Mondrian's [Parking] Meters by Sandra K.Kolacz

Mo ndr i a n’ s[ Pa r ki ng ]Me t e r s : Be yondt heSc hr öde rHous e Hi s t or ya ndThe or ySt udi e sI I I Sa ndr aKa r ol i naKol a c z

MONDRIAN’S [PARKING] METERS BEYOND THE SCHRÖDER HOUSE

Exhausted by the misrepresentation of painting as an exclusively static medium, Neoplasticism sought to define the canvas through the language of other creative disciplines – it brought painters and architects together in the hope of attaining a collective creation 1 - that appeared to stop in 1924 at the Schröder House, celebrated since as the architectural epitome 2 of Neoplasticism. An examination of the techniques explored by Mondrian and the Neoplastic movement of the twentieth century exposed a set of ideologies on the philosophy of art during an era preoccupied with the subject of motion; could there be, in view of these theories on geometry and spatial relationships, an appropriate alternative to the ninety-one-year old paragon?

IN THE INTEREST OF SPECIFICITY, THE PRIMARY PAINTING EXAMINED IN THIS TEXT IS: COMPOSITION NO. 10 (1939 – 42), OIL ON CANVAS, PIET MONDRIAN ALTHOUGH SIMILAR COMPOSITIONS (COMPOSITION II IN RED, BLUE, AND YELLOW (1930), TABLEAU I (1921) AMONG OTHERS MAYBE CONSIDERED THROUGHOUT AS UTILISING SIMILAR DEVICES. CORRESPONDING CAR PARKS ARE TO BE FOUND IN THE ‘MONDRIAN’S MECHANISMS’ HANDBOOK.

fig. 1 : Mondrian’s Composition no. 10 (1939 – 42) fig. 2 : Systems that facilitate urban circulation

The image above is selected as representative of the notions to be explored: a predominantly red background divided two-thirds down by lines of black, grey and white. A structure at the lower left quarter disrupts the linearity of the composition and casts a shadow, introducing a third dimension. Familiarity with these materials allows one to name the objects – the arrangement depicts a red wall lining a pavement running parallel to a road with white markings, corresponding to a parking meter. It is assumed that where the dimensions of the image break the continuity of the lines, in reality, they extend beyond this threshold. The mechanical parking meter embodies a condition of being simultaneously stationary yet mobile; it is a token of a moment in which an individual has been granted permission to stay, on the promise that they will leave after a designated period of time. It is a meter in the fundamental sense of the word, a 'unit of displacement or length' 3 and adheres to a system of units particular to its device. Those that wish to use it must adhere to its meter of space/time. This text explores the potential of the car park, a relatively forgotten structure when considered amongst prevailing forms in the context of the city, N1 as Mondrian’s architectural equivalent. The meter space (or plane)/time is the fundamental model through which painting is able to communicate with built forms. It is impractical to attempt comparisons without first isolating the two to either the two-dimensional (canvas) or three-dimensional (volume) so that they may be studied equivalently. ‘The description of time and space by the means of perspective has been abandoned … painting is today architectural because … it serves the same concept – the space and the plane – as architecture, and thus expresses ‘the same thing but in a different way.” 4 In the two-dimensional field, both are constrained by the flatness of the plane, N2 giving the impression of a static composition, where space/time has collapsed into immobility. For painting, the perceived flatness continues beyond the canvas, unlike architectural drawings where individuals believe they are viewing the

Yve-Alain Bois, Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture, Assemblage, No. 4 (Oct, 1987), page 104

Megan Sveiven, AD Classics: Rietveld Schroder House / Gerrit Rietveld, ArchDaily.com, < http://www.archdaily.com/99698/ad-

classics-rietveld-schroder-house-gerrit-rietveld/ > [accessed: 26/03/2015] 3 WhatIs.com, Definition of Meter, <http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/meter> [accessed: 26/03/2015] NOTE 1 Residential lots, universities, shopping centres, hospitals, restaurants, galleries, churches, skyscraper offices, etc. 4 Yve-‐Alain Bois, Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture, Assemblage, No. 4 (Oct, 1987), page 108 NOTE 2 Certainly, paintings containing evidence of shadow or depth could be described as possessing a three-dimensional essence. Where the Neoplastic paintings of Mondrian and the traditional architectural blueprint are concerned, there is no obvious use of such devices.

documentation of a three-dimensional object. The blueprint is understood as a model of reality, with the benefit of exhibiting a relatable (human) scale. The paintings by contrast, while appearing as simple orthogonal diagrams escape this association to be perceived as symbolic, much to the disappointment of Mondrian who ‘seemed to fear that Neo-Plasticism might lead to ‘decoration’. 5

fig. 3 : Mondrian, Bertrand Goldberg and A Problem

What could it mean to unravel his painting, casting it into the third dimension? Perhaps then (and only then) can the painting truly mimic the behaviour of the blueprint, the function of art no longer veiled in representation but clearly expressed.’ 6 To analyse this potential, Mondrian’s artistic devices could be deconstructed alongside parking structures in the third dimension. fig. 4 : Composite diagram of Mondrian’s five elements

