Article published in:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 10:3 (2021) ► pp. 349–367

Bricks as arguments

Representing polysemy in Amsterdam School architectural design

| University of Pittsburgh
This study applies Leo Groarke’s (2019) ART approach and KC (Key Component) table method to social housing buildings designed by a significant Dutch architectural movement during the early twentieth century – the so-called Amsterdam School. Unlike members of other contemporary architectural movements, architects of the Amsterdam School seldom wrote about their theories or beliefs, leaving very little evidence about their feelings and attitudes apart from the architectural forms they constructed. The expressive designs of Amsterdam School social housing buildings Het Schip and De Dageraad present promising opportunities for theoretical reflection on architecture as a form of embodied visual and multimodal argumentation (‘bricks as arguments’), however, other theoretical tools may be necessary to supplement the ART approach in order to fashion a critical method capable of apprehending the full scope of argumentation in the complex and rich Dutch polylogue.
Keywords: Amsterdam School, architecture, argumentation, iconography, polylogue, polysemy, visual argument
Article outline
  • Multimodal and visual argumentation
  • Social housing in the Netherlands
  • Bricks as arguments
    • The ‘Spire’ at Het Schip
    • Decorative brickwork at Het Schip and De Dageraad
    • The ‘Verboden’ sign at Het Schip
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • Works cited
Published online: 14 December 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20012.con
References

