 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Cantua Garden History & other Scientific Research & Journalism |
Mien Ruys ProjectCONTENTS
1. Introduction
6. Ruys and the modernist architects MIEN RUYS, GARDEN AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTINTRODUCTIONAlthough Dutch garden and landscape architecture has a good standing internationally, its history is an important but hitherto somewhat neglected field of study. The formulation of theories and subsequent publications on the development of garden and landscape architecture in the modern period (1900-1970) are rather scarce, especially if one compares the output to the related field of architecture. Around 1900, Western-European garden architecture turned to the New Architectural Garden Style (as it is called in The Netherlands), which was heavily influenced by the New Art school, in which architects and garden architects jointly designed the built environment. In The Netherlands, important architects such as K.P.C. de Bazel and Berlage worked together with garden architects like D.F.Tersteeg in creating new parks and gardens in this style. On average however, until WW II Dutch garden architects were a rather conservative group of professionals, without much development in design concepts, and not feeling inclined to embrace Modernism in the manner architects and other designers had done.This conservatism among garden architects was caused partly by the lack of new impulses from their professional body, the Association of Dutch Garden Architects BNT, in which traditionalists held the key positions, whereas architects were increasingly dominating the field of outdoor space design, with the exclusion of the garden architects. In the thirties, the functionalistic design concepts were embraced by just a few garden and landscape architects, and it was only after WW II that its results became visible. So far, relatively little research has been done on the manner in which these few people established the connection with modernist architects and town planners. The lack of a solid basis is felt all the more when historical aspects of the work of modernist designers come into play, e.g. when restoration projects of younger monuments (i.e. from the period of 1850-1950) are undertaken. In such cases one cannot but observe that the architectural history of the object concerned and its cultural-historical embedding are usually very well documented, whereas relevant historical information about the object’s immediate surroundings is barely available. In addition to the intrinsic problem of the preservation of gardens - its transitoriness - this lack of information makes it rather awkward to get an insight into the original overall design and the available material is difficult to interpret. As a consequence, achieving a historically sound restoration or reconstruction is very problematic. Therefore, the importance of a sound basis for analysing the available information is obvious. Over a long period the object of this study, garden architect Mien Ruys, has influenced the development of garden architecture considerably. She was one of the first members of her profession, and definitely the very first woman, who saw the importance of its integration or at least its close cooperation with architecture. Ruys has played an active role in establishing this connection, motivated by the socialist and emancipatory concepts she embraced in the thirties. The ideas she formulated with respect to the functions and goals of garden and landscape architecture in the design of private and public gardens and green spaces are deserving closer inspection. They have probably influenced the discours within her profession on these subjects considerably. Another important aspect of Ruys’ work is her role in the development of a reliable basis for choosing plant material, a subject that was previously greatly neglected. Ruys also taught gardeners all over the Netherlands to use the spatial effects and the beauty of plants for shady positions, of foliage plants, and of plants with interesting fruits or seed pods, in a period in which dull flower beds were still dominating the scene. Ruys gave a completely new interpretation to the English ‘mixed border’ and was the first to introduce, at the onset of the fifties, the concept of ‘standard’ or ‘confection borders’. This idea was meant to provide a larger portion of gardeners with the opportunity to have gardens planted with high-quality plants. In her trial gardens at her father’s Moerheim nursery in Dedemsvaart, Ruys performed trials on the suitability of plants and landscaping materials all her life. The innovative ways in which she applied them in her gardens and planting schemes have influenced Dutch garden design over several decennia. HypothesisThe central hypothesis of this study is that Mien Ruys’ work has been an important element in Dutch Modernism, especially in the middle and late period of this movement (1945-1970). Ruys’ close cooperation with many Dutch Modernist architects is pivotal in this. The analysis of the events leading to the contacts between garden- and landscape architecture and Modernist architecture in a broader sense should provide a sensible background. About Mien Ruys’ work and its place in the development of modern garden and landscape architecture, only a small amount of literature is