MONDRIAN’S MECHANISMS MONDRIAN’S COMPOSITIONS IN THE THIRD DIMENSION

LAYER 4: / LATTICE THE LATTICE UNDERLYING THE ENTIRE COMPOSITION : “OBJECTIVE BEAUTY”

Mondrian considered ‘Neoplasticism’ the most suitable mechanism in describing the unique relationship of space/time in art and architecture. The term translates to the self-explanatory new, and plastic - to be 'shaped or formed; capable of building tissue, formative’, 7 a departure from the immobility of art that, despite addressing a loosely decomposed perspective (as in Cubism), remained static in its form and technique. Mondrian believed that the ‘form of things … is independent of the observer - relatively so, for it depends on whether he can observe it as it is manifested, or whether he will see it more, or less, "purely", 8 suggesting the existence of a basic 'objective' beauty N3 (as far as possible ‘universal’) 9 and proposing the human psyche as the ultimate abstractor - when items are viewed, the mind automatically categorises elements as, for example, ‘square’, ‘red’ or ‘linear’, and assigns a pre-defined label relative to what is familiar to that individual. This process of morphological analogies impairs originality if work is always described as a product of the art before it - is it not possible to create art and architecture that references only itself? The lattice in Neoplasticism is an instruction: having acknowledged the notion of raw, uncategorised beauty in art, it is irrational to arbitrarily replace any object with another by describing it in similes. The structure underlying all art is perception. Whilst readily distinguishing itself from other architectures, the car park has developed preconceptions allowing individuals to encapsulate the typology with curious specificity - a consequence of a repeatedly functional form, often devoid of aesthetic pretense. ‘The parking garage, after all, has always been a

Yve-‐Alain Bois, Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture, Assemblage, No. 4 (Oct, 1987), page 106 5

History and Theory Studies Course Readings, Purely Abstract Art (1926), page 199 The Free Dictionary, Definition of ‘Plastic’ < http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plastic> [accessed: 29/03/2015] History and Theory Studies Course Readings, Purely Abstract Art (1926), page 199 NOTE 3 It should be stressed that this ‘objective beauty’ could also not stem from the reputable Golden Section due to its requirement for fixed proportions and a dependence on the calculable number 1.6180. 9 History and Theory Studies Course Readings, Purely Abstract Art (1926), page 199 6 7 8

structure shaped by utilitarian considerations related to the mundane realm of motor vehicle storage.’ 10 fig. 5 : ‘Describe a typical car park?’

Perhaps it is for this reason that with Mondrian, ‘at the end of the exhibition the same painting might bear a different number or letter, or even a different title', 11 to imply a continually changing piece, beyond terminal categorisation. 12N4 13 The translation into parking architecture relies on its scale. In a larger format, the lattice equates to the arrangement of parking bays clustered around the roadway. It is difficult to isolate the two as they are accessories to each other. The lattice performs on a micro scale as the load-bearing components and intensely horizontal structure of the car park, to ‘glorify asymmetry or horizontal/vertical rhythm’ 14 because it is ‘constructive’ it is not free (the weight of materials hinders it)… the only solution is for it to be as planar as possible.” 15

fig. 6 : Table detailing the frequency of components in Mondrian’s paintings

LAYER 1: / VIEWPORT WHAT IS SEEN ON THE CANVAS : “LIKE THE VIEWFINDER ON A CAMERA”

As it is generally accepted that no 'laws of composition' were consciously applied to Mondrian,' 16 it may be most appropriate to consider his explorations as moments captured in time through the viewport but not constrained by it. Consistent with the space/time meter, his work is an exploration of the way in which components appear to assemble on a supposedly fixed canvas whilst simultaneously existing in a state of perpetual motion. To the observer, ‘the given work of art is presented as a mere fragment, a tiny piece arbitrarily cropped from an infinitely larger [lattice]. Thus [it] operates from the work of art outward, compelling our acknowledgement of a world beyond the frame.’ 17 This can be easily understood if the viewport is compared to the ‘viewfinder’ in a camera, through which a photographer looks to determine an appropriate composition before finally capturing it. Nevertheless, a photograph of a galloping horse, particularly when presented in sequence, is generally read as fluid despite its static medium. fig. 7 : Eadweard Muybridge, Horse in Motion, (1886)

