The Cultural Dimension of Architecture, or the Enlarged Audience of the NAi

The Cultural Dimension of Architecture, or the Enlarged Audience of the NAi

Sergio Miguel Figueiredo

1

The Cultural Dimension of Architecture: or the enlarged audience of the Nederlands Architectuurinstituut Sergio Miguel Figueiredo Department of Architecture and Urban Design, UCLA

Abstract By procuring collections and archives, curating exhibitions, hosting debates

and engaging in publication, institutions inherently influence the development

of architectural discourse under the public gaze of an audience. While such

institutions have always influenced the perception of architecture to a wide

audience, with the onset of globalization, their reach and effects on the

discipline have been widely amplified.

The Nederlands Architectuurinstituut (Netherlands Architecture Institute) is a

particularly paradigmatic example of such condition, as in recent years few

other institutions have had a greater impact or visibility in the construction and

dissemination of architectural discourse and practice as the Rotterdam based

institution. Since its inception, the NAi defined as its strategic directing

principles not only explicit objectives, mandates and means of engagement,

but also an identification of different target groups and clients to which its

efforts would be directed to.

The establishment of an enlarged audience beyond the discipline became a

fundamental strategy in the NAi’s construction of an architectural culture

through engagement and dissemination. Such unfolding of the discipline

dictated not only the development of the institute but, inevitably, the

advancement of Dutch architectural production. With four non-hierarchical

target groups evenly distributed between architecture insiders and outsiders,

and a main concern with “the cultural dimension of architecture,” the NAi

expressed the connection of the discipline to society as its main priority.

This paper will address not only how the NAi has pursued the construction of

an enlarged audience, but also how this explicit strategy has been translated

to Dutch architectural practice and its international acclaim during the 1990s.

Moreover, it will argue that the NAi’s early preoccupation with an enlarged

audience effectively enabled its audience to move beyond the passive role of

users and consumers of architecture and become themselves active

elements in the production and dissemination of architectural culture.

Audience: Proceedings of the XXVIIIth SAHANZ Annual Conference Brisbane, Australia, 7-10 July 2011

2

The establishment and origins of the Nederlands Architectuurinstituut The Nederlands Architectuurinstituut (NAi) based in Rotterdam is the most prominent

Dutch national architectural institution, composed by a museum, an archive and a library.

With its different components, the NAi operates as a platform in understanding the past,

creating the present and speculating a future for the discipline. Since its foundation in

1988, the NAi has defined its position within the discipline and Dutch cultural context, by

enquiring and presenting architecture through its cultural dimension, as well as engaging

with a broad array of different audiences. Beyond focusing on existing architectural

audiences, the institute has continuously attempted to open up – the all too often

restricted – architectural conversation to new publics. With the wide spectrum of

audiences ranging from school children to architects, from architectural scholars to

elected politicians, the NAi has always had the ambition to be an inclusive platform where

architecture and society could meet.

Figure 1. The Nederlands Architectuurinstituut building in Rotterdam.

While the NAi’s preoccupation with different audiences is a direct result from its mandate

of reflecting and analysing the position and impact of architecture in society, it is also

reminiscent of its eclectic origins. Specifically, it reflects how the NAi was the result of a

merger of three existing organizations which not only engaged architecture from different

points, but also made architecture available and understandable to different audiences.

Operating in parallel, Stichting voor Architectuurmuseum (Architecture Museum

Foundation), Nederlands Documentatiecentrum voor de Bouwkunst (Netherlands Centre

for Architecture Documentation) and Stichting Wonen (Foundation “Housing/Living”) had

individually been shaping Dutch architectural culture in the post-war period, until it

FIGUEIREDO

3

became increasingly evident in the early 1980s that their activities were not only

complementary, but there would be substantial benefits from sharing resources and

effectively institutionalizing the synergies between the different organizations.1

When founded in 1946, Stichting Wonen was a consumer organization for information on

modern living, promoting functional domestic design to the general public through full-

sized exhibition-model kitchens and living rooms. However, by the early 1970s, it had

become a platform for popular advocacy groups organizing against the modern urban

renewal of Amsterdam. As the modern reconfiguration of the city was averted, the

organization found its new purpose in an ambitious program of exhibitions and

publications where new works of architecture were didactically exposed to a popular

audience.

