutch applied arts were proudly dis-
played at the rst international industrial exhibition in the Netherlands in
1877.
11
The organizers, who by now included government representatives,
were convinced that the display of such ne old examples would boost con-
temporary industry and stimulate Dutch manufacturers and consumers
sense of national pride. At this event, titled Exhibition of Art Applied to
Industry, the design and artistic standard of the exhibited products were
pivotal, rather than the technological advances so prominent in other
industrial exhibitions.
The responsibility for this concept lay with the newly appointed arts
ofcial of the Arts and Science department at the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Jonkheer Victor de Stuers. This rst Dutch arts ofcial was driven by an
ambition to awaken an interest for their own past among the Dutch. During
the last quarter of the nineteenth century he was at the forefront when all
aspects of Dutch culture were being determined, including museum policy,
art education and the preservation of historic monuments and buildings.
His power was such that he had the casting vote in awarding national
architecture commissions like the one for the Rijksmuseum and the Central
Station in Amsterdam, for which the Gothic Revival architect P.J.H. Cuypers
was appointed.
The architect J. R. de Kruyff was actually the most important gure in
organizing the exhibition. He also designed the presentation. In a brochure
published prior to the exhibition, he dened the concept of industrial art as
containing those products of human endeavour, in which the imagination is
harmoniously reconciled with the guiding sense of beauty, which extends to
the production of domestic objects which industry brings forth to satisfy the
numerous requirements of everyday life.
12
But there were few examples of
mass production or everyday items; the exhibition was more about luxury
household goods, hand-knotted carpets, lavishly carved furniture made from
gleaming, expensive types of wood, heavily ornate mirror frames and silver-
work. Exceptions to this were the modest exhibits from the ceramics factories
of De Porceleyne Fles in Delft and Regout in Maastricht.
More important than the exhibition itself were the jury report and the
other publications that appeared in its wake. One government-appointed
committee, in which De Kruyff again played a central role, wrote a report
18 Dutch Design

on Dutch industrial art in 1878.
13
It concluded
that the situation was in general still depressing.
Fortunately, the critical committee members saw
a few rays of hope. They considered the carpets
of the Royal Carpet Factory in Deventer to be out -
standing, while the furniture companies of H. P.
Mutters and H. F. Jansen were praised for the
diversity of genre styles. Yet the entries from the
two ceramic factories were judged far below stan-
dard, with severe criticism of the decoration
applied mechanically to the Maastricht wares.
The depressing results were then seized upon
by De Stuers and other interested parties to
implement several reforms in the Netherlands. A
Museum of Applied Arts was founded in Haarlem
and serious plans developed for new courses to be
established.
14
Much use was also made of knowl-
edge and experience from abroad.
Foreign theoretical treatises were also use-
ful for a small group of Dutch specialists. In
particular, Gottfried Sempers views, as expressed
in such publications as Der Stil in den technischen und tektonische Knsten
(186063), were initially critical in forming opinions in the Netherlands.
After a visit to the International Exhibition held in London in 1862, the
secretary of the Netherlands Society for the Trade and Industry, F. W.
van Eeden, for instance, wrote a series of articles that prominently featured
his knowledge of Sempers published works.
15
A decade later Van Eeden
became the rst director of the Museum of Applied Arts in Haarlem.
Sempers conviction that the style or design of a product should be
derived from its function, its material and the technique by which it was
made had already become common knowledge by the 1870s.
Following writers like Owen Jones, Ralph Wornum, Richard Redgrave
and A. W. Pugin, the study of historic styles became essential in the
Nether lands. In 1884 Carel Vosmaers translation of Lewis Foreman Days
Everyday Art (1882) appeared as De Kunst in het Daaglijksch Leven. Towards
the end of the nineteenth century the Netherlands became acquainted
with the more socially engaged design ideas of John Ruskin and William
Morris. The major consequence of this was a steadily increasing apprecia-
tion of craftsmanship and a better understanding of the position of the
industrial artist in society. The publications of the French architectural
Cover of the magazine
Decoratieve Kunst en
Volksvlijt, 1875.

theorist Eugne-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, which became known in the
Netherlands chiefly through the architect P.J.H. Cuypers,
16
were to have
just as big an impact as those by Semper and the English writers. As a result
the Netherlands became familiar with new Gothic-based ideas about
architecture and design. French, German and Austrian periodicals as well
as sample portfolios were constantly scrutinized in the Netherlands dur-
ing the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The rst Dutch magazine
on design was a version of the German monthly Gewerbehalle and rst
appeared in 1870 as Kunst en Industrie (Art and Industry). The rst origi-
nal Dutch periodical was the decorative art magazine Tijdschrift voor
Decoratieve Kunst en Volksvlijt in 1875. Unfortunately, this spirited initia-
tive from C.A.J. Geesink, the owner of an Amsterdam printing rm, who
also made plans for a Netherlands Art and Industry Museum, folded after
only two years.
Early Design Education
During the late nineteenth century the Netherlands was particularly inter-
ested in how the newly reformed education in art and design was organized
abroad.
17
At rst it seemed that education reform in the Netherlands was on
a par with the growth of industrial production. Steady increase in mecha-
nization, scale and division of labour had led, for instance, to the founding
of the rst technical school in Amsterdam in 1871. Now that it was increas-
ingly evident that future workers could not be trained as well on the factory
floor, special vocational courses had to be set up. Pupils ranging in age from
twelve to sixteen were then taught, among other things, how to become car-
penters, blacksmiths and painters. The second Dutch technical school to
open its doors was in The Hague.
When the government committee on industrial art, under the influ-
ence of Victor de Stuers, argued in its 1878 report for improvements in
education, the director of The Hague technical school, H. L. Boersma, wrote
a lengthy reply in which he warned against the slavish adherence to tradi-
tional applied arts emphatically advised by the committee. Each era had its
own characteristics and its own applied arts: by failing to recognize this, he
felt the committee did not do justice to the requirements of industry.
Boersma was also against the distinction the committee made between
industrial designers and artistic crafts people, and the priority it wished to
give to the former group. The director argued that Dutch industry was on
such a small scale compared to neighbouring nations that the artistic devel-
opment of crafts people should take rst place.
18
20 Dutch Design

The rst School of Design for Applied Arts was founded in Haarlem
in 1879 on the initiative of the Netherlands Society for Trade and Industry
as a logical extension to the towns Museum of Applied Arts, which the
Society had opened two years previously. Its rst director was the architect
Eduard A. von Saher, who had trained at the Polytechnikum, Zrich, and
had been taught by Gottfried Semper. The combination of a school and
museum was already to be found in various foreign museums, the earliest
and most notable example being the South Kensington School and
Museum in London. In 1881 a National School of Applied Arts was incorpo-
rated into the Amsterdam Rijksmuseum, where, alongside drawing,
emphasis was placed on theoretical training. Here an influential teacher
was Pierre Cuypers, who had initiated another type of training a few years
earlier. During the building of the Rijksmuseum he had noticed that skilled
stonemasons and woodworkers were few and far between, so in 1879 he set
up a new training school for the purpose. This on-site building shed or
workshop later became the Quellinus School of Applied Arts. Here the
rening of practical traditional skills rather than drawing and theory was
the main concern in the early years.
The objective of this and various other new schools of applied art
inspired constant debate for the rest of the century, which led to the curric-
ula often being modied and adapted. Since the prime intention, with the
exception of the Quellinus School, was to train future designers for indus-
trial design, the new schools were chiefly schools
of technical drawing. For so many days a week
pupils were supposed to work in a workshop or
factory and then receive additional theoretical
instruction at school. Since the art component,
in the context of industrial art and applied art,
was virtually synonymous with ornament, teach-
ing mainly covered the history of ornamentation
and the technical drawing of well-conceived
decoration.
19
Much attention was devoted to
studying historic styles, including those from the
East. The underlying principle of acquiring such
knowledge was not to copy styles, but rather to
establish a way of achieving well-founded new
designs: Study the Old so that you will remem-
ber it and gain strength to begin afresh, as
Cuypers wrote in ne Gothic lettering on the
walls of the Rijksmuseum. Moreover, armed with
Petrus Regout & Co.,
Maastricht, jug with
imitation marble, c. 1860.

this improved knowledge about styles, the
designers would be less likely to give in to the
commercial malpractices of many manufactur-
ers. Jacob de Kruyff, who became the director of
the National School of Applied Arts, railed
against the terror of commerce and the various
fads found in the industry of his time. Particularly
objectionable, in his view, was the trend to imi-
tate expensive materials in a cheap ersatz manner,
like painting cheap wood to make it resemble
costly marble or much rarer types of timber. He
also roundly condemned as a fad the popular
use of naturalistic plants and animals as decora-
tive elements.
Indeed, stylization of flowers and plants was
central to ornamentation training. Pupils were
taught how to make nature more abstract and
reduce it to simple, repetitive, decorative motifs.
Towards the end of the century, however, geomet-
ric or systematic design began to permeate Dutch
applied arts education. While patterns of straight
lines or triangles had in fact almost always under-
pinned decorative design, the ideas about this,
under the influence of the growing popularity of Theosophy, gained an
entirely new relevance in the Netherlands.
20
According to Theosophy, math-
ematics and the laws of measurement and numbers had a divine meaning,
while an almost mythical signicance was ascribed in particular to the
Egyptian isosceles triangle.
The architects Karel de Bazel and Mathieu Lauweriks, both of whom
had trained with Cuypers, joined the Theosophical Association in 1894. They
were so fervent about their discoveries that they even set up a special artist-
s section intended to serve as a temple for studying and spreading the
message of these revelations. In this Vhna lodge classes in design were
started in 1897. Every Friday night a few dozen pupils would gather for this
purpose in a room at the old Hotel American in Amsterdam. By 1904 some
two hundred artisans had followed the Vhna lodges course in systematic
design. In their turn, the artists trained there then taught in applied arts edu-
cation. Consequently, the principles of designing according to geometric
systems were widely disseminated in those years. The architect J. H. de
Groot and his sister, the needlework artist J. M. de Groot, even put together
22 Dutch Design
A page from J. H. de Groot,
Driehoeken bij Ontwerpen
van Ornament (The Use of
Triangles in the Design of
Ornament), 1896.

in 1896 a small practical manual entitled
Driehoeken bij Ontwerpen van Ornament (The
Use of Triangles in the Design of Ornament), in
which the new method was explained with the
help of examples. This manual also showed
that systematic design could be explained in a
much less vague and esoteric manner. Using a
triangle, a compass and a ruler, anyone could
learn to draw the most varied new decorations.
Around 1900 applied art schools mainly
combined the stylization of nature with design
based on geometric systems. This led to the flat
two-dimensional decoration considered characteristic of Dutch decorative
art of the period. The nest and most typical examples of this are the batiks
and damask designs of Chris Lebeau and the ceramic decoration of Chris van
der Hoef and Bert Nienhuis.
21
The most spectacular results of combining
nature and geometry in decorative art were achieved by the architect H. P.
Berlage. Around 1900 he trans formed illustrations of micro-organisms from
Ernst Haeckels book Kunstformen der Natur (Art Forms in Nature) into mar-
vellous, almost purely geometric decorative designs for tiles, stained-glass
windows, plates, wallpaper and even three-dimensional objects like lamps.
Meanwhile, decorative design lessons at the applied arts schools were
no longer aimed only at future designers or draughtsmen in industry. More
to the point, it was becoming apparent that this type of designing was
becoming an objective in itself. An increasing number of pupils who were
not already working and practising a traditional skill were enrolling at the
schools. As a result, a few critics warned that future designers should be
better aware of the purpose for which they were making the decorations.
The architect Jan de Meijer complained about the dry affair that killed the
personality of the artists, and his colleague Willem Retera feared that this
theoretical work would restrain their fantasy.
22
The term sierkunstenaar
(decorative artist), initially slightly demeaning, now became a fashionable
description of those artists who specialized in designing ornament, but who
no longer possessed the skills to make the products themselves. Such a lack
of practical skills was now seen as a shortcoming.
Subsequently, the schools of applied arts besides the one in
Amsterdam, a school was founded in s-Hertogenbosch (1882), while new
applied arts departments in existing art academies were opened in Utrecht
(1886), The Hague (1889), Rotterdam (1902) and Groningen (1903) intro-
duced classes in a number of straightforward skills. Around 1900 it was
Metal workshop of Frans
Zwollo, Sr, at the Haarlem
School of Decorative Arts,
c. 1905.

possible to learn lithography, woodcarving and batik work, crafts in which
it was possible to incorporate decoration without too many technical aids.
A further step was later taken when workshops for making ceramics, metal
objects and furniture were added. The precious metals worker Frans Zwollo
was one of the most conrmed believers in this workshop concept in
applied arts schools.
23
About ten years later the potter Bert Nienhuis also
became an influential proponent of this practical form of education.
While industrialization continued apace, design education paradoxi-
cally focused increasingly on the artistic and skills side of manufacturing.
Around 1900 the artist-craftsman emerged a pattern designer, artist
and craftsman all in one. So while the schools of applied arts had been
founded in the nineteenth century to raise the standards of industrial
products and had given an initial spurt to the evolution of the later indus-
trial designer, this process changed course again in what can best be
described as a conservative direction. For the time being the schools did
not train industrial designers but produced textile artists, creative metal-
workers and potters.
Paris 1900
If we now return to the Exposition Universelle in Paris and focus in greater
detail on what was to be seen there, it is evident that many Dutch decorative
products were the logical result of the developments outlined above. De
Porceleyne Fles, the only ceramic factory in Delft in the eighteenth century
to survive erce competition from Britain, had patently taken to heart the
advice of such as Victor de Stuers and De Kruyff.
24
From 1877 the company
had successfully concentrated again on producing traditional blue and
white tin-glaze pottery, for which Delft had become so famous two centuries
earlier. At the same time the rm was experimenting with new glazes and
ring processes, as well as more contemporary designs.
Partly as a result of the successful initiative in Delft, the Haagsche
Plateelfabriek Rozenburg was founded.
25
The decision to take on the archi-
tect Theodoor Colenbrander as a designer of new forms and decoration
turned out to be an inspired move. This idiosyncratic artist quickly helped
Rozenburg to establish a reputation by designing a number of original and
exciting decors and models. This groundbreaking work later earned
Colenbrander the unofcial title Doyen of Dutch applied art, awarded to
him in 1923 by H. E. van Gelder, director of the Gemeente museum in The
Hague.
26
At Paris in 1900the director of Rozenburg, Jurriaan Kok, was again
able to present something with novelty value a new paper-thin type of
24 Dutch Design

semi-porcelain called eggshell. Partly based on Koks own designs, Rozen -
burg had cast a major collection of new ware from this exquisite material,
which was decorated with extremely rened, colourful, Japanese-inspired
depictions of plants and birds. This new product was an overwhelming
international and commercial success in Paris. After the young Queen
Wilhelmina honoured the rm with the privilege to use the title Royal,
Jurriaan Kok showed his gratitude by creating a specially decorated eggshell
porcelain tea service for the wedding of Wilhelmina and Hendrik van
Mecklenburg on 7 January 1901.
27
De Porceleyne Fles and Rozenburgs win-
ning formula stimulated the founding of various new Delftware factories
between 1890 and 1900, ve of which submitted work to Paris. The influence
of decorative design classes and the stylization of nature were clearly evident
in the modern designs of this new Dutch pottery.
28
There were also products
to be seen in Paris from a handful of earthenware factories in Friesland, where
most of the traditionally designed, everyday kitchen and tableware in the
country was still made. Around 1900 these companies were still just about
able to ward off competition from British mass production.
29
T.A.C. Colenbrander
(Haagsche Plateelfabriek
Rozenburg), Constanti -
nopel wall plate, 1886.

The Royal Carpet Factory from Deventer regularly participated in
international exhibitions.
30
Since the rst half of the nineteenth century the
rm had produced, as well as simple cow-hair rugs, luxury, hand-knotted
Smyrna carpets with patterns inspired by Near Eastern carpets. Artistically,
the patterns were very much in keeping with the increasing focus on colour-
ful, exotic decoration, especially on textiles. In Paris the Deventer factory
presented not only these popular designs, but also one or two new ones by
Theodoor Colenbrande. Since about 1895 he had been creating patterns for
hand-knotted carpets that, as with his pottery, resulted in something com-
pletely new. His colourful expressive designs had more or less the same
structure as Near Eastern ones, yet at the same time were totally innovative
in their free style. They rapidly caught on among the Dutch cultural elite:
Willem Hendrik Mesdag, the influential and wealthy marine painter and
collector of oriental art, furnished his grand home in The Hague with
Colenbranders carpets and started to collect his Rozenburg ceramics as
well. Still more or less in its original state, this is now called the Museum
Mesdag and is open to the public.
Interest in oriental textiles was also apparent in a growing fascination
for the Javanese batik technique. This had become increasingly familiar in
the late nineteenth century partly due to the strengthening of relations with
the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). Dutch calico print-works were even
26 Dutch Design
Decorative pottery:
large vase decorated by
C. J. Lanooij, 1907, from
Wed. N.S.A. Brantjes Co.
rm, Purmerend; and ve
smaller vases, 190005,
from Plateelfabriek Zuid-
Holland, Gouda.

T.A.C. Colenbrander
(Royal United Carpet
Factory, Deventer),
carpet in the Museum
Mesdag, The Hague;
remake of a design
from 1893.
able to imitate the time-consuming traditional process by mechanical means
and could thus compete with native batik makers. Artists such as Gerrit
Dijsselhof, Carel Lion Cachet and Johan Thorn Prikker began to experiment
with the technique after admiring the batiks in the Museum of Applied Arts
in Haarlem and the Ethnographical Museum in Amsterdam.
31
This was lim-
ited to small-scale projects, apart from Thorn Prikkers designs made on a

larger scale in the Apeldoorn-based batik workshops of Arts and Crafts in
The Hague.
32
Examples of the companys batik fabrics were shown in Paris,
while Sluytermans decorative friezes adorning the exhibition (see above)
had also been created in its workshops.
In 1900 Arts and Crafts was still the only rm of its type. It had been
started two years earlier as the rst workshop and gallery outlet for art and
modern applied arts in the Netherlands. The gallery had been modelled
along the lines of the Paris gallery Salon de lArt Nouveau, run by Siegfried
Bing, even though its name suggests a link with the English design move-
ment. The painter and designer Johan Thorn Prikker was the leading artist
for Arts and Crafts, but work by Jan Altorf and Theodoor Colenbrander,
and by foreign artists like Henry van de Velde and George Minne, was sold
there as well. The products of these two Belgian artists instantly provoked
erce criticism at the gallery opening in August 1898, while Thorn Prikkers
batiks and furniture, clearly inspired by what the Belgians were doing, also
came under re from certain reviewers. Berlage, for instance, wrote in De
Kroniek, a month after the ofcial opening of Arts and Crafts, that Prikker
made a step from the sublime to the ridiculous with his arbitrary furniture
designs constructed from all sorts of pieces of wood and the most distaste-
ful combinations of lines and impossible forms.
What Berlage himself stood for was shown in Paris by the Amsterdam-
based company J. B. Hillen.
33
This was a medium-sized rm industrially
producing furniture. In Paris, however, Hillen presented a unique and
robust wall unit in oak, eight metres long, designed by Berlage and decorat-
ed in flat relief carving by A. C. Oosschot. Furniture was supplied in Paris by
two other companies: the studio of Van Wisselingh in Amsterdam, with
unique and extremely luxurious, handcrafted objects designed by the artists
Women producing
designs by Johan Thorn
Prikker in the Arts and
Crafts batik studio,
Apeldoorn, c. 1901.
Interior of the rm Arts
and Crafts in The Hague,
1898.
28 Dutch Design

Carel Lion Cachet, Theo Nieuwenhuis and Gerrit Dijsselhof, and the work-
shop of Pierre Cuypers in Roermond.
To complete this survey of the Dutch offerings in Paris, objects in pre-
cious metals chiefly came from the silver rms of Van Kempen and Sons in
Voorschoten and Begeer and Brom in Utrecht. Van Kempen was the oldest
and largest silver manufacturer in the Netherlands and had an imposing
artistic and artisan tradition.
34
The rm had been one of the few Dutch par-
ticipants at the Great Exhibition in London in 1851. Around 1900, this
company, alongside its traditional designs in historic styles, made products
Johan Thorn Prikker
(Workshop of Chris Wegerif,
Apeldoorn), oak bench, 1898.
C. A. Lion Cachet
(Scheltema & Holkema
Amsterdam), Rembrandt
portfolio, batik on linen
and parchment, 1899.
A. F. Gips (C. J. Begeer
silver factory, Utrecht),
silver coffee and tea
service, 1900.

in the then modern, floral international Art Nouveau style. Among the
items shown in Paris by C. J. Begeer, participating for the rst time at an
international exhibition, was a coffee and a tea service in a similar style
designed by the architect A. F. Gips. Several smaller silversmith companies
were also represented. The rm of Hoeker & Zoon, for example, displayed
exceptional designs by the metalworker and craftsman Jan Eisenloeffel, who
made strikingly simple tea services clearly influenced by Japanese applied
art.
35
Frans Zwollo showed pitchers, vases and dishes in silver and copper.
Decorative Art in Turin, 1902
The trend for artistic handcrafted products was evident throughout Europe.
Two years after Paris, Turin organized a major international exhibition
devoted to this modern decorative art form. International competition in
this eld was immense and the Netherlands decided that typically Dutch
should be the starting point for their entry. The nation had shown in Paris
that it had great capacity on this new territory, but in Turin it could demon-
strate that decent work of sober conception and good taste would in the
end be more valuable and enjoy a better reputation then the more pompous
and capricious work of our neighbours such, according to the organizing
committee, were also the opinions one could read in magazines.
36
The experienced Karel Sluyterman again designed the Netherlands
stand, but this time, at the express request of the other committee members,
it was in a completely different style. Now the design had to be plain and
30 Dutch Design
C. J. van der Hoef
(Pottery Amstelhoek,
Amsterdam), small bowl
(1902), vase (1906) and
saucer (190003).

restrained, in keeping with the new image with which the Netherlands
hoped to distinguish itself from all the anticipated excess of the other
nations pavilions. The truth is, however, that at the heart of this request
there also lay an extremely tight budget. With the help of an exhibition
stand made of wooden slats and canvas, an attempt was made to make a
virtue out of nancial necessity.
Despite the completely different objectives and approach, there were
still striking parallels with the Paris exhibition. Most space in Turin was
M. Duco Crop (P. Fentener
van Vlissingen & Co.
Helmond), hand-printed
cotton, c. 1896; photo from
Bouw-en Sierkunst, 1901.

again reserved for the Rozenburg and De Porceleyne Fles ceramics. In view
of the character of the exhibition, it comes as no surprise that the
Maastricht factories were still unrepresented. Rozenburg once more pulled
out all the stops with its eggshell porcelain, much sought after internation-
ally. Whether this work fell within the organizers objectives is a different
matter, since just how plain and simple were these rened decorative
objects? Nonetheless, Rozenburg was one of the few manufacturers to do
good business in Turin. Amstelhoek, however, a small pottery with its sim-
ple vases and cups by Chris van der Hoef and Lambert Zijl, did not go
unnoticed, while work by the potter W. C. Brouwer also sold rather well.
The Netherlands two largest silver manufacturers again participated,
although it was obvious that Begeer had not taken the aim to exhibit honest
and simple design too seriously. As well as two new, decorative Art
Nouveau vases, the Utrecht company again displayed the successful floral
decorated service by Gips. The metal workshop of Hoeker & Son submitted
work by Jan Eisenloeffel once more, while the traditional working silver-
smith Frans Zwollo again participated with richly chased, silver decorative
objects. Drawn towards Theosophy, Zwollo was now designing according to
geometric systems. Additionally inspired by Japan, this led to a highly per-
sonal design idiom. The Delft rm of Braat was present with objects of base
metal, while H. P. Berlage submitted a brass clock made by Becht and
Dijserinck of Amsterdam.
Again, as in Paris, the textile industry was poorly represented, although
considering the specic character of the Turin exhibition this is not so sur-
prising. One notable entry in this context, however, was by the Helmond
textile printers P. Fentener Van Vlissingen.
37
This rm showed modern
cretonnes by the artist Michel Duco Crop, inspired by English Arts and
Crafts fabrics. In 1894 when Crop made his rst design, Veth had translated
into Dutch Walter Cranes Claims of Decorative Arts, in which the mechanized
printing of cotton was lauded as an inevitable modern development. Thus
the Duco Crop-designed curtain fabrics for Van Vlissingen are probably the
earliest examples of a fundamental and deliberate collaboration between
artist and manufacturer in the Netherlands.
Four furniture companies were each invited to design a complete
room for Turin: these were J. B. Hillen, which once again displayed H. P.
Berlages robust designs; Arts and Crafts from The Hague, also present in
Paris; plus two recently founded companies, t Binnenhuis from Amsterdam
and Onder de Sint Maarten from Zaltbommel. The new rm of t Binnenhuis,
founded by Berlage in 1900 as a cooperative for the sale and design of
furniture and other applied arts, was intended as a downright provocation
32 Dutch Design

to Arts and Crafts.
38
As we have seen, Berlage
was among those who had levelled unusually
harsh and hostile comments at the Hague gallery.
Not only did he loathe the affectation of the
products on sale but he also condemned the
rms international and purely commercial basis.
In total contrast, t Binnenhuis was to propagate
in a non-commercial way the supposedly healthy
rational Dutch principles and thus challenge
the falseness of the un-Dutch products of Arts
and Crafts.
In setting up his own retail outlet, Berlage
had gained the backing of the Amsterdam jeweller
W. Hoeker, the book dealer H. Gerlings and the
Hague nancier Carel Henny. Through their new
company furniture by Berlage, as well as by
such designers as Willem Penaat and Jac. van
den Bosch, could be purchased or made to order.
Berlage made it known he wanted to design every-
day furniture for t Binnenhuis, products that were
affordable for ordinary people. His furniture makers were allowed to use only
straight pieces of native Dutch oak and Berlage asked them to leave the joints
clearly visible, even occasionally giving them decorative accents. Other
decoration was applied sparsely in shallow relief or with contrasting wood
inlay in the flat parts of the objects. Berlage believed ttings had to be sturdy
and clearly emphasize their specic function. He looked to early seventeenth-
century, Old Dutch (oud-Hollands) furniture design as his chief source of
H. P. Berlage (t Binnen huis,
Amsterdam), cherry-
wood chair with moquette
upholstery, c. 1900.
Jan Eisenloeffel
(Amstelhoek, Amsterdam),
copper enamelled tea
service, 1900.

inspiration. Honesty of materials, simplicity and rationality were no doubt
the most important starting-points of the Golden Age.
The vases, pots and dishes by Van der Hoef sold by t Binnenhuis were
traditionally made at Amstelhoek from native types of clay. They were decor -
ated with simple, flat, inlaid clay motifs in a contrasting colour or with
traditional ringeloor or slip decoration. Jan Eisenloeffels silver and copper
services were created from plain, geometric shapes rmly secured to each
other with rivets. The nished result was then decorated with unfussy lines,
simple openwork patterns or with inlaid decorative motifs in enamel. Frans
Zwollos metal objects were traditionally embossed and chiselled with stylized
natural motifs.
Within a few months it was already clear that these designs, mainly
traditionally handcrafted to lofty principles, were in practice far too expen-
sive for a wider public. Moreover, the cooperative principles on which t
Binnenhuis was based had proved unworkable. Most of the rms afliated
artists turned away from Berlage, blaming him for putting his own com-
mercial interests above those of the company. In fact, during the Turin
exhibition, apart from Berlage himself, only the furniture designer Jac. van
den Bosch was still ofcially attached to the company.
39
Since the Paris exhibition much had also changed at Arts and Crafts.
The designer Johan Thorn Prikker had left and in Turin the gallery displayed
a striking interior by Chris Wegerif, who originally was responsible only for
nancing the company. This self-taught designer had combined elements of
34 Dutch Design
C. Wegerif, hall at the
International Exhibition
of Decorative Arts in
Turin, 1902.

modern English and Austrian furniture design
in a delightful and eclectic manner. These costly,
very un-Dutch designs were decorated with linear
motifs of contrasting and expensive inlaid
woods. Wegerif completely ignored the dogmatic
Amsterdam designers who feared commercialism
besides, the foreign press was quite taken with
his designs.
The fourth complete interior was submitted
by Onder de Sint Maarten, a workshop and
selling outlet in Zaltbommel, set up just the
previous year, that sold furniture and copper
work in a style clearly inspired by Berlage and
his Binnenhuis.
40
Remarkably, the simple furni-
ture designs were by Karel Sluyterman, a designer
who had recently forsaken his earlier, effusive Art
Nouveau style.
Van Wisselingh did not have a complete
interior but submitted individual furniture designs.
Gerrit Dijsselhof was represented by, among
others, a dividing screen that was prized by the
reviewer of The Studio as one of the most note -
worthy of the Dutch exhibits: the grand
polyp tych, with several panels . . . on which are represented various
animals, such as roe deer, peacocks, cranes, storks, sh etc, admirably drawn
by Mr Dysselhoff, printed by the Batik process, and nished off with remark-
ably clever silk embroideries by Mme Dysselhoff .
41
Carel Lion Cachet had a
very expensive chair and tea-table inlaid with ivory and ebony, with the seat
and back of the chair covered in costly batik parchment. Karel de Bazel
showed some individual items of furniture that had been designed for t
Binnenhuis. It is likely that the conflict over policy at t Binnenhuis had led
to De Bazel not showing his designs in Turin under that rms name.
As well as entries from companies, much work by individual artists
could be seen in Turin. Committee member Philip Zilcken had made sure
that entries were also received from graphic designers. Thus Theo van
Hoytemas exquisite lithographs for the childrens book Uilengeluk (Owls
Fortune) could be admired, as well as a lithographed calendar by Theo
Nieuwenhuis, posters by Jan Toorop and book covers by Johan Thorn
Prikker, Antoon Derkinderen and Chris Lebeau. The last submitted a beau-
tiful batik velvet copy of the novel De Stille Kracht (The Hidden Force) by
Jan Toorop, poster
advertising Delft Salad Oil,
1895.

Louis Couperus. One of Toorops posters submitted was an advertisement
for the Calv Oil Factory, Delft, executed in delicate colours in a curvilinear
style and featuring two women with long hair and elaborate garments pour-
ing oil into a large bowl of salad. After this poster appeared in 1895, Art
Nouveau in the Netherlands was often mockingly dubbed the salad-oil
style and the entry itself is not exactly an example of the organizers
declared desire for honest Dutch design.
Many of the artists participating in Turin had begun their careers as
painters. Thorn Prikker and Toorop, for instance, turned to the decorative
arts only during the 1890s. This was more than simply a shift in artistic direc-
tion: the artists had undergone a development that had consciously led them
to want to use their artistic talent for the benet of the community.
42
In this
they had been inspired by the romantic ideals of the Gothic Revival and the
social ideas of the English reformist movement. Specically, they had come
into contact with the social and political ideals of John Ruskin and William
Morris via Henry van de Velde and other Belgian artists.
Gerrit Dijsselhof had taken a similar route. After some years at the
Academy of Fine Art, The Hague, he enrolled in 1884 as a pupil at the
Amsterdam Rijksnormaalschool, which, like the National School of
Applied Arts, was located in the Rijksmuseum. Here he trained as an art
instructor. It was quickly apparent that the decorative arts appealed more
to Dijsselhof. The classes of Pierre Cuypers and Jacob de Kruyff inspired
him to study medieval and Eastern art and ornament, and the romantic
image of the Middle Ages he then acquired formed the basis for his high
ideals regarding the artists duty to society. This had been an era when
artists and artisans still worked with great conviction on major joint
projects, peacefully and in an environment untainted by commercialism.
Thus, Dijsselhof saw his exciting watercolours of sh, with which he made
his debut in 1891, more as decorative applications for a wall than as
autonomous art works. Three years later, in 1894, Dijsselhof devised the
illustrations and the exceptional cover for Veths translation of Walter
Cranes Claims of Decorative Arts. Shortly after its publication, Dijsselhof
was commissioned to decorate a room in a doctors house in Amsterdam.
For this he produced batik and embroidered wall panels depicting stylized
birds and deer, wood panelling and doors with highly original flat-relief
carving, as well as the rooms furniture. After various diversions and modi -
cations, this unique interior was nally installed as the Dijsselhof Room at
the Gemeentemuseum in The Hague in 1935. It is the earliest Dutch exam-
ple of an interior in the modern style in which all the components are in
keeping with one another.
36 Dutch Design

G. T. Dijsselhof, chimney
piece with large water-
colour, ve cut and painted
wooden panels and mirror,
1892.

Admired by many of his contemporaries as much for his immense
literary and historic knowledge as for his serious and idealist attitude,
Dijsselhof was responsible for a shift in thought among several fellow
artists. His decision to make completely handcrafted products as a matter
of principle also changed their manner of working. They too were now con-
vinced that their products should not only be available for a rich elite.
Everyone should be able to experience the purifying influence of the art of
everyday life. Simple domestic objects did not really have to be decorated
with expensive ornament. The artistic aspect and the just as important
personality of the artist were also recognizable in the simple painted motifs
of a vase, in the ordinary carved ornament of a wooden cupboard and even
in the hammered surface of a copper dish. Thus, mass-produced industrial
products, which had none of these attributes, were loathed by them as
being cold, impersonal and art-less objects.
Break or Continuity: Berlage and the Forming of an Image
Was the Dutch entry in Turin successful? Did it conform to what the
organizers wanted and did the new Dutch image come across sufciently?
The reviewer of the Dutch section in The Studio (see above) observed that
the Dutch were more hostile to the naturalistic decorations than any
other people and stated: With very view exceptions, a pronounced ten-
dency will everywhere be found for geometrical forms, combined with
certain decorative elements culled from the barbaric art of the savage
races of the remote East.
43
The Netherlands press itself was very happy
overall. In a detailed account of the exhibition in the monthly current
affairs magazine Elseviers Maandschrift, one critic wrote: when the
department was nished it was exactly as it should have been, plain and
understated. No screaming nonsense with shrill colours and whimsical
lines, but unpretentious and un compromising, with warm tones in calm
rooms.
44
In the foreign press, however, there was little mention of this
particular Dutch quality instead, the more opulent art objects were
admired. The sales accounts showed that foreign visitors were just as
interested in Rozenburg eggshell porcelain and Chris Wegerif s designs
for Arts and Crafts as in Berlages plain and robust furniture, Amstelhoeks
and Willem Brouwers archaic pottery or Jan Eisenloeffels simple tea and
coffee services.
Long after the Turin exhibition, the Netherlands continued to cherish
the image of a successful reversal in the applied arts in favour of a more
simple and restrained Dutch New Art (Nieuwe Kunst). What is more, this
38 Dutch Design

has been carried over into design literature to this very day. This is proba-
bly related to an all too easy and barely critical analysis of the contemporary
debate about design of that era. Only recently have people begun to realize
how art historians have largely allowed themselves to be led by the prejudi-
cial way in which Dutch critics discussed Nieuwe Kunst at the time. It is now
becoming evident just how much the image forming during this period was
manipulated by its major theorist and spokesperson, H. P. Berlage. Just
how new the supposed Nieuwe Kunst was is also open to debate. Is it not
more appropriate to describe this movement, with its nostalgia for old
crafts and medieval ideals, as old or at least old fashioned?
H. P. Berlage was trained according to the classic principles of
Gottfried Semper.
45
He was even one of the few Dutch students to attend
the Polytechnikum in Zrich (from 1875 to 1878), where Semper himself
taught until just before Berlages arrival. Consequently, his earliest designs
in the 1880s are distinguished by an abundance of Renaissance motifs. In
the 1890s Berlages views and style evolved slowly, partly under the impact
of Pierre Cuypers and the writings of Eugne-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc,
and later the ideas of the English Arts and Crafts artists. Thus the designer
became increasingly convinced of the importance of the constructive prin-
ciples of Gothic architecture and furniture from the Dutch Golden Age.
From 1898 it was possible to see the concrete
result of Berlages desire for greater simplicity
in design, linked to his growing abhorrence of
useless detailing, rising skywards in the form
of his uncompromising, linear and sparsely
decorated Koopmansbeurs (Stock Exchange) in
Amsterdam. Through his involvement in this
acclaimed project of all manner of artists, who
provided sculptures, ceramic panels, paintings
and even inscriptions for the exterior and interior,
Berlage promoted a new form of Gemeenschaps -
kunst (community art).
46
During the same period Berlage designed
two residences in which his ideas on interior and
furniture design were expressed in virtually the
same demonstrative manner. The rst house, the
Henny Villa in The Hague, was for the banker
Carel Henny, who later nanced t Binnenhuis,
and his family. The other house, Parkwijck, was
built in Amsterdam for Leo Simons, the idealistic
H. P. Berlage, boudoir of
the Villa Henny, The Hague,
c. 1900.

publisher of the Werldbibliotheek (World Library).
47
Both houses were spec-
tacular due to their unconventional asymmetric design and the functional
placing of the windows. The Henny Villa was remarkable for its yellow roof,
while Parkwijck had a striking chimney of unusual design. Berlages new
and rational design principles were much more to the fore in the interiors
of both houses. Thus the living rooms epitomized the requisite honesty of
materials with their exposed brick walls and furniture designed in an
uncompromising and Spartan style. We do not know what Leo Simons and
his wife thought of such an interior, but Carel Hennys wife and children did
not nd their new home that comfortable or cosy, even though Mrs Henny
was allowed by Berlage to plaster the walls in her own boudoir and to
furnish it with a settee, some small foot-cushions and a Persian carpet on
the floor, and even to hang one on the wall.
Berlage regularly set out his views in great detail in print. They rst
appeared in book form in 1904 in Over stijl in bouwen meubelkunst (On
Style in Architecture and Furniture Design) and some twenty other publi-
cations followed. All his published works have undoubtedly contributed
to Berlage being considered the leading gure of the reformist movement
in Dutch design. Time and again this version of design history has been
afrmed: The guardian of new Dutch architecture and applied art; the
founding father of new construction; the synthetician who unravelled and
ltered the past in his own powerful spirit and brought it together in a new
unity, was how, in 1926, the designer Harm Ellens linked the supposed
revival of Dutch applied arts primarily to Berlage.
48
In 1929 the writer Jo de
Jong gave Berlage a place of honour in her survey De nieuwe richting in de
kunstnijverheid in Nederland (The New Direction of Applied Art in the
Netherlands). Looking back at the turn of the century, she wrote:
At this time, while all design outside the Netherlands, be it
furniture or book covers, buildings or chandeliers, is overrun
with the eternal coiling, whiplash lines of Art Nouveau or Van
de Velde style, Berlage exposes bare materials and honest con -
struction and puts forward functionality and simplicity as the
rst requirements of a domestic object.
49
It was only in the late twentieth century that this personalized his-
toriography based on a deliberately constructed image was put into
perspective. In particular, Berlages image as the great Messiah who
revealed and perfected the process of design reform in the Netherlands
begun by Pierre Cuypers was gradually laid to rest.
50
Art historians have
40 Dutch Design

often hardly looked beyond the writings by Berlage himself, or those of his
kindred spirits and devotees, just as the various biased discussions about
the Turin exhibition were followed in a relatively uncritical manner. So
again the question arises: how innovative was Dutch decorative design in
Turin? Was there really a fundamental distinction between the entries in
Paris and Turin, as contemporaries would like us to believe? Was it a ques-
tion of a breakthrough around 1900, or rather one of continuity?
We have established that in a certain sense 1900 represents more the
apex of a development that had already been under way for a few decades,
in which a rethinking of artisanship and the democratization of the
applied arts was pivotal. Thus 1900 chiefly marks the beginning of a period
in which the design debate was led more by artists, architects and skilled
artisans and less by industrialists, technicians and consumers. It was an
age in which the artist-craftsman was central and in which, for the time
being at least, there was absolutely no sign of a new, twentieth-century
industrial design style. In other words, while industrial products were
undoubtedly being produced, even at a steadily increasing rate, for the
moment their design was hardly a theme for serious consideration in the
worlds of art and architecture.
The Society for the Elevation of Craftsmanship
It was not just the romantics and applied artists drawn to medieval ideals
who wanted a return to the values of the Dutch crafts tradition. The decline
of small workshops and the disappearance of crafts people was also lament-
ed by other groups in Dutch society, and the government itself had begun
to see it as a major social and economic problem.
For these reasons the Society for the Elevation of Craftsmanship
(Vereeniging tot Vereedeling van het Ambacht, vva) was founded in 1897 on
the initiative of Arti et Industriae.
51
The ever active Boersma had been
appointed chairman of Arti et Industriae in 1890, the rst Dutch society
aimed at bringing art, industry and architecture closer together. Initially
founded as a local Hague organization in 1884, it became a national society
after Boersma joined the board. He saw several basic characteristics of the
traditional Dutch work ethic united in the artisan, namely a sense of respon-
sibility, versatility and autonomy. New, straightforward, mechanized
devices were welcome as far as he was concerned, and even essential if work
done by hand was not to degenerate into a mind-numbing competitor of
industry. The Netherlands Society for Trade and Industry, at that time the
major society for manufacturers, trade representatives, engineers, lawyers

and politicians, supported the new society both nancially and by being
represented by certain of its leading members. Generally it was viewed as
socially important that crafts people should continue to exist as a kind of
buffer between the ruling class and the steadily growing proletariat. Thus,
woodworkers, ornamental painters, potters, Delftware painters and silver-
smiths were increasingly regarded as a typical and indispensable group
within Dutch society. On the basis of these social considerations alone, it
was felt that crafts should be protected and cherished.
The vvacame up with a plan in which workers could take a master exam-
ination similar to the medieval guild system. This was fully supported by
various established designers, including Karel de Bazel, Antoon Derkinderen
and Pierre Cuypers. Between 1900 and 1907 De Bazel, as a member of the
vva technical committee, often drew up the designated assignments for
the master examination for furniture makers, including a mirror frame from
mahogany with inlay work, or an armchair with a curved back.
The system was in place for only a few years, during which about one
hundred craftsmen a year took the master examination. Not everyone was
enamoured with the idea by any means. The artist Richard Roland Holst,
for example, expressed his criticism in the socialist magazine De Kroniek,
and its editor J. F. Ankersmit closed ranks behind him. Both felt that it ulti-
mately made little difference whether you had machine or handcrafted
production. What mattered most was improving the lot of workers. In the
end the inevitable modernization of industrialized production meant that
the vvas idealistic plan never came to anything.
The Founding of the VANK
Developments in design education and the attendant emancipation of
the artist-craftsman led shortly after 1900 to the establishing of their own
professional body. Designers felt increasingly less at home in painters
societies or architectural associations, to which they had often belonged
until then. So in 1904 the Association for Crafts and Industrial Art
(Vereniging voor Ambachts- en Nijverheidskunst, vank) was founded, the
rst professional body for designers in the Netherlands.
52
Most of the
artists and designers who joined the association were those who carried
out work in their own studio, or had their designs made up in small work-
shops where they usually had direct control of the production process.
Pattern designers in carpet factories or cotton print-works, Delftware
painters in pottery companies and cabinetmakers in furniture factories
were not as yet members.
42 Dutch Design

Chairman Klaas van Leeuwen had origin -
ally had the ambition to become a painter, but
towards the end of the nineteenth century he
met Mathieu Lauweriks and Karel de Bazel and
was struck by their reformist views on design.
53
Along with De Bazel and Oosschot, Van Leeuwen
set up the small-scale furniture workshop De Ploeg
in 1904, while also teaching at various applied
arts schools. In 1910, however, tired of the many
conflicts with his colleagues and disillusioned by
the scant return on all his efforts, Van Leeuwen
turned his back on applied arts and began paint-
ing again. Other founding members included
Jac. van den Bosch, who was also assistant
manager of t Binnenhuis, Amsterdam;
54
Chris
Lebeau, who, with Jan Eisenloeffel, had founded
De Woning, a production collective and selling
outlet as well as an offshoot of t Binnenhuis;
55
typographer Sjoerd de Roos, who would become
the leading type designer of the rst half of the
twentieth century in the Netherlands and whose
Hollandsche Mediaeval of 1912 was the rst com-
plete Dutch font;
56
and Herman Hana and
R.W.P. de Vries, who were both decorative artists but ultimately wrote
about and lent critical support to the ideals of the new applied arts.
57
Willem Penaat
(De Woning, Amsterdam),
Farmers Chair, 1899.
Herman Hana, frontispiece
of De Jonge Kunst, maga -
zine of the VANK, 1905.

Finally, there was the industrious Willem Penaat, who trained as a design
teacher and became head of Amstelhoeks furniture workshop in 1900,
becoming involved with t Binnenhuis in this capacity, and then joined De
Woning as a co-worker.
58
He was one of the few designers who, with his ver-
sion of the traditional Culemburg peasant chair, took seriously the aim of
making affordable, well-designed, machine-produced furniture. Within the
vank, after a few turbulent early years of internal friction, Penaats level-
headed and decisive chairmanship managed to bring the conflicting views
and totally different personalities of its members into line. He also did use-
ful work within vank as a member of the Committee for Artistic Ownership
and was involved in settling issues relating to plagiarism and design protec-
tion. His efforts in this led to the groundbreaking Copyright Act of 1912.
The ideals of the founders of the vank were expressed in De Kroniek by
the socialist journalist and politician P. L. Tak.
59
He described the group of
designers as artists and forerunners who, in tandem and solidarity with
the socialist movement, proclaimed the dawning of a new age. With their
striving for truth, honesty and realism in their designs, they rejected the
spiritless historic styles that, according to Tak, no longer belonged to the
modern age. He also mentioned the success of Berlages Beurs and, allied to
this, the clay pots, brass and simple furniture he had no doubt seen in t
Binnenhuis. To him these were products with a logical construction, mean-
ingful lineation and harmonious dimensions. He predicted that there would
be many problems in putting across these new design principles since the
wider public was not yet ready for them. He also admitted that it was impos-
sible to make good, simple designs for people on a tight budget. Thus Tak
gave a political dimension to the new movement in applied arts he recog-
nized a patently obvious resistance to capitalism. For these reasons, it was a
matter of conscience for the artist-designer whether to use machines or not;
by doing so one ran the risk of becoming a capitalist manager of a factory.
Less politically charged, but just as idealistic and impassioned, were
the words of Pierre Cuypers at the opening of the vanks rst national exhi-
bition at the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, in 1911. The elevation of
craftsmanship and industry by bracketing them together with art should be
the aim of the society, he believed. Every product could be an art work pro-
viding it was good, true and beautiful: good if it could be used for the
purpose for which it was made; true if the design properly expressed this
purpose, and beautiful if pleasing to the eye.
60
While most of the industrial artists who joined the vank in 1904 still
worked according to traditional methods, the organizations two-part
name was not entirely misleading. The need to create better conditions for
44 Dutch Design

working with industry was certainly a major issue from the start. As early as
March 1905 the board member Herman Hana had broached this important
subject, feeling that his fellow board member Klaas van Leeuwen was far too
negative about machines. Hana regarded the machine expressly as a tool of
the modern age. He argued that machinalism, as he described the new
machine-based aestheticism, should also have repercussions for decoration:
an ornament machine, based on a kaleidoscope and a projector, was the
result of this idea. In 1910 Hana invested all his money in the rst Dutch
house completely made from concrete, an experiment he carried out with
a cousin from the United States and with aesthetic advice from Berlage.
Although the project was a success, it was a nancial disaster.
61
The vanks objectives included serving the interests of its members
and the professionalization of the eld. Repeatedly confronted with the
cheap imitations of their designs by more mechanized rms, the struggle
that eventually led to the establishment of the Copyright Act in 1912 was
considered a success. Among its other duties the vank also sought to draw
up better regulations for competitions and improve design education
through the publication of a trade journal, yearbooks, lectures and exhibi-
tions, and by promoting its views on other social issues with one voice.
The backgrounds and ideals of its members, however, were to remain
divergent for as long as the organization existed. Not all members were as
politically aware and not all shared to the same extent the romantic, social
idealism projected by Tak or Cuypers. Alongside members who regarded
the vank as part of the socialist democratic movement were others who saw
it primarily as a modern trade union to serve their interests. Yet member-
ship always remained low: in the rst year this was 85 and never rose above
300. The rst design exhibition in the Stedelijk Museum, which ran for
six weeks in 1911, attracted only 3,500 visitors; a sharp contrast to the tens
of thousands of people drawn to the major industrial exhibitions in the
second half of the nineteenth century.
The possibly exaggerated image of the importance of the vank and the
radical changes it supposedly brought about is partly due to De nieuwe richt-
ing in de kunstnijverheid, written by the textile artist Jo de Jong to mark the
associations twenty-fth anniversary in 1929. As she explains in the
Preface, the book was intended as a guide for teaching modern applied
arts. It was apparently felt necessary to provide future designers with a
solid historical and ideological basis by giving them an overview of twenty-
ve years of crafts and industrial art. In her zeal to give the developments
more weight, she sketches a wide chasm between the nineteenth and twen-
tieth centuries. In this respect the difference between this and the Arti et

Industriae jubilee book, written in 1909 by Karel Sluyterman to mark its
twenty-fth anniversary, is striking. Sluyterman more realistically recog-
nized design in the early twentieth century as a logical continuation of
developments that had already begun in the mid-nineteenth century:
When, almost at the same time as in the other European nations, after the
London Exhibition of 1851, one cheerfully looked for effective means to
improve the industrial arts, even in our country the rst signs of a revival
were revealed.
62
The vank certainly set the tone for the design debate in the early twen-
tieth century, since it was its colourful members who made their presence
felt, who taught at the schools of applied arts, who exhibited their work,
were written about and often enthusiastically put pen to paper themselves.
However, the hundreds of draughtsman in the burgeoning industry, the
engineers with new ideas and the many foreign designers whose designs
were purchased by Dutch companies formed a much bigger group. In one
sense they were the actual precursors of the later industrial designers.
Advertisements had become increasingly important since the turn of the
century and determined the streetscape. The rst Dutch cars were seen on
the road and the number of bicycles increased exponentially. An increasing
variety of kitchen and household goods could be bought that were partly
from Dutch manufacturers and at some point had been conceived by some-
one. Then the rst electric ovens, vacuum cleaners, irons and heaters began
to appear on the market. These too had been designed. The mushrooming
chain stores were stuffed with tempting fashionable gadgets, which at a time
Interior of a shop for light-
ing and electric domestic
articles, 1913.
46 Dutch Design

of increasing prosperity were eagerly snapped up by many shoppers.
63
All
this determined the image of the Netherlands at the turn of the twentieth
century far more than the hand-painted tea services, the beaten ashtrays and
batik tea cosies of the vank members.
Andr Vlaanderen, page of
advertisements in Het Huis
Oud en Nieuw, 1905.

Jacob Jongert (NV De
Vereenigde Blikfabrieken,
Amsterdam), enamelled
advertisement plate for
Van Nelles tobacco, 1925.

During the rst half of the twentieth century most people in the
Netherlands thought everyday objects, whether handcrafted or machine-
made, were worth consideration only if they could be called art products
as well.
1
This idea was not specic to the Netherlands. When the German
Work Federation (Deutscher Werkbund) was founded in Munich in 1907,
people speculated on how far the artists influence should be allowed to
extend. Should the shape of an object be determined by the designers indi-
vidual artistic insight or should its appearance be dictated by factory
manufacturing processes and economic considerations? These questions
were also pivotal in the confrontation that took place in 1914 at the large
Werkbund exhibition in Cologne, where Henry van de Velde, who champi-
oned the cause of the artist, was taken to task by Hermann Muthesius, who
thought that technical and economic considerations should win the day.
After this the members of the Deutscher Werkbund who argued for more
industrial influence soon gained the upper hand.
In the Netherlands this ideological debate dragged on for much longer
because the country had nothing like a fully developed consumer-goods
industry, nor did the idealistic prospect of amalgamating art and design
suffer the brutal disruption caused by the horrors of the First World War, in
which the Netherlands remained neutral. Tens of thousands fled into the
country from Belgium. The difcult situation challenged entrepreneurs to
nd new business partners and even new products.
2
Dutch designers could
dream on in peace, which led to many continuing to focus on the arts
component as an essential factor in making and judging products until well
into the 1930s.
2
Design as Art, 191540
49

Dutch Design 50
Eisenloeffel versus Zwart
Just how far removed views on the role of art in design were from each other
is evident from an historic public confrontation on the issue between two
leading Dutch designers. In 1929, during the twenty-fth jubilee celebra-
tions of the vank, Jan Eisenloeffel ardently defended the interests of art
while Piet Zwart proved to be a hardened supporter of a more matter-of-fact
and industrial approach.
3
Jan Eisenloeffel, a metalwork artist, had a very unusual career before
1929. At the start of the century he had been one of the rst designers to
enlist the aid of machines to make simple domestic objects that everyone
could afford. At the time, his uncompromisingly designed brass and silver
tea sets, inspired by Japanese craftsmen, were already being manufactured
on a small scale by Amstelhoek, using a spinning lathe. They were rst sold
by t Binnenhuis, and later by De Woning.
The few months that Eisenloeffel spent in Munich in 1908, working for
the Vereinigte Werksttte as head of its metal department, made him
change his ideas completely. There he was introduced to working methods
in a large, rigidly organized rm, with a strict division of labour for each
stage of the production process, and came to realize what cooperating with
industry really entailed: handing in drawings and designs, complying with
the limitations of existing machinery and an almost total absence of indi-
vidual freedom to experiment. When he also faced a few cases of alleged
plagiarism of his characteristic sober tea services in the Netherlands,
Eisenloeffel decided to return and settled in the small village of Blaricum,
where he devoted himself to making artistic decorative objects at his own
studio: expensive, luxury items ordered exclusively by wealthy clients. The
richly decorated lamps he made in the 1920s for the Rotterdam shipowner
A. W. Goudriaan are outstanding examples of this type of work.
4
Eisenloeffel considered these as nothing less than true works of art.
At the jubilee gathering of the vank in 1929 he spoke convincingly about
artistic vision and the enthusiasm and emotion experienced by the
artist designing products. He had captured this mental image as it came
into his head by scribbling it down feverishly onto a sheet of paper. He
even went as far as denying the existence of industrial art. He was by then
convinced that one had to choose between industry and art. A combination
of the two was impossible: an industrial form, after all, is a machine-made
product created in the same way as a pair of scissors, an oar or a racing car.
The task of the designer working in industry, whom he thought should
not be described as an artist, was to design forms from which ideally

Design as Art, 191540 51
functioning domestic objects could be made in the shortest possible space
of time, with a minimum of materials and with the lowest consumption of
manpower and mechanized energy. He felt that the true artist should
have nothing to do with this type of manufacture, since it was corrupted
by competition and cost-price considerations, but should turn his atten-
tion instead to the world of art, where he would have far more chance of
nding his true self and where he could become a real person; after this
revelation he would be able to use his hands (those miraculous tools) to
testify to his new identity.
Piet Zwart represented the diametrically opposed viewpoint, undoubt-
edly influenced by the functionalist architects he knew so well, the ideas
spread by the German Bauhaus (where he spent some weeks teaching in
1929) and by international avant-garde typographers.
5
He professed to pin
his hopes on technology and industry and attached little importance to art.
In his speech Zwart rst wiped the floor with the supporters of the dated and
naive Arts and Crafts ideal, many of whom were vank members themselves,
and then dismissed the semi-modern enthusiasts, whom he scathingly
referred to as maiden aunts, and a few acquaintances living in the leafy sub-
urbs, for still admiring a sort of machine romanticism. For Zwart true
technique was set to enrich the world with new materials and new methods
of work that would force people to be inventive. This was a process that man
could only direct, because the primal rhythm of human evolution was inex-
orable. Zwart did not see design as a question of art or taste but rather as an
expression of the designers attitude to life. Above all else it was the artists
duty to identify with developments in modern society.
His own working methods are the best possible illustration of this
standpoint. During this period Zwart produced his rst revolutionary typo-
graphical products for the Dutch Cable Factory (Nederlandse Kabelfabriek)
in Delft. These were commercial catalogues made by the most modern meth-
ods in which dynamic photography was combined with a totally new form
of typography. The inspiration for his new idiom came partly from the Dada
experiments of Theo van Doesburg, the German artist Kurt Schwitters, the
Russian artist El Lissitzky and the German designer Jan Tschichold.
6
In 1924
Zwart and Berlage had together designed the now famous yellow, pressed-
glass breakfast set for the Leerdam glassworks. While it was a standardized
product that could be mass produced, its design was not very functional,
because the handles on the heavy tea set had no opening for the nger.
Zwart designed a set of glasses that were easier to use and even more suited
to industrial production, called Anova. These were made in 1928 for the
Crystal Association Ltd (Kristalunie) in Maastricht. Less well known, but no

Jan Eisenloeffel, pendant
lamp, tombac and translu-
cent enamel, for A.J.M.
Goudriaan, 19224.
Piet Zwart, tempo 2
cig arette packet, 19324.

H. P. Berlage and Piet
Zwart (Leerdam glass-
works), yellow pressed-
glass breakfast service,
1924.
less illustrative of his ideas, are the simple domestic objects made from an
entirely new synthetic material called Lignostone, composed of wood and
asphalt, that he developed in the same year for a rm in Ter Apel.
7
Jan Eisenloeffel and Piet Zwart represented the outer extremes of a
wide range of views about the role of art in design during the rst half of
the twent ieth century. The major difference between the German and
Dutch public debate on the position of art in modern design was the tim-
ing: in Germany this took place in 1914; in the Netherlands it was fteen
years later.
The Arts in the VANK
Within the ranks of the vank, discussion about the position of art and the
role of the artist in industry had started earlier. This intensied in 1913
after the level-headed and determined furniture designer Willem Penaat
took over the chairmanship from Jac. van den Bosch. He was supported by
an equally dynamic colleague, Cornelis van der Sluys, who was secretary of
the association. Both supported more close-knit cooperation between art
and industry.
8
Penaat and Van der Sluys were typical transitional gures, with their
roots in the idealistic, artisan tradition, but sympathetic to modern produc-
tion methods. While they were more inclined to design plain, oak furniture
similar to Berlages, using simple constructions with sparse decoration,
they did not shrink from using machines to produce them: Penaats
machine-made peasant chair was being produced as far back as 1899. In
essence this was a very simple, traditional chair with a rush seat, like those
seen in Dutch seventeenth-century paintings and that had been mass pro-
duced in the nineteenth century by chair manufacturers in Culemborg and
the surrounding area. Penaat simplied the chair even more by curving the
back of the chair outwards, which made it a great deal more comfortable.
The only decoration consisted of a few beads in the rungs and at the
bottom of the chair legs.
Van der Sluys, who started his career around 1900 with Arts and Crafts
in The Hague, soon after began designing for the German wallpaper and
linoleum industry.
9
In so doing he was following the lead of Michel Duco
Crop, one of the rst Dutch artists to work as a designer and producer of
industrially manufactured furnishing fabrics. From 1910 onwards Van der
Sluys worked for a number of newspapers and weekly magazines, which
gave him regular opportunities to air his modern ideas on affordable,
machine-made, yet responsible design. In 1921 he published an informative

Dutch Design 54
survey entitled Binnenhuiskunst (Interior Art), followed in 1925 by
Machinale textielkunst (Mechanized Textile Art) and in 1931 by Onze Woning
en haar inrichting (Our Home and its Interior).
Exhibitions, both in terms of organizing and participating, were a good
way for the vank to generate publicity and achieve its aims (for the rst
presentation of the association members work, at the Stedelijk Museum in
1911, see chapter One). The fact that a museum of art was chosen as the loca-
tion says much about the ambitions and pretensions of the designers who
were members of the association. On show in the Stedelijk Museum were
complete interiors by Jac. van den Bosch, H. P. Berlage and H. J. Walenkamp,
which had all been displayed at the Exposition Universelle et Internationale
in Brussels the previous year.
10
These were complemented by work from
designers such as Lambertus Zwiers and Cornelis van der Sluys. The poster
that Walter van Diedenhoven made for the occasion is equally illustrative of
the lofty ideals promoted by the associations members. It shows a woman
with arms outstretched (an allegory for art?). In one hand she holds an orb,
from which shafts of light radiate down to revitalize a flower. In the other
hand is a bleeding heart, from which drops of blood trickle down to regen-
erate a flower. The message of its caption, Exhibition of Works of Art in the
Stedelijk Museum, must presumably be that knowledge and passion are
capable of regenerating the industrial arts.
Under Penaat and Van der Sluys, however, the association did not
eschew commerce. They created a Publicity and Propaganda Committee and
in 1921 set up the Institute for Decorative and Industrial Art (Instituut voor
Sier en Nijverheidskunst, ISN), where the business world and government
could nd information about prospective designers. Moreover, at vanks
instigation, a National Exhibition Committee was established in 1922, in
which the most important architectural associations were also represented.
In forming this committee the association was also assured of a stronger
position at large international presentations, the rst of these being the
Exposition Internationale des Arts Dcoratifs Industriels et Modernes in
Paris in 1925.
vank was offered two galleries for its permanent use in the Stedelijk
Museum in 1932. A specially created committee was appointed to develop a
continuous programme of exhibitions, where work presented by associa-
tion members was also for sale.
11
The vank twice organized exhibitions on
advertising in the Stedelijk Museum, in 1917 and 1935. On both occasions
the title chosen for the exhibition was Art and Advertising and at both an
attempt was made to dene the position of the designer-artist within this
new, modern eld. To what extent could advertising actually be called art?

Walter van Dieden-
hoven, poster for an
exhibition of the VANK
in the Stedelijk Museum
in Amsterdam, 1911.
Machiel Wilmink, cover of
De Reclame, 1925.
And how could one produce advertisements meeting aesthetically appro-
priate standards without selling out to industry?
12
These questions had rst been posed at the end of the nineteenth
century in response to the posters made for the Delft oil factory (for Jan
Toorops poster for Turin in 1902, see chapter One). The factorys director,
J. C. van Marken, was a man with a keen social conscience. The artistic
engraved plates commissioned from Richard Roland Holst, Jac. van Zon,
Carel Lion Cachet, George Hendrik Breitner and Theo Nieuwenhuis should
also be considered. Not only was Toorops print criticized, but the painter
Breitners design came in for a great deal of censure too. His choice of sub-
ject was accused of being arbitrary (impressionistically painted horses) and
of having been chosen to suit himself rather than the product. But in fact
almost all the posters show that the artists were novices in this new eld.
Richard Roland Holst, in his speech at the opening of the exhibition in
1917, addressed the question of whether an advertisement should scream
out at you or merely convey a quiet message. At the opening in 1935, how-
ever, the then chairman of the association, J. R. van Royen, observed that
these two viewpoints had now been integrated and that the aim of making
advertisements that were both eye-catching and beautiful had already
been realized.
13

Dutch Design 56
A number of people commissioning publicity work thought it was
important that good advertising met the required artistic standards. Those
generous in handing out commissions included not only Van Marken at the
Delft Oil Factory, but also the directors of the Van Nelle factories and Van
Berkelss Patent in Rotterdam, the glassworks in Leerdam, the Bruynzeel
Company (timber) in Zaandam, the lamp factory Philips in Eindhoven, var-
ious shipping companies, the railways, and the Dutch Trade Fair. According
to the design critic W. F. Gouwe in 1930, however, the designers often com-
plained about continued censuring and pressing of all sorts of require ments
that got the grit out of the design long before the production itself was
started.
14
Nonetheless an advertising sector was established, and as early
as 1921 the journal De Reclame replaced its more idealistic predecessor De
Bedrijfsreclame. The new journal was much more realistic about advertising
in a modern capitalistic society, the art of making a big noise, as Jo de Jong
put it in 1929.
15
Even though industrial artists continued to think of it as art,
they recognized that the commercial message had to be reduced to its
essence, instantly legible as people whizzed by it in the tram.
Yearbooks and Applied Arts in the Netherlands
An important platform for discussion about the role of art in design was the
series of vank yearbooks, published between 1919 and 1932 by W. L. and
J. Brusse in Rotterdam with the nancial support of the Dutch government.
In addition to photos of new work by members (and non-members), the
yearbooks were full of contemplative as well as critical articles written by
the members themselves, as well as contributions from outsiders that were
thought to be of interest. For the present-day reader the style is sometimes
too florid and verbose, but usually a clear picture is given of how the design-
ers task was conceived and the place that art was meant to take in his work.
When it came to these subjects the writers had very lofty ideals, but they
did not always see eye to eye.
The architect and furniture designer Jo van der Mey, for example, in an
article entitled Modern Furniture Art from the rst of the associations year-
books (1919), describes the exact requirements a modern artistic piece of
furniture is expected to meet.
16
In bombastic style, he launches into a criti-
cism of the designs produced by the rationalists, which in his view were too
greatly influenced by the intellect. A piece of furniture, in Van der Meys
opinion, should primarily be an object of feeling, should invoke emotion
and should even offer support and comfort. These elements were entirely
absent in designs by Berlage, Dijsselhof, Lion Cachet and Nieuwenhuis,

Four VANK yearbooks
(W. L. en J. Brusses
publishers Rotterdam),
covers designed by:
J.L.M. Lauweriks (1922),
N. J. van de Vecht (19234)
and V. Huszar (1929).
whom Van der Mey considered to be among those who aspired to pure con-
struction and true craftsmanship. They may indeed have made beautifully
designed furniture, but the emotion was missing. The main culprit in Van der
Meys opinion was socialism, purely materialistic and governed by ideas
aimed solely at improving the working and living conditions of the labouring
classes. If this was the way these designers thought then they could never be
inspired to design furniture that would trigger emotional feelings. Another
unhelpful factor, however, according to Van der Mey, was the Philistine atti-
tude towards art prevalent in the Netherlands. The Dutch were interested
only in trade and making a prot: Wouldnt it be wonderful if the ships
roaming the Seven Seas could present a good image of Dutch artistic abil -
ity! He must have had Lion Cachet in mind when he said this since he had
already been involved in the interior design of some seven liners.
In that same yearbook a very different tale was told in Industry and
Art by the director of the the Leerdam glassworks, P. M. Cochius, in his
assessment of the rst results of the collaboration between his glassworks
and the artists Karel de Bazel and Cornelis de Lorm.
17
The simple sets of
glasses they had designed were admired by the critics and were selling well.
In Cochiuss view, bringing in artists was part of modern management, just
as specialists were being brought in to other departments in increasing

Dutch Design 58
numbers. But even for him the specialist skills that the industrial artist con-
tributed were still unmistakably art, the contribution of which would have
a civilizing effect.
The loftiest ideals about the position of art in design can be read in the
yearbook for 19234, which is lled with six philosophical dissertations by
H. C. Verkruysen, Prof. W. van der Pluym and Prof. R. N. Roland Holst.
18
In
these articles, which are now difcult to digest, all stops are pulled out to
place design on a pedestal by dint of its relation with art. The art historian
Willem van der Pluym writes about the artist-designer in general:
Even there, in the most unpretentious setting of day-to-day living
where he creates products for domestic use, it will be his mission to
raise the level of his work above the unimaginative practicality of
everyday material objects, so that in using them humankind, to
whom he imparts his talents, will enjoy a happier life.
These absurdly lofty pronouncements contrast sharply with the real posi-
tion and signicance of artists and designers in Dutch industry at that time,
since in the 1920s it was still in its infancy.
Halfway through the 1920s more modern ideas began to make their
way into the vank yearbooks. There did indeed appear to be members who
approached the position of art in design from a more progressive angle.
One such was the manufacturer and designer Willem H. Gispen, who in his
1925 contribution entitled Art as a Necessity and as a Form of Playfulness
observed critically and ironically:
The World of Arts and Crafts is a remote village, far removed from
heavy trafc. People keep themselves to themselves and a lot is still
done the way it was twenty-ve years ago. There are strict regulations
to stop cars driving too fast, and people still hammer out artistic,
brass ashtrays costing twenty guilders each. The hammered ashtray,
entirely hand-made, has a symbolic meaning . . . it is a sweet little
object of beauty, a work of art, but is still without style.
In this long epistle Gispen goes on to argue that something can only be said
to have real style when its form is in harmony with its function: an ashtray
is for collecting cigarette butts and for tapping out ash from your pipe: it is
not a work of art.
19
In the ten years preceding this article Gispens beliefs and working
methods had undergone an enormous change.
20
At his metalwork rm,

established in 1916 in Rotterdam, he initially made handcrafted objects like
railings, replaces and signboards, in a distinctly decorative style. His prod-
ucts were then still referred to as decorative metalwork. In 1919 he changed
the name of his rm to Gispens Metalwork factory, which hints at more
contemporary ambitions. In that year Gispen became a member of the
vank and subscribed to Wendingen, the journal of the architectural associa-
tion Architectura et Amicitia; the next year he subscribed to De Stijl, the
avant-garde periodical established by the artists Theo van Doesburg and
Piet Mondrian in 1917.
In the meantime his rm continued to grow, and for Gispen the design
and production of simple modern lamps became increasingly important. It
led him to become engrossed in the very latest ideas about lighting engineer-
ing, such as those developed in Germany, with a special interest in the
advances being made in America, where conforming to uniform standards or
normalization was becoming increasingly important. Moreover, through his
friend the architect J.J.P. Bob Oud, he was introduced to the progressive
views about design taught at the Bauhaus. This was how Gispen came upon
his unique Giso glass, a process in which crystal glass was covered with a
thin, precisely calculated coating. This resulted in a minimal loss of light from
the lamp, while having the advantage of not blinding the onlooker.
The Giso lamps were presented almost simultaneously at two exhibi-
tions in Germany in 1927. At Europasches Kunstgewerbe in Leipzig, which
displayed the crafted decorative object, Gispens lamps were a bit out of place
because of their industrial character. They were far more suited to the
Werkbund exhibition Die Wohnung, in Stuttgart, where Bob Oud and Mart
Stam installed them in their show houses in the Weissenhofsiedlung.
Gispens enthusiasm for the products and ideas he was introduced to at this
W. H. Gispen, lamps
reproduced in Wendingen
(Techniek en Kunst) (1928);
with the piano lamp
designed with J.J.P. Oud,
above right.