For the experimental artist living in the mechanised twentieth century, it was essential that painting should mimic the motion of the world regardless of the constraints the medium presented. It promoted the audience to cameraman with the power to independently conceive of that world and resolve their own composition, interpreting his landscapes from a rectangular or diamond-shaped viewport as a sequence of events within the lattice. As a result, two viewports (materialised as two separate paintings) can depict the

Joseph Longstreth, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 70, No. 1 (March 11), page 107 Carel Blotkamp, Mondrian: The Art of Destruction (1994), page 7 NOTE 4 The work is ultimately ironic when it is identified as a ‘Mondrian’ or ‘Neoplastic’, yet the focus remains on personal interpretation than a study of ownership - the ‘biography of an idea, not an individual.’ 13 -‐-‐-‐ 13 Paul Overy, Lenneke Buller, Frank den Oudsten and Bertus Mulder, The Rietveld Schroder House, (1988), page 87 14 Yve-‐Alain Bois, Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture, Assemblage, No. 4 (Oct, 1987), page 104 15 Yve-‐Alain Bois, Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture, Assemblage, No. 4 (Oct, 1987), page 109 16 Anthony Hill, Art and Mathesis: Mondrian's Structures, Leonardo, Vol. I, Pergamon Press (1968), page 234 17 Rosalind Krauss, Grids, October, Vol. 9, (Summer, 1979), page 60 11

same space at the same time with varying compositional results, based on the angle of the viewport. An example of how this might appear can be observed in fig. 9 if it is viewed as a section (X, Z or Y, Z) of stacked lines – grids - and fig. 10 as the corresponding plan (X, Y).

fig. 8 : A diamond-shaped viewport fig. 9, 10 : Sequence: How two different paintings can show the same space/time.

Car parks are the antithesis of this: where Mondrian promoted to view objective signs subjectively, parking endeavors to present objective signs objectively, beyond interpretation. To locate their car, motorists determine an item in the structure that distinguishes their position from an array of repeated elements. A letter, number, colour – a system of annotations that allows users to navigate around the complex. As Neoplasticism actively promoted ‘the destruction of the representation’, 18 it should be stressed that the term ‘annotation’ is independent of ‘symbol’ in the same way ‘instruction’ opposes ‘question.’ Mondrian’s paintings were intended as annotations of the spatial relationships between components, similar to the annotations (road signs) of the car park that allow users to locate themselves.

LAYERS 2 + 3 : / GRID + BLOCKS THE ORTHOGONAL BLACK LINES : “DICTATING PLAN AND SECTION”

Visually, Mondrian’s work is characterised by the grid: a series of no less than two intersecting, orthogonal, black lines that span (but do not cut) the lattice of the canvas, and extend beyond the scene of the viewport. They are elements of equivalent width and depth (but not length), framing encountered blocks suspended within the infinite lattice. In the dominating hierarchy of the grid, ‘the line emerges as the measure of all structural proportion’ 19 as a basis through which the configuration is understood, particularly as ‘a continuous line demands that the eye fix only on the subject and not the supporting tools... in both space and time.’ 20 Mondrian’s devices interrogate the position of white in the third dimension: assumed as a ‘blank’ space it is an absence of volume; it is the opposite as a block, embodying volume that travels through the emptiness of the space. ‘The line, being successive dot progression’ 21 is naturally dynamic. It navigates the lattice at varied speeds, mediating through the network of the grid in a hectic fashion where singular lines ‘hop’ like magnets amidst themselves, evidencing a communication (or void N5) between elements – the grid, then, is more of a stutter than a continuous flow, and varies still to the blocks floating between it which travel in a gradual manner independent of each other but fixed to the grid like trains on rails. Composition No. 10 (1939 – 42) indicates that the movements of the block are not entirely influenced by the grid, where two ‘red squares’ along the bottom and left of the viewport appear to be free from horizontal or vertical borders. Grid lines adapt their only adjustable attribute, their length, to satisfy any potential gaps or overhangs left in the grid after their transition. The absence of a discernable rhythm is deliberate, as ‘rhythm’ implies repeated patterns of motion in contrast to the free movement at the foundation of Neoplastic doctrine.

fig. 11 : Sequence showing how the grid and blocks occupy space/time

Carel Blotkamp, Mondrian: The Art of Destruction (1994), page 15 Paul Klee, Pedagogical Sketchbook (1953), page 9 Bruno Le Bail, The Continuous Line in Space and Time, Leonardo, Vol. 35, No. 4 (2002), page 379 21 Paul Klee, Pedagogical Sketchbook (1953), page 9 NOTE 5 The ‘void’ is not technically a layer – it is the relationship between all the components involved, rather than the ‘emptiness’ between them. 19 20

