German Art in the Netherlands Before and After World War II Gregor

German Art in The Netherlands before and after World War II Gregor Langfeld This paper shows how Dutch art critics responded to the German avant-garde during the first half of the twentieth century. These art critics played a singular role between the two world wars. They were more conservative than other circles in the art scene and thus constituted a delaying factor in the development of a canon of modern art, as dem- onstrated by my recently published study (Langfeld 2004).1 After 1945, however, critical attitudes towards the German avant-garde (particularly expressionism) changed from negative to positive. At first sight this seems astonishing, since fierce anti-German sentiments existed in the Netherlands following the Nazi occupation, encompassing virtually everything connected with Germany and the Germans. In this paper I will suggest some factors that may explain the sudden success of the German avant-garde during the first half of the 1950s, a period in which this art was increasingly accorded a place in the international canon. I will examine whether this change in attitude was motivated by a shift in critical emphasis, from aesthetic considerations to the political context. Despite the less than flattering judgements pronounced by Dutch art critics between the two world wars, avant-garde circles in the Nether- lands and Germany enjoyed a lively artistic exchange from the first decades of the twentieth century onwards. One example of this exchange is provided by the legendary Herwarth Walden, musician, com- poser, publicist, gallery owner and publisher of the journal Der Sturm. Before and during World War I this Berlin advocate of the European avant-garde organized various exhibitions of modern art in galleries such as the Kunstzaal Oldenzeel (Rotterdam) and the Kunstzaal d’Audretsch (The Hague). He also maintained close contacts with the Dutch artist Jacoba van Heemskerck, to whom he offered considerable support, the art collector Marie Tak van Poortvliet and the artist/dealer Paul Citroen. Important works of avant-garde art passed through their hands and now form part of contemporary museum collections in the Netherlands. Dutch private collectors of the international avant-garde were not as exclusively French-oriented as might be thought, since many, even most of them, also collected German art. Wassily Kandinsky, who is considered a German expressionist, enjoyed a particularly high repu- 158 Gregor Langfeld tation. During the 1920s friendships also existed between artists such as Theo van Doesburg and Kurt Schwitters. Societies of Dutch artists such as De Onafhankelijken [The Independents], who swiftly followed new developments in the arts, played a leading role in promoting contact with German art.2 They organized a number of significant exhibitions, at which modern German art could also be seen. Some of these exhibitions are known to have been visited by a broad public, despite, or even because of, crushing press reviews. A wide array of artists’ societies existed, from the conservative and the elitist to the progressive and the jury-free. Museums tended to collect little international art, either old or modern. The Gemeentemuseum Den Haag [The Hague Municipal Mu- seum] was the only institution with an explicitly international collecting policy, which was mainly oriented to the 19th century. The prevailing opinion was that museums should only collect work by artists who had been dead for at least ten years, or works that were at least 25 years old. Nevertheless, some municipal museums such as the Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, Museum Boijmans (Rotterdam) and the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam laid a foundation of avant-garde art in their collections during the inter-war period in which German art enjoyed a relatively important place. If the goal of art criticism is to strive to provide balanced, objective information, the approach taken by Dutch critics in the inter-war years was totally improper. They showed themselves to be prejudiced and chauvinistic, their thinking dominated by stereotypes. Work by mem- bers of the Brücke group, for example, was described as rough, “noisy” and ugly. By way of exception, however, critics did respond positively to some abstract artists such as Franz Marc and particularly Kandinsky. Nevertheless, during the 1920s and 30s their interest in Kandinsky pro- gressively waned, while their response to other artists of Der Blaue Reiter, if any, was mainly negative. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Dutch critics were more positively disposed towards realistic art and the Neue Sachlichkeit [New Realism], although they also considered this movement’s work to be cold, intellectual and insensible. Käthe Kollwitz, with her range of social subjects and roots in 19th-century art, was especially highly regarded by Dutch critics. Although Dutch critics also responded negatively to the French cubists and Piet Mondriaan, additional sources of resentment prevented .

Load more