Dutch Design 60
much talked about breakthrough of the international New Building (Nieuwe
Bouwen) in Stuttgart was clearly expressed in a lecture given to members of
the Rotterdam Circle on his return. His continuing preoccupation with the
place of art in these new developments is shown by the title of his lecture,
Artless Domestic Objects not Anti-Art, but Anti-Industrial Art. To add a
little lustre to his speech, he assembled a modest selection of simple, undeco-
rated, industrially manufactured domestic objects, including one of the rst
of his own tubular steel chairs. The collection was printed in a special issue of
the periodical Wendingen entitled Technique and Art (1928).
21
Gispens continued interest in the more artistic, formal aspects of
design is shown in the striking piano lamp he developed together with Bob
Oud. This object, which was later to become so famous, was more of a spa-
tial composition, such as the furniture designer Gerrit Rietveld was making
at the time, or more an experiment in terms of balance, as practised at the
Bauhaus, than a serious industrial design. The rst example of the lamp
was developed in July 1927 as a wedding present for a couple with whom
Oud was friendly and was made of brown burnished copper. Shortly after-
wards Gispen started to produce the small lamp in series with a shiny nickel
Paul Schuitema, photo-
graphs of the exhibition
Artless Domestic Objects ,
reproduced in Wendingen
Techniek en Kunst (1928).
R. Gerbrands, covers of
the series De Toegepaste
Kunsten in Nederland
(The Decorative Arts in
the Netherlands), 192335
(W. L. en J. Brusses
Publishers, Rotterdam).

nish, under the commercial name of Giso 404. In 1929 sales of chairs also
increased, thanks to a large order from the Van Nelle coffee, tea and tobacco
company in Rotterdam.
The tendency of many vank members to stress the artistic and artisti-
cally minded aspect of design in the 1920s and 30s emerges from the
contents of the twenty-four booklets of the Applied Arts in the
Netherlands (Toegepaste Kunsten in Nederland) series published between
1923 and 1935. Unlike the yearbooks, this series of monographs on contem-
porary decorative and industrial art was not a vank publication, but
closely linked in terms of its contents, authors and advertisements. They
were intended for craftsmen, designers, students, industrialists, art dealers
and anyone else who showed an interest. To increase their usefulness they
listed important applied art shops, schools and museums, and even the
advertisements served as an important source of information for readers.
Most of the booklets in the series are dedicated to themes that have a
direct relationship with house and home, like Gispens Sierend Metaal in
de Bouwkunst (Decorative Metal in Architecture, 1924), and Machinale
Textielkunst (Mechanized Textile Art, 1924) by Cornelis Van der Sluys,
mentioned earlier. Two booklets were published on furniture or, to use the
associations terminology, furniture art: Het Moderne Meubel (Modern
Furniture, 1924) by Just Havelaar and Het Industrieel uitgevoerde meubel
(Industrially Produced Furniture, 1925) by A. H. Jansen. Contrary to what
the title might suggest, Havelaar represented the traditional point of view in
which the furniture designer, and thus the artist with his specic talents,
C. J. Lanooy, four hand-
crafted vases and a bowl,
191020.

Dutch Design 62
was expected to inject character and beauty into his designs. Of course, his
products had to t in with the times and it was for this reason that a
modern piece of furniture had, in Havelaars view, to be democratic: an
expression of a socially adjusted, working population, that no longer stress-
es class distinctions. The style of this modern furniture was expected to
evolve all by itself in a period in which sport, ying machines and big indus-
tries were to become everyday reality. The artists task was to interpret
aesthetically what society can create in a material way that is of value.
Those who may have assumed that Havelaars line of reasoning would
inevitably lead to industrially manufactured furniture, however, were quite
wrong. In his view only a furniture artist working traditionally was capable
of making a style of furniture appropriate for the modern age.
In his booklet the furniture designer Arnold Jansen turns his attention
to cheaper furniture for the workers. More than Havelaar, he wonders if it
is then possible to embark on large-scale, industrial mass production of
cheap, yet well-designed furniture in the Netherlands. It seemed apparent
to him that the initiative still lay with the artist-designer and that factory
owners had shown little real interest in this type of project. The objection
was that the intervention of the artist meant that the product, by deni-
tion, would be more expensive because not only did the artist have to be
paid for his plans and suggestions but also furniture factory workers com-
plained that this prevented them from working as quickly and efciently as
normally. Moreover, modern furniture did not often appeal to the masses
and only a few pioneers were interested in it. Since new models took time
to become established, a more restricted form of serial production seemed
to be a more realistic option for the present.
The title of the booklet on ceramics, The Potters Art, is in itself reveal-
ing. The director of the Gemeentemuseum in The Hague, H. E. van Gelder,
had good reason to choose this title in 1923. He was an admirer of T.A.C.
Colenbranders designs for the Rozenburg pottery factory produced from
the 1880s, which he considered works of art. As early as 1916 he ensured
that a great quantity of Colenbrander-designed Rozenburg earthenware
was accepted into the collection of the Gemeentemuseum. At the same
time, however, he increasingly came to appreciate ceramics by pure pot-
ters such as Chris Lanooy and Bert Nienhuis. In the 1920s these artists
were no longer making small series of vases, but only unique objects that
were compared with abstract works of art both by the artists themselves
and by art lovers such as H. P. Bremmer, the leading art authority in The
Hague, and his following.
22
The vases were even given titles and each piece
was signed. The Potters Art and another booklet, Glass and Crystal by

Karel Wasch, were so popular that they were reprinted in 1927, when the
writers seized the opportunity to update their texts.
The series is a rich source for anyone wanting to study design (and
art) in the Netherlands in the 1920s. Besides the vank yearbooks,
Binnenhuiskunst (Interior Design, 1921) by Cornelis van der Sluys and De
Nieuwe Richting in de Kunstnijverheid in Nederland (The New Trend in
Applied Art in the Netherlands, 1929) by Jo de Jong are the two most
important sources. This has led to the products illustrated in them func-
tioning as a sort of canon for good modern design in the Netherlands in
the interwar period. The question is whether this does justice to the real
signicance of these pieces. The fact that most of the writers were vank
members means that the objectivity of these publications cannot be guar-
anteed. Many Dutch products and designers are not dealt with in these
publications and thus have remained unknown. Notable omissions, for
example, are the many modern coffee and tea services that were produced
in the Maastricht potteries during these years. This is even more remark-
able considering the enormous quantities that were made.
23
You will also
look in vain for information on bicycles and cars, household appliances,
kitchen aids, sports equipment or ofce supplies and garden furniture. If
more insight is to be gained into the production of consumer goods in the
W. J. Rozendaal
(Kristalunie, Maastricht),
jug with beakers, 1932.

Dutch Design 64
E. Bellefroid (Ceramic
factory De Sphinx,
Maastricht), Strand
service, c. 1933, exclusively
produced for the HEMA in
more than 100,000 copies.
Netherlands it will take a great deal of research, and more detailed studies
will have to be carried out on subjects such as the merchandise available in
large department stores.
The Amsterdam School
Amsterdam architects who were also active as product designers sometimes
joined the vank, but continued to feel most at home in their own associa-
tion, Architectura et Amicitia, in which industrial art and interior design
were also important. At the 1915 exhibition in the Stedelijk Museum to cele -
brate the sixtieth anniversary of Architectura et Amicitia, decorative and
industrial artists were represented in outstandingly large numbers. To
many peoples surprise, it became clear at this exhibition that a completely
new generation of architects had emerged who had been almost unnoticed
before, most notably Michel de Klerk, Piet Kramer and Jo van der Mey (see
above).
24
These three architects were also involved with aspects of interior
design. One of the projects they were working on at the time was the inter -
ior of the revolutionary Scheepvaarthuis (Shipping Trade House), one of
the icons of what was later to become known as the Amsterdam School.
25
This ofce building in Amsterdam, housing a number of shipping organi-
zations, was designed by Jo van der Mey in collaboration with the large
architectural rm of A. L. van Gendt, although, as far as his interior designs
were concerned, from 1912 onwards he worked with a large group of like-
minded architects and industrial artists.
These architects began to rebel against the otherwise undisputed
authority of their older colleague Berlage. What they mainly complained

about was the lack of an artistic element in his buildings and furniture.
They even went as far as airing their grievances in the special issue of the
Bouwkundig Weekblad (Architectural Weekly) published in honour of
Berlages sixtieth birthday in 1916. Michel de Klerk reproached the famous
architect for not being an artistic builder and said that, at best, all he had
achieved was the introduction of a few technical innovations for the benet
of the building trade.
26
De Klerk and his sympathizers argued that build-
ings and their interiors should become more expressive again. They soon
had the opportunity to realize this in the most exemplary way in a series of
public housing projects workers palaces built in the early 1920s in the
southern suburbs of Amsterdam. The fantastic and sometimes overwhelm-
ing sculptural Amsterdam School style, however, can be admired in other
parts of the city and in several other towns and villages.
De Klerk, Van der Mey and Kramer knew one another from the time
with Eduard Cuyperss rm of architects. Cuypers, after training with his
famous uncle P.J.H. Cuypers, had resolutely put his Gothic Revival building
legacy behind him and had opened his mind to all manner of contemporary
reform movements both at home and abroad. At the end of the nineteenth
century he had founded in Amsterdam the Studio of Decorative Art Het
Huis (The House) to complement his architectural rm. There they had no
qualms about using the Dutch Nieuwe Kunst idiom on a grand scale to com-
plement the international Art Nouveau style and the German and Austrian
Jugendstil. Examples of this can be seen in the beautifully illustrated maga-
zine Het Huis that Cuypers published from 1902. The rms young
designers were stimulated to read foreign periodicals and to travel, one of
the destinations being Scandinavia. Eduard Cuypers was also involved with
industrial art in the Dutch East Indies. On the island of Java he designed
buildings for the Javasche Bank and he was also responsible for the design
and furnishings for the pavilion representing the Dutch colonies at the
Exposition Universelle et Internationale in Brussels in 1910. The tolerant
and flexible atmosphere created in his rm undoubtedly acted as a strong
stimulus to the growth of the Amsterdam School.
As building activity came to a standstill due to the war, about 1914 Michel
de Klerk started to concentrate on designing furniture.
27
J. F. Zeeghers,
director of the furniture makers and retail outlet t Woonhuys, gave him
every opportunity to do just that. The sumptuous interiors and expen-
sive furniture that De Klerk drew for Zeeghers were only for extremely
wealthy clients. His unique designs with their complicated symbolic
design idiom could only be made by the most skilled craftsmen. The rich
mahogany table, for instance, commissioned for the ofce of the director of

Dutch Design 66
M. de Klerk, mahogany
table for the boardroom
of the Netherlands
Steam ship Company,
Shipping Trade House,
Amsterdam, 1913.
the Netherlands Steamship Company, has an elongated hexagon tabletop
supported by six legs attached to the table in an almost inconceivably exces-
sive constructional design. For the wedding of the rich Amsterdam lawyer
J. H. Polenaar, De Klerk designed furniture for the salon and the bedroom
made from mahogany, poplar and birch plywood, everything extravagantly
decorated with black stained and sculptured ornaments. This early suite of
furniture is in the collection of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. In total
De Klerk probably designed around a hundred pieces of furniture, of which
only about twenty-ve items have been preserved.
Piet Kramer had begun designing furniture as early as 1911.
28
His earli-
est models are still in a measured decorative-rational style. It was not until
1917 that his designs also began to take on the lavish and expressive sculp-
tural character that was so characteristic of De Klerks work. Kramer had his
own rm of architects and was also an aesthetic adviser for the Amsterdam
Municipal Council. In this capacity he was responsible for scores of sculp-
tural bridge railings and metal bridgeheads of a characteristic type that can
be admired in the city to this day.
Although the number of furniture designs produced by De Klerk,
Kramer and Van der Mey was relatively small, their expressive sculptural
style had an enormous impact on design in the Netherlands. Many of their
contemporaries were directly inspired by them, especially the sculptor

Hildo Krop, in whose designs the sculptural element is even more appar-
ent.
29
This is not so surprising in view of his main occupation. The
furniture designs made by Piet Wormser, Piet Vorkink, Jan Antonie
Snellebrand and Adolf Eibink, with their original design idiom worked in
expensive varieties of woods, show a strong afnity with the work of De
Klerk, Kramer and Van der Mey.
In the soft furnishings chosen for their interiors, the Amsterdam School
designers often displayed a preference for mock-velvet.
30
This robust, shiny
upholstery fabric was already familiar as it had been used in the Netherlands
since the eighteenth century, when it was known as velours dUtrecht, but
between 1910 and 1920 the mock-velvet weaving mills modernized their clas-
sic designs. The new patterns were not printed by a mechanized process, but
were applied using a new method based on traditional block-printing. The
daring and original designs of the Rotterdam decorative artist Jaap Gidding,
with their strong and sometimes almost exotic black patterns on a shining
purple, stone-red or gold-coloured background, were especially popular
with the Amsterdam School architects.
31
The attention paid to luxurious and unusual materials, decoration,
craftsmanship and aesthetics was applauded in wider circles, not least
because it left so much more scope for artistic experiment after the plain,
austere furniture and other domestic products influenced by the rational-
ists. The obvious influences and vague echoes of the Amsterdam School
can again be seen in the work of pupils at applied art schools and in the
illustrations of various vank publications. Around 1920, for example, a
strikingly large number of exuberantly designed clocks were made by many
metal artists, both famous and less well known.
Thanks to Jaap Gidding, colourful carpets were once again fashionable
in the mid-1920s, while his expressively painted glass for the Leerdamglass-
works and his designs for the colourfully decorated ceramics made at the
Zuid-Holland and Regina pottery factories can also be connected to devel-
opments in Amsterdam. Gidding owes his national fame mainly to his
decorations in the lobby of the Tuschinski Theatre in Amsterdam, which
still exists today as a cinema. Built in 1921, and sumptuously decorated both
inside and outside, it illustrates the appeal that the Amsterdam School
idiom had for many of those working in design at the time. Pieter den
Besten, Charles Bartels and Willem Bogtman also worked on the interior of
the Tuschinski Theatre, while Cornelis van der Sluys designed the coverings
of the lounge chairs even this conrmed Berlage devotee now allowed
himself a little more luxury and decoration in his furniture designs than he
had in the past.

Jaap Gidding, lobby of
the Tuschinski Theatre,
Amsterdam, 1921.
T.A.C. Colenbrander
(Plateelbakkerij Ram,
Arnhem), two vases, bowl
and flower pot, 19225.

Four Wendingen covers by A. D. Copier (1930); S. L. Schwarz (1931); Otto B. de Kat (1927) and Tine Baanders (1927).

Another signicant inuence was the reassessment of Theo
Colenbranders work. A number of wealthy enthusiasts for the colourful
Rozenburg earthenware made thirty years before, even went as far as to set up
a separate factory in Arnhem dedicated to the execution of Colenbranders
new ceramic designs.
32
From 1921 the idiosyncratic designs of the octogenar -
ian artist were produced by the RamDelftware Factory. The artistic image of
the vases and dishes, with their ostensibly abstract and colourful designs, was
emphasized by their poetic titles.
Wendingen and De Stijl
Under the influence of the Amsterdam School, members of the architects
society Architectura et Amicitia increasingly shifted their focus to the aes-
thetic side of building. The architect H. Th. Wijdeveld played an important
role in this change.
33
At his request the painter Richard Roland Holst
joined the editors of Architectura, but this was not enough for Wijdeveld,
who was as idealistic as he was determined. Believing that the new artistic
zeal among the members of the society warranted an entirely new period-
ical, in 1918 he established the monthly journal Wendingen (Inversions),
which became the new mouthpiece of this movement in Dutch architec-
ture and design.
34
Wijdeveld, who like so many others had been trained at the rm of
P.J.H. Cuypers, subsequently worked for a time with L. M. Cordonnier, the
architect of the Vredespaleis (Peace Palace) in The Hague. In 1913 he estab-
lished himself as an independent architect in Amsterdam, where he became
friends with F. M. Wibaut, Amsterdams rst social democratic alderman,
and received his rst commissions as part of the development of the city
towards the south. By Dutch standards Wijdeveld was an exceptionally
free, creative and internationally minded designer. During a long trip
abroad in 1920 he became friends with such divergent gures as Erich
Mendelsohn, Adolf Behne, Henry van de Velde, Gordon Craig and Amd
Ozenfant. His interests went beyond the bounds of architecture: he was
also fascinated by urban development, theatre, music and literature, while
even designing stage sets, theatrical costumes and posters. Influenced by
the work of Mathieu Lauweriks, Wijdeveld developed an individual type of
graphic design for Wendingen. For the headlines he used printing compos-
ing material, which he incorporated into his design in a surprisingly
decorative manner. The result was not the most legible of designs but it was
extremely expressive. A critic remarked that Wijdeveld did not design typog-
raphy, but art, using typographic aids. Wendingen was subtitled Maandblad
70 Dutch Design

voor bouwen en sieren (Monthly Journal for Building and Decoration), and for
each issue a designer or artist was chosen to make a new cover design.
Thus Wendingen was more than an ordinary architectural journal,
rather a platform for art of the future in all its varieties. The print run for
this exquisitely produced journal remained fairly modest and usually ran to
just over 1,000 copies. In that respect the year 1921 was a high point: 2,400
copies per issue were printed, of which 600 were in German and 600 in
English. In the early years the emphasis was strongly on the work of archi-
tects from expressionist Amsterdam School circles, but foreign designers
were also featured. In 1924 special issues were devoted to the French design-
er Eileen Gray and the German Expressionist architect Hermann Finsterlin.
Also in 1924, the year of Michel de Klerks untimely death, three issues were
lled with his work. In 1925 and 1926 seven entire issues were devoted to the
American architect Frank Lloyd Wright.
After Wijdeveld had left the editorial board in 1926 and was replaced
by H. C. Verkruysen, writings by the modern functionalist designers were
allowed more space. Apart from architecture, there were contributions on
related arts like sculpture and murals, but space was also regularly reserved
for furniture design and furnishing fabrics. Entire issues were devoted to
stage design, posters, bookplates and even shells. The last issues of Wendingen
appeared in 1932.
However, despite its wide range of special interests, covering every-
thing to do with art, architecture and design, Wendingen did not represent
the entire range of cultural avant-garde activity in the Netherlands. The
journal De Stijl was published at almost the same period (191731).
35
Begun
by Theo van Doesburg and Piet Mondrian, it attracted a group of painters
and architects around it: while the total number of subscribers fluctuated
between one and two hundred, about a thousand copies were printed of
each issue. Although the painters Mondrian and Van Doesburg, together
with Bart van der Leck and Vilmos Huszar, are seen as De Stijls main gures,
the architects Jan Wils, Robert van t Hoff, Bob Oud and the furniture-
maker Gerrit Rietveld were no less essential for the main aim of the
movement: the integration of painting and architecture. Mondrian
thought up a new term to cover this: Neo Plasticism (Nieuwe Beelding). The
merging of the two disciplines was in his view an inevitable process. This is
why the denite article (De) was used in the title of the periodical. It was
not just a new style. What it revolved around was the development of the
style. Mondrian was the most important ideologist behind these utopian
aims, but until his death in 1931 Van Doesburg was the driving force behind
the periodical and the only stable factor from start to nish.
71 Design as Art, 191540

Thus, implicitly, design played a prominent role in the theory of the
Nieuwe Beelding: the distinctions between architecture, art and interior design
would indeed eventually merge, so that in a certain sense it would all be
design, that is to say Nieuwe Beelding. For De Stijl artists the explicit issue of
the position of art in applied art or in industrial design was thus irrelevant.
Gerrit Rietveld, whose work was rst illustrated in De Stijl in 1919, Vilmos
Huszar, Bart van der Leck and Bob Oud were engaged in designing products.
Theo van Doesburg designed stained-glass windows at the start of his career.
Without a doubt Rietvelds furniture is the most interesting.
36
The Utrecht fur-
niture designer initially worked in the Berlage idiom and was also influenced
by his instructor P.J.C. Klaarhamer. From around 1916, however, he plotted
his own pioneering and innovative route. Nevertheless, Rietveld was, and
remained, an ordinary furniture-maker, an experimental pragmatist and a
man of few words: his theoretical reflections on his avant-garde work were few
and far between. No matter how modern, conceptual, spatial and expressive
his pieces of furniture might have been, Rietveld saw them as domestic objects
and not as works of art. His universally known armchair, built of strips and
planks of wood, was conceived back in 1918 thus well before Rietveld came
into contact with Mondrian or Van Doesburg. It was not until 1923 that the
chair was painted in the primary colours of red, blue and yellow.
In the 1920s Rietveld gradually began to concentrate on the opportuni-
ties opened up by mechanized furniture production and architecture. His
work maintained its experimental character; not a single pre-war design of
Rietvelds became a commercial success. His influence, however, on design
culture in the Netherlands and abroad has undoubtedly been immense
right up to the present day, due to its idiosyncratic, pioneering character.
Rietvelds association with the Congrs Internationaux dArchitecture
Moderne (ciam) and the numerous orders he received from the renowned
Amsterdam furniture store Metz & Co. strengthened his position through-
out the 1930s both as an architect and as a designer. Even after the Second
World War Rietveld continued to be an authority on design culture in the
Netherlands and was to remain so right up to his death in 1964. We will
return to him in later chapters.
Paris 1925
The relationship between art and design was also the central theme in the
Dutch entry to the Exposition Internationale des Arts Dcoratifs et
Industriels Modernes in Paris in 1925. This was the express aim of the
French organizers, but nobody could have foreseen that this would have led
72 Dutch Design

to such a heated debate back in the Netherlands, since it was while prepara-
tions were being made that the question arose as to which of the Dutch
designers best represented the chosen theme: the Wendingen supporters or
their colleagues from De Stijl ?
37
The De Stijl designers today have a worldwide reputation, whereas the
names of many of the Wendingen designers are no longer well known; in the
1920s, however, the situation was the reverse, as was shown clearly by the Paris
entry. As was usual in the Netherlands at that time, trade representatives had
once again taken the initiative to ensure Dutch participation in the exhibition.
It was only at a later stage that the Dutch government proved willing to
make a nancial contribution and it was not until 1924 that a Preparatory
Committee could be appointed. The Dutch pavilion was designed by the
Amsterdam architect Jan Frederick Staal. H. Th. Wijdeveld coordinated the
interior design. All Dutch designers were asked to send in work, but an assess-
ment committee set up by the National Exhibition Council, consisting of
H. P. Berlage, J. Gratama, W. M. Dudok, J. Mendes da Costa, Hildo Krop, R.
N. Roland Holst, J.L.M. Lauweriks and C. A. Lion Cachet, ultimately decided
who would be allowed to participate. The result therefore was that the char-
acter of the entries going to Paris was determined to a large extent by
Amsterdam School architects and a few other related designers.
38
The Dutch pavilion was theatrical and furnished in somewhat dark
colours, with the emphasis on hand-crafted, luxurious, artistic furniture
The Dutch exhibition at
the Exposition des Arts
Dcoratifs et Industriels
Modernes, Paris, 1925.

and decorative products. Jaap Giddings stained-glass windows and carpets,
together with Colenbranders ceramics, provided the occasional colourful
accent. Apart from their work, Berlage, De Bazel, Lauweriks, Lion Cachet,
De Klerk and Kramer were well represented.
Almost immediately there were arguments about the way the entry had
been organized, its interior design and the choice of objects. The backbiting
was not restricted to representatives of De Stijl, who were furious because
their joint-entry proposal under the leadership of Theo van Doesburg had
been rejected; other, more moderate designers such as Cornelis van der
Sluys, himself a participant, criticized the fact that the most modern and
progressive forces in the Netherlands at that time were not represented at
the Paris exhibition. It was still possible, however, to see a few pieces of fur-
niture by Sybold van Ravesteyn and Bob Oud executed in a restrained De
Stijl idiom. Furthermore, The Hague furniture factory Pander sent in a
modern gentlemans room by Hendrik Wouda, including bright red furni-
ture produced in a clear-cut cubist style. Nowadays work by Wouda and a
few of his fellow townsmen is referred to as The Hague School and is con-
sidered to be the most representative example of Art Deco in the
Netherlands.
39
Others working in the same style included Cor Alons, Jan
Wils and Frits Spanjaard. Their designs are related to De Stijl, but there are
also clear indications of the influence of Berlages later work and that of
the American designer Frank Lloyd Wright. Although the lines are more
clean-cut and it looks more modern, The Hague School design, like that of
the Amsterdam School, was in general fairly luxurious and calculated to
produce a specic effect.
The Bond voor Kunst in Industrie and its Precursors
All the commotion caused by the choice of the Paris entries in 1925 clearly
showed yet again the importance many that Dutch people still attached to
art in the design of the everyday environment. But it cannot be emphasized
too often that this did not mean the automatic rejection of mechanized
products with an artistic component. The conservative voices of Jan
Eisenloeffel and others working in the traditional crafts continued to be
audible in those years, although most designers recognized that more
intensive collaboration with industry was inevitable, and perhaps ought
even to be welcomed.
A decade earlier Willem Penaat had performed important preparatory
work leading to the gradual change of attitude and the various initiatives
taken in the 1920s and 30s. The great success of the Deutscher Werkbund
74 Dutch Design

with the inbuilt danger, he felt, of German indus-
try gaining too much supremacy inspired
Penaat as early as 1914 to make a proposal to
establish a Dutch counterpart, the Nederlandse
Werkbond.
40
A few Dutch designers had then
been members of the Deutscher Werkbund for
several years, including Johan Thorn Prikker,
who had been working in Germany since 1904,
and Hendrik Petrus Berlage. Penaat unfolded his
plans in vanks publication Orgaan (Mouthpiece)
and suggested they call it the Driebond (Triple
Alliance). This was a reference to the intended
collaboration between art, labour and society,
also referred to as beauty, technique and culture
(or, if you prefer, artist, manufacturer and others
who were interested). In Penaats proposed
Driebond the only artists eligible for member-
ship would be those working in a modern idiom
and only then by invitation. He wanted to
exclude manufacturers who only wanted to work
with artists for commercial gain. The social group
that represented these interested parties was
supposed to consist mainly of art critics, mu -
seum directors and other art lovers. What seemed at rst glance to be a
revolutionary proposal proved on closer examination to be a fairly defen-
sive move, and furthermore it was chiefly planned with the artists interests
at heart. One of Penaats ideas was that the new organization would be
supervising the work to ensure that the fast pace of industry did not under-
mine the quality of the designs, and that new materials and modern
techniques did not lead to inferior products.
The architect Jan Gratama, from Architectura et Amicitia, also put
down his thoughts on the Dutch version of the Werkbund. His proposal
was more aimed at the modernization of Dutch industry than Penaats. The
two proposals were discussed by a small group of interested parties in
Amsterdam. By pure chance, at precisely the same moment Berlage was
giving a lecture in Cologne on the influence of the Deutscher Werkbund in
the Netherlands.
Penaats and Gratemas proposals struck a chord with the members of
the preparatory committee, but its enthusiastic and energetic plans were
thwarted by the outbreak of war. They did not really get down to work until
H. Th. Wijdeveld, cover
of Driebondnummer
Architectura (1917).

1917, and by then they were even more motivated to use all available man-
power as efciently as possible for the benet of national industry. The
disappointing artistic quality of the Dutch products on show at the First
Dutch Trade Fair in Utrecht in that same year gave them an extra impetus
to pick up the plans where they had left off.
The members of the reconstituted preparatory committee, in addition to
the initiators Penaat and Gratema, were the architect Karel de Bazel, the
graphic designer Sjoerd de Roos, the manufacturers Pelt, Van Dissel and Braat,
and the Rotterdam publisher Brusse. Their rst action was to place a lengthy
article revealing details of their plans in the daily Algemeen Handelsblad, with
an attached questionnaire to gauge opinion. Eight artist-designers, seven man-
ufacturers and three private individuals with an interest responded, and their
answers were then discussed in a special issue of Architectura. The artists
thought that there was only a slim chance that such cooperation would soon
lead to good, ne-quality products.
The rms that responded De Porceleyne Fles ceramic factory, Leerdam
glassworks, Philips lamp factory, Braat metalwork factory, Dieperink print-
ers, Van Dissel weaving mill and the furniture factory Labor Omnia Vincit
were distinctly in favour of the proposal. Of course, this came as no surprise:
these were all factories that had previous positive experiences of involving
artists in the production process. Finally, the three interested private individ-
uals who lled in questionnaires, W. Martin, the Leiden professor of art
history, Karel Sluyterman, now professor of decorative art and ornamental
drawing at Delft Polytechnic, and H. E. van Gelder, the director of the
Gemeentemuseum in The Hague, were all positive about the idea.
The issue of Architectura in which the responses to the questionnaire
were discussed was far more carefully designed and more richly illustrated
than usual. This so-called Driebond-nummer (Triple Alliance Issue) was in
some ways a kind of trial run for the periodical Wendingen, which was to
appear a few months later.
The decorative artist Andr Vlaanderen provided a somewhat more
detailed argument in his own contribution to the Driebond issue.
41
He was
almost more resolute in his arguments than his colleagues: it was high time
artists stepped down from their ivory towers and started to design everyday
industrial objects. He thought that the packaging of simple workaday prod-
ucts like matchsticks, biscuits and toothpaste deserved to look every bit as
good as other products and that the designs should conform to contempo-
rary artistic standards. Indeed, everyday products of this sort were perhaps
even more deserving of special attention, since the civilizing influence of
such a simple mass-produced article was, after all, far greater than that of
76 Dutch Design

expensive luxury products. Andr Vlaanderen was an authority on the sub-
ject, since he was familiar with the more exclusive, elitist side of the
designers world. He had been the manager of Eduard Cuyperss interior
design studio during the years when De Klerk, Kramer and Van der Mey
were employed there. Moreover, he had been the owner of one of the rst
graphic advertising agencies in the Netherlands since 1904. The very earli-
est advertisements he drew were published at the back of the journal Het
Huis, and some of them also had an accompanying photograph. From 1915
Vlaanderen designed the advertising brochures for the Gazelle bicycle fac-
tory in Dieren, near Arnhem. By the time he ceased working for them in
1953 he had made a total of more than ve hundred advertisements and
scores of publicity folders for the factory.
The Triple Alliance in its projected form never got off the ground.
Wijdeveld had foreseen this in his cover for the Driebond issue: the three
parties concerned had too many conflicting interests at the time. Willem
Penaat therefore decided to change his strategy and suggested establishing
an advice and information ofce (see above), where manufacturers and
other interested parties could nd information about Dutch designers. This
Institute for Decorative and Industrial Art (Instituut voor Sier- en Nijver -
heids kunst, isn) was founded on 5 March 1921 with nancial support from
the Ministry of Education, Arts and Science and worked in association with
vanks Advisory Board and its Publicity and Propaganda Committee. As
much documentation as possible on artist-designers, including many
photographs, was gathered at the Institutes ofce in The Hague.
42
Willem
Penaat was responsible for daily management of the isn. The lawyer Jean
Franois van Royen, in daily life secretary of the Dutch Post Ofce Board and
a great typography enthusiast, took over from him as vanks chairman, an
ofce he held until 1940.
Penaat remained in ofce for only a very short time, because in 1923 he
was appointed director of the Museum of Applied Arts in Haarlem. W. F.
Gouwe succeeded him as director of the isn. Dynamic as ever, Penaat used his
new position to put forward some important enterprises, starting to build up
a collection of modern applied arts, organizing temporary exhibitions and
trying once again to stimulate cooperation between industrialists and artists.
The result was the establishment on 26 March 1924 of the Dutch Federation
for Art in Industry (Bond voor Kunst in Industrie, bki). Unlike the contem-
plated Triple Alliance, this was primarily an employers organization, but
nevertheless its name made it immediately clear that promoting the interests
of art was its principal motive. As the name implies, it was not just about art
and industry going hand in hand but most denitely about art in industry.

The three manufacturers that Penaat found willing to work with him
on the setting up of the bki, the directors of the Leerdam glassworks, Van
Dissel damask weaving mill and the Labor Omnia Vincit furniture factory,
already had a tradition of collaboration with artists. Furthermore, all three
had previously been enthusiastic about his Triple Alliance plans: they were
no ordinary directors of three traditional rms.
Members of the BKI
The progressive, idealistic director of the Leerdam glassworks, P. M. Cochius,
was not only interested in the well-being of his employees, but he was also
absolutely convinced that a good, artistic product contributed to the happi-
ness of the human race. He was active in the Theosophical movement in
the Netherlands and there met the architect Karel de Bazel. Around 1915
Cochius had asked him to devise an alternative for what he felt were unsat-
isfactory pressed imitations of polished crystal, which Leerdam had brought
onto the market in large quantities.
43
Although De Bazel had never designed anything in glass, he accepted
the invitation on condition that he would rst be allowed to concentrate
on blown glass. As he was accustomed to doing with his architecture and
furniture, these glass products too were designed on a geometric basis.
Beauty, according to his Theosophical beliefs, was after all in essence a
specic correlation between size and number. In practice this meant that
the golden section and squared paper were the starting point for the nine
Machiel Wilmink, Neemt
het Schoone (Take the
Beautiful) brochure
(Leerdam glassworks),
1927.
78 Dutch Design

complete drinking sets that De Bazel was eventually to design for Leerdam
between 1915 and his death in 1923. Aesthetically and commercially the
experiment was a success. Whether due to the Theosophical principles or
not, the critics and the public appreciated the restrained and unfussy
design of De Bazels sets, which for some even conjured up memories of
old-Dutch crafts.
After four years of experimentation De Bazel designed his rst pressed-
glass breakfast sets, which could be made in larger batches using moulds
than his designs for blown glass ever could. Geometric principles are far
more obvious here than in earlier objects. The success of De Bazels work
stimulated Cochius to commission other artists, starting with Cornelis de
Lorm, who was followed by Chris Lanooy, Hendrik Petrus Berlage, Chris
Lebeau, Jaap Gidding and many others, including the American architect
Frank Lloyd Wright. Their designs were marketed as a special Design
Collection by Leerdam. Furthermore, Andries Copier, Jacob Jongert and
Machiel Wilmink developed special advertising material for this exception-
al part of the rms collection. The glassware itself was distributed through
new channels: it could be seen at exhibitions in museums and art galleries
and was sold in exclusive applied art shops.
Between 1923 and 1927 H. P. Berlage and Piet Zwart, who was then
working at Berlages rm, designed the sturdy, canary-yellow pressed-glass
breakfast set mentioned above. Like De Bazels set, the basic design princi-
ple behind this set was mathematical, being based on a regular hexagon and
circle. Decorative vases for Leerdam were mainly designed by Chris Lanooy,
Chris Lebeau and Jaap Gidding. Between 1925 and 1928 Giddings original
and colourfully painted examples were extremely popular. Although the
vases in the Design Collection were not unique objects, neither could they
be regarded as examples of industrial design. Artistry or special artistic
merit continued to be linked to traditional methods of production.
Andries Copier, who at rst was engaged to design advertisements for
the glassworks, was the only designer Cochius employed on a permanent
basis from 1923.
44
Copier was a jack-of-all-trades. Both technically and artis-
tically he made an important contribution to the quality of the Design
Collection and the good name of the factory. One of the ways in which he
demonstrated his expertise in glass techniques and chemistry was his devel-
opment of the totally new glass material graniver. This was used for floors
and decorative mosaics, but Copier also designed a number of brightly
coloured graniver cactus pots.
In contrast to De Bazel, Copier usually based his designs on shapes to be
found in nature, as the names of his sets Comfrey and Pear illustrate. His

Gildeglas from 1929 is still produced today. The industrial character of this
set of glasses was initially highly debatable because it was blown by mouth
from crystal glass, which also made it very expensive. It was only after the
Dutch government presented a Gilde service to Princess Elizabeth of Great
Britain as a wedding gift in 1949, and after it won an award in 1954 at the
Triennale in Milan, that it came to be manufactured industrially in 1958 and
nally became a well-known mass-produced product. Although the glass has
a natural appearance, the form was very consciously thought out after seek-
ing advice from members of a professional wine-tasters guild. All this led to
it becoming one of the icons of Functionalism in the Netherlands.
While designing glass for everyday use, however, Copier was ultimate-
ly still more interested in traditional methods of glass-blowing and in the
artistic effects that he could achieve in close collaboration with the glass-
blowers working at the factory, using colours, special raw materials and
different techniques. His rst free forms were already being sold in 1924
under the product name of Unica. The most successful of these were subse-
quently produced in small series, and brought onto the market under the
name Serica. Chris Lebeau also designed a great number of free artistic
vases, dishes and bowls. All these objects for Leerdam were clearly signed,
thus stressing their unique, artistic character. Together with the special
Design Collection this amounted to only 10 per cent of total production at
the most. The greater part of the range in Leerdam consisted of container
glass. It is true that this was often designed with help from Andries Copier
and Jacob Jongert, but unlike the prestigious Design Collection these every-
day mass-produced products were certainly not proudly displayed at
exhibitions in museums at home and abroad.
By 1924, the year when the bki was founded, W.P.J. van Dissel, the direc-
tor of a linen-weaving mill by that name in Eindhoven, also had plenty of
experience of involving artists in production.
45
His rm had started calling
on their services in 1905. Until then the only products being woven in
Eindhoven were traditional, simple, chequered kitchen cloths made with a
variety of household uses in mind. Inspired by the innovative work of a few
Dutch artists in other elds, Van Dissel purchased a special loom at the
beginning of the century, intending to start weaving modern, artistic Dutch
patterns. The artist Chris Lebeau, who had just created a furore with his
rened batiks, was approached to see if he would be willing to make similar
designs for Van Dissel. By Dutch patterns the director of the weaving mill
did not mean traditional seventeenth-century damask patterns, but Dutch
Nieuwe Kunst, that is flat-decorative Dutch Art Nouveau motifs. The expen-
sive jacquard loom Van Dissel had purchased for the job was a hand-loom,
80 Dutch Design

which in view of the tendency towards mechanization in linen-weaving fac-
tories at the time was unusual. His preference for such a loom clearly shows
what objectives he must have had in mind when taking this initiative: not
modernizing the production process but giving it a contemporary artistic
injection, combined with harking back to the ne-quality craftsmanship to
be found in the famous Dutch damasks of the Golden Age.
The beautiful tablecloths and napkins, with their rigorously stylized
plant and animal motifs, that Chris Lebeau designed for Van Dissel in the
following years were produced in the nest quality linen. The artist
immersed himself so thoroughly in the complicated damask technique that
it was possible to realize even his most subtle designs. Like the glassware for
Leerdam, these tablecloths and napkins were presented in art galleries,
museums and art magazines as artistic products. The artistic table linen
was marketed separately from the rest of Van Dissels collection, which con-
tinued to be kitchen cloths, while with the aid of new looms large quantities
of traditional, unpretentious ecclesiastical fabrics were also woven.
G. Pelt, the third manufacturer involved in the setting up of the bki,
was the director of Labor Omnia Vincit (lov), an outstanding example of
an idealistic furniture factory in Oosterbeek, near Arnhem.
46
Since the
foundation of the factory in 1910 it had been operated on a system that gave
the employees a say in company affairs and a share in the prots, although
unfortunately there was seldom much prot to share. This factory was also
one of the rst in the Netherlands to introduce an eight-hour working day
and provide a few days of annual holiday for the employees.
As well as supporting these social ideals and promoting the well-being
of the workers, however, Pelt wanted to make good, distinctive, reliable
products that were reasonably priced for a broad group of consumers. This
was the reason why Pelt was absolutely not opposed to mechanized produc-
tion and rejected the elitist, romantic views on handcrafted furniture of the
English Arts and Crafts artists.
The architects H. F. Mertens, F. Spanjaard and, especially, J. A.
Muntendam are the best-known designers who worked for this rm. It is
patently obvious that their sober designs were influenced by Berlages work.
Generally speaking, lov produced small series of these designers works.
A few Amsterdam School architects, including J. B. van Loghem, had their
unique, much more expensive and elaborate designs made by the factory
as well. Pelts desire to be artistically innovative was without doubt less
pronounced than it was for Cochius and Van Dissel: his idealism was
more directed towards social reform and the well-being of his workers than
towards a level of artistry.

The publishing rm W. L. & J. Brusse in Rotterdam was another of
the early bki members.
47
The rms director, J. Brusse, the brother of the
founder W. L. Brusse, was a member of the federations influential board
from the outset. This board determined the daily running of affairs and also
decided which rms were allowed to become members. Ever since its foun-
dation in 1903, Brusses publishing house had pursued an idealistic policy.
W. L. Brusse was an active member of the Rotterdam branch of the Social
Democratic Workers Party and his companys lists contained a great
amount of socialist literature. His idealism, however, also extended into the
artistic side of operational management. A great deal of care was taken with
book covers and illustrations. In 1913 Brusse was the rst publisher to use
the Dutch Medieval font designed by S. J. de Roos. The most outstanding
characteristic of this simple, harmonious font, which was made by the
Amsterdam Type Foundry, was its legibility. It was also used for the vank
yearbooks, for the Applied Arts in the Netherlands series and for almost all
of Berlages publications. Apart from Sjoerd de Roos, Brusse commissioned
works from many artists and designers, including Johan Bried, Jan van
Krimpen, Richard Roland Holst, Piet Zwart and Paul Schuitema.
The members of the rst board of the Dutch Federation for Art in
Industry, in addition to J. Brusse, were P. M. Cochius, J. de Leeuw, director of
Metz & Co., W. F. Gouwe, director of the isn, A. E. von Saher, curator of the
Museum of Applied Arts in Haarlem, and the designers Berlage, Penaat and
N. P. de Koo. Thus the number of arts-related members far outnumbered
those who were entrepreneurs or factory managers. The number of members
increased only gradually because the entry requirements were strictly
adhered to and it was necessary to be invited to join by an existing member.
One of the conditions that had to be met before joining was that manufac-
turers had to mention their designers by name in all their publicity
82 Dutch Design
Photographs in the LOV
brochure, Wat overwint,
1930, showing interiors
by G. van Buuren and J. A.
Muntendam.

material. The Joh. Ensched Type Foundry in Haarlem, the Pander furni-
ture factory in The Hague, the Ram pottery factory in Arnhem, the Gispen
metal factory, the Amsterdam Type Foundry and the Zuid-Holland pottery
factory in Gouda were among the rst rms to meet all the entry require-
ments. The number of members was never to be really large: in 1941 there
were still only about thirty.
The BKI and Art
Until it amalgamated with the Institute for Industrial Design in 1950 (see
below), the art factor continued to be of importance to the bki and its
individual members. Almost all the manufacturers who met the require-
ments and were interested in joining produced products that were
traditionally considered to be applied art or interior design, such as furni-
ture, carpets, curtain fabrics, tableware and vases, with an emphasis on
the more decorative and representational aspects of the eld. However,
popular partiality for decorated meaning ornamented products was
gradually waning. In fact, the trend was going in the opposite direction;
from the 1930s decorative was no longer synonymous with decorated.
The preferred style that the federation implicitly propagated from then on
was more that of modernism, with its uncompromising functionalism and
abstract design idiom. The spherical vases and the Gilde glasses designed
by Copier for Leerdam, and Gispens modern lamps, could almost be
termed prototypical for the artistically minded industrial design promot-
ed by the federation in the 1930s.
Joseph de Leeuw, the director of the prestigious furniture store Metz &
Co., played an important role in the organization of the federation and in
spreading its ideals.
48
This store had originally sold fabrics, having obtained

exclusive rights in the Netherlands to sell those by Liberty of London. In 1918
De Leeuw decided that his rm was ripe for a rigorous form of moderniza-
tion. By employing the interior and furniture designer Paul Bromberg, he
made it possible for the rm to produce its own contemporary furniture. In
1924 Bromberg was succeeded by Willem Penaat, who had recently resigned
his post as director of the Haarlem Museum of Applied Arts. Evidently
Penaat had found his true vocation at last, for he was to stay with Metz & Co.
for 25 years. In total more than 1,300 of his designs were brought onto the
market by this Amsterdam furniture store. His joinable furniture, for exam-
ple, proved to be a great success: the cubical designs could be combined in
various ways, had a modern look and were space saving.
Undoubtedly it was through Penaat that Joseph de Leeuw became
involved with the federation. De Leeuw linked idealism in modern design
with a great talent for commerce, which led to the great importance of Metz
& Co. to the development of design in the Netherlands in the 1920s and
84 Dutch Design
Willem Penaat (Metz
& Co., Amsterdam,) join-
able furniture, 1929.

30s. As well as Penaat, designers whom De Leeuw managed to engage for
the company included Gerrit Rietveld, Bob Oud, Bart van der Leck,
Hendrik Wouda and Mart Stam. The company also sold designs by foreign
celebrities such as Marcel Breuer, Erich Dieckmann, Le Corbusier and Alvar
Aalto. The relationship between Joseph de Leeuw and the French-Russian
artist Sonia Delaunay was even more exclusive, since for a few years she
designed fabrics solely for Metz & Co.
49
Not all the rms that were members of the Dutch Federation for Art in
Industry were completely mechanized, and this was denitely not a precon-
dition for membership. Therefore alongside weaving mills like Van Dissel
and De Ploeg, calico printworks like Van Vlissingen and carpet factories
like the Royal Carpet Factory Deventer, there were a few small-scale fabric
studios run by craftsmen who were allowed to become members as well.
Hand-weaving studios, such as De Knipscheer in Laren and Edmondt de
Cneudt in Soest, together with the carpet-knotting and textile printing rm
of Het Paapje, were also on the membership list. The latter company was
particularly well respected. Under the capable management of Hans Polak,
who had trained at the Rotterdam Academy, Het Paapje wove, printed and
knotted artistic curtain fabrics and carpets for Metz & Co., De Bijenkorf
and Pander, as well as producing special assignments for architects includ-
ing W. M. Dudok and J.J.P. Oud.
50
As well as the rms already mentioned, during the 1930s a few potteries
working with craftsmen also became members, such as the one run by Pieter
Groeneveldt in Voorschoten and Potterij De Rijn, where Meindert Zaalberg
was in charge. The Zuid-Holland pottery factory was only allowed to become
a member owing to the artistic quality of its special Modern Design Depart -
ment, where designs by, among others, Jaap Gidding, Louis Bogtman, Jan
Schonk and Erich Wichman were still painted by hand.
51
A company that did not produce any products for living rooms, but still
became a member, was De IJssel enamel factory in Dieren, which made
simple kitchen utensils designed by Cor Alons during the late 1920s. Also on
the membership list for a number of years were two factories, Frisia in
Amsterdam and E. M. Jaarsma in Hilversum, which produced re surrounds.
The odd one out among the members was the chocolate factory of Van
Houten in Weesp, which was allowed to join because of its special advertise-
ments and packaging by Stefan Schlesinger, who was also responsible for a
part of the graphic work for Metz & Co. and the Trio printing rm. This
Austrian designers output attracted much attention in the Netherlands: it was
elegant and rened, and had a more luxurious appearance than most Dutch
packaging materials and advertisements at the time.
52

National Post, Telephone and
Telegraph Company
The National Post, Telephone and Telegraph
Company (ptt) was not to be found on the mem-
bers list of the bki. Although the company had
not been a government institution since 1915, but
a nationalized enterprise with its own budgetary
accountability, because of its non-commercial
status it did not qualify for federation membership.
Yet it would have been an utterly model member if
it had been admitted. The major stimulus behind
the companys progressive artistic policy was Jean
Franois van Royen, whom we have already come
across as the chairman of vank and board mem-
ber of the isn.
53
Van Royen took up his duties on the executive
board of ptt directors in 1904. He showed a great
interest in art and particularly in printing. Inspired
by William Morris, in 1913 he became involved in
a small rm of literary publishers, De Zilverdistel,
which had been established a few years earlier by
the poet P. N. van Eyk. As an amateur typographer Van Royen designed a few
editions for this private press.
By drawing attention to the need to improve the postal companys
graphic design, Van Royen was able to combine his work and his hobby
in a useful way. By 1906 he had already secured a commission for
Cornelis de Lorm to design new cast-iron signs to be placed outside the
post ofces. This was soon followed by a series of counter and wall
plates. The text on the plates was executed in taut, sans serif lettering to
which some minor geometric decorations had been added. The fact that
these plates attracted attention, and that the special care taken over
something so seemingly trivial was still extraordinary, is evident in a
review written by Cornelis van der Sluys in the daily De Hofstad.
Incidentally, it was this article that launched Van der Sluyss career as a
design reviewer in 1910.
54
The rst artist hired to design a new postage stamp was Antoon
Derkinderen, who created a stamp drawing attention to tuberculosis in
1906. However, the jubilee stamps designed by Karel de Bazel from 1913
are better known, owing to their innovative, two-dimensional interpretation
K.P.C. de Bazel, Jubilee
stamps of 2, 3, 5 and 10
cents showing King Willem
I, King Willem II, King
Willem III and Queen
Wilhelmina, 1913.
86 Dutch Design

of traditional portraits of the four monarchs who had reigned in the
Netherlands since 1813.
Van Royen thought that these initiatives were merely a drop in the
ocean, because a great deal of work still needed to be done to improve the
quality of Dutch government printing. In 1912 he denounced the standard
of print as Ugly, ugly, ugly . . . the letter type, the typesetting, and the
paper.
55
His proposal to adopt the new Dutch Medieval font by Sjoerd de
Roos for all national printed matter, however, was rejected.
When Van Royen became general secretary of the postal company in
1918, he took every opportunity, wherever and whenever, to improve the
design of as many divisions as possible of this continually growing, multi-
faceted organization. Hundreds of commissions were issued by the postal
company and the isn over the years thanks to his mediation. The combina-
tion of his positions in vank, the isn and at the ptt meant that Van Royen
almost became the embodiment of the views held on the relationship
between art and design in the Netherlands during the interwar years.


The 1920s marked the start of a more radical, social and political form of
idealism in Dutch design that came to be rmly linked to observations on
modern functionalist architecture and progressive views on industrial mass
production. In this context it is referred to as Dutch Moral Modernism.
1
This ethical aspect of design was only a relatively new phenomenon (see
chapters One and Two). In the nineteenth century honesty and character,
for example, were central concepts in design, as were rationality and
sobriety around 1900. From the 1890s designers were, on the whole, rmly
convinced that those who used their products would be happier, in the
belief that a handsomely designed object is bound to appeal to a persons
better nature. Those who surround themselves with beautiful and in the
Netherlands this usually means unpretentious, sensible, honest products
will foster the same qualities in themselves.
This moralism was not restricted to the products but, as we have
already seen, it also affected the perception of the artists or designers task.
In the case of Pierre Cuypers and Gerrit Dijsselhof, ethical-religious motives
determined not only their preference for Gothic style, but also their idea
that the architect or designer should take the lead and become a binding
element in the community.
At the start of the twentieth century, the founders and the earliest
members of the vank experienced all these social ideals in different ways,
and in changing alignments and associations. For some it was socialist
ideals that were of vital importance, for others Theosophy or Freemasonry.
Usually the designers were actually inspired by a vague mixture of religious,
ethical and utopian socialist-communal ideals. In an epoch in which a class-
ridden society slowly but surely evolved into a modern community, these
3
Good Design, 192565
89
Gerrit Rietveld, living
room, Rietveld-
Schrderhuis, Utrecht.

industrial artists thought they could make their contribution by producing
sensibly designed products that would have a civilizing influence.
Designers like H. P. Berlage, Jan Eisenloeffel, Willem Penaat and Cornelis
van der Sluys even went one step further and tried to ensure that beauty
in general ltered down to the ordinary man. They were involved in the
founding of the Amsterdam association Art for the People (Kunst aan het
Volk) and Art for All (Kunst aan Allen) in The Hague. The aim of these asso-
ciations was to educate people on art, good taste and beauty. Exhibitions
seemed a good way of promoting these aims in a tangible way. Shows with
unambiguous titles like Exhibition against Deceitful Taste (Tentoonstelling
tegen Smaakmisleiding, 1910) were set up where people could compare
acceptable and unacceptable interiors and products, the differences being
shown in clear letters next to the good and bad items on display.
The Rotterdam Opbouw (Advancement) Association: From
Social Idealism to Moral Modernism
Until the 1920s the effects of this cultural offensive were marginal. The work-
ing classes had not the slightest need for the sober, sensible design that
the well-intentioned cultural reformers were eager to foist upon them.
Moreover, idealistic studios like t Binnenhuis, De Ploeg, De Woning and
Amstelhoek continued to make extremely expensive products that only
the wealthy elite could afford. Most people were pleased with the growing
supply of cheap mass-produced articles from abroad. And they were not
A view of the exhibition
installed by Cornelis van
der Sluys for Kunst aan
Allen (Art for Everyone)
in The Hague, 1909.
90 Dutch Design

bothered by the fact that these products had been
machine-made. The underlying principles were
cherished by only a small select group of artists,
the people who commissioned their work, and at
most merely a few sympathetic teachers.
It was not until after the First World War
that a number of designers became aware of their
isolated position and the limited opportunities
open to them for achieving their ideal of a better
world through better design. The way in which
the rather ineffective social-ethical design princi-
ples were gradually adjusted in the 1920s to form
a decisive, but in actual fact equally moral form of modernism is well illus-
trated by the artists and architects association Opbouw (Advancement) in
Rotterdam, and the changing views of a few of its most prominent members.
Its existence also illustrates the increasing importance of Rotterdam in the
design culture of the period.
2
Opbouw was founded in 1920 by the architects Willem Kromhout and
Michiel Brinkman. Among its earliest members were the decorative artists
Jacob Jongert and Jaap Gidding, the manufacturer Willem Gispen, the archi-
tects Mart Stam, Bob Oud and Leen van der Vlugt, and the furniture
designer N. P. de Koo; even the traditionalist architect M. J. Granpr Molire
joined their ranks. They were a heterogeneous group with broad cultural
objectives, although the name the members chose for their organization
indicated their shared progressive mentality.
Jacob Jongert had moved to Rotterdam in 1918 on his appointment as
Head of Decorative and Industrial Arts at the Rotterdam Academy.
3
After
training at the National School of Applied Arts in Amsterdam, he was origi-
nally influenced by the socialist artist Richard Roland Holst and assisted him
in 191112 in creating symbolically charged gurative murals in Berlages
Union of Diamond Workers building in Amsterdam. When Jongert saw the
work of German industrial designers at the Werkbund exhibition in Cologne
in 1914, however, his eyes were opened to the more contemporary ways open
to artists willing to dedicate themselves to the service of society. Looking
back at his life in his handwritten memoirs in the 1940s, he remembered
being fascinated by the shopping streets in Cologne, where everything
from biscuits to electrical appliances was packaged and exhibited in the
shop windows in a modern way: This gave us a shock . . . here was a totally
new terrain for us to work for, until then nobody else in Holland had been
active there.
4
From that moment he welcomed collaboration with industry
Newly wed maths teacher
Joop Simon Thomas and
his young wife in their new
interior, 1912.
91 Good Design, 192565

and intensied his advertising work for the Purmerend drinks factory De
Wed. G. Oud & Co. and the Leerdam glassworks. In 1919 Jongert started
to work for the Rotterdam tobacco, coffee and tea factory of De Erven de
Wed. J. Van Nelle. Influenced by the artists of De Stijl and the design of
Wendingen, he incorporated geometric shapes and prime colours into his
designs. His teaching at the Academy introduced others to his modern
insights. In 1924 the newspaper Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant commented
that Modernism has now also penetrated through to the inner walls of our
revered Academy.
5
Much of the packaging material and a large number of the advertise-
ments produced between 1923 and 1940 for Van Nelle were designed by
Jongert, who emphatically stressed the rms modern, progressive image in
his work. This allowed Jongert to full his mission of spreading good design
to as many layers of the population as possible. Nevertheless, no matter how
progressive his packaging may have looked, and no matter how applied
graphic art shifted in the direction of functional advertising through his
labours, Jongert never took the denitive step that would have enabled him
to create a commercial, purely industrial form of graphic design. The alpha-
bet he used for Van Nelle, using modern sans serif script, was made by
cutting out each letter piece by piece and sticking it onto paper. Unlike his
contemporaries Piet Zwart and Paul Schuitema, he very rarely used the new
medium of photography in his designs.
6
Indeed, Jongert recoiled from using
the most modern equipment in pursuing his social ideal.
By contrast, Willem Gispen embraced the new age and its new techni-
cal prospects unreservedly and his lamps were industrially manufactured
on a grand scale in the 1920s (see chapter Two).
7
He was also motivated by
the rm moral conviction that the new pure and clean interiors that could
be created with the aid of these industrial articles would have a strong and
stimulating influence that would be of great benet to the community. He
loved the big city of Rotterdam with its cars and gigantic ships, the docks,
the neon signs, its modern Lifting Bridge, its aireld and proper aircraft
factory. But Gispen was no socialist. He was, and continued to be, a factory
manager, and despite his social idealism his main interest lay in the economic
performance of his company.
Mart Stam was probably one of Opbouws youngest members when it
was founded, since at the time he was barely 21 years old.
8
After completing
his art teacher training course and a brief internship with the Amsterdam
School architect J. M. van der Mey, he was able to secure an appointment in
the ofce of the architect M. J. Granpr Molire. It was to be some time,
however, before Stam would be in a position to take advantage of his
92 Dutch Design

Opbouw membership, since that same year he spent several months in jail
for refusing to do military service as a conscientious objector. This lonely
period in his cell contributed to the radicalization of his views, so much so
that he became a fully fledged communist. In 1922 and 1923 Stam worked in
Germany at Max Taut and Hans Poelzigs ofce and got to know avant-
garde artists such as El Lissitzky and the graphic designer Karel Teige.
Straight after that he went to Switzerland and stayed until 1925 working,
among others, for Karl Moser. On his return to Rotterdam in 1926 Stam
became involved with the building of the Van Nelle factories. In that same
year he invented the principle of the suspended, tubular, steel chair.
Evidently he felt very much at home in Rotterdam during this period,
because he twice turned down Walter Gropiuss offers to take up the posi-
tion of head of the architecture department at the Bauhaus. In the early
1930s Stam went to the Soviet Union for a few years accompanied by Johan
Niegeman and Gerda Marx. There they joined Ernst Mays group in
Magnitogorsk, Siberia, where Stam met the former Bauhaus student Lotte
Beese, whom he was to marry in 1934.
9
They were not the rst Dutch architects to take this principled step
with such far-reaching consequences, since in 1925 J. B. (Han) van Loghem
had set off for Kemerovo in Siberia.
10
Van Loghem was an architect and a
furniture-maker who could be considered to belong to the Amsterdam
School (see chapter Two). However, in addition to making expensive and
luxurious furniture for the elite, he contributed to a few idealistic public
housing projects. His views gradually became so radical that in 1919 Van
Loghem joined the Union of Revolutionary Socialist Intellectuals and he
reorganized his design ofce into a collective cooperative. His move to
Siberia in 1925 was not altogether unexpected.
Han van Loghem stayed in the Soviet Union for two years and settled
in Rotterdam on his return in 1927. In that year he also became a member
of Opbouw and it was due to him that the aims of this organization were
rigorously reformulated. From 1927 onwards membership was open only to
architects and designers who openly and consciously supported the politi-
cally inspired ideals of functionalism and New Objectivity. From then on
Van Loghem no longer designed artistic wooden furniture, but turned to
less striking, tubular steel chairs, which were produced by the Rotterdam
furniture factory d3 (later known as Fana). His pioneering book bouwen
bauen btir building (1932) proved to be one of the most fundamental Dutch
publications on modern architecture in relation to politics, ethics and aes-
thetics. Covering everything from interior design to urban development, it
was an important manifesto for functionalism. An architect was no longer

supposed to restrict himself to drawing new houses but was to organize the
whole process of living from start to nish; the designer was expected to
reinvent himself and develop into a producer.
11
The Problem of Public Housing
As in the rest of Europe, a growing number of Dutch designers were becom-
ing increasingly conscious of the huge social problems facing society. This
led many designers to consider affordable housing and everyday domestic
objects as their principal mission. The Housing Act (1901) had already cre-
ated a framework in which projects of this type could be carried through.
From then it became compulsory for local authorities to become more
active in controlling levels of hygiene, habitability and minimum rents.
Initially it was the private building rms that mostly proted from these
measures, but from 1914 the government began to take public housing into
its own hands. One of the rst sensational results was the Rotterdam hous-
ing complex Justus van Effen (1921), commissioned by Rotterdam City
Council and designed by Opbouw member Michiel Brinkman.
12
Although
trained in the classical tradition, he had presented them with a workable
alternative to the compact and monotonous blocks of houses developed in
the nineteenth century. The apartments were arranged in an ingenious and
complex way, grouped around an inner garden; raised inner streets then
ran up to the higher storeys. With their shared communal facilities, such as
central heating, washrooms and childrens playgrounds, Brinkman showed
how an architect could make a real contribution to the well-being of his less
fortunate compatriots.
The architect J.J.P. Oud was not only associated with De Stijl but was also
a prominent member of Opbouw. During this period he began to take an
interest in council housing and the problems of public housing provi-
sion.
13
In 1918 he was appointed to the position of architect at the Rotterdam
Department of Housing, where he worked with Theo van Doesburg on the
design of a few rows of houses in the Spangen district. Such a form of collab-
oration with an artist was entirely in keeping with ideas formulated by De Stijl
on Neo Plasticism (Nieuwe Beelding), but in practice working together still
proved to be difcult. Van Doesburg designed stained-glass windows for the
houses and created a special colour plan for both the exterior and the inter ior.
In the living rooms the walls were yellow and the doors blue; the replaces
were painted grey and blue and tiled with black, red and yellow tiles. In 1920
a show house was furnished in one of the blocks using Gerrit Rietvelds
slatted furniture. After completion of their rst joint project, however, Oud
94 Dutch Design

noticed that the new residents were very quick to
paint or wallpaper over Van Doesburgs colours.
Objecting to the even wilder colour scheme Van
Doesburg plan ned for the next block, he thought
that the colour suggestions for the front of the
block atly contradicted the static character of
the architecture and the materials that were to
be used. Ouds own, more decorative, ideas
about the use of colour in architecture emerged a
few years later in his design for the caf De Unie.
Here he made a striking statement with what
was intended to be a temporary faade on the
Coolsingel, right in the centre of Rotterdam,
design ed in complete contrast to its surroundings.
While working on his 1924 design for the
Witte Dorp (White Village), a residential area in
Rotterdam, Oud had to abandon most of his aes-
thetic aspirations for nancial reasons. The only
elements that referred to De Stijl idiom were the
yellow and blue painted doors, window frames
and guttering, together with the red roof tiles
and the white plastered walls. Here, the simple, but well thought-out archi-
tecture and the planned urban development scheme were primarily
intended to discipline and stimulate a group of troublesome residents into
behaving like decent families. In his 1925 plan for working-class housing in
the Kiefhoek district of Rotterdam, Oud was given his rst opportunity to
carry out a number of more innovative ideas regarding the floor plans, stan-
dardization and industrial building. In this project his main aim was to
design a standard house with a maximum amount of living space on a min-
imum budget. The houses were planned for the large group of economic
migrants attracted to Rotterdam as the docks expanded, as well as for those
who had been evicted from their dwellings in the old town centre due to a
slum clearance programme. With these projects Oud earned an interna-
tional reputation for applying new building techniques to public housing.
Nieuwe Bouwen (New Building)
The years 1927 and 1928 were crucial for developments in modern architec-
ture and design in the Netherlands. It is not that everyone suddenly started
to design and build in a more modern way this still remained the exception
Justus van Effen, housing
complex in Rotterdam by
Michiel Brinkman, 1921.
Public gallery on the third
floor.

rather than the rule but from then debate on design and architecture did
take a new turn. These years marked the start of a period in which discussion
was influenced by international contacts, a positive attitude towards indus-
trial building techniques and mass production, and greater political
consciousness. Take 1927 for instance, a year in which the association De 8
(The 8) was founded by a group of then unknown Amsterdam architects.
Their distinctly progressive views were published in a manifesto in i10, an
international art and architecture journal.
14
In eighteen short business-like
statements the young architects state that De 8 aims to give a critical reac-
tion to the architecture of this era, that they intend to be realistic and
factual, that they are seeking opportunities for international collaboration
and are willing to make themselves absolutely subservient to the assign-
ment. De 8 does not aim to make affluent architecture sprouting from a
sensuality of form created by talented individuals and for this reason the
authors of the manifesto claim that it would be better for the present
moment to build in an ugly, purpose-designed manner than to erect show-
piece architecture from poor plans. De 8 worked more for the realization of
building-science than building-art.
That was plain speaking, and for those who read between the lines it
was clear that De 8 wanted to oppose the wrong sort of Amsterdam School
buildings. What was perhaps less clear was that
directly under the surface of this ostensibly tech-
nocratic language lurked a moral standpoint. In
their analyses of the needs of future residents in
their houses there was usually an undercurrent
of strong views about the way people should live
and relax in their spare time. Similarly, these
architects beliefs on the role of women in society
were also fairly conservative.
15
Members of De 8 took their inspiration from
the Rotterdam Van Nelle factory, which was in
the process of being built by the architects
Brinkman and Van der Vlugt, and the Hilversum
tbc Sanatorium, Zonnestraal, by Jan Duiker
and Bernard Bijvoet. Both buildings were later
to become icons of the international Nieuwe
Bouwen, notably for their rational floor plans and
structure, and for their disproportionate use of
glass, metal and white-distempered walls. Jan
Duiker and the more experienced A. Boeken,
Cover of De 8 en
Opbouw, 1936.
96 Dutch Design

W. G. Wiebenga and Cornelis van Eesteren, who had recently been appoint ed
chief architect to the Amsterdam Department of Urban Develop ment, joined
De 8 in the late 1920s and their membership was to win the society enormous
prestige. In 1932 De 8 and Opbouw amalgamated and jointly published the
periodical de 8 en Opbouw.
In 1927 Bob Oud and Mart Stam took part in the large international
exhibition Die Wohnung in Stuttgart.
16
Part of this event, initiated by the
Deutscher Werkbund, was a complete district full of show houses, the Weiss -
en hofsiedlung, designed by sixteen modern architects from the whole of
Europe, including Le Corbusier, Hans Poelzig, Peter Behrens, Bruno Taut
and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, all of whom at that moment considered it
their mission to design a good house that everyone could afford to live in.
With their suggestions for new, efcient, industrial methods of building and
with practical solutions for the lay-out of the houses, the Weissenhofsiedlung
was to contribute to solving the huge housing shortage in Germany and
elsewhere in Europe. Oud and Stam both designed a row of semi-detached
middle-class houses, just meeting minimum measurement requirements but
providing a maximum of usable space. The lay-out of the houses was based on
an analysis of the activities that should be carried out within its walls.
For the Nieuwe Bouwen architects the interior and everything related to it
was every bit as important as the building itself. Moreover, not only did the
house have to be arranged in as practical a way as possible, it also had to be
built in the most favourable position for catching the sun and be easy to venti-
late and clean. Stam also designed a large part of the furniture for their houses.
The lamps were supplied by his friend and fellow townsman Willem Gispen.
Model housing by
J.J.P. Oud at the Weissen -
hofsiedlung in Stuttgart,
illustrated in J. B. Van
Loghem, Bouwen, Bauen,
Batir, Building, 1932.