Works cited

Aakhus, Mark and Sally Jackson
2005 Technology, Interaction, and Design. In Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, eds. Kristine L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders, 411–436. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Amsterdam School Museum Het Schip
2018 Wall text, Permanent Exhibition,. Amsterdam School Museum Het Schip, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Appelman, Sonja, Wouter Beekers, John Cüsters, Jos van der Lans, Margriet Pflug
2016 Canon Volkhuisvesting. Amsterdam: Vereniging Canon Sociaal Werk.Google Scholar
Barteet, Cody
2019 Architectural Rhetoric and the Iconography of Authority in Colonial Mexico: The Casa de Montejo. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Birdsell, David and Leo Groarke
2007 “Outlines of a Theory of Visual Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy 43(3&4): 103–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blesser, Barry and Linda-Ruth Salter
2009 Spaces Speak: Are You Listening? Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bock, Manfred, Sigrid Johannisse, and Vladimir Stissi
1997 Michel de Klerk: Architect and Artist of the Amsterdam School, 1884–1923. Rotterdam: NAI Publishers.Google Scholar
Burke, Kenneth
1984 Attitudes Towards History. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Casciato, Maristella
1983 “Michel de Klerk: Utopia Built.” In The Amsterdam School: Dutch Expressionist Architecture, 1915–1930, ed. by Wim de Wit, 93–120. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chryslee, Gail J., Sonja K. Foss and Arthur L. Ranney
1996 “The Construction of Claims in Visual Argumentation.” Visual Communication Quarterly 3(2): 9–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, N. L. and M. P. P. Stultjens
1996 “Jewish Education in Schools in the Netherlands from 1815 to 1940.” Studia Rosenthaliana 30(1): 67–87.Google Scholar
Finnegan, Cara
2001 “The Naturalistic Enthymeme and Visual Argument: Photographic Representation in the ‘Skull Controversy.’” Argumentation and Advocacy 371: 133–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, David
1996 “Can Pictures Be Arguments?” Argumentation and Advocacy 33(1): 11–22.Google Scholar
Gibbons, Michelle
2007 “Seeing the Mind in the Matter: Functional Brain Imaging as Framed Visual Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy 431: 175–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Michael A.
1994 “Multi-modal Argumentation.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 24(2): 159–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Groarke, Leo
1996 “Logic, Art and Argument.” Informal Logic 181: 105–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “Going Multimodal: What is a Mode of Arguing and Why Does it Matter?” Argumentation 291: 133–155. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019 “Depicting Visual Arguments: An “ART” Approach,” in Informal Logic: A ‘Canadian’ Approach to Argument, ed. by Federico Puppo, 332–374. Windsor: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.Google Scholar
Groarke, Leo, Catherine H. Palczewski, and David Godden
2016 “Navigating the Visual Turn in Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy 521: 217–235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hahner, Leslie A.
2013 “The Riot Kiss. Framing Memes as Visual Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy 491: 151–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, Gerard
1999 “Incongruous Bodies: Arguments for Personal Sufficiency and Public Sufficiency.” Argumentation and Advocacy 361: 1–8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heijdra, Ton
2019 Email to author, September 26 2019.Google Scholar
Heijdra, Ton, Alice Roegholt, and Richelle Wansing
2012 Workers’ Palace: The Ship by Michel de Klerk. Amsterdam: Museum Het Schip.Google Scholar
Hermans, Louis M.
1901 Krotten en Sloppen: Een Onderzoek Naar Den Woningtoestand Te Amsterdam Ingesteld in Opdracht Van Den Amsterdamschen Bestuurdersbond. Amsterdam: Van Looy.Google Scholar
Iedema, Rick
2003 “Multimodality, Resemiotization: Extending the Analysis of Discourse as Multisemiotic Practice.” Visual Communication 2(1): 29–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Inmann, Thomas
2010 Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism. New York: Forgotten Books.Google Scholar
Jewish Historical Museum
2018 Wall text, Permanent Exhibition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Johnson, Ralph H.
2005 Why Visual Arguments? ed. by H. V. Hansen, C. Tindale, and R. H. Johnson. http://​web2​.uwindsor​.ca​/courses​/philosophy​/johsoa​/visargtext​.htm
Kjeldsen, Jens E.
2007 “Visual Argumentation in Scandinavian Political Advertising: A Cognitive, Contextual and Reception Oriented Approach.” Argumentation and Advocacy 431: 124–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Strategies of Visual Argumentation in Slideshow Presentations: The Role of Visuals in an Al Gore Presentation on Climate Change.” Argumentation 27 (4): 425–443. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “The Study of Visual and Multimodal Argumentation.” Argumentation 291: 115–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kress, Gunther and Theo van Leeuwen
2006 Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin
2014 “Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understand of Fallacies.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36(49): 193–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin and Mark Aakhus
2014 “Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry.” Argumentation 281: 161–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leydesdorff, Selma
1994 We Lived with Dignity: The Jewish Proletariat of Amsterdam, 1900–1940. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, Daniel J.
1977 “Two Concepts of Argument.” Journal of the American Forensic Association 131: 121–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Och, Gunnar
2015 “Die Erfindung des Jüdischen Witzes: Diskursanalytische Überlegungen zu Texten des Frühen 19. Jahrhunderts.” In Der Jüdische Witz: Zur Unabgegoltenen Problematik einer Alten Kategorie, ed. by Gunnar Och and Burkhard Meyer-Sickendiek, 19–48. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Palczewski, Catherine H.
2005 “The Male Madonna and the Feminine Uncle Sam: Visual Argument, Icons, and Ideographs in 1909 Anti-Women Suffrage Postcards.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 91 (4): 365–394. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, Steven W.
2010 “ ‘A Picture Held Us Captive’: The Later Wittgenstein on Visual Argumentation.” Cogency 2(2): 105–134.Google Scholar
Pfister, Damien Smith and Carly S. Woods
2016 “The Unnaturalistic Enthymeme: Figuration, Interpretation, and Critique after Digital Mediation.” Argumentation and Advocacy 521: 236–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Kathleen G.
2017 “Visual Argument in Intercultural Contexts: Perspectives on Folk/Traditional Art.” Argumentation and Advocacy 43 (3&4): 152–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roegholt, Alice and Ton Heijdra
2018 The Dageraad. Amsterdam: Museum Het Schip.Google Scholar
Roque, Georges
2012 “Visual Argumentation: A Further Reappraisal,” in Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory, eds. Frans van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 273–290. Amsterdam: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searing, Helen E.
1971 Housing in Holland and the Amsterdam School. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.
Torrens, Kathleen M.
1999 “Fashion as Argument: Ninetenth-Century Dress Reform.” Argumentation and Advocacy 361: 77–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans and Rob Grootendorst
1992 Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Verzets Resistance Museum
2018 Wall text, Permanent Exhibition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar