¿GRA becomes GAK?, a forum for students and teachers.
Read all comments below!
GAK building is located close to the “Bos en Lommerplein” and the A10
SPACE: As the Gerrit Rietveld Academie is struggling with a capacity shortage it is seriously considering to move to an other location, Designblog wants to provides some background information about this proposed “possible” location .
SPEAK YOUR MIND: Last week after a meeting with the coordinators (chairs) of all departments and the Board of Directors, a request has gone out to speak our minds about a location to house the growing academy. As a result of pragmatic managing the Board of Directors proposed to move to the GAK building located in the Bos and Lommer district. The City of Amsterdam injects millions to upgrade the poor “Bos en Lommer” district and again The Rietveld seems a perfect candidate for their plans.
QUESTIONS: Is the stage already set or do we realy have a say?
If so, let’s asks some questions: Was it not just 5 years ago that the Academie was renovated to be the pearl in the (now in crisis) Cultural/Financial district plan “Zuid-As”? Do we want to move to an office building not better than the new one we already have and dislike? Why is there no alternative in a city that is constantly rehousing cultural institutes and academy’s in town? Do we want to live and work together in one building? What happened to “the dream”?
Architect B.Merkelbach, co-founder of “the 8 & Opbouw” movement.
GAK building: The former GAK-building (City Administration Office for Social Security) is an overwhelming building, dominating -Bos en Lommer- from the A10 Ring way. It has been nominated for a monument status.
MERKELBACH: Build by the architect B. Merkelbach at the end of the 50ties this huge office building housed 3000 office workers. It still is one of the biggest office buildings in Amsterdam. The building is empty since 2005 and gives temporary accommodation to user’s like the Rietveld (2008) and Stedelijk Museum (2009). Many plans are made for a new occupation, but none of them are realized yet. browse through these links to get an idea: old news?, Rietveld Site, Amsterdam-promosite, Monument?
“the 8” MOVEMENT: B.Merkelbach was co-founder of the architectural movement “the 8”. A movement that promoted a pragmatic functionalism and as such opposed the other movements of that time “The Amsterdam School” and “the Stijl Movement”. Merkelbach cooperated with Rietveld in the early stages of developing the Rietveld Academie until he became subject of city politics as a municipal architect. for more info link to: NAi or Arcam
The 8 is anti-KUBISTIC: With this statement they attack the Stijl group (founded in 1917 with prominent members like artist van Doesburg, Mondriaan and Gerrit Rietveld). They promoted an attitude which was against feeling and individualism and for rationalism as a means to express the needs of the society, emphasizing a more functionalist direction in architecture.
The question is, why can’t “The Rietveld”, as a leading World Wide renown Academy, not set it’s own trend again and enrich the city with a bold visionary statement in housing.
_______________________________________________________________________
To read all about this plans: newspaper articles, GRA Newsletters and the critical opposition (petition) link to:
rietveldforrietveld petition website
Volkskrant article April 30th, NRC column by Maria Barnas May 5th, ArchiNed May 14th, AT5 TV May 15h, Parool column by Ronald Hooft May 15th, Parool.nl May 16th, EyeMagazine blog May 18th, Parool.nl June 20th,
official plan (Gerrit Rietveld Academy Newsletter/Ned) May 8th, same Newsletter/Eng version, Signing postponed until September (GRA Newsletter May 15th)
Gerrit Rietveld Website
read also the comments. Most recent comments as they are connected to this posting!
April 16th, 2009 at 4:55 am
Great! I wish this happens soon.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:09 am
comment by Carla Boomkens
Ik vind het een kans en ook opwindend. Stoer: een academie in onze eigen Queens and Bronx.
Het GRAgebouw met alle prachtige architectonische kwaliteiten (het licht!) zal ik missen, maar het ruimtegebrek niet en ook niet de lokatie in de stad waar geen zier te beleven valt.
Eindje verder fietsen: ook goed.
Maar: het is toch allemaal gewoon allang besloten….? Architectenplannen etc: is alles niet allang rond? Horen we wat en wanneer er besloten word?
Carla Boomkens
April 18th, 2009 at 10:14 am
comment by Joke Brakman
Wat te denken van de GAKGRA?
Ik begrijp dat het een pragmatische oplossing is. Het komt toevallig allemaal goed uit, dus waarom niet! Zoiets?
Ik weet het niet… Zó veel creativiteit in huis, zo véél fantastische ideeën die je zou kunnen ontwikkelen!
Ik denk dat als we bijvoorbeeld een prijsvraag zouden organiseren voor een “nieuwe Rietveld”, er een zeer interessante en gevarieerde verzameling ideeën tevoorschijn zou komen. En dat daar ook een bruikbare en betaalbare en visionaire nieuwe opvatting voor de situatie Rietveldacademie uit zou kunnen ontstaan. Dát weet ik zeer zeker! Kom nou!
Joke Brakman
April 18th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
comment by Erik Mattijssen
Collega’s.