Mart Stam rst presented his free floating chair (without back legs) in
Stuttgart. Much has been written about the background to this revolution-
ary idea and the true deviser of this new principle has often been disputed.
17
Whatever the truth, in 1926 Stam had completely worked out the archetype
of the idea in Rotterdam, using gas pipes and ttings and two pieces of cloth
one to sit on and one to lean against. In November 1926 he talked about
this experiment during a dinner party in Berlin (or, according to other
sources, in Stuttgart) and made a drawing of it on the back of a menu for his
colleague Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. A year later the German architect was
able to show a splendid example of the Freischwinger made from shining
nickel-plated tubes, whereas Stam still only had a makeshift example on
show in his house. It is worth noting that in exactly the same period Marcel
Breuer also designed his rst chair made from tubular steel. Everything
points to the idea being in the air.
Oud also designed a few pieces of metal furniture for the Weissen -
hofsiedlung, including a dinner table with accompanying austere, minimalist
Mart Stam (Thonet),
tubular steel chair, 1929
(designed in 1926).
98 Dutch Design

99
chairs, painted bright blue. The kitchen in his
show house complied with the newest insights
in the eld of efciency and hygiene as laid
down by the German economist Erna Meyer in
her book Die Neue Haushalt (The New Household
Management, 1926). The Netherlands Union of
Housewives took the initiative to have this book
translated in 1928 and it too was to create a furore
when published in the Netherlands under the
title De Nieuwe Huishouding. The book spoke
highly of the Frankfurt Kitchen, which had been
developed by the Viennese architect Margarethe
Schtte-Lihotzky for Ernst Mays large social
housing projects. Another title to appear in the
Netherlands in 1928 was the Dutch translation
of Household Engineering: Scientic Management
in the Home (1915) by the American Christine
Frederick under the title De denkende huisvrouw
(The Thinking Housewife). Frederick was the rst writer to base her views
for the most practical kitchen design on F. W. Taylors principles of opera-
tional management and labour division. It is a lesser-known fact that around
1930 the Dutch architect J. W. Janzen was commissioned by The Hague
branch of the Netherlands Union of Housewives to create a design in imita-
tion of the Frankfurt Kitchen and, like the original, to base it on time and
motion studies. This Holland kitchen housed a housekeeping factory and,
as an added bonus, it incorporated the most modern labour-saving devices,
including a refrigerator, a swivel tap and a small shower-head tap for rinsing
the dishes.
18
Gerrit Rietveld and Nieuwe Wonen (New Living)
The furniture designer Gerrit Rietveld also started to take an interest in low-
cost housing in the 1920s.
19
His departure point was the interior. His rst
design from 1924, now known as the Rietveld-Schrderhuis, was not exactly
what you might call a shining example of a house for someone living on a
minimum income.
20
However, it was indeed an exercise in the liberation of
superfluous objects and that was to come in useful in later projects. Nothing
in this house in Utrecht built for Truus Schrder-Schrder, the widow of the
lawyer Frits Schrder, could be called traditional or ordinary, because
almost everything from floor plan to doorknob had been specially
J. W. Janzen, Holland-
kitchen , designed for the
Dutch Housewives Society,
1931.
Good Design, 192565

Dutch Design 100
designed to t her and her three childrens specic needs. The assignment
was in principle to create a house in which living had been upgraded to an
activity. Rietveld had been granted permission to omit everything that
was not strictly necessary, but only if this did not lead to a loss of comfort.
However, the fact that Rietvelds idea of comfort was something quite dif-
ferent from encouraging idleness is shown in the nal result. The
unconventional, open structure of the house, the sliding walls that allowed
the interiors to be used in different ways, the specially designed furniture
and the conspicuous use of colour are the most important style characteris-
tics. The fact that it was a brick building, and as such still traditional,
scarcely detracts from the innovative character of the house.
Later on in the decade Rietveld became interested in public housing
and designed a few small interiors and several model houses. He was one of
the three Dutchmen present in 1928 at the foundation in La Sarraz,
Switzerland, of ciam, the international architects organization.
21
The
group claimed that they could make a realistic contribution to tackling the
housing problem by opting for advanced solutions in the elds of technol-
ogy, economy, hygiene, aesthetics and ideology. Apart from Gerrit Rietveld,
the two Dutch members to sign the declaration were H. P. Berlage and Mart
Stam. Berlage was invited by the organizers because he was seen as a pio-
neer of their innovatory ideas. J.J.P. Oud, then the Netherlands best-known
modern architect abroad, was also invited but was unable to attend due to
the pressure of work.
Rietveld started to experiment about 1927 with new chair structures
and different materials, making chairs by sawing sheets of bre and triplex
into a specic shape and then bending them in all directions. The results
were revolutionary, a one-piece chair that was none the less difcult to pro-
duce in large series. His bow chair was more successful, combining bre,
and later bent triplex, with a metal frame. This was Rietvelds rst, more or
less successful, attempt at making an attractively priced chair for the masses.
From about 1930 the chair, and variations on its design, was sold by Metz &
Co. in Amsterdam, but at the time it was not cheap enough for everyones
pocket.
22
In 1933 Rietveld designed a spectacular transparent glass pavilion on
the roof of the Amsterdam Metz store in the Leidsestraat, where progres-
sive functionalist furniture designs were displayed. Jan Duiker praised it as
Metz & Co.s Nieuwe Bouwen house. Another Metz commission, however,
a 1934 model house furnished by Rietveld in the new Bergpolderflat in
Rotterdam, came closer to tting this description. The architects Brinkman,
Van der Vlugt and Van Tijen created living accommodation for a family

Good Design, 192565 101
Gerrit Rietveld, interior
of the Bergpolderflat in
Rotterdam, realized by
Metz & Co., 1934.
with two children taking up a surface area of only 45 square metres. An
extremely efcient lay-out and large windows provided sufcient light, air
and space, and encouraged hygienic living. The parents bedroom could be
added to the living space during the day by pushing back a sliding wall.
Rietveld aimed at using just a few lightweight, moveable pieces of furniture
and ensured that the space-devouring beds could all be folded up. This fur-
niture was made of tubular stainless-steel or they were Thonet chairs, which
were at least light and took up as little space as possible. Moreover, they
were placed in such a way that they left as much open space as possible for
walking and playing. The colours chosen for the interior were light and the
soft furnishings subdued.
The White Villas
Although Nieuwe Bouwen architects considered the provision of houses for
the people and their interior furnishing and decoration to be their main
social task, there was little evidence of this in practice. The economic crisis
in the late 1920s meant that very few public housing projects were actually

Dutch Design 102
realized. If something could be built, the high-principled functionalist
designers seldom received the commission because very few authorities
were enchanted by their work. The drawback with these architects was
that, although they based their work on an analysis of the needs of the
future tenants, giving their plans a scientic ring, or at least the pretence of
inevitability, they did not really take the future tenants wishes into account.
The houses and blocks of flats built by modernist architects were thought
to be much too bleak and functional and the show houses reminded people
of ofces and hospitals. Therefore, in practice, they seldom succeeded in
convincing the tenants of their merits.
Still there were families other than Mrs Schrder and her children who
were attracted by the promise of the whole New Living (Nieuwe Wonen) con-
cept. Not surprisingly, they were to be found mainly among friends and
relations of those in the modern architects circles. Their new houses could
not exactly be counted as homes for those living at subsistence level. In
Rotterdam, for instance, two of the three Van Nelle factory directors had
themselves measured up for a spanking new, ultra-modern design by the
architect Leen van der Vlugt.
23
Kees van der Leeuws house was built
between 1927 and 1929 along the edge of a Rotterdam lake called the
Kralingse Plas. It contained all the principal features of the functionalist
house, from the sliding partitions, the smooth plain walls, the built-in fur-
niture and the tubular steel chairs to the sports area at the top of the house,
where the sliding glass roof could be partly opened to let in the sun and
fresh air. The house was also equipped with the latest electrical and heating
devices. The other director, A. H. Sonneveld, had a house built close to the
centre of Rotterdam. It has recently been restored to its original state and is
now a public museum. Before the Sonneveld family moved into their new
white villa they had been living in an attractive, but dark and impractical,
nineteenth-century building on a shadowy boulevard in Rotterdam. When
they moved in 1933 the family left everything behind them in their old
house in order to be able to get the most out of living in their newly
equipped and newly furnished house.
The Sonnevelds were enthusiastic about modern urban life Mrs
Sonneveld was the rst female car owner in Rotterdam. Van der Vlugt, their
architect, assembled the whole family in advance to discuss every detail of
their new house, including the interior decorations. Most of the furniture
and the lamps came from the Gispen factory. The beds were supplied by
Auping, a rm based in Deventer that specialized in comfortable, medical-
ly approved, hygienic, sprung beds as well as healthy mattresses. Metz &
Co. took care of the soft furnishings, including the knotted carpet in the

L. C. van der Vlugt,
living area of the Sonneveld
House, Rotterdam, with
furniture by W. H. Gispen,
1935. Photograph taken
following the buildings
restoration in 2001.
living room and the printed curtains in the kitchen, both after a design by
Elise Djo Bourgeois. It almost went without saying that a great deal of
linoleum was used in the house, bought from the rm Krommenie. Linoleum
was waterproof, insulating, easy to clean and readily available for delivery in
bright colours and was therefore the floor covering most recommended by all
Nieuwe Bouwen architects.
Huize Sonneveld was a prototype for the Nieuwe Wonen concept, but a
very luxurious version, for an excessive amount of attention had been paid
to luxuries, comfort and aesthetics. It must have been wonderful to live in a
house that was equipped with the most modern devices: from an internal
telephone system to a goods lift, as well as radios and clocks built in and con-
nected to a central network. Everything was in apple-pie order right down to
the last detail, and had been chosen in accordance with the style. Even the
flowers in the house were arranged in charming, undecorated vases in basic
geometric shapes designed by Andries Copier for the Leerdam glassworks.
The sets of glasses, just visible in photos from 1933 behind the sliding glass
doors in the dining room, were also supplied by this factory.

Dutch Design 104
The most striking thing in the house is the attention to colour.
Whereas one would expect white and silver-grey, and at most a few pri-
mary colours, the atmosphere in the house was set by a multi-coloured
palette ranging from copper and beige to tomato red, apple green, grey-
green, yellow, greyish-blue and turquoise. Bart van der Leck, a former De
Stijl artist, was colour adviser to Metz & Co. during this period and played
a crucial role in the choice of colour schemes. Even today the effect of the
turquoise bathroom, containing a bath, a shower with six shower-heads,
two washstands, a toilet, a bidet and heated towel racks, is overwhelming.
The familys two daughters and the two live-in maids each had their own
separate bath.
Steel or Wood?
During the 1930s the design of modern but low-price pieces of serially
produced furniture remained a priority for many social furniture makers,
architects and other designers as they experimented further on the design
and production of tubular steel furniture. The rm Auping no longer con-
centrated solely on beds but had moved on to other types of metal bedroom
furniture. In Rotterdam, where Gispen was already established, a new rm
was set up called d3.
24
Paul Schuitema was its main designer and joint direc-
tor. In addition to his own work, a group of both little-known and well-
known artists and architects, including Han van Loghem, Ben Merkelbach
and Arie Verbeek, supplied new designs.
Meanwhile, foreign tubular furniture came onto the market in the
Netherlands. Some of these items were well made, but others showed the
early stages of a form of mannerism. The principled functionalist designers
from the early days condemned these designs as pretentious, because they
only appeared to be modern but in reality were taking advantage of the
snobbish, conventional requirements of a small group of nouveaux riches
pandering to capitalist trade and industry.
25
But even the Dutch functionalists found it difcult to hold on to their
original ideals. The chairs Gispen designed and produced, with their com-
fortable seats and armrests, could also be classed as traditional armchairs;
even Oud designed a few representative easy chairs with soft cushions and
comfortable armrests. In the journal de 8 en Opbouw all new products were
regularly reviewed and harshly critiqued: What can be worse for spiritual
steel furniture than a combination of elegant thin metal with ungainly,
heavy, thick cushions, lched from the club-chair design. This deer-elephant
production is a grave threat to our new interior design, sneered Han van

Paul Schuitema, brochure
for De Bijenkorf, 1937.
Loghem in 1935.
26
As the 1930s progressed people also began to wonder
whether tubular metal furniture was better than similar wooden models.
After all, in practice wooden furniture could also be styled in such a way
that it would be lightweight and easy to move around, and it was still
cheaper to produce than stainless-steel. Meanwhile, designers and pro-
ducers of wooden furniture had further rationalized their production
lines. Cornelis van der Sluys, for example, who at the time had been active
as a furniture and interior designer for more than 30 years, designed a
completely updated collection in 1932 that he called his Normal Series

Dutch Design 106
Cornelis van der Sluys,
furniture from his Normal
Series , 1932.
Ida Falkenberg-Liefrinck,
rattan chair, 1936.
(Normaal-Serie). By standardizing measurements and construction practices
they could be produced more efciently and cheaply.
In the same period Willem Penaat devised his programme of modular
furniture for Metz & Co., a system that could provide a maximum of possi-
ble uses for a minimum amount of money. The larger furniture factories,
like Pander in The Hague and the Utrechtse Machinale Stoel- en Meubel -
fabriek (ums), also adopted elements from this innovatory movement.
27
By
such means commercial modernism penetrated through to the wooden
furniture market.
As far as interiors were concerned, the purest and most doctrinaire
form of New Objectivity was now over. Even Mart Stam was to design a few
pieces of wooden furniture in the mid-1930s. In the same period the deeply
socially committed interior designer Ida Falkenberg-Liefrinck came up with
an original and practicable alternative for both wood and metal.
28
She
proposed a return to the use of traditional cane and designed a series of
comfortable cane chairs, in which the advantages of both metal and wood
were combined in a surprising way.

Domestic Objects
Although before the Second World War the most conrmed and idealistic
modernists were chiefly active as architects and furniture designers, those
socially and politically motivated to following the path of modernism could
also be found working in other elds of design. Indeed, a strong socially and
ethically motivated body of thought also inspired the entrepreneurs who
joined the Federation for Art in Industry (Bond voor Kunst in Industrie) in
1924. Fuelled by social objectives, Cochius, the director of the Leerdam
glassworks, had already started to collaborate with many artists and archi-
tects such as K.P.C. de Bazel, Cornelis de Lorm and H. P. Berlage as early as
1915 (see chapter Two).
29
The thinking behind this was that good, sensible
products would bring beauty to the home and contribute to peoples happi-
ness. However, the pressure of the socio-economic situation and the hard
reality of a large factory forced him to adjust his idealistic attitude over the
years and to pursue a more pragmatic policy. He had to produce more ef-
ciently and cheaply. Cochius had found an almost perfect interpreter of his
modern, social-industrial design ideals in Andries Copier, who by 1924 was
acting as the permanent designer at the glass factory and showed a great
interest in the technical facets of glass-making.
Social idealism was also at the root of the De Ploeg weaving mill, which
was established in 1923 in Bergeyk as a co-operative factory and commercial
business enterprise.
30
Here in the late 1920s Frits Wichard and Jo Khler
designed the simple, striped and checked curtain materials that were sold
under the trade name Colora Series. These simple cotton fabrics, woven
in bright primary colours, were in great demand among the architects of
Nieuwe Bouwen. The plain Dobby fabrics by De Ploeg, craftily uniting
Cotton textile samples,
Weverij De Ploeg,
Bergeyk, 1930.

industrial and traditional workmanship in their design, continued to be
popular until long after the war. In 1933 the German textile designer Otti
Berger was involved in the development of a new collection. She had
trained at the Bauhaus, where she had been one of the weaver Gunta Stlzs
most talented pupils. During the four years she worked for De Ploeg she
designed sixteen new patterns.
During the 1920s there was even evidence of socially motivated mod-
ernization in the traditional production of luxurious silverware.
31
After the
rms Van Kempen and Begeer had amalgamated in Voorschoten in 1919,
Carel J. A. Begeer took over the management in 1925. During this period he
became increasingly convinced of the social importance of industrially pro-
duced silver consumer goods since more people would be able to afford
them than the exclusive handmade wares. This is why he brought the
Austrian designer Christa Ehrlich to the Netherlands in 1927. She designed
four tea services for Van Kempen en Begeer in shapes telling they were
made by machines
32
products with taut lines, basic geometric shapes and
very subdued decoration.
Moral Modernism was even discernible in the early radios put on the
market, under the trade name Erres, by the Rotterdam rm Stokvis. After
the designer and journalist Otto van Tussenbroek had ercely criticized
Stokvis for improperly historicizing the design of contemporary products,
he was commissioned by the very same rm in the late 1920s to design a
new, more functional series.
33
It seems, however, that the entrepreneurs
wish to promote good taste did not run very deep. When customers did not
show much interest in Van Tussenbroeks austere designs, Stokvis soon
reverted to the more luxurious and popular Art Deco design, combining
108 Dutch Design
Christa Ehrlich (for the
silver factory Van Kempen
and Begeer, Voorschoten),
silver tea service, 193031.

gleaming varnished wood and white Bakelite with gold piping and gold
knobs. This was not the end of Van Tussenbroeks influence at Stokvis, how-
ever, since during the mid-1930s he was involved in the design of the rst
modern streamlined cylinder vacuum cleaner, also sold under the Erres
name. At rst the rm emphatically denied that this streamlined style, then
so popular, had partly been selected for commercial motives; the torpedo-
like shape of the appliance was said to have been chosen solely for its
constructive, functional properties, not on fashionable grounds. Research
into the patent history of this model has revealed that Stokvis was being
somewhat economic with the truth.
Idealism in Modern Typography and Advertising
The most committed and convinced moral modernists could be found in
the eld of applied graphics, typography and advertising. These included
Jacob Jongert and, to a lesser extent, the Amsterdam designer Fr Cohen, but
the most important names in this area are Piet Zwart, Paul Schuitema and
Gerard Kiljan.
34
There were clear parallels between their strong views on the
socio-political signicance of graphic design and the role the designer played
in this process, and those of the architects and furniture designers. That was
not surprising, because Piet Zwart moved in architectural circles and had
himself designed furniture in the past. Paul Schuitema, indeed, became a
director of a furniture factory. In their graphic work Zwart, Schuitema and
Kiljan fought with conviction against the extravagance and the unwhole-
some decorations to be found on the old and, in their eyes, elitist decorated
products. They waged war against dishonesty in design, and against dated,
inefcient, traditional, methods of work. They were entirely convinced that
their new applied graphic art could contribute to a better world.
Zwart had been trained at the start of the century at the National School
of Applied Arts in Amsterdam. His earliest pieces of furniture were designed
in the style of Berlage and De Bazel. He and his wife made cushions in a dec-
orative style associated with the Wiener Werksttte. After the First World
War Zwart converted to socialism and radically changed his ideas on design
and the role of the designer. In 1919 he was among those, together with
Berlage, Van Doesburg and Wijdeveld, who became members of the Union of
Revolutionary Socialist Intellectuals (Bond van Revolutionair Socialistische
Intellectuelen). Despite friendships with Vilmos Huszar, Jan Wils and Bob
Oud, Zwart did not join De Stijl because the theories peddled in their journal
were far too theoretical for his taste. His political convictions led him to make
a conscious choice in preference of mass production and modern technology.

Zwarts rst advertisement for the Netherlands Cable Factories
(Nederlandse Kabelfabrieken, nkf) dates from 1923. His unconventional
designs were notable both for their dynamism and their simplicity. It was
obvious that the modern cable industry, which after all was about new and
contemporary phenomena such as electricity, increases in scale and intro-
ducing conformity to a standard, was bound to appeal to his imagination.
The designs also show that he knew the work produced by De Stijl. But
Zwart was also well informed about the ideas of the Russian Constructivist
El Lissitzky.
35
The influences of Dadaist design language and Kurt Schwitters
design solutions were visible in the original way in which he used type size,
composition and highly imaginative visual and typographical jokes.
Schwitters was a familiar gure in the Netherlands during this period
through his contacts with Van Doesburg. Zwart began to incorporate photos
in his designs for the nkf in 1926. A photographer would be engaged to take
a series of close-ups of cables; Zwart would then process the images in an
innovative way, selecting the colours red and blue for use in advertisements
and brochures. He lavishly praised the use of photography in advertising as
the most objective, realistic and honest way of supplying information.
By then Zwart had built up a large international network. In 1928 he
taught for a short time at the Bauhaus and was asked by Kurt Schwitters to
become a member of the Ring Neue Werbegestalter, a group of influential
and progressive advertisement designers in Berlin. In the eyes of these left-
wing designers advertising had not yet become an insidious way of
increasing prots but was more a form of public relations and, as such, art
for the masses. Zwarts already considerable international reputation in
that year is also shown in Jan Tschicholds Die neue Typographie, in which the
new principles involving international avant-garde typography are in some
cases explained on the basis of examples taken from Piet Zwarts work.
36
The lessons that Zwart gave from 1919 at the Rotterdam Academy of
Art, where Jacob Jongert was in charge of Decorative and Industrial Arts,
were equally steeped in these progressive views. His criticism of all other
forms of, in his eyes, conservative Dutch design education was therefore
harsh: bizarre purposefulness and individual wilfulness was how Zwart
described the typical characteristics of the students work.
37
They seemed to
be completely uninformed about modern techniques. On the basis of this
Zwart concluded that the teaching syllabus was in no way able to meet the
demands of the new age.
In 1928 Zwart even put forward the revolutionary view that it would be
better to do away with lessons focused on autonomous art in favour of design.
He developed a curriculum for a new design course aimed at dispelling the
110 Dutch Design

unimaginative, historicizing, passive intellect that stems from a conven -
tional attitude towards life. In order to accomplish this, Zwart tactlessly
observed, it would be necessary to replace a number of the older teachers or
retrain them. He insisted that photography and lm should become basic
subjects, but in his plan Zwart also mentions radio, sound movies, advertis-
ing, town planning and even television.
38
The Board of the Rotterdam
Academy showed absolutely no enthusiasm for Zwarts revolutionary ideas
and he was sacked in 1933. Jan Kammans photography lessons, however,
which Zwart had introduced, were allowed to continue.
Paul Schuitema had really trained to become a painter at the Rotterdam
Art Academy, but in the mid-1920s he found graphic design far more appeal-
ing. Like Piet Zwart he discovered the possibilities of photography and
the combination of photography with typography: phototypography.
Due to his use of what were then modern collage techniques, his designs
for book covers, posters and advertisements were almost more outspoken
than Zwarts, even though around 1930 both artists were producing remark-
ably similar work.
From 1928 the large Rotterdam rm Van Berkels Patent offered Paul
Schuitema the same opportunities as the cable factory did for Piet Zwart. In
his case too the products for which the advertisements and brochures need-
ed to be made advanced industrial cutting and weighing devices proved
to be an inspiration for creating a progressive new design language. The
precision instruments, made of gleaming metal, pre-eminently symbolized
a modern society characterized by trade and efciency. The commissions he
Paul Schuitema, advertise-
ment for scales, patented
by Van Berkels, 1927.

received from the Rotterdam printer C. Chevalier in this same period pre-
sented Schuitema with the opportunity of becoming more adept at
mastering progressive typography techniques. Like Piet Zwart, his socialist
persuasions did not stop him making advertisements for commercial enter-
prises. From 1932 Schuitema designed the cover of the new fortnightly
periodical de 8 en Opbouw. The large gure of eight, which lled almost the
entire cover sheet, was combined with the word Opbouw in surprising com-
positions: different photo collages were added to the basic design for each
new issue.
Another conrmed modernist in the eld of graphics in the mid-1920s
was Gerard Kiljan, who trained at the Quellinus School of Applied Arts in
Amsterdam and the Rotterdam Academy of Art. Kiljans initiatives to reform
design education were particularly advanced. In 1930 he set up a new
Advertising Department at the Art Academy in The Hague, in which Paul
Schuitema was also involved.
39
This was the rst Dutch industrial design
training course, although initially it was restricted to graphic design.
Photography and learning about technical processes and industrial printing
techniques were part of the syllabus. Not only was the course pioneering, the
democratic teaching methods were quite revolutionary too. The pupils went
to work in collectives and the study of historical styles, which Kiljan consid-
ered an arbitrary invention, was replaced in The Hague by the new objective
subject he had developed called Development of Form. The lessons were
modelled on those at the Bauhaus. With Kiljans aid, a fully fledged
Department of Industrial Design was to be introduced much later in 1950.
The Second World War and Post-War Reconstruction
The militancy of many progressive designers had been toned down by the
realities of everyday life in the 1930s, but the scope for good plans was to
disappear entirely during the German occupation lasting from May 1940 to
May 1945. Dutch artists, designers and architects were obliged to join the
Kultuurkamer from 1942 onwards, and Jewish artists were no longer
allowed to practise their art at all.
40
Those who did not sign were no longer
able to work at their profession. Those who did join became members of the
Guild of Architecture, Fine Arts and Decorative Craft (Gilde voor
Bouwkunst, Beeldende Kunst en Kunstambacht). Art and design from that
moment had to comply with the National-Socialist ideology, which in prac-
tice made a strong appeal to national Dutch traditions and folk art.
Modernism, with its international focus, abstract design language and
democratization of technique, was now absolutely forbidden.
112 Dutch Design

Many artists and designers refused to sign, but some accepted the sit-
uation and conceded. Among these was the versatile industrial artist Cris
Agterberg. As a member of the advisory body for the Department of Public
Education and Arts (Departement voor Volksvoorlichting en Kunsten) set
up by the Germans he even wrote reports about the rise and fall of hand-
crafted art and organized a furniture design competition for the general
public: participants had to design a healthy and substantial piece of fur-
niture in which their own national character was well expressed.
41
The
department opened the Dutch Art House (Het Nederlandsche Kunsthuis)
on the Rokin in Amsterdam, where presentations of decorative craft and
applied art were displayed alongside exhibitions of ne art. The emphati-
cally educative character of the institution and its exhibitions was expressed
at the exhibition Tegen Ongezonde Kunst en Wansmaak (Against Unhealthy
Art and Bad Taste) in 1942. Oak furniture, hand-decorated earthenware and
hand-made hammered brassware were once again heartily applauded in
the Dutch Art House.
During the war the industrial production of consumer goods stagnat-
ed. Raw materials became increasingly scarce; factory hands were sent to
work in Germany or went into hiding; and factory managers were replaced.
The Gispen factory, for example, was more or less forced to work for the
occupier: the managers were warned that if they did not comply their work-
ers would be sent to Germany as forced labourers. Once the production of
metal furniture had been forbidden the metal was needed for the weapons
industry the rm switched to making wooden chairs. They also made
black-out lamps, constructed in such a way that they could be used in the
evenings without taking extra safety precautions. During the winter of
19445, when many Dutch people died of starvation, Gispen produced a
Cris Agterberg (Westraven
faience and tile factory,
Utrecht), two bowls, 1938.

mini-stove that worked with odd bits of paper and scraps of wood, with the
added advantage that food could be cooked on it.
42
The Netherlands emerged from the war badly damaged and thor-
oughly shaken.
43
In the summer of 1945 there was a shortage of everything:
factories had been bombed or were just ticking over; ports, bridges and
roads had been destroyed; Schiphol airport lay in ruins and gas and elec-
tricity supplies had almost come to a standstill. Many houses had been
destroyed, and to make matters worse the construction industry had stag-
nated for ve years. Owing to the return of 300,000 forced labourers and
prisoners from camps in Germany and Poland, as well as tens of thousands
of people who had been in hiding, there was a great shortage of housing.
Neither did the loss of our Indonesia, and also of Germanys status as the
most important trading partner, improve the economic situation. Despite
all this, morale was high and it turned out that everyone was prepared to
work for little in the way of remuneration. Thanks to this post-war recon-
struction spirit things got going surprisingly quickly, yet despite this
hopeful start, and a show of great solidarity, the road to recovery was long
and difcult. In order to boost the economy in a controlled way the distri-
bution system introduced during the war was temporarily prolonged.
Many foodstuffs continued to be available only in exchange for rationing
coupons.
It was not until aid from the Marshall Plan arrived from the usa
between 1948 and 1952, in the shape of billions of dollars of emergency
relief supplies and money loans distributed throughout the entire country,
that the economy slowly began to recover. Coffee was the last product to
come off rationing in 1952. It was not until then that exports and invest-
ments began to grow as desired. The rise of the United States as a major
world power, both politically and economically, led many industrialists and
managers, as well as the Dutch government, to view it as their main model.
For most Dutch people America remained a beautiful remote dream, known,
if at all, only through movie images.
Not everyone had needed American aid. One of the few rms to thrive
during the Second World War had been the Philips light-bulb factory.
44
Through careful tactics and expedient policy the factory had actually come
out of the war in better shape than before the conflict. For a long time
Philips had not been a purely Dutch concern, since between the wars it had
set up new production and sales organizations all over the world. It was
partly due to this early internationalization that straight after the war the
rm was able to develop earlier initiatives by investing in an expansion of
its range of household appliances. Furthermore, since the German rms
114 Dutch Design

Siemens and aeg had disappeared from the scene for the time being, the
products were an instant success.
Most other consumer goods factories took longer to recover, as could
be seen at the Salon des Artistes Dcorateurs in Paris in 1949, where the
Netherlands was able to show only a modest entry. One highlight was the
new kitchen by the rm Bruynzeel, which Koen Limperg had started in
1933. Piet Zwart had nished the design in 1938, but the kitchen could only
be taken into production after 1945.
45
Here at last, after the initiatives dis-
cussed earlier, was the Dutch industrys successful answer to the kitchen
problem. The kitchen was the brain-child of director C. Bruynzeel, who,
deeply impressed by the working methods in American factories, had trans-
formed his former steam-powered joinery works in Zaandam into one of
the most advanced wood-manufacturing factories in Europe. The Bruynzeel
kitchen was made up of standardized components, whose measurements
had been carefully adjusted to suit the average human body, while the
layout was devised after a thorough analysis of all the tasks that had to be
performed in a kitchen.
Post-War Idealism: Good Living
The idealism of designers and architects, who before the war would have
been counted as belonging to the New Building or New Living circles,
proved not to have slackened in the least during the years of war. If anything
the opposite was true. During the occupation designers were forced into
inactivity, and some even went into hiding, but it gave them time to consid-
er in detail what they should do when peace was once again restored. Even
when there was still no end to the war in sight they were speculating about
Piet Zwart, Bruynzeel
kitchen (1938), reproduced
in Goed Wonen (1954).

the future position of art and design in articles published in clandestine
papers such as De Vrije Kunstenaar (The Free Artist).
In practice, the ideals of socially and politically motivated modernism in
the 1950s and 60s would be propagated chiefly by the Good Living
Association (Stichting Goed Wonen), founded in 1946.
46
The same idealism,
however, played a role in the activities of the equally new government-funded
Industrial Design Institute (Instituut voor Industrile Vormgeving, iiv),
established in 1950. Many designers and architects, indeed, were involved
in both Goed Wonen and the iiv. There were various organizational ties
between the two and both were active until the late 1960s.
During the war years the vank was disbanded and plans were forged
for a new design organization. Only a few months after the capitulation,
therefore, it was possible to found the Applied Artists Federation (Gebonden
Kunstenaars Federatie, gkf ). This was initiated by Willem Sandberg and
Mart Stam. In the everyday idiomatic language of the 1940s the expression
applied artist had replaced the names industrial artist or artisan. It
referred to exactly the same group, namely to all artists and designers who
were designing in either an industrial or craftwork context. The greatest
difference between the gkf and the vank was that it had far stricter entry
requirements to ensure that not just anyone could join. In addition to
quality requirements, the potential new members war records played a
decisive role in the admission procedure. In addition to Sandberg and
Stam, the Board also welcomed Piet Zwart and the graphic designer Wim
Brusse. The gkf then afliated with the Dutch Federation of Artists
Associations (Nederlandse Federatie van Beroepsverenigingen van Kunst -
enaars), whose structure had also been devised during the war years.
Optimistically and idealistically they thought they could unite all artists in
this way and that together they would be able to take a rm stand and
create a better society.
The energetic gkf created an organization that to some extent was
comparable to the pre-war Instituut voor Sier-en Nijverheidskunst (isn), in
that it was intended to advise rms and private individuals on design and
more specically on the designers whose services they could best use. This
Aesthetic Advice Ofce (Bureau voor Aesthetische Adviezen), with Karel
Sanders as director, was established in March 1948 in the former building
of the Dutch Art House on the Rokin in Amsterdam. For this initiative the
authorities were willing to provide nancial support.
During the nal months of the war, dissatisfaction with previous
attempts to educate people on good taste stimulated the furniture designer
and salesman A. Bueno de Mesquita to write a report titled De sociale func-
116 Dutch Design

tie van de binnenhuisarchitect na den oorlog (The Social Function of the
Interior Designer and Decorator after the War). In De Mesquitas view the
pre-war living culture of the average Dutch person was sub-standard: either
the designers made good furniture that proved to be too expensive and
unpopular with the masses or they indulged peoples need for status and
sham luxury and designed inferior products. The professional view was
that this should not be repeated after the war and the only way they would
be able to pull it off would be by intensive collaboration between manufac-
turers, designers, distributors and government. In the end they would have
to join together in the interests of good design.
After the war the report stimulated a few initiatives that were supported
by the gkf. At rst consumers, distributors, designers and manufacturers
reorganized their businesses separately. Then on 11 November 1946 the feder-
ative Stichting Goed Wonen was established, an organization that was to live
up to De Mesquitas ideal. J. Bommer, the social-democratic alderman for the
Amsterdam public housing department, became the rst chairman of this
umbrella organization. Central government took no part in the organization,
although it did support them nancially later on. However, after several
years the four categories of afliated groups were still unable to agree a coor-
dinated response to recurring problems. For this reason, from 1954 Goed
Wonen functioned solely as a consumers association.
The two important gures from the early years of Goed Wonen were
Mart Stam and Johan Niegeman. Stam had been director of the Instituut
voor Kunstnijverheidsonderwijs (ivkno) since 1939.
47
Almost all the older
Amsterdam schools in this eld merged into this art and design academy in
the period between the two wars. In 1967 the school was to be renamed the
Rietveld Academy.
Like Stam, Johan Niegeman, who trained as an architect with his uncle
H. Th. Wijdeveld, among others, possessed a wide range of talents.
48
He
also taught for a while at the Bauhaus, where he rst worked with Walter
Gropius and where he was later introduced to modern analytical views on
design by the radical director Hannes Meijer. After this Niegeman worked
in Russia until 1937 on the construction of the new town of Magnitogorsk.
In 1939 Stam asked Niegeman to take over the running of the ivkno
interior design course. The progressive duo together tried to modernize the
Amsterdam course and to implement their functionalist design views. In his
lessons Niegeman experimented with a method that was inspired by the
well-known Bauhaus Vorkurs, which aimed at getting students to abandon
biased propositions and views on art and beauty. An important aim of this
course was that the future designers should be given a clear view of their task

and their position in society. Friso Kramer, Dick Simonis, B Brand, Cora
Nicola-Chaillet, Wim de Vries, Kho Liang Ie, Hein Stolle, Jan Vonk and Coen
de Vries were just a few of Niegemans and Stams earliest students.
Goed Wonen emphasized that it was not primarily concerned with
good design or beautiful-looking products but with improving the living
culture in a more general sense. Goed Wonen fought against tasteless-
ness, material shortages and housing shortages, as rst formulated in
their aims. It was not things but people who were the central focus. People
had to be able to develop their talents as individuals and become free and
happy. Differences in class and standards of living did not somehow
seem to exist for Goed Wonen, owing to their idealistic post-war recon-
struction mindset and the conviction that a harmonious society could
now be created in which every person could do justice to his talents. In the
utopian society of Goed Wonen the family stood centre stage: in conform-
ity with the ideals then in existence, the woman would be a housewife,
managing all the household tasks and mainly in charge of ensuring that
the home had a cheerful, cosy, welcoming character.
Goed Wonen endeavoured to reach its goals in various ways, including
publishing the periodical Goed Wonen, organizing informative sessions in
the showroom, giving lectures and courses, and furnishing model houses.
The organization even took the step of marketing its own collection of fur-
niture and domestic objects. In the early days the ideals of Goed Wonen
were presented most fanatically by designer Wim den Boon.
49
Owing to his
role as editorial secretary, the rst volumes of the periodical bore the stamp
of his personality. However, his tone was so pedantic and patronizing he
became known as the minister of the interior that it started to irritate the
readers and his fellow editors. He was eventually asked to resign.
Goed Wonen appeared from 1948 to 1968 and during this twenty-year
period went through a major metamorphosis. At its peak in 1961 there were
7,300 subscribers. In 1968 the name of the periodical was revealingly
changed to simply Wonen (Living). After a merger with the Tijdschrift voor
Architectuur en Beeldende Kunst (Journal of Architecture and Fine Art) in
1973 the name was changed again to Wonenta-bk (Living ta-bk). It was now
an ordinary but still progressive periodical for architects and designers and
had abandoned its old educational mission entirely. From 1986 the journal
continued under the name Archis.
Since there was little on sale shortly after the war, let alone goods that
would satisfy the strict criteria set by Goed Wonen, in the late 1940s and early
1950s a few special Goed Wonen pieces of furniture were put onto the market.
Minister of the interior Wim den Boon himself designed a birch-wood stool
118 Dutch Design

with a curved seat and a backrest made of plywood. Mart Stam developed an
oak chair and rush mats, which in terms of design were far removed from his
revolutionary free-floating model from 1926. Material shortages, but also
peoples changed ideas on comfort, played a role. Furthermore, something
with a handmade look about it was considered to be a positive quality in these
post-war years. Hein Salomonson, who before the war had played an active
part on the journal de 8 en Opbouw, made a new variation on a familiar theme,
the peasant chair, while F. Paulussen was busy designing cane furniture.
In addition to chairs, attention was drawn to cupboards and other
storage systems. If interior products were functional, reliable and afford-
able, and of course could aesthetically pass muster, they were given the
Goed Wonen seal of approval. This award was not only granted to products
Various Goed Wonen
covers from 1948, 1951,
1954 (two shown here),
1959 and 1961.

from Goed Wonen designers but also to other Dutch and foreign furniture
and domestic objects. The models designed by Martin Visser for the furni-
ture factory t Spectrum in Bergeyk, for example, met these strict criteria
almost to the letter. As far as ceramics were concerned the original choice
was for a simple service by Wim de Vries from the pottery Fris. In 1951 the
service Wilma, designed by Edmond Bellefroid for Mosa in Maastricht, was
also granted this seal of approval. In the periodical Goed Wonen they
explained why the service had earned this distinction: the design is easy to
hold in your hand; it is agreeable to drink from and furthermore the shape
is both reserved and festive. Nevertheless, the editor warned, it was the
Furniture with the Goed
Wonen Best Choice label: a
cupboard by C. Braakman
(Pastoe); a wall rack by
T. Reijenga (Pilastro); and
chairs by D. van Sliedregt,
F. Kramer (Ahrend-Cirkel),
W. Rietveld/A. R. Corde-
meyer (Gispen) and C. de
Vries (Hamer). From Goed
Wonen (1956).
120 Dutch Design
Andries Copier (Leerdam
glassworks ), Gilde hand-
blown wine glasses, 1930.

white model that people were supposed to pur-
chase and not the version with nondescript
decoration, which did after all so weaken the
design.
50
In 1957 the aesthetically pleasing
Arzberg service 2000 by the German designer H.
Gretsch was also awarded this mark of quality,
even though it was really too expensive to quali-
fy. For glassware the Goed Wonen subscribers
were naturally in the right place in Leerdam with
its glass factory. The seal of approval was granted
to Copiers spherical-shaped vases, his Gilde
glasses and a water jug with a set of large drink-
ing glasses, which according to Goed Wonen were
exemplary for their lack of pretension. Even very
simple, trivial domestic products could earn the
award, such as the functional dish-rack they
selected made by Tomado, and stainless-steel
sink tidies by Gero, with their exceptionally ne
balance between aesthetic concerns and func-
tional design. Even a doorknob made by the rm
Nedap in Amsterdam qualied and was described in the periodical as a
well-designed object.
51
For carpeting the interior Goed Wonen, like the pre-war architects
from De 8 and Opbouw, recommended using linoleum made by Krommenie:
easy to clean, indestructible and available in light, modern colours. The
approved curtaining fabrics were made by De Ploeg, but cotton prints by
Het Paapje were also among their favourite choices. Electrical appliances,
on the other hand, were seldom discussed and apparently had little
chance of being eligible for the award: the critical Goed Wonen editors
thought that radios in the late 1940s were still ugly contraptions, with
their drawing-room-like appendages. An exception was made in 1948 for
an Erres radio set made by the rm Stokvis, a set that does not aspire to
being anything more than an electrical appliance. The editor therefore
advised readers to take the gold strips off their old far too beautiful set
and to have the expensive wooden casing sprayed in the colours white,
black or grey.
52
The Goed Wonen adherents could see how all these selected good
pieces of furniture and domestic articles were supposed to be combined
with one another in a special showroom and in the many show houses that
were tted out over the years. The rst Goed Wonen show room was set up
Advertisement in a 1954
issue of Goed Wonen for
the Wilma service by
Edmond Bellefroid (Mosa,
Maastricht).

in the property at 56 Rokin, where the Dutch Art House had been estab-
lished during the war. Each year tens of thousands of people came to look
at it and to ask for advice. B Brand, who was now married to Johan
Niegeman, and Constance Wibaut were in charge until 1957 and taught
their visitors the most practical, spacious and charming way to furnish their
homes, sometimes with the aid of small-scale models of Goed Wonen furni-
ture. In his 1958 book Ik kan Wonen (I Can Set Up House) Johan Niegeman
explained again in great detail how people could put together a good inter -
ior themselves. In 1967 a second comparable show room was tted out on
the Lijnbaan in Rotterdam.
The Goed Wonen show houses were extraordinarily popular and the
Foundation probably reached a great many people in this way. In the twen-
ty years that Goed Wonen was in existence they furnished a total of 75
throughout the country. The smaller public housing units were chosen for
them partly because subsidies were available, but also because they were
fuelled by idealism. With the aid of these completely equipped through-
lounge houses, Goed Wonen suggested ways of creating a sensible,
attractive and affordable interior to the residents of these new post-war
housing estates. They were not supposed to follow the advice indiscrimi-
nately and in fact many did not retain very much at all. This can be seen in
a few photos showing how the tenants furnished their new house, which
had previously served as a show house. Precious little remained of the light,
frugally furnished, modern show interior. The house had been lled
122 Dutch Design
Brochure for the rm
Nedap illustrating Bakelite
doorknob designs by Wim
Gilles, c. 1955.

instead with large old-fashioned furniture, Persian carpets and curtains in
loud-patterned fabrics.
In the course of the 1960s Goed Wonens stress on moralism disap-
peared. The increasingly articulate consumer would no longer allow others
to lay down the law. Goed Wonen adjusted its viewpoint on other issues too
in line with the needs of a changing society. Slowly but surely their exclusive
focus on the family interior was widened to make room for the furnishing
of houses for the single or elderly. Moreover, it was clear that during the
1960s people had more to spend and that they were constantly hankering
after more luxury. The interior was no longer a ready-made space in which
people could do little more than shift furniture around. Interior design
became interior architecture, and that meant that attention had to be paid
to constructional and structural alterations in the available space. At the
same time designing furniture came to be seen as more of a task for indus-
trial designers and less as the job of an interior architect.
The IIV and Goede Vorm
The tone of moralistic idealism that was so characteristic of the views of
Goed Wonen continued to inspire many designers after the war. For most
of them the erce character of socio-political debate had greatly been toned
down, but in their hearts they were still convinced that sober, austere func-
tional design, without too much fussiness, would make people happiest in
the long run.
The Netherlands was certainly not unique in this respect. The same
body of thought, called Die Gute Form (Good Design), had been taught at
the Hochschule fr Gestaltung in Ulm, Germany, since 1953.
53
This design
course tried to resuscitate the Bauhaus ideals. The Swiss artist and former
Bauhaus student Max Bill became the schools director. Bill had organized
an exhibition in 1949 in Basel titled Die Gute Form; in 1957 he wrote a book
with the same title. The term had then started to act more or less as a style
name. The design method and the ideals of the course given in Ulm were
well known in Dutch designers circles and were also propagated by various
organizations as well as by Goed Wonen. These were headed by the govern-
ment-subsidized Institute of Industrial Design (Instituut voor Industrile
Vormgeving, iiv), founded in 1950.
The iiv concentrated initially on the economic side of industrial design
(for a more detailed explanation, see chapter Four). The institute was set up
by three employers federations and was subsidized by both the Ministry
of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Education, Arts and Sciences. By

arbitrating between manufacturers and designers and by giving aesthetic
advice, the iiv would be able to help to improve the quality of the Dutch
product and in so doing improve the competitive position of the
Netherlands. The central message was that attractive products would
sell better and rms that paid attention to design could be condent of
greater sales.
A special consultative body of the iiv gave advice to manufacturers
but not for free. The rst aesthetic advisers belonging to this agency were
Gerrit Rietveld, Christiaan de Moor and Arie W. Verbeek. They judged
products in the early 1950s on technical soundness, serviceability, design,
and on the price in relation to these aspects. To make sure there were no
signs of plagiarism, the materials, colour, decoration and lettering were
examined in great detail by these critical gentlemen from the iiv.
54
In practice, many enterprises wrongly saw the board of the iiv as some
sort of taste police and they felt involuntarily judged, and sometimes even
treated with contempt. For the Ministry of Economic Affairs this was a rea-
son for slowly cutting off the organizations subsidies. People thought that
the iiv was beginning to lose sight of the economic importance of industri-
al design and was apparently more concerned about elevating taste.
Indeed, when making aesthetic judgements the Foundation could not
refrain from passing ethical judgements as well. In 1955 the iiv started to
put to the test the products shown at the Dutch Exhibition Centre in
Utrecht on the basis of their own critical norms. In addition to the criteria
that had been in fashion since the beginning of the century, such as sim-
plicity, functionality and sensible use of material, they now began to keep a
keen eye on condemnable, fashionable tendencies. Firms who spent too
much time on styling or, in the Boards view, dealt too arbitrarily with shapes
and colours were denounced. After all, the dubious practice of beautifying
or disguising leaned towards the abhorred, and even more ercely criti-
cized, concept of fashion. Streamlined American products and their Dutch
imitations were dismissed as senseless, materialistic kitsch. For them nor-
mal products were quite flamboyant enough. Remarkable in this context,
too, is that in the early 1960s they regularly voiced their disapproval of the
way that they assumed industrial products were unnaturally or deliberately
produced for obsolescence. This too was considered to be a reprehensible
and typically American trend.
55
In 1962 the Industrial Design Centre (Centrum voor Industrile Vor -
mgeving) was established in what was now known as the Beurs van Berlage
in Amsterdam. This national showroom for good products was furnished
by Gerrit Rietveld and Kho Liang Ie. Visitors to the centre could look at, and
124 Dutch Design

form an opinion on, more than 400 products from 120 Dutch rms. There
they could also enter the sort of educational competition that involved
choosing the best breakfast set. When assessing the products in the centre
the iiv employed the recognized qualities of the typical Dutch product:
reliability, simplicity and reasonable value for money.
Good Taste from the Museum to the Shop
The permanent exhibition in the Industrial Design Centre, Goed Wonens
showroom, and the various model houses were not the only places where
the public could view designed products and be given further training in
the moral principles behind them. A few museums and large shops took on
an important role in educating the public. In this respect for many years the
Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam played a prominent role, mainly due to
Willem Sandbergs involvement.
Modern design had been Sandbergs great interest for many years.
56
He
was not only a graphic designer himself, but had also become involved in
the vank long before the Second World War. In 1934 the board of this
society had asked him to serve on the committee that prepared the contin-
uously changing exhibitions in the Stedelijk Museum. His influence was
The Industrial Design
Centre, Amsterdam,
designed by Gerrit Rietveld
and Kho Liang Ie, 1962.

shown at once in the exhibitions featuring the Bauhaus artist Lszl
Moholy-Nagy and Theo van Doesburg. Sandbergs interest in modern
design was aroused mainly through the vank exhibition De Stoel gedurende
de laatste veertig jaar (The Chair over the Last Forty Years) in 1935. On that
occasion he came to know the architect Mart Stam rather well. As a member
of the committee preparing a special Decorative and Industrial Arts section
within the Stedelijk Museum, which was later to evolve into a special depart-
ment of the museum, Sandberg went on to advise on the purchase of
contemporary products for the new collection.
During the war Sandberg served with the Resistance. His knowledge
of graphic techniques enabled him to forge identity cards in a professional
way. Together with artists like the sculptor Gerrit van der Veen and the
painter Willem Arrondeus, Sandberg was involved in the legendary assault
on Amsterdams municipal population register on 27 March 1943. He man-
aged to escape and in doing so was the only one who did not pay with his
life for this act of Resistance. After this attack Sandberg was forced to spend
the second half of the war in safe houses. When the war ended he became
director of the Stedelijk Museum, which under his management was to
develop into one of the worlds most prominent museums of modern art.
Despite these duties, Sandberg continued to be active as a graphic designer.
His unremitting interest in good design was shown in his enthusiastic sup-
port of the many initiatives in this eld.
During the 1950s the Stedelijk Museum organized a few exhibitions
with an extremely pronounced educational and moralistic tenor.
57
Mens en
Huis (Man and Home), for example, was put together in 1952 by J. W.
Janzen and Wim den Boon, Goed Wonens former minister of the interior,
who had just relinquished his editorial post. At the exhibition there were
mainly good and naturally designed products to be seen, including sports
equipment and tools. The furniture exhibited, including the crate chair by
Gerrit Rietveld and the butterfly chair by Jorge Ferrary-Hardoy, was made
of natural materials such as wood, cane, canvas and leather. A few interiors
were also furnished using good products that had been deliberately put in
the wrong place; all were, of course, purposefully provided with a text
giving a full explanation. To check whether an interior was good, the
organizers gave the visitor what they thought was a simple rule of thumb: if
an ordinary milk bottle or a wooden crate of apples contrasted too much
with the surrounding interior, then the visitor had denitely been looking
for his furnishings in the wrong place.
The exhibition Wonen en Wonen (Living and Living) was organized in
1954 by the Stedelijk Museum in close collaboration with Goed Wonen.
126 Dutch Design

Here a historic retrospective was presented of the development of the inte-
rior over the preceding fty years. The idea behind it was to convince the
visitor that opting for modern products was inescapable. In addition there
was the tried and tested, pre-war formula of placing a traditionally fur-
nished interior opposite a modern one so visitors could then compare the
two. The young curator Hans Jaff thought it was the museums responsibil-
ity to bring good design closer to the public in this way. On display at the
exhibition were simple, down-to-earth, industrially produced but attractive
domestic articles that almost everyone could afford. To lower the psycho-
logical barrier that prevented people from entering a museum, Sandberg
ordered the installation of a balustrade all round the outside of the museum
so that passers-by could easily look inside.
Gerrit Rietveld, Frits Eschauzier and Wim den Boon had been involved
in organizing the rst post-war educational exhibition a few years earlier in
1951 in the Gemeentemuseum in The Hague. Its controversial title, Kunst en
Kitsch (Art and Kitsch), attracted a remarkable number of visitors and reac-
tions. Nevertheless, it overshot the mark. In the wrong Kitsch department
too many people recognized too many products from their own interiors and,
to make matters worse, in the Art section they were appalled at how austere,
bare and uninviting right things could be.
58
Between 1920 and 1970 a few large shops and department stores played
an exceptional role in educating the general public on good and bad taste and
in promoting interest in modern design. When it came to good design, the
owners of these enterprises combined their business acumen with just the
right amount of idealism. Before the war the rms in question were mainly
the furniture companies Metz & Co. in Amsterdam and Pander and Bas van
Pelt in The Hague. These were the shops that had something to offer con-
sumers with a taste for the progressive. If money were no object, customers
could go to large renowned specialist shops like Focke & Meltzer in
Amsterdam or Jungerhans in Rotterdam that also sold high-quality Dutch
and foreign goods, but these were less idealistic in their approach to good
modern design. In the large cities there were also a number of smaller craft
shops and art dealers that sold sound Dutch design, such as t Binnenhuis in
Amsterdam, which continued under the management of Jac van den Bosch
until 1929. Other well-known design shops were De Distel in Rotterdam and
De Zonnebloem in The Hague. Some industrial artists even ran small sales
outlets from their homes, including Cornelis van der Sluys with his business,
De Opbouw, in The Hague, and Cris Agterberg with his shop in Utrecht.
After the war Metz & Co., though not Pander, managed to regain its lead-
ing role in the eld of good design after a few difcult years.
59
Henk de Leeuw,

son of Joseph de Leeuw who originally established the rm, took over the man-
agement and followed his father in combining idealistic missionary zeal with
great commercial talent. Just as before the war, Metz commissioned designs
from Dutch and foreign designers, while at the same time producing foreign
designs under its own name with exclusive sales rights in the Netherlands. Bart
van der Leck and Gerrit Rietveld continued working for Metz, and Sonia
Delaunays fabric designs were once again put into production.
128 Dutch Design
A wrong and a right
interior installed at the
exhibition Kunst en Kitsch
(Art and Kitsch), in the
Gemeentemuseum,
The Hague, 1951.

The tradition of regularly organizing instructive exhibitions in shops
was resumed and continued until the early 1970s. The rst of these post-war
presentations in 1949 was devoted to the theme Cane in the Home, in keep-
ing with the material shortages at that time.
But gradually Metzs role changed from educator to taste creator and
went on to become a trendsetter. Henk de Leeuw was one of the rst in the
Netherlands to become interested in new Italian furniture, so chairs by Gio
Ponti, Carlo Pagani and Franco Albini were taken into production by Metz.
He also obtained the exclusive sales rights in the Netherlands for glassware
by Venini. De Leeuw managed to do the same for the designs by Poul
Kjaerholm, Alvar Aalto and Harry Bertoia. At the Metz store, the Dutch
public was often introduced for the rst time to new designs by Charles and
Ray Eames, Florence Knoll, Eero Saarinen and Arne Jacobsen. Even the
Barcelona chair by Mies van der Rohe (1929) was rst seen at an exhibition
arranged at the Metz store in 1960.
A rm that could be compared to Metz in terms of its aims and organi-
zation was My Home, run by Bas van Pelt.
60
After it was established in 1931
in The Hague, this rm quickly evolved from a cross between a craft shop
and an interior design ofce into a shop for modern home furnishings by Bas
van Pelt himself and other designers. During the 1930s the organization
branched out from The Hague and opened showrooms in Maastricht and
Enschede, and launched a new shop in Amsterdam. After the war Bas van
Pelt and Metz were often the major sales outlets in the Netherlands for the
work of front-ranking foreign furniture designers. Bas van Pelt also had new
designs made under his own production label and he continued to have close
ties with Goed Wonen. The shop maintained excellent contacts with the
departments of applied art at the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam and the
Gemeentemuseum in The Hague. It was clear that the board of directors at
Bas van Pelt, and similarly at Metz & Co., felt that their enterprises had a cul-
tural and social mission to full beyond an emphasis on commerce alone.
After the war the important furniture department of the De Bijenkorf
department store, founded in 1894, started to play a role in spreading the
message of Goede Vorm (Good Design).
61
In 1947 they decided that from then
on the Amsterdam branch would concentrate entirely on modern, contem-
porary furniture. The complete range of traditional furniture was ruthlessly
discarded. The furniture departments new chief buyer, Martin Visser,
appointed that same year, was responsible for this revolutionary action, bas-
ing it on educational motives. Visser was in no doubt that modern, well-
designed furniture would have a civilizing effect on the Dutch buying public.
The manager of De Bijenkorf shared his belief that there was a need for a

modern progressive furniture store with a slightly less expensive range than
the collections at Metz & Co. and Bas van Pelt. De Bijenkorf stated categori-
cally that they wanted the furniture to be progressive but not extravagant.
In 1949 Benno Premsela was employed by De Bijenkorf to present mod-
ern furniture and other articles in an attractive way. A couple of years later
he became responsible for the complete presentation of the department
store, including the window displays. Premsela and Martin Visser then
organized the famous Our House Our Home (Ons Huis Ons Thuis, ohot)
presentations at De Bijenkorf, which like the artistic window displays
became a household word in Amsterdam. De Bijenkorf s cultural mission
even extended to organizing art exhibitions, building up an art collection
and holding lectures in the shop.
The ohot exhibitions showed just how much Visser and Premsela were
taken with Goed Wonen ideals. At the rst presentation, which tackled the
furnishing of cramped accommodation, they presented samples of practical,
folding and stackable furniture. The designs were simple and the wood,
wicker work and cane used in their fabrication gave them a sober and natural
air. In addition to the Dutch makes of t Spectrum, ums Pastoe, Wagemans &
van Tuinen (Artifort) and Gispen, they also displayed Scandinavian furniture.
Curtain material from De Ploeg and the hand-printers Het Paapje and
linoleum from Krommenie completed the interiors displayed in modern
Goed Wonen style. Paintings by Karel Appel and Corneille that hung on the
walls further underlined Vissers enthusiasm for culture. It was the rst time
130 Dutch Design
Aldo van Eck, Martin Visser
and Benno Premsela, one
of the Ons Huis, Ons Thuis
(Our House Our Home)
exhibition in De Bijenkorf,
Amsterdam, 1953.

that work by members of the Cobra group could be seen in the Netherlands,
despite its controversial reputation. In 1953 De Bijenkorf commissioned
paintings by Appel and Constant as the basis for designs for curtain material,
which they had printed by Het Paapje and Herman Harts textile-printing
workshop in Amsterdam.
After Martin Visser left in 1954 to become a designer for the furniture
factory t Spectrum, De Bijenkorf continued its progressive, modern policy,
although by then the moralist attitude had been greatly toned down. The
close ties with Goed Wonen did not fade away, as is shown by the coverage
they still received in this periodical. All in all, between the 1950s and the
1970s there was not much to choose between De Bijenkorf, Bas van Pelt and
Metz. Through their collections, and in particular through their special
exhibitions, activities and close ties with the Stedelijk Museum and the
Gemeentemuseum, all three stores played a major role in popularizing the
modern interior and good modern design as a whole.


In the post-war decades industrial design in the Netherlands shifted
from its relatively marginal, idealistic and artistic status into an important
economic and social instrument. On the factory floor, draughtsmen, model-
makers and engineers made way for professionally trained industrial
designers. Independent industrial designers and design companies also
managed to acquire a strong position in the cultural and economic realm.
Complementing them, a small but active group of traditional Arts and
Crafts practitioners, potters, weavers, textile printers and jewellery-
makers carried on working as usual in their own studios and workshops.
Industrial activity doubled between 1948 and 1962, productivity reaching
a peak in the 1960s that has never been equalled since.
1
The government
stimulated this development as best it could, though its priority was to
create jobs.
An increasing number of manufacturers in this period began to see
design as a vital link in their product development process and made it an
important part of their policy. Sometimes this stemmed from idealistic con-
victions, but to an increasing degree it was driven by economic, or purely
commercial, motives. Design education proted from this surge of interest
and expanded quite substantially, resulting in a growing number of quali -
ed professional industrial designers. These new designers were no longer
solely interested in domestic objects and interior decoration; their eld was
extending from the simplest of domestic articles to agricultural equipment,
medical apparatus, street lamps and railway carriages. Advertising and cor-
porate identity took off in a big way too and provided plenty of work for the
many new graphic design companies. By the 1980s design was rmly estab-
lished. Spread over ve museums, the exhibition Holland in Vorm (Dutch
4
Design as Profession, 194580
133
Emil Truijen and
Rob Parry, double pillar
box, 195660.

Design) in 1987 featured design from the post-war years. The catalogue is an
exceptionally rich source of the history of this flourishing discipline in the
Netherlands in the third quarter of the twentieth century.
2
This chapter
focuses on the design policy of the period, looking at how the business
community, designers, government and educational institutions created the
necessary conditions to redesign the Netherlands. In addition to the inescap -
able discussions on style, and the social or artistic calibre of the design, one
of the most pressing questions in this period was how the designers services
could be most efciently deployed.
The Governments Role and Designers Initiatives
Straight after the war initiatives to promote modern design policy originat-
ed in designers circles rather than via the state, and in a few cases came
from private rms. In March 1945, two months before the liberation, a sum-
mary of a detailed report by the designers Paul Schuitema and Piet Zwart
and the economist Jan Bouman appeared in the underground paper De
Vrije Kunstenaar (The Free Artist).
3
This set out concrete plans for an indus-
trial procedure that would be suitable for producing domestic objects once
the war was over. Their report contained the rst serious plan, written by
experts, for the introduction of industrial design in the Netherlands. These
three considered design to be an important and fully fledged discipline of
national economic import, capable of a wide-reaching social impact. After
the war they sent their report to the government, proposing that in the new
structure it would be responsible for the coordination of the social, eco-
nomic, technical and aesthetic aspects of design. This also held for future
industrial design courses, which in the reports terminology was referred to
as design engineering. Here too they had interesting recommendations for
the authorities, including the advice that design should be taught at techni-
cal schools as well as in art academies.
In response to this report, in 1945 the government immediately
installed a Committee for Industrial Design, but this aroused little enthusi-
asm among the business community. Manufacturers seemed to be terried
of the idea of compulsory measures being imposed and were equally worried
about artists becoming too influential. But Zwart, Schuitema and Bouman
were not satised either: only one designer, Willem Gispen, was asked to
join the Committee.
After Karel Sanders established the Aesthetic Advice Ofce in 1948, very
slowly the Dutch government began to show some real interest in design on
pragmatic grounds. Although industrial production was getting back into its
134 Dutch Design

stride, the decit in the balance of payments meant that far more would
have to be exported in future. On reflection, they decided that design really
did seem to be able to make a contribution. That is why, after all, a central
Industrial Design Foundation (Stichting Industrile Vormgeving) was set up
at the end of 1949 on the initiative of Sanders and the three most impor -
tant employers organizations, reluctantly supported by the Ministry of
Education, Arts and Sciences and the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The
existing association of entrepreneurs, the Bond voor Kunst in Industrie
(bki), amalgamated with the new organization in July 1950 and a national
Instituut voor Industrile Vormgeving (iiv) became a reality.
4
The bki had celebrated its twenty-fth anniversary in 1949 with a large
exhibition in the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam titled Goed maar mooi
(Not just Good but Good-looking). Here it became clear that the bki entre-
preneurs were working with renewed dedication. The exhibition was no
longer about art and industry going hand in hand as such, or about artistic
decorative objects, but about industrial design in the modern sense of the
word. In addition to furniture and decorative products for the living room,
there were also electrical appliances on show, from radios and gramo-
phones to sewing machines and vacuum cleaners.
Once again, on Sanderss initiative the industrial designers joined
forces in 1952 to form the Circle of Industrial Designers (Kring Industrile
Ontwerpers, kio). Most product designers did not feel at home in the gkf,
that is if they were allowed to join it at all, since the federation had a tough
entry policy: new members were strictly vetted by a selection committee.
The gkf, whose ofcial name was the Society of Practitioners of Applied
Arts (Vereniging van Beoefenaars der Gebonden Kunsten), had all kinds of
members from widely varied backgrounds, including many graphic design-
ers and craftsmen still working in a traditional way. On the other hand, the
left-wing character of the organization, the prominent part some of its
members had played in the Resistance and its focus on Amsterdam made it
exclusive at the same time. In 1948 a number of graphic designers, mostly
from Rotterdam and The Hague, who were keen to work more commercially
established the Society of Advertisement Designers and Illustrators
(Vereniging van Reclameontwerpers en Illustratoren, vri). Machiel Wilmink,
who had already founded the professional journal De Reclame before the war,
was their rst chairman.
5
From inside the gkf another professional organiza-
tion was established in 1959, the Netherlands Industrial Designers Federation
(Nidf ), but this group of seven was not very influential, although those
involved included renowned designers like Willem Gispen and Piet Zwart.
135 Design as Profession, 194580

The IIV
The words Increased purchasing power through industrial design appear
on the front of a brochure designed by Karel Suyling and printed for the iiv
6
in 1952, and it goes on to say: if a product looks better it sells better. The
board thought it knew exactly what fell into the category better: Good
design demands: the highest level of functionality, a dependable structure
[and] an attractive appearance . . . By improving these three characteristics
the Dutch product is bound to command a strong position when compared
to its foreign competitor. They included an alphabetical list of more than
fty products, from earthenware, glassware and radio sets to refrigerators,
Wladimir Flem,
poster proclaiming
The Netherlands are
Industrializing, c. 1948.
136 Dutch Design

Karel Suyling, brochure for
the IIV, 1952.

sports articles and washing machines, demonstrating the range of designers
skills to enterprises that were still in the dark about what they had to offer
and how broad this type of professional expertise was. Once you realize that
the assistance of an industrial designer is as important for your company as
that of your economist, your technical engineer, your sales manager or your
lawyer, you can approach the iiv, an organization working in this new eld
in the Netherlands.
The iiv considered mediation to be its most important task. Its aim
was to bring rms into contact with suitable designers and to this end it
built up a comprehensive documentation system providing information on
each designers past projects and specialities. The Institute played an
important role in the 1950s and 60s, seeing itself as stimulating brisk and
free trafc between industrial rms and designers. Its enthusiasm proved
infectious, bringing to gether designers and rms, and organizing informa-
tive meetings and excursions, while readily passing on its knowledge and
experience to gov ernment, industry and industrial design courses through
policy memoranda, brochures and informative exhibitions. The variety of
congresses and symposia the iiv organized made a major contribution too.
7
Foreign celebrities were brought to the Netherlands to give lectures and the
iiv members exchanged their expertise and know-how with foreign sister
organizations. Under this flag, the iiv invited speakers like Henry Dreyfuss
and Walter Dorwin Teague from the usa. From
1952 onwards they published the Maandbericht
(Monthly News; later the iv-Nieuws, Industrial
Design News), a newsletter in which manufactur-
ers and designers were kept informed of all new
developments.
The exhibitions, which followed one another
in rapid succession, reached an ever growing pub-
lic. They were organized in the iivs own premises
on the Rokin (from 1954 on the Herengracht), but
they also took the form of special presentations at
trade fairs, where they featured a specic segment
of the market, such as furnishing fabrics, electrical
appliances and kitchens. The iiv also held exhibi-
tions in which they collaborated with foreign
organizations, as well as mounting displays for
specic rms. Auping, Artifort, Philips, Sikkens,
Mosa and Stokvis, for instance, were given the
opportunity to show their new designs, and even
138 Dutch Design
Theo Ruth (Wagemans
& Van Tuinen (Artifort),
Maastricht), Congo Easy
Chair 1001, 1952.

the Dutch branches of Olivetti and Braun were
invited to take part in these presentations.
One of the rst events to show that the effort
put in by the iiv was actually paying off was the
Triennale in Milan in 1954. The Institute coordi-
nated the Dutch entry and saw to it with extra
support from the Ministry of Education, Arts and
Sciences that some thirty rms took part. A few
Dutch designs that were later to become famous
were rst presented at this event. It was here that
the public would become acquainted with the
ingenious Revoltstoel, made by De Cirkel and
designed by the young Friso Kramer, son of the
Amsterdam School architect Piet Kramer.
8
For the rst time, instead of
round tubes Kramer used u-shaped steel tubes, which were not just cheap-
er but could be used in a more varied way, allowing for more creativity in
the design. It was in Milan that Wagemans & Van Tuinen (Artifort) from
Maastricht showed the extraordinary Congostoel designed by Theo Ruth.
Among the Triennale winners were the Leerdam glassworks, for their
Gildeglas designed by Copier, and Gero from Zeist for their cutlery and
stainless-steel pans by Dick Simonis. The potteries, which had been duty-
bound immediately after the war to devote a considerable quantity of their
raw materials to the production of standard consumer durables, had
extraordinary success with their newest designs. The important and long-
established Sphinx and Mosa factories presented attractive services by
Pierre Daems and Edmond Bellefroid. The smaller rms Fris and Sint
Maarten Porcelein won high praise for their pottery designed for everyday
use by Wim de Vries and Han Knaap.
9
To everyones amazement, the economic returns from this event proved
to be high. It would appear that the Dutch had become so accustomed to
regarding this sort of exhibition as primarily a cultural affair that they were
almost surprised to nd that orders had been placed by foreign buyers.
In 1956 the iiv participated in an exhibition in the Stedelijk Museum
in Amsterdam. Most of the exhibition, which had the unambiguous title
Industrial Design, consisted of a presentation of German design, coordinated
by Wilhelm Wagenfeld, and Italian design, organized by Marco Zanuso. In
addition the iiv lled three small galleries with a display in which informa-
tion was given on industrial design as part of a companys production
process. The Revoltstoel by Friso Kramer and earthenware by Edmond
Bellefroid served as models.
Dick Simonis (Gero),
stainless-steel
coffee-service, 1959.