extant. In addition to the books written by Mien Ruys herself and numerous articles in Onze Eigen Tuin (‘Our Own Garden’) magazine - founded in 1955 by Ruys and her husband, publisher Theo Moussault - one college paper and one rather shallow monograph were published, in addition to a small number of scientific publications and many popular newspaper articles. A serious comprehensive study of Mien Ruys should firstly paint the environment in which Ruys grew up and learned her trade. Secondly, the evolution of her concepts and its results should be analyzed, described and compared with the work of her contemporaries. In order to be able to do this, archives and secondary literature relevant to the subject should be studied in greater depth. Source MaterialAs the source material for the biography of Mien Ruys was relatively scarce or inaccessible, much time has been invested to make said materials available. A recent publication of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Fishery (LNV) points out the importance of the knowledge of present environmental design and its history, particularly where matters of the recording and accessibility of documentation on garden and landscape architecture are concerned. In the preparatory phase of the biography, the records of Buro Mien Ruys were inventoried and made accessible in a public database (TUiN, Special Collections of Library Wageningen UR) during a separate 2-year project funded by the Stimuleringsfonds voor Architectuur (State Fund for the Promotion of Architecture Research) DEVELOPMENTS IN GARDEN ART AND ARCHITECTURERUYS’ FORMATIVE YEARS AND PERIODIZATION OF HER WORKA. GARDEN ART 1900-1950The NetherlandsAs from the second half of the 19th century, access to gardens and parks was no longer the privilege of the upper and upper middle classes. The movements propagating Peoples’ Parks and the foundation of allotments came into being during this period, as did the development of both housing complexes and residential areas. Since in both cases the available space was limited, design became increasingly important. Broader social and cultural developments - industrialization, socialism, Arts & Crafts, Jugendstil - exerted their influence on garden art, as the discipline was then designated. At the turn of the century, Modernism came into being as one of the cultural effects of the tremendously increased pace of technological innovation. Garden art, however, in the Netherlands was for a long period dominated by the Decorative Garden Styles, described briefly below. ‘Cottage Style’In England, as a reaction to industrialization and the 19th-century neo-styles, but no doubt also influenced by the rising cost of labour, Arts & Crafts arose, a movement striving for craftsmanship, esthetical refinement and simplicity. Its influence on design in the widest sense was considerable, including architecture and garden art. Rich industrialists had mansions built in local materials in Cottage Style, with garden design inspired by traditional farm gardens. House and garden were part of an architectural unity - although often with separate parts for separate functions - with terraces and axial alignment. Farm garden elements such as topiary (‘poor man’s sculpture’), the use of wildflowers (‘wild gardening’) and uncomplicated flowering perennials were incorporated in garden design. The arrangement of plants by height and flowers by colour and even by scent was increasingly artistic, especially in hardy perennial borders. In this style women come to the fore as designers for the first time, the most well-known example being Gertrude Jekyll and later Vita Sackville West. Dutch garden architects promptly pick up this style, as can be seen in the work of C.A. Cool (1919-1942), R.T. Boon (1928-1970) en C.P. Polak Daniëls (1931-1980). Initially, Mien Ruys’ garden designs may be characterized as belonging to what has been coined the ‘Modern Cottage Style’. For her later designs, this study will argue that Ruys’ concepts of design, function and use of materials cannot be characterized as being part of Modern Cottage Style any longer, since they were based on Modernist conceptions which, in contrast to Cottage Style, had strong ideological and functional components. Moreover it will be argued that Ruys’ conceptions may have been formed not so much by the British Cottage Style movement (if indeed it may be called thus) as by the German Modernist school of garden design, with epigones such as Migge, Mattern and Valentien. Architectural styleAnother garden design style ranked among the Decorative Styles is the New Architectural Style. In itself it is a rather artificial concept, but it indicates more than just a relation between the design of garden or park and the architecture of the building. The garden plan on a compository and organisational level is closely interacting with the ‘free’ ground plan of the building. Thus, the New Architectural Style is the origin of the Functionalist garden. In a narrower sense, ‘Architectural Style’ is used to designate the designs made by architects such as Jos. Cuypers, K.P.C.de Bazel, H.P.Berlage, F.A.Eschauzier, S.de Clerq en P.Verhagen, whether or not in cooperation with a garden architect. The garden architects D.F.Tersteeg. Th.J.Dinn, G.Bleeker, L.W.Copijn en C.M.van Koolwijk are representatives of the New Architectural Style. W.M. Dudok, an