Volumetric forms like the block are arguably the only ‘architectural’ component if the paintings are to be proposed as a model of Mondrian’s landscape. The grid in parking structures is an instrument dividing space not physically but figuratively. Whilst parking bays are a kind of diagram outlining space/time, they escape diagramitisation when drawn in plan - a component that even as a blueprint precisely mirrors it’s transition into reality where it continues as a diagram - but disappears in section. As a structure, it avoids categorisation: it is neither floor nor wall, and is functionally adapted as either, according to the motorists needs. Perhaps this is the characteristic Mondrian had long searched for when transitioning neoplastic elements to architecture, the ‘constructive and destructive’ ‘equilibrium’ 22 celebrating the assembled wall and collapsed floor. It is not accurate to regard parallel road markings as flooring (which generally lack specific functions) nor is it right to correlate it with the curb, as this presents a change in level and landscape. Indeed, parking bays are best described as thresholds without concrete limitations; as diagrams marked in the X,Y dimensions and assumed to continue in Z until it is physically obstructed. Consequently, the parking grid reproportions the blocks (cars) stationed within, when they occur as singular events of negotiated space/time. However, at context of the city the reverse is true ‘streets… widened in order to accommodate the increasing number of cars.’ 23 In Mondrian’s universe, blocks at an intersection may alter their dimensions to accommodate travel along an alternative set of rails. Ultimately, Mondrian’s blocks too, are determined by the X,Y of the grid with a Z continuous Z axis.

NEOPLASTICISM AS THRESHOLD

fig. 12 : Schröder House

Certainly, it is possible to conceive of an architectural equivalent if it is resolved through the threshold. Inspecting the Schröder House offers little overlap concerning the themes of movement and scale (space/time) discovered in the relationship between parking structures and Neoplasticism; primarily, that a Neoplastic, ‘anti-functionalism’ 24 architecture could operate as a living space – in fact, ‘the small, inexpensive and highly adaptable house… placed enormous demands on its occupants’ 25 who struggled to adapt social life to the expression of structural relationships. Adjustable panels served as physical (where it had been figurative in the parking bay) experiment in the division of space - the ‘idea of dwelling as ‘process’ 26 - to alter according to immediate needs. Everything about the house - the interchangeable dimensions of rooms, attempted dissolution of space to attain ‘absolute neutralisation’ 27 (and possibly a transparent architecture 28) is ultimately defeated by the relatively passive and compressed presence within the larger context of the urban landscape. Mondrian, ‘in the microcosm of his own visual world… worshipped the Macrocosm of the universe,’ 29 thus a Neoplastic architecture is required to be sensitive to its context in addition to itself. Even when referred to as a ‘gate to the town’ 30 (as parking garages often are 31) the Schröder House fails to mirror the unpredictability through motion observed in daily life. Physically, the building limits itself to a finite number of configurations when partition walls slide along a defined railing system that is neither magnetic nor can be seen to ‘hop’ as in the basic grid of Mondrian’s structural devices.

Carel Blotkamp, Mondrian: The Art of Destruction (1994), page 9 Walter Curt Behrendt, Off-Street Parking: A City Planning Problem, The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics, Vol. 16, No. 4 (1940), page 464 24 Nancy J. Troy, Review, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 50, (March 1991), page 88 25 Nancy J. Troy, Review, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 50, (March 1991), page 88 26 Penny Sparke, Anne Massey,Trevor Keeble, Brenda Martin, Designing the Modern Interior: From the Victorians to Today (2009) 27 Yve-Alain Bois, Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture, Assemblage, No. 4 (Oct, 1987), page 109 28 Yve-Alain Bois, Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture, Assemblage, No. 4 (Oct, 1987), page 110 29 Paul Klee, Pedagogical Sketchbook (1953), page 5 30 Yve-Alain Bois, Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture, Assemblage, No. 4 (Oct, 1987), page 105 31 Birmingham City Council, Car Park Design Guide, page 5 23

One can reasonably suggest, having studied spatial elements in the parking bay, an alternative in the threshold that presents a series of paradoxes familiar to the requirements of Mondrian. As previously noted, the characteristic of the threshold in the parking bay acknowledges elements of both block and grid; presented in this way, it can be conceived of as a doorframe. ‘Doors, gates, even mirrors… are axes of negotiation (both cutting and pivotal) that, as thresholds, speak ultimately to the self and the world’ 32 as beginning and ending, past and future. Life, because it is lived through it, is described through the threshold, the module that facilitates the occupancy of space/time without directly participating within it. The door frame is a further extension of the viewport; it is the promise of allowing observers to physically enter and interact with the objects beyond – the ‘fourth wall,’ N6 or fourth parameter of the frame, is broken. The viewport, however, containing all four sides, behaves more similarly to the window, where observers are suspended in the act of observing. Significantly, the doorframe, through our experience of it, announces a shift in landscape and proportion that is not as conveniently attained in other components. To study this, the doorframe must first isolate itself from the defining parameters of prohibitive mechanisms like the wall, floor, ceiling and door. The dimensions of the door frame cannot be considered restrictive as they do little but reference the proportions of the passing individual without extending the proportion of the frame into continuous space (as in the example of the parking bay grid extending in the Z axis before meeting an intrusion). The contrasts between the function of the parking bay and doorframe are on account of the parking bay as a dwelling space, where the doorframe can instead be considered a movement mechanism. For Mondrian, ‘no architectural realisation ever existed (nor could have existed) that represented … an absolute example of that “pure architecture” of which he dreamed’, 33 but imagining a lattice (landscape) of doorframes (free grids) that permit and influence the circulation of blocks (people) observable through the viewports of gazing eyes, might be one translation of Neoplasticist fantasy into architecture. fig. 13 : Threshold-Landscape

