350 : CONTRADICTIONS

2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4

Happy Birthday Dear Academy

17

Wrestling or Dancing ?

21

The Tradition of Contradiction ( and Vice Versa )

Eric Ubben Els De bruyn, Nico Dockx & Johan Pas

20 th 25

Castle or Cradle ? Part 1 : Academy, Avant-Garde, Animism ( 1900–1945 )

43

Castle or Cradle ? Part 2 : Academy, Neo-Avant-Garde, Postmodernism ( 1945–1989 )

65

Fifty Years of Fashion at the Antwerp Academy : Between Avant-Garde and Tradition

87

From Memory. Artists about their Student Days at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp

101

Chronicle of an Art School : 1900–2013

Johan Pas Johan Pas Sarah Heynssens Paul Ilegems & Hans Theys

Jan Lampo & Johan Pas

19 th 125

“A Shield against Fashion and Bad Taste.” Mattheus Van Brée and the Reform of Nineteenth-Century Art Education Peter Van de Moortel

143

According to the Rules. The Prix de Rome ( 1819–1921 ) as a National Prestige Contest and Apogee of Art Academic Conventionalism Katrien Dierckx

155

Space for the People of Antwerp. Donations to the Academy Museum in their Urban Context ( 1800–1890 )

175

The Antwerp Academy in a Changing Art World. The Fate of Two Great Dutch Artists and Their Fellow Artists in the Nineteenth Century Saskia de Bodt

189

From Symbiosis to Autonomy. Teaching Architecture at the Antwerp Academy

205

Chronicle of an Art School : 1800–1899

Jozef Glassée

Piet Lombaerde

Jan Lampo

18th 17th 219

Dreaming of Rubens. The Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture in Antwerp ( 1663–1794 )

233

Peter Thys’ Foundation of the Academy : Comments on an Iconic Image

241

Peter Thys’ Foundation of the Academy : The Historical Materiality of the Painting

245

The Academy as Museum ? The Heritage Collections of the Academy and the Care for Them

253

An Illuminating Stroll through the Buildings of the Academy

273

Chronicle of an Art School : 1655–1799

281

An Academy for Our Time ?

287

Register of Names

297

About the Authors & Collaborators

Jan Lampo

Stephen McKenna

Dries Lyna

Beatrijs Wolters van der Wey

Piet Lombaerde

Griet Blanckaert & Veerle Stinckens Carolien van der Star

Dedicated to David Teniers and Ludo Lens.

Happy Birthday Dear Academy To mark its 350th anniversary and the 50th of its Fashion Department, the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp, together with Antwerpen Open, organized the Happy Birthday Dear Academy event that took place between 8 September 2013 and 26 January 2014. There were retrospective exhibitions in the MAS ( Museum aan de Stroom, organized by the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp ), the MoMu ( Fashion Museum ), and a temporay ‘academy’ ( Muhkademy ) in the M HKA ( Museum for Contemporary Art ). Besides that, there were artistic interventions and fashion photographs-on-containers in the streets ( 21st Century Outdoors! and Antwerp Icons ). The Academy hosted several ‘intra muros’ events, amongst which a drawing marathon, a two-day symposium on art education, and several historical and contemporary exhibitions with works of students and teaching staff, besides a selection of academy drawings from the 1940s by Gustav Metzger. The previous pages provide a selection of the many photographs taken during these events.

X-ray of Vincent van Gogh’s Still Life with Flowers, 1886–1887, oil on canvas ( Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo, the Netherlands )

Eric Ubben

Wrestling or Dancing ?

In the nineteenth century, more and more artists from abroad find their way to the Antwerp Academy. Among them there are Wilhelm Busch, whose Max und Moritz made him the father of the Western comic strip, Ford Madox Brown, who acted as a mentor to Dante Gabriel Rossetti and was thus the founder of the Pre-Raphaelites group, and Laurens Alma Tadema, famous for his huge historical scenes and a source of inspiration for filmmakers such as D.W. Griffith ( Intolerance ), Cecil B. DeMille ( The Ten Commandments ), and Ridley Scott ( Gladiator ). In 1877, John Sparkes, the director and reformer of the South Kensington Art Schools, who was commissioned to carry out a comparative study of the continental academies, has this to say about the Antwerp Academy : “I cannot speak too highly of the excellence of the drawings and paintings executed at this School.” 1 Sparkes was one of the co-founders of the Central School and the Royal College of Art ( 1896 ). In 1893, the British artists’ magazine The Studio lauds the pedagogics and the great discipline at the Academy, as well as the museums and the pleasant way of life in Antwerp. 2 Vincent Van Gogh’s stay at the Academy did not last as long as those of his predecessors Busch, Brown, or Alma Tadema. Furthermore, his short stay was eventful, to say the least.

Why did Van Gogh, then in his thirties, come to the Antwerp Academy ? After his troubled time in Nuenen and his pastoral work in the Borinage, Van Gogh wanted to start studying again. He had come to Antwerp in the first instance in order to study the works of Peter Paul Rubens. The Royal Academy of Fine Arts had a large collection of art works. Because there was no enrolment fee, Van Gogh not only took advantage of the presence of famous masterworks in the collection, but also availed himself of the teachers’ guidance, the models, and the comforts of the warm studios. The only problem was that that things just did not work out very well with Eugene Siberdt, who was Karel Verlat’s assistant.

Van Gogh had enrolled on 18 January 1886 and like all the other students who matriculated in the winter, he had to complete an assignment. Upon successfully completing this assignment, he would be admitted to the figure-painting classes. His classmate Victor Hagemand described him as nervous and restless, dressed in a simple blue smock and fur cap : “the paint literally dripped onto the floor”. He had already developed a robust style and a preference for a sombre palette. But outside his time at the academy, he discovered Japanese prints. Their colour and perspective helped him to develop a new visual language. The academic straightjacket and the traditional assignments interested him only marginally.

The pose of the wrestler was one of the standard assignments handed out at the painting class of the Antwerp academy, as he writes to his brother Theo. A small, somewhat surrealist painting from that time — a skull with a cigarette — is his ironic comment on this barren academicism. However, in the judgement of his teachers, The Wrestlers did not come up to academic standards. In a jury report dating from April / May, Van Gogh is referred to the ( lower ) class in “Drawing from plaster casts”. He did not actually wait to hear this verdict, for by then he had already moved to Paris.

All those years, it was thought that Van Gogh’s Wrestlers were lost. Until, in 2010, a restoration technician at the Kröller-Müller Museum came up with a still life with flowers, which at the time had not yet been attributed to Van Gogh with any certainty. A simple X-ray of the painting revealed two silhouettes beneath the flowers. Thanks to Van Gogh’s correspondence and a newspaper article from 1955, we already had a cautious reference with regard to the two silhouettes : they turned out to be two men in an artificial wrestling pose. The touch and shadow effects pointed to an obvious link to The Potato Eaters. In 2012, a team of researchers from the University of Antwerp and the Delft University of Technology provided a definitive answer to the mystery of the flower piece. It did indeed turn out to have been painted by Van Gogh. He had later overpainted the academy assignment.

Van Gogh’s attitude towards the academy was certainly ambiguous. A few months before his death, he wrote a letter to Theo in which he refers to the Antwerp Academy as “better and more profound” than the Paris Academy : “they work harder there”. Furthermore, 17

1

John Sparkes, 24th Report of the Science and Art Department ( 1877 ), 476–488.

2 Alick P.F. Ritchie, The Studio Vol. 1 / 25 ( 1893 ), 141–142.

3 Antwerp, Thursday, 28 January 1886 ; Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, Wednesday, 12 February 1890, in : Leo Jansen, Hans Luijten and Nienke Bakker ( eds. ), Vincent Van Gogh.

De brieven [ The Letters ] ( Amsterdam, Den Haag, Brussels, 2009 ).

in another letter to Theo, dated 28 January 1886, he writes that Verlat’s assignment had turned out rather well. 3 If Van Gogh’s stay in Antwerp was merely a footnote, are we allowed to ‘reclaim’ him for the history of the academy ? His ‘student days’ cannot have lasted more than a few weeks — probably the shortest student term ever! Yet Antwerp was an eye-opener for Van Gogh in various ways, for example, with regard to the Japanese prints.

For me, this “lost” academy work of Van Gogh’s is a wonderful metaphor for 350 years of pedagogical “wrestling” between the academicism and avant-gardes of the twentieth century. It is essential for this academy that there is interaction between past and present.

In the contradictions of this “wrestling”, I see a tremendous force. Contradiction paves the way for a mechanism that allows progress to start more radically. Looking back on the history of this school, it is remarkable how pioneers such as Henry Van de Velde, Jan Cox, Jef Geys, Fred Bervoets, Panamarenko, or Walter van Beirendonck managed to wrest themselves free of the ultra-traditional views of their teachers, most of them true academicians, such as Karel Verlat, Isidoor Opsomer, or Mary Prijot.

In other respects the Academy was way ahead of its time. One need only think of the international dimension that prevailed from the eighteenth century onwards, the way of running the institute, of evaluating the students, the foundation of the National Higher Institute, the conservation and restoration department, and the legendary fashion department … All the same, of course, at times the conservatism was truly shocking — which was, for example, Van Gogh’s own personal experience. His wrestlers do not really look like murderous fighting machines. From a different angle, they could even be interpreted as two gentlemen “dancing”, straight from a novel by Jean Genet.

Up till now, the history of the Antwerp Academy has remained largely unwritten. It is high time to look backwards and forwards. This book, Contradictions, is the chronicle of three and a half centuries of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts. It will be followed by a second part, Pro-positions, which will mainly address the current discourse about art education, as well as articulating proposals for the future. The two parts tensely interact. Just like Van Gogh’s wrestlers.

18

Alick P.F. Ritchie, “The Antwerp School of Art”, in The Studio. An illustrated magazine of fine and applied art, Volume I, London, 1893, 141–142

19

Alick P.F. Ritchie, “The Antwerp School of Art”, in The Studio. An illustrated magazine of fine and applied art, Volume I, London, 1893, 141–142

20

Johan Pas, Nico Dockx & Els De bruyn

The Tradition of Contradiction ( and Vice Versa ) Academies are ambiguous institutes. They teach art, although not everyone is convinced that this activity is useful or even possible. They have their roots in a remote past, but they work in the present ( and thus also shape the future ). They were particularly influential in pre-modern times, but in the twentieth century they often lost touch with artistic developments. While some art schools gradually chose to connect to current developments, others resolutely turned their back to them. The debate about “postmodernism” in the late twentieth century caught them in a paradoxical situation. A lot of academies ended up in a “postmodern” cultural context, without ever having been “modern”. Today this “timelessness” is a thing of the past and will never return. In the early twenty-first century, the traditional term of “academy” has been recycled within the trendy discourse of art theorists and curators. The spirit of the time heeds tradition. As an interactive and pedagogical model, the “academy” seems to inspire exhibition makers and biennials, while as a non-commercial environment for research and work it offers a stable alternative for the turbulent art market.

But it is precisely now that the Belgian government compels the same academies to “academicize”. They should develop more research-oriented projects and therefore enter into a closer cooperation with the universities. The artistic paradigm of individual expressionism is replaced by a collective-oriented conceptualism. The terms “research” and “joint venture” have completely displaced the terms “expression” and “personality”. Thus, like other social sectors of society, higher art education is in the process of changing. Whereas nowadays in Belgium, most courses on a higher academic level are being “integrated” and are acquiring university status, art courses are being accommodated in separate “Schools of Arts”. As a consequence, they find themselves in a no-man’s-land — a situation that has both advantages and disadvantages. In short, the statute of the art academy is today more ambiguous than it has ever been and that makes this the perfect moment to look back : it can help to define the academy’s current position and help to orient towards the future.

A critical perspective of the past, a thorough reflection on the present, and a well-founded view of the future are prerequisite ingredients for an equally prerequisite self-definition.

In this process, the memory and the expertise that the art school has acquired in the course of time should not be ignored, for they are the cornerstones for building a unique position in the contemporary artistic and pedagogical landscape. Furthermore, they are linked to a social potential. Today, the Antwerp Academy can be proud of a history that spans three and a half centuries. Its premises, collections, archives, alumni and staff bear the marks of this history — literally or figuratively. On the age-old site of the school countless stories lie dormant, waiting to be discovered and unveiled. And these stories all sound quite different — the story of this school is namely the story of its contradictions.

This dissensus is inherently its core business, for friction is the motor of art education.

One can never refer to a definitive understanding of what art education is, because — by definition — there should never be such a thing as a singular definition of art. How can one portray the “tradition of contradiction” without lapsing into simplification, nostalgia, or — worse still — self-glorification ? How can one narrate the past without paralysing the present ? How does one make it clear that the story of the academy is not a single unified story, just as there is no one single, unified view of art education ? It can only be done by presenting different views and different voices.

That is certainly the aim of the book you are holding. Contradictions. Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp ( 2013–1663 ) is the first part of a diptych. It provides the ingredients for a critical biography of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp. To this end we have invited sixteen authors to write a new text. Most of them are art historians and they are famous as experts in their field. Their essays are supplemented with an extensive historical chronicle, 21

and artistic and archival material, parts of which have never been published. Since it is in the first instance the recent past of the Antwerp academy that is mostly virgin territory, we have opted to reverse the traditional chronology and start with the twentieth century. Thus the reader goes back in time and only at the end of the story does he or she learn about the Academy’s foundation in the seventeenth century ( unless of course the reader consumes the book backwards, as if he or she were a motorist driving against the traffic ). In this historical narrative, the nineteenth century, as well as the accompanying institutionalization, professionalization and internationalization of the academy all play a key part. Rather than claiming to be the definitive story of the history of the Academy, Contradictions presents a state of affairs and seeks to point to the changing ideas about art and art education that were manifest in the previous centuries. These were often the result of social changes and they have to a large extent defined the current pedagogical practice. An insight into these historical processes enables us to recognize the traces that remain and, if necessary, evaluate them from a critical point of view.

The second volume — entitled Pro-Positions. Art and / as Education ( 1963–2013 ) — functions as a dialectical counterpart to Contradictions. The focus is not on the accepted model of the academy, but on alternative ways of thinking and various projects that can help provide divergent models for art and art education. Part One is about the Antwerp Academy of the past and the present, whereas Part Two provides a paper laboratory full of possible alternatives. In this instance, too, the backbone consists of some fifteen illustrated contributions, this time authored by artists and critics of international repute. The book is meant to be more than just the umpteenth “reader”. The sometimes-radical propositions put forth in Pro-Positions can enrich the debate about the current relevance of art education and its future. Furthermore, the propositions may show the relativity of the obvious character of accepted practices, for we are convinced that art education can still learn from the pioneering ideas and radical actions of thinker-artists such as Joseph Beuys, Michelangelo Pistoletto, Jef Geys, and Luc Deleu.

Both volumes, Contradictions and Pro-Positions, function as separate entities, yet they are closely connected. The link is visually stressed by a caleidoscopic sequence of images that documents the many events taking place in Antwerp and in the Academy during the Happy Birthday Dear Academy project ( 2013–2014 ). That means that the “here and now” literally performs the missing link between past and future, between thinking and doing, between pedagogical pragmatism and social utopia. As the two dialoguing panels of a dyptich, Contradictions and Pro-Positions complement and contradict each other. However, the mental space that is thus created between the two volumes in our opinion is far more important than the printed pages they encompass. Reflection without action is barren. It is therefore up to the reader to activate this space and define its scope.

22

20

th

Johan Pas

Castle or Cradle ?

Part 1 : Academy, Avant-Garde, Animism ( 1900 –1945 ) A LOST PAST The story of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp in the twentieth century has not yet been written. The few existing studies confine themselves to the history of its origin in the seventeenth century and to the developments in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.1 It is no coincidence that this is the era when fine art academies still had a major impact on the artistic discourse. Yet in the course of the twentieth century that impact decreases rapidly. As a consequence, it is perfectly possible to write a history of twentieth-century visual arts without for that matter referring once to the phenomenon of the academy. In the period since 1900, it even appears as if the academies have completely sidelined themselves and that, instead of being intertwined with the history of twentiethcentury art, their history simply runs parallel to it.

On the other hand, there is the phenomenon of the academy having enjoyed unexpected popularity in the world of contemporary art since the start of the twenty-first century.

Curators base their exhibitions and events on the “model” of the academy and in a variety of publications, experts discuss the new interconnections between art, pedagogy and research.2 Thus the previous century is turned into a conspicuous blind spot, a “lost past”.

The scope of this essay is of course too limited to fill this historical gap. In what follows, I try to link the evolutions that occurred within the walls of the Antwerp Academy during the course of the twentieth century to the international artistic developments that took place beyond them.

An art historical perspective on the Antwerp Academy provides the possibility to mark out lines of thought and trace patterns of thinking. Apart from providing an impulse for further research, this essay also intends to add a number of nuances. It is very hard, for example, to mention “academies” and “avant-gardes” without lapsing into clichés. In the course of time, these monolithic terms have become fraught with normative and subjective values. One of the goals of this text is therefore to add shades of grey to this comfortable black-and-white image. Understanding that “the” academy is less monolithic than the avant-garde would have us believe, and that “the” avant-garde is itself the result of oftencontradictory forces, may help in this respect.

As the avant-garde emerges within circles of Parisian painters in the mid-nineteenth century, it immediately takes a stance against the artistic establishment in which the Parisian Académie Royale des Beaux-Arts plays a crucial part. Together with the annual Salon, the academy embodied governmental interference in art and the deadweight of tradition, which weighed heavily on the practice of art.3 Commencing with the Salon des Refusés ( 1863 ), and in particular on the occasion of the first Salon of the Impressionists ( 1874 ), a polarization manifests itself, which, as the avant-garde gains in importance and wins followers, forces the academy and the official discourse into an increasingly defensive position. While avant-garde movements such as futurism and constructivism claim to be the voice of the future, the academies seem to retreat into their role as guardians of an endangered tradition.

Though most of the avant-garde artists from the nineteenth and twentieth century received an academic training, “academicism” emerges as the opposite of “modernism”.

Gradually, the term “academic” becomes synonymous with old-fashioned and obsolete.

Thus, as early as 1912, the Italian futurists were branding French cubism as “academic”.4 After the end of World War I, when a pedagogic-institutional equivalent of the avant-garde collectives and magazines first emerges with the Bauhaus, the classical academy definitely 25

1 Frederik Clijmans and Jacques Wappers, De Antwerpsche Academie ( Antwerp 1941 ) ; G.A. De Wilde, Geschiedenis onzer Academiën van Beeldende Kunsten ( Leuven 1941 ) ; L.Th. Van Looij, Een eeuw Nationaal Hoger Instituut voor Schone Kunsten te Antwerpen ( Antwerp 1985 ) ; L. Th. Van Looij, “De Antwerpse Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten”, in : Anton W.A. Boschloo et al. ( eds. ), Academies of Art between Renaissance and Romanticism ( ‘s-Gravenhage [ The Hague ] 1989 ) 302–319 ; Jan Lampo, Een tempel bouwen voor de muzen.

Een korte geschiedenis van de Antwerpse Academie ( 1663–1995 ) ( Antwerp 1995 ). For the histories of other art schools, see : Academie. 275 jaar onderwijs aan de Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten van Brussel ( Brussels 1987 ) ; Jan De Maeyer ( ed. ), De Sint-Lucasscholen en de Neogotiek 1862–1914 ( Leuven 1988 ).

2 Jan Brand et al. ( eds. ), The Art Academy of the 21st Century ( Groningen 1999 ) ; Bart De Baere et al. ( eds. ), A.C.A.D.E.M.Y ( Frankfurt am Main 2006 ) ; Steven Henry Madoff ( ed. ), Art School ( Propositions for the 21st Century ) ( Cambridge and London 2009 ) ; Paul O’Neill and Mick Wilson ( eds. ), Curating and the Educational Turn ( London 2010 ) ; Felicity Allen ( ed. ), Education ( London 2011 ).

3 Albert Boime, The Academy & French Painting in the Nineteenth Century ( New Haven and London 1971 ) ; Patricia Mainardi, The End of the Salon. Art and the State in the Early Third Republic ( Cambridge 1993 ).

4 “Les exposants aux public”, in : Les Peintres Futuristes Italiens ( Paris 1912 ) 3.

5 Guido Persoons, Greet Bedeer and Jean Buyck, Schone Kunsten in Antwerpen. De Koninklijke Vereniging tot Aanmoediging der Schone Kunsten te Antwerpen, sinds 1788 ( Antwerp 1976 ).

6 Brecht Deseure, Henk De Smaele, Guido Marnef and Bart Tritsmans, “Rubensmania. De complexe constructie van cultuur in heden en verleden”, in : Inge Bertels, Bert De Munck and Herman Van Goethem ( eds. ), Antwerpen. Biografie van een stad ( Antwerp 2010 ) 179–210 ; De Panoramische droom. Antwerpen en de wereldtentoonstellingen 1885–1894–1930 ( Antwerp 1993 ).

seems to be a thing of the past. While the socially committed artists and designers of the Bauhaus work for the future, the middle-class parlour painters of the academies seem stuck in the nineteenth century. The gap between these two different artistic ideologies and concepts of education becomes unbearable after World War II. In lots of countries, including the USA, the model of the Bauhaus meets with increasing success. Furthermore, art and art education are being confronted with a call for social relevance. With modernism and the artists’ belief in progress as the dominant ideology, art schools — which are generally still rooted in late-nineteenth century ideas of art and education — are forced to adapt to the rapidly changing spirit of the age. The academy shares this fate with another stronghold of artistic traditions, namely the museum of fine arts. In 1968, the latter, too, comes under fire almost everywhere in Europe.

Whereas some art schools are indeed open to new developments, others specifically try to stem the tide of progress. They consider modern art to be fashionable and thus by definition a temporary trend, and not worthy therefore of the attention of the guardians of tradition and technique. The question of whether or not modernist influences should be allowed to penetrate the walls of the academies leads to tensions within these institutions.

In the maelstrom of artistic and social developments that followed in the wake of the events of 1968, the academies themselves start to question a number of certainties. The friction between the conservative element, on the one hand, and the open-mindedness for artistic renewal on the other turns the academy into a battleground of artistic attitudes and interests. Indeed, a stronghold of traditions always contains the seed of criticism.

In fact, a dominant conservative ideology is a prerequisite for protest to emerge. In the studios of the academy there is a daily clash between the reference systems of teachers and students, of “traditionalists” and “experimenters”, of an older and a younger generation of artists. Ideally, this friction generates a discursive dynamics in which the various parties involved learn something from each other’s position. In such a case, the academy is not only a stronghold of traditional values, but also a cradle of alternative developments.

How has the oldest academy of the Low Countries responded to the challenges outlined above ? To answer that question, I will focus on the interwar period ( the period in which the avant-garde nears its cruising speed ), and on the period of the 1950s and 1960s ( the decades when modernity unquestionably penetrates all social strata, and the art schools are compelled to relate to these events ). How did the Antwerp Academy relate to the rapid artistic developments seen in Belgium after World War I ? In addition, we also explore the artistic effects on the thriving avant-garde in Antwerp and its international network.

I also raise the question of the external experimental influences to which the students and teachers were exposed. In this outline the Antwerp Academy emerges as a place of friction and encounters, as a place that inspires artists for post-academic initiatives. It will thus become obvious that the simple image of the Academy as a monolithic stronghold certainly deserves some nuance.

AN OLD ACADEMY, A YOUNG AVANT-GARDE Antwerp has long wallowed in the glorification of its past. While Brussels had a thriving avant-garde by the end of the nineteenth century, the Antwerp middle class cherishes an almost paralysing nostalgia for its glorious history. The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Fine Arts — whose Antwerp branch was founded in 1788 — played a major part in this attitude. With its board consisting of teachers at the Academy, it organises triennial salons and contests. It is also responsible for the purchases made by the Academy museum, and its policy towards new artistic developments is particularly conservative.5 While the city is indeed touched by progress in other domains, the legendary seventeenth-century Antwerp school of painting will continue to cast a long shadow.

For a prosperous port that is visited by lots of nations, this is a peculiar dichotomy.

It even continues to surface in the historicizing reconstruction of “Ancient Belgium” and the presence of Belgian Congo at the 1930 World Exhibition in Antwerp. This event sees Antwerp extolled as the “Hometown of Commerce and Art”.6 The Academy played a major part in this labelling of the city as the “hometown of art”. While Antwerp did not yet have 26

a museum of fine arts, the Academy functioned as the guardian of artistic heritage and glorious tradition. Conserving and exhibiting the creations of earlier generations in the Academy museum, as well as passing on the artistic traditions and the technicalities of the métier within the studios constituted the two sides of the academic medal. Prizes for students and the appointment of teachers underpin this policy, which in fact consists of a complex mixture of artistic views and political pragmatism.

Not surprisingly, the Antwerp Academy has a hard time waking up from the romantic Rubens dream. But the spirit of the age has changed and become treacherous. When the radical stance of Gustave Courbet and the realists of the mid-nineteenth century cause the first cracks to appear in this historicizing worldview, the effects are quickly felt in Antwerp. It is then that the first sounds of protest are heard at the Academy. In the mid-nineteenth century, it looks as if no unanimous artistic creed prevails within its walls.

The stronghold turns out to consist of several strongholds. Neoclassicism, romanticism and ( a moderate ) realism — the three dominant artistic ideologies of the nineteenth century, manifest themselves in the painting studios and among their supporters. That much is obvious from this fragment, for example, from the biography of the painter Nicaise De Keyser, which originally appeared in 1889 : “Because of the course of events, it came about that the studios of Wappers and De Keyser were set up as hostile camps — which was in fact only beneficial for the general progress of the School. But because Leys and De Braekeleer also had their champions, the evening classes, where everyone met in the evening, were often like the stage of a heroic combat, with a battle being fought for the honour of the belligerent studios”.7

Portrait of Gustaaf Wappers, carte de visite, ca. 1865 ; photographer unknown ( Archive Royal Palace, Brussels ) Portrait of Hendrik Leys, carte de visite, ca. 1865 ; photographer unknown ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp ) Portrait of Henri de Braekeleer, carte de visite, after 1873 ; photograph Joseph Dupont ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp ) Portrait of Nicaise De Keyser, carte de visite, ca. 1860 ; photograph : Joseph Dupont ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

In the meantime, the use-by date of romanticism has passed. A progressive group gathers around former student and teacher Hendrik Leys ( 1815–1869 ), who attempts to ease the school away from the romantic tradition and who knows — as a town councillor — which channels to address in order to ask for reform. On the group’s invitation, Courbet even comes over for a lecture on realism. The artistic policy of the director and ( romantically inspired painter ) Gustaaf Wappers ( 1803–1874 ) is criticized by this Cercle Artistique : “As if it had been planned, it was claimed that the Academy no longer met the requirements of the time. For a whole year this fire was fuelled. Factions and circles brooded on the prerequisite reforms that were demanded”, as G.A. De Wilde noted on the subject in his history of the Antwerp Academy.8 Not long after, in 1852, Wappers and his right-hand man Hendrik Conscience have had enough. Wappers is succeeded by the historical painter Nicaise De Keyser ( 1813–1887 ), but no programme reforms are carried through. In 1854 a proposal for reorganization is submitted. Amongst other things, it wants to do away with the directorship-for-life. From this it can be inferred that as early as the nineteenth century, the accumulation of power that results from occupying the position of director for so many years was considered an obstacle for reform. Various curriculum reforms are announced in 1855, which will even27

7 H. Hymans, Eeuwfeest N. De Keyser 1813–1913 ( Antwerp 1913 ) 24.

8 De Wilde, Geschiedenis onzer Academiën van Beeldende Kunsten, 89.

9 Henry Van de Velde, Geschichte meines Lebens ( München 1962 ) 22.

tually result in the founding of the Higher Institute of Fine Arts with its individual studios in 1885. The painter Karel Verlat ( 1824–1890 ) is appointed director that same year.

But while the heroic battle of the isms is taking place in the studios and within the higher echelons, and a lot of tinkering is going on with the curriculum and the organization of the academic programme, outside the school, the avant-garde is reaching cruising speed.

Impressionism breaks with nearly all the familiar traditions. In 1882, Edouard Manet’s Bar aux Folies-Bergère is on view at the triennial Antwerp Salon. Henry Van de Velde ( 1863–1957 ), a young student of painting, is particularly moved by the work. With a number of fellow students he founds the group Als ik kan ( If I Can ), a reaction to the fact that one was not permitted to exhibit one’s work at the Royal Art Society if one had not already participated twice at the Triennial Salons. Also in 1882, the Brussels group Les XX starts to exhibit the national and international state of the art at its annual salons held in the capital. There, in 1887, Van de Velde sees Georges Seurat’s pioneering Un Dimanche Après-Midi La Grande Jatte.

Even back in his student days, Van de Velde had already joined the pleinairist school of Kalmthout. In his autobiography he vents his poor opinion of the painting courses at the Academy, where, in the 1880s, pleinairism had not yet been accepted : “Can anyone imagine today that landscape painting is taught in a studio, in which all sorts of shrivelled trees are planted in a pile of sand, which are then — depending on the season — decorated with green or yellow leaves ?

For winter landscapes cotton wool is hung from the branches and plaster is scattered on the floor!” 9

Henry Van de Velde painting, ca 1890 ; photographer unknown ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

Jan Hendrik Luyten, A Session of the Art Society “Als ik kan” around 1885, 1886, oil on canvas ( KMSKA )

28

The audacious student who had been working in the open air anyway, while at the same time timidly adding a bit of violet here and there, was told by his teacher that “despite the influence of some movement or other”, the grass had remained unchanged and was, as a consequence, still green.

Van de Velde therefore hopes to learn more from director and animal painter Karel Verlat, who had personally invited him to his studio. Though Verlat had studied with Courbet and was favourably disposed towards pleinairism, Van de Velde leaves his studio and matriculates in Paris at Emile Auguste Carolus-Duran’s studio. In 1886 he is among the co-founders of L’association pour l’art indépendant, which like Les XX in Brussels, was intended to promote avant-garde art in Antwerp. Shortly afterwards he becomes a member of Les XX. By the end of the 1880s, the conflict with the Academy has become irreconcilable. On the occasion of the death in 1890 of his former teacher Verlat — who had gone senile — he cynically observes : “Verlat, the painter, at the head of this hospital, died of the disease he taught.” 10 Furthermore, Van de Velde charges himself with the posthumous promotion of Vincent Van Gogh. Van Gogh’s short, frustrating stay at the Antwerp Academy of course contributes to the reactionary image of the institute — an image that had not been corrected by the founding of the Higher Institute in 1885.

Portrait of Karel Verlat, carte de visite, ca. 1865 ; photograph : Joseph Dupont ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

Karel Verlat, Jef Van Leemputten, Frans Antoon Van Leemputten and others during a session of painting “en plein air”, ca. 1850 ; photograph : P.G. Van Renterghem ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

In the meantime, Van de Velde has become enraptured by the new potential of the decorative arts and the applied arts, which he learns about by studying texts by English theorists such as John Ruskin and William Morris. In the spring of 1893, he proposes that the Antwerp town council founds a Department of Applied Arts ( Enseignement des arts décoratifs ) at the Academy. The board of directors is open to the idea, but wonders if it 29

10

L’Art Moderne, 2 November 1890, quoted in : Jean Buyck, “Henry Van de Velde in perspectief”, in : Henry Van de Velde.

Schilderijen en tekeningen ( Antwerp 1987 ) 43.

11

Archive KASKA, Record of the meeting of the Board of Directors of KASKA, 4 March 1893.

12 Henry Van de Velde, Geschichte meines Lebens, 84.

is feasible.11 All the same, Van de Velde is commissioned to work out a curriculum and to start with a number of lectures about the subject. Van de Velde therefore begins to collect fabrics, reproductions and catalogues from Liberty, William Morris, and the Arts and Crafts movement.

13

“Première prédication de l’art”, in : L’Art Moderne, 28 January 1894, in : Henry van de Velde, Schilderijen en tekeningen, 234.

14

Ibid.

Portrait of Juliaan De Vriendt, 1925 ; photographer unknown ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

Juliaan De Vriendt, Jaïra’s Daughter, 1888, oil on canvas ( KMSKA )

In October 1893, some twenty Academy students attend his lectures. “There was nothing special to this assignment”, he later notes. His task comprised mainly of specifying the source and outlining developments : “I had only recently acquired knowledge in the field, so I could only proceed like a boy scout who, together with his comrades, explores regions that were once characterized by a flourishing life, but that now lay desolate and were overgrown with weeds.” 12 In his first lecture, Van de Velde calls on his young audience to radically transform art, in order for it to become once more relevant for a rapidly changing society. He supports a “unified” art, which must free itself of the cult of individualism and uniqueness. From that point of view, he lashes out vehemently against the so-called inferiority of the anonymous decorative arts : “Now then, tell me where the Fine Arts start and where they finish! And do you really have a reason to have scorned for so long the art industry ? For the liberal mind, the deceitful and harmful distinction between ‘Fine Arts’ and ‘Secondary Arts’ or ‘Industrial Arts’ has had its time.” 13 He makes no secret of his criticism of traditional art schools : “Nowadays, the training of artists and the organization of artists’ associations seems only aimed at covering oneself with honour and enjoying this voluptuously”.14 The lecture is published in three parts between December 1893 and January 1894 in L’Art Moderne. Today it is known as Van de Velde’s first essay on the applied arts.

But the artist has not given up his plan to create a fully-fledged department of decorative arts within the Academy. Amongst other subjects, his programme includes “the creation of 30

new forms based on new motifs” through the practice of drawing.15 In November 1893 his proposal once more comes up for discussion at the Academy. However, it is considered too vague and too closely linked to a vocational industrial training. Moreover, his appointment was prematurely announced in L’Art Moderne.16 After a year of silence, the Antwerp Council of Aldermen finally decides that there are insufficient funds to realize the project.17 End of story. Van de Velde finds a more willing ear at the Université Nouvelle in Brussels. A few years later he will be at the base of the post-war Bauhaus with his Kunstgewerbeschule ( School for Arts and Crafts ) in Weimar. The rest is history.

A TURN OF THE CENTURY WITH DEL AY The “Van de Velde case” reveals the close link that exists in the nineteenth century between the board of the Academy and the Antwerp town council. In fact, the impact of the town on the school recurs as the leitmotif in the twentieth-century history of the Antwerp Academy. By rejecting Van de Velde’s proposal, the Academy and the town miss their appointment with the twentieth century. As a consequence, this twentieth century arrives at the premises of the Academy with great delay. The rapid artistic developments that start to manifest themselves in the period around 1900 seem to pass over the Academy.

Jules Schmalzigaug ( 1882–1917 ), the first ( and only ) Belgian futurist, studies briefly at the Antwerp Academy in 1901, but after a stay in Germany, he quite sensibly moves over to Brussels. In 1910 he writes : “It’s odd, but in Antwerp they seem incapable of doing something that isn’t rude — they lack a broad, grand view of things”.18 Like Van de Velde, the talented and ambitious Schmalzigaug prefers to move to the more internationally oriented Brussels, only to later go abroad.

Painting studio in the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp ; third on the left is Jozef Peeters, 1910 ; photographer unknown ( location unknown )

That should come as no surprise. In the early twentieth century the board of the Academy is dominated by conservative and even reactionary artists. Juliaan De Vriendt ( 1842–1935 ), a painter of religious scenes and a Catholic minister, is appointed director in 1902 and will remain in his job for two decades. Jozef Peeters ( 1895–1960 ), one of the pioneers of abstract painting in Belgium, recalls how nineteenth-century academicism still prevailed in 1909.

Eventually he rebelled against De Vriendt’s extremely traditional views : “In the day classes of governor Juliaan De Vriendt — Painting after a life model — I had suddenly had enough. I bullied the teacher and they flunked me for my entrance exam for the Higher Institute because I had painted an eccentric pointillist torso — the assignment had been an art pompier painting. I stayed away from the classes and I started to explore things on my own. I read and taught myself, and I’m glad things turned out this way”.19 Curiously, despite his pointillist escape, Peeters was laurelled the following year as the best of his class. To a certain extent, apparently, the later avant-gardist could also be pragmatic.

31

15 Van de Velde, Geschichte meines Lebens, 86.

16

Archive KASKA, Record of the meeting of the Board of Directors of KASKA, 11 November 1893.

17

Archive KASKA, Record of the meeting of the Board of Directors of KASKA, 26 March 1895.

18 Quoted in : Jules Schmalzigaug 1882–1917 ( Brussels 1985 ) 19.

19

Paul Joostens, letter to Maurice Casteels, 8 October 1920, in : Jozef Peeters ( Antwerp 1978 ) 12–13.

20

Georges Vantongerloo, Autobiography, 1961, in : Georges Vantongerloo ( Brussels 1981 ) 22.

21 In Dienst van de kunst. Antwerps mecenaat rond “Kunst van Heden” ( 1905–1959 ) ( Antwerp 1991 ) 13.

Georges Vantongerloo ( 1886–1965 ), another standard-bearer of the Belgian avant-garde and the only Belgian artist to become a member of the group around the radical Dutch avantgarde magazine De Stijl, attended the academies of Antwerp and Brussels. Vantongerloo is certainly less negative about the sculpture classes at the Antwerp Academy : “My studies at school and at the Academy were inextricably linked with Euclidean geometry. Something similar was true of my teachers. The term ‘space’ was essential and ‘volume’ was invariably the basic concept of every argument. Our model was Greek sculpture. I worked hard, because the work interested me. [ … ] The meaning that was attached to the term ‘space’ didn’t satisfy me. I didn’t feel convinced, though I didn’t know how to express this feeling. Yet studying at the Academy was such a pleasant occupation, that my work unconsciously bore the marks of the hard work and the atmosphere of that time.” 20

Poster art exhibition Kunst van Heden. Tentoonstelling van kunstwerken voormalig Museum Venussstraat, 1905, chromolithograph ; design : Richard Baseleer ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

From Vantongerloo’s statement it is also obvious that lessons at the Academy were still very classical and traditional at the beginning of the twentieth century, but that does not imply that the school is entirely unconnected to contemporary art. In 1905, Kunst van Heden — an association of artists in Antwerp — selects the “former museum” of the Academy in the Venusstraat to present its first group exhibition. The panelling and the lighting of the exhibition hall are drastically changed for the occasion. The space is entirely covered in green ; on view is work by modernist painters and sculptors, such as Constantin Meunier, George Breitner, James Ensor, George Minne and Theo van Rysselberghe. However, the exhibition arouses particularly little interest.21 The subsequent salons organized by the Kunst van Heden group take place with more splendour in the municipal reception hall.

Several teachers from the Academy, such as Walter Vaes, Emiel Vloors, Albert Van Dyck, 32

and Antoon Marstboom will gradually join Kunst van Heden, or present their works at the salons. At the time, the Kunst van Heden group can doubtlessly be considered “modernist”, but because of its pluralism and eclecticism, it could hardly be termed “avant-garde”.

In Antwerp the term “avant-garde” is a label that can only be applied to some initiatives that take place after World War I. As a matter of fact, for some years it does indeed look as if the artistic maelstrom of the early twentieth century has finally reached the Antwerp art scene. A number of former students of the Antwerp Academy play a crucial role in these events — the fact that some of them met each other at the Academy is beyond question.

In 1917, Oscar Jespers, Floris Jespers and Jos Leonard ( all former students ) found the Bond zonder gezegeld papier ( The Society without Sealed Paper ), together with Proper de Troyer and Paul van Ostaijen. A year later, Jozef Peeters ( another former student ) and Leonard found the Kring Moderne Kunst ( Modern Art Circle ). Like Van de Velde some two decades earlier Peeters, too, devotes himself to a closer collaboration between artists and designers with the aim of achieving a collective “communal art”.22 In 1920, at Peeters’ invitation, Theo van Doesburg, the founder of De Stijl, presents the lecture entitled “Classical, Baroque, Modern” in the Lutgardis Hall in Antwerp. In his lecture, the Dutch avant-garde painter advocates an “absolute art of painting” and lashes out at the academies that endlessly dish up a “baroque” language — which results in a “crippling imitation of worm-eaten artefacts”.23

Portrait of Isidoor Opsomer in his studio, ca 1910 ; photographer unknown ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp ) Isidoor Opsomer, Portrait of Camille Huysmans, 1927, oil on canvas ( KMSKA ) Isidoor Opsomer standing next to his state portrait of King Albert I, undated ; photographer unknown ( KASKA )

That same year, Peeters’ group seeks contact with the group around the Antwerp expressionist magazine Lumière with the idea of founding an artists’ syndicate. One of the editors of Lumière is the modernist critic Roger Avermaete ( 1893–1988 ), who will later play an important part in the Antwerp Academy as both teacher and secretary. But at that time the school is still radically opposed to all avant-garde art. In 1922, when Peeters and his avant-garde comrades want to organize an international exhibition in the Museum of Fine Arts, the entire teaching staff of the Academy put a spoke in their wheel. As a consequence, Peeters has to seek other venues for the exhibition, such as the Royal Atheneum, one of the state grammar schools.24 Another important actor on the Antwerp avant-garde scene is Paul Joostens ( 1889–1960 ).

Joostens begins his studies at the Antwerp Academy in 1906 and after graduating in 1911, he enrols at the Higher Institute — together with later modernists such as Floris and Oscar Jespers, Henri Van Straten and Jan Kiemeneij — in order to study monumental arts. Before long Joostens becomes a follower of futurism and dadaism and thus, by definition, an enemy of academism. In a letter to Lumière editor Roger Avermaete, he refers to the suspension of lessons and the fact that vacancies for teachers are left unfilled in the aftermath of the Great War. His laconic conclusion : “What a pleasant surprise! First close the thing, then demolish it ?” 25 In a later text, Joostens elaborates his fundamental criticism of the academicians.

Because it very aptly describes the gap that separates the views of the avant-garde around 33

22 Johan Pas, “Het netwerk 1920–1940”, in : Hans Theys ( ed. ), Mo(u)vements.

Kunstenaarsbewegingen in België van 1880 tot 2000 ( Antwerp 2000 ) 38–45.

23 Theo Van Doesburg, Klassiek Barok Modern ( Antwerp 1920 ) 20.

24

Dieter Vandenbroucke, Dansen op een vulkaan.

Victor J. Brunclair als representant van de activistische tegentraditie in de Vlaamse letteren ( 1899–1944 ) ( Antwerp 2012 ) 287.

25 Paul Joostens, letter to Roger Avermaete, in : Jean Buyck ( ed. ), Paul Joostens.

De cruciale jaren. Brieven aan Jos Leonard 1919–1925 ( Antwerp 1995 ) 38.

26 Paul Joostens, manuscript ca 1940, in : Paul Joostens ( Antwerp 1978 ) 48–49.

27 Roger Avermaete, Herinneringen uit het Kunstleven, Vol. II, Tochten in de artistieke jungle ( Brussels 1953 ) 91.

1920 and the artistic ideology of the Academy, the text is worth quoting from : “In their view, painting in a way is the same as eating, or as impressing someone by wielding a brush, without thinking about what you are doing and limiting yourself to things that are visible. In vain you confront them with the old masters, like for example Botticelli : it is only visual and objective things that matter to them — it is a matter of transposing reality. As it happens, anywhere in the world contemporary painting specifically seeks to be the opposite of this concept. But in general the public sticks to familiar values and has its doubts when faced with a Picasso, questioning the artist’s sincerity. On the other hand, people are attached to portraits, to still lifes, to landscapes painted by acclaimed artists. Nothing shocking in this work, nothing that troubles the mind, nothing audacious, no horizon to escape to.” For Joostens, art classes at the Academy are formalistic and materialistic : “Art teaching is very simplistic — it’s all about size and proportions, that’s all. What’s missing is the gift of creation. It is just matter, there’s no soul, no spirit. It would not do justice to our time if to bear witness to its spirit we had only a few portraits of merchants and ministers, skilfully done.” 26

First year painting class conducted by Isidoor Opsomer, 1936 ; photographer unknown ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

AVERM AETE VERSUS OPSOMER Joostens’ reference to “a few portraits of merchants and ministers, skilfully done”, might well relate to Isidoor Opsomer ( 1878–1967 ), with whom he had studied painting.

Patronized by the social democrat politician Camille Huysmans ( 1871–1968 ) and other people of importance, the painter Opsomer carves out an impressive career for himself at the Academy in the first decades of the twentieth century. In 1906 he starts teaching painting at the Academy and in 1919 at the Higher Institute. After missing out on the chance of a promotion to the role of director of the Academy — with one of the reasons being opposition from the Kunst van Heden group — he is eventually appointed director of the Higher Institute in 1926 by Huysmans ( who as a government minister had become head of the Department of Arts and Education ). Ten years later he will succeed Emiel Vloors ( 1871–1952 ) as director of the Academy. According to Avermaete, Walter Vaes ( 1882–1958 ) — an influential member of Kunst van Heden — and Opsomer were rivals to succeed Vloors. It was probably Vaes who saw to it that Opsomer’s work was never on view at the salons of the Kunst van Heden group.27 Opsomer manages to get rid of the leaden heritage of the nineteenth century. From an artistic point of view, it is under his guidance that the Academy enters the twentieth century. On the other hand, he also leaves a heavy mark on the artistic climate and the cultural aura of the school. Opsomer had started out with impressionist landscapes and city views, before devoting himself entirely to portrait painting in the 1920s. That he was the “official painter” par excellence during the interwar years can be inferred from the numerous state portraits he paints, but also from his inclusion in almost all the official selections for exhibitions of Belgian art abroad. The fact does not escape the international press. On the occasion of the Venice Biennale in 1934, with the “inevitable” Opsomer among the Belgians selected to represent their country, Le Rouge et le Noir writes : “Throw him out of the house by the 34

door, and he will enter by the window, the coal hole or the drainpipe. Opsomer, the man who chats up ministers and politicians with his cajolery, the flatterer of the conceited. Opsomer [ … ], who has talent all the same, [ … ] talent for machinations.” 28 Opsomer’s position and his policy are hardly contested. Yet one voice is heard openly criticizing him : the voice of writer and art critic Roger Avermaete. In 1933, Avermaete starts teaching history of art at the Higher Institute. Though he does not himself belong to the radical avant-garde, he is well informed about the latest artistic developments. In 1925, he is one of the co-founders of Lumière, a French-language magazine and publishing house that provides a forum for progressive writers and artists in Antwerp. In the mid-1920s, Avermaete publishes Moderne Kunststrekkingen ( Modern Trends in Art ), one of the first books in Dutch to vulgarize avant-garde art.29 In it, the author outlines the developments of modern art since impressionism. Fauvism, futurism, cubism, neoplasticism, purism, constructivism, expressionism, dadaism, and surrealism pass in review, along with some other long forgotten isms. What strikes us in this small encyclopaedia of the avant-gardes is the complete absence of Belgian artists. Around 1920, Avermaete is in contact with the champion of abstract art, Peeters, but after a conflict the two drift apart. Furthermore, in the early 1920s, Lumière increasingly shifts its interest towards Flemish expressionist woodcut art.

Portrait of Roger Avermaete, undated ( 1930s ) ; photographer unknown ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

Avermaete is quite vocal about his criticism of Opsomer and does not hide his doubts about his artistic relevance : “Once I gave a lecture for the students and former students of the Academy. I talked for example about Leys and the many accolades he had received in his lifetime. He was awarded the greatest honour in Paris in the years Manet and his friends were denied access to the Salon.

And I presented them the question, ‘Where is Leys now and where is Manet ?’ Opsomer was among the public. It’s only afterwards that I realized how strongly my remarks pained him”.30 Opsomer is indeed a technically gifted, fashionable painter, who acquires a reputation in the 1930s with imposing portraits of writers, dignitaries and the well-to-do. According to Avermaete, he displays great skill in playing up to ministers and high-ranking officials : “There is no doubt that Opsomer was a diplomat who preferred the company of bankers and ministers to that of artists, who often behaved loutishly, whereas he was the embodiment of courtesy”.31 Furthermore, he is always on guard to know what is happening with whatever prize, scholarship or honour is being awarded. When the Prix de Rome is exceptionally awarded to a student of another school, he contacts the Deputy Secretary of Fine Arts personally, because in his view the prize should have gone to the Academy.32 It is not so much Opsomer’s lobbying, but rather the cult of technical virtuosity under his directorship that vexes the modernist Avermaete. He claims, for example, that at the entrance exams only the firmness of the candidate’s gesture is taken into account, and not the observations of the art history teachers. Consequently, Avermaete clashes frequently with the traditionally minded Opsomer, who is apparently extremely sensitive to the slightest criticism.33Avermaete calls the 1930s teaching practice at the Academy “obsolete” 35

28 Le Renard Boiteux, “A la Biennale de Venise.

Comment la Belgique tue son prestige à l’étranger”, in : Le Rouge et le Noir, 23 January 1935, 3, quoted in : Virginie Devillez, Kunst aan de Orde.

Kunst en politiek in België 1918–1945 ( Brussels and Ghent 2003 ) 39.

29 Avermaete, Moderne kunststrekkingen ( Antwerp 1925 ).

30

Idem, Herinneringen uit het Kunstleven, Vol. II, 92.

31 Idem, Tussen beitel en penseel. Over schilders, beeldhouwers, graveurs en tekenaars ( Tielt 1973 ) 40.

32

Idem, 36.

33

Avermaete, Herinneringen uit het kunstleven, Vol. III, Van specialisten, kenners, paedagogen en andere artisten ( Brussels 1955 ) 40–41.

34 35 36 37

Idem, 41–42.

and failing to live up to expectations. “He [ Opsomer ] has certainly done his best to get rid of the barren academicism that still prevailed at the time of Juliaan de Vriendt. That is why I initially praised the institute. But at a certain moment I was struck by the discrepancy between the achievements at school of some of the students, and their later work. Often I warmly greeted the arrival of a new star, which some time later turned out to be a simple meteorite. If such a phenomenon recurs frequently, one starts thinking. If possible, one wants to find out its cause”.34

Idem, 42.

Idem, 42.

Idem, 55.

Avermaete is hard in his judgement about the artists who leave the Higher Institute in the period between the wars. He attributes their poor results to the students’ lack of “intellectual qualities”, and to the lack of something that could counterbalance their technical skills. He observes that at the Academy, the idea prevails that art is a non-intellectual occupation : “In the studios the teachers readily proclaim ideas about being an artist by the grace of God, about great artists that were blockheads — but that is simply heresy that is contradicted by the entire history of art”.35 In the painting classes, the students seem merely interested in observing things and reproducing them. “Whenever in a lesson I happen to address the organization of a painting, I see in their eyes that the problem is alien to them. They are bemused when I tell them that the painting of an old master can also be translated into abstract values and that, if we do so, the structure of the composition and the colour harmony will perfectly hold. They are only interested in rendering the subject as well as possible. To me, this purely sensory approach, which is linked to a praxis that is only based on skill, seems to be the main reason why in the end this teaching is so barren.” 36

Luc Peire, Studio in the Higher Institute, 1935, oil on canvas ( Archive Jenny and Luc Peire, Knokke )

Because most of the young painters opt for Opsomer’s classes, he invariably has twice as many students as the other painting studios and thus his leverage is felt throughout the entire school. Avermaete therefore reproaches the school for attaching too much weight to painting at the expense of other classes, which are considered to be of hardly any importance. On the occasion of an exhibition in the Higher Institute, he writes : “In my view, the current system, which is mainly based on outward skills, does not meet the demands we are entitled to impose on our artists. Empirical individualism may yield good results in some cases, but it is not a pedagogical system. And it is certainly unsuitable for collective manifestations. [ … ] The school could help tremendously with the aesthetic and technical education of the students, if only for example by helping them to acquire more insight in the problems. Virtuosity is not what we need.

Leading young people back to humble truths — what a beautiful and essential task! For as things stand now — whatever is being said — we turn around blindly, without knowing where we are going”.37

36

In fact, Avermaete knows what he is talking about. Impressed by the new design — the so-called Art Déco — at the Exposition des Arts Décoratifs in Paris, he and a number of other artists from the Lumière group decide in 1925 to found a new art school. In 1926 the Vrije Akademie , school voor decoratieve kunst ( Free Academy, a School for Decorative Arts ), opens its doors. Its name apparently led very quickly to the conclusion that the school was in competition with the Royal Academy : “There was the impression that we even deliberately hung our posters next to those of the respectable institution ( probably by making use of the power of gold and bribing the billposters! )”. 38 There are studios for bookbinding, the graphic arts, decorative painting and batik, interior design, typography and even dance, as well as theoretical classes on architecture, painting, the graphic arts, literature, theatre, circus and music hall, film, music, typography and aesthetics. But the curriculum soon turns out to be too ambitious for the students, who in Avermaete’s view came insufficiently prepared.

In 1928 the school changes its name to become the Vakschool voor Kunstambachten, ( the Vocational School for Arts and Crafts ), and the curriculum ( which offers evening classes only ) is radically altered. The school initially meets with a lot of opposition from the existing art schools. Avermaete calls his school “a personal experiment” and “a lab in which the methods of proceeding are changed as soon as it turns out that they do not lead to the intended aim”.39 In short, in the Antwerp of the interwar period, Avermaete’s alternative school emerges as the opposite of Opsomer’s Academy. Over the years it is to move several times ( and undergoes changes to the curriculum ). What strikes us is the list of names of the members of staff, which includes several modernist painters and graphic artists of some repute, such as Rene Guiette, Paul Joostens, Jos Leonard, Jan Kiemeneij, Joris Minne, Edmond Van Dooren and Henri Van Straten.40 Some of them are former students of the Academy. Avermaete pleads vigorously against the fragmentation of Belgian arts and crafts education, and for a co-operation that transcends the parties and disciplines. The traditional model of the art school with its focus on painting and sculpture seems to come under heavy fire in the mid-1920s. In the wake of the Bauhaus, architecture, urbanism and integrated art provide a fresher approach to the new technical and visual potential of the twentieth century.

Around the time that Avermaete founded his arts and crafts school, the indefatigable Camille Huysmans contacted Henry Van de Velde ( who had emigrated ) and asked him to return to Belgium and start a school for the decorative arts. Huysmans’ initiative must have met with a lot of opposition from the Belgian academies, but the school, which was housed in the Cistercian Abbey of Ter Kameren, was still able to open in 1928. The concept behind this “Belgian Bauhaus” is much more modern than the Antwerp Academy and the school is much larger than Avermaete’s arts and crafts school. Among the teaching staff there are artists with a modernist reputation, such as Oscar Jespers, Joris Minne, Huib Hoste and Victor Bourgeois.41 The “liberal arts” come second to the applied arts and architecture.

Advertising, book design, scenography and architecture set the tone. During the interwar years, the Higher Institute for Decorative Arts and the Antwerp Academy are at opposite ideological poles — despite the fact that both are housed in a former monastery. Opsomer’s emphatic focus on painting and sculpture in the 1930s may be a response to the policy of the “Belgian Bauhaus”.

ANIMISM AS ACADEMICISM One of the most eminent abstract painters of post-war Belgium is Luc Peire ( 1916–1994 ), who studies painting at the Higher Institute from 1936 to 1939. Looking back on his student days, he reminisces : “When I started studying, there were just three possibilities : Opsomer, Van de Woestijne and Walter Vaes. For me, there was actually only one : Van de Woestijne. His work seemed more important to me and I thought I would get along with him better. But he only turned up in the institute perhaps four times and even then he hardly made the effort of looking at his students’ work.

I didn’t learn anything from him”.42 It is around that time that Peire also spontaneously contacts the expressionist painter Constant Permeke ( 1886–1952 ). Peire starts painting with Permeke and claims that even the latter’s slightest hints are able to help him to progress.

Opsomer, Van de Woestijne and Vaes, the three tenors available for Peire to choose from in the late 1930s, all represent a cautious, quiet sort of painting that radiates the sacred values of tradition at a time when the avant-garde itself is in crisis.

37

38 39

Idem, 99.

Idem, 105.

40 Avermaete, Vijfendertig jaar kunstonderricht in de Kunstambachten 1926–1961 ( Antwerp 1961 ) s.p.

41 Robert L. Delevoy, Maurice Culot and Anne van Loo, La Cambre 1928–1978 ( Brussels 1979 ).

42

Luc Peire ( Antwerp 1995 ) 17–18.

43

Paul Haesaerts, Retour à l’humain. Sur une tendance actuelle de l’art Belge.

Animisme ( Brussels and Paris 1941 ), and Georges Marlier, Vingt années de peinture et de sculpture en Belgique. La génération de l’entre-deuxguerres ( Brussels 1942 ).

See also : De Generatie van 1900. Animisten Surrealisten ( Antwerp 1966 ) ; De Generatie van 1900 in Nederland en België ( Venlo 1979 ) ; De animisten ( Brussels 1979 ) and De innerlijke stilte. De animistische tendens in de Belgische sculptuur rond 1940 ( Brussels 1996 ).

In the 1930s, the artistic ideology of the Antwerp Academy, which had always remained aloof from the avant-gardes, finally tunes in to the artistic spirit of the age. Most of the staff teaching painting and sculpture at the time are influenced by “animism”. Jozef Vinck ( 1900–1979 ) and Albert Van Dyck ( 1902–1951 ) are especially connected with the movement. Animism — which only got its name in 1942 from Paul Haesaerts ( 1901–1974 ), the painter and critic ( and former student of the Academy! ) — is associated with the so-called “generation of 1900”. It stands for a moderate modernist, figurative art of painting, which concentrates on traditional genres, such as portrait, landscape and still life.43 Intimacy, a humanist sensitivity and a style that is borrowed from late nineteenth-century post-impressionism make it a sort of respectful synthesis of tradition and mild modernity.

The iconography is dominated by landscapes, still lifes, nudes and portraits. Animist sculpture applies itself mainly to stylized and idealized ( female ) nudes. Sculptors who are somehow connected to the movement and studied at the Antwerp Academy include Ernest Wijnants ( 1878–1964 ) and the early Mark Macken ( 1913–1977 ).

Teaching staff of the Academy and the Higher Institute, with Isidoor Opsomer, Richard Baseleer, Walter Vaes, Gustave Van de Woestijne, and others, 1936 ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

Jozef Vinck, Landscape, oil on canvas, undated ; donated in 1942 ( KMSKA )

When Opsomer is made a Baron in 1940, his friend and fellow townsman, the writer Felix Timmermans ( 1886–1947 ) delivers a lengthy lecture. In it, he situates his friend with regard to the “excesses” of modern art : “This sense of beautiful reality, the fear of fantasy, of philosophizing and theories, has saved him from the excrescences that have given modern art appendicitis because of its lust for experiment. He did not take part in the futurism of hooks and lightning 38

and floating noses, he did not take part in confetti luminism and he did not take part in cubism with its nightmares of squares — even an eye or the toilet seat had to be square. He did not take part in broomism, which caused tubes and towers to tumble under the influence of drink. Nor did he take part in blasism, which turned beautiful nude women in a captive balloon. He only took part in one ism : truism, realism. He paints from life. He paints things and people as he sees them with his eyes — not with the words from books”.44

Albert Van Dyck, Girl from De Kempen, oil on canvas, undated ; purchased in 1940 ( KMSKA )

In the 1930s, the “excrescences” of expressionism, cubism, futurism, constructivism, dadaism and surrealism are considered obsolete. The slightest cubist or expressionist distortion is resolutely rejected. Abstraction and surrealism are passé. In the years following the Wall Street Crash, art — and that includes international art — is characterized by a crisis of the avant-garde and a “retour à l’humain”. In that sense animism is a sort of postmodernism — before the term had been coined — as were the contemporary movements of new objectivity and magic realism. However, unlike new objectivity, which had a sharp edge to it, animism is entirely harmless because of its apolitical, timeless and aestheticizing character. The movement can smoothly connect therefore to the aesthetic views that take hold from the mid-1930s onwards in the name of a “return to order”. Later, it was able to merge equally smoothly with the institutionalized art of the totalitarian regimes.45 In May 1939, hardly four months after the German invasion of Poland, the German exhibition Huisraad en Leven in Duitsland ( Household Equipment and Life in Germany ) opens in Antwerp. The exhibition is organized by the German Kunstdienst, a government department that deals with art, and presents a survey of design and interior art that reflects the official Nazi cultural policy. The accompanying brochure features images of a “Hitler-Jugend Haus” and a holiday boat owned by the leisure organization Kraft durch Freude ( Strength through Joy ). Among the members of the board of patrons of this unadulterated manifestation of propaganda we find the names of the social democrat mayor Camille Huysmans, as well as those of officials from the Antwerp art institutions, such as Cornette and Muls, curators at the Royal Museum of Fine Arts, as well as Opsomer and Vloors, from the Academy and the Higher Institute.46 Exactly one year later, in May 1940, when Belgium is attacked, Huysmans will have to make a hasty escape to England. Opsomer, however, remains aboard his ship — and steers it into safe waters. Unlike the “subversive” Bauhaus, 39

44

Felix Timmermans, Isidoor Opsomer : een voordracht te Lier bij zijn benoeming tot Baron ( Antwerp 1943 ) s.p.

45 See : Devillez, Kunst aan de Orde.

46

Huisraad en Leven in Duitschland ( Antwerp 1939 ).

47

Archive KASKA, record Board of Directors KASKA, 20 July 1939.

48

See : Devillez, Kunst aan de Orde, 165–170.

49

Georges Marlier, Die Flämische Malerei der Gegenwart ( Jena 1943 ) 66–69.

50 Nikolaus Pevsner, Academies of Art. Past and Present ( London 1940 ) ; Frederik Clijmans and Jacques Wappers, De Antwerpsche Academie ( Antwerp 1941 ) ; G.A. De Wilde, Geschiedenis onzer Academiën van Beeldende Kunsten ( Leuven 1941 ).

51 Clijmans and Wappers, De Antwerpsche Academie, 6–7.

which had already been closed in 1933, the Antwerp Academy is left in peace throughout the entire time of the German occupation, except of course for the obligatory inspections with regard to the presence of Jewish students and teachers. But then of course, there have never been any subversive avant-garde practices at the school …

On the contrary. The views of the occupiers had penetrated the Academy long before the actual occupation. In July 1939, the influential art critic Georges Marlier ( 1898–1968 ) is appointed lecturer in the ‘History of civilizations’.47 Initially, Marlier had been a fierce advocate of the Antwerp avant-garde. With Avermaete, he had sat on the editorial board of the magazine Lumière, and later of the dadaist avant-garde magazine ( and publishing house ) Ça ira. In 1926 he became editor-in-chief of the modernist art magazine Le centaure.

Even at that early stage, he has more sympathy for Flemish expressionism. In the 1930s he follows in the footsteps of the French critic Waldemar George and increasingly tilts towards the neohumanist aesthetics of animism, eventually subscribing to the cultural views of the New Order. During the war years he writes art columns in the collaborationist press ( in Le Soir and other newspapers ) and he organizes exhibitions.48 In 1943 he also publishes an anthology ( in German ) of contemporary Flemish art, i.e. the art approved of by the occupier. In this book he devotes four pages of text ( full of praise ) and an equal number of pages with reproductions to Opsomer.49 Marlier situates Opsomer’s portraits in the tradition of seventeenth-century masters such as Frans Hals, Diego Velázquez and Anthony Van Dyck. He also refers to Opsomer’s role as director of the Academy and the Higher Institute. The fact that Opsomer’s rival at the Academy, Walter Vaes, has to make do with a single page and just the one reproduction must have been pleasing to Opsomer.

Georges Marlier, undated, 1930s ; photographer unknown ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

In those turbulent days, the past seem a safe haven. In the early 1940s, Nikolaus Pevsner publishes a major monograph on the phenomenon of the art academy.50 But apart from Pevsner’s study, two more books are published that feature the Antwerp Academy : De Antwerpsche Academie ( The Antwerp Academy ) and Geschiedenis onzer Academiën van Beeldende Kunsten ( History of our Academies of Fine Arts ). In his preface to the first book ( which presents a particularly positive image of the Academy ), Opsomer presents the following romantic and ideal image of his role as a teacher and “mentor” : “Everyday I meet young people.

I observe how gifted boys, some of them hesitantly, others boisterously, set their first steps on the path of art. I see how they overcome difficulties, how they cope with disillusionment, how they slowly come out of their shell and look back with satisfaction on the years of efforts, and how finally, they score their first success. [ … ] Is there a more rewarding soil imaginable in which to sow the seed of ambition than this impassioned heart of young people, who feel called upon to serve in all honesty the ideal of beauty ? Is there a more pleasant task imaginable for an artist than to help orient the ideas of those who, tomorrow, will hold aloft the flame of art ? Yet this task is also delicate. [ … ] To bring order to confused concepts, to correct exuberant urges, to teach the technique of craftsmanship — all that is especially what justifies the presence of the faithful mentor”.51 40

On the subject of the Higher Institute, the authors of the same book have this to say : “Nothing remains of the cold academicism that was justly criticized in the past. Nowadays, the personality of each student is treated with respect ; the role of the teacher is limited to alerting the student to affected gestures or formulas that are incompatible with the student’s temperament. This great freedom has resulted in a surprising diversity that characterizes the work of the novices and has added greatly to achieving success in the grand national contests”.52 Among the illustrations, there is a photograph of a “student in her studio”. The student is Anna Zarina ( 1907–1984 ), who is the author of the portrait of a woman hanging next to her. Zarina is of Latvian origin and starts studying with Opsomer in 1937. After the war she will be the first student to be awarded the Camille Huysmans Prize ; later she will teach painting at the Academy. Almost all of the other works reproduced are portraits, most of them by Opsomer’s students. Apart from these portraits, there is also a religious scene, a landscape, a still life, a nude and a study of an animal. All of these works bear witness to great technical skill and bathe in a timeless, quiet atmosphere. There is no trace of modernity, nor of the squabbles that characterized the twentieth century.

List of prizewinners Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp, academic year 1941–1942 ( KASKA )

The second book, Geschiedenis onzer Academiën van Beeldende Kunsten is more critical. To conclude his survey of the Belgian art academies, its author De Wilde, launches what is — bearing in mind the reactionary spirit of the age — an unexpectedly vehement appeal for a more contemporary approach towards art education in Belgium. His analysis is sharp, his conclusion firm. He claims that there is one big problem the academies face, and that is their fear of anything new. That is also why they are being challenged : “The management, the authorities and the supervisory board — they all of them dread anything new. In our academies only those artists are tolerated who are representatives of the established styles. As such the Academy supports only that which has already been accepted by society and the thought of experimenting fills them with horror. Consequently, the academies stay where they are, while styles evolve continuously outside. Without fear of being contradicted, we can claim that in our time the academy only partially fulfils its role — it counts as nothing more than a ‘school’. It only teaches skills and has lapsed into a meekness from which it has had to be woken several times in the course of its existence. The vehement attacks it has to endure and the extreme contempt with which it is treated by some ultras — a sign of youthful recklessness — are perhaps merely the result of a reaction against its docility ?” 53 41

52 53

Idem, 35–36.

De Wilde, Geschiedenis onzer Academiën van Beeldende Kunsten, 173–175.

54

Idem, 173–175.

The focus on skill and virtuosity make the academy blind to possible alternatives, he states : “Technical virtuosity is a means for the artist to articulate his ideas, to express them in a material form, to brush them in colour. But this academic skill should not be linked to models from a golden, distant past. Perhaps the return to more primitive forms, inspired by art from people who live at one with nature, is therefore simply a reaction against this academic character of standard formulas ? We should leave young artists the freedom to express their ideas with personal means. The one-sidedness of our education system must make way for a multi-faceted engagement with the current aspirations of art. Instead of forcing the students to look centuries back into the past, we must provide a direct link with modern trends.” De Wilde therefore justly wonders what art education will be like in the future : “How will the academy adapt to current trends ? That is hard to predict. To fulfil its task thoroughly, the teaching staff of the academy should be the embodiment of the art of the present — and certainly not of yesterday’s art. Only then is there a chance that through its influence, art will blossom, free of all degenerative influences, whether these are the result of cliquism or profit seeking.

Then perhaps the day will come when we needn’t look for a renewal of art in a place like Barbizon, but in a well-adapted, progressive academy”.54 Despite the fashionable reference to “degenerative influences”, De Wilde’s appeal for a “well-adapted, progressive academy” in fact sounds rather daring in the context of the occupation and censorship. In 1942, a year after the publication of the book, former Academy student Jan Cox ( 1919–1980 ) has his first solo exhibition in Antwerp. The authorities at once remove a number of “degenerate” works. A year later, Cox and his fellow painters Marc Mendelson and Rudolf Meerbergen show their work in the gallery Lamorinière. The works on view break with the prevailing standards of animism. The exhibition is closed by the authorities, but it moves to the Palace of Fine Arts in Brussels. There, in Brussels, the seeds are sown for a comeback of young Belgian art. The tremendous impetus of the Prix de la Jeune Peinture Belge, which entirely defines the art discourse in post-war Belgium, is therefore a Brussels affair — it will completely bypass Antwerp and its Academy.

42

Johan Pas

Castle or Cradle ?

Part 2 : Academy, Neo-Avant-Garde, Postmodernism ( 1945–1989 )

1

Archive KASKA, report board KASKA, 11 June 1945.

2

Denise de Weerdt and Wim Geldolf ( eds. ), Camille Huysmans, Geschriften en documenten, deel 6A. Huysmans en de cultuur ( Antwerp 1979 ), 163–165.

3

Het Belgisch Staatsblad, 22 August 1945.

Portrait of Constant Permeke in his studio, 1948 or 1949 ( photograph : Emmy Andriesse ) ( University Library Leiden, Collection management Emmy Andriesse )

HUYSM ANS VERSUS PERMEKE In June of 1945 the Academy’s Board of Directors meet in the office of the governor of the province of Antwerp. One of the items on the agenda is the fate of the teachers who had been appointed under German occupation. Georges Marlier, who had been convicted of cultural collaboration, is immediately removed from his job as a teacher. However, the main item on the agenda is the situation of the Academy and the Higher Institute.

Mayor Camille Huysmans, vice-president of the Board, voices his concern over the fact that the term of the mandates of the director Isidoor Opsomer and the administrator Jacques Wappers have come to an end. He sees no suitable candidates to replace them, and is afraid that improvisation may lead to a precarious situation. He therefore tries to plead with the minister to extend the term of their office for at least one more year, so that there is time to look out for suitable successors.1 But Opsomer’s actions are the subject of debate.

The fact that he painted the portraits of the provincial governors Jan Grauls and Frans Wildiers during the war is resented by some.2 Furthermore, the education minister, the liberal Auguste Buisseret ( 1888–1965 ), has other plans for the school. He wants the painter and sculptor Constant Permeke ( 1886–1952 ) to become director.

At the time, Permeke has acquired great fame as the most eminent representative of Flemish expressionism. His appointment would certainly inaugurate a time of modernization for the Academy. Much against the will of the Board, the vacancies of director and administrator are announced in the Belgisch Staatsblad, the official journal that announces laws and vacancies for government offices, etc.3 Behind the scenes, however, intense negotiation is taking place. Permeke is not particularly anxious to get the job in Antwerp. In the end, he complies with Buisseret’s request, but only on the condition that he can continue living in the village of Jabbeke and does not have to move to Antwerp, 43

4

Archive KASKA, report board KASKA, 9 August 1945.

5

Jan Hunin, Het enfant terrible Camille Huysmans 1871–1968 ( Amsterdam, Antwerp 1999 ), 404.

6

Felix Timmermans, Isidoor Opsomer : een voordracht te Lier bij zijn benoeming tot Baron ( Antwerp 1943 ) s.p.

7

Anon., “Permeke tot bestuurder van het Hooger Instituut voor Schone Kunsten benoemd”, Het Handelsblad, 11–12 August 1945.

8

Roger Avermaete, Permeke ( Brussel 1970 ), 231.

9

Idem, 235.

10 Archive KASKA, report board KASKA, 15 April 1946.

11 Avermaete, Permeke, 235.

12

Idem, 236.

and that he can appoint the administrator of his own choosing. That turns out to be his friend, the writer and critic Roger Avermaete, who is already teaching History of art at the Academy. Huysmans tries to block Permeke’s appointment in every conceivable way. He insists with the minister that the mandates of Opsomer and Wappers be extended.4 What motivates the Antwerp mayor ? His reasons are probably both personal and ideological.

He was very friendly with Opsomer. When upon his return from London in 1944, he finds his house looted and burnt out, it is Opsomer who puts him up in his own home for an entire year.5 In addition, he is profoundly averse to avant-garde art ( which he considers elitist ) and he has a particular dislike of Permeke’s work. According to Avermaete, he once described Permeke’s paintings as “shitification” — a view that was not shared for that matter by Opsomer. Opsomer owned work by Permeke and according to his friend Felix Timmermans, he had been influenced by Permeke for some time.6 In early August 1945, i.e. before the vacancy had officially been announced, a few newspapers prematurely announce Permeke’s appointment as “Director of the Higher Institute of Fine Arts”. And while they are at it, some editors put some spin on their announcement.

Het Handelsblad warns of the danger of epigonism : “Mr Permeke is one of the most controversial painters of modernism : he is enthusiastically adored by some, but not less enthusiastically reviled by others. Be that as it may, we would regret it if Mr Permeke were to wield as strong an influence over his students as Baron Opsomer does.” 7 Permeke is appointed on 15 September 1945, but his official assignment drags on due to Huysmans’ stalling tactics. In the end, Huysmans and his board have to give in. Permeke becomes the effective head of — as Avermaete puts it — “the oldest institute, whose buildings as well as mentality need a serious overhaul.” 8 Shortly before, the buildings have been damaged by the nearby impact of a V-bomb and there is a problem with water entering the building. As a result, parts of the art collection have been lost. Though the Belgian state financed the personnel and the maintenance of the buildings, the city of Antwerp became the owner of the site in 1939 after a long judicial procedure. However, in 1945, the council claims that it does not have the funds for the necessary repairs. During the years of occupation the staff has dwindled and a large number of vacancies are waiting to be filled. In short, there is a lot to be done. According to Avermaete, Permeke “is an entirely new sort of director. It is not often that we see him in Antwerp.

What sense would it make to come to have a look at the general deterioration of the classrooms — most of them are too dilapidated for use. He has only paid us a few brief visits, but on the other hand, he sends a lot of letters — in an authoritative handwriting, interspersed with pithy remarks — to his administrator, friend and representative, who will only be here for some time, just like him.” 9 Permeke contemplates a number of reforms, for example making it harder to pass the entrance exams. To improve the quality of the teaching, he proposes to introduce an enrolment fee ( to which Opsomer had always objected ), and to increase the age at which students can enrol from twelve to sixteen.10 The to-do list also includes abolishing the old practice of painting animals : “What are we going to do about the animal classes ? Shall we start with the beasts all over again, or have we had enough of them around ?” 11 Permeke not only heads the school, but also the painting department. Obviously pleased, Avermaete lauds the sudden change of style : “He has to take over the studio of Baron Opsomer, the champion of technical skill. Instead of teaching the then fashionable rules that produced such meagre results, he has a chat with the students. He kindly makes an effort to make clear that the problem of painting is in first instance a problem of the mind. And the youngsters listen with surprise, for they are not used to this sort of talk. But who is most surprised ? The know-alls that had peddled everywhere : ‘the new master is a rustic and the only thing he will do is produce a series of small Permekes’. But the strange man plainly declares that he will not hesitate to show the door to anyone who tries to imitate him.” The terror that the anti-academic modernist had inspired turns out to be groundless : “He is absolutely not an iconoclast who destroys everything on his way. On the contrary, he offers the paternal advice to observe nature attentively : an excellent means, he says, by which to learn a thing or two.” What is more, Permeke’s expert knowledge is not limited to painting : “As president of an examining board for architecture, he starts to talk after keeping silent for hours on end. He explains his ideas, much to the surprise of the teachers, who are not used to a response from the director. This is beyond them. They have the impression — and they are not the only ones — that something has changed in the familiar setting.” 12

44

The staff also needs some urgent modernizing. Gustave Van de Woestijne ( 1881–1947 ) stops teaching for reasons of health, and Permeke asks the Brussels painter Victor Servranckx ( 1897–1965 ) to take over Van de Woestijne’s Decorative Painting classes in the Higher Institute.13 Considering prior events at the Academy, this is not an obvious choice.

Servranckx has a reputation for being one of the pioneers of abstract painting in Belgium.

In 1921 he starts painting entirely non-figurative geometrical compositions, which are later exhibited at home and abroad, as well as being featured in renowned avant-garde magazines. In the second half of the 1920s a surrealist element sneaks into his oeuvre. In 1932 he started to teach “History of Art and Art Initiation” in the evening classes at the academy in Elsene. Whilst in the USA, in 1939, he had personally met the former Bauhaus teacher Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, who was busy founding his School of Design in Chicago. During the war years, like all other abstract painters, Servranckx had no other option but to paint traditional landscapes.14 To invite this thoroughbred avant-gardist to the school thus implies a sudden break in style with regard to the pre-war staff policy.

At first Servranckx reacts positively : “I didn’t hesitate for a moment, because I had the impression that it would finally be possible to realize something that was better. In fact, the course was right up my street, because I could teach students on an advanced level, students that were completing their education at the Institute under your guidance. I didn’t hesitate, because I knew I could achieve a high level with this course. Only those who are not familiar with the developments of my work in recent years and who consider my constructive period merely as ‘decorative play’ could doubt these words.” 15 Later, when it turns out that Permeke can only offer him the course entitled “Organization of the Pictorial surface and Colour Harmony”, Servranckx considers this a course for “beginners” and he declines Permeke’s offer — unless, he stipulates, he can also teach at the Higher Institute. Permeke inquires whether he can suggest names to fill the vacancies for teaching “Stained-Glass” and “Domestic Interiors”, but Servranckx replies that he cannot help him out, because by his own account, he mingles little with artists these days and above all, because “the qualified technicians must be Flemish, which reduces the number of those who are eligible.” 16 Permeke urges him to be patient and to wait until the vacancy is official : “In my view it is sufficiently clear that we must proceed slowly and systematically, and in your case teaching both courses is interesting, so please, confirm to me your consent.” 17 Indeed, in October 1945, Servranckx’ name now also features on the list of candidates for new appointments, for the course in “Organization of the Pictorial Surface and Colour Harmony”.18 In May 1946, Avermaete officially informs Servranckx of his appointment for this course.19

Camille Huysmans and Léon Stynen, undated, 1950s ( photographer unknown ) ( Private collection, Rumst )

Of course, Huysmans had not reconciled himself with the situation. He contested the ministerial decision and even questioned its legality in public.20 In October, Avermaete’s role as administrator had been declared vacant, and the job had been assigned to Marcel Schiltz.21 Permeke thus loses his faithful assistant. In the meantime, applications had been submitted for the role of director. With the aim of undermining Permeke’s position, Huysmans and the Board recommend architect Léon Stynen ( 1899–1990 ) as director of the Department of Architecture, which is thus de facto separated from the Department 45

13

I want to thank Sergio Servellon, who drew my attention to this fact and who brought me into contact with Servranckx’ correspondence.

14 Eric Pil ( ed. ), Victor Servranckx en de abstracte kunst ( Brussel 1989 ), 36–38.

15

Archive Eric Pil, K.U.Leuven, Correspondence Victor Servranckx 1922–1962 : Victor Servranckx, letter to Constant Permeke, 12 September 1945 ( photocopy ).

16

Ibid.

17 Archive Eric Pil, K.U.Leuven, Correspondence Victor Servranckx 1922–1962 : Constant Permeke, letter to Victor Servranckx, 16 September 1945 ( photocopy ).

18 Archive KASKA, report board KASKA, 12 October 1945.

19

Archive Eric Pil, K.U.Leuven, Correspondence Victor Servranckx 1922–1962 : Roger Avermaete, letter to Victor Servranckx, 28 May 1946 ( photocopy ).

20 Archive KASKA, report board KASKA, 12 October 1945.

21

Archive KASKA, Municipal Executive Antwerp, minutes 26 October 1945 and report board of directors KASKA, 19 October 1945.

22

Archive KASKA, Municipal Executive Antwerp, minutes 7 December 1945.

23

Archive KASKA, Town Council, minute 27 December 1945 and copy letter, 3 January 1946.

24 Archive Eric Pil, K.U.Leuven, Correspondence Victor Servranckx 1922–1962 : Constant Permeke, letter to Victor Servranckx, undated ( photocopy ).

25 Archive Eric Pil, K.U.Leuven, Correspondence Victor Servranckx 1922–1962 : Victor Servranckx, letter to Constant Permeke, 22 September 1946, and to Roger Avermaete, 31 October 1946 ( photocopy ).

26 Anon., “Dhr Permeke neemt ontslag als directeur van het Hooger Instituut en Academie voor Schoone Kunsten te Antwerpen”, De Nieuwe Standaard, 27 September 1946.

of Visual Arts. Despite Stynen’s explicitly modernist profile, Permeke strongly dislikes the idea of a co-director.22 In a secret session, the town council confirms Stynen’s appointment and in January 1946, the Academy is informed of the fact.23 When, because of a cabinet crisis, minister Buisseret is finally succeeded by the social democrat Herman Vos ( 1889– 1952 ), Permeke’s fate is sealed. Though he is still appointed as director, Vos also appoints Stynen as director of the Department of Architecture. Permeke decides to take matters into his own hands and resigns. In a letter to Servranckx, he sets forth the reasons for his resignation : “Because we have already deviated a lot from that which I had been promised and because they now want to impose a second director ( architect ) on me with the same prerogatives as myself, which I cannot accept. Hence I have also come into conflict with the minister, after they had denied me my administrator. One management — one dedication. If I have to do a job, I have to be able to do it well, or I don’t do it at all. Now they are standing there, offering me a dish of baked pears — but they have done everything they possibly could to make the ruin complete, and that’s what they got.” As an aside he adds : “I have no idea what will be the stance of the teachers we have appointed when they hear I have resigned.” 24 When Servranckx informs him that he is not interested in teaching “Organization of the Pictorial Surface and Colour Harmony”, Permeke’s modernization offensive seems to come to a standstill.25 But the painter does not take the matter to heart and concentrates on his artistic career. Avermaete, too, refuses to let the affair get on top of him. In 1946, with some like-minded friends, he founds the Antwerps Genootschap voor Schone Kunsten — the Antwerp Society of Fine Arts — which will organize exhibitions and publish the magazine Artes. In the press there is little about Permeke’s exit. Only the Nieuwe Standaard asks questions with regard to his resignation and its effect on the future of the Academy : “We wonder why Mr Permeke resigned and how the vacancy will be filled. At the same time, we want to point out that only fifteen of the twenty-three vacancies that came up after the liberation have been filled. Furthermore, the classrooms are still in a state of disrepair, a situation that is not conducive to learning.” 26

Anna Zarina, Self-portrait, oil on canvas, undated ( First Prize Painting Mayor Camille Huysmans 1946 ) ( present owner unknown, photograph : KASKA )

46

27 Johan Pas, “‘De beste schilderij van het jaar’. Een kritische terugblik op de Prijs Burgemeester Camille Huysmans 1945–1993”, in : De Terugkeer van Camille ( Antwerp 2003 ) s.p.

Isidoor Opsomer in the class of painting after a live model, 1944 ( photographer unknown ) ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

MODERNISM BEYOND THE WALLS Huysmans gets what he wants : by the end of 1946, Baron Opsomer is once more firmly in the saddle. A year earlier, furthermore, the mayor had received a gift of one million Belgian francs from an anonymous Antwerp diamond dealer by way of thanks for the work done by the Correspondence Office for the Diamond Industry. Huysmans donates the money to the town council, which approves of his proposal to establish an annual prize for painting with the interest on the money. Between 1946 and 1959, the Prijs voor Schilderkunst Burgemeester Camille Huysmans ( Mayor Camille Huysmans Prize for Painting ) will be the ultimate reward for painters graduating from the Higher Institute, i.e. for those students that are adherents of a figurative, moderately modernist sort of painting.27 The prize is considered quite prestigious and thus becomes an additional instrument in the promotion of an “Opsomerian” art concept ; it will consecrate academic animism, which remains the “official style” of the Antwerp Academy until far into the 1950s. While in post-war Belgium the Prix de la Jeune Peinture Belge was established, and the Cobra movement and abstract art meet with increasing success, post-war academicism positions itself increasingly outside time. And that attitude does not change when Opsomer retires in 1948 : his successor is Julien Creytens ( 1897–1972 ), one of Opsomer’s former students and a traditional painter himself. Apart from exercising influence through the Camille Huysmans Prize, Opsomer also retains his seat on the Board of the Academy.

Julien Creytens, Still life with fish, undated ( purchased in 1936 ), oil on canvas ( KMSKA )

With the modernist Stynen as head of the Department of Architecture, the conditions are fulfilled for a thorough renovation of the obsolete and derelict premises of the Academy.

During his term as director, the two exhibition spaces of the Academy, the so-called Winter Garden and the Long Gallery are drastically modernized. In the first half of the 1950s, a new, austere, modernist building is added to the site. Yet the impressive glass façade does 47

28

Hans Theys & Paul Ilegems, “From Memory”.

29 Paul Ilegems, Bervoets’ Burchtse jaren ( Zwijndrecht 2008 ) 33.

30 Maarten Liefooghe ( ed. ), “Een brief van Jef Verheyen aan Jean Buyck”, De Witte Raaf 138 ( 2009 ) [ http ://www.dewitteraaf. be/artikel/detail/nl/3397 ].

not hide that the school is wrestling with the spirit of the age. The artist Panamarenko, who studied at the Academy in the second half of the 1950s, remembers that his teachers continued to paint dark landscapes and views of the River Scheldt, and that they hated Van Gogh and Picasso.28 It was around the same time that the painter Fred Bervoets overheard a teacher claiming that Permeke was a “painter of shit”.29 The artist Jef Verheyen remembers that he had gone to the Academy to present a translation of texts by Paul Klee, which he had made with the aid of a young Dutch artist : “We were ridiculed and all our work was thrown away before our eyes.” 30 In short, within the walls of the Academy there prevails an anachronistic image of art that is still rooted in post-impressionism and animism.

The world of contemporary art is — literally — outside, beyond the walls of the Academy.

Students are not encouraged to show their work in public. An exception to the rule appears to be the Brussels sculptor Olivier Strebelle ( born 1927 ), a former student of Ter Kameren who is linked to the Cobra movement and teaches at the Academy and the Higher Institute between 1953 and 1961. The Department of Monumental Art, which is headed by Julien Van Vlasselaer ( 1907–1982 ), also seems less stuck in traditions. This is the department from which Jef Verheyen will graduate.

Anna Zarina and Julien Creytens, undated ( 1950s ) ( photographer unknown ) ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

The Long Gallery as exhibition space, 1960–1961 ( photograph : Julien ‘t Felt ) ( KASKA )

In a way, the artistic malaise at the Academy seems symptomatic of the cultural malaise that affects Antwerp after World War II. Except for the enlightened initiative by Mayor Lode Craeybeckx ( 1897–1976 ) to establish an open-air museum in Middelheim Park in 1950, there is simply nothing happening on the Antwerp art scene. John Trouillard and Hubert Lampo describe the painful situation in their monograph on Antoon Marstboom, the painter and teacher at the Academy : “It has become a cliché to argue that since the last war the former art metropolis of Antwerp has ostensibly descended to the level of a provincial town without any artistic aspirations whatsoever. Despite the efforts — both laudable and courageous — of some groups 48

and a few official initiatives, the artistic climate that prevails in ‘the wise city’ results on average in a rather shapeless vegetation that is the fruit of the cross-fertilization of amateurishness and third-rate art.” 31 The authors also observe that a number of Antwerp artists have left the banks of the River Scheldt to settle on those of the River Zenne : in Brussels there is the Palace of Fine Arts, there are international art galleries and there is a public that is interested in art.

They make it clear that in Antwerp modern artists are doomed to “the spiritual life of a hermit” : “It is obvious that the work of those solitary individuals hardly ever meets with the response to which its inner power in fact entitles it. That is especially true in this day and age, when a ‘Flemish art’ is widely acclaimed that complies with the demands of a petty bourgeois aesthetics that is infected with reminiscences of the ‘blood and soil’ ideal of fascist ‘aesthetics’ — an art that has an almost comical predisposition to social realism, which, for some, is the true way to the future …” 32

Jef Verheyen in class of ceramics, ca. 1953 ( photographer unknown ) ( Archive Jef Verheyen, Heffen )

While the references to “Flemish art” and “petty bourgeois” aesthetics perfectly apply to what is being taught at the Academy at that time, the phrase “social realism” seems to refer to Huysmans’ views on art. On the occasion of his opening address for the prize named in his honour, the mayor comments that the prize “seeks to contribute to the flourishing of a Flemish art of painting that is rooted in an historical tradition.” To emphasize his point, he lashes out at “the modernist acrobatics” of contemporary painting. In his account of the ceremony, critic Piet Sterckx notes : “Mr Huysmans also mentioned modern painting and called it ‘the madness of the abstract’. To explain his view, he added, ‘I know what is behind it’. Actually, we would have liked to know as well, but a clarification of that point had not been scheduled in this Camilliad.” 33 Another critic quotes from Huysmans’ tirade against abstract art : “No matter what is said nowadays, painting is anything but improvisation. The madness that has come over the world will pass. This experiment will come to nothing.” 34 Yet critics are not convinced by what they see : “Nothing lacks at this exhibition : neither the nude female, squeezed in an uncomfortable position, nor the bowl of fruit, nor the pseudo-artistic interior. A flaky imitation of Rik Wouters hangs next to a trompe l’oeil and the most daring work vaguely calls forth Picasso’s Demoiselles d’Avignon. [ … ] It is almost unbelievable that in AD 1959 it is still possible that young people with a certain education bother to produce such dull and hackneyed art, or that they cut themselves off from the spirit and the expressive means of their age. In short, it is almost unbelievable to exhibit such fundamental narrow-mindedness.” 35 With “the madness of the abstract”, Huysmans probably refers to the works that are on view at the World’s Fair in 1958 in Brussels, where a magnificent survey of half a century of modern art can be seen and the American pavilion hosts the paintings of the abstract expressionists. It is probably no coincidence that after 1959, the Camille Huysmans Prize is not awarded for some years.

In the year of the World’s Fair, the Ministry of Education publishes a fine brochure about the Academy and the Higher Institute. The latter is even described as an “art university”.

Pleasant views of the garden and the studios, as well as proud photographs of the exhibition spaces and the library are designed to awaken the public’s interest in the beautiful campus.

Within a stone’s throw of the Academy that same year, the artist’s initiative G58 opens in 49

31

John Trouillard and Hubert Lampo, Marstboom ( Antwerp, Brussels 1952 ) 7.

32

Idem, 8.

33

Piet Sterckx, De Nieuwe Gazet, 19 October 1959.

34

Anon., Het Handelsblad, 19 October 1959.

35 Anon., Gazet van Antwerpen, 21 October 1959.

36

G58–Hessenhuis ( Antwerp 1973 ) ; G58–85 ( Antwerp 1985 ) ; G58 ( Schilde 2008 ) ; Johan Pas, “G58 : Een gevechtsmachine tegen de achterlijkheid”, Hessenhuiskrant 3 ( 2008 ), 4–5 ; Jan Ceuleers, Nieuwe kunst in Antwerpen 1958–1982 ( Antwerp 2012 ).

the sixteenth-century Hessenhuis. Most of the founding members are former students of the Antwerp Academy : Paul Ausloos, Pol Bervoets, Andre Bogaert, Mark Claus, Lutgart De Meyer, Jan Dries, Vic Estercam, Vic Gentils, Daan Graafmans, Walter Leblanc, Pol Mara, Cel Overberghe, Louise Servaes, Jan Strijbosch, Filip Tas, Wim ( aka Wannes ) van de Velde, and Dan Van Severen. The programme mainly features abstract art, experimental poetry and jazz.36 Only a few months before the droll presentation of laureates for the Camille Huysmans Prize, the exhibition Vision in Motion was on view in the Hessenhuis, with works

by Yves Klein, Jean Tinguely, Daniel Spoerri, Heinz Mack, Otto Piene, and Gunther Uecker.

This exhibition contained the seeds of the most radical neo-avant-gardes of the 1960s.

The Hessenhuis, which presents itself as centre of modern art, is within a stone’s throw from the Academy. Between these two poles, there is the area of the Stadswaag, with a variety of bars frequented by artists. In the late 1950s the area turns into a vital meeting place for artists, writers and musicians. Various magazines provide a platform for experimental work by poets and writers. G58 breeds a number of dissident ( or otherwise ) spin-offs, such as De Nieuwe Vlaamse School ( New Flemish School ) — founded by Jef Verheyen — and Onderaards ( Underground ) — an initiative led by Serge Largot. Gallery Ad Libitum capitalizes on this dynamic and presents exhibitions with internationally reputed artists from Italy and Germany. In the 1960s, alternative bars such as De Muze and Het Pannenhuis show work by young artists and organize jazz and folk events. G58 is partly to thank for the fact that the Antwerp art world seems to reawaken.

André Bogaert in his studio at the Higher Institute, 1953 ( photograph : De Soomer ) ( KASKA )

Reading room of the Academy library, undated ( mid-1950s ), front right ( in the light jacket ) Walter Leblanc ( photographer unknown ) ( KASKA )

50

One of the founders of G58 is the painter Walter Leblanc ( 1932–1986 ). Leblanc is a leading exponent of the post-war avant-garde. In his notes from 1967 he looks back on his Academy classes : “What remains important : I learned how to draw, paint, engrave, how to make ceramics ; I discovered the library. [ … ] In his [ Marstboom’s ] classes we had to render volumes with charcoal on white paper. [ … ] Education : traditional and formal. Interest in all disciplines. The basics were never wasted. [ … ] Parallelism : refusing the simple means the painter has at his disposal ( the traditional raw materials ) — at odds with the primacy of painting with oils — all media are equal. [ … ] I still considered drawing the most important means of expression. Refusal to consider painting as a means of expression that is above all other disciplines. My admiration for cubist collages dates from that time. [ … ] 1951 : the abstract gouache I made in Guiette’s class ; the graphic starting point of all my current work! But this particular gouache was a one-off experiment, an aside to figurative works — first abstract drawing, but starchy.” 37

Teacher Antoon Marstboom in his painting class, undated ( mid-1950s ) ( Archive Jan Marstboom )

Antoon Marstboom, Composition in red, undated ( purchased in 1960 ), oil on canvas ( KMSKA )

It is quite remarkable that Leblanc does not paint his first abstract work at the Academy, but in the studio of René Guiette ( 1893–1976 ). At that time the modernist Guiette teaches painting in Avermaete’s arts and crafts school, where Leblanc is taking evening classes in “Bookbinding”. But at the Academy, the painting classes are not all sorrow and misery.

Antoon Marstboom ( 1905–1960 ), Leblanc’s other teacher, turns out to be a dissident amidst the prevailing “Opsomerianism”, because of his knowledge of, and interest in, modern art. What is more, he makes abstract paintings — and that truly makes him the odd man out among the teachers. Rumour has it that he stimulates his students to look beyond the walls of the Academy and to visit exhibitions, such as those in the Hessenhuis. Marstboom’s biographers explicitly refer to his pedagogical qualities : “For them ( the youths ) it must feel like a solid backing to be able to study with him : he is still so close to young people, he knows what enthuses his pupils, he is filled with the idea of avant-gardism, he knows everything about the art of the past and 51

37 Anne Adriaens-Pannier ( ed. ), Walter Leblanc 1932–1986 ( Brussel 2011 ), 15–16.

38 Trouillard and Lampo, Marstboom, 13.

39

Hedendaagse schilderen beeldhouwkunst in Duitsland ( Brussels, Ghent, Antwerp 1961 ).

present, he is open to all art of our time, figurative or non-figurative, provided it is devoid of amateurism and eccentricity without intellectual background, provided it does not merely reflect a fortuitous whim of fashion — it should be the man who talks to us. Marstboom himself once copied the plaster cast of Phidias at the academy — he learned how to walk there, [ … ] he is in contact every day with this so often ( and not unjustly ) maligned institution, and yet he has never become an academician.” 38

40

Mark Macken.

Beeldhouwer 1913 / 1977 ( Antwerp, 1979 ).

MODERNISM WITHIN THE WALLS

41

Johan Pas, “Museum zonder Muren. Historiek & actualiteit van het Middelheimmuseum”, in : De Middelheim Collectie ( Antwerp 2010 ), 28.

Stynen’s new exhibition space was inaugurated in the early 1950s. With its 900 square metres, it was one of the largest galleries for contemporary art in Antwerp. It had been favourably reviewed in the press, apparently because of its sober design and because the diffuse lighting showed the works to advantage. That is one of the reasons why exhibitions from outside tend to find their way to the site of the monastery. In this way an unintended effect is produced : the avant-garde enters the walls of the Academy. In 1961, for example, the travelling exhibition Hedendaagse schilder- en beeldhouwkunst in Duitsland ( Contemporary Painting and Sculpture in Germany ) finds a venue there.39 This tidal wave of post-war abstract and informal painting must have been a stimulus to many teachers and students alike. Among the most recent and most radical work at the exhibition, there are three dynamic structures by Heinz Mack and three smoke paintings by Otto Piene, the two artists who were at the time at the root of the influential Zero movement. We can only guess at the impact that these and other works may have had on the students who visited the exhibition.

Portrait of Mark Macken in his studio, undated ( early 1960s ) ( photograph : Filip Tas ) ( KASKA )

In 1962, the year that the G58–Hessenhuis closes its doors, director Creytens is succeeded by the sculptor Mark Macken. The latter had studied sculpting with animist Ernest Wijnants and had won the Prix de Rome in 1938. Avermaete had taught him History of Art. At the time Macken practised a typical animist, humane and figurative sort of sculpting.

During the war he had been a member of the armed resistance and he had worked for the underground press, for which he had been imprisoned in Breendonk and Buchenwald. In 1946 he had been appointed as a teacher of drawing at the Academy.40 In 1951 he took up a seat on the Advisory Committee, the Installation Committee, and the Purchase Committee of the Middelheim Museum, where he and his friend the mayor, Lode Craeybeckx, leave a mark on the ( initially ) modernist purchase policy.41 When he becomes director, Macken is in his early fifties and he is determined to overhaul the curriculum at the Academy and 52

the Higher Institute in order to connect to the present time. The first three years of study will be orientation years with a curriculum that is the equivalent of higher secondary education. During those years, the students will prepare for studying at the Academy, which thus evolves to become part of the higher education system. He also takes the initiative for the Association of Friends of the Academy ( VRIKA ), which provides social and material assistance to students and staff. Furthermore, VRIKA will also be responsible for organizing cultural events and editing publications. Piet Serneels ( 1919–1982 ), teacher of graphic design, and Guido Persoons ( 1931–2014 ), librarian, will be in charge. This means that within the Academy and the Higher Institute, a more or less deliberate exhibition and publication policy develops. Thematic exhibitions and teachers’ retrospectives will set the tone.

A wind of change blows through the ancient corridors. The museum of the antique plaster casts is transformed into a restaurant and a meeting place for the students. By removing the plaster casts from their protected surroundings and scattering them over the corridors and the classes of the site, they are in a certain way outlawed and are exposed to damage and theft. In the oral history of the Academy, Macken is still blamed for dumping the damaged plaster casts with the rubbish instead of having them repaired. Thus the “modernist” Macken––who is alleged to have wanted to model the Academy more along the lines of the Bauhaus, though there is little evidence that corroborates this thesis––and the “iconoclast” Macken––who “destroyed” the collection of plaster casts––go hand in hand.

As for the primacy that was accorded to painting under Opsomer and his disciples : that era has indeed come to an end. And the first timid steps are taken outside the walls of the monastery. In the autumn of 1962, the young sculptors of the Higher Institute show their work at an open-air exhibition in the park in Brasschaat, near Antwerp.

Catalogue Brasschaat ‘62. Beeldhouwkunst in open lucht, 1962 ( KASKA ) Ossip Zadkine and Olivier Strebelle during Zadkine’s visit to the sculpture studios, 1962 ( photographer unknown ) ( KASKA )

While painting had been in Opsomer’s slipstream for ages, there has never been an “academic style” with regard to sculpture. Organically abstract compositions ( such as those, for example, by Wilfried Pas ) and abstract figures ( by the likes of Guy Maclot ) find themselves in the fraternal company of classical humanist figurative works ( by artists, for example, like Jan Keustermans ).42 At the same time, it is obvious from the motifs and the materials that the sculptors choose, that the medium of sculpture as such is not yet questioned. The artists move freely within the sculptural tradition, without raising explicit questions. The assemblages or the kinetic experiments that have been easing sculpture away from tradition since the 1950s are still unheard of. On the contrary : the aged Ossip Zadkine ( 1890–1967 ), a leading exponent of post-war sculpture, but certainly not an iconoclast, visits the Higher Institute for six lectures on modern sculpture, which are planned within the framework of an annual art seminar. Zadkine sat with Macken on the Purchase Committee of the Middelheim Museum. So “classic modern” remains the standard.

53

42

Brasschaat ‘62.

Beeldhouwkunst in openlucht ( Antwerp 1962 ).

43 Vandaag. Koninklijke Academie en Hoger Instituut ( Antwerp 1963 ), s.p.

But the doors open wider and wider. In the summer of 1963, the Academy and the Higher Institute are invited to show the work from all their studios at the town hall of Hilvarenbeek, in the Netherlands. On the occasion of this exhibition, with the programmatic title Vandaag ( Today ), a brochure is published that explains how, in AD 1963, both institutes wish to present themselves to the outside world––not just at home, but also abroad. The authors of the text use a distinct humanistic discourse that contrasts “the human essence” with “formal isms”. “With a limited number of works a sometimes disparate whole is assembled that reveals the many facets of an institution that with its 300th anniversary in 1963 has left behind the traditional academicism, but also fights the new formalism. A reflection on the old values and on the ways of modern trends can develop slowly and cautiously”, Piet Serneels notes in his introduction.43 In its discourse of the early 1960s, the Academy apparently distances itself from “traditional academicism”, but also keeps aloof from “modern trends”. This cautious position attests perhaps to prudence, but it also conveys a blurred image. What does the Antwerp Academy stand for, three centuries after its foundation ?

Poster Uitstraling van de Academie 1863 / 1914, 1963 ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

Before long, the question acquires a sense of urgency : in December 1963, the celebration of the “third centenary” of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts will be inaugurated with a number of exhibitions. Composer Renier Van der Velden and painter Jan Vaerten ( who teaches drawing at the Higher Institute ) team up for the creation of a self-willed ballet version of Bruegel’s Triumph of Death. In 1963, after years of silence, the thread of the Camille Huysmans Prize is picked up once again, and it is Fred Bervoets who is awarded the prize.

Under the common denominator of The Aura of the Academy, three exhibitions are organized, which in fact very aptly reflect the hybrid image of the Academy. The first exhibition explores the period of 1863–1914. With works by artists such as Ingres, Henri de Braekeleer, Gustaaf Wappers, Joseph Geefs, Nicaise De Keyser, Hendrik Leys, Jozef Van Lerius, Karel Verlat, Vincent van Gogh, Emile Claus and Jef Lambeaux, the major artistic developments 54

of the nineteenth century are covered. The catalogue also comprises an introduction by Walter Van Beselaere, director of the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp.44

44 Uitstraling van de Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten Antwerp 1863–1914 ( Antwerp 1964 ).

45

Uitstraling van de Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten Antwerp 1914–1963 / 1 ( Antwerp 1964 ).

46 Uitstraling van de Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten Antwerp 1914–1963 / 2 ( Antwerp 1964 ), s.p.

Exhibition on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the Academy in the Winter Garden, 1963 ( photographer unknown ) ( KASKA )

However, the art of the twentieth century ( 1914–1963 ) is to be split up over two exhibitions “because of the homogeneity of both formal phenomena”. The first part comprises work by figurative artists only, all of them former students and / or former teachers at the Academy. The catalogue includes an introduction by Roger Avermaete and features reproductions of work by, amongst others, Louis Corinth, Jan Cox, Julien Creytens, Hippoliet Daeye, Oscar Jespers, Floris Jespers, Antoon Marstboom, Isidoor Opsomer, Constant Permeke, Henri Puvrez, Henri Ramah, Albert Saverys, Walter Vaes, Gustave Van de Woestijne, Albert Van Dyck, Eugeen van Mieghem, Henri Van Straten, and Ernest Wijnants.45 The second part is devoted to so-called “non-figurative trends”. The introduction to the catalogue is written in this instance by poet-critic Paul De Vree ( 1909– 1982 ), considered at that time to be the spokesperson for the Belgian neo-avant-garde. The fact that such an explicit exponent of the avant-garde is brought in to the proceedings is indicative of a sudden change in style. De Vree himself is not blind to the paradox of the situation : “Does this exhibition of predominantly abstract art welcome back a lost son within the walls of the Academy ? Or is it a matter of concluding a truce between the Academy and the Hessenhuis due to a momentary magnanimity on both sides on the occasion of this celebration ? Is it suitable for legality and revolt to engage in a compromise in such a case ?” 46 De Vree also notes with pleasure that the Academy is eventually accepting its responsibility in “a gesture of invaluable merit” : “With all the more pleasure I emphasize this liberalization, this positive action.”

Exhibition Uitstraling van de Academie 1914 / 1963 in the Long Gallery ; among the works on view there are abstract pieces by Luc Peire, Jozef Peeters and Paul Van Gijsegem, 1964 ( photographer unknown ) ( KASKA )

55

47 Michel Seuphor, De Abstracte schilderkunst in Vlaanderen ( Antwerp, Brussels 1963 ).

48

Amerikaanse Popart, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1964 ; Nieuwe Realisten, Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, 1964 ; Figuratie en Defiguratie, Museum of Fine Arts, Ghent, 1964 ; Popart, Nouveau Réalisme etc., Palace of Fine Arts, Brussels, 1965.

49

Nationaal Hoger Instituut Antwerp, École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts et des Arts Décoratifs ( Antwerp 1964 ), s.p.

50

Ibid.

Apart from “objects of industrial design”, there are some 60 works on view from the first and second generation of abstract painters, all of them former students of the Academy, including Jef Verheyen, Mark Verstockt, Dan Van Severen, Luc Peire, Marc Mendelson, Guy Mees, Pol Mara, Walter Leblanc, Vic Gentils, and Jan Dries. From the first generation we would mention Michel Seuphor, Jozef Peeters and Paul Joostens. The exhibition follows shortly after the presentation of Michel Seuphor’s prestigious retrospective Abstract Painting in Flanders.47 The exhibition in the Academy and Seuphor’s voluminous monograph finally make it clear that abstract art is no longer a marginal phenomenon in Belgium. From now on, abstract art is no longer a taboo within the walls of the Academy. But no matter how impressive the whole, or how progressive the gesture, both appear before long to be a rearguard action. It is at this time that pop art breaks through, with exhibitions in Belgium and the Netherlands.48 In other words : at the very time that the Academy officially acknowledges abstract art, it turns out that it has already had its day.

Finally, a fourth jubilee exhibition links the Antwerp National Higher Institute to its older sister, the École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts et des Arts Décoratifs in Paris. In his preface to the catalogue, Macken refers to the “curriculum reform that must rejuvenate art education” — a reform that coincides with the celebration of the 300th anniversary : “Now that a second world war has passed and the revolt of art movements continues, it is necessary more than ever to organise the means that must allow young artists to fulfil their task within the community : to learn how to see and act in advance.” 49 This will be the basis for a number of drastic reforms of the curriculum in the course of 1963 and 1964. That includes, for example, focusing attention on drawing in the curriculum. Painting and modelling must then be in tune with drawing classes. Furthermore, more disciplines are added to the curriculum : etching, ceramics and stained glass techniques, as well as applied graphics, advertising and fashion.

In his text Macken also mentions the new orientation years ( starting with the academic year 1963–64 ) that are meant as an “all-round preparation for the visual arts”, through “an emphasis on mainly practical artistic training in all disciplines, in addition to a complete, but specially adapted secondary school curriculum”. Upon completing these three years, the students choose one of the various new specializations that are established shortly afterwards, in 1966 : painting, sculpture, printmaking, monumental arts, ceramics, jewellery design, graphic design, photography, fashion and theatre costume design.

The studios are supported by “theoretical courses on culture, history of art and general education”. From 1966 onwards, a third of the lessons are in principle devoted to theoretical courses. That means that in the wake of this radical reform of the curriculum, more attention is paid to the intellectual education of the students. For the first time in its history, the Academy starts to look like a school, and that is not to everybody’s liking. The profile of the Higher Institute also changes. Macken compares its function to the scientific research that goes on at universities. He is also very proud of the renovated campus, with which “the foundations have been laid for a centre of culture that will play the part in Antwerp life one can expect from an age-old art institution such as this, with regular exhibitions, lectures and concerts”.50 The new director sets ambitious goals for the Academy : the Academy as a place of research and centre of culture. That much is also obvious from the prestigious international symposium that takes place on 8 February 1964 in the Archive and Museum of Flemish Literature.

Under the heading of “The Visual Arts and Art Education Today and Tomorrow”, a series of lectures is held featuring the Austrian expressionist painter Oskar Kokoschka ( Schule des Sehens / The School of Seeing ), the Swiss architect Alfred Roth ( La synthèse des arts plastiques en tant que sujet d’enseignement / The Synthesis of the Visual Arts as a Subject of Education ), the Polish architect Oskar Hansen ( Les éléments de principe de la pédagogie et de l’esthétique de la forme ouverte / The principal elements of an open pedagogy and aesthetics ), the Dutch art historian Bram Hammacher ( De kunstontwikkeling en haar weerslag op het kunstonderwijs / Art Developments and Their Repercussions on Art Education ), and the Belgian architect, Renaat Braem, who is also director of the Architecture Department ( Poging tot synthese : leven, kunst, opvoeding / An Attempt at Synthesis : Life, Art, Education ). From the profile of the speakers and the titles of their lectures, it is obvious that for the first time ever, the Academy and the Higher Institute are looking at the ( modern ) world outside the walls of the school with an open mind.

56

But at the time, the world outside is changing quickly. One year after the academic symposium, the same Museum of Flemish Literature is the venue for the happening Bezette Stad II ( Occupied City II ). Panamarenko and Hugo Heyman, former students at the Academy, launch a multimedia spectacle, assisted by ( former student ) Wannes van de Velde and the Japanese performance artist Yoshio Nakajima.51 Shortly before, Nakijama had come to stay in Antwerp on the advice of the Dutch artist Daan Van Golden. He had lived in Amsterdam, but had to leave the Netherlands because of his contacts with Provo, a Dutch counterculture movement. Nakajima enrols at the Antwerp Academy, where is allowed to study painting. Some people even come to visit him here, informed by the media about his happenings. Yet as he comes under suspicion of subversive activities, he is summoned to leave the country. He and his wife are given exactly twenty-four hours to pack their paintings and other belongings and leave Belgium. Panamarenko advises him to go to Germany and contact the group around Wolf Vostell, a pioneer of happenings.52 A year later Panamarenko and Heyman are among the co-founders of the Wide White Space Gallery. In the late 1960s, the art world is dominated by conceptualization and protest. The ideas that matured in the early years of the decade, in the wake of the happenings and Fluxus, are now influencing more and more artists. By widening the scope of artistic praxis to include actions, installations and situations, the role of art education becomes problematic. If the relevance of technical skills comes under fire, what is the use of art schools ?

IN THE EYE OF THE STORM By the end of the 1960s, change is in the air. Obviously preoccupied with the image of his Academy, Mark Macken issues a press communiqué early in 1969 in order to rouse interest in the first ever open day at the Academy : “Our school is only old with regard to its façade and its traditions. We follow contemporary developments with great interest and, if necessary, with a critical eye. For what appeals in an art school is precisely always being open to life outside.” 53 But is that actually the case ? Are students at the Academy in these turbulent times actually exposed to modern and contemporary art ? In the second half of the 1960s it seems indeed that modern and contemporary art find their way more readily to the Antwerp Academy.

Because of the central location and the grandeur of the modern exhibition space, many external and travelling exhibitions choose the Academy as their venue, partially on the initiative of the Flemish authorities.

In a certain sense, these exhibitions, organized outside the school, unintentionally venture into the lion’s den. There is, for example, the remarkable exhibition from the group Photo Graphie ( Yves Auquier, Pierre Cordier, Julien Coulommier, Gilbert De Keyser, Antoine Dries and Hubert Grooteclaes ) in 1966. With their abstracting and abstract photographs, which connect to a certain extent to the post-war international movement of Subjektive Fotografie, the exhibition provides a first step to rethinking the role and formal aspects of photography.54 A year later, there is Facets, a large retrospective of young Flemish art. The Ministry of Culture has envisaged this travelling exhibition with the work of the youngest generations as the first track record of contemporary Flemish art. The presence on the selection committee of Karel Geirlandt, the promoter and epitome of modern art, guarantees that the exhibition with some forty participants provides a true sample of the state of the visual arts in Flanders in the 1960s. The three-volume catalogue reflects the way in which the exhibition is divided into three “facets” : “figuration and de-figuration” ; “non-figurative art” ; and “objects and constructivist art”. Among the more “radical” works on view, there are the monochrome paintings by Jef Verheyen, the “mobilo-static” reliefs by Walter Leblanc, and the light objects covered with lace by Guy Mees, all three of them former students of the Academy.55 A few months later, contemporary Flemish art can be compared with what has been going on for the last decade at an international level. In the autumn of 1967 the exhibition Kunst na ‘45 ( Art after ’45 ), with works from the Dutch Van Abbemuseum, provides a genuinely impressive overview of the post-war avant-gardes. The exhibition is the result of collaboration between the Friends of the Academy and the foundation Vlaams Festival in Eindhoven ( in the Netherlands ), and takes place in the context of the festival Zuidnederlandse Ontmoetingen. The design of the catalogue, as well as the introduction, is entrusted 57

51 Paul Hefting, “1960–1968. Notities uit gesprekken met Panamarenko, Hugo Heyrman en Anny De Decker”, in : Panamarenko ( Berlin, Brussels 1978 ), 22–43.

52

Stefan Wouters, interview with Yoshio Nakajima, 2010 [ http://belgiumishappening/home/interviews/yoshio-nakajima-wouters-2010 ] ;

Stefan Wouters, In search of Belgium’s first happening, 2011 [ http://belgiumishappening/home/publications/ stefan-wouters-in-searchof-belgium-s-first-happening-2011 ].

53

Archive KASKA, Mark Macken, Open schooldag in de academie, press release, s.d. ( 1969 ).

54

Photo Graphie ( Antwerp 1966 ).

55 Facetten van de jonge Vlaamse kunst 1, 2, 3 ( Hasselt, Antwerp, Ghent 1967 ).

56

Kunst na ‘45. Collectie Stedelijk Van Abbemuseum Eindhoven ( Antwerp 1967 ), 7.

57 Wilfried Huet, e-mail to the author, 26 February 2013.

to the graphic designer Piet Serneels. He describes the exhibition as a “study object” that is intended “to avoid the danger of a sterile judgement and to feel the pulse of particularly recent trends”.56 With top works by painters such as Alechinsky, Appel, Bacon, Dubuffet, Ernst, Fontana, Indiana, Jorn, Klein, Léger, Louis, Mack, Manzoni, Miró, Picasso, Piene, Stella, Tapiès, Uecker, and Vasarely, the Long Gallery of the Academy must truly have assumed the air of a museum. The questions that arise concern whether or not the exhibition really did function as a “study object”, and the extent to which the temporary presence of radical works of art whose authors belonged to movements such as Cobra, Zero, op art and pop art may have influenced the students and teachers of the school ? Did artworks such as a cut up Concetto spaziale by Fontana, a white Achrome by Manzoni, or a blue monochrome by Yves Klein result in a debate, or were they merely welcomed with a shrug ? Were any questions raised about the complete absence of Belgian artists at the exhibition ?

Catalogue Kunst na ‘45. Stedelijk Van Abbemuseum Eindhoven, 1967 ( design : Piet Serneels ) ( KASKA )

It seems as if the exhibition did not have a great impact. Former student Wilfried Huet recalls that the exhibition space could not be accessed from the Academy. When he pointed this out to Theo Van Looij, inspector of the art schools, he replied that students “had to make some effort for the sake of art”. Huet therefore thinks that few students have seen the exhibition, which had to be accessed through the entrance in the Venusstraat. In reaction to the “systematic deafness to the art movements outside the walls”, the student stages a “protest run” : in the shortest possible time, he tries to turn out as many lights as possible in the studios and corridors of the Academy. According to Huet, he was inspired for his action by the famous Louvre scene from Jean-Luc Godard’s Bande à part ( 1964 ), in which some of the characters attempt to break the world record for “running in the Louvre”.57 A year later, nothing will be able to stop the protest. Two days after a group of artists led by Roger Somville and Marcel Broodthaers occupy the Palace of Fine Arts in Brussels, the revolt of May 1968 sparks off protest in Antwerp. Some Antwerp artists and students decide to cause uproar. The evening of 30 May 1968 is aptly described by Wybrand Ganzevoort, one of the protesters. It appears that the small group is set on “making revolution” ; first they go the artists” pub De Muze to gather more “revolutionaries”.

58

58 Quoted in : Johan Pas, Beeldenstorm in een spiegelzaal. Het ICC en de actuele kunst 1970– 1990 ( Leuven 2006 ), 38.

59 Pas, Beeldenstorm in een spiegelzaal, 86–96.

60 Idem, Een andere avant-garde. Documenten uit het Archief van galerie De Zwarte Panter 1968–2008 ( Tielt 2008 ), 20–24.

Portrait of Wybrand Ganzevoort, undated ( early 1960s ) ( photographer unknown ) ( Private collection, Rumst )

Initially it is the intention to occupy the Museum of Flemish Literature ( the main reason being that it is nearby ), but a police van parked in front of it makes the hotheads change their mind. After some hesitation, the plan emerges to occupy the Academy. “Valiantly we enter — there are some twenty of us — through the entrance in the Blindestraat. In the exhibition hall there is light and lots of people — the Antwerp high society is present at an opening of an exhibition about urbanization. The social complexes of our small group are such that the revolutionary fire is not particularly fuelled in these surroundings. After fifteen minutes of mingling with these well-dressed jungle boys, we slink off. We gather in the entrance hall — ‘We must reorganize!’ ” 58 So, thanks to an opening, the Academy escapes the fire of May ‘68. Then the idea grows to take up position the next morning on the steps of the Royal Museum of Fine Arts and hand out a pamphlet, which is written and stencilled that very night. Among the authors are Jef Verheyen, Wannes van de Velde, Panamarenko, and Hugo Heyrman — all of them former students of the Academy. The otherwise heterogeneous company adopts the name VAGA ( Vrije Actie Groep Antwerpen, or Free Action Group Antwerp ). Thus the cultural protest in Antwerp starts. VAGA focuses on a reform of cultural policy in Antwerp. The group remains active till the end of 1969 and organizes events inside and outside the museum. The most salient ( and performative ) is an action to demand that the historical Conscienceplein becomes a pedestrian zone. The creation of a Department of Contemporary Art within the Antwerp Royal Museum of Fine Art, as well as the foundation of the International Cultural Centre in Antwerp, can both be considered spin-offs to the museum protest. 59 By the end of the sixties, the city is buzzing with artistic activity. Because there are so many empty houses in the inner city, studios are relatively cheap to rent. In particular, the neglected areas around the Vleeshuis and the Schipperskwartier — both within walking distance of the Academy — are inhabited by art students and young artists. To help these and other young artists to exhibit their works, the painting student Adriaan Raemdonck rents an empty brothel and turns it into an art gallery. He keeps the exotic name of the establishment : De Zwarte Panter ( The Black Panther ). In 1970 the gallery moves to the Hoogstraat. The first exhibition is introduced by Academy director Macken. The printing presses of the gallery are manned by the former Academy students Roger Van Akelijen and Roger Vandaele. The link with the Academy will remain for a long time. In the course of the 1970s and ‘80s, the gallery turns into an exhibition platform and meeting place for painters, sculptors, graphic artists, writers and musicians.60 The leading figures of the gallery, Fred Bervoets, Walter Goossens, Wilfried Pas and Jan Cox, are all former students 59

61 Bervoets Goossens Pas Cox ( Antwerp 1975 ). See : Pas, Een andere avant-garde, 32–36.

62 M.A., “Een man als wit object. Contestatie in Antwerpse Academie”, De Nieuwe Gazet, 11 February 1969.

63

Ibid.

64

1972–1985 Afgestudeerden Hoger Instituut ( Antwerp 1985 ), s.p.

65 Avermaete, Tussen beitel en penseel. Over schilders, beeldhouwers, graveurs en tekenaars ( Tielt 1973 ) 168.

of the Academy. In 1975, the Royal Museum of Fine Arts will present a prestigious exhibition with the work of these four artists.61 In the early 1970s, more momentous initiatives are masterminded by former Academy students. Jef Geys, one of the most radical artists of his generation, is one of the co-founders of the Vereniging van Plastische kunstenaars ( Society of Visual Artists ) in 1971. In the early 1970s, graphic designer Paul Ibou starts the gallery and publishing company for artists’ multiples Multi-Art Press International ; sculptor Jan Putteneers starts up his exhibition space and newsletter Antwerp Art Info in 1972.

At the Academy, events seem to have had little effect. The spirit of protest that characterized the era results in little more than a brief flare-up. Early in 1969 De Nieuwe Gazet features this provocative heading : “Man becomes White Object. Protest at Antwerp Academy.” However, the “protest” turns out to be nothing more than a storm in a teacup.

At the Academy there is a group exhibition with the work of ten artists from North Brabant ( in the context of the project Zuidnederlandse Ontmoetingen ). Confronted with the works, a few students decide to parody the experimental works by the Dutch artists : in the hall that leads to the exhibition space they present their own “objects”. The organic polyester abstractions by Jos Manders, the minimalist compositions by J.C.J. Vanderheyden and the conceptual games of Pieter Engels are probably all a bone of contention, but what inspires most are apparently the objects covered with white paint by Jacques Frenken. Jean Steeman, a student at the Higher Institute, paints himself white and takes up a position between the objects on view. He explains why to the reporter who hurries to interview him : “You must understand that this is what the boys of the orientation are confronted with. Imagine that they start thinking that this is it. We’ve knocked up a few things and put them between the objects at the exhibition. No one notices the difference. [ … ] Director Macken has said himself that he made us see these things, because we should understand that this is not the way to create art, but ours is. A lot of teachers were against it. Now they keep their mouth shut. Our reaction has even led to the threat of sanctions.” 62 Apparently, the protest itself is contested by other students who disagree with the action, but who also disagree with the repressive policy of the director. A pamphlet is even circulated, which claims : “It’s not so much about approving or disapproving of the works and the events that surround them — it’s about the school management cunningly abusing a certain situation in order to impose its own standards and to emphasize how good the Antwerp Academy actually is.”

There are references to the director’s reign of terror. The reviewer concludes his report with the ominous remark that the event could be a step towards real protest : “The atmosphere is heavy. One spark seems sufficient to cause a first explosion.” 63 It will not come to that, but the clamour to be heard results in some changes at least. Later, director Gerard Gaudaen will explicitly refer to “the atmosphere of student revolts, the urge for greater freedom and autonomy” to motivate the new system of individual studios with visiting teachers in the Higher Institute. But this more liberal approach is not necessarily a better approach. The inability to attract sufficient visiting teachers with relevant skills results in what director Theo Van Looij later describes as “a school of autodidacts”.64

ANACHRONISM, OR POSTMODERNISM ?

In his memoirs about the art world, Roger Avermaete, who always viewed the Academy with a critical eye, looks back on Mark Macken : “A man without doubts, for he has assumed the task of bringing order in an institute that I have always called a lunatic asylum. That is not meant to offend — it’s simply the language of experience. Who is capable of imposing some discipline on this horde of teachers and students ? Macken has made every effort to do so, for years on end. He has ruined his health and despite all changes for the better, rules and attempts to attain a higher level, despite the support of impressive technical means, the spirit of the lunatic asylum has remained unchanged!” 65 This “spirit of the lunatic asylum” will turn out to be fatal for Macken, who is also troubled by other problems. In 1977, the year Antwerp indulges in a true Rubens mania, the director of the Academy takes his own life — within the walls of the institute. He is succeeded by architect Theo Van Looij ( 1917–1996 ), who is a former student at the Academy and has performed the job of inspector of art schools for many years. In this role he has established a close link with the Academy over the course of time. Five years later, he hands on the torch to Gerard Gaudaen ( 1927–2003 ), who has been teaching graphic arts at the Academy since 1971. The changes that Macken introduced remain in place under both directors. But 60

the dynamic municipal cultural centre that Macken envisaged comes to nothing. On the contrary : within the thick walls of the monastery, time seems once more to have come to a standstill.

66

Paul De Vree, “Heeft abstracte kunst een plaats in onze academie ?”, Periscoop 1 / 8 ( 1978 ), 44.

67 American Pop ( h ) art.

Tentoonstelling met werk van Amerikaanse kunstenaars uit de verzameling van dr. H. Peeters ( Brussel 1979 ).

68

Piet Serneels, “Pop art, vaste waarde of reeds retro ?”, Periscoop 2 / 9 ( 1979 ), 34–35 ; Frans Janssens, “Pop-art : bevestiging van een welvaartstaat”, Periscoop 2 / 9 ( 1979 ), 11–12.

69 John Baert, “Ter discussie. De Academie : instelling”, Periscoop 6 / 5 ( 1983 ), 14–15.

Director Theo Van Looij, undated ( late 1970s ) ( photographer unknown ) ( KASKA )

Under the directorship of Van Looij, Periscoop becomes the monthly magazine published by the Friends of the Academy, and in fact it functions as the only public voice of the Academy and the Higher Institute. Edited by chief librarian Guido Persoons, it appears irregularly and provides an image of the mainly conservative discourse that prevails in the late 1970s and the 1980s. References to the freedom and individual choice of the students, to the history and traditions of the school, tributes to former teachers, obituaries and information about the exhibitions that take place within the walls of the school are the main topics for this rather meek magazine. Continuity and timelessness are phrases that recur constantly. The many articles on nineteenth-century life at the Academy are in this respect a chronic symptom, as are clichés such as “our age-old Academy”. Contemporary art seems to be something from the evil world outside. While the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Ghent shows off with exhibitions on conceptual research, such as Theorie / Informatie / Praktijk ( 1976 ) and Plan & Space ( 1977 ), abstract art and pop art are the most daring signs of twentieth-century modernism in Antwerp. Literally anachronistic is the republication — in a 1978 issue of Periscope — of a text that Paul De Vree wrote on abstract art back in 1964 ( a text originally written to mark the occasion of the aforementioned retrospective of abstract work by former students in the jubilee year ).66 American Pop ( h )Art, an “exhibition with work by American artists from the collection of Dr H. Peeters” is on view at the Academy during May and June of 1979. The travelling exhibition is organized by the Department of Art Propagation at the Ministry of National Education and Flemish Culture. Actually, there are only graphic works by Jim Dine, Nicholas Krushenik, Roy Lichtenstein, Robert Rauschenberg, James Rosenquist, Andy Warhol, and Tom Wesselmann.67 This intrusion of “contemporary art” ( in which the most recent work dates from 1969! ) appears to be an event of such significance that Periscoop devotes two articles to it, both of which are written by teachers.68 These two articles simply articulate the obvious and actually feature the wrongly spelt names of artists.

There is one dissonant voice in the magazine. John Baert, who at the time teaches philosophy at the Academy, is the only one who attempts to shatter the obviousness of the academic discourse. In 1983 he writes a number of articles about the “basis” ( a concept that is a fetish among the teachers ), and about how art and science relate. For the first time, a sort of ( mild ) polemic seems to engage the academic mind. There is even an ( anonymous ) reaction to Baert’s articles and to the question of whether such a polemic is permissible in a magazine that is published by the Academy itself.69 The more curious students have to seek their information outside the Academy. In the ICC ( International Cultural Center ) nearby, exhibitions with new media and events at night with avant-garde films and performances document the current developments in 61

70

Fik Van Gestel, “Steunbetuiging aan het ICC”, 1998, in : Pas, Beeldenstorm in een spiegelzaal, 688.

71

Narcisse Tordoir, e-interview, 2004, in : Pas, Beeldenstorm in een spiegelzaal, 693–694.

72 Luk Van Soom, e-interview, 2004, in : Pas, Beeldenstorm in een spiegelzaal, 695.

73

art. In the 1970s and ‘80s, the ICC thus becomes a sort of welcome extra for students to their academic classes. “The confrontation with this cultural centre is part of an initiation and learning process”, the painter Fik Van Gestel recalls. “We oscillated back and forth between the nineteenth-century tradition of the Antwerp Academy on the one hand and the exciting and bizarre conceptual developments in the ICC on the other. The search for harmony in a nude study as opposed to unravelling the texts of Joseph Kosuth.” 70 Narcisse Tordoir, who studied painting in the late 1970s, also refers to how the ICC provided a prerequisite extra to the Academy curriculum : “Information, library, magazines : at the time you had to dig deep in the library at the Academy — there just wasn’t anything! For me it was important to learn about the ‘avant-garde’ as it was called at the time : performance, support-surface … video : as a student at the Academy you could even borrow stuff there, after some badgering!” 71

Anne-Mie Van Kerckhoven, e-interview, 2004, in : Pas, Beeldenstorm in een spiegelzaal, 694.

74

Johan Pas, “Van Club Moral tot Cakehouse. Kleine kroniek van kunstenaarsinitiatieven en -collectieven in Antwerpen ( 1977–2007 )”, in : Johan Pas and Dennis Tyfus ( ed. ), Kopstoot !

Antwerpse postpunk en nieuwe underground ( Amsterdam 2007 ), 7–8.

Catalogue Work in Progress. Studenten van de Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, ICC, Antwerp, 1985 ( KASKA )

Luk Van Soom, who studied sculpture, mainly visited the ICC during lunch break : “You could see things there that were slightly more experimental than the things you saw at the Academy. It opened my eyes to different viewpoints, concepts, media and ways to place things in space. During our lunch break there were often lectures about all sorts of subjects. [ … ] It was a ‘place of refuge’ that certainly changed my views — and not just mine.” 72 Artist Anne-Mie Van Kerckhoven, too, consid-

ered the performances and installations in the ICC as an “ordinary extra to my education”.73 On a few occasions, the ICC also made its spaces available for the students of photography ( 1976 ), graphic design ( 1978 ) and sculpture ( 1985 ) to show their work. But the ICC also stimulates some graduates of the Academy to develop their own projects. In 1977, Narcisse Tordoir, who already created performances with Hugo Roelandt, sets up Today’s Place, a punk-inspired place for performance art and alternative music. Two years later, Wilfried Huet, Guy Rombouts, Paul de Vylder and Luc Deleu propose to turn an empty grain silo on the banks of the Scheldt into a temporary space for contemporary art ( Synaps ).

Eight years later, the MuHKA ( Museum of Contemporary Art Antwerp ) will open its doors in the same building. Early in 1981, Anne-Mie Van Kerckhoven and Danny Devos set up Club Moral, a legendary refuge for extreme music and performance art. In short, in the late 1970s and the 1980s, the output of the Academy once more generates a dynamic in the Antwerp art world.74 The centenary of the National Higher Institute in 1985 will be accompanied by a new reform that cancels the previous reforms from 1970. Five teachers are appointed who will function as “permanent advisors” for painting, sculpture, graphic arts, drawing and jewellery design. In addition to these, visiting teachers will also be responsible for seminars

62

on contemporary art, literature, music, theatre, and film, etc. Forums are even planned to debate art with gallerists and critics. The celebration of the centenary will comprise a somewhat traditional look back on the history of the school ( with a voluminous monograph

by Theo Van Looij, Een eeuw Nationaal Hoger Instituut voor Schone Kunsten te Antwerpen / A Century of National Higher Institute of Fine Arts in Antwerp ), a historical exhibition that spans the period from 1945 till the present ( with an accompanying publication ), and a survey of the work by teachers and graduates that will be presented at two exhibitions with an accompanying catalogue. In the catalogue of the historical exhibition, librarian Persoons once more refers to the singular character of the Antwerp Academy : “Unlike in other art schools, we do not teach how to write or paint — rather, we teach with what we write or paint, and only afterwards how and why. By working on their own, the students’ talents emerge. Only a technically skilled individual, an individual that subjects the technique, will not be afraid of the loneliness of the studio. If this individual has something to say, he or she will know how and why.” 75 The utter absence of self-reflection and introspection is obvious, for example, from the programme to the “solemn ceremony” that is organized to mark this occasion. The speakers look back and look forward, but questions from the outside world are uninvited. “Flemish songs” are sung, however, after poems by Guido Gezelle and Karel Van de Woestijne.

Director Gerard Gaudaen with Queen Fabiola during her visit to the jewellery department, 1986 ( photographer unknown ) ( KASKA )

In June 1987, a television crew headed by ( former student ) Jef Cornelis disrupts the peace of the monastery. Cornelis is in the company of critic Chris Dercon and a few observers ( including artist Guillaume Bijl, curator Jan Hoet, and gallerist Adriaan Raemdonck ). They want to probe the core of the problem, which results in a tremendous amount of irritation, but also in little or no change.76 In 1988, Guido Persoons publishes yet another, doubtlessly well-meant contribution in Periscoop, in which he sums up “the current trends in the visual arts”.77 He manages to discuss the major post-war developments in just two pages. No organizational or pedagogical conclusions are drawn.

One year later the Academy hosts the second Biennial of Art Schools. The intendant to the event is Paul Ilegems, who teaches History of Art. Ilegems wants to seize the opportunity to bring about a dialogue between the Academy and the contemporary art scene in Antwerp.

In order to do so, he selects seven exhibitions spaces. Furthermore, the Academy celebrates its 325th anniversary in 1989. To mark the occasion a symposium will be held about “Art Education in 1992 and beyond”. The municipal reception hall will be the venue for a grand jubilee exhibition about 325 years of the Academy. There are also exhibitions with works by “teachers and assistants” and “former students”, each time accompanied by a catalogue.

A special academic stamp is issued and an academic tramcar travels the streets of Antwerp.

But the hope of establishing a link with contemporary art proves an idle one. In the textual discourse that accompanies the celebrations, phrases such as “technique” and “skill” still play an important part : “The wealth of the Antwerp Academy resides in the traditional value of drawing and in the fundamental knowledge of the métier, and the variety of interpretations of this métier”, director Gaudaen observes in the exhibition catalogue with a survey of the teachers’ works. 78 Ilegems recalls that the traditionally minded Gaudaen is sceptical about contemporary art : “I went to talk to him and I tried to convince him that we needed classes on current trends in art and he gave in — but we could only start in the fourth year! Only then would the students be mature enough to cope with Marcel Broodthaers and Luc Deleu. Actually, he had never heard of 63

75

Guido Persoons, Historiek NHISK 1663–1885 / 1945 ( Antwerp 1985 ), 37.

76 Jef Cornelis and Chris Dercon, 3 x Kunstonderwijs, televison broadcast BRT, 26 August 1987.

77 Guido Persoons, “Actuele tendensen in de beeldende kunsten”, Periscoop 11 / 2 ( 1988 ), 19–20.

78

Gerard Goudaen, Professoren Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen ( Antwerp 1989 ), s.p.

79

Paul Ilegems, e-mail to the author, 17 January 2013.

80

Hubert Dethier, “Een dialoog tussen postmodernen en maniëristen”, in : XXII jaar beeldhouwen aan de Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten te Antwerpen ( Antwerp 1989 ), 266–296.

either of them and he didn’t want to hear about them. For Gaudaen, even Picasso was too much.” 79 On an artistic level, in the 1980s the Academy was synonymous with anachronism. In the same jubilee year of 1989, the Department of Sculpture celebrates its XXII anniversary with an ambitious exhibition in the Hessenhuis. The spirit of protest briefly rears its head when the inaugural speech by the mayor and alderman of culture Bob Cools because of the planned demolition of the Royal Depots is disrupted by students with “laughter bags”.

The exhibition is accompanied by a prestigious looking catalogue with a lengthy essay on postmodernism by philosopher Hubert Dethier.80

Catalogue Tweede Biënnale van Kunstscholen in Europa, KASKA, 1989 ( design : Philip Aguirre y Otegui ) ( KASKA ) Catalogue XXII jaar Beeldhouwen aan de Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten te Antwerpen, Hessenhuis, Antwerp, 1989 ( KASKA )

In the 1980s, the same postmodernism and its theoretical discourse emphasize the relative character of the historical role of the avant-gardes and their countermovements.

In Paris, the Musée d’Orsay even hosts works by the salon painters — those who were so strongly maligned by the nineteenth-century avant-garde. Art pompier and academic painting become the subject of research. The idea that there is “progress” in art evaporates in the 1980s. Looking back is allowed. Figuration, expression, narrative and technical skills are no longer taboo concepts in the art world. Painting, which had been declared dead by a number of radical artists in the 1960s, turns out to be alive and kicking.

Because of these developments, the anachronistic Academy appears in a new light by the end of the twentieth century. In the artistic sphere, modernism has passed the Academy by for most of the twentieth century. The obstinate refusal to admit modern art inside its walls paradoxically allows it to tune in to “postmodern” developments. At a time when anachronism and looking back become the new standard in contemporary art discourse, the Academy inadvertently seems to become part of mainstream current events — that is to say that events seem to come full circle. The Antwerp Academy has jumped from premodernism to postmodernism, without ever living through modernism. And perhaps that is not so bad, after all. In order to reject a traditionalist discourse, one first needs to go through it. That is probably the historical function of any academy. If we stop seeing the academy as the opposite pole of the avant-garde and start viewing it as a prerequisite for renewal, it acquires a different meaning : it becomes a lock on the river of art between tradition and the future of artistic praxis. The castle turns into a cradle. In the early 1990s, as the millennium drew to a close, that is not such a bad position for a new start.

64

1

Sarah Heynssens

50 Years of Fashion at the Antwerp Academy : Between Avant-Garde and Tradition 1

Several fashion designers who have studied at the Antwerp Academy now enjoy international fame. Names such as Martin Margiela, Ann Demeulemeester, Walter Van Beirendonck, Dries Van Noten, Veronique Branquinho, A.F. Vandevorst, Bernhard Willhelm, Peter Pilotto, Haider Ackermann and many others have helped to make Belgian fashion great and have become familiar to the public at large. The Fashion Department of the Antwerp Academy also deserves to be ranked as highly as its illustrious alumni. In the course of its fifty years of existence, the department has undergone an enormous process of evolution : the curriculum and teaching methods have been thoroughly professionalized, the number of students has grown exponentially and as the reputation of the school has grown, the student population has become more diversified. Initially a department that was looked down upon with distrust by the traditional art school disciplines, the Antwerp Fashion Department has developed into one of the best-known and most influential fashion schools in the world. But how did the original Department of Fashion and Theatre Costume turn into the world-famous Fashion Department of today ?

Most of the quotations from the press used in this article can be found at the Image Archives of the Fashion Museum, Province of Antwerp. The archives of Marthe Van Leemput ( °MVL ), Geert Bruloot ( °GB ) and the Antwerp Academy’s Administrative Archives ( °ACA ) are currently being inventoried and are not yet definitively indexed.

2

G. Persoons, Historiek Nationaal Hoger Instituut voor Schone Kunsten 1663–1885 / 1945 ( Antwerp 1985 ), 29–33.

3

Archives of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp ( KASKA ), Modern Archive ( MA ), MA 259–270. National Higher Institute and Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp, Palmares annual report 1958–1970.

4

Archive KASKA, MA 457, Photo Book Publicity and Fashion.

5

F. Olbrechts, “Ook in de mode : Antwerpen boven !

Made in Belgium”, s.n. ( 1983 ), 128–132, 128.

Drawing of a dressed model in the fashion studio, 1953 ( photo : De Soomer ) ( KASKA )

BUILDING THE CURRICULUM UNDER M ARY PRIJOT From the 1950s onwards, there was renewed interest in the applied arts and crafts at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Antwerp, a development that was inspired by the educational legacy of the Bauhaus movement. In addition to the traditional disciplines of painting, sculpture and printmaking, space was now being created for more “functional” courses, such as monumental arts ( including mural painting, glass, mosaics, tapestries, etc. ), applied graphic design, ceramics, and jewellery design. Even during the war years, classes in ornament and fashion drawing had also been offered at the Academy.2 In the post-war era, the day classes in Ornamental Design and Fashion Drawing were led by Mrs G. Duwaerts and the evening classes were organized by Mr P. Colfs. The course in Fashion Drawing involved little more than drawing from a mannequin in charcoal or watercolours.3 Occasionally, those studying on the Publicity and Typography course also made fashion drawings and posters.4 A fully-fledged curriculum in fashion would have to wait until the academic year of 1963–1964. On March 2, 1962, by royal decree, the programme in “Fashion and Ornamental Drawing” was established as part of the graphic arts curriculum.5 The new department was the initiative of the Academy’s then director, Mark Macken ( 1913–1977 ). However, 65

6

VRT Image Archive, Almanak KASKA, JD 19650409, 9 April 1965.

7

F. Baudoux-Gérard, “Mary Prijot : Elle a fait s’épanouir en Belgique la création de mode”, Marie Claire ( 1984 ) B66–B70, B70.

8

Archive KASKA, MA 467, Photo Book Fashion and Theatre Costume.

9

Archive KASKA, MA, MA 266, National Higher Institute and Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp, Palmares annual report 1965–1966, 43.

the foundation of a Fashion Department was not to everyone’s taste. Many felt that fashion did not belong in a traditional art school. Macken was not to be dissuaded. He saw a space for a programme in fashion education that could engage in dialogue with the Academy’s other disciplines and would guarantee a high-level arts training course that distinguished itself from what the existing technical dressmaking schools had to offer. He believed that throughout history, fashion had had a major influence on the behaviour of people and on art itself. “Well, seen historically, fashion is so closely bound up with the art of its time that it is impossible to separate the two. [ … ] There is nothing that reflects the times as much as fashion.

The danger of course lies in the risk that great art would become fashion, but that will not be prevented by fashion courses at an art school.” 6

10 V. Pouillard, “‘Aménager les échanges entre acheteurs belges et créateurs parisiens’.

La constitution d’une Chambre syndicale de Haute Couture Belge pendant l’entre-deux guerres”,

Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis XXXVI, 3–4 ( 2006 ), 409–452 ; 412–413.

Mary Prijot assisting Jean-Christophe Decarpenterie with his design, ca. 1965 ( photo : Meuris ) ( KASKA )

The new Fashion Department would be under the leadership of Mary Prijot ( 1917–1998 ).

Prijot was herself an Antwerp Academy graduate and had already earned her laurels as a painter. In 1962, one of the professors at the Academy told Prijot about the establishment of the new department and suggested that she apply for the position. Prijot was given the job and immediately travelled to Paris and Cologne to prepare for her new teaching position.7 In France, she spent three months attending classes at the École Technique Des Arts Appliqués, where in her own words, she learned the profession of fashion design from inside out and outside in. There, classes and design work were based on the history of costume and the history of art, with great emphasis on general cultural education. The course included training, moreover, in publicity, typography and drapage. There was a strong emphasis on life drawing and the human body. After Paris, Prijot went on to Cologne, where she

followed courses in theatre fashion and costume design at the Kölner Werkschule.8 In addition to patronage, she learned to design historical costumes. Prijot also took additional private classes in coupe and couture. In the academic year of 1963–1964, armed with her art training as well as the somewhat limited arsenal of her practical technical training, Prijot began to run her course in “Fashion Drawing”. Evening courses in fashion drawing were also available concurrently, and these continued to be held until the entire educational curriculum was restructured in 1966.

During the early years, the Fashion Department consisted of little more than fashion drawing, while the search continued for a permanent form for the Fashion Department programme. On Prijot’s incentive, the original curriculum would quickly be transformed into a complete fashion design curriculum. In the academic year of 1965–1966, the programme was renamed “Fashion and Theatre Costume”.9 Prijot believed that Belgium offered good opportunities in the textile industry for burgeoning fashion designers. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Belgian textile industry still employed some 120,000 people. Like the self-employed tailors, dressmakers and small tailoring businesses that were scattered all over Flanders, this long-established clothing industry was modelled on the Paris fashion system that had defined international trends since the nineteenth century.10 Twice a year,

66

the new models, silhouettes and trends were presented to an international audience in Paris. Clients could buy drawings and patterns of the new designs, which were then usually copied by pattern drawers back at home. Except for a few exceptions, at fashion houses such as Norine and Wittamer-De Camps in Brussels, Belgian fashion had always been limited to copying.11 From her art-training perspective, however, Prijot wanted to shape designers who, even if inspired by Paris fashions, would nonetheless be able to present a vision and an image of fashion that was their own. It was with this objective in mind that the curriculum was designed.

11 N. Bernheim, “Maison Norine, Brussels : Belgian Avant_Garde Couture, 1916_1952”, 2012, in : Symposium 1 : Modus Operandi : State of Affairs in Current Research on Belgian Fashion, Antwerp 2007, 17–35.

12

Archive KASKA, MA 467, Photo Book Fashion and Theatre Costume.

13

G. Persoons, Historiek, 37.

14 R.S., “Mode ontwerpen aan de Antwerpse Akademie”, in : Navetex vakblad voor textiel en kleding ( 10 June 1980 ), 46.

Martin Margiela, drawing, 1980–1981

Up until the 1970s, the emphasis continued to be on fashion drawing, and less on the technical execution of the designs themselves. Students drew models in costume, as well as beauty products, hats, hairdos, accessories, fabrics and other style elements.12 The purpose of the fashion drawing was to sharpen the students’ sense of perception. With a thorough knowledge of their materials, they would be able to achieve a better graphic visualization of “material, form, colour and the dialogue between apparel and human movement”.13 Prijot felt this phase was extremely important, and believed that it was here that the foundations would be laid for the development of an overall image for a collection of one’s own.14 Designers being groomed to work in the industry had to be able to make clear to others 67

15

T. Stuckens, “Belgische konfectie blind voor Belgische ontwerpers ?”, in : De Standaard ( 2 June 1972 ).

16 L. Kemps, “Dertig jaar Akademie”, Weekend Knack ( 12 May 1993 ) 6–7, 6.

17

Idem, 6.

18 Anon., “Koninklijke Academie toont modeontwerpen. Defilé van originele en kunstzinnige jurken”, in : Gazet van Antwerpen ( 23 June 1971 ).

19

F. Olbrechts, “Ook in de mode : Antwerpen boven !”, 132.

20 Jan Lampo, Een tempel bouwen voor de muzen.

Een korte geschiedenis van de Antwerpse Academie ( 1663–1995 ) ; ( Antwerp 1995 ) 28–29.

which fabrics and accessories they wanted to use. Students were given weekly drawing assignments in which they had to make contemporary derivatives from existing fashion objects. They were sometimes asked to draw perfume bottles, or certain historical costumes. These classes were not intended simply to hone technical drawing skills, but also to heighten the students’ creativity.

In time, the Fashion Department curriculum embraced more than just fashion drawing.

Prijot explained that the idea was that the students themselves should create a model and then produce it : “That entails more than just drawing a model. That model also has to be something that can be produced, which requires an elementary knowledge of cutting and sewing, good insight into the materials used and the possibilities, as well as production on an industrial scale.” 15 Because Prijot’s own technical background was limited, she soon ( 1966–1967 ) hired the 35–year-old Marthe Van Leemput, one of her students, as an assistant for the actual production of the designs. Van Leemput had previously studied fashion drawing during the war. When she first came to study with Prijot, the two women quickly developed a close friendship.

“I was 35 and wanted to start drawing again. I remember that I arrived at the Academy and everyone thought I was the teacher, because I was older, of course. [ … ] I was immediately recruited for the atelier, for cutting, because I had some practical experience. I certainly had not planned on staying at the Academy, but things clicked between Mary and me, and I enjoyed the work, so that is the way it went.

It was a strange situation : I was still a student myself, giving lessons to other students. Back then, things like that were still possible.” 16 The first, and for a while the only sewing machine at the department was one found at a Salvation Army second-hand store for a paltry one hundred Belgian francs. The further evolution of the curriculum also happened rather intuitively. Marthe Van Leemput recalls that the curriculum was constantly being honed. “Mary first thought it would be useful for students to make an historical costume out of paper, as a basis. We decided on half a costume, but that was ridiculous ; they could just as well make a complete example. Then I went on holiday to Greece and came back convinced that they should do folklore in the second year. So that was how things expanded.” 17 In this way, a blueprint evolved fairly quickly, one that still forms the cornerstone of today’s Fashion Department curriculum. In the first year, students were assigned to make a skirt and a top, as well as a beach ensemble and an evening dress based on a predetermined theme. At the time, as is still the case now for first year collections, the beach ensembles and evening dresses were produced in unbleached cotton, recycled materials and linens.18 In the second year, the students made a replica of a historical costume they chose themselves. Based on this historical piece, they then created a modern collection of five silhouettes. In the third year, this same exercise was repeated on the basis of traditional folklore costumes, followed by a collection of seven silhouettes and two or three children’s pieces based on the folklore costumes ( today they create eight silhouettes ; the children’s models are no longer used ). The purpose of this assignment was to help students to analyse a culture and, in this way, be able to understand and approach the mentality of a people more closely.19 In the fourth and final year, students designed a complete, contemporary collection of twelve outfits.

From 1966, practical studio classes were complemented by theory classes. These fit into the framework of the national restructuring of higher education in art. For the Antwerp Academy, it meant the stipulation of a complete day-to-day programme. The emphasis was still on practical studio subjects, as had been the case in the past, but from now on, a third of the classroom time would be devoted to general education subjects. The Academy now provided higher education in sculpture, photography, free printmaking, graphic design, jewellery design, ceramics, monumental arts, painting, and fashion and theatre costume design. The drawing lessons remained important in all departments.20 For the Fashion Department, this meant an important focus on the history of ( European ) costume and apparel, taught in great detail from antiquity to the present day. Traditionally, history of costume was a subject that had always been considered important at the Academy. In the classes in ( historical ) painting, there was a strong focus on the correct rendering of historical costumes and the principles of drapage. Given her background as a painter, Prijot believed that sound knowledge of the history of costume was essential for a designer to succeed.

Here again, drawing was the means for mastering that knowledge : in class, students drew 68

a silhouette from the period under discussion. In addition, the fashion students also sat with students from other departments for theoretical lessons that comprised a wide range of subjects, including world literature, psychology, art history and so on.

21

G. Persoons, Historiek, 33.

22

“Toespraak Xpo : Academie Antwerpen 325 jaar ( 11 mei 1989 )”, in : Vrienden van de Koninklijke Academie Voor Schone Kunsten ( VRIKA ) 12 / 3 ( 1989 ) 33.

23

L. Kemps, “Dertig jaar Akademie”, 6.

24 T. Stuckens, “Belgische konfectie”.

25 Interview Jo Wyckmans, 15 January 2013, Antwerp.

The very first fashion show in the Winter Garden of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts, Antwerp, 1966 ( Archive Marthe Van Leemput )

Thus the Fashion Department gradually evolved to become a fully-fledged four-year curriculum : students finishing the programme received a degree in higher, non-university education. In the early years, many of the students had first completed a three-year arts and humanities orientation programme at secondary art school, as well as an initial preparatory year together with students from the various other departments. Only then did they choose to specialize in fashion design.21 In conjunction with the restructuring of higher education in general, the criteria for admission also became more stringent. They were brought into line with the admissions criteria for other recognized higher learning disciplines. Students now had to present proof of a successful secondary school education, and needed to pass an artistic entrance exam that included a realistic rendering of a still life.22 In 1966, for the first time, a final exam fashion show was organized in the Academy’s Winter Garden. Students either modelled their own pieces or had friends model them.

Although the first shows were very amateurish, they made lasting impressions on those who came to see them. Marthe Van Leemput remembered them well : “Those first shows, that was quite something! We had no stage, no music. My husband filmed the show ; a colleague held the light and I showed my own creations. The public consisted of teachers, fellow students and a few workmen from the school.” 23 Prijot wanted to model the shows on the exhibitions of the Kölner Werkschule, where every four years, a fashion show was organized with participation from the various departments of the school.24 This also chimed with the vision of Mark Macken, who was striving to achieve a far-reaching integration between the different disciplines of the Academy. Although the Fashion Department now had a prominent place within the Academy, for a long time, it remained something of a maverick. The first students recall that there was little interaction with the other disciplines and that it took a long time before the Fashion Department began to receive any recognition from the students and the teachers of the more traditional art disciplines.

MODS, HIPPIES AND SWINGING ANTWERP The fashion-conscious, often well-heeled students who followed the fashion programme under Mary Prijot in the 1960s and 1970s tended to stand out amongst the bohemians and hippies populating the painting and sculpture departments at the Academy. Jo Wyckmans, a member of one of the Fashion Department’s first graduating classes, recalls : “There was really a gap between the fashion students and the other students, the artists. We had no contact with them. When I was a student, it was the time of Panamarenko and the Provos, with their long hair. Those of us in fashion walked around as exactly the opposite : super-bourgeois, wearing expensive shirts. My clothes were English in style ; my suits were bespoke.” 25

69

26 J., “Des étudiantes de l’Académie à Londres”, Le Matin ( 12 May 1966 ).

The 1960s saw the rise of concurrent, but contradictory images of fashion. Classic fashion, inspired by haute couture, now had competition from fashion that had evolved from the street up. Young people, especially teenagers, inspired international innovations in fashion and cultural life. In London, this “Youthquake” was further stimulated by Mary Quant, who introduced the miniskirt. New icons such as Twiggy and Jean Shrimpton became a prominent presence in the international media. This whirlwind of reform would become known as the “swinging sixties”. London in particular was a tremendous attraction, with Carnaby Street and The King’s Road as shopping Meccas for both mods and hippies.

Study trip to London with students of the Advertising Department and Fashion Department and teachers Piet Serneels ( left ) and Mary Prijot ( right ), 1966 ( Archive Marthe Van Leemput )

Students presenting their work in the garden of the Academy, 1968 ( Archive Marthe Van Leemput )

The fact that London had become an important fashion centre had certainly not escaped Antwerp. The Fashion Department, together with the Commercial Art and Advertising Department, organized a number of field trips to London in the 1960s and 1970s. The 1966 trip was led by Mary Prijot, Marthe Van Leemput and Piet Serneels. In addition to the requisite points of interest — the Parliament Buildings, Windsor and Hampton Court — they visited the Fashion Department of London’s Royal College of Arts and the costume studios of the Royal Opera House. The rest of the programme included visits to museums and the city’s most important shopping streets.26 Cultural excursions of this kind were not exceptional : students also travelled to Brussels to attend performances choreographed by Maurice 70

Béjart and visited museums in Paris and London. Prijot found it crucial that students kept their eyes and ears open, stimulating creativity. She encouraged her students from the perspective of her own cultural background and training in art.27 In Antwerp itself, the Swinging Sixties also left their mark. As a hub of international trade, Antwerp was directly connected to two of the most important cities in the international hippie movement : London and Amsterdam. The influence of these cities on the drowsy provincial town was considerable. The hippies and the Provos found their way to the city on the River Scheldt, where they had a major effect on contemporary art. In 1966, Anny De Decker and Bernd Lohaus founded the Wide White Space, and artists such as Hugo Heyrman and Panamarenko, Antwerp Academy graduates, strove to bring about cultural change and progressive policies on culture. In Flanders, the international student revolt, heralded by the Leuven Vlaams January Revolt in 1968, generated a vehement artists’ protest that was concentrated in Antwerp and centred around the A 379089–group and the Vrije Actiegroep Antwerpen ( VAGA, or Antwerp Free Action Group ).28 A lively art and fashion scene arose in Hendrik Conscience Square, with the eccentric designs, boutique and performances of Ann Salens, among others, whose colourful crocheted garments won her international fame. Akke Boe, the small shop owned by Akke Haarsma from the Netherlands, would also attract countless young people, as an expression of the spirit and the fashion of the 1960s and 1970s.

Initially, not many of these new street-generated fashions were noticed at the Fashion Department of the Antwerp Academy. Under the influence of Mary Prijot, the programme was primarily focused on Paris chic. Prijot had a profound aversion to the unkempt hair and looks of the hippie students : “In these last few years, fashion has gone mad. Surrounded by these rapidly changing trends, it takes a great deal of effort to keep a cool head in order to preserve a wearable, elegant and practical fashion. That is the principle we tried to pass on to our students.” 29 Like Coco Chanel, Prijot wanted to design apparel for a femme-femme, an elegant, extremely feminine woman : a lady. She therefore stuck to the rules of classical couture and the corresponding concepts of beauty. She preferred to see her female students with their hair cut short or gathered in a bun, with skirts that preferably hung below the knee. Nonetheless, Prijot was not ill disposed to international developments in the field of fashion. She was full of admiration for the emergence of ready-to-wear fashion in the 1970s : “On the other hand, I do find it positive that fashion has now really become something for everyone. It used to be part of the privileges of the rich ; now the masses can join in. We only need to continue to make an effort that they do not follow fashion so slavishly, but with a critical sense and especially with self-awareness. Anyone who knows himself or herself well does not just wear anything because it happens to be in fashion. But we still need a lot more education in order to achieve that.” 30

FASHION = ENERGY : A NEW GENERATION Slowly but surely, these international innovations would also seep into the Fashion Department’s educational programme. In 1975, in the popular magazine Avenue, Agnes Adriaenssens published a sharp analysis of the sticking points within the Belgian industrial sector, which had been confronted with a deep-rooted crisis since the beginning of the 1970s.31 Adriaenssens pointed to the gap that had been created during the 1960s between fashion that was marketed by clothing manufacturers and the fashion that people actually saw on the streets — fashions worn by young people. According to Adriaenssens, the importance of an educational programme that combined the profession of a stylist or fashion designer with that of the modelist — someone with technical knowledge — was indispensable for balancing supply and demand in the clothing industry. At the time, the Antwerp Academy of Fine Arts had the only fashion design education programme in the country where students were able to get training of this kind and, in its brief existence, it had already earned itself a highly respectable reputation. The article in Avenue would have considerable repercussions. Thanks to its glamorous fashion articles and avant-garde approach, Avenue was a very popular magazine and a true stylistic bible for anyone interested in fashion.

71

27 Archive KASKA, MA 467, Photo Book Fashion and Theatre Costume.

28

J. Pas, “Van Club Moral tot Cakehouse. Kleine kroniek van kunstenaarsinitiatieven en -collectieven in Antwerpen ( 1977–2007 )”, in : Johan Pas and Dennis Tyfus ( eds. ), Kopstoot ! Antwerpse postpunk en nieuwe underground ( Amsterdam 2007 ), 5–13.

29 T. Stuckens, “Belgische konfectie”.

30 31

Idem.

A. Adriaenssens, “Met Beide Voeten in De Wolken”, Avenue België ( July 1975 ) 1B-7B.

In Hasselt, northeastern Belgium, Martin Margiela and Marina Yee read Adriaenssens’ article and decided to go to Antwerp to sit the admissions exams for the fashion programme.

The same article also lured Walter Van Beirendonck to Antwerp from Lier. Margiela and Van Beirendonck both started the programme together in 1976. The next year, they were joined by Marina Yee, Dirk Bikkembergs, Dirk Van Saene, Dries Van Noten, and Ann Demeulemeester. At the Antwerp Academy, together with a number of other students, they would develop into a close circle of friends. To an even greater extent than the interests they shared in common, the secret binding agent for this group lay in their energetic, youthful passion for the new fashion that arose in the mid-1970s.

Teachers Marthe Van Leemput, Mary Prijot and Hieron Pessers, 1975 ( photo : Gerald Dauphin )

In combination with enormous drive and a healthy, shared sense of competition, this made them an exceptionally talented and hard-working group. There was indeed a great deal going on in the world of fashion. At the Paris shows the models not only presented couture, i.e. bespoke apparel of the highest quality, destined for the happy few, but also “ready-to-wear” designs, which were becoming increasingly popular. Designers such as Yves Saint Laurent, Valentino, Gianni Versace and Giorgio Armani now designed affordable clothes that were not made-to-measure, but were sold in limited editions and standardized measurements. In the late 1970s, designers such as Elio Fiorucci, Thierry Mugler, Claude Montana, Kansai Yamamoto and Jean Paul Gaultier were making the hearts of the young fashion students beat more quickly. For them, the central factor was the individual expression of the designer. They gave short shrift to the old rules and presented a new image of fashion. Fashion was now being experienced as a concept, a statement, and a personal message from the designer, who endeavoured to be both innovative and avant-garde.

Incredibly enthusiastic about the possibility of wearing designer pieces, Walter Van Beirendonck and Martin Margiela went to Paris and Florence to purchase outfits made by their favourite designers. Slowly but surely, the range of fashion that was available in Antwerp itself also expanded. People no longer needed to travel to Ostend or London in order to get their hands on the latest new trend. Countless new boutiques began to see the light of day, offering popular ready-to-wear fashions. One of these new boutiques was The Poor Millionaire ( 1976–1980 ), where Godelieve Bols sold pieces by Fiorucci and the wildly popular London-based store Biba. In her Loppa store in de Quellinstraat, Linda Loppa, a former student of Mary Prijot, carried such labels as Versace, Mugler, Cardin and Jean Paul Gaultier, and was actively building an international business network.

72

“The Six of Antwerp”, ca. 1986 ( photo : Karl Fonteyne )

Walter Van Beirendonck’s design for the assignment “historical costume”, with Dries Van Noten modelling, 1977–1978

These developments within the fashion industry were initially rather far removed from the educational programme of the Antwerp Academy’s Fashion Department. In 1975, Mary Prijot was responsible for fashion drawing and design on the basis of a certain historical period, and the study of old fabrics. Marthe Van Leemput taught cut, style and design and 73

32 R. Padovan and F. van der Leek, Hieron Pessers ( 2004 ), 96.

33

L. Senepart, “Eindexamen mode 1981, 10 maal geslaagd !”, in : Flair ( 21 August 1981 ).

34

MoMu, Administrative Archive Academy, 1978, meeting fashion show, 23 June 1978, Long Gallery.

35 V. Steeno ( ed. ), Josette Janssens Graphica 1949–1985 ( Schoten 1986 ), 12.

how to make patterns, but the trend remained conservative chic. Nonetheless, in 1974, Prijot and Van Leemput were joined by the Dutchman, Hieron Pessers, who taught drapage.

Pessers had practical experience as a designer for Hubert de Givenchy and the haute-couture house of Irène Galitzine, and as a teacher of “French Moulage” at the Fashion College of London’s Royal College of Art.32 In 1977, when Pessers left the Antwerp Academy, there was a brief period when there were no classes in drapage, but shortly thereafter, Mia SchneidersElst was hired to help with the students’ technical training. The programme remained relatively traditional in character, and was not yet seeking out any direct connections within the international fashion industry.

The enthusiasm and the international orientation of the new generation of students brought fresh air into what they considered a rather stuffy department of fashion. As time went on, they began to confront Mary Prijot, questioning the way the classes were planned at the Academy. Prijot was certainly ambitious within the confines of her world, which had an academic, cultural, but relatively localized perspective. But what the new students wanted, as it were, was the world at their feet. Their anything-is-possible attitude drove them beyond the borders of Belgium, and most of all beyond the lines that had been delineated by Mary Prijot. This generation gap became painfully obvious when, in their final year, students from the graduation class of 1981 were interviewed for the recently founded magazine, Flair. In the resulting article, several students expressed sharp criticism of the department. Some complained that there was no motivation for creativity, that they were not drawing enough, that the programme was not challenging enough, that it was too classical and sophisticated. Others expressed regret that there was no room for daring design or that there was too little practical or technical preparation for the working world.33 At an art school, a certain degree of friction between students and faculty is of course a normal state of affairs, but because of the media attention, and the fact that Mary Prijot was nearing the end of her career, the criticism was difficult to swallow, especially because there was in truth considerable mutual respect between the teachers and the new generations of students. Both acknowledged the added value that the other was contributing to what the school had to offer.

For the Flair article, the students had been able to use professional models and their styling had been particularly fashionable. The accompanying photographs bore witness to the immense popularity of the “new romantic” style. When the students wanted to continue along the same lines for their final exam fashion show, this proved to be miles removed from Prijot’s vision. She aspired to a timeless presentation that transcended temporary trends. Nonetheless, the 1981 graduation show was received extremely enthusiastically by the press : the collections were pioneering, innovative and exciting. In the years to come, the generation that graduated with this show made a name for itself in the domain of Belgian and international fashion. The students were also grateful to use the services of Jean Paul Vanhecke, who had added a professional touch to the shows at the Academy since the late 1970s.34 Gradually, the shows moved to the Long Gallery and professional models were used, which were provided by Jean Eggermont’s modelling agency Fashion Service. Prijot, who had been seeking the attention of the international press and industry from the very start, was finally rewarded for her perseverance : the invitations she sent to industrialists and the national press met with an increasingly good response.

From 1969, Bartsons — a raincoat manufacturer — awarded a prize at the fashion shows and someone from the company sat on the jury. In 1978 the magazine Elle was invited to the show and fashion journalist Gerdi Esch sat on the jury for the first time.

The graduation of this new generation of students proved to be a turning point for the Fashion Department. This was not only a strong group that heralded the arrival of a new generation at a stylistic level, they were also more ambitious than most of their predecessors. And they saw the future beyond that which had been envisaged by Prijot.

The rupture with the past was also made easier when Prijot retired in 1982 at the age of 65. She appointed Josette Janssens, a graphic artist, as her successor. Four years before, Prijot had already hired Janssens as an assistant, in the conviction that cross-fertilization with other art disciplines was preferable to the pure “inbreeding” of students and teachers within the Department.35 At the same time as Prijot’s retirement, Marthe Van Leemput also sought support from former students Freddy ( Fred ) Debouvry and Linda Loppa.

74

75

76

36 37

Ibid.

L. Kemps, “Dertig jaar Akademie”, 6.

Flair covering the end of term exam fashion 1981, 21 August 1981

Debouvry rejected the invitation, but Linda Loppa, who was at the time giving a series of guest lectures at the Academy, accepted the appointment on the basis of her experience as a boutique owner and her own activities in the fashion world.

At this point, there was an artistic divide within the Department. On the one side was Josette Janssens, who was more classically inspired and who expanded on the heritage and vision of Mary Prijot. From her background as a graphic artist, Janssens focused on the importance of drawing and draughtsmanship. She guided the Department away from an approach inspired by trends and attempted to “stimulate creativity towards a stylish, harmonious, attentive and caring design”.36 Her preferences would soon tend towards the charms of theatrical costume, and under her supervision the differences between the two disciplines would become less distinct. On the other side, there was also the more innovative tendency represented by Linda Loppa. She wanted to free the Fashion Department from the narrow academic world and opted for innovative fashion education that was internationally orientated, based on personal expression and striving to achieve a more conceptual and less classical kind of fashion. Mary Prijot, now retired, believed that this tendency was incapable of surviving beyond the short term. She expressed her continuing dissatisfaction with this development, in 1993, in an interview with Lene Kemps in Weekend Knack : “I always insisted that my students’ designs remain in good taste : elegant, easy to wear. Today, a collection is only good if it is difficult to walk in and if everyone stares at you. Clothing as carnival costume : what good is that ?” 37 When Josette Janssens died unexpectedly in 1985, Linda Loppa redirected the school towards international waters, which she achieved without opposition. From this point forward, the theatre costume design programme would also become more specialized.

Hitherto, at the beginning of their second year, students had been able to choose between fashion or theatre costume design. During the course of the 1970s and the early 1980s, it was still easy to switch between the two majors, even in senior years. Depending on the 77

38 MoMu, Administrative Archives Academy ( °ACA ).

number of students, studio classes were taught in shared classrooms. Although the resulting creations were clearly different, for a long time there was a practical symbiosis between the two disciplines. Thanks to the visionary input of Andreï Ivaneanu, who had joined the staff in 1983, theatre costume design developed into a comprehensive study programme.

At the heart of this development lay the growing insight that education in the fields of theatre costume design and fashion design both had different requirements and were

Fashion show in the Long Hall with model Saya Renfrum on the catwalk, ca. 1980 ( photographer unknown ) ( Archive Marthe Van Leemput )

Marthe Van Leemput and Walter Van Beirendonck advising students, ca. 1980 ( photographer unknown ) ( Archive Marthe Van Leemput )

based on differing artistic principles. However, the department for theatre costume design exhibited severe growing pains and for some years it would alternate between being taught separate from, or together with the rest of the Fashion Department. In the academic year of 1988–1989, the two disciplines organized separate shows for the first time. In 1992–1993, a fundamental restructuring would take place that laid the foundations for the Department as it exists today.38 Under Linda Loppa, a reorientation followed in the Fashion Department’s educational programme. The cornerstones of the programme ( skirt study, historical and ethnic costume, and personal collections ) were retained, but now students had to think proactively about the substance of a design and how it was produced. The curriculum became more modern and, in short, more fashion. In executing these changes, Loppa was supported by Walter Van Beirendonck, who was asked to join the teaching staff in 1985. At this point, Van 78

Beirendonck — who had gained previous experience as a stylist for Flair magazine and had worked as a designer for Bartsons, the Belgian raincoat manufacturer — already enjoyed international fame, thanks to his participation in the highly publicized Golden Spindle competition organized by the ITCB, the Belgian Institute for Textiles and Fashion. At the time that reforms were being implemented at the Academy, the same ITCB was at the basis of reforms in the Belgian fashion landscape.

THE WORLD DISCOVERS BELGIAN AND ANTWERP FASHION In the course of the 1970s, because of the general economic crisis and the emerging competition from low-wage countries, the Belgian textile industry went through a deep economic and structural crisis. The sector was one of the main pillars of the Belgian economy and so Willy Claes, the then minister for Economic Affairs, launched the Textile Plan in August 1980. The plan aimed to support the textile industry, bring about innovation and thus improve international competitiveness.39 The elaboration of the details of the plan was entrusted to the Institute for Textiles and Ready-Made Clothes, which embarked on this task on 1 July 1981. The Textile Plan provided a fund to support the sector in carrying through the required innovations ; there was also a social element that had to make it possible to reduce the work force, and it was also designed to provide help in improving the commercial position of the Belgian textile industry by investing in creativity, originality and product innovation.

The investment in creativity and originality would flourish, thanks to the campaign Mode, Dit is Belgisch ( Fashion — This Is Belgian ). The campaign was masterminded by Helena Ravijst. Ravijst had experience in the textile industry and saw a great future for Belgian fashion. She hoped to connect the artistically trained designers and the Belgian textile industry, which had been out of touch for a while. She also believed that Belgium had sufficient creative talents to compete with the international couturiers. In order to realize her ideas, she created a think tank in 1982. Her “club des créateurs” included famous Belgian designers from a variety of different companies : Nissim Israël ( from Olivier Strelli ), Jo Wyckmans ( A different Dialogue ), Willy Mis ( Rivoli ), Fernand Hollander ( Cortina ), and Brian Redding ( Scapa of Scotland ).40 The intention was to devise a strategy to bolster the image of Belgian fashion at home and abroad. The think tank decided that it was important to provide a springboard for young designers. Ravijst therefore contacted the Antwerp Academy, which at the time was the only institute that provided a higher education fashion programme. The level of creativity Ravijst discovered at the Academy and among the recently graduated students confirmed her views. It would inaugurate a long and fertile collaboration between young dynamic Antwerp designers and the Belgian Institute for Textiles and Fashion.

The first product of this collaboration was the Golden Spindle competition, which was meant to scout for talent. The first Golden Spindle was awarded in the autumn of 1982.

This first edition was a modest contest at which there was no public except for the press.

The competitors were asked to submit drawings. Those whose drawings had been selected were put into contact with Belgian manufacturers, and if they wished, they could use Belgian fabrics to have their designs manufactured. Laureates could participate up to a maximum of three times. From the second edition onwards, candidates were required to compose an innovative collection.41 The first edition was won by Ann Demeulemeester. In the years to come, the Golden Spindles would be won by the famous select group that had already made a reputation for itself during its years at the Academy. The second Golden Spindle was won in 1983 by Dirk Van Saene. Martin Margiela got an honourable mention and drew the attention of Jean Paul Gaultier, who presided over the jury. The third Golden Spindle was won by Dirk Bikkembergs, with honourable mentions going to Marina Yee and Dirk Van Saene. The later Golden Spindles were won by Pieter Coene ( 1987 ), Veronique Leroy ( 1989 ), and Christophe Charon ( 1991 ).

At the same time, the fashion magazine Mode, dit is Belgisch was also founded. Initially, the magazine was just a pamphlet, but from 1984 onwards it would become a fully-fledged fashion magazine that was on sale in newsstands and only featured Belgian fashion.

79

39

A. Van de Voorde, Mark Eyskens - een biografie ( Tielt 2005 ), 192.

40

Interview Michèle Beeckman, 30 January 2013, Brussels.

41

I. Renson, “Terugblik : 20 Jaar Mode Dit Is Belgisch”, in : Weekend Knack ( 10 September 2003 ), 92.

42

J. Waterschoot ( ed. ), Jaarboek van de Belgische mode 1985–1986 ( Kalmthout 1985 ), 43.

43 MoMu, Image Archives, Loan Bruloot ( BB ), 4 June 1986, “Onze Baby Boys in Dallas”.

From the start, the magazine enjoyed tremendous popularity. The first issue sold 43,000 copies.42 Stylists featured in the magazine included Marina Yee, Walter Van Beirendonck, Dries Van Noten, Dirk Van Saene, Ann Demeulemeester, Pieter Coene, and others. To promote cooperation between stylists and Belgian manufacturers, the latter were urged to submit items from their new collections to the young designers, who stylized them for photo shoots. The manufacturers often presented items from last year’s collections, and the styling sometimes went so far that the items were hardly recognizable. However, the public loved the daring photo shoots and 1988 saw the founding of the BAM ( Belgische AvantGarde Mode, or Belgian Avant-Garde Fashion ), which was intended to make it possible for stylists to vent their originality. On the one hand these various activities functioned as stepping stones for the careers of the young Antwerp designers : they got time and space to elaborate their own signature, create collections and work with manufacturers. On the other hand, the campaign to promote Belgian fashion also strongly appealed to many young people who aspired to become fashion designers. Throughout the 1980s, the number of students at the Antwerp Fashion Department steadily increased.

Cover of the first issue of the magazine Mode, dit is Belgisch, spring 1984

Obviously, the international popularity that fashion generally enjoyed should not be ignored : fashion was fashionable! The international lure of fashion also affected the graduates of the Academy. Phara Van den Broeck, a 1978 Academy graduate, was the first former student to go abroad ; in 1979 Gianni Versace employed her as his assistant. Hoping to get a similar position with Giorgio Armani, the 1980 graduate Martin Margiela travelled to Milan and later to Paris, where he set to work as Jean Paul Gaultier’s assistant. In March 1986 Dries Van Noten, Walter Van Beirendonck, Marina Yee, Dirk Van Saene, Dirk Bikkembergs, and organizer Geert Bruloot were the first to go to the British Designer Show, hoping to embark on an international career. Heavily pregnant at the time, Ann Demeulemeester stayed home, but put in a token appearance with a collection of glasses. Even during this first visit to London, there was interest from international buyers43 and interest grew over the course of subsequent visits to the English capital. In 1988, the now famous “Antwerp Six” presented their collections in the London Westway Studios. In October 1987, after Paris Fashion Week, the group organized “Fashion-Buying Days” in Antwerp with the help of Linda Loppa and Geert Bruloot, inviting international buyers to Antwerp and guiding them around showrooms that were specially set up for the occasion. The international press was on their feet : i-D, Elle, Women’s Wear Daily and lots of other magazines wrote enthusiastically about the sober avant-garde fashion from the unlikely new fashion metropolis : Antwerp.

The cooperation with professional designers and photographers, etc. became more and more intense and was expressed in the creation of a total look that involved the clothes, as well as the invitation cards, brochures, press kits, portfolios, and make-up. The creative network that provided support consisted of Geert Bruloot ( founder of the Louis boutique and Coccodrillo ), Inge Grognard ( make-up artist ), Bob Verhelst ( art director ), as well as Ronald Stoops and Patrick Robyn ( photographers ).

80

44 G. Thys, “Mary Prijot was de Chanel van Antwerpen - Stichteres van de beroemde mode-academie leerde de ‘Antwerpse Zes’ de knepen van het vak”, in : Het belang van Limburg ( 4 August 1998 ), 30.

45

MoMu, collected press articles, H. Verburgh, “Slechts de sterksten blijven over op Belgische Academie voor Schone Kunsten” ( s.d. ), 20–23, 21.

46

Dirk Van Saene and Walter Van Beirendonck arranging Van Saene’s autumn / winter collection at the British Designer Show, London, 1986 ( photographer unknown )

In the autumn of 1988 the “Antwerp Six” tried their luck in Paris, where, still acting as a group, they presented their collections in the Saint-James & Albany Hotel. Shortly afterwards, the group split up, as the members decided to pursue their own careers. One by one they showed their models on the Paris catwalk. Martin Margiela was the next to surprise friend and foe with his show “Café de la Gare” in 1988 ( summer collection 1989 ).

Internationally, Margiela’s breakthrough and the “Antwerp Six” would become the visiting card of the Antwerp Academy. It also meant it was not only Belgian students who were attracted by the school’s reputation. More and more students from abroad enrolled at the Antwerp Fashion Department, thanks to the Golden Spindles, the breakthrough of the Antwerp graduates, and the fact that a lot of former students ended up as finalists in prestigious international contests ( the Toyoba Fashion Competition, for example ).

AVANT-GARDE FASHION AND DESIGN KNOWLEDGE IN THE LOW COUNTRIES With Linda Loppa at the helm, new content was brought to the fashion design programme at the Antwerp Academy. Loppa strove to achieve a fashion design programme that encouraged innovation and creativity. The consistency of the curriculum was assured in the sense that the classic assignments continued to form the basis of the programme, as it had in the past. As Linda Loppa explains, “Mrs Prijot was very artistic and literary. She saw beyond just fashion and apparel. She laid the foundations. We did not actually have to change very much in her programme. We are still moving forward in the same spirit and from the same perspective.” 44 Moreover, as had also been the case in previous years, students in drawing and design courses were challenged from the very start to produce their own designs, to get the very best out of themselves, and to develop their own personal visions of fashion.

In the course of the 1980s and 1990s, the emphasis on the creative process and the research that lay at the basis of that process was further expanded, as Walter Van Beirendonck explains : “With us, it is ‘think’ first and only then ‘do’. In the second year, when students have to delve into the history of costume in order to create their models, we first have them spend three months completing sketches and collages, and doing research, before they are allowed to make a single piece of their own. The idea is to hold them back at first, then let them loose.” 45 Loppa confirms this : “Good students distinguish themselves from the others in the fact that they are able to completely understand their themes, can then step back from them and then execute them.” 46 One of the ways that this was achieved was through the introduction of “trend books” into the curriculum.

All the students were asked to put together their own books in which they expressed themselves by way of themes of their choice. In this way, students were motivated to develop a 81

Ibid.

47

Ibid.

48

T.E. Nicewonger, Fashioning the Moral Aesthetic : An Ethnographic Study of the Socialization of Antwerp Trained Fashion Designers ( PhD dissertation, Columbia University, New York, 2011 ), 39.

49

Idem, various pages.

50

Anon., “Bosmans : het gevaar van de extravagantie”, in : De Morgen ( 24 June 1987 ), 7.

51 B. Grauman, “Fashion from Antwerp, the weird and the wonderful”, The Bulletin ; cover story ( April 1987 ), 21–23, 23.

52

“The light of an old city shines on new ideas”, in : The Washington Post ( 12 August 2001 ) F4.

visual and conceptual unity in their personal language of form. This was only possible by way of a strongly driven search for a highly personal visual language, one in which “roots” automatically form a prominent source of inspiration. As Loppa explains, “Things that are totally alien to each other can be put together, but the [ … ] silhouettes we expect to see still have to form a visual whole. For these themes, it is about having a point of discussion, a reason and a way to allow students to discover why they think something is beautiful.” 47 Armed with this “one concept” principle, it is made clear to the students just what is expected of them.48 In order to achieve this conceptual logic in the work of the students, the interaction between students and instructors was intensified. Through individual guidance, teachers tried to identify with the views of the students and to help give direction where needed. This more intense working method, together with the growing numbers of students, inevitably required a larger teacher staff. Walda Pairon, Nellie Nooren, Yvonne Dekock, Heidi Pille, Patrick De Muynck, Elke Hoste and Dirk Van Saene are but a few of the teachers who have been or are still on the staff. Preferably, teachers are hired who have personal experience as designers or stylists, which enables them to guide students in the different, specific aspects of design : form and pattern study ; translating the two-dimensional drawing to the toile model ; the composition of the collection as a larger whole ; the selection of fabrics, and so on. Here, teachers are watchful that each design meets a series of basic principles : volume, balance and atmosphere all have to be right.49 In addition, it is also crucial that a design reflects personal creativity and artistic vision, and that it relates in a proper manner to the body.

Another important emphasis in the last two decades of the twentieth century was the quest for innovation. Where in the past, fashion students had aspired to achieve beauty and elegance in their designs, from the 1980s onwards there was always the question of whether the design added something new and fresh. The staff encouraged students to look at the world around them with new eyes. This quest often led to extravagant designs that were not commercially viable, and in 1987, the teaching methods of the Fashion Design Department found itself the subject of criticism from an unexpected source. A member of parliament, Jozef Bosmans, was unhappy with the way that the Department was evolving.

He complained to the then Minister Kelchtermans, because it had come to his attention that “the extravagant tenor is so dominant that classical concerns are barely covered or not considered at all”. It was apparently the case, moreover, that some teachers “even transfer this extravagance into their everyday clothing and appearance”.50 Indeed, it was not the Department’s intention to produce immediately wearable apparel. Linda Loppa clarified her teaching principles : “Some people criticize us because we do not think in commercial terms. It is my belief that you have to build up the self-confidence of designers. You have to encourage them to try things out and push them to the limits of what is achievable. They can always learn to deal with the limitations later.” 51 It was precisely this artistic freedom in relation to the commercial expectations of the fashion industry — an approach that is continued today under the leadership of the current head of the department, Walter Van Beirendonck — that led to the Fashion Department of the Royal Antwerp Academy of Fine Arts achieving such a strong international reputation.

The emphasis is more on the artistic design process and less on the technical development of the craft. The study programme is perceived as a creative cocoon in which students can enjoy the freedom they need to delve deeply and uninhibitedly into the design process, without having to take into account the actual limitations of the fashion industry. In this sense the Antwerp programme is different from other leading fashion programmes, such as these of the Central Saint Martins College of Art in London, Studio Bercot in France, the Bunka Fashion School in Tokyo and the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York.

As Valerie Steele, director and chief curator in the latter institute, confirms, “At the Royal Academy students are encouraged to look inside. Most fashion programmes precisely encourage the students to look to the outside — but in Antwerp the students are stimulated to penetrate deeper and deeper into the subjective consciousness. In Antwerp fashion is a personal adventure that can be compared to writing. Exterior influences are interiorized and potentially articulated in an entirely personal style.” 52 In successive waves, this reputation attracted French-speaking Belgians ( the Antwerp Academy offered the only fashion design programme in Belgium until 1986, when a 82

Fashion Design Department was established at La Cambre in Brussels ), as well as German, Dutch, Eastern European, Japanese, Korean, Indonesian, and Russian students to Antwerp.

In 2006, more than twenty-six different nationalities were enrolled at the Antwerp Fashion Department.53 Because of this varied background of the students, one can no longer speak of Antwerp designers — rather, they are designers with an Antwerp training. This melting pot of nationalities and the internationalization of the programme promoted a radical professionalization and institutionalization of the Department.

PROFESSIONALIZATION AND NEW INSTITUTES The increasingly professional standards of the fashion design programme were reflected, amongst other things, in the fashion shows organized at the end of each school year. In 1985, the shows were moved from the Academy itself to the Stock Exchange Hall. The 1980s also saw international fashion experts in the juries assessing the shows : Frans Ankoné of Avenue joined the jury in 1981, as did the British fashion journalist for i-D magazine, Caryn Franklin, in 1988. The 1986 show was honoured with the royal visit of Queen Fabiola.

The professional world and the textiles industry also showed growing interest. In 1987, in addition to representatives from Bartsons, the jury also included representatives from the Flax Bureau and the Parisian trend agency, Promostyl.54 The 1993 jury was joined by designers Dries Van Noten and Jean Paul Gaultier, as well as international journalists, including Elisabeth Paillée of Marie Claire Bis and Madame Figaro, and Amy Spindler of The New York Times.55 Gradually the shows also addressed a wider public. One of the key moments in this regard was the large-screen projection of the show at the Antwerp Meir in 1993, as part of the celebrations marking Antwerp as the European Cultural Capital for that year.

From the small, intimate shows presented for the juries, friends and family in the 1960s,

Teachers Yvonne Dekock, Chris Fransen, Linda Loppa and Nellie Nooren, backstage at the Fashion Show 2006 ( photo : Annick Geenen )

Teacher Walter Van Beirendonck and students backstage at the Fashion Show 2006 ( photo : Tim Stoops )

83

53

K. Debo and G. Bruloot, 6+ : Antwerpse Mode ( Antwerp 2007 ), 42.

54

MOMU, Administrative Archives Academy ( °ACA ).

55 MOMU, Archive Marthe Van Leemput ( °MVL ).

56

V. Windels, “Hoe werkt het Flanders Fashion Institute ?

Een ambassade voor de mode”, in : De Standaard ( 11–12 December 2004 ), 44–45, 44.

the end-of-year show has grown into a major three-day event, which has an important place in the Antwerp cultural agenda and draws some 7,000 viewers to the Waagnatie complex.

In contrast to the past, today’s students no longer sell their collections at these shows, but hold on to them in order to take their first steps in the professional world.

