MASTERS THESIS
MUSEUM STUDIES (HERITAGE STUDIES)
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES
2018-2019
Identity and Authenticity in Dutch Historic House
Museums
A comparative analysis of the Museum Willet-Holthuysen, the Rembrandt
House Museum and The Mesdag Collection
AUTHOR: Amy Miles
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 22
ndFebruary 2019
THESIS SUPERVISOR: Prof. Rachel Esner
SECOND READER: Prof. Bram Kempers
Table of Contents Acknowledgments…p.2 Introduction…p.3
Chapter 1: Museum Willet-Holthuysen …p.10 Identity…p.10
Authenticity…p.17 Conclusion…p.21 Illustrations…p.23
Chapter 2: The Rembrandt House Museum …p.25 Identity…p.25
Authenticity…p.31 Conclusion…p.35 Illustrations…p.37
Chapter 3: The Mesdag Collection …p.40 Identity …p.40 Authenticity…p.48 Conclusion…p.51 Illustrations…p.53 Conclusion…p.56 Bibliography…p.62 Appendices…p.65 Appendix A…p.65 Appendix B…p.75 Appendix C…p.88
Acknowledgments
I would like to first and foremost thank my thesis advisor Dr. Rachel Esner for her continued enthusiasm and guidance throughout the last six months. I would also like to give a special thank you to Thijs Boers, Renske Suijver and Epco Runia who kindly agreed to offer me their time and insight into house museum practice. These interviews were a pleasure to carry out and I believe that this insider knowledge has greatly added to my research. Additionally, I would like to thank Edwin Becker, my internship supervisor at the Van Gogh Museum, for giving me the initial inspiration to base my thesis on house museums. This has introduced me to a section of the museum world that I previously had little knowledge of, but have now developed a deep fascination and appreciation for. Moreover, I would like to thank the Museum Studies Department at the University of Amsterdam for challenging me to expand my knowledge and outlook on museum practice. Lastly, I would like to thank my mum who has been a pillar of support throughout this process and to whom I am extremely grateful.
Introduction
In the past couple of decades, historic house museums have become a global phenomenon. The main platform for discussions of/about these institutions is provided by The
International Committee for Historic House Museums (DEMHIST), which hosts conferences and maintains a website dedicated to such discussions. This committee is relatively new, only formed in 1998.1 On their website, DEMHIST provides a broad definition of what a historic house museum is: they “range from castles to cottages, from all periods”.2 The increasing number of these museums and lack of clarity over how they can be defined led to the then-administrative-secretary Professor Rossana Pavoni’s proposal of a categorisation project at DEMHIST’s first assembly in 1999.3 This project, which was fully realised in 2007, aimed to assist historic house museums in discovering their “own special character”.4 Furthermore, the project aspired to help make each museum aware of other museums with similar inherent traits and practices. Additionally, it was hoped that such a categorisation scheme would aid the evaluation of potential historic house museums. This is in line with the belief that not all historic houses should be converted to museums. The project produced nine typologies: Personality Houses, Collection Houses, Houses of Beauty, Historic Event Houses, Society Houses, Ancestral Homes, Royal-Power Houses, Clergy Houses, and Humble Homes.5 These typologies are by no means rigid, and continuing efforts are being made to classify the different forms of house museums existing today.
In 2008, a specific Dutch DEMHIST categorisation project was carried out by The Dutch Architectural Institute (NAi). Although NAi is no longer in existence, as it became part of the Het Nieuwe Instituut in 2013, their website continues to act as an archive, detailing past projects such as the 2008 categorisation project. This particular project was dedicated to providing an overview of existing house museums in the Netherlands, of which there were revealed to be no fewer than 176.6 The results of this categorisation project are now
1 “About Demhist”, ICOM DEMHIST, accessed 25/08/18, demhist.icom.museum. 2 Ibid.
3 “Categorization Project II Report”, “House Museum Practice”, “Categorization”, ICOM DEMHIST, accessed 25/08/18, demhist.icom.museum.
4 “House Museum Practice”, ICOM DEMHIST, accessed 25/08/18, demhist.icom.museum.
5 “Categorization Project II Report”, “House Museum Practice”, “Categorization”, ICOM DEMHIST, accessed 25/08/18, demhist.icom.museum.
6 “Museumwoningen in Nederland”, Nederlands Architectuurinstituut, accessed 25/09/18, museumwoningen.nai.nl.
published on NAi’s website and can be searched by province, city and category. The categories employed by NAi are similar to the typologies produced by the 2007 DEMHIST project. NAi’s categories include: Houses of Clergy, Power Houses, Houses of Artworks, Simple Houses, Ancestral Houses, Houses of Collectors, Houses of Celebrities,
Local-Community Houses, and Houses with Historical Value.7 For the purpose of this thesis, which will investigate three examples of Dutch house museums listed in the NAi’s overview, I will use these categorisations as a point of reference.
In addition to such general trends, there are cultural and national differences between house museums. Certainly, house museums play a significant role in a country’s construction of national identity. They offer tangible cultural heritage and are often dedicated to the country’s most esteemed figures. For example, in Russia and the United Kingdom, specific attention is given to the nation’s rich literary heritage. In Moscow alone you will find house museums dedicated to Mikhail Bulgakov, A.P Checkhov, A.S Pushkin, and L.N Tolstoy, to name only a few examples. Moreover, scattered across the United Kingdom are house museums dedicated to Britain’s most beloved writers including Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, William Shakespeare, Virginia Woolf, Thomas Hardy, Agatha Christie, Beatrix Potter, and Roald Dahl – once again, this is only a selection. The creation of such house museums helps provide a stage and afterlife to these authors/novelists. This is particularly important in the case of Russia, given that Russian as a national language is a recent phenomenon.
In the Netherlands, there is less emphasis on literary heritage. Rather, the country’s impressive lineage of great Dutch artists is given the spotlight; The Rembrandt House Museum in Amsterdam is arguably the most famous example. Further examples include the Villa Mondriaan, The Mesdag Collection, and The Vincent van Gogh House. Dutch house museums that are connected with the country’s literary heritage are often entwined with a commemoration of the Second World War, as is the case of The Anne Frank House in Amsterdam and the Corrie ten Boom House in The Hague. The Netherland’s
acknowledgment of this traumatic event in history through the medium of the house museum is in contrast to the Italian approach. In his “Introduction to historic house museums” (2001) Giovanni Pinna, the first chairman for DEMHIST, gives Naples as an
7 “Museumwoningen in Nederland”, Nederlands Architectuurinstituut, accessed 25/09/18, museumwoningen.nai.nl. These categories have been translated from Dutch to English.
example of a city whose historic house museums attempt to establish historic roots separate from the Second World War, in order to regain a sense of identity that he believes Italy lost as a result of this tragic historical event.8
One common thread between the majority of nations is the survival of homes belonging to the elite. For example, in the United Kingdom, Russia, the Netherlands, and Italy, there is an abundance of palaces and castles, in addition to the homes of wealthy aristocrats and prominent political figures. Comparatively, there appears to be a lack of what the 2007 DEMHIST typology refers to as “Humble Homes”: vernacular buildings such as farm houses.9 This is problematic as it raises the question of whose identity deserves to live on? As Franklin Vagnone and Deborah Ryan highlight in their pioneering Anarchist’s Guide to Historic House
Museums (2016), this is a question facing house museums world-wide which, as a result of
their predominantly upper-class, white male narrative, struggle to identify with diverse audiences.10 These institutions are open to everyone but often dedicated only to a very small – if not obsolete – section of society. Certainly, the residences of royalty and aristocrats can be argued to not be very relatable, as generally people do not live these kinds of private lives. Another recurring criticism of house museums in general is that they are “static” or “dead”, further posing the question of their relevance in today’s society. Resultantly, as Vagnone and Ryan elucidate in their text, there is a need for house museums to make more effort to engage with their surrounding communities.11
The ability of house museums to contribute towards the construction of national identity has the potential to be manipulated. As Giovanni Pinna states: “the choice of emphasis on a particular occupant is often political”.12 Likewise, Monica Risnicoff de Gorgas, in her article “Reality as illusion, the historic houses that become museums” (2001) calls for people to recognise the fact that house museums contribute towards the production of cultural
8 Giovanni Pinna, “Introduction to historic house museums”, Museum International: House Museums. Vol 53. No.2, (April 2001): 5.
9 “Categorization Project II Report”, “House Museum Practice”, “Categorization”, ICOM DEMHIST, accessed 25/08/18, demhist.icom.museum.
10 Franklin Vagnone and Deborah Ryan, Anarchist’s Guide to Historic House Museums (California: Left Coast Press, 2016): 139-141.
11 Ibid: 39.
12 Giovanni Pinna, “Introduction to historic house museums”, Museum International: House Museums. Vol 53. No.2, (April 2001): 5.
myths.13 She states that the “high symbolic value of historic house museums has led to their being used by different ideologies as simplified messages portraying cultural identity”.14 Risnicoff offers the example of Argentina in the 1940s: “because of the great migratory influx, the rulers of the time decreed what they called National Historic Monuments and transformed a number of historic houses into museums which were to serve as paradigms of national unity, embodying a certain concept of national consciousness and with a system representing the values of the state”.15 Risnicoff identifies this as “a more or less covert form of political illusionism whereby the complexities of culture were changed into simplified messages concerning cultural identity, which focused exclusively on highly symbolic objects at the expense of popular forms of cultural expression”.16 Although this thesis will dedicate less attention to politics, this notion of the ability of cultural institutions to construct certain identities and often incidentally, or indeed purposefully, homogenise a narrative that is far more complex, stands as a relevant point of discussion.
Pinna makes the observation that “more than any other kind of museum, the historic house museum in fact has the power to evoke and create links between the visitor and the history present in the house itself, or which it seeks to represent”.17 This is a result of what Patrizia Violi, in her research on trauma sites, refers to as the “indexicality” of the site.18 There is a spatial contiguity between the site and its subject.19 The house acts as a vessel for
communicating the desired narrative. The indexicality of the site frames the entire house museum, lending a sense of authenticity to whatever narrative the museum chooses to adopt. Such thinking is in line with Jean Baudrillard’s notion of the “myth of authenticity” where he claims that an object’s sense of authenticity is wholly dependent upon the framework in which it is placed.20 Furthermore, the “house museum” merges the private sphere with that of the public. The domesticity of the house museum has great narrative
13 Monica Risnicoff de Gorgas, “Reality as illusion, the historic houses that become museums”, Museum
International: House Museums. Vol 53. No.2, (April 2001): 12.
14 Ibid: 11-12. 15 Ibid: 12. 16 Ibid.
17 Giovanni Pinna, “Introduction to historic house museums”, Museum International: House Museums. Vol 53. No.2, (April 2001): 7.
18 Patrizia Violi, “Trauma Site Museums and Politics of Memory”, Theory, Culture & Society. Vol 29. No.1, (January 2012): 39.
19 Ibid.
potential. All of these factors may culminate to fabricate a strong sense of inherent authenticity.
The objects within the house museum, too, can act as “indexical traces”, adding to the visitor’s awareness of the indexicality of the site.21 For example, the inclusion of portraits or photographs of the former occupant/s serve to justify the narrative. Although this is
certainly not always the case, house museums are often reconstructions, meaning that the objects displayed are not necessarily those which originally belonged to the house. They are sometimes replicas or objects with no direct relation to the subject. For example, they may be from the same period but that is it. Moreover, the domesticity of the space can be amplified (or not). Some museums may keep the kitchen as a kitchen, the bedroom as a bedroom and so on. Others may be less literal, employing these rooms for different
purposes than originally intended. This relates to the debate of preservation versus modern intervention, where “traditionalists” favour preservation while “innovators” champion modern intervention.22 Different museums have different approaches, sometimes adopting a combination of the two. This puts forward the question of what impact do these decisions have on the authenticity (and thus indexicality) of the site?
Giovanni Pinna can be said to be an example of a traditionalist. He claims that a “historic house museum is ‘fossilized’: the furnishings and possibly also the layout and use of space are immutable and cannot be modified or altered without falsifying history”.23 This
statement is problematic as it is impossible to freeze time, as stressed by Risnicoff. In her article, she draws attention to the fabricated narrative of house museums by highlighting the fact that it is through the lens of the present that we view the past, so this can never be entirely authentic.24 The moment the house becomes a museum it loses its original meaning; it is no longer a home being lived in, but a museum. Moreover, as time passes, the site absorbs the impact of different generations and cultures, each layering their own affect upon the environment. Visitors project their own experiences onto the display, sometimes
21 Patrizia Violi, “Trauma Site Museums and Politics of Memory”, Theory, Culture & Society. Vol.29. No.1, (January 2012): 39.
22 Franklin Vagnone and Deborah Ryan, Anarchist’s Guide to Historic House Museums, (California: Left Coast Press, 2016): 11.
23 Giovanni Pinna, “Introduction to historic house museums”, Museum International: House Museums. Vol 53. No.2, (April 2001): 4.
24 Monica Risnicoff de Gorgas, “Reality as illusion, the historic houses that become museums”, Museum
made easier due to the domestic setting. One may attempt to imagine what life was like, but this is always dictated by what you have already experienced. It is also, of course, dictated by the curatorial practices of the museum. What do they decide to display and how do they display it? Joseph Pine and James Gilmore, in their article “Museums and Authenticity” (2007), claim that museums do not necessarily have to be authentic, they must simply be perceived as being authentic. In order to achieve this, they must “learn to understand, manage and excel at rendering authenticity”.25 They state that the number one challenge of museums today is the management of the visitor’s perception of authenticity.26
Research Question & Methodology
I have chosen the Museum Willet-Holthuysen, the Rembrandt House Museum and The Mesdag Collection as my case studies. Each chapter will be dedicated to a different case study. These chapters will then be sub-divided to focus on “identity” and “authenticity”. These are two prevailing themes in the literature surrounding house museums.I have chosen to base my case studies in the Netherlands for practical reasons, as well as the comparative potential in doing so. Additionally, by approaching these specific case studies in relation to the two themes of “identity” and “authenticity”, easier comparisons can be drawn between the museums. Indeed, comparisons between these museums have not been made to any great extent in previous research. By examining each museum in relation to these two themes, I also hope to test the concepts against the case studies and make a contribution to theorising what house museums are.
The case studies I have chosen are all dedicated to important figures relating to Dutch cultural heritage. Each museum has its own unique identity and history. Importantly, these museums have different curatorial approaches which makes them interesting comparative case studies. This thesis aims to investigate how the Museum Willet-Holthuysen, the
Rembrandt House Museum and The Mesdag Collection negotiate issues of identity and authenticity by looking at their current curatorial practices. These two issues are core to
house museum practice. It is important to make clear that when I mention identity, this is the museum’s own identity which is tied to that of the individual/s it is dedicated to.
25 Joseph Pine and James Gilmore, “Museums and Authenticity”, Museum News, (May/June 2007): 78. 26 Ibid.
Meanwhile, authenticity can literally be translated as “the quality of being real or true”.27 I will be asking questions such as how much of the original interior is still existing? I will also be investigating whether (and if so, how) these museums offer visitors a genuine experience. This relates to Pine and Gilmore’s discussion of museums not necessarily having to be authentic, but instead needing to “render” authenticity.28Moreover, although my focus is on the current curatorial practices of these museums, I will be looking at history insofar as it is relevant to these practices.In order to answer my research question, I will visit each
museum, describing and analysing what I see. In doing so, I am approaching my investigation from an interactive, participatory visitor perspective. I will also read the publications
produced by these museums and conduct interviews with professionals from each
institution in an effort to analyse what the museum sees itself as formulating and compare this with my own personal observations.
27 “authenticity”, Cambridge Dictionary, accessed 27/01/19, dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/English/authenticity.
Chapter 1: Museum Willet-Holthuysen
The Museum Willet-Holthuysen is the former home of the collector Abraham Willet (1825-1888) and his wife Louisa Holthuysen (1824-1895). In 1895 Louisa, who outlived her husband, bequeathed the house and its contents to the city of Amsterdam, with the condition that it would be converted to a museum bearing the “Willet-Holthuysen” name.29 The museum has passed through various administrators, including the Stedelijk Museum, and has undergone many transformations.30 The museum is currently run by the Amsterdam Museum, which aims to restore the house to its appearance during the Willet-Holthuysen era, in accordance with Louisa’s wishes.31 To aid my investigation of the Museum Willet-Holthuysen I interviewed Thijs Boers, who is responsible for the decorative arts and the historic houses of the Amsterdam Museum.
Identity
The Dutch DEMHIST categorisation project carried out by the Netherlands Architectural Institute (NAi) in 2008, mentioned in the introduction, included the Museum
Willet-Holthuseyn in both its “Houses of Collectors” and “Ancestral Houses” categories.32 According to the definitions offered on NAi’s website, “Houses of Collectors” are “houses of art
collectors or houses now used to present an art collection”.33 This is fitting, seeing as Abraham Willet was a famous collector and the museum currently displays works from his collection. Meanwhile, “Ancestral Houses” are listed as “country houses, town houses and small castles”.34 This categorisation is also relevant as the Museum Willet-Holthuysen is an example of a town house. However, in regards to how the museum categorises itself, Boers states that it is simply a “historic house museum”, rather than making any specific
categorisation.35 He claims that this differentiation from being a regular “museum” already
29 Paul Spies, “Preface”, in Abraham and Louisa Willet-Holthuysen 19th-Century Collectors in Amsterdam, eds.
Jacques van Gerwen, Leonoor van Oosterzee & Gusta Reichwein, trans. Sue McDonnell, (Zwolle, Waanders Uitgevers; Amsterdam Museum, 2015): 7-9.
30 Ibid. 31 Ibid.
32 “Museum Willet-Holthuysen”, “Museumwoningen in Nederland”, Nederlands Architectuurinstituut, accessed 25/09/18, museumwoningen.nai.nl. These categories have been translated from Dutch to English. 33 “Alle Museumwoningen in Nederland!”, “Museumwongingen in Nederland”, Nederlands
Architectuurinstituut, accessed 25/09/18, museumwoningen.nai.nl. This definition has been translated from
Dutch to English. 34 Ibid.
positions the Museum Willet-Holthuysen as being a minority in the Netherland’s museum world.36 Boers elucidates the fact that in Holland “we don’t make a very clear distinction between the different kinds of house museums” and questions the need for such distinctions.37 He discusses how even the distinction between “house museums” and “museums” is blurred. He states that this is mainly related to how they are presented, but even this sometimes overlaps.38 For example, it has become increasingly common for house museums to incorporate modern museum displays and likewise for museums to adopt historical reconstructions in their exhibits. Boers proceeds to emphasise that the museum does not want to advertise itself as being a “Collector’s House”, for example, as this can be said to further pigeonhole the museum into one category.39 Boers lists the house’s various different associations: it is “a seventeenth-century canal house”; “it’s a story about the nineteenth century”; “it’s also a story about collecting art in the nineteenth century”; and it is especially focused on the couple Abraham and Louisa and “their circumstances and how they lived and what they did”.40 Placing a specific label on the museum such as “Collector’s House” could be said to restrict the house’s potential narratives.
When visiting the museum, there is a sign outside showcasing its selection for the Historical
and Cultural Canon of the Netherlands as “epitomizing life along the canals in the centre of
Amsterdam”. The sign explains that “the canon features fifty windows focusing on people, events and objects which together tell the history of the Netherlands”. In being selected the museum is thus believed to contribute towards telling the history of the Netherlands as a whole. Certainly, the museum interweaves the story of the Netherlands into its narrative. This is perhaps most apparent in the introductory video that visitors are encouraged to view before beginning their audio-guide tour. Boers underlines the fact that starting with this introductory video is very important as it gives a broader introduction to the history of the house.41 The visitor is informed of the over-population of Amsterdam in the sixteenth century that led to the expansion of the city and the construction of the canal circle on which the house was eventually built. The video then goes on to detail the various
occupants of the house and the many restorations that took place in accordance with each
36 Thijs Boers, interview by Amy Miles, 12/12/18. The transcript of this interview is available in Appendix A. 37 Ibid.
38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid.
occupant’s tastes. This continued into the house’s life as a museum, where the successive directors had different visions for the chosen identity and narrative of the museum. For example, in the 1950sthe museum placed focus upon the seventeenth and eighteenth century – the “Golden Age” of the Netherlands – which at the time was preferable to the nineteenth century, then deemed as the “ugly era”.42 The video then explains that in the 1970s there was a reappraisal of the nineteenth century that led to the museum’s decision to focus upon the time in which the Willet-Holthuysens lived.
In the museum’s publication “Abraham and Louisa Willet-Holthuysen. 19th-century collectors in Amsterdam” (2015) it states that a curator for the Museum Willet-Holthuysen, the late Bert Vreeken, is said to have been the “driving force behind the rehabilitation of Abraham Willet, Louisa Holthuysen and ‘their’ nineteenth century”.43 Such “rehabilitation” reveals how heritage is a construct and how museums play a central role in shaping and informing an understanding of such heritage. Reciprocally, society has an impact on the museum’s decisions. In reference to the Museum Willet-Holthuysen’s decision to return focus upon the Willet-Holthuysens, the previous director Paul Spies stated that it “has become clear that the strength of these ensembles lies above all in the personal and the narrative, and that the collection can be used to give visitors their own unique experience”.44 Certainly, focusing on personal narratives acts as a means of engaging with visitors. In their very nature, house museums bring the private sphere into the public domain. In doing so house museums act as personal spaces that people could, in theory, relate to on a close level. The importance of personal narratives is reiterated by Boers, who emphasises that “people can relate to
people”.45 Boers states that today the museum not only wants to tell the personal narratives of Abraham and Louisa, but also of their staff.46
In an effort to introduce such new narratives, the museum has very recently updated its audio-guide as well as its display. The most significant alteration is the increased attention
42 Museum Willet-Holthuysen Introductory Video.
43 Ellinoor Bergvelt, “Museum Willet-Holthuysen”, in Abraham and Louisa Willet-Holthuysen 19th-Century
Collectors in Amsterdam, eds. Jacques van Gerwen, Leonoor van Oosterzee & Gusta Reichwein, trans. Sue
McDonnell, (Zwolle, Waanders Uitgevers; Amsterdam Museum, 2015): 188.
