You are on page 1of 9

DE STIJL VERSUS FUTURISM

THEO VAN DOESBURG MEETS ENRICO PRAMPOLINI

Marguerite Tuijn

De Stijl was the name of a Dutch avant-garde magazine, and has been used as the name of a
group of artists that were connected to the magazine and as a name for the ideas that were
expressed in it. Theo van Doesburg [ill. 1], the editor, succesfully tried to engage artists from
outside the Netherlands right from the start in 1917. Especially in the 1920s the magazine
became an international platform for various avant-garde artists. Van Doesburgs
cosmopolitanity stands out, as does his preference for universal tendencies in modern art. He
thrived when he could set up something new, as it opened up new possibilities for spreading
the virus of De Stijl.
At the van Doesburg Archive at the Netherlands Institute for Art History (RKD) in
The Hague there is a small adressbook that belonged to van Doesburg.1 Its undated but was
probably started in 1921. It could very well be a list of subscribers to his magazine De Stijl,
but this is not indicated in the booklet. The names range from now famous names of artists
like Marcel Duchamps, Tristan Tzara, Lszl Moholy Nagy and Alexander Archipenko; to an
international range of lesser known artists like Angiboult, Czky, Domela Nieuwenhuis,
Engelien, Gleizes, Kassk, Kiesler, Ozenfant, Richter, Rohl, Teige and Willink; to architects
like Behrens, Le Corbusier, van Eesteren, Mallet Stevens and Wils; to composers from the
Dutch Willem Pijper and Danil Ruyneman to the Belgian E.L.T. Mesens and the French
Arthur Honegger. There are Dutch contacts like the poet and writer Tilly Brugman and the
pacifist reverend Bart De Ligt, but also French contacts like the Horns from Strasbourg and
the Parisian art-dealer Rosenberg. Several names of magazines appear in the list, with which
van Doesburg might have had an exchanging arrangement: from the now well known New
York magazines The Little Review and Vanity Fair to more obscure European magazines like
Broom, Block, La Cit and Veraiko.
This notebook illustrates the range of international contacts that van Doesburg had in
the early 1920s. It is not in any way a complete list of his connections, however. Piet
Mondriaan, Marthe Donas, Kurt Schwitters and Hans Arp are not mentioned for instance.
Another name that is missing is that of van Doesburgs Italian counterpart Enrico Prampolini,
to whom I would like to draw your attention in this essay.

In the beginning

To the memory of the Italian futurist painter, sculptor, theatre-designer and impresario of the
arts, Enrico Prampolini [ill. 2], his first acquaintance with Theo van Doesburg came to pass as
follows: My encounter with Neoplasticism took place in 1920 in Weimar. It was at the
Bauhaus in Weimar that I personally met Theo van Doesburg, one of the three most important
representatives of Neoplasticism. Founder of the magazine De Stijl (1916) in Leiden (the
Netherlands), he gathered a homogeneous group of artists around him, such as the painters
Mondriaan and Huszr, the sculptor Vantongerloo and the architects Rietveld and van
Eesteren. 2 Date and place of the actual meeting are in fact mistaken, as is the founding year