Students and teachers backstage at the Fashion Show 2011 ( photo : Boy Kortekaas )

The international attention focused on the Academy and the annual show also generated new developments. The Fashion Department’s fame brought direct links to society and to the fashion industry. Students today are in the international spotlight. Their development is followed by journalists and companies looking for new talent. This is in direct contradiction to the principle of the cocoon, which is meant to offer students the freedom to focus on their artistic and creative design process. In order to preserve this cocoon environment, a number of institutions have been created in order to meet the needs of a programme that was bursting at the seams. Thanks in part to the efforts of Linda Loppa, ModeNatie ( Fashion Nation ) opened its doors in the Nationalestraat in 2002. The Modenatie would henceforth provide a home to the department of fashion design itself ( previously housed at various locations within the Academy, as well as in the Kammenstraat ), to the Flanders Fashion Institute ( FFI ) and the Fashion Museum ( MoMu ). During the first years of their existence, all three of these institutes were under the leadership of Linda Loppa.

The Flanders Fashion Institute grew out of the non-profit organization Fashion Antwerp, established on the initiative of Linda Loppa, Gerdi Esch, Geert Bruloot, and Patrick De Muynck. In 1997, it obtained the title of “Cultural Ambassador for Flanders”. Fashion Antwerp and later the FFI were intended to offer a platform for young designers, providing logistical support and serving as an ambassador for Antwerp as a city of fashion. 56 Thus the FFI functioned as the economic sequel to the school. The founding of the MoMu Fashion Museum of the Province of Antwerp evolved out of the need to ensure a physical anchoring point for the narrative of textiles and fashion in Antwerp. In addition to the collection of the former Vrieselhof Costumes and Textiles Museum, the MoMu also wanted to conserve collections by contemporary designers. The museum’s fashion library and the various exhibitions that the MoMu presents make the collections accessible to a wider public. In terms of architecture, the Modenatie building also serves as a translation of the Fashion Design Department’s needs : the Fashion Department is on the top floor, the highest level in the creative centre, with the FFI below it as a support centre for the sector and for young designers starting their careers. On the lower floors are the library, the archives and the exhibition galleries of the Fashion Museum. The generous use of glass in the architecture as well as the central hall and staircase emphasize the transparency and the synergy between the different storeys and activities of the building.

Though this essay focuses on the early history of the fashion programme, it should not be forgotten that in the 1990s and 2000s, too, various generations of successful designers 84

graduated from the Antwerp Academy : the collections of Veronique Branquinho, A.F. Vandevorst, Jurgi Persoons, Bernhard Willhelm, Angelo Figus, Bruno Pieters, and many others met with international acclaim. Furthermore, several former students of the Academy came to occupy central positions in the fashion world. The international press invariably seeks to define what makes the Antwerp designers unique. Among the elements that are often listed as key ingredients of the programme are deconstructivism, an in-depth study of forms, and a strong sense of individualism.

TO CONCLUDE The success stories of international designers are often attributed to their artistic genius and their eye for what is happening at the moment and in the near future. At the same time, the importance of the education they received must never be forgotten. Is it a coincidence that such a series of unique, talented and successful designers all graduated from the Fashion Design Department of the Royal Antwerp Academy of Fine Arts, or is there some structural connection ? Questions of this kind are difficult to answer. It is in any case true that the Fashion Design Department has succeeded in growing alongside its illustrious alumni and with the challenges of the times. Questions that relate to what fashion is supposed to be and what might be the place of a fashion programme within an art academy tend to fuel controversy. In their own philosophical statement, the members of the teaching staff at the Fashion Design Department express it as follows : “The Fashion Department of the Antwerp Academy sees fashion in the broadest sense of the word, as a form of expression for the emotions of our time. Clothing reflects and questions society. People in fashion are not an isolated clique, but engaged individuals who question the prevailing concepts of ethics and aesthetics.” 57 In this sense, as Mark Macken pointed out, fashion is closely connected to the art of its day.

In all their diversity, the designers who graduate from the Antwerp Academy are united by an energetic belief and the ambition to design collections that have meaning. Perhaps this characteristic, together with a certain sobriety and discipline in thought and action, is the secret behind the success of the Antwerp Academy’s Fashion Department.

“The Six of Antwerp” before the gate of the Academy, 1987 ( photo : Philippe Costes )

85

57 Philosophy of the Fashion department, Royal Academy of Fine Arts, Antwerp, 2012. ( http://www.antwerp-fashion.be/about, as consulted on 4 March 2013 ).

Paul Ilegems & Hans Theys

From Memory Artists about their Student Days at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp.

WILLEM DOLPHYN ( BORN 1935 ) IN CONVERSATION WITH PAUL ILEGEMS, 29 OCTOBER 2012.

“I started to study at the Academy in 1950. My father, Vic Dolphyn, taught drawing from antique models in the third year. He had been appointed by Opsomer and indeed, he was an admirer of his work, which had quite a lot in common with my father’s. I skipped the first three years at the Academy, because I had been drawing a lot at home and so I immediately landed in the fourth year. One of my teachers was Carlo De Roover, who was very strict and traditionally minded. He used to be quite firm in telling us what was wrong and making us start all over again. Discussing things was out of the question. I actually learned more from Gustave De Bruyne, who had more fantasy and who was more careful in expressing his views. He didn’t have this authoritarian attitude.

We had to enter the school through the entrance in the Blindestraat. The main gate was reserved for teachers. If you hadn’t entered before 9 a.m. the door was closed and you had to enter through the main gate, which was guarded by the head caretaker, Oscar. We were very disciplined, but the teachers entered the classes much later than we did.

Jozef Vinck’s animal class was obligatory for all students. In the zoo we had to select an animal and study it for an entire year. I started with the secretary bird, a sort of flamingo.

The second year I chose apes, and in the third it was small birds. We also drew the horses of the Noordnatie, one of the warehousing companies in the harbour, which entered the school through the back entrance near the city’s weighing house.

My father also wanted me to take lessons from Jacques Gorus, who taught drawing for graphic artists in the evening classes. We drew geometrical shapes with charcoal from models, with the arm outstretched in order to have a better overview of how the parts related to the whole. We were allowed to use a plumb rule, but that was it — compasses, ruler or stump were all banned. It was all about lending depth and volume to a cube or sphere, simply by using a grid.

De Bruyne and Antoon Marstboom often sent us to see an exhibition, but we weren’t allowed to exhibit our works ourselves, unless the director gave us permission. The idea was that a student who took the initiative himself to exhibit his work might end up making the entire school look ridiculous. The prevailing idea at the academy was that students would have plenty of time to develop a style of their own later on and embark on a career as a painter. Later, at the NHISK, the National Higher Institute of Fine Arts, we still had to ask for permission to exhibit our work.

I entered the Higher Institute at the age of seventeen, and along with Walter Vaes I was the youngest student ever to enter the school. Opsomer’s style didn’t really appeal to me.

I was more attracted by the Dutch style, which was less appreciated at the Higher Institute.

Director Creytens ( 1897–1972 ) was supposed to tutor the first year, but that was merely theoretical. There was a rule that said that the director always taught in the highest year of the academy and in the first year of the Higher Institute. But Creytens appointed Marstboom as his substitute. Twice a year he entered the classroom, had a look at everyone’s work, asked if Mr Marstboom was doing well and left. He was rather detached — always correct and courteous, but superficial in his contacts.

I never heard anything of the activities of the group G58. I visited the Hessenhuis perhaps once, although I had been at school with Jef Verheyen and he was a good friend of mine, but that was outside the world of art. We never talked about it. Just once he advised me to buy some of Lucio Fontana’s cut canvases. Now I regret that I never did, seeing how much they are worth today.”

87

FLOR HERMANS ( BORN 1935 ) IN CONVERSATION WITH PAUL ILEGEMS, 30 DECEMBER 2012.

“I started studying at the Academy in 1950 and including my time at the Higher Institute, I stayed there for ten years in total. If I’m not mistaken, I was admitted to the second year painting course and I initially got lessons from Vic Dolphyn and later from Carlo De Roover. We didn’t see the teachers a lot — they came into the classroom perhaps once a week. Later I heard they didn’t earn very much. Teaching at the academy was something of an honorary job. Dolphyn and De Roover were both narrow-minded, each in their own way. That’s why they disapproved of so much of our work. They were entirely unconnected to what was happening on the art scene. Marstboom was the only one who was a modern painter. He taught us about modernism and abstraction, things that were looked at with condescension at the Academy. Marstboom used to bring books into the classroom and hung reproductions of modern works of art on the wall.

We were always very happy to learn something — this was still the ‘informationless era’. For us, information was only visual : the things we saw others doing, the things we saw in museums or at these rare exhibitions. For me, the academy was like an island where you could meet people, an island with lots of space and lots of rooms, but where you didn’t know what was inside. The studios were divided with wooden panels covered with a layer of clay. The supervisors wore a black suit with copper buttons and a uniform cap. There was an attendant who walked around with a sprayer with formalin to spray the dead animals that were used for still lifes in order to protect them from decay. And there was Mr Van Zoom who transported the white plaster casts on wheels from one studio to the other.

He was like a physician for those sculptures : he dusted them, repaired them, and he was always dressed in an immaculate white lab coat … It was all incredibly beautiful. If I hadn’t gone to school there, I would have been a different human being. Today, I could of course say all sorts of negative things about the school — we lacked this or that, and this or that teacher said all sorts of ugly things — but at the time I didn’t know there was anything negative at all. There wasn’t any disenchantment yet. We were naive, but times were also different. The Belgian mail services still had a symphony orchestra at the time …”

YSBRANT VAN WIJNGAARDEN ( BORN 1937 ) IN CONVERSATION WITH PAUL ILEGEMS, 9 OCTOBER 2012.

“From Den Haag I had gone to London, where I was at Art School for two years. Very thorough it was, but not really serious. I wanted to be at a serious school and I was admitted to the Higher Institute in Antwerp. There were some twenty applicants, almost all of whom were admitted. It wasn’t that serious after all. There were several painters from the Netherlands, but I had little contact with them. Guy Mees, however, became a real friend.

One day I went to visit the honorary director, Opsomer. Guy Mees simply went out to call on him, and he took me along. Guy had that kind of guts. Opsomer lived in a beautiful town mansion near the park and a butler opened the door. We said we were students at the Higher Institute and the butler replied that the baron would be delighted. In the entrance hall I noticed Permeke’s Pastries Stall, which is now in the Royal Museum of Fine Arts in Antwerp. We were well received. Opsomer took us to his studio and showed us his work. He was very friendly the whole time and he wasn’t patronizing at all. Suddenly he exclaimed, ‘I bet you don’t eat very well!’ and he had a dozen oysters dished up for us, which were followed by lobster.

We were there from about five in the afternoon till midnight and we drank champagne all the time. Nothing but champagne. We were drunk by the time we left. In the Netherlands that would have been unthinkable. Opsomer consumed a lot himself, also whisky. He really enjoyed eating and drinking. At the time, people drank more than they do now. There was the same atmosphere in the Academy. No event without champagne.”

88

PANAMARENKO ( BORN 1940 ) IN CONVERSATION WITH HANS THEYS, 10 OCTOBER 2012.

“You ask me about how I experienced my student days at the Academy. For me, that is like asking about the usefulness or uselessness of an art school. For me, the Academy was certainly useful, because it was there that I learned how to look. It wasn’t the teachers who taught me, it was just being busy with art. The teachers didn’t think much of Vincent Van Gogh, and Picasso was called a fraud. They considered Duchamp worthless, but they still used him as an argument to claim that he had already done everything one could possibly do. Their case was irrefutable : creating something new was simply impossible. Yet the sound barrier was being broken and Sputniks were being sent into space. Everything seemed on the move, except art.

Our teachers themselves painted landscapes and views of the River Scheldt. Rather dark paintings, they were. Quite suitable for hanging in medieval houses, next to copper flower pots with sansevierias. I didn’t have a particular problem with that. Their paintings were okay, but they wanted us to do the same thing.

I started studying at the Academy when I was fourteen and I left when I was nineteen ( 1954–1959 ). In the morning I painted, and in the afternoon I learnt how to make posters.

The first year we had to learn how to draw spheres, cubes and pyramids. The second year I had to draw a herring on a towel. The third year we also had to draw nudes from live models. That continued until the final year. If you bought a tube of skin-coloured paint at the beginning of the school year, it would last till the end of the year. To make the skin colour darker, I used charcoal — that way I didn’t have to buy a tube of ochre, which was very expensive. One of the things that made it difficult was that you weren’t allowed to draw the model as you saw her. The teachers had their own style. You had to use elegant lines, because the women had to have a Rubenesque touch. The teachers had their own studio, where the students weren’t allowed.

Yet going to the Academy was useful, because you tried out all sorts of things and thus you discovered that you could make things that looked all right. Our teachers hated Van Gogh and Picasso, but I thought I could manage the same thing. And because I tried, I started to see something. My attempts produced a certain effect. I noticed that if I used a black brushstroke here and a red circle there, a magical composition could result. Learning to see things is really important. Later I discovered that there were really few people who can see anything at all. Without the academy or intense contact with an artist, you can’t learn what it means to see. That’s why there are so few writers or poets who are capable of seeing something.

Once I made a painting together with Fred Bervoets that looked splendid, but the next day we overpainted it. I also met Wilfried Pas at the academy, who later made works with spiders’ webs. They didn’t look bad at all.

I graduated with paintings of women on a background of black and white squares.

For the women I used enamel paint. I thought it looked nice, but my teachers called it kitsch. They didn’t like my straining for effect. Yet what is art but an attempt to call forth an effect ?

While I was at the academy, everything became more and more serious. It turned into a sort of state school. Suddenly it was full of know-alls who had been catapulted into their jobs, teachers who came to check exams and who considered our posters to be too painterly. Those were people who were really blind. There’s one teacher of whom I have a fond memory : Marstboom. He allowed us a lot of freedom. He made abstract paintings himself.

What else is there to be said ? You’ll never make money with it, or you’ll have to cheat.

The more expensive the art, the better. That’s how it works. There’s a short lesson!”

WILFRIED PAS ( BORN 1940 ) IN CONVERSATION WITH HANS THEYS, 22 OCTOBER 2012.

“I had studied earlier in Brussels at Saint Luke before I arrived at the Antwerp Academy.

For my parents it was important that I went to a Catholic school. For them, the Academy in Antwerp was a stronghold of dangers. In Antwerp, the atmosphere was more relaxed, but the teachers had more limited ideas. In Brussels, you learned about all sorts of painters of 89

some importance. There was a wide range of views. There were a lot of cartoonists, such as Gal, for example, but also a number of cabaret artists who went to Saint Luke in Brussels.

In Antwerp they really had ridiculous views. The height of stupidity was a teacher who claimed that Van Gogh didn’t even come up to his ankles. Picasso was only mentioned in order to ridicule him. The teachers really hated him.

In Antwerp I studied advertising. Actually, everyone did, with the idea of being able to make a living later on. Other students who studied advertising were Panamarenko, Walter Goossens, and Fred Bervoets. In the morning we had painting classes and in the afternoon advertising classes. I had a lot of fun there. Fortunately, I had acquired some baggage in Brussels, because in Antwerp you simply had to paint in the style of the person who happened to become your teacher : the senior. In Brussels I had learnt a lot from Luc Verstraete. In Antwerp I liked Olivier Strebelle : a tall man, who was a bit odd. He was French-speaking, fashionably dressed, a very jolly chap. He must be about eighty now.

I believe he still practises hang-gliding. He used to teach ceramics at the Higher Institute.

As a student, I was influenced by the Italian school. They had an exhibition in the open-air Middelheim Museum. It was a really mind-expanding event, with artists such as Marino Marini. I created work with found or cheap materials in the spirit of arte povera : wax, oil paint, pieces of string, cloth, gauze and fabric. In the end I like the primitive more than bronze, but people are afraid of these primitive things, because they think the work will fall apart. Yet some works have been hanging here for some thirty years.

When I became a teacher myself, I was appointed by the minister. That’s how it went at the time. I was actually catapulted into the job. That caused a lot of tension, including tension between the director, Mark Macken and myself. He was a real barbarian and had a lot of plaster casts sent to the rubbish dump. It was said that the young generation was a generation of iconoclasts, but actually we saved as many sculptures as possible, like Rodin’s Dalou, for example, which is now in the Middelheim. Once I saw a marble statue of three metres in height being sawn into pieces that were to serve as practice material for the students.

But in the end the sculpture class turned into a well-functioning unit. After the first year, you could opt for one of the workshops, which were led by three different teachers : myself, Guy Maclot, and a third teacher. The leitmotif remained modelling from models, working on composition and free work. We weren’t a factory producing sculptors. In the end, it’s not about training people to become artists — it’s about making sure that in the course of four years students develop a personality and can function as human beings in society. You give them a taste of things and teach them how to discover freedom by teaching them discipline. The more you know, the more you can use and the more you can forget. I think it was Paul van Ostaijen who said that a student is like a burning museum : as a teacher, you have to drag out as much as possible. You have to rescue what’s inside and in order to do so, you must be prepared to give something.”

WILFRIED HUET ( BORN 1940 ) IN CONVERSATION WITH PAUL ILEGEMS, 16 NOVEMBER 2012 “My father, Jan Huet, was 43 years old when he was scouted by Isidoor Opsomer ( at that time director of the Royal Academy and the Higher Institute ) for a job as a teacher in glass painting at the Academy. Opsomer sent his chauffeur to Hoogstraten to fetch my father for a personal talk and he accepted. At Opsomer’s request, my father set up his lead glass studio in the Academy, which was not so common at the time. There, my father collaborated with an assistant on several commissions. More than once he spent the night at the Academy in a more or less improvised setting.

I must have been six or seven years old when he took me to his studio for the first time. It was at the rear of the Academy, above the pillared vestibule at the Venusstraat.

The Academy left an overpowering impression on me. I remember the high ceilings of the corridors, the plasters, and the unique atmosphere. My father’s studio was decorated with an architrave that had cast-iron flower motifs. Behind one of those motifs, I discovered a hidden peephole looking down upon the Long Gallery that was filled as far as the eye could see with plaster copies of classical statues, from ancient Greek sculpture to the Laocoön Group and Michelangelo … a breath-taking sight! Later on, this collection wasn’t really 90

properly taken care of. The sculptures were lent too easily to other academies and by consequence got lost in the vaults of art education.

In 1955, I became a student of the Academy myself. In the morning we chose painting, sculpture or drawing. From the second year on, we could opt for a second teacher. I followed the classes of Carlo De Roover amongst others and I studied as I was expected to. However, I experienced some difficulties, because I was not into the “matière-painting” that was, with a few exceptions, very dominant at the time. The traditional roots of the Academy weighed heavily on the programme. The disinterest in the vibrations of art that were felt outside the Academy walls was disturbing. And suddenly, out of the blue, there was this early pop art show in the Academy’s Wintergarden gallery. There I saw Robert Rauschenberg’s combine piece Monogram ( 1955–59 ) for the first time. To be honest, I constantly felt a bit angry at the Academy because it opened its windows to the outside world only sporadically. ”

FRED BERVOETS ( BORN 1942 ) IN CONVERSATION WITH PAUL ILEGEMS, 21 SEPTEMBER 2012 “In my days you could start at the academy after just three years at secondary school.

It was all very different from now. I started in October 1957. I was fifteen and as the son of a docker it embarrassed me to go to the Academy. Who went to the Academy at that time ? Hardly anyone sent his children to study at the Academy. Becoming an artist ?

Such a worthless career! But then I saw what these cowboys did in the upper years, with their plumb rules, stumps and other instruments I had never heard of! And it was all completely crooked!

We started drawing cones and other plaster shapes from models, and then the plaster heads of the great masters. Drawing a plaster cast from Michelangelo’s head, that’s more than just registering things, you know. I finished the first trimester with 80% and I was admitted straight into the fourth year. There we first did reclining nudes, and then standing nudes. We were a factory for nudes. I stood there in medium-length trousers and I only dared to glance briefly at the models — I mainly worked from memory. In the evening, between six and eight, we used to go sketching in Jan Vaerten’s evening classes. Standing and moving models. We had some thirty models at the time in the Academy. I was rather good at putting the naked ladies on paper. I made thousands of these sketches. At night my Dutch friends sold them in pubs. With the money we could go out and drink and eat Chinese. I had my own personal model, Martha. Today that would be impossible, but at the time it was perfectly affordable. That was a study they can’t take away from you, you know.

It’s an energy you can conjure up. It’s really quite simple, but you have to know about it. Of course, you can also turn everything upside down and inside out, but it’s not bad to know what is really normal. You shouldn’t depart from the abnormal, you can’t even be abnormal if you don’t know what the normal is …

The real academic was a painter who could paint a standing nude in an Opsomerian way. With a firm gesture and broad brushstrokes. That’s what we learned in our lessons.

But I was good at this gestural painting, so that wasn’t a problem for me. I finished these gestural paintings in no time, just one day, that’s all I needed, and then I still went on to make a second one — but in my own, personal way. I painted just to see afterwards — not before — what I had been painting. In fact, I only learned something from Antoon Marstboom and René De Coninck, who taught etching. But after Marstboom died, Dis Van Raemdonck became my teacher. He made us paint cutters in the docks. I didn’t put the mast where it stood, but where it suited me, because the piloting tower was behind it and I couldn’t possibly put the mast before it. But Van Raemdonck was a sailor and he claimed that my boat couldn’t be steered because it couldn’t tack. I really couldn’t care less — I was only interested in the pictorial aspect. He also called Permeke a piece of shit, and that I couldn’t take.

There was little theory at the Academy, and I never attended the few classes devoted to it. I just attended a bit of art history, which was taught by Stanislas Van den Brempt. In the literature classes I fell asleep, because they just read their text out loud. I only went to painting classes.”

91

ANNE-MIE VAN KERCKHOVEN ( BORN 1951 ) IN CONVERSATION WITH HANS THEYS, 12 NOVEMBER 2012 “I studied at the academy from 1970 to 1974. When I was twelve, I wanted to be a sculptor — a boy’s dream. My parents wanted to apprentice me to the sculptor Albert Poels, but I didn’t feel like doing work for him till I was fifteen. I was very keen to go to the Academy, but my parents wouldn’t let me. Furthermore, the people who did the study counselling at school and who advised us on a career thought I was too clever for ‘decorative arts’. I had no choice : I had to go to a comprehensive school. Saint Luke in Brussels wasn’t an option either. I asked if I could take evening classes, but even that was out of the question. After three years in Saint Lutgardis in Antwerp, I chose to bide my time in the Holy Sepulchre Boarding School in Turnhout. After that I enrolled at the Academy in Antwerp, where I started to study graphic design. The entrance exam went very well. Mark Macken, sculptor and then director, said, ‘She’s got talent — we’ll teach her the rest’. Mrs Prijot wanted me to study fashion with her, but I simply wanted to learn new techniques as I went along with drawing, and I also wanted to work with text.

In short, you could say that for me the academy was really dreadful. Heart and soul, I was a free artist and I couldn’t cope with the assignments they imposed on us. I simply didn’t understand them. Almost invariably, I didn’t understand what they expected from me. Teachers from other departments later said that I should have chosen free monumental arts, because I loved to make large works that involved a lot of work.

At that time, photography was not yet considered a real art, but as a subject it was already on the curriculum. During my second year, the photography department was founded — an offshoot of the graphic design department. I decided to stick to graphic design, because I wanted to continue drawing, but in fact I learned a lot from the photography teachers Jos Hermans and Paul Ausloos. We had a few really good teachers. Drawing from a model was taught by various teachers, including Wilfried Pas. That was really useful. He didn’t say a lot, but he taught me a few things that were essential and that served as a basis when later, I myself started to teach at the Academy in Ghent. He taught us that you had to think from the middle of the joints, and that by being aware of those points, you got contact with depth. My main teacher in the studio was Piet Serneels. Working with him was a disaster.

For some reason the man had a problem with me. His comments were invariably discouraging. It became so bad that in the final year I left the classroom when he entered. I regret that now, because much later I discovered that my grandparents, who ran a reception hall, had once commissioned a design for a mural, but had never paid him. When I discovered this, I was really furious with my grandmother. I was already active as an artist at that time, and on several occasions I had myself experienced this lack of commitment to projects that ended up being abandoned. Furthermore, a large draft for the mural hung in father’s study and as a child I couldn’t keep my eyes of it. For me it was a fascinating graphic masterpiece with beautiful shapes and mysterious colours, with the gouache perfectly applied. This was the very man that I had wanted to meet!

My class started with twenty-six students ; in the final year there were four of us left.

Much to Serneels’ discontent, these were all women. He called us the goats’ class and often claimed that he was wasting his time and knowledge on a class with women only, because once we got our degree, we would marry, get children and never do anything with art for the rest of our lives. I considered that particularly insulting.

Serneels wasn’t the only one with these kinds of views. In Antwerp it was considered good taste not to take women seriously in the world of art. In my eyes, all men in Antwerp misbehaved towards their wives. It was no coincidence that my first serious boyfriend came from Aalst, and my husband Danny Devos from Vilvoorde. Then of course, women didn’t have many female artists to look up to in the history of art, or on the contemporary art scene for that matter. Meret Oppenheim and Niki de Sainte-Phalle. That was it. There weren’t any classes on contemporary art, either. History of art was mainly about African tribes, so to speak. And Serneels’ ideal was Paul Klee.

Our teachers were also particularly influenced by the style of advertisements in Central and Eastern Europe. Their admiration was justified. These adverts were splendid, but a wider and more contemporary horizon would have been more stimulating. It was taboo to try out drawing techniques that were reminiscent of the illustrations in Avenue, a Dutch magazine that was very trendy at the time.

92

The year I arrived at school, the artists’ ball had been banned. That was really a pity, for they were famous and I had looked forward to them. There was also this idea at the time that an artist had to drink a lot in order to be one of the crowd. So I started drinking myself, until I got cirrhosis at the age of twenty-four. In fact, I drank mainly to prove to myself that I could if I wanted to. And to rebel against my upbringing. Not so much to prove myself as an artist. Until I got this disease, which made me bedridden for three months, in complete quarantine, I had reconciled myself to the fact that I would simply become the wife of an artist. But after those three months I had made up my mind. Immediately after graduating, I went to work in a restaurant, but by 1974 I had already exhibited my drawings in Ercola.

I have few fond memories of my last years at the academy. When my work was marked down and I asked why, that caused problems. Apparently you shouldn’t ask those sorts of questions. But how could you possibly do better if you didn’t know what you did wrong ?

For my graduate thesis I wanted to organize a campaign with, as the point of departure, an animation film with clay pigs that grew in a flowerpot. My subject was Stresnil, a medicine that is administered to pigs when they are taken to the slaughterhouse. But making animation films was banned in the Academy in Antwerp and Serneels considered a medicine for pigs to be a disgraceful subject. In the end I graduated with a work about Norse legends and myths.

So, the Academy turned out different from what I had imagined. Perhaps people who had Joseph Beuys as a teacher have more interesting stories to tell. My schooling was a rather muddled matter. But that was probably also my fault. Bearing in mind Mark Macken’s promise, I was convinced for a long time that I had learned too little at the Academy. But perhaps that is precisely how it always works : you learn things from the crumbs you pick up here and there.”

NARCISSE TORDOIR ( BORN 1954 ) IN CONVERSATION WITH PAUL ILEGEMS, 8 NOVEMBER 2012 “I entered the Academy well prepared, for I had studied drawing and painting in evening classes and at art secondary school, where Albert De Deken, Karel Van den Heuvel and Guy Maclot taught — three excellent teachers who were artists themselves. Those years at art secondary school were among the best of my life.

But as I started at the Academy, things started to go downhill. The first year with Vic Dolphyn was mainly drill. Dolphyn was very strict, but also very solid. But he had no respect for authority himself, and certainly not for director Macken. When Macken came to inspect the classrooms for open house, Dolphyn went to stand in the doorway, ostentatiously barring him from entering. Macken didn’t dare to say anything. Dolphyn was more or less all right for me, because I was good at painting. He was friendly towards me, but he could be terrible towards other students.

In the second year we had a new teacher, Lode Jacobs. We had heard that he would bring a new wind, and we were full of expectation, waiting for his arrival. He arrived an hour late. He was very elegantly and stylishly dressed, wore fashionable glasses and had the manners of a dandy. He carried a cardboard box under his arm. He announced that today we wouldn’t paint, just draw, and emptied his box out onto the stage for the model. It was filled with objects in plastic, paper, cardboard — a whole pile of it. You can start now, he said. We had to draw the lot, all this rubbish. No one knew how to start. I concluded that first one had to think before one starts anything. A week later he brought a red still life.

Then a blue one. Always small objects. A model came later.

Jacobs talked about the light. We had to paint the light, he said, and he made a gesture as if he was feeling sand between his fingertips. I said, ‘Why don’t you show us how ?’ But he didn’t touch a brush. Yet I was on good terms with him. We often talked about things.

History of art was old-fashioned and uninspired, but Janssens’ introduction to world literature was very good in my view. He taught us about James Joyce, Marcel Proust, William Faulkner and Ezra Pound and he invited Ivo Michiels into the classroom for a lecture. John Baert gave philosophy and his lessons were very good, too. Because of him, I wanted to study philosophy after graduating at the academy, but he advised against it and said I simply had to go on reading philosophy — which I did.

93

In the third year, decay set in with Rudolf van Meerbergen. He wanted us to make soft, decorative works with pastels. I continued to battle with him for a whole year. The fourth year I had him again. That was more than I could bear. I took my easel and installed myself in one of the sculptors’ classrooms, somewhere behind a partition, hidden from the light.

But at that time painting had already changed for me : it wasn’t ‘really’ painting anymore.

I started to paint with latex paint. Black and white. That caused problems at the academy, but I passed anyway, because I won every possible prize. I was even able to start at the Higher Institute without doing an entrance exam, if I promised not to use latex anymore.

I promised, but used latex anyway.

In the first year at the Higher Institute, Rik Slabbinck entered my studio, which was completely dark, because I was busy with projections. He went away, never to come back that year. It was only his assistant who came to see me every now and then. So it quickly became obvious that there would be problems once again. I moved out of the classrooms of the Higher Institute and went to work in the Bourla building, in the gym of the secondary art school.

The Institute was an authoritarian structure that imposed rules on the students and those who didn’t follow the rules were excluded from the Institute. I opposed that system very strongly. First by creating black paintings, then by fundamentally refusing to reflect on the things I had learnt at the Academy : technique, composition, subject matter, everything. I wanted none of that, though I still wanted to paint. I racked my brain over the problem for half a year. It marked me for the rest of my life, for I have continued to question my medium ever since.

When the jury entered the gym — ten elderly gentlemen I had never seen before — I was so convinced of my own ideas that I sincerely believed I stood a chance. Macken invited me to tell my tale and I explained meticulously what each work was about. When I had finished, Macken thanked me and the jury left without a single question. Not a hint of the slightest interest. They flunked me and I never heard anything about the jury or their arguments. I considered one of the works there my first true work — my point of departure.

At the time I was friends with Leo Verhoeven, who was a great painter, and with Walter Van Beirendonck, Marina Yee, Dirk Van Saene and Ann Demeulemeester from the fashion department. Sometimes I learned more from my fellow students than from my teachers.

I also learnt a lot outside school, in the ICC, where Flor Bex organized some forty exhibitions a year. There were ten conscientious objectors working in the ICC, and shortly after I left school I started to work there myself as a conscientious objector. Preparing exhibitions, installing works, dismantling the exhibition … The work was interesting and pleasant for everyone.”

WALTER VAN BEIRENDONCK ( BORN 1957 ) IN CONVERSATION WITH HANS THEYS, 7 NOVEMBER 2012 “I came to the academy in 1975 and graduated in 1981. In the first year I took so-called preparatory courses, which involved mainly drawing from a model, but also painting and art theory. In my first year in the fashion department, there were three of us. My best friend that year was Martin Margiela. We also graduated together. In the second year, there were ten students. Dries Van Noten, Dirk Bikkembergs, Ann Demeulemeester, Dirk Van Saene and Marina Yee were among them. I came from a boarding school in Lier and the academy was a real revelation.

At that time the fashion department was still housed in the same building as the visual arts. So we often came into contact with students from other departments. That sort of mingling was a good thing in my view. Life in Antwerp was also very fascinating. We went out together, organized parties and were introduced to each other’s work. I had good contact, for example, with the painter Narcisse Tordoir and with Bruna Hautman.

The fashion department was still in its infancy. There were two teachers : Mrs Prijot and Marthe Van Leemput. Mrs Prijot was the head of the department. She considered herself to be a reincarnation of Coco Chanel. She had a very fascinating, but also very traditional way of thinking about things. She thought from an ideal of female beauty and used classical standards. It was captivating to listen to her and be able to respond, for at that time, the entire world of fashion was on the move. During my years at the Academy, first Armani 94

and Versace entered the fashion scene. A year later Gaultier, Montana and Mugler made their appearance. Right after that came Yamamoto and Comme Des Garçons. Those events gave us the impression that everything was possible. It was a revelation to find that fashion could tell a lot.

Our second teacher, Marthe Van Leemput, taught cut and patterns. She coached us every day for the creation of collections. The teachers were always present. We all sat together, the first and the second year, also for the theory classes and drawing from a model. As a group we did everything just to be able to be present for everything. We didn’t want to miss out on anything. Together we discovered Robert Mapplethorpe in New York. We went to Paris and New York and forged entrance tickets for the fashion shows. At that time you only got entrance tickets for the shows if you were a journalist or if you had a shop. Linda Loppa had a shop, that’s why we had the opportunity and the time to forge the tickets. That was really important, because no information about the collections came out until six months later they were hanging in the shops. For us it was important to know much earlier what the designers were doing. In fact not for any practical reasons — but simply because we were enthusiastic! It was just fascination!

Discovering all those new possibilities resulted in a very creative clash with Mrs Prijot’s dated ideal of beauty. I mean, in Paris we saw huge haircuts, whereas our models still wore a bun. That led to interesting confrontations, though she left us a lot of freedom. In 1980 there came a real U-turn. Linda Loppa started to teach, just before I did. I started teaching in 1985. But in fact the curriculum has remained the same ever since. The students get the same assignments for drawing, they still have to create an ethnic and a historical costume and they are encouraged to seek inspiration in the same way that we were. The curriculum was well thought out.”

LUC TUYMANS ( BORN 1942 ) IN CONVERSATION WITH PAUL ILEGEMS, 25 OCTOBER 2012 “I attended the Academy only one year in Wolters Van der Weij’s class. He was a sort of non-identity. The entire Academy was in fact a very apathetic whole. You didn’t really learn the real academic stuff, as you do, for example, in Russia or China. They can all paint there, though that is not to say that what they paint is good. It’s all rather empty, but from a technical point of view they are very advanced. They just don’t know how to lend meaning to it.

Once Wim Meewis came to give a lecture on action painting, which was the subject of his PhD thesis. Everyone fell asleep, which was entirely incomprehensible to me. There was complete apathy among the students, just like at Saint Luke in Brussels for that matter. I studied philosophy with John Baert. I passed my exam with 19 / 20 without any preparation. I had read the black book of Existentialism and talked him under the table. We also had literature. Dreadful that was. I can’t remember who taught history of art.

I did have some contact with the students in my class, but with the students in the higher years or with those of the Higher Institute the contact was practically non-existent.

There was a vacuum. I entered the Higher Institute, on the floors above us, only once. I saw a few studios, but there was no one there. I rarely saw those people, except in the cafeteria.

The Higher Institute had the aura of a monastery, of the life of a hermit. I rarely entered the pubs around the Academy. I didn’t take part in the student life — I had always hated that.

But I did go to the openings of exhibitions in the Academy, though these usually weren’t much. In the evening I did my own work.

I don’t remember with whom I studied drawing, but as such that was the best part of my days at the Academy. I came from Saint Luke, where I had drawn a lot. In those days I made some three or four thousand drawings a year. I didn’t use a ruler, I drew very freely, but that resulted in conflicts : we had to measure, with the points. It annoyed them that I could do things differently and much faster. They saw I had talent, that my quick sketches had quality, and they couldn’t stomach that. I didn’t keep any of my large drawings after a model. They were extremely dull. I just threw them away.

Wim Meewis I got to know somewhat better. He had studied history of art at the VUB, the Flemish university in Brussels, together with his son. That’s how the idea grew to leave the Academy and study history of art in Brussels. That, too, turned out to be a disappointment, but anyway … Shortly before I left the Academy I talked to director Theo Van Looij in his 95

office. He was an architect, a very reasonable person who was actually interested in my work. He had seen one of my works and apparently it had somehow touched him. But his interest came from a different perspective and it created bad blood between the teachers and myself.

Art schools have never been of much use to me, but I think that’s probably true of all ages. The academy did not shape me. That came only in later years. It did start things, though. Gust De Smet, who taught in the preparatory years at Saint Luke, taught me how to draw and I’m still grateful for that. He was an exception in that he was not a frustrated artist — he wasn’t a good artist either — but he was an extremely good teacher. He’s also the man who convinced me not to study graphic arts, but to become a real artist. Good teachers are rare because the situation is very subjectively charged — who am I to say that someone is doing a bad job ?

In Brussels I did my BA in one year instead of two. Humanities was the weakest faculty in Brussels and it probably still is. So essentially, I have the feeling that I did everything myself. And perhaps that isn’t too bad, after all.”

VINCENT GEYSKENS ( BORN 1971 ) IN CONVERSATION WITH HANS THEYS, 18 OCTOBER 2012 “I studied painting at the Academy between 1990 and 1995. What struck me most in my student days, is that we never learnt about contemporary Belgian art. Fortunately, we shared the campus with the students of the fashion department, which bred an international and contemporary spirit. I remember, for example, Veronique Branquinho, one of my fellow students. At ten o’clock we had a sort of break and we all went downstairs to smoke and drink bad chocolate. That is where our interest in other things grew.

But in painting classes, our frame of reference was the same as that of our teachers. My first teacher was Bruno Van Dijck. He thought like his own teacher Jozef Van Ruyssevelt and his teachers. Then you had Ludo Lacroix, who had connections with the circle of the Black Panther gallery. And then there still was Pat Harris. He was anchored in the British tradition. His examples included Lucian Freud and Frank Auerbach, but not Francis Bacon.

That was a tradition that suited me well. I had studied classical languages at secondary school and I had no artistic reference frame whatsoever.

The first years were devoted to a strange canonization of modernism, the interiorization of Cézanne and Cubism. Van Ruyssevelt, who was already dead when I arrived at the Academy, must have radiated a tremendous artistic creativity, but surprisingly, everything that went on now was confined to existing genres, even the titles of the works. This subdividing into genres is unknown in other academies. A link to contemporary painting was entirely absent, and thus everything we learnt about modernism was reduced to a sort of didactic material, instead of being turned into a way of thinking.

The three different ways to approach art that we learnt about all related to a fundamentally romantic approach to the artistic calling : the artist who loses himself in his work, who is in direct contact with matter, who works from his guts and who has a tremendous fear of anything that has to do with a theoretical approach of art.

For me, everything was new. For example, I had never before been in a classroom with girls, though I had actually studied Germanic philology for one year. Our class was international. There was a Frenchman, a Mexican, three Germans, an immigrant from Spain, and a Korean girl from France. The sort of class one can only dream of now. I myself had never had any preliminary art training. I set off from zero. I took evening classes drawing from a model in order to catch up. In the second year I already knew what sort of work you had to make in order to pass. A self-portrait in grey tones with backlighting was invariably a success. A particularly abstract landscape was also appreciated, especially when the paint was thickly applied. They said so themselves : we support hefty painters.

Hefty painters got extra marks.

In the third year everything changed, because Fred Bervoets suddenly became one of our teachers. Up till then we had known two sorts of teaching : a legitimate form of teaching at the Academy and an illegitimate form in the master-pupil relation with Fred Bervoets, whom we met in the pub The Jesuit, and to whom we showed our work. Bervoets infected us with a tremendous enthusiasm. After a conversation with Bervoets you flung yourself into 96

your work. After a conversation with one of your teachers you just wanted to do nothing at all and that was a feeling that lasted some time. There was a tremendous difference in generosity. Sometimes I think that the same will happen now : that real teaching will once more move to pubs and studios. In a pub you can have a relation with an artist that is based on trust and departs from a sort of shared concern with your work. In a school that is possible too, but if teaching at school becomes too formal because of academic initiatives, it is hard to maintain trust.

When Bervoets entered school to teach, something interesting emerged, which was the result of the fusion of these two approaches. As I moved from the third to the fourth year, a sort of awakening came over me. On the occasion of Antwerp ‘93, Bart Cassiman had organized the exhibition The Sublime Void with work from René Daniels, Juan Muñoz, Luc Tuymans and other artists. I couldn’t identify with this work — I didn’t understand it.

That’s how that summer — I was moving a fridge — I had a conversation with Bruno Van Dijck, and I told him we didn’t have any reference frame for our work.

At that time, we also had lessons from the art historian Paul Ilegems about contemporary Belgian art : Lili Dujourie, Thierry De Cordier, Walter Swennen, Denmark, Luc Tuymans, etc. Suddenly the art world detached itself from a ghostly alcoholic context : we were confronted with a very narrative and emotional concept of the artistic calling that seemed something that was entirely outside contemporary society. Everything was locally oriented and outside the local, nothing existed. Bervoets was the top. But because of what Ilegems told us in his lessons, I wanted to interview the people he mentioned for my endof-term essay for art history. I wanted to understand what made their work so interesting, because I simply didn’t see.

The first artist I interviewed was Luc Tuymans. The interview lasted six hours. For me it was shocking to find that he wasn’t busy with art the way we were : he used it for things that had nothing to do with the materiality of painting or with painting as such. At the Academy, the subject matter was considered irrelevant : it was all about the way you did things. In Tuymans’ case, it was completely the opposite. He attached great importance to the subject and to immersing oneself in its context. He talked about artists such as Mike Kelley, about whom I had never heard. After Tuymans, I interviewed Denmark and later still Bert De Beul and Walter Swennen. With De Cordier I exchanged letters.

We never had visiting teachers in the studio. In these almost reactionary surroundings I started provoking my teachers. I made paintings that had almost no paint on the canvas and in the fourth year — we were allowed to make free works then — I painted nothing but academic skulls on canvas measuring 80 by 60 centimetres — all of them the same size. I couldn’t accept the freedom I was offered, because it was a fake freedom that had to be fashioned obediently : everyone painted very large canvases that were filled in a very gestural way. But that wasn’t because of Bervoets’ influence. He had always insisted that we had to create our own world. He didn’t think that we had to look for stylistic features — instead, we had to look for our own subject matter, our own framework, our own approach. He told me that I was the first conceptual painter the school had ever produced. He didn’t see my work as painting, but as thinking about painting.

With hindsight, a large part of my work involved overcoming my academic education in order to return to the materiality and the physical element of painting. Gradually I came to question Tuymans’ dogmatism, his thin application of paint and the significance of the subject and the image. I deliberately started to look for that which transcends the mere thinking about images. Today I find it possible to identify myself with large parts of my education and with the work of painters such as Walter Sickert, Lucian Freud, Francis Bacon, Frank Auerbach, Howard Hodgkin and Eugène Leroy : departing from the body, these painters came to handle matter in a brutal manner. If I do so now as well, it is not due to some limitation from my part.

I try to construct a reference frame that lasts longer than fashionable criteria, because I hate well-informed artists who subject themselves obediently and without hesitation to the prevailing standards of contemporary art. It’s hard to find an avant-garde nowadays.

As a young man, I was fascinated by Antwerp modernism, by Jespers and Joostens — the surroundings from which Bervoets sprang — but with models such as Richter and Kippenberger it is hard to do anything at all. Their points of view are so radical they cannot serve as a foundation on which to build. The difference with bygone days is that this historic dimension has now penetrated the schools, but that has resulted in a new sort of obedience. Students seek to be trendy. Everybody paints Richter, Tuymans and Flash 97

Art. The students are really free now, but it’s a freedom that resembles the freedom of a shopping centre, and conservative ideas about taste are rampant. That is true also of our most eminent artists. Half of them end up in the ‘Spiliaert hall’ : the hall with the greyish, melancholic, sentimental work. A truly great artist is not interested in sentiment, but in behaviour, in matter, aggression, sexual urges. Bacon, Duchamp or Willem de Kooning.

The current fear of colour, of bad taste, is shocking. Everything must be black and white, because that is always true, documentary and objective. In my paintings I want colour and I want to ignore taste.”

CINDY WRIGHT ( BORN 1972 ) IN CONVERSATION WITH PAUL ILEGEMS, 23 NOVEMBER 2012 “I came from a very small village and I entered the Academy in blissful ignorance. I concentrated on drawing from a model and on portraits. I stuck to them, because if I had let go of these, I wouldn’t have had anything to hold on to. My teachers told me I had to widen my horizon. Fred Bervoets said, ‘All this figurative fiddling with portraits … What are you doing ? You’re simply doing this sort of thing because you don’t know anything else to do.’ When I continued anyway, he said I was obstinate. But he didn’t shove my opinion aside, and I appreciated that. He tried to get inside me as a person in order to find out what it was I was looking for, what it was that was ‘my world’. He was a really good mentor. But I remained a difficult case.

When I went to the fourth year, I had to explain my project. I said that I wanted to go on with my focus on working with models and portraiture. Bervoets got worked up and said that in that case everything had to be right with regard to proportions and anatomy. He would be very strict. No mistakes would be allowed. I asked whether I would still have the chance to learn something, or whether I would have to know everything at once because I worked figuratively. Sometimes it was as if he thought I wanted to test him ; that I wanted to see how sound his judgement was, how good he was at correcting model studies. But he did everything to enable me to study working from models for an entire year. That actually put me under pressure : I had to deserve every hour the model was there. He also warned me that I mustn’t impose ‘monstrous poses’. He knew very well how hard the job of modelling was.

One day I bought a ticket for a daytrip to London with one of these coach companies, Pam Vermeulen the company was called … I went to see the Saatchi Gallery and saw work

by Jenny Saville, who was still unknown at the academy at the time. I returned to the studio with a few catalogues. From then on I went to London almost every month to see the work of Kossoff, Auerbach, Freud, etc. I had pushed back some frontiers after all! Fred Bervoets said, ‘Let’s have a look at those catalogues — this is better than all this shit here.’ I knew then that he had abandoned his prejudices against me. In fact he didn’t care very much whether a painting was figurative or not. It was pictorial coherence that mattered most to him. He often came into the studio to look at the students’ work when no one was there. At 8.30 in the morning he was already studying our work. He knew what had been written down and what he would say that day. Sometimes he would suddenly dash at me while I was quietly having a coffee and call out : ‘That yellow stain there in the corner! What’s it doing there ?’”

NADIA NAVEAU ( BORN 1975 ) IN CONVERSATION WITH HANS THEYS, 12 NOVEMBER 2012 “I studied at the academy from 1994 to 1998. But my first visit was when I was still at secondary art school — I still had to do two years there. I knew right away that I wanted to become a sculptor. I was impressed by the things I saw and I had the feeling there was no time to lose. I did my exams for those two years in one go at the central examining board and I enrolled at the academy. That decision was like scoring a bullseye, it felt so right! For four years I worked in a traditional, figurative style under the guidance of Wilfried Pas. Working with clay was self-evident for me. I was mainly busy modelling, but I didn’t want 98

to go on with modelling only figures. Gradually I developed free work, which consisted mainly of assemblages.

In the meantime I had met my boyfriend, the painter Nick Andrews, and I started to see things in a different light. I followed the optional course of painting and Fred Bervoets regularly came to see me in my studio. His energy really was infectious. I took up working in two dimensions. I drew, painted, carved in wood, etc. That resulted in bas-reliefs, which I then painted as a sort of extension to my drawings. It was only later that I started to make autonomous works, which once more I modelled and then covered with fabric, artificial grass, or gold leaf. It was like an accelerated growth process. We were a well-motivated class. Among my fellow students were Caroline Coolen and Bart Van Dijck, who became good friends. There was this constant searching for things, also for spaces where we could work more freely, where we could make larger work and didn’t have to care about the rubbish. In the third year we broke into the Bourla building and that was where I graduated in the fourth year.

I think I learned a lot from Wilfried Pas about figuration and from Fred Bervoets about freedom. Wilfried Pas was rather reserved, but he always hit the mark when he said something. Fred was energy in its purest shape. Last week he was at an exhibition and he kneeled down to look at a work that I hadn’t put on a plinth yet, I mean, he wanted to look at it from the right angle — the angle from which I had made it. A master with a very keen eye!”

K ATI HECK ( BORN 1979 ) IN CONVERSATION WITH HANS THEYS, 20 NOVEMBER 2012 “I studied at the academy from 1999 to 2003. I had sat for the entrance exam for painting just to get some practice for the entrance exams for the fashion department or the department theatre costume. But afterwards, I certainly didn’t want to study fashion : it was much too clean there! Terrifying, that is, this cleaning mania in the academies! Everything becomes so natty. The Higher Institute used to be a refuge. Now it’s a kindergarten.

I had two teachers that were important for me : Pat Harris, who was a very sensitive person and who acted a bit as a psychologist, and Fred Bervoets, who, for me, embodied the dream of the romantic artist, for example, with his story about how he went fishing, throwing grenades in a pond. Every morning Fred arrived at the academy at a quarter past eight. If you wanted to show him respect, you would be there at the same time, even after the heaviest night. If he found your work interesting, he didn’t have a lot to say about it. But that wasn’t necessary. At school you don’t need someone who comes to tell you every day how well you’re doing. Once a month is enough. What I really missed the first years was contact with teachers from other departments. I also found it quite tragic that everything was so meek. I needed a bit of revolution, but I didn’t find anyone else who was a revolutionary.

In the course of the third year I went to Vienna for three months to study. There the situation was completely opposite. Everyone was preoccupied with the revolution. I remember an unsightly girl who had made a large banner with the word ‘Revolution’. She hung it up and I thought, ‘That won’t come to much revolution.’ My stay in Vienna left me with the feeling that I wouldn’t make it on my own. But gradually I met other people. People who seemed to match with me. In 2002, for example, I met my husband Greg. Later I met Dennis Tyfus, whose first show I had seen at Stella Lohaus’ gallery, on 5 December 2002.

I think it’s odd that almost none of the people who graduated with me still paint. In Germany competition is unpleasantly fierce, but here it looks as if there’s no one. You need people to look up to in order to become better. You must be able to put up a fight. I want to be the best. I want to fight my laziness by exhibiting my work in the right places, next to other powerful works.

I also came to respect my teacher Bruno Van Dijck, who demanded great discipline of us.

The first two years I was working incessantly. Now I can have a conversation with Bruno, but at that time I couldn’t.

In general I thought the Academy was too easy. There were too few real challenges. In Germany it’s a lot harder. But they never would have accepted me there, because I was so young. They accepted me here, but the downside is that you are treated like a child all the time. You’re only allowed to work till 6 pm. Then you’ve got to wash your brushes and go 99

home. But at that age, the day only begins at 6 pm! In Austria you could work as long as you liked and you could stay overnight.

When I returned from Vienna, I had made a suit for a superhero and a video. When I showed these to an interim jury here, I got flunked, though they had hardly glanced at them. I continued to make the same things, but never again did I show them to a jury.

That’s the situation you get : students don’t want or don’t dare to show their real work. It’s a thing I often hear. It’s really absurd. They want you to work at school, but in fact they compel you to work at home. You don’t show them your real work, and you never find out what they actually want to see. Perhaps a magical Flemish portrait ? I’ve never understood. Whose fault is it, that almost all students produce the same sort of fake work year after year ?

But I know it’s not really easy. For two years I taught painting from a model at Saint Luke in Antwerp. The first year was more or less all right, but the second I felt so unsure of myself that I hid behind the easels. I really didn’t have an idea what I could teach the students. I didn’t understand why they were there. Because they had drawn a beautiful duck at secondary school ? Because they liked to play with paint ? Because they liked being a student ?

To make up with them I offered them a party with drinks at the end of the year. I’d pay for it with the money I had earned by teaching them, for I believe the best teacher is someone who is also your friend. But it was a complete disaster! They all had a Coke or a Fanta, and after an hour the party was over. I wasn’t even able to spend my money!”

100

Jan Lampo & Johan Pas

Chronicle of an Art School : 1900–2013 1900 Juliaan De Vriendt becomes director of the Academy ( until 1923 ).

Frans Huygelen ( 1878–1940 ) wins the Prix de Rome for Sculpture.

Walter Vaes ( 1882–1958 ) studies at the Academy.

Georges Vantongerloo ( 1886–1965 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1905 ).

1901 Juliaan De Vriendt teaches figure painting at the Higher Institute.

Joe English ( 1882–1918 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1908 ).

For a few months, Jules Schmalzigaug ( 1882–1917 ) studies at the Academy.

Jos Leonard ( 1892–1957 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1905 ).

1902 Marthe Donas ( 1885–1965 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1903 ).

Hippoliet Daeye ( 1873–1952 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1903 ).

Jozef Peeters ( 1895–1960 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1913 ).

1903 Jan Kiemeneij ( 1889–1981 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1904 ).

1905 The art society Kunst van Heden organizes its first salon in the “former museum” of the Academy.

1906 Isidoor Opsomer ( 1878–1967 ) becomes a teacher at the Academy.

1908 Oscar Jespers ( 1887–1970 ) studies at the Higher Institute ( until 1911 ).

1909 Paul Joostens ( 1889–1960 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1913 ).

Floris Jespers ( 1889–1965 ) studies at the Higher Institute ( until 1914 ).

1910 Felix Gogo ( 1872–1953 ) joins the teaching staff at the Academy.

1911 Edmond Van Dooren ( 1896–1965 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1917 ).

1914 Henry Luyten ( 1859–1945 ) teaches at the Academy ( until 1918 ).

101

1917 Alice Frey ( 1895–1981 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1919 ).

Former students Jos Leonard, Oscar and Floris Jespers found De Bond zonder Gezegeld Papier, together with Paul van Ostaijen and Prosper de Troyer.

1918 Albert Van Dyck ( 1902–1951 ) studies at the Academy.

Former students Jozef Peeters and Jos Leonard found the Kring Moderne Kunst.

1919 Isidoor Opsomer starts teaching at the Higher Institute.

Frans Hens ( 1856–1928 ) teaches at the Higher Institute ( until 1923 ).

Victor Horta ( 1861–1947 ) teaches architecture at the Higher Institute ( until 1927 ).

Albert Ciamberlani ( 1864–1956 ) starts teaching drawing at the Higher Institute ( until 1924 ).

Alfons Proost ( 1880–1957 ) becomes a teacher at the Academy ( until 1945 ).

Maurice Felbier ( 1903–1991 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1922 ).

Franck Mortelmans ( 1898–1986 ) studies at the Academy.

Carlo De Roover ( 1900–1986 ) studies at the Higher Institute ( until 1923 ).

1920 Eugeen van Mieghem starts teaching drawing at the Academy ( until his death in 1930 ).

Antoon Marstboom ( 1905–1960 ) studies at the Academy and later at the Higher Institute ( until 1935 ).

Julien Creytens ( 1897–1972 ) studies at the Higher Institute.

1921 Egide Rombaux starts teaching sculpture at the Higher Institute ( until 1931 ).

Albert Van Dyck studies at the Higher Institute.

Léon Stynen ( 1899–1990 ) graduates as architect at the Higher Institute.

1922 Jos Hendrickx ( 1906–1971 ) studies at the Academy and at the Higher Institute ( until 1932 ).

Architect Walter Van Kuyck ( 1876–1934 ) starts teaching craftsmanship / building at the Higher Institute ( until 1934 ).

1923 Maurits Sabbe ( 1873–1938 ) starts teaching General Flemish Literature at the Higher Institute ( until 1931 ).

Dis Van Raemdonck ( 1901–1971 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1925 ).

1924 Emiel Vloors ( 1871–1952 ) becomes director of the Academy ( until 1936 ).

Victor Thonet ( 1885–1952 ) becomes a teacher at the Academy ( until 1950 ).

Walter Vaes starts teaching at the Higher Institute ( until 1947 ).

Albert Ciamberlani starts teaching Monumental Art at the Higher Institute ( until 1927 ).

Paul Artôt starts teaching Drawing at the Higher Institute ( until 1940 ).

Jules De Bruycker ( 1870–1945 ) starts teaching Engraving at the Higher Institute ( until 1935 ).

Victor Gilsoul ( 1867–1939 ) starts teaching Landscape Painting at the Higher Institute ( until 1929 ).

102

Jan Van der Loo ( 1908–1978 ) studies at the Academy and later at the Higher Institute ( until 1933 ).

1925 Frans Huygelen becomes a teacher at the Academy.

Albert De Roover ( 1892–1978 ) becomes a teacher at the Academy ( until 1957 ).

Gustave Van de Woestijne ( 1881–1947 ) starts teaching at the Higher Institute ( until 1929 ).

Julien Creytens wins the Prix de Rome.

Jacques Gorus ( 1901–1981 ) studies at the Higher Institute.

1926 Isidoor Opsomer becomes director at the Higher Institute ( until 1941 ).

Richard Baseleer ( 1867–1951 ) starts teaching the new subject of Marine Painting at the Higher Institute ( until 1936 ).

Rudolf Meerbergen ( 1908–1987 ) studies at the Academy and later at the Higher Institute ( until 1932 ).

Dis Van Raemdonck studies at the Higher Institute ( until 1932 ).

Willy Vandersteen ( 1913–1990 ) takes evening classes in sculpture at the Academy ( until 1935 ).

1927 H. Van de Heyning ( 1894– ? ) becomes librarian at the Academy ( until 1959 ).

Gustave Van de Woestijne starts teaching Monumental Art at the Higher Institute ( until 1946 ).

Victor Smolderen starts teaching Architecture at the Higher Institute ( until 1946 ; and from 1946 to 1952 at the National Higher Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning ).

1929 Julien Creytens becomes a teacher at the Academy.

Carlo De Roover becomes a teacher at the Academy.

Pierre Paulus ( 1881–1951 ) starts teaching at the Higher Institute ( until 1945 ).

1930 Auguste Oleffe ( 1867–1931 ) starts teaching at the Higher Institute.

1931 Ernest Wijnants ( 1878–1964 ) starts teaching Sculpture at the Higher Institute ( until 1945 ).

Jan-Albert Goris ( Marnix Gijsen, 1899–1984 ) starts teaching Literature at the Higher Institute.

1932 Willy Kreitz ( 1903–1982 ) wins the Prix de Rome for Sculpture.

Victor Dolphyn ( 1909–1992 ) studies at the Higher Institute ( until 1938 ).

1933 Roger Avermaete ( 1893–1988 ) starts teaching History of Art at the Higher Institute.

Herman Courtens ( 1884–1956 ) starts teaching at the Higher Institute ( until 1968 ).

Marc Mendelson ( 1915 ) studies at the Higher Institute ( until 1939 ).

1934 Mark Macken ( 1913–1977 ) studies at the Higher Institute.

Vic Gentils ( 1919–1997 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1938 ).

103

1935 Albert Saverys ( 1886–1964 ) starts teaching at the Higher Institute.

Pol Mara ( 1920–1998 ) studies at the Academy.

Renaat Braem ( 1910–2001 ) graduates as an architect from the Higher Institute.

David Teniers’ statue is placed in the garden of the Academy.

1936 Isidoor Opsomer becomes director of the Academy.

Willy Kreitz becomes a teacher at the Academy.

Anna Zarina ( Anna Heinz-Berzina, 1907–1984 ) studies at the Higher Institute ( until 1943 ).

Jack Godderis ( 1916–1971 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1938 ).

Jan Cox ( 1919–1980 ) studies at the Higher Institute.

Luc Peire ( 1916–1994 ) studies at the Higher Institute ( until 1939 ).

1937 Albert Saverys starts teaching Marine Painting at the Higher Institute ( until 1951 ).

1938 Jan Van der Loo starts teaching at the Academy ( until 1944 ).

Mark Macken is awarded the Prix de Rome.

1939 Architect Léon Stynen starts teaching at the Higher Institute.

Jack Godderis starts studying at the Higher Institute ( until 1942 ).

1940 Julien Creytens starts teaching Drawing ( until 1948 ).

Lode Zielens ( 1901–1944 ) starts teaching Literature at the Higher Institute.

Vic Gentils studies at the Higher Institute ( until 1942 ).

1941 Ten new studios are ready to be used ( the decision to construct the studios dates from 1938 ; work started on 12 July 1940 ).

The Antwerp Service for Propaganda and Tourism ( a municipal service ) publishes De Antwerpsche Academie ( The Antwerp Academy ), written by Frederik Clijmans and Jacques Wappers, and with an introduction

by Isidoor Opsomer.

The exhibition Flämische Kunst der Gegenwart ( Flemish Contemporary Art ) opens in Berlin, — an initiative of the Deutsch-Flämische Arbeitsgemeinschaft ( German-Flemish Labour Association ). A number of teachers from the Higher Institute present their work at the exhibition.

Pol Mara studies part-time at the Higher Institute ( until 1948 ).

Julien Creytens becomes a teacher at the Higher Institute.

1942 A wall that divides the library in two is pulled down. The new large reading room measures 188 square metres.

Jan Cox presents his first solo exhibition in Antwerp. The Germans remove a number of “degenerate” works.

104

1943 In May, Jan Cox, Marc Mendelson and Rudolf Meerbergen show their work in the Lamorinière gallery.

The occupying forces close the exhibition, but it moves to Brussels, to the Palace of Fine Arts. Mendelson is briefly arrested.

Jef Nys ( 1927–2009 ) studies at the Academy.

Bob de Moor ( 1925–1992 ) studies at the Academy.

1944 On 16 December the Academy is damaged by a German V-bomb that hits the Minderbroederstraat and the Catholic Teachers’ Training College behind the street. The houses on the corner of the Mutsaertstraat and the Minderbroederstraat are destroyed. 3,500 square metres of glass need to be replaced.

1945 On 2 May, Architecture lessons begin again in the Academy.

Foundation of the non-profit organization Jonge Belgische Schilderkunst ( Young Belgian Painting ) in Brussels.

Founding members are Jan Cox, Jack Godderis, Marc Mendelson and other artists. Later, Luc Peire joins.

1946 Constant Permeke ( 1886–1952 ) is director of the Academy from 18 December 1945 to October 1946.

Camille Huysmans intervenes for the reappointment of Isidoor Opsomer as director of both the Academy and the Higher Institute. Opsomer stays on until 1949.