Another successful publicity stunt was the tour of a number of factories
and design companies that the iiv organized in 1956 for a large group of
Dutch journalists. This resulted in scores of newspaper articles with head-
lines such as Industrial design, a weapon to be deployed on the free
market.
10
These articles also boasted about the great technical advances
being made in Dutch industry and the substantial scientic investigations
conducted by Dutch designers.
In 1957 the iiv joined the International Council of Societies of Industrial
Design (icsid). Two years later, at the rst congress of this international
organization in Stockholm, one of the Netherlands repre sentatives was L. C.
Kalff, who had been designer-in-chief for Philips for many years. In his
speech to the congress Kalff typied Dutch design as reliable, simple and
inexpensive. Despite this characterization, which was neither spectacular
nor original, the speaker was highly commended. The serious Dutchmen
were held in great respect, as could be read in the report on the congress in
the iivs monthly review Maandbericht.
11
At the second icsid conference in 1961 in Venice the current state of the
art of design was displayed in two hundred photographs of new products
from sixteen different countries. As well as once again showing cutlery by
Gero designed by Dick Simonis, and glasses from Leerdam by Andries
Copier, the Netherlands displayed advanced technical products such as a
fertilizer distributor by Wim Rietveld, Gerrit Rietvelds son, an ampere -
meter by J. Wouda, a tramcar by Friso Kramer and Jaap Penraat, a sun lamp
from Philips and even an aeroplane, the famous Fokker F27 Friendship
designed by H. C. van Meerten.
The cheerful public faade of the iiv concealed many conflicts behind
the scenes in which money played the crucial role. One problem was that
the government had been living under the illusion that the Institute
would become nancially independent in the short to medium term, and
that its contribution to the iivs funding could then be considerably low-
ered. This proved not to be the case. In practice the commercial rms
associated with the Institute were not always happy with the idealistic
advice they were given. The ongoing criticism levelled by the iiv often left
rms feeling patronized and discredited, with the impression that the
iivs criticism was more to blame for curbing their economic prosperity
than for stimulating it. Of course, government subsidy had never been
granted to the Institute with this scenario in mind. It had been motivated
by the need to advance industrial activity, working on the assumption
that design was a stimulating instrument, not just to be supported as an
end in itself. The government had no intention of frustrating industry by
A room at the Industr ial
Design exhibition at
the Stedelijk Museum,
Amsterdam, showing
the Revolt chair by
Friso Kramer, 1956.
Wim de Vries (Fris, Edam),
Edam tea service,
194952.

supporting the iivs strict design norms and for this reason it reduced its
contribution to the budget.
The conflicts, the nancial problems and the various reorganizations,
accompanied by an equal number of resulting policy changes, led in 1961
to a structural change of course. A new, independent national Industrial
Design Council (Raad voor Industrile Vormgeving) sprang to life, with
representatives from industry, commerce, consumers, industrial designers
and education. This 30-member strong Council had to operate and pro-
mote design across a far broader front than the iiv had ever done. The
Council had two executive bodies at its disposal, the existing iiv, which
continued to help the more than two hundred afliated rms to nd suit-
able designers, and a new institution yet to be established, the Industrial
Design Centre (Centrum voor Industrile Vormgeving, civ), which would
liaise with consumers and the retail trade. In this Centre they planned to
organize frequently changing presentations of well-designed Dutch indus-
trial products. A Selection Committee, consisting of gures who enjoyed
the trust of all parties concerned, would select these products on the basis
of the Councils established norms and guidelines. In this way they thought
they could take a more independent and objective stance. The British
Council of Design was taken as a model, although at the ofcial installation
of the Council it was observed, somewhat wryly, that the British organiza-
tion received approximately two hundred times more nancial support
than its Dutch counterpart.
12
Vorm (Design) brochure,
published by the IIV and the
Sikkens rm, printed on
the occasion of the ICSID
conference in Venice, 1961,
including designs by
W. Rietveld en J. Penraat
(tramcar, 1958), Daf
(tanker, 1959) and C. de
Vries (steel desk, 1960).
142 Dutch Design

Off to America
In the 1950s America was the great ideal for Dutch entrepreneurs and con-
sumers, particularly as far as modern design was concerned. Even the
Ministry of Economic Affairs had recognized soon after the war that indus-
trial design, as practised in the United States, could play an important part
in stimulating the economy. This led to a ministerial Committee for
Increased Productivity, in close consultation with the director of the iiv,
Karel Sanders, putting together a select group of designers in 1953. The cho-
sen few were allowed to familiarize themselves with the American situation
in some depth, at the Dutch governments expense. In addition to Sanders,
the happy few included Wim Gilles, Ren Smeets, Jaap Penraat, Karel
Suyling and the journalist Rein Blijstra.
13
Until then Wim Gilles had been a designer at the metalwork factory of
Diepenbrock & Reigers in Ulft (dru) in the east of the country.
14
This rm
was a model for many factories that had only just taken their rst serious
steps in the eld of design. Although it had been started in the eighteenth
century as an iron foundry based on traditional craftsmanship, its rst
steam engine was installed in Ulft in the mid-nineteenth century and the
rm had grown to more than 600 workers at the start of the twentieth cen-
tury. From far back in the companys history new models for garden
benches, letterboxes and enamel pans had been moulded by a small
group of model-makers. The rms success was based on this long-stand-
ing tradition, together with a close eye on the products being produced by
its competitors.
In 1948 the director of the dru, J.A. Ingen Housz, took the initiative to
alter radically the design process in his factory. To implement this he took
on the young mechanical engineer Wim Gilles, who subsequently used his
own judgement to introduce a modern design methodology based on
market research and a self-developed system of product analysis.
15
After
this Gilles thought up a new design methodology involving a logical, well-
reasoned protocol. This mathematical organization of form would mean
that the outer appearance of the product would no longer be determined by
the subjective, artistic preference of an individual, but would be the result
of an objective, veriable, more or less scientic process.
One of the results of Wim Gilless innovative ideas rst saw the light of
day in 1954: a whistling tea kettle made from enamelled steel plate. The revo -
lutionary materialization of the kettle, which was to become a famous
design, was described in 1955 in the newTechnical Winkler Prins Encyclopedia
as a typical, practical example of a modern, process-based approach to

Dutch Design 144
Wim Gilles (DRU),
enamelled sheet-iron
kettle, 1954
industrial design, demonstrating the attention
paid to technical detail and its functionality. The
fact that they selected an ordinary kettle, rather
than a more traditional object like a chair, a vase
or a carpet, reveals a great deal about contempo-
rary thought regarding design developments in
the Netherlands.
Ren Smeets, who was also invited to join
the study tour of America, had become director
of the new industrial arts school in Eindhoven in
1950.
16
The idea was that he would concentrate
mainly on design education. Before he became
director in Eindhoven, Smeets had worked for a few years as a self-taught
designer at the ceramic factory Russel-Tiglia in Limburg and had also
served as an ofcer in the army. The evening class in industrial design at the
school in Eindhoven was meant to spur on industry in the Brabant region.
Unlike industrial-design teachers between the wars, such as Piet Zwart,
Gerard Kiljan and Mart Stam, who in their courses propagated collabora-
tion with industry for idealistic reasons, Smeets was mainly inspired by
pragmatic considerations. To his way of thinking, the economy and the
needs of the Brabant enterprises were the main concerns, and it is no coin-
cidence that Louis Kalff, the designer-in-chief at Philips, was involved in the
creation of the school. Firms mostly required attractive-looking articles,
which a large number of people would love to own, so increasing the
turnover. Attractive to Smeets did not mean in the rst place sober and
honest, but rather beautied or even decorated.
Freelance designers were represented in the America group by Jaap
Penraat and Karel Suyling.
17
Penraat had been trained during the war years
by Mart Stam and Johan Niegeman at the ivkno in Amsterdam. The fact
that Penraat had also spent those years forging papers and identity cards to
successfully smuggle more than four hundred Jews out of the Netherlands
only came to light years later. Towards the end of his life this Dutch
Schindler was internationally decorated for his act of heroism. At the time
of the American tour Penraat was already one of the most progressive
Dutch designers, interested in technique and user-friendliness and in the
development of entirely new technical products. One of these was a new
tramcar that he designed with Friso Kramer, but he was also one of the rst
in the Netherlands to introduce the open kitchen. He emigrated to America
in 1958, so obviously the country must have made a good impression on
him during the tour.

145
Karel Suyling was self-taught. He worked mainly as an advertisement
and packaging designer and dedicated himself to the emancipation of his
discipline. From 1955 to 1970 he designed many advertisements, including
those promoting Citron in the Netherlands.
18
The designers travelled around North America for six weeks, visiting
design courses in Boston, Cleveland, Chicago, Illinois, Cincinnati and New
York. They also looked in on fteen design companies, including the large
ofces of Henry Dreyfuss, Walter Dorwin Teague and Raymond Loewy, and
the large design departments at Kodak and General Motors. The world the
Dutch designers entered was totally different from the one they were used to
back home. Not only were such large ofces unknown phenomena in the
Netherlands, but the group was also impressed by the professional, business-
like character of the American ofces and envious of their commercial
success. In the United States design had been a completely accepted and
respected link in the production process for many years, whereas in the
Netherlands it was unknown on such a large scale. Such phenomena as con-
sumer research, product analysis and product presentation were also new for
the Dutch visitors, at least when taking into consideration the professional
manner in which it was organized in America. Moreover, the industrial
designer proved to be involved in the whole process, from the formulation of
the design commission to the presentation of the new article to the consumer.
The Dutch group viewed the highly regarded, versatile, well-trained and
commercially driven American designers with a certain amount of jealousy.
However, the Dutchmen did not fail to notice that all the American suc-
cess stories had their drawbacks. They were particularly critical of the fact
A Dutch delegation
of designers visiting
the design ofce of the
Eastman Kodak Company,
Rochester, New York,
during its study tour in
1953. From left to right:
K. Sanders, R. Smeets,
T. G. Clement (of Kodak),
K. Suyling, W. Gilles,
J. Penraat, Robertson,
R. Blijstra, unnamed Kodak
employee.

Dutch Design 146
that in the United States too much attention was paid to things that people
back home considered unimportant, or would even have condemned, such
as supercial styling and the slavish following of trends something still
detested in the Netherlands. They were also undecided about the new phe-
nomenon called marketing. On the one hand they really saw the
commercial benets it brought, but on the other they felt that yielding to
consumer demands conflicted with upholding an objective view of good
form, which still completely governed Dutch thinking about design.
When they returned to the Netherlands each participant wrote a report
on his experiences. Jaap Penraat and Karel Suyling con cent rated on the
position of the freelancer in America; Wim Gilles and Karel Sanders
analysed the relationship between industry and designer; and Ren Smeets
wrote his report on his experiences in American design education.
Two years later, under the auspices of the iiv, three Dutchmen were
invited to join an international party of enthusiasts on a tour of America:
G.C.J. Schoemaker, director of Inventum, a factory making electrical
appliances, and the designers Wim Rietveld and J. Wouda.
19
They were
introduced to a relatively new branch of the design profession during their
trip, the medical advice ofcer, an area of work that some American
designers already appeared to be engaged in. This was the Dutch design
worlds rst introduction to the new discipline later to become known as
ergonomics.
New Training Courses
Well-trained, contemporary designers, a prerequisite for implementing a
goal-orientated, modern design policy, were still scarce shortly after the
war. In the design schools then still usually called Arts and Crafts schools
the traditional crafts were still the main focus. There were only a couple of
exceptions, including the Academy in The Hague where, under Cor Alonss
management, a department of Interior Design and a department of
Advertising, under the supervision of Gerard Kiljan, had both been in oper-
ation since 1934, and where something resembling a modern approach to
industrial design was in evidence.
20
The other exception was the New Art School (Nieuwe Kunstschool) in
Amsterdam, also founded in 1934 by the former Bauhaus teacher Paul
Citroen; but this course did not survive the war.
21
Those who had taught
at this progressive, private, non-subsidized school included the architect
Alexander Bodon, graphic designer Hajo Rose, weaver Kthe Schmidt and
photographer Paul Guermonprez, the last three of whom were former

Design as Profession, 194580 147
Bauhaus pupils. Research on colours, materials and structures were the
main educational themes, modelled on the Vorkurs established by Johannes
Itten at the Bauhaus. One of their rst pupils was Benno Premsela, who was
later to become an influential interior designer and one of the foremost
authorities on Dutch design.
From the early 1940s Mart Stam and Johan Niegeman tried to modernize
the approach to education at the Instituut voor Kunst nijver heid sonder -
wijs (ivkno) in Amsterdam.
22
They taught their students to focus their
attention on peoples needs and to tackle design commissions in an analyti-
cal and systematic way. They condemned the sort of educational approach
based on the artists ego and which focused on artistic-minded expression.
In their eyes artisanal design was outdated, although they did still concen-
trate mainly on traditional interior design.
Changing course proved to be easier said than done. A disillusioned
Mart Stam had already left by 1947 and Niegeman could not manage to
put together a syllabus that fell in line with modern industrial society.
Disenchanted, he left in 1955. Nevertheless, a number of very promising
designers had graduated under his inspiring supervision: his pupils Friso
Kramer, Jaap Penraat, Kho Liang Ie and Coen de Vries unquestionably num-
bered among the most progressive industrial artists in the Netherlands in
the 1950s. It was not until 1960 that, in addition to the department of
Interior Design, a fully fledged department of Industrial Design was set up
in Amsterdam under W. J. Jaarsveld.
The study tour of America in 1953 stimulated a few important reforms
in the educational programme at the Eindhoven college. Ren Smeets incor-
porated his ndings in the syllabus for an entirely new daytime Industrial
Design course, which started up in 1955 and ran parallel to the evening
course. This was indeed the rst specialized School of Design in Europe. In
the curriculum the main focus was on intensive collaboration with indus-
try. After a general foundation year, the ve-year course had three
specialization proles: product design, publicity and product presentation,
and textiles. The fourth year was set aside for internships so students could
gain hands-on experience with professionals in the workplace. The promis-
ing Wim Gilles was taken on as a teacher by Smeets; he rose to the position
of director from 1970 to 1973.
The Hague Academy of Fine Art had started a weekend course on
industrial design in 1950, partly at the request of the Ministry of Economic
Affairs. This course was meant for people already working in the eld, such
as young adults who had completed Technical School and were attached to
a rm as a structural engineer. It was for this reason that the lessons were

Dutch Design 148
given on Friday afternoons and Saturdays. In
addition to the traditional, creative design sub-
jects, they also taught new subjects related to the
new study of ergonomics, product analysis and
visual communication. Gerard Kiljan became
the course coordinator. Apart from his teaching,
this designer executed several commissions of
his own: he was, for example, responsible for the
design of the Bakelite telephone (1955), pro-
duced in hundreds of thousands by the rm
Heemaf in Hengelo. In these post-war years he
also designed Joy lemonade bottles, including
the labels, in an attempt by the Hilversum soft-
drink manufacturer Koster to compete with
Coca-Cola.
23
A group of prominent designers, including
Cor Alons, Willem Gispen and Gerrit Rietveld,
were brought in to teach on the new course in The Hague. They also asked
the young Kho Liang Ie and Friso Kramer, both of whom had only just grad-
uated from the ivkno in Amsterdam, to teach there. The rst graduates
from The Hague included Joop Istha, J.C. Berkheij, Joop van Osnabrugge
and Wim Rietveld. Joop Istha developed into a versatile designer of home
and technical appliances and boasted a large international network. From
1975 to 1990 he was professor at Delft Technical University. Johannes
Berkheij specialized in medical equipment and for a few years ran a design
company with Joop Istha. One of his successes was the cylindrical gas heater
(1968) designed for the rm Etna in Breda. Joop van Osnabrugge also
became a versatile designer of consumer products, including electrical appli-
ances, kitchens and stoves. Finally, as well as designing chairs and lamps,
Wim Rietveld turned his attention to technical devices, agricultural equip-
ment, lorries and trains.
24
Meanwhile, the Dutch government was pressing for the creation of an
industrial design course at a higher, more scientic level. Delft Technical
University seemed the obvious place for it, an idea that was supported by
leading designers who had already presented a case for such an institution
before the war and who had done their best to professionalize their disci-
pline. The most well-known champions were Mart Stam, Wil Sandberg and
the glass designer Andries Copier. But back in Delft they were still not inter-
ested in the idea. The projected new department would have to be set up by
staff from the departments of Architecture and Mechanical Engineering,
G. Kiljan (Wed. Thijssens &
Zn/Joy) three bottles with
labels, 1948 and 1960.

but at the time they could see no point in establishing a course for semi-
artists. In the Architecture department Professor M. J. Granpr Molire
still held sway, a traditionalist who was highly critical of modern industrial
mass production. It was only when the architects J. H. van den Broek and F.
A. Eschauzier became professors in Delft that the tide turned, and even
then it was to take until 1964 before the rst two students in Delft could
begin studying industrial design. G. J. van der Grinten, who had done all
the preparatory work in Delft over the years, including stressing the eco-
nomic importance of such a course, was to become the rst Extraordinary
Professor of Industrial Design in the Netherlands.
25
In comparison to the
design courses given at industrial design schools, the new course in Delft
was focused more on technique, on subjects relating to man and society,
and on design methodology.
Design Policy in the Factories
The young industrial designers who had been trained in Amsterdam,
Eindhoven, The Hague and later Delft were able to nd work easily due to
the flourishing economy and the fact that industrial design as a eld was
becoming increasingly regarded in the 1950s and 60s. They obtained com-
missions quite easily or found part-time jobs as designers for a few days a
week. Those commissioning their work came from a wide range of sectors
as a growing number of manufacturers came to realize that it was in their
own interest to pay more attention to design. The demand for designers
was often greater than the supply.
The evolving electrical household appliances sector in particular pro-
vided a great deal of employment.
26
It was in this sector that the products
of a fully developed design policy came to the fore. The vacuum cleaners
and irons that could be found in most households were in dire need of
replacement and consumers were also starting to show an interest in coffee
grinders, hair driers, mixers, electric cookers, sewing machines, refrigera-
tors and fully automatic washing machines. The enormous increase in
wages and the abolition of luxury tax in 1955 gave sales of these attractive
items a boost: between 1957 and 1964, for example, the number of families
owning an electric washing machine increased from 31 to 83 per cent, while
those with black-and-white televisions increased from 8 to 68 per cent.
27
The foremost symbol of progress was the modern kitchen, equipped
with the newest home appliances. The popular Polygon Newsreel commen-
tary, shown at the beginning of every cinema programme, reported on the
American kitchen in 1954, the kitchen of the future, in which, at the touch

Dutch Design 150
of a button, a housewife could prepare a delicious meal with the greatest of
ease. Those in the audience who dreamed of such a kitchen could view
something similar for real in 1957 at the exhibition titled Het Atoom (The
Atom) in Amsterdam. This exhibition, and a handful of national demon-
strations of comparable ambition, combined economic information and
industrial propaganda with entertainment. The largest and most impres-
sive display was staged under the name e55 in Rotterdam. The main theme
in this case was the resurrection of this seaport town, which had been razed
to the ground during the war.
The most familiar names among more than two hundred factories in
the Netherlands that were making electrical home appliances in the 1950s
and 60s are Philips, Van der Heem (under the brand name Erres), Inventum,
Indola, Holland Electro, Daalderop and Ruton. This is where most of the
design activity was taking place. Their design policy gradually changed dur-
ing these years from one of pragmatism, mixed with a considerable amount
of idealism, if not downright paternalism, to a purely commercial policy
based on market research.
The Royal Electrical Appliances Factory Inventum in Bilthoven, estab-
lished in 1908 as Inventa, had already produced great numbers of electrical
irons, hot plates and electric heaters even before the First World War. The
Amsterdam Municipal Electricity Company, which was then engaged in
competitive warfare with the Municipal Gas Company, had a policy of pro-
moting the sale of electrical appliances to stimulate the use of electricity. As
a result of this campaign, by 1916 there were already more than 15,000 elec-
tric irons in everyday use there and by around 1920 Amsterdam was the
most electried city in the world. Far more thought, however, was given to
the technical innovations applied to these products than to their design, for
on the whole it was products made by large foreign companies, such as the
German rm aeg, that set the standard. The design idiom used for the
modern models in the range was international commercial Art Deco.
28
Only one designer from Inventums pre-war years has been recognized,
Arie W. Verbeek from Rotterdam, who designed a minimalist electric heater
in 1929 that went into production in 1932. This handsome appliance has
found a place in the design collections of various museums. Verbeek was
one of the rst designers with a rm belief in the need for this new disci-
pline to be applied to industrial mass-produced articles in the Netherlands.
After the war the management at Inventum began to start thinking in a
more contemporary and structural way about design. Their electric heaters
were subsequently modernized by Wim Rietveld. The rst result of his study
tour of America (accompanied by the director of the rm Schoemakers) was

Arie Verbeek (Inventum,
Bilthoven), electric heater,
1929.
that the factory stopped playing safe by simply extending the range of prod-
ucts. Instead, it reduced the core collection and made it available in more
than one colour. In this way the production process could be organized far
more efciently and cheaply, reducing the price of the appliance and increas-
ing turnover. Marketing was introduced only after Rietveld left Inventum.
This involved recording consumers current needs and assessing their future
expectations. On the basis of the results of this study it seemed advisable to

expand the range of products on sale. What in essence had been a paternal-
istic outlook towards design, and a great faith in a rational approach to
good form, was now slowly but surely being abandoned. The management
plumped for a more commercial design policy that would allow them to
react more quickly to shifts in fashion and lifestyle trends. Market segmen-
tation became a household word. The new strategy was accompanied by
a much more dynamic advertising policy. Designer Joop van Osnabrugge
proved to be willing to go along with this method of work, which was much
more lucrative from a business viewpoint.
Philips in Eindhoven had already felt the need to consider product
design at an earlier stage to bring it into line with company policy. In the
mid-1920s, in addition to light bulbs, the rm began to produce radio sets.
29
Unlike electrical home appliances, radios were products that were more
likely to be given pride of place in the living room, which meant that more
care had to be taken about the way they looked. In 1925 Louis Kalff took
over as head of Philipss own advertising studio. In those years this depart-
ment was also responsible for the aesthetic supervision of new products, as
well as designing posters, packing and stands at home exhibitions. In 1926
Kalff designed the rst shell-shaped Bakelite loudspeaker, available in
several colours, which could enhance a living room in the same way as a
work of art. The rst radio case followed in 1927. Kalff was put in charge of
the new Artistic Design Team in 1930, consisting of a small international
group of designers exclusively engaged in product design. The number of
radio models was soon enlarged and production increased at a fast rate: by
1932 a million Philips radios had already been sold.
Philips started to think about other products as well. In those days
radios were typically seasonal articles, so the search was on for alternative
Bakelite products that could be sold all year round and not just in the
autumn and winter. Soapboxes, sewing cases and even toilet seats proved to
t the bill, but the electric shaver, developed by the engineer A. Horowitz,
was the greatest hit, despite grave initial misgivings on the part of the
Philips Management Board. The Philishave, the rst electrical dry shaver
with rotating blades (still in its original form with one shaving head), was
presented to the public in 1939 at the Utrecht Spring Trade Fair.
30
After the
war the Philishave appeared in a streamlined version, made from a white,
Bakelite-related synthetic material. The design acquired the nickname Eitje
(Small Egg). During the war years a second rotating head was added and
since 1966 the Philishave has been manufactured with three shaving heads.
After the war the design team at Philips was replaced by the new
department called Appliance Design. In choosing this name they wanted
152 Dutch Design

to stress Philipss intention to produce an ever
increasing number of electrical appliances. After
the shavers, radios and record players, the range
of products was enhanced with portable radios,
vacuum cleaners, televisions, coffee grinders,
irons, sun lamps, spin dryers and all sorts of
professional appliances.
Rein Veersema was one of this new depart-
ments most successful designers. This status
meant that he was greatly appreciated by the
management, but also led to differences of opin-
ion with Kalff. In 1956 Veersema was put in charge
of the design ofce and design policy was struc-
turally modernized. It was his aim to give the
totally divergent forms of all the various Philips
products one face: the Philips family look. What
by then had become a large international enter-
prise had to be given a corporate image. Moreover,
Veersema introduced ergonomics as a fully fledged
part of the design process. A more methodical
and interdisciplinary design policy was gradually
developed at Philips, in emulation of the shining
example of the rival German company Braun,
where Dieter Rams was at the helm from 1960,
and of the design vision of the Hochschule in Ulm, where the goal was to
create timeless design. Unfortunately, Veersemas policy was only partially
successful and the rm certainly did not achieve the desired commercial
results. Veersema was succeeded in 1965 by the Norwegian Knut Yran, who
had more commercial insight and was far less convinced of the universal
validity of the design rules propagated in Ulm. It was not his ambition to
make timeless designs: he was more interested in making products for the
future, while also being a great admirer of commercial American design.
Yran introduced a new design system at Philips, consisting of a clearly
dened design-track, running from project brieng right up to nal delivery
of the packed product to the retailer. In this way the uniformity of design of
Philips products was considerably strengthened by an ever expanding and
ever more important Philips design ofce, known as the Concern Industrial
Design Centre (cidc). In 1981 Bob Blaich took Yrans place, while he in turn
stepped down in 1991 to make way for Stefano Marzano. Thus for decades
Philips design policy was delineated by foreign designers, not by Dutch.
Advertisement for the
Philishave dry-shaving
method, 1939.

In the course of the 1960s this increasingly large and powerful rm,
originally based in Eindhoven, swallowed up all the other Dutch rms oper-
ating in the electrical appliances market. One of the last to be taken over by
Philips was Van der Heem. After the war important work was still being car-
ried out there by the designer Piet van der Scheer and later by Joop Istha.
From the start Van der Scheer was willing to take into account the wishes of
the sales department as well as those of the technical engineering depart-
ment. In the 1950s and early 1960s Van der Heem was inspired by American
advertising methods and went even further by experimenting with the most
advanced marketing methods. But, at the same time, it continued to believe
in the benets of good design. In its slow but sure efforts to ensure that
good design would become generally accepted, it analysed consumer
behaviour, and modern sociological theories on top-down dynamics for
innovation were translated into commercial strategies. In spite of all that,
Van der Heem lost its independence in 1969 and the Erres brand name was
to become Philipss second trademark.
Modernization in the Furniture Sector
Like the producers of electrical home appliances, the furniture industry
proted from the great demand for replacements after the war and the
explosive growth in prosperity.
31
At rst everything this branch of trade
produced was sold quite effortlessly, even if no attention was paid to
design. This period of booming business, however, also meant that the
factories devoted far too little time and effort to modernization. The
hundreds of generally small family rms were satised with their prot
margins and neglected to invest enough of their earnings in the renewal of
extremely antiquated machinery just as little time and money was spent
on marketing. A 1968 study examining the state of affairs in the furniture
industry, commissioned by the Dutch Economic Institute (Nederlands
Economisch Instituut), concluded that the situation had scarcely altered in
thirty years. Not surprisingly, when trade fell off it proved to be fatal. The
sector could not stand up to foreign competition, which was able to sup-
ply the goods faster and make products more suited to the demand. For
that matter the demand was still mainly for traditional, classic models
in a style that those in progressive circles denigrated as balpoten (legs-
on-balls) style or old nnish (a Dutch corruption of the English word
old-fashioned).
In the 1950s and 60s there were really only three factories that pursued
a modern, interesting design policy for consumer furniture: t Spectrum,
154 Dutch Design

ums-Pastoe and Wagemans & Van Tuinen, later called Artifort. t Spectrum
in Bergeyk was started during the war as a daughter company of the weaving
mill De Ploeg.
32
It was very idealistic, just like its parent company, and the
employees had a large say in company affairs and a share in the prots. The
purpose was to make timeless designs that everyone could afford. For a few
years post-war material shortages restricted them to making small pieces of
furniture and domestic objects, but by the mid-1950s t Spectrum had pro-
gressed to larger items. The rms preference for good but sober design had
changed little over the years. In the new statutes that the factory drew up in
1957 they included a clause stating that the furniture had to comply with the
demands of good taste; in other words, it should be timeless, functional,
affordable and reliable. The use of natural, traditional materials, and a
design idiom associated with Scandinavian furniture, contributed to this
image. It is not surprising that furniture from t Spectrum was extremely
popular in Goed Wonen circles. From the outset the rm collaborated inten-
sively with professional designers. Martin Visser, who transferred from De
Martin Visser
(t Spectrum, Bergeyk),
Riethoven metal and
rattan chair, 1959.

Bijenkorf to t Spectrum in 1954, was the most familiar and the most produc-
tive, working in the modernist style demanded by the management board.
As time went on t Spectrum design became more rened and elegant.
From about 1970 the rm accepted more variation in form and material.
The consumers increasing demand for more luxury and comfort, and for
domestic objects to t their social status, was not ignored. Even t Spectrum,
however, could not escape the consequences of an economic crisis. The
decline in purchasing power, growing competition from cheaper foreign
furniture and the change in popular taste resulted in the rm being wound
up in 1974. The enterprise was, however, to be continued in a different form.
In 1988 Spectrum Furniture (Spectrum-Meubelen) was established, a rm
that to this day markets furniture that is exceptionally contemporary in
its design.
In the 1930s the Utrechtse Machinale Stoel- en Meubelfabriek (ums),
founded in 1913, was one of the rms that had introduced modern furniture
into its range, mainly for commercial reasons.
33
Cees Braakman, son of the
works manager, was already their most important designer. From 1945 ums
had to be rebuilt virtually from scratch after being badly hit during the war,
providing them with an opportunity to focus exclusively on contemporary
design. Inspired by American working methods and the design of Charles
and Ray Eames, Braakman brought a totally new line onto the market
under the brand name Pastoe. Much of the rms products were made of
plywood, sculpted into the desired shape using an advanced technique
called high-frequency compression. Although the basis for this modern
Pastoe design policy was not in line with the principles propagated by the
Goed Wonen Foundation in all respects, their spokesman nevertheless
praised the Pastoe storage cabinets in the periodical Goed Wonen.
Wagemans & Van Tuinen in Maastricht had been making furniture
since the 1920s, but it was not until the 1950s that the rm became well
156 Dutch Design
Brochure for Berken -
meubelen (birch-wood
furniture) presenting
designs by Cees Braakman
(UMS/Pastoe, Utrecht), 1951.

known for its modern design products under the brand name Artifort.
34
Unlike t Spectrum and ums, Wagemans & Van Tuinen reached an interna-
tional market with the Artifort brand. The rms rst success outside the
Netherlands came when a chair by the industrial designer Theo Ruth was
shown at the Triennale in Milan in 1954. A completely new design policy
was introduced when Kho Liang Ie was taken on as a consultant. Kho, born
in the Dutch East Indies and of Chinese ancestry, had been trained by Johan
Niegeman at the ivkno as a furniture designer and interior designer. After
completing his studies he began his career as a public relations ofcial and
organizer of exhibitions on interior design for the Goed Wonen
Foundation. For a while he also edited the periodical Goed Wonen. In the
mid-1950s he entered into an alliance for some years with the graphic
designer Wim Crouwel, after which his international career as a furniture
designer expanded enormously.
Thanks to the design policy outlined by Kho, within a few years
Wagemans & Van Tuinen became one of the leading modern furniture fac-
tories in Europe. The most important reason for this success was that Kho
started the tradition of collaboration with foreign designers. On his initia-
tive the French designer Pierre Paulin was appointed to the Artifort design
team in 1959. The British designer Geoffrey Harcourt followed in 1962.
Artiforts colourful, organically shaped sit-sculptures were totally different
in character from the strictly functional furniture made by t Spectrum and
Pastoe, making Dutch critics cautious in their judgement. But it was
Artifonts elegant, trendy and fashionable furniture that slotted so well
into the international market.
The Dutch furniture industry went through a very rough period in
the 1970s. The sector was starting to pay the price for its past preference
for short-term prots. Only the factories that had concentrated in time on
modern furniture, and had also renewed their production and product-
development methods, managed to survive the onslaught. The rest were
wiped out by foreign competition. It was not until the early 1980s that the
Dutch furniture industry managed to recover. In addition to Pastoe and
Artifort, rms like Castelijn, Montis, Gelderland and Roh brought updated
furniture onto the market from young designers like Pierre Mazairac, Karel
Boonzaaijer, Gerard van den Berg, Gijs Bakker, Axel Enthoven and Aldo van
den Nieuwelaar. The furniture on display in the exhibition Dutch Furniture
19801983 in the Rotterdam Bouwcentrum heralded a new heyday for the
industry. The rms just mentioned combined forces when it came to pres-
entation and marketing activities, using the Dutch Design Centre in Utrecht
as their forum.
35

A few Dutch factories continued to enjoy success in the eld of ofce
furniture.
36
Gispen, Ahrend, De Cirkel, Oda and Staalmeubel BV are the
most important names, but a great many more enterprises were active in
this sector. Gispen amalgamated with Staalmeubel BV in 1966; De Cirkel and
Oda became a part of Ahrend in 1967. The post-war economic revival,
expansion and large-scale reorganization of clerical work eventually gave
this sector an enormous boost in the 1950 and 60s. Clerical staff doubled in
number and the surface area of ofces grew up to the mid-1970s by a stag-
gering factor of three. Furthermore, in those years open-plan ofce design
was introduced, resulting in a demand for new furniture of a quite different
nature, such as desks and cupboards that could be connected up in differ-
ent ways so that the large open workrooms could be shared in a flexible way.
In the 1950s Gispen increasingly concentrated on ofce furniture.
37
This reputable factory, moved to Culemborg in 1935, was forced to do with-
out Willem Gispen, its director and designer-in-chief, after 1949. He felt
that his factory obligations left him too little time for his own creativity.
However, this certainly did not mean that interest in design disappeared at
Gispens. The rms most important designers over the next two decades
were Wim Rietveld and then Anton Cordemeyer. Both were given plenty of
opportunity at Gispens to experiment with new techniques and materials.
Rietveld introduced compressed laminated wood in combination with
metal components secured by rubber discs, a fastening technique devel-
oped by Eames. Together with his father Gerrit Rietveld, in 1957 he
developed for Gispen the Mondial desk chair, which had a folded-metal
support and a seat made of synthetic material.
38
In the following year,
158 Dutch Design
Wim Rietveld (De Cirkel),
Piramide adjustable hall
chairs, 1960, as illustrated
in Nico Verhoeven,
Doelmatigheid van indus-
trile vormgeving, 1962
(IIV brochure).

with his successor Anton Cordemeyer, he devel-
oped the rst synthetic bucket-chair in the
Netherlands, a design that well suited an ofce
seating area without looking out of place in a
home interior.
Willem Gispen founded the furniture rm
Kembo in 1953, selling his new designs for ofce
and school furniture as well as for living-room
furniture, with typically organic shapes and dis-
playing clear Scandinavian, and later also Italian,
influence. They were produced in several differ-
ent factories.
In the 1950s and 60s Ahrend, which had
already produced ofce furniture before the
Second World War, had the most ambitious
design policy of them all.
39
The rms most impor-
tant designers were Friso Kramer and, once again, Wim Rietveld. The
products Ahrend brought onto the market during those years were actually
manufactured by De Cirkel. A particularly pioneering and successful exam-
ple was Friso Kramers Revoltstoel, which is still in production today. For
many people the methodical and innovative way in which this chair was
planned and developed acted as a model for how industrial design should be
incorporated in a factorys total policy. The Revoltstoel was followed by the
Resultstoel and by various designs for school furniture, desks and drawing
tables. The director of De Cirkel, Jan Schrfer, commissioned Wim Rietveld
to design the Piramidestoel, a variation on the Mondial chair he had earlier
made for Gispen. In 1972 Friso Kramer developed his successful Mehes sys-
tem for Ahrend, a brand name created by the acronym for mobility,
efciency, humanization, environment and standardization, the keywords
reiterating the essence of well-designed ofce furniture.
In addition to furniture, there was explosive growth in demand for new
business machines and ofce requisites. Oc van der Grinten in Venlo
developed into a flourishing rm producing photocopiers, whose success
was partly due to the clever design of these machines. Louis Lucker, who
graduated in 1963 from the Eindhoven Industrial Design Academy, became
the rst designer to be given a permanent job on their staff. Scores of oth-
ers were to follow. The design department at Oc soon became one of the
largest design ofces in the Netherlands. These technical machines,
designed with great care and attention to ergonomic principles, have won
international awards on many occasions.
40
Designer in action at the
Oc van der Grinten design
studio, Venlo, 1982.

Directors with Ambition
Not all the highlights in Dutch industrial design in the 1950s and 60s were
the result of a conscious policy. A few success stories, like Daf and Tomado,
were more the outcome of a special nose for business, or possibly the result
of a handful of factory managers romantic ambitions.
In the mid-1950s Hub van Doorne and his brother Wim, who had been
director of Van Doornes Automobielfabriek (Daf ) since the 1930s, realized
a long-cherished boyhood dream.
41
They succeeded in making the rst
truly Dutch passenger car since the loss of the famous Dutch Spijker in the
1920s. Daf s lorry production lines had been successful since before the
Second World War. The triumph of this new small car, however, was not so
much based on its unusual design as on important technical innovations
made possible by Hub van Doornes variomatic, a revolutionary auto matic
gear-change system. Jan van der Brugghen, structural engineer at Daf, took
care of the technical innovations and Wim van den Brink, originally an
aeronautical engineer, designed the bodywork. The result was a typically
Dutch car: sober looking, functional, easy to operate and without any fussy,
unnecessary styling features no chrome strips or luxurious accessories.
The most unusual element was the raised headlights on the low bonnet.
The presentation of the rst Daf 600 at the annual automobile show in
the rai in Amsterdam in 1958 was a sensational event. Thousands of visi-
tors attended, including the international press, and 4,000 cars were sold
straight off. Yet despite its undeniable success with the customers, Daf was
all too soon to gain the hackneyed image of being a silly little car for
women and old-age pensioners. As years went by the simple design was
adapted to try and improve its unexciting image, while also adjusting quite
a lot of the technical specications. In 1961 the more luxurious Daffodil
made its entry on the market and in 1966 the Italian designer Giovanni
Michelotti was hired to modernize the car, ultimately to no avail: in the
mid-1970s Daf was taken over by the Swedish rm Volvo. Nevertheless, in
Born, Limburg, cars were still being designed by the Dutch: Volvos present
chief designer in Gothenburg, Fedde Talsma, was educated at Delft Technical
University and has divided his time between Sweden and the Netherlands
for more than twenty years.
Just like the silly little Dafs, articles produced by the rm Tomado
have become icons of the period.
42
Many baby-boomers can remember
the bookshelves that cheered up their bedrooms in their teenage years. The
simple, black steel-wire shelf supports could be attached to the wall with a
screwdriver with relative ease, and once in place the metal shelves (in the
160 Dutch Design

colour scheme of your choice) could simply be clicked on. Tomado (an
acronym for Van der Tochts Mass articles Dordrecht), was established in
1923 by Jan and Wim van der Togt and started life as a factory for simple
household articles made of steel wire. The early concern the brothers held
regarding the functionality of their products was demonstrated in 1933
when they developed a new practical dish-drainer in close collaboration
with the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Huisvrouwen (Netherlands Union of
Housewives). The rms heyday came after the war, when Tomado met an
enormous need by quickly bringing onto the market dish drying-racks,
colanders, bookends and other household products. These included
bottle-lickers (to get the last remnants out of glass yoghurt bottles), soap-
whisks (round perforated-metal soap-holders with handles for whisking
around left-over bits of soap in water) and jam pot-holders (used to hold
jam pots when lling them from a pan of hot jam), articles that would
puzzle consumers today, who are no longer so thrifty, or perhaps so
domesticated. The almost frivolous design of the light and modern-looking
wirework undoubtedly stimulated sales. Nevertheless, it was recom-
mended by the reliable organization Goed Wonen. Tomado became a
household name for all practical-minded housewives. In the late 1950s the
rm started to provide some of its products with a thick synthetic coating;
A row of Dafs on
the assembly line at
Eindhoven, c. 1960.

the Tomado dish-drainer then became a Tomestic dish-drainer. Unfor -
tunately, this factory did not survive either: in 1971 it was taken over by the
Belgian rm Bekaert and is presently owned by Metaltex, based in the
Czech Republic.
Plastics triumphal onward march had started early in the Nether -
lands.
43
Bakelite had been introduced for household goods back in the 1930s
in the form of radio cases and gramophones, but soon lemon squeezers,
ashtrays, soapboxes, insulating grip-handles, door handles and toilet seats
made from this modern material also came onto the market. In the 1950s
new synthetic materials were introduced, encouraging an unusually large
number of Dutch rms to start actively experimenting. Initially the still
inadequate knowledge available on the new material and its processing tech-
niques, combined with the pressure to produce as much and as quickly as
possible, led to poor quality and did not contribute to well thought-out
design. Nonetheless, plastics advance was well under way. After trying ther-
mosetting plastic, which proved in practice to be a difcult material to work
with, as the 1950s progressed they moved on to using soft thermoplastics.
Moreover, injection moulding was introduced as a manufacturing technique
in addition to compression. Here too America paved the way. The expensive
moulds necessary to manufacture synthetic objects were often obtained
second-hand from America or Germany a procedure that inevitably did
not stimulate well-considered or progressive design policy.
Following the increasing market for household goods, electrical home
appliances and toys, the demand for plastic camping articles also grew
throughout the 1960s. Eventually synthetic materials would be accepted
everywhere: in the living room, at the ofce and in the world of leisure and
162 Dutch Design
Andries Copier (Van
Nifterik, Putten), parts of a
plastic (melamine) dinner
service for KLM, 1946.

entertainment. Ashtrays, wastepaper baskets, lamps, clocks, typewriters,
radios, long-playing records, advertising and packing materials, glasses,
disposable cups and much more were all made of plastic and sold well.
Of the scores of plastics processing rms founded in the 1950s only a
few proved to be viable after adopting a successful and progressive design
policy. One such is Mepal, which has been based in Lochem since the begin-
ning of the 1960s and merged with the Danish rm Rosti in 1993. In 1963
the management initiated a test project and contracted a group of well-
known designers, among them Piet Zwart, Coen and Wim de Vries, Charles
Jongejans and Dick Simonis, to develop a new range of storage boxes.
44
Tiger
and Curver were two other Dutch companies making high-quality synthetic
household products that had been meticulously designed.
New Design Companies
It was gradually becoming clear that designers could make an important
contribution to a companys economic prosperity. As the prestige of Dutch
designers rose they were able to establish professional design companies
modelled on famous American companies such as Loewy, Teague and
Dreyfuss, which they had come to know through journals, international
congresses and, in a few cases, from personal visits or internships. Emile
Truen, for example, trained in the early 1950s at the Interior Design depart -
ment of The Hague Art Academy. After completing his studies he went to
the United States, where he took up a post teaching at the Pratt Institute in
New York. Once back in the Netherlands, Truijen began an association with
Rob Parry, whom he had known since his time in The Hague and who had
recently been working for Gerrit Rietveld.
45
The economic recovery in this period provided the two with many
commissions, including one from the ptt (Dutch Post Ofce) for the twin
letterbox (1957) that was later to become so familiar. They produced an
ergonomically acceptable design made partially from plastic, notable for its
attractive bevel-edged contours and an ingenious system for keeping local
and national mail separate. The result was so good that the box remained in
continuous service right up to the end of the century. Truijen and Parry,
however, had already gone their separate ways in 1958.
Truens next move was to set up the design company Tel Design in
The Hague with Jan Lucassen in 1962 (the name is derived from the initial
letters of Truijen en Lucassen).
46
In 1961 Lucassen had been one of the
rst to graduate from the new Industrial Design Academy in Eindhoven,
where Truijen was teaching at the time. Tel Design aimed to cover all design

Studio Dumbar for
the Ministries of Justice
and Home Affairs, police
car livery, 1993.
disciplines and all lines of work, and the two designers ambition was to
work in the commercial way Truijen had become familiar with during his
stay in America. When Tel Design was commissioned to design a new
house style for the ns (Dutch National Railways) in 1967, they took on the
graphic designer Gert Dumbar as a third partner. Dumbar had been
trained at the Royal College of Art in London and, with his flair for visual
communication, was able to give a refreshing new lease of life to Tel
Design. The rm in its original form closed in 1976, but the partners car-
ried on working independently as they went their separate ways: Emile
Truijen became a professor at Delft Technical University in 1977 and Gert
Dumbar established Studio Dumbar, which remains active to this day. As
well as its designs for the Dutch National Railways, Tel Design carried out
pioneering work for the new discipline of public relations and for house
styles. Studio Dumbar has become well known both in the Netherlands and
abroad for many inventive logos and publicity campaigns, such as those
created for the v&d department store, the eci book club, the sometimes
ridiculed livery of Dutch police cars, and the recently announced commis-
sion to supply a uniform house style for all departments of the Dutch
national government.
47
164 Dutch Design

Another new company, the Associatie voor
Total Design bv, was established in 1963 by Wim
Crouwel, Benno Wissing, Friso Kramer and the
brothers Paul and Dick Schwarz.
48
Their aim
was to offer services on every facet of design,
from stamps to exhibitions. With a prestigious
ofce address on the Herengracht in Amsterdam,
they recruited junior designers, such as Ben
Bos, appoint ed business managers (namely the
Schwarz brothers) and engaged clerical staff. Total
Design presented itself as an international, pro-
fessional and modern organization that was not
modelled on the commercial American design
companies, but on such studios in Great Britain as
Fletcher Forbes Gill and on some of individual
designers in Germany and Switzerland with whom they were in touch.
Furthermore, the humanist design philosophy taught at the Hochschule fr
Gestaltung in Ulm was very important for their method of work. At Total
Design they worked in a business-like, professional way, with Paul Schwarz as
accounts manager maintaining contact with the clients. At the companys
ofces the commissions were dealt with by separate design teams, and this
rational division of work enabled them to be handled as efciently as possi-
ble. Preferably they designed along rational and established lines on the basis
of a rigorous grid.
Wim Crouwel had trained as a painter at the Groningen Academy of
Art, but started his career in 1952 designing exhibition stands. His introduc-
tion to Swiss typography in these years was decisive for the further course
of his career. The clarity and the logic of functionalism from the 1920s and
Swiss typography, which continued to build on this tradition, was an con-
tinuing source of inspiration. In 1956 Crouwel worked for a while with the
interior designer Kho Liang Ie. One of their joint design projects involved
planning stands for the exhibition Het Atoom (1957) in Amsterdam, one of
the optimistic post-war reconstruction events (see above). They were also
responsible for a series of arresting exhibition stands, notable for their
austere, subdued, minimalist design, commissioned from such rms as
Auping, De Bijenkorf and Linoleum Krommenie.
When Total Design was set up in 1963 Benno Wissing already had an
adventurous career behind him.
49
He trained to become an artist at the
Rotterdam Academy of Art. After the war, lured by the attraction of commu-
nism, he stayed for a while in Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. He showed his
The founders of Total
Design at their new design
studio in Amsterdam.

social commitment in 1946 by becoming involved in Groep r (Group r), an
artists organization that put collaboration rst and aimed at abolishing art
with a capital a. He supported himself by designing stands and dcors and
doing graphic work, making close to a hundred posters and catalogues for
Boijmans Van Beuningen Museum in Rotterdam. In Wissings unrelenting
need to encourage a more anonymous form of visual communication, his
most important sources of inspiration were El Lissitzky and Moholy-Nagy,
as well as the Dutch designers Zwart and Schuitema. Corporate photogra-
phy books, a popular medium in those years, were a good example of this
visual form of communication. In this genre Wissing designed books such
as 100 jaar Grasso (100 Years of Grasso, 1958), in which he visualized the
hundred years of history through which this s-Hertogenbosch engineering
factory had been active using a wide range of typographical resources, com-
plemented by contemporary photographs by Violette Cornelius.
50
The third partner in Total Design was Friso Kramer. Unlike Crouwel
and Wissing, Kramer was involved exclusively in product design and never
in graphic design. Just like his associates, however, he supported the princi-
ples of functionalism and rational and analytic design methods. The three
designers of Total Design each brought their commissions and clients to the
new joint company. Wissing continued to design the print work for the
Boijmans Van Beuningen Museum, Crouwel did the same for the Van Abbe
Museum in Eindhoven and for the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, whilst
Kramer brought his order portfolio for Ahrend into the alliance. Within a
few years the wide-ranging mode of operation that Total Design had initial-
ly envisaged had already proved unrealistic. Designing industrial products,
Friso Kramers speciality, did not take off as well as he had predicted within
the connes of the company and, somewhat disappointed, he left it in 1968.
Benno Wissing soldiered on until 1972, but became increasingly irritated by
the hierarchic way in which the company was organized and the resulting
compartmentalization of responsibility.
The main stable factor at Total Design continued to be Wim Crouwel,
who developed into the face of the company. His commitment, pragmatic,
professional attitude and social skills not least the ease with which he was
able to communicate with his clients ensured that Total Design continued
to exist, albeit in an ever changing structure. The company changed its
name to Total Identity in 2000. At its height the studio had forty members
of staff. Permanent staff, in addition to Crouwel, included Ben Bos, Daphne
Duijvelshoff and Jolijn van de Wouw.
51
Other well-known designers, such as
Paul Mijksenaar, Jurriaan Schrofer and Anthon Beeke, were attached to
Total Design for shorter periods of time.
52
166 Dutch Design

Their rst major client was the Coal Trade Association (Steenkolen
Handels Vereniging, shv), which asked Total Design to develop a house
style for them, as well as a distinctive logo for pamdomestic fuel oil, petrol
and liquid gas, which the shv was launching on the market. The result of
these commissions, which were mainly worked on by Benno Wissing, was
a coherent programme of carefully designed logos, letter headings, pack-
aging materials, annual report layouts and calendars, including the
lettering on the goods trains that transported the oil and the total look of
pam petrol stations.
Randstad, a temporary employment agency, approached Total Design
in 1967 when the agency was still fairly new. Not only did Randstad want
a completely new house style, but they also asked the designers to think
about how the organizations image could be improved. At the time, tempo-
rary employment agencies were considered to be employers without a great
deal of social conscience, and they met with widespread disapproval. This
commission was carried out entirely by Ben Bos, the most important part
of it being the logotype, which was closely related to the revolutionary New
Alphabet produced at the time by Wim Crouwel.
53
The combination of the
logotype and the style of the letters used for the name Randstad was so
well chosen that it is still in use 40 years later, and has not dated at all. This
project was followed by logos for the Rabobank, the Rotterdam Ahoy hall
complex, De Gruyter supermarket, Makro Cash & Carry, Het Spectrum and
Kluwer publishers, the National Investment Bank, the Dutch Municipal
Building Fund, the Holland Festival and many more.
Both Total Design and Tel Design are quite rightly associated with the
modern house-style concept. The differences between the two were some-
times barely visible, but on the whole Total Designs work was more
austere and minimalist, Tels more expressive. The house styles of what
were at the time two of the Netherlands best-known supermarket chains,
namely De Gruyters, designed by Total Design (Ben Bos), and Simon de
Wits, designed by Tel (Frans van Mourik), nicely illustrate the difference
between the two.
54
In the past some organizations had tried to bring a certain uniformity
to their companys printed materials by means of a specic logotype or a
distinguishing graphic style. Two examples, both discussed earlier, were
Jacob Jongerts printing work for Van Nelles coffee, tea and tobacco factory
and Paul Schuitemas work for Van Berkels patent ofce. As far back as the
seventeenth century the voc (Dutch East Indies Trading Company) had
used its own logotype. Nonetheless, Tel and Total Design, and the many
new Dutch graphic design companies that were to follow in their footsteps

A double page in Benno Wissing, 100 jaar Grasso, s-Hertogenbosch (1958), with photographs of Violette Cornelius.
Marijke de Ley
(Studio Premsela Vonk
for Van Besouw, Goirle),
samples of the cotton
strap-carpet of 1970.

Tel Design, three posters for Simon de Wit, 1970.
Total Design, design and nal result for De Gruyter soup packaging, 1971.

in the 1960s and 70s, broadened the concept of house style to embrace the
phenomenon of corporate identity, or corporate image.
55
A large, but different sort of design company was Premsela Vonks design
studio in Amsterdam. Benno Premsela and Jan Vonk had regularly worked
together since 1956 and, straight after Premsela left De Bijenkorf department
store in 1963, the two of them set up a joint company.
56
In contrast to Total
Design and Tel, this studio did not concentrate primarily on graphic design,
but rather on interior design with a special interest in textiles.
At rst the commissions were for exhibition show houses and their
interiors. Between 1963 and 1969 they attended to a large share of the
presentations in the Industrial Design Centre (Centrum Industrile Vorm -
geving) in the Beurs in Amsterdam. Together they also supplied a new
look for the furniture factory Pastoe, by designing modern, contempo-
rary catalogues (with photographic work by Jan Versnel), showrooms and
exhibition stands.
Benno Premselas work for the carpet factory Van Besouw in Goirle
began in 1967 after the rms director Jan Mes had been introduced to
Premsela through the iiv. The regular visits Premsela made to Goirle were
the preface to an upheaval in the existing traditional world of carpets.
Premsela questioned everything: not just the designs, colours, materials
and techniques, but also the way advertisements were made, the way they
presented their products at home fairs and in the shops, the role of the
consumer and, not least, the call for major investment. Thanks to Benno
Premsela, from then onwards Van Besouws carpet factory considered mod-
ernization to be a social obligation.
For the Premsela Vonk studio staff designing was synonymous with
product development, which entailed giving advice on an enterprises com-
mercial policy. The designs for Van Besouw were characterized by their
simplicity, a certain air of timelessness and high quality. The cotton boucl
carpet developed by Marijke de Ley in 1970 was a pioneering product. A
second major change in this eld was thought up by Diek Zweegman, who
devised a system by which flax could be worked in with cotton. Another
designer from the Premsela Vonk studio, Jos de Pauw, was awarded the
Kho Liang Ie prize in 1980 for her furnishing fabrics for Vescom, Auping
and the German rm Gerns & Gahler. In 1988 Premsela Vonk merged
with the graphic design studio bsr in The Hague and a few years later bsr
Premsela Vonk changed its name to Eden.
57
Benno Premselas influence was far-reaching, not only as a designer but
also as a critical member of a wide-ranging selection of advisory commit-
tees; these governed almost all elds of cultural life in the Netherlands from
170 Dutch Design

the 1960s to the 90s. It was no accident that Benno Premselas nickname
was the Pope of Art, fullling the same function as F. J. van Royen and H.
P. Bremmer had done before the war. His name lives on today in the
Premsela Foundation, the national organization for design and fashion.
58
Quangos
For many commercial establishments, restyling printed matter and using a
new modern logo was an effective way of attracting custom. The Dutch
authorities and many quangos followed suit, the most important being
the State Printing Ofce (Staatsdrukkerij) and the State Publishing Ofce
(Sdu).
59
Straight after the war, under the supervision of P. Knuttel, an opti-
mistic decision was taken to make everything printed by the government
readable and pleasing to the eye. J. F. van Royens heartfelt condemnation of
all state printing matter as ugly, reiterated three times in 1912, was about
to be remedied at last. The Staatsdrukkerij appointed a design team of their
own for this purpose, which at its height had a staff of twenty. Between 1955
and 1988 prominent roles in this team were played by Ton van Riel, Karel
Treebus, Gertjan Leuvelink, Jelle van den Toorn Vrijthoff and Irma Boom.
In 1976 Hein van Haaren became director and also head of the Design
department at the Sdu. The rm had developed into an organization that
young designers were keen to work for and where experimentation was
encouraged. Sometimes, however, the Sdus role was restricted to imple-
menting the designs made by independent designers or studios. Through
the years commissions were granted to Piet van Trigt, Jurriaan Schrofer,
Gerard Wernars, Pieter Brattinga, Rob Schrder, Lies Ros and Esther Noyons,
to mention just a few. Type designers like Gerard Unger and Bram de Does
also worked regularly for the Sdu, but on occasions they also brought in
large companies like Total Design, Tel and brs.
60
In 1988, however, the Sdu
was privatized, and from then on the various public bodies were allowed to
place their orders with the company of their choice.
Quangos often commissioned work from large well-known design
companies as well. Tel and Total Design made designs for Schiphol airport,
the Dutch National Railways, the Bank of the Netherlands, urban transport
companies, the National Broadcasting Foundation, the Ministry of
Waterways and Public Works, and the ptt (the National Post and Telegraph
and Telephone Company). All these large projects had an enormous influ-
ence on visual culture in the Netherlands. As a result, the hundreds of
powerful, clear, and usually simple, graphic designs that came into circula-
tion from the 1970s onwards were familiar, even in the remotest parts of the

country. They are responsible for the widespread view shared by many
foreigners that the whole of the Netherlands has been supplied with well-
thought-out design.
With the advent of jet airliners in the early 1960s, and the enormous
increase in air travel brought about by burgeoning tourism, the construc-
tion of a new and modern national airport became an inevitability. The
interior and furniture designer Kho Liang Ie was asked to take care of the
interior of the complex of buildings to be designed by the architect M.
Duintjer, while Benno Wissing of Total Design was employed for the sign-
posting. This would be a gigantic and ambitious commission. Kho enlarged
his own company by employing the interior designers Nel Verschuuren and
Tinus van de Kerkhof.
Kho and Wissing did not rush headlong into the assignment. Instead,
by way of preparation, they made a study tour of other large airports. Based
on these experiences they decided that creating a restful environment
should be given top priority. Travellers were often tense, uncertain about
where to go and in a hurry, so a simply designed, orderly space could do a
great deal to improve their frame of mind. Hence a tranquil, light colour
scheme was chosen for Schiphol. Only the signs designed to lead travellers
in the right direction were permitted to have a bright, contrasting colour.
The walls were covered with white wall-tiles produced by the rm Mosa in
Maastricht and sheets of white Formica supplied by various Dutch rms.
The white lamellated ceiling was a variation on the ceiling that Kho had
developed earlier with Gerrit Rietveld for the Industrial Design Centre in the
Beurs in Amsterdam. In the spacious lounges they placed simple, sharply
outlined but comfortable lounge chairs and couches made by Artifort,
rounded off with small tables, wastepaper baskets, large plant containers
and telephone booths. The check-out counters were also redesigned. Arie
Jansma designed a simple concept for the shops in the waiting area in the
form of cubes that could be rearranged at will.
Signposting as a separate discipline was then still in its infancy. Benno
Wissing developed a system whereby large yellow signs, hung high above the
heads of the travellers, indicated the main directions. All were produced in
large simple letters, in both English and Dutch. Secondary information was
given on smaller green signs. No pictograms were used, other than arrows.
At the opening in 1967 the result proved very satisfactory. In an interna-
tional framework, Schiphol was considered to be one of the most beautifully
designed airports in the world: Schiphol puts passengers rst, wrote the
British trade journal Design in just one of the positive reactions.
61
Since then,
of course, the airport has been partially modernized and extended several
172 Dutch Design

times, for example, by Jan Benthem from Benthem Crouwel Architects. Even
after Khos death in 1975 the company Kho Liang Ie Associates was involved
in these adaptations. In the mid-1990s Bureau Mijksenaar adapted Benno
Wissings original signposting and nally added to it a series of pictograms.
The basic idea and the characteristic ambience of Kho and Wissings design,
however, seem to have been preserved.
Not only airline passengers arriving at Schiphol become directly
acquainted with the Dutch governments internationally famous policy
of stimulating design in public spaces. Those travelling through the
Benno Wissing (Total
Design), signage at
Schiphol Airport, 1967.

Netherlands by train or car or even by bike are welcomed by several eye-
catching design projects also initiated by the government.
Between 1937 and 1995 the Dutch Railways (ns), which originated after
a merger between several private railway companies, was entirely nanced
and directed by the Dutch state. In the course of the 1960s it became clear
that the ns would have to change its old-fashioned, ofcial image if it were
to have any chance of competing with the steady increase in car trafc. A
modern house style was needed to give it a new, more contemporary char-
acter to rejuvenate the organization and make it more dynamic.
Tel Design was commissioned to do the job in 1967. They thought up a
new colour for the trains, a logo, a new lay-out for the railway timetable and
even new signposts for the stations, including a series of pictograms. It had
the desired effect. The modern, powerful logo designed by Gert Dumbar,
showing a combined double arrow pointing in two directions, is still in use
today and does not look at all outdated. The new colour for the passenger
trains, for which, to everyones surprise and to some peoples indignation,
he chose a warm chrome yellow, is still also considered to have been an
excellent choice. With this fresh, original colour, the Netherlands want-
ed to make a clear statement and impress the international rail transport
community. For many it is still a treat to see these yellow trains, preferably
under a blue sky, travelling through the flat green landscape. The new rail-
way timetable format was worked on by Gertjan Leuvelink, who like
Dumbar had come to strengthen the Tel Design team in 1967. The nss own
design department run by Siep Wijsenbeek concentrated in this period
mainly on the modernization of the rolling stock and the interiors.
The changes made to the railway had a considerable impact, as a
national railway company touches on everyones lives, young or old, rich or
poor. It was undoubtedly very signicant for the position of the discipline
in the Netherlands that the corporate policy of a large, nationwide organiz -
ation like the ns should provide so much scope for modern design.
Those who travel by car, rather than train, are confronted with signs
installed by the anwb (Dutch Touring Club), the national equivalent of
the Automobile Association.
62
They provide the sorely needed clarity to
deal with the complicated, overcrowded Dutch road network, even though
the role Dutch designers played on the roads was less pronounced than on
the railways.
The rst signs produced by the anwb, which was founded in 1883, were
installed as early as 1894. The anwb, then a private organization, devised
and funded everything itself since the Dutch government did not see any
point in providing such a service at the time. It was not until 1966 that the
174 Dutch Design

anwb introduced the same type of lettering on all the large blue direction
indicators on the motorways the rst attempt at uniformity in almost 70
years. The font chosen was an adaptation of that also used along American
highways. Once it was adopted, graphic designers in the Netherlands were up
in arms.
63
Formally speaking, they objected because they thought the signs
were not easy to read, but in fact the true reason was that they would rather
have seen the commission go to a Dutch designer. A lettering committee
from the gkf complained ofcially about them but to no avail, and the signs
remained a thorn in the flesh of many Dutch graphic designers. In 1975 a
Signposting Conference was organized at Delft Technical University, where
designers, trafc experts and signpost-makers discussed the anwb signs. But
once again the graphic designers complaints were not generally sustained. It
was to take until 1994 before the design company npk Industrial Design was
commissioned to alter the anwb signs. For the letters they called upon the
help of the most prominent type designer in the Netherlands, Gerard Unger.
Working on the basis of new insights on legibility, and not deviating too
much from the old letter type, he nally adjusted the much criticized signs in
such a way that they could also be computer-generated.
Those travelling by bike through the Netherlands are served by the spe-
cial smaller anwb signs, on which the destination is written in red. The
traditional anwb mushroom road markers are also still in use. These
direction indicators were designed back in 1919 by an architect named
J.H.W. Leliman and are still popular in the Netherlands. Since then these
low, angular concrete signposts, painted white with metal caps, have risen
in number to a total of 5,000 spread over the whole of the Netherlands.
Recently they have started to be replaced with a similar, but lighter, design
made from synthetic material. The traditional design has proven to be so
popular that it was recently nominated in a competition held to select the
Best Dutch Design Product. Its popularity undoubtedly owes much to
feelings of nostalgia.
Dutch Money and the PTT
Until the introduction of the Euro in 2002 Dutch money had a high prole
all over the world.
64
Since the war great care has been taken in the design of
banknotes and coins. Paper money is printed by Joh. Ensched & Zonen in
Haarlem. The nal responsibility for its distribution rests with the presi-
dent of the Netherlands Bank. Coins are struck by the Netherlands Mint in
Utrecht, accountable to the Minister of Finance. New designs for both coins
and notes were created by the winners of contests.