1
The notebook is kept at the van Doesburg-archive, inv. nr 1455.
2
Prampolini, In memoriam Mondrian: Il mio incontro con il Neoplasticismo avvenne nel 1920 a Weimar. Fu
al Bauhaus di Weimar che feci la conoscenza personale con il pittore Theo van Doesburg, uno dei tre maggiori
esponenti del Neoplasticismo. Fondatore a Leyden (Olanda) della rivista Die Styl (1916), raccoglieva intorno a
se un gruppo omogeneo di artisti quali i pittori Mondrian e Huszar, lo scultore Vantongerloo e gli architetti
Rietveld e Van Eesteren.
1
of the De Stijl-magazine, but the memory does indicate that Prampolini still held van
Doesburg in high esteem, even 25 years after date.
In reality, the contact between van Doesburg and Prampolini was initiated by van
Doesburg.3 He wrote to Prampolini in 1921 on the topic of a shipment of paintings by the
Section dOr group from an international exhibition of modern art in Geneva to Rome.4 The
Section dOr was a post-World War I artists-group of Cubist and School of Paris artists,
founded in October 1919 in Paris by the Ukrainian sculptor Alexander Archipenko, together
with the painters Albert Gleizes and Lopold Survage. Prampolini had agreed to organise an
exhibition in Rome for this Section dOr group.
Prampolinis reply to van Doesburg contained an unpleasant surprise for the latter.
From the five works painted in the period 1916-1919 that van Doesburg had sent to Geneva,
only two had been selected by Prampolini and Archipenko to be shown in Rome.5 They had
chosen the two earliest and least progressive works for the Rome-exhibition: Tree and Study
for a composition. The other three works had already been returned to Paris from Geneva.
Van Doesburg will surely have been disappointed by this selection of his works. He had
probably hoped to show that his works were the highest steps on a spiral staircase towards
abstraction. [ill. 3-7]
Prampolini seemed such an active organiser and so full of positive plans, that, despite
the disappointing announcement of the particular selection of works, van Doesburg must have
been enthusiastic about their contact. Prampolini had probably read an article by van
Doesburg that was published in the Italian magazine Bleu.6 The Italian complimented the
Dutchman on his article and works of art, asked him to send him some issues of De Stijl in
order to promote the magazine in Italy, and proposed to exchange exhibitions. Would it not be
a good idea if van Doesburgs works were shown in a gallery in Rome, and Prampolinis work
in The Hague or Amsterdam? These two letters formed the start of a three-year
correspondence.
The over-all impression that beams from these first letters is one of enthusiasm and
feverish exchange of information and good intentions. But is almost pitiful to see how nearly
everything that they intended and tried, came to nothing. The first year was filled with eager
contact: they wrote a lot of letters, exchanged much information, made many plans and built
at their network. Prampolini sent van Doesburgs companion Nelly van Moorsel some sheet
music by modern Italian composers and promised to organise a concert for her in Rome. For
Theo van Doesburg he would organise an exhibition, with an accompanying monographic
publication. None of this has been realised.7
Van Doesburg could not live up to the expectations either. He said that he would try to
organise an exhibition of Prampolinis works at the Haagsche Kunstkring, but the plan came

3
Doris Wintgens Httes suggestion in Van Doesburg tackles the continent, in Fabre and Wintgens, Van
Doesburg & The International Avant-garde, p. 19, note 25 (referring to information from Giovanni Lista in
Lemoine 1990), that van Doesburg and Prampolini were photographed together in Geneva in December 1920,
seems very unlikely, since van Doesburgs whereabouts in December 1920 are documented in the greatest detail.
He was in Berlin, Klein-Klzig and Weimar at the time. See van Straaten, Theo van Doesburg 1883-1931, p. 98.
I would suggest that the photo must have been taken at another place or another date.
4
See Faure, Exposition Internationale d'Art Moderne, Genve.
5
In Geneva, van Doesburgs paintings Tree (1916), Study for Composition X (1917-18), Russian dance (1918),
Composition XII in black and white (1918) and Ragtime (1919) were shown.
6
Van Doesburg, Lart monumental. The second issue of Bleu (August/September 1920) contained a poem by
I.K. Bonset, van Doesburgs pseudonym as a poet. That same issue of Bleu contained the second manifesto of
De Stijl, on literature. In the third issue, Enrico Prampolini wrote an article on the international exhibition in
Geneva. The magazine was directed by Gino Cantarelli and Aldo Fiozzi.
7
For the contact between Nelly van Moorsel and Prampolini, see van Moorsel, Nelly van Doesburg, pp. 53 and
73.
2
to nothing. As for the intended publications, both of them were unsuccessful in realising them.
The Section dOr-exhibition in Rome was postponed several times. In the literature it is stated
repeatedly that this exhibition took place as planned in 1921, but evidence from the Parisian
archive of the painter Lopold Survage, secretary of the Section dOr, shows that it was not
realised until April 1922.8 In short, there were many plans, but few concrete results.

Good intentions

Prampolini started his magazine Noi in 1917 with his friend, the writer Bino Sanminiatelli.
Four issues appeared in the years 1917-1920. A second series of six appeared from April 1923
to 1925. In February 1924 Prampolini was annoyed with van Doesburg, because Noi had not
been mentioned in De Stijl until that date, and because van Doesburg refused to cooperate on
the special Noi-issue on modern theatre. Prampolini indicated that he was disappointed by van
Doesburgs apparent lack of promoting Noi in De Stijl - while in fact in the mean time, De Stijl
was not promoted in the Noi-issues either until April 1923.9 The fact that Noi published
negatively on the constructivists and called Mcano the Dutch constructivist-magazine that
still preaches dada, will undoubtedly have irritated van Doesburg on the other hand.10
However, two works by van Doesburg were published in Noi, and his name was mentioned on
the cover of the magazine several times.11
Both artists may have been too much of an organiser, both had many connections
among which this particular one was not the most important, both perhaps had too many other
things to worry about. All their good intentions turned out to be not binding.
Their planned meeting in Berlin in November 1921 failed as well. Van Doesburg
wrote to the German critic Adolf Behne in January 1922: Unfortunately we had already left
when he [Prampolini] arrived to talk about my exhibition in Rome.12 The preserved

8
Archive Leopold Survage, inv. nr 3586 contains a printed invitation with the text: la Esposizione della Section
d'or de Paris / ingresso libero / 17 aprile - 2 maggio 1922 / dalle ore 9 alle 13 e dalle 15 alle 20 / ingresso libero /
organizzata dalla Casa d'arte Italiana pitture e sculture / di: Archipenko, Balla, Boccioni, Boucet [=Buchet - mt],
van Doesburg, Ferat, Gleizes, Hellesen, Lambert, Lger, Marcoussis, Milkos, Prampolini, Russolo, Survage,
Tourdonas, Villon Duchamp, Villon Jacques. / nella galleria de l'Arte moderna italiana / Roma Via Vittorio
Veneto, 6 Roma (...) La Section dOr giunge a noi dopo i successi riportati a Parigi, l'Aia, ad Amsterdam, a
Rotterdam, a Bruxelles, ad Anversa [sic - it was not shown in Antwerp, but it did go to Arnhem], a Ginevra.
9
See Orazio, De Stijl, p. 16 for a short critique on the Anthology-issue Vijf jaren Stijl in a list of other
reviews and an advertisement for De Stijl. The advertisement was repeated on the back cover of the following
issues of the new series of Noi.
10
See Vasari, G, p. 22, writing at the end of a negative review of G, Hans Richters magazine, that publishes
nothing that cubists and futurists had not already done: Ma non mi meraviglio: la rivista costruttivista olandese
Mecano [sic] predica ancora il Dadaismo!!
11
Van Doesburg is mentioned a few times in the second series of Noi and two images of his works were
published. In Noi II: 1 (April 1923), p. 6 an image of van Doesburgs Composition XIII was published under the
title Costruzione equilibrata (well-balanced construction), although it was turned counter clockwise 90 (see
Hoek, Theo van Doesburg. Oeuvrecatalogus, cat. nr 583). De Stijl and van Doesburg were mentioned in a list of
interesting magazines in the same issue. In Noi II: 3-4 (June-July 1923), p. 13 appeared under the title La Vetrata
futurista (the futurist window) an image of van Doesburgs leaded-glass-composition Small Pastoral (Hoek, Theo
van Doesburg, cat. nr 672.IIv); in the same issue of Noi, on p. 24 he was mentioned as founder of the Rotterdam
artists-group De Anderen, with which Prampolini was connected as its Italian representative. In the same issue
again the 1921 a photograph of the design for an interior by Vilmos Huszr and Jan Wils for the photographer
Henri Berssenbrugge was published. In Noi II: 6-9 (1924), p. 2 van Doesburg, together with many other avant-
garde artists, was included in a long list of futuristes sans le savoir ou futuristes dclars in Marinetti's manifest
Le futurisme Mondial.
12
Leider waren wir schon verreist wenn er [Prampolini] hier eintraf um ber meine Ausstellung in Rom zu
sprechen. Concept-letter by van Doesburg to Adolf Behne, January 11, 1922, concept-letter-book kept at the
van Doesburg-archive, inv. nr 16, pp. 67, 67 verso and 68.
3
correspondence ends there. Maybe van Doesburg was disappointed in Prampolinis
achievements, who promised many things, but did not realise much. And the same may have
applied vice versa. So this investigation could end here ...

