The Rijksmuseum Bulletin
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
the rijksmuseum bulletin 24 the rijks reconstructionthe of the welgelegen cuypersmuseum floor lead statues in the entrance hall bulletin Rehabilitation for Georg Sturm • rob delvigne and jan jaap heij • ne of the most high-profile Detail of fig. 10 concept, over a century after construc- O aspects of the restoration and tion was completed, is still contro- renovation of the Rijksmuseum is with - versial in the perception of some out doubt the replacement of Georg observers. As far as that is concerned Sturm’s wall paintings in the Gallery little has changed, because many of of Honour and the Entrance Hall. It is Cuypers’s contemporaries also had a logical consequence of the ambition problems with the lavish decoration to restore part of the building to its of the interior, which in their view original condition, as conceived by its provided too much competition for the architect, Pierre Cuypers (1827-1921). works of art on display. Not everyone Yet one can well ask oneself – and that working in the museum was happy happens from time to time – whether with it either. Even before the decorat- a nineteenth-century concept is still ing was complete – everything was not appropriate for a museum of the ready until 1910 – there were attempts twenty-first century. For example the to make the interior more neutral philosopher Ger Groot recently wrote here and there. In 1903, for example, in the Dutch daily nrc Handelsblad that Adriaan Pit, director of the Nether- this has made the refurbishment of the lands Museum for History and Art (as Rijksmuseum ‘even more provocative the part of the Rijksmuseum concerned than it already seemed. Once again the was called at the time), had a painted building compels one to ponder: about wall covered up because he believed what we think of art, its place in the that it did not fit with the objects on world and hence the world in general.’1 show. It was not, incidentally, one of Groot does not appear to realize Sturm’s wall paintings. This prompted that the original decorations have questions in the Lower House of not returned to the galleries and that Parliament from Victor de Stuers, the renovation of these has, on the who as a senior official in the Ministry contrary, been done in a reserved of the Interior had been one of the fashion, with a subdued colour scheme most important champions of the new conceived by the interior designer building. He was very upset about this Jean Michael Wilmotte, in order to let ‘high-handed’ action by Pit, who had the works of art speak for themselves not consulted the architect about it.2 as much as possible. His response is De Stuers’s protest was to no avail. therefore somewhat over the top. Yet Views about how art should be the fact that he felt the need to react presented had changed significantly in this way indicates that Cuypers’s since 1885 and were continuing to 25 the rijksmuseum bulletin change. Little by little, starting in the 1920s, the decorations were hidden from view and, where possible, removed. The last decorations finally disappeared during the restoration and renovation of the building in the 1950s.3 Director Frederik Schmidt Degener, who was in charge of the museum from 1922 to 1941, played a particularly important role in this. He disliked Sturm’s paintings so intensely that he not only had them removed, he actually gave instructions to have them destroyed.4 Fortunately this was not done. The paintings were rolled up and kept. A few years ago they were restored by the Stichting Restauratie Atelier Limburg under the supervision of Jos van Och and it will soon be possible for everyone to see them in their original positions.5 Who was Georg Sturm? Little is known about Georg Sturm despite his not inconsiderable oeuvre (fig. 1). He was always more or less hidden in Cuypers’s shadow and, as far as we know, he was not particularly concerned about this. Apparently he to 1907, who wrote in 1912, ‘I learned Fig. 1 did not like being in the limelight. He virtually nothing from him [Sturm] georg sturm, joined the artists’ association Arti et because he did not show much interest Self-Portrait, c. 1910. Amicitiae soon after his arrival in in his students, and what I did learn Painting on canvas, 65 x 53 cm. Amsterdam, but there, too, he never was perhaps more of a hindrance than Private collection. played an active role.6 He did, though, a help.’8 Piet Zwart, who attended the take part in exhibitions with a degree school at about the same time, made of regularity.7 the following comment in 1970. ‘Sturm He similarly did not play a