G. J. Leuvelink
(Tel Design), Dutch
Railways timetable,
19723.

W. J. Rozendaal drew the rst new Dutch banknote shortly after 1945.
The design was not very spectacular for the time and the nal result was
even less satisfactory due to various technical problems experienced in the
printing process. J. F. (Eppo) Doeve was then selected in 1950 from a group
of ve designers to make a completely new series featuring well-known
Dutch historical gures. In order to avoid printing problems, this time his
sketches were completely worked out by the Joh. Ensched staff. The result
was that these notes remained fairly traditional. It was not until the graph-
ic designer R.D.E. (Ootje) Oxenaar was commissioned to design a new
series in the 1960s that this policy was reversed. He was recommended to
the Netherlands Bank by Karel Schuurman, who at the time was the ptts
Aesthetic Adviser and already knew Oxenaar from his postage stamp
designs. His series of notes with highly stylized historical portraits, execut-
ed in bright colours, of the countrys Hall of Fame was extremely
refreshing. However, this series was to be followed in the 1980s by an even
more talked-about sequel, the revolutionary, colourful notes to the value of
50, 100 and 250 guilders with illustrations of a sunflower, a snipe and a
lighthouse. Hans Kruit also contributed to the design of this series. The
traditional portrait was abandoned for the rst time. Over the years Oxenaar
had acquired a great deal of knowledge about the extremely specialized
printing process used to manufacture banknotes. This secret weapon
enabled him to induce the staff at Joh. Ensched to execute practically all his
stylistic and technical innovations. This was a considerable feat considering
NPK industrial design/
Gerard Unger, ANWB
signage, 19947.
R.D.E. Oxenaar and
J. J. Kruit (De Neder-
landse Bank), 50 guilder
bank note, 1982.

the innumerable safety regulations that the
Netherlands Bank had to comply with, which by
that time had grown into a thick wad of specica-
tions. The series was completed between 1988
and 1997 by three equally distinct designs by the
designer Jaap Drupsteen. Thus designing ban-
knotes had grown to be a great deal more than
just supplying a new picture. It had become part
of a democratic and professional process, where-
by Oxenaar and Drupsteen had been successful
in reserving sufcient space for creativity and
humour despite all the technical obstacles and
safety regulations. Although these achievements
were admired in other European countries, there
are unfortunately few signs of this erudition on
the new Euro notes.
No fewer than nine designers were allowed to compete in the 1980 con-
test for the new Dutch coin design. The chosen design was not by a graphic
designer, but by an industrial and jewellery designer, Bruno Ninaber van
Eyben.
65
His coins had a distinctly modern look about them, combining a
highly stylized portrait of Queen Beatrix with an abstract motif that denot-
ed the value of the coin. The coins themselves were simple, original and well
thought out, even though the system denoting the value of the coin was not
easy to fathom. The letters and the numbers on the coins were then made
more legible with the help of the type designer Gerard Unger. These coins
too were replaced in 2002 by the far less spectacular Euro coins.
The influential role played by the ptt as commissioner of the most
wide-ranging designs, from postage stamps up to post ofces, has already
been sketched meticulously in numerous publications.
66
Much of the
Netherlands high reputation in the eld of design is based on this work.
The book Design is geen vrijblijvende zaak: Organisatie, imago en context van de
ptt-vormgeving tussen 1906 en 2002 (Design is not a Non-committal Business:
Organization, Image and Context of ptt Design between 1906 and 2002),
published in 2006, not only runs through all the facets of this success sto-
ry once again, but also scrutinizes them critically. The end result is that a
number of persistent myths clinging to this historical account have now
been called into question. One myth that has been unmasked is that, in the
authors view, Jean Franois van Royen, the man who is usually mentioned
in the same breath as pre-war ptt design policy, did not in fact delineate a
distinct ptt design policy at all. His main aim is alleged to have been to
Type designer Gerard
Unger at work, 2007.
178 Dutch Design

implement a socially minded policy for the benet of the artists. What mat-
tered most to Van Royen was ensuring that commissions were distributed
honestly and generously and designers were provided with a source of
income in what for many of them was a difcult period. His own prefer-
ences were not the crucial factor. Moreover, Van Royen allowed others to
advise him at great length, mainly listening to the artist Willem van
Konijnenburg and the art critic, and later curator of the Krller Mller
Museum, A.M.W.J. Hammacher.
Van Royen died in 1942 in Camp Amersfoort, where he had been
imprisoned by the Germans on the grounds of his alleged involvement in
a campaign against the Kultuurkamer (see chapter Three). After the war
his work was taken over by the Department of Aesthetic Design (Dienst
Esthetische Vormgeving, dev), run in succession by Willem Frederik
Gouwe, Christiaan de Moor, Karel Schuurman, Hein van Haaren, Ootje
Oxenaar and Marie Helne Cornips. This department was not just an
important commissioner of work, but also showed itself to be a powerful
player in design culture in a broader sense. The dev acted as a mediator
when commissions for the ptt were being handed out, but it also advised
other institutions including, as mentioned above, the Netherlands Bank.
Furthermore, the department played a role in design education and adjudi-
cated at design competitions. It also determined which artists should be
brought in to make decorative artwork in, or close to, new post ofces and
other ptt buildings. In 1951 the Netherlands government put into operation
the 1% Regulation, specifying that one per cent of the building costs for
Government buildings had to be spent on art. In those years the dev also
built up its own art collection.
Among the various commissions distributed by the dev, those for new
postage stamps were always the favourite, and the most prestigious. Postage
stamps were the ptts and the Netherlands visiting card. Chris de Moor, aes-
thetic adviser from 1951 to 1963, was so fascinated by postage stamps that he
wrote a book about them in 1960. In it he discussed the twelve command-
ments governing postage stamp design twelve aesthetic, technical and
practical tips and rules to be observed when designing stamps.
In addition to the standard stamps (the denitive series) showing the
cost of postage in numerals, which were in continuous use for years on
end, special new series were produced regularly. The childrens stamps
(which cost a little more than the postage due, so that the extra money could
go to a childrens charity), the summer stamps (with a summer theme for
holiday postcards) and the various commemorative series were annually
recurring projects. From the 1930s onwards these started to function as a

sort of mini-poster, the stamps together forming a composition measuring
at the most 8 square centimetres on which, within the specied technical
and functional limits, the ptt gave graphic designers a free rein to exhibit
their creativity and originality.
The rst post-war denitive stamp was made by Jan van Krimpen, the
typographer who worked for the printer Johan Ensched & Zonen. It was a
quiet, classical, ornamental execution of this commission. In 1976 Wim
Crouwel designed the second post-war denitive series. In his design he
tried to make a stamp that was modern but also as neutral as possible. This
design was based on his favourite working method as well, omitting all ref-
erences to tradition, penmanship or even emotion. The issue of this stamp,
about the same time as the publication of the telephone book that Crouwel
and his staff at Total Design had created, met with strong opposition.
Critics did not share the view that the designs were modern and functional
but condemned them for being uninteresting and paltry. The last thing
they would have called them was neutral. In the next chapter we shall look
in greater detail at the consternation this design caused. For that matter,
just as much fuss was made in 1981 about the stamp with the queens head
on it drawn by artist Peter Struycken, and with lettering by Gerard Unger.
With the aid of computer technology, which was then still in its infancy,
Strucken abstracted Queen Beatrixs portrait using only separate round
dots; the result failed to win everyones favour.
By 1970the ptt had developed into such a complicated organization that
the management decided to rejuvenate its image totally. A large-scale ptt
house-style operation headed by Ootje Oxenaar was initiated. The two major
rivals at the time, Total Design and Tel Design, were asked to submit plans. In
the end, thanks to Hein van Haarens mediation, they opted for a unique joint
project involving both renowned design teams. Both had their proposals
ready in 1978, but it took until 1981 before everything had been adopted
throughout the organization. Brochures, postage stamps, books of stamps,
diaries, telephone books, work wear, company vehicles everything and
everyone was supplied with the new logo, in the new colours with the new let-
tering. In 1988 Studio Dumbar was commissioned to revise the house style of
the newly privatized kpn (Royal Netherlands Post), successor to the ptt.
In the following year the dev was transformed into the Art and Design
Department. There was a storm of protest from the art world in 2002 when
the kpn closed down this department. It was a sign that in the meantime the
kpn had become completely business-like and commercial. This brought to
an end a long tradition of design idealism: the cultural and social role of this
former state enterprises design department seemed to be played out.
180 Dutch Design

Most other Dutch companies had already been forced to revise their
design policies in the 1970s for economic reasons. For ordinary commercial
rms, their unswerving belief in the great cultural, social and economic sig-
nicance of industrial design was at an end. The 1970s saw the advent of
renewed discussion on the benets of design and the social position of the
designer. Room was created for an entirely new interpretation of the disci-
pline and the role of its practitioners.


In the closing decades of the twentieth century design, including fashion,
became an inescapable theme. The debate took place in the columns of trade
journals, during meetings held by professional associations and organized
interest groups, in educational circles, at trade fairs and exhibitions; but there
was seldom, if ever, any consensus of opinion. Moreover, the discussions were
not restricted to professionals, because at the time public interest in modern
design was on the increase. In recent years even the popular media have been
writing a great deal on the subject. A recent highlight in this nowadays public
debate was the selection of the Best Dutch Design in 2006. People had
increasingly to take a point of view, or pass judgement, on questions involv-
ing design. Thus the contemporary style of the familiar telephone book, the
cheerful-looking banknotes or the postmans new uniform became the stuff
of everyday conversation. The selection of consumer goods available to the
public multiplied to such an extent that even buying a new washing-up brush
could prove to be tricky: no longer was there just the familiar wooden one
sitting on the shelf all of a sudden there were three more cheerfully coloured
plastic ones for us to choose from. And every ofce clerk became aware
that an ofce chair, in addition to being comfortable and functional, was
supposed to be designed in adherence to ergonomic principles.
Magazines on houses and gardens, fashion and lifestyle appeared in
ever increasing numbers and their circulation grew. In the same way, for
many people in the Netherlands a day at the large furniture malls has
become a favourite outing. In recent years Dutch people seem to have
become preoccupied with the creation of their own style and ambience,
aided by a constantly growing range of fashionable articles and consumer
goods. Moreover, they are prepared to spend a great deal of money to
5
Design for Debate,
1960s to the Present
183
Gijs Bakker,
umbrella lamp, 1973.

achieve a specic look. Since the beginning of the 1980s, largely thanks to
the Swedish home furnishing store ikea, those with less money to spend
have seen many attractive modern products come within easy reach. In
these years the hema, the most typically Dutch of all chain stores, success-
fully changed its main objective from good and inexpensive to good,
inexpensive and well-designed. To highlight its broader objective it has
started to hold a popular annual design competition.
A number of recurring themes have dominated the design debate
among professionals in the last thirty years, the most important being the
Het Beste Nederlandse
Design , NRC, 17 March 2006.
184 Dutch Design

modernist canon. Critics have increasingly condemned the rational and
functional style for being boring, anonymous and lacking in emotion,
and in its place have advocated design showing more expression, signi-
cance and passion. In the process, the old discussion about the value of
handicrafts was rekindled, as was that regarding the relationship between
design and art. Others preferred to distance themselves from these
questions and emphasized the commercial, interdisciplinary and prob-
lem-solving character of design. For this reason they heatedly advocated
the use of the term designing for industry rather than just design.
Another persistent topic was whether design should be used as an instru-
ment in economic policy: is it permissible for increased production and
turnover to be designs most important goal? This theme became all the
more urgent in the 1970s due to the worldwide economic recession and
interrelated environmental problems. Thus design has become part of a
wider political discourse, once again with a moral component. Two addi-
tional themes have emerged more recently, the consequences of auto mation
and globalization.
In the 1980s the debate was provided with a new historical dimension
by art historians who began to reflect upon the subject of design and its
history. Exhibitions like Industry & Design (1985) and Dutch Form (1987)
presented an overall picture of the most important twentieth-century
Dutch products and producers. Dutch museums, with their burgeoning
collections, aspired to a role that went much further than just propagating
good form. The number of books on Dutch interior decoration and design
has grown and the journal Jong Holland (Young Holland) has been provid-
ing space for scholarly studies on these themes since 1985. Historical
awareness was also fed by contributions from abroad: American pop cul-
ture, Italian postmodernism and the publications of the architectural
Pillows and vases from the
HEMA, 2006.
185 Design for Debate, 1960s to the Present

theorists Robert Venturi and Charles Jencks all
reached the world of Dutch design in the 1980s. The
result was a critical and sometimes ironic appraisal of
their own history and principles.
At the end of the twentieth century the debate
sometimes seemed to have become an end in itself:
the more discussion a new product provoked the bet-
ter it was perceived to be. In the mid-1980s this was
taken to such extremes that it led to a erce polemic
about the alleged absence of professional design criti -
cism and high-quality discussion in the Netherlands.
It had evolved into a debate for debates sake or,
rather, a debate about the shortcomings of the ongo-
ing debate.
1
The Rotterdam Design Prize, a national
design competition begun in 1993, focused more on generating discussion
than on selecting the best design. In that same year the government saw
the new National Design Institutes most important task to be stimulating
debate.
Critique of the Modernist Canon
The exhibition My Room, organized in 1960 in the Stedelijk Museum in
Amsterdam, was one of the rst occasions at which modernism, which until
then remained unassailable, was called into question. The exhibition was
arranged for the annual presentation of the rm Rath & Doode heefvers
new wallpaper collection. To mount the exhibition the director of the wall-
paper factory, J. F. Rodenberg, had enlisted the help of the leading designer
Kho Liang Ie, the critic and sculptor J. J. Beljon, who was also the director of
The Hague Art Academy, and the graphic designer Gerard Wernars. In
organizing this presentation, as becomes clear when reading the catalogue
written by Beljon, the three of them had very deliberately decided to put the
previously sacrosanct canon up for discussion. Beljon thought it was time
that people learnt how to break the rules and that each person should be
given the chance to put together My room to suit his or her own taste. It
was high time for the reintroduction of the scope to express the human ele-
ment, and for the nurturing of decorative passion, because they were in
danger of losing a wealth of emotions and human warmth.
2
Nobody was surprised at Joop Beljons views on the subject. Three years
earlier his appointment to the Academy of Art in The Hague had also sound-
ed the death knell of the Advertising department, once so progressive. Under
Nicola Carels, Le Lapin
kettle, winner of the HEMA
design contest, 198990.
186 Dutch Design

his management, the new department of Graphic
and Typographic Design pushed aside the mod-
ernist principles to make room for a more
personal-artistic approach to the subject. This
tted in well with the working methods of W. J.
Rozendaal, who as a teacher in the Drawing and
Painting department had already introduced
students to highly imaginative book illustra-
tions. In Beljons enthusiastic, rambling
collection of essays on art and design,
Ontwerpen en verwerpen (Design and Reject),
written in 1959, he accentuated the subjects
artistic capacity.
3
The fact that Kho Liang Ie,
who had trained as an analytical designer and
had worked for a few years for the Goed Wonen
Foundation, also decided to participate in this
project was more signicant proof of a change in
climate. Moreover, Kho had already broken with
Wim Crouwels studio to continue with his own
projects, with a view to approaching them in a
more intuitive manner.
However, the text in the My Room catalogue
promised more than the exhibition itself could actually deliver. In the
mu seum display the ordinary wallpapers by r&d were craftily combined
with well-known modernist work by leading designers like Charles Eames,
Poul Kjaerholm, Gio Ponti and Ludwig Mies van de Rohe, as well as the
Dutchmen Martin Visser, Coen de Vries and, of course, Kho himself. The
public and the newspapers were duly disappointed: one reviewer of the
weekly newspaper De Groene Amsterdammer remarked: I didnt see my room
among those on display.
4
But the rst steps had been taken, and as the 1960s ran their course
even the Goed Wonen Foundation, once so completely certain of being in
the right, started to readjust its rigid view of interior design (see chapter
Three).
5
The show houses and the interiors depicted in the magazine of the
same name became increasingly varied and more luxurious over the years.
The subjects no longer revolved around modest terraced houses with
through lounges, but gave villas, second homes, students garrets and sin-
gles apartments coverage too. At the same time it also focused more closely
on the political and social aspects of the entire built environment. A lot of
copy space was devoted to do-it-yourself (diy) as well: detailed drawings
Rattan chair by Franco
Albini and wallpaper by
Rath & Doodeheefver in
the exhibition My Room,
Stedelijk Museum,
Amsterdam, 1953.

and clear photographs showed the reader how he could make this simple
furniture himself. It also responded to individual needs by featuring
Swedish wall-unit systems made of wood, for example, alongside a Dutch
variant developed by Pastoe; and on a smaller scale, the metal shelves pro-
duced by Pilastro and Tomado. These economies of space created room for
a record player and long-playing records, not forgetting the space needed
for a television, which by this time was beginning to make its appearance in
every living room.
Architect Aldo van Eycks articulate criticism of modernism was
furthermore very influential. Van Eyck, once a member of the Amsterdam
functionalist architects group De 8 and a participant in the ciam congress-
es (see chapter Three), became convinced by the late 1950s that rigid
functionalism had killed off many designers creativity. He observed that
functionalists paid far too little attention to the individual and to what he
referred to as the human proportion of things. He expressed his views in
the periodical Forum, which he and the architects Jaap Bakema and Herman
Hertzberger edited from 1959 to 1963. They argued for a more humane type
of architecture and drew attention to the need for more emotional experi-
ences and for more consideration of the effect buildings and interiors could
have on the behaviour and state of mind of their users. This was clearly
shown in Van Eycks design for the Amsterdam Burgerweeshuis (Civic
Orphanage) of 1959. Instead of basing it on an austere, understated func-
tional analysis, and on minimal design, he drew an organic sequence of
smaller units, allowing space for the children to create little hideaways of their
own. Seating units and tables fastened to walls formed an integral part of the
Two views of Aldo van
Eycks Municipal
Orphanage, Amsterdam,
as illustrated in Goed
Wonen, 1960.
188 Dutch Design

total architectonic landscape. Van Eycks inspiration had come from primitive
settlements in Africa; apparently people living in the neighbourhood had not
failed to notice that fact, since the orphanage was popularly referred to as the
kaffer dorp (Bantu village). This meant that the Burgerweeshuis was one of
the rst manifestations of a return to small-scale thinking and individualiza-
tion that was to characterize interiors in the 1970s.
6
A growing aversion to concrete flats and endless rows of uniform hous-
es in post-war reconstruction areas stimulated a style of building in the 1970s
that made use of traditional brick, slanting roofs, variations in level and
winding streets. This was done to achieve a feeling of security and commu-
nity among its residents by allowing them to survey their habitat. A typical
product of this new culture was the residential area closed to through trafc
(het Woonerf ), creating outside space where children could play safely, and
where motorized trafc was subject to clear restrictions.
7
Interior designers, too, no longer believed that functionality and
affordability were of the foremost importance, nor was there much faith left
in the power of light, yet sober, design to conjure up feelings of well-being,
a belief that had held sway shortly after the war. The furnishings and t -
tings of the house were increasingly considered to be a way of expressing
personal taste and identity. Industrious do-it-yourself enthusiasts, who saw
their standard residences as unimaginative and monotonously designed,
started to convert them.
8
On their Saturdays off they knocked down parti-
tion walls, lowered ceilings, removed the sliding doors in their through
lounges and hollowed out sunken sitting areas in the garden and sometimes
even in their living room. After all that had been completed, they then
painted the walls brown, purple or orange, or covered them with jute or
wood panelling. Somewhat later, in the 1980s, all those colours and the
wood panelling were removed and the walls were then coated in white. For
floors, wall-to-wall carpeting became popular, although students and intel-
lectuals preferred rush mats or wooden boards. These were replaced ten to
twenty years later by cheap, practical laminate, or by wooden parquet
oors, although a few preferred to have modern linoleum in their homes.
Bookcases, hobby corners, breakfast bars and bunk beds were knocked
together from ready-to-assemble, do-it-yourself kits, which were widely
stocked at the home improvement centres opening all over the
Netherlands. For those who were not so skilful, but nevertheless still want-
ed to create a relaxed diy-style interior, the reasonably priced alternative in
the 1970s was the adjustable racks of shelves by the Swedish rm Lundia,
manufactured under licence in the Netherlands. These popular pine shelves,
which were really designed for warehouses and places of work, were used as

practical bookcases and storage units that could be adjusted to suit the
clients individual requirements. In 1978 ikea started its offensive in the
Netherlands with the opening of its rst furniture and furnishings store in
Sliedrecht. In none of the thirty countries in which the Swedish rm had set
up shop did these modern, uncomplicated, unpretentious products catch on
as well as in the Netherlands.
9
New furniture by professional designers was scarce in the 1970s and con-
formed to new ideas that saw an interior as an informal living landscape.
Chairs and couches in the living room were replaced by comfortable corner
settees, while progressive consumers preferred sitting units that could be
joined together and regrouped at liberty. The furniture made by that time was
larger and heavier than the light, easily movable Goed Wonen products. A
striking example of this new trend was the couch, consisting of separate com-
ponents, that Jan des Bouvrie designed for the Gelderland furniture factory in
1972. It is a somewhat more informal variation on his still popular cube couch
designed three years earlier. Also illustrative is the Levi Chair, upholstered in
denim, which Gijs Bakker designed for the rm Castelijn.
10
From the 1970s onwards consumers not only condemned boring and
indistinctive houses and furniture, they had also had enough of products
manufactured with the same impersonal mass-produced modern look,
and sought refuge en masse in the nostalgia of the good old days or country
living. Once again pans and kitchen utensils could be colourfully enamelled
190 Dutch Design
Jan des Bouvrie (furniture
factory, Gelderland),
cubic couch, 1969.

or even decorated with primitive flower patterns. Country style earthen-
ware with hand-painted flower motifs and similarly decorated French
crockery were favourites; old glass storage jars replaced plastic or metal
ones; wooden spoons, pudding moulds and coloured bottles were rein-
stated and used as decorative elements; and self-crocheted lace curtains
appeared at windows everywhere. In some progressive milieus Persian car-
pets once again adorned the floors, and Indian fabrics were draped over
couches. Later the throw became a generally accepted means of hiding a
couch that was too plain or worn out. This atmosphere was well suited to
take on board an antique cupboard or one from grandmas day, either dis-
tressed-looking or repainted. An oil lamp, old milk churn or watering can
lled with plants would not go amiss either. And, of course, there was the
inescapable type-case hung up flat against the wall, so the square sections
where the letters were once kept could be used as a home for tiny decorative
ornaments. It took only a few years before such nostalgic and quasi-artistic
unique objects were being manufactured in large batches. Many a young
familys cosy interior was rounded off to perfection with terracotta pots
lled with the plants that had proliferated lavishly not so long before in
handmade macram plant hangers. The new-style pots could be bought
from a hardware store, a garden centre or ikea.
Craft: A Critical Alternative
It was hardly surprising that in this atmosphere of nostalgia, with its
predilection for the unique and the personal, handicrafts could continue to
flourish as an alternative to the uniformity of mass production.
11
Throughout the years Arts and Crafts maintained its hold as a small but
tenacious movement alongside, and sometimes even as a part of, other pro-
gressive movements. A few well-known potters and weavers from the
pre-war Arts and Crafts movement, among them Bert Nienhuis, Gerrit de
Blanken, Thera Hofstede Crull and Kitty van der Mijll Dekker, remained
influential long after the war and had themselves trained large numbers
of young craftsmen.
12
Pieter Groeneveldts workshops in Voorschoten,
Zaalberg in Leiden, Mobach in Utrecht and De Driehoek in Huizen even
managed to carry on for much longer. That also held for the textile work-
shop Het Paapje in Voorschoten and the hand-weaving workshops De
Cneudt in Soest and De Knipscheer in Laren. New potters and textile work-
shops also opened their doors: Dirk Hubers, Jan Oosterman, Jan de Rooden,
Johnny Rolf and the textile printers t Seghel in The Hague and Harry van
Kruiningen in Amsterdam were all making a name for themselves at the

time. Still active were various traditional workers in precious metals like
Marinus Zwollo, Archibald Dumbar, Chris Steenbergen and Joseph Citroen,
and stained-glass artists like Lex Horn, Nico Wijnberg and Berend Hendrix.
Finally, the studio glass made by Andries Copier and his pupils Floris
Meydam, Willem Heesen and Sybren Valkema continued to be appreciated
without interruption.
13
All these enthusiastic craftsmen were more likely to nd modern mass
production challenging than discouraging. Moreover, in 1948 the Central
Organ of Creative Trade (Centraal Orgaan Scheppend Ambacht, cosa) was
set up, although of course it was really intended for the less well known
among them. Until well into the 1980s cosa was to craftsmen what the iiv
had been to industrial designers. With the nancial support of the Ministry
of Economic Affairs, cosas director J.J.E. Salden made every effort to
strengthen and widen the commercial basis providing professional working
craftsmen with a livelihood.
14
They promoted the craftsmens work through
cosas mouthpiece Scheppend Ambacht (Creative Handicraft), exhibitions
and competitions. cosa also mediated when large monumental works were
commissioned and ran a gallery of its own in Delft. Moreover, it was not the
only organization that supported artistic craftsmen. The Art and Business
(Kunst en Bedrijf ) foundation, founded in 1950, also acted as a mediator
and the Society of Practitioners of Monumental Art (Vereniging van
Beoefenaars van Monumentale Kunst, vbmk) supported and advised its
members in every conceivable way. Though concerned with craft, their work
nonetheless found a platform in industrial design circles. The products
made by small independent artists in their studios were recommended in
the periodical Goed Wonen and could be obtained in progressive furniture
and furnishing stores like Metz & Co. and Bas van Pelt. Some workshops
were even members of the bki, until this organization amalgamated with
the iiv in 1950. In the 1950s the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam focused on
both new industrial design as well as this artistic applied art. In 1957 its
director Willem Sandberg organized gkf Hand and Machine, an exhibition
that stressed the unity of free and applied art, and which was later sent in
its entirety to the Triennale in Milan. The artistic craftsmens entry caused
some resentment among the other gkf members, due both to its presumed
questionable quality and what the industrial designers saw as evidence of
a too simplistic attitude towards industry.
15
The main focus at the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam at that time was
textiles, leading it to purchase and exhibit both industrial and hand-printed
fabrics. Meanwhile, at the Boijmans Van Beuningen Museum in Rotterdam,
modern artisanal ceramics were encouraged. It was there that in 1953 the
192 Dutch Design

exhibition Five Contemporary Potters was organized, featuring work from the
older artists Bert Nienhuis, Harm Kamerlingh Onnes, Piet Wiegman and
Franz Wildenhain, as well as that of the young artist Dirk Hubers. In 1962 six
young Amsterdam ceramic artists exhibited in the Boijmans: Hans de Jong,
Jan de Rooden, Johan van Loon, Jan van der Vaart, Sonja Landweer and Johnny
Rolf. It was partly due to the platform provided for them on this and numer-
ous other occasions by the curator Bernardine de Neeve that a real revival
of artisanal ceramics came about in the Netherlands. t Kruithuis in
s-Hertogenbosch, the Gemeentemuseum in Arnhem and the Gemeen te-
museum in The Hague also extended their collections by adding examples
of modern Arts and Crafts, although in The Hague this section was to remain
part of the modern art collection until well into the 1970s. Several specialized
galleries took it upon themselves to present and promote this new applied
art, including Het Kapelhuis in Amersfoort, Nouvelles Images in The Hague,
Marzee in Nijmegen and the galleries Ra, Sieraad and Appenzeller in
Amsterdam. In 1976 Mieke Spruit-Ledeboer wrote a doctoral thesis at the
University of Amsterdam on this modern form of ceramics, which would
previously have been an unthinkable topic for scientic research.
16
How, then, should handicrafts relate to industrial design? Most indus-
trial designers saw little to commend in dabbling with the forms and
techniques used by artistic craftsmen. The industrial designers own search
for an objects essence aimed at a total, almost primitive, purging of form
that was far more interesting in their view than the relatively non-commer-
cial rampant growth of over-strained individualism observable in the craft
world. At least that was the way Karel Sanders sketched it in a brochure
published by the iiv in 1955. In retaliation, craft artists argued that their
hand-made objects were superior in most respects: they were more spon-
taneous, more out of the ordinary and more aristocratic than the
indistinctive and supercial nature of industrial products.
17
Ren Smeets, director of the Academy of Industrial Design in
Eindhoven, in a lecture given on the occasion of the cosas fteenth anniver-
sary in 1964, found a middle ground to this argument. In his lecture he
endorsed handicrafts as a good way of experimenting with shapes and mater -
ials. He recognized the imperfect, but organic, individual and multiform
character of handicrafts as a constructive quality. He even went as far as say-
ing that he considered the use of traditional methods to be an important and
inevitable reaction to the alarming over-perfection of technical, dispassion-
ate mass production. In Smeetss view handicrafts had an educational
function and could therefore be deployed to counter the numbing of the
senses and the spiritual damage caused by popular culture.
18

Dutch Design 194
The belief that an artistic, artisanal method of production could be
inspiring and fruitful for industry was also shared by the management of the
De Porceleyne Fles pottery works in Delft, where between 1955 and 1977 its
experimental Unica department worked with this conviction in mind. They
had also become acquainted with comparable studios in Scandinavia. The
sculptor and ceramic artist Theo Dobbelman, who also taught at the ivkno,
was taken on as the manager of this unusual workshop, where young and
ambitious ceramic artists like Lies Cosijn and Jet Sielcken were able to
experiment for a few years. Yet those in the department operated a little too
experimentally, gradually turning their backs on the factorys normal mass
production while pursuing their persistently freer and more autonomous
work. A comparable laboratory function underlaid Bernardine de Neeves ini-
tiative to set up the European Ceramic Work Centre in 1973 in Heusden (now
in s-Hertogenbosch).
19
In Leerdam, Andries Copier continued to make unique
glass objects in collaboration with the factorys glass-blowers, while Sybren
Valkema, Floris Meydam and Willem Heessen were experimenting there with
artistic glass. But, like Copier, they also designed industrial glassware. After
Copier had left, a Glass Design Centre (Glasvormcentrum) was established in
Leerdam in 1968, just a stones throw from the factory, where the opportunity
to continue to experiment with shapes, materials and techniques continued.
20
Despite all these supportive initiatives, handicrafts continued to be of
marginal economic importance. Even if these artistic products perfectly
Some examples of the
Experimental Department
of De Porceleyne Fles in
Delft, c. 1960: lidded blue
pot by Lies Cosijn and
Jet Sielcken; bottle by Jet
Sielcken; cat sculpture by
Lies Cosijn; lidded square
pot by Lies Cosijn; bowl by
Lies Cosijn and Adriek
Westenenk.

Design for Debate, 1960s to the Present 195
Maria Hees, garden hose
bracelet, 1969.
meshed with a social tendency to condemn mass production and uniform
products more vociferously, the small-scale nature of handicraft production
meant that it could never really compete with industry. Many craftsmen
changed course at the end. A number of them trained themselves to become
art teachers; others made a conscious decision to abandon the functionality
of hand-made products and switch to making unique works of art. From
then on the weavers made decorative tapestries and the potters free models.
In the 1970s, in addition to Scheppend Ambacht (Creative Craft), the peri-
odical Bijvoorbeeld (For Instance), established in 1968, became increasingly
vital in reporting the vicissitudes of this specic design sector. Consecutive
volumes of this periodical give us an appreciation of the elds increasing
complexity, somewhere in between handicraft, industrial design and ne art
what Marjan Unger, editor-in-chief of Bijvoorbeeld, named in the 1980s
vrije vormgeving (free design). We see in Bijvoorbeeld how, after having
made decorative tapestries, needlework artists and weavers moved on to
making three-dimensional textile sculptures. The weaves made by Ria van
Eyk, Loes van der Horst and Margot Rolf became more austere and devel-
oped into high-quality abstract-geometric works of art. Potters started to call
themselves ceramic artists and began experimenting with flat monumental
tile-pictures, or were not interested in making anything except unique pots.
Then there were ceramic artists like Helly Oestreicher, who was one of the
rst in the early 1960s to present her abstract ceramic forms as anti-pots.
21
In addition, the work of a number of small-scale fashion, shoe and
bag designers gradually started to ll the pages of Bijvoorbeeld; coverage
here contributed to their becoming household names in artistic circles.
The publication featured clothes by the Amsterdam designer couple
Puck and Hans, Jan Jansen, Lola Pagola, shoes
by Freddie Stevens and bags by Maria Hees and
Hester van Eeghen. Jewellery-makers in partic-
ular were given a lot of column space in
Bijvoorbeeld, because developments in their eld
were extremely radical.
22
After Chris Steen -
bergen and Archibald Dumbar had taken the
lead in the 1950s and early 60s with their mod-
ern, simple pieces of jewellery, in the late 1960s
Gijs Bakker, Emmy van Leersum, Franoise van
den Bosch and Hans Appenzeller changed
course radically in terms of design, choice of
materials and techniques. With their preference
for an abstract-geometric design language and

Dutch Design 196
their sometimes almost sculpture-sized anti-jewellery, they too were aim-
ing at afliating with the ne arts. Bakker and Van Leersum showed their
rst products in Galerie Swart, a ne art gallery in Amsterdam. In 1969 a
travelling exhibition of their work and that of Nicolaas van Beek, Franoise
van den Bosch and Bernard Lamris went by the name Objects to Wear.
However, the other side of the picture was that young jewellery designers
associated themselves more with industrial design, driven by the need to
produce objects in series and to opt for cheaper, more everyday materials
like Plexiglas, rubber and aluminium. For instance, in 1969 Maria Hees
devised a bangle that could be made simply from garden-hose tubing; Gijs
Bakker invented a neck ornament made from a piece of stovepipe; while
Marion Herbst had no qualms about combining silver and Perspex to
fashion a necklace and matching earrings.
Although, ultimately, almost everything seemed to be possible in the
eld of artistic crafts, this process did not take place without the manda-
tory discussions. Should all these new experiments be called art, or were
applied art and design to remain more suitable terms after all? Was an artist
working with clay destined to remain a ceramic artist and an artist working
with textiles a textile artist? If not, under which denominator should their
work be exhibited, purchased or made public? The warring factions kept
passing the buck and accusing one another of being bigoted and ignorant,
as well as lacking in technical knowledge and artistic competence. These
erce debates were given new ammunition around 1980 by controversial
exhibitions like West Coast Ceramics (1979) in the Stedelijk Museum in
Amsterdam, Who Is Afraid of American Pottery (1983) in the Kruithuis in s-
Hertogenbosch and Rhonda Zwillingers furniture (1984) in the Groninger
Museum.
23
As will become clear below, the last word on the matter had not
been spoken.
Design and Political Debate
In the meantime industrial production in the Netherlands was suffering a
downward trend. In 1970, after years of growing prosperity, the economy
had ended up in a deep depression.
24
Scores of factories set up so hopefully
in the post-war years had to shut their gates for good. The worldwide oil cri-
sis in 1972, combined with an alarming report from the Club of Rome think
tank in 1973, had even led to Den Uyls cabinet introducing a number of com-
pulsory car-free Sundays in the Netherlands. By then the seriousness of the
situation was beginning to dawn on everyone: there were limits to growth.
There was even a sizeable crack in the unquestioning progressive idealism of

Dutch industrial designers. The generation who had brought about the post-
war reconstruction of the Netherlands was succeeded by a generation forced
to recognize the disadvantages of unbridled economic growth. The gradual
rejection of modernist dogmas ran parallel to these changes in society and to
the shifting political climate. The emergence of the New Left, far-reaching
democratization at schools and universities, the increased influence of the
trade union movement, the struggle to achieve redistribution of power and
incomes, all these changes had repercussions on the design debate.
During the last years of its turbulent existence, the Institute of
Industrial Design (iiv), which from its last reorganization in 1970 until it
closed down in 1976 was called the Industrial Design Foundation (siv), tried
to encourage discussion on the new position of industrial design in society.
The designer and publicist Simon Mari Pruys was assigned the task of writ-
ing a critical memorandum on the subject. His fundamental contribution to
the design debate appeared in 1972 under the title Dingen vormen mensen
(Things Form People).
25
His collection De nieuwe onzakelijkheid (New Non-
objectivity) had already been published one year earlier, and a compilation
of essays previously published in the daily newspaper nrc-Handelsblad
followed in 1974 under the title De paradijsbouwers: anti kunstzinnige opmerkin-
gen over de gebouwde omgeving (The Paradise Builders: Anti-artistic Remarks
on the Built-up Environment).
Dingen vormen mensen is the rst inventory of design in the Netherlands
written as a sociology of culture. Pruys introduces his line of argument by
claiming that industrial design, apart from being a profession, is also an
ideology. He emphasizes that every activity developed in this framework,
and every word written about it, ts into this deliberate or non-deliberate
view of man and society. Each new product stands in an area of tension in
which a role is played by the interests of the entrepreneur, investor, manag-
er, construction engineer, production engineer, supervisor, operative, retail
trader, middleman, consumer or user, designer, government and society.
The designer and the manufacturer are plainly not the only people on the
playing eld.
Pruys very deliberately no longer asked the question: What is good
design? He preferred to consider whether good or bad design existed.
After all, design can be successful in many ways: for the employer, user,
designer or retail trader. And what these parties desire is generally not the
same.
26
Even if the debate is restricted to the user, then the question of
what is good or bad is equally difcult to answer, if it can be answered at
all. It is not just a well-designed object complying with ofcial quality stan-
dards that can meet certain requirements: a kitsch product can do the

Dutch Design 198
same, for example, by meeting the need for security, familiarity and safety.
In any case, demonstrating that ugly objects have a negative influence on
our well-being is a very difcult thing to do, and he thought the unsolicit-
ed act of ramming this view down peoples throats was downright suspect.
This is why Pruys was one of the rst in the Netherlands to attempt to ele-
vate the concepts of good and bad in terms of design to a higher level, to
see what its implications were for society as a whole. He thus observed that
with car design it was the cars status and the trade that played the main
roles. On social grounds, the escalation of modernization is certainly not a
good thing: society and the individual fall victim to a form of visual com-
munication which is not only primitive, but which also has undeniably
harmful consequences.
27
Simon Mari Pruyss work was pioneering in the way it drew attention
to the object as a means of communication, or the product as a symbol, or
carrier, of a message. He introduced semiotics to the Dutch world of design.
Within this framework he discusses Jean Baudrillards study Le Systme des
objets (The System of Objects, 1968), which has since become a classic text,
in which consumption is not looked upon as a material-needs fullment but
as a systematic processing of symbols. He claims that designers would do
better if they were to become far more conscious of this side of their work,
and no longer direct their attentions exclusively to the safe area in which
aesthetics and functionality lay down the law from top to bottom.
In Dingen vormen mensen Pruys argues for a totally different type of
designer, namely someone who has outgrown the teething troubles experi-
enced when playing at being an artist and who can approach the real
problems of his time in a grown-up fashion. He warns that the competitive
conduct displayed by designers and employers will ultimately get them
nowhere. This articial rivalry to achieve ever more originality, sham-inno-
vation and pseudo-progressiveness is merely damaging. On the other hand,
showing too much reticence and too much interest in simplicity and natur -
alness can also lead to problems, as the tragedy of a journal like Goed
Wonen has shown. This type of propaganda in favour of unpretentiousness
in design conjures up associations with moralistic fanaticism.
28
Pruyss study was the rst to document systematically all the pressing
social questions connected to the phenomenon of industrial design:
planned obsolescence, material shortages, alienation, sustainability and
environmental problems, over-consumption and waste. He concluded: We
must gradually start to acknowledge that both advertising and design, inas-
much as these activities do nothing else but time and again make the chairs
we sit on old-fashioned, are the deadly enemy of our civilization.
29

The criticism and the dogma of good form, the economic recession in
the 1970s, the environmental issues and the rst mention of socio-political
issues that the industrial design profession had ever run up against caused
a great deal of confusion among designers of the period. This was particu-
larly so among the Art Academy students for whom Dingen vormen mensen
was compulsory teaching material. What, for whom and how were they
supposed to design: what were their responsibilities? And last but not least:
how on earth were they supposed to nd work?
The influence of this sociological approach to design even had conse-
quences in the museological world. In 1980 the Gemeentemuseum in The
Hague organized four exhibitions that together were called Massa Cultuur
(Popular Culture), involving everyday subjects like ready-to-wear clothes
(fashion for everyone), the ordinary Hague interior (home culture), syn-
thetic material in daily life (the rst plastic age) and featuring a low-brow
weekly publication from the rst half of the century (Life). The initiative
aroused a great deal of debate and in the end attracted only a small follow-
ing. This almost anthropological approach to design was too far removed
from the usual manner of working and thinking in museums in the
Netherlands at that time.
30
The Debate in the Graphic Sector
If there was one eld in the Netherlands in the 1970s and 80s where the
debate, in the broadest sense of the word, took centre stage, then that
was in the world of graphic design.
31
This still relatively new discipline
balanced continuously on the unstable borders between commerce, cul-
ture and politics. It was also being chased hard at heel by rapid
technological developments.
In order to see the situation in its true perspective, it is worth briefly
surveying post-war developments in the graphic sector. Straight after the
war Dick Elffers played a principal role in the professionalization of graph-
ic designers and in gaining wide recognition for their work.
32
Elfferss own
roots went back before the war to the lessons given by pioneers such as Jac.
Jongert and Piet Zwart at the Rotterdam Art Academy and Paul Schuitemas
design ofce, where he worked briefly. After the war his work became far
more personal, adopting a new design language, as seen in a series of capri-
cious colourful posters (his street paintings), book covers, brochures and
corporate photography books. His placards for the Holland Festival in the
1950s and 60s received wide acclaim. The work of kindred spirits like Otto
Treumann, Jan Bons and Willem Sandberg had a comparable effect and

Dutch Design 200
influence on the subject. During the 1950s these four designers were togeth-
er able to create a freer climate for the graphic designers work.
In 1969 the gkf and the vri, the two professional associations for
graphic designers that had originally been so different in their outlook,
amalgamated to form a new organization called Dutch Graphic Des -
igners (Grasche Vormgevers Nederland, gvn).
33
This meant the end of a
split that had rankled for years on end between Amsterdams mainly
politico-culturally orientated gkf and The Hagues and Rotterdams more
practical and commercially minded vri. The merger of the two associa-
tions was brought about by the charismatic designer Jurriaan Schrofer,
who became the rst chairman of the new organization. The effort put into
it by Elffers and Schrofer was, however, not sufcient to restore a modi -
cum of peace in the traditionally turbulent world of graphic designers,
typesetters and printers.
This exciting climate carried on through the 1970s and into the 80s in
discussions on modernism. The criticism of the supposed impersonal and
dispassionate International Style, as demonstrated especially in the work of
Wim Crouwel and other fellow workers at Total Design (td), began increas-
ingly to determine the character and subject matter of the discussions. An
increasing number of colleagues and critics considered Total Designs work
to be too commercial, austere and routine, and they were making a case for
permitting the introduction of more imaginative and illustrative elements.
In 1972, when Wim Crouwel, permanent designer for both the Stedelijk
Museum and the Fodor Museum in Amsterdam, became involved in an exhi-
bition and a catalogue about the work of his colleague Jan van Toorn, his
appointment caused a great deal of commotion.
34
In contrast to the commer-
cially minded and analytical Crouwel, Van Toorn was an emotional designer,
critical of the prevailing social structure. He was, among other things, a
permanent designer at the Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven and regularly
produced covers for the national museum journal Museum journaal. The idea
that Crouwel should design the catalogue did not please Van Toorn at all.
The heated argument between the two designers was fought out in the pub-
lic domain, a unique episode in the world of Dutch design. In the presence
of a few hundred critical spectators, including many designers and Art
Academy students, the two leading designers entered into a debate in the
Fodor Museum. Crouwel calmly emphasized his standpoint that the graph-
ic designer should only mediate between the client and his public, without
wanting to give a personal touch to the task. In Van Toorns view, however,
no such neutrality or objectivity was possible and he heatedly reproached
Crouwel for employing a method of work that reduced him to a mere

extension of the system. His point was that design could not and should not
be a value-free activity. A designer had to relate critically to his client and leave
some space for his own viewpoint; ultimately this would serve to improve the
quality of the work. The result of the debate was that Crouwel designed the
cover of the catalogue in the way he thought best, while Van Toorn decided on
the contents, which he very obstinately reduced to just a folded poster.
Despite Crouwels tenacity, Van Toorn seemed to have touched a sensi-
tive spot. As a member of the board of directors at Total Design, Crouwel
attempted to ward off criticism that their production was uniform by tak-
ing on several designers, including Jurriaan Schrofer and Anthon Beeke,
who worked more intuitively. Earlier Beeke had made designs for the
provocative teenage paper Hitweek, which from 1965 was published under
the editorship of Willem de Ridder.
35
Beeke had lasted only one year at the
Amsterdam Art Academy due to his free-and-easy, unconventional views.
He felt more at home with the anarchic Fluxus movement in the ne arts,
and believed that anything was permitted in the graphic eld too. Anthon
Beeke worked for years with Swip Stolk, who endorsed similar free, highly
imaginative views. Their imagery in the 1960s was influenced by the reval-
uation of Art Nouveau and Art Deco taking place at the time.
36
The desire for more freedom in those years was stimulated even more
by the circumstances: the prospects for improved technology were greater
than ever before. Between the early 1960s and the early 80s, the time-
honoured typesetting craft was gradually replaced by present-day computer
typesetting. Modern printers using the offset process and photosetters
changed graphic design into a process of drawing, cutting and pasting,
often involving free composing with the aid of transfer letters and the repro
camera. Traditional setting by hand using lead letters had most denitely
become a thing of the past.
Wim Crouwel expressed his views on the subject in 1974 in his essay
Ontwerpen en drukken (On Designing and Printing). His text was the rst in
a series of publications on graphic design published by the Gerrit Jan
Thieme Fund. Crouwels instructor Dick Elffers followed with Vorm en tegen-
vorm (Form and Anti-Form), after which in 1977 the designer Piet Schreuders
dropped a bombshell with the publication Lay in, Lay out.
37
The free auto -
didact Schreuders reacted against the functionalists and could see nothing
at all in Crouwels claims for timelessness and objectivity. Neither did
Schreuders have a good word to say about his New Alphabet letter design
from 1967, a font suitable for the computers digital base, remarking wittily
that it was one of the few letter-types in the world requiring subtitles.
38
But
Schreuders had just as low an opinion of the free, more illustrative course

advocated by Anthon Beeke and his followers, who wanted to do everything
differently and for whom nothing was too far-fetched. That, he stated, was
an equally abhorrent trend; they were artists and decorators, who did not
work at typography skilfully, but were aiming to elevate it to free design.
This controversy about modernism continued in the late 1970s when a
discussion flared up as a result of the modernized telephone directory
designed by Total Design.
39
The new order of personal details, and the adop-
tion of the sans serif font Univers, of which only the lower-case letters were
used, were capable of stirring up a strikingly wide range of reactions. The
debate this time was carried out in the public media. The writer and journal-
ist Renate Rubinstein (under the name Tamar) devoted a few critical articles
Wim Crouwel (Total
Design), cover of Jan van
Toorn catalogue (Museum
Fodor, Amsterdam, 1972),
including a folded poster
by Jan van Toorn.
202 Dutch Design
Dick Elffers, poster adver-
tising the Holland Festival,
1960.

to the topic in the weekly paper Vrij Nederland, expressing her loathing of the
colourless uniformity of the work produced by Total Design. In this discus-
sion she introduced the slogan Nieuwe Lelijkheid (New Ugliness).
A more productive dialogue was carried on almost uninterrupted in
the graphic world itself: many distinct designs provoked a response in the
form of a counter-design. For years on end the appropriate platforms for
these artistic controversies between graphic designers were to be found in
the Kerstnummers (Christmas editions) of the Drukkersweekblad (Printers
Weekly), the Kwadraatbladen (Square Papers) published by Steen druk kerij de
Jong & Co in Hilversum and the calendar sheets from the printing rm Spruyt
and de Erven Van de Geer. Also, since 1925 the annual election of the Fifty
Best-Looking Books had provided the opportunity for designers, printers,
publishers and other representatives of the graphic industry to engage in a
debate with one another about design and typography, but unfortunately this
tradition was interrupted in the crucial period between 1971 and 1985.
40
The Kwadraatbladen, which appeared between 1955 and 1974, edited by
Pieter Brattinga, aesthetic adviser to the printing rm Steendrukkerij de
Four Square Papers
(Kwadraatbladen),
(Steendrukkerij de Jong &
Co., Hilversum): Nr 23: Wim
Crouwel, New Alphabet
(1967); Nr 9: Buckminster
Fuller (1958); Nr. 28: Anthon
Beeke, Alphabet (1970);
Nr 26: Willem Sandberg,
Nu 2 (1968).

Jong & Co., were devoted to various cultural subjects.
41
Each number was
designed by a different graphic designer. For the printing rm the
Kwadraatbladen did not function primarily as a platform for discussion, but
chiefly as a public relations tool and an opportunity to carry out experi-
ments. The Kwadraatbladen owed their name to their square format (25 25
cm) and were designed by such as Willem Sandberg, Harry Sierman, Jan
Bons and Otto Treuman. Foreigners like Marc Chagall, R. Buckminster
Fuller and Dieter Roth also contributed. Occasionally they responded
directly to an earlier published issue. In 1967 Wim Crouwels New Alphabet
provoked further reaction from Gerard Unger, as well as from Schreuders. In
a hand-written text Unger made a case for making existing fonts more suit-
able for computer use, making reference to the fact that Wim Crouwels
progressive alphabet was barely legible. After this Pieter Brattinga asked
Anthon Beeke to present a new font in a Kwadraatblad. His provocative
response was an alphabet composed of naked women which he had care-
fully laid out in the shape of Baskerville letters on the floor of a large
gymnasium, and then photographed.
The various counter-cultural amateur magazines and papers set up at
the time by young artists, primarily art students, were redolent with com-
parable rebellious acts. The mimeograph, the photocopier and even a small
offset press all came within the nancial reach of many designers in that
period. The influential magazine Hitweek was renamed Aloha in 1969 and
continued until 1974.
42
In this form it focused a little less on pop music and
more on graphic design and the new underground strip-cartoon culture. In
imitation, Tante Leny presenteert (Aunt Leny Presents) also made room for a
204 Dutch Design
Issues 9 to 12 of
Provo, magazine of the
1960s Provo movement,
Amsterdam, 1966.

new generation of strip cartoonists between 1971 and 1976, including Joost
Swarte and Piet Geradts. De Wolkenkrabber (Skyscraper), Furore and the
Poezenkrant (Pussy Paper), which Evert Schreuders published on his own
with only small print runs, were alienating and recalcitrant. Utopia, started
in 1976 by a few architecture students from Delft Technical University, was
equally saturated with this carnival atmosphere so typical of the 1970s: it
was given the subtitle tweemaandelijks tijdschrift voor wetenschappelijk
amusement (Bi-monthly Paper for Scholarly Amusement). Two editors of
Utopia, Hans Kamphuis and Jan Pesman, later started up the design period-
ical Items, while their fellow editors on Utopia, Peter de Winter and Hans
Oldewarris, founded in 1983 the publishing house 010 (the telephone code
number for Rotterdam), which is still the most important Dutch publishing
house for books on architecture and design.
43
Students from the art academies in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and
Enschede set up design collectives in the early 1980s that turned out to have
staying power. Hard Werken (Hard Work) in Rotterdam, Wild Plakken
(Illegal Bill Posting) in Amsterdam and De Enschedese School (The
Enschede School) in Enschede worked in an eclectic, unconventional and
experimental style. Their sources of inspiration were to be found in the
Piet Schreuder, two covers
of his magazine Furore,
1977 (issues 7 and 8).

world of lms, strip cartoons and popular culture, but also in the history of
avant-garde graphics.
44
Hard Werken was not interested in spreading an
explicit ideological message and, with designers like Gerard Hadders, Rick
Vermeulen and Henk Elenga, the commissions soon started to roll in from
trade and industry and the government. On the other hand, Wild Plakken,
with designers like Lies Ros and Rob Schrder, both pupils of Jan van
Toorn, did stand for a denite political point of view. Initially their clients
were chiefly the womens movement and the students movement, the
Dutch Communist Party and the squatters movement. Later their commis-
sions mainly came from cultural organizations, such as theatre groups,
museums and the Netherlands Opera, and from the ptt. When it came to
accepting new commissions during this period, the originally Amsterdam-
based designer Gielijn Escher (grandson of Jacob Jongert) was also guided
by his personal preferences and ideals. But for the rest, his carefully
designed and colourful posters are quite unlike anything else at the time.
It is beyond dispute that the graphic sector in the Netherlands gained a
great deal from this free and open climate in the 1970s and 80s. Furthermore,
there was no lack of broad-minded clients prepared to commission work
Two covers of
Hard Werken, 1979
(issues 1 and 3).
206 Dutch Design

from these designers. It is partly due to this support that for decades the most
internationally esteemed areas of Dutch design have been graphic design
advertising and book design, typography and commercial printing.
Culture or Economy
In contrast, Dutch product design was less successful during the 1970s and
80s. Two government-aided travelling exhibitions were organized in the
Gielijn Escher, Concerning
Amsterdamposter, 1985.

early 1980s to generate more interest in modern consumer products among
the business community, potential buyers or partners, as well as among the
cultural scene and ordinary consumers. Quite unintentionally, these two
presentations stimulated one of the design debates crucial discussion
points: is design a cultural or artistic phenomenon, or should it be consid-
ered primarily as an economic activity?
In the exhibition Design from the Netherlands/Design aus den
Niederlanden, mounted in 1981, design was presented without hesitation as
a cultural affair.
45
Organized by the Fine Arts Abroad Agency (Bureau
Beeldende Kunst Buitenland), a sub-department of the Ministry of Culture,
Recreation and Social Welfare, the exhibition highlighted the work of the
creative designer, the designer-artist, whose products could enrich the life
of the consumer, not only in a practical way, but especially artistically. The
exhibition was mounted with a view to it travelling abroad, which it did for
six years, calling at Stuttgart, Groningen, Brussels, Dsseldorf, Jerusalem,
Helsinki, Stockholm, Budapest and Berlin.
As guest curator, Gijs Bakker was responsible for choosing the partici-
pants. By the 1970s he was not only involved in jewellery, but had also
developed an interest in product design. Bakker worked for various Dutch
factories, including the furniture factory Castelijn. He also taught at the
Arnhem Art Academy right up to the end of the decade. Considering his
own fascination with the design of jewellery and furniture, it was only nat -
u ral that Bakker should select products for the exhibition based on what
he considered to be an explicit and original visual concept. Whether the
products he selected were a commercial success, or reasonably priced, or
satisfactory in terms of the technicalities of the production process, did not
matter, nor did he pay much attention to whether the objects had been pro-
duced industrially, or by craftsmen, in small series or piece for piece. Some
well-known names were to be found among the twenty designers selected,
including Friso Kramer with his Mehes ofce system for Ahrend, Aldo van
den Nieuwelaar with light systems for Artimeta and Frans de la Haye with a
bicycle for the rm Union, an experimental prototype that had been con-
structed with the aid of steel cables. Also represented were a few large design
ofces including Philipss cidc, the Premsela Vonk studio and Kho Liang Ie
Associates. It was remarkable that so much attention was focused on fashion
and textiles, even though fashion in the Netherlands had yet to spring to life
and thrive. Among the select were the fashion designer Frans Molenaar,
the textile designer Ulf Moritz, the jumper-knitter Marijke de Ley and the
artisanal shoemaker Charles Bergmans. The later internationally successful
childrens clothing atelier Oilily (then still called Olly) was also part of the
208 Dutch Design

chosen group. The most surprising entries, however, were from the young
designers who had chosen to make their products on their own, such as
Bruno Ninaber van Eyben, Maria Hees, Henk Lampe and Hans Ebbing,
Ton Haas and Paul Schudel (the Designers Association). Reinder van Tijen
stood out from the rest, presenting appliances intended for use in develop-
ing countries, made from scrap iron and waste, including a cement mixer
from an oil drum and a pair of bellows from an old car tyre. The only
ceramics in the exhibition came from Jan van der Vaart, who had been
Noudi Spnhoff and Loek
Kemming for Mieke Teunen
Design Vertrieb, poster,
Design in the Netherlands,
1982, showing desk lamp by
Herman Hermsen, 1979;
hanging lamp by Vorm -
gevers associatie, 1980;
Tethrahedron lamp by
Frans van Nieuwenborg/
Martijn Wegman, 1977;
DK Clock by Vormgevers
associatie/Paul Schudel,
1980; tube lamp by Bruno
Ninaber van Eyben, 1977;
case by Maria Hees, 1980;
neck watch by Bruno
Ninaber van Eyben, 1976.

working on a collection of practical vases produced using traditional meth-
ods. Gijs Bakker was himself represented at the exhibition by a few chairs
that he had designed for Castelijn. But he also showed his surprising
umbrella lamp, one of the rst Dutch objects with a hint of irony that was
later to become so characteristic of Dutch Design.
46
In 1983 the second travelling exhibition, titled Ontwerpen voor de
Industrie (Designs for Industry), started its tour at the Bonnefanten
Museum in Maastricht. Here industrial design was primarily presented as
an economic activity. Visitors to the exhibition could become acquainted
with a collection of high-quality products that a team had developed with
the support of a problem-solving industrial designer. The Ministry of
Economic Affairs supported this exhibition, which went on show in eight
Dutch municipalities.
The compilation was in the hands of Wim Crouwel, the graphic design-
er Gertjan Leuvelink and the product designer from the rm Oc van der
Grinten, Louis Lucker. The selection criteria employed may be found in the
book published to accompany the exhibition, Ontwerpen in Nederland 1
(Design in the Netherlands 1); the number one in the title suggested that a
sequel to the project might have been on its way, but in actual fact it never
materialized.
47
The objects exhibited in Maastricht were totally different
from the products selected by Gijs Bakker. In the rst place it was strictly
stipulated that for this exhibition the objects on show, without exception,
had to have been industrially manufactured. The other conditions were
enumerated in a long list, including usefulness, safety, longevity, ergonomic
adaptation and environmental friendliness. All were given a higher priority
than the aesthetic quality of the design.
In Crouwels introduction this view of the design discipline is put
forward straight away. He advocates drawing up a series of systematically
ordered conditions to be met each time a new product is required. This
should be followed by an analytical approach to the design process where-
by, as a matter of course, some thought should be given to the environment
and the social and cultural circumstances. According to Crouwel, designers
were often too critical in dismissing commercial principles used in large-
scale industrial enterprises, and in their rejection of styling and corporate
identity. Moreover, many young designers mistakenly considered good
design to be an elitist phenomenon. Crouwel did not consider Italian or
Scandinavian products to be a good example: the Italians attached far too
much importance to design, whereas the Scandinavians had got bogged
down in their modern tradition, which was far too rooted in Arts and
Crafts. The English and the Germans provided better role models because,
210 Dutch Design

according to Crouwel, their industrial design had acquired a name for
being a relational and systematic design process planned with optimal
economic efciency.
48
At the exhibition in Maastricht itself about one hundred products illus-
trated this view. The visitors interest in the discipline was to be stirred by
means of ofce furniture, pans, clocks, toasters, calculators, automatic coffee-
makers and wall spotlights. They could even see a crane, a compressed air
dryer and medical measuring equipment. Only three products had already
been represented in Gijs Bakkers touring exhibition: the Ahrend ofce
system by Friso Kramer, the Auronde bed for Auping by Frans de la Haye,
and the Lagos couch by Kho Liang Ie Associates, produced by Artifort in
Maastricht.
Two different trends in Dutch design thus started to take shape. The
Maastricht presentation Ontwerpen voor de Industrie crystallized the view
that had already been formulated and institutionalized shortly after the
war, seeing industrial design as an instrumental and interdisciplinary
activity. It was this view of the discipline that was mainly taught at Delft
Technical University, where Wim Crouwel had been a professor since
A view of the Designs
for Industry exhibition
(Schiedam, 1984).

1972.
49
It was expected of the highly trained, well-informed and cultured
designers who trained in Delft that on their own, or as part of a company
design team, they would contribute to ensuring that trade and industry
thrived and the countrys economic prosperity increased. At the same time
they were expected to look after the interests of the consumer. In this vision
the designer was no more than a fairly anonymous cog in the wheel of trade
and industry, devoid of glamour and without too many artistic pretensions,
but still carrying a great amount of responsibility.
Ontwerpen in Nederland was a mouthpiece for the designers who
opposed this somewhat technocratic view. Quite different questions were
raised here, such as the cultural importance and artistic potential of a
product, the broader cultural and social responsibility shouldered by the
designer, and the question of whether there might be another characteristic
style apart from the modernist idiom.
While the rst group of classical industrial designers actually repre-
sented the great majority of designers in the Netherlands who continued to
work in a steady way, the second, smaller, but more critical group of design-
ers has attracted national and international attention over the last twenty
years. This is the group to which the label Dutch Design has been attached,
the designers who have featured in the press and who for a larger public
have xed the image of Dutch design. Without doubt, they have given the
discipline an important new stimulus. It is seldom, however, that mention
is made that by far the largest part of the Netherlands is, and was, designed
by a much larger group of anonymous colleagues.
Designer-Makers
At the exhibition Ontwerpen in Nederland a few so-called designer-makers
were represented. At the time this was a comparatively new phenomenon in
Dutch design culture. Their motive for taking the production and distribu-
tion of their designs into their own hands was that initially there was a
shortage of commissions coming from industry, although artistic and ideo-
logical motives also played a role.
Bruno Ninaber van Eyben was quick off the mark in following this unpre-
dictable path. After having trained as a jewellery-maker at the Art Academy
in Maastricht, he worked for a while for the silver factory Van Kempen en
Begeer as assistant to the head designer, Gustav Beran. This factory was too
narrow in scope for his innovative ideas, so in 1971 he opened his own design
and production studio. Ninaber van Eybens well-known early designs com-
prise a few simple bracelets and a necklace-watch in elementary forms made
212 Dutch Design

from Perspex, rubber and stainless steel, which for the jewellery of the time
were innovatory materials. These he made in small series and distributed
under his own name. This system, however, meant that he was not in a posi-
tion to win attractive orders from trade and industry. His inspiration
stemmed from the need to make a completely new type of product, one that
you were more likely to identify with and not just a standard industrial prod-
uct. The innovatory quality of his work lay not only in its clever design, but
also in the material he chose and the experimental technology he applied. Its
quality was quickly recognized. In 1979 Ninaber van Eyben was awarded the
Kho Liang Ie prize, a distinction conferred for the rst time that year, for his
then still modest uvre.
50
Gijs Bakker was on the jury whose report stressed
the innovative character of Ninabers products and his unusual working
methods. As a teacher at the Art Academy in Arnhem, Bakker stimulated his
students to adopt the artist-cum-entrepreneurs attitude. He preferred them
not to become dependent on industry, with its presumed concomitant con-
straints, because in his view that was likely to become suffocating. In the late
1970s the Arnhem course produced so many students adhering to this atti-
tude that they were referred to as the Arnhem School.
51
Items, a journal launched in 1982, offered a platform for young des -
igners and those starting up in business to discuss their own new products
and ideas in print. After one year the original concept was broadened,
enabling the editorial staff to cover design history, exhibitions and all
sorts of news items related to the eld. Items was involved in mounting the
exhibition Furniture from the Netherlands, 19801983 in the Bouwcentrum in
Rotterdam. Here a great deal of the idiosyncratic work by young designer-
makers was on show for the rst time. But it was here, too, that a few
Dutch manufacturers proved they were open to modernization and
change. The Dutch Design Centre (see chapter Four), for example, used
this occasion to show the newest products from the various associated
furniture companies.
52
A year later the Fodor Museum in Amsterdam organized the exhibition
Ontwerpen in de marge (Fringe Design), where about forty designer-makers
were able to show their work.
53
As in 1972, when the modernization of
graphic design was the central theme, Fodor organized a panel discussion
specially for the occasion and, as before, feelings were running high. The
graphic designer Rob Schrder, known through the designers collective
Wild Plakken (Illegal Bill Posting), was one of the panellists, as was Frank
Oosterhof of the Enschede School. The Dutch Labour Party politician Felix
Rottenberg came up with proposals whereby the government would be able
to support these new initiatives, whereas fellow party member Arie van der

Zwan questioned the wisdom of granting that type of government support
too nonchalantly. This evening session in the Fodor Museum was not an
isolated incident and was followed by other debates and panel discussions
on the theme. It was obvious that the designers community in the
Netherlands had been forced to sit up and take notice. Frederike Huygen,
editor of Items and design curator of the Boijmans Van Beuningen Museum,
wrote an article in which the designer-makers were put on the design map
as a real movement or new trend.
54
Almost all the designers featured took
the view that producing their own ideas themselves, in small series, provid-
ed them with more creative scope than just sitting around waiting for
industry to show some interest. Moreover, it was patently obvious that
these potential clients were not keen on the prospect of innovatory design,
nor were they eager to experiment with materials and techniques.
The Design Association (Vormgevingsassociatie) was one of the most
high-prole groups using these new working methods in practice. Founded
in 1978 by Hans Ebbing, Ton Haas, Paul Schudel and the graphic designers
Loek Kemming and Noudi Spnhoff, they were encouraged by their teacher
at the Arnhem Art Academy, Gijs Bakker, to produce their own designs
under their own name if commissions from industry should fail to be forth-
coming. Developing a product entirely on their own and experimenting
with forms and techniques, unhindered by the commercial limitations of a
factory, did indeed stimulate their creativity. The Minimalist globule clock
(dk klok) by Paul Schudel is one of the groups most well-known designs.
Made from a slightly bulging plate of sandblasted glass, behind which just
two hands indicate the time, the clock crystallized the idea of visible imma-
teriality. It was brought onto the market under the brand name Designum.
Kemming and Spnhoff took care of the packaging and the publicity.
55
The architect Mart van Schijndel became one of the most successful
designer-makers without deliberately setting his sights on it.
56
He rst
exhibited his Delta vase (1981), made from three rectangular pieces of
glass, as a one-off in Hans Appenzellers gallery in Amsterdam. The pub-
lic reacted so enthusiastically that he and his wife had to glue together
about a thousand vases in the following months in order to meet the
demand. He signed each one. When demand for the vase continued, its
production was contracted out and to date tens of thousands of Delta
vases have been sold.
An almost equal success was experienced by the architect Rob Eckhardt
when he turned his hand to furniture design.
57
His furniture, sold under his
own name, caught the eye of the progressive public and attracted a following
that could appreciate these original, postmodern designs. Popular pieces
214 Dutch Design

include his asymmetric chair, titled Groeten uit Holland (greetings from
Holland), and an equally asymmetric chaise longue given the name Karel
Doorman (a renowned Second World War Dutch admiral). From 1982
Eckhardt sold his own products, and those of a few selected avant-garde
designers, from the design shop he opened in the centre of Amsterdam.
Many other designers are also worth mentioning, such as Maria Hees
for her alternative bags, Jeroen Vinken for his original carpets and curtains,
the small-scale studio Bon Bon for their silk screen-printed curtaining and
Peggy Bannenberg for her jewellery.
58
Producing such items on a small scale
under their own name, during the 1980s these designers struggled out of the
straightjacket of functionalism that had dominated the industry for so long.
Although most of them still maintained a predilection for simplicity and a
geometric style language, they no longer gave functionalism and affordabil-
ity the highest priority. For them expressiveness, daring and creativity took
the place of the purely commercial pursuit of a neutral, good form.
The emergence of this new generation of designers ran parallel with
Italian and postmodernist influences gaining an increasing hold on Dutch
Mart van Schijndel, Delta
vase, 1981.

design culture. Although the relationship between Italy and the Netherlands
has not been properly studied up to now, strangely enough it appears that
interest in Italy as the design Mecca seems not to have been a notable factor.
During the years of post-war reconstruction Italy underwent a period of
economic growth and industrialization that was many times greater than
that experienced in the Netherlands. Italian firms like Kartell, Pirelli,
Olivetti, Artemide, Cassina and Fiat had thrown open their doors to allow
experimentation more enthusiastically and in doing so had capitalized on
the countrys rich artisanal tradition, which was then still in existence. In
contrast to the Netherlands, the Italian consumers were soon showing
enthusiasm for the phenomenon of design.
Of course, the landmark products of Italian design also ltered through
to the Netherlands. There was much interest in the Vespa scooter, the Fiat
500 and, particularly, in Olivetti typewriters. Gio Ponti, Marco Zanuso
(who in 1956 arranged the Italian section of the industrial design exhibition
in the Stedelijk Museum), Marco Bellini and Ettore Sottsass were promi-
nent names in designers circles.
59
The product designer Andries van Onck and the graphic designer Bob
Noorda were among the handful of Dutch designers who risked venturing
to the south.
60
They were not to regret it. Van Onck, after completing an
industrial design course in The Hague, studied for ve years at the Hoch -
schule in Ulm. From there he headed straight to Milan in 1959, becoming
Ettore Sottsasss assistant at Olivetti; together they designed one of the first
computers. Bob Noorda made a career for himself as a graphic designer in
Italy, too. When he arrived the discipline was still in its infancy. He took
care of the commercial graphics for, among others, Pirelli, the coop and
Agip. Working with the Italian designer Massimo Vignelli in the 1960s, he
designed the signage for the underground in Milan, which was later adapted
for use in New York and So Paulo.
The design authorities in the Netherlands thought that Germany was
more important than Italy. The more modest design ideals of this country
were said to suit the Netherlands better, while the innovations in Italy were
regularly dismissed as mannerist and formalist. Supposedly, fear of too
much competition also played a role in the attitude they took: the founda-
tion of the eec in 1958 had made it easier to import goods from Italy, as a
result of which some sectors of Dutch industry, including ceramics, were
actually under threat.
An exception, as seen earlier, was Kho Liang Ie, who did familiarize
himself properly with the Italian market. The effect this had can be seen in
his furniture designs for Artifort. Kho became a personal friend of Ettore
216 Dutch Design

Sottsass, who in 1971 commended him at the opening of an exhibition
devoted to Khos work.
It was not until the early 1980s that Italy began to exert real influence
on the design debate and on design in the Netherlands due to its new plu-
ralist style. Items had already drawn attention to postmodern Italian
products with their provocative design language and their surprisingly dec-
orative and expressive presentation. After the Memphis group exhibition in
1984 in s-Hertogenbosch, the editors of the kio-bulletin, the designers jour-
nal, also made a serious attempt to fathom out this new and confusing
idiom: one without any familiar aesthetic connotations, but full of ironic
references to popular culture, kitsch and classical antiquity.
61
From then on
the glossy monthly magazine Avenue, with its much wider readership, regu-
larly report on the new Italian trends.
In this same period the highly imaginative work of the Amsterdam-
based Czech designer Borek pek became well known.
62
Like the Italians,
pek was inspired by various styles and cultures. Sensory experiences and
emotions were more important to him than functionality or affordability.
His glasswork in particular was soon widely known in the Netherlands. In
1989 pek was awarded the Kho Liang Ie prize for his work. This was
indicative of the changing views on design culture in the Netherlands that
now placed pek among the elite.
Borek pek (Antholo gie
Quartett, Germany), three
glasses from the series
Veno Pro Xeno phona,
1983.