Figure 2. An Exhibition at the Stichting Wonen on Leidsestraat, Amsterdam, c. 1983 (Rotterdam: NAi archive SGWO, box 25,

folder Fotoarchief Redactie Tijdschrijft)

Founded in 1955, Stichting voor Architectuurmuseum (SAM), was the last iteration of a

long tradition of private initiatives to establish an architectural museum in the

Netherlands.2 Directly dependent and supported by the Dutch professional association of

architects, the Bond van Nederlandse Architecten (BNA), its original directive was to

continue the collection of architectural archives and artefacts destined for a future

architecture museum. But since it only had a very limited budget and was primarily

staffed by volunteers, its stewardship of the collection became both inadequate and

untenable, forcing it to request assistance from the Dutch government.3


4

Unwilling to allow an important part of Dutch heritage to be lost, the government

responded in 1972 by creating the Nederlands Documentatiecentrum voor de Bowkunst

(NDB).4

It tended to the unorganized collection amassed by the SAM, but also to the

state’s architectural archives previously stored in the Rijksmuseum. Beyond the

integration, organization, management and conservation of these collections, the new

‘documentation centre’ was also mandated to develop strategies for acquisition and

inventory. Despite the NDB taking over most of the functions of the SAM, the two

organizations operated in tandem, as the SAM’s status of private institution enabled it to

access resources (financial and otherwise) that were unavailable to the state run NDB.

Figure 3. The inadequate storage of the NDB archives on Droogbak, Amsterdam, 1980 (Rotterdam: NAi archive NAi

Voorgeschiedenis, box t/m 1984, folder 1912-1975)

As an inevitable result of the merger, the NAi became a collusion of three well defined,

yet divergent, segments of audiences, which had previously been catered by its

constituent members. Architects and other architectural professionals had been major

supporters of the extensive efforts of the SAM; architecture (and art) scholars had been

particularly engaged by the NDB archives; while the general public was greatly interested

in the activities of Stichting Wonen. But the constitution of the NAi had greater ambitions,

and the new institution was to be more than just the sum of its parts.5 Not only was the

NAi to have the capability to operate beyond the scope of any of its predecessors, but

was also to go beyond their established public, and fundamentally expand architecture’s

traditional audience. Architecture, the most public of all artistic endeavours, was thus to

be freed from the trappings of its own interiority and dedicated jargon, to forcefully reach

a wider audience and rightfully reclaim its central position in society.

FIGUEIREDO

5

The NAi’s diverse audiences The amplification of the NAi’s and, inevitably, architecture’s audiences, was not only

established but vigorously emphasized in the first policy plan of the institute. Throughout

this foundational document, references abound to the commitment of the new institute to

open up the architectural debate to a much broader audience, and to how strategic and

fundamental this expansion of reach was in stimulating architectural debate in the

Netherlands. For example, while defining the NAi’s approach to architecture and urban

planning, it was claimed that while “professional design, knowledge of technology and

insight into programmatic requirements are necessary,” it must mainly be emphasized

“the essential importance of knowledge, creativity, intuition and imagination,”6

since

beyond the technical or disciplinary concerns, architecture inherently expresses the

values and ideals of the society and period in which it is created.

An entire chapter of the Policy Plan was dedicated to identifying “clients and target

groups”7

of the institution, while also indicating how the NAi’s activities were to forcefully

reach and impact these different groups. Specifically, four main target audiences were

identified: the design community, scholars, the general public and decision makers. The

identification of these target groups reinforced once again the NAi’s resolute commitment

to establishing a platform for the interchange between architecture and society. Not only

were the target audiences evenly divided between insiders (design community and

scholars) and outsiders (general public and decision makers) to the architectural

discipline, it was also sustained that there were no priorities among these groups.

