How about Concept?

If you were not there, on January 6, you haven't been seen. The debate 'The value of the Concept' at the office of the Premsela foundation was fully packed and attracted an interesting mix of leading figures in the worlds of design, architecture and art. The debate was a coproduction of Archis, who dedicated its #6 issue to the theme ('Archis is without a concept'), and the Premsela foundation for Dutch design. The three aforementioned disciplines were represented in the debate by two outstanding figures in their field, who discussed consecutively the use, value and reality of the concept as an artistic tool, a cultural practice and an economic factor. While all tried to avoid the 'c' word as much as possible, it became clear that the heydays of the concept 'Concept' are gone.

Anne Tilroe's (art critic, writer and theoretician) initial statement and call for 'unsafe sex' of artists and society became the leading thread throughout the afternoon. She stated that art, design and architecture tend to withdraw from society under the pretext of concept. As a curator (Museum Boymans van Beuningen) Rein Wolfs tried to escape the label 'concept' and neutralize Tilroe's plea for taking risks by stating that the museum actually acts on the edge of art (culture) and economy. Moreover the distinction as such between culture (good) and economy (bad) is typically Dutch and counter productive. In other countries a much more relaxed relation between the two exists. But Tilroe accused him exactly of the practice she was describing, taking his latest show with Rirkrit Tiravanija as an example of a conceptual show that was completely incomprehensible to a larger audience. In short: the concept was misused again to not engage with society.

For architect Sjoerd Soeters, one of the leading populists in the field of architecture in this country, presently 'concept' stood for 'novelty'. He pleaded for what is valuable, the use and reuse of proven concepts instead, and accused current users of the term 'concept' of selfishness: the question 'what does this situation ask for, what do these people really want' was never asked. According to Mels Crouwel, (Benthem & Crouwel architects, presently also the 'State Architect') both concept and style are problematic 'concepts' in Dutch culture, or at least no Dutch architect will freely use them in explaining his work or project. Instead economic arguments are dominant. But how can a man like Soeters plea for proven quality and solutions, when he himself invents a complete new typology for housing: the so called 'castles' near Den Bosch? One up for Crouwel that was, but his own position never came to sight.

Quite the opposite happened in the debate between Jan van Toorn (eminence grise of Dutch graphic design together with Wim Crouwel) and Roelof Mulder (graphic designer and typographer with a background in the visual arts). The first operated as expected from a polical point of view, a moral standard really, asking the artist and designer to strive for a better world. Every assignment should fit this 'mould', whether it be free work or an ad for a large company. With Roelof Mulder a different attitude of the younger generation was voiced. He confessed that he would adjust his criteria to the situation, acknowledging that no absolute (moral) values exist. Nowadays you have to be flexible. In stating this he actually embodied the coming together of art and economy as a new artistic practice, in which the concept is not a leading, holy principle, but a flexible entity. Quality can be realised on many levels. Realism and pragmatism defeating hard core (soft?) idealism. The moral of this tale being that the concept no longer guarantees the superiority of the artistic product, but at the same time is still viable as a tool to organise design and production.