prominent was a passionate hunter and that took role, at least as far as the outside world up a lot of time, a very great deal of time. was concerned, as a teacher of decora- There were occasions when we did not tive painting at the Rijksschool voor see a teacher for weeks…’9 Given the Kunstnijverheid (National Decorative praise expressed by the principal, J.H.W. Arts School), a position he held in Berden, when Sturm left the school, addition to his work as a designer of this might be very unfair criticism, but monumental decorative paintings. Some whatever the truth may be, he made of his pupils became quite well-known little impression on his pupils.10 artists – among them Gerrit Dijsselhof, One of the few people besides Berden Dirk Filarski, Piet van der Hem, Jac. who wrote with admiration about Sturm Jongert, Chris Lebeau and Piet Zwart was Huib Luns, who devoted a few lines – but he was never given much credit to him in his 1941 book Holland schildert, for his efforts. Take for example describing him as ‘the first and most Filarski, a pupil at the National skilful teacher of decorative painting in Decorative Arts School from 1904 Holland’. According to Luns, however, 26 rehabilitation for georg sturm Sturm had too many counts against him J.R. de Kruyff (1844-1923) who drew to be appreciated in the Netherlands – Cuypers’s attention to Sturm, although he was a foreigner, he had flamboyant it is possible that they met in Vienna. manners and he was a good horse- De Kruyff, who in 1881 was appointed man.11 This is more or less all that was as principal of the newly established written about Sturm. No monographic National Decorative Arts School article was ever published about him (housed in the Rijksmuseum and during his lifetime and there were barely where Cuypers also became a teacher), any obituaries when he died.12 By the had also spent part of his training in time he passed away on 16 March 1923, Vienna at the decorative arts school. In two years after Cuypers, he had appar- view of the difference in their ages, he ent ly already been almost for gotten. and Sturm were not students at this The first comprehensive publication school at the same time, but they could about Sturm and his work did not have had a number of acquaintances appear until 2011 in the form of an and teachers in Vienna in common. article in Tegel.13 An undergraduate In any event both Cuypers and De disser tation was written about him in Kruyff were looking for an artist with 1992 by Simone Meijerink, but this experience in monumental and did not lead to a publication.14 Unless decorative painting and, in the absence stated otherwise, the following infor- of a suitable Dutch candidate, Sturm mation about the artist has been taken appeared to them to be the right from these two sources. person. Cuypers could also have gone on a quest to Belgium, as he had done Georg Sturm was born on 12 August for the sculpture. During his training 1855 in Vienna, the son of Friedrich at the academy in Antwerp he had Sturm, who was also a wall decoration become friends with Godfried Guffens painter and who became an instructor (1823-1901), who was creating a stir in at the Viennese Decorative Arts School Belgium with monumental paintings in 1868. Georg went to that school, in churches and government buildings where he was taught first by his father – usually in collaboration with Jan and then by Ferdinand Laufberger Swerts (1820-1879), a contemporary at (1829-1881), ‘one of the best loved and the academy of both of them – but as most productive monumental painters far as we could find out he was never in Viennese historicism’.15 After approached by Cuypers.17 Perhaps completion of his studies he became Cuypers was concerned that Guffens Laufberger’s assistant and worked would not have been sufficiently with him, for example on his painted prepared to submit as meekly to his ceiling in the decorative arts museum ideas as the much younger and less in Stubenring in Vienna, which opened well-known Sturm, because in terms of in 1871. Sadly this work was destroyed style there is not that much to choose during the Second World War. between their work. In 1876 Cuypers won the competi- Be that as it may, Sturm had already tion for the design of a new Rijks- begun to make a name for himself in museum. After he had received the Vienna. In 1877, for instance, on the definitive commission for the con- instructions of the Austrian Trade struction, he went on a tour of Europe Ministry, he had written a booklet of to visit a number of recent museums patterns entitled Figurale Vignetten and to see if he could find useful ideas for the pottery industry.