Finally Meeting

But ... their connection did not stop there. The two gentlemen finally met personally at the
Dsseldorf artists congress at the end of May 1922. Die 1. internationale Kunstausstellung
was held in Dsseldorf from May 28 to July 3 1922. It was an immensely big exhibition, held
in a department store. Van Doesburg sent in his model for a monument for Leeuwarden. The
accompanying congress was organised by the artists-group Das Junge Rheinland. According
to van Doesburg this was all much too bureaucratic and commercial.
Prampolini signed the statement by the organising Union der internationale
fortschrittlicher Knstler, against which van Doesburg, Hans Richter and others revolted with
their Internationaler Fraktion der Konstruktivisten. But apparently Prampolini did make a
good impression on van Doesburg at the time. In the De Stijl-issues 6, 7 and 8 of the same
year 1922, several articles by Prampolini and a photograph of one of his works appeared.13
[ill. 8] Unfortunately, the correspondence that most probably was exchanged between them on
this topic has not been preserved.
They met again in October 1924 in Vienna, at the Internationale Ausstellung neuer
Theatertechnik, organised by Frederick Kiesler. Van Doesburg had been asked to give a
lecture at the occasion. The meeting is documented by a group-photograph showing Kiesler,
Marinetti, van Doesburg and Prampolini. The two latter stand closely together as if they were
intimate friends. [ill. 9]
In 1926, van Doesburg spent July and August travelling through Italy and some time
in Rome, meeting a number of futurist artists.14
Five years later, it is also striking to see that van Doesburg selected Prampolini in
section B of the new artists-group Blanc that he initiated in 1929. He also counted Mondriaan,
Brancusi, Malevich, Lissitzky, Domela and himself in this select group of abstract artists.

Unfortunately enough, the three most concrete events in which the artists were both involved
are not treated in the preserved correspondence: the Dsseldorf artists congress in May 1922,
the international exhibition for theatre-technique in October 1924 and the attempt to found an
artists society Blanc in 1929. An explanation could be that it seems to be haphazard in general
which letters have been preserved. Apart from that, not everything will have been treated in
letters. However, the plans that did play a role in the correspondence are just as important for
their relationship and the way they related to each others art, even though none of them has
been realised. These plans will for that reason never appear in a broad picture of the history of
the avant-garde.

13
Prampolinis name was mentioned as one of many participators in the Dsseldorf artists-congress in De Stijl 5:
4 (April 1922), p. 49-50; an image of his painting Construction despace was published in De Stijl 5: 6 (June
1922) (the letterpress was mistakenly switched with that of Karel Maes painting); an Italian article, Lestetica
della macchina e lintrospezione meccanica nellarte, by his hand appeared in De Stijl 5: 7 (July 1922), pp 102-
105 and a summary of his lecture at the Dsseldorf congress in Italian, Relazione sul contributo degli artisti
italiani davanguardia, appeared in De Stijl 5: 8 (August 1922), pp. 123-125. The months mentioned here
between brackets, are those mentioned in the titelpage of the De Stijl issue. The issues of April, June, July and
August 1922 actually appeared in June, September, October and again October 1922.
14
See Straaten, Theo van Doesburg, p. 138 and Fabre and Wintgens Htte, Van Doesburg & the International
Avant-garde, pp. 15 and 23. Although in that last article it is mentioned that he spent two whole months in
Rome, this seems very unlikely, also because Rome is usually deserted by its inhabitants in July and August.
4
In my opinion, with a special eye for the practical side of the avant-garde, they are just
as worthy and significant as are realised projects by the artists.