The Rotterdam based institute intended to become a platform for the discussion of ideas

on architecture, devoted to the intellectual stimulation of the design community and

scholars alike, and a crucial resource as a repository of ideas, concepts and works. While

the aspirations for the traditional architectural audiences (architects, architectural

historians and students …) consisted mostly of a continuation of previous activities, the

institute had much more ambitious plans for its wider audiences. Specifically, it planned

to have a significant, yet indirect, impact in the development of the Dutch built

environment by stimulating and broadening the knowledge of decisive people. The NAi

hoped to assist these influential individuals in forming opinions regarding architecture; it

intended to inform, even educate, them on the cultural and aesthetical concerns of the

discipline, offering a renewed perception of architecture as a fundamental cultural activity

whose value was not exhausted in the more concrete and pragmatic dimensions of costs

and functionality. The development of a sensibility to both the conversations within the


6

discipline and to their corresponding built expression was expected to assist these

dignitaries in the execution of their functions, as they exerted a decisive influence on what

was built on the Dutch landscape. Beyond public dignitaries, such as municipal and

national politicians, the range of this target group also identified private elements, such as

directors and investors of housing associations and building companies.

Figure 4. A Public Discussion at the NAi’s auditorium, KPC de Bazelzaal (NAi Jaarverslag 1993, Rotterdam: NAi, 1993)

Despite ambitioning to reach everyone within the general public, the NAi singled out the

two groups at the fringes. On the one hand, the segment of the population which already

had cultural interests, and was to be stimulated to also dedicate its attention to

architecture. On the other hand, a new generation – from schoolchildren to adolescents –

who was to become for the first time engaged with architecture through educational

programs. The basic aim in addressing the general public was to enable it to value

architecture (and urban planning) as “important and natural parts of culture and society.”8

While the specific approach to different groups diverged, the strategic principle remained

the same: to broaden the reach of architecture.

Means of Engagement The foundation of the NAi intended to establish in the Netherlands an essential

infrastructure for architecture. An infrastructure that could effectively shift received

notions of the role of architecture in society, while also creating the conditions for a

favourable climate for the development of the discipline. To accomplish such ambitious

objective, the institute’s assertive strategy of engagement intended to not only expose the

public to the built expression of quality architecture, but also to communicate and include

FIGUEIREDO

7

the broader audience in the issues and conversations within the discipline. Revealing the

interiority of the discipline amounted to a veritable democratization of architecture, where

architectural forms, processes and ideas became accessible and understandable to a

much wider audience.

In order to accomplish such wide democratization, the institute was formulated as a

sophisticated system of means of engagement. Beyond the functions of a traditional

museum, the NAi was established as a combination of different departments that could

address the different interests and needs of its eclectic audience. The seven distinct

departments included the archive, a study centre, a library, the journal Archis, exhibitions,

publications, and special projects.9

The system was just as eclectic as the audiences it

intended to reach, and while each department had different functions and operated with

fundamentally different instruments, their efforts and activities were not only

complementary, but they could be directed at different groups. Moreover, while

independent, the different departments would find a stronger voice when they

collaborated, making the dissemination and reach of the institute’s message inherently

more effective and forceful.

Figure 5. Covers of the journal ARCHIS, (Deventer: Uitgeverij Van Loghum Slaterus for Stichting Nederlands Instituut voor

Architectuur en Stedebouw, 1989)

Some departments such as the archive, the study centre, or even the journal Archis, had

a restricted appeal, as inherently their activities were more closely aligned to the interests

and needs of architectural insiders like scholars and professionals. Naturally, the archive

and collections were consistently employed in the support of historical research projects


8

with the collections on H.P. Berlage, Pierre Kuypers, J.J.P. Oud and Gerrit Rietveld being

the most requested from 1988 to 1998.10

More surprisingly, it was not only scholars that

used this resource for the preparation of exhibitions, publications and advanced research

(mostly doctoral dissertations), as architects similarly procured information that could

assist them in the restoration and renovation of existing buildings.

The extensive collections of archival material housed at the institute were to be analysed

and researched at the study centre. Welcoming approximately ten researchers per year,

the study centre accommodated not only scholars working on doctoral dissertations or

architects compiling inventories and catalogues on Dutch architecture, but also offered

the opportunity for artists to conduct unconventional research on the fringes of the

discipline.11

Similarly, the issues of Archis were organized around articles on historical-

theoretical debates for the scholars and complete reviews of recent architecture for the

architects, complemented with smaller sections with a wider appeal on current events,

book reviews and agenda.

Figure 6. Guided visit to the NAi Archives on ‘MuseumWeekend 1993’ (NAi Jaarverslag 1993, Rotterdam: NAi, 1993)

Just as these functions of the NAi were dedicated to stimulating discourse and

disseminating knowledge within the discipline, the remaining departments had true mass

appeal, cutting across all different segments of target audiences, with a programming that

resonated with all levels of interest in architecture. The library was visited not only by

architecture and art history students and researchers, but also by journalists, writers, and

even hobbyists.12 The audiences using the library reflected the breadth of the volumes

available, ranging from Victor Hugo’s seminal novel ‘The Hunchback of Notre Dame’ to

FIGUEIREDO

9

Vitruvius treatises on architecture. Exhibitions presented a similar appeal to all

audiences, as they were not only visually engaging to architectural novices, but also

revealed a depth of information and ideas that satisfied the more fierce of architectural

experts. Such wide appeal was revealed not only as exhibitions increasingly received

more visitors, but also by visitor surveys that demonstrated that approximately half of the

patrons were professionally or academically engaged with architecture while the

remaining half were not.13

However, the NAi’s commitment for engaging a broader audience was perhaps most

clearly expressed in its ambitious mass media programming. In the autumn of 1993, a

series of 8 television shows entitled “Architectuur in Nederland” was produced by the

institute and aired on Dutch national television. Just the televised program, had average

ratings of 223.750 people per episode,14

but many others were reached by the

accompanying radio broadcasts and book.

Figure 7. Exhibition “Van den Broek and Bakema: The Function of the Form” at the NAi, 2000 (The Art of Architecture Exhibitions,

Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2001) Figure 8. Cover of the 8 episode TV series “Architectuur in Nederland” produced by the

NAi (Hilversum: Teleac, 1993)

The versatility of the NAi’s system of engagement was most clearly illustrated by the

activities specifically customised to the different public niches. These included study trips

to Japan and Los Angeles, for architects to observe and experience other architectural

expressions;15 long running educational programs like ‘SchoolAtelier’ dedicated to small

children and other young students; as well as lectures, conferences and symposia,16

debating different aspects of architecture’s culture. A paradigmatic program in the array


10

of NAi sponsored activities was the study and discussion program ‘Investeren in

Architectonische Kwaliteit,’ or ‘Investing in Architectural Quality.’17 Over the course of four

days, public and private ‘decision makers’ were sensitized to not only the cultural

importance of architectural quality, but also to the benefits (economic and otherwise)

directly derived from it. The success of the program allowed for another one, this time

“Investing in Urban Quality,”18

to be organized in 1994.

Figure 9. The SchoolAtelier Program for 6-12 schoolchildren, 1997 (The Netherlands Architecture Institute, Rotterdam: NAi

Publishers, 1998)

NAi Publishers also articulated the institute’s commitment in exposing a wider audience

to the cultural dimension of architecture. Throughout its publications, this NAi

department19

attempted to bridge the gap between general public and the discipline by

producing books that appealed to the different audiences in which different perspectives

on architecture were presented through compelling graphic design and carefully

instrumentalised imagery. The democratization of architecture was bolstered by this

extensive publications program that carried the NAi’s themes and debates further and

longer than any of its other more ephemeral activities.

International Orientation

Beyond the expansion of architecture’s audience within the Netherlands, the NAi also

aspired to captivate an international public. Thus, since its foundation, the institute

systematically pursued an international strategy. From bi-lingual best-seller publications

such as Hans Ibelings ‘Supermodernism’20 to international meetings such as the

‘Anyhow’ conference in 1997, the NAi assertively fostered a continuous international

FIGUEIREDO

11

exchange, in an effort to overcome the self-imposed isolation Dutch architecture had

experienced during the 1970s. The wide spread use of English – sometimes even being

the only language used – indicated both the institute’s international ambition, but also its

unfaltering commitment to reach the widest possible audience.

Not only was the use of English the most ambitious project in capturing a wide audience,

but also the first bilingual publication to originate from the institute aptly epitomized its

general strategy of engagement. The yearly periodical ‘Architecture in the Netherlands

Yearbook’21 documented the annual review of architectural production in the Netherlands.

It was divided into two discrete sections of major theoretical debates and project

documentation of the best designs; it was not only quite accessible to a general

audience,22

but also bilingual; but most significantly it subtly directed the development of

Dutch architecture, as those offices whose work was published in its pages inevitably

garnered more commissions in the following year. In other words, Dutch architectural

discourse and practice were effectively presented and made understandable to not only a

general audience, but also an international one.

