were implicit; many were almost ritualistic. They included dressing properly, buying a
catalogue, and sporting one’s knowledge of both art and other exhibitions.
Alongside the obvious increase in demand for art critics, the clearest indication that codes of
conduct to set oneself off from the uninitiated and therefore “common” visitors had emerged
is that these codes of conduct were mocked. There are numerous caricatures portraying the
stark contrast between the slightly snobbish connoisseur of the arts and the common visitor
who behaves in an uncivilised manner.96
Crucially, this in turn reflects how art exhibitions had become venues to stake a claim to
social status. Far more than just places to study the art on display, they became a nodal point
of public social life. At exhibitions, visitors could not only demonstrate and improve their
own credentials as cultured members of society, they could also find other likeminded
citizens.
A telling example is provided by an essay published by the well-known Dutch author Nicolas
Beets, who wrote under the pseudonym of Hildebrand. In the late 1830s, around about the
time of the construction of the First Art Gallery at Teylers, he published an essay in the
national journal De Gids (comparable in status to Punch in Great Britain) in which he
mockingly caricaturised imaginary visitors to the annual state exhibition of fine art in The
Hague. He described one mother’s disappointment at having unwittingly arrived too early:
“This upsets the somewhat fashionable lady; nobody to see! nobody to see her lovely
daughter!” 7
In the same essay Beets mentions the Teyler Museum too: a painter who is exceedingly
frustrated that the work he has contributed to the exhibition in The Hague is badly hung and
not appropriately admired by both critics and visitors, complains that he had initially dreamed
that “Teylers museum will want to acquire it; the Princess of Orange will need to own it; a
connoisseur will offer to invest in it with gold!”98
And while, strictly speaking, this example only shows that by this time Teylers Museum was
clearly considered part of the established Dutch art scene, another example from some twenty
years later indicates that it was increasingly being held accountable for its role as a public
institution too. In 1860, after the Foundation had acquired a painting of an historical scene by
Koster, a newspaper article drew attention to the fact that Koster’s painting was not
historically accurate, while another one by Gruyter depicting the same scene that had been
sold at the same auction, was. The author of the article feels he has to say the following:
It is not our custom to draw parallels between artists: however, in this case we feel
compelled to do so, because the Painting by Koster, bought by Teylers society [the Teyler
See for example: Ouwerkerk, Tussen kunst en publiek: ecu beeid van de kunstkritiek in Nederland in de eerste
helft van de negentiende eeuw, 106-107.
“Dit valt de nog wel eenigszins wereldsche dame tegen; niemand om gezien te worden! niemand om hare lieve
dochter te zien!” Hildebrand, “Eene tentoonstelling van schilderijen,” in Camera obscura, vol. 1 (Amsterdam:
Athenaeum-Polak & Van Gennep, 1998), 325-326.
‘Teylers museum zal het willen aankoopen; de Prinses van Oranje zal het moeten bezitten; een liefhebber zal
aanbieden het met goud te beleggen!” Ibid., 322.
Foundation], gives a false representation of a memorable subject to both contemporaries and
following generations; after all, that society displays its collection publicly [emphasis MW];
the painting by GRUYTER on the other hand will probably find its way into some private
collection, and we therefore advise the tmstees of Teylers society to investigate the matter,
and to invite the erring painter to correct these flaws, if there are grounds for doing this.”
This is indicative of how influential public exhibitions were considered to be by this time and
how they were increasingly attributed an educational function as well (more on this will be
said in the next section of this chapter) - and that Teylers Museum was not considered an
exception.
A final indication that Teylers Museum was increasingly taking on a role as a public art
museum is provided by its description in travel guides. As the tourist trade increased, travel
reports as they had been published in the 18th century were replaced by travel guides, tailored
to the specific needs of tourists and written in an impersonal style. The most famous and
popular of these was “the Baedeker”, a series of guides covering various countries and named
after the author and publisher of the series’ first edition, Karl Baedeker. Incidentally, the
characteristic red binding of the travel guides published under his name is even discernible on
some 19th century depictions of art gallery interiors.
An early edition of the guide to Holland, published in 1854, stated that Teylers Museum
included “a number of paintings of the modem Dutch school, [and] valuable drawings of old
masters” besides the other collections (which were described with the bywords “considerable”
and “well equipped”); but by 1880, although the updated edition still contained almost exactly
the same information on the scientific collections, the authors had expanded their section on
the collections of fine art considerably.101 Other early guidebooks, such as one published by
John Murray in 1858, already placed a far larger emphasis on the art collection than on the
scientific ones. This guide mentions the art collections first, and subsequently says next to
nothing about the collection of scientific instruments, only drawing attention to “two curious
specimens” in the collection of fossils.
This is in stark contrast with travel reports from half a century earlier. Recall how during van
Marum’s times the scientific instruments had been cited as the reason to visit the museum and
how the art collections were not even mentioned in the majority of travel reports.
99 “Het is onze gewoonte niet, om paralellen tusschen kunstenaars te trekken: in dit geval echter rekenen wij er
ons toe verpligt, omdat de Schilderij van Koster, door Teylers genootschap aangekocht, tijgenoten zoowel als
nakomeiingen van een gedenkwaardig voorwerp eene valsche voorstelling zal geven; immers dot genootschap
laut zijne verzameling publiek bezichtigen [emphasis MW]; de schilderij van GRUYTER daarent eg en fey g
waarschijnlijk eene plaats in een o f ander particulier kabinet, en wij zouden dus de duectie vanTeylers
genootschap aanraden, de zaak te onderzoeken, en den fautieven schilder uitnoodigen, herstellen,
indien daartoe termen zijn.” Nieuw Amsterdamsch Handels- en Effectenblad, N°. 265, 24.09.1860.
100 An example is Johann Lorenz Maaß’s painting o f the Rubenssaal at the Alte Pinakothek in Munich, c. 1880
101 “eine Anzahl von Gemälden der neuem holländischen Schule, [und] werthvolle Handzeichnungen altere
Meister”; “ansehnlich” ; “gut ausgerüstet”; Holland: Handbuch fü r Reisende, 3rd ed. (Koblenz: ^ r l Badeker,
1854), 104-105; Belgien und Holland, nebst den wichtigsten Routen durch Luxemburg: Handbuch fü r Reisende.,
15th ed. (Leipzig: Karl Bädeker, 1880), 286. |
102 A Handbook fo r Travellers on the Continent: Being a Guide to Holland, Belgium Prussia, Northern
Germany, and the Rhine from Holland to Switzerland, 12th ed. (London: John Murray, 1858), 45.