Jay Fellows, Janusian Thresholds, Perspecta, Vol. 19 (1982), page 44 ‘An imaginary wall (as at the opening of a modern stage proscenium) that keeps performers from recognizing or directly addressing their audience’, Merriam Webmaster, Definition of ‘fourth wall’, <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fourth%20wall> [accessed: 30/03/2015] 33 Yve-Alain Bois, Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture, Assemblage, No. 4 (Oct, 1987), page 106 N6

/ BIBLIOGRAPHY :

Anthony Hill, Art and Mathesis: Mondrian's Structures, Leonardo, Vol. I, Pergamon Press (1968), pages 234 – 5 ArchDaily, AD Classics: Rietveld Schroder House / Gerrit Rietveld, <http://www.archdaily.com/99698/ad-classics-rietveld-schroderhouse-gerrit-rietveld/> ArtQuotes, George Braque Quotes, < http://www.art-quotes.com/auth_search.php?authid=349> ArtyFactory.com, Juan Gris (1887 – 1927), <http://www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/still_life/juan_gris.htm> Birmingham City Council, Car Park Design Guide, page 5 Bruno Le Bail, The Continuous Line in Space and Time, Leonardo, Vol. 35, No. 4 (2002), page 379 Carel Blotkamp, Mondrian: The Art of Destruction (1994), page 7 – 15 History and Theory Studies Course Readings, Purely Abstract Art (1926) Jay Fellows, Janusian Thresholds, Perspecta, Vol. 19 (1982), pages 43 – 47 John A. Jakle and Keith A. Sculle, Lots of Parking: Land Use in a Car Culture (2004), pages 7 – 8 John A. Jakle and Keith A. Sculle, Lots of Parking: Land Use in a Car Culture (2004), preface Joseph Longstreth, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 70, No. 1 (March 11), page 107 Jyllian N. Kemsley, Chemical & Engineering News: Road Markings, < http://cen.acs.org/articles/88/i36/Road-Markings.html> Merriam Webmaster, Definition of ‘fourth wall’, <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fourth%20wall> [accessed: 30/03/2015] Paul Klee, Pedagogical Sketchbook (1953) Penny Sparke, Anne Massey,Trevor Keeble, and Brenda Martin, Designing the Modern Interior: From the Victorians to Today (2009) Piet Mondrian, Letter to Del Marle (April 1926) Rosalind Krauss, Grids (1979), pages 50 – 64 Ryan Dillon, History and Theory Studies Lecture: Mondrian, Lecture Notes (20/11/2014) Simon Henley and Sue Barr, The Architecture of Parking, (2007), pages 63-234 Simon Henley, The Architecture of Parking Interview (19/11/2014) Sue Barr, The Architecture of Parking Interview (12/11/2014) The Free Dictionary, Plastic, < http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plastic> The Owen Ludor Partnership, Trinity Square, Gateshead (1967) Unesco, Rietveld Schröderhuis (Rietveld Schröder House) (UNESCO/NHK), <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyZZktZgamI> Victor Hugo, Things of the Infinite, translated by Lorenzo O’Rourke (New York Funk & Wagnallis, 1907) Walter Curt Behrendt, Off-Street Parking: A City Planning Problem, The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics, Vol. 16, No. 4 (1940), page 464 WhatIs.com, Definition of Meter, <http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/meter> Wikipedia, Bin packing problem, < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_packing_problem> Wikipedia, Modern history, Wikipedia, Mondrian, < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Mondrian> William A. Camfield, Juan Gris and the Golden Section, The Art Bulletin 47 (March 1965), page 129 William H. Lloyd, The Parking of Automobiles, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 77, No. 3 (Jan., 1929), page 336 Yve-Alain Bois, Mondrian and the Theory of Architecture, Assemblage, No. 4 (Oct, 1987), pages 104 – 8

SPECIAL THANKS TO SUE BARR + SIMON HENLEY, Who helped to influence the sentiments expressed in the text.