Figure 10. Architecture in the Netherlands Yearbook, 1987-88 and 1996-97 (Deventer: Uitgeverij Van Loghum Slaterus, 1988

and Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 1997)

Inclusive Discourse, Engaged Practice While the quantification of its different audiences was an important metric to evaluate the

impact of the institute, it was always understood that the NAi’s fundamental role did not

depend on the number of visitors, patrons or publications. Instead, it relied in its capacity

to stimulate a discussion on architecture that could go beyond the confines of the


12

discipline and foster the development of an inclusive and thriving architectural culture.

Therefore, it could be argued that the NAi’s strategy of broad engagement and

stimulation of architecture through democratization of its conversations was quite

effective, as it became echoed on architectural production in the Netherlands.23

Specifically, while others were pursuing an increasing immersion into the interiority of the

architectural discipline, young Dutch practices like MVRDV, NL Architects, or Neutelings

Riedijk were actively engaged in developing an architecture that not only responded to

the socio-economic conditions of a nascent globalized society, but also forcefully

articulated its underlying concepts and ideas to virtually everyone. Soon, an entire new

generation of Dutch architectural practices garnered international attention for their

innovative attitude in translating an increasingly complex and global reality to built form.

“Radical realism” or “extreme pragmatism”24 were labels often used to describe the fresh

approach pursued by this generation. Instead of a stylistic or formal expression, they

shared similar attitudes towards architecture. Specifically, these and other young Dutch

offices were united by an analytical approach to society, from which a design strategy of

provocative statements and architectonic form was derived.25

Figure 11. The work of a new generation of Dutch architects emerged into the international architectural scene. A+U, MVRDV

Files Projects 002-209 (November 2002) and Bart Lootsma, SuperDutch: New Architecture in the Netherlands (New York:

Princeton Architectural Press, 2002)

Reality was condensed into information, visually translated into diagrams and

datascapes, and then rendered into radical and speculative designs. Even if unwittingly,

projects like WOS 8, Villa VPRO or Leidsche Rijn were a built testimony to the NAi

FIGUEIREDO

13

sponsored view on the inclusive cultural dimension of architecture, as they reassessed

society through architectural works. In these and other designs, reality and society were

not merely expressed, but instead rearranged and forcefully celebrated. Rather than

retreating into an architecture of autonomy, young Dutch offices not only reaffirmed the

mutual dependence between architecture and society, but thrived with the production of

provocative statements exposing the idiosyncrasies and discontinuities of a

“supermodern” world. Thus, as throughout the 1990s these and other designs of young

Dutch architectural offices clearly expressed an architecture where form and experience

were “rooted in the banal reality of everyday,”26

a remarkable parallel was established

between the architectural discourse directed by the NAi and a thriving Dutch architectural

practice.

Figure 12. MVRDV’s Dutch National Pavilion at Hannover

Exhibition diagrammatic model and building, 2000

Moreover, beyond interpreting reality and commenting on society, designs like MVRDV’s

Dutch National Pavilion for the Hannover 2000 Exhibition were also extremely

expressive. The clear articulation of these projects greatly relied on strong images that

immediately conveyed their underlying architectural ideas. Such direct and frank

expression of architectural ideas and commentary on society allowed for architecture to

be understood by a general public independent of their familiarity to architectural debates.

This defining condition of Dutch architectural practice was also analogous to the NAi’s

strategy of broad engagement. Specifically, how activities at the NAi were devised to

relate to all different segments of architecture’s expanded audience. Activities with strong

visual impact which also allowed for multiple meanings of present, past and future


14

architectural works to unfold into society, confounding the boundaries between interior

and exterior of the discipline.

Beyond being reflected on innovative works of young architectural offices, perhaps the

most significant outcome of the NAi’s strategy of broad engagement was the creation of

an educated audience. By turning the architectural debate into a more inclusive and

participatory activity, the NAi empowered the general public to become a fundamental

element in the development and dissemination of architecture. By appreciating and

valuing quality architecture, the public would inevitably claim for an architecture of higher

standard for its spaces of living, working and leisure, one that considered costs and

concepts, functions and forms. In turn, it would inevitably lead to a burgeoning of

architectural forms of indisputable quality, merely by an increase of supply to meet the

growing demand. The practical effects of an expanded and informed audience of

architecture were somewhat calculated. As the housing industry was being privatized and

liberalized during the 1990s, the NAi intended not only to inform, but direct the general

public as cultural patrons, but also as consumers with an increasing power to dictate what

type of architecture was supported (and eventually built) by simply being allowed to

engage in the most basic of all economic models: supply and demand. Only by creating a

ample demand for architectural innovation, could architectural innovation be nurtured and

sustained. With this basic economic calculation the NAi aimed to impact the constituent,

and often overlooked, urban fabric that composes the bulk of construction. Therefore,

while assessing the NAi’s democratization of architecture, it is remarkable how its policy

of engagement equally influenced the most expressive and the most restrained

articulations of Dutch architecture. Effectively, it attests to how the NAi’s efforts in the

establishment of a wider architectural audience significantly altered the basic perceptions

and conceptions of architecture in the Netherlands.

Today and tomorrow Today, the comprehensive system of engagement originally established with the

foundation of the institute is no longer operational, as it adapted its instruments and

calibrated its activities to the changing conditions of a globalized society and the evolving

perceptions of architecture. However, such significant changes have not always been

strategic, as the intense external and internal pressure for NAi Publishers in 1994,27 then

the Yearbook in 1998,28 and finally Archis29 in 2000 to become independent from the

institute were mostly associated with political rather than strategic reasoning. But despite

being currently deprived of such important means of engagement, the institute still

FIGUEIREDO

15

maintains a continuous – albeit less ambitious – engagement with a larger audience.

Such engagement is revealed by the consolidation of the institute’s main efforts around

the core functions of the archive, the library, lectures, symposia and exhibitions, but also

by the addition of compelling new instruments such as the early modern Museum-House

Sonneveld, the open model storage at the Van Nelle Factory, or the NAi’s application for

visualizing architectural possibilities, the Urban Augmented Reality (UAR) app.30

These

instruments both reorganize and reaffirm the attitude of engagement and openness under

which the NAi originally operated.

Figure 13. NAi’s Urban Augment Reality (UAR) app visualizing the future Rotterdam Markthal (Rotterdam: NAi, 2010)

Targeting different audiences and engaging with new publics is now, just as before,

instrumental in broadening the support base for architecture, stimulating debate and

establishing a favourable climate for architectural discussion and production. Therefore,

the NAi re-opens its doors today with a strategic focus, and even a rebranding (NAi

Architecture Museum), intended to make, once again, architectural discussion

comprehensible and accessible to a wider public. Therefore, only by pursuing a

deliberate strategy of public engagement and wide dissemination, can the Dutch institute

not only enable audiences to become active elements in the furthering of Dutch

architecture, but also effectively claim and expand a territory within the discipline that has

come to be associated with Dutch architectural practice, influencing not only the

exception, but most significantly the norm of architectural production and consumption.