Van Doesburg and Futurism

Van Doesburg might have thought that he could, through Prampolini, contact the Italian
Futurists and other Italian avant-garde artists. But although Prampolini called himself a
Futurist, he operated very independently and solitary at the beginning of the 1920s. He did
not, as far as we know, pass on any addresses of other artists to van Doesburg.
Van Doesburg alternately despised and admired Futurism. Early on, in 1913, he wrote
articles on the movement at the occasion of exhibitions in The Hague and Rotterdam.
Futurism was promoted in the Netherlands principally by Herwarth Walden, among other
things through his magazine Der Sturm.15 Works by the Futurists were shown in the
Netherlands in 1912 by the art-dealer Biesing in The Hague and by Oldenzeel in Rotterdam,
and in 1913 at the Rotterdamsche Kunstkring. Van Doesburg published a disapproving article
on the movement, that he characterised as loud but empty, in the magazine Eenheid
(November 9, 1912).16 So van Doesburgs opinion on this modern movement was at the start
blatantly negative.
With the mobilisation of van Doesburg in the Dutch Army in 1914 and the inherent
changes that occurred in his life, this opinion changed into a positive one. How this took place
exactly is difficult to summon up, but it is a fact that Futurism became for van Doesburg more
and more an admirable phenomenon during the First World War. When he founded the
magazine De Stijl in 1917 he did his utmost to engage the painter Gino Severini as a co-
operator, an Italian painter that was in van Doesburgs eyes still a Futurist. He obtained
Severinis address from Mondriaan in June 1917. In the first volume of the magazine some
articles by Severini were indeed published. But Severini had moderated his opinions and
painted from 1916, but mostly in the 1920s, outspokenly figurative works. Severinis famous
painting Maternit (1916) can be seen as forerunner of the retour lordre of the twenties.
His commedia dellarte-frescoes in Castello Monteguffoni near Florence (commissioned by
Sir Osbert Sitwell) from 1921-1922 mark his definite return to figurative art.17
Van Doesburgs enthusiasm for Futurism in the first years of De Stijl gradually
diminished again. He was not alone in this: evidence from letters from 1919-1921 showed that
Archipenko, Tzara and van Doesburg all thought Futurism was pass by then.18 Van
Doesburg apparently did appreciate early futurist paintings: although he was always short of
money, he bought a painting by Balla in 1926 and one by Severini in 1928.19 It was recently
suggested that the introduction of diagonal elements in van Doesburgs compositions might
have been influenced by Balla.20
Van Doesburgs admiration for Futurism must certainly have been triggered largely by
the functioning of the movement. With its manifests, an aggressive propaganda and many
public activities, it was the prototype of a successful transnational avant-garde movement.
15
See Loosjes-Terpstra, Moderne Kunst in Nederland, pp. 198-199 and 320.
16
Doesburg, Futurisme, Eenheid 127 (November 9, 1912).
17
In Severinis book Du Cubisme au Classicisme, that is to be found in van Doesburgs library - still kept as a
whole at the van Doesburg-archive -, he defends his return to a more naturalistic way of painting.
18
See letters by Alexandre Archipenko to van Doesburg, undated, after March 15, 1919 and by van Doesburg to
Tristan Tzara, undated, probably from the beginning of July 1921, van Doesburg-archive, inv. nr 17.
19
Giacomo Balla, Velocita astratta + rumore, 1913-14, oil on panel, 54,5 x 76,5 cm; Gino Severini,
Mare=Ballerina, 1914, 105,3 x 85,9 cm. Both were sold to Peggy Guggenheim by Nelly van Doesburg in 1939
and have remained in de collection Guggenheim Venice. See Moorsel, Nelly van Doesburg, p. 251.
20
See Passuth, The Stijl and the East-West Avant-garde, in Fabre and Wintgens Htte, Van Doesburg & the
International Avant-garde, p. 23.
5
There was no intensive contact with Futurisms pace-maker, F.T. Marinetti, though
van Doesburg did exchange some letters with him. There are seven short notes from the
period 1921-1929. Van Doesburg also had contacts with other Italian avant-garde artists such
as Giacomo Balla, Gino Cantarelli, Giorgio de Chirico and Severini. But his contact with
Prampolini was the most intense among these.21