architect from roughly the same era who also designed gardens and parks, is usually considered a Modernist. Modernism and FunctionalismThe avant-garde of (applied) arts, creating a furore as of the turn of the century with a wide variety of -isms such as cubism, futurism, constructivism and suprematism, to name but a few, was primarily fascinated by ‘the modern element’ of culture in the widest sense. Revolutionary, socialist and philosophical movements use modernist ideas to express themselves, with abstraction, rationalization and functionalism as their key concepts. In the Netherlands its following from the onset (appr. 1910) until WW II is limited to a relatively small group of intellectuals and avant-gardists with socialist aspirations. Most members of the Association of Dutch Garden Architects (BNT), founded in 1922, are with few exceptions (J.T.P.Bijhouwer is one of them) not very keen on modernist ideas, in contrast to architects such as Dudok and Van Eesteren. It is only the younger generation, represented by garden architects such as Mien Ruys, Hans Warnau and Wim Boer, who are genuinely interested in Functionalism. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTSModernismGarden architects abroad found it difficult as well to translate modernist ideas into new forms of garden and landscape design. Initially they sought a solution in a simplified formalism, in which by-and-by the decorative design elements of Art Nouveau and other art forms were introduced. In France this took place when garden architects such as J.C.N.Forestier, Paul and André Vera replaced the style paysager (landscape style) with the style régulier (regular style) which they increasingly reduced. After WW I the style began to develop which was launched in 1925 at the Paris Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes. Art Déco was born. The Vera’s, Albert Laprade, Gabriel; Guévrekian and others presented garden designs the plans of which could just as well be used for making jewelry, consisting as they were of geometrical patterns and colour areas combined with a few conspicuous ornaments. The materials in which they were executed were modern as well: concrete, glass and metal. Until the late thirties this was the leading type of design. At the same exhibition, architects like Le Corbusier and others showed works with garden designs completely subordinate to the buildings, but this was to change soon. Le Corbusier’s concepts developed to the effect that for larger objects he preferred to juxtapose a landscape that was as natural and ‘wild’ as possible with his very controlled and highly stylized building design; in contrast, for smaller villas and roof gardens he advocated a severe modernist geometry. Amongst his colleagues, André Lurçat was among the few who actually took care in designing the planting schemes. Modernism was introduced rather hesitantly into British architecture through the back door of Art Déco, whereas garden and landscape architecture never ceased to be dominated - until this very day, it could be argued - by the countryside modern traditionalism of the Cottage Style or similar Decorative styles. Only in the late forties a few garden architects such as G.A.Jellicoe, H.F Clark, Christopher Tunnard and Tayler and Green produced modernist gardens. In Germany, however, modernism was picked up much more rapidly by several disciplines. The Reform movement (the German counterpart of Arts & Crafts) was influenced by the Vienna Sezession school and combined a high regard for honest craftsmanship with an open mind towards modern technology and the results of industrialization and mechanization. As early as 1907 the Deutsche Werkbund was founded, an association of artists, industrialists and craftsmen whose common goal was ‘modern design’. Together with the socialist concepts forming the foundation for the Volksparken (People’s Parks) and Freikörperkultur (nudism) movements, garden and landscape architects and the first town planners developed a modernist idiom. In a political-ideological respect however they were a very mixed lot. Among them were Gustav Allinger, Hans Beckstein, Erich Karl, Herta Hammerbacher, Wilhelm Hirsch, Hermann Mattern, Leberecht Migge en Hans Friedrich Pohlenz, many of whose names will pop up in the biography of Mien Ruys and her private library. B. ARCHITECTURE 1900-1950The thesis that Dutch architects were much earlier and more actively involved in modernist movements than garden architects is undisputed. An explanation may be found in the fact that the latter trade was increasingly driven into a defensive position. Large commissions became fewer as labour cost increased and the size of the plots on which mansions and villas were built became smaller, and the garden architects apparently found it hard to think of new ways to tackle these changed conditions and develop new design concepts meeting the challenge. As a result, people from outside the trade became involved in garden design, such as architects (H.P.Berlage, K.P.C. de Bazel, Dudok and Van Eesteren), interior designers (Kareol), plantsmen (A.J. van Laren) and amateur-gardeners (Van der Linden and Snelrewaard), as well as well-to-do women-gardeners who picked up their knowledge from one of the numerous gardening magazines (Buiten, Onze Tuinen). Many of the larger designs that were until then commissioned by customers such