Creation of the Prijs voor Schilderkunst Burgemeester Camille Huysmans ( The Mayor Camille Huysmans Prize for Painting ). Anna Zarina is the first winner of the prize.

Lessons resume on Monday 25 November.

Jef Verheyen ( 1932–1984 ) studies at the Academy and at the Higher Institute ( until 1957 ).

Mark Macken, Jacques Gorus and Franck Mortelmans start teaching at the Academy.

Henri Puvrez ( 1893–1971 ) starts teaching Sculpture at the Higher Institute ( until 1959 ).

Firmin Mortier ( 1899–1972 ) starts teaching Literature at the Higher Institute ( until 1962 ).

Julien Van Vlasselaer ( 1907–1982 ) starts teaching Monumental Art at the Higher Institute ( until 1972 ).

Architecture becomes a separate Department and is housed in the National Higher Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning. Head of the new department is Léon Stynen.

1947 Dis Van Raemdonck becomes a teacher at the Academy ( until 1966 ).

Jozef Vinck ( 1900–1979 ) starts teaching at the Higher Institute.

Taf Wallet ( 1902–2001 ) starts teaching Engraving at the Higher Institute ( until 1952 ).

Renaat Braem starts teaching at the National Higher Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning ( until 1975 ).

1948 Jan Dries ( 1925 ) studies at the Academy and the Higher Institute ( 1950–1955 ).

Gustav Metzger ( 1926 ), pioneer of “auto-destructive art” studies at the Academy ( until 1949 ).

Anna Zarina starts teaching at the Higher Institute ( until 1972 ).

Albert Van Dyck starts teaching Drawing ( until 1951 ).

In October, a fire starts in the Academy. It takes the firemen more than an hour to control the fierce blaze.

Mayor Lode Craeybeckx, Alderman of Fine Arts Somers and director Opsomer come to inspect the scene of the calamity. The damage is considerable. Two classrooms have been destroyed. There is also damage to the building in the Lange Brilstraat.

1949 Julien Creytens becomes director of the Academy and the Higher Institute.

105

Walter Leblanc ( 1932–1986 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1954 ).

1950 Maurice Felbier becomes a teacher at the Academy ( until 1968 ).

Willem Dolphyn ( 1935 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1956 ).

Albert Crommelynck ( 1902–1993 ) starts teaching Portrait Painting at the Higher Institute ( until 1968 ).

1951 Jan Vaerten ( 1909–1980 ) starts teaching Drawing at the Higher Institute ( until 1973 ).

Antoon Marstboom becomes a teacher at the Academy.

Dan Van Severen ( 1927–2009 ) studies at the Academy and later at the Higher Institute ( until 1954 ).

Mark Verstockt ( 1930 ) studies at the Academy and later at the Higher Institute ( until 1954 ).

Guy Mees ( 1935–2003 ) studies at the Academy and later at the Higher Institute ( until 1961 ).

Foundation of the Club der XII. On the initiative of Alderman Willem Eekelers, a of Antwerp found a society that will provide material aid to Academy students Eventually a prize is established for every department of the Academy. ( In reduced to three : for painting,

group of wealthy inhabitants and promote the visual arts.

1996 the number of prizes is sculpture and graphic arts. )

1952 Taf Wallet starts teaching Marine Painting at the Higher Institute ( until 1966 ).

Jos Hendrickx starts teaching Etching and Engraving at the Higher Institute ( until 1968 ).

1953 Paul Ibou ( 1939 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1958 ).

Olivier Strebelle ( 1927 ) starts teaching Ceramics at the Academy ( until 1961 ).

1954 Albert De Deken ( 1915–2003 ) starts teaching painting at the Academy ( until 1980 ).

Wim ( Wannes ) van de Velde ( 1937–2008 ) studies at the Academy.

1955 The new wing of the Academy, designed by Léon Stynen, is completed.

Panamarenko ( Henri Van Herwegen, born 1940 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1960 ).

1956 Jef Geys ( 1934 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1959 ).

1957 Willem Dolphyn studies at the Higher Institute.

Fred Bervoets ( 1942 ) studies at the Academy and later at the Higher Institute ( until 1966 ).

Hugo Heyrman ( 1942 ) studies at the Academy and later at the Higher Institute ( until 1966 ).

1958 Ysbrant van Wijngaarden ( 1937 ) wins the Prijs voor Schilderkunst Burgemeester Camille Huysmans ( The Mayor Camille Huysmans Prize for Painting ).

Walter Goossens ( 1943 ) studies at the Academy and later at the Higher Institute ( until 1968 ).

Foundation of the G58–Hessenhuis. Most of the founding members are former students of the Academy.

106

1959 Ludo ‘Mich’ Michielsen ( 1945 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1965 ).

Wilfried Pas ( 1940 ) studies at the Academy and later at the Higher Institute ( until 1964 ).

Guy Maclot ( 1929 ) wins the Prix de Rome for sculpture.

1960 Guido Persoons becomes librarian of the Academy ( until 1995 ).

Olivier Strebelle starts teaching Sculpture at the Higher Institute ( until 1962 ).

1961 In the Long Hall the exhibition Hedendaagse schilder- en beeldhouwkunst in Duitsland ( Contemporary Painting and Sculpture in Germany ) opens, with work by the Zero artists Heinz Mack and Otto Piene.

1962 Sculptor Mark Macken becomes director of the Academy ( until 1977 ).

Ossip Zadkine ( 1890–1967 ) presents six lectures on modern sculpture at the Higher Institute.

The sculpture students of the Higher Institute present their work in the park in Brasschaat.

1963 300th anniversary of the Academy. In the Koninklijke Nederlandse Schouwburg, an Antwerp theatre, a solemn ceremony is held. The Royal Flemish Opera premieres the ballet Triumph of Death, set to music by Renier Van der Velden ( 1910–1993 ) and with a set designed by Jan Vaerten. Various exhibitions and an international symposium on art education take place.

Mary Prijot ( 1917–1990 ) establishes the Department of Fashion and Theatre Costume. She teaches until 1982.

Rik Slabbinck ( 1914–1991 ) starts teaching at the Higher Institute ( until 1979 ).

Fred Bervoets wins the Prijs voor Schilderkunst Burgemeester Camille Huysmans ( The Mayor Camille Huysmans Prize for Painting ). He is also awarded the special prize on the occasion of the 3rd centenary of the Academy.

1964 Liliane Vertessen ( 1952 ) studies at the Academy ( until 1967 ).

Students of the Higher Institute stage the play The Drunkard by Pieter-Frans Van Kerckhoven. The aim is to collect money for the embellishment of the small theatre that houses the Nederlands Kamertoneel in the Breydelstraat, where the work of young artists is exhibited.

The reading room of the library is entirely renovated after a design by architect J. De Roover.

1965 Achiel Pauwels ( 1932 ) becomes a teacher at the Academy.

Former students Panamarenko and Hugo Heyrman organize the first happenings in Antwerp.

1966 The curriculum for higher art education comprises a complete day of programmed classes, with specializations in Painting, Sculpture, Photography, Free Graphics, Graphic Design, Jewellery Design, Ceramics, Monumental Arts, Fashion and Theatre Costume Design.

The retrospective exhibition Carlo De Roover opens in the Long Hall.

1967 Marthe Van Leemput ( 1927–1997 ) graduates from the Fashion Department and starts to teach.

Foundation of the non-profit organization Vrienden van de Koninklijke Academie ( Association of Friends of the Academy, VRIKA ). Its aim is to assist less well-off students and to contribute to the Academy’s status by organizing cultural manifestations.

The National Higher Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning founds the Department of Industrial Design, which later becomes the Product Development Department.

107

1 September sees the start of the Orientation Department, an initiative of Mark Macken’s. The new department provides a complete secondary school curriculum with the emphasis on art subjects. It serves as a preparatory schooling for the Academy.

The exhibition Kunst na ’45 ( Art after ‘45 ) opens in the Long Hall. It features a number of major works from the collections of the Van Abbemuseum ( Eindhoven ).

1968 Members of VAGA ( mostly former students of the Academy ) “occupy” the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp. Debates and exhibitions are organized.

Painting student Adriaan Raemdonck ( 1945 ) founds the art gallery De Zwarte Panter where he exhibits the work of young artists ( including many former students of the Academy ). The gallery opens with an exhibition with work by Lilly Van Oost ( 1932–1997 ), who is then studying at the Higher Institute. In the first years of its existence, former student and graphic designer Herbert Binneweg ( 1944 ) designs the posters and is responsible for the music programme. Roger Van Akelijen ( 1948 ) and Roger Vandaele ( 1947 ) operate the printing press.

To date, the gallery provides a platform for former students of the Academy.

1969 8 February. First Open School Day at the Academy. The initiative was taken by the students.

On the occasion of their retirement, teachers Maurice Felbier, Jan Huet and Willy Kreitz are paid homage with an exhibition in the Academy.

In May, the International Seamen’s House––the theatre company of the Academy made up of students and former students––presents Kontrast, directed by Gerd De Ley. On the programme that evening, there is theatre, poetry and chanson, with texts by artists such as Eddy Van Vliet, Hugo Claus, Georg Büchner and Jos Ghysen. The focus of the programme is protest against the war in Vietnam.

Jozef Van Ruyssevelt wins the Prijs voor Schilderkunst Burgemeester Camille Huysmans ( The Mayor Camille Huysmans Prize for Painting ).

1970 Wilfried Huet ( born 1940 ) wins the Prijs voor Schilderkunst Burgemeester Camille Huysmans ( The Mayor Camille Huysmans Prize for Painting ).

Thé van Bergen ( born 1946 ) studies at the Higher Institute ( until 1975 ).

In the Long Hall a retrospective opens with work by the Scottish pop art pioneer Eduardo Paolozzi ( 1924–2005 ).

1971 Walter Goossens wins the Prijs voor Schilderkunst Burgemeester Camille Huysmans ( The Mayor Camille Huysmans Prize for Painting ).

1972 Marcel Mazy ( 1931 ) becomes assistant at the Higher Institute.

Jan Vanriet ( 1948 ) graduates from the Academy.

Former student Jan Putteneers founds the magazine and project space Antwerp Art Info.

1974 The Orientation Department becomes a secondary art school. The new school is separate from the Academy and has its own director.

1975 Ludo Lacroix becomes assistant figure painting at the Higher Institute.

Hugo Heyrman wins the Prijs voor Schilderkunst Burgemeester Camille Huysmans ( The Mayor Camille Huysmans Prize for Painting ).

At the Higher Institute, the Jewellery Department is founded ; its head is Wim Ibens ( 1934–1997 ).

1976 The Austrian painter Alfred Klinkan ( 1950–1994 ) studies at the Higher Institute ( until 1977 ).

108

1977 Death of director Mark Macken. Architect L. Theo Van Looij ( 1917–1996 ) is appointed ( acting ) director ( until 1983 ).

On 1 November, the Ministry of Education and Dutch-Language Culture decides to merge the Orientation Department of the Academy and the secondary art school of the Royal Flemish Music Conservatoire. The new institute is called the Rijksinstituut voor Kunstsecundair Onderwijs ( RIKSO, State Institute for Secondary Art Education ) and until 1980 it falls under the aegis of the Ministry of Culture.

In Antwerp, former student Narcisse Tordoir founds the alternative space Today’s Place, together with Jan Janssen, Ronald Stoops and Rudolf Verbesselt. It becomes a venue for performances and concerts.

1978 On the Open School Day ( Saturday, 4 March ) the students of the RIKSO demonstrate against the fact that their department has to abandon their classrooms on the site of the Academy and move to the Mercator Building at the Desguinlei.

Bérénice De Vos ( 1922–1993 ) starts to teach painting at the Academy.

Foundation of the Mark Macken National Prize for Sculpture.

1979 The exhibition American Pop ( h )Art opens in the Long Hall, with graphic work by American pop artists.

1980 Due to the regionalization of Belgium, the Academy now comes under the aegis of the Ministry of National Education ; the Higher Institute comes under aegis of the Flemish government.

Walter Van Beirendonck and Martin Margiela graduate from the Fashion Department.

Hugo Heyrman becomes assistant at the Higher Institute.

1981 Art historian and writer Paul Ilegems ( born 1946 ) starts lecturing History of Art at the Academy.

Ann Demeulemeester, Dries Van Noten, Dirk Van Saene and Marina Yee graduate from the Fashion Department.

Former student Anne-Mie Van Kerckhoven and Danny Devos found Club Moral and the magazine Force Mental.

Both focus on “extreme” music and visual arts.

1982 Josette Janssens becomes head of the Fashion Department ( until her death in 1985 ).

Dirk Bikkembergs graduates from the Fashion Department.

1983 Graphic artist Gerard Gaudaen ( 1927–2003 ) becomes director ( until 1991 ).

The retrospective Piet Serneels, graphic artist opens in the Long Hall.

1984 The retrospective Antoon Marstboom opens in the Winter Garden.

1985 Centenary of the Higher Institute. Theo Van Looij publishes the book Een Eeuw Nationaal Hoger Instituut voor Schone Kunsten te Antwerpen 1885 / 1985 ( A Century of the National Higher Institute of Fine Arts Antwerp 1885 / 1985 ).

Jewellery design becomes a fully-fledged department at the Higher Institute.

The poet Stefaan Van den Bremt ( 1941 ) starts to teach Literature at the Academy ( until 1999 ).

In November, a solemn celebration takes place in the Arenbergschouwburg. It is announced that the Higher Institute will be reformed : the regular teaching staff will be joined by visiting teachers. Drawing becomes 109

a compulsory subject. In the Winter Garden of the Academy there is an exhibition about the history of the Higher Institute.

The tradition of the notorious Carnival Ball is reinstated. Six halls of the Academy constitute the venue for the new ball.

Linda Loppa becomes head of the Fashion Department ( until 2007 ).

Walter Van Beirendonck starts teaching at the Fashion Department of the Academy.

The annual fashion show moves from the Academy to the Stock Exchange in the Twaalfmaandenstraat.

1986 July. Queen Fabiola visits the Academy on the occasion of the centenary of the Higher Institute.

Former painting student Nicole Van Goethem ( 1941–2000 ) wins the Academy Award ( Oscar ) with her animation film A Greek Tragedy.

1987 Ann Demeulemeester, Dirk Bikkembergs, Walter Van Beirendonck, Dries Van Noten, Dirk Van Saene and Marian Yee organize a group show at the British Designer Show in London. A British newspaper calls them “The Antwerp Six”.

Lieve Van Gorp graduates from the Fashion Department.

On 26 August, BRT television ( the national public service broadcaster ) broadcasts the programme 3X Kunstonderwijs ( 3X Art Education ) : a ( critical ) evaluation of higher art education in Antwerp, Ghent and Brussels, with footage of the Academies of Antwerp, Ghent and Sint Lukas in Brussels.

1988 The Department of Conservation-Restoration is set up : a three-year post-graduate programme ( of full-time daytime classes ) ; the programme can be followed after graduating from the four-year course in the Visual Arts Department.

November. The Fashion Department moves to the Bourla School next to the car park in the Blindestraat.

1989 325 Anniversary of the Academy. The Academy hosts the second Biennial of European Art Schools. There are exhibitions at the Hessenhuis, the Academy, Hangar 15, the ICC, and other venues. The Club der XII organizes the ‘Internationale Prijs voor Schilderkunst David Teniers’ ( International Prize for Painting David Teniers ).

Artists of all nationalities can submit their work if they studied part-time or full-time at the Academy or the Higher Institute after 1987. In the town reception hall on the Meir, former students of the Academy exhibit their work ; the teachers show their work in Gallery Campo. The Hessenhuis hosts an exhibition that provides an overview of 22 years of sculpting classes since 1966–1967. Prince Filip visits the painting and sculpture studios. Photography student Dany Lobe decorates a tram from the Antwerp public transport company MIVA. The models go on strike to protest against the loss of income they suffer because the school is closed on the days that the celebrations are taking place. th

1991 Painter Walter Vilain ( 1938 ) becomes interim director ( until 1992 ).

December. Teachers and students of the Academy participate in the “Third Biennial of European Art Schools” ; this year’s edition takes places in a water castle in Barcelona.

1992 Fred Bervoets starts teaching painting at the Academy.

Students of the Visual Arts Department occupy the so-called Wintergarden to prevent it from being converted into an auditorium and demand that a purposeful exhibition policy is developed.

1993 Photographer and art historian Johan M. Swinnen ( 1954 ) becomes director of the Academy and the Higher Institute ( until 1996 ).

Under much protest, the statue of David Teniers is removed from the garden of the Academy ; in September it moves to its original place on the Teniersplaats.

110

In May, teachers and students of the Academy participate in the fourth ( and final ) Biennial of Art Schools in Maastricht. The voyage from Antwerp to Maastricht is made in a lighter ( a flat-bottomed barge ), which is used as an exhibition space as well as accommodation. The trip leads to the foundation of the magazine n°, whose editors are the students Philip Boël and Stéphane Schraenen, and the teachers Mark Jambers and Paul Ilegems. Two issues will appear, with the second issue featuring a conversation between student Vincent Geyskens and painter Luc Tuymans.

In December, the Academy and the Higher Institute jointly sign a partnership with the Tianjin Academy of Fine Arts in China. The partnership was initiated by Jiang Lu, a Chinese student who studies Free Graphics at the Academy. Lu will later become ‘President’ of the Tianjin Academy. The partnership is meant to enable the exchange of exhibitions, teachers and students and still continues today.

1994 Conservation-Restoration becomes a graduate programme within the Visual Arts programme.

Painting students found the collective October Octopus ; among the founding members are Nick Andrews, Cindy Wright, Sergio Servellon, Sofie Muller, and Lucie Lavicková. In the course of 1994 and 1995 the group organizes various happenings and exhibitions.

1995 110th Anniversary of the Higher Institute with the exhibition De Sokkel van Teniers ( Teniers’ Plinth ) at the Elzenveld socio-cultural centre.

Veronique Branquinho graduates from the Fashion Department.

Queen Paola visits the Academy and the National Higher Institute. On the occasion of the royal visit, an special issue of the renewed academic magazine Periscoop is published about the history of the Academy, with Jan Lampo as editor.

The Conservation-Restoration Department is housed in the buildings of the “Charity Office”, the “Gesticht Arthur van den Nest”, and “Licht and Lucht” in the Blindestraat.

1996 May. In the Bourla Temple, painting student Lucie Lavicková, assisted by her fellow student Klára Jirásková, stages the refounding of the Czech Communist Party. On the rostrum and in the seats of honour are various figures from the art world, including Flor Bex, Jan Hoet, Willem Elias, Michel Oukhow, Paul Ilegems, Adriaan Raemdonck, and Pjeroo Roobjee. Lavicková obtains her painting degree without presenting a single painting.

The Academy integrates with the Antwerp University College and becomes the Department of Audiovisual and Visual Arts. The Antwerp University College groups the non-university institutes for higher education from the province of Antwerp, which until then had come under the aegis of State Education.

The Higher Institute becomes an autonomous non-profit organization with a new structure. HISK-Vlaanderen ( Higher Institute of Fine Arts Flanders ) offers young artists from home and abroad the opportunity to work for three years in their own studio, coached by artists, art theorists and technicians. They graduate with the title “HISK-Vlaanderen Laureate in Visual Arts”. The new HISK is initially housed in a nineteenth-century mansion in the city of Antwerp, but moves soon afterwards to an empty military hospital in Berchem. Its first director is Johan M. Swinnen. In 2007 the HISK moves to the Leopold Barracks in Ghent.

The buildings of the Academy and numbers 7 to 35 in the Blindestraat are given listed building status.

Exhibition Schatten uit de Bibliotheken van de Hogeschool Antwerpen ( Treasures from the Libraries of Antwerp College ) in the Letterenhuis.

Jan Peeters becomes head of the department ( until 1997 ).

1997 Photographer Raf De Smedt becomes head of the department ( until 2004 ).

1998 The Club der XII is disbanded ; several of the founding members have died in the meantime.

1999 In June, the European Ministers of Education sign the Bologna Declaration, which aims to introduce easily recognizable and comparable academic degrees, as well as promoting the mobility of students, teachers and researchers, providing high quality education and lending a European dimension to higher education.

One of its effects is a large influx of Erasmus students from abroad at the Academy ( which, for that matter, has always had a large international appeal ).

111

The artists collective Placenta is founded by a number of students from the departments of painting, graphic arts and sculpture : Tom Liekens, Nadia Naveau, Tom Tosseyn, Bart Van Dijck, Caroline Coolen, and Philip Metten. Between its founding and 2003, the group organizes six exhibitions in empty buildings in Antwerp.

Poet and essayist Dirk Van Bastelaere ( 1960 ) starts teaching Literature at the Academy.

2000 Renovation of the buildings of the “Charity Office”, “Gesticht Arthur van den Nest”, and “Licht and Lucht” in the Blindestraat ( completed in 2002 ).

The artists collective Frigo is founded by photography students Lieven Segers, Geert Saman and Dimitri Janssens. Anton Cotteleer and Vaast Colson join the group and participate in various Frigo-actions.

2002 At the start of the academic year 2002–2003, the Conservation-Restoration Department moves back to its former accommodation in the Blindestraat.

After ten years of silence, the Prijs voor Schilderkunst Camille Huysmans is awarded once again. The winner is Kati Heck.

2003 In the Flemish Parliament, the Structure Decree is approved. This is the first step in the implementation of the Bologna Declaration and the start of the radical restructuring of higher education in Flanders. The Bachelor and Master degree is introduced. The University Colleges are ordered to academicize their two-cycle programmes. In order to do so, they must associate with a university. The new associations become a new level in higher education ; their main objective is to accomplish the interconnectedness of theoretical courses and research in academicizing programmes. The Antwerp Academy is now part of the Antwerp University and College Association and the Faculty of Arts Association that has also been established.

Curriculum reform in the Conservation-Restoration Department : more theory is taught in the bachelor programme. The number of specializations is reduced to five studios. The programme now comprises a three-year bachelor programme and a one-year master.

The renovation of the buildings that house the Conservation-Restoration Department in the Blindestraat is awarded the Vlaamse Monumentenprijs ( Flemish Monument Prize ).

For the first time, the fashion show of the Fashion Department is presented in the Waagnatie.

2004 More “academicization funds” are allocated to the Visual Arts Department and the Conservation-Restoration Department. Thanks to the extra funding, more research projects are initiated.

Several teachers start aPhD research in the arts.

2005 Eric Ubben ( 1960 ) becomes head of the department.

2006 In the MuHKA ( Museum of Contemporary Art Antwerp ), the project ACADEMY. Learning from Art starts — a joint project with the Van Abbemuseum ( Eindhoven ) and Goldsmiths College ( London ).

Over the course of six weeks, students of the Academy and Sint Lucas Antwerp are invited to present alternating responses to the exhibition’s theme.

2007 Walter Van Beirendonck becomes head of the Fashion Department.

On the occasion of Fred Bervoets’ departure and 65th birthday, Johan Pas, Vaast Colson, Tom Liekens and Dennis Tyfus organize the exhibition Welcome Home ( Homage to Fred Bervoets ) in the MuHKA with work by Bervoets and his former students. Lieven Segers presents the film Fred in zijn eeuwige storm ( Fred in His Eternal Storm ) and Vincent Geyskens initiates a publication. Various events take place.

The painting MAs work for two weeks in the museum.

Former students Philip Janssens and Lieve Sijsmans found Logement ; the aim is to organize site-specific exhibitions and present work by young artists.

With Michèle Matyn, former student Lieven Segers establishes the mobile exhibition platform Cakehouse.

112

2008 Antwerp University College is renamed Artesis University College Antwerp.

Painting teacher Pat Harris gets his PhD in the arts. This is the first PhD to be awarded in collaboration with the Academy. Shortly afterwards Spank Moons ( 2010 ), Bruno Van Dijck ( 2011 ) and Hans Theys ( 2012 ) get their PhDs. The Hessenhuis hosts the first edition of Entree>Exit, an annual exhibition project with students who have just graduated in the applied or free arts at the Academy and at Sint Lucas, Antwerp. The project is organized by the Middelheim Museum.

2009 At the request of the University Centre Sint-Ignatius Antwerp, artists Nico Dockx and Mark Luyten, and philosopher Arthur Cools organize a partnership between Antwerp University and the art university colleges to present a masterclass for which artist Alfredo Jaar is invited. For the subsequent editions, artists Craigie Horsfield ( 2010 ), Anri Sala ( 2011 ), Ria Pacquée ( 2012 ), and Harry Gamboa ( 2012 ) are invited. For the 2013 edition, Michelangelo Pistoletto will coach the masterclass.

Foundation of Track Report : a series of publications that report on artistic research at the Academy.

Up until now ( spring 2013 ), fifteen issues have been published.

Teacher Joost Caen is the first to get his PhD in Conservation-Restoration.

Nedda El-Asmar becomes head of the Jewellery Design and Precious Metal Design Department.

2010 More masterclasses are organized. The aim is to train the research skills of the visual arts students under the guidance of an experienced artist.

In February the Visual Arts Department is visited by an inspection team under the authority of the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders. According to their report, published in 2011, the Academy performs very well in all subjects and the Fashion programme is even graded as excellent.

In October, the Conservation-Restoration Department is visited by an inspection team. The Department receives a favourable evaluation. Thus Visual Arts and Conservation-Restoration are positively accredited until 2018.

A varied collaboration starts with Sint Lucas Antwerp. The two schools organize joint masterclasses, symposia and information days.

Extra City ( a centre for contemporary art ) calls for a link between the art scene and the two art schools in Antwerp. After preliminary talks, Extra City curator Mihnea Mircan, artists Nico Dockx and Steve Van Den Bosch start up the project entitled Extra Academy : a “micro academy” within the existing curriculum of both art schools, designed to be a possible, autonomous and self-organized zone, where master students can engage in a dialogue with guests that have been invited from the national and international art scene.

2011 The teacher-training programme of Visual Arts and Conservation-Restoration is inspected within the context of the Decree that regulates specific teacher-training programmes. The final report is made public on 17 December 2012 and contains a survey of the assessments of 37 programmes that have been inspected. According to the report, of all the specific teacher training programmes in the visual arts, the programme of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp is the best.

In October, the Academy begins a partnership with the Academy of Guangzhou ( China ). The documents are signed in the presence of Prince Filip. The partnership is meant to promote the exchange of teachers and students, of training and research programmes, and to organize joint exhibitions and symposia.

2013 The Antwerp colleges Artesis and Plantijn merge to become AP ( Artesis Plantijn University College Antwerp ).

The Visual Arts Department becomes a “School of the Arts”. The Conservation-Restoration Department merges with the Architecture Department and other Departments and becomes the University of Antwerp’s new faculty for Design Sciences.

The Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp celebrates its 350th anniversary. The Fashion Department looks back on 50 years of history. Graphic Design celebrates its 75th anniversary. Together with the art organization Antwerp Open, a programme is set up. Exhibitions are organized in the MAS ( Museum aan de Stroom, Museum on the River ), the MoMu ( the Fashion Museum ), the M HKA ( Museum of Contemporary Art ) and the Academy. There are also projects involving fashion and contemporary art in public space and a guided walk of the city that focuses on the theme of “Traces of the Academy”. Public service broadcaster VRT broadcasts two documentaries about the Academy. A national symposium about art education takes place and various publications appear.

113

Sculpture studio, undated ( ca 1950 ) ; photographer unknown ( KASKA )

Sculpture studio, undated ( ca. 1955 ) ; photo by Fons De Belder ( KASKA )

Etching studio, undated ( ca. 1955 ) ; photo by E. ’t Felt ( KASKA )

Advertisement studio, undated ( ca. 1955 ) ; photographer unknown ( KASKA )

Ceramics studio, with Dani Franque on the right, 1953 ; photograph De Soomer ( KASKA )

Drawing from plaster casts ( 1953 ) ; photo by De Soomer ( KASKA )

The animal class, undated ( probably 1940s ) ; photographer unknown ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

Monumental arts studio with Willem Bierwerts as student, undated ( ca. 1950 ) ;

Sculpture studio, undated ( ca 1950 ) ; photographer unknown ( KASKA )

photographer unknown ( KASKA )

Studio painting from a nude model, undated ( ca. 1950 ) ; photographer unknown ( KASKA )

Painting studio nude model, undated ( ca. 1955 ) ; photographer unknown ( KASKA )

Guy Mees in the painting studio, undated ( ca. 1957 ) ; photographer unknown ( KASKA )

Etching studio with René De Coninck ; in the middle Wim “Wannes” van de Velde ; undated ( ca. 1955 ) ; photographer unknown ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

Fred Bervoets, Drawing class nude model at the Academy, 1961, ink on paper ( Private collection, Antwerp )

Luc Tuymans, Untitled, 1975, pencil on paper ( collection of the artist )

Vincent Geyskens, Skull, 1993, oil on canvas ( collection of the artist )

Gustav Metzger, untitled, Drawing class academie, 1948–1949, graphite on paper ( collection of the artist, London )

19

th

Peter Van de Moortel

A Shield against Fashion and Bad Taste Mattheus Van Brée and the Reform of Nineteenth-Century Art Education “When you enter the Academy, first you’ll do a year of Noses and Ears ; then you’ll do a year of Heads ; then you’ll do two years of Chaps ; then there’s some three years of Plaster ; and then there’s some four years of Life …” 1

1

H. Conscience, Hoe men schilder wordt. Eene ware geschiedenis van eenen schilder die nog leeft ( Antwerp 1843 ), 16–17.

2

A. Boîme, The Academy and French Painting in the Nineteenth Century ( New York 1971 ), 4.

3

M. Van Brée, Leçons de Dessin ou Explication sur les cent Planches, qui forment le Cours d’Etudes des Principes de Dessin ( Antwerp 1821 ), i.

For the nineteenth-century academic artist, drawing was an essential part of the artistic training, and it played an important part in the creative process. The École des BeauxArts in Paris, for example, which set the trend for artistic developments in the rest of Europe, provided classes in neither painting nor sculpture — drawing was the only item on the curriculum.2 The Antwerp Academy, too, strongly believed in the significance of drawing for the practising artist and for his development.

4

Studying the classical sculptures and more specifically, their formal language was considered essential. Two-dimensional, as well as three-dimensional models were used for that purpose. In practice that meant that mainly didactic plates were used as well as plaster reproductions of antique examples. As a member of the teaching staff of the Antwerp Academy, Mattheus Van Brée compiled a guide for the young artist, for which he himself designed the didactic plates. With the publication of his Leçons de Dessin ( Drawing Lessons ), Van Brée presented his personal, structured and clear approach to nineteenth-century art education at the Antwerp Academy.

6

Antoon Van Ysendijck, The Painter Mattheus Ignatius Van Brée, 1839, oil on canvas ( KMSKA )

M AT THEUS VAN BRÉE, FIRST PROFESSOR AT THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF FINE ARTS 3 The town of Antwerp recurred as a constant in Van Brée’s life. Mattheus Ignatius Van Brée was born in Antwerp on 22 February 1773 ; he spent his youth in the town, and most of his professional career.4 In contemporary biographies, Van Brée is often portrayed as an especially passionate and talented character.5 As a child he helped his father during the daytime and at night he took evening classes drawing at the Antwerp Academy.6 125

At the request of the author the French spelling Van Brée is used in this essay.

L. Gerrits, Biografie van M.I. Van Brée ( Antwerp 1852 ), 6.

5

Idem, 7 ; A.J. Wiertz, “L’académie d’Anvers.

Mathieu Van Brée”, in : Oeuvres Littéraires ( Brussels, 1869 ), 270.

P. Loze, “Mathias Ignatius van Bree”, in : D. Coekelberghs and P. Loze ( eds. ), 1770–1830. Om en rond het Neo-Classicisme in België ( Brussels 1985 ), 148.

7

L. Gerrits, Biografie van M.I. Van Brée, 8 ; P. Loze, “Mathias Ignatius van Bree”, 148.

8

M. Guédron, “MathieuIgnace Van Brée et la naissance du mythe romantique de Rubens à Anvers”, in : Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen ( 1998 ) 401–417, 408.

9

A. Boîme, The Academy and French Painting in the Nineteenth Century, 22.

10 H. Huymans, L’art au 17e et au 19e siècle dans les Pays-Bas ( Brussels 1921 ), 123.

Mattheus Van Brée, The Death of Cato of Utica, 1797 ( Second Prix de Rome ), mixed techniques on paper ( Museum of Fine Arts, Ghent )

Ignatius Joseph van den Berghe, after Mattheus Van Brée, Entry of First Consul Bonaparte into Antwerp on 18 June 1803, undated ( after 1806 ), etching ( Museum Plantin-Moretus / Print Room, Antwerp )

Aged twelve, he won the prize for “Drawing from life” at the Academy, and at the age of twenty-one he was already engaged as an assistant at his alma mater.7 But he was employed in that capacity only briefly. At the Antwerp Academy, art education was suspended for some time when the Southern Netherlands were annexed by France. Shortly afterwards, Van Brée went to Paris, the centre of art in Western Europe at the time. He continued to develop his skills in drawing and painting in the studio of Francois-André Vincent ( 1746–1816 ). He also submitted work for the Prix de Rome for history painting, the annual competition organized by the École Académique.8 At the end of the eighteenth and well into the nineteenth century, this competition was central to a Paris art education.9 To win the Prix de Rome was supposed to be the dream of every young and ambitious artist. In 1797 Van Brée finished second with his version of The Death of Cato, after Pierre-Narcisse Guérin.10 Having failed to win the first prize, Van Brée had to forget about his dream of visiting the historical Italian cities, not knowing whether he would ever get the chance to see the cradle of classical art with his own eyes. Before he could participate in the competition a 126

second time, he had to return to Antwerp, because of his father’s ill health.11 Back in his home town, Van Brée set to work as a painter of special occasions, such as The Entry of First Consul Bonaparte into Antwerp on 18 June 1803.12 Yet he dreamed of pursuing a real career as a fully-fledged history painter.13 After the reopening and the reorganization of the Antwerp Academy in 1804, Van Brée was appointed “First professor”.

11 P. Loze, “Mathias Ignatius van Bree”, 148–150.

12

Mattheus Ignatius Van Brée, The Entry of First Consul Bonaparte into Antwerp on 18 June 1803, 1807, oil on canvas, Musée National des châteaux de Versailles et de Trianon, Versailles, MV 1501, inv. 1075, AC 575.

13

P. Loze, “Mathias Ignatius van Bree”, 151.

14 F. Bogaerts, Notice biographique de M.I. Van Brée ( Antwerp 1842 ), 18–20 ; L. Gerrits, Biografie van M.I. Van Brée, 26.

15

Royal Library Albert I ( hereafter KBRA ), Manuscripts ( hereafter Ms ), II526C, Copy of a letter from M.I. Van Brée to Van Repelaer van Driel, December 1816.

16

Ibid.

17

P. Loze, “Mathias Ignatius van Bree”, 151.

Mattheus Van Brée, Napoleon Bonaparte, First Consul, profile looking right ( study for Entry of First Consul Bonaparte into Antwerp on 18 June 1803 ), 1803, mixed techniques on paper ( Louvre Museum, Prints and Drawings Department, Paris )

During the period of French rule, Van Brée dedicated himself to the task of making artistic education accessible to poor, talented children. As a teacher he therefore wrote to various patrons of the arts with the request to pay for drawing materials.14 When the Southern Netherlands became part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, Van Brée launched another appeal, this time addressed to the Minister of Education, Industry and Colonies.15 He hoped to achieve education for the poor according to his well thought-out plan, not simply “une exécution imparfaite” ( an imperfect realization ) as had been the case in the past.16 During the time of the French annexation, Van Brée returned to Paris on a few occasions. In 1811, for example, he was in the French capital to buy several plaster casts that were to serve study purposes at the Academy.17 The study of plaster casts had been on the curriculum of the Antwerp Academy for a long time. Among the plaster casts used in 1765 were those that came from the Arenbergh collection.18 On his return from Paris, Van Brée brought with him the following casts : the Apollo Belvedere, the Borghese Gladiator, Germanicus, Castor and Pollux, Hermaphroditus, the little Ceres, the kneeling Venus, Homer’s bust, Euripides’ bust, and the Venus of Arles and Demosthenes.19 Since these sculptures were particularly representative of the classical formal language, a lot of them also feature in Van Brée’s Leçons de Dessin.

Van Brée’s handbook was published in 1821, the year that he was also able to undertake his long awaited study tour to the cradle of the arts.20 In Italy, he studied classical art and monuments, but apart from the obligatory sightseeing tours of sites and works that belonged to the canon of the arts, he also hoped to visit a few academies, to find inspiration “in order to improve things, if possible, at our own Academy”.21 On his tour Van Brée was introduced to several artists, such as “The Most Special History Painter of Rome … Chevalier [ Vincenzo ] Camuccini” and Bertel Thorvaldsen.22 Van Brée hoped that, upon the approval of the Board of the Academy, he would be able to offer these artists the title of Academician 127

18 C. van der Star, “De collectie plaasters van de Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten te Antwerpen”, in : V. Herremans ( ed. ), Voorbeeldige busten : het borstbeeld in de Nederlanden, 1600–1800 ( Ghent 2008 ), 33.

19

F.J. Van den Branden, Geschiedenis der Antwerpsche Schilderschool ( Antwerp 1883 ), 1322.

20 AMVC-Letterenhuis ( hereafter AMVC ), B 8342, inv. 57383 / 5, Letter from M.I. Van Brée to Anton Reinhard Falck, Minister of Public Education, National Industry and Colonies, 10 Augustus 1821.

21

AMVC-Letterenhuis, B8342 / B, inv. 57383 / 6, Letter from M.I. Van Brée to Willem Herreyns, Director of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp, 9 Augustus, 1821.

22

AMVC-Letterenhuis, B8342 / B, inv.

57383 / 18, Letter from M.I. Van Brée to Sir Florent Van Ertborn, Mayor of Antwerp, 11 Augustus 1821.

23

Ibid.

24

AMVC-Letterenhuis, B8342 / B, inv.

57383 / 24, Letter from M.I. Van Brée to Willem Herreyns, Director of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp, 19 March 1822.

25

G. Jansen, “De vergane glorie van Matthijs van Bree ( 1773–1839 )”, in : Oud Holland : Driemaandelijks tijdschrift voor Nederlandse kunstgeschiedenis 95 ( 1981 ), 228–257, 229.

26 P. Loze, “Mathias Ignatius van Bree”, 153.

27 L. Gerrits, Biografie van M.I. Van Brée, 46.

28

Mattheus Ignatius Van Brée, Study of a leg, ink on paper, Museum PlantinMoretus / Print Room, inv.

PK.MT. 03168 ; M.I. Van Brée, Leçons de Dessin, classe 4, cahier I : plate 17.

29

P. Loze, “Mathias Ignatius van Bree”, 151.

30 M. Guédron, “MathieuIgnace Van Brée et la naissance du mythe romantique de Rubens à Anvers”, 403 ; G. Jansen, “De vergane glorie van Matthijs van Bree ( 1773–1839 )”, 251.

and thus link them to the Antwerp Academy. About Thorvaldsen he wrote : “…I have seen sculptures by the sculptor Tornwalzen [ sic ] that are nearly as good as those by Canova”.23 Though Van Brée spent a good length of time in Rome and its surroundings, teaching still went on at the Antwerp Academy. Van Brée’s responsibilities as teacher were assumed by his “digne collègue”, his worthy colleague Herreyns.24 During his career as a painter, Van Brée tried to obtain commissions from first the French imperial court and then the Dutch king.25 Despite being linked to these foreign rulers, Van Brée managed to secure his position as a teacher at the Antwerp Academy, in the first instance as “first professor” and then later as director, when he succeeded Willem Herreyns in 1827.26 He remained director of the Academy till 1839, when he died, aged 66, on 19 December.27 As an artist, Van Brée is chiefly remembered for his virtuoso drawings and his smooth oil paintings. Study of a Leg, a drawing included in his handbook, bears witness to an accurate drawing style. A few strokes with his pencil were sufficient for the master to represent a particularly recognizable shape on the paper.28 The artist did not always manage to transfer this fluency to his larger works, which may be what inspired Pierre Loze to claim that Van Brée “was a better draftsman than a painter”.29

A “RENAISSANCE” OF THE ANTWERP ACADEMY When the Antwerp Academy was founded, Antwerp was already past its heyday when it came to painting. Though Antwerp still produced talented artists, the international repute of the seventeenth-century masters was never equalled. Van Brée had not failed to notice the fact, and he wanted the Academy to be instrumental in giving the town a boost. As an individual, he had tremendous respect for the seventeenth-century artistic production of Antwerp. As a teacher at the Academy, he capitalized on the illustrious models from the past, which inspired a new generation of artists. By developing a strong nineteenth-century school, the Antwerp Academy would make it possible for the town to relive its artistic past.

31

A. Monbailleu, “M. I. Van Brée en de restauratie van Rubens’ schilderijen in het Museum van Antwerpen”, in : Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen ( 1970 ), 325–359, 326–327.

Vincenzo Camuccini, The Death of Julius Caesar, 1804–1806, oil on canvas ( Museum of Capodimonte, Naples )

Van Brée’s training as an artist had been based on a neoclassical canon and his works give away this training. Despite his particularly conservative ideology, in which every successful work of art is always based on a drawing, he tried to tune his views to a more Rubenesque use of colour — an aspect of painting that at that time was already being defined as typical of the artists originating from the Netherlands.30 Both aspects are also reflected in the early nineteenth-century curriculum of the Antwerp Academy : students have to learn the classical language by producing studies of plaster casts, but at the same time, there is also room in the lessons for studying models taken from the local artistic past. That is why, in 1802, two works by Rubens were brought back to the Netherlands from Paris.31 Setting aside his interest in both the classical formal language and the art of seventeenth-century Antwerp, Van Brée himself also contributed to the development of the arts 128

in Antwerp. Admittedly biased by his nationalistic pride, Felix Bogaerts wrote that Van Brée was responsible for “the fact that the Antwerp Academy had risen from its ruins”.32 It is true that Van Brée’s commitment with regard to the training of young artists was remarkable.

He was not just active as a teacher at the Academy, but he combined this job with drawing classes for talented poor children.33 Apart from publishing his book, he also insisted on the general integration of a ‘preparatory class’ in every drawing school and he presented himself as a candidate for supervising this part of the curriculum at the Antwerp Academy.

Bertel Thorvaldsen, Jason and the Golden Fleece, 1803, marble ( Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen )

To help foster an international reputation, Van Brée also tried to link famous artists to the Academy by offering them the title of Academician. We already mentioned his suggestion of including Thorvaldsen and Camuccini in the list of Academicians, but it can be inferred from a letter that Van Brée wrote to Willem Herreyns that he had successfully recommended artists on several occasions in the past. In the letter he states : “… I request this as I have done for others, because I am convinced that it will please the artists [ Camuccini and Thorvaldsen ]”.34 It was common practice in many academies that sought to achieve a European aura to link artists from home and abroad to their academy by conferring the title of Academician on them. For both the artists and the school it was a way to add to their reputation.

Around the Antwerp Academy a fertile breeding ground developed for a successful nineteenth-century school. The art production was mainly characterized by a strong focus on classical forms, and on the use of colour, and gradually there also grew a new positive attitude towards a smooth touch. The artists sought inspiration in the work of their illustrious predecessors and in the history of the nation — a fact that was also stimulated in political circles. Together with Van Brée’s efforts with regard to art education, both at the Academy and on an individual level, these influences resulted in a — rather conservative — romantic school of painting ; but despite its relative traditionalism, this romantic school would be blessed with a long life.

129

32 F. Bogaerts, Notice biographique de M.I. Van Brée, 14.

33

KBRA, Ms, II526C, Van Brée to Van Repelaer van Driel, December 1816.

34

AMVC-Letterenhuis, B8342 / B, inv. 57383 / 6, Letter from M.I. Van Brée to Willem Herreyns, Director of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp, 9 Augustus, 1821.

35 M.I. Van Brée, Leçons de Dessin, viii.

36

G. Jansen, “De vergane glorie van Matthijs van Bree ( 1773–1839 )”, 252.

37 M.I. Van Brée, Leçons de Dessin, vii.

38 C. van de Passe, ‘t light der teken en schilderkonst etc ( Amsterdam 1643 ) ; J. de Wit, Teekenboek der proportien van ’t menschelijke lighaam etc ( Amsterdam 1747 ) ; P. de Jode, Diversche figuren uit de academiea etc ( Antwerp 1629 ) ; J. Bolten, Method and practice : Dutch and Flemish drawing books, 1600–1750 ( Landau 1985 ) 27, 83, 91, 119, 131.

39

J. Bolten, Method and practice, 15.

40

Idem, 119–157.

Mattheus Van Brée, King Willem I, undated ( Present from the town of Antwerp 1864 ), oil on canvas ( KMSKA )

LEÇONS DE DESSIN, A HANDBOOK FOR THE ASPIRING ARTIST Though Van Brée was an able painter, he is mainly remembered for his influence on the pedagogy of art. Leçons de Dessin provides an exceptionally structured image of the academic teaching that was typical of nineteenth-century art training in the Netherlands. In his preface, Van Brée justifies the publication of his book.35 He wanted a more practically oriented handbook that the aspiring artist could really use to set to work. At the time of its publication, Van Brée had been teaching for over a decade. He therefore considered himself particularly suited to guide young artists on their quest for the perfect line and shape. After all, it was the task of the master to guide and mould the pupil in order to develop the pupil’s “taste” for the better.36 Because of his long and extensive experience, Van Brée would be more suited than anyone else to fulfil this role, taking into account that he could anticipate the traditional stumbling blocks and thus help to avoid frequently made errors.37 With his drawing book, Van Brée followed into the footsteps of seventeenth and eighteenth-century publications, such as Crispijn Van de Passe’s Van ’t light der teken en schilderkonst ( On the Light of Drawing and Painting ), Jacob de Wit’s Teekenboek der proportien van ’t menschelijke lighaam ( Drawing Book on the Proportions of the Human Body ), and Pieter de Jode’s Diversche figuren uit de academiea ( Various Figures from the Academy ).38 Two categories can be distinguished in these seventeenth and eighteenth century publications : “authentic drawing books” and “compilations”.39 The drawing books that belong to the first category were originally conceived as a whole. In the “compilations”, models from earlier publications were used, which were partially recycled. The drawing books of Luca Ciamberlano and Odoardo Fialetti, for example, were often recycled in this way.

Leçons de Dessin belongs to the first category.40 Though Van Brée used ancient sculptures as models, he designed the plates himself, with this publication explicitly in mind.

130

Leçons de Dessin comprises a single, small-sized volume of text, and seven supplements with plates, each one available separately, “printed on large, atlas-sized vellum paper”.41 Initially, the author had planned to produce 84 plates — which means that each supplement would have contained a dozen plates — but in the end the publication comprised one hundred plates in total.

Van Brée focused on representing the human body. In his monograph on seventeenth and eighteenth century drawing books, Jaap Bolten suggested that this explicit tendency might be explained on the one hand by a desire to show off the wisdom of the author, and on the other hand, by the prominent position of history painting, and in particular by the explicit role that human figures played in the genre.42 The latter hypothesis might also hold for Leçons de Dessin, which is characterized furthermore by an explicit emphasis on learning the formal language of classicism through models. Though possibly inspired by the prominent position of history painting, the formal language presented in the book could, however, be used in a wide range of genres.

The student using the book was supposed to have studied the basic elements of symmetry and geometry in the École élémentaire ; Van Brée could therefore concentrate on the principles of artistic drawing, which he reduced to “a precise knowledge of the forms of the human body and its proportions”, that is to say, essentially, to the formal language of classicism and anatomy.43 In the text in which the author dedicates his book to King William I of the Netherlands, he explicitly mentions that the book is in effect used in the drawing classes at the Antwerp Academy.44 That may have been in the lessons in Basic elements of Figure Drawing.

As the complete title of the book suggests, it is not an all-embracing art course, but an outline of basic principles that the aspiring artist could fall back on. Upon completing all the classes, the artist was supposed to start studying more three-dimensional shapes. In the second prospectus that was printed to promote the handbook, Van Brée mentioned that after completing the third class, the next step was “drawing from plaster casts”.45 Later, the student would learn how to draw from a live model, which was still at the time one of the cornerstones of art education. The knowledge that Van Brée provided in his handbook was therefore meant to be a basis that had to be applied later in the actual study of shapes.

There is method in Van Brée’s pages. The book starts with general proportions, the theory of proportions, and the pure description of shapes ; he then turns to line drawing, shadow effects, and finally anatomy.46 Drawing, for that matter, was considered to be the starting point for all art forms.47 Practising the drawing of human proportions would therefore benefit both the future painter and sculptor. The latter was however expected to complete just the first two classes in order to develop his drawing talents. After these, it would be more suitable to turn to three-dimensional models to experience the effects of shadow, using, of course, the models proposed by the author.48 When drawing from model plates, students were expected to attempt to reproduce them to absolute perfection.49 It was a prerequisite for the student to have a critical attitude towards his own work. Only by respecting lines, shapes and volumes would the student be able to assimilate the formal language of classicism and make progress. To achieve this perfection, Van Brée attached great importance to repetition, i.e. to the repeated copying of the same shapes.50 Only by repeatedly returning to the same image could the student develop his susceptibility to nuances of line, shape, volume, light, and shadow.51 Apart from aspiring to perfected reproduction, integrally copying the plates in the order they were presented formed the basis of a sustained development of the drawing talent. Though it is important at this stage for the young artist to absorb classical formal language, the way in which the final result is achieved is also important. The student needs to develop a certain fluency in drawing by working freehand.52 It was never the intention to slavishly copy the plates. Rather, by producing a well-reasoned copy, the student had to develop a virtuoso drawing technique that could afterwards be used in the observation of plastic volumes. It is from this point of view that Van Brée explains why he chose lithography as an alternative to the usual engraving.53 He argues that the reproduction of engravings required minute attention to extremely fine lines, which crushes every attempt at virtuosity. The student 131

41

M.I. Van Brée, Prospectus d’un Cours d’Etudes de Principes de Dessin, imprimé à l’aide de la Lithographie, sur les Dessins originaux faits par MATH. Van Brée, premier Professeur de l’ Académie Royale des Beaux-Arts, à Anvers ( Antwerp s.d. ) 2, 4.

42

J. Bolten, Method and practice, 159.

43 M.I. Van Brée, Leçons de Dessin, vii-viii.

44

Idem, iv.

45

M.I. Van Brée, Prospectus d’un Cours d’Etudes de Principes de Dessin, 4.

46 Idem, Leçons de Dessin, xi-xv.

47 G. Jansen, “De vergane glorie van Matthijs van Bree ( 1773–1839 )”, 251.

48

M.I. Van Brée, Leçons de Dessin, 64.

49 50

Idem, 43.

Idem, 34.

51

L. Gerrits, Biografie van M.I. Van Brée, 25.

52

M.I. Van Brée, Leçons de Dessin, 67.

53

Idem, 66.

54

M.I. Van Brée, Prospectus d’un Cours d’Etudes de Principes de Dessin, 1.

55 Idem, Leçons de Dessin, vii.

56

P. Philippot, “Een nieuw bewustzijn van de kunst”, in : D. Coekelberghs and P. Loze ( eds. ), 1770–1830. Om en rond het Neo-Classicisme in België ( Brussels 1985 ), 21.

57 M.I. Van Brée, Leçons de Dessin, xvi.

58

Idem, xvii-xviii.

59

Idem, classe 1 : cahier I : plates 2, 3, 7, 8.

60

Idem, 19 ( b ).

61 Idem, classe 1 : cahier I : plates 9, 11, 12 ; cahier III : plates 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36.

working from engravings runs the risk of developing an overly deliberate, overly controlled and excessively dull style. That is much less the case with lithographic reproductions. The fact that the latter technique also respected the character of the original drawings to a greater extent was an extra advantage. In lithography “originality of stroke and means” was preserved to a much greater extent than in engravings.54

THE PROTOTYPE OF THE ARTISTIC CURRICULUM Departing from his neoclassical views, Van Brée attempted to provide a solid basis for drawing the human figure to “those who want to become a good artist”.55 According to the neoclassical approach of observation — which was the ultimate goal of Van Brée’s programme — nature had to be “corrected” in order to comply with classical formal language and ideals.56 The core of the image could often be found in the classical models, to which details were then added that were borrowed from nature.

Van Brée divided the learning process into four classes, which were in turn subdivided into four levels of competence.57 In each case he started with an introduction, which often comprised studying details ; the knowledge thus acquired then needed to be applied to the reproduction of integral models.

FI RST CL ASS : PRO PO RTI O N S In the first class, the student was introduced to the general proportions of the human body using twelve models of classical sculpture.58 Though these proportions could differ from one example to the next, Van Brée recognized the same formal language in all, and that allowed him to develop a number of standard diagrams to represent human beings.

H U M A N S R ED U CED TO A STA N DA R D FO R M U L A

After exploring the general proportions of the human body, the student had to immerse himself in the construction of specific body parts, including head, hand and foot.59 Departing from the classical sculptures, Van Brée developed a diagram for each part of the body that could essentially be applied to each human figure.60 In the diagram for the construction of the head, the eyes are placed in the middle of the face, and by successively halving the distance between the eye line and the lower jaw the place of the nose and the mouth were defined. It is precisely by imposing these kinds of standardized images that academic and romantic nineteenth-century art acquired its particularly recognisable and sometimes even generic character. After studying these diagrams, the knowledge acquired had to be applied to the reproduction of a series of model plates, which all featured one or more models of classical sculpture, including Achilles, the Apollo Belvedere, Diana, the Capitoline Venus, the Belvedere Torso, the Farnese Hercules and the Laocoön group.61 The series of models progressed in difficulty, starting with Achilles in a slight contrapposto, to the twisted shapes and tortuous poses of the Laocoön group. Van Brée also wanted to take into account the plastic character of the sculptures, and he therefore included the front as well as the back of a number of them.

With the general theory of proportions, he provided the cornerstone for the further development of the draughtsmanship and observational skills of the young artists. At this stage of its development, the perceptive faculty of the student-artist was moulded by the master. The standard diagrams that were learned in the academy and served for the drawing of human figures would greatly influence the formal language that the fullyfledged artist would use.

SECO N D CL ASS : PR I N CI PLES O F TH E LI N EAR STRO KE For the student who learned how to draw, distinguishing shapes and volumes was only a first stage. The next stage involved bringing the image to life. The mere description of the contours and shapes had to make way for a deliberate differentiation in the linear strokes, adding to the expressiveness of the figure depicted. In order to make the drawing convincing, a smooth and fluent linear technique was prerequisite. A smooth manipulation of the pencil could only be achieved by first practising with white chalk on a slate 132

or a blackboard.62 That also made it possible to reduce the cost of paper, as the drawings produced in this stage were not always worth preserving. Only with practice, as the quality of the result increased, could the student switch to a more permanent support.

62

Idem, classe 2 : cahier I : plates 1–9.

64

P RACTI CE A N D TH EO RY I NTEG RATED

In the development of the drawing skills, the line was of prime importance. The contours defined the object and thus the line was supreme. Though nineteenth century art would slowly evolve from strict neoclassicism to the smoother and more dynamic formal language of romanticism, drawing would continue to play a major part in both the school curriculum and the creative process. The object could only be recognized by its contours, yet a plastic linear technique was required to bring the sterile shape to life and lend character to the object.

The student would get acquainted with the linear technique by reproducing fragments of the classical models that Van Brée presented in a series of plates.63 Apart from frontal views and profiles, this was the student’s first introduction to three-quarter profile, a tricky problem for the young artist.64 The basic symmetry of the frontal view was abandoned, lending a more three-dimensional appearance to the head. The difficulty was mainly in correctly rendering the shortenings of the mouth and the eyes, which were no longer entirely visible. To prepare the student, the first fragments were shown with construction lines, but gradually these disappeared ; the models became fully-fledged drawings, such

as the Milo of Croton and the bust of Aesculapius.65 Van Brée sang the praise of the latter as the perfect example of the Greek profile.66 He referred to the low brows, the large eyes and especially to the perfect, straight nose — all characteristics of the classical ideal. A second quire with twelve plates about the linear elaboration of the bust included, amongst others, the busts of Seneca, Homer, Ariadne, the Venus of Arles, the Hercules Farnese and a fragment of the Laocoön group.67 In the text that accompanied the series of plates, Van Brée went into the historical background of the figures mentioned. He provided a short description of the figure, linked these descriptions to their character, and continued with some biographical information.68 In doing so, the author not only wanted to contribute to the students’ development of practical skills, but also to the broad knowledge of myths and history. In his own words : “to acquaint the student imperceptibly with this essential element of education and to inspire him at an early stage with the culture of his art, as well as to instil the urge to become familiar with the life and character of the illustrious men of Antiquity — an element of study that later would become imperative.” 69 TH I R D CL ASS : SHAD ED D RAWI N GS After discussing the descriptive shape and the expressive linear technique came the study of shades and the rendering of volume on a two-dimensional surface. By playing with light and dark, a more clearly defined three-dimensional character could be achieved — which was the aim of drawing instruction.70 TH E CO NVENTI O NA L A N D ACA D EM I C TECH N I Q U E O F SHA D I N G

To create a well-executed, shaded drawing, the student had to attempt to integrate sufficient contrast in the drawing, while at the same time maintaining a degree of transparency. The first was mainly achieved by strictly limiting the profoundly black areas, while the latter aspect was strongly linked to a correct shading technique, i.e. a disciplined shading that supported the shape. This technique was mainly preferred in academic circles.71 In practice this was a graphically inspired way of working : shaded areas were created with hatchings that were systematically applied and partially defined the volume depicted. To create deeper shadows, the hatchings were applied crosswise, though the volume always had to be respected. Transparency was achieved by integrating the pure tone of the support in the structure of the image. In keeping with the austere neo-classically inspired drawing practice, this way of shading was used at the Antwerp Academy.72 For students who felt more affinity with other shading techniques, Van Brée noted that these were allowed as long as the final result reflected the original object. In this context he referred explicitly to stumping shaded areas as a possible alternative. This is actually quite remarkable, as

133

Idem, 29.

63

65 66

Idem, 36–37.

Idem, 38, 47.

Idem, 44.

67

Idem, classe 2 : cahier II : plates 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12.

68

Idem, 48–64.

69 Idem, Prospectus d’un Cours d’Etudes de Principes de Dessin, 2.

70

65.

71 72

Idem, Leçons de Dessin,

Idem, 68, 74.

Idem, 67.

73

A. Boîme, The Academy and French Painting in the Nineteenth Century, 25.

74

M.I. Van Brée, Leçons de Dessin, classe 3 : cahier I : plate 2.

75 Idem, 69. 76 Idem, classe 3 : cahier I : plates 3, 4.

77 78 79 80

Idem, 79.

Idem, 150.

Idem, 82.

Idem, 81.

81 Idem, classe 3 : cahier II : plate 18–19 ; classe 4 : cahier I : plate 4.

82 Idem, classe 4 : cahier 1 : plates 1–3.

the technique of stumping shaded areas was radically rejected in, for example, French academic circles.73 TH E ( P L ASTER ) M O D EL

Though the academic programme owed a lot to classical sculpture, study from a live model was held in high esteem. If the shadow effects that could be observed on a classical sculpture or plaster cast would be applied as such on a live model, errors and exaggerations would result. To illustrate the difference between live model, plaster cast and line drawing, Van Brée included a few fragments in a plate that focused on the area around the eyes.74 The depiction of the glassy eyeball, the absence of eyelashes in sculptures, the colour differences and accompanying differences in contrast between the monochrome surface of a cast and the body of the model, were just some of the most conspicuous differences that had to be taken into account by the student.75 Next followed the expressive play of shadows in the eyes that had to do with individual emotions. Van Brée then continued with the well-tried recipe : first he presented a number of study plates with fragments, before continuing with more complex, integral models of shaded drawings.76 Though the author mentioned that intensive study and repetition were essential in drawing, in this instance his main goal was that the student should learn to recognize the individual shapes and volumes and render them. It was not simply the intention to reproduce the model plates time and again — rather, that the student had to engage in a study of plastic shapes departing from a reasoned repetition. By studying shades that were strongly linked to specific volumes, gradually the artist would be able to embark on the study of plastic volumes, such as plaster casts.

FO U RTH CL ASS : PI CTO R IAL ANATO MY In order to impart a more thorough knowledge of human figures to the artist, Van Brée devoted the last chapter of his book to anatomy, an essential part of the artist’s basic knowledge.77 His aim was not so much that the artist should assimilate the formal language by reproducing the model plates, but rather to stimulate the rational faculties, so that he would be able to use the knowledge acquired to create his own work.78 It was the intention to unravel the movements of the body by referring to its subcutaneous structure. In contrast to preceding chapters, the neoclassical influence was less prominent in this instance. Yet Van Brée noted that the student should always aspire to find a balance between force, conviction and elegance, which is in fact an attitude typical of the neoclassical artist.79 By referring to the quest for this balance, the hybrid character of neoclassical perception surfaces : nature needs to be “corrected” to comply with the classical ideals.

D ESCR I PTI O N O F TH E H U M A N B O DY

In the Pictorial Anatomy, Van Brée limits himself to a description of anatomy, more specifically to the elements that have direct visual consequences for the artist. He zooms in on the general construction of the body as a whole and pays attention to the structure of the bones and muscle mass, and how these relate to each other. Apart from a focus on the global supporting structure, there is also a focus on the movements of the body parts and the distortions that are the result of muscles contracting. By rendering these changes in shape correctly, the body could be depicted with great force and expressiveness.80 The tension that resulted in the figure itself was an essential part of a good drawing and, by extension, of a good work of art.

In this chapter Van Brée also paid attention to the study of individual fragments of the anatomy, such as the head, the foot and the hand. By depicting a number of poses of the hand from the section Shaded Drawings, now in the context of the structure of the skeleton, Van Brée created reference points that linked the subcutaneous structure and the plastic shape.81 Throughout the entire handbook, the significance of the head is obvious, and in this last part, too, the author spends a lot of attention on it. Subjects discussed include the structure and the make-up of the skull and the lower jaw as a whole, as well as the part both play in rendering the profile.82 Van Brée ends his treatise with a study of emotions. He linked 134

these to a typical model ; “satisfaction”, for example, is supposed to characterize a mother looking at her child.83 In this last chapter the artist had to look as it were beneath the surface, in order to create an imaginary image of the internal structure of the body. It was his intention to represent the volumes and distortions that resulted from movement and expression in a coherent manner through the subcutaneous structure.84 The fact that Van Brée included this chapter may be partially explained by his personal fascination with anatomy. Gerrits situates the beginning of this fascination at the time of the artist’s stay in Paris.85 One of Van Brée’s most successful students, Antoine Wiertz ( 1806–1865 ) described the anatomy lessons in 1822 — from his own megalomaniac perspective — in his work L’Académie d’Anvers. Mathieu Van Brée : “The crowd filled the auditorium. [ … ] If it was an anatomy lesson, he [ Van Brée ] would hold a fragment of a skeleton in one hand, his eyes fixed on it ; in his other hand he would hold a piece of chalk, that was about to perform miracles.” 86 He continued with a description of how Van Brée taught his students, noting explicitly that in his lessons Van Brée used “a large board with a black, shiny surface — the page on which his thoughts would unfold …” 87 Van Brée then demonstrated the construction of the body and the body parts in a lesson that lasted an hour. With great ease he brought these shapes to life and as he was drawing, he also commented on his actions. As in his handbook, which was meant to stimulate the drawing talent of his students, as well as their theoretical education, it was not only the practical art of drawing that he addressed in his lessons. Wiertz observed : “Whether it was about history, writing, perspective, the philosophy of painting — in all his lessons, in which he embraced every aspect of fine arts, he was always a scholar, profound, convincing, as swift as thinking. He was the typical professor, who created a typical Academy, the Academy of 1822.” 88

DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF THE HANDBOOK The publication of Leçons de Dessin was Van Brée’s attempt to streamline academic education and set a qualitative standard. The author himself mentioned that the book was used in various academies in the Netherlands, including the Antwerp Academy.89 However, from Wiertz’ account it is obvious that the book was not the only material Van Brée used.90 In the text that accompanied the didactic plates, the author reproduced Anton Reinhard Falck’s circular letter to the provincial governors of the Netherlands.91 In it, the Minister of Education, Industry and Colonies urged the provincial governors to implement Van Brée’s teaching methods in all the academies in their province. In 1840, a Dutch translation of Leçons de Dessin was published as Lessen over de teekenkunst ( Lessons on Drawing ).92 Twelve years later, in 1852, Constantinus Cornelius Huysmans published his Grondbeginselen der Teekenkunst ( Basic Principles of Drawing ) in Amsterdam ; he borrowed the illustrations for the book from Van Brée’s original publication from 1821.93 Van Brée’s handbook was also used later in art schools. In 1865, the Council for the Perfection of the Teaching of the Art of Drawing considered the sections on Proportions and the second section from Principles of the Linear Stroke to still be relevant to the teaching of drawing.94 A few years later, in 1869, when the Académie des Beaux Arts in Mechelen was inspected, the report explicitly mentioned that the Academy still used Van Brée’s Leçons de Dessin.95

TO CONCLUDE “Those who have copied the drawings should guard them with great care ; they will always be a sure shield against fashion and bad taste.” 96 Leçons de Dessin reflects the nineteenth-century academic mentality in which classical sculpture was considered the essence of formal language. The neoclassical training that Van Brée himself had received and which is still visible in his work as an artist is something that he never left entirely behind. It is this neoclassical view, this aspiring for the ideal, which inspired the rigorous structure of his handbook. His neoclassical training is not only 135

83

Idem, 224. 84 Idem, 81.

85

L. Gerrits, Biografie van M.I. Van Brée, 25.

86 A.J. Wiertz, “L’académie d’Anvers. Mathieu Van Brée”, in : Oeuvres Littéraires ( Brussels 1869 ) 272.

87 88

Ibid.

Idem, 273.

89

M.I. Van Brée, Leçons de Dessin, iii-iv.

90

A.J. Wiertz, “L’académie d’Anvers. Mathieu Van Brée”, 272.

91

M.I. Van Brée, Leçons de Dessin, v-vi.

92 Idem, Lessen over de teekenkunst. Verklaring van het honderdtal platen, uitmakende de volgorde der studiën in de grondbeginselen der teekenkunst ( Delft 1840 ).

93 A. Martens, “Het ontstaan van het kunstonderwijs in Nederland en geschiedenis van de Quellinusschool te Amsterdam ( 1879–1924 )”, in : A. Martens, A. Miedema and E. van Uitert ( eds. ), Kunstonderwijs in Nederland. Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 30 ( 1979 ) 96 ; C.C. Huysmans, Grondbeginselen der Teekenkunst. Eene theoretische en practische Handleiding om het teekenen grondig te leeren ( Amsterdam 1852 ).

94 L. Alvin, Les Académies et les autres Écoles de Dessin de la Belgique en 1864 ( Brussels 1865 ) 474, 476.

95 Stadsarchief Mechelen, Secretariaatsarchief 1869, inv. 73, art. 3, Aanmerkingen over den toestand der Academie voor Schone Kunsten van Mechelen door Willem Geets, 7.

96

A.J. Wiertz, “L’académie d’Anvers. Mathieu Van Brée”, 271.

97 M.I. Van Brée, Leçons de Dessin, xv.

reflected in the separate classes and levels of competence, but also in the content, i.e. in his attempt to use diagrams to develop unambiguous models that would be applicable to all figures. Though in his structuring of the curriculum, Van Brée was no radical innovator, it is obvious from certain accents in his book that he sought a less rigid neoclassical approach in art education.

With his book, Van Brée wanted to set a qualitative standard for art education in the Netherlands, as well as stimulating the rational faculties of young artists with his model plates. The curriculum started with a simple approach addressing the general proportions of the figure. The student then gradually evolved to more expressive drawings, as expression was an essential part of learning how to draw. In its entirety, the figure always had to portray the inner being. The face as a mirror of the soul was accented by the pose of the body and the positioning of hands and feet. The artist had to learn, as it were, “a mute language” : he had to render situations and convey emotions without words.97 Expressiveness in the figures was achieved through the pose, as well as by creating “tension” in the body — a tension that resulted from distortions that were caused by movements. It was essential that the artist should learn how to assess and render these distortions and tension correctly, for that would result in a powerful image.

Though Leçons de Dessin was used in the Antwerp Academy, the book only reflected a certain stage of art education. To be able to start at the Academy, students had to have a basic knowledge of symmetry and geometry, which had to be taught in primary school.

Upon completion of the course, there followed the study of three-dimensional shapes, i.e. classical sculpture and working from a live model. In these lessons, the acquired neoclassical formal language was linked to the actual perception, which often resulted in very recognizable nineteenth-century figures.

After his death, Van Brée’s artistic production was not always appreciated, but his personal devotion to art education — in particular to the Antwerp Academy — was remarkable. Soon after his death the initiative was taken to erect a statue for the teacher of the great Belgian Romantics. The statue in his memory was inaugurated in 1852 and to this day Van Brée still stands near the entrance of the Antwerp Academy.

136

137

1

3

2

4

5

7

6

8 138

139

9

11

10

12

1

Mattheus Van Brée, Belvedere Torso, 1821, lithograph from Leçons de Dessin, 1st class, section 3, plate 30 ( KASKA )

2

Mattheus Van Brée, Hercules Farnese, 1821, lithograph from Leçons de Dessin, 1st class, section 3, plate 33 ( KASKA )

3

Mattheus Van Brée, Castor and Pollux, 1821, lithograph from Leçons de Dessin, 1st class, section 3, plate 35 ( KASKA ) 4

5 6

Mattheus Van Brée, Fragments of faces, 1821, lithograph from Leçons de Dessin, 2nd class, section 4, plate 3 ( KASKA )

Mattheus Van Brée, Fragments of Carneades and the Milo of Croton, 1821, lithograph from Leçons de Dessin, 2nd class, section 4, plate 7 ( KASKA ) 7

Mattheus Van Brée, Aesculapius, 1821, lithograph from Leçons de Dessin, 2nd class, section 4, plate 11 ( KASKA ) 8

9 10

Mattheus Van Brée, Ariadne, 1821, lithograph from Leçons de Dessin, 2nd class, section 5, plate 5 ( KASKA )

Mattheus Van Brée, Hercules Farnese, 1821, lithograph from Leçons de Dessin, 2nd class, section 5, plate 10 ( KASKA )

Mattheus Van Brée, The difference between the eyes of a plaster cast and a live model, 1821, lithograph from Leçons de Dessin, 3rd class, section 6, plate 2 ( KASKA ) 11

12

Mattheus Van Brée, Laocoön, 1821, lithograph from Leçons de Dessin, 1st class, section 3, plate 36 ( KASKA )

Mattheus Van Brée, Expressions of the eyes, 1821, lithograph from Leçons de Dessin, 3rd class, section 6, plate 3 ( KASKA )

Mattheus Van Brée, Shaded fragments of busts of Phocion, Diogenes and Pythagoras, 1821, lithograph from Leçons de Dessin, 3rd class, section 6, plate 10 ( KASKA )

140

Live model painting class with Jean de Bosschère sitting in the foreground, ca. 1890 ( photographer unknown ) ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

Painting class with female nude model, ca. 1890 ( photographer unknown ) ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

Dermod O’Brien, The Fine Art Academy, Antwerp, 1890, oil on canvas ( National Museum Northern Ireland )

Katrien Dierckx

According to the Rules The Prix de Rome ( 1819–1921 ) as a National Prestige Contest and Apogee of Academic Conventionalism1 The academy is often depicted as a static institute, an unwieldy, conservative organ, and it may be that the most explicit confirmation of that view is to be found in the nineteenthcentury Rome prizes. The dusty image of the “Grand Prize” ( the “Grand Prix”, or later, and more familiarly, the “Prix de Rome” ) also explains the lasting disinterest in the award-winning paintings and sculptures that are still today scattered over the Antwerp Academy.2 In fact, this continuing disinterest is unjustified. As the pinnacle of one’s artistic training, the Grand Prize ( 1819–1921 ) held a key position in nineteenth and twentiethcentury artistic and cultural life. Because the prize was closely linked with the national cultural policy, the contest was supposed to generate an official form of art that strongly related to tradition. Despite the rather predictable character of the works submitted for the contest, public interest was unremitting and intense. The fact that the prize gradually met with increasing opposition, yet was at the same time followed closely in the press, is indicative of the continuous — albeit changing — significance of this leading contest.

As the much-discussed contest had been organized for so many years, it also resulted in a special collection of youthful works, including works, for example, by Wiertz, Delville and Mellery, but also from lesser-known artists. It reflects in a unique way the artistic and art pedagogical views that were cultivated in the nineteenth and early twentiethcentury academies.

Antoine Joseph Wiertz, Scipio Africanus Receives His Son From the Hands of Representatives of King Antiochus, 1832, oil on canvas ( KASKA )

“GRAND CONCOURS DE ROME”, OR “GRAND CONCOURS D’ANVERS” ?

It is no coincidence that the — not entirely complete — collection of award-winning paintings and sculptures is preserved in the Antwerp Academy. Though the Grand Prize was a national affair, the Antwerp Academy played a prominent part as organizer, both under Dutch rule, as well as in the period following Belgium’s independence. In the early nineteenth century, the French concept of the “Grand Prix” spread across the rest of Europe.3 When William I of Orange founded the “Grand Prize” for visual arts in 1817, it 143

1

My thanks to Karine Houthuys and Jef Van Gool for their much appreciated help in the library and the archive of the Antwerp Academy.

2

An attempt at reassessing the prizewinning painting can be found in Arsène Van Eeckaute, “Een Grooten Prijs. De Prijs van Rome schilderkunst 1819–1920”, in : Gelauwerde beelden ( Antwerp 2004 ) s.p. ; Peter Eyskens, “De Romeprijzen in de verzameling van de Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten te Antwerpen”, in : Gelauwerde beelden ( Antwerp 2004 ), s.p.

3

Christine A. Dupont, Modèles italiens et traditions nationales. Les artistes belges en Italie ( 1830–1914 ) ( Brussels and Rome 2005 ), 39.

4

Christian Omodeo, “L’art français et une capitale en déclin ? Peindre et exposer à Rome entre 1803 et 1840”, in : Romantisme.

Revue du dix-neuvième siècle 153 / 3 ( 2011 ) 101–116, 101.

5

Dieuwertje Dekkers, “Op reis gezonden.

De Groote Prijs aan de Koninklijke Akademie van Beeldende Kunsten te Amsterdam ( 1823–1849 )”, in : Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome, 12 / 47 ( 1987 ), 179–220, 179.

6

Dupont, Modèles italiens et traditions nationales, 43.

7

was the French model that inspired him. The idea was that a strict contest would make it possible to find the most promising talents, who would then have the opportunity to complete their artistic education in Italy. While the French laureates were awarded a stay at the Académie de France à Rome ( created in 1666 and housed since the early nineteenth century in the splendid Villa Medici ),4 William I merely awarded a travelling grant of 1,200 guilders. With this scholarship, the winner of the prize was able to stay in Italy for four years, preferably in Rome, and develop his artistic talent. Like the French prize, the Dutch one was embedded in a deliberately thought-out cultural policy. The king made it possible for the laureates to improve their skills in an environment rich in classical works of art that dated from Antiquity and the Renaissance. In exchange the young artist produced studies of the collections they visited and copied a selection of antique and Italian paintings and sculptures ; later, they would also copy floor plans of famous monuments in Rome and its surroundings. Upon their return to their home country, they would contribute considerably to the revival and expansion of a national art.

Idem, 43–44.

Xavier Mellery, The Prophet Elijah Visits King Ochosias and Predicts his Death, 1870, oil on canvas ( KASKA )

The Antwerp Academy and the Amsterdam Academy took it in turns to receive King William’s commission for organizing the biennial “Grand Prize”. Both academies had for that matter been awarded the much-coveted status of “official, national academy of visual arts”. The first contest ( for painting ) was organized by the Antwerp Academy in 1819.

Initially the ( exclusively male ) participants had to have studied for at least one year at the academy of either Antwerp or Amsterdam. From 1821 the contest was open to students from all the academies in the country. The age limit for participation was set at 30. In 1823 the contest was organized for the first time in the renovated Academy in Amsterdam.5 Belgium’s independence did not initially bring any radical changes to the administrative aspects and the status of the “Grand Prize”. The 1830 edition — the first edition for sculpture — ended on 19 August, a month before the onset of the Belgian revolution in September. From the correspondence of the painter Jan Antoon Verschaeren, the 1828 laureate, it can be inferred that the scholarship payments — which were from 1831 the responsibility of the Belgian treasury — went ahead smoothly.6 From 1832, the year that first saw the organization of the first Belgian “Grand concours” ( official announcements were now made in French ), the Belgian state simply took over all the responsibilities that had previously come under the Dutch authorities.7 In addition, the organization was now completely in the hands of the Antwerp Academy. The prestigious task comprised the administrative and practical support of the contest, as well as support with regard to content. In accordance with the instructions of the Belgian authorities, the focus of the 144

contest would alternate between painting, sculpture, architecture ( from 1834 ), and later engraving ( from 1840 ). From 1847, the contest became an annual event. There was a conspicuous imbalance, however, with regard to the annual alternation of disciplines : painting far outweighed the other disciplines. Painting was, of course, expected to contribute more than any other art form to the image and the artistic aura of the young nation. In that sense the Grand Prize for Painting was an instrument to restore the Golden Age : the aim was to revive the international repute of Rubens and other eminent seventeenth-century masters.8 At a later stage, the contests for sculpture enjoyed a similarly preferential treatment.9

8

Lut Pil, “Painting at the Service of the New Nation State”, in : Kas Deprez and Louis Vos ( eds. ), Nationalism in Belgium : Shifting Identities 1780–1995 ( Basingstoke 1998 ) 42–50, 44.

9

Dupont, Modèles italiens et traditions nationales, 72–73.

10 Gisèle Ollinger-Zinque, “Art et liberté. De la démission de Navez au règne de Portaels ( 1859–1900 )”, in : 275 jaar onderwijs aan de Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten van Brussel ( Brussels 1987 ) 92–109, 97.

11 Dupont, Modèles italiens et traditions nationales, 49.

12

Louis Alvin, Les Académies et les autres écoles de dessin de la Belgique en 1864 ( Brussels 1865 ), 238.

13

Christine A. Dupont, “L’artiste sur le podium. Prix de Rome et pouvoirs publics en Belgique ( 1830–1914 )”, in : Ginette Kurgan-Van Hentenryk and Valérie Montens ( eds. ), L’argent des Arts : la politique artistique des pouvoirs publics en Belgique de 1830 à 1940 ( Brussels 2001 ) 89–98, 90–91.

14

Jan Antoon Verschaeren, Democedes of Croton Restores Darius’ Health, 1828, oil on canvas ( KASKA )

The Antwerp Academy’s privileged position as the organizer of the prestigious Grand Prize could not fail to cause resentment at the Brussels Academy. It was even the case that Brussels was initially only able to send a limited number of candidates to the most important of all art contests, because the travel and accommodation expenses were not refunded.10 Only from 1860 onwards could non-Antwerp students expect to be reimbursed for their expenses, which ended the privileged position of the Antwerp students. In addition, it was also obvious that the works submitted would be on view only in Antwerp, and more particularly in the Academy building in the Venusstraat. Only from 1875 onwards would

the works also be exhibited in Brussels.11 The close involvement of local Antwerp politics in awarding the prizes ( the jury was presided over by the provincial governor ) made the dominant position of Antwerp even stronger.12 Furthermore, the winners’ subsequent touring abroad also came under the responsibility of the Antwerp Academy. The Antwerp directors Mattheus van Bree, Gustaaf Wappers, Jan Antoon Verschaeren and Nicaise De Keyser all took turns to correspond with the young artists who had won the prize, even if they had not been trained in their own school. After that, Gustave Kempeneers, the then administrator of the Antwerp Academy, dedicated himself for many years to corresponding with the winners.

By introducing changes to the rules of the contest, the Belgian government tried to emphasize its national character.13 It was with displeasure that the Board of the Antwerp Academy viewed the increasing involvement of the “Classe des Beaux-Arts”, or “Fine Arts Class”, a national panel of art experts that had been set up in 1845 and — particularly in the period from 1875 onwards — exerted a growing influence on the contest.14 Though the government took more steps to enhance the national character of the Grand Contest, the practical organization remained in the hands of the Antwerp Academy, till the contest was abolished in 1921. In fact, the Antwerp Academy was the only institution that had the required infrastructure to guarantee that the contest went smoothly.

145

Archives of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp ( hereafter AKASKA ), Prijs van Rome ( hereafter PvR ), inv. no.95, Correspondence with the Minister for the Interior, 1876 ; Grands concours dits concours de Rome — Règlement organique 22 mai 1875 ( Antwerp 1883 ).

15

Van Eeckaute, “Een Grooten Prijs”, s.p.

16 AKASKA, PvR, inv. no.76, File concerning the contest and evaluation of the Prix de Rome 1904. Letter from 26 contestants to the members of the jury.

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS : A GL ANCE AT THE CONTEST PROCEDURE The complex contest procedure of the Grand Prize was initiated at the beginning of the new calendar year. Upon receiving notice from the government, the Antwerp Academy proceeded to announce the contest to a wider public and applications were opened. If more than six contestants presented themselves, pre-selection would be inevitable. In its most drawn-out form, the Grand Contest comprised three stages : an elimination test, a preliminary test ( comprised of three subtests ), and the final contest. For the architecture contests a special entrance exam was created in 1852.

The elimination test or “sorting test” was meant to reduce the number of candidates to thirty or less. It was established in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, in response to the marked increase that was seen in the number of applicants for the Grand Contest for painting and sculpture in the period after 1886 — exactly one year after the founding of the Higher Institute of Fine Arts ( HISK ).15 For the Grand Contest for architecture and engraving there was no need for an elimination test : the number of participants for these disciplines was always markedly lower. In 1868 the Grand Contest for engraving was even cancelled for a lack of participants. Depending on the art discipline, the elimination test consisted of painting or modelling a head or bust from a live model and took four days.

For the most successful candidates this inaugurated the start of a prolonged contest that spanned about six months in total.

To avoid any outside influence, the candidates spent most of the period of the contest in strict isolation. In one of the halls of the Antwerp Academy, partitions were used to create separate studios, which could be locked from the outside. These individual studios were then furnished with basic, mainly rented furniture and equipped with specific necessities, such as an easel, sheets of paper that had been numbered and sealed by the Academy, paint and canvas. At the start of the various parts of the test, the Board of the Academy carefully checked whether the individual cells were properly furnished and isolated. The studios were assigned by lot. Before the candidates moved in, their personal equipment and clothes were inspected thoroughly. Even the models that were hired by the remaining participants for the final test did not escape these rigorous precautions : they, too, underwent a meticulous inspection of “body and clothing” before they could enter the studio.

Strict isolation in the studios was required from the preliminary test. The measure applied to the four different disciplines, but depending on the discipline, the practical implementation was different. With regard to the Grand Contests for painting and sculpture, confinement in the studio was mandatory for the first and second part of the preliminary test. The subject was selected by lot, which was drawn by the youngest participant. The candidates then moved silently to their individual studios, accompanied by a supervisor. In strict isolation they spent two days painting or modelling a life-size “expressive head”. The confinement within the studios was only interrupted for a daily hour of relaxation in the garden of the Academy.

The same procedure was meticulously followed for the second subtest, which lasted four days and comprised sketching a historical composition, for which the subject matter was borrowed from the Bible, ancient history, or classical mythology. This study had to be the product of strictly personal knowledge and skills, and participants kept a sharp eye on each other to assure that this was the case. In 1904, for example, the jury received an official letter of complaint in which 26 candidates accused one of their competitors of fraud. For his sketch of David Playing Harp for Saul, he had allegedly reproduced an engraving that had been published that same year in the magazine Jugend.16 Whether the similarity was noticed by the jury and the candidate disqualified cannot be inferred from the archives.

But it is certainly a fact that during the contest, the personal competence of the young artists was paramount.

For the third subtest, which took ten days, the participants all gathered in a space with a ( male ) live model. Their place in the room was allocated to them by lot, as was the pose adopted by the model. The pose had to be rendered as adequately as possible with a full-length painting or a sculpture one metre high. After each test, the works were stored away in the general storeroom, which was locked in the presence of the director, the administrator and all the participants, and sealed with the seal of the Academy and that of the youngest contender. At the start of the adjudication there was a check in the presence of 146

all the jury members to see whether the seals were still intact. The adjudication itself went on behind closed doors. The detailed report of the jury was presented to the competent minister, though the evaluation of the candidates was not motivated.

Visiting card of the sculptor’s model “Santos”, undated ( after 1912 ) ( KASKA )

At the start of the final test, the six ( or if two candidates had finished equal, the seven ) best candidates were once more confined to a studio. This time they had four days and three nights to work on a study for their final entry. This stage was crucial : depending on the discipline, the final work of art had to be executed to conform exactly to the painted study of the clay model. In order to discourage fraud among the contenders, the finished studies were put behind glass and sealed. Before the works were then stored in a room that would also in turn be sealed, the candidates had two more days to make a faithful copy that would serve as a strict model for the realization of the final painting or sculpture ( depending on the jury’s decision, the latter could be a bas-relief or a fully-fledged threedimensional sculpture ). For the completion of the final work, eighty-five workdays were reserved ; on Sundays and bank holidays, the studios remained closed. During this final stage of the Grand Contest, the candidates followed a strict schedule that was imposed by the rules. At fixed times, work in the studio was interrupted for common meals ( which the participants had delivered from outside ), or for a walk in the garden. In order not to leave anything to chance during these breaks, the studios were implacably locked and even the corridor that gave onto the studios was sealed and locked for every break by a supervisor.

Despite the restrictions of freedom and the particularly rigidly organized work schedule, hardly any incidents were ever reported. One exception was the 1877 edition, when the sculptor François Joris was accused by the other candidates of brutal bullying.17 However, especially at the end of the nineteenth century, there was growing criticism with regard to the prolonged period of confinement, which was considered anything but beneficial to the inspiration and creativity of the young artist. The frustration was immense, both among the finalists and in the press, when after a long and demanding period of work, the prize was simply not awarded.18

“IN THE COURSE OF ONE MORNING, IT’S ALL FINISHED, ALL IS DECIDED” : THE DECISION PROCESS OF THE JURY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. Each year, the evaluation of the Grand Contest was entrusted to a select committee of jurors, who had been appointed by the competent authorities for this occasion. The assessment of the preliminary test was carried out by seven effective and two substitute jurors that were appointed by Ministerial Decree. For the evaluation of the final test, the number 147

17 AKASKA, PvR, inv. no. 45, File concerning the contest and evaluation of the Prix de Rome 1877.

Letter from Dominique Maes to the administrator of the Academy, 6 June 1877.

18 AKASKA, PvR, inv. no.

101, Newspaper clippings concerning files 1900–1901.

19 Grands concours dits concours de Rome — Règlement organique 22 mai 1875 ( Antwerp 1883 ).

was increased to nine effective and two substitute jurors, who were appointed by Royal Decree. It is striking that in the course of time the evaluation committee included the winners of earlier editions who had in the meantime achieved a creditable artistic career of their own. Initially the jury was simply composed of the Board and the teachers of the Antwerp Academy. In order to prevent favouritism and conflicts of interest, as well as to lend a greater national aura to the contest, teachers from other academies were also soon included in the jury. The next step was when the competent authorities decided that at least three of the jurors had to be a member of the nationally composed “Fine Arts Class”.19 As a result, the percentage of Antwerp jurors gradually decreased.

Newspaper article on the occasion of the Prix de Rome 1900 in Handelsblad, 21 November 1900 ( KASKA )

After clearing the anonymous ( i.e. unsigned ) final works and the corresponding sketches, the members of the jury withdrew to assess the quality of the works. First they had to answer the question of whether the works submitted were of sufficient merit to award the Grand Prize. Among the 94 editions of the prize, there were 13 occasions when that was deemed not to be the case. If the jury decided that the works presented did indeed 148

meet the standards required, they then controlled whether the finalists had respected the imposed dimensions, whether they had respected the subject, and whether they had been faithful to their original sketch. If one of these conditions had not been met, the jury felt obliged to disqualify the contender in this last stage of the contest. In 1889, for example, Auguste Levêque was banned from the contest at precisely this stage in the proceedings.

The jury decided that his painting deviated too much from the original and — according to the jury — from his own vague sketch, which meant that during the weekend he may have sought advice from one of his ( former ) teachers.20 Only after possible attempts at fraud or violations of the rules had been checked did the jury proceed with the actual blind adjudication : behind closed doors, they then discussed the artistic merit of the individual works.

Then the jurors decided which work was entitled to the first prize. From 1848 onwards, there was also the possibility of awarding a second prize ( which could also be shared by contestants ), as well as the award of an honourable mention ( which could also be shared ).

The jurors’ assessment was uttered à haute voix, that is to say, aloud. In the detailed minutes of the evaluation sessions, the numerical distribution of the votes was carefully written down. However, there is no substantial motivation behind the evaluations. From the last quarter of the nineteenth century onwards, the opinion of the jurors was often contested in the press. The polemics that existed, predominantly between the newspapers of Antwerp, Brussels and Ghent, show that informal evaluation criteria also played a part in awarding the Grand Prize. In spite of the efforts of the authorities to oppose these 21

practices, the jury was frequently accused of partiality. In 1900, the prize went to the sculptor Frans Huygelen, who studied at the Higher Institute in Antwerp. This outcome was strongly contested in the Ghent press. Among the finalists had been Jules Van Biesbroeck, an inhabitant of Ghent, who was now participating for the third time and had each time been awarded the Second Prize. Furthermore, Van Biesbroeck had just been awarded the Medal of Honour at the World Exhibition in Paris.22 In the final stage of the contest the rumours were buzzing around that this important artistic honour had embarrassed the other competitors and even prompted them to withdraw.23 Yet it was Huygelen, not Van Biesbroeck, who was awarded the Grand Prize. According to the newspapers in Ghent, it was obvious that the decision of the jury had been improper, because it had been decided in advance that a student from Antwerp had to win. The Antwerp press replied that the works were anonymous and that by definition the members of the jury could not therefore be prejudiced when awarding the prize.24 The controversy that surrounded the question of whether Constant Montald had deservedly won the prize in 1886, once more confirmed the fact that the Grand Prize was not just a matter of national, but also of local pride, and that the rivalry and the battle for supremacy between the academies was often fierce.25

20 Van Eeckaute, “Een Grooten Prijs”, z.p. ; AKASKA, PvR, inv. no. 58, File concerning the contest and evaluation of the Prix de Rome 1889. Copy of the minutes of the Grand Prize for painting — final judgement, 18 October 1889.

21

AKASKA, PvR, inv. no.

101, Newspaper clippings concerning files 1900–1901, newspaper clippings Le Soir, 12/6/1901, Le Matin, 1/6/1901, Handelsblad, 1/6/1901 ; AKASKA, PvR, inv. no. 65, File concerning the contest and evaluation of the Prix de Rome 1895, newspaper clipping Handelsblad van Antwerpen, 24/10/1895.

22

Engelen-Marx, “Jules Van Biesbroeck”, Beeldhouwkunst in België vanaf 1830 ( Brussels 2002 ), 1536.

23 “Beaux-Arts”, Le Matin, 20/8/1900.

24 J. Paul Lissens and Antoon Van Ruyssevelt, Frans Huygelen, beeldhouwer, 1878–1940 ( Antwerp 1990 ), 21.

25 AKASKA, PvR, inv. no.

55, File concerning the contest and evaluation of the Prix de Rome 1886.

26 Dupont, Modèles italiens et traditions nationales, 65–66.

27 AKASKA, PvR, inv. no.

38, File concerning the contest and evaluation of the Prix de Rome 1870. Letter from Mellery to Kempeneers, Rome, 15 September 1874.

28

Dupont, “L’artiste sur le podium”, 95.

LONG LIVE THE BEST ONE! THE GRAND PRIZE AS PINNACLE AND STARTING POINT Once the jury had reached a verdict, the finalists for the Grand Prize were called in for its announcement. After this public announcement of the results, the public at large could go and see the six or seven works that had made it to the final, as well as the accompanying sketches, all of which were exhibited in Antwerp for some six to ten days. The works were then transported to Brussels and exhibited in the Palace of the Academies. From 1851 the solemn announcement of the results — an event surrounded by much ado — took place during the annual public session of the “Fine Arts Class”, which was sometimes attended by members of the royal family or even by the king himself.26 The artist Xavier Mellery wrote from Rome that he would never forget the handshake of Leopold II and his encouraging words.27 With great display the winners were also laurelled in their hometown. Antwerp was the champion when it came to organizing all sorts of events and festivities to honour the laureates.28 There was a remarkable apogee of these ostentatious homages to the Antwerp winners around the turn of the century. Various articles in newspapers describe how the young Antwerp sculptors Frans Huygelen ( First Prize 1900 ) and Floris De Cuyper ( Second Prize 1900 ), and their teacher Thomas Vincotte were driven around in a coach, with crowds flocking to see them. After a brief stop at the Academy, the procession continued towards 149

29 AKASKA, PvR, inv. no.

101, Newspaper clippings concerning files 1900–1901, newspaper clipping Le Matin, 19/11/1900.

30 Dupont, Modèles italiens et traditions nationales, 194–200 ; Sophie Orloff, “Het beeldhouwonderricht”, in : Jacques Van Lennep, De negentiende-eeuwse beeldhouwkunst ( Brussels 1990 ), 260–283.

31

Philippe Grunchec, Les concours des Prix de Rome 1797–1863 ( Parijs 1986–1898 ), 31–32.

32 Dupont, Modèles italiens et traditions nationales, 72.

the town hall, where a solemn reception with the mayor was scheduled.29 In the evening there followed brass band concerts and a banquet to honour Huygelen, offered by his neighbours and a social committee. As an orphan from the poor area in the harbour, Huygelen had acquired the status of a hero thanks to winning the First Prize. The emphasis on him being of low birth tunes in perfectly with the romanticized image of the pauper who made it as an artist, thereby climbing up the social ladder. This feat by an individual was therefore welcomed with communal pride.

Indeed, the laureates of the Grand Prize had come a long way. They had often started their art training when they were still very young.30 Through a meritocratic system of contests, they had trained and sharpened their skills ; in the end, often after several attempts, they had succeeded at a national level and received the prestigious Grand Prize.

In that sense the prize-winning works often reflect the learning process at the Academy or a parallel education in private studios. In other words, these are youthful works that are actually not characterized by a personal artistic vision, but rather works that meet the pedagogical goals that the Academy set forth. The fact that when the winner was being honoured, the teacher also shared the limelight and received words of praise emphasizes that the Grand Prize is considered the ultimate fulfilment of the art pedagogical project. A glance at the collection of prize-winning paintings and sculptures makes it clear that a lot of these works are characterized by academic respectability and that there is sometimes a certain clumsiness about them. The laureates were expected to develop their talent during their study tour, as well as a personal language, helped by their academic training. At a later stage they would thus contribute to the artistic aura of their country to the best of their ability. But in order to do so, they had to remain faithful to the traditions of great art.

GRAND PRIZE VERSUS GREAT ART The nineteenth-century academic system was based on an artistic concept that imposed a retrograde style ; it also honoured the prevailing hierarchy of genres. In the painting class, the final goal was therefore the creation of the most noble of genres, the history painting. Knowledge of antiquity was therefore a must, as well as the ability to work from a live model. It is obvious that the Grand Prize, as the pinnacle of artistic training, put the skills that were required for history painting to a thorough test. In that sense the Belgian Grand Prize differed from the Prize in a country such as France, for example, where apart from the annual contest in history painting, a Prix de Rome in “historical landscape” was also organized.31 To nurture national pride, the Board of the Antwerp Academy suggested that it was precisely a Grand Prize in history painting that had the most potential. The Belgian territory had always excelled in the art of painting. History painting was the genre par excellence with which to perpetuate the artistic aura of the country.32 This was obviously a reference to the monumental history paintings of Gustaaf Wappers and Nicaise De Keyser, who both sought to continue the national tradition and who admired Rubens especially.

All parts of the curriculum that were prerequisite for the realization of history painting played a part in the Grand Contest for painting. Whereas the “sorting test” and the preliminary test focused on testing the separate subjects of the curriculum, the participants had to combine their knowledge for the final test. Using the knowledge acquired in the lessons of historical composition and drawing from antique and live models, as well as the knowledge acquired in lessons about anatomy, perspective, history, antiquity and costume, the participants had to be able to create a fully-fledged history painting. Departing from the idea that the realization of a history painting required to a great extent an intellectual ability, the academies kept hammering away at the need for theoretical schooling and the art historical background of the students. Prize-winning paintings, such as those by Antoon Van Ysendijck ( 1823 ), Modeste Carlier ( 1850 ), or Emile Verbrugghe ( 1883 ) reveal the extent to which the finalists paid attention to narrative elements, the accuracy of the image, the technical perfection ( of the draping, for example ), and the archaeological details. The same elements seemed to preoccupy the sculptors as they engaged in the final test. Just like the practitioners of the “grand genre”, they focused on the meticulous and accurate representation of the given passage from an historical, religious or mythological text. The recently identified bas-relief by the prizewinner Egide Rombaux illustrates how strongly the finalists had to focus on the specific narrative elements. The prescribed subject 150

for the 1891 contest was : “Joseph’s coat covered with blood, shown to his father Jacob” ( Genesis 37 :32 ). The finalists received a copy of this biblical passage, as a refresher, to enable them to distil an image from the verse. Though the finalists initially rebelled against the underlined verse — which was, in their eyes, too specific — and they even refused to enter their studios, the fragment that they had to depict remained the same. Rombaux zooms in on the defeated attitude of the Jewish patriarch, Jacob, who sinks on his bed in despair upon hearing of the so-called death of his favourite son, Joseph.33

33

AKASKA, PvR, inv. no. 60, File concerning the contest and evaluation of the Prix de Rome 1891. Letter from Delbeke, De Haen, Dupont, Boncquet, Van Emelen and Rombaux to the administrator, Antwerp, 22 June 1891.

34

Philippe Grunchec, Les concours des Prix de Rome 1797–1863.

35 AKASKA, PvR, inv. no. 62, File concerning the contest and evaluation of the Prix de Rome 1892, newspaper clipping La Gazette, 24/1/1892.

Modeste Carlier, Battle of the Horatii and the Curatii : the Moment When the Horatii Bid Farewell to Their Father in the Presence of Their Sister Camilla, Who Is Betrothed to One of the Curatii, 1850, oil on canvas ( KASKA )

For an entire century, the narrative, lofty subjects of the final tests for painting and sculpture were derived from the same repertory that was also common in art schools abroad. The subjects proposed by the jury of the Grand Prizes for painting and sculpture were conspicuously similar, for example, to those proposed by the organizers of the annual history painting contest of the French Prix de Rome.34 It is no surprise that in the last quarter of the nineteenth century there was growing criticism of this obstinate choice of solemn, obsolete subjects that stifled the personal inspiration of the young contestants.

There was also increasing protest against the old-fashioned teaching methods and the compulsory confinement to the studios : these stifled the originality of the candidates.35 In other words, because of the subjects imposed and the rigid formula of the contest, the participants were unable to detach themselves from the lessons they had learned. In the final test the candidates neatly demonstrated what they had learned at the Academy. The result was a rather neutral, predictable style with a clear focus on the composition and the drawing. A prize-winning work such as that by Gerard Van der Linden ( 1856 ) emphasizes this focus on the composition and the accuracy of the narrative ; it is obvious that the young sculptor did not pay a lot of attention to varying the faces. The standardized portrayal of Socrates in the painting by Charles Van den Kerckhove ( 1867 ) and the bas-relief by Jean-Baptiste De Boeck ( 1851 ) once more refer directly to their academic training : drawing from an ancient model was generally considered one of the basic skills. For students, the stereotypical image of Socrates, which also features, for example, in Mattheus van Brée’s drawing book, simply belonged to their existing knowledge. What is strange in De Boeck’s prize-winning bas-relief are the parallel diagonal lines in the apparel of the characters.

Was this simply a realistic rendition of the folds of the cloth that had been draped around the model ?

151

36

Jenny Reynaerts, Het karakter onzer Hollandsche School. De koninklijke Akademie van Beeldende Kunsten te Amsterdam, 1817–1870 ( Leiden 2001 ), 192.

37 Grunchec, Les concours des Prix de Rome 1797–1863, 7 ; Annemieke Hoogenboom, “De Nederlandse Prix de Rome schilderkunst van 1884 tot 1981”, in : Ton Quik ( ed. ), Smaak : mensen, media, trends ( Zwolle 1999 ) 176–191, 176.

38 “Le carnaval du Prix de Rome”, L’Art Moderne, 17/11/1895.

The Grand Prize measured the training that the artist had received, but it was not an infallible touchstone for talent. In the press there were frequent comments that there were a lot of unfamiliar names among the prizewinners. The conclusion that the Grand Prize apparently created a sort of mediocrity was also heard in a European context.36 The jury seemed to award the prize to the artist who had made the least mistakes — not on the basis of artistic qualities. Influential, upcoming artists often did not even pass the preliminary test.37 If in time some of the prizewinners acquired a name for themselves, it was precisely because they had adopted a clear position with regard to the academic standards. Worth mentioning in this context is the case of Jean Delville, who had already discovered his own artistic path before he participated in the Grand Prize for painting. But in order to win, he conformed to the academic views. With his “academic monstrosity” — as the progressive magazine L’Art Moderne put it — he managed nevertheless to please the jury : his awardwinning composition ( 1895 ) showed off his artistic skills and theoretical knowledge.38

Egide Rombaux, Joseph Presented to Jacob, 1891, plaster relief ( KASKA )

Jean-Baptiste De Boeck, Socrates’ Last Day, 1851, plaster relief ( KASKA )

The fact that academicians set great store by theoretical knowledge with regard to the creation and appreciation of great art is also borne out by the compulsory exam that laureates had to pass from 1850 onwards. Before the winners were allowed to start their tour abroad, their intellectual knowledge was tested in an “exam in scientific and literary knowledge”, with questions about General Literature ( Homer, Virgil, Dante, Tasso, Milton, and the Bible ), History and Antiquity ( i.e. the history of Greece, Rome, the Middle Ages, and Belgian history ) ; for the French and later for the optional Dutch language exam, the artist had to write an essay. If the artist failed one or more subjects, a resit was possible.

Prizewinner Jean-Baptiste De Boeck was forced to postpone his study tour for one year because he had failed General Literature and French. Though he failed French again at the

152

resit, he got permission to start his voyage anyway, provided he went to Italy via France, where he had to stay for at least six months in Paris.39 On their four-year tour — for which the itinerary had to be approved by a special commission — the prizewinners were supposed to send in a regular report ( i.e. every three months, then later, every six months ) with their personal reflections about the canonical masterpieces they had seen. That some of the laureates trifled somewhat with the expression of their personal intellectual development is obvious from the files relating to Julien Dillens and Guillaume Charlier. The jury commenting on the reports actually suspected that these young sculptors had simply copied their impression of certain art works from some guidebook or treatise on the history of art.40 These suspicions echoed the often heard remark that the laureates fell short when it came to their critical faculties.

But the laureates also had to send their works in to the jury and in that context they had to combine in their reports the classical tradition with the study of nature and individual, profound meditation.41 As of 1863, the winners were also officially asked to send in copies of canonical masterworks, which mainly served didactic purposes.

39

AKASKA, PvR, inv. no. 19, File concerning the contest and evaluation of the Prix de Rome 1851. Copy of the minutes of the session of 8 October 1852.

40

AKASKA, PvR, inv. no. 45, File concerning the contest and evaluation of the Prix de Rome 1877 ; inv. no. 50, File concerning the contest and evaluation of the Prix de Rome 1882. Copy of the evaluation of Guillaume Charlier’s fourth semester report, 23 June 1885.

41

AKASKA, PvR, inv. no.

19, File concerning the contest and evaluation of the Prix de Rome 1851.

42

“Les Prix de Rome”, L’Art Moderne, 16/10/1892.

43 Dupont, Modèles italiens et traditions nationales, 57.

Jean Delville, Children Sing the Praise of Christ, 1895, oil on canvas KASKA )

Around the turn of the century, the obligatory copies of famous works of art, as well as the obligatory journey to Rome itself became the target of progressive artistic circles, which preferred to promote modernity and originality. A compulsory stay in the Eternal City, L’Art Moderne argued, did not contribute in any way to the creation of a Belgian art, which had after all, been the ultimate goal of the Grand Contest for years.42

EXIT PRIX DE ROME Because of continued admiration for “what already exists” and the focus on the antique ideal, education at the Antwerp Academy was increasingly considered obsolete and overly prescriptive : it lacked feeling for contemporary artistic developments. The cul-de-sac of academicism inevitably reflected on the Grand Prizes. Reform was necessary. In the early twentieth century there came more room for a freer expression. The choice of subject for the painting contest was one of the elements with which the jury started to experiment.

In 1921 the Grand Prize was abolished and replaced by an alternative contest, for which the artistic qualities of the candidates were assessed on the basis of a file, and after a visit 153

to the candidate’s studio.43 The last Grand Prize for painting was awarded in 1920 ; the compulsory subject was “The Golden Age”. The hope for great art was apparently still alive.

The attempt to project the illustrious artistic tradition on the future continued unabated.

The participants in the Rome Prize for sculpture 1909 ; sitting, fourth from the right : Rik Wouters ; standing, eleventh from the right : Georges Vantongerloo ; standing, farthest to the left : Oscar Jespers ( photographer unknown ) ( KMSKB, Archive for Contemporary Art in Belgium )

154

Jozef Glassée

Space for the People of Antwerp Donations to the Academy Museum in their Urban Context ( 1800 –1890 ) 1

Henri Van Dyck, Interior of the Old Museum Mutsaertstraat 1886, 1886, oil on canvas ( KMSKA )

Right from its very beginnings, the Antwerp Academy of Fine Arts possessed its own art collection and over the course of the nineteenth century, this collection would expand with the addition of old and contemporary masters. In addition, there were also the works of art that were allocated to the Academy after the troubled Austrian and French periods — works that had been left without an owner. For the staff and the students of the Academy, the works from this collection were considered models to be followed, because of their successful composition or the palette that was used. Furthermore, the Academy was also a place where famous former students or Antwerp baroque artists such as Peter Paul Rubens were worshipped. In this, of course, the paintings of the old masters played a part. Apart from art objects, the Academy also collected didactic objects, such as weapons, apparel or archaeological objects. These objects from former times were used as props for paintings in the lessons. Part of the collection of the Academy was housed in a museum that was for a long time visited mainly by the staff and students. However, during the nineteenth century, interest in the collection increased beyond the walls of the Academy. The idea developed that the old master paintings were of historical importance to the entire town.

In the nineteenth century, the Academy museum gradually came to the forefront as one of the most prominent places in Antwerp’s cultural landscape. The collection and the building that housed it both expanded. They attracted more visitors and were able to count on greater levels of cooperation from the locals. The town administration, which became the formal owner of the works of art, strengthened ties with the institute by, for example, providing subsidies for purchases and for the maintenance of the museum. Early in the nineteenth century, the museum was housed in a dusty, poorly lit annexe of the Academy, which in fact posed a risk to the visitor. The town council and the government therefore decided to fund an extension of the building and a monumental staircase to emphasize the grandeur of the institute. The painting collection also expanded. The town and its inhabitants engaged in a process that would lead to the creation of an independent museum and a loosening of the ties between the museum and the Academy. As a cultural beacon of the 155

1

Leen de Jong, “De geschiedenis van het museumgebouw”, in : Leen de Jong ( ed. ), Het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen : een geschiedenis 1810–2007 ( Oostkamp 2008 ), 78–107.

2

Kate Hill, Culture and Class in English Public Museums, 1850–1914 ( Aldershot 2005 ) 2–15, 148–149. For Belgium, see : Liesbet Nys, De Intrede van het Publiek ( Leuven 2012 ).

3

Inge Bertels, Tim Bisschops and Bruno Blondé, “Stadslandschap.

Ontwikkelingen en verwikkelingen van een stedelijke ruimte”, in : Antwerpen : biografie van een stad ( Antwerp 2010 ), 39–65.

4

Brecht Deseure et al., “Rubensmania. De complexe constructie van cultuur in heden en verleden”, in : Antwerpen : biografie van een stad ( Antwerp 2010 ), 179–191.

5

Christophe Loir, “La sécularisation des oeuvres d’art dans le Brabant 1773–1842”, Etudes sur le XVIIIè siècle, Volume hors-série 8 ( Brussels 1998 ) 13–31 ; Hans Vlieghe, “Het verslag over de toestand van de in 1815 uit Frankrijk naar Antwerpen teruggekeerde schilderijen”, in : Jaarboek Support to Museum voor Schone Kunsten ( Antwerp 1971 ) 273–282 ; Hans Vlieghe, “De voorgeschiedenis tot 1816”, in : de Jong, Het Koninklijk, 18–26.

new southern part of town, the museum would come to be housed in a Greek temple in 1890 ; it would become formally independent in 1895. 1 This essay is about the expansion of the museum collection over the course of the nineteenth century, the place of the museum in nineteenth-century Antwerp, and the efforts that the inhabitants of Antwerp invested in their museum. Research has shown that a lot was expected from nineteenth-century museums, although to a certain extent they also caused controversy. Despite frequent issues over the dull arrangement of the artworks, or the precarious conditions in which the collection had to be preserved, citizens did in fact spend a lot of time and money on their museums.2 The population of Antwerp was also involved. One tangible form of commitment involved donating works of art to the museum, thereby turning private property into public property. In this essay we will go into the issue of the first donations to the museum of the Academy. How did these donations to the new museum start ? To what extent was there a seedbed for these initiatives ? What was the role of the town in all of this, and what did Antwerp mean to the donors ? To what extent did the works donated have an Antwerp character ? To answer these questions, we will discuss the donation process, and the role of the parties involved, as well as the reactions of the museum visitors.

The urban context of art donations related to the town’s cultural activity. In the nineteenth century, as in former times, art was collected and studied. Learned societies and heritage associations throve on the enthusiasm of amateurs who wanted to study and understand the past, and share their findings. In this context, museums became showcases of common interest in the history of Antwerp. The creation of a past that could be shared by all inhabitants was of prime importance for the creation of a collective identity. In the nineteenth century, the invention and experience of the glorious urban past and the rediscovery of artists turned into community-building processes. After the French revolution, social relations had shifted and the social classes had to look for a new identity and a new way of relating to other groups. Culture played an important part in the construction of this identity.

In the museums of today, the cultural-historical context of donations is often seen — undeservedly — as being secondary to the art historical narrative of a collection.

We look at a work by Rubens, by the Flemish Primitives, or by nineteenth-century genre painters, and spontaneously forget about the origin of these beautiful works. Collections are the result of an internal scientific policy that seeks to complete the collection, but they are equally the result of chance, wilfulness, perseverance and compromise. This is the cultural-historical narrative to which this text seeks to draw attention.

MOBILE HERITAGE AND CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE The blossoming of Antwerp’s academic museum took place in the early nineteenth century, amidst a time of radical changes. The cultural world was profiting from the thriving economy that followed the reopening of the River Scheldt. Antwerp was undergoing a process of renovation and was slowly lowering its medieval veil.3 Change also characterized the domain of culture.4 The abolishment of the guilds, the ransacking of the churches and monasteries, and the abolishment and re-establishment of the Academy did not promote a stable cultural climate in Antwerp. Furthermore, there was a dramatic increase in the mobility of art heritage at the end of the eighteenth century. From 1773 the art market of the Southern Netherlands alone was flooded with 22,000 works of art from 63 ecclesiastical and secular establishments that had been closed. In 1785, foreign museums purchased more than 200 of the best works of art at auction. In Antwerp, a number of art works moved to the Academy as well as to the école centrale, a secondary school. The great sack came in 1794. All over Europe — Antwerp included — French revolutionary troops confiscated works of art and transported them to Paris, where they were exhibited in the Louvre, which was then the central museum of the Republic.5 Despite diplomatic protests, the majority of the paintings only returned to Antwerp in 1815, after the fall of the empire. A popular feast erupted when the carts with the paint156

ings arrived. In order to take greater care of the collection of paintings, a committee was created within the Antwerp Academy that was headed by Florent van Ertborn, who was later to become mayor. It was the task of this committee to prepare the reopening of the museum of the Academy. During their meetings, the members discussed the restoration and distribution of the paintings between various Antwerp churches and the museum of the Academy. The committee decided which paintings had to be put on view, which had to be stored, and which had to be returned to various institutes. Thus the revaluation of the Antwerp patrimony became a matter for the concerned citizens — not just for the painters who were linked to the Academy.6

6

Hans Vlieghe, “De voorgeschiedenis tot 1816”, in : de Jong, Het Koninklijk, 18–26. Artesis Archive Antwerp ( hereafter AAA ), Modern Archive ( hereafter MA ) 530, correspondence, transport of paintings to France and their return to the museum ( 1801–1816 ).

7

Anonymous, Guide des étrangers dans la ville d’Anvers ou Description succincte de tous les principaux objets d’art en peinture, sculpture, architecture, etc. ( Antwerp 1822 ), 79–80.

8

Loir, “La sécularisation”, 14–17.

Benjamin Zix, The Wedding Procession of Napoleon and Marie-Louise of Austria ( detail ), 1810, pen and watercolour on paper ( Musée du Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins, Paris )

L. Titz after Ferdinand de Braekeleer, The Arrival at the Academy of the Paintings Returned by France in 1815, 1888, engraving ( Town archive, Antwerp )

The short stay that some of their masterpieces had been forced to make in Paris had made it clear to the town’s inhabitants that it would be undesirable for the works to go off on their travels once again. The loss confirmed the people’s attachment to the works of art and they were prepared now to make efforts in support of the museum. Some of the town’s inhabitants would come to see art as the remains of their own history, something that was shared in the public domain. This interest in patrimony was also translated into a large number of private collections, which was a typical Antwerp phenomenon, according to an 1822 travel guide.7 Of course, the age-old practice of collecting had never entirely disappeared, but the slackening economy had been detrimental in this respect. Furthermore, some collectors had not been able to prevent major items from their collections from being taken abroad. It is also the case that private collections were often auctioned a generation later, which meant that they were no longer protected from being taken abroad.

In Brussels, more and more people were pleading for the protection of patrimony to be made a matter for the authorities. The idea thus developed that the museum was a safe and permanent storage place for important art objects.8 In Antwerp the population would make an effort to promote a similar attitude at an urban level.

SUPPORT FOR THE ACADEMY AND PAINTERS For the honourable Antwerp Academy, which had been living on its famous past reputation, the period between its re-establishment in 1802 and the opening of the renovated 157

9

Idem, 9, 28–31.

10

AAA, MA 01 and MA 02. These files contain the minutes of the Board meetings of the Academy and of the prize ceremonies between 1804 and 1819.

In these minutes the date is noted both according to the French revolutionary calendar and our Gregorian calendar.

This notation is also used in the notes to this text.

academic museum in 1816 proved challenging. Since the abolishment of the guilds in 1795 and the need to fall back on painting commissions, artists had had a hard time.9 The members of the Board of the Academy therefore pointed potential backers to the fact that it was their duty to contribute to the art sector. The issue of support for students and fellow painters was also mentioned at the prize-giving ceremonies for the end-of-semester exams.10 The orations at these occasions also expounded a chauvinist view of Antwerp history. At the start of a new century, examples of support from the distant past were called on for inspiration. The tradition of donating works of art to the Academy was doubtless made easier by the fact that the support of artists was already well established.

*

Ferdinand de Braekeleer, Portrait of Joseph van Ertborn, undated ( ca. 1820 ), oil on canvas ( Private collection, Antwerp )

*

C. Pfeiffer after Geneviève Denis, Portrait of Simon Denis, undated, engraving ( Town archive, Antwerp )

Because of the economic situation at the start of the nineteenth century, the speeches just mentioned hovered between optimism and realism with regard to the career opportunities available for the students. In 1806, for example, with numerous prominent figures present at the prize ceremony, the prefect insisted that good artists who surpassed their predecessors would always find commissions. He also had to admit, however, that times were not particularly rosy. Those who did not feel the fire of Rubens burning inside them, 158

Around 1825 the Antwerp painter Ferdinand de Braekeleer portrayed this collector amongst his paintings. Bart Cornelis linked the painting at the top in the middle to Anthony Van Dyck and argued that with regard to the other paintings, it can as yet not be excluded that these may simply be the product of De Braekeleer’s imagination. However, it recently became clear that the collector portrayed is probably Joseph van Ertborn ( 1778–1823 ). The idea is substantiated by genealogical research, comparing the portrait with sketches by Mattheus van Bree and an article by the keeper of the town records, Floris Prims.

Joseph van Ertborn was a senior cousin of the Antwerp mayor, Florent van Ertborn, and was born into a wealthy family of investors and bankers. Joseph combined his art and culture patronage with collecting seventeenth-century masters. He sat on the Board of the Academy, spoke at prize ceremonies and in 1806, he published on the history of the Academy. Thus van Ertborn was a pioneer with regard to research about the Academy, and in a sense also at the Academy.

he told the crowd, would be better off pursuing another career.11 Obviously, this speech served a double purpose. It was addressed to the students, who had to be motivated, but it also gave the Antwerp elite to understand that they were responsible for the blossoming of the careers of these future artists. It was from this point of view, in 1805, that Joseph van Ertborn, Academy secretary and author of a book on its history, argued strongly in favour of the need for a good academic collection.12

11 AAA, MA 01, speech by the prefect on 20 April 1806.

12

AAA, MA 01, speech by secretary Joseph van Ertborn on 26 May 1805 ; AAA, MA 01, speech by secretary Joseph van Ertborn on 25 August 1805.

13

AAA, MA 01, speech by the prefect on 20 April 1806. See also AAA, MA 01, speech by governor De Keverberg de Kessel on 21 April 1816. The argument of historical precedents would often return.

14

AAA, MA 01, speech by secretary Joseph van Ertborn of 26 May 1805.

15

AAA, MA 01, minutes of the prize ceremony of 20 May 1808.

Simon Denis, Italian Landscape at Dusk, undated ( acquired in 1813 ), oil on canvas ( KMSKA )

So far as donations to artists were concerned, the French emperor and the Dutch ruler had both fulfilled their duty especially well — it was said at the awards ceremony. The support of their predecessors from a glorious past was a case in point. But merely donating was insufficient — the gesture had to be accompanied by a passion for art. In 1806, the prefect praised Pope Leo X, the Italian Medici family, and King Francis I as generous patrons who were also friends and lovers of art.13 The appeal to political rulers for subsidies should not surprise us. At the prize ceremonies, the appeal to the Antwerp bourgeoisie only came relatively late and was secondary. Yet as early as 1805, Joseph van Ertborn had argued that the Antwerp Academy had meant a lot to the town in the past. The reputation of the school had reflected on the town and had made it famous.14 Renewed commitment therefore seemed opportune, so that modern artists would continue to advance the name of the town.

Though they were not explicitly urged into action, the Antwerp bourgeoisie did take initiatives to support artists. This was probably not considered a form of rivalry with the ruler. At the exam results ceremony of 1808, the students were informed about the establishment of Les Amis de l’Art, a new Antwerp “association of art patrons”.15 The association was founded from a shared sense of sympathy with artists constantly looking for financial support. The association referred to is probably the Genootschap ter Aenmoediging der Schoone Kunsten ( Association for the Encouragement of Fine Arts ), which was founded in 1808 and organized a triennial art salon in Antwerp. Artists were able to exhibit their work at this salon, offer it for sale, and have it evaluated by a jury. The costs of the association were supported by public inscription. Despite working together with the Academy, the association was mainly an initiative of the Antwerp cultural elite. It is obvious that the bourgeoisie displayed a certain creativity in providing financial support to artists.

It was not only at academic ceremonies that a call was heard to give support for the arts. There were regular attempts within society to convince its members to provide more support. On the occasion of the prize ceremony for the 1816 salon contest, the Antwerp private collector, art dealer and Academy teacher Jean-Adrien Snyers promoted the purchase of contemporary art among the Antwerp middle class. The reminiscence of famous ances159

16 Jean-Adrien Snyers, Discours prononcé Par Mr. Jean-Adrien Snyers, co-sécrétaire de la société d’Encouragement des Beaux-Arts, à l’occasion de la Distribution des Prix du Concours d’Anvers, le 25 08 1816 ( Antwerp 1816 ), 1–7.

17 AAA, MA 02, speech by the governor on 18 October 1817.

18 AAA, MA 02, minutes of the meeting of the Board of the Academy of 10 January 1818.

19

AAA, MA 01, minutes of the meeting of the Board of the Academy of 21 brumaire an 13.

20 AAA, MA 01, minutes of the meeting of the Board of the Academy of 10 nivose an 13.

21

L.P.X., Almanach d’Anvers et du département des Deux-Nèthes pour l’an M. DCCC. IX ( Antwerp 1809 ) 128, 130.

22

AAA, MA 01, minutes of the meeting of the Board of the Academy of 10 nivose an 13.

tors played an important part in his argument. Snyers argued, for example, that famous art patrons such as the Medici or the Archduke and Archduchess Albrecht and Isabella had become famous and had remained so precisely because of the support they gave to artists.

Snyers claimed that these figures set an example for the Antwerp bourgeoisie. Snyers presented the old tradition of royal patronage to a new public, the bourgeois who lived in town, and held up the prospect of eternal glory, such as that which had befallen their predecessors. In other words, the pre-revolutionary tradition and the appeal to a new public were simply aligned. Snyers had another argument in which the past and present met.

Enjoying patrimony also involved duties. According to Snyers, previous generations had made it possible for certain works of art to continue to be enjoyed by his contemporaries. In order to thank their ancestors, therefore, the nineteenth-century inhabitants of Antwerp should also buy contemporary art and preserve those works for future generations.16 In 1817, the recently appointed governor Pierre Pycke addressed one of the first public pleas urging private collectors to give support to Antwerp artists. At a prize ceremony at the Academy he expressed respect for those purchasing old masters, but at the same time he claimed that their collections needed to be made complete with contemporary art. On the other hand, he also made it clear that the king and the people around him remained the most important pillars of the arts.17 The Academy was indeed already familiar with the rich private collections of Antwerp. In 1818 the collectors Charles de Bosschaert and Henri ( or possibly Charles ) Stier d’Aertselaer were thanked in public for making their collections

accessible to students.18 Apart from painters, the Board of the Academy also included the mayor of the town and a few rich art patrons and collectors. They would be the first to donate to the Academy.

THE BIRTH OF A TRADITION

23

AAA, MA 01, minutes of the meeting of the Board of the Academy of 01 pluviose an 13.

It was only at a later stage that the public addresses given at prize-giving ceremonies included an appeal for support of Antwerp artists. Yet the minutes for meetings of the Board of the Academy present a more balanced image. Though appeals for support were primarily addressed at the ruler and the prefect, most of the donations the Academy received came from patrons that had some link with the institute. They were familiar with the needs of the Academy and their donations often related to some specific goal.

As early as 1804, two years after its reopening, the French prefect Charles d’Herbouville donated a number of engravings and lamps to the Academy.19 This particular donation related to the didactic and technical needs of the school. Another token of encouragement was the “Prize for the student with the greatest knowledge of anatomy” that was funded later that year by the Antwerp merchant in silk fabrics Jean Jacques Van Hal.20 Van Hal was Honorary Secretary of the Academy, art collector and a member of the Antwerp Society for the Study of History. His collection comprised art, antiquities and natural history objects. It may have been possible to visit his collection by appointment, as was mentioned in an almanac.21 At the meeting at which Van Hal’s donation was proposed, it was emphasized that the best encouragement for art was in the form of voluntary initiatives made by citizens.

Patrons were allowed to award additional prizes, i.e. prizes that were awarded in addition to the regular academic prizes. Whether Van Hal himself took the initiative for the prize that was proposed to him, is unknown. Donations were of course a matter of individual choice, but the Academy did not hesitate to encourage them or to use social pressure. Donating was presented as the fulfilment of one’s duty, as is obvious from Van Hal’s speech of thanks.