Ed Annink in a post-
modern interior,
designed by Annink for
the Centraal Museum,
Utrecht, 1984.
Cartoon used as a promo-
tion when the Philips
Alessi line was introduced
in 1994.

Shortly afterwards, in imitation of the Italians, a few Dutch designers also
started to think that the products message was more important than a beau-
tiful or functional form. Ed Annink and Rob Eckhardt were notable among
this group, but there were also Ton Hoogerwerf and Gerwin van Vulpen (with
their Cubic3 Design bureau in The Hague), Peer de Bruyn, Bob Verheijden and
the young Marcel Wanders.
63
Ed Anninks early designs included a lectern in
the shape of a butterfly (1982), which symbolized the transitory quality of the
spoken word. In 1984 he was commissioned by the Centraal Museum in
Utrecht to select the fabrics and furnishings for a postmodern period room.
64
A prominent place was reserved in it for the Groeten uit Holland chair by Rob
Handkerchiefs printed on
the occasion of the tenth
anniversary of Cubic 3
Design (Gerwin van Vulpen
and Ton Hooger werf) (1991)
from Man (1991).

Eckhardt. The chair was upholstered in a material printed with a brightly
coloured tulip pattern produced by Cubic3 Design. Perhaps the most obvious
signs of the influence of Italian postmodern design were to be found in
Cubic3s work, with their predilection for colourful decoration, bizarre, imagi-
native shapes and historical citations. This influence later ltered through in a
weaker, more diluted, form to many other Dutch products, including Pastoe
furniture, Philipss electric appliances and the hemas household goods.
Not everyone was equally enthusiastic about the rise of this new
unprincipled design being produced by the Italians, which in fact made
the Moral Modernism crisis complete. Hein van Haaren, for example, who
in 1984 held the influential position of aesthetic adviser to the ptt, under-
stood the need for something new, but thought that the postmodern
alternative was elitist and pretentious:
Who are these objects made for? Certainly not for the popular-
culture-man who cannot recognize the baroque profusion of symbols,
nor the irony and ambiguity of the abstract language being used.
Neither is it for those who out of fascination follow developments in
art critically. For them all the information carried by neo-design is old
hat . . . Functionalism deserves a more profound response than the
coquettish design of the Milanese.
65
Free Design: Design as Art
During the 1980s the borders between art, craft and even fashion became
blurred due to the influence of Italian postmodernism and designer-makers
who were attracting a great deal of attention. The distinction between the
disciplines had already become indenite in the preceding two decades (see
above). Whereas earlier many potters and weavers working in the old tradi-
tion had moved into the eld of art, during the 1980s industrial designers
also began to make small-scale series, or even unique, objects. A good illus-
tration of this is the renowned furniture designer Martin Visser who, after
his Spectrum period from 1955 to 1974, had principally occupied himself
with collecting art. From 1979 to 1983 he was a curator in the Modern Art
department at the Boijmans Van Beuningen Museum. Around 1986 he
returned to his old trade and with his partner, the textile designer Joke van
der Heijden, he made a collection of monumental chairs and tables.
Although these items were most certainly usable, they were principally well-
thought-out autonomous objects and studies in form, colour and material,
rather than products for everyday use.
66
220 Dutch Design

However, a movement in the opposite direction also became visible. In
1986 the Amsterdam design gallery Binnen organized an exhibition of the
work of fteen potters who showed great industrial potential.
67
With this
exhibition Jan van der Vaart, Vincent de Rijk, Pauline Wiertz and others
hoped to attract the attention of the producers. Indeed, even completely
autonomous artists started to set their sights on the world of design. After
some unique pieces of furniture had been presented for the rst time in a
traditional free art setting in 1987 at the Documenta in Kassel, the Boijmans
Van Beuningen Museum organized the exhibition Het meubel verbeeld
(Furniture as Art) in 1988 with work by such internationally famous artists
as Sol Lewitt, Donald Judd and John Armleder, complemented by furniture
by the Dutch artists Carel Visser, Paul Beckman and Frank Mandersloot. In
1990 Het Kapelhuis in Amersfoort followed with Gebruiksbeelden (Useful
Sculptures) and in 1992 the Commanderie van St Jan Museum in Nijmegen
did likewise with their exhibition Meubelsculptuur (Furniture Sculptures),
where work by artists such as Thijs van Kimmenade, Wilma Sommers and
Frank Bezemer could be admired.
68
This new category of art objects did not continue to be a purely mu -
seological affair. To the great dismay of tourists and the disgust of many
residents in 1991 the centre of Amsterdam suddenly saw the arrival of a
large number of new cast-iron lamp-posts, litter bins, benches, bicycle racks
and bollards intended to prevent illegal parking, all designed in an
unorthodox manner that had little to do with the Dutch tradition. The
totem-pole elements from which they were made appeared to be arbitrary
shapes piled on top of one another, then spray-painted in an arresting
bluish-green and adorned with gold accents. They were the work of the
Jan van der Vaart,
ve vases, 195390.

sculptors Alexander Schabracq and Tom Postma, who had not been guided
by the motto less is more, but by less is a bore. The vehement discussion
that this work aroused was welcomed by the artists: they had never had
such a frenzied reaction to their autonomous sculpture!
69
In the early 1990s the Rotterdam sculptor Joep van Lieshout made his
entry into design too. His straightforward tables, cupboards and bath ele-
ments in lively colours, made from rough polyester and cheap blockboard,
had an equally puzzling effect. Was this art? Was it design? Whatever the
answer may have been, his work was a great success both at home and
abroad and commissions from private individuals and cultural institutions
poured in. In addition, Van Lieshout worked on various projects for the
Ofce for Metropolitan Architecture (oma) run by Rem Koolhaas, includ-
ing, in 1994, designing two bars and the toilet areas for the Congress Centre
in Lille, France. From 1995 these projects went under the designers name
Atelier van Lieshout (avl). Meanwhile, the artist had become the leader of
a workshop employing twenty employees.
70
The nal new development in the 1990s was the emergence of the
Netherlands as a fashion nation, marked at the same time by the fusion of
Geert Lap, installation of
twenty-one stoneware
bowls in different colours,
1988.
222 Dutch Design

fashion with art and design.
71
In this area the
Arnhem Art Academy again played a pioneering
role. Alexander van Slobbe, for instance, was
trained there in the 1980s. His garments, under
the brand name Orson & Bodil, appeared to be
simple, almost abstract clothes; nevertheless,
they could also be seen as pioneering art exper-
iments, textile constructions with more
consideration than usual paid to the material
used and the way it fell into pleats.
72
The six
graduates of the Arnhem Academy in 1992
Marcel Verheijen, Lucas Ossendrijver, Viktor
Horsting, Rolf Snoeren (Viktor & Rolf ), Saskia
van Drimmelen and Pascal Gatzen showed
a promising collection. They joined forces the
following year, calling themselves Le Cri Ner-
landais, and had great success with their group
presentations in Paris and Milan. For these
shows they were given every conceivable form of
support by a group of authoritative gures from
the Dutch fashion and design world: the photog-
raphy for this successful promotion campaign,
for example, was by Rineke Dijkstra. In 1994 the Netherlands was repre-
sented at prt--porter shows in Paris for the rst time by seven fashion
Alexander Schabracq
and Tom Postma, street
furniture on the Damrak
in Amsterdam, 1991.
Prince Johan Friso
and Mabel Wisse Smits
wedding, Delft, 24 April
2004. Wedding dress
designed by Viktor & Rolf.

designers Alexander van Slobbe plus the six from Le Cri.
73
Meanwhile,
Van Slobbe has become an internationally respected, commercially success-
ful designer. Viktor & Rolf, with their numerous high-prole presentations,
have also earned themselves a prominent position, operating on the border-
line between fashion, design and art.
74
The new cross-border tendencies in design were snatched up eagerly in
ofcial art circles. In 1985 the Netherlandish Ofce for Fine Arts (Rijksdienst
Beeldende Kunst) spent a major part of the governments acquisition budget
on the procurement of many of these exciting products, which could be
called neither pure art nor pure design. The large museums also took the
step of extending their, still young, collections of industrial design with these
types of one-off art objects or, at the very most, objects produced in small
series.
75
At the end of the 1990s, the Boijmans Museum even went as far as
purchasing a few fashion garments on the grounds that they belonged to the
new denition of contemporary design, which had extended to cover a larg-
er area than before. In addition to the existing galleries of applied art, new
ones were opened that operated in the specic area between art and design:
Binnen and Frozen Fountain (Amsterdam), Vivid (Rotterdam), Puntgaaf
(Groningen), Intermezzo (Dordrecht) and Galery Yksi (Eindhoven).
Critical articles about these new developments were regularly pub-
lished in the periodicals Bijvoorbeeld and Items, and also from the late 1980s
in Industrieel Ontwerpen (Industrial Design) and since 1990 in Vormberichten.
The discussions printed here, however, were often typically ambivalent
and irresolute: if beauty, functionality and affordability were no longer the
criteria, what could objects still be judged by?
Conceptual Design
In 1992 work by young designers that seemed to be taking off in yet another
direction was on show at the Gallery Marzee in Nijmegen.
76
The revolution-
ary factor in their designs did not lie primarily in their pioneering form, but
more in their new ideas about the function and meaning of design. The way
it was explained in the catalogue was that they were furniture designers who
also wanted to be meaning-givers: Their pieces of furniture are not solely a
chair, a table or a cupboard. They are designed ideas and experiences reflect-
ing everyday surroundings and furniture art itself. Not long afterwards this
trend became known as conceptual design, that is, the idea behind it was
more important than the design. Among the exhibitors in Gallery Marzee
were Tejo Remy, Jurgen Bey, Jan Konings and Marcel Wanders, designers
who were to become the stars of the Droog Design label.
224 Dutch Design

This Droog Design collection was soon after to be considered the inter-
national business card of new avant-garde Dutch design, but its creation
would have been unthinkable if certain developments had not already
taken place in the 1980s. After all, the penultimate decade of the twentieth
century had witnessed resistance to the impersonal nature of modernism,
the struggle for more expression and emotion, the intermingling of design
and art, and even a certain degree of conceptualization. However, the new
element was the young designers belief that the message conveyed in their
work should refer especially to the product, the design and the technique
itself, in order to stimulate the design debate.
In 1992, when Renny Ramakers, the editor-in-chief of Industrieel
Ontwerpen (Designing for Industry), saw Jurgen Beys and Jan Koningss
bookcase made of rough-hewn wood, paper and textile in Gallery Marzee,
she immediately felt that something new was happening. The two young
designers had not been aiming at making something marvellous or a repre-
sentative bookcase, but were merely in search of a simple solution for
storing books in an orderly fashion. The bookcases harmonica-style struc-
ture allows it to expand as the number of books increases. Equally
pioneering were two objects shown by Tejo Remy at Gallery Marzee. One
was the chest of drawers titled You Cannot Lay Down your Memory, a collec-
tion of old drawers, originating from a great many different cupboards and
desks, tied together by a large strap. The other object was a chair made from
a large pile of old blankets and clothes, which were kept in place by strong
tape. Renny Ramakers placed these two objects and a cupboard by Piet
Hein Eek, made of assorted pieces of scrap wood, on her magazines stand
at the furniture show in Kortrijk. The objects, with their mandatory hint of
irony, elevated waste as an issue worthy of debate and propagated the artis-
tic recycling of materials.
Following the overwhelming success of the small display, Ramakers
decided to organize a presentation of these, and a few comparable objects,
under the name Droog Design at the Salone del Mobile in Milan in 1993.
The show was realized in close association with Gijs Bakker, who since
1987 had taught at the Eindhoven Design Academy. The birth of a new
movement in design was then a reality.
77
A year later the Droog Design
Foundation was established with nancial support from the Ministry. The
name Droog (literally Dry) refers to the supposed character of the prod-
ucts: subdued, straightforward and austere. Droog Design is not a
designers association or organization, nor is it a style. The aims of Droog,
with its radical rejection of aesthetics in favour of an emphasis on the
process of conceptualization and design, correspond to the aspirations of

Rem Koolhaas, who broke into the world of international architecture in
the same period. Droog Design is formally a foundation run by Ramakers
and Bakker, who select new products for the label on the basis of an explic-
it design mentality. Products are regularly chosen from young art academy
students nals projects, after which Droog supports their production and
distribution and promotes them worldwide. Creation, innovation and debate
have of late been at the centre of Droogs policy.
Over the almost fteen years that Droog has been in operation, the
accent has been on constantly changing themes. Initially their central focus
was on recycling old products, or parts of them, in a new design: new prod-
ucts like Eibert Draismas automatic coffee-maker and desk lamp assembled
from waste material, Tejo Remys hanging lamp made from twelve tradition-
al milk bottles and Rody Graumanss chandelier made from a bundle of 85
light bulbs on the end of a lead.
78
Jurgen Bey went a step further and tted
reflecting foil around all sides of an old chandelier, so that by day one sees a
taut-lined modern lamp, but in the evening the traditional lavishly designed
chandelier emerges. Some products were specially designed with a view to
Tejo Remy (Droog Design),
You Cant Lay Down Your
Memory , chest of drawers,
1991.
226 Dutch Design

being reused: Djoke de Jong designed a shower
curtain with the pieces of a jacket printed on it, in
the same way as a paper pattern.
The following theme in Droogs history was
simplicity, an express quest for the most ele-
mentary, archetypal form of a product, or for
designs that seemed to embody their function
most concisely. At the same time, however, they
are objects that radiate a sort of controversial,
anti-design sentiment, as illustrated by Dick van
Hoff s products and Richard Huttens furniture.
79
In the case of Van Hoff, a water tap consists
merely of two water pipes bent towards one
another, and two traditional twisting-headed
brass taps, thought to be a primitive form of a
tap. In fact it is a reaction to the over-designed
products that he detests, reacting against the type of product that mysties
the poor unsuspecting user, such as those taps that only start when you put
your hands underneath them. Richard Hutten made chairs and tables
under his motto no sign of design that were also reduced to their most ele-
mentary form. Ineke Hans, a designer who has no connection with Droog,
did something comparable, with her simple, pictogram-related furniture
made from recycled plastic.
80
Experiments followed with new materials or the unexpected uses of
old ones. Marcel Wanders knotted rope to make a chair, which he then
impregnated with epoxy resin to make it strong enough to sit on. He did
something similar with a piece of traditional needlepoint lace, which was
transformed into an elementary stool by using the same method. Hella
Jongerius made washbasins and vases from rubber, but also embroidered
on ceramics.
81
Saar Oosterhof devised springy floor tiles made of poly -
urethane and Arian Brekveld a hanging lamp made of soft pvc. In this way
materials, techniques and functions were reconsidered, and then deployed
in new ways. Sometimes this involved engaging the help of others, for
instance, Delft Technical Universitys Faculty of Space and Aviation
Technology, the Rosenthal porcelain factory (Germany) and Tichelaars
Pottery (Makkum), to provide the premises, money and wherewithal to
realize revolutionary ideas.
Droog reached its peak in conceptual design in 2000 with the Droog do
create collection. This comprised a series of objects that had to be nished
off or decorated by the user. A metal cube by Marijn van der Poll had to be
Dick van Hoff (Droog
Design), tap, 1995.

forcefully modelled into the shape of a chair with the aid of an enclosed mal-
let. A vase could be dropped and smashed into pieces, but its latex
inner-wall kept it all in one piece. A chair by Jurgen Bey, with one leg much
too short, had to be kept in balance by a pile of books. The whole collection
was presented with the aid of a provocative publicity campaign run by the
rm KesselsKramer. It was obvious, though, that these types of products
would not reach the general consumer market.
82
Most Droog products were very successful among those in the cultural
circuit. They principally featured in art magazine articles, and their major
purchasers were museums. Tejo Remys chest of drawers was included in
the International Design Yearbook (1994), compiled by Ron Arad, and was
acquired in that same year by the Boijmans Van Beuningen Museum. In 1997
the Centraal Museum in Utrecht obtained all the products more than a
hundred that had appeared under the Droog label up to that date.
Furniture by Droog and by other comparable high-prole Dutch designers
was used by the rm Opera Ontwerpers (Opera Designers) for the Museum
of Modern Arts restaurant in New York, furnishing the Dutch Garden Caf
with the support of the Design Institute, the Ministry of Education, Cultural
228 Dutch Design
Marcel Wanders (Droog
Design), chair knotted of
carbon bre and steeped
in epoxy, 1996.

Affairs and Science (ocw), and the Dutch Consulate. The chairs and tables
were by Piet Hein Eek, the lamps by Rody Graumans and the bar and serv-
ing trolleys by Joep van Lieshout. Also part of this effective propaganda
campaign for avant-garde Dutch design was a presentation of Dutch posters.
Nonetheless, commercial results were not forthcoming, with the
exception of a few incidental successes. Conceptual ideas in Dutch design,
and Droogs conceptual ideas in particular, were on the receiving end of
criticism.
83
Their idiosyncrasy and irony were regularly dismissed for
KesselsKramer/
Droog design, presenta-
tion of a Do-create
design for a chair by
Marijn van der Poll, 2000.
Dutch Garden Caf
at the Museum of Modern
Art in New York with
furniture by Piet Hein Eek,
a bar by Joep van Lieshout
and lamps by Rody
Graumans, 1995.

being too non-committal, while this deliberate reflection on their own
functioning was regarded as a dead end leading nowhere or a diversionary
tactic. A number of critics were more inclined to regard their dogged
search for the simplest form, or rather the products alleged primitive
form, as a sign of intellectual poverty rather than a durable idea. Moreover,
they questioned whether the consciousness-raising the conceptual design-
ers had hoped to incite was actually taking place. Were the Dutch en masse
starting to think differently about design? Were styling and fashion judged
more critically? Were people leading more frugal lives and were more
products being recycled? Were consumers becoming more conscious of
the materials used, and the technology employed, to turn out the products
surrounding them in everyday life? Droog was repeatedly criticized for
being a media machine. The designers were reproached for shirking their
duty to society by wallowing in their non-committal stance, which was still
acceptable in art circles.
84
At present, the feeling of euphoria that was
induced by Dutch Design does not seem to have run its course completely,
although in several places a re-evaluation of industrial design can be seen
to be taking place. For the time being, however, it is too soon to draw any
conclusions about this new development.
On a global level, Dutch designs not produced under the Droog label
were also capable of success, as was shown at the exhibition The Foreign
Affairs of Dutch Design, which was mounted by the Dutch Designers
Union (Bond van Nederlandse Ontwerpers, bno) and the Premsela
Foundation (Stichting Premsela) and travelled the world from 2004 to
2006.
85
In addition to the typical Droog products by Hella Jongerius,
Marcel Wanders and Jurgen Bey, they also displayed the internationally
successful Bugaboo childrens prams by Max Barenbrug and Eduard Zanen,
as well as Gerard Ungers letter designs, Jan Jansens shoes, Alexander van
Slobbes fashion wear, Dick Brunas childrens books, KesselsKramers
publicity campaigns for Diesel jeans, Paul Mijksenaars signposting and
Marlies Dekkerss lingerie. The collection could have been enlarged to
include many other hits too, since it would not have been amiss to include
the clever Maxi Cosi by Huibert Groenendijk; Van Berkels slicing
machines, which could be found in butchers shops all over Europe and
had recently been redesigned by Well Design; the extremely popular
Senseo automatic coffee-maker by Waacs Design for Philips and Sara Lee;
and last, but not least, the Philips Compact Disc and its associated cd
jewel case designed by Peter Doodson.
86
Despite the decline in production of consumer goods, these and a few
thousand other Dutch designers were still able to achieve much. The tno
230 Dutch Design

report of 2005 quoted in the Introduction showed evidence of this: design is
an important facet of the creative economy of the country, even though the
production of many of these new designs increasingly takes place in low-
wage countries in Eastern Europe and Asia, rather than in the Netherlands.
Two factors explain how, out of all these designs, those of conceptual
Dutch design have been able to attract so much publicity despite their lack
of commercial success. First, this has been down to the exceptional inter-
est shown for these objects by those in design education. At the Academy
of Industrial Design in Eindhoven, for example, which since 1997 has been
known as the Design Academy, they have been focusing on conceptual
design since the early 1990s. The original departments of product design,
packaging and textiles (see chapter Four) were replaced by less commer-
cial-sounding branches of study like Man and Leisure, Man and Identity
and Man and Living. Since then creative invention and controversial
points of view have been more appreciated in this house of concepts than
expertise in the technological side of production or analytical insight.
87
Job
Smeets, Joris Laarmans, Maarten Baas and the twins Joep and Jeroen
Verhoeven are among those who graduated from there not so long ago and
achieved rapid worldwide fame.
88
An increasing amount of interest in this
new outlook on design has been shown by other academies, too: in 1995,
for example, a postgraduate Free Design course was opened at the Rietveld
Academy in Amsterdam.
Huibert Groenendijk,
designs for the Maxi Cosi
Plus car seat, 1998.

A second factor that was important for the remarkable success of
Dutch design is related, particularly in the eyes of foreigners, to the unique
subsidy culture in the Netherlands. As far back as the 1980s the Dutch gov-
ernment viewed design very much as a cultural asset, and in accordance
with their convictions they embarked upon an incentives policy, believing
that modern design was a good way of bringing people into contact with art
and culture. This constituted a shift in government design policy from stim-
ulating contacts with trade and industry to supporting individual designers
and subsidizing exhibitions and publications aimed at attracting an audi-
ence. The Dutch Art and Design Fund can nancially support a whole range
of schemes thought up by designers and artists: with the aid of a starters
grant an ofce or studio can be set up, the equipment required nanced
by the Facilities Fund (Voorzieningenfonds) and the rent for a place to
work reimbursed from yet another source. There are also separate grants
available for taking part in international shows and exhibitions, and
government-nanced studios and workshops in various large capitals are
available for a circumscribed period of time. In this way, with a little luck
and talent, a young designer is granted a number of relatively carefree years
in which he has the opportunity to build a name for himself.
89
Activities and initiatives organized by institutions, foundations and
publishing houses mainly exhibitions and publications are supported
by the Mondriaan Stichting. Grants awarded by the Ministry of Foreign
Well Design, Xenta coun-
tertop pay terminal for
Banksys Worldline Brand,
2005.
232 Dutch Design

Affairs (known as hgis-Cultuurmiddelen), local funds and various munici-
pal and provincial nancial arrangements complete the picture. All this has
led to the paradoxical situation that the more deant, critical and non-con-
formist the designers or artists were inclined to be, the more strange,
colourful, funny or extreme their designs became, the greater their cultural
standing seemed to become, and the more nancial aid they were able to
attract. This investment in high-prole, pioneering design was seen by the
government as a demonstration of social-democratic commitment to visual
culture in the public domain.
Institutes and Prizes
Finally, the vicissitudes of the National Institute of Design and the way the
large national design prizes are run are two subjects that have continued to
preoccupy those in the design world. Both have provoked vehement discus-
sion without ever arriving at viable conclusions.
After the war there were more than four national design organizations
in the Netherlands (the exact number depends on the way such an organiza-
tion is dened). After the iiv closed in 1976, the Industrial Design
Founda tion (Stichting Industrieel Ontwerpen, ion), the Dutch Form
Foundation and the National Design Institute tried to function as such, but
for totally different reasons they did not succeed. Since 2002 the Premsela
Stichting, however, seems to have been successful. The ion, founded in 1984,
had a typically pragmatic attitude and considered its main tasks to be the
improvement of industrial design, as well as mediation between designer
and trade and industry, and the search for a potential market. It was a plat-
form for both the industrial designer and the business world. From 1985
onwards the foundation published the periodical Industrieel ontwerpen
(Designing for Industry) and since 1987 it has conferred the annual recogni-
tion for Good Design for Industry on products from various sectors. The
Dutch Form Foundation was initiated in 1989 to ll the space left open for
theory, debate and the more artistic side of the discipline.
The national Design Institute (Vormgevingsinstituut), established in
1993, took a different direction with culture at its core. This organization
chose to promote discourse in the eld of design and focused on new
media. Unfortunately, most of the discussions about the discipline initiated
by the Institute were not ultimately about the subject, but about the way the
institution itself functioned.
Regardless, interesting initiatives have been taken, such as the success-
ful conferences about new media titled Doors of Perception, the initiatives of

the Young Designers & Industry, the contacts with developing countries in the
Crossroads project and its activities in the eld of ecological design.
90
A great
drawback, however, was that they appealed to only a very few Dutch design-
ers and rms. Most of them pulled out of the organization. Their objection,
in a nutshell, amounted to the fact that the Institutes activities were no
longer about them. So, after the Institute had been in existence for ten years,
the curtain came down for the last time.
91
It no longer had sufcient support.
The Culture Council (Raad voor Cultuur), which had functioned since 1995
as the Dutch governments statutory advisory body on formulating cultural
policy, published a pejorative report about the Vormgevingsinstituut and in
2000 it was closed down. The ion, which was still in existence, amalgamat-
ed with the Good Industrial Design Foundation (Stichting Goed Industrieel
Ontwerp) in 2001 to form the Designlink Foundation.
In 2000 the Temporary Design Advisory Committee (Tijdelijke
Adviescommissie Vormgeving) convinced the government that nonethe-
less a new Design Institute should be founded. This is why the Premsela
Foundation (Premsela Stichting) was established in 2002. Its aim is to
bridge the gap between designers, society and trade and industry, thus
bringing culture and commerce closer together. The foundation has been in
existence only for a short while, but it is beginning to look as if it has struck
the right note and will be successful in improving the Dutch design climate
and in integrating the fragmented world of design culture.
92
There has also been a great deal of change in the employers organiza-
tions and in professional associations in recent years. Since 1996 the
Pro fessional Association of Dutch Designers (beroepsvereniging Neder landse
Ontwerpers, bno), incorporating the Industrial Designers Circle (kio), has
built up a membership of more than two thousand. Its rst chairman was
Wim Crouwel, the minence grise of Dutch design.
93
Finally, the specialist journals were confronted with an equally turbulent
ending to the millennium, if they actually managed to reach it at all. In 1996
Bijvoorbeeld was discontinued. Items and Industrieel Ontwerpen amalgamated
in 1993 to carry on jointly under the former title. Vormberichten, the bnos
mouthpiece, managed to survive, but had to submit to several editorial reor-
ganizations. Since 1993 the Delft Faculty of Industrial Design has published
the periodical Product. Vaktijdschrift voor productontwikkeling (Product.
Specialist Journal for Product Development). Other new magazines are the
luxuriously glossy Frame, mainly focusing on interiors, and Identity Matters
(im), a periodical devoted entirely to corporate identity, packaging and pub-
licity. Finally, since 2005 the Premsela Foundation has published a collection
of old and new texts on design biannually under the name Morf.
234 Dutch Design

The second bone of contention was design prizes. Design competitions
and the presentation of prizes and awards, some of which have already been
mentioned, gave rise to heated debates. For many years there were different
prizes for the various sectors in design. The Gouden Noot (Golden Nut)
trophy, for example, has been awarded since 1958 for the best-designed pack-
aging. Designers or organizations that had been important in the eld of
colour could win the Sikkens prize (Sikkens was an independent Dutch
paint rm, and is now part of Akzo-Nobel).
94
Each year there is a presenta-
tion of the Fifty Best-Looking Books. However, the prize that has perhaps
generated the most publicity since 1988 is the hema design competition, run
by the popular chainstore selling clothes and household goods to be found
in every Dutch town and open to designers still in training. The winning
design must meet the hema criteria of being simple, nice and affordable; the
prizewinning design then goes into production and is sold in their stores.
The Rotterdam Design prize was initiated in 1993 by the Rotterdam Art
Foundation (Rotterdamse Kunst Stichting).
95
During the last decade of the
twentieth century this was the prize that caused the most controversy. This
competition is open to everyone and, once the entries have been received, a
national nomination committee makes a rst selection that is presented at
the Design prize exhibition. The next step is that an international jury
makes its nal choice. The winner receives a large sum of money. Every
year the entries cover the most divergent subjects, varying from books,
jewellery, vases and lamps to a light buoy, a postmans carrier tricycle and
even small buildings like a heat exchange unit. People send in traditional
designs, functional products and examples of controversial conceptual
design, although in recent years the balance is starting to tip in favour of
the last category. This great diversity in itself invariably leads to many
discussions. How can such different entries actually be compared with one
another fairly? Is it not just an attempt to
compare apples to pears?
Despite all these objections, the nomina-
tion and jury reports still manage to give a
good idea of the aspects that the jury in that
specic year thought were important and
what the criteria were for their judgement of
the designs. Rather than giving an overview
of the best Dutch products, the successive
selections have represented the way attitudes
towards design culture in the Netherlands
have shifted or, as the design critic Gert Staal
Jeroen Bruijn and Tijl
Akkermans of Thonik
design studio, winners of
the Rotterdam Design
Contest 2007, with
Lideweij Edelkoort of
the Design Academy in
Eindhoven on the right
and the politician Jan
Marynissen on the left.

stated in 2003: the selection procedure, no matter how painstakingly per-
formed, was mainly a vehicle for supporting and presenting innovations in
the discipline.
96
This was in fact the idea from the very start, as the presen-
tation of the rst prize illustrates. The 1993 nomination report records new
standards, in addition to the frequently used, traditional Dutch quality cri-
teria of simplicity, sobriety and unpretentiousness. The selected entries
were now also described as bold, daring and revolutionary, making it clear
that Dutch design and the way it was judged were undeniably changing.
In 2003 many people were discontented with the disproportionately
large amount of interest shown towards conceptual design, so much so that
the Designlink Foundation, together with the bno, took the initiative to
organize a new, more pragmatic and commercial design competition. In
this new annually organized Dutch Design competition, entries can be sub-
mitted in sixteen different categories. Unlike the Rotterdam Design prize,
the organization remains in close contact with trade and industry, once
again arousing discussions and debates.
97
236 Dutch Design

In 2007 the Dutch government promoted a new history syllabus programme,
with Gerrit Rietvelds slatted chair as one of the central logos, under the
heading Revolution in Design, reinforcing the chairs iconic status to school
pupils. Yet whichever way you approach it, choosing what is most character-
istic of Dutch design or indeed its most characteristic design object
remains debatable.
This book has attempted to illustrate how design has been characterized
in Dutch culture, as well as how designers and manufacturers have respond-
ed to social and economic conditions. While the book cannot offer an
encyclopaedic survey or a comprehensive quantitative study, it has tried
to highlight how design has been subject to certain interpretations and how,
throughout the twentieth century, it has been subject to under-exposure
as well as over-exposure. If a rm failed to submit an entry to the Paris
Exposition Universelle (1900), like many important Dutch rms at that time,
no interest was generated in its products and consequently nobody wrote
about them. The reverse also holds true: many publications in the 1920s and
30s overrated Berlages role in the modernization of design. As we have also
seen, the choice of illustrations in vank publications was controlled, while the
Goed Wonen Foundations and the iivs policies in the mid-twentieth-centu-
ry were in fact determined by a very small group of fellow-believers; later,
the interpretation of subsidy schemes run by the government in the 1980s and
90s may have been biased. This holds true to this day: we will need time
and a certain amount of objectivity to examine critically how appropriate
the enormous amount of recent interest has been in Dutch design.
What does remain undisputed, however, is that nowadays in all layers
and all sectors of Dutch society there has been a steadily increasing interest
Conclusion
237
237_240_Dutch Des_Conclusion:014_045_Des.Mod_Chap1 20/8/08 15:09 Page 237

in design. The outer appearance of products, indeed the entire visual and
material culture in the broadest sense of the word, plays a far greater role in
the everyday lives of the Dutch today than it did a hundred years ago.
Design has become an expression of identity, with more attention paid to
the decor of personal and public life than ever before. The public pay more
attention too to the designers themselves, familiar as they are not only with
international celebrities such as Philippe Starck, Ettore Sottsass and Karl
Lagerfeld, but also Dutch names such as Benno Premsela, Wim Crouwel,
Marcel Wanders and the fashion designers Viktor & Rolf, especially after
the haute-couture team designed the wedding dress of one of the Dutch
princesses a few years ago. Names from the past like Willem Gispen and, of
course, Gerrit Rietveld have steadily ltered through to the publics collec-
tive consciousness.
As regards which themes, as opposed to which names, have been
prevalent in the history of Dutch design, I will hazard a few conclusions
drawn from the preceding chapters. It is striking how persistent certain
topics in design culture have proven to be. Contemporary designers some-
times forget that the issues preoccupying them today were at the forefront
of discussion over a hundred years ago. One example is the role of handi-
craft. Throughout the whole of the last century designers have displayed an
almost unremitting, sometimes romantically tinged, devotion to handi-
work and small-scale enterprise, which they felt allowed room for personal
expression and the production of unique objects. Even in the 1950s and
60s, when industrialization was welcomed with open arms, designers con-
tinued to cherish handicraft. Another example relates to how the design of
everyday objects and appliances should relate to something approaching
art. Throughout the entire century there proved to be designers whose
main ambition was to create artistic artefacts, who felt that the design of a
good, beautiful or handy household object was not enough of a challenge.
We have also noted that artisan or artistic design has always attracted
far more publicity than anonymous mass-produced articles, no matter how
functional, commercially successful or beautiful these may have been. This
has led to a rift between the two branches of design culture. A handful of
artist-designers have become household names, whilst the great multitude
of draughtsmen and designers who worked for large rms like Daalderop,
Inventum and the scores of smaller furniture factories in the rst quarter of
the century, or those at Tiger, Gazelle, Brabantia and even Philips at the end
of the century, have remained anonymous not to mention the hundreds
of unidentied advertisement designers. Who is familiar with the names of
the designers of hema products despite the fact that hema items can be
238 Dutch Design

found in every Dutch household? This rift has also widened in recent years
as globalization has progressed. Industrial production in the Netherlands
reached its peak in the 1960s and has been on a steady decline ever since.
During the last few years a growing number of established rms such as
Philips have decided to move their manufacture to Eastern Europe or Asia.
Designers still carry on doing their work, but increasingly they are working
for colossal companies in countries a long way off, or with artisans in those
faraway countries. Globalization did not narrow the gap between these
long-distance designers and the group of designers mainly addressing the
cultural circuit at home, with their still often socially committed messages.
One persistent issue perhaps best typies Dutch design: the designers
social and ethical responsibility. Whether this has become a main concern
as a result of Calvinism, or whether it is related to the democratic principles
and middle-class values that have been typical of Dutch society for the last
few centuries, goes beyond the scope of this book. It is, however, true to say
that the focus of this presupposed moral or social responsibility has shifted.
Many designers at the start of the century chiefly addressed themselves to
the task of educating the general public and spreading good taste, after
which they concentrated on the social question. In the 1970s democratiza-
tion occupied centre stage; today globalization and the environment are the
most important issues. But the one connecting thread from the past up to
the present day is designers faith in their work as a means of contributing
to a solution to these successive problems.
Designers have worked with a whole range of aesthetic principles but
above all it is simplicity, austerity and affordability that have gained sup-
port. In the Netherlands you can generally rely on an ordinary, serviceable
and preferably cheap product being more widely appreciated than an
expensive, eye-catching model whose material, shape and colour have been
meticulously chosen. Too much interest in design is soon suspect in a coun-
try where, even in the past, rich clients have been few and far between, and
where the tenor is: its better to be just normal than to try to stand out from
the crowd.
Yet it is often forgotten that there has always been a niche market for
the more lavish and luxurious product. At the beginning of the twentieth
century, for instance, Carel Lion Cachets and Theo Colenbranders expen-
sive and extremely imaginative designs were very highly rated. Later the
Amsterdam Schools exceedingly inventive design was held in great esteem.
In the 1950s the public admired liners and large, streamlined American
cars, even while they lived in plain Goed Wonen interiors. Today the most
extravagant and expensive one-off products by the newest genera tion of
239 Conclusion

designers nd their way into the homes of interested buyers objects such
as Maarten Baass scorched chairs and Piet Hein Eeks scrap-wood furniture.
A nal theme to note is how just as much interest has always been
shown in the means of selling new products as in the products themselves.
Graphic design, typography and letter designs have always been important
in the Netherlands. Effectively communicating a message is probably still
rated higher in Dutch design than a demonstrable commercial success. This
might be explained by the fact that the Netherlands has continued to be
a nation in which trade is more important than production. Good and
effectively designed advertisements or packaging are essential to increasing
turnover. From advertising posters from the early 1900s, print work for the
Amsterdam Municipal Council in the 1920s, revolutionary phototypogra-
phy in the 1930s, stirring cultural posters in the 1950s and 60s, almost the
entire collection of post-war design carried out for the ptt, to house-style
campaigns in the 1970s and avant-garde theatre posters in the 80s, this
tradition continues to the several prestigious Dutch advertising and public-
ity studios working internationally today.
The medium is the message: The Dutch have always been able to see the
truth of this maxim, which may explain why irony and conceptuality play
such a prominent role in contemporary Dutch design culture. This has
probably been strengthened by the fact that no one style has been domi-
nant since the 1980s, and freedom and independence have been more valued
than ever before.
240 Dutch Design

241
Introduction
1 Paul Rutten et al., Vormgeving in de Creatieve Economie
[TNO-rapport 33553] (Delft, 2005).
2 Rapport der Rijks-Commissie tot het instellen van een onder-
zoek naar de toestand der Nederlandsche Kunst-Nijverheid
(s-Gravenhage, 1878).
3 J. Bouman, P. Schuitema and P. Zwart, Rapport inzake
de richtlijnen en mogelijkheden eener technisch-kunstzinnig
verantwoorde industrieele productie van gebruiksvoorwerpen
op basis eener sociaal economisch verantwoorde productie
(The Hague, 1944).
4 See, for instance, Henri Baudet, Een vertrouwde wereld:
100 jaar Innovatie in Nederland (Amsterdam, 1986),
where technique and innovation are starting points for
essays on the history of design. The book that accompa-
nied the television Teleac-course, Reyer Kras, Nederlands
Fabrikaat: Industrile Vormgeving (Utrecht and Bussum,
1997), treats the history of industrial design in the
Netherlands from several interesting and unexpected
angles. Timo de Rijk studied the history of the design
of electrical appliances from the background of design
policy related to new philosophies on consumption and
marketing: Timo de Rijk, Het Elektrische Huis: Vormgeving
en acceptatie van elektrische huishoudelijke apparaten in
Nederland (Rotterdam, 1998). Anthropological and soci-
ological sides of the history of design got full attention
in articles by Irene Cieraad in Jaap Huisman et al., 100
jaar Wonen in Nederland (Rotterdam, 2000). Important
surveys of the twentieth century include: Ellinoor
Bergvelt, ed., Industry and Design in the Netherlands,
18501950, exh. cat., Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam
(1985); Gert Staal and Hester Wolters, eds, Holland in
Vorm: Dutch Design, 19451987 (The Hague, 1987); M.
Titus Elins, Marjan Groot and Frans Leidelmeijer,
Dutch Decorative Arts, 18801940 (Bussum, 1997);
Frederike Huygen, Visies op Vormgeving: Het Nederlandse
ontwerpen in teksten Deel i: 18741940 (Amsterdam, 2007:
part ii forthcoming, Autumn 2008). Studies dealing
with specic aspects of design include: Ellinoor Bergvelt,
Frans van Burkom and Karin Gaillard, eds, From
Neorenaissance to Postmodernism: A Hundred and Twenty-
ve Years of Dutch Interiors, 18701995 (Rotterdam, 1996);
Jan Middendorp, Dutch Type (Rotterdam, 2004); Marjan
Groot, Vrouwen in de vormgeving, 18801940 (Rotterdam,
2007). A recent study, indicating a marked preference
for architecture and graphic design, is Aaron Betsky and
Adam Eeuwens, False Flat: Why Dutch Design Is so Good
(London and New York, 2004).
1 On Dutch culture around 1900 in general, see Jan Bank
and Maarten van Buuren, 1900: Hoogtij van burgerlijke
cultuur (The Hague, 2000). Recent general surveys of
applied arts and design in this period with extended
bibliographies are: Ellinoor Bergvelt, Frans van Burkom
and Karin Gaillard, eds, From Neorenaissance to
Postmodernism: A Hundred and Twenty-ve Years of Dutch
Interiors, 18701995 (Rotterdam, 1996); Titus. M. Elins,
Marjan Groot and Frans Leidelmeijer, Dutch Decorative
Arts, 18801940 (Bussum, 1997); Jan Jaap Hey,
Vernieuwing en bezinning: Nederlandse beeldende kunst en
kunstnijverheid ca 18851935 uit de collectie van het Drents
Museum, exh. cat., Drents Museum, Assen (Zwolle,
2004). The rst ground-breaking overview of this period
in Dutch decorative arts was: L. Gans, Nieuwe Kunst: De
Nederlandse bijdrage aan de Art Nouveau (Utrecht, 1966).
Most of the artists, designers, workshops, rms and
References
241_272_Dutch Des_End :232_999_Des.Mod_End 20/8/08 15:23 Page 241

242
factories mentioned in this chapter are also dealt with
in Industry and Design in the Netherlands, 18501950, exh.
cat., Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam (1985), or in Timo
de Rijk, ed., Designers in Nederland: Een eeuw productvor-
mgeving (Amsterdam and Gent, 2003). Specially for
female designers, see Marjan Groot, Vrouwen in de vorm-
geving, 18801940 (Rotterdam, 2007). An interesting
overview of primary sources can be found in Frederike
Huygen, Visies op Vormgeving: Het Nederlandse ontwerpen
in teksten Deel, i: 18741940 (Amsterdam, 2007).
2 Verslag der Centrale Commissie tot inrichting van de afdee-
lingen van Nederland en zijne Kolonin en tot behartiging
van de belangen der inzenders in die afdeelingen op de
Wereldtentoonstelling te Parijs in 1900 (Haarlem, 1902).
3 Jos Hilkhuijsen, Delftse Art Nouveau: Onderwijs en ont-
werp van Adolf le Compte (18501921), Karel Sluyterman
(18631931) en Bram Gips (18611943), exh. cat., Drents
Museum, Assen (Zwolle, 2001), pp. 713. On Art
Nouveau in Belgium and Congo-style, see Claire
Leblanc, Art Nouveau and Design: Sierkunst van 1830 tot
Expo 58 (Tielt, 2005), pp. 946.
4 Robert Fock, Maastrichtse serviezen, 19171937 (Zwolle,
2007), pp. 1218; Marie Rose Bogaers, Drukdecors op
Maastrichts aardewerk, 18501900 (Lochem, 1992).
5 G.P.J. Verbong, Technische innovaties in de katoendrukkerij
en -ververij in Nederland, 18351920 [neha series iii],
(Amsterdam, 1988); Katoendruk in Nederland, exh. cat.,
Textielmuseum, Tilburg, and Gemeentemuseum,
Helmond (1989).
6 O. Gerdeil, La Hollande lExposition Universelle, LArt
dcoratif, iii (November 1900), pp. 7283.
7 Verslag der Centrale Commissie, pp. 1667.
8 J.M.W. van Voorst tot Voorst, Nederland op de
Wereldtentoonstelling van 1851 te Londen, Nederlandse
kunstnijverheid en interieurkunst, Nederlands Kunst -
historisch Jaarboek 30 (Haarlem, 1980), pp. 47592;
Titus M. Elins, Kunst Nijverheid Kunstnijverheid: De
nationale nijverheidstentoonstellingen als spiegel van de
Nederlandse kunstnijverheid in de negentiende eeuw
(Zutphen, 1990), pp. 5962. For a complete survey of the
interior arts and furniture industry in the Netherlands
in the second half of the nineteenth century, see J.M.W.
van Voorst tot Voorst, Tussen Biedermeier en Berlage:
Meubel en interieur in Nederland, 18351895 (Amsterdam,
1992).
9 H. W. Lintsen, ed., Geschiedenis van de Techniek in
Nederland: De wording van een moderne samenleving,
18001890, Techniek en samenleving vi (Zutphen, 1995).
An excellent publication on the modernization of the
Dutch infrastructure in the nineteenth century is Auke
van der Woud, Een Nieuwe Wereld: Het ontstaan van het
moderne Nederland (Amsterdam, 2006).
10 Mienke Simon Thomas, Het ornament, het verleden en
de natuur, drie hoofdthemas in het denken over vorm-
geving in Nederland 18701890, in That Special Touch:
Vormgeving tussen kunst en massaprodukt, Nederlands
Kunsthis torisch Jaarboek 39 (Haarlem, 1989), pp. 2760.
11 Elins, Kunst Nijverheid Kunstnijverheid, pp. 97113.
12 J. R. de Kruyff, De Nederlandsche kunstnijverheid in ver-
band met den Internationalen Wedstrijd bij gelegenheid van
de in 1877 te Amsterdam te houden tentoonstelling van Kunst
toegepast op Nijverheid uitgeschreven door de afdeeling
Amsterdam der Vereeniging tot bevordering van Fabrieks- en
Handwerksnijverheid in Nederland (Amsterdam, 1879), p. 3.
13 Rapport der Rijks-Commissie tot het instellen van een onder-
zoek naar de toestand der Nederlandsche Kunst-Nijverheid
(s-Gravenhage, 1878).
14 H. H. Pijzel-Dommisse, Het Museum en de School voor
Kunstnijverheid in de periode 19771926, in Paviljoen
Welgelegen, 17891989: Van buitenplaats van de bankier Hope
tot zetel van de provincie Noord Holland (Haarlem, 1989),
pp. 15172; Huygen, Visies op Vormgeving, pp. 1422.
15 F. W. van Eeden, De Internationale Tentoonstelling te
Londen in 1862, Tijdschrift uitgegeven door de
Nederlandsche Maatschappij ter bevordering van
Nijverheid, 26 (1863). See from the same author in this
magazine in 1864 the series Versiering en kunststijl in
de nijverheid.
16 Jan de Maeyer, P.J.H. Cuypers in internationaal, compa-
ratief perspectief: de Nederlandse Viollet-le-Duc?, in
P.J.H. Cuypers (18271921): Het complete werk, ed. Hetty
Berends (Rotterdam, 2007), pp. 4351; A.J.C. van
Leeuwen, P.J.H. Cuypers, Architect, 18271927 (Zwolle,
2007).
17 For the start of design education in the nineteenth cen-
tury, see Van Voorst tot Voort, Tussen Biedermeier en
Berlage, pp. 81100; Adi Martis, Voor de Kunst en voor
de Nijverheid: Het ontstaan van het Kunstnijver -
heidsonderwijs in Nederland, dissertation, University
of Amsterdam, 1990.
18 H. L. Boersma, Meer dan een Verslag, De Tijdspiegel, ii
(1879), pp. 12947.
19 Mienke Simon Thomas, De Leer van het Ornament:
Versieren volgens voorschrift, 18501930 (Amsterdam,
1996).
20 Marty Bax, Het Web der schepping: Theosoe en kunst in
Nederland van Lauweriks tot Mondriaan (Nijmegen, 2006).
21 M. de Bois, Chris Lebeau, 1878-1945, exh. cat., Drents
Museum, Assen (Zwolle, 1983); L. F. Jintes and J. T.
Pol-Tyszkiewicz, Chris van der Hoef, 18751933, exh. cat.,
Rijkmuseum Het Koninklijk Penningkabinet, Leiden,
and Drents Museum, Assen (1994).
22 Simon Thomas, De Leer van het Ornament, p. 79.
23 J. R. ter Molen, ed., Frans Zwollo sr, 18721945, en zijn tijd
/ Frans Zwollo sr, 18721945, und seine Zeit, exh. cat.,
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam (1982).

243
24 Titus Elins et al., Delfts aardewerk: geschiedenis van een
nationaal product, iii: De Porceleyne Fles (Zwolle, 2003).
25 Yvonne Brentjens, Rozenburg: Plateel uit Haagse kringen
(18831917), exh. cat., Gemeentemuseum, The Hague
(Zwolle, 2007); Titus Elins, T.A.C. Colenbrander (1841-
1930): Ontwerper van de Haagse Plateelbakkerij Rozenburg,
exh. cat., Gemeentemuseum, The Hague (Zwolle, 1999).
26 H.E. van Gelder, Pottenbakkerskunst [De toegepaste kun-
sten in Nederland] (Rotterdam, 1923).
27 Marijke E. Spliethoff, Feestelijke geschenken voor de jonge
koningin, 18981913 (Amsterdam and The Hague, 1998),
pp. 110, 113.
28 Adri van der Meulen and Paul Smeele, De pottenbakkers
van Friesland, 17501950: het ambacht, de mensen, het aar-
dewerk (Leiden, 2004).
29 Mariannne Heslenfeld, De collectie Holland: art nouveau-
keramiek van de nv Faience en Tegelfabriek Holland,
18941918, exh. cat., Museum Het Princessehof,
Leeuwarden (2007); Elins et al., Delfts aardewerk; F. D.
Doornberg et al., Purmerends Jugenstil Aardewerk,
18951907 (Purmerend, 1995); Hans Vogels, N.V.
Plateelbakkerij Zuid-Holland, exh. cat., Museum Het
Catharina Gasthuis, Gouda (Zwolle, 1994); Jan Danil
van Dam, Amstelhoek, 18971910, exh. cat., Museum Het
Princessehof, Leeuwarden (1986). For these rms, see
also Eugne Langendijk and Mienke Simon Thomas,
Dutch Art Nouveau and Art Deco Ceramics, 18801940,
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam (2001).
30 Mienke Simon Thomas, K.V.T., in Industry and Design
in the Netherlands, pp. 947.
31 Mechteld de Bois, ed., C.A. Lion Cachet, 18641945, exh.
cat., Drents Museum, Assen (Zwolle, 1994), pp. 2851;
Yvonne Brentjens, G. W. Dijsselhof (18661924): Dwalen
door het Paradijs, exh. cat., Gemeentemuseum, The
Hague (Zwolle, 2002), pp. 813.
32 Cor de Wit, Chris en Agathe Wegerif, dragers van de nieuwe
kunst in Apeldoorn (Apeldoorn, 1994); Marjan Groot, Een
dilemma voor de Nieuwe Kunst: Modern eclecticisme in
de meubelkunst van Chris Wegerif voor de rma Arts
and Crafts, 19011906, Jong Holland, 2 (1998), pp. 3651;
Joop Joosten, Henry van de Velde en Nederland, 1892
1902: De Belgische art nouveau en de Nederlandse
Nieuwe Kunst, Cahiers Henry van de Velde, xii/xiii
(1974), pp. 2832.
33 T. M. Elins, H. P. Berlage (18561934): Ontwerpen voor het
interieur, exh. cat., Gemeentemuseum, The Hague (Zwolle,
1998), pp. 234.
34 Annelies Krekel-Aalberse and Willem Voorthuysen,
Zeist, zilver, werken (Zwolle, 2004); S.A.C. Begeer et al.,
Mensen en zilver, bijna twee eeuwen werken voor Van
Kempen en Begeer, Zonnehof, Amersfoort, and Museum
Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam (1975). On Dutch
silversmiths around 1900 in general, see Annelies
Krekel-Aalberse, Art Nouveau and Art Deco Silver (London,
1989), pp. 13790; Annelies Krekel-Aalberse, Zilver / Silver
/ Silber: 18801940: Art Nouveau / Art Deco, exh. cat.,
Gemeentemuseum, The Hague (Stuttgart, 2001).
35 A. Krekel-Aalberse and E. Raasen-Kruimel, Jan
Eisenloeffel, 18761957, exh. cat., Singermuseum, Laren,
and Drents Museum, Assen (Zwolle, 1996).
36 Eerste Internationale Tentoonstelling van Moderne
Decoratieve Kunst te Turijn 1902: Verslag van de
Nederlandsche Afdeeling (Haarlem, n.d.), pp. 1415;
M. Boot, Olanda, in Torino 1902: le arti decorative inter-
nazionale del nuevo secolo, exh. cat. (Turin, 1994), pp.
488529.
37 Mario Benders, Van Vlissingen, in Industry and Design
in the Netherlands, pp. 9093.
38 Karin Gaillard, Sober Honesty, Comfortable Simplicity
in Bergvelt, Van Burkom and Gaillard, eds, From
Neorenaissance to Postmodernism, pp. 5883; Elins, H. P.
Berlage (18561934).
39 L. Tibbe et al., Jac. van den Bosch, 18681948, exh. cat.,
Drents Museum, Assen (Zwolle, 1987).
40 Hey, Vernieuwing en bezinning, pp. 1789.
41 Enrico Thovez, The International Exhibition of Modern
Decorative Art at Turin: The Dutch Section, The Studio,
xxvi (1902), pp. 20413. Only one side of the screen was
saved in the collection of the Gemeentemuseum in The
Hague. Brentjens, G. W. Dijsselhof, pp. 8894.
42 For a recent publication on this subject, see Lieske
Tibbe, Gemeenschapskunst: de samenleving in symbo-
len, in M. Bax and C. Blotkamp, Int diepst van mijn
gedachten . . . Symbolisme in Nederland ca 18901930, exh.
cat., Drents Museum, Assen (Zwolle, 2004).
43 Thovez, The International Exhibition.
44 P.J.W.J. van der Burgh, De Nederlandse inzending op de
eerste internationale tentoonstelling voor moderne
decoratieve kunst te Turijn, Elseviers Gellustreerd
Maandschrift, xiii/25 (1903), pp. 320.
45 Manfred Bock, Anfnge einer neuen Architektur: Berlages
Beitrag zur architektonischen Kultur der Niederlande im
ausgehenden 19. Jahrhundert (The Hague and Wiesbaden,
1983).
46 Elins, H. P. Berlage (18561934), pp. 6477; E. P. Tibbe,
R. N. Roland Holst, arbeid en schoonheid vereend: opvattin-
gen over gemeenschapskunst (Amsterdam, 1994).
47 M. Boot, Carel Henny en zijn huis: een demonstratie
van goed wonen rond de eeuwwisseling in H. P.
Berlage, 18461934; een bouwmeester en zijn tijd, Het
Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 25 (Bussum, 1975),
pp. 91131; Gaillard, Sober Honesty.
48 Harm Ellens, Onze Disch, [De Toegepaste Kunsten in
Nederland] (Rotterdam, 1926), p. 8.
49 Jo de Jong, De Nieuwe Richting in de kunstnijverheid in
Nederland: Schets eener geschiedenis der Nederlandsche

244
kunstnijverheidsbeweging (Rotterdam, 1929), p. 8.
50 Auke van der Woud, Waarheid en Karakter: Het debat
over de bouwkunst, 18401900 (Rotterdam, 1999), pp.
293407.
51 Adi Martis, Some Organizations and their Activities, in
Industry and Design in the Netherlands, pp. 229; Van
Voorst tot Voorst, Tussen Biedermeier en Berlage, pp.
11317; Yvonne Brentjens, K.P.C. de Bazel (18691923):
Ontwerpen voor het interieur, exh. cat.,
Gemeentemuseum, The Hague (Zwolle, 2006), p. 11315.
52 Huygen, Visies op vormgeving, i, pp. 4626; Martis, Some
Organizations, pp. 256.
53 M. Knol, Klaas van Leeuwen, 18681935, Drents Museum,
Assen (Zwolle, 1988).
54 L. Tibbe et al., Jac. van den Bosch, 18681948, exh. cat.,
Drents Museum, Assen (Zwolle, 1987).
55 Elins, Groot en Leidelmeijer, in Dutch Decorative Arts,
pp. 2456.
56 Jan Middendorp, Dutch Type (Rotterdam, 2004),
pp. 4047.
57 Huygen, Visies op Vormgeving, i, pp. 645, 126; Hennie
van der Zande, Van alle markten thuis: Het veelzijdige
oeuvre van de kunstenaar Hendrik (Herman) Hana
18741952, endpaper, Free University Amsterdam,
2004.
58 C. van Adrichem, Willem Penaat, meubelontwerper en
organisator (18751957) (Rotterdam, 1988).
59 The publication of Tak in De Kroniek of 1905 was
reprinted in De Jong, De nieuwe richting (1929),
pp. 426, and again recently in Huygen, Visies op
vormgeving, i, pp. 2025.
60 Voorlopig orgaan (vank) (March 1911), p. 11.
61 Van der Zande, Van alle mark ten thuis, pp. 5664;
Lien Heyting, De wereld in een dorp: schilders, schrijvers
en wereldverbeteraars in Laren en Blaricum, 18801920
(Amsterdam,1994), pp. 18995.
62 K. Sluyterman, Gedenkboek uitgegeven naar aanleiding
van het vijfentwintig jarig bestaan der Vereeniging Art et
Industriae, 18841909 (The Hague, 1910), p. 6; K.
Sluyterman, Hendrik Petrus Berlage Nz., Elsevierss
Geillustreerd Maandschrift, xv/29 (1905), pp. 321.
63 R. L. Miellet, Honderd jaar grootwinkelbedrijf in
Nederland (Zwolle, 1993).
1 For a general overview of the decorative arts and design
in this period, see chapter One, n. 1.
2 Hein A. M. Klemann, Ontwikkeling door isolement,
in Wankel evenwicht: Neutraal Nederland en de Eerste
Wereldoorlog (Soesterberg, 2007), pp. 271309.
3 The lectures of Eisenloeffel and Zwart are published in
Jubileum-Orgaan Nederlandsche Vereeniging voor
Ambachts- en Nijverheidskunst (vank) 1929, pp. 1422 and
228, reprinted in Frederike Huygen, Visies op vormge-
ving. Het Nederlandse ontwerpen in teksten: Deel 1:
18741940 (Bussum, 2007), pp. 34561. A. Krekel-
Aalberse and E. Raasen-Kruimel, Jan Eisenloeffel,
18761957, exh. cat., Singermuseum, Laren, and Drents
Museum, Assen (Zwolle, 1996); Kees Broos, Piet Zwart,
18851977, exh. cat., Gemeentemuseum, The Hague
(Amsterdam, 1982). See also Yvonne Brentjens, Piet
Zwart: Vormingenieur, exh. cat., Gemeentemuseum,
The Hague (Zwolle, 2008).
4 Huygen, Visies op vormgeving, i, pp. 24951.
5 For Zwarts stay at the Bauhaus, see his archive at the
Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie
(Netherlands Institute for Art History), The Hague.
6 Karin Orchard and Isabel Schulz, eds, Kurt Schwitters en
de Avant-garde, exh. cat., Museum Boijmans Van
Beuningen, Rotterdam (2007), pp. 13955, 239; Flip
Bool et al., Piet Zwart (18851977), Monograen van
Nederlandse fotografen 5 (Amsterdam, 1997); Broos,
Piet Zwart, pp. 3453.
7 Annette van der Kley-Blekxtoon, Kristalunie Maastricht
(Lochem, 2003); Broos, Piet Zwart, pp. 323.
8 Corrie van Adrichem, Willem Penaat: Meubelontwerper en
organisator, 18751957 (Rotterdam, 1988); Mienke Simon
Thomas, Corn. van der Sluys: Binnenhuisarchitect, organi-
sator en publicist, 18811944 (Rotterdam, 1988).
9 Mienke Simon Thomas, Cornelis van der Sluys:
Nijverheidskunst in Den Haag, 19061916, Jaarboek
Geschiedkundige Vereniging Die Haghe (1989), pp. 14774.
10 T. Landr, De Hollandsche nijverheidskunst op de
Brusselsche tentoonstelling, Onze Kunst, ix/2 (1910),
pp. 8398, 11833.
11 Ellinoor Bergvelt et al., 80 jaar wonen in het Stedelijk, exh.
cat., Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam (1981), pp. 1213.
12 W. F. Gouwe, Reclame, in Nederlandsche Ambachts- en
Nijverheidskunst: Jaarboek 1930: Werk (Rotterdam, 1930),
pp. 13758; Wilbert Schreurs, Geschiedenis van de reclame
in Nederland (Utrecht, 1989), pp. 4586; Huygen, Visies
op vormgeving, i, pp. 16397.
13 De Nieuwe Courant [The Hague], 26 October 1935.
14 Gouwe, Reclame, p. 147.
15 Jo de Jong, De Nieuwe Richting in de kunstnijverheid in
Nederland: Schets eener geschiedenis der Nederlandsche
kunstnijverheidsbeweging (Rotterdam, 1929), p. 14.
16 J. M. van der Mey, Moderne meubelkunst,
Nederlandsche Ambachts- en Nijverheidskunst: Jaarboek
1919 (Rotterdam, 1919), pp. 5055.
17 P. M. Cochius, Nijverheid en Kunst, Nederlandsche
Ambachts- en Nijverheidskunst: Jaarboek 1919 (Rotterdam,
1919), pp. 347.
18 Articles in the Nederlandsche Ambachts- en Nijverheids -

kunst: Jaarboek 192324 are: W. van der Pluym, De kun-
stenaar en zijn zending in het leven; A.H.L. Bhler,
Liefde n grondslag voor de kunst; H. C. Verkruysen,
Kunst, vorm van wijsheid; M.H.J. Schoenmaekers,
Religieuze schoonheid; R. N. Roland Holst, Enkele
gedachten over de harmonie van constructieve en versie-
rende vormen.
19 W. H. Gispen, Kunst als noodzaak en als spel, in
Nederlandsche Ambachts- en Nijverheidskunst: Jaarboek
192526 (Rotterdam, 1926), pp. 3859.
20 Hetty Berends, ed., Gispen in Rotterdam: Nieuwe verbeel-
ding van het moderne (Rotterdam, 2006); A. Koch, W. H.
Gispen, serieproducten, 19231960 (Rotterdam, 2005);
A. Koch, W. H. Gispen, a Pioneer of Dutch Design
(Rotterdam, 1998); B. Laan and A. Koch, ed., Collectie
Gispen: Meubels, lampen en archivalia in het Nai, 19161980
(Rotterdam, 1996); A. Koch, Industrieel ontwerper W. H.
Gispen (18901981): Een modern eclecticus (Rotterdam,
1988); Jane Beckett, W. H. Gispen and the Development
of Tubular Steel Furniture in the Netherlands, in
B. Campbell-Cole and T. Benton, eds, Tubular Steel
Furniture (London, 1979), pp. 2845; Christopher Wilk,
ed., 19141939 Modernism: Designing a New World, exh.
cat., Victoria and Albert Museum, London (2006),
p. 213, cat. nos 137a and 137b.
21 W. H. Gispen, Techniek en kunst, Wendingen, ix/2
(1928), pp. 218. See also Yvonne Brentjens, De Woning
is nieuwer dan de Mensch: De receptie van het stalen
buismeubel in Nederland, 19271938, in Titus Elins
and Marlite Halbertsma, eds, Volmaakt verchroomd d3 en
het avant-gardemeubel in Nederland (Rotterdam, 2007),
pp. 5673.
22 Hildelies Balk, De Kunstpaus H. P. Bremmer, 18711956
(Bussum, 2006); Titus Elins, Een verzameling rond de
kunsten van het vuur, in Jaarboek Haags
Gemeentemuseum: Jubileumnummer 95/96 (The Hague,
1997), pp. 11545.
23 Robert Fock, Maastrichtse serviezen, 19171937 (Zwolle,
2007); Arno Weltens, Maastrichts aardewerk: constructi-
vistische decors uit het interbellum (Zwolle, 2006).
24 Manfred Bock et al., Michel de Klerk: bouwmeester en teke-
naar van de Amsterdamse School, 18841923 (Rotterdam,
1997); Maristella Casciato, The Amsterdam School
(Rotterdam, 1996); Frans van Burkom, Desperate
Dreaminess: In Class with the Amsterdam School, in
Ellinoor Bergvelt, Frans van Burkom and Karin Gaillard,
eds, From Neorenaissance to Postmodernism: A Hundred
and Twenty-ve Years of Dutch Interiors, 18701995
(Rotterdam, 1996), pp. 13459; Ellinoor Bergvelt, The
Decorative Arts in Amsterdam, 18901930, in Designing
Modernity: The Arts of Reform and Persuasion, 18851945,
exh. cat., Wolfsonian, Miami Beach (1995), pp. 79110;
Frans van Burkom, Michel de Klerk: Bouw- en meubelkun-
stenaar, 18841923 (Rotterdam, 1990); Ellinoor Bergvelt,
Frans van Burkom et al., Amsterdamse School, 19101930,
exh. cat., Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam (1975).
25 H. Boterenbrood and J. Prang, Van der Mey en het
Scheepvaarthuis (The Hague, 1989).
26 Michel de Klerk, De invloed van Dr Berlage of de ont-
wikkeling der Nederlandsche Bouwkunst, Bouwkundig
Weekblad, xxxiv (1916), pp. 3312.
27 Van Burkom, Desperate Dreaminess, pp. 14151.
28 Bernhard Kohlenbach, Pieter Lodewijk Kramer, 18811961:
Architect van de Amsterdamse School (Naarden, 1994).
29 E. J. Lagerwey-Polak, Hildo Krop: beeldhouwer (The Hague,
1992).
30 Ingeborg de Roode and Marjan Groot, Amsterdamse
School textiel, 19151930, exh. cat., Textielmuseum, Tilburg
(1999).
31 Mienke Simon Thomas, Elly Adriaansz. and Sandra van
Dijk, Jaap Gidding: Art Deco in Nederland, exh. cat.,
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam (2006);
Susan Day, Art Deco and Modernist Carpets (San
Francisco, 2002), pp. 725.
32 Riet Neerincx, ed., T.A.C. Colenbrander (18411930):
Plateelbakkerij ram te Arnhem (19211935), exh. cat.,
Gemeente museum, Arnhem (1986).
33 Jean Paul Baeten, Ontwerp het onmogelijke: de wereld van
architect Hendrik Wijdeveld, exh. cat., Nederlands
Architectuurinstituut, Rotterdam (2006).
34 Martijn F. Le Coultre, Wendingen, 19181932: Architectuur
en vormgeving (Blaricum, 2001); Hans Oldewarris, The
Covers of Wendingen (Rotterdam, 1995).
35 Carel Blotkamp et al., De Stijl: The Formative Years,
19171921 (Utrecht, 1982); Carel Blotkamp et al., De
vervolgjaren van De Stijl, 19221932 (Amsterdam and
Antwerp, 1996); Marijke Kuper, Space Dissolved in
Colour, De Stijl in From Neorenaissance to
Postmodernism, pp. 16083; Nancy Troy, The Stijl
Environment (Cambridge, ma, 1983); Cees Boekraad, et
al., Het Nieuwe Bouwen: De Nieuwe Beelding in de architec-
tuur: Neo-Plasticism in Architecture De Stijl, exh. cat.,
Gemeentemuseum, The Hague (1983).
36 Marijke Kuper, Gerrit Th. Rietveld: Loeuvre complet
(Utrecht, 1993).
37 Huygen, Visies op vormgeving, i, pp. 26471.
38 Verslag betreffende de Nederlandsche inzending op de in
1925 in Parijs gehouden internationale tentoonstelling van
moderne decoratieve en industrieele kunst (1925); Michiel
Nijhoff. De druk zal in goed leesbare letters plaatsvin-
den: Drie catalogi bij de Nederlandse inzending voor
de wereldtentoonstelling van 1925 in Parijs, in
Vormgeven aan veelzijdigheid: opstellen aangeboden aan
Wim Crouwel ter gelegenheid van zijn afscheid als directeur
van Museum Boymans-van Beuningen (Rotterdam, 1993),
pp. 12433.
245