/ IMAGE BIBLIOGRAPHY :

fig. 1 : Mondrian’s Composition no. 10 (1939 – 42) Artist: Piet Mondrian Image source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Mondrian#/media/File:Piet_Mondriaan,_1939-1942_-_Composition_10.jpg> fig. 2 : Systems that facilitate urban circulation Artist: Lucie Maru, (2011) Image source: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/48884967@N04/5594595395> fig. 3 : Mondrian, Bertrand Goldberg and Composition Comparing the appearance of different types of art, With an arbitrary solution to the Mondrian’s 3-d problem Artists: Piet Mondrian, Composition A (1923) Betrand Goldberg, Marina City Car Park (1964) Image source: <http://www.piet-mondrian.org/composition-a-1923.jsp> <https://www.pinterest.com/pin/174796029257733976/> <http://missionbaysf.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/ocean-beach-house-painted-in-style-of.html> fig. 4 : Composite diagram of Mondrian’s elements Understanding the relationships between the elements Artist: Sandra Kolacz fig. 5 : ‘Describe a typical car park?’ Replies gathered from individuals asked Source: Sandra Kolacz fig. 6 : Table detailing the frequency of components in Mondrian’s paintings Artist: Sandra Kolacz fig. 7 : Eadweard Muybridge, Horse in Motion, (1886) Photographer: Eadweard Muybridge Image source: <http://www.eadweardmuybridge.co.uk/> fig. 8 : A diamond-shaped viewport Artist: Piet Mondrian, ‘Tableau No. IV: Lozenge Composition with Red, Gray, Blue, Yellow and Black’ (1924 – 25) Image source: <http://pietmondrian.co.uk/tableau-no-iv-lozenge-composition/> fig. 9 : Sequence: How two different paintings can show the same space/time Artist: Piet Mondrian, Composition No. 10 (Pier and Ocean), (1915) Image Source: < http://www.piet-mondrian.org/pier-and-ocean.jsp> fig. 10 : Sequence: How two different paintings can show the same space/time Artist: Piet Mondrian, Composition with Yellow Patch, (1930) Image Source: < http://www.piet-mondrian.org/composition-with-yellow-patch-1930.jsp> fig. 11 : Sequence showing how the grid and blocks occupy space/time Artist: Sandra Kolacz fig. 12 : Schröder House Architect: Rietveld Schröder Image source: <http://www.archdaily.com/99698/ad-classics-rietveld-schroder-house-gerrit-rietveld/> fig. 13 : Threshold-Landscape Artist: Sandra Kolacz Cityscape image source: <http://pichost.me/1526000/> ADDITIONAL: fig. 14 : Kleur B, the viewport as device Artist: Piet Mondrian, Kleur B (Composition in Colour B) (1917) Image source: <http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-liverpool/exhibition/mondrian-and-his-studios> fig. 15 : Composition studies Car Park / Mondrian Artist: Piet Mondrian, Composition no. 10 (1939 – 42) Architects: Hentrich-Petschnigg & Partner, Parkhaus Zoo Leipzig (2002), plan Steinmann & Schmid Architekten, Parkhaus, Saas-Fee (1994 – 6), plan

The Owen Luder Partnership, Trinity Square, Gateshead (1967), plan Image source: <http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-liverpool/exhibition/mondrian-and-his-studios> Simon Henley, Sue Barr, The Architecture of Parking (2007)

f i g.1:Mondr i an’ sCompos i t i onno.10( 1939–42)

f i g.2:Sy s t e mst hatf ac i l i t at eur banc i r c ul at i on

f i g.3:Mondr i an,Be r t r andGol dbe r gandCompos i t i on

f i g.4:Compos i t edi agr amofMondr i anâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; se l e me nt s Unde r s t andi ngt her e l at i ons hi psbe t we e nt hee l e me nt s

Vi e wpor t

Bl oc k s

Gr i d

Vi e wpor t

Lat t i c e

f i g.4a:Ex pl ode ddi agr amofMondr i anâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; se l e me nt s Unde r s t andi ngt her e l at i ons hi psbe t we e nt hee l e me nt s

f i g.5:‘ De s c r i beat y pi c alc arpar k ?’