44 Paul Spies, “Preface”, in Abraham and Louisa Willet-Holthuysen 19th-Century Collectors in Amsterdam, eds.
Jacques van Gerwen, Leonoor van Oosterzee & Gusta Reichwein, trans. Sue McDonnell, (Zwolle, Waanders Uitgevers; Amsterdam Museum, 2015): 9.
45 Thijs Boers, interview by Amy Miles, 12/12/18. The transcript of this interview is available in Appendix A. 46 Ibid.
paid to the household’s members of staff. Previously, although specific names of staff members were mentioned, their personal stories were untold. Much of the discussion surrounding these individuals was instead dedicated to showing off the wealth of the Willet-Holthuysens. For example, it was stated in the former audio-guide that the number of servants one had was an indication of how wealthy you were. This discussion surrounding status has now been removed.In the new presentation, the entire ground floor, which was historically the servants’ domain, focuses on these individuals. There are plans for the reconstruction of several rooms on this floor. This includes the Servants’ Room, which was formerly employed as a modern display room containing the introductory video.47 The discussion pertaining to the Servants’ Room is already included in the audio-guide, although the room itself has not yet been reconstructed. The visitor is informed that this was where the servants could sit down during the day. The audio-guide provides details of the number of staff and their individual roles. Visitors are then given the option to listen to the personal story of Heinrich Wilhelm Gӧtze, the personal cook of the Willet-Holthuysens. If they choose to do so, it is revealed that Gӧtze was from Dresden and originally joined the household at the age of thirty-five as a manservant. Around 1881, he married the chambermaid Anna Schmidt and they had three children together. Gӧtze’s close relationship to the
Willet-Holthuysens is also emphasised by the mentioning of the fact that when Louisa passed away in 1895, he was left fourteen-thousand guilders in her will. The inclusion of this personal story adds depth to the museum’s narrative. As addressed in the introduction, a major issue facing house museums is their struggle to identify with diverse audiences. This can be attributed to their predominantly upper-class white male narrative. By including the narrative of servants, the museum is opening up this dialogue, providing a more inclusive representation of what life was like in this nineteenth-century home.
Once the visitor has reached the final stop of the guide on the ground floor, the audio-guide states “now it is time to step into another world altogether – the world of the Willets”. This world begins upstairs on the first floor. This separation of spaces was true of the
nineteenth century and serves to emphasise the prevalent class divisions of the time. The museum appears to want to make this separation clearer in its new display. For example, the
47 The introductory video has now been moved to the second modern display room on this floor which currently showcases Abraham’s collection of glass, silver and porcelain. However, this second room is likewise planned to be restored to reflect its original function as the Servant’s Storage Room.
decision was made to remove two photographs of Abraham and Louisa which previously greeted visitors upon entering the main hallway of the basement floor. Boers acknowledges that it did not make sense to have this introduction to the couple whilst standing in the quarters of the staff.48 These photographs have not yet been moved elsewhere in the
museum’s display. Whilst there are also no depictions of the staff, there are plans to produce reconstructions of their uniforms. Reconstructions of the clothes worn by Abraham and Louisa are already on display upstairs in the museum, as will be discussed later in this chapter.
The separation of spaces extends to gender divisions, as underlined by the fact that
Abraham and Louisa are associated with different rooms on the first and second floors of the house. The Library, the Men’s Parlour, and the Collector’s Room are Abraham’s domain. Meanwhile, the Ladies’ Salon and the Tearoom are Louisa’s. Such allocated spaces
demonstrate the strong gender roles of the nineteenth century. Boers underlines how we can talk about the nineteenth-century story from a twenty-first century perspective: “we can talk now about divisions between male and female, between the staff and the people here. I mean it should be a multi-faceted history on the nineteenth century and hopefully give people a sense of how it was to live here”.49 Boers also stresses the fact that representations of these nineteenth-century individuals should address all the “pros and cons” and not turn into an ideal or a cliché which is often the case.50 When asked how can you make an upper-class couple such as the Willet-Holthuysens relatable to today’s visitors, Boers responds that it is “relevant for people now to see how people used to live then” and that “if you tell that personal story then I think in one way or one level, you can relate to that. Whatever, rich or famous, or poor or whatever someone was, there’s always a connection I think you can make and I think you have to find that connection”.51 Boers gives the examples of the Willet-Holthuysens not having any children and being over the age of thirty when they married as personal details of the couple that are still relevant today.
In a further attempt to be personally engaging, Boers states that it is important to ask the visitors questions.52 However, when visiting the museum, the only questions posed to the
48 Thijs Boers, interview by Amy Miles, 12/12/18. The transcript of this interview is available in Appendix A. 49 Ibid.
50 Ibid. 51 Ibid.
visitor (offered in the audio-guide) are employed to point out aspects of the display which the museum wishes to provide more information on. For example, the audio-guide asks “can you see the two wooden benches?” and “can you see the open doorway?” in order to elaborate on these two features. I believe that this approach is useful but could be
developed further. In particular, the museum could perhaps ask more open-ended questions to personally engage the visitor, rather than posing questions which it offers the answers to. This would allow the visitor more agency by encouraging them to make their own
connections and relate the museum’s narrative to their personal lives. Such
acknowledgment of the visitor’s agency is promoted in Louis Silverman’s 1995 article “Visitor Meaning Making in Museums for a New Age”. Silverman identifies the “meaning making paradigm” that draws attention to the active role of visitors in producing meaning from museum visits.53 It is important that museums recognise this agency and promote the visitor’s active involvement in producing meaning from their visit. In doing so, the museum will be more able to encourage the visitor’s engagement.
In the Library, on the third floor, is a portrait of Abraham as a civic guardsman. The audio-guide draws attention to this painting: “on the left-hand side, you can see a painting of a seventeenth-century civic guard of the type sometimes found in Rembrandt’s paintings. This portrait, however, is actually Abraham Willet himself, dressed up in one of his historical costumes”. Caterina Albano, in her article “Displaying Lives: The Narrative of Objects in Biographical Exhibitions” (2007) discusses the fact that such portraits are representations rather than factual documents.54 Therefore, there is a likely possibility of them being manipulated to fashion a certain image of the subject. The sitter decides how they will present themselves including what clothes they will wear and which pose they will adopt. This is a means of what Stephan Greenblatt in his book Renaissance Self-Fashioning (1980) refers to as “self-fashioning” whereby one constructs a certain identity and public persona that is favourable in society.55 Abraham fashions himself in seventeenth-century attire, placing himself within the “Golden Age” of the Netherlands. In comparison to Abraham, there are limited existing portraits of Louisa. The only portrait of Louisa in the museum is on
53 Louis Silverman, “Visitor Meaning-Making in Museums for a New Age”, Curator: The Museum Journal. Vol.38. No.3, (1998): 161.