Vocabulary and the group

Prampolini praised van Doesburg in his letters for his sharp articles and his courageous
paintings.22 In addition to that he used vague terms like I love your art and your conception
of art and we are the renewers of the new spirit to underline their shared pathway.23
Nothing tangible can be concluded from his comment on the illustration of Hans Richters
work in De Stijl either.24 The use of words like metafisique and expression spirituelle
illustrates Prampolinis attentiveness to the spiritual and the esoteric and occult philosophy of
symbolist origin.25 Many other avantgardist artists in this period, among whom van Doesburg,
were deeply rooted in symbolism, maybe more so than they themselves would like to admit.
That comes to the fore as well in their generally high esteem for music.
In the letters between van Doesburg and Prampolini several artists are mentioned.
Firstly the Belgian painter and sculptor Georges Vantongerloo, whom Prampolini praises. The
philosopher Aldo Camini, van Doesburgs Italian pen name, triggered Prampolinis curiosity.
The film-experiments by Viking Eggeling and Hans Richter were brought up in the
correspondence appreciatively. The sculptor Archipenko and painter Gleizes were mentioned
in connection with the Section dOr. Then there was the Czech painter Emil Filla, and the
Russian artists Ehrenburg, Puni and Boguslawskaja, who would have joined Prampolini and
van Doesburg in an abortive meeting in Berlin. Such namedropping served to specify that
they knew the right people, it traced their sympathies and indicated their positions in the
hierarchy. In spite of all this, Prampolini and van Doesburg used this mechanism
economically. They did not throw mud at other artists, something that was frequently done in
the correspondence between the Dutch De Stijl-troika van Doesburg, Oud and Mondriaan.
Prampolini and van Doesburg did not refer to political convictions, nor did they
mention the loathsome middle-class, subjects that often formed a point of agreement in other
correspondences. Maybe their contact was too premature to risk writing things that could
rebuff the other. For they would not meet each other before 1922.
The fact that Prampolini did not at all agree with van Doesburgs ideas on art, comes
to the fore in the articles that appeared in Noi from 1923.26 He then considered

21
See Lista, Enrico Prampolini, pp. 235-254, for parts of the correspondence between van Doesburg and
Prampolini, van Doesburg and Gino Cantarelli - director of Procellaria en Bleu -, van Doesburg and F.T.
Marinetti, van Doesburg and Gino Severini, van Doesburg and Mario Broglio - director of Valori Plastici - and
finally van Doesburg and Giorgio de Chirico (see also Lista, De Chirico). Listas books are important because
they are often the only source for many of these documents, but his dates and interpretations are not always
correct.
22
Letter by Prampolini to van Doesburg, February 18, 1921, van Doesburg-archive, inv. nr 158. J'aime
beaucoup M.r Van Deosburg [sic] vtre aigue articles dart, votre audacieux peinture.
23
Postcard by Prampolini to van Doesburg [April] 22, 1921, van Doesburg-archive, inv.nr 158. J'aime beaucoup
la vtre art et vtre esprit dans lart. Nous sommes le renneuveuleur de l'esprit nuveaux [sic].
24
Letter by Prampolini to van Doesburg, September 1921, van Doesburg-archive, inv.nr 158. Je trouve tres fin
comme intuitions orchestral le dessins dEggeling et mieux encore c'elles de Richeter Je crois avec un principe
tout affait opposait du materialisme metafisique du Richter mai sur la mme rue comme expression spirituelle
[sic].
25
See Siligato, Prampolini, pp. 19-20.
26
Assuming that Prampolini did not change his opinion radically between 1921 and 1923.
6
Constructivism and especially Dada to be old-fashioned, issues long since dealt with by the
Futurists. This became clear to van Doesburg only in 1923, that is to say after their intensive
correspondence, that dates largely from 1921. In his article in De Stijl in 1922 Prampolini
already pleaded for recognition that the Futurists were the firsts to glorify the machine. He
reproached the Constructivists van Doesburg, Richter, Lissitzky, Eggeling and Moholy-Nagy,
for not being logically consistent in their practical work, although they had started out all right
with a good theoretical base when which they praised the constructive qualities of the
machine. According to Prampolini they confused the outer appearance with the spiritual
content. He pleaded for veneration of the machine as element of their own time, just like the
gods were glorified in Antiquity.27 In a transnational, Marinetti-like way he tried in fact to
accommodate all progressive modern art movements under the umbrella of Futurism.28
Van Doesburg in his turn showed at different occasions that he considered Futurism as
something of the past. He considered De Stijl, Constructivism and Dada the most fruitful
persuasions of his time.
So, although Prampolini and van Doesburg disagreed in their conceptions about art,
that did not deter them in trying to help each other organising all sorts of activities in 1921.

Contrast

The art and actions of van Doesburg and Prampolini may seem quite logic to us in hindsight,
coloured as we are by the doctrine of the avant-gardes as the most important art movements in
the early twentieth century. But I think it is only fair to point out in a few words that there was
also another - parallel - art world in the Dutch landscape in these years. I would like to draw
your attention to one international aspect of this more traditional art world.29
In the Netherlands there had been a Royal Academy of the Arts since 1817, and a
Dutch Prix de Rome, mirroring the French tradition, was installed by King Louis Napoleon
already in 1808. Every few years throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century up till the
present day a competition has been held for alternately painters, sculptors, graphic artists and
architects. The young person that won the prize was given an allowance for four years of
travelling through Europe, mostly France and Italy, and could finish his or her academic
education in this way. In the years up to 1985 it was all very controlled, with many prescribed
proofs to be sent back home, many letters to the committee in Amsterdam and asking for
permission to copy this, draw that or try the other. In the years that van Doesburg and
Prampolini were making their plans, the Dutch Rijksakademie voor Beeldende kunsten was
directed by the monumental artist Antoon Derkinderen (director from 1907 to 1925). The
Sculpture Prize of 1920 went to Miss Corrie Demmink who made a sculpture of Job [ill. 10].
Her travels took her to Rome and Florence, then Paris and finally she travelled extensively
through the Netherlands. The 1922 Prix de Rome was given to the painter Charles Eyck for a
painting with an equally traditional theme: the Return of the Prodigal Son [ill. 11]. He
travelled to Rome and Paris.
With the 1921 winner of the Prix de Rome for architecture, we return to better known
avant-garde ground: his name was Cornelis van Eesteren. Although his winning design for an
Academy of the Arts was very traditional, the committee members in Amsterdam soon
discovered that he would not follow meekly what they decided would be best for him to
study. His travel allowance, that took him to Scandinavia and Germany, was not renewed in

27
See Prampolini, Lestetica, pp. 102-105. See for a general overview of Futurisms mechanical phase Crispolti,
Futurism and plastic expression between the wars, pp. 202-204.
28
See Siligato, Prampolini, p. 29.
29
In 2008 the Dutch Prix de Rome celebrated its 200th birthday. See Tuijn ed., 200 years Prix de Rome.
7
1923. In fact this was at the exact moment that van Eesteren was co-operating with van
Doesburg on a project that would turn out to be very important for the image of De Stijl as
also an architectural movement: the exhibition Les Architectes du Groupe De Stijl at
Galerie LEffort Moderne in Paris, in October and November 1923.
I have mentioned the Prix de Rome here, since it was also international, although the
young winners were usually a lot less cosmopolitan than the avant-garde vagabond group that
van Doesburg and Prampolini associated themselves with.30

Well-matched

Returning to the theme of this essay: van Doesburg found an equal in Prampolini. Both were
energetic networkers and organisers, because of which, in the case of van Doesburg, the
actual art production receded to the background sometimes. Prampolini - in retrospect - made
a name for himself especially with his organising activities and his design for Futurist theatre.
Both of them operated very independently. Although Prampolini called himself a Futurist and
joined an existing movement in that respect, he operated in such an independent way, that in
fact he seems only to refer to the style of his work. It is - as far as I know - not known where
he found the money to pay for all his activities.
Just like van Doesburg, Prampolini started a magazine in 1917, just like van Doesburg
he made many promises and lots of plans. Just like van Doesburg he had sympathy for Dada -
he stood in contact with Tristan Tzara from early on. And just like van Doesburg he
simultaneously sought contact with the Section dOr group, whom he obviously considered as
good representatives of the French moderns. Prampolini was, just like the centipede van
Doesburg, a man of many talents. The variety of activities that are mentioned in the letter-
head of his Casa dArte Italiana speaks volumes in that respect. Casa dArtes programme was
ambitious, but it was not realised for a large part. An exhibition of Lger was planned, Tzara
was invited to hold dada manifestations and Picabia would exhibit, but all those things were
not realised. Many musical and literary manifestations did take place, though. 1920 was an
especially fertile year.31
Prampolinis oeuvre from the 1910s and 1920s consists of paintings, furniture, stage-
sets and costume-designs and an occasional typographic design. While van Doesburg
explored architecture and literature next to the plastic arts, Prampolini turned his warm
interests towards theatre. His awareness of modern music, that was also close to van
Doesburgs heart, comes to the fore in the letters that Prampolini sent to Nelly van Moorsel.
Prampolini called music - not very originally by the way - the art that is closest to the spirit
because it is the most abstract of all the arts.32
He wanted - just like van Doesburg - to function in the international art world. Thus
testifies his organisation of different exhibitions in Italy, Germany and Czechia and his
correspondence with all sorts of avant-garde artists.
It seems that his personality was more agreeable than van Doesburgs. He was more a
man of harmony than of conflicts in his connections with others. That did mean that now and
then interests collided. It was not possible to be everyones friend all the time, as came to the

30
That van Doesburg and his wife were considered ganz moderne, sogar mondne Menschen by their peers
comes to the fore in a letter by dadaist Raoul Haussmann, cited by Versari, International futurism, p. 186, note
21.
31
See Siligato, Prampolini, p. 30 and pp. 34-35.
32
Letter by Prampolini to Nelly van Doesburg, June 20, 1921, van Doesburg-archive, inv. nr 158. Je suis
heureux d'apprendre que vous jou la musique car pour mois celle appartient a l'esprit avant toutes les autres arts
parceque la plus abstraite.
8
fore in the selection of van Doesburgs works for the Section dOr exhibition mentioned
earlier.

The correspondence between Prampolini and van Doesburg was at first filled to the brim with
enthusiasm and a feverish exchange of information. Their artistic views turned out not to be
compatible at all, but that did not prevent them from trying to help each other organising all
sorts of activities. Their plans, however, did not work out for the most part.
Prampolini operated in a different way from van Doesburg and other known avant-
garde activists like Archipenko and Tzara: he tried to be everybodys friend. This procedure
was probably a very good way to operate successfully within the avant-garde. Prampolini
played an important role in the Italian art-world until his death in 1956.

Conclusion

The internationality of the avant-garde is illustrated in the case of De Stijl by the


cosmopolitanism of its editor and the contacts with other like-minded artists such as
Prampolini. Influences, ideas and contacts were passed on by letters and visits, many articles
by this cosmopolitan network in the magazine, the publishing of photographs of art works and
the organising of group-exhibitions. As can be seen in the example taken in this essay, these
contacts were hardly systematic, but depended largely on coincidence and personal likes and
dislikes. In studying mainly art and art theory, this aspect of the practical side of avant-garde
internationality has often been overlooked.

You might also like