39 Timo de Rijk, De Haagse Stijl: Art Deco in Nederland
(Rotterdam, 2004).
40 Renny Ramakers, Tussen kunstnijverheid en industrile
vormgeving: De Nederlansche Bond voor Kunst in Industrie
(Utrecht, 1985).
41 Huygen, Visies op Vormgeving, i, pp. 21518. On
Vlaanderen, see also Schreurs, Geschiedenis reclame,
pp. 778; Saskia de Bodt and Jeroen Kapelle,
Prentenboeken: Ideologie en Illustratie, 18901950
(Amsterdam and Gent, 2003), p. 257; Caroline Boot
and Sanny de Zoete, Artistiek damast van Brabantse
bodem 19001960, ontwerpen van Chris Lebeau, Andr
Vlaanderen Jaap Gidding en tijdgenoten, exh. cat.,
Textielmuseum, Tilburg (2005), pp. 648.
42 Ramakers, Tussen kunstnijverheid en industrile
vormgeving, pp. 4255.
43 Thimo te Duits, Glasfabriek Leerdam: 19151934. De
kunstnijverheidscollectie van de Glasfabriek Leerdam,
19151934 Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, exh. cat.,
Drents Museum, Assen (Zwolle, 1998); A. van der
Kley-Blekxtoon, Leerdam glas, 18782003: De glasfabriek
Leerdam (Lochem, 2004); T. Elins and J.J.M.
Meihuizen, K.P.C. de Bazel de glazen van de architect,
exh. cat., Glasmuseum, Leerdam (2005); Ed van Hinte
and Timo de Rijk, eds, Wereldverbeteraars: 100 Jaar
idealen in glas, exh. cat., Glasmuseum, Leerdam (2006).
44 Reino Liefkes, Andries Copier: Glass Designer, Glass Artist
(Zwolle, 2002).
45 Boot and De Zoete, Artistiek damast, pp. 1659; M. de Bois,
Chris Lebeau, 18781945, exh. cat., Drents Museum, Assen
(1983), pp. 84104.
46 Karin Gaillard, Labor Omnia Vincit: een idealistische
meubelfabriek, 19101935, exh. cat., Gemeentemuseum,
Arnhem (1991).
47 Sjoerd van Faassen, ed., W. L. & J. Brusses
Uitgeversmaatschappij, 19031965 (Rotterdam, 1993).
48 Petra Timmer, Metz & Co.: De creatieve jaren (Rotterdam,
1995).
49 Petra Dupuits, Metz est venu, exh. cat., Stedelijk
Museum, Amsterdam (1992).
50 E. Stapersma and H. Beukers, Het Paapje viert 60 jaar
na oprichting zijn eerste lustrum in Twente,
Handwerken zonder grenzen, no.2 (1990) pp. 58; Elins,
Groot and Leidelmeijer, Kunstnijverheid in Nederland,
18801940 (Bussum, 1997), pp. 2345.
51 Hans Vogels, N.V. Koninklijke Plateelbakkerij Zuid-
Holland, exh. cat., Stedelijke Musea, Gouda (1994);
Nicolette Sluijter-Seijffert and Hans Vogels, eds, Van
decor naar design: Kunstenaars in de Goudse aardewerkin-
dustrie, 18981941, exh. cat., Museum het Catharina
Gasthuis, Gouda (Zwolle, 2001), pp. 3166.
52 Peter van Dam and Philip van Praag, Stefan Schlesinger
18961944: Atelier voor reclame (Abcoude, 1997).
53 Arnold Witte and Esther Cleven, Design is geen vrijblij-
vende zaak: Organisatie, imago en context van de
ptt-vormgeving tussen 1906 en 2002 (Rotterdam, 2006);
Gerard Forde, Design in the Public Service: the Dutch ptt,
19201990, exh. cat, Design Museum, London (1991);
P. H. Hefting, Royal ptt Nederland nv: Art and Design
Past and Present, a Guide, exh. cat., Design Museum,
London (1990).
54 Jan Rudolph de Lorm, Cornelis de Lorm ontwerper, exh.
cat., Drents Museum, Assen, and Nederlands
Postmuseum, The Hague (1987), p. 35; Simon Thomas,
Corn. Van der Sluys.
55 J. F. van Royen, Driewerf leelijk [Rijksmuseum
Meermanno-Westreenianum/Museum van het Boek]
(Leiden, 1994); derived from J. F. van Royen, De typo-
graphie van s Rijks drukwerk, De witte mier (1912).
1 Wouter van Stiphout, Stories from behind the Scenes of
Dutch Moral Modernism, in Mart Stams Trousers:
Stories from behind the Scenes of Dutch Moral Modernism
(Rotterdam, 1999), pp. 2045.
2 Wim Beeren et al., eds, Het Nieuwe Bouwen in Rotterdam,
exh. cat., Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam
(1982); Marlite Halbertsma and Patricia van Ulzen, eds,
Interbellum Rotterdam: Kunst en cultuur, 19181940
(Rotterdam, 2001).
3 E. Hoogenboezem, Jac. Jongert, 18831942: Gracus tussen
kunst en reclame, exh. cat., Gemeentemuseum, The
Hague (1982). The Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen is
preparing an exhibition and catalogue on this designer
for 2009.
4 Jacob Jongert, Herinneringen van een boerenjongen
(Doorn, 1941) [unpublished autobiography].
5 Adi Martis, Voor de Kunst en voor de Nijverheid: Het
ontstaan van het Kunstnijverheidsonderwijs in
Nederland, dissertation, University of Amsterdam,
1990, p. 277, n. 92.
6 Interview with Beatrijs Esscher-Jongert, daughter of the
designer, 15 December 2006.
7 Hetty Berends, ed., Gispen in Rotterdam: Nieuwe verbeel-
ding van het moderne (Rotterdam, 2006); A. Koch, W. H.
Gispen, serieproducten, 19231960 (Rotterdam, 2005);
A. Koch, W. H. Gispen: A Pioneer of Dutch Design
(Rotterdam, 1998); A. Koch, Industrieel ontwerper W .H.
Gispen (18901981): Een modern eclecticus (Rotterdam,
1988).
8 Joris Molenaar, ed., Van Nelle: Monument in Progress
(Rotterdam, 2005), pp. 934; Halbertsma and Van
Ulzen, Interbellum Rotterdam, p. 209; Herman van
Bergeijk and Otakar Mcel, eds, We vragen de kunste-
246

naars kind te zijn van zijn eigen tijd: teksten van Mart Stam
(Nijmegen, 1999).
9 On the Dutch architects in Siberia, see Cor de Wit,
Johan Niegeman, 19021979: Bauhaus, Sowjetunie,
Amsterdam (Amsterdam, 1979), pp. 535; Hlne Damen
et al., Lotte Stam-Beese (Rotterdam, 1993).
10 W. de Wagt, Van Loghem, 18811940: Landhuizen, stads-
woningen en bouwprojecten (Haarlem, 1995). A facsimile
of Van Loghems publication, with an introduction by
U. Barbieri, is avaialable as Ir. J. B. van Loghem: Bouwen,
Bauen, Btir, Building Holland (Nijmegen, 1980).
11 Barbieri, J. B. van Loghem, p. 16.
12 I. Pey and T. Boersma, eds, Michiel Brinkman, 18731925
(Rotterdam, 1995); Beeren et al., Nieuwe Bouwen in
Rotterdam, pp. 312.
13 Ed Taverne et al., J.J.P. Oud: potisch functionalist,
18901963: Compleet werk (Rotterdam, 2001);
Christopher Wilk, Modernism: Designing a New World,
exh. cat., Victoria and Albert Museum, London (2006),
cat. nos 88, 89, 98, 103, 118; Hans Esser, J.J.P. Oud, in
Carel Blotkamp et al., De Stijl: The Formative Years,
19171921 (Utrecht, 1986), pp. 13854.
14 Reprinted in Frederike Huygen, Visies op Vormgeving,
i: Het Nederlandse ontwerpen in taksten Deel 1, 18741940
(Amsterdam, 2007) p. 328; Koos Bosma, ed., Het Nieuwe
Bouwen in Amsterdam, exh. cat., Stedelijk Museum,
Amsterdam (1985).
15 Beatrice Bernini and Timo de Rijk, Het Nieuwe Wonen in
Nederland, 19241936 (Rotterdam, 1990); Karin Gaillard,
Mienke Simon Thomas and Petra Timmer, Nieuwe
Bouwen and the interior, in Het Nieuwe Bouwen in
Amsterdam i, pp. 11241. On terminology, see Frederike
Huygen, Some Terms Dened: Objective, New, Modern,
and Functional, in 1928: Beauty,Lucidity, Logica and
Ingenuity, exh. cat., Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen,
Rotterdam (1993), pp. 4263.
16 Taverne et al., J.J.P. Oud, pp. 290304; Wilk, Modernism,
pp. 1825.
17 Huygen, Visies op Vormgeving, i, pp. 3727; Wilk,
Modernism, pp. 22647; O. Mel, 2100 Metal Tubular
Chairs (Rotterdam, 2006); Titus Elins and Marlite
Halbertsma, eds, Volmaakt verchroomd: d3 en het avant-
gardemeubel in Nederland (Rotterdam, 2007).
18 Peter Fuhring, Doelmatig wonen in Nederland: De
efcint georganiseerde huishouding en de keuken -
vormgeving 19201938, Nederlandse kunstnijverheid en
interieurkunst, Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 31 (Haarlem,
1981), pp. 57585; Mayke Groffen and Sjouk Hoitsma,
Het geluk van de huisvrouw, exh. cat., Historisch Museum,
Rotterdam (2004), pp. 10914; Irene Cieraad, Het
Huishouden tussen droom en daad: Over de toekomst
van de keuken, in Schoon genoeg: Huisvrouwen en huis-
houdtechnologie in Nederland, 18981998, ed. Ruth
Oldenziel and Carolien Bouw (Nijmegen, 1998), pp. 3154;
Wilk, Modernism, p. 180.
19 Marijke Kuper, Gerrit Th. Rietveld: Loeuvre complet, exh.
cat., Centraal Museum, Utrecht (1993). Marijke Kuper,
Gerrit Rieveld, in Blotkamp et al., De Stijl: The
Formative Years, pp. 26386.
20 Wilk, Modernism, p. 55; Ida van Zijl, Rietveld in Utrecht
(Utrecht, 2001); Bertus Mulder, Rietveld Schrder Huis
(Bussum, 1997); Corrie Nagtegaal, Tr. Schrder-Schrder:
Bewoonster van het Rietveld Schrderhuis (Utrecht, 1987).
21 Auke van der Woud, Het Nieuwe Bouwen: International:
ciam: Housing Town Planning, exh. cat., Museum Krller-
Mller, Otterlo (1983).
22 Wilk, Modernism, p. 237; Petra Timmer, Metz & Co.:
De creatieve jaren (Rotterdam, 1995), pp. 77149.
23 Elly Adriaans et al., Brinkman en Van der Vlugt: Huis
Sonneveld: Modern Wonen in 1933 (Rotterdam, 2001);
The Rotterdam Museumpark Villas, Wiederhall, 20
(2001).
24 Elins and Halbertsma, Volmaakt verchroomd d3.
25 Yvonne Brentjens, De Woning is nieuwer dan de
Mensch: De receptie van het stalen buismeubel in
Nederland, 19271938, in Elins and Halbertsma,
Volmaakt verchroomd, pp. 5673; Mienke Simon Thomas,
The Functional Interior, in Beeren et al., Het Nieuwe
Bouwen Rotterdam, pp. 12028.
26 J. B. van Loghem, Richtlijnen, De 8 en Opbouw, 6 (1935),
p. 1.
27 Mienke Simon Thomas, Corn. van der Sluys: Binnen -
huisarchitect, organisator en publicist, 18811944
(Rotterdam, 1988), pp. 357; Timmer, Metz & Co.: De
creatieve jaren (Rotterdam, 1995), (1995), pp. 7073;
Guus Vreeburg and Hadewych Martens, ums Pastoe: Een
Nederlandse Meubelfabriek, 19131983, exh. cat., Centraal
Museum, Utrecht (1983); Timo de Rijk, De Haagse Stijl:
Art Deco in Nederland (Rotterdam, 2004).
28 Eveline Holsappel, Ida Falkenberg-Liefrinck (1901): de
rotan stoel als opmaat voor een betere woninginrichting
(Rotterdam, 2000).
29 Ed van Hinte and Timo de Rijk, eds, Wereldverbeteraars:
100 Jaar idealen in glas, exh. cat., Glasmuseum, Leerdam
(2006); A. van der Kley-Blekxtoon, Leerdam glas 1878
2003: De glasfabriek Leerdam (Lochem, 2004); Reino
Liefkes, Andries Copier: Glass Designer, Glass Artist
(Zwolle, 2002); Thimo te Duits, Glasfabriek Leerdam,
19151934: De kunstnijverheidscollectie van de Glasfabriek
Leerdam, 19151934, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen,
exh. cat. Drents Museum, Assen (Zwolle, 1998).
30 Helen Boterenbrood, Weverij De Ploeg (Rotterdam,
1989).
31 Annelies Krekel-Aalberse and Willem Voorthuysen,
Zeist, zilver, werken (Zwolle, 2004); Annelies Krekel-
Aalberse, Carel J. A. Begeer, 18831956, Drents Museum,
247

Assen (Zwolle, 2001); S.A.C. Begeer et al., Mensen en zilver,
bijna twee eeuwen werken voor Van Kempen en Begeer,
Zonnehof, Amersfoort, and Museum Boijmans van
Beuningen, Rotterdam (1975).
32 Krekel-Aalberse, Carel J. A. Begee, p. 100.
33 Timo de Rijk, Het elektrische huis: Vormgeving en accepta-
tie van elektrische huishoudelijke apparaten in Nederland
(Rotterdam, 1998), pp. 16776; Huygen, Visies op Vorm -
geving, i: pp. 25860.
34 Huygen, Visies op Vormgeving, pp. 16297, 31922; Peter
van Dam and Philip van Praag, Fr Cohen, 19031943:
Leven en werk van een bewogen kunstenares (Abcoude,
1993); Dick Maan, Paul Schuitema: Beeldend organisator
(Rotterdam, 2006); Alston W. Purvis, Dutch Graphic
Design, 19181945 (New York, 1992); Kees Broos and Paul
Hefting, Grasche Vormgeving in Nederland: Een eeuw
(Naarden, 1995), pp. 7691; Kees Broos, Piet Zwart, 1885
1977, exh. cat., Gemeentemuseum, The Hague (1982).
35 Anna Mller-Hrlin, Reclameontwerpen. Dat klinkt
zo makkelijk. . . Karin Orchard and Isabel Schulz: Kurt
Schwitters en zijn vrienden als typografen, in Kurt
Schwitters en de avant-garde, ed. Karin Orchard and
Isabel Schulz, exh. cat., Museum Boijmans Van
Beuningen, Rotterdam (2007), pp. 13855; Sjarel Ex,
De blik naar het oosten: De Stijl in Duitsland en
Oost-Europa, in De vervolgjaren van De Stijl, ed. Carel
Blotkamp (Amsterdam and Antwerp, 1996), pp. 67112.
36 Jan Tschichold, Die Neue Typographie (1928); Kees Broos,
Typograe, in BerlijnAmsterdam, 19201940:
Wisselwerkingen, ed. Kathinka Dittrich (Amsterdam,
1982), pp. 23745; Flip Bool and Ingeborg Leijerzapf,
Fotograe, in ibid., pp. 24650.
37 Piet Zwart, Nederlandsche ambachts- en nijverheids-
kunst, Het Vaderland, 31 May 1928; reprinted in Huygen,
Visie op Vormgeving, i: pp. 257.
38 Broos, Piet Zwart, p. 81.
39 Dick Maan, De Maniakken: Het ontstaan en ontwikkeling
van de grasche vormgeving aan de Haagse academie in de
jaren dertig (Eindhoven, 1982).
40 Jan van Adrichem et al., Rebel, mijn hart: Kunstenaars,
19401945, exh. cat., Nieuwe Kerk, Amsterdam (Zwolle,
1995); J. W. Mulder, Kunst in crisis en bezetting: Een onder-
zoek naar de houding van Nederlandse kunstenaars in de
periode 19301945 (Utrecht, 1978).
41 Marcel Brouwer and Joep Haffmans, Cris Agterberg:
Beeldhouwer en sierkunstenaar (Vianen, 2001), pp. 18081.
42 Koch, Gispen in Rotterdam, pp. 14954.
43 C.J.M. Schuyt and E. Taverne, 1950 Welvaart in zwart wit
(The Hague, 2000).
44 De Rijk, Het elektrische huis, p. 261.
45 Piet Zwart, Uit de keuken van de keuken, De Ingenieur,
lxvii/35 (1955), pp. 41014; Broos, Piet Zwart, pp. 845;
Petra Timmer, Total Control: Transparency, Usefulness
and Nieuwe Bouwen, in From Neorenaissance to Post -
modernism: A Hundred and Twenty-ve Years of Dutch
Interiors, 18701995, ed. Ellinoor Bergvelt, Frans van
Burkom and Karin Gaillard (Rotterdam, 1996), pp. 21215.
46 Ellinoor Bergvelt and Hadewych Martens, Living as
Work: Postwar Reconstruction and Goed Wonen, in
From Neorenaissance to Postmodernism, pp. 26083; Wies
van Moorsel, Contact en controle: Over het vrouwbeeld van
de stichting Goed Wonen (Amsterdam, 1992); Ellinoor
Bergvelt, ed., Goed Wonen een Nederlandse wooncultuur,
19461968, special issue of Wonen tabk (1979) 4/5.
47 Bergeijk and Mel, Teksten van Mart Stam (1999);
Caroline Boot, Mart Stam: Kunstnijverheidsonderwijs
als aanzet voor een menselijke omgeving. Dessau-
Amsterdam, Wonen tabk, 11 (1982), pp. 1021.
48 De Wit, Johan Niegeman.
49 Peter Vge, Wim den Boon: binnenhuisarchitect, 19121968
(Rotterdam, 1989).
50 Goed Wonen, p. 88.
51 Ibid.,, p. 38.
52 Goed Wonen (1948), pp. 1623.
53 H. Lindinger, ed., Ulm Design: The Morality of Objects:
Hochschule fr Gestaltung Ulm, 19511968 (Berlin, 1990);
Kho Liang Ie, Hochschule fr Gestaltung Ulm, exh. cat.,
Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam (1965).
54 Frederique Huygen, Het calvinisme van de goede vorm,
in Holland in Vorm: Dutch Design, 19451987, ed. Gert
Staal and Hester Wolters (Den Haag, 1987), pp. 1328.
55 Notes critical of this American trend can be found in
Industrile vormgeving in Amerika: Rapport Studiegroep
industrie: with a Summary in English (Rotterdam, 1954).
Similar sentiments were published in several articles of
this period in the Maandbericht [Monthly News] of the
Institute of Industrial Design (iiv).
56 Caroline Roodenburg-Schadd, Expressie en Ordening: Het
verzamelbeleid van Willem Sandberg voor het Stedelijk
Museum, 19451962 (Rotterdam, 2004); Ad Petersen,
Sandberg: Designer and Director of the Stedelijk
(Rotterdam, 2004).
57 Ellinoor Bergvelt et al., 80 jaar wonen in het Stedelijk,
Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam (1981), pp. 1725.
58 See the press le on this exhibition in the
Gemeentemuseum in The Hague.
59 Timmer, Metz & Co.
60 Petra Faber, My Home Bas van Pelt: Binnen huis architectuur,
19311995 (Rotterdam, 1995).
61 Iris Knapen, De Amsterdamse Bijenhorfenen het
moderne meubel 19451961 in Jong Holland, 17 (2001),
3, pp. 217; Ileen Montijn, t Gonst. 125 jaar De Bijenkorf
(Amsterdam, 1995); R. L. Miellet, Winkelen in Weelde:
Warenhuizen in West-Europa, 18602000 (Zutphen, 2001),
pp. 20223; R. L. Miellet, Honderd jaar grootwinkelbedrijf
in Nederland (Zwolle, 1993).
248

1 For introductions to economic and industrial develop-
ments in the Netherlands between 1945 and about 1975,
see C.J.M. Schuyt and E. Taverne, 1950 Welvaart in zwart
wit (The Hague, 2000); J. W. Schot et al., Techniek in
Nederland in de twintigste eeuw (Zutphen, 2003), part vi:
Stad, bouw, industrile ontwikkeling and part vii: Techniek
en modernisering. Balans van de twintigste eeuw; J. P. Smits,
H. de Jong and B. van Ark, Three Phases of Dutch Economic
Growth and Technological Change, 18151997 [Groningen
Growth and Development Centre, University of
Groningen] (1999); Jan Luiten van Zanden, Een klein land
in de 20ste eeuw: Economische geschiedenis van Nederland,
19141995 (Groningen, 1997). For industrial design relat-
ed to social-economic developments in this period, see
Reyer Kras, Nederlands Fabrikaat: Industrile vormgeving
[Teleac] (Utrecht and Bussem, 1997), pp. 16491.
2 Gert Staal and Hester Wolters, eds, Holland in Vorm:
Dutch Design, 19451987 (The Hague, 1987). This book
was published on the occasion of a series of exhibitions
in the Stedelijk Museum (Amsterdam), Museum
Boijmans Van Beuningen (Rotterdam), Centraal
Museum (Utrecht), Gemeentemuseum (Arnhem) and
the Gemeentemuseum (The Hague). See also Andr
Koch, ed., Ludiek Sensueel en Dynamisch: Nederlandse
jeugdcultuur en vormgeving in de jaren zestig (Schiedam,
2002); Bert Vreeken, Vormgeving na 60; van Pop-Art tot
Postmodern, exh. cat., Gemeentemuseum, The Hague
(1987).
3 J. Bouman, P. Schuitema and P. Zwart, Rapport inzake de
richtlijnen en mogelijkheden eener technisch-kunstzinnig ver-
antwoorde industrieele productie van gebruiksvoorwerpen op
basis eener sociaal economisch verantwoorde productie (The
Hague, 1944). Few copies of the report were produced.
4 Renny Ramakers, Tussen kunstnijverheid en industrile
vormgeving: De Nederlandse Bond voor Kunst in Industrie
(Utrecht, 1985), pp 8192; F. Huygen, Vechten tegen de
bierkaai: De promotie van industrile vormgeving via
instituten en overheid, in Holland in Vorm, pp. 7686.
5 Titus Yocarini, Vak in beweging, vank, gkf, vri, gvn, bno
(Eindhoven, 1992). On the gkf, see also Mirelle Thijssen,
Het Bedrijfsfotoboek, 19451965 (Rotterdam, 2002),
pp. 11119.
6 For the history of the Board, the Institute and the Centre
of Industrial Design, see the issues of the Maandbericht
and its successor iv-Nieuws, together with the several
brochures that were published by the iiv: Nico
Verhoeven, Doelmatigheid van Industrile Vormgeving
(1962), and Nico Verhoeven, Raad, Instituut en Centrum
voor Industrile Vormgeving (1966).
7 Members of the iiv visited the 1951 congress of the
Council of Industrial Design in London. This resulted in
the publishing of the brochure Industrile vormgeving als
factor van bedrijfsvoering (Amsterdam, 1951).
8 R. Bullhorst and R. Eggink, Friso Kramer: Industrieel
ontwerper (Rotterdam, 1991).
9 Staal and Wolters, Holland in Vorm, pp. 1447, 174;
Rosalie van Egmond, Gero, zilver voor het volk
(Rotterdam, 2002); N. Tummers and L. Strijards, eds,
Edmond Bellefroid: de wisselwerking tussen vrije kunst en
design [Bellefroid Symposium] (Maastricht, 1994); Anna
Sterk, St Maarten Porcelein, exh. cat., Het Kruithuis,
s-Hertogenbosch (1988); Anna Sterk, N.V. Keramische
industrie Fris, Edam, 19471969, exh. cat., Princessehof,
Leeuwarden (1985).
10 See Maandbericht iv (1956) p. 97.
11 See Maandbericht iiv, December 1959. Peter van Dam, Ir.
Louis C. Kalff 18971976: Het artistieke geweten van Philips
(Eindhoven, 2006).
12 See Maandbericht iv (1961/2), pp. 26.
13 Industrile vormgeving in Amerika: Rapport studiegroep
industrie: With a Summary in English (The Hague, 1954);
Timo de Rijk, Een grand tour naar de Nieuwe Wereld:
Geobsedeerd door locomotieven, sex, gebakken bief-
stukjes en snelheid, in R. Baarsen et al., Het
Nederlandse binnenhuis gaat zich te buiten: Internationale
invloeden op de Nederlandse wooncultuur (Leiden, 2007),
pp. 36986.
14 Strangely enough, no monograph on Wim Gilles has
been written to date. His archives are kept in the Museum
Boijmans Van Beuningen in Rotterdam. For Gilles, see
Timo de Rijk, ed., Designers in Nederland: een eeuw
productvormgeving (Amsterdam and Gent, 2003),
p. 152; Thimo te Duits, ed., The Origin of Things, exh. cat.,
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam (2002),
pp. 10815, 12634.
15 W. Gilles, De produktanalyse, Industrile Vormgeving in
kort bestek, iiv (Amsterdam, 1957).
16 J. van den Heuvel, De opleidingen, in Staal and Wolters,
Holland in Vorm, pp. 18094; N. L. Prak, Geschiedenis van
het ontwerponderwijs (De Bilt, 1979), pp. 1367.
17 De Rijk, Een grand tour naar de Nieuwe Wereld; J.
Penraat, Hoe wilt u wonen: wenken voor nieuwe inrichting
(Amsterdam, 1957).
18 Fred Vermeulen, Karel Suyling, portret van een allround
ontwerper, Items, 5 (1992), pp. 4450; Jurriaan Schrofer
and Frederique Huygen, 100 Citron-advertenties van
Karel Suyling (Rotterdam, 1987).
19 On this second trip to the usa in 1955, see the reviews in
Maandbericht, iv of that year. See also Timo de Rijk, Het
elektrische huis: Vormgeving en acceptatie van elektrische
huishoudelijke apparaten in Nederland (Rotterdam, 1998),
pp. 11315.
20 Dick Maan, De Maniakken: Het ontstaan en ontwikkeling
van de grasche vormgeving aan de Haagse academie in de
249

jaren dertig (Eindhoven, 1982); Marg van den Burgh,
Cor Alons: Binnenhuisarchitect en industrieel ontwerper
(Rotterdam, 1987), pp. 3741.
21 Joke Hofkamp and Evert van Uitert, De Nieuwe
Kunstschool 19331943, Kunstonderwijs in Nederland,
Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 30 (Haarlem,
1980). For some personal memories of the Nieuwe
Kunstschool, see Frederike Huygen, Visies op Vormgeving:
Het Nederlandse ontwerpen in teksten, Deel i: 18741940
(Amsterdam, 2007), pp. 3037.
22 Caroline Boot, Mart Stam: Kunstnijverheidsonderwijs
als aanzet voor een menselijke omgeving. Dessau-
Amsterdam, Wonen ta-bk, 11 (1982), pp. 1021; Cor de
Wit, Johan Niegeman, 19021979: Bauhaus, Sowjetunie,
Amsterdam (Amsterdam 1979), pp. 11317.
23 Joy, circa 1948: G. Kiljan (18911968), in The Origin of
Things, ed. Te Duits (2003), pp. 1017.
24 Ed van Hinte, Wim Rietveld: Industrieel ontwerper
(Rotterdam, 1996); Staal and Wolters, Holland in Vorm,
pp. 8991, 134, 1723.
25 G. J. van der Grinten, Onderzoek naar de wenselijkheid
van een opleiding van industrile vormgevers in
Nederland [unpublished report] (Delft, 1960). In the
1960s and 70s the designer Piet van der Scheer taught
industrial design at the Technical University in Eindhoven
regularly.
26 De Rijk, Het elektrische huis.
27 Mayke Groffen and Sjouk Hoitsma, Het geluk van de
huisvrouw, exh. cat., Historisch Museum, Rotterdam
(2003), p. 38; Schuyt and Taverne, Welvaart in zwart wit,
p. 279; Ruth Oldenziel and Carolien Bouw, Schoon
genoeg: Huisvrouwen en huishoudtechnologie in Nederland,
18981998 (Nijmegen, 1998).
28 De Rijk, Het elektrische huis, pp. 83126.
29 For the design policy at the Philips rm, see De Rijk, Het
elektrische huis, pp. 249352; Van Dam Ir., Louis C. Kalff;
J. Heskett, Philips: A Study of Corporate Management of
Design (London, 1989); Frederike Huygen, Design bij
Philips: product, strategie en identiteit, in Aad Krol and
Timo de Rijk, eds, Jaarboek Nederlandse vormgeving
03/04 (Rotterdam, 2004), pp. 5061.
30 Sergio Derks, Generations of Shaving Excellence: An
Impression of 60 Years of Philishave (Eindhoven, 1998).
31 On the economic developments of the furniture indus-
try in the Netherlands after the Second World War, see
Guus Vreeburg and Hadewych Martens, ums Pastoe: Een
Nederlandse meubelfabriek, 19131983, exh. cat., Centraal
Museum, Utrecht (1983), pp. 429; Hadewych Martens,
De Nederlandse meubelindustrie: Een korte terugblik,
in Renny Ramakers, ed., Meubelen [vorm & industrie in
Nederland 2] (Rotterdam, 1984), pp. 79. Also see Staal
and Wolters, Holland in Vorm, pp. 15868.
32 Jojanneke Clarijs, t Spectrum: Moderne meubelvormgeving
en naoorlogs idealisme (Rotterdam, 2002).
33 Vreeburg and Martens, ums Pastoe (1983).
34 E. Jamin, L. Schwenke and S. Wijnen, Artifort
(Rotterdam, 1990). Also see I. van Ginneke, Kho Liang Ie:
Interieurarchitect: industrieel ontwerper (Rotterdam, 1986).
35 Rob van Holsteijn, Dutch Design Center: gezamenlijke
promotie van het Nederlandse meubel in Ramakers, ed.,
Meubelen, pp. 3031. See also www.dutchdesigncenter.nl.
36 Renny Ramakers, ed., Kantoormeubilair, vorm & indus-
trie in Nederland 7 (Rotterdam, 1986).
37 A. Koch, W. H. Gispen, serieproducten, 19231960
(Rotterdam, 2005); A. Koch, W. H. Gispen: A Pioneer of
Dutch Design (Rotterdam, 1998); B. Laan and A. Koch,
eds, Collectie Gispen: Meubels, lampen en archivalia in het
Nai, 19161980 (Rotterdam, 1996); A. Koch, Industrieel
ontwerper W. H. Gispen (18901981): Een modern eclecticus
(Rotterdam, 1988).
38 Sylvia van Schaik et al., Mondial: Gispen & Gerrit Th.
Rietveld (Culemborg, 2006).
39 On Ahrend, see Dirk de Wit, 60 + 40 is waarschijnlijk
honderd: Ahrend passers, pennen potloden en projecten
(Zwolle, 1996); De Rijk, ed., Designers in Nederland, pp.
1617. See also Bulhorst and Eggink, Friso Kramer; Van
Hinte, Wim Rietveld.
40 Ineke van Ginneke, 1982. Ontwerpteam Oc van der
Grinten, in Bekroonde ontwerpers: Zes jaar Kho Liang Ie-
prijs, industrieel ontwerpen in Nederland 4 (Rotterdam,
1985), pp. 3035.
41 J. de Lange, Dafjes (Rijswijk, 1997); Warna Oosterbaan,
de wording van het dafje, Items, 27 (1988); J. Lammers,
Autodesign in Nederland (Zwolle, 1993), pp. 4047.
42 Anne-Marie van Ommen, 200 ijzersterke merken en pro-
ducten nl (Harderwijk, 2007), pp. 28647; De Rijk, ed.,
Designers in Nederland, p. 376; T. Tummers, Tomado.
Opkomst en ondergang van een oerhollands merk,
Items, 29 (1989).
43 Annet Metz et al., De eerste plastic eeuw: Kunststoffen in
het dagelijks leven: Massacultuur, exh. cat.,
Gemeentemuseum, The Hague (1981); Reyer and Kras,
ed., Bakeliet: Techniek/vormgeving/gebruik, exh. cat.,
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam (1981). K.
Sanders lectured on designing with plastics on the fth
national plastic day in 1953; see Plastica, 6 (1953), p. 12;
Plastica, 7 (1954), pp. 12.
44 Renny Ramakers, Huishoudelijke artikelen, vorm & indus-
trie in Nederland 1 (Rotterdam, 1984), pp. 1819; Van
Ommen, 200 IJzersterke merken, pp. 8081; www.tiger.nl;
www.mepal.com.
45 De Rijk, ed., Designers in Nederland, pp. 30910; E. Truijen,
Brieven van een designer (Delft, 1987); www.robparry.nl.
46 Stijn van Diemen, Emmapark: Het geheim van het begrijpe-
lijke: Tel Design, 19622002 (The Hague, 2003); Jan
Middendorp, Ha, daar gaat er een van mij. Kroniek van
250

het grasch ontwerpen in Den Haag, 19452000 (Rotterdam,
2002), pp. 10110; A. O. Eger, Jan Lucassen, Product:
Tijdschrift voor productontwikkelaars (2005), p. 12.
47 Alain Le Quernec, ed., Studio Dumbar (Paris, 2006).
For more on Studio Dumbar and its history, see
www.studiodumbar.com.
48 F. Huygen and H. Boekraad, Wim Crouwel: Mode en
Module (Rotterdam, 1997), pp. 12673; Kees Broos, ed.,
Ontwerp: Total Design; Design: Total Design (Utrecht,
1983).
49 Ben Bos, Benno Wissing (Eindhoven, 2006); Dingenus
van de Vrie, Benno Wissing, grasch en ruimtelijk ontwer-
pen, exh. cat., Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen,
Rotterdam (1999); www.nago.nl.
50 Thijsen, Bedrijfsfotoboek, pp. 91100.
51 Dirk van Ginkel and Paul Hefting, Ben Bos: Design of a
Lifetime (Amsterdam, 2000); Carry van Lakerveld, Een
keuze uit het werk van Jolijn van de Wouw, grasch ontwer-
per 19422002 (Amsterdam, 2002); www.nago.nl.
52 Paul Mijksenaar, Visual Function: An Introduction to
Information Design (Rotterdam, 1997); Kees Broos and
Paul Hefting, Grasche Vormgeving in Nederland: Een
eeuw (Naarden, 1995), pp. 1845; Jurriaan Schrofer,
exh. cat., Museum Fodor, Amsterdam (1974); Dingenus
van de Vrie, Haagse omslagen: Jurriaan Schrofer en De
Ooievaarpockets, 19581962 (Amsterdam, 2006);
www.nago.nl.
53 Wim Crouwel, Alphabets (Amsterdam, 2003); Wim
Crouwel, New Alphabet: A Possibility for the New Develop -
ment (Hilversum, 1967); Thimo te Duits, ed., The Origin
of Things, exh. cat., Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen,
Rotterdam (2002), pp. 14655.
54 Wibo Bakker, Design in de Supermarkt, in Jong
Holland, 2 (2006), pp. 1423.
55 Toon Lauwen, Holland in beeld, 18952008 (Bussum,
2007), pp. 192283; Kras, Nederlands Fabrikaat),
pp. 8099.
56 L. van den Berg, ed., Benno Premsela: Een vlucht naar
voren, Centraal Museum, Utrecht (1996); Martin Visser
et al., Benno Premsela onder Anderen, exh. cat., Stedelijk
Museum, Amsterdam (1981).
57 Ineke van Ginneke, 1980: Jos de Pauw, Bekroonde
ontwerpers (1985), pp. 2025.
58 See www.premsela.org.
59 Much has been written on graphic design for the Dutch
government. The author used in the rst place:
Middendorp, Ha, daar er een van mij; Kras, Nederlands
Fabrikaat, pp. 10019; Staal and Wolters, eds, Holland in
Vorm, pp. 2968.
60 Jan Middendorp, Dutch Type (Rotterdam, 2004).
61 Design (December 1968), p. 48.
62 C. Versteeg, 100 jaar anwb bewegwijzering (The Hague,
1994); Kras, Nederlands Fabrikaat, pp. 5679.
63 For this discussion, see Een ijzersterk betoog over een
grote pan, in De Vorm (1975), and Willemijn Stokvis,
Bewegwijzering in Nederland, in Vrij Nederland, 25
September 1976). Both articles are reprinted in
Dingenus van de Vrie and Titus Yocarini, eds, 10 jaar
designkritiek geknipt en gescheurd uit . . . (Amsterdam,
1980).
64 J. Bolten, Het Nederlandse bankbiljet en zijn vormgeving
(Amsterdam, 1987); Staal and Wolters, Holland in
Vorm, pp. 3844, 5054; Kras, Nederlands Fabrikaat,
pp. 100109.
65 Jan Teunen, Bruno Ninaber van Eyben: With Compliments
(Rotterdam, 2002).
66 Arnoud Witte and Esther Cleven, eds, Design is geen
vrijblijvende zaak: Organisatie, imago en context van de
ptt-vormgeving tussen 1906 en 2002 (Breda and
Rotterdam, 2006); Gerard Forde, Design in the Public
Service: the Dutch ptt, 19201990, exh. cat., Design
Museum, London (1991); Paul Hefting, ed., Kunst en
vormgeving bij de ptt, special issue of Kunst schrift/
Openbaar Kunstbezit (OctoberNovember 1985); Staal
and Wolters, Holland in Vorm, pp. 3844, 5054.
1 On design criticism in general in the Netherlands, see
F. Huygen, Designkritiek in Nederland: een essay
(Amsterdam and Rotterdam, 1995); C. Kuitenbrouwer
and K. Sierman, Over grasch ontwerpen in Nederland:
een pleidooivoor geschiedschrijving en theorievorming
(Rotterdam, 1996); Y. Bartholome, Vormgevingskritiek in
de Nederlandse pers (Rotterdam, 2003).
2 Ineke van Ginneke, Kho Liang Ie: Interieurarchitect: indus-
trieel ontwerper (Rotterdam, 1986), p. 49; Ellinoor
Bergvelt et al., 80 jaar wonen in het Stedelijk, exh. cat.,
Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam (1981), pp. 245.
3 Jan Middendorp, Ha, daar gaat er een van mij!: Kroniek
van het grasch ontwerpen in Den Haag, 19452000
(Rotterdam, 2002), pp. 8893; B. Majorick, Ontwerpen
en verwerpen; industrile vormgeving als noodzaak
(Amsterdam, 1959).
4 De Groene Amsterdammer, 13 February 1960.
5 In addition to the literature already mentioned in chap-
ter Four on Goed Wonen, mention should be made of
Michel Karis, Modern Wonen in Nederland,
19621973, and Marjonne van Dijk, Meubels van de
markt, nostalgie en sfeer in het jaren zestig interieur,
both in Andr Koch, ed., Ludiek Sensueel en Dynamisch:
Nederlandse jeugdcultuur en vormgeving in de jaren zestig
(Schiedam, 2002), pp. 13851, 15261.
6 Liane Lefaivre and Ingeborg de Roode, eds, Aldo van
Eyck: The Playgrounds and the City, exh. cat., Stedelijk
251

Museum, Amsterdam (2002); Francis Strauven, Aldo
van Eycks Orphanage: A Modern Monument (Rotterdam,
1996); Francis Strauven, Relativiteit en verbeelding
(Amsterdam, 1994).
7 Martien de Vletter, De kritiese jaren zeventig: Architectuur
en stedenbouw in Nederland/The Critical Seventies; Archi -
tecture and Urban Planning in the Netherlands (Rotterdam,
2004).
8 Ruud van Wezel, Een klus die nooit geklaard is, in
Ruth Oldenziel and Carolien Bouw, Schoon genoeg: Huis -
vrouwen en huishoudtechnologie in Nederland, 18981998
(Nijmegen, 1998), pp. 23152.
9 Rdiger Jungbluth, ikea: Het geheim van succes
(Amsterdam, 2006), pp. 10002.
10 Frederique Huygen, De weg van de geleidelijkheid:
interview met Jan des Bouvrie, Items, 21 (1986); Gert
Staal, Gijs Bakker vormgever: Solo voor een solist, exh. cat.,
Centraal Museum, Utrecht (1989); Ida van Zijl and
Gijs Bakker, Objects to Use (Rotterdam, 2000). On De
Bouvrie, Bakker, Gelderland and Castelijn, see also Timo
de Rijk, ed., Designers in Nederland; een eeuw product-
vormgeving (Amsterdam and Gent, 2003), pp. 334, 59,
767, 146.
11 Renny Ramakers, One-off Items and Mass Production,
in Holland in Vorm: Dutch Design, 19451987, ed. Gert
Staal and Hester Wolters (The Hague, 1987), pp. 21328;
reprinted in Morf, tijdschrift voor vormgeving 4 (2006).
12 Caroline Boot, ed., In het spoor van het Bauhaus: weefwerk
van Kitty van der Mijll Dekker, exh. cat., Textielmuseum,
Tilburg (2007); Claudia Thunnissen and Rob Sperna
Weiland, Gerrit de Blanken, 18941961: pottenbakker uit
Leiderdorp: virtuoze eenvoud, exh. cat., Lakenhal, Leiden
(2005); Eugne Langendijk and Mienke Simon Thomas,
Dutch Art Nouveau and Art Deco Ceramics: The Boijmans
Van Beuningen Museum Collection, Rotterdam (2001);
M. Singelenberg-van der Meer, Mobach: 100 jaar keramiek
in Utrecht (De Bilt, 1995).
13 Lucien den Arend et al., De nieuwe vrijheid van de
ambachtskunsten (Venlo and Delft, 1981). On studio
pottery, see Thimo te Duits, Moderne Keramiek in
Nederland/Modern Ceramic in the Netherlands (The
Hague, 1990); Mieke G. Spruit-Ledeboer, Nederlandse
keramiek, 19001975 (Amsterdam, 1976). On textile
crafts, see Liesbeth Crommelin, Textiel in het Stedelijk:
Textiles in the Stedelijk, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam
(1993); Textiel Nu [114], exh. cat., Textielmuseum,
Tilburg (198084). For textile crafts in the 1960s and
70s, see also the magazines Scheppend Ambacht and its
successor Bijvoorbeeld. On silversmiths and jewel design,
see Yvonne G.J.M. Joris, Jewels of Mind and Mentality:
Dutch Jewelry Design, 19502000, exh. cat., Museum Het
Kruithuis, s-Hertogenbosch (2000); Marjan Unger, Het
Nederlandse sieraad in de 20ste eeuw (Bussum and
Utrecht, 2004). On studio glass: Titus Elins, Lexicon
Nederlandse glaskunst van de twintigste eeuw (Lochem,
2004); Annette van der Kley-Blextoon, Leerdam glas,
18782003: Glasfabriek Leerdam (Lochem, 2004); Job
Meihuizen, De wereld volgens Valkema [Glascahier
Nationaal Glasmuseum] (Leerdam, 2004); K.J.H. Wasch
et al., Floris Meydam in Vorm (Haarlem, 2003). On post-
war developments in stained glass, see Carine Hoogveld,
Ellinoor Bergvelt and Frans van Burkom, eds, Glas in
lood in Nederland, 18171968 (The Hague, 1989), pp.
16396.
14 J.J.E. Salden (revised by Bert Rutgrink), De kunst om van
de kunst te leven: zakelijk informatie voor ambachtskunste-
naars [cosa] (Delft, 1982); A.W.H. Quaedvlieg, Het
overheidsbeleid met betrekking tot het scheppend
ambacht in Nederland: Kroniek 21 jaar cosa, Scheppend
Ambacht (1969), pp. 11016.
15 Bergvelt et al., 80 jaar wonen in het Stedelijk, pp. 223;
Titus Yocarini, Vak in Beweging: Grasche ontwerpers en
hun organisatie (Eindhoven, 1976), p. 25.
16 Karin Gaillard et al., Keramiekcollectie Dienst Beeldende
Kunst, s-Hertogenbosch (s-Hertogenbosch, 1983); Andr
Koch, Galerie Kapelhuis; dertig jaar vernieuwing in de toe-
gepaste kunst, 19601990 (Rotterdam, 2003); Marie-Jos
van den Hout, Galerie & Marzee Collectie, 19792004
(Nijmegen, 2004); Radiant: 30 jaar ra/30 years ra
(Amsterdam, 2006); Truus Gubbels, Het oog voorbij:
Galerie Nouvelles Images, 19602000: 40 jaar gedeeld
galeriehouderschap, Ton Berends (19601988) en Erik Bos
(19882000) (The Hague, 2001); Spruit-Ledeboer,
Nederlandse keramiek.
17 Karel Sanders, De industrile ontwerper en zijn ambachte-
lijke collega [Industrile vormgeving in kort bestek]
(Amsterdam, 1955).
18 R. Smeets, Terugblikken omwille van morgen,
Scheppend Ambacht (1964), pp. 1325.
19 Spruit-Ledeboer, Nederlandse keramiek; H.J.H., Stichting
Keramisch Werkcentrum in Heusden (N.Br.),
Mededelingenblad vrienden van de Nederlandse ceramiek,
69/70 (1973), pp. 4851.
20 Crommelin, Textiel in het Stedelijk.
21 Marjan Unger, Helly Oestreicher, exh. cat., De Beyerd,
Breda (1989).
22 Unger, Het Nederlandse sieraad; Joris, Jewels of Mind and
Mentality.
23 Evert van Straaten, Geen angst voor potten/Dont Be
Afraid of Pots, Mededelingenblad van de vereniging van
vrienden van de Nederlandse ceramiek 3, 109/110 (1983),
pp. 36. This magazine was, together with Bijvoorbeeld,
an important platform for discussions on ceramics
during the 1970s and 80s.
24 J. P. Smits, H. de Jong and B. van Ark, Three Phases of
Dutch Economic Growth and Technological Change,
252

18151997, Groningen Growth and Development Centre,
Rijksuniversiteit (Groningen, 1999); Jan Luiten van
Zanden, Een klein land in de 20ste eeuw: Economische
geschiedenis van Nederland, 19141995 (Groningen, 1997).
25 Simon Mari Pruys, Dingen vormen mensen; Een studie over
produktie, consumptie en cultuur (Bilthoven, 1972).
26 Ibid., p. 31.
27 Ibid., p. 35.
28 Ibid., pp. 1023.
29 Ibid., p. 118.
30 Annemarie Vels Heijn et al., Verslag van het symposium
Massacultuur en museumbeleid, gehouden op 13 juni 1981
in het Haags Gemeentemuseum, Nederlandse Museum
Vereniging (1981).
31 Dingenus van de Vrie and Titus Yocarini, eds, 10 jaar
designkritiek geknipt en gescheurd uit . . . (Amsterdam,
1980). On developments in the graphic arts during these
years, see A. Lopes Cardozo et al., Graphic Design, in
Holland in Vorm, pp. 24778. See also the surveys in
Alston W. Purvis and Cees W. de Jong, Nederlands
grasch ontwerp van de negentiende eeuw tot nu (Laren,
2006); Jan Middendorp, Dutch Type (Rotterdam, 2004);
Middendorp, Ha, daar gaat er een van mij; Kees Broos
and Paul Hefting, Grasche vormgeving in Nederland. Een
eeuw (Amsterdam, 1995).
32 Max Bruinsma et al., Een leest heeft drie voeten: Dick
Elffers & de kunsten (Amsterdam, 1989).
33 Yocarini, Vak in beweging.
34 On this debate, see Van de Vrie and Yocarini, 10 jaar
designkritiek; F. Huygen and H. Boekraad, Wim Crouwel:
Mode en Module (Rotterdam, 1997), pp. 15970; Chris H.
Vermaas, Jan van Toorn [Roots 3] (Eindhoven, 2005); Jan
van Toorn, Designs Delight (Rotterdam, 2006).
35 Steffen Maas, ed., Hitweek, 19651969, exh. cat., De
Beyerd, Centrum voor beeldende kunst, Breda (2003);
Anthon Beeke, Dutch Posters, 19601996 (Amsterdam,
1997).
36 Han Steenbruggen, Swip Stolk: Master Forever, exh. cat.,
Groninger Museum, Groningen (2000); Broos and
Hefting, Grasche Vormgeving in Nederland, pp. 1815.
37 The three rst issues published by the Gerrit Jan Thieme
Fund were: Wim Crouwel, Ontwerpen en drukken (1974);
Dick Elffers, Vorm en tegenvorm; een poging tot een portret
van een ontwerper (1976); Piet Schreuders, Lay in, Lay out:
zijn ontwerpers misdadig? (1977). Piet Schreuderss text
was reprinted in 1997 by the Buitenkant Publishers in
Amsterdam and again in Morf, tijdschrift voor vormgeving
2 (2005).
38 Wim Crouwel, Alphabets (Amsterdam, 2003).
39 Huygen and Boekraad, Wim Crouwel, pp. 15970;
Van de Vrie and Yocarini, 10 jaar designkritiek.
40 De verloren jaren: Persoonlijke visies op De Bestverzorgde
Boeken 1971 tot en met 1985, exh. cat., Rijksmuseum
Meermanno-Westreenianum, The Hague (1991).
41 Dingenus van de Vrie, Kwadraat-bladen; een serie experi-
menten in druk op het gebied van de grasche vormgeving,
beeldende kunst, literatuur, architectuur en muziek,
19551974 (Amsterdam, 2005).
42 Maas, Hitweek; Henk van Gelder and Hester Carvalho,
Gouden tijden: 50 jaar Nederlandse Popbladen
(Amsterdam, 1994), pp. 4557.
43 Hans Oldewarris and Peter de Winter, eds, 20 jaar/years
010: 19832003 (Rotterdam, 2003)
44 Max Bruinsma et al., Beeld tegen beeld: Wild Plakken, exh.
cat., Centraal Museum, Utrecht (1993); Paul Hefting et
al., Hard Werken (Amsterdam and Rotterdam, 1995);
Broos and Hefting, Grasche Vormgeving in Nederland,
pp. 2015; Laatste Post [special edition in the form of an
ordinary paper dealing with the history of the
Enschedese School], Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam,
and Rijksmuseum Twenthe, Enschede (1997).
45 Gijs Bakker and Evert Rodrigo, Design from the Nether -
lands/Design aus den Niederlnde, Bureau Beeldende Kunst
Buitenland, Ministerie crm(Amsterdam, 1980).
46 Lidewij Edelkoort et al., Ulf Moritz: Fascination Textiles
(Amsterdam, 2007); Jan Teunen, Bruno Ninaber van
Eyben: With Compliments (Rotterdam, 2002); Jack
Meijers, 20 jaar Vormgeversassociatie, Items, 8 (1994),
pp. 3944; Erik Beenker et al., Jan van der Vaart:
Ceramics (Amsterdam, 1991); Aldo van den Nieuwelaar:
verlichting, meubelen, gordijnstoffen, exh. cat., Metz & Co.,
Amsterdam (1984); Gijs Bakker, Ik ben vormgever, geen
technoloog, Bijvoorbeeld, xiii/3 (1981), pp. 25.
47 I. Sznssy et al., Ontwerpen voor de industrie, 1: Studies
over ontwerpen voor de industrie, waarbij opgenomen de
catalogus van de gelijknamige tentoonstelling over industrieel
ontwerpen en vormgeven (Groningen, 1982).
48 Ibid., p. 30.
49 Wim Crouwel was Extraordinary Professor at the
Technical University in Delft from 1972 to 1978. In addi-
tion he was Professor from 1982 to 1985. Wim Crouwel,
Vormgeving door wie [Inaugural Lecture th Delft] (1973);
Wim Crouwel, Vormgeving zin en onzin [Farewell Lecture
TH Delft] (1985).
50 Ineke van Ginneke, 1979: Bruno Ninaber van Eyben,
in Bekroonde ontwerpers: zes jaar Kho Liang Ie-prijs
[Industrieel Ontwerpen in Nederland 4] (Rotterdam,
1985), pp. 1419.
51 Jan Brand et al., Product Design Diversity (Arnhem
[Artez] and Rotterdam, 2007); Chris Reinewald, We
vonden onszelf toen geweldig: Gijs Bakker en oud-
studenten over hun academietijd in Arnhem, Items, 1
(1994), pp. 3844.
52 Rob van Holsteijn, Dutch Design Center: gezamenlijke
promotie van het Nederlandse meubel, in Ramakers,
ed., Meubelen, pp. 3031; see www.dutchdesigncenter.nl.
253

Compare the chronological survey of furniture design in
Luca Dosi Delni et al., The Furniture Collection, Stedelijk
Museum, Amsterdam, 18502000: From Michael Thonet to
Marcel Wanders, museum cat., Stedelijk Museum,
Amsterdam (2004).
53 Frederique Huygen, Nederlandse Meubelen 19801983,
Items, 7 (1983), pp. 543.
54 Frederique Huygen, Tussen ambacht en industrie,
Items, 14 (1984), pp. 423.
55 Meijers, 20 jaar Vormgeversassociatie, pp. 3944.
56 Marijke Kuper, Mart van Schijndel, kleurrijk architect
(Rotterdam, 2003).
57 De Rijk, ed., Designers in Nederland, pp. 119120.
58 Jeroen Vinken et al., Jeroen Vinken (Tilburg, 2004).
59 The Centre for Industrial Design in Amsterdam organ-
ized in 1967 the exhibition Nieuwe Italiaanse vormgeving
(New Italian Design) in the Beurs.
60 Jaap Huisman, Een enkeltje itali, Items, 24 (1987),
pp. 319; Toon Lauwen, Bob Noorda: Nederlandse nuch-
terheid Italiaanse elegantie, Roots 7 (Amsterdam, 2007).
61 Ghislain Kieft, Memphis-Design, exh. cat., Museum Het
Kruithuis, s-Hertogenbosch (1984).
62 Titus Elins, Borek pek ; glas, design, architectuur, Drents
Museum, Assen (2006).
63 Bart Lootsma, Weltschmerz: de oktoberrevolutie in
Arnhem, Items, 31 (1989), pp. 611; E. Hartkamp-Jonxis,
Het nut van het fantastische in de derde macht: Tien
jaar cubic 3 Design (1991); Jaap Huisman, Cubic 3
zet 17e eeuwse traditie voort met plastic, Volkskrant,
16 November 1991; Ed Annink, Ed Annink Designer
(Rotterdam, 2002). Ed Annink et al., Bright Minds,
Beautiful Ideas: Parallel Thoughts in Different Times:
Bruno Munari, Charles & Ray Eames, Mart Guix and
Jurgen Bey (Amsterdam, 2003).
64 Ida van Zijl, Veni, vidi, vici?: Postmodernism and the
Interior, in From Neorenaissance to Postmodernism,
A Hundred and Twenty-ve Years of Dutch Interiors,
18701995, ed. Ellinoor Bergvelt, Frans van Burkom and
Karin Gaillard (Rotterdam, 1996), pp. 33053.
65 Hein van Haaren, Neo-design, Items 12, (1984), p. 5.
66 Frederike Huygen, Martin Visser: Oeuvreprijs 1998
(Amsterdam, 1998); Gert Staal, Bemiddelaar tussen
kunst en design, Items, 33 (1990), pp. 259; Guus
Vreeburg, De meubelkunst van Martin Visser, Jong
Holland, i/2 (1985), pp. 3855.
67 Peter van Kester, Vijftien ontwerpers zoeken een indus-
trie, Bijvoorbeeld (1985/6), pp. 1115. Compare this with
Gert Staal, The Strength of Ambivalence, Dutch Art:
Design in the Netherlands, International Information of
the Dutch Ministry of Cultural Affairs (The Hague,
1989), pp. 1520.
68 Thalita Schoon, ed., Het meubel verbeeld; recente tendensen
in sculptuur/Furniture as Art: Recent Tendencies in Sculpture,
exh. cat., Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam
(1988); Meubelsculptuur: wonderlijke tafels en stoelen . . . of
beeldhouwwerken?, exh. cat., Museum Commanderie van
S-Jan/Galerie Marzee, Nijmegen (1992); Paul Donker
Duyvis et al., Schrg/Tegendraad: Parodie, humor en spot
in de hedendaagse Nederlandse kunst, exh. cat., Rheinische
Landesmuseum Bonn (The Hague, 1991).
69 Lisette Thooft and Micky Otterspeer, Goed in Vorm:
gesprekken over dutch design (Bloemendaal, 1993), pp. 7786.
70 Jennifer Allen et al., Atelier van Lieshout (Rotterdam,
2007).
71 Thimo te Duits, Shocking: Surrealism and Fashion
Now, Surreal Things: Surrealism and Design, exh. cat.,
Victoria and Albert Museum, London (2007), pp. 13960;
this article was also published in Vreemde dingen:
Surrealisme en design, exh. cat., Museum Boijmans Van
Beuningen, Rotterdam (2007), pp. 184205. On mixing
of art and fashion, see also Droog and Dutch Design:
From Product to Fashion: The Collection of the Centraal
Museum Utrecht, exh. cat., Living Design Center Ozone,
Japan (Utrecht, 2000); Jan Brand and Jos Teunissen,
eds, The Power of Fashion: About Design and Meaning
(Arnhem, 2006).
72 Gert Staal, De bizarre gelaagdheid van de mode: Alexander
van Slobbe en Guus Beumer (Haarlem, 2000).
73 See the interactive fashion presentation of Le Cri
Nerlandais on dvd: Dl sans public, Stichting Het
Nederlands Vormgevingsinstituut/The Netherlands
Design Institute (1995).
74 See www.viktor-rolf.com. Inez van Lamsweerde,
Viktor & Rolf (Breda, 1998); Viktor & Rolf, Viktor & Rolf
(Amsterdam, 1999).
75 Robert de Haas et al., Rijksaankopen 1985: Werk van
hedendaagse beeldende kunstenaars, Rijksdienst
Beeldende Kunst (Amsterdam and The Hague, 1985);
Cees Strauss, rbk, Bijvoorbeeld, xx/3 (1988), pp. 1518.
In 1992 the magazine Vormberichten published a series of
articles on collecting modern design in Dutch museums.
76 Meubelsculptuur; Erwin Houtenbrink et al., Het meubel-
boek: Nederlands meubelontwerp, 19861996, Stichting
Sofa (The Hague, 1996); Marjan Unger and Christina
Hosman, Tejo Remy, exh. cat., Centrum Beelden Kunst,
Amersfoort (2001); Annink et al., Bright Minds (2003);
Paola Antonella et al., Wanders Wonders: Design for a
New Age, exh. cat., Het Kruithuis, Museum of
Contemporary Art, s-Hertogenbosch (1999).
77 Concerning the background, birth and development of
Droog, compare Renny Ramakers and Gijs Bakker, eds,
Droog Design: Spirit of the Nineties (Rotterdam, 1998); Ida
van Zijl, Droog Design, Jong Holland, 3 (1996), pp. 4750;
Renny Ramakers, ed., Simply Droog (Amsterdam, 2004).
78 Piet Hein Eek et al., Piet Hein Eek, 19902006 (Eindhoven,
Baarn and Amsterdam, 2006).
254

79 Timo te Duits, Dick van Hoff; Prototypes keukenmachines
2003, in The Origin of Things, pp. 2725; Brigitte Fitoussi et
al., Richard Hutten: Works in Use (Oostkamp, 2006); Ed van
Hinte et al., Richard Hutten (Rotterdam, 2002).
80 E. van Hinte and G. Williams, Black/Ineke Hans
(Rotterdam, 2003).
81 Louise Schouwenberg, Hella Jongerius (London, 2003).
82 KesselsKramer, One Hundred and One Things to Do
(Amsterdam, 2006).
83 Guus Beumer and Louise Schouwenberg, De Stille Kracht
van vormgeving, Metropolis M, 1 (2004), pp. 12940;
Frederike Huygen, Droog serveren, Metropolis M, 3
(2004), pp. 4757; Micheal Rock, Mad Dutch Disease:
The Strange Case of Dutch Design and Other Contempor -
ary Contagions, in Jaarboek Nederlandse vormgeving 03/04
(Rotterdam, 2004), pp. 6381.
84 At the moment one can observe two tendencies: some
designers focus on socially engaged and/or ecological
design, while others prefer to be artists and deliberately
produce their products in limited editions. Some avant-
garde designers, such as Marcel Wanders, Joep van
Lieshout and Job Smeets, have engaged themselves with
Moooi, a much more commercial organization for dis-
tributing modern design (see www.moooi.com). There
have been several interesting initiatives in recent years
involving cooperation with craftsmen and designers in
the Third World; see, for instance, Louise Schouwenberg,
A Dutch Perspective: the Netherlands, in Prince Claus
Journal 10a: The Future is Handmade: The Survival and
Innovation of Craft, pp. 10821.
85 Bas van Lier, Nederlandse ontwerpers over hun buiten-
landse escapades: Design is gewoon business, Items
(JulyAugust 2004), pp. 4852.
86 Ed van Hinte, Huibert Groenendijk: Down to Design
(Rotterdam, 2004); see www.welldesign.com;
www.waacs.nl.
87 See www.designacademy.nl. The results of the annual
nal examinations of the Design Academy in Eindhoven
have been published annually under the title Graduation
since 1991.
88 In the prestigious overview Spoon (New York, 2002),
among the hundred best and most promising design-
ers of the world one could discover six Dutch artists:
Ed Annink, Jurgen Bey, Tord Boontje, Richard Hutten,
Hella Jongerius and Job Smeets. Five years later, six
designers were again listed in & Fork (New York, 2007):
Maarten Baas, Piet Hein Eek, Ineke Hans Chris Kabel,
Joris Laarman and Wieki Somers.
89 Gert Staal, De grote restauratie: Gert Staal blikt terug
op 10 jaar Nederlandse vormgeving, and Merel Bem,
Hoe gaat het met startende vormgevers, in Jaarverslag
2004 Fonds voor Heeldende Kunst, Vormgeving en
Bouwkunst (Amsterdam, 2005).
90 Ed van Hinte and Conny Bakker, Trespassers: Inspiration
for Eco-efcient Design, Nederlands Design Instituut
(Rotterdam, 1999); www.doorsofperception.com;
www.ydi.nl (Young Designers and Industry).
91 Tot hier en . . . verder: Jaarverslag Vormgevingsinstituut
2000 (Amsterdam, 2001).
92 See www.premsela.org.
93 Yocarini, Vak in beweging).
94 Petra Timmer, ed., Waar kleur een specieke rol speelt:
Sikkensprijs (Blaricum, 1997).
95 Up to 2008 the Designprijs Rotterdam (Rotterdam
Design Contest) has been held nine times. The winners
were: (2007) Thonik, (2003) Hella Jongerius, (2001) Jop
van Bennekom, Erik Wong and redactie Forum, (1999)
nl Architects, (1997) Maatschappij voor Oude en
Nieuwe Media, (1996) Bob van Dijk/Studio Dumbar,
(1995) Jan Erik Baars, Caroline Brouwer and Jan Paul van
der Voet/Philips Corporate Design, (1994) Diek
Zweegman/brs Premsela Vonk, (1993) Roelof Mulder.
See Marianne Toussaint, Vijf jaar Designprijs
Rotterdam, een evaluatie (Rotterdam, 1997), an unpu-
blished report of the Rotterdamse Kunst Stichting. On
each occasion the jury reports have been published,
together with critical essays on design by national and
international professionals.
96 A selection of entries from the rst three Design
Contests was shown in Bremen (Germany) in 1996; Bart
Lootsma, Mentalitten: Niederlndisch Design; prmierte
Arbeiten des Designpreises Rotterdam 1993-
1996/Mentalities: Dutch Design; Nominated Products of the
Design Prize Rotterdam (Amsterdam, 1996)
97 Compare the overviews and Jury reports published in
De Nederlandse Designprijzen by the Stichting
Nederlandse Designprijzen in 2003, 2005 and 2006.
255