Ik wil niet zuur doen, maar de vraag ‘mee te denken’ is geen eerlijke.
Uit wat ik zo verneem is die vraag allang een gepasseerd station.
En waarom juist de keuze op het GAK gebouw is gevallen is een puur opportunistische.
Bos en Lommer heeft een injectie nodig en voor een prestigieus kunstinstituut als de Rietveld heeft de stad Amsterdam extra geld beschikbaar.
Dat geld zal er niet zijn als we op het eigen terrein gaan bouwen.
Hoewel we daar kort geleden nog de parel van de Zuidas waren.
Ik vind het dood en doodzonde.
Mij lijkt het een gruwel met 300 studenten en de hele academie opeen gepakt te zitten in een kantoorgebouw midden in een nette woonwijk.
Maar het grootste en enige echt ernstig te nemen bezwaar is dat de lokalen net ietsje hoger zullen zijn dan de verfoeide lokalen in de nieuwbouw. Te laag dus. En dat heeft volgens mij grotere gevolgen voor ons onderwijs en wie weet voor de kunst dan we nu bevroeden. En ik weet zeker dat ik daarin niet overdrijf. Een atrium creëren, door vloeren te doorbreken, zal op bezwaren stuiten van het verlies van vierkante meters.
Waarom niet verder gezocht naar oude bedrijventerreinen in Noord, of de Stork/van Genthallen opnieuw onderzoeken,
plekken waarin de kunst gedijen zal.
Omdat we daarmee waarschijnlijk al te laat zijn.
Erik Mattijssen
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
comment by Danny van den Dungen
Exactly two years ago, Wim Crouwel delivered a lecture at the Bold Italic conference in Ghent (as it happens, a lot of graphic design students and teachers from the Rietveld were present at this event). In his talk, Crouwel mentioned the fact that, more than anything else, his main source of influence (as student of Minerva Academy, Groningen) was actually the architecture of the Minerva building. More than the lessons, the teachers, his fellow-students, it was the building that influenced him.
He continued by saying that he selected the schools of his children based on the architecture of the buildings. A beautiful revelation.
These words are testament to a very simple fact: a building is not just an empty vessel. It is a designed object, a machine with a soul. The architecture of a school has an influence on the students, maybe a deeper influence than teachers will ever have.
To study in a building designed by Rietveld is a privilege. It is a manifestation of the living legacy of art and design in the Netherlands. The Rietveld building is an essential part of the education.
To move the school out of his building, and break the bond between the institute and its rightful ground, is a shame. In Dutch, ‘doodzonde’. Once broken, this bond can never be fixed.
The reason for moving (giving every student his/her own atelier) is individualism-gone-mad. The spirit of a school is in the notion of the collective learning experience, not in the idea of putting students in separate spaces.
One can only guess the real reasons of this sudden move: economical games, political games. Short-term profits. The Rietveld academy as an object of speculation, standing on expensive ground. Opportunistic city politics, using an art academy to gentrify a certain neighbourhood. It shows no respect, no dedication, no backbone, no ideals, no principles, no long-term vision, no real imagination. It makes you sick in the stomach just thinking about it.
The future of the Rietveld is very bleak indeed. A disembodied entity, forced to change places everytime the city council decides it’s time to gentrify another neighbourhood. A ghost school, without roots, without history, without future. A soulless Golem, growing for the sake of growing, moving for the sake of moving, without any purpose at all.
Maybe the graphic design department should just separate itself from the institute. What is the point of being involved with the Rietveld when the building is gone? The graphic design department attracts students from all over the world; only a very small percentage comes from the basic year. Linda should start her own academy, the ‘Real Rietveld’. Anything better than to deal with the short-term opportunism of the current institute, an institute that simply doesn’t deserve the name Rietveld.
Danny van den Dungen (teacher, currently non-active).
May 13th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
I think the main issue of Pro Contra GRA GAK whatever, is how this is whole discussion is handled….or not.
The fact is that out of the student view, and i have the feeling not only the student view, it looks like this whole case is anyway already decided and that you have to read about the students opinion!!! in published newspapers http://www.volkskrant.nl/kunst/article1190761.ece/Rietveld_Academie_wil_naar_Vogelaarwijk
http://www.nieuwsuitamsterdam.nl/en/2009/04/art-academy-may-move-poor-neighbourhood
This article suggests that the school, so also the students, are enthusiast about this plan.
First of all hardly anyone in school has been informed properly and second there has not yet been time to discuss this.
Even worse, a lot of students still think it is a bad joke!
So now to discuss about something which seems to be already decided, is also almost a bad joke.
By listing up advantages and disadvantages for this move, you could at least have informed all concerned people before it is published.
I am now almost a year at the Gerrit Rietveld Academie and one thing didn’t change, as an exeption to a lot of other things. I feel so comfortable in this building, the only of all the buildings we discuss about, which is concepted as an art school, and also think that it is a shame to give up this monument. Hard to imagine, seeing ‘the international school’ instead international art students in there.