as local communities were now produced by their own staff. As a consequence, the status of the garden design trade decreased. Architects were on the whole much more involved in the accelerating developments in the arts, since their trade was in the centre of the general discours on modernism. They were able to provide quicker responses to the changing demands posed to the design of outdoor space and to take up the problems that garden architects left alone. Ruys’ Formative YearsInfancy and TrainingThe Royal Moerheim Nursery, founded by Mien Ruys’ father Bonne in 1888, started advertising the suitability of perennials for ‘application in the so-called Natural Style’. It was a new method of garden design, starting not so much from an architectural perspective as from the use of plants. In itself, it was a reaction to the formal, rigid fashion of carpet bedding in which gaudy coloured annuals were planted in artificial schemes. Onze Tuinen editor-in-chief A.J.van Laren, who was also the director of the famous Botanical Garden of Amsterdam, gave a glowing description of the Natural Style in a series of articles in this magazine. During WW I Moerheim Nursery was forced to compensate for its severely reduced export of plants abroad by stimulating its home market through the foundation of a separate department of garden architecture. The first to head it was J.W.M.Sluiter (one of the founding members of the BNT garden architects association), who was succeeded by J.O.W.F.Rens, both of whom later worked as independent garden architects. Mien Ruys, born on April 12 1904 at Dedemsvaart, was not only raised with all aspects of the nursery trade close at hand, but from very early on also made the acquaintance of some very important members of the international nurserymen, plantsmen and garden artists’ world, among them leading members of the German Dendrological Society (Deutsche Dendrologische Gesellschaft) like Camillo Schneider, Karl Foerster and Hugo Koch, in addition to many others from different countries. She did however not receive a formal education in the trade until later on. In 1925 she wrote her first article for the garden magazine Buiten (Outdoors). In 1928 she did an apprenticeship at Wallace & Sons nursery at Tunbridge Wells, during which stay she made the acquaintance of Gertrude Jekyll. About one year later she wanted to go to the gardening school at Schloss Pilnitz in Dresden, Germany, but apparently Camillo Schneider advised her to go to Berlin to the newly founded course of Gartenkunst (garden art) at the Landwirtschaftliche Hochschule (agricultural college) in Dahlem, Berlin. It was headed by the former Stadtgartendirektor (manager of municipal gardens) of Greater Berlin, Erwin Barth. During this stay Ruys not only got enthused by the modernist ideas of socialism, but she also met the up-and-coming team of modernist garden architects Hermann Mattern and Herta Hammerbacher, whom she recognized as kindred spirits. Not much later, both of them were to work with famous plantsman Karl Foerster and consecutively went on to influential careers in (garden) architecture, town planning and teaching. Sometime during the thirties Mien Ruys became head of Moerheim Nursery’s Garden Architecture Department. It was possibly during her frequent stays with her elder sister Charlotte - who moved in avant-gardist Amsterdam circles - that she became interested in modern architecture. Since work during the Depression was slow, in 1931 she decided to read Architecture and some other courses at Delft Technical College. One of her teachers was M.J.Granpré Molière, who initially had very modern ideas about town planning, but as a reaction to rigid Modernism developed the Delft school of architecture, a traditionalist movement of which he was the figurehead. At a certain point, Ruys’ ideas and Granpré’s came into collision. This happened when Ruys accosted Granpré after one of his lectures on esthetics, in which Granpré had explained that in matters of esthetics one had to follow one’s intuition. When Ruys confessed to him that one of the buildings she was most impressed by was the modernist Van Nelle factory in Rotterdam (by architects Brinkman and Van der Vlugt, 1928), Granpré retorted ‘that in that case her intuition must be wrong’. Professional and political engagementRuys inclination was towards the ideas of New Architecture (also called New Objectivity and greatly overlapping with the concepts of Functionalism and Modernism in the narrower sense of Modernist Architecture). She became involved in cultural and political circles in Amsterdam once Moerheim’s department of garden architecture had moved there (1937). Ruys was a member (and later secretary) of the Vigilance Committee of Anti-National-Socialist Intellectuals, sharing the concerns of a group of eminent Dutch writers and scientists. Sometime during the thirties Ruys met J.T.P. Bijhouwer, later to become an esteemed colleague and friend of the family, who was at its first meeting in 1923 the youngest member of BNT, now its president. Due to her connections with Moerheim Nursery, Ruys could not become a full member of BNT, since one of its original issues was that garden architects should have no ties whatsoever to any nurseries, suppliers or contractors. In 1940 the regulations on this point were relaxed and Ruys became a full member, only to resign two years later when the German occupiers where taking over all professional associations. The biography for the period of 1930- 1945, in all probability the decisive formative years for Mien Ruys’ later work, is still showing large blanks which further study is necessary to fill in. From the data known so far it appears that in more than one way Ruys’ decisive step to independence was her moving office to Amsterdam. In how far an escape from the stifling rural atmosphere of Dedemsvaart played a role, or how important the concentration of customers in the western parts of the country was as a reason for this decision remains to be analyzed. The fact is that a formal separation of the garden architecture department would also make her becoming a full member of BNT easier. RUYS’ WORK 1930-1990In this study an attempt will be made to describe the characteristics of Ruys’ work and the changes they undergo through time. An analysis of her designs will demonstrate that a number of turning points can be established. The relationships between Ruys’ work and the framework of the contemporary developments in Dutch garden and landscape architecture will be addressed, especially as where they are concerning public green space, public housing and commercial and industrial building. Whenever separate periods can be distinguished in these developments, the characteristics of the designs and specific use of materials will be inventoried, analysed and documented. When processing these data, care will be taken to make them available in a database. With Ruys, however, the emphasis lay on the functionalistic application of the material at her disposition and the roles it could play in answering to the demands of the design and the architectural principles. Bergmans on the other hand to a large extent adhered to the lightly undulating shapes of the Landscape Style and largely avoided architectural elements. When comparing Ruys’ designs with those of other contemporaries it becomes obvious that she completely followed her own course. Moreover, her conception of her task was to a large extent motivated by her effort to bring good garden architecture within the reach of a larger part of the community. This is expressed both in the aims she formulated in her magazine Onze Eigen Tuin (‘Our Own Garden’) and in the concept of standard or confection borders that she developed in the early fifties. The ideas she expresses about these themes in her magazine and her books will be thoroughly analyzed. Tentative periodization of Mien Ruys’ work 1925-1940 Mien Ruys started working as a garden architect in her father’s nursery Moerheim at Dedemsvaart in 1925. The few remaining drawings, mostly single design drawings, sometimes of the planting scheme only, generally show a rather unremarkable design in the Regular or the Architectural style. It may be compared to the work of her Dutch contemporaries B.C.van der Steenhoven, R.Boon, C.Polak Daniels (described in E.Blok 1997) and J.W.M.Sluiter. She probably also leant heavily on the examples known to her from literature, most of which was from German origin (Barth, Koch etc.), and of some English designers (e.g. Gertrude Jekyll). She knew many leading personalities of dendrology and garden design (Foerster, Schneider etc.) in person, since they were regular visitors of her father’s nursery Moerheim. Very little is remaining from the plans she designed in this period. This applies to both the archival material, of which much has been destroyed, and to the actual projects. Some of the projects from this period are:
1940-1970Cooperation with modernist architectsAfter publishing her article (mentioned previously) in ‘de 8 en Opbouw’ magazine, in which Bijhouwer was probably instrumental, in 1943 Ruys is invited to join the Modernist architects’ society of the same name. One of her first activities is the advise she gives to B.Merkelbach en Ch.Karsten about the spatially correct positioning of a new mansion at De Bilt. From 1945 on Ruys frequently works with modernist architects such as Van Eesteren, A.Bodon, J.W.E.Buys, Aldo van Eyck, J.H.Groenewegen, L.van Herwijnen, J.P.Kloos, H.A.Maaskant, Bureau Merkelbach en Karsten, Gerrit Rietveld, Hein Salomonson and A.Staal. In 1966 the bureau, until then the department of garden architecture of Moerheim Nurseries, becomes independent as a result of new government regulations for the independency of such bureaus. New conceptsStarting from the late forties, Ruys frequently used diagonal lines in the paving of walkways and squares. Examples can be found at Frankendael, Amsterdam 1949 and the garden at the KNSM-builidng, Amsterdam, 1950. The paving material itself was also often laid in diagonal lines. In the same era, Ruys introduced new materials which were cheap and widely available or easy to produce, since building materials were very scarce in the post-war period. The ‘grion’ paving stone, made of partly washed out concrete soon became very popular. By the middle of the fifties, Ruys introduced the square and the rectangle as the dominant basic forms in her designs, whereas the use of the diagonal is limited to those cases where it is strictly functional. The rectangular shapes are reinforced by their repetition in the blocks into which Privet (Ligustrum) and other shrubs are cut. Moerheim’s Spring catalogue of 1954 sees the introduction of the ‘standard’ or ‘confection borders’, with 8 packages of perennials suited for different soil and light situations. The description of each of these groups includes a planting scheme, a habitat- and a plant description and a plant list with pricing. In the next Fall catalogue, 7 shrub packages were advertised, again suited for different situations: sunny, sunny to light shadow, dappled shadow, shadow. There are some obvious parallels with the ’12 apostles ‘ concept introduced a little earlier by architect-gardener Pieter Verhagen. The introduction of the railway sleeper as another cheap and widely available material took place in 1960, when Ruys was looking for a simple solution to create a retaining wall for shifting dune sands in the garden she made for architect Holt in Overveen. It was this introduction, even more so than that of the washed concrete paving stone, which made Mien Ruys famous. She later used it extensively to create different levels in her garden designs. Town planning and public green space
Other commissions
Onze Eigen Tuin magazine and other publicationsIn 1955 Mien Ruys and her husband, publisher Theo Moussault started ‘ Onze Eigen Tuin’ magazine, in which articles were published dealing mainly with the design and planting of private gardens. The magazine was (and still is) published by ‘Het Huis van Linnaeus’. Moussault, who had been a star photographer of ‘De Telegraaf’ daily newspaper and later published the leftist daily ‘De Groene Amsterdammer’, managed the business side. 1970-1995Buro Mien RuysAs a result of the large order portfolio and Ruys’ wish to spend more time with her husband when she turned 65 - her husband was much older - the bureau was expanded and two garden and landscape architects, Hans Veldhoen (1968) en Arend Jan van der Horst (1969) were brought in as partners. Ruys still participated in the design work of those projects that interested her, but she concentrated mainly on producing the planting schemes.Her last private commission dates from 1995, when she had reached the age of 91. Ruys died at 94 in 1999. RUYS AND THE MODERNIST ARCHITECTS1925-1945When studying at the College for Horticulture at Berlin in 1929-1930, Ruys was introduced to architect/garden and landscape architect Hermann Mattern and his wife Herta Hammerbacher also a garden and landscape architect, whose modernist qualities she immediately recognized and with whom she felt a professional solidarity. She got acquainted with the work of other modern German designers and kept a close watch on their literature ever since (e.g. the influential magazine Gartenschönheit, edited by Karl Foerster and Camillo Schneider). Ruys also became politically active. Although much detail of this period remains to be investigated, it is obvious that she had communist or at least socialist sympathies. After the Nazi takeover in 1933 Ruys refused to visit Germany; she later became a member and even the last secretary of the Committee of Anti-National Socialist Intellectuals, in which many famous left-wing scientists and writers participated. When the Germans invaded the Netherlands in May 1940 , Ruys made an attempt to flee to England, but like so many others she was too late. Later in 1942, when it seemed that the Germans were attempting to take over all professional organisations, Ruys tried to persuade Bijhouwer, then president of BNT to disband the organisation, but he declined. There upon, Ruys and 4 others cancelled their memberships, after which she was officially unable to get commissions. She did however keep working, and played a role as a courier of counterfeited identity papers for the resistance. In 1942 Ruys published the previously mentioned article ‘The architect and the garden’ in the monthly magazine ‘de 8 en Opbouw’ (1942, nr. 2, p. 15-21). When and who the first connection was made still has to be uncovered, but it is likely that Bijhouwer was responsible. In the following year, Ruys was invited to partake in the study week for architects, organized by the architects’ association ‘Architectura et Amicitia’ at the Maarten Maartenshuis in Doorn. Representatives of the Modernist movement and the traditionalist Delft School were invited. Ruys made the acquaintance of the modernist architects Merkelbach and his associate Karsten. Not much later she was invited to join ‘de 8 en Opbouw’. 1945-1970 : Modern Architecture After World War II had ended, Ruys worked quite often with several architects form this group. Among them were A.Bodon, J.W.E.Buys, Aldo van Eyck, J.H.Groenewegen, L.van Herwijnen, J.P.Kloos, H.A.Maaskant, Bureau Merkelbach en Karsten, G.Rietveld, H. Salomonson en A.Staal. The professional association BNT was revived in 1945, a process in which Ruys and Bijhouwer were both involved. Bijhouwer became a member of the board, Ruys did not. Although she and Bijhouwer became close friends and worked together on several levels, Ruys kept aloof from BNT, whose actions she often criticized, and she did not have much contact with most of her colleagues either. Her interests predominantly lay in the development of new concepts for urban planning, council housing and related subjects. 1970-1995An analysis of Ruys’ later work awaits further study as well. The archival material has been documented and will be accessible through TuiN database (Special Collections, Library of Wageningen University and Research Centre). |
||