world, towards the formative role of a government’s cultural policy. Secondly, this example
serves to illustrate how public art exhibitions were emerging as cultural policy tools. The
exhibition m the town hall sought to attract visitors and imbue them with a certain message.
Thirdly, it is indicative of the growing importance of “the public” - in the sense of large
crowds - in the art world, and also how, on various levels, the general public was rapidly
becoming at least as important as individual rich patrons.
With regard to the third point, it is important to realise that the changing composition of the
art world coincided with profound changes in the art market. These changes are epitomised in
the abolishment of painters’ guilds. In the Netherlands, this happened in 1798. Their
dissolution needs to be seen as the culmination of long-standing developments, and in the
Netherlands did not constitute as much of a rupture with the past as it did in other countries,
because rt had a long tradition of a thriving and comparatively free art market - despite his
superstar” status even amongst contemporaries, Rembrandt for instance had notoriously
spent the final years of his life in poverty because he had never become a member of a guild.
Nevertheless, with the dawn of the 19th century, painters and other fine artists saw themselves
forced to cater to the markets, i.e. “the public”, in order to guarantee a sustainable livelihood
This m turn had an impact on the way they defined their profession, and how they saw fit to
fashion themselves within the market. In the long term, this contributed to the inimitability of
their work being emphasised, and everything that inimitability entailed. By the end of the 19th
century, painters in the Netherlands were therefore increasingly eager to be labelled
bohemian.
4. Paintings by Contemporary Artists
On a more immediate level, in the aftermath of the abolishment of guilds and the increasing
involvement of the government in cultural matters, the first decades of the 19th century saw a
booming expansion of the market for contemporary paintings.206 All over Europe, whoever
had the money bought modem paintings, and whoever had the time saw to it that he
hobnobbed with other connoisseurs of the arts at public exhibitions. This was reflected in the
birth of a new literary genre: that of art criticism. It can be taken to have arisen from the
confluence of art history and aesthetic theories of taste, both of which began to be
Mayken Jonkman, ‘Couleur Locale: Het schildersatelier en de status van de kunstenaar,” in Mythen van het
atelier, werkplaats en schilderpraktijk van de negentiende-eeuwse Nederlandse kunstenaar, ed. Mayken
- r WsSsB. ° eu.dek.er (Zwolle; Den Haag: d’j°nge Hond; RKD, 2010), 26; Chris Stolwijk, Uit de
kunstschilders in de tweede helft van de negentiende eeuw (Leiden: Primavera
206 Annemieke Hoogenboom, De stand des kunstenaars: de positie van kunstschilders in Nederland in de eerste
Primavera Pers, 1993), 139; Francis Haskell, The Ephemeral Museum:
Old Master Paintings and the Rise o f the Art Exhibition (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2000), 67-
systematically developed in the 18th century.207 In the Netherlands, prominent art critics began
n • 208 to establish a reputation and a following after the Restoration.
Given that it was highly fashionable to buy and collect contemporary paintings during the
second quarter of the 19th century, it must not come as too much of a surprise that the trustees’
plans for a cabinet of paintings, last mentioned in 1786, resurfaced during this period. This
was prompted by the acquisition of just such paintings after 1824.209 Reasons as to why the
decision was taken to purchase such works of art are not recorded. One can be sure, however,
that the new kastelein, Michaelis, was involved in this decision. To what extent however,
again remains a mystery.
As does, in fact, the man himself. Very few traces that would reveal anything about his life or
his interests can be found in the archives.2 fP The only direct form of evidence that indicates he
was intimately involved in the acquisition of paintings comes from the diary of Adriaan van
der Willigen, a prominent writer, critic, civil servant and member of Teylers Second Society.
He lamented that the members of the Second Society were never involved in the purchase of
new paintings and elaborated:
“It is mainly if not only the Director, Mr W. van der Vlugt, who acts in this respect, availing
himself of the services of the caretaker and superintendent of paintings, drawings and prints,
Michaelis, when he, as the director, approves of it.”211
The choice of paintings indeed does not appear to have followed any particular system. As far
as discernible, the trustees’ personal taste Bor perhaps only van der Vlugt’s and Michaelis’s —j
formed the guiding principle.
What was ultimately more important though, was the fact that paintings were being acquired
on a large scale at all - the crucial point being that paintings, unlike prints and drawings, need
to be hung in order to be appreciated properly. As the collection of paintings was expanded, it
was therefore essentially only a matter of time before adequate premises became desirable,
and all the more so because the Oval Room is not in any way suited to hang paintings. The
first such opportunity presented itself in the 1820s.
In 1824, the board of trustees of Teylers Foundation took the decision to add a first annex to
the Oval Room.212 Detailed reasons are not provided. This annex was complete two years
later, and it consisted of two stories, each with a large room. As was already mentioned
207 See for instance: Regine Prange, Die Geburt der Kunstgeschichte: Philosophische Ästhetik und empirische
Wissenschaft (Köln: Deubner, 2004), 28-36.
208 Annemiek Ouwerkerk, Tussen kunst en publiek: een beeid van de kunstkritiek in Nederland in de eerste helft
van de negentiende eeuw (Leiden: Primavera Pers, 2003), 50-68.
209 Annemiek Ouwerkerk, Romantiek aan het Spaarne: schilderijen tot 1850 uit de collectie van Teylers Museum
Haarlem (Haarlem: Teylers Museum, 2010), 25-27.
210 Catherine de Jong, “Gerrit Jan Michaelis: Beperkingen En Vrijheden van Een Kastelein in Het Teylers
Museum” (bachelor thesis, Utrecht University, 2011).
211 “Het is hoofdzakelijk zoo niet alleen de heer directeur W. van der Vlugt, die in dit opzigt handelt, zieh
bedienende van den concierge en opzigter der schilderijen, teekeningen en prenten, Michaelis, waneer hij
directeur zulks goedvint.” As quoted in: Sliggers, “De kwalen van Van Marum: uit het dagboek van Adriaan van
der Willigen (1831-1839),” 8.
212 “Directienotulen”, 09.04.1824, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 7.