256
Exhibition Catalogues
Adrichem, Jan van, et al., Rebel, mijn hart: Kunstenaars
19401945, Nieuwe Kerk, Amsterdam (Zwolle, 1995)
Aldo van den Nieuwelaar: verlichting, meubelen, gordijnstoffen,
Metz & Co., Amsterdam (1984)
Antonella, Paola, et al., Wanders Wonder: Design for a New Age,
Het Kruithuis, Museum of Contemporary Art, s-
Hertogenbosch (1999)
Baeten, Jean Paul, Ontwerp het onmogelijke: de wereld van archi-
tect Hendrik Wijdeveld, Nederlands
Architectuurinstituut, Rotterdam (2006)
Bakker, Gijs, and Evert Rodrigo, Design from the Netherlands:
Design aus den Niederlnde [Bureau Beeldende Kunst
Buitenland, Ministerie crm] (Amsterdam, 1980) [travel-
ling exhibition]
Beenker, Erik, and L. van den Berg, Benno Premsela, een vlucht
naar voren, Centraal Museum, Utrecht (1996)
Beeren, Wim, et al. eds, Het Nieuwe Bouwen in Rotterdam,
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam (1982)
Bergvelt, Ellinoor, ed., Industry and Design in the Netherlands,
18501950, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam (1985)
, The Decorative Arts in Amsterdam, 18901930, in
Designing Modernity: The Arts of Reform and Persuasion,
18851945, Wolfsonian, Miami Beach (1995), pp. 79110
, et al., Amsterdamse School, 19101930, Stedelijk Museum,
Amsterdam (1975)
, et al., 80 jaar wonen in het Stedelijk, Stedelijk Museum,
Amsterdam (1981)
Boekraad, Cees, et al., Het Nieuwe Bouwen. De Nieuwe Beelding
in de architectuur. Neo-Plasticism in Architecture De Stijl,
Gemeentemuseum, The Hague (1983)
Bois, M. de, Chris Lebeau, 18781945, Drents Museum, Assen
(Zwolle, 1983)
Bois, Mechteld de, ed., C.A. Lion Cachet, 18641945, Drents
Museum, Assen (Zwolle, 1994)
Bommer, Bea, ed., Katoendruk in Nederland, Textielmuseum,
Tilburg; Gemeentemuseum, Helmond (1989)
Boot, Caroline, and Sanny de Zoete, Artistiek damast van
Brabantse bodem 19001960, ontwerpen van Chris Lebeau,
Andr Vlaanderen, Jaap Gidding en tijdgenoten,
Textielmuseum, Tilburg (2005)
Boot, Caroline, ed., In het spoor van het Bauhaus: weefwerk van
Kitty van der Mijll Dekker, Textielmuseum, Tilburg (2007)
Boot, M., Olanda, in Torino 1902: le arti decorative internazionale
del nuevo secolo, exh. cat. (Turin, 1994), pp. 488529
Brentjens, Yvonne, G. W. Dijsselhof (18661924): Dwalen door
het Paradijs, Gemeentemuseum, The Hague (Zwolle,
2002)
, K.P.C. de Bazel (18691923): Ontwerpen voor het interieur,
Gemeentemuseum, The Hague (Zwolle, 2006)
, Rozenburg: Plateel uit Haagse kringen (18831917),
Gemeentemuseum, The Hague (Zwolle, 2007)
, Piet Zwart: Vormingenieur, exh. cat. Gemeentemuseum,
The Hague (Zwolle, 2008)
Broos, Kees, Piet Zwart, 18851977, Gemeentemuseum, The
Hague (Amsterdam, 1982)
Bruinsma, Max, et al., Beeld tegen beeld: Wild Plakken, Centraal
Museum, Utrecht (1993)
Dam, Jan Danil van, Amstelhoek, 18971910, Museum Het
Princessehof, Leeuwarden (1986)
Donker Duyvis, Paul, et al., Schrg/Tegendraad: Parodie, humor
en spot in de hedendaagse Nederlandse kunst, Rheinische
Landesmuseum, Bonn (The Hague, 1991)
Droog and Dutch Design; From Product to Fashion:The Collection
of the Centraal Museum Utrecht, Living Design Center
Ozone, Japan (Utrecht, 2000)
Duits, Thimo te, Shocking: Surrealism and Fashion Now, in
Surreal Things: Surrealism and Design, Victoria and
Albert Museum, London (2007), pp. 13960
Duits, Thimo te, ed., The Origin of Things, Museum Boijmans
Van Beuningen, Rotterdam (2002)
Bibliography

257
Duits, Thimo te, Glasfabriek Leerdam, 19151934: De kunstnij-
verheidscollectie van de Glasfabriek Leerdam, 19151934
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Drents Museum,
Assen (Zwolle, 1998)
Dupuits, Petra, Metz est venu, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam
(1992)
Edelkoort, Lidewij, et al., Ulf Moritz: fascination textiles,
Textielmuseum, Tilburg (Amsterdam, 2007)
Elins, Titus, H. P. Berlage (18561934): Ontwerpen voor het inte-
rieur, Gemeentemuseum, The Hague (Zwolle, 1998)
, T.A.C. Colenbrander (18411930): Ontwerper van de Haagse
Plateelbakkerij Rozenburg, Gemeentemuseum, The Hague
(Zwolle, 1999)
, and J.J.M. Meihuizen, K.P.C. de Bazel de glazen van de
architect, Glasmuseum, Leerdam (2005)
Forde, Gerard, The Dutch ptt, 19201990: Design in the Public
Service, Design Museum, London (1991)
Gaillard, Karin, Labor Omnia Vincit: een idealistische meubelfa-
briek, 19101935, Gemeentemuseum, Arnhem (1991)
Groffen, Mayke, and Sjouk Hoitsma, Het geluk van de huis-
vrouw, Historisch Museum, Rotterdam (2004)
Hefting, P. H., Royal ptt Nederland nv Art and Design Past
and Present: A Guide, Design Museum, London (1990)
Heslenfeld, Mariannne, De collectie Holland: art nouveau-kera-
miek van de nv Faience en Tegelfabriek Holland,
18941918, Museum Het Princessehof, Leeuwarden
(2007)
Hey, Jan Jaap, Vernieuwing en bezinning: Nederlandse beeldende
kunst en kunstnijverheid ca 18851935 uit de collectie van het
Drents Museum, Drents Museum, Assen (Zwolle, 2004).
Hilkhuijsen, Jos, Delftse Art Nouveau: Onderwijs en ontwerp van
Adolf le Compte (18501921), Karel Sluyterman (18631931)
en Bram Gips (19611943), Drents Museum, Assen
(Zwolle, 2001).
Hinte, Ed van, and Timo de Rijk, eds, Wereldverbeteraars: 100
Jaar idealen in glas, Glasmuseum, Leerdam (2006)
Hoogenboezem, E., Jac. Jongert, 18831942: Gracus tussen kunst
en reclame, Gemeentemuseum, The Hague (1982)
Huygen, Frederike, Zakelijk, nieuw, modern en functioneel:
Some Terms Dened: Objective, New, Modern and
Functional, in 1928: Beauty, Lucidity, Logica and
Ingenuity, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam
(1993), pp. 4263
Jintes, L. F., and J. T. Pol-Tyszkiewicz, Chris van der Hoef,
18751933, Rijkmuseum Het Koninklijk Penningkabinet,
Leiden; Drents Museum, Assen (1994)
Jurriaan Schrofer, Museum Fodor, Amsterdam (1974)
Kho Liang Ie, Hochschule fr Gestaltung Ulm, Stedelijk
Museum, Amsterdam (1965)
Kieft, Ghislain, Memphis-Design, Het Kruithuis, s-
Hertogenbosch (1984)
Knol, M., Klaas van Leeuwen, 18681935, Drents Museum,
Assen (Zwolle, 1988)
Kras, Reyer, ed., Bakeliet: Techniek / vormgeving / gebruik,
Krekel-Aalberse, Annelies, Zilver: Silver: Silber: 18801940: Art
Nouveau: Art Deco, Gemeentemuseum, The Hague
(Stuttgart, 2001)
, Carel J. A. Begeer, 18831956, Drents Museum, Assen
(Zwolle, 2001)
, and E. Raasen-Kruimel, Jan Eisenloeffel, 18761957,
Singermuseum, Laren; Drents Museum, Assen (Zwolle,
1996)
Kuper, Marijke, Gerrit Th. Rietveld: Loeuvre complet, Centraal
Lefaivre, Liane, and Ingeborg de Roode, eds, Aldo van Eyck:
The Playgrounds and the City, Stedelijk Museum,
Amsterdam (2002)
Maas, Steffen, ed., Hitweek, 19651969, De Beyerd, Centrum
voor beeldende kunst, Breda (2003)
Meubelsculptuur: wonderlijke tafels en stoelen . . . of beeldhouw-
werken?, Museum Commanderie van St-Jan/Galerie
Marzee, Nijmegen (1992)
Metz, Annet, et al., De eerste plastic eeuw: Kunststoffen in het
dagelijks leven: Massacultuur, Gemeentemuseum, The
Hague (1981)
Molen, J.R. ter, ed., Frans Zwollo sr, 18721945, en zijn tijd /
Frans Zwollo sr, 18721945, und seine Zeit, Museum
Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam (1982)
Neerincx, Riet, ed., T.A.C. Colenbrander (18411930): Plateel -
bakkerij ram te Arnhem (19211935), Gemeente museum,
Arnhem (1986)
Orchard, Karin, and Isabel Schulz, eds, Kurt Schwitters en de
Avant-garde, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen,
Rotterdam (2007)
Roode, Ingeborg de, and Marjan Groot, Amsterdamse School
textiel, 19151930, Textielmuseum, Tilburg (1999)
Rijk, Timo de, De Haagse Stijl: Art Deco in Nederland, exh. cat.
Gemeentemuseum, The Hague (Rotterdam, 2004)
Schoon, Thalita, ed., Het meubel verbeeld: recente tendensen in
sculptuur/Furniture as Art: Recent Tendencies in Sculpture,
Simon Thomas, Mienke, Elly Adriaansz and Sandra van Dijk,
Jaap Gidding: Art Deco in Nederland, Museum Boijmans
Van Beuningen, Rotterdam (2006)
Sluijter-Seijffert, Nicolette, and Hans Vogels, eds, Van decor
naar design: Kunstenaars in de Goudse aardewerkindustrie,
18981941, Museum het Catharina Gasthuis, Gouda
(Zwolle, 2001)
Staal, Gert, Gijs Bakker vormgever: Solo voor een solist, Centraal
Steenbruggen, Han, Swip Stolk: Master Forever, Groninger
Museum, Groningen (2000)
Sterk, Anna, N.V. Keramische industrie Fris, Edam, 19471969,
Princessehof, Leeuwarden (1985)
, St. Maarten Porcelein, Het Kruithuis, s-Hertogenbosch
(1988)
Sznssy, I., and J. Jacobs, Ontwerpen voor de industrie 1: Studies
over ontwerpen voor de industrie, waarbij opgenomen de
catalogus van de gelijknamige tentoonstelling over industrieel

ontwerpen en vormgeven (Groningen, 1982) [travelling
exhibition]
Textiel Nu [1-14], Textielmuseum, Tilburg (198084)
Thunnissen, Claudia, and Rob Sperna Weiland, Gerrit de
Blanken: 18941961: pottenbakker uit Leiderdorp: virtuoze
eenvoud, Lakenhal, Leiden (2005)
Tibbe, L., et al., Jac. van den Bosch, 18681948, Drents
Museum, Assen (Zwolle, 1987)
Tibbe, Lieske, Gemeenschapskunst: de samenleving in
symbolen, in M. Bax and C. Blotkamp, Int diepst van
mijn gedachten . . . Symbolisme in Nederland ca 18901930,
Drents Museum, Assen (Zwolle, 2004)
Unger, Marjan, Helly Oestreicher, De Beyerd, Breda (1989)
, and Christina Hosman, Tejo Remy, Centrum Beelden
kunst, Amersfoort (2001)
Visser, Martin, et al., Benno Premsela onder anderen, Stedelijk
Museum, Amsterdam (1981)
Vogels, Hans, N.V. Koninklijke Plateelbakkerij Zuid-Holland,
Stedelijke Musea, Gouda (1994)
Vreeburg, Guus, and Hadewych Martens, ums Pastoe: Een
Nederlandse Meubelfabriek, 19131983, Centraal Museum,
Utrecht (1983)
Vreeken, Bert, Vormgeving na 60; van Pop-Art tot Postmodern,
Gemeentemuseum, The Hague (1987)
Vrie, Dingenus van de, Benno Wissing, grasch en ruimtelijk ont-
werpen, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam
(1999)
Wilk, Christopher, ed., Modernism: Designing a New World,
19141939, Victoria and Albert Museum, London (2006)
Witterholt, Madelon, ed., De verloren jaren: Persoonlijke visies
op De Bestverzorgde Boeken 1971 tot en met 1985, Rijks -
museum Meermanno-Westreenianum, The Hague (1991)
Woud, Auke van der, Het Nieuwe Bouwen: International: ciam:
Housing Town Planning, Museum Krller-Mller, Otterlo
(1983)
Titles in English
& Fork (New York, 2007)
Adriaansz, Elly, et al., The Rotterdam Museumpark Villas,
Wiederhall, 20 (2001)
Annink, Ed, et al., Bright Minds, Beautiful Ideas: Parallel
Thoughts in Different Times: Bruno Munari, Charles and
Ray Eames, Mart Guix and Jurgen Bey (Amsterdam,
2003)
Bakker, Gijs, and Evert Rodrigo, Design from the
Netherlands/Design aus den Niederlanden, Bureau
Beeldende Kunst Buitenland, Ministerie crm
(Amsterdam, 1980)
Beckett, Jane, W. H. Gispen and the Development of Tubular
Steel Furniture in the Netherlands, in Tubular Steel
Furniture, ed. B. Campbell-Cole and T. Benton (London,
1979), pp. 2845
Beeke, Anton, Dutch Posters, 19601996 (Amsterdam, 1996)
Beenker, Erik, et al., Jan van der Vaart: Ceramics (Amsterdam,
1991)
Bergvelt, Ellinoor, Frans van Burkom and Karin Gaillard, eds,
From Neorenaissance to Postmodernism: A Hundred and
Twenty-ve Years of Dutch Interiors, 18701995
(Rotterdam, 1996)
Betsky, Aaron, and Adam Eeuwens, False Flat: Why Dutch
Design Is so Good (London and New York, 2004)
Blotkamp, Carel, et al., De Stijl: The Formative Years, 19171921
(Utrecht, 1982)
Brand, Jan, et al., Product Design Diversity (Arnhem [Artez]
and Rotterdam, 2007)
, et al., The Power of Fashion: About Design and Meaning
(Arnhem, 2006)
Broos, Kees, ed., Ontwerp: Total Design/Design: Total Design
(Utrecht, 1983)
Casciato, Maristella, The Amsterdam School (Rotterdam, 1996)
Crommelin, Liesbeth, Textiel in het Stedelijk/Textiles in the
Stedelijk (Amsterdam, 1993)
Crouwel, Wim, Alphabets (Amsterdam, 2003)
, New Alphabet: A Possibility for the New Development,
Kwadraat-blad (Hilversum, 1967)
Day, Susan, Art Deco and Modernist Carpets (San Francisco,
2002)
Derks, Sergio, Generations of Shaving Excellence: An Impression
of 60 Years of Philishave (Eindhoven, 1998)
Dosi Delni, Luca, et al., The Furniture Collection, Stedelijk
Museum, Amsterdam, 18502000: From Michael Thonet to
Marcel Wanders (Amsterdam, 2004)
Duits, Thimo te, Moderne Keramiek in Nederland/Modern
Ceramic in the Netherlands (The Hague, 1990)
Elins, Titus, M., Marjan Groot and Frans Leidelmeijer, Dutch
Decorative Arts, 18801940 (Bussum, 1997)
Fitoussi, Brigitte, et al., Richard Hutten: Works in Use
(Oostkamp, 2006)
Ginkel, Dirk van, and Paul Hefting, Ben Bos: Design of a
Lifetime (Amsterdam, 2000)
Heskett, J., Philips: A Study of Corporate Management of Design
(London, 1989)
Hinte, Ed van, Huibert Groenendijk: Down to Design
(Rotterdam, 2004)
, ed., Ed Annink Designer (Rotterdam, 2002)
, ed., Richard Hutten: Taking Form, Making Form (Rotterdam,
2002)
, and Conny Bakker, Trespassers: Inspiration for Eco-efcient
Design, Nederlands Design Instituut (Rotterdam, 1999)
, Gert Staal and Carel Kuitenbrouwer, Dutch Art: Design in
the Netherlands, International Information of the Dutch
Ministry of Cultural Affairs (The Hague, 1989)
Industrile vormgeving in Amerika: Rapport studiegroep industrie:
With a Summary in English (The Hague, 1954)
KesselsKramer, One Hundred and One Things to Do
(Amsterdam, 2006)
Koch, Andr, W. H. Gispen, a Pioneer of Dutch Design
(Rotterdam, 1998)
258

259
Krekel-Aalberse, Annelies, Art Nouveau and Art Deco Silver
(London, 1989)
Langendijk, Eugne, and Mienke Simon Thomas, Dutch Art
Nouveau and Art Deco Ceramics: The Boijmans Van
Beuningen Museum Collection (Rotterdam, 2001)
Le Quernec, Alain, ed., Studio Dumbar (Paris, 2006)
Liefkes, Reino, Andries Copier: Glass Designer, Glass Artist
(Zwolle, 2002)
Lindinger, H., ed., Ulm Design: The Morality of Objects: Hoch -
schule fr Gestaltung Ulm, 19511968 (Berlin, 1990)
Lootsma, Bart, et al., Mentalitten: Niederlndisch Design:
prmierte Arbeiten des Designpreises Rotterdam,
19931996/Mentalities: Dutch Design: Nominated Products
of the Design Prize Rotterdam (Amsterdam, 1996)
Middendorp, Jan, Dutch Type (Rotterdam, 2004)
Mijksenaar, Paul, Visual Function: An Introduction to
Information Design (Rotterdam, 1997)
Molenaar, Joris, ed., Van Nelle, Monument in Progress
(Rotterdam, 2005)
Oldewarris, Hans, The Covers of Wendingen (Rotterdam, 1995)
, and Peter de Winter, eds, 20 jaar/years 010: 19832003
(Rotterdam, 2003)
Petersen, Ad, Sandberg, Designer and Director of the Stedelijk
(Rotterdam, 2004)
Purvis, Alston W., Dutch Graphic Design, 19181945 (New York,
1992)
Radiant: 30 jaar ra: 30 years ra (Amsterdam, 2006)
Ramakers, Renny, ed., Simply Droog (Amsterdam, 2004)
, and Gijs Bakker, eds, Droog Design: Spirit of the Nineties
(Rotterdam, 1998)
Rock, Micheal, Mad Dutch Disease: The Strange Case of
Dutch Design and Other Contemporary Contagions, in
Jaarboek Nederlandse vormgeving 03/04 (Rotterdam,
2004), pp. 6381
Schaik, Sylvia van, et al., Mondial: Gispen & Gerrit Th. Rietveld
(Culemborg, 2006)
Schouwenberg, Louise, Hella Jongerius (London, 2003)
Smits, J.P., H. de Jong and B. van Ark, Three Phases of Dutch
Economic Growth and Technological Change, 18151997,
Groningen Growth and Development Centre,
Rijksuniversiteit (Groningen, 1999)
Spoon (New York, 2002)
Staal, Gert, and Hester Wolters, eds, Holland in Vorm: Dutch
Design, 19451987 (The Hague, 1987)
Stiphout, Wouter van, Stories from behind the Scenes of
Dutch Moral Modernism, in Mart Stams Trousers:
Stories from behind the Scenes of Dutch Moral Modernism
(Rotterdam, 1999)
Strauven, Francis, Aldo van Eycks Orphanage: A Modern
Monument (Rotterdam, 1996)
Teunen, Jan, Bruno Ninaber van Eyben: With Compliments
(Rotterdam, 2002)
Thovez, Enrico, The International Exhibition of Modern
Decorative Art at Turin: The Dutch Section, The Studio,
xxvi (1902), pp. 20413
Toorn, Jan van, Designs Delight (Rotterdam, 2006)
Troy, Nancy, The Stijl Environment, (Cambridge, ma, 1983)
Vletter, Martien de, De kritische jaren zeventig: Architectuur en
stedenbouw in Nederland/The Critical Seventies:
Architecture and Urban Planning in the Netherlands
(Rotterdam, 2004)
Zijl, Ida van, and Gijs Bakker, Objects to Use (Rotterdam,
2000)
Titles in Dutch
Bax, Marty, Het Web der schepping: Theosoe en kunst in
Nederland van Lauweriks tot Mondriaan (Nijmegen,
2006)
Bergvelt, Ellinoor, ed., Goed Wonen, een Nederlandse wooncul-
tuur 19461968, special edition of Wonen tabk (1979) 4/5
Elins, Titus, and Marlite Halbertsma, eds, Volmaakt verch-
roomd d3 en het avant-gardemeubel in Nederland
(Rotterdam, 2007)
Gans, L., Nieuwe Kunst: De Nederlandse bijdrage aan de Art
Nouveau (Utrecht, 1966)
Groot, Marjan, Vrouwen in de vormgeving, 18801940
(Rotterdam, 2007)
Huisman, Jaap, et al., Honderd jaar wonen in Nederland,
19002000 (Rotterdam, 2000)
Huygen, Frederike, Visies op Vormgeving: Het Nederlandse ont-
werpen in teksten Deel i: 18741940 (Amsterdam, 2007)
(Deel ii will be published in October 2008)
, and Hugh Boekraad, Wim Crouwel: Mode en Module
(Rotterdam, 1997)
Kley-Blekxtoon, A. van der, Leerdam glas, 18782003: De glasfa-
briek Leerdam (Lochem, 2004)
Koch, Andr, ed., Ludiek Sensueel en Dynamisch: Nederlandse
jeugdcultuur en vormgeving in de jaren zestig (Schiedam,
2002)
Kras, Reyer, Nederlands Fabrikaat: Industrile vormgeving
[Teleac] (Utrecht and Bussem, 1997)
Lauwen, Toon, Holland in beeld, 18952008 (Bussum, 2007)
, Dutch Design van de 20ste eeuw, (Bussem, 2003)
Majorick, B., Ontwerpen en verwerpen: industrile vormgeving als
noodzaak (Amsterdam, 1959)
Middendorp, Jan, Ha, daar gaat er een van mij. Kroniek van het
grasch ontwerpen in Den Haag, 19452000 (Rotterdam,
2002)
Pruys, Simon Mari, Dingen vormen mensen: Een studie over pro-
duktie, consumptie en cultuur (Bilthoven, 1972)
Rijk, Timo de, ed., Designers in Nederland: Een eeuw product-
vormgeving (Amsterdam and Gent, 2003)
, Het elektrische huis: Vormgeving en acceptatie van elektrische
huishoudelijke apparaten in Nederland (Rotterdam, 1998)
Simon Thomas, Mienke, De Leer van het Ornament: Versieren
volgens voorschrift, 18501930 (Amsterdam, 1996)
Spruit-Ledeboer, Mieke G., Nederlandse keramiek, 19001975
(Amsterdam, 1976)

Timmer, Petra, Metz & Co.: De creatieve jaren (Rotterdam,
1995)
Unger, Marjan, Het Nederlandse sieraad in de 20ste eeuw
(Bussum and Utrecht, 2004)
Witte, Arnold, and Esther Cleven, Design is geen vrijblijvende
zaak: Organisatie, imago en context van de ptt-vormgeving
tussen 1906 en 2002 (Rotterdam, 2006)
Yocarini, T., Vak in beweging, vank, gkf, vri, gvn, bno
(Eindhoven, 1992)
Websites
www.designacademy.nl
Design Academy, Eindhoven
www.designlink.nl
www.doorsofperception.com
www.dutchdesigncenter.nl
Dutch Design Center, Utrecht
www.design.startpagina.nl
www.iconenvandepost.nl
www.moooi.com
Moooi bv
www.nago.nl
Nederlands Archief Grasch Ontwerpers (nago)
www.premsela.org
Premsela Stichting
www.ydi.nl
Stichting Young Designers & Industry (yd+i)
www.vivid.nl
260

261
I wish to express my gratitude to all those who read and
commented on all or part of my text. First of all, I would like
to thank the design historian Frederike Huygen, who was also
my former colleague at the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen,
and my partner Patrick van der Kroef, who helped me to
conceptualize the structure of the book. Both invested days
in editing my text. Timo de Rijk, Marjan Unger, Dingenus van
de Vrie and Betty Brutvan-Simon Thomas read parts and
offered encouraging comments. Special thanks are due to
Vivian Constantinopoulos from Reaktion Books and to Hans
Oldewarris from 010 Publishers in Rotterdam, who took care
of the Dutch edition.
I would also like to thank everyone who supplied me with
interesting illustrations; I am especially indebted to the staff
of the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen in Rotterdam. Many
illustrations in this book show objects from the collection of
this fantastic museum.
The Mondriaan Foundation and the Prince Bernhard
Foundation generously nanced the translation of the text by
Kate Williams and Lynn George. Our co-operation on this
part of the project has initiated some necessary clarications
of the text, for which I am grateful.
Acknowledgements

262
The author and publishers wish to express their thanks to the
following sources of illustrative material and/or permission to
reproduce it.
Archief Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam: p. 140 foot; photo avl
Rotterdam: p. 229 (foot); photo Centraal Museum Utrecht:
p. 218 (top); photo from Dekoratieve Kunst (1902): p. 34; Den
Haags Gemeentemuseum: p. 43 top (photo courtesy of the
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam); photo from
Eigen Haard (1902): p. 28 (left); photo Jan + Robert Fock: p. 64;
Gemeente Archief Amsterdam: p. 84 (photo courtesy of the
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen); photos Gemeentearchief
Den Haag: pp. 90, 101, 106 left (courtesy of the Museum
Boijmans Van Beuningen); photos Bob Goedewaagen: pp. 26,
30, 33 (foot), 61, 68 (foot), 69, 113, 202 (right), 203, 206; photo
hema (courtesy of the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen):
p. 185; Instituut Collectie Nederland, Amsterdam: pp. 17 (on
long-term loan from the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen),
29 top left (photo courtesy of the Museum Boijmans Van
Beuningen), 33 top (on long-term loan from the Museum
Boijmans Van Beuningen), 66 (on long-term loan from the
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen); photo Bert Koenderink:
p. 68 (top); photo Yves Krol: p. 11; Museum Boijmans Van
Beuningen, Rotterdam: pp. 6, 21, 25, 26, 29 (foot), 30, 31, 33
(foot), 35, 37, 48, 52 (top left, foot), 61, 63, 68 (foot), 98, 108,
113, 139, 140 (top), 144, 151, 155, 162, 186, 194, 215, 217, 221, 222,
226, 227, 228; photos courtesy of the Museum Boijmans Van
Beuningen: pp. 15 (from Verslag der Centrale Commissie, 1902),
23 (from Elseviers Gellustreerd Maandschrift, 1905), 27, 28 right
(from Frans Netscher, John Th. Uiterwijk & Co. Arts and Crafts,
1901), 43 (foot), 52 (top right), 55 (right), 66, 75, 78, 82, 83, 91
(photo private collection), 95, 96, 97, 99, 103 (photo Jannes
Linders), 105, 106 (right), 107, 111, 115, 119, 120, 121, 122, 125,
128 (reproduced from the catalogue of the 1951 exhibition
Kunst en Kitsch at the Gemeentemuseum, Den Haag), 130
(photo Jan Versnel), 136, 137, 138, 142, 145, 148, 153, 156, 164
(photo Lex van Pieterson), 165 (photo Jan Versnel), 168 (top),
173 (photo Luchthaven Schiphol), 176 (top), 182, 187, 188, 190,
195, 202 (left), 205, 207, 211, 219, 223 top (photo Alexander
Schabraque), 223 foot (photo anp), 229 top (photo Bianca
Pilet), 231, 232, 235 (photo Fred Ernst); Nederlands Archi -
tectuur instituut, Rotterdam: pp. 12, 16; Nederlands
Textiel museumTilburg: p. 168 (foot); photo De Nederlandse
Bank (courtesy of the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen):
p. 177; Noordbrabants Museum, s-Hertogenbosch: p. 169;
photo Oc-Nederland: p. 159; photo from Op de Hoogte 22
(September 1925): p. 73; Royal Collections, the Netherlands:
29 top right (photo courtesy of the Museum Boijmans Van
Beuningen); Collectie Spaarnestad Photo, Haarlem: pp. 46
(photo/Het Leven/C. J. Hofker, courtesy of the Museum
Boijmans Van Beuningen), 132 (photographer unknown;
photo courtesy of the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen), 161
(photo courtesy of the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen);
photos courtesy of the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam: pp. 39,
55 (left); photo courtesy of the Stichting Museum voor
Communicatie, Den Haag: p. 86; photo Marjan Ungers: p. 178;
photo courtesy of the Universiteitsbibliotheek van de Univer -
siteit van Amsterdam: p. 19; reproduced from Wendingen
(Techniek en Kunst) 9: 2 (1928): pp. 59, 60 top; photo Kim Zwarts
(courtesy of the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen): p. 88.
Photo Acknowledgements

263
010 publishers 205
Aalto, Alvar 85, 129
Aesthetic Advice Ofce 116, 134
Agterberg, Cris 113, 113, 127
Ahrend 120, 158, 159, 166, 208, 211, 211
Akkermans, Tijl 235
Albini, Franco 129, 187
Aloha 204
Alons, Cor 74, 85, 146, 148
Altorf, Jan 28
Amersfoor, Het Kapelhuis 193, 221
Amstelhoek 32, 33, 34, 38, 44, 50, 90
Amsterdam
Appenzeller gallery 193
Central Station 18
Civic Orphanage 1889, 188
Fodor Museum 200, 21314
Frozen Fountain gallery 224
Galerie Swart 196
Industrial Design Centre 1245, 125, 142, 170, 172
ivkno 11718, 144, 147, 148, 157, 194
New Art School 1467
Ra gallery 193
Rijksmuseum 18, 21
Rijksnormaalschool 36
Shipping Trade House 64
Sieraad gallery 193
Stedelijk Museum 44, 45, 545, 55, 64, 1257, 129, 131, 135,
139, 140, 166, 186, 187, 192, 196, 200, 216
Stock Exchange 39
Tuschinski Theatre 67, 68
Union of Diamond Workers building 91
Van Wisselingh gallery 28, 35
Amsterdam Type Foundry 82, 83
Ankersmit, J. F. 42
Annink, Ed 218, 219
Anthologie Quartett 217
Apeldoorn Arts and Crafts studio 28
Appel, Karel 130, 131
Appenzeller, Hans 195, 214
Applied Arts in the Netherlands booklets 613, 82
Arad, Ron 228
Archis 118
Architectura et Amicitia 59, 64, 70, 75, 76
Armleder, John 221
Arnhem, Gemeentemuseum 193
Arrondeus, Willem 126
Art for All 90, 90
Art and Business foundation 192
Art for the People 90
Arti et Industriae 41, 46
Artifort (Wagemans & van Tuinen) 130, 138, 138, 139, 155,
1567, 211
Artimeta 208
Atelier van Lieshout (avl) 222
Auping 102, 104, 138, 165, 170, 211
Avenue 217
Baanders, Tine 69
Baas, Maarten 231, 240
Bakema, Jaap 188
Bakker, Gijs 157, 182, 190, 195, 196, 208, 209, 211, 213, 214, 225,
226
Bank of the Netherlands 171
Banksys Worldwide Brand 232
Bannenberg, Peggy 215
Barenbrug, Max 230
Bartels, Charles 67
Baudrillard, Jean 198
Bauhaus 51, 59, 60, 93, 108, 110, 112, 11718, 123, 126, 146, 147
Index

Bazel, Karel de 22, 35, 42, 43, 57, 74, 76, 789, 86, 86, 107, 109
Becht and Dijserinck 32
Beckman, Paul 221
Beek, Nicolaas van 196
Beeke, Anthon 166, 201, 202, 203
Beese, Lotte 93
Begeer, C. J. 29, 29, 30, 32, 108
Behrens, Peter 97
Beljon, J. J. 1867
Bellefroid, Edmond 64, 120, 121, 139
Bellini, Marco 216
Benthem, Jan 173
Beran, Gustav 212
Berg, Gerard van den 157
Berger, Otti 108
Bergmans, Charles 208
Van Berkels Patent 56, 11112, 111, 167, 230
Berkheij, J. C. 148
Berlage, H. P. 12, 23, 28, 324, 33, 38, 3941, 39, 44, 51, 52, 54,
56, 73, 75, 79, 82, 90, 91, 100, 107
inuence of 35, 45, 53, 64, 65, 67, 72, 74, 81, 109
Bertoia, Harry 129
Van Besouw 168, 170
Best Dutch Design 175, 183, 184
Besten, Pieter den 67
Bey, Jurgen 224, 225, 226, 228, 230
Bezemer, Frank 221
De Bijenkorf 85, 105, 12930, 130, 131, 165, 170
Bijvoet, Bernard 96
Bijvoorbeeld (For Instance) 195, 224, 234
Bill, Max 123
Bing, Siegfried 28
Binnen 211, 224
t Binnenhuis 324, 33, 35, 40, 43, 44, 50, 54, 90, 127
Blaich, Bob 153
Blanken, Gerrit de 191
Blijstra, Rein 143, 145
bno (Dutch Designers Union) 230
Bodon, Alexander 146
Boeken, A. 96
Boersma, H.L. 20, 412
Bogaboo 230
Bogtman, Louis 85
Bogtman, Willem 67
Bommer, J. 117
Bon Bon studio 215
Bons, Jan 199
Boom, Irma 171
Boon, Wim den 118, 119, 126, 127
Boonzaaijer, Karel 157
Bos, Ben 165, 166, 167
Bosch, Franoise van den 195, 196
Bosch, Jac. van den 33, 43, 53, 54, 127
Bouman, Jan 134
Bouvrie, Jan des 190, 190
Bouwkundig Weekblad (Architectural Weekly) 65
Braakman, Cees 120, 156, 156
Braat 32, 76
Brand, B 118, 122
Brattinga, Pieter 171, 203
Braun 139, 153
Breitner, George Hendrik 55
Brekveld, Arian 227
Bremmer, H. P. 62, 171
Breuer, Marcel 85
Bried, Johan 82
Brink, Wim van den 160
Brinkman, Michiel 91, 94, 95, 96, 1001
Brom 29
Bromberg, Paul 84
Brouwer, W.C. 32, 38
brs 170, 171
Brugghen, Jan van der 160
Bruijn, Jeroen 235
Bruna, Dick 230
Brusse, Wim 116
Brusse, W. L. and J. 56, 57, 60, 76, 82
Bruyn, Peer de 219
Bruynzeel Company 56, 115
bsr 170
Bueno de Mesquita, A. 117
Bureau Mijksenaar 173
Buuren, G. van 823
Calv Oil Factory 35, 36, 55, 56
Carels, Nicola 186
Castelijn 157, 190, 208, 210
Chevalier, C. 112
ciam 72, 100, 188
De Cirkel 139, 158, 158, 159
Citroen, Joseph 192
Citroen, Paul 146
De Cneudt 85, 191
Coal Trade Association (shv) 167
Cobra group 131
Cochius, P. M. 578, 78, 79, 82, 107
Cohen, Fr 109
Colenbrander, Theodoor 24, 24, 26, 27, 28, 62, 68, 70, 74
Constant 131
Copier, Andries 69, 7980, 83, 103, 107, 120, 121, 139, 141, 148,
162, 192, 194
Cordemeyer, Anton 120, 158, 159
Cordonnier, L. M. 70
Cornelius, Violette 166, 168
Cornips, Marie Helne 179
cosa (Central Organ of Creative Trade) 192, 193
264

265
Cosijn, Lies 194, 194
Couperus, Louis 36
Crossroads project 234
Crouwel, Wim 157, 165, 166, 167, 180, 187, 2001, 202, 203,
21012, 234
Crystal Association Ltd (Kristalunie) 51, 63
Cubic3 design 219, 219, 220
Curver 163
Cuypers, Eduard 65, 77
Cuypers, Pierre 20, 21, 29, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 70, 89
d3 (later Fana) 93, 1045
Daalderop 16, 150
Daems, Pierre 139
Daf 142, 160, 161
De 8 967, 96, 112, 119, 188
Decoratieve Kunst en Volksvlijt 19
Dekkers, Marlies 230
Delaunay, Sonia 85, 128
Delft Technical University 1489
Department of Aesthetic Design (dev) 179, 180
Derkinderen, Antoon 36, 42, 86
Design 142
Design Association 214
Designers Association 209
Designlink Foundation 234, 236
Designum 214
Dieckmann, Erich 85
Diedenhoven, Walter van 54, 55
Diepenbrock & Reigers in Ulft (dru) 143, 144
Dieperink 76
Dijkstra, Rineke 223
Dijsselhof, , Gerrit 27, 29, 32, 368, 37, 56, 89
Van Dissel 76, 78, 801, 85
De Distel 127
Djo Bourgeois, Elise 103
Dobbelman, Theo 194
Does, Bram de 171
Doesburg, Theo van 51, 59, 71, 72, 74, 945, 109, 110, 126
Doeve, J. F. (Eppo) 177
Doodson, Peter 230
Doorne, Hub and Wim van 160
Doors of Perception conference 2334
Dordrecht, Intermezzo gallery 224
Dorwin Teague, Walter 138, 145
Draisma, Eibert 226
Dreyfuss, Henry 138, 145
De Driehoek 191
Drimmelen, Saskia van 223
Droog Design 22430, 226, 227, 228, 229
Drupsteen, Jaap 178
Duco Crop, Michel 31, 32, 53
Dudok, W. M. 73, 85
Duijvelshoff, Daphne 166
Duiker, Jan 967, 100
Duintjer, M. 172
Dumbar, Archibald 192, 195
Dumbar, Gert 164, 174
Dutch Art and Design Fund 232
Dutch Art House 113
Dutch Cable Factory 51
Dutch Design competition 236
Dutch Federation for Art in Industry (bki) 7785, 107, 135, 192
Dutch Federation of Artists Associations 116
Dutch Form Foundation 233
Dutch Graphic Designers (gvn) 200
Dutch National Railways 164, 171, 174, 176
Dutch Touring Club (anwb) 1745, 176
Dutch Trade Fair 56, 76
Eames, Charles and Ray 129, 156, 158, 187
Ebbing, Hans 209, 214
Eckhardt, Rob 21415, 21920
Eckhart 16
Edelkoort, Lideweij 235
Eden 170
Eeden, F. W. van 19
Eeghen, Hester van 195
Eek, Piet Hein 225, 229, 229, 240
Eesteren, Cornelis van 97
Ehrlich, Christa 108, 108
Eibink, Adolf 67
Eindhoven
Design Academy 147, 193, 225, 231, 235
Galery Yksi 224
Van Abbe Museum 166
Eisenloeffel, Jan 30, 32, 33, 34, 38, 43, 50, 52, 53, 74, 90
Elenga, Henk 206
Elffers, Dick 199200, 201, 202
Ellens, Harm 4041
Ensched 83, 175, 1778, 180
Enschedese School 205
Enthoven, Axel 157
Erres 108, 109, 121, 150, 154
Eschauzier, Frits 127, 149
Escher, Gielijn 206, 207
Etna 148
European Ceramic Work Centre 194
exhibition Die Wohnung 979, 97, 98
exhibitions
Against Unhealthy Art and Bad Taste 113
Art and Advertising 545, 55
Art and Kitsch 127, 128
Het Atoom 150, 165
Brussels Exposition 65
The Chair Over the Last Forty Years 126

Design from the Netherlands 208, 209
Design Port/Orange Alert 11
Designs for Industry 21013, 211
Dutch Design 1334, 185
Dutch Furniture 157
E55 150
Exhibition Against Deceitful Taste 90
Exhibition of Art Applied to Industry 18
First Dutch Trade Fair 76
Five Contemporary Potters 193
Foreign Affairs of Dutch Design 230
Fringe Design 21314
Furniture as Art 221
Furniture from the Netherlands 213
gkf Hand and Machine 192
Gute Form 123
Industrial Design 139, 140
Industry & Design 185
Kortrijk furniture show 225
Living and Living 126
London Great Exhibition 1617, 17, 19, 29
Man and Home 126
Meubelsculptuur (Furniture Sculpture) 221
Milan Triennale 80, 139, 157, 192
My Room 186, 187
New York, International Contemporary Furniture Fair
(icff) 11
Not just Good but Good-looking 135
Objects to Wear 196
Our House, Our Home (ohot) 1301, 130
Paris Exposition 1316, 15, 16, 17, 2430, 40, 54, 724, 73
Popular Culture 199
Turin 308, 40, 41, 55
West Coast Ceramics 196
Who Is Afraid of American Pottery 196
Die Wohnung 979, 97, 98
Eyck, Aldo van 130, 1889, 188
Eyk, P. N. van 86
Eyk, Ria van 195
Falkenberg-Liefrinck, Ida 106, 106
Fentener van Vlissingen 31, 32
Ferrary-Hardoy, Jorge 126
Fifty Best-Looking Books 203, 235
Fine Arts Abroad Agency 208
Finsterlin, Hermann 71
Flem, Wladimir 136
Focke & Meltzer 127
Forum 188
Frame 234
Frederick, Christine 99
Fris 120, 139, 140
Frisia 85
Fuller, R. Buckminster 203, 204
Furore 205, 205
Gatzen, Pascal 223
Gazelle 77
Geesink, C.A.J. 20
Gelder, H. E. van 24, 623, 76
Gelderland 157, 190, 190
Geradts, Evert 205
Gerbrands, R 60
Gerlings, H. 33
Gero 121, 139, 139, 141
Gerrit Jan Thieme fund 201
Gidding, Jaap 67, 68, 74, 79, 85, 91
Gilles, Wim 122, 1434, 144, 145, 146, 147
Gips, A. F. 29, 30, 32
Gispen Metalwork Factory 59, 83, 102, 11314, 120, 130, 158
Gispen, Willem H. 5861, 59, 83, 91, 92, 97, 102, 103, 104, 134,
135, 148, 158, 159
gkf (Applied Artists Federation) 116, 117, 135, 175, 192, 200
Good Design for Industry 233
Good Industrial Design Foundation 234
Good Living Association (Stichting Goed Wonen) 116, 11725,
119, 120, 121, 1267, 129, 130, 131, 155, 156, 157, 161, 1878,
188, 190, 192
Gouden Noot trophy 235
Gouwe, Willem Frederik 56, 77, 82, 179
Granpr Molire, M. J. 91, 92, 149
Grasso 166, 168
Gratama, Jan 73, 756
Graumans, Rody 226, 229, 229
Gray, Eileen 71
Gretsch, H. 121
Grinten, G. J. van der 149
Groenendijk, Huibert 230, 231
Groeneveldt, Pieter 85, 191
Groot, J. H. and J. M. 223, 22
Gropius, Walter 93, 117
Group R 166
De Gruyter 167, 169
Guermonprez, Paul 1467
Guild of Architecture, Fine Arts and Decorative Craft 112
Haagsche 14, 16, 24
Haaren, Hein van 171, 179, 180, 220
Haarlem, Museum of Applied Arts 19, 21, 278, 77, 82, 84
Haas, Ton 209, 214
Hadders, Gerard 206
Haeckel, Ernst 12, 23
Hamer 120
Hammacher, A.M.W.J. 179
Hana, Herman 43, 44, 45
Hans, Ineke 227
266

Harcourt, Geoffrey 157
Hard Werken 205, 206, 206
Havelaar, Just 612
Haye, Frans de la 208, 211
Heemaf 148
Hees, Maria 195, 195, 196, 209, 209, 215
Heesen, Willem 192, 194
Heijden, Joke van 220
hema 64, 184, 185, 186, 220, 235, 2389
Hendrix, Berend 192
Henny, Carel 33, 40
Herbst, Marion 196
Herman Hart 131
Hermsen, Herman, 209
Hertzberger, Herman 188
Het Huis 47, 65, 77
Hillen, J. B. 28, 32
Hitweek 201
Hoef, Chris van der 23, 30, 32, 34
Hoeker & Zoon 30, 32, 33
Hoff, Dick van 227, 227
Hoff, Robert van 71
Hofstede Crull, Thera 191
Holland Electro 150
Holland Festival 199, 202
Holst, Richard Roland 42, 55, 58, 70, 73, 82, 91
Hoogerwerf, Ton 219, 219
Horn, Lex 192
Horowitz, A. 152
Horst, Loes van der 195
Horsting, Viktor 223
Van Houten 85
Hoytema, Theo van 35
Hubers, Dirk 191, 193
Huszar, Vilmos 57, 71, 72, 109
Hutten, Richard 227
Huygen, Frederike 214
i10 96
Identity Matters 234
De Jissel 85
ikea 184, 190, 191
Indola 150
Industrial Design Foundation 135, 197, 233, 234
Industrial Design Institute (iiv) 83, 116, 1234, 135, 13642, 137,
142, 170, 192, 193, 197, 233
Ingen Housz, J. A. 143
Institute for Decorative and Industrial Art (isn) 54, 77, 82, 87,
116
International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (icsid)
141, 142
Inventum 146, 15052, 151
Istha, Joop 148, 154
Items 213, 214, 217, 224, 234
Itera 211
Itten, Johannes 147
iv-Nieuws (International Design News) 138
Jaarsma, E. M. 85
Jaarsveld, W. J. 147
Jacobsen, Arne 129
Jaff, Hans 127
Jansen, Arnold. 61, 62
Jansen, H. F. 19
Jansen, Jan 195, 230
Jansma, Arie 172
Janzen, J. W. 99, 99, 126
Javasche Bank 65
Jencks, Charles 186
Jones, Owen 19
Jong, Djoke de 227
Jong, Hans de 193
Jong Holland (Young Holland) 185
Jong, Jo de 40, 456, 56, 63
De Jonge Kunst 43
Jongejans, Charles 163
Jongerius, Hella 227, 230
Jongert, Jacob 48, 79, 912, 109, 110, 167, 199, 206
Joy lemonade 148, 148
Judd, Donald 221
Jungerhans 127
k10bulletin 217
Kalff, Louis 141, 144, 152, 153
Kamerlingh Onnes, Harm 193
Kamman, Jan 111
Kamphuis, Hans 205
Kat, Otto B. de 69
Kembo 159
Kemming, Loek 209, 214
Van Kempen 29, 108, 108, 212
Kempen, J. M. van 17
Kerkhof, Tinus van de 172
KesselsKramer 228, 229, 230
Kho Liang Ie 118, 124, 125, 147, 148, 157, 165, 170, 172, 186, 187,
21617
Kho Liang Ie Associates 173, 208, 211
Kho Liang Ie prize 213, 217
Kiljan, Gerard 109, 112, 144, 146, 148, 148
Kimmenade, Thijs van 221
kio (Circle of Industrial Designers) 135
Kjaerholm, Poul 129, 187
Klaarhamer, P.J.C. 72
Klerk, Michel de 64, 656, 66, 67, 71, 74, 77
Kluwer 167
Knaap, Han 139
267

De Knipscheer 85, 191
Knoll, Florence 129
Knuttel, P. 171
Kodak 145, 145
Khler, Jo 107
Kok, Jurriaan 16, 245
Konijnenburg, Willem van 179
Konings, Jan 224, 225
Koo, N. P. de 82, 91
Koolhaas, Rem 222, 226
Koster 148
Kramer, Friso 118, 120, 139, 140, 141, 144, 147, 148, 159, 165, 166,
208, 211, 211
Kramer, Piet 64, 65, 66, 67, 74, 77
Krimpen, Jan van 82, 180
Kromhout, Willem 91
Krommenie linoleum 103, 121, 130, 165
Krop, Hildo 67, 73
Kruiningen, Harry van 191
Kruit, Hans 177, 177
t Kruithuis 193, 196
Kruyff, J. R. de 1819, 22, 24, 36
Kultuurkamer 112, 179
Kunst en Industrie (Art and Industry) 20
Kunstformen der Natur (Art Forms in Nature) 12, 23
Laarmans, Joris 231
Labor Omnia Vincit (lov) 76, 78, 81, 823
Lamris, Bernard 196
Lampe, Henk 209
Landweer, Sonja 193
Lanooij, C. J. 26, 61, 62, 79
Lap, Geert 222
Lauweriks, J.L.M. 22, 43, 57, 70, 73, 74
Le Comte, Adolf 14
Le Corbusier 85, 97
Le Cri Nerlandais 223, 224
Lebeau, Chris 23, 36, 43, 79, 8081
Leck, Bart van der 71, 72, 85, 104, 128
Leerdam 51, 52, 56, 578, 67, 76, 78, 79, 80, 83, 103, 107, 120,
121, 139, 141, 194
Leersum, Emmy van 195, 196
Leeuw, Henk de 1278, 129
Leeuw, Joseph de 82, 835
Leeuwen, Klaas van 43, 45
Leliman, J.H.W. 175
Leuvelink, Gertjan 171, 174, 176, 210
Lewitt, Sol 221
Ley, Marijke de 168, 170, 208
Lieshout, Joep van 222, 229, 229
Lignostone 53
Limpberg, Koen 115
Lion Cachet, Carel 27, 29, 29, 35, 55, 56, 57, 73, 74
Lissitzky, El 51, 93, 109, 166
Loewy, Raymond 145, 163
Loghem, Han van 81, 934, 97, 1045
Loon, Johan van 193
Lorm, Cornelis de 57, 79, 86, 107
Lucassen, Jan 1634
Lucker, Louis 159, 210
Lundia 18990
Makro 167
Man 219
Mandersloot, Frank 221
Marken, J. C. van 55, 56
Martin, W. 76
Marx, Gerda 93
Marzano, Stefano 153
May, Ernst 93, 99
Mazairac, Pierre 157
Meerten, H. C. van 141
Meijer, Hannes 117
Meijer, Jan de 23
Memphis group 217
Mendes da Costa, J. 73
Mepal 163
Merkelbach, Ben 104
Mertens, H. F. 81
Mesdag, Willem Hendrik 26
Metz & Co, 72, 82, 835, 84, 100, 101, 1023, 104, 106, 1279,
130, 131, 192
Mey, Jo van der 567, 64, 65, 66, 67, 77, 92
Meydam, Floris 192, 194
Meyer, Erna 99
Michelotti, Giovanni 160
Mieke Teunen Design Vertrieb 209
Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig 97, 98, 129, 187
Mijksenaar, Paul 166, 230
Mijll Dekker, Kitty van der 191
Milan, Salone del Mobile 225
Mobach 191
Moholy-Nagy, Lszl 126, 166
Molenaar, Frans 208
Mondriaan Stichting 232
Mondrian, Piet 59, 71
Montis 157
Moor, Christiaan de 124, 179
Morf 234
Moritz, Ulf 208
Morris, William 19, 36, 86
Mosa factory 120, 121, 138, 139, 172
Moser, Karl 93
Mourik, Frans van 167
Muntendam, J. A. 81, 823
Museumjournaal 2001, 202
268

Musewum Mesdag 26, 27
Muthesius, Hermann 49
Mutters 14, 16, 19
My Home 129
National Broadcasting Foundation 171
Nedap 121, 122
Neeve, Bernardine de 194
Van Nelle 48, 56, 61, 92, 93, 96, 102, 167
Netherlands Cable Factories (nfk) 110
Netherlands Industrial Designers Federation (nidf) 135
Netherlands Union of Housewives 99, 99, 161
New York, Museum of Modern Art 228, 229
Nicola-Chaillet, Cora 118
Niegeman, Johan 93, 11718, 122, 144, 147, 157
Nienhuis, Bert 23, 24, 62, 191, 193
Nieuwe Bouwen (New Building) 959, 1012, 103, 107, 115
Nieuwe Wonen (New Living) 102, 1034, 115
Nieuwelaar, Aldo van den 157, 208
Nieuwenborg, Frans van 209
Nieuwenhuis, Theo 29, 35, 55, 56
Van Nifterik 162
Nijmegen, Marzee gallery 193
Ninaber van Eyben, Bruno 209, 209, 21213
Noorda, Bob 216
Noyons, Esther 171
npk Industrial Design 175, 176
nrc 184, 197
Oc van der Grinten 159, 159, 210
Oda 158
Oestreicher, Helly 195
Oilily 2089
Oldewarris, Hans 205
Onck, Andries von 216
Onder de Sint Maarten 32, 35
Oosschot, A. C. 28, 43
Oosterhof, Frank 213
Oosterhof, Saar 227
Oosterman, Jan 191
De Opbouw 127
Opbouw (Advancement) association 913, 94, 97
Opera Ontwerpers 228
Orson & Bodli 223
Osnabrugge, Joop van 148, 152
Ossendrijver, Lucas 223
Oud, J.J.P. Bob 59, 59, 60, 71, 72, 74, 85, 91, 92, 945, 97, 97,
989, 100, 104, 109
Oxenaar, R.D.E. (Ootje) 1778, 177, 179, 180
Het Paapje 85, 121, 130, 131, 191
Pagani, Carlo 129
Pagola, Lola 195
Pander 16, 74, 83, 85, 106, 127
Parkwijck, Amsterdam 40
Parry, Rob 132, 163
Pastoe 106, 120, 130, 155, 156, 156, 157, 170, 188, 220
Paulin, Pierre 157
Paulussen, F. 119
Pauw, Jos de 170
Pelt, Bas van 127, 129, 130, 131, 192
Pelt, G. 76, 81
Penaat, Willem 33, 43, 44, 53, 54, 746, 77, 78, 82, 84, 84, 85,
90, 106
Penraat, Jaap 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147
Pesman, Jan 205
Petrus Regout 21
Philips 56, 76, 11415, 138, 141, 144, 150, 1524, 153, 208, 218,
220, 230, 239
Pilastro 120, 188
De Ploeg 43, 85, 90, 1078, 107, 121, 130, 155
Pluym, Willem van der 58
Poelzig, Hans 93, 97
Poesenkrant (Pussy Paper) 205
Polak, Hans 85
Polenaar, J. H. 66
Poll, Marijn van der 2278, 229
Ponti, Gio 129, 187, 216
De Porceleyne Fles 14, 18, 24, 256, 32, 76, 194, 194
Postma, Tom 222, 223
Potterij De Rijn 85
Pottery Amstelhoek 30
Premsela, Benno 130, 130, 147, 1701
Premsela Foundation 230, 233, 234
Premsela Vonk studio 168, 170, 208
Product 234
Professional Association of Dutch Designers (bno) 234, 236
Provo 216
Pruys, Simon Mari 1979
ptt (National Post, Telephone and Telegraph) 867, 86, 171,
177, 1789, 180, 206, 220
Puck and Hans 195
Pugin, A. W. 19
Pulchri Studio 13
Puntgaaf gallery 224
Rabobank 167
Ram Delftware factory, Arnhem 68, 70, 83
Ramakers, Renny 225, 226
Rams, Dieter 153
Randstad 167
Rath & Doodeheefver wallpaper 186, 187, 187
Ravesteyn, Sybold van 74
De Reclame 55, 56, 135
Regina 67
Regout 18
269

Reijenga, T. 120
Remy, Tejo 224, 225, 226, 226, 228
Retera, Willem 23
Ridder, Willem de 201
Riel, Ton van 171
Rietveld, Gerrit 60, 71, 72, 85, 88, 94, 99101, 101, 124, 125, 126,
127, 128, 148, 158, 163, 172, 237
Rietveld, Wim 120, 141, 142, 146, 148, 1501, 158, 158, 159, 211
Rijk, Vincent de 221
Ring Neue Werbegestalter 110
Rodenberg, J. F. 186
Roh 157
Rolf, Johnny 191, 193
Rolf, Margot 195
Rooden, Jan de 191, 193
Roos, Sjoerd de 434, 76, 82, 87
Ros, Lies 171, 206
Rose, Hajo 1467
Rosenthal 227
Rottenberg, Felix 213
Rotterdam
Academy of Art 11011
Ahoy complex 167
Bergpolderflat 1001, 101
Boijmans Van Beuningen Museum 166, 1923
De Unie cafe 95
Justus van Effen housing complex 94, 95
Kiefhoek public housing 95
Sonnenveld house 1024, 103
Spangen public housing 94
Witte Dorp (White Village) 95
Rotterdam Design Prize 186, 235, 235
Royal Carpet Factory 19, 26, 27, 85
Royal Netherlands Post (kpn) 180
Royen, Jean Franois van 55, 77, 86, 87, 171, 1789
Rozenburg 246, 32, 38, 62, 70
Rozendaal, W. J. 63, 177, 187
Rubinstein, Renate Tamar 2023
Russel-Tiglia 144
Ruth, Theo 138, 139, 157
Ruton 150
S
pek, Borek 217, 217

Saarinen, Eero 129
Saher, E.A. von 14, 21, 82
Salden, J.J.E. 192
Salomonson, Hein 119
Sandberg, Willem 116, 1256, 148, 192, 199, 203
Sanders, Karel 116, 134, 135, 143, 145, 146, 193
Schabracq, Alexander 222, 223
Scheer, Piet van der 154
Scheltema & Holkema 29
Schijndel, Mart van 214, 215
Schiphol Airport 171, 1723, 173
Schlesinger, Stefan 85
Schmidt, Kthe 1467
Schoemaker, G.C.J. 146
Schonk, Jan 85
Schreuders, Piet 2012, 205, 205
Schrder, Rob 171, 206, 213
Schrfer, Jan 159
Schrofer, Jurriaan 167, 171, 200, 201
Schudel, Paul 209, 209, 214
Schuitema, Paul 60, 82, 92, 104, 105, 109, 11112, 111, 134, 166,
167, 199
Schtte-Lihotzky, Margarethe 99
Schuurman, Karel 177, 179
Schwarz, Paul and Dick 165
Schwarz, S. L. 69
Schwitters, Kurt 51, 110
Seghel 191
Semper, Gottfried 19, 21, 39
Senseo 230
Sielcken, Jet 194, 194
Sierman, Harry 204
Sikkens 138, 142, 235
Simon de Wit 167, 169
Simonis, Dick 118, 139, 139, 141, 163
Simons, Leo 40
Sint Maarten Porcelain 139
Sliedregt, D. van 120
Slobbe, Alexander van 223, 224, 230
Sluys, Cornelis van der 534, 61, 63, 67, 74, 86, 90, 90, 105,
106, 127
Sluyterman, Karel 14, 15, 17, 28, 3031, 35, 46, 76
Smeets, Job 231
Smeets, Ren 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 193
Snellebrand, Jan Antonie 67
Snoeren, Rolf 223
Socit Cramique 15
Society of Advertisement Designers and Illustrators (vri) 135,
200
Society for the Elevation of Craftsmanship (vva) 412
Society of Practitioners of Monumental Art 192
Sommers, Wilma 221
Sottsass, Ettore 21617
Spanjaard, Frits 74, 81
t Spectrum 120, 130, 131, 1546, 155, 157, 220
Het Spectrum 167
De Sphinx 15, 64, 139
Spnhoff, Noudi 209, 214
Spruit-Ledeboer, Mieke 193
Spruyt 203
Staal, Gert 2356
Staal, Jan Frederick 73
Staalmeubel bv 158
270

271
Stam, Mart 59, 85, 91, 923, 978, 100, 106, 116, 11718, 119,
126, 144, 147, 148
Steenbergen, Chris 192, 195
Steendrukkerij de Jong & Co 2034, 203
Stevens, Freddie 195
De Stijl 59, 712, 73, 74, 92, 94, 95, 104, 109, 110
Stokvis 1089, 121, 138
Stolk, Swip 201
Stolle, Hein 118
Stlz, Gunta 108
Struycken, Peter 180
The Studio 35, 38
Studio Dumbar 164, 164, 180
Stuers, Jonkheer Victor de 18, 20, 24
Stuttgart, Weissenhofsiedlung 60
Suyling, Karel 136, 137, 143, 144, 145, 145, 146
Swarte, Joost 204
Tak, P. L. 44, 45
Talsma, Fedde 160
Tante Leny presenteert (Aunt Leny Presents) 204
Taut, Bruno 87
Taut, Max 93
Taylor, F. W. 99
Teige, Karel 93
Tel Design 1634, 16770, 169, 171, 174, 176, 180
The Hague
Art Academy 112, 146, 1478, 163, 1867
Arts and Crafts Centre 29
Gemeentemuseum 127, 128, 12931, 193, 199
Nouvelles Images 193
Peace Palace (Vredspaleis) 70
Villa Henny 39, 40
Theosophy 22, 32, 789
Thorn Prikker, Johan 278, 29, 34, 356, 75
Tichelaar Pottery 227
Tiger 163
Tijdschrift voor Decoratieve Kunst en Volksvlijt 20
Tijen, Reinder van 1001, 209
Togt, Jan and Wim van der 161
Tomado 121, 1602, 188
Toorn, Jan van 2001, 202, 206
Toorn Vrijthoff, Jell van den 171
Toorop, Jan 35, 36, 55
Total Design 16570, 169, 171, 172, 173, 180, 200, 201, 2023, 202
Treebus, Karel 171
Treumann, Otto 199
Trigt, Piet van 171
Trio printers 85
Triple Alliance (Driebond) 75, 767, 78
Truijen, Emil 132, 1634
Tschichold, Jan 51, 110
Tussenbroek, Otto van 1089
Uilengeluk (Owls Fortune) 35
Ulm, Hochschule 123, 153, 165, 216
Unger, Gerard 171, 175, 176, 178, 178, 180, 230
Unger, Marjan 195
De Unie caf 95
Union 208
Utopia 205
Utrecht
Design Centre 157, 213
Dutch Exhibition Centre 124
Rietveld-Schrderhuis 88, 99100
v&d 164
Vaart, Jan van der 193, 20910, 221, 221
Vhna lodge 22
Valkema, Sybren 192, 194
Van der Heem 154
vank (Association for Crafts and Industrial Art) 427, 50, 51,
536, 55, 77, 87, 89, 116, 125
yearbooks 5661, 57, 60, 67, 75, 82
Vecht, N. J. van de 57
Veen, Gerrit van der 126
Veersema, Rein 153
Velde, Henry van de 28, 36, 40, 49, 70
Venini 129
Venturi, Robert 186
Verbeek, Arie W. 104, 124, 150, 151
De Vereenigde Blikfabrieken 48
Verheijden, Bob 219
Verheijen, Marcel 223
Verhoeven, Joep and Jeroen 231
Verkruysen, H. C. 58, 71
Vermeulen, Rick 206
Verschuuren, Nel 172
Versnel, Jan 170
Vescom 170
Vicon 211
Vignelli, Massimo 216
Viktor & Rolf 223, 223, 224
Vinken, Jeroen 215
Viollet-le-Duc, Eugene-Emmanuel 20, 39
Visser, Carel 221
Visser, Martin 120, 12931, 130, 155, 155, 187, 220
vivid gallery 11
Vlaanderen, Andr 47, 767
Van Vlissingen 32, 85
Vlugt, Leen van der 91, 96, 1001, 1024, 103
Vonk, Jan 118, 170
Vorkink, Piet 67
Vormberichten 224
Vormgevers Associates 209
Vosmaer, Carl 19
Vries, Coen de 118, 120, 142, 147, 163, 187

Vries, R.W.P. de 44
Vries, Wim de 118, 120, 139, 140, 163
De Vrije Kunstenaar (The Free Artist) 116, 134
Vulpen, Gerwin van 219, 219
Waacs Design 230
Wagenfeld, Wilhelm 139
Walenkamp, H. J. 54
Wanders, Marcel 219, 224, 227, 228, 230
Wasch, Karel 63
Wegerif, Chris 29, 34, 35, 38
Wegman, Martijn 209
Well Design 230, 232
Wendingen 59, 59, 60, 60, 69, 7071, 73, 76, 92
Werkbund exhibition 49, 59, 745, 91
Wernars, Gerard 171, 186
Westenenk, Adriek 194
Westraven factory 113
Wibaut, Constance 122
Wibaut, F. M. 70
Wichard, Fritz 107
Wichman, Erich 85
Wiebenga, W. G. 967
Wiegman, Piet 193
Wiener Werksttte 109
Wiertz, Pauline 221
Wijdeveld, H. Th. 701, 73, 77, 109, 117
Wijnberg, Nico 192
Wijsenbeek, Siep 174
Wild Plakken 205, 206, 213
Wildenhain, Franz 193
Wilmink, Machiel 55, 79, 135
Wils, Jan 71, 74, 109
Winter, Peter de 205
Wissing, Benno 1656, 167, 168, 172, 173, 173
De Wolkenkrabber (Skyscraper) 205
Wonen ta-bk (Living ta-bk) 118
De Woning collective 43, 43, 44, 50, 90
t Woonhuys 65
Wormser, Piet 67
Wornum, Ralph 19
Wouda, Hendrik 74, 85
Wouda, J. 141, 146
Wouw, Jolijn van de 166
Wright, Frank Lloyd 71, 74, 79
Young Designers & Industry 234
Yran, Knut 153
Zaalberg 85, 191
Zanen, Eduard 230
Zanuso, Marco 139, 216
Zeeghers, J. F. 65
Zijl, Lambert 32
Zilcken, Philip 35
De Zilverdistel 86
Zon, Jac. von 55
De Zonnebloem 127
Zonnestraal, Hilversum sanatorium 96
Zuid-Holland pottery 67, 83, 85
Zwan, Arie van der 21314
Zwart, Piet 50, 513, 52, 53, 79, 82, 92, 10911, 115, 116, 134, 135,
144, 163, 166, 199
Zweegman, Diek 170
Zwiers, Lambertus 54
Zwillinger, Rhonda 197
Zwollo, Frans 22, 24, 30, 32, 34
Zwollo, Martinus 192
272

Dutch Design - A History (Art Ebook)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dutch Design - A History (Art Ebook)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dutch Design - A History (Art Ebook)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What cultural and social factors influenced Dutch design according to the book?

This is what weve been waiting for: nally, an unprecedented

critical analysis of the history of Dutch design. Mienke Simon

pek, Borek 217, 217

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.