16

Endnotes

1 There were already some synergies between some activities of the different organizations. Namely, the SAM and NDB operated in tandem to procure and care for the architectural archives accumulated, while the NDB and Stichting Wonen had already co-operated in producing architectural exhibitions. 2 The attempt to found an national architecture museum dates back to at least 1912 when architect and journalist J.H.W. Leliman forcefully argued for such endeavor the pages of a popular architecture trade magazine. J.H.W. Leliman, ‘Een Architektuurmuseum’, De Bouwwereld, 11, 44 (October 30, 1912), 345-7. 3 Rob de Graaf, ‘Een Museum voor Architectuur in Nederland’, Wonen TABK, 1 (January 1984), 7-9. 4 Mariet Willinge, ‘The Collection, Backbone of the NAi’, in The Netherlands Architecture Institute (Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 1998), 13-9. 5 Personal interview with Adri Duivesteijn, first director of the NAi (Almere, January 2011) 6 Nederlands Architectuurinstituut, Beleidsplan/Policy Plan 1993-1996 (Rotterdam: Nederlands Architectuurinstituut, 1991), 19. 7 The document also defines the distinction between clients and target groups. Namely, clients were considered “those who on their own initiative want to make use of the services” of the NAi, while target groups were established as those to which “the NAi actively directs its activities.” NAi, Beleidsplan/Policy Plan 1993-1996, 28. 8 NAi, Beleidsplan/Policy Plan 1993-1996, 29. 9 In complement to these functions, it was also established the Leliman Association, which anyone could join and later became known as “Friends of the NAi” 10 According to the NAi’s annual reports, from 1989 to 1998, the archives and collections assisted about over 7.000 research projects. Nederlands Architectuurinstituut, Jaarverslag 1989 to Jaarverslag 1998 (Rotterdam: Netherlands Architectuurinstituut, 1990-1999) 11 Most notably, the plastic artist/architect Joop van Lieshout’s research for ‘The Master and Slave Unit’ was hosted at the NAi’s study center in 1994. 12 NAi, Jaarverslag 1990, 22. 13 Liesbeth Elkenaar, ‘NAi Publieksonderzoek Tentoonstelling ‘Stijl’ ’ (Rotterdam, 1994) 14 NAi, Jaarverslag 1993, 74-5. 15 The first two study trips organized by the NAi were respectively to Japan in May 1992 and Los Angeles in February-March 1994 16 On average the auditorium KPC de Bazelzaal of the NAi hosted 2 to 3 events a week from 1993 to 1998. NAi Jaarverslag 1993-1998. 17 NAi, Jaarveslag 1993, 40. 18 “Investeren in Stedelijke Kwaliteit” translated by the author. NAi, Jaarverslag 1994, 57-8. 19 Despite having become an independent company as early as January 1994, NAi Publishers remained in a close relation with the institute, even being based in the same building. 20 Hans Ibelings, Supermodernism: Architecture in the Age of Globalization (Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2002) 21 The first issue of the series ‘Architecture in the Netherlands Yearbook’ was first published in 1988, the same year the NAi was founded. Hans van Dijk (ed), Architecture in the Netherlands Yearbook 1987-88 (Deventer:Uitgeverij Van Loghum Slaterus, 1988) 22 The Yearbook was the only book published by NAi Publishers to be distributed in general bookstores, which accounted for its relative success with a wider audience, quickly garnering a reputation for architectural trendsetting 23 However, it is impossible to underestimate the seminal influence of Rem Koolhaas in the direction of Dutch architecture from the 1990s onwards, as it has been demonstrated in the study authored by Robert Kloosterman and Eva Stegmeijer, ‘Delirious Rotterdam: The Formation of an Innovative Cluster of Architectural Firms’ in Learning from Clusters (Dordrecht: Springer, 2005), 203-24 and the volume based on the homonymous exhibition at the NAi ten years earlier Bernard Colenbrander, Reference OMA: The Sublime Start of an Architectural Generation (Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 1995). 24 Luis Fernandez-Galiano, ‘Editorial: In Praise of Folly’ AV Monographs: NL 2000, 73 (September-October 1998), 3. 25 See Marijke Kuper (ed.), Nine + One: Ten Young Dutch Architectural Offices (Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 1997)

FIGUEIREDO

17

26 David Mulder et al, ‘Supermodernism or Subisity-modernism?’, OASE: After the Party, Dutch Architecture 2005, 67 (2005), 7-8. 27 As soon as NAi Publishers began producing volumes that did not originate directly from exhibitions at the institute, competing book publishers (lead by Hans Oldewarris of 010 Publishers) opposed what they considered to be the privileged position of NAi Publishers (since it was part of the institute) and effectively compelled NAi Publishers to become an independent entity. 28 For the first ten years, the Yearbook enjoyed a special position at the NAi, since while not being an institutional publication of the NAi, its editorial team was entirely composed of NAi staff members. However, in 1998 then NAi director Kristin Feireiss demanded a clarification of the NAi’s relation to the publication, culminating in the Yearbook’s complete disassociation with the NAi. 29 In 2000, when it became public that the NAi was terminating Archis, questions arose in the Dutch Parliament regarding the potential loss for Dutch architectural culture, eventually resulting in the establishment of a new, independent foundation for the magazine. See Tweede Kamer, ‘Vragen van de leden aan de staatssecretaris van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen, over een mogelijke opheffing van het tijdschrift Archis. (Ingezonden 26 September 2000)’ Tweede Kamer, Vergaderjaar 2000–2001 (2000), 217-218. 30 NAi, Jaarverslag 2010, 3.

The Cultural Dimension of Architecture, or the Enlarged Audience of the NAi

Documents

Transcript of The Cultural Dimension of Architecture, or the Enlarged Audience of the NAi