54 Caterina Albano, “Displaying Lives: The Narrative of Objects in Biographical Exhibitions”, Museum and
Society. Vol 5. No. 1. (2007): 23.
55 Stephen Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning: from More to Shakespeare, (University of Chicago Press, 1980).
display in the temporary Meet the Willets exhibition on the second floor. This portrait is very small in scale and depicts her sitting down, stroking one of her pet dogs. Meanwhile, a portrait of Abraham that is on display in the same temporary exhibition is very grand in scale and depicts him in his Study surrounded by art and books, alluding to his wealth of cultural knowledge. Albano goes on to state that such portraits “literalise their function as cultural fetishes by standing in place of the absent subject. Hence, the narrative function of portraits is to convey through their power the image of the subject that the exhibition endorses”.56 Such representations can be said to further highlight the prevalent gender roles of the time. Moreover, in both their portraits, Abraham and Louisa are finely dressed attesting to their high social status.
Notably, the museum has decided to produce costumes which reconstruct the clothes worn by Abraham and Louisa in their portraits found in the temporary exhibition. These costumes can be found in the Ladies’ Salon. (see Figure 1) The audio-guide details that “the patterns were taken from a nineteenth-century pattern book and care was taken to only use material which looked like the materials available at the time”. Albano discusses how “Garments and clothes fathom the presence of the owner”.57 Indeed, these costumes, despite not actually belonging to Abraham and Louisa, evoke a sense of their physical presence. Considering the lack of existing representations of Louisa, and perhaps also of the members of staff, this is an innovative means of representing these absent individuals. Moreover, the curators are able to position these representations of the individuals in whatever context they desire. These costumes are both currently positioned side by side in the Ladies’ Salon. As noted previously, the Ladies’ Salon is said to have been Louisa’s domain. Representing both Abraham and Louisa in this room thus can be argued to disrupt the museum’s emphasis on the existing gender divisions in the nineteenth century. With this in mind, I believe that Abraham’s costume would be better suited to his Study or the Collector’s Room. Alternatively, the costumes could be depicted side by side in one of the communal rooms such as the Grand Salon or the Bedroom.
Authenticity
56 Caterina Albano, “Displaying Lives: The Narrative of Objects in Biographical Exhibitions”, Museum and
Society. Vol 5. No.1, (2007): 23.
As it currently stands, the Museum Willet-Holthuysen is a non-specific reconstruction of a canal house. Indeed, most of the interiors have been transferred from other canal houses in the area, resulting in a mismatch of styles.58 However, the museum is in the process of restoring the home to its original nineteenth-century condition, in accordance with its decision to refocus the narrative on the Willet-Holthuysens who lived in the house during this period.59 The restoration project began in 2009 upon the appointment of Paul Spies as director. Spies claimed that the lack of a clear distinction between “what was authentic and what had been transferred from elsewhere or even reconstructed” led to the decision to embark upon this project.60 He stated that “most of the authentic elements which had been removed over the years were still in storage, or could be faithfully restored or
reconstructed”.61 Authenticity certainly appears to be a key concern for the museum. This is confirmed by Boers who states that authenticity is “really important”.62
The project, which continues today under the directorship of Judikje Kiers, is ongoing while the museum remains open to the public. Thus far, the only room which has been fully restored is the Collector’s Room. This room displays Abraham’s collection of arts and crafts including “glass trinkets, ivory sculptures and knick-knacks”.63 The audio-guide states that this was Abraham’s favourite room in the house and was referred to as the “Antiques Room”. The room’s décor is inspired by the “dark and frugal shapes of Dutch renaissance design”.64 Great effort has gone into reconstructing the interior. This includes the remaking of the original Deventer carpet “by following the example of original fragments”.65 Additionally, the room includes a tapestry of red Utrecht velvet, featuring a pattern of sunflowers. Moreover, the stained-glass windows dating from the seventeenth century, which were bought by Abraham especially for this room, are still in place.66 In the text panel included in this room, it states: “this room was recently restored and gives an idea of what the museum hopes to achieve in the rest of the house”. By referencing its plans to restore the rest of the house to
58 Paul Spies, “Preface”, in Abraham and Louisa Willet-Holthuysen 19th-Century Collectors in Amsterdam, eds.
Jacques van Gerwen, Leonoor van Oosterzee & Gusta Reichwein, trans. Sue McDonnell, (Zwolle, Waanders Uitgevers; Amsterdam Museum, 2015): 8.
59 Ibid: 9. 60 Ibid: 8. 61 Ibid: 9.
62 Thijs Boers, interview by Amy Miles, 12/12/18. The transcript of this interview is available in Appendix A. 63 Museum Willet-Holthuysen audio-guide discussion in the Collector’s Room.
64 Ibid. 65 Ibid.
this standard, the museum promotes its future authenticity. The museum is transparent about its reconstruction process, even documenting it in their wall texts.
Detailing of the museum’s reconstruction process can be found in several rooms throughout the house. For example, in the Tearoom there is mention of the individual planned
restoration projects, such as the reupholstering of the chairs and the plan to restore the original colour scheme and ceiling paintings, which have been painted over. A section of the original ceiling has already been uncovered, providing indications of the actual physical conservation process in the display. (see Figure 2) Furthermore, in the Kitchen on the ground floor there is a wall text dedicated to “Research in the kitchen”. This discusses the removal of tiles due to rising damp which led to the discovery of the fact that there was once a door to the right of the wall. The text states: “More research is being planned in the coming period into the other tiles in the Kitchen and the possibility of reinserting the door”. By showcasing such investigations and plans for the future, the museum is involving the visitor in the process. This unveils the “behind the scenes” of house museum practice and serves to debunk the myth of house museums and show how they are actually constructions. Despite this debunking, such practices can be argued to further add to the museum’s sense of authenticity as they are being honest about their construction. Indeed, by publicly detailing the museum’s private practices, the museum can be said to encourage a personal
connection with the visitor, thus aiding their perception as being authentic in the eyes of the visitor. This also invites visitors to return to see any progress that has been made.
Boers reveals that the museum has an A and a B collection.67 The A collection consists of the house itself, the original furnishings and the collection. These are known to have been present in 1895 when Louisa died. Meanwhile, the B collection is not original and has been borrowed from other locations. The museum is not authentic in the sense that it is not an exact reconstruction of the original interior. Rather, the objects evoke a nineteenth-century house based on the information and objects that the museum possesses. Boers claims that it is important to tell people that the display is not authentic, or that it is only partly authentic, in order to give visitors a better idea of what they are looking at.68 He states that you should not present the house as being one-hundred percent authentic, which is never the case.
67 Thijs Boers, interview by Amy Miles, 12/12/18. The transcript of this interview is available in Appendix A. 68 Thijs Boers, interview by Amy Miles, 12/12/18. The transcript of this interview is available in Appendix A.
Indeed, as noted in the introduction, the moment the house becomes a museum it loses its original meaning – it is no longer a home being lived in, but a museum. Additionally, as Risnicoff discusses, it is through the lens of the present that we view the past, so this can never be entirely authentic.69 The Willet-Holthuysen Museum, even if it possessed the exact objects and replicated the original display, cannot be an authentic nineteenth-century house, as it no longer belongs to the nineteenth century.
The majority of the rooms in the museum are period rooms, reflecting their original intended purpose, despite many of the interiors being taken from other homes. The museum thus draws on the narrative potential of the home, promoting the indexicality of the site. This aids the museum’s projection of a sense of authenticity, as the visitor can recognise that this was once a lived-in house. This has the capacity to trigger an emotional connection with the viewer. As Rosanna Pavoni claims in her article “Towards a definition and typology of historic house museums” (2001): “Houses, however resplendent, are part of everyone’s common experience”.70 The museum can be said to further promote the
narrative potential of the home by providing “human touches”, such as the positioning of a book on Abraham’s seat in his Study, linen in the Kitchen’s laundry basket and clothing in the Bedroom. Such practices can be viewed as the museum’s attempt to construct authenticity. It is the curators who imbue objects with meaning. Indeed, as Baudrillard observes in his discussion of the “myth of authenticity”, this is wholly dependent on the framework in which objects are placed.71 These objects promote the domesticity of the house which resultantly encourages the visitor’s identification with the narrative which in turn lends to the
museum’s sense of authenticity.
Despite the site resembling a house, there are very obvious traces of its functioning as a museum. Whilst the previously mentioned detailing of the museum’s practices can be said to add to the museum’s authenticity, there are other aspects that can be said to take away from this. For example, in many of the rooms there are barriers preventing the visitor from entering. This gives a “diorama” feel, especially in the rooms that employ Perspex barriers. The use of fake food in rooms such as the Dining-Room and Kitchen invites similar
69 Monica Risnicoff de Gorgas, “Reality as illusion, the historic houses that become museums”, Museum
International: House Museums. Vol 53. No.2, (April 2001): 10.
70 Rosanna Pavoni, “Towards a definition and typology of historic house museums”, Museum International:
House Museums. Vol 53. No.2, (April 2001): 19.
discussion. (see Figure 3) While prompting the visitor’s imagination, there is also a sense of the uncanny in such displays. This is especially true of the fake cat in the Grand Salon, which is somehow programmed to simulate breathing. This sense of the uncanny can be attributed to the “fake” nature of these objects. This does not apply to the previously mentioned “human touches” which are “real” despite being modern additions. Indeed, there is a fine line between when objects add to the narrative and when they threaten to destroy the illusion of authenticity.
Additionally, on the ground floor and second floor are modern display rooms. I do not believe that modern display rooms take away from a house museum’s sense of authenticity providing they are relevant to the narrative. In effect, any museological practice will always be a modern intervention. However, the orange-coloured modern display room on the ground floor currently containing the introductory video and collection of glass, silver and porcelain has a 1970s feel to it, due to the choice of furnishings. (see Figure 4) Therefore, this room, ironically, is rather dated. Boers states that he believes modern interventions in general, including these modern display rooms, to be outdated.72 This room is thus due to be renovated to reflect its original purpose as the Servants’ Storage Room. Moreover, the museum plans to purchase the building next door, to accommodate modern museum facilities and temporary exhibitions.73 This will allow the entire house to be renovated.
Conclusion
This chapter has raised important issues such as the lack of a clear distinction between what is a “museum” and what is a “house museum”. Another issue presented is whether there is a need for specific categorisations of house museums which already occupy a relatively small section of the museum world. The Museum Willet-Holthuysen can be said to resist such categorisations in order to keep its identity less rigid and open to being shaped. Indeed, the identity of the museum is ever-changing, as demonstrated by its focus on different eras in response to societal trends. The museum has adapted in order to stay relevant to today’s
72 Thijs Boers, interview by Amy Miles, 12/12/18. The transcript of this interview is available in Appendix A. 73 Ibid.
society, and avoid criticism as being “static” or “dead”. In doing so, the Museum Willet-Holthuysen negotiates the issue of the changing nature of society by remaining open and receptive to change.
The museum’s representation of each era is also susceptible to change, as exemplified by its recent efforts to include the personal narratives of the servants in the display. Such efforts to open up the dialogue and tell these untold stories is refreshing and provides visitors with a more inclusive representation of what life was like in this nineteenth-century home. The museum ties its identity to a wider array of individuals than just Abraham and Louisa Willet-Holthuysen. Resultantly, the museum is able to move away from its previous upper-class narrative and potentially identify with a more diverse audience. Notably, the Museum Willet-Holthuysen negotiates the issue of a lack of existing representations of individuals such as Louisa and the staff by reconstructing costumes. Thus, the museum not only
includes these individuals in the narrative, but also offers them a sense of physical presence in the display.
Additionally, by dealing with issues such as class and gender divisions, the museum seeks to make sense of the past by addressing issues that are relevant in today’s society. Moreover, the museum’s inclusion of personal narratives acts as a means of making the stories of these nineteenth-century individuals more relatable to today’s visitors. This in turn serves to engage visitors and encourage them to identify with the narrative. However, this
identification could perhaps be further endorsed by promoting the visitor’s own agency in making meaning from their museum visit by asking them more personally engaging questions.
The museum is in a state of transition as it endeavours to restore the house to its
appearance during the Willet-Holthuysen era. Indeed, the Museum Willet-Holthuysen can be said to be “traditionalist” in its favouring of preservation. The museum is aiming to be “authentic” in the sense that it hopes to eventually provide a faithful reconstruction of the Willet-Holthuyens’ original interior. In the meantime, the museum draws on the narrative potential of the home by reconstructing the rooms to reflect their original functions, although the majority of these rooms are not accurate reconstructions. Furthermore, the museum attempts to render a sense of authenticity by curating “human touches”
throughout the display. This promotes the narrative of the home and encourages the
visitor’s personal identification with this narrative. However, there are certain aspects of the display that interrupt this illusion of authenticity, including the Perspex barriers and use of fake food.
Lastly, the museum promotes its future authenticity by detailing its ongoing restoration practices. I believe that showcasing such practices in itself greatly adds to the museum’s feeling of authenticity. By being honest about these private practices, the museum can be said to promote its own personal connection with the visitor thus adding to its perceived sense of authenticity. Indeed, the museum’s transparency about its restoration practices is innovative and inspiring for house museum practices.
Figure 1: Costumes on display in the Ladies’ Salon of the Museum Willet-Holthuysen, February 2019.
Figure 2: Section of the uncovered original ceiling in the Tearoom of the Museum Willet-Holthuysen, February 2019.
Figure 3: Fake food in the Kitchen of the Museum Willet-Holthuysen, February 2019.
Figure 4: The modern display room on the basement floor of the Museum Willet-Holthuysen, February 2019.
Chapter 2: The Rembrandt House Museum
The Rembrandt House Museum was opened to the public in June 1911.74 As its name suggests, the museum site was the former residence of Rembrandt van Rijn, who lived in the house from 1639-1658.75 This was the period in which many of Rembrandt’s masterpieces, including The Night Watch (1642), were produced.76 Prior to 1911, the home had been renovated to an unrecognisable state.77 The museum initially planned to embark upon a restoration of the seventeenth-century house but instead decided to remodel the interior to suit its purpose as a museum, which was to exhibit its collection of prints by Rembrandt.78 The addition of a new wing in 1998, which provided space for modern museum facilities and temporary exhibitions, enabled the museum to finally undergo its initial plan to restore Rembrandt’s house.79 Today, the museum is divided into two wings: the modern wing and the reconstruction of the house. In order to gain further insight into the museum’s practices, I interviewed Epco Runia, the Rembrandt House Museum’s Head of Collections.
Identity
The Rembrandt House Museum was identified as belonging to NAi’s “Houses of Celebrities” category.80 Examples of “celebrities” are listed as being writers, artists, musicians, politicians and war heroes.81 The title of “celebrity” acknowledges Rembrandt as a prevalent figure in society. Linda Young, in her article “House Museums Are Not All the Same! Understanding Motivation to Guide Conservation” published on the DEMHIST website, introduces the category of “Heroes Houses” that the Rembrandt House Museum could equally be ascribed to.82 Young states: “I use this term in the anthropological sense of culture heroes, the real or
74 Michael Huijser, “Foreword”, in The Rembrandt House Museum, ed. Leslie Schwartz, trans. Lynne Richards, (Terra, 2017): 5. 75 Ibid: 18. 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid: 5. 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid.
80 “Museum Het Rembrandthuis”, “Museumwongingen in Nederland”, Nederlands Architectuurinstituut, accessed 25/09/18, museumwoningen.nai.nl. This category has been translated from Dutch to English. 81 “Alle Museumwoningen in Nederland!”, “Museumwongingen in Nederland”, Nederlands
Architectuurinstituut, accessed 25/09/18, museumwoningen.nai.nl. This has been translated from Dutch to
English.
82 Linda Young, “House Museums Are Not All the Same! Understanding Motivation to Guide Conservation”,
ICOM DEMHIST, accessed 25/09/18, http://www.icom-cc.org/ul/cms/fck-uploaded/documents/DEMHIST%20_
mythical figures who are claimed to embody some aspect of society’s ideals”.83 She employs Shakespeare and George Washington as such “heroes”, men to whom house museums have been dedicated. In reference to how the museum would categorise itself, Runia states that the museum considers itself to be an “artist’s house museum” and, more specifically, a “seventeenth-century artist’s home” which is unique in Holland.84
The artist Rembrandt van Rijn is one of the Netherland’s most esteemed figures. He is an icon for the Dutch “Golden Age”, a period integral to the country’s identity. However, this period was only woven into the country’s cultural fabric in the nineteenth century, when the concept of the “Golden Age” emerged and it was lauded as a time of outstanding
achievement for the Netherlands.85 The revival of the “Golden Age” in the nineteenth century was accompanied by a newfound appraisal of Rembrandt as a pivotal figure in this period, whose works were ahead of his time.86 Like the Willet-Holthuysens, there was a certain rehabilitation of Rembrandt’s image; prior to this he had been portrayed as a “miser” and a “lout” by artists and theoreticians such as Arnold Houbraken.87 As Sandra Kisters acknowledges in her The Lure of the Biographical, an artist’s constructed identity is informed by many different individuals including art historians, biographers and film directors.88 The more famous an artist is, the more interest they will attract from biographers and the public. Rembrandt is world famous.
Rembrandt’s current celebrated status in the Netherlands is attested by the various
monuments dedicated to him throughout the country. In the capital city of Amsterdam there is both a Rembrandtplein (which also contains a statue of the artist) and Rembrandt Park. Additionally, the Rijksmuseum – the national museum – is built around his masterpiece The
Night Watch (1642). In the city of Leiden, Rembrandt’s birthplace, there is also a Rembrandt
Park as well as a memorial sculpture located on the Witte Singel at Noordindeplein. The opening of the Rembrandt House Museum in 1911 spoke to the glorification of Rembrandt
83 Ibid.
84 Epco Runia, interview by Amy Miles, 19/12/18. The transcript of this interview is available in Appendix B. 85 Judikje Kiers and Fieke Tissink, The Glory of the Golden Age, (Waanders Publishers, 2000): 9.
86 Ibid.
87 Mayken Jonkman, “The Artist as Centerpiece. The Image of the Artist in Studio Photographs of the
Nineteenth Century” in Hiding Making – Showing Creation: The Studio from Turner to Tacita Dean, eds. Rachel Esner, Sandra Kisters & Ann-Sophie Lehmann, (Amsterdam University Press, 2013): 112.
88 Sandra Kisters, The Lure of the Biographical: on the (self-)representation of modern artists, (Amsterdam: Valiz, 2017): 11.
throughout the country. The museum, in its 2014 publication The Rembrandt House
Museum, details that in 1906 there were widespread celebrations to mark the tercentenary
of Rembrandt’s birth and how “the painter Joseph Israels seized the opportunity to propose that the Rembrandt House should be restored and turned into a museum in honour of the world-famous artist”.89 The text states that the “plan was well received. The city of
Amsterdam bought the building for 35,000 guilders and in 1907 sold it to the newly founded Rembrandt House Trust”.90 The museum was officially opened on the 10th of June 1911 in the presence of Queen Wilhelmina.91 The French sociologist Natalie Heinich, in her work “The Glory of Van Gogh. An Anthropology of Admiration” (1996), employing Vincent van Gogh as her case-study, explores the artist’s rise to fame. She claims that the final stage of this journey is when “the places [the artist] went, as well as the objects he touched, were made into relics”.92 The creation of the Rembrandt House Museum can be viewed as such an act. To this day the museum is a site of pilgrimage. Indeed, despite being created centuries after Rembrandt lived there, the museum still aims to give the impression of entering his private world. In the museum’s leaflet it states: “This is the closest you will ever get to Rembrandt!”. Runia additionally emphasises the fact that the site was not only Rembrandt’s home, but also his workplace/studio.93 The “cult of the artist”, a term referencing public fascination with the lives of artists that became apparent in the nineteenth century, includes a fascination for the places where art was produced.94 The museum, in containing Rembrandt’s studio, permits entry to this coveted arena.
The “cult” of Rembrandt is still very much in evidence, as demonstrated by the fact that one of the museum’s main problems is how to manage the streams of visitors coming in.95 This is in contrast to the majority of house museums, whose predominant struggle is how to attract more visitors. However, the Rembrandt House Museum does struggle to attract Dutch visitors.96 This is linked to the notion of the house being a site of pilgrimage that you only
89 Fieke Tissink, The Rembrandt House Museum, ed. Leslie Schwartz, trans. Lynne Richards, (Terra, 2017): 22. 90 Ibid.
91 Ibid.
92 Natalie Heinich, The Glory of Van Gogh. An Anthropology of Admiration, trans. Paul Leduc Browne, (Princeton University Press, 1996): 184.
93 Epco Runia, interview by Amy Miles, 19/12/18. The transcript of this interview is available in Appendix B. 94 Sandra Kisters, “Introduction: Old and New Studio Topoi in the Nineteenth Century” in Hiding Making –
Showing Creation: The Studio from Turner to Tacita Dean, eds. Rachel Esner, Sandra Kisters & Ann-Sophie
Lehmann, (Amsterdam University Press, 2013): 21.
95 Epco Runia, interview by Amy Miles, 19/12/18. The transcript of this interview is available in Appendix B. 96 Epco Runia, interview by Amy Miles, 19/12/18. The transcript of this interview is available in Appendix B.
have to visit once in a lifetime. In order to attract more local visitors, the museum organises three temporary exhibitions per year.97 These are held in the modern wing and offer visitors the chance to “dive deeper into the work of Rembrandt himself, his predecessors and contemporaries, and modern and contemporary artists who were inspired by the Dutch artist”.98 An example of one of the Rembrandt House Museum’s temporary exhibitions is the recent Rembrandt in Paris exhibition, which introduced visitors to French artists inspired by Rembrandt, including Manet, Meryon and Degas. Such exhibitions provide a means of introducing new narratives to the museum. This is not possible in the house, which is required to be kept as a reconstruction and thus has little flexibility in terms of its display. However, Runia expresses the museum’s interest in finding ways to bring new life into the house itself. One consideration is the commissioning of contemporary artists to produce objects that could be incorporated into the display. Runia suggests this could add “new life, new narratives and new insights” to the house museum.99
In regards to what the main narrative of the museum is, Runia states that the museum has two main narratives: “Rembrandt the man” and “Rembrandt the artist”.100 The first topic, “Rembrandt the man”, focuses on the artist’s private life. This includes details of his
relationships and hardships, such as his bankruptcy in 1656. However, Runia acknowledges that such aspects of Rembrandt’s life are not yet sufficiently addressed in the museum.101 Rembrandt’s personal life is indeed not given a great deal of attention in the display. The Kitchen acts as an exception as the audio-guide reveals that this was the scene of a huge argument between Rembrandt and his mistress, Geertje Dircx. The audio-guide mentions that, according to witnesses, Geertje attacked Rembrandt very violently and unreasonably. A sense of drama is created by the inclusion of this story. Runia comments that Rembrandt “has it in him to be a kind of Van-Gogh-like person. He did have a lot of drama in his life and I think we can stress that drama more in our museum”.102 Van Gogh is certainly the archetypal tragic artist genius and Runia’s statement that Rembrandt too could become such a figure underlines the ability of museums to construct a certain identity of their subject by stressing
97 Ibid.
98 “Exhibitions”, Museum Het Rembrandthuis, accessed 05/01/19, https://www.rembrandthuis.nl/exhibitions/?lang=en
99 Epco Runia, interview by Amy Miles, 19/12/18. The transcript of this interview is available in Appendix B. 100 Ibid.
101 Ibid.
certain narratives.Moreover, other than this anecdote in the Kitchen, no information is provided on Geertje. She is Rembrandt’s maid and mistress and that is all. Similarly, no information is provided on Rembrandt’s wife Saskia van Uylenburgh, his son Titus, his “second great love” Hendrickje Stoffels or his daughter Cornelia, other than their relation to him.103 Their rooms have not been reconstructed. Likewise, there is no reference to the fact that Rembrandt had three children who died before they were two months old. The lack of personal biography on Rembrandt is something Runia indicates the museum hopes to address in the coming years. For instance, the museum plans to introduce more personal narratives of the people in Rembrandt’s life. This will include “a separate audio stop for Saskia, for example, with a small picture of her on the wall”.104 The introduction of such personal narratives of the other members of the household would provide a more inclusive representation of life in the house. Moreover, this also has the ability to add depth to the museum’s depiction of Rembrandt by stressing the fact that he was not an “isolated genius” but was instead part of a network of family, friends, dealers and so on. However, it should also be acknowledged that focusing on the artist’s private life has the potential to
romanticise Rembrandt if attention is instead placed on dramatic events that occurred in his life.
The second topic of “Rembrandt the artist” is dedicated to Rembrandt’s working life. In comparison to his personal life, this is given a great deal of attention in the museum’s current display. The predominant representation of Rembrandt, appearing a total of three times throughout the museum, is his 1639 print Self-Portrait Leaning on a Balustrade in which Rembrandt presents himself as a “self-assured artist”.105 (see Figure 5) Copies of this print can be found in the Etching Room, the Art Cabinet and the Small Studio. Rembrandt’s presence can be said to be felt most strongly in these rooms due to these personal
representations of the artist. In the Etching Room, the museum underlines the role of such self-portraits as “self-promotional items”.106 Rembrandt has fashioned a particular image of himself that was favourable in society. In the museum’s publication The Rembrandt House
Museum, it is stated that Rembrandt borrowed the “Leaning on a Balustrade” pose from
103 Rembrandt House Museum audio-guide discussion in the Introductory Room.
104 Epco Runia, interview by Amy Miles, 19/12/18. The transcript of this interview is available in Appendix B. 105 Text accompanying “Self-Portrait Leaning on a Balustrade” in the Etching Room of the Rembrandt House Museum.
106 Text accompanying “Self-Portrait Leaning on a Balustrade” in the Etching Room of the Rembrandt House Museum.
Titian’s portrait Ariosto that was on display in Amsterdam in 1639.107 The text states “Perhaps he wanted to compete with his illustrious predecessors by portraying himself in similar poses”.108 The museum, in drawing attention to Rembrandt’s “self-promotion” in the display, reflects on his working life as an artist which involved marketing oneself.
Runia discusses how Rembrandt’s art-making process acts as an important sub-narrative to the wider topic of Rembrandt the artist.109 The museum makes this practice tangible for visitors by running workshops on Rembrandt’s etching techniques as well as on how he produced his paint. (see Figure 6) These workshops promote the narrative of learning from the master and imitating his practice. This elevates his identity and sense of him as
benefactor and teacher. Furthermore, a personal connection is established by the visitors’ involvement in these workshops. Visitors are encouraged to identify themselves with the artist. This disclosure of Rembrandt’s art-making process goes against tradition. Indeed, the working practices of “artist geniuses” have historically been hidden from the public, linked to the notion of the work of art being a product of immaculate conception.110 The Rembrandt House Museum is thus moving away from this romantic idea and instead offering a more accessible narrative.
The museum further keeps away from a romanticised depiction of Rembrandt by detailing his work as a teacher and art dealer. The audio-guide notes how “Rembrandt was an art dealer as well as an artist, not an unusual combination in those days”, and describes how he hung his paintings that were for sale in the Entrance Hall and conducted his art dealing business in the Anteroom. Rembrandt’s work as a teacher is also thoroughly discussed. This is dealt with primarily in the Small Studio, which was the workshop for Rembrandt’s pupils. The audio-guide in this room runs through what the training of these pupils to become history painters involved. The names of a selection of Rembrandt’s pupils are also offered. Many of the works of Rembrandt’s pupils are on display throughout the house. Rembrandt’s status as the “master” however remains apparent through discussion of whether works can be attributed to him or his pupils. For example, in the Salon, the wall text accompanying the
107 Fieke Tissink, The Rembrandt House Museum, ed. Leslie Schwartz, trans. Lynne Richards, (Terra, 2017): 54. 108 Ibid.
109 Epco Runia, interview by Amy Miles, 19/12/18. The transcript of this interview is available in Appendix B. 110 Sandra Kisters, “Introduction: Old and New Studio Topoi in the Nineteenth Century”, in Hiding Making –
Showing Creation: The Studio from Turner to Tacita Dean, eds. Rachel Esner, Sandra Kisters & Ann-Sophie
