Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Nostalgia and pragmatism: Architecture and the new stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam∗

2008; Routledge; Volume: 13; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/13264820801918314

1755-0475

Wouter Davidts,

Urban Development and Cultural Heritage

Abstract In April 2007, the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam finally began the construction of a new extension, designed by the Dutch firm Benthem Crouwel Architects, after seventeen years of internal and public controversy. In the context of a global enthusiasm for museum refurbishment or renewal, this article analyses the new building for the Stedelijk Museum and asks if it will bring about the long-awaited salvation. Via a detailed analysis of a report of 2003 on the future of the museum on the one hand and of the building brief on the other, the article demonstrates that the new extension of the Stedelijk is not so much aimed at defining a new and challenging museum typology, but is plagued by both pragmatism and nostalgia about a glorious period in its history, epitomized by the charismatic museum director Willem Sandberg. Notes ∗ This is a revised and extended version of an essay that first appeared in the journal De Witte Raaf, 128 (2007): pp. 15‐17. Translation from Dutch to English by Don Mader. 1 Stephen E. Weil, “A brief meditation on museums and the metaphor of institutional growth,” in Stephen E. Weil (ed), A Cabinet Of Curiosities: Inquiries into Museums and their Prospects, Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995, p. 42. 2 Weil, “A brief meditation,” p. 42. 3 Tate Modern, Press Release, Transforming Tate Modern: A New Museum for Twenty-First Century Britain, London, 25 July 2006, p. 6. The comparative annual visitor figures for 2005/6 that the Press Release offers are Tate Modern (4.1 m), MoMA New York (2.67 m), Centre Pompidou, Paris (2.5 m), Guggenheim New York (0.9 m), Guggenheim Bilbao (0.9 m) and SFMoMA, San Francisco (0.7 m). 4 The first reports about the possible expansion of the Stedelijk appeared in the spring of 1990. See Wim Beeren, “Een mogelijke uitbreiding,”Stedelijk Museum Bulletin (January, 1990): p. 6; Hugo Bongers, “Nieuwbouw Stedelijk Museum,”Stedelijk Museum Bulletin (February, 1990): p. 16. The other participants in the first competition in 1992 were O.M.A (Rem Koolhaas), Wim Quist and Carl Weeber. For more information about this first competition and the ultimate dismissal of Venturi in 1995, see, among others: “Studie-ontwerpen nieuwbouw,”Stedelijk Museum Bulletin (December 1992‐January 1993): p. 11; Martijn van Nieuwenhuyzen, “Uitbreiding Stedelijk Museum: Venturi, Scott Brown and Associates,”Stedelijk Museum Bulletin (March, 1993): pp. 30-32; Hugo Bongers, “Uitbreiding Stedelijk Museum: Nieuwe ontwikkelingen,” in Stedelijk Museum Bulletin (April, 1994): p. 50; Arthur Worthman, “Het Stedelijk Museum: projectontwikkelaarscachet of undergroundkunst,”Archis, 2, (February, 1993): pp. 2-5; Arthur Worthman, “Exit Venturi,”Archis, 1 (January, 1995): p. 16. For the situation surrounding the resignation of Rudi Fuchs, see, among others: Sven Lütticken, “Stedelijk Museum,”De Witte Raaf, 101 (January‐February, 2003). 5 Advies Commissie Toekomst Stedelijk Museum (Martijn Sanders (chairman), Victor Halberstadt & John Leighton), “Het Stedelijk Museum: Terug Naar de Top (Back to the Top),” Amsterdam, June 21, 2003. Since this report was only written in Dutch, all quotations in this essay have been translated. All further quotations are from this report, unless indicated otherwise. 6 In 1994 the management consultancy Twijnstra Gudde assembled a programme of requirements that was rightly described by the committee as purely “quantitative.” See Twijnstra Gudde, Management Consultants, “Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam: Programma van Eisen voor de renovatie en uitbreiding van het Stedelijk Museum,” Amsterdam, March 24, 1994. 7 Despite the committee's recommendation to “wrap up the relation with Siza with regard to the existing plans in a respectful manner,” the architect heard the news via the media. See Rob Gollin, “Siza boos over breuk Stedelij: Architect overweegt juridische stappen,”De Volkskrant, (Saturday, January 3, 2004); Anonymous, “Architect Siza boos op Stedelijk en gemeente,”NRC Handelsblad (Monday, January 5, 2004). 8 Max van Rooy, “Eenheid in Tweevoud,” in City of Amsterdam, Project Management Bureau, Het nieuwe Stedelijk Museum. Ruimtelijk, functioneel en technisch Programma van Eisen. Ten behoeve van de locatie Paulus Potterstraat/Museumplein, Amsterdam (June 11, 2004): pp. ii-v. 9 City of Amsterdam, Project Management Bureau, Het nieuwe Stedelijk Museum. 10 van Rooy, “Eenheid in Tweevoud,” p. 2. In his 1959 manifesto NU (Now), Sandberg argues that he is attempting “to create surroundings where the vanguard feels at home … a real centre for present life.” The museum needs to turn into a home for “everything that will brighten the features of the face of our time, for every contribution to the form of the present … [for] all material of today, apt to build the future.” It needs to become a “place where people dare to talk, laugh and be themselves.” See: Willem Sandberg, NU, Hilversum: Steendrukkerij De Jong & Co, 1959, p. 30. An expanded version of the manifesto appeared under the title musea op de tweesprong/museums at the crossroads, in: Carel Blotkamp et al. (eds), Museum in ¿Motion?, The modern art museum at issue/Museum in ¿Beweging? Het museum voor moderne kunst ter diskussie, s-Gravenhage: Govt. Pub. Office, 1979, pp. 321-331. 11 For a detailed description of the interventions by Sandberg, see the chapter “Het tweede gezicht; het experimenteermodel van Sandberg,” in Bureau Monumenten & Archeologie Amsterdam, Het Stedelijk Museum. Architectuur in dienst van de kunst, Amsterdam, 2004, pp. 33-37. 12 Bureau Monumenten & Archeologie Amsterdam, Het Stedelijk Museum, pp. 41-43. 13 When Sandberg expounded his ideas regarding the tasks, functioning and ambiance of a museum for contemporary or current art in the text “Réflexions disparates sur l'organisation d'un musée d'art d'aujourd'hui” in the journal Art d'Aujourd'hui in 1950, he observed in the margin that “[c]es réflexions ont étéécrites par un conservateur de musée qui tâche de les réaliser dans un vieux bâtiment.” He carried out several interventions on the old building to bring it up-to-date or to ‘modernise’ it, but nevertheless stayed in a building that was an expression of a nineteenth century museum typology, both with regard to its architectural ambiance and its spatial arrangement. See Willem Sandberg, Réflexions disparates sur l'organisation d'un musée d'art d'aujourd'hui, Art d'Aujourd'hui 2, 1 (October, 1950): n.p. Later, when Sandberg was a member of the jury for the architectural competition for the Centre Pompidou, he did not hesitate long before giving his vote to the project from Piano & Rogers. According to him, it simply fulfilled “the dream about which I wrote in 1950 in the magazine Art d'Aujourd'hui.” See: Willem Sandberg, as cited in Ad Petersen & Pieter Brattinga (eds), Sandberg. een documentaire/a documentary, Amsterdam: Kosmos, 1975, p. 108. 14 See the chapter “Wings That Don't Fly (And Some That Do),” in Victoria Newhouse, Towards a New Museum, New York: Monacelli Press, 1998, pp. 138-189. 15 For this, see among others, Wouter Davidts, “Robbrecht & Daem and the Museum Boijmans van Beuningen. Architectural interventions so that things may overlap,”Maandberichten Museum Boijmans van Beuningen (May 2003): pp. 2-7. 16 Before the demolition the Amsterdam department for Monuments and Archaeology had already drawn the painful conclusion that, “The only architectonic interest thus far appears to be the naming of an international star and the dismissal of other international stars.” Bureau Monumenten & Archeologie Amsterdam, Het Stedelijk Museum, p. 41, note 8. 17 Three debates about the future of the Stedelijk were organised in 2002-2003. Reports of these debates are to be found in: Stedelijk Museum Bulletin, 14, 6 (2002); Stedelijk Museum Bulletin 16, 1 (2003); Stedelijk Museum Bulletin 16, 3 (2003). As Jorinde Seijdel recently demonstrated with her analysis of the policy plan 2006-2008, this lack of a broader perspective on the issues surrounding museums today is structural for the Stedelijk. See Jorinde Seijdel, “Het is eenzaam aan de top. De toekomst van het Stedelijk Museum,”Metropolis M, 1 (2007): pp. 64-70. 18 The participants were Herman Hertzberger Architecture Studio, Benthem Crouwel Architects, Henket & Partners Architects, Diederen Dirrix van Wylick Architects and Claus and Kaan Architects. The jurors were Wim Pijbes, Wim Quist, Maarten Klos, Max van Rooy, Toon Verhoef, Hans van Beers, Herman van Vliet and Sjoerd Sjoeters. The jury report explicitly states that the selection committee “did not intentionally” choose Dutch architects only. The five firms were selected from over 40 applicants on the basis of “unconditional suitability for the specific task in which new construction and renovation of the old building complement one another.” See Jury Rapport architectenselectie Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam (August 31, 2004). 19 For that matter, the jury report fills only three short pages, the first of which is merely a recapitulation of the general points of departure. Although it is not stated, from its tone it appears certain that once again Van Rooy was approached to write this text. 20 Carolien Gehrels, as quoted by Hans van der Beek, “Een Steen door de Geschiedenis,”Het Parool, (October 13, 2006). The idea came from Marjolijn Broekhuizen, head of the Marketing and Communications Department at the Stedelijk.