Furthermore, contemporary donations were linked to the example set by eminent Antwerp inhabitants from the past. Thus it was established that donations could result in prestige and remembrance.22 It comes as no surprise, therefore, that other members of the Board, such as Joseph van Ertborn, soon followed in Van Hal’s footsteps.23 The first nineteenth-century donation of paintings to the museum of the Academy dates from 1819 ; it was a direct consequence of the mobility of patrimony. Early in the nineteenth century, when the Jesuit church in Antwerp was reconsecrated as the Church of 160

Carolus Borromeus, the churchwardens asked the Academy to return some of its paintings.

When the Academy refused, Baron Philippe Antoine Joseph de Pret de Terveken proposed to exchange Cornelis Schut’s Holy Family, which was in the collection of the museum, for a still life and an animal painting by Frans Snijders. The Academy approved of the exchange, because these genres were lacking in the collection and the museum could easily afford to do without Schut’s work.24 The noble family of Antwerp landowners de Pret had a long-established relationship with the Church of Carolus Borromeus, and Baron Philippe Antoine Joseph was one of the churchwardens at the time. The donation to the museum was probably linked to a religious frame of reference. In his epitaph in the church of Hemisem, art donations were equated with charity. The epitaph refers explicitly to the Baron’s charitable actions, but also to his patronage of the arts. It is because of this commitment, the epitaph reads, that the memory of Pret would survive, and not because of an ostentatious tombstone. Later, this epitaph was also cited in the popular magazine De Vlaamsche School ( The Flemish School ), with an appeal to remember the patrons of art.25

24 Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp ( hereafter KMSKA ), Archive KMSKA, Committee reports 1816–1835, minutes of the session of 15 June 1819.

25 Pierre Génard, “Grafen gedenkschriften uit de provincie Antwerpen”, in : De Vlaamsche School 4 ( Antwerp 1858 ) 30.

26 AAA, MA 01, speech

by Joseph van Ertborn on 20 April 1806. Van Ertborn used similar words in 1805 : AAA, MA 01, speech by secretary Joseph van Ertborn on 25 August 1805.

27 AAA, MA 01, meeting of 16 February 1811.

28

PAINTERS DONATE In Antwerp there was already an established tradition of supporting artists. That Antwerp painters should in turn donate work of their own to the Academy comes as no surprise. At the Academy, there was a true cult of remembrance for Rubens, Van Dyck, and Jordaens. These baroque painters were considered to be Antwerp artists. Contemporary artists also wanted to be remembered in order that future generations would be able to consider their merits. In a speech in 1806, Joseph van Ertborn declared that “posterity will engrave our names in the book of History and will announce to the entire world that it was you who rekindled the flame of Art in your country”.26 In fact, most of the artists who donated work to the Academy before 1890 had already made a name for themselves. The donations were probably meant to create a more lasting memory. That was certainly true of artists who made a career for themselves abroad after their study days in Antwerp, and who wanted the home base to know about their feats. In 1811, for example, the Antwerp painter of flower pieces Gerard van Spaendonck, who had made a career for himself in Paris as a court painter and a teacher at the academy, donated a copy of his handbook about flower painting to the Antwerp Academy.27 It is hard to find out how famous van Spaendonck was in his home town, but it is not unlikely that he was more famous in the town in which he actually worked.

Donations from painters and a public discourse created expectations about the idea of being remembered. But could the memory of someone be perpetuated through a donation ?

And was a museum the right place for perpetuating the memory of artistic merit and generous donors ? There was a complex relationship between the museum, the artist, the donor, and the artistic merit of a donation, as can be inferred from the donation of three paintings by the painter Simon Denis that were donated by his brother Louis in 1837. A Belgian military officer in Vienna had learned that the childless Louis, who resided in the Austrian capital, wanted to donate some of Simon’s works. Laconically, he urged Antwerp to undertake action. According to the officer, praising the generosity of the “respectable old man” would be enough to make him oblige any request from the town of Antwerp.28 Eventually Louis Denis donated three paintings to the museum in Antwerp. As a token of gratitude, he even added his own portrait and an engraving by his brother. The portrait was never exhibited, because of its poor quality.29 Letters of thanks left Antwerp for Vienna, focusing on the remembrance of the artist and the generous act of donating the three paintings. The town council especially praised Louis Denis for his generosity and his love of his home town. It recognized the fact that in the past, Antwerp had failed to give Simon Denis the recognition he deserved and promised that the memory of the donation would be preserved for eternity in the “imperishable annals” of the museum. Mayor Gerard Le Grelle wrote a private letter in which he stated that his fellow townsmen would unanimously acclaim the merits of the painter and cherish his memory.30 Mattheus Ignatius Van Bree, the director of the Academy, praised above all 161

Town archive Antwerp ( hereafter SA ), MA, 240.2, letter from Charles Baron Vauthier de Baillamont dated 13 November 1836.

29 SA, MA, 240.2, letter from Louis Denis dated 12 December 1836.

30 SA, MA, 240.2, letter from Gérard Le Grelle dated 07 April 1837.

31

SA, MA, 240.2, letter from Mattheus Ignatius van Bree dated 12 April 1867.

32 SA, MA, 240.2, letter from Charles Vauthier de Baillamont dated 22 April 1840.

33

Théodore Van Lerius, “Notice analytique et raisonnée du catalogue du musée d’Anvers, rédigé par M. Jean-Alfred De Laet, professeur abrégé à l’université de Gand, et publié par le conseil d’administration de l’académie royale des beaux-arts”, Messager des sciences historiques ( 1851 ), 300–301.

34

KMSKA, Archive KMSKA, acquisition files, 0003, letter from Gustave Wappers dated 25 May 1860.

35 KMSKA, Archive KMSKA, committee reports 1844–1856, session of 06 April 1847.

36

Jules de Saint-Genois, “Notice sur le cabinet de Mme. la vicomtesse de Vaernewyck d’Angest à Gand”, Messager des sciences historiques 5 ( 1837 ), 33.

37 Liesbet Nys, “Particulier bezit in het museumtijdperk.

Bezoek aan privéverzamelingen in België, circa 1830–1914”, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Filologie en Geschiedenis 83, 2 ( 2005 ) 453–478 ; Dominique Pety, “Le personnage du collectionneur au XIX siècle : de l’excentrique à l’amateur distingué”, Romantisme 112 ( 2001 ) 71–81 ; Manuel Charpy, “L’ordre des choses. Sur quelques traits de la culture matérielle bourgeoise parisienne, 1830–1914”, Revue d’histoire du XIXe siècle 34 ( 2007 ) 105–128 ; Sven Kuhrau, Der Kunstsammler im Kaiserreich. Kunst und Räpresentation in der Berliner Privatsammlerkultur ( Kiel 2005 ).

38 Jules de Saint-Genois, “Notice sur le cabinet de M. Eugène Regnaut, à Gand”, Messager des sciences historiques 6 ( 1838 ), 172.

39

Anonymous, “Musée Van Ertborn, à Anvers”, Messager des sciences historiques 10 ( 1842 ), 106–107.

the career of an artist who had been trained in Antwerp and who had been friends with Balthasar Ommeganck in his youth.31 He hoped he would keep Denis’ memory alive by presenting the works in the museum of the Academy. In 1840 another letter arrived from the Belgian officer carrying word of another death. The Denis family had now died out, but its name would live on forever.32 In their letters to Vienna, the Board of the Academy and the town council created high expectations with regard to the reception of the works and remembrance of the artist. Both the fame of the artist and the generosity of the donor would be remembered forever. But in 1851 the leading art historical magazine Messager des sciences historiques published a stinging complaint about the fact that the donations had not yet been exhibited. Theodore Van Lerius, Antwerp lawyer, art collector and author of the article, had known Denis well. Van Lerius claimed that the Board of the museum did not care very much about the exhibition that it owed to Denis. In fact, things were worse than that : the works were only taken out of the reserve collection when there was news that Denis’ family would visit Antwerp.

Allegedly, it was not until shortly before 1851 that director Gustaaf Wappers hung the paintings.33 In 1860 it turned out that Wappers, too, had lost trace of them. They must have gone missing after one of the renovations to the museum, but according to Wappers, they still had to be somewhere in the museum. With regard to their quality, Wappers wrote decidedly that they were “very mediocre”.34 The failure to hang Denis’ paintings, their later removal, and Van Lerius’ sharp disapproval are all facts that should be seen in context. Between 1837 and 1860, the painting collection of the museum had grown spectacularly, due amongst other reasons to two large donations. Despite renovations in the 1840s, the museum struggled with a lack of space.35 Yet Denis’ donation triggered a conflict between the art historical value and the souvenir value of this work of art. Apparently, there was insufficient memory of an artist who was probably only moderately known in Antwerp for demanding a permanent exhibition of his work : director Gustaaf Wappers removed the paintings precisely because of their poor artistic merit. But coincidence also played a part. During renovations, works that had been donated disappeared in the reserve collection, never to return to the exhibition rooms. In everyday life, the lofty discourse of the correspondence and the promise of eternal fame met with practical objections, the need to be selective about works, and with oblivion. But the museum as a site of remembrance was passionately defended by Theodore Van Lerius.

He would continue his criticism of the academic policy — and not just with regard to the right to be remembered. Later, he would himself donate works to the museum.

COLLECTORS AS DONORS In Antwerp, collecting art was seen as a local tradition, just like support to artists.

This sort of local patriotism was not exclusive to Antwerp — in the nineteenth century,

Ghent, too, considered itself a centre for collecting art.36 As such, collecting art had a long tradition and in nineteenth-century Antwerp, collections were built up and auctioned. For the owners, the collections served various purposes : from aesthetic pleasure and leisure activity to the accumulation of prestige and capital. Throughout the nineteenth century, collecting generally — not exclusively art — spread through all layers of the population.37 At the same time, the image and the self-image of the collector changed. How collectors were viewed in the nineteenth century actually depended on the source : they could be described either as greedy hermits, or as eminent connoisseurs — and as the century passed, there was a tendency toward increasing levels of appreciation. In 1838 the Ghent collector Eugène Regnaut was accused in the press of being a vulture,38 whereas by 1842, Florent van Ertborn’s connoisseurship of the Flemish Primitives was positively hailed in an art magazine.39 In the second half of the century, art collections and sensational sales would feature extensively in the press.

Antwerp was home to collections of art, antiques, archaeological objects and items of scientific interest. In early nineteenth-century travel guides, private art collections were already considered complementary to museum collections, that is to say, provided the traveller was able to visit them. Some collectors felt obliged to open their collections to 162

the public, whereas others considered public attention a privilege.40 For the students of the Antwerp Academy, the local collections were a place to study. For the museum, they were a potential reservoir for purchases, and of course, for donations. In 1840 and 1859, for example, two large collections were donated to the academic museum. In 1840, 115 late Gothic works from the collection of mayor Florent van Ertborn became the property of the town. In 1859 the dowager Adelaïde Van den Hecke-Baut de Rasmon from WannegemLede, near Kruishoutem, donated 39 works by seventeenth-century Dutch masters to the municipal museum.41

Joseph Geefs, Portrait of Florent van Ertborn, 1849, marble ( KMSKA )

Jean Fouquet, Madonna Surrounded by Seraphs and Cherubs, undated ( probably 1451 ), oil on panel ( KMSKA, bequest Van Ertborn, 1841 )

The collections of van Ertborn and Van den Hecke were quite different. Van Ertborn travelled around Europe, looking for works by the European Primitives. In his quest, he took pride in his extensive knowledge of the subject. He compared the works from his own collection to similar works in public collections and wrote down his conclusions in a catalogue. In Antwerp he met with little support at the Academy, except from Van Bree.

However, there was great interest for European Primitives from the romantic poets at home and abroad, as well as from a few rich collectors and from van Ertborn’s political models, Baron de Keverberg de Kessel and King William I. The seventeenth-century masters from the collection of Baroness Van den Hecke were more in keeping with the popular taste 163

40

Nys, “Particulier bezit”, 453–478.

41

Various articles have been published about van Ertborn. See for example : Jozef de Coo, “Ridder Florent van Ertborn naderbij”, Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen ( 1962 ) 35–64 ; Idem, “Nieuwe contacten met Florent van Ertborn”, Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen ( 1970 ) 247–264. About Van den Hecke, see : Erik Duverger, “Het legaat van barones Van den Hecke-Baut de Rasmon aan het Museum van Antwerpen”, Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen ( 1974 ), 211–284.

42

Sandra Janssens, “The catalogue of Ridder Florent van Ertborn”, Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen ( 2002 ), 85–113.

of the time. But she had simply inherited the collection — she had not compiled it herself.

While van Ertborn was a connoisseur, Van den Hecke merely conserved the works.

Erasmus Quellinus II and Jan Fijt, Portrait of a Boy, undated, oil on panel ( KMSKA, bequest Van den Hecke-Baut de Rasmon, 1859 )

Both van Ertborn and Van den Hecke donated an ensemble of paintings to the museum of the Academy. In 1832 van Ertborn stipulated that his collection had to be hung in the museum in its entirety. In a catalogue that he wrote around 1828, he claimed that the collection as a whole transcended the meaning of the individual works. He wanted to provide an historical view of a certain period and that was only possible by comparing the paintings. The authenticity of the works in his collection was guaranteed by the fact that he had compared them all to works in museum collections. He thought for that matter that European Primitives were neglected as didactic models at the Antwerp Academy.42 We know much less about the coherence of Van den Hecke’s collection. The only thing that seems to link the paintings is the collector’s predilection for still lifes, genre paintings and scenes from nature. But such a predilection was in tune with the personal preferences of previous generations. Van den Hecke’s collection, too, would be shown as a whole in the museum — the town council would take care of that.

Possessing art was enriching, but both owners also experienced the drawbacks of a large, valuable collection. To start with, both van Ertborn and Van den Hecke were childless, so they had to secure the future of their collections. The haste with which van Ertborn made a testament in Germany during an outbreak of cholera suggests concern about the fate of the collection. The testament stipulated two conditions. All paintings had to be exhibited in the museum, and an inscription in small red letters would read “Collection van Ertborn”. The works needed to be integrated in a museum because the claims van Ertborn made with regard to the authorship of the works could only be sustained when the authentic works were on view. The collector probably sensed that the required combination of public ownership and private collection could only be realized through a donation.

Adelaïde Van den Hecke was also worried about her collection, to the extent that she even felt the collection to be a burden. In a confidential letter to her friend Caroline van Ertborn — Florent’s sister-in-law, who corresponded with the Academy in Adelaïde’s 164

name — she wrote with relief : “and if it pleases the good God to take me, I will be happy that I no longer have to worry about them.” 43 Van den Hecke had been bedridden with illness for years in her late eighteenth-century classical country house, surrounded by the heritage of former generations. The mediation of Caroline van Ertborn, as well as the memory of the gesture made by her brother-in-law, probably inspired her to donate the collection to Antwerp, and not to the nearer town of Ghent. The fact that she did not sell the collection may have been because she felt obliged toward the relatives that had gathered the collection.

It was not the Academy, but the town council that handled the donations of van Ertborn and Van den Hecke. And it was also the town council that helped to create a certain image of the donors. To start with, receiving the works and exhibiting them made it necessary to enlarge the museum. The council was happy to pay for that. It also took care to ensure that van Ertborn’s paintings were exhibited as a whole, and it would see to it that all stipulations of the testament were indeed observed. Each painting had to bear the inscription “Collection van Ertborn”. A non-authorized testament requested that the same inscription would feature on the door of the room in which the works were hung.44 The town council complied with all these wishes and also ordered a bust to be made by Joseph Geefs, which would be placed inside the room with the collection.45 The town council viewed van Ertborn’s gesture as the last political act of a generous mayor who had been responsible for Antwerp’s renaissance in the early nineteenth century. The meaning of the paintings as historical and art historical artefacts somehow became of secondary importance in the process of handling the legacy.46 But in the wake of van Ertborn’s legacy, the town council would also become more involved with the museum, especially with regard to the purchasing policy of the Academy.

The Academy itself played a rather obedient role in receiving van Ertborn’s collection. It asked for the advice of a German expert, because the Academy itself lacked the expertise to attribute the paintings. 47 However, the labels with explanations that the town council had asked for were postponed. In 1847 the inscriptions required by the testamentary were finally affixed on all paintings.48 The hesitant attitude of the Academy may also have had to do with the renovation of the museum. Earlier research justly raised the question of how Gustaaf Wappers, the then Rubens-inspired director of the Academy, would have assessed van Ertborn’s collection.49 Since the relevant book with the minutes of the meetings of the museum Board remains missing, it is hard to find out exactly what the museum’s attitude was. However, it is often forgotten that Wapper’s predecessor, Van Bree, appreciated the work of the Flemish Primitives. Van Bree belonged to van Ertborn’s circle of researchers and restored paintings for him.50 With regard to the Van den Hecke-Baut de Rasmon collection, the town council would again take care of the interests of the town and the image of the donor. The collection was exhibited as a whole — though Van den Hecke had not stipulated that this was prerequisite

in her testament — and a portrait of the donor was commissioned from Nicaise De Keyser.51 The portrait was richly framed and displayed with the text that accompanied the legacy.

But the town would claim its rights mainly in a long and painful lawsuit that was covered extensively in the press — a lawsuit initiated by Van den Hecke’s heirs.52 According to the heirs, the Portrait of a Boy by Jan Fijt and Erasmus Quellinus II was a family portrait and therefore according to the testament the museum had no right to it. But apart from a few statements that the dowager had allegedly made, there was no proof of the kinship.

ARTIBUS PATRIAE The donations of van Ertborn and Van den Hecke had been widely acclaimed because of their size and because of the interventions of the town council. They provided the foundation for the first Belgian association for collective art patronage : the Maatschappij tot Volledigmaking van het Antwerpsch Museum ( Society for the Completion of the Antwerp Museum ). Founded in 1864, its motto would be “Artibus Patriae”. The members paid an annual contribution, which was used to buy works of art that were then donated to the municipal museum in order to complete the collection.53 The purchases had to be works by 165

43 KMSKA, Archive KMSKA, bequest files, 0002, Adelaïde Van den Hecke to Caroline van Ertborn, letter dated 11 June 1855.

44 KMSKA, Archive KMSKA, bequest van Ertborn, 5, copies of the testaments of Florent van Ertborn from 1832 and 1840.

45

KMSKA, Archive KMSKA, bequest van Ertborn, 5, letter to the mayor and aldermen dated 22 October 1845.

46 SA, MA, 240.2A, letter from the mayor and the aldermen to the widow van Ertborn dated 27 October 1840 ; Idem, letter from the mayor and the aldermen to the widow van Ertborn dated 16 November 1840.

47 KMSKA, Archive KMSKA, bequest van Ertborn, 7, letter from Sulpiz Boisserée dated 07 February 1844.

48

KMSKA, Archive KMSKA, committee reports 1844–1856, minutes of 11 December 1847.

49

Jean F. Buyck, “An enlightened Art Collector : Florent van Ertborn”, Apollo 181 ( 1977 ) 160–167, 163.

50

Charles de Keverberg de Kessel, Ursula, princesse britannique, d’après la légende et les peintures de Memling / par un ami des lettres et des arts ( Ghent 1818 ), 140.

51 SA, MA, 240.2, letter from Nicaise De Keyser dated 19 February 1863.

52

SA, MA, 240.2, file lawsuit Van den Hecke-Baut de Rasmon.

53

About Artibus Patriae : Jozef Glassée, “Contributions to the well-being of art : The patronage of Artibus Patriae between 1895 and 1945”, Antwerp Museum Annual ( 2009 ) 87– 101 ; Jozef Glassée, “Burgermecenaat in Antwerpen : Artibus Patriae ( 1864–na 1964 )”, in : de Jong, Het Koninklijk, 201–207.

54

KMSKA, Archive Artibus Patriae, statutes and documents, first circular letter of the “Maatschappij ter volledigmaking van het Antwerpsch museum, onder de zinspreuk Artibus Patriae”, 1864.

Antwerp masters who were not adequately represented in the collection. Also suitable were works by painters who were not yet represented in all of the genres in which they painted.

To gather funds, the society had to seek supporters who believed in this undertaking. The basic instrument for recruiting members for Artibus Patriae was a printed text that had been written by artists, archive researchers and connoisseurs. The language of the text was deliberately intended to canvass support ; the circular letter was widely distributed in Antwerp in 1864.54 It comprised a list of works that were lacking in the museum. The intention was for the collection of the Academy to provide a complete survey of Antwerp art. The collection policy of Artibus Patriae was historically and encyclopaedically inspired and set out from a sense of pride in the local production. This pride was in fact inspired by the nineteenth-century quest for identity. The history of art could provide the inhabitants of Antwerp with a shared past.

Nicaise De Keyser, Portrait of Baroness Adelaïde Van den Hecke-Baut de Rasmon, 1862, oil on canvas, mounted on panel ( KMSKA )

Pieter Paul Rubens, Lamentation of Christ, undated ( ca. 1614 ), oil on canvas ( KMSKA, bequest Van den Hecke-Baut de Rasmon, 1859 )

166

The link between the home town and the artistic tradition was of course relative, because Antwerp artists had also worked outside their own town, or perhaps they had been born elsewhere, or because their innovation had never been linked to a specific town. It was also because — apart from being important from a historical and art historical perspective — art was also a bourgeois status symbol, and its revaluation can also be seen as an attempt by the cultural elite to legitimize its consumption pattern. Yet the newly founded society would always emphasize its local roots and the common good of its purchases.

Jacob Van Ruysdael, Landscape, 1649, oil on panel ( KMSKA, bequest Van den Hecke-Baut de Rasmon, 1859 )

The circular letter published in 1864 was not only historically oriented, but it also had a local-patriotic intent. It presented the expansion of the local museum as part of an international competition in which Antwerp was lagging behind. Indeed, museums abroad and private citizens were enjoying success in finding sponsors to help create large collections.

And yet in Antwerp, the local heritage could no longer be admired in the settings in which it had been created. To see paintings by local artists, one had to travel abroad, Artibus Patriae argued. The injustice of this scattering of the local heritage would remain a prominent theme till late in the twentieth century.

Artibus Patriae focused on Antwerp, both with regard to its purchases for the museum and in its recruitment of members. The society wanted to create a broad platform and the contribution of its members therefore had to be affordable. For the period up until 1875 we have insufficient data to learn much about the background of the members, but the membership fluctuated between 97 and 115 members, with a tendency for the numbers to decrease.55 Internally it was heard that in this respect the society had to do better. A comparison with the membership of the Maatschappij ter Aanmoediging der Schone Kunsten ( Society for the Encouragement of Fine Arts ) puts things in perspective. In Antwerp alone, in 1864, the latter society could count on more than 1,900 members, who financed the salons of modern art.56 Artibus Patriae was apparently less visible than the salon, which was a much-frequented society event. From the little information that we have about the members of Artibus Patriae, it appears that they were not exclusively captains of industry, or merchants who belonged to the nouveaux riches. Among the members there were also prominent Antwerp families with private incomes and equally high-ranking members of the nobility. They recruited members within their private networks, thus trying to stay in top positions in society. Presiding over Artibus Patriae was the mayor. There thus arose an Antwerp lobby for art, an alliance of knowledge, networks and capital, headed by a figure of high-ranking office. Artibus Patriae could count on a broad range of supporters.

167

55 KMSKA, Archive Artibus Patriae, statutes and documents, document by the secretary of Artibus Patriae dated 14 April 1870.

56

Anonymous, Catalogue des ouvrages de peinture, sculpture, architecture, gravure et dessin, exécutés par des artistes vivants, et exposés au Salon d’Anvers, ouvert par la Société royale pour l’encouragement des beaux-arts, le 7 août 1864 ( Antwerp 1864 ) 12–37.

We do not know for certain whether all of these members lived in Antwerp. We do know, however, that societies such as these also recruited members in Ghent and Brussels, and that some of their members lived in these towns.

57 KMSKA, Archive Artibus Patriae, statutes and documents, first circular letter of the “Maatschappij ter volledigmaking van het Antwerpsch museum, onder de zinspreuk Artibus Patriae”, 1864.

58 Pieter Génard, “Het museum van Antwerpen en zyne aenwinsten”, De Vlaamsche school 6 ( 1860 ) 90–92. The article contains a reference to 1855.

59 Théodore Van Lerius, “Vente du Cabinet de M. J.-A. Sneyers, à Anvers”, Messager des sciences historiques 9 ( 1841 ), 501.

But what exactly was the advantage of paying one’s annual contribution ? In its publications, the society claimed that the noble aim was sufficient motivation in itself. Social pressure may also have played a part. It was difficult to refuse membership if everyone in your entire business network and circle of friends was a member, or when a member of the committee made a direct approach over membership. Artibus Patriae was not very suitable for networking, because the society did not organize public events, except for one annual meeting. The society did not even have a place to meet. Plans to reward members with prints never came to anything, but members and sometimes their families were rewarded with permanent free entrance to the museum. Plans to exhibit acquisitions for a certain period of time each year in a separate room for which non-members would have to pay an admission fee also came to nothing. Officially, the works on view had to bear the coat of arms of the society.57 Whether or not this condition was actually implemented is unclear.

60 Pieter Génard, Biographie de l’avocat Théodore Van Lerius ( Antwerp 1886 ), 2.

Frans Francken II, The Painting Collection of Sebastiaan Leerse, undated, oil on panel ( KMSKA, donation Artibus Patriae, 1878 )

The core of Artibus Patriae consisted of a few members who engaged in research and who elaborated the purchase policy. These connoisseurs had nothing to do with the Academy, but they were passionate amateurs. They collected art themselves and their research about artists who were linked to the history of Antwerp can be read in the archives. They continually rediscovered facts and the image of the Antwerp school was therefore frequently revised. But their interest in sources and their faith in accuracy were linked — perhaps unconsciously — to the creation of myths about a glorious past. Even before Artibus Patriae was created, these researchers pleaded for the completion of the Antwerp collections. As early as 1855, Pieter Génard, the keeper of the town archives, wrote about gaps in the collection of the museum.58 Théodore Van Lerius, who chaired the meetings of Artibus Patriae, was another devotee who wrote about the place of Antwerp in the history of art.

Sometimes he used bold phrasings in his texts about the local art world. He thus referred to the presentation of the age-old and therefore inevitably damaged works of art from van Ertborn’s collection as “finding splendid accommodation for sick paintings”.59 Van Lerius put his research at the disposal of the museum and Artibus Patriae. His many activities incuded completing the catalogues of the museum. Genard wrote that Van Lerius considered it his duty to disprove mistakes by “so-called connoisseurs such as Descamps, Campo-Weyerman, Mensaert, and all the rest”. According to Artibus Patriae, the collection of the museum had to be as complete as the research of its own connoisseurs. To achieve this goal, the society had to buy works with a documentary value.60 But could this policy convince potential sponsors ? The work of the researchers was solid and scientifically sound, but was it also sufficiently spectacular ? One of the first purchases in 1865 reflected the documentary character of the purchase policy. According to the auction catalogue, the work had been 168

painted by the Antwerp baroque painter Willem Van Herp, but Van Lerius disputed this attribution.61 A particularly enthusiastic article in the Journal des beaux-arts told the story of Van Lerius’ quest for the author of the work — a search conducted “in the dusty world of the archives”. According to Van Lerius the quality of the work pointed to the underestimated genius of a certain painter named Wilsen, who had died young and apart from that was completely unknown. The magazine waited eagerly for more.62 At the Academy, no one was very impressed. In a letter Philippe Rombouts, secretary at the Academy, informed Van Lerius that the work, which had already been bought, might have to be exchanged for another painting.63 And though this alternative painting also suited the policy of Artibus Patriae, Van Lerius had little regard for this decision.

In 1875 Van Lerius resigned as chairman and as a member of Artibus Patriae, prompted by the fact that some paintings had been exchanged at the request of the Academy. In a sharp letter, he claimed that Artibus Patriae could not buy works at auctions, because it always needed the approval of the Academy. And so many of their purchases were rejected that it could be argued that the society had become a mere advisory body — it was no longer an independent institution.64 Yet the original circular letter had stipulated that the society was not accountable to the Academy. With Van Lerius, the society lost its animating force, and the town of Antwerp lost a persevering polemicist. As a result of Van Lerius’ decision, but also because of the economical crisis, Artibus Patriae became dormant, only to reawaken in 1895.65

A NEW GROUP OF DONORS : GERM ANS IN ANTWERP Thanks to the donations by Van den Hecke and van Ertborn, and the activities of Artibus Patriae, the practice of making donations became even more established. More people were inclined to donate, but donations of several paintings remained exceptions. Furthermore, donations remained the privilege of a relatively small elite that knew something about culture and had money, and also related to the museum. The old elite of merchants and artists that the Academy had traditionally appealed to, remained active, but newcomers that had climbed the social ladder would also make efforts for the museum. Conspicuous among these newcomers were the Antwerp merchants of German origin. Their involvement was the result of the nineteenth-century expansion of the port. German traders had helped to revive the Antwerp port with their know-how in the late eighteenth century.

Of course, there were more communities from abroad active in Antwerp, but the German community was the largest, the best organized and the one that felt the most at home in Antwerp. Though it had its own cultural life, it was also integrated in the local cultural fabric. The German community combined stage performances of German art with commissions to Antwerp artists.66 Art donations were also an element that promoted the integration of the Germans in Antwerp. The first recorded donation from a German trader dated from 1866, i.e. half a century after the arrival of the first traders. That it took so long should come as no surprise.

Collecting art takes time and money — and in the first instance, time and money were used for business and only in the second instance were they spent on luxury goods. Research in the issue of Germans collecting art has shown that private collections were a matter of money and mentality. Certainly, in the first half of the nineteenth century, the business elite was distrustful of investing in art. Such activities were apt to conflict with the professionalism, pragmatism and austerity for which the entrepreneurs were famous.67 But by the end of the century, a class of extraordinary wealthy entrepreneurs who also collected art had come into existence in Berlin. Their art collections expressed self-confidence and the urge to gather wealth or knowledge, but they also served as a status symbol, or a tool for networking — or sometimes all of these at once. These were very opulent collections and they drew a lot of attention.68 Whether the Germans in Antwerp changed their behaviour in a similar way has not yet been studied.

The first Antwerp-German donation to the museum was made by Jean-Louis Lemmé ( aka Johann Ludwig Lemmé ), a skin trader who had come to Antwerp with his brother in 1814.69 During the revolution of 1830, Lemmé fled to Great Britain, where he continued his 169

61 Anonymous, Catalogue d’une partie de bons tableaux anciens, provenant de la riche collection de M. J.F. Dusart, ancien receveur communal de la ville de Malines : dont la vente publique aura lieu le lundi 4 septembre 1865, à 10 heures du matin, sous la direction de M. H. Hubert, en sa salle de vente, rue Rempart du Lombard, N° 77, à Anvers ( Antwerp 1865 ).

62 Anonymous, s.t., Journal des beaux arts 07, 19 ( 1865 ) 152–153.

63

KMSKA, Archive Artibus Patriae, without signature, letter from Théodore Van Lerius dated 3 November 1866.

64

KMSKA, Archive Artibus Patriae, without signature, Théodore Van Lerius, letter to Antoon van Bellingen dated 20 December 1875.

65 Jozef Glassée, “Burgermecenaat in Antwerpen”, 34–59.

66

Geert Pelckmans and Jan Van Doorslaer, De Duitse kolonie in Antwerpen 1786–1914 ( Kapellen 2000 ) ; Greta Devos and Hilde Greefs, The German Presence in Antwerp in the Nineteenth Century, IMIS-Beiträge 14 ( 2000 ), 105–128.

67 Manuel Frey, Macht und Moral des Schenkens : Staat und bürgerliche Mäzene vom späten 18. Jahrhundert bis zum Gegenwart ( Berlin 1999 ), 54–62.

68

Kuhrau, Der Kunstsammler, 55–83.

69 Greta Devos, “Lemmé Famille”, in : Ginette Kurgan-Van Hentenryk et al., Dictionnaire des patrons en Belgique : les hommes, les entreprises, les réseaux ( Brussels 1996 ), 427.

70

Wilhelm Bürger [ Théophile Thoré ], Trésors d’art exposés à Manchester en 1857 et provenant des collections royales, des collections publiques et des collections particulières de la Grande-Bretagne ( Paris 1857 ), 151.

71

KMSKA, Archive KMSKA, donation files, 0007, letter from Gustave Kempeneers dated 24 March 1866.

72 Jenny Graham, Inventing van Eyck : The Remaking of an Artist for the Modern Age ( Oxford and New York 2007 ), 62–170.

73

KMSKA, Archive KMSKA, donation files, 0004, letter from the Academy dated 16 March 1843.

trade and became acquainted with the English culture of collecting. He managed to acquire a complete early seventeenth-century copy of the Ghent Altarpiece by Jan and Hubert van Eyck ( also known as The Adoration of the Lamb ), which had been in the famous collection of the German-English collector Charles Aders. At the time of the international art exhibition in Manchester in 1857 — a milestone in the appreciation of old art — the copy was still in Lemmé’s possession. After his death, it went to the town of Antwerp.70 Apparently it received a sympathetic welcome from the Academy and the town council.71 It should be mentioned in this context that between 1837 and 1857, the reputation of European late Gothic art had changed for the better.72 Whether the work was put on view in Antwerp after its arrival remains unclear.

Lemmé’s donation of the copy of the Ghent Altarpiece was the start of Antwerp-German support for the Antwerp museum. In subsequent years, more donations followed of either individual works or ensembles. In the early twentieth century, German ship-owners would even try to purchase leading works with a special fund they had donated to Artibus Patriae.

Apparently the notion of the “mercator doctus”, the learned trader, was an ideal that meant something to them. Traders were often apprenticed to firms owned by acquaintances or family and thereby renounced higher education. For them collecting art could be an alternative route by which to manifest intellectual leadership. In the letters of the donors to the town, there is also frequent mention of gratitude to their second home town, or to the warm welcome received from the local people.

FINDING A PL ACE FOR THE DONORS

74

KMSKA, Archive KMSKA, donation files, 0005, letter from the Academy dated November 1844.

75 KMSKA, Archive KMSKA, donation files, 0008, letter from Pierre de Caisne dated 5 July 1867.

As we have discussed, art donations gradually became an established practice. But finding a place for the donations soon became a problem. The collections donated by van Ertborn and Van den Hecke comprised dozens of paintings and occupied lots of space. Furthermore, these works were also provided with references to the donors. It is precisely this element of visibility that was the decisive factor in persuading others to also donate.

The display of the works in the museum — with an inscription — became a self-evident element of the donation process. Sometimes it would be the donors or their relatives who insisted, and at others it would be the town council or the Academy who pleaded for this visibility. Inevitably, this all led to a shortage of space in the museum. Questions regarding whether or not a donation had to be accepted, whether the donation had to be exhibited, or whether the donor should be honoured in some way, gave rise to debate. Tell-tale arguments were used with regard to the various meanings that the donations could acquire, as well as the way in which the museum collection engaged in a dialogue with the donations.

The donations also made people think about how the donors had to be remembered and about the future policy of the museum in this respect.

In 1843, the son-in-law of the painter Willem Herreyns donated one of his father-inlaw’s paintings to the museum. The Academy promised to hang the work in the room with Flemish masters, as had been the request of the donor. The Academy chose this symbolic place because it confirmed the view that Herreyns was an offshoot of the Antwerp school.73 In 1844, the Academy installed an inscription under a painting by Jan Fijt in remembrance of Charles Stier d’Aertselaer. It emphasized that the inscription and the installation of the work in this room implied recognition of Stier d’Aertselaer’s patronage of the old Antwerp school.74 Consequently, it was perfectly possible for a contemporary patron to function as the keeper of an old tradition. In 1867, the army medical officer Pierre de Caisne — brother of the deceased artist Henri de Caisne — wanted to donate one of the painter’s works to the museum. In exchange he asked for a place in the room with the old masters and an inscription with the artist’s name beneath the painting. The officer also wanted his own name to be printed in the museum catalogue. Not out of vanity, he wrote, but to guarantee the authenticity of the work — no one would doubt the word of the artist’s family, he believed.75 In 1877, the heirs of the Antwerp art patron and insurer Jos de Bom insisted that his Rubens would be exhibited with a notice that referred to its origin. For them, this was a matter of importance, because at that very time, a Rubens exhibition was being staged that was attracting great crowds to the museum, but they also argued that such a notice was standard practice.76 170

The museum committee could not fail to notice that the museum was overflowing with well-meant donations of sometimes less successful works of art. But refusing a donation on the grounds of poor artistic quality remained the exception. In 1887 the committee proposed the creation of a “special room” for “works of questionable artistic merit, which had been bequeathed or donated to the town”. The idea was launched on the occasion of the donations by Taeymans and Bourceret, which comprised of paintings of only a modest artistic value. Yet the town council found it hard not to accept these donations. That led to some of the works of secondary artistic importance being displayed in various public buildings, mainly in the town hall. According to the museum committee, it would be more suitable to gather the works and present them as donations.77

Transport of Rubens’ Christ on the Cross ( Christ Pierced with a Lance ) from the museum of the Academy to the new museum, 11 July 1890 ; in front, from left to right : Paul Nicolié, François Lamorinière, Baron van Havre, Pierre Koch, Theofiel Smekens ( photographer unknown ) ( KASKA )

From its reflection on the fate of the donations, it is obvious that the museum committee was aware of the fact that art could have multiple statuses : it could have artistic and aesthetic merit, it could function as a souvenir or as an historic document. By labeling donations of secondary importance as gifts and presenting them as ensembles, mediocre works that up till now had been hidden thus entered the museum collection with a new purpose.

At the same time, the museum implied that it would be indelicate to argue solely from the point of view of artistic quality and approach donations with the same rigid criteria as purchases. Refusing to accept donations would be unwise with regard to the future.

Such refusals could put at risk the goodwill of the citizens and thus erode support for the museum. However, it was recommended that the town council should decline donations that included the obligatory stipulation that works be hung in the museum. Whether there was a room at the new museum at the Zuid that was indeed reserved for donations is unclear. In any case, the collections of van Ertborn and Van den Hecke were exhibited as whole entities.

TO CONCLUDE Balancing on the wings of the nineteenth-century urban regeneration of Antwerp, the age-old practice of helping artists resulted in a new tradition of donating works of art to the museum of the Academy — the predecessor to our current Royal Museum of Fine Arts ( KMSKA ). Of course, since donating art requires connoisseurship, money and an understanding of the functioning of museums, the practice would never be feasible

171

76 KMSKA, Archive KMSKA, bequest files, 0006, letter from De Bom’s brother dated 2 August 1877.

77 KMSKA, Archive KMSKA, committee reports 1881–1890, session of 4 November 1887.

for the majority of Antwerp’s population. Yet donations became crucial for the expansion of the museum.

By presenting donations within its rooms, the Antwerp museum became the venue for all sorts of nineteenth-century voluntaristic initiatives that benefited the institution. Local private collectors and artists tended to be the first donors, because of their affinity with art. Van Ertborn’s collection, which the donor had gathered from all over Europe, acquired a local character because of the figure of the collecting mayor. The fact that Antwerp also did well economically in the nineteenth century was reflected in the large number of donations from those doing well from the boom, such as German port tycoons. Some of them would also collect art. But it was also the case that many of the old Antwerp families would support the museum. For its part, Artibus Patriae was keen to reach a lot of Antwerp citizens, and therefore it deliberately asked for a relatively modest membership fee. However, the Antwerp connection of the donors was not restricted to it being their place of birth or residence. Adelaïde Van den Hecke was linked to Antwerp through her friendships. For Louis Denis, a short stay in the town and the fact that his brother had studied there were sufficient cause for deliberately choosing Antwerp, even after staying abroad for several years, and Jean-Louis Lemmé’s donation proved that being an inhabitant of Antwerp and cosmopolitanism could go hand in hand.

Donations were always linked to a certain social context — they were a response to the actions of others. Social pressure and the imitation of others often motivated donations within the microcosm of a town. While the donors themselves rarely referred to fellow donors, there is no question that they influenced each other. The German community, for example, would donate on a number of occasions. Collective donations were also frequent.

In fact, stimulating imitation only worked if the people involved already knew each other.

Working in a comparable profession or sharing a network and interests were all factors that stimulated donations. Community spirit was likely to inspire donations, though of course there had to be sufficient support in the urban context, i.e. from people who were interested in art and willing to contribute. The motivation for donations was also often described in terms of a social transaction, i.e. donating was often presented as being in return for a favour. Successful port tycoons, for example, thanked the hospitable town with its potential for expansion by donating art, and collectors returned a donation in order to compensate for living a life that was full of the joy of art.

Of course, donations did not depend solely on the goodwill of the donors. The Antwerp town council and the Academy mediated and steered the process ; they lent meaning to the donation and fuelled the culture of remembrance. The reception of donations was supervised by the town, and the mayor or the town council expressed their gratitude in the name of the entire town. Through interventions in the urban space, the town and the Academy also lent meaning to the donations and tried to perpetuate the memory of the donor — against their better judgement. Adelaïde Van den Hecke and Artibus Patriae viewed the museum of the Academy as a municipal museum and Florent van Ertborn donated his collection to the town council. Other donators, too, viewed the museum more as a municipal institution than as part of the Academy. For Artibus Patriae, it was even required that the works it donated should have something of an Antwerp character to them.

In creating a social basis for the support of art, the sense of a shared Antwerp history played a major part. The image of a successful past was created, which legitimized a certain view of the present. Research, a scientific view and the creation of myths did not exclude each other in this process. The history of art, too, was locally anchored. In the nineteenth century, old and modern masters were linked to the history of Antwerp in order to create a political identity. Typical Antwerp traditions were encouraged by referring to the historical precedents that had now been rediscovered. An affinity between contemporary and historically social roles was crucial in this respect. Rulers, collectors, traders and politicians had to follow the example of their illustrious predecessors. It is therefore quite plausible that people such as Florent van Ertborn, who was familiar with the academic discourse about support for artists, redefined the tradition of donating in terms of making a donation to the museum.

172

The Antwerp academic museum owed a lot to its donors. The town therefore made every effort to thank them and legitimize the fact that the works were exhibited in the museum.

Attempts were made to perpetuate the link between works of art and altruistic donors, through interventions in space or the use of labels. In the case of some works of art that possessed less artistic merit, their value as a gift was particularly highlighted. But the approval of the public could not be commanded. It is also the case that keeping alive the memory of the donor did not necessarily prove evident within the internal circles of the museum. Some donors would become part of the history of the museum, while others disappeared from its annals.

173

Saskia de Bodt

The Antwerp Academy in a Changing Art World The Fate of Two Great Dutch Artists and Their Fellow Artists in the Nineteenth Century

Enrolment certificate Vincent van Gogh, 1885–1886 ( Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam )

Vincent van Gogh, Study after The Discus Thrower, 1886, black chalk on vellum paper ( Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam )

The most famous artist to have studied at the Antwerp Academy was a Dutchman. His name was Vincent van Gogh and he enrolled on 18 January 1886. As is now well known, he was a late bloomer as an artist and was thirty-two at the time of his enrolment. Van Gogh had arrived in Antwerp some two months earlier, after leaving his parents’ home in Nuenen ( in the Netherlands ), where he had painted The Potato Eaters and some other works.

He had rented a room over a paint shop in the Lange Beeldekensstraat ( Rue des Images 194, now no. 224 ). He roamed the streets in search of subjects, especially along the quays and in the docks.1 He found Antwerp to be a splendid city and his letters overflow with references to the “wonderful” characters he saw in the streets. Inspired by the style and the palette of Rubens, van Gogh increasingly concentrated on figure painting. “I wanted to increase my knowledge of nudes and the structure of figures so that I would be able to work from memory”, he wrote in mid-January of 1886.2 Models were expensive, however, and he there175

1

Antwerp ca. 26 November 1885– ca.

24 February 1886, in : Leo Jansen, Hans Luijten and Nienke Bakker ( eds. ), Vincent van Gogh.

De brieven. Deel 3 : Drenthe-Parijs, 1883–1887 ( Amsterdam, Den Haag, Brussels 2009 ), 318–359.

2

Idem, Letter 552.

3

Guido Persoons, “Vincent van Gogh te Antwerpen in 1885–1886”, VRI.K.A. PERISCOOP 14 / 1, October 1990, 2–13 and December 1990, 18–27.

4

Ch. Verlat, Plan genéral des études à l’Académie royale d’Anvers et des réformes à introduire dans les cours de dessin et de peinture ( Antwerp 1879 ) ; see also : Guido Persoons, “Vincent van Gogh te Antwerpen”, October 1990, 13.

fore presented his studies in oils and his drawings to Karel Verlat ( 1824–1890 ), who had just been appointed as director of the Academy.3 Verlat advised him to take lessons and to draw as much as he could. With regard to drawing, Verlat had written down his ideas about its role at the Academy in 1879. In this text he emphasized that a competent teacher should to be able to arouse a sense of plasticity in his students, rather than attempting to convey method, techniques or theories.4

The teaching staff of the Academy in 1910 ; front fourth from left : teacher Eugène Siberdt ( photographer unknown ) ( KASKA )

Vincent van Gogh, Sitting Figure, 1886, black chalk on vellum paper ( Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam )

Thus it was in the middle of January that Vincent found himself doing the course in “Antiques” that had already begun back in October. If we are to believe his letters, he worked hard, but achieved little. He failed the final evaluation and was referred to a lower class, but instead went to seek his luck elsewhere. The fact that he had earlier clashed with a teacher named Eugène Siberdt actually had nothing to do with this decision. Siberdt had 176

disapproved of his loose expressionist lines and thought that Vincent was trying to fool his teacher. Vincent left for Paris and entered a new stage of his artistic career, never to return to the Antwerp Academy.

In the van Gogh literature, which became imbued with myths soon after the artist’s tragic death, the Antwerp Academy was often depicted as a stronghold of traditionalism and ignorance. That Vincent allegedly “made off” from the Academy was a fact that underlined his status as a “misunderstood artist”. But van Gogh came to the Academy because he wanted to train his academic skills — and that was what the Antwerp Academy was famous for. He had been advised to take up such training earlier in Brussels, but apparently van Gogh was not ready for that in the early 1880s. That he was not promoted to the next class at the end of the winter course of 1886–1887, but was instead referred back to repeat a year was actually not so strange, as he had only been in this class for a very brief time. Neither was he the only one to be referred back. Seventeen of the fifty-six students failed their exam that year, i.e. almost a third of them. Yet at the end of his life, van Gogh commented very favourably on his two-month stay at the Antwerp Academy. When his friend Paul Gauguin contemplated enrolling in 1890, van Gogh claimed : “The Academy there is better and they work harder there than in Paris.” 5

Vincent van Gogh, Skull with Burning Cigarette, 1885, oil on canvas ( Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam )

THE ACADEMY UNDER DUTCH RULE Throughout the nineteenth century, the Antwerp Academy stood in good repute in Europe, not least as a place where old academic values were still honoured. The Antwerp Academy was also a place where history painting was considered the epitome of all genres.

Political developments at the beginning of the century were to thank for the Academy’s reputation. Under French rule, all Belgian institutions underwent radical reform, including the academies of Antwerp and Brussels. With regard to the subjects taught, a strict hierarchy was introduced. But it was only under Dutch rule that Antwerp really prospered, from which point the Academy started to attract many students from abroad, especially from the Netherlands. Previously, the Academy had been funded solely by the town of Antwerp. Under Dutch rule, the Antwerp Academy was the only institution that received a 177

5

Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, Wednesday 12 February 1890 ( Letter 852 ), in : Jansen, Luijten and Bakker ( eds. ), Vincent van Gogh.

De brieven.

new statute and state funds to implement this statute. To illustrate the importance that was attached to this new statute, I quote here from the Geschiedenis der Academie van Antwerpen ( History of the Antwerp Academy ), a monograph published in 1864 on the occasion of the Academy’s second centenary. The author, Franz Josef Van den Branden, described the positive developments at the start of the century at great length and in florid language : “The French had favoured our town for their own benefit and turned it into a proud naval port.

But under the House of Orange-Nassau it was succoured and aided so that it would once again become the centre of the European trade, as it had been four centuries earlier, and for which purpose the town on the River Scheldt seems to have been created. King William I, who, as a true Dutchman, was very familiar with the needs of trade and commerce, laboured with fatherly care for the prosperity of our town. In his fondness for it he even harmed the interest of his northern towns of Rotterdam and Amsterdam, to the benefit of Antwerp, as the town rightly deserved because of its geographical position and its wonderful stream.”

Van den Branden continued to explain the extent to which King William I also promoted the flowering of the fine arts — and thus also of the Academy. Apparently, even fifty years later, the memory of William was still cherished : “The Academy of this proud town, which would tower over all the towns of the world through the might of its trade, could not remain as modest as it had been at the time of its latest glorification. Under the tyranny of the imperial regime the teachers at the Academy had already managed to lend the lessons a certain repute. Now this reputation would grow tremendously, thanks to a King who, as a true protector of the arts, warmly assented to all the teachers’ requests, in order to improve the students’ education.”

ANTWERP VERSUS BRUSSELS The main goal of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp, which was thus founded in 1817, was the same of that of its namesake in Amsterdam, also founded that same year : to revive the national art of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. This idea matched the cultural policy of the king, who wanted to create a ( Greater ) Netherlandish art. In his book on the history of the Antwerp Academy, Van den Branden describes how William gathered the most talented artists of the Netherlands to make the Antwerp Academy “the best art school in Europe”. He quotes extensively from an impassioning oration of that time in which the administrator Jan Frans Willems strongly objects to a theatrical sort of painting “with dull colours” that was widespread amongst “some neighbours” ( he was referring to painting in France ). Willems and his supporters stood up for what they called a new “Netherlandish” school, of which the Flemish school was part — to make things simple, that also implied that Rubens, Rembrandt and Dou all belonged to the same family.

After 1830 ( i.e. after secession from the Netherlands ), the situation changed and other academies emerged, such as the Brussels Academy, for example. The Antwerp Academy began to lose its monopoly in Belgium. At the same time, the Flemish character of the Antwerp Academy was emphasized and the old Flemish masters became the measure of art.

In the course of the nineteenth century two rival painting schools emerged : the Flemish school, which traditionally had much in common with the Dutch school, and a second school that looked more towards France. The centre of the first school was the Antwerp Academy ; the latter school originated in Brussels, where numerous French exiles influenced the art scene. The academies became increasingly engaged in an artistic confrontation : Antwerp was Flemish and traditionally-minded, while Brussels was “French” and modernist.

Art critic and writer Camille Lemonnier analysed these developments in 1881, in his book Histoire des Beaux-Arts en Belgique ( History of Fine Arts in Belgium ), in which he takes stock of half a century of Belgian art. Lemonnier writes in detail about the period 1830– 1860, which he calls the “Renaissance of Belgian art”. He explicitly confronts two academy directors : Francois-Joseph Navez ( 1787–1869 ), a former student of Jacques-Louis David and director of the Brussels Academy from 1830 to 1859, and Gustaaf Wappers ( 1803–1874 ), who was director of the Antwerp Academy from 1840 to 1853. The first was an adherent of 178

classicism, while the latter is considered the main representative of Flemish romanticism.

After Wappers’ departure for Paris, his successor Nicaise De Keyser ( 1813–1887 ) became a champion of academic drawing and the idealized line. In Brussels, the liberal teacher Jean Portaels ( 1818–1895 ) opened a free studio, where there was more room for personal development.6 Thus in the last decades of the nineteenth century, the Brussels Academy turned into a place where all sorts of modern developments took place — especially after 1877, when Portaels became director — and a place where international platforms for modern art, such as Les Vingt and La Libre Esthétique originated.

Gustaaf Wappers, Scene of the September Days in 1830 at the Grote Markt in Brussels, 1835, oil on canvas ( KMSKB )

The fame of the Antwerp Academy as an international art centre dates back earlier, to the middle of the nineteenth century, i.e. to the time when Wappers and then De Keyser were director and history painting was the epitome of art. For years afterwards, the institute retained its reputation for providing a solid training that focused on academic skills and looked back to the Golden Age. In contrast to Antwerp, in Brussels in the 1860s, history painting would be rejected by the budding modernists, who favoured more contemporary subjects, inspired by Baudelaire and Courbet. But I will return to this issue below.

DUTCH STUDENTS Long before Vincent van Gogh briefly studied there, the Antwerp Academy held a particular appeal for promising artists from abroad. A lot of them came from the Netherlands and the question arises as to why. To a certain extent, the geographical proximity will have played a part, though not all the Dutch students came from the border area. Language was also probably part of the equation : at the Antwerp Academy, the annual reports and the lists of prizewinners were published in both French and Dutch — which was not the case in Brussels. But of course, there was also the idea of a sort of historical kinship from days gone by, which was stimulated in the time of Dutch rule, as we saw earlier. Since William I had created the Academic Corps in 1817, a lot of Dutch artists and art lovers had been members. Between 1817 and 1837 this select company of academicians numbered a total of 137 practising artists and 75 art-loving members. Amongst them there were 38 Dutchmen, 14 of whom were “art lovers”. Amongst the Dutch painters that were members, there were, for example, some ( pre )romantics that may be familiar to the reader, such as Cornelis Apostool, Adriaan de Lelie, Pieter Gerard van Os, Jan Willem Pieneman and Andreas Schelfhout — all of them active members. Amongst the “art-loving members” in Antwerp there were famous writers, such as Adriaan van der Willigen ( Haarlem ) and Jeronimo de Vries ( Amsterdam ), but also Prince Frederick of the Netherlands.7 179

6

Saskia de Bodt, Halverwege Parijs. Willem Roelofs en de Nederlandse schilderskolonie 1840–1890 ( thesis University of Amsterdam ) ( Ghent, Amsterdam 1995 ).

7

See the lists with all the members of the Academic Corps in : Guido Persoons and Dorine Cardyn-Oomen, Nicaise de Keyser. Antwerps portret ( Antwerp 1987 ).

8

Saskia de Bodt, Halverwege Parijs, Appendix 4, 246–268.

In 1851 the Antwerp Academic Corps was radically reorganised ; from now on it would count 25 active members ( 15 Belgians and 10 foreigners ) and 45 additional members ( amongst whom there were 25 foreigners ), all of whom were appointed by Royal Decree.

Between then and 1900, only 12 Dutchmen would be members, namely the romantics Ary Scheffer and Andreas Schelfhout ( from 1853 ), David Bles, Cornelis Springer, and Petrus van Schendel ( from 1865 ), and various painters from the budding Hague School after 1870, such as Johannes Bosboom, Jozef Israëls, J.H.L. de Haas, Laurens Alma Tadema, Charles Rochussen, and the architect P.J.H. Cuypers.

A survey of the Dutch students who enrolled for the painting classes at the Antwerp Academy lists 178 names for the period from 1850 to 1887 ; they enrolled for various courses : “Classic Models”, “Plaster Casts”, and the most difficult of all, “Live Model” ( “Nature” ). The future painters came from all corners of the Netherlands : Utrecht, Kampen, Zierikzee, Amsterdam, Leiden, Friesland, Dutch Limburg, Dordrecht, and Breda. Most of them were teenagers, or in their early twenties. Some added the words “history painter” to their name, and others “figure painter”, but most added nothing.8 Amongst the Dutch students there were names that would become famous in the history of Dutch art, such as Jacob and Matthijs Maris — who were both eminent figures of the Hague School later on in their careers. After a stay in Paris, Jacob would become a leading landscape painter in The Hague, but when he enrolled in 1854 for the winter course in “Classical Models”, he was only seventeen. Next term, he enrolled with his brother Matthijs for the summer course in “Figures”, and the following winter for the course in “Classical Models”. The brothers arrived with a small scholarship that they shared. Apparently they did not yet have a place to stay in Antwerp when they enrolled, for the address they gave was the address of the Academy : Mutsaerdtstraet 1. Years later, one of their friends, Albert Neuhuys, would arrive aged twenty-four to spend a few years studying in Antwerp. The next generation of Dutch artists, such as Jan Voerman and Willem Witsen, for example, only enrolled in Antwerp when they were already famous as the bohemians of “the Eighties”.

But it was not only advanced students that came to Antwerp. For the elementary course, i.e. drawing after ( printed ) models, no less than 153 Dutch students were registered in the period 1850–1870. For this course — also called “Figures” — it was mostly very young students who enrolled : on average they were aged between ten and twelve and they were usually registered as “pupils”. Craftsmen also attended this course, especially carpenters and cabinetmakers. Only a small group of students enrolled for “Figures” as a stepping-stone or complementary course to the more specialized courses in “Classical Models” and “Live Models”.

PRACTICE AT THE ACADEMY UNDER WAPPERS Under Wappers’ directorship, the number of students at the Academy increased tremendously. A story published in Antwerp in 1843 wonderfully illustrates the status of an Academy education and what went on in the classes for the youngest pupils. The writer of this novella was Hendrik Conscience, a champion of the Flemish language and author of The Lion of Flanders ( published by L.J. De Cort, Antwerp, 1838 ). But the novella we are referring to here was How to Become a Painter. It is the story of a small boy from Antwerp who is taken to the Academy by his mother and grandmother, both hardworking lacemakers.

Little Frans is just eleven and has to elbow his way through a crowd of boisterous boys that gather at the entrance of the Academy. All of them come for the elementary course of “Figures”. Little Frans’ father knows all about the Academy routine, and Conscience has him describe it ( in a strangely civilized local dialect ) : “When you enter the Academy, first you’ll do a year of Noses and Ears ; then you’ll do a year of Heads ; then you’ll do two years of Chaps ; then there’s some three years of Plaster ; and then there’s some four years of Life …”

In the course of this — rather far-fetched — narrative, little Frans first learns by trial and error, but then things start to go better. In the end, Frans’ paintings are sold before they are even finished : “and before long he could not meet the demand of the enthusiastic buyers”, the family concludes with great satisfaction.

180

Conscience modelled the hero of this story on his friend Edward Dujardin ( 1817–1889 ), history painter and illustrator of The Lion of Flanders. Though in the first instance, the story of little Frans gives us an idea of the ( dream ) status of the artist around the middle of the nineteenth century, it also serves as a source with regard to the everyday routine at the Academy and what the atmosphere was like. Conscience worked as a secretary at the Academy and he was a friend of director Wappers, who appears as “Mr Wabbes” in the story.

Wappers comes across as an artist and teacher who very much cares about his young pupils and who wants to create an atmosphere of solidarity at the Academy. That is also obvious in the writings of Jos Van den Branden, to whom we referred to earlier as the author of a history of the Academy. The very pro-Flemish Van den Branden writes that in Antwerp there has never been a more “profound love of art and a sense of fraternity” among the young artists themselves and between them and their teachers than that which existed at the time of Wappers and Conscience.

Title page of Hendrik Conscience’s Hoe men schilder wordt ( How to Become a Painter ), 1843 ( Erfgoedbibliotheek, Antwerp )

Portrait of Hendrik Conscience, undated ( ca. 1845 ) ( photo : Joseph Dupont ) ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp ) Portrait of Edward Dujardin, visiting card, undated ( ca. 1860 ) ( photo : Joseph Dupont ) ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

Under Wappers, the number of students had increased to such an extent that the question arose about what would become of all of them. According to Van den Branden, it was a tremendous pity that the boys would have to leave “the cradle of Flemish painting” to return to their distant villages. They would not have much of a future there, because there were generally no artists in the country with whom they could complete their education.

181

Wappers and his secretary Conscience therefore created so-called “work rooms” where young artists could develop their talents with the director as their mentor. In fact these “work rooms” would later become the National Higher Institute of Fine Art, which was founded in October 1885 and still exists today.

When Wappers left the Academy, two renowned artists, Hendrik Leys ( 1815–1869 ) and Jozef Dijckmans ( 1811–1888 ), created studios in the Academy where the best students worked more or less independently on assignments from their teachers.

Portrait of Laurens Alma Tadema, visiting card, ca 1870 ( photo : London Stereoscopic and Photographic Company ) ( Smithsonian Institution, Washington ) Hendrik Leys, Self-Portrait, 1866, oil on panel ( KMSKA ) ( detail )

Hendrik Leys, Albrecht Dürer Visiting Antwerp in 1520, 1855, oil on panel ( KMSKA )

L AURENS AL M A TADEM A, “PRINCE OF PAINTERS” One of the young students who started at the Academy just before Wappers left, was Laurens Alma Tadema ( 1836–1912 ) from Friesland. Technically speaking, he was more talented than van Gogh, and during his lifetime he would acquire a solid reputation.

Tadema would become one of the most famous painters of his time — but neither in his home country the Netherlands, nor in Belgium, where he had studied and where his career began. Tadema began as a history painter, portraying Merovingian scenes that were inspired by Gregory of Tours’ History of the Franks, and “everyday scenes” from life in ancient Egypt. With great detail he created imaginary surroundings, full of “realistic” details.

During his honeymoon in Italy, Tadema became interested in Antiquity and he gradually 182

started to paint scenes of Roman citizens idling on stone benches in architectural settings with lots of marble under a clear blue sky.

Laurens Alma Tadema, Clothilde Mourning at the Grave of her Grandchildren ( opus VIII ), 1858, oil on canvas ( owner unknown )

Laurens Alma Tadema, The Education of Clovis’ Children ( opus XIV ), 1861, oil on canvas ( owner unknown )

Tadema was in his early thirties when he moved to London in 1870. Almost instantly, he was welcomed into the circles of the society painters of the Royal Academy. His subjects became increasingly decadent. He created a world of dreamy, idling figures, with which the upper class of the fin de siècle could easily identify. With his family he lived in a house he had himself carefully designed in all sorts of historical styles, packed with antiques and precious objects. Tadema, who moved in the highest circles, was made a peer in 1899 and at his death he was buried in Saint Paul’s Cathedral.

183

9

Concerning Tadema’s Belgian period, see : Saskia de Bodt and Maartje de Haan, Erkend en miskend.

Lourens Alma Tadema ( 1836–1912 ) in België en Nederland ( Den Haag, Amsterdam, Ghent 2003 ).