0 . 6 9 2

0 . 7 1 4

9 : 1 3

5 : 7

1 3

0 . 3 1 6

0 . 0 2 6

1 2 : 3 8

1 1 : 4 2 6

3 8

4 2 6

3 0

5 9

4 5

1 2 1

9 7

1 0 4

1 2

1 1

Ta b l e a uI , ( 1 9 2 1 )| | Co mp o s i t i o nI Ii nRe d , Bl u ea n dYe l l o w, ( 1 9 3 0 )| |Co mp o s i t i o nNo . 1 0 , ( 1 9 3 9-4 2 )| |Vi c t o r yBo o g yWo o g i e , ( 1 9 4 2 4 4 )

f i g.6:T abl ede t ai l i ngt hef r e que nc yofc ompone nt si nMondr i an’ spai nt i ngs

f i g.8:Adi amonds hape dv i e wpor t Pi e tMondr i an,‘ T abl e auNo.I V:Loz e ngeCompos i t i onwi t hRe d,Gr ay ,Bl ue ,Y e l l owandBl ac k ’ ( 1924–25)

f i g.9:Se que nc e :Howt wodi f f e r e ntpai nt i ngsc ans howt hes ames pac e / t i me Ar t i s t :Pi e tMondr i an,Compos i t i onNo.10( Pi e randOc e an) ,( 1915)

f i g.10:Se que nc e :Howt wodi f f e r e ntpai nt i ngsc ans howt hes ames pac e / t i me Ar t i s t :Pi e tMondr i an,Compos i t i onwi t hY e l l owPat c h,( 1930)

f i g.1 1:Se que nc es howi nghowt hegr i dandbl oc k soc c upys pac e / t i me ( 1):I ns t anc eone ,s t at i onar y ( 2)Showi nghowt heBl oc k smov eati nde pe nde nts pe e dsal ongt her ai l st hegr i dpr e s e nt s ( 3)Showi ngt hewayt heGr i dmov e s :c ons e que nc e sofâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC; magne t i choppi ngâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

( B)

( A)

Vi e wp o r t( A)

Vi e wp o r t( B)

f i g.1 1a:Howt hes ames pac e / t i mec anappe art obedi f f e r e ntf r oms e par at ev i e wpor tangl e s Unde r s t andi ngt her e l at i ons hi psbe t we e nMondr i ane l e me nt s

Bl oc k s

Gr i d

Vi e wpor t

Lat t i c e( Ur ban)

Lat t i c e( Mi c r o)

f i g.1 1b:Howt hes ames pac e / t i mec anappe art obedi f f e r e ntf r oms e par at ev i e wpor tangl e s Unde r s t andi ngt her e l at i ons hi psbe t we e npar k i nge l e me nt s

f i g.12:Sc hr รถde rHous e

f i g.13:Thr e s hol dLands c ape

f i g.14:Kl e urB,t hev i e wpor tasde v i c e( 1917) Mondr i anâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sde v i c e swe r eal s opl as t i c :hee x pe r i me nt e dwi t hdi f f e r e ntway st opr e s e nthi si de asabouts pat i alr e l at i ons hi psonc anv as .Hi sCompos i t ei nKl e urB( 1917)i se ar l i e rt hant heot he rwor kf e at ur e di nt hi se s s ay ands howsc ompl e t e l yf r e emov e me ntâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;t heonl yhor i z ont al / v e r t i c alr e l at i ons hi pmai nt ai ne di si nt hef or moft he s ubj e c ti t s e l f ,t hani nt hemov e me nt .Ef f or t satmak i ngt hee x ampl ear e l at abl epi e c eme anti nv i t i ngt hev i e we r i n-andc ons e que nt l yt hef r ame-i nt ohi sl ands c ape .Thei nt e ns ehor i z ont al / v e r t i c alr e l at i ons hi poft hef r ame

f i g.15:Compos i t i ons t udi e sCarPar k/Mondr i an

D RI AN

D RI AN ’S ’S M CO EC CA M H P R AN PA OSI RK TIO IS N M SI S N : TH E

M O N

LAYER 1: / VIEWPORT WHAT IS SEEN ON THE CANVAS : “POTENTIALLY ANAMORPHIC”

Nonda Katsalidis, Eureka Tower Car Park, Melbourne (2006)

From a total of 91 storeys, 9 are dedicated car parking employing a unique way-finding system. The anamorphic diagrams containing instructions for motorists appear to distort out of place if viewed at an inappropriate angle: to observe them forming into decipherable words, an individual is required to situate themselves at the optimum position at which point the disfigured parking annotations appear to become three-dimensional. This is curious when compared to Mondrian; the medium itself is two-dimensional but it is utilised in a three-dimensional space to achieve greater credibility than the ‘Problem’ in fig. 3 of the essay. The designers of the Eureka Tower Car park utilised this anamorphic technique, already familiar to roadways, in an attempt at controlling the speed at which motorists travel. In this way, paint becomes three-dimensional and possesses the ability to control space/time. ‘The spectator makes the picture. (c) --Marcel Duchamp

LAYER 2: / GRID THE ORTHOGONAL BLACK LINES : “PARKING BAYS”

Zaha Hadid Architects, Hoenheim-Nord, Strasbourg (1998 – 2001)

