We went through this topic quite a lot now, still not bored with it.
At the housing development site near Tilburg modernism seems only to have been adopted as a style for the purpose to comminicate values like good quality, back to the basics, etc. and maybe even socio-democratic values. Yet the first impression of the image with subtitle 'no music' remains modernism/empty space = no music
What if we would highlight this aspect of (hollow?) idealism; the video might create an interesting tension with the bureau when projected on it. But maybe this is still to literal and we just need to project the video we already have of the construction of the terras. The construction video and the presentation of the Rietveld bureau in the museum is a clear cut, but sometimes clear is good right? Like all other objects presented in a museum especially this type of museum (this architecture and layout), Rietveld's furniture will be stripped of it's original meaning/value, instead an empty symbol is created. The signs of wear in the context of the museum become traces (evidence) to track down it's life, as if practicing modernist archeology. The utopic-functionalism of Rietveld is reduced (the everyday function between people and things are taken away) to an abstract idea/notion (In my opinion the definition of design)-just posing-, but (sorry I repeat myself) it's made into a functional (open) support by means of projecting on it. This is also where the whole technocratic/admimistrative design starts to interact with Rietveld. The idea of a table (the Hoffmann table) AND the idea (utopia) of a table (Rietveld),(=some 'design', ooh it's design or ooh it's art!).
What do you think will be the effect of listing things stacked on Paula's Rietveld chair as such and on the whole choreography? Do you think it will be an artificial attempt to retain the everyday function of the chair in the museum. (which can be good, don't misunderstand me) The actual question would be what do we highlight by highlighting the personal motif. Perhaps better to speak about the private versus the public.
Question: St. Francis, you've mentioned him once before but I couldn't find it back (ostensibility-text?). What does he have to do with the provider/user- and privat/public relation in our work? Oh man, I am boring technocrat!
Responding on a remark in your latest text called 'Tecnocratic openness-free aggression', furniture from Hoffmann and other office-interior suppliers are BOTH 'transparant/open' AND 'empty surface of mass made/ pre-fab'. Both aspects are interesting in connection with Rietveld. This aspect of time wasn't so visible in the presentation of the Rietveld imitation shelves at the jobsquare, but when exhibited in a art space, creating an overview of the whole (mass) production they will be an expression of time. There are about 7 try out shelves and the other 44 are more or less similar, yet clearly hand made. Utopian time, administrative time etc. are combined, contrasted.
I 'm happy that you offer a handhold for structuring the materials, using forms and devises from the technocratic world. Although I don't understand what you mean with 'to focus on the way in which the works are timed' (maybe that's a matter of showing) And I agree that if we would decide to stage ourselves in the worker's cottage, time is an important element to work with.
Conclusion:
pure pose only exists in endless, continuous, indifferentiated time. Any kind of time that does differentiate will articulate what can be called attitude, which heavily depends on how one time/space is structured in relation to another. But this is pretty abstract too.
signed,
OPENNESS AS AN ACT OF DEFIANCE