Tadema owed much of his fame to the London art dealer Ernest Gambart, the owner of the French Gallery. Tadema had met Gambart in Belgium at the time that he stopped painting historical scenes and started depicting exotic genre paintings. Gambart saw to it that his work and his lifestyle became fashionable. He pushed up the prices for his paintings, which allowed the artist to live like a “prince of painting”.

10 Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp, Enrolment Register 1850 / 51–1854 / 55.

Tadema owed a lot to the Antwerp Academy.9 At the end of September 1852, “Tadema, Laurens”, aged sixteen, from Leeuwarden, enrolled at the Academy to study “Plaster”, i.e. the winter course in “Classical Models”, which lasted till the spring of 1853.10 The young Tadema stood out right away because of his skills. He was second in his class for “Drawing from classical model, taught by Mr Verschaeren”. In Geefs’ anatomy class, he came fourth that year, and he even finished first in Weiser’s class in “Pictorial Perspective”. In the summer of 1853, Tadema was therefore allowed to enrol for the “Nature” class, i.e. working from a “Live Model”, the final stage of the training. He stayed there till he had finished the winter course of 1855–1856, completing his education according to the set standards.

11 Edmund Gosse, “Lawrence Alma-Tadema RA”, in : Illustrated Biographies of Modern Artists ( London 1887 ).

12

G. Michiels, Uit de wereld der Brugse mensen.

De fotografie en het leven te Brugge 1839–1918 ( Brugge 1978 ) 36–37 ; Jaak A. Rau, Een eeuw Brugge 1800–1900, I ( Brugge 2011 ) ; Saskia de Bodt and Maartje de Haan, Erkend en miskend.

In the abundant literature on Tadema, there is often speculation over why, coming from Friesland, he chose the Antwerp Academy to study. When he had made a name for himself, Tadema related, not without affected bravura, that he had enrolled in Antwerp because he had been refused at the Dutch Academies. In 1882, Edmund Gosse, one of Tadema’s first biographers, suggested that they did not want students from Friesland in Amsterdam and

The Hague.11 But it is in fact likely that there was a simple practical reason for coming to Antwerp. It turns out that the young Laurens, who was fatherless, arrived in Antwerp together with a family friend and fellow townsman who was twelve years his senior and who also enrolled at the Academy. Herman Josephus Leonardus van Marcke de Lummen was born to a Belgian father in Leeuwarden in 1824 and had already studied “Classical Models” for several semesters. In the summer of 1852 he rented a room in the Lange Koepoortstraat 1235. Upon his arrival, Tadema moved in with him. The room was situated close to the Academy and not too far from the Grote Markt. Unlike Tadema, Herman van Marcke never made a name for himself as a painter. When his family moved from Leeuwarden to Bruges, in 1853, he moved with them. It was probably in Bruges that he first worked as a painter.

In 1856 he apprenticed himself to the Ghemar brothers in Brussels. The Ghemar brothers were famous photographers who made a series of very artistic photographs covering the River Zenne. In 1860 Van Marcke started a photo studio at the Biskajerplein in Bruges, a square situated near the Academy. The successful studio specialized in portraits and reproductions. Van Marcke was famous for using the newest technology, which he learnt about in Paris. Doubtless Tadema, who was very interested in reproduction techniques, kept in touch with his friend, but nothing is known about that.12

By the end of 1857 Tadema moved in as an apprentice with Louis de Taeye ( 1822–1890 ), a history painter who also taught archaeology at the Antwerp Academy. De Taeye had a large library where Tadema found subjects for his paintings about the early history of Belgium. He made his first Merovingian painting in 1858, Clothilde Mourning at the Grave of her Grandchildren. Shortly afterwards, he had the honour, as he put it himself, of being able to work in the studio of the great Henri or Hendrik Leys. He had his first great success in Antwerp in 1861 with The Education of Clovis’ Children, a painting that was inspired by Gregory of Tours’ History of the Franks. The painting was widely acclaimed and gave him a place in the royal collection. A few years later, critics were still writing very positively about his Merovingian works, for example about Queen Fredegonde at the Deathbed of Bishop Praetextatus ( 1864 ), which is now in the Fries Museum in Leeuwarden.

In the meantime Hendrik Leys had been commissioned to decorate the reception hall of the Antwerp town hall with historical scenes. Assisted by his students and colleagues, the artist worked on these frescos from 1863 till his untimely death in 1869. In 1865 Tadema had taken up residence in Brussels on the advice of Ernest Gambart, the art dealer mentioned earlier. Here, in the capital, he started to organize grand evening parties and sought to connect to the modernist artists. Five years later, he moved to London, because his work was not appreciated in artistic circles in Brussels, which focused on art with a contemporary character — whose key concepts were modernity, realism and instantaneity. There was no place in this world for history painting — the art of great gestures. Tadema has 184

always claimed that he had assisted his master Hendrik Leys with the wall paintings in the Antwerp town hall till the very end, even when he had already moved to Brussels. But actually it remains unclear what part he had in these paintings. Much later, in 1886, one of Tadema’s friends, Victor Lagye ( 1825–1896 ) from Ghent, would make wall paintings for the wedding hall in the same town hall. One of Lagye’s scenes, Marriage amongst the Romans, is particularly reminiscent of Tadema’s classical works from that time.

Jan Antoon Neuhuys, Afternoon Nap, undated, oil on panel ( KMSKA )

CL ASSM ATES Amongst Tadema’s classmates at the Academy there were a few remarkable figures with whom he kept in touch after his studies. One of them was Jan Neuhuys ( 1832–1891 ), the elder brother of Albert Neuhuys, the famous painter from The Hague ( who also studied in Antwerp in the 1860s ). Jan Neuhuys graduated in 1858 — when Tadema had already left the Academy — taking first prizes for the classes in “Live Models” and “History Painting”.

Upon graduating, Neuhuys took up permanent residence in Antwerp. First he specialized in sixteenth-century historical scenes and later in interiors. It is typical of the situation in Antwerp and the high esteem in which history painting was held there that he chose to concentrate on painting historical interiors, and not on smooth images of contempo-

185

13

Herwig Todts, Henri De Braekeleer ( 1840–1888 ) ( Antwerp 1988 ).

14

Edmond-Louis De Taeye, Les Artistes Belges Contemporains. Leur vie, leurs oeuvres, leur place dans l’art ( Brussels 1894 ), 229–245.

rary country life, like those his brother Albert would paint in The Hague. Afternoon Nap is a beautiful example of a scrupulous, realistic domestic interior in a seventeenth-century style.

It is obvious that Neuhuys, like many of his Antwerp contemporaries ( including Tadema and, of course, Henri de Braekeleer ) was influenced by Hendrik Leys’ realistic rendering of the past.13 Another classmate with whom Tadema became friends was the Belgian painter Jan Verhas ( 1834–1896 ). Verhas was two years his senior, but started at the Academy in the same year that Tadema did. Their contemporaries tell us that there was a warm friendship between them. Both artists were cheerful, sociable characters who enjoyed telling beautiful stories. Apparently, Laurens and Jan competed against each other : if one of them won a first prize, the other would win the second prize. As a painter, Verhas went through a similar development to his friend. He started with historical scenes in the style of Leys ; in the 1860s he left for Paris and later settled in Brussels. There he developed a moderately naturalistic style, which was consequently referred to in the press as realistic. While Tadema started to paint contemporary “Roman” women, Verhas painted domestic scenes with children with the same accuracy : merry, bourgeois children that were readily recognizable, whom he portrayed in every last detail — every ribbon of their dress, every button on their boots.

Near the end of his life, he would work more freely and started to paint impressions of the bustling sunny beach of Knokke-Heist. Edmond-Louis De Taeye, who, in 1893, completed a voluminous compilation of portrait studies on paper of the great nineteenth-century Flemish painters ( a lot of whom he had known in person ), wrote a wonderful article about Verhas.14 In it, he relates how, in the 1860s, Verhas had immediately felt at home within the circles of progressive painters in Brussels and how he felt at ease experimenting with genre paintings. De Taeye rightly points to his affinity with Tadema, who used exactly the same style at the time. The author even claims that Tadema dissuaded Verhas from continuing his aspirations as a history painter, precisely because he was so good at observing the world around him, i.e. at realistic genre painting.

Jan Verhas, The Master Painter, 1877, oil on canvas ( MSK, Ghent )

TO CONCLUDE Alma Tadema was active at a time of great changes in art and society, which is something that is reflected in his career. In this, the Academy played a major part. Tadema started in 1852 within the strict hierarchy of the Antwerp Academy and trained as a history painter. He was amongst the best students and was admitted to the studio of Hendrik Leys, who was generally appreciated. But some ten years after his arrival in Antwerp, artists were increasingly claiming autonomy. Gradually, the academies underwent radical restructuring and the traditional training in the studio of a renowned artist that used to follow the academic training disappeared in favour of continued training at the academy. ( In Antwerp, this additional training would be provided at the Higher Institute. ) Young artists 186

increasingly had to find their own way in a changing art world. For Vincent van Gogh, that was already a factor in the 1880s, but Tadema was confronted with these developments early on in his career.

With the rise of the bourgeoisie in the second half of the nineteenth century, the artists’ clientele also changed. The church, the nobility and the authorities lost their position as commissioners of monumental paintings. The rich bourgeoisie had different taste and preferred smaller works with more personal subjects, such as genre paintings, portraits and landscapes. As a result, the art trade boomed and artists started to specialize more and more. They also united in all sorts of professional organizations that were meant to promote their interests. Tadema is a typical example of a painter who started his career in a place and at a time when the old studio practice was still common — a time when his master Hendrik Leys still received commissions from the authorities. But when he settled in Brussels, in the 1860s, it coincided with the time that artists began to cry for freedom on all fronts. The ideas of Charles Baudelaire and Gustave Courbet, who claimed that art had to be “modern” and needed to express its own time, were now the talk of the town. In their wake, new realistic movements emerged, in response to the idealism of history painting, which had for so long defined the official art life, but which was now often considered pompous.

Opposing history painting was essentially the same as rejecting the authorities meddling with art. That was the hot item in Brussels art circles, which sought inspiration in Paris. In Antwerp, artists continued to look back to the past. But with Leys and his cousin Henri de Braekeleer, for example, the great gestures disappeared from art and the historical genre made its entrance — a genre that had a realistic touch to it, and thus also a contemporary component. Looking back now from the twenty-first century, the Antwerp Academy was perhaps not so old-fashioned. But it did provide a solid training, with an emphasis on skills.

That was something that attracted that other great modern artist, Vincent van Gogh. He studied Rubens’ colours, but also had a tremendous respect for the way that Hendrik Leys used the past to stay true to himself. Alma Tadema, too, learnt a lot from Leys. But in the end he created a different kind of art. You never know what good an academic training will do for you …

187

Piet Lombaerde

From Symbiosis to Autonomy Teaching Architecture at the Antwerp Academy Since the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp was founded in 1663, architecture has been taught there for a total of some 180 years, namely in the period from 1765 to 1946.

It may seem an obvious choice for architecture to have been taught at this famous institution, but that was not in fact the case. In 1663, the founders of the Academy, including David Teniers, expressed their wish to organise “geometry classes, as well as architecture and perspective classes”, but because of a lack of funds and insufficient “critical mass” within the institute, neither architecture nor theory of perspective were added to the programme.1 In fact, around the mid-seventeenth century there was hardly any need for new architecture in the town, let alone for a programme for training architects. The town was in the grip of an economic crisis that was deepened still further after the Peace of Münster.

Furthermore, building was still traditionally an activity practised by the members of the Guild of the Vier Gekroonden ( the Four Crowned Ones : stonemasons, bricklayers, slaters and paviours ). When it came to design — the art of drawing or the practical application of the classical formal language — it was the Guild of Saint Luke that tried to monopolize this privilege. Disegno — the transformation of an idea into a design — was a prerogative of its members. There was also the implicit idea at the Antwerp Academy that within the fine arts, painting was the “mother of all arts” and that disegno was in the first instance a privilege of painters. In other words, painters were considered to be in the best position to design buildings. The idea was confirmed by examples from Italy, with painter-architects such as Giulio Romano, Baldassare Peruzzi, Michelangelo, Vignola and many others.

Anonymous, Portrait of architecture teacher Abraham Genoels, as portrayed in Jean Baptiste Descamps, La Vie des Peintres Flamands, Allemands et Hollandais, Paris, 1760 ( KASKA )

A L ATENT LONGING FOR PERSPECTIVE AND ARCHITECTURE However, the urge to organize lessons in the theory of perspective at the Antwerp Academy — such as existed at the academies of Rome, Florence and Paris — remained latent for decades after the foundation of the Academy. In fact, for painters, a familiarity with the theory of perspective was essential, especially for the baroque painter. With regard to architecture, according to the theory of Vitruvius ( reproduced in numerous editions by Serlio and Pieter Coecke van Aelst in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries ), the science of scenographia ( perspectival representation ) was essential for architecture, as were orthographia ( façade view ) and ichnographia ( ground plan ).2 Perspective provided the link between, on the one hand, painting or drawing, and on the other, architectural representation. Only in 1693 would concrete plans emerge at the Antwerp Academy to 189

1

See : F.J. Van den Branden, Geschiedenis der Academie van Antwerpen ( Antwerp 1867 ), 171–172.

2

An important publication in the library of campus Mutsaard is the five-volume work by Sebastiano Serlio, translated by Pieter Coecke van Aelst. See : P. Coecke van Aelst, Den eersten ( -vijfsten ) boeck van Architecturen Sebastiani Serlii ( Amsterdam 1606 ).

3

On Genoels, see : D. Bodart, Les peintres des PaysBas méridionaux et de la principauté de Liège à Rome au XVIIe siècle ( Brussels, Rome 1970 ) 2 volumes, V.1, 314–339.

4

See especially : G. Vasari, De levens van de grootste schilders, beeldhouwers en architecten. Deel 1 & 2 ( s.l.

2010 ).

include “the art of perspective” in the curriculum, alongside drawing from a live model and drawing from classical plaster casts, as was the case in Paris and Rome. Around 1700, the Antwerp painter Abraham Genoels II ( 1646–1723 ), who had resided for several years in France and Italy, would “teach the Antwerp youth the art of painting, architecture and geometry, for the love of art”, as he put it himself.3 Yet there was still no autonomous architecture class.

In fact, the idea was that such a class might lead to the establishment of a competing institute! Genoels therefore abandoned his lessons. There followed a long period without any lessons in architecture and the theory of perspective. In 1756, thanks to the initiative of the painter Cornelis d’Heur ( 1707–1762 ), who replaced Jan Peter van Baurscheit the Younger ( 1699–1768 ) on the new Board of the Academy, a series of lessons started about the “Principles of Geometry, Architecture and Perspective”. It is a remarkable fact that d’Heur was a history and conversation painter, not an architect. That he wanted this course to be included in the curriculum had to do with the age-old tradition of history painting being seen as the highest form of art — which was also the prevailing view at the Academy. Precisely in history painting was the artist able to show off his talent for rendering characters in the right historical context, for applying perspective to the depiction of buildings, objects, persons and animals, as well as for the formal language of classicism. In other words, both disegno and inventio were inherent in history painting.4

Jan Peter van Baurscheit the Younger, Drawing for the façade of the palace of Joan Alexander van Susteren at the Meir in Antwerp, 1745–1746, ink and pencil on paper ( Town archive, Antwerp )

Cornelis d’Heur, Teaching Perspective, 1761, oil on canvas ( originally meant for the director’s office at the Academy ( KMSKA )

190

History painters also had the privilege, therefore, of teaching architecture within the context of the appropriate classical orders to the students. The big disadvantage of painting in respect of architecture is the fact that painting only applies to two-dimensional representations : it is not a three-dimensional medium. As early as the 1740s, Van Baurscheit the Younger had argued in favour of combining the craft of sculptor and architect. 5 Both sculpture and architecture create three-dimensional objects and often use the same materials, such as natural ( white ) stone. In the course of the eighteenth century, more and more sculptors acquire a prominent place in building, at the expense of the painters — a development that even results in the creation of the office of sculptor-architect, an office in competition with the office of painter-architect. With regard to academic training, painters remained more popular for the teaching of perspective and architecture. D’Heur was not just any history painter : he had a thorough knowledge of mathematics. He also considered knowledge of geometry prerequisite for the architect to be able to draw correct floor plans, vertical elevations, sections and perspectival views. Back in 1761, he painted a personification of Architecture to explain to young students how the models of the classical theory of architecture can be used to draw a portico : the painting features a portico with a Tuscan pilaster on both sides and a perspectival view of a gallery.6 At the Academy, drawing pilasters instead of columns is particularly encouraged. The school regulations of 1780 impose the use of pilasters in the perspective and architecture classes.7

5

For more on this subject, see : P. Lombaerde, “Questionnement sur le statut de l’architecte au début du XVIIIe siècle : l’exemple des Van Baurscheit à Anvers”, in : J. Toussaint ( ed. ), Actes du Colloque. Autour de Bayaer / Le Roy ( Namur 2008 ) 181–196.

6

Antwerp, Royal Museum of Fine Arts, painting, inv. no. 122.

7

Archive Antwerp Academy ( hereafter AAA ), Inventory Old Archive, no. 22 : Register der resolutiën, acten ende archiven cioncerneerende de opcomste, voortganck ende vernieuwinge der vermaerde Conincklycke Academie van de Teeckenconst, Perspective etc. Binnen dese Stadt Antwerpen …1741–1808, folio 159.

8

On Willem Herreyns, see : W.J. Callens, Willem Jacob Herreyns ( 1743–1827 ) : een monografische benadering, ( unpublished MA thesis KU Leuven ) ( Leuven 1998 ).

Frans Marcus Smits, Portrait of the Painter Willem Jacob Herreyns, 1825, oil on canvas ( KMSKA )

THE FIRST ARCHITECTURE CL ASS Upon d’Heur’s sudden death in 1762, lessons in architecture and perspective are temporary suspended, only to be resumed on 5 May 1765 by Willem Herreyns ( 1743–1827 ), one of d’Heur’s best students. Herreyns becomes “voluntary professor” and teaches how to apply geometry and perspective in the newly established architecture class.8 The year 1765 is generally considered to be the founding date of proper architectural training at the Antwerp Academy. The architecture programme will then continue uninterrupted, till, in 1946, the Architecture Department becomes an autonomous institute that is separate from the famous Academy.

191

9

Robiano, Collection des desseins des figures Colossales & des Groupes qui ont été faits de Neige … ( Antwerp 1772 ).

10 AAA, Inventory Old Archive, no. 22.

The architecture class was added to the classes of “drawing from classical sculptures” ( also called the class of “antique plasters” or “the round woods” ) and the classes of “drawing and modelling from life” ( also called “from nature” or “from live model” ), and acquired a separate status within the academic curriculum. The class had its own head, who did not have to answer to the directors or teachers of the Academy. Herreyns led the class from 1765 to 1767, and was then succeeded by the stonemason and sculptor Anconeus Josephus Ansiau ( 1768–1769 ), the cabinetmaker Egidius van Goubergen ( 1771 to 1781 ), and finally by the architect Jan Blom ( 1777 to ca. 1800 ). In 1771, under Ansiau’s reign, a hard winter broke out. Under the supervision of their teachers, the students started to make snowmen or snow giants at the corners of the streets and on squares everywhere in town.

At the Wapper, on the square opposite the Rubenshuis, Ansiau had his students construct a fountain from snow that was 16 feet high.9 Designing and drawing fountains was one of the particular assignments his students had to be able to accomplish.

Antonius Josephus Ansiau, Snow sculpture representing achitecture and perspective, engraving from Robiano, Collection des desseins des figures Colossales & des Groupes qui ont été faits de neige dans plusieurs rues et ( … ) cours de Maisons de la Ville d’Anvers ( … ) par différents Artistes et Elèves de l’Académie royale de Dessein ( … ) en la même Ville, Antwerpen, 1772 ( KASKA )

On 22 April 1780, general instructions were laid down for an architecture programme at the Academy in which the emphasis was placed on the importance of geometry and the theory of perspective in architecture. These rules also stipulated that a contest had to be organized for the architecture class every year — as was the case for the other classes.10 These contests can be likened to the current final exam assignments, or the Masters Projects of the architecture students.

What kind of assignments or final project did these contests involve ? From the sometimes concise descriptions of the themes — as they had already been formulated by d’Heur for his architecture classes — it can be inferred that the students had to demonstrate their 192

skills in drawing floor plans, vertical elevations, perspectival drawings and even sections of buildings or parts of them. They were also asked whether they could render these buildings ( or parts of them ) in a certain architectural order — which was almost invariably the classical order. The theories of Vitruvius and Vignola were still considered paramount.

Due to the tremendous success of this class, which attracted some seventy students every year, the classes on perspective and architecture were subdivided in 1774. The classes on perspective were not only attended by students of architecture, but also by future painters and sculptors. In 1775, geometry classes were also introduced, because it became clear that the students had insufficient mathematical background to study perspective and architecture. It is remarkable that the classes on architecture were more successful than those on perspective. The latter class was not organized every year, because sometimes there were extremely few students who enrolled for it. Between 1778 and 1794, the number of annual enrolments varied between none and eight.

Burggraef after Jacob Jozef Eeckhout, Portrait of Jan Blom, undated, lithograph ( Town archive, Antwerp )

ON THE MOVE AND CHANGE OF NA ME Lessons at the Academy were suspended in 1794 because members of the teaching staff were no longer being paid. This was a direct consequence of the fact that a new town council had been installed by the French revolutionary authorities. But Jan Blom ( 1748–1825 ), who had in the meantime been appointed town architect in Antwerp, continued to teach perspective and architecture, a situation that lasted till 1796. On 17 June 1796, the Academy was reopened as the École spéciale de Peinture, Sculpture et Architecture, ( the Special School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture ) ; the new school came under the newly established departmental École centrale. The French authorities claimed far-reaching authority in the organization of education, which necessarily happened at a departmental level. Yet the town council still had to fund the school. An ambiguous situation resulted, because on the one hand, classes continued in the Nieuwe Beurs ( New Commodity Exchange ), where the Academy had been housed since its foundation, but on the other hand, classes were also taught in the spaces of the deconsecrated monastery near the Graanmarkt, where the École centrale had found accommodation. Willem Herreyns, who founded the architecture class in 1765, now taught in both institutes. It was only in 1802 that this ambiguous situation came to an end, when during the reign of Napoleon’s Consulate, the Écoles centrales were abolished. On 7 August 1804, the Academy of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture of the Town of Antwerp was re-established as the only official school for fine art classes in Antwerp. For the first time in its history, the Academy carried the names of these three arts in its official title. It is also remarkable that the lessons in architecture and perspective were taught in separate classrooms, i.e. separate from the other arts. This practice started between 1806 and 1810, after the Academy had moved from the Nieuwe Beurs to the renovated monastery of the Friars Minor in the then Mutsaertstraat. Painting and sculpture was taught on the ground level of the former monastery ; painting and sculpture had their own classrooms on the first floor. In fact, this situation has remained the same until now,

193

11 For more on this subject, see the essay on the history of the Academy’s buildings within this publication.

12

See : S. Van de Voorde, “Architectuur aan de Antwerpse Academie van 1794 tot 1830”, in : E. De Vos and P. Lombaerde ( eds. ), Van Academie tot Universiteit : 350 jaar architectuur in Antwerpen ( Brussels 2013 ) ( in press ).

13

See : F. Lacaille, “Mattheus Ignatius van Bree ( 1773–1839 ), een Antwerpse schilder in dienst van Napoleon”, in : Bonaparte aan de Schelde.

Antwerpen in een Franse stroomversnelling ( Antwerp 2013 ), 117–123.

14

P. Mengin Lecreulx, “Joseph Nicalas Mengin ( 1760–1842 ).

Hoofdingenieur van Bruggen en Wegen van het Departement der Twee Neten”, in : P. Lombaerde ( ed. ), Antwerpen tijdens het Franse Keizerrijk 1804–1814.

Marine-arsenaal, metropoll en vestingstad ( Brugge 1989 ), 17–69.

15

S. Van de Voorde, “Architectuur aan de Antwerpse Academie”, in : E. De Vos and P. Lombaerde ( eds. ), Van Academie tot Universiteit ( in press ).

with two interruptions : the Academy first had to leave its premises in the Mutsaertstraat in 1809, and then again in 1814, in order to make room for a temporary military hospital.11 A radical restructuring of the programme of the Antwerp Academy was implemented in 1804.12 Five classes were added to the three existing classes : a sculpture class, a separate class for the theory of perspective ( as had existed previously ), as well as a separate class for graphic arts, and in addition, the architecture class was divided into three. These three separate architecture classes were in fact three successive levels. In the first of these three years, “principles of architecture” were taught, which included learning about the classical orders. Then came the class in “regular architecture”, where students learnt how to draw simple buildings, such as houses and small shops. In the third class — the class of “architectural composition” — a complex typology of buildings was taught, which involved designing public buildings such as theatres, town halls, etc. The types of buildings that were treated in the lessons were determined by the director, Willem Herreyns, who was particularly familiar with the issue because of his many years of experience as a teacher.

This was the first time that a well-structured programme was at the basis of the training or architects. Herreyns was supported by First Professor, Mattheus Ignatius van Bree ( 1773– 1839 ), who was regularly involved in the programme and who was himself credited with a number of architectural realizations.13 At that time, Jan Kaulman ( 1764–1812 ), who had been a student of Jan Blom, was teaching architecture at the Academy, and Joseph Nicolas Mengin ( 1760–1842 ), civil engineer with the Deux Nèthes Department, had just drawn the

plans for straightening the quay of the River Scheldt in Antwerp.14 New buildings had to be aligned with the new building line. Prefect d’Herbouville took the view that Academy students had to be given useful assignments. That involved designing new private houses and shops along the quays. A lot of attention was paid to the importance of a well-designed exterior and a functional floor plan, as well as on drawing sections, from which it can be inferred that there was also a growing interest in the constructive element.

REVERBERATIONS OF FRENCH THEORY

16

On Lodewijk Roelandt, see : Ch. Degels, Louis Roelandt : een 19de-eeuwse bouwmeester ( unpublished MA thesis, Ghent University ) ( Ghent 1967 ).

17 On Pierre Bruno Bourla, see : M. Manderyck, “Pierre Bruno Bourla 1783–1866”, in : M. Manderyck et al., De Bourla Schouwburg. Een tempel voor de muzen ( Tielt 1993 ) ; P. Lombaerde, Het Bourlahuis & het ontstaan van het Eilandje ( Deurne 1994 ) 10–16 ; I. Van Reeth, P.B. Bourla ( 1783–1866 ).

Stadsbouwmeester te Antwerpen ( unpublished MA thesis KU Leuven ) ( Leuven 1994 ) ; Idem, “Een architect in Hemiksem.

Pierre Bruno Bourla en de Sint- Bernardusabdij”, in : F. Boddaert et al., 750 jaar Sint-Bernardusabdij ( Deurne 1996 ), 67–80.

18 P. Lombaerde, Het Bourlahuis, 16.

Not until the period of Dutch rule ( 1815–1830 ) would a separate class for the theory of construction be added to the architecture curriculum. This reform was part of the 1818 programme reform. It should be noted, however, that this course was meant for students of architecture that wanted to specialize as a civil engineer in the theory of stability and the computation of strength reliability for constructions in stone and wood.

However, we have no idea if this fourth year had any success.15 Algebra was also added to the mathematics classes.

Architect Lodewijk Roelandt ( 1786–1864 ), who had studied at the Ghent Academy and at the École spéciale d’Architecture in Paris — where he had studied with the famous First Empire architects Charles Percier and Pierre Fontaine — taught architecture at the Antwerp

Academy from 1817 to 1819.16 In 1819 he resigned because of the numerous commissions he received, especially in Ghent ( where he built the Aula — the Great Hall of the local university — as well as the former courthouse, the opera and the casino ), but he was also active in Aalst and Geraardsbergen ( where he built the town hall ), and in Antwerp where he built the Royal Warehouses. Indeed, so numerous were these commissions, that he could no longer fulfil his role as a teacher. Pierre Bruno Bourla ( 1783–1866 ) from Tournai was appointed as his successor, chosen especially because he had worked in Percier’s studio in Paris.17 Bourla was also promised that he would be appointed town architect. Unfortunately, Bourla was “not sufficiently familiar with the Dutch language … It is not to be expected that he will be able to use this language in the near future in his architecture lessons at the aforementioned Academy”.

He was therefore relieved of his job upon completion of the academic year of 1823–1824.

The reason for this was that under Dutch rule, Dutch was the official language, including for the purposes of teaching. Later, Nicaise De Keyser toned down the reason for Bourla’s dismissal by claiming that he had to teach the children of “craftsmen and the middle class”, who were only familiar with the “language of the common people” ( sic ).18 Yet Bourla remained involved with the Antwerp Academy, both as an external juror and as the architect of the transformation and renovation of 1861.19 With Roelandt and Bourla, the Academy 194

had two excellent architects at their disposal that had both trained in Paris and had both specialized, and as such they added to the repute of the school. They also introduced and promoted the typical new way of designing that was invented by Jean Nicolas Louis Durand ( 1760–1834 ), who taught architecture at the École Polytechnique in Paris.20 Durand’s theory of design was based on the use of grids and resulted in a form of modernist art before the term ‘modernism’ had ever been coined. Since 1808 Durand had been a corresponding member of the Antwerp Academy and in the same year he donated this treatise on architecture Recueil & Parallèle des édifices de tout genre, anciens & modernes ( Compendium & Comparison of All Sorts of Ancient & Modern Buildings ) to the Academy. Back in 1807, his Précis des leçons d’architecture ( Compilation of Lessons on Architecture ) had been bought by the school.21

19

See the essay on the history of the buildings of the Academy within this publication.

20 See especially : W. Szambien, Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand 1760–1834. De l’imitation à la norme ( Paris 1984 ) ; G. van Zeyl, De tractaten van Nicolas Louis Durand ( Delft 1990 ).

21

On the use of this course by Bourla, see : P. Lombaerde, Het Bourlahuis, 39–44.

22

Historiek Nationaal Hoger Instituut voor Schone Kunsten 1663–1885 / 1945 ( Antwerp 1985 ), 28–30.

Lodewijk Roelandt, The Royal Warehouses at the Willemdok in Antwerp, situation ca. 1900 ( photographer unknown ) ( Private collection, Rumst )

THE “GRAND PRIZE” AND THE HIGHER INSTITUTE OF FINE ARTS In 1827 there was a call to introduce a Grand Prize for architecture, similar to the prize that already existed for painting. The aim of this prize was to enable the most promising students to complete their education in France and Italy. The winner of the Prize would be able to specialize for four years in those countries. Under Dutch rule, the Prize was organized together with the newly founded Amsterdam Academy.22 In addition to painting, the disciplines of sculpture, architecture and graphic design would also compete for the Prize. In 1834 Gustave Deman ( 1805–1887 ) was the first to win the Prize at the Antwerp Academy. Deman had received his basic training at the Academy in Brussels, and had then

Lieven De Winne, Portrait of the architect Lodewijk Roelandt, undated ( ca. 1865 ), oil on canvas ( KMSKA ) Portrait of architect Pierre Bruno Bourla, visting card, ca. 1860 ( photo : Joseph Dupont ) ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp ) Polydore Beaufaux, Portrait of the architect Pierre Cuypers, 1849, oil on canvas ( Cuypershuis, Roermond ) Anonymous, Portrait of the architect Louis Delacenserie, undated ( ca. 1900 ), pencil on paper ( Musea Brugge )

195

23

More on this subject in : Académie de Bruxelles.

Deux siècles d’architecture ( Brussels 1989 ), 206–211.

24 S. Van de Voorde, “Institutionele geschiedenis en wettelijk kader van het architectuuronderwijs aan de Antwerpse Academie”, in : E. De Vos and P. Lombaerde ( eds. ), Van Academie tot Universiteit ( in press ).

continued his studies at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris. With the grant that accompanied his Grand Prize, he visited various places in France and Italy. Upon his return he worked as an official for the Belgian railway company and as an assistant to the architect Auguste Payen ( 1801–1877 ) at the Brussels Academy.23 The Grand Prize did not apparently guarantee a successful career as an architect.

Pierre Cuypers, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, 1885, engraving, end 19th century ( Cuypershuis, Roermond )

Louis Delacenserie, Central Station Antwerp, 1898 ( photographer unknown ) ( Private collection, Rumst )

Another reform of the architectural curriculum was announced in 1841. This time it was the intention to transform the academies into a University of Fine Arts.24 At that time the industrial revolution was in full swing and the growing interest in it meant that more attention would go in the curriculum to the material and practical aspects of construction.

The artistic ( and sometimes theoretical ) approach that had dominated architecture classes 196

lost its monopoly and instead more technical and practical criteria entered the study of architecture, as well as issues regarding utility and economical considerations. The position of the Antwerp Academy was in fact rather special in this respect. It had strong links with the central government and the director was appointed by the king. There was no enrolment fee — there never had been since the Academy’s foundation in 1663 — but enrolment was only valid after the approval of both the director and the class teacher.

The new curriculum of 1841 attached great importance to copying old masters. Classical antiquity was still the model to be emulated, and therefore the curriculum also comprised classes in theory and history, as well as the history of literature, with an emphasis on Greek and Roman antiquity.25 However, with regard to the theory of architecture, there was one new element : Vignola’s modular design system was replaced by a decimal system.26 Furthermore, the Academy was in search of buildings that radiated le bon goût ( good taste ), as it was defined already in eighteenth-century French treatises on the theory of architecture.27 These would be used in the classes as models. To achieve these goals, in 1841 and once again in 1851, a new Academic Corps was composed that was made up of artists from home and abroad and was headed by director Gustaaf Wappers ( 1803–1874 ).

The initiative was taken by the central government, which wanted to present the Antwerp Academy as a model for both art and architecture. Together with the Class of Fine Arts of the Royal Belgian Academy, the Antwerp Academy would define which artistic trends were to prevail in times to come.

25 D. Prina, “Architectuuronderwijs aan de Antwerpse Academie voor Schone Kunsten : tussen traditie en innovatie ( 1831–1914 )”, in : E. De Vos and P. Lombaerde ( eds. ), Van Academie tot Universiteit ( in press ).

26 Architect Felix Laureys, another laureate of the Prix de Rome, wrote about the use of the decimal system for the classical orders : F. Laureys, Cours classique d’architecture comprenant l’analyse complète des cinq ordres d’après le système décimal ( Brussels 1870 ).

27 S. Le Clerc, Traité d’architecture, avec des remarques et des observations très-utiles pour les jeunes gens qui veulen s’appliquer à ce bel art ( Paris 1714 ) ; G. Boffrand, Dissertation sur ce qu’on appelle le bon goût en architecture ( Paris 1734 ).

28

DECORATIVE ARTS AND THE PRIX DE ROME A course in the decorative arts was introduced in 1848. The new class was the result of the growing need to integrate the applied arts in academic education, as well as to apply the principles of bon goût to all arts. The symbiosis of all art forms, i.e. of both the fine arts and the applied arts, was a goal to aspire to. Architect and sculptor Frans Durlet ( 1816– 1867 ) was a pioneer in this matter, as he involved all the applied arts in his architecture course. Durlet was an ardent supporter of the architecture of the Gothic Revival. One of his most successful projects produced the neogothic choir stalls in the Cathedral of Our Lady in Antwerp.

Another important architecture teacher was Ferdinand Berckmans ( 1803–1854 ).

Berckmans built the Church of Our Lady of the Snows in Borgerhout ( 1838–1841 ), one of the first neogothic churches in Europe.28 He was also active in the Antwerp Cathedral, where he constructed several neogothic apse chapels. One of his students was the Dutch architect Pierre Cuypers ( 1827–1921 ) from Roermond, who studied at the Antwerp Academy from 1845 to 1849.29 Cuypers would become famous for his various neogothic buildings and renovations in the Netherlands. In 1879 he was appointed “architect of the buildings of the Rijksmuseum” in Amsterdam.30 In the 1860s, the Belgian government, and especially its Prime Minister Rogier, emphasized that the Antwerp Academy had a pioneering part to play “as a model school and as the national school of the arts of drawing”. But at the same time the Academy had to tune in more and more to the real needs of an industrialized society. To guarantee a high academic level, strong emphasis was put on the “Grand Prize”, which had already been established by King William I, and which, from 1817, was also being organized for architects. Henceforth, the Prize would be named the Prix de Rome, or the “Rome Prize”. The most promising artists, including architects, who had graduated in Antwerp or elsewhere, were sent to Rome, Paris or London. As in eighteenth-century France, the laureates were asked to study on site the architecture from Antiquity and the Renaissance and Baroque periods, and to make copies of the “best models”, which would later be exhibited in the Academy. The prizewinners included, for example, Louis Baeckelmans ( 1835–1871 ), Joseph Naert ( 1838–1910 ), and Louis Delacenserie ( 1838–1909 ). Delacenserie, who graduated at the Academy in Bruges, was particularly interested in the use of iron structures in architecture, which — thanks to his prize — he was then able to study in England.31 He was especially interested in railway bridges, and designed the Central Station in Antwerp.

In 1875, however, the Antwerp Academy lost its privileged position in the organization of the Prix de Rome. From now on the Prize would be organized by the Class of Fine Arts of 197

L. de Barsée, “De bouwkunst in de XIXde eeuw”, in : Bouwstoffen voor de geschiedenis van Antwerpen in de XIXde eeuw ( Genootschap voor Antwerpse Geschiedenis ) ( Antwerp 1964 ), 238–266.

29 I. Montijn, Pierre Cuypers.1827–1921 ( Roermond 2007 ), 11.

30 P.J.H. Cuypers 1827–1921. Het complete werk ( Rotterdam 2007 ).

31

I. Van Oyen, De neogotische architecten in Brugge, in Vlaams en Europees perspectief met als belangrijkste Brugse architect Louis Delacenserie ( 1838–1909 ) ( unpublished MA thesis, KU Leuven ) ( Leuven 1985 ).

32 D. Prina, “Architectuuronderwijs aan de Antwerpse Academie voor Schone Kunsten”, in : E. De Vos and P. Lombaerde ( eds. ), Van Academie tot Universiteit ( in press ).

33

On this subject, see : Historiek Nationaal Hoger Instituut voor Schone Kunsten 1663– 1885 / 1945 ( Antwerp 1985 ).

34

P. Lombaerde, “À la recherche d’une identité historique : l’architecture néo-Renaissance à Anvers au XIXe siècle”, in : F. Lemerle, Y. Pauwels and A. Thomine-Berrada ( eds. ), Le XIXe siècle et l’architecture de la Renaissance ( Paris 2010 ) 165–178 ; J. Verhelst, De neo-Vlaamse-renaissancestijl ( unpublished MA thesis University Ghent ) ( Ghent 2011 ).

35

See : Historiek Nationaal Hoger Instituut voor Schone Kunsten 1663–1885 / 1945 ( Antwerp 1985 ), 65.

36

On Joseph Schadde, see : V. Meul, “Joseph Schadde 1818–1894.

Academicus en historiserend bouwmeester in de tweede helft van de 19de eeuw”, in : M&L, 13 / 6 ( 1994 ), 8–61 ; on Pieter Dens, see : Een eeuw Openbare Werken te Antwerpen. Gedenkboek en catalogus ( Antwerp 1964 ), 34–36.

the Belgian Royal Academy of Arts, Letters and Science in Brussels. That also meant the end of a certain need for modernization in architecture, as the Royal Belgian Academy was particularly traditionally-minded and conservative.32 The state attempted to gain more and more control over art education, a fact that would also manifest itself in a new initiative : the foundation of the Higher Institute of Fine Arts on 5 October 1885, which was added to the Antwerp Academy.33 The Academy itself was still responsible for the theoretical and practical art classes, as well as for the decorative arts classes, which were all organized by the teaching staff of the Academy. From now on, however, in addition to these courses, there would also be a form of higher education at university or college level, organized by the Belgian state. At its head stood an eminent and renowned artist, who was in charge of seven studios, including a studio for architecture. Furthermore, a new studio for decorative and monumental arts was also added ; its aim was to promote a symbiosis of all the arts, in order to emphasize the national identity of art. It is in this context that we should view the stimulation of a neo-Flemish Renaissance and the Vredeman-de Vries style.34 The promotion of a national identity was considered the most important task of the Higher Institute of Fine Arts. As far as the architecture studio is concerned, between 1887 and 1946, it was headed successively

by Frans Baeckelmans, Leonard Blomme, Victor Horta, and finally Jos Smolderen.35 In 1897 new courses were added to the curriculum of the Higher Institute of Fine Arts, namely domestic hygiene and history. Unfortunately, there was an almost complete lack of continuity with regard to the curriculum of the Academy and the Higher Institute, as well as a lack of innovation, and little attention was paid to real social needs. One of the teachers at the Antwerp Academy was Joseph Schadde ( 1818–1894 ), who still taught the classical orders and theory of composition ; another teacher was the town architect Pieter Dens ( 1819–1901 ), who taught masonry, stone dressing and timbered framing.36

Joseph Schadde, The Commodity Exchange in Antwerp, 1872, situation ca. 1900 ( photographer unknown ) ( Private collection, Rumst )

198

HORTA AND THE SYMBIOSIS OF THE ARTS On 22 September 1919, the architect Victor Horta ( 1861–1947 ) was appointed director of the architecture studio of the Higher Institute for Fine Arts.37 Horta was a strong advocate of highly qualified architecture training, which in his view had to provide a solid technical basis, but which also had to embed architecture in the other arts. For Horta, architecture had a primary social function because of its high degree of practical usefulness, while at the same time, it also had an edifying element to it with regard to culture.38 Horta considered the architect to be, in the first instance, an artist — a role which he had to maintain. In architecture, design is important, but its importance is related to rational considerations and functional principles. What is new is his conviction that architectural design is defined from inside, that is to say, that the design of a building is in the first instance defined by its interior, and that the façade of the building stems naturally from this interior. Furthermore, the art nouveau architect pays a lot of attention to the aspect of hygiene ( for example, to the bathroom and the toilet ), to the power supply, the central heating and to the running water in the various rooms of the building.39

37 On Horta, see for example : F. Aubri, Horta : architect van de art nouveau ( Ghent 2009 ).

38 M. Jaenen, “De discussie rond de architect als kunstenaar ( 1919–1936 )”, in : E. De Vos and P. Lombaerde ( eds. ), Van Academie tot Universiteit ( in press ).

39

On this innovations in urban housing, see : P. Burniat, “Architectuur en bouw. Het type van de Brusselse stadswoning”, in : Erfgoed Brussel. Dossier de kunst van het bouwen 3–4 ( September 2012 ), 39–55.

40

M. Jaenen, “De discussie rond de architect”, in : E. De Vos and P. Lombaerde ( eds. ), Van Academie tot Universiteit ( in press ).

41

On Jef Huygh, see : D. Laureys ( ed. ), Bouwen in beeld. De collectie van het Architectuurarchief van de Provincie Antwerpen ( Turnhout 2004 ), 212–215.

Victor Horta in his studio in Elsene, ca. 1900 ( photographer unknown ) ( Letterenhuis, Antwerp )

At the Academy, Horta was a member of a special committee that started with the reorganization of the curriculum in 1924. In the debate that surrounds this reorganization, we notice a number of points of departure that are typical of art nouveau. In the view of fellow committee member Juliaan De Vriendt, living creatures such as human beings, animals and plants, could be the source of inspiration for new works of art.40 De Vriendt was fed up with the traditional plaster casts, which certainly did not need to be copied. On this committee, Horta emphasized the relative role of the drawing with regard to architecture.

The drawing stands between the architect and the realization, but does not guarantee beauty. In fact, this discourse reconnected with the age-old debate about the disegno, which was at the base of a definition of the arts in the old academies, such as those of Rome and Florence — an issue Vasari readdressed in his work.

What was different was the need to relate architecture, i.e. also the drawing, to technical and functional issues, not just to the theory of proportions and harmony. According to Horta, the training of an architect has to start with a general art education. The reason being that architecture is part of a Gesamtkunstwerk, an all-embracing work of art. In the higher years, the future architect will be acquainted with the necessary technical knowledge, which comprises subjects such as chemistry, physics, mineralogy and hygiene.

With regard to a reform of art education, Horta thought that the curriculum could be the same for all students in the first two years, which then had to be followed by a three-year period of specialization for painters, sculptors and architects respectively. But this was also the era in which some claimed that it would be better to separate architecture from the other arts. The architect Jef Huygh ( 1885–1946 ) was a supporter of this idea. 41 In the end, however, little changed in the architectural programme. There was one striking fact : Huygh left it to his students to choose what style they wanted to use for their 199

Jan Van Hoenacker and Jos Smolderen, Tower block, Antwerp, 1931 ( photographer unknown ) ( Private collection, Rumst )

Renaat Braem, Drawing for a linear city, 1960, mixed techniques on paper ( Collection Vlaams Instituut voor Onroerend Erfgoed, Brussels )

200

buildings. There was also more debate about how art and architecture related. The first modernists such as Huib Hoste, Gaston Eysselinck and Louis Herman De Koninck seem to draw more public attention thanks to the students of architecture. This new generation sees their realizations as answers to issues of contemporary architecture.

In 1927, Jos Smolderen ( 1889–1975 ) succeeded his famous predecessor Horta at the architecture studio of the Higher Institute of Fine Arts.42 Like Horta, Smolderen continued arguing in favour of the integration of architecture in the arts. A new element was the so-called vertical integration of the various years in the architecture studio.43 Students elaborated projects together, regardless of whether they were in their first, second or third year of study. They could choose their assignment from a coursebook that had been compiled

by Smolderen. Renaat Braem ( 1910–2001 ) was one of the first students to develop an urban project, namely a blueprint for a linear city. 44 Modernist tendencies, such as De Stijl, the Deutscher Werkbund and the ideas that prevailed at the CIAM ( Congrès Internationaux d”Architecture Moderne, or International Congresses of Modern Architecture ) were discussed at great length in the design studios.

TOWARDS RECOGNITION OF A DEGREE IN ARCHITECTURE In the 1930s, a number of elements were disadvantageous with regard to the architectural curriculum as it then existed at the Academy. First there was a serious economic crisis in Europe, which was particularly felt in the construction industry. Then there was the fact that an architect who had finished studying never received an officially recognized degree — not even the students who finished the course at the Higher Institute of Fine Arts. Furthermore, the profession of architect was not legally protected. Contractors, decorators, construction engineers, or architectural engineers ( from the University of Ghent, for example ) could all call themselves “architects”. On the other hand, the architects at the Academy were often insufficiently acquainted with the newest technical issues. This resulted in the Royal Decree of 5 May 1936, which finally recognized the degree of architect. The training of architects would also be better organized from a scientific and technical point of view — it would no longer solely be linked to art education. From now on, there would also be two levels and the candidate students had to sit an entry exam for both levels. The first level comprised four years and focused on general education and technical aspects. The second level comprised three years and focused on architectural composition ( the equivalent of what is now called architectural design ). Though teachers such as Jos Smolderen and Jef Huygh oppose the reform of the curriculum, the Antwerp Academy has to adapt to the new situation. In 1938 its name therefore changes from the Royal Academy of Fine Arts to the Royal Academy of Fine Arts and Architecture. Likewise, the Higher Institute of Fine Arts becomes the National Higher Institute of Fine Arts and Architecture.

Architect Renaat Braem ( right ) at a carnival ball at the Academy, 1957 ( photographer unknown ) ( KASKA )

On 20 February the profession of architect became protected under law. Debate flared up at the Academy, and Smolderen, like his predecessor Horta, continued to advocate the idea that architecture was in the first instance an artistic creation and therefore it belonged in 201

42

On Smolderen, see : Jos Smolderen ( exh. cat. ) ( Antwerp 1976 ) ; R. Verspreeuwen, Jos Smolderen en zijn tijd ( unpublished architectural thesis HAIR ) ( Antwerp 1977 ).

43 Recently, the vertical integration of successive years has been implemented once more within the architectural programme of the Department of Design Sciences at the Artesis College Antwerp.

44 On this subject, see : F. Strauven and Renaat Braem, De dialectische avonturen van een Vlaams functionalist ( Brussels 1983 ), 13–36 ; J. Braeken ( ed. ), Renaat Braem architect 1910–2001 ( Brussels 2010 ), 2 volumes, V. 1, 304–307.

45

M. Jaenen, “De discussie rond de architect”, in : E. De Vos and P. Lombaerde ( eds. ), Van Academie tot Universiteit ( in press ).

46 On Stynen, see for example : A. Bontridder, Gevecht met de rede. Léon Stynen. Leven en werk ( Antwerp 1979 ) ; G. Bekaert and R. De Meyer, Léon Stynen. Een architect ( exh. cat. ) ( Antwerp 1990 ).

See also E. Spitaels and T. Eyckerman, “Architecten voor de moderne samenleving : 1936–1977”, in : E. De Vos and P. Lombaerde ( eds. ), Van Academie tot Universiteit ( in press ).

47 R. Avermate, Permeke ( Brussels 1970 ), 231.

48

See the essay on the history of the buildings of the Academy within this publication.

49

A. Bontridder, Gevecht met de rede, 107.

50

Quoted from : S. Van de Voorde, “Institutionele geschiedenis en wettelijk kader”, in : E. De Vos and P. Lombaerde ( eds. ), Van Academie tot Universiteit ( in press ).

the art schools.45 In fact, at the Antwerp Academy at that time, all the attention went to the integration of the applied and decorative arts into architecture, much in the same way that in the Bauhaus in Dessau, architecture functioned as a link between all the arts.

LÉON STYNEN AND THE AUTONOMY OF ARCHITECTURAL TRAINING An end to architectural training at the Antwerp Academy only came after World War II. The Royal Decrees of 1936 and 1937 merely heralded an irreversible process that would unfold in the 1940s. The architect Léon Stynen ( 1899–1990 ), a modernist in heart and soul, embodied the separate status of architecture.46 Stynen taught architecture at the Academy and in 1944 he became the deputy director under the then director, Isidoor Opsomer ( 1878–1967 ). Opsomer had been teaching at the Academy since 1919 and had been appointed director in 1936. After the war, he was temporarily relieved from his post. On 15 September 1945, the painter Constant Permeke ( 1886–1952 ) was temporarily appointed director by Auguste Buisseret, then Minister of Public Education.47 A struggle for power developed between Stynen and Permeke, which resulted in Permeke resigning from office in 1946. From 1946 to 1949, Opsomer would temporarily resume his post as director. In Stynen’s view, the architectural programme had to be urgently reformed, also with regard to its content. His ideas for this reform were based on principles set out by the CIAM. Stynen himself was a member of the Belgian branch of this international society of modernist architects and urbanists. According to Stynen, high-quality architecture could only be learned in a suitable environment. He considered the existing site of the former monastery of the Friars Minor to be unsuitable for the new view of architecture.

He therefore presented two radically new designs for a campus site in the Mustsaardstraat, in which all existing buildings, except the so-called Temple and the entrance gate, would be abolished.48 Still in 1949, he designed a new school for architecture that would be situated on the left bank of the River Scheldt.49 However, there were insufficient funds to build this new school. Stynen approached Camille Huysmans and convinced him of the need to separate the architecture department from the Academy. In his view, “it was imperative that uniformity and coordination were imposed on the teaching of architecture and urban planning, at all levels, and therefore the teaching thereof had to come under the sole management of an architect”.50 The separation would come in 1946, but there would be two restrictions.

Portrait of the architect Léon Stynen, 1963 ( photo : Filip Tas ) ( Photo Museum Antwerp )

The new architectural programme and the Academy would remain on the same site and architectural training would be categorized as higher secondary education. Stynen’s attitude towards this new situation was ambiguous. On the one hand he accepted the separation and even forced its implementation by using stationary that same year that bore the letterhead of the “National Higher Institute for Architecture and Urban Planning”. On the other hand, the new status of the school as one providing higher secondary education remained in force, which implied a factual degradation. Stynen continued to contest this 202

situation, claiming that the highest demands had to be imposed on the training of an architect and that the programme should therefore be recognized as universitary.51 But the then Minister of National Education, Julien Kuypers, resolutely rejected this demand.

It was only in 1949, with the Regent’s Decree of 18 November 1949, that the reform of architectural education was approved and the programme would now take five years. The Royal Decree of 5 May 1952 made official the separation between architectural education and the Academy. It also recognized the new name of the school and categorized the training as higher education.52

Léon Stynen, Residential flats Elsdonck, Wilrijk, 1934, situation in 1990 ( photo : Filip Tas ) ( Photo Museum Antwerp )

Stynen would never suspect that in 2013 his dream would be partially fulfilled with a proper faculty of Design Sciences at Antwerp University comprising architecture, but the faculty will remain at the Mutsaard campus for many years to come, together with the Academy.

203

51 A. Bontridder, Gevecht met de rede, 103–104.

52

See more on this subject in : S. Van de Voorde, “Institutionele geschiedenis en wettelijk kader”, in : E. De Vos and P. Lombaerde ( eds. ), Van Academie tot Universiteit ( in press ).

Jan Lampo

Chronicle of an Art School : 1800–1899 1802 The Écoles centrales are abolished. Herreyns, who is the most important teacher at the Academy, the French prefect d’Herbouville and the town council together decide to found a new art school.

1803 18 July. First Consul Bonaparte and his wife Joséphine de Beauharnais visit Antwerp. Joséphine is given a landscape by Ommeganck as a present. In the town hall, the First Consul inspects the paintings Symbolical Representation of the Republic ( 1798 ) and Allegorical Veneration of Bonaparte as First Consul ( 1801 ), which the city has commissioned from Van Bree. On the Meir, a triumphal arch has been built, which Van Bree decorates with a representation of The Battle of the Bridge of Arcole. The painter follows the First Consul to Paris to make drawings for The Entry of Bonaparte into Antwerp.

1804 On 7 August 1804 ( 19 Thermidor Year XII in the French Republican Calendar ), Prefect d’Herbouville publishes his decree for the foundation of an Académie de Peinture, Sculpture et Architecture de la Ville d’Anvers. Herreyns will be its director. The programme includes painting ( and modelling ) from live models, as well as composition.

The works that Herreyns has collected in previous years will be on view in a museum. The director of the Academy is made custodian of the archives of the Academy and the Guild of Saint Luke. For the first time in the Academy’s history, the teachers are paid a salary.

Van Bree is appointed as first professor. He also gives private lessons to children from poor families, preparing them to study at the Academy.

1805 On 27 September 1805 ( 5 Vendémiaire Year XIII ), Emperor Napoleon issues a decree that confirms d’Herbouville’s decision to found a new Academy. The lessons begin on 4 October and the first day sees 300 students starting out at the new school.

Jozef Karel Emmanuel Baron van Ertborn ( 1778–1823 ) becomes Counsel–Honorary Private Secretary at the Academy, an unpaid honorary job. Van Ertborn, a lawyer and civil servant, is the first to study the archives of the Guild of Saint Luke. He writes a book on the Guild of Saint Luke and several Chambers of Rhetoric ( Geschiedkundige aenteekeningen aengaende de Ste.-Lucas-Gilde en de Rederykkamers van den Olyftak, de Violieren en de Goudbloem, te Antwerpen ), which is published in 1806.

1807 Van Bree transports The Entry of Napoleon into Antwerp to Paris.

1810 Napoleon donates the former Franciscan monastery in the Mutsaertstraat to the town of Antwerp, to provide suitable accommodation for the Academy. He adds a sum of 30,000 francs, which is to be used to turn the church into a museum.

1811 The Academy moves to the former monastery of the Franciscans or Friars Minor in the Mutsaertstraat.

Ommeganck, Herreyns and Van Bree re-establish the former Art Society. Its new name will be the Society for the Encouragement of Fine Arts.

1813 Every year, the Society for the Encouragement of Fine Arts organizes exhibitions — alternately in Antwerp, Ghent and Brussels — that play an important part in the artistic life of the nineteenth century. The first exhibition takes places in the museum of the Academy ; there are 224 works on view.

Van Bree paints a small version of The Self-Sacrifice of Mayor Van der Werff. This is the first historicizing painting in “Dutch” art that presents an event considered relevant to “modern history”, and in which the artist pays particular attention to the right historical details. The Arrest of President Molé,

205

a painting by Vincent, Van Bree’s French teacher, functioned as model. Vincent’s painting is on view in the conference room in the Chambre des Députés in Paris.

1815 The French retreat their troops after defeat at the battle of Waterloo. The first preoccupation of the teachers of the Academy and the members of the Society for the Encouragement of Fine Arts is how to recover the paintings the French had robbed. They appeal to the new king, William I. Though the king promises to do everything necessary, the Academy and the Society send the painters Balthasar Ommeganck and Van Regemorter to Paris in the autumn of 1815, along with the art lover Van Hal. They meet with the official royal delegation : the painter Odeveare from Bruges and the Antwerp art collector Charles Stier d’Aertselaer.

The two delegations join forces.

The Duke of Wellington intervenes and the Antwerp inhabitants recover “their” paintings from the Louvre.

Chronicler Jan-Baptist van der Straelen ( 1761–1847 ) notes : “On 4 December, at 7 o’ clock in the evening, all bells ring and the artillery thunders to announce that our paintings have been recovered. They will arrive tomorrow at noon in our town.”

4 December. On the eve of the paintings’ arrival, the play Quinten Matsijs of Wat doet de Liefde niet ? ( Quinten Matsys, or What Does Love Not Do ? ) has its premier. The author of this play in two acts is Jan Frans Willems.

Willems sings the praise of the “Flemish” school and ridicules the pro-French attitude of the bourgeoisie.

5 December. The carts transporting the paintings enter Antwerp. In the evening there is a large ball in the town. The teachers’ society Tot Nut der Jeugd ( For the Benefit of the Youth ) publishes a compilation of poetry entitled Toejuyching der Leden van het Genootschap Tot Nut der Jeugd aen d’Antwerpsche Maetschappy der Schoone Konsten ( Applause from the Members of the Society for the Benefit of the Youth for the Antwerp Society of Fine Arts ). Some 400 copies are printed. The compilation features the Jan Frans Willems’ poem Aen Antwerpen, op het Wederkomen der Schilder-stukken ( To Antwerp, on the Return of the Paintings ).

1816 24 August. In the museum, Jan Frans Willems reads the poem Over het Nut der Kunsten en Weétenschappen ( On the Benefit of the Arts and Sciences ), on the occasion of the foundation of the Maetschappy der Kunstvrienden — Société des Amis des Arts ( Society of the Friends of Art ). Willems is second secretary of the society, which apart from promoting art, also “aspires to become familiar with foreign means that can be useful in daily life and in factories, and to introduce these in our native country to increase the ingenuity of the people”.

The Society of the Friends of Art exists only briefly. They organize one more event : on 10 November, the bust of Rubens is inaugurated in the garden of the Academy. The bust was made by Van Bree.

Willems recites an Ode to the Highest Master.

1817 13 April. A Royal Decree lays down that the Academy can call itself “Royal”. The Prix de Rome is founded, which will be alternately organized in Amsterdam and Antwerp. The winner will receive a 1200 Guilder grant to travel to Italy. In both towns, the prize is alternately organized for painting and for sculpture.

23 September. A Royal Decree stipulates that the Academy founds a society that comprises a director, the teaching staff, and an unspecified number of artists and art connoisseurs from home and abroad. The members who live in Antwerp will constitute the Council of the Academy. The provincial governor presides over this council ; the mayor is vice-president.

King William I commissions a large version of The Self-Sacrifice by Van Bree.

Van Bree is appointed a member of the Antwerp town council.

William I appoints Florent van Ertborn ( 1784–1840 ), cousin of the former secretary of the Antwerp Academy, to the office of mayor. Van Ertborn remains in office till 1828. Florent van Ertborn is an art collector. For his activities as a collector, he is assisted by the painter, restorer and art dealer Jan Nicolié, and later by Nicolié’s son Jean-Chrétien. Van Ertborn publishes on van Eyck, Memling, Van der Goes and Dürer in the Messager des sciences historiques de Belgique. He is among the first to collect late medieval art, not just from Italy, but also from France, the Netherlands and Germany.

Jan Frans Van Geel ( 1756–1830 ) starts to teach sculpture at the Academy.

Reorganisation of the “Koninklyke” Maatschappij ter Aenmoediging der Schone Kunsten ( “Royal” Society for the Encouragement of Fine Arts )

1819 Pierre Bruno Bourla ( 1783–1866 ) starts to teach architecture. He does not speak Dutch, which leads to friction. He is therefore dismissed from his job in 1824.

Ferdinand de Braekeleer is first laureate of the Prix de Rome.

206

1820 Start of a course in shipbuilding.

13 March. Jan Frans Willems becomes a “present member” of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Fine Arts. His membership was recommended by secretary Verdussen at the request of Van Bree. Around the same time, Willems becomes a member of the Board of the Academy.

Antoine Wiertz ( 1806–1865 ) enrols at the Academy. He studies with Herreyns and Van Bree.

1821 Van Bree publishes Leçons de Dessin ou Explication sur les cent Planches, qui forment le Cours d’Etudes des Principes de Dessin ( Drawing Lessons, or Commentary on the Hundred Plates That Constitute the Course of the Principles of Drawing ). The Education Minister decides that the Van Bree method should be used in all the academies of the kingdom.

Van Bree travels to Italy. In Rome he meets the sculptor Thorvaldsen and he is received in audience by Pope Pius VII. He visits Naples in the company of Ferdinand de Braekeleer. He returns to Belgium via Switzerland and Paris.

Jan-Baptist Van Hool ( 1769–1837 ) starts teaching sculpture.

1822 The nineteen-year-old Gustaaf Wappers ( 1803–1874 ), a student of Van Bree, makes his debut at the Antwerp Salon.

1823 6 April. schilder the four Olympiad

At the public prize ceremony, Willems delivers a speech on De poëzij van den dichter en van den ( The Poetry of the Poet and the Painter ). He chooses this subject, because “In a few weeks’ time yearly contest [ will ] start, which the most Benevolent of Kings has established as another for the arts.”

The subject for the Prix de Rome is “Coriolanus’ Departure”. Contrary to all expectations, the winner is not Gustaaf Wappers, but Antoon Van Ysendijck ( 1801–1875 ), Van Bree’s favourite student. Wappers protests and produces a lithograph from his composition. His friends