Hadid describes the car park as one of ‘fields’, where the ‘patterns of movement [are] engaged by cars, trams, bicycles and pedestrians,’ each of which ‘has a trajectory and a trace, as well as a static fixture... to synthesise a magnetic field.’ (d) For this project, Hadid had been commissioned as more of an artist; her interpretation of a minimalist appearance compliments the themes already outlined in the text, where the grid of the car park is a relatively simple diagram describing the relationships of blocks (cars) to each other as well as the overall lattice of the parking structure. Generally, the grid of the parking bay is characterised by a rectangle, utilising the horizontal and vertical planes. In this instance, only one dimension is referenced, which may be all that is technically required: if blocks align themselves to the suggested parameters of white marks on a black background, the grid grows closer to completion and gradual abduction - in the grid, the geometry is measured, proprtioned, against the module of the car. (e)

LAYER 3: / BLOCK VOLUMETRIC COMPOSITIONS : “BUILDING BLOCKS”

Tigerman Fugman McCurry, 60 East Lake Street, Chicago (1984 – 86)

The parking facility at Lake Street, Chicago, pays tribute to the impact the motor vehicle had on the city in no uncertain way. Designed as an oversized ‘building block’, an example of a ‘masquerade, rather than disguise ... that resembled a car, not a car park’. (f) The elevation camouflages the interal spatial order, typical to the block, that boasts a perceives static volume - ‘bulky’. Due to the relatively restricted dimensions of the occupied plot, the exterior is subjected to intense elongation and an abandonment of the vehicular proportions it endeavours to exhibit - noticeably, there is an extreme focus on vertical composition as a result of the metallic cladding mimicking a grille, in contrast to the usual horizontality of the car park. The dual status of East Lake Street as ‘urban block’ in the conventional sense indicating a volumentric mass, coupled with the text-specific interpretation acknowledging the motor vehicle as a ‘block’ within parking structures, renders this hybrid car park of intentional aesthetic a welcomed change in transgressing the threshold between the contained and the container; the actual and the representational. During the 1980s, the number of cars in America increased at a faster rate than the population. (g)

LAYER 4: / LATTICE THE LATTICE UNDERLYING THE ENTIRE COMPOSITION : “OBJECTIVE BEAUTY”

In multi-storey vehicle complexes, the ramps present a transition between multiple planes at progressive heights that sometimes offer, as in Gateshead Car Park (1967) , an opportunity to view beyond the construction overlooking the city from within the context of a parking deck and the macro lattice of the city. The nature of architecture as shelter presents a paradox of recurring closures that otherwise contradict the continuity of circulation if it were a typology other than the car park. In fact, vehicle storage embodies urban circulation, ‘in many cases car parks, particularly multi-storey car parks, are built on prominent sites at ‘gateways’ (a) to town and city centres,’ as the beginning and end to many journeys. Gateshead was a unique exercise in space/time. The architects proposed a scheme to sustain continued use of the structure after the 9-5 shopping hours. With a nightclub on its roof, the car park would fill ‘from the bottom up by day and the top down by night.’ (b)

/ REFERENCES : (a) Birmingham City Council, Car Park Design Guide, page 5 (b) Simon Henley and Sue Barr, The Architecture of Parking, (2007), page 63 (c) Dan Collins, Anamorphosis and the Eccentric Observer (1992) (d) Simon Henley, The Architecture of Parking (2007), page 83 (e) Simon Henley, The Architecture of Parking (2007), page 85 (f) Simon Henley, The Architecture of Parking (2007), page 133 (g) John A. Jakle and Keith A. Sculle, Lots of Parking: Land Use in a Car Culture (2004), page 2

“LATTICE” : Trinity Square, Gateshead Car Park, (1967) Image source: < http://www.classicsmonthly.com/2010/07/20/get-carter-car-park-demolition-26th-july-2010/> < http://www.somethingconcreteandmodern.co.uk/building/trinity-square-and-car-park/> < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6763067.stm> “VIEWPORT” : Nonda Katsalidis, Eureka Tower Car Park, Melbourne (2006) Image Source: < https://www.pinterest.com/pin/148618856424438786/> < http://robinverdegaal.nl/2008/09/26/eureka-carpark/#jp-carousel-3842> < http://www.ensci.com/blog/sysmolab/2013/04/page/4/ > “GRID” : Zaha Hadid Architects, Hoenheim-Nord, Strasbourg (1998 – 2001) Image source: < http://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/hoenheim-nord-terminus-and-car-park/> “BLOCK” : Tigerman Fugman McCurry, 60 East Lake Street, Chicago (1984 – 86) Image source: < http://www.theguardian.com/arts/gallery/2007/oct/29/architecture.photography> < https://www.pinterest.com/pin/337347828313696155/ > < https://www.parkme.com/lot/31717/60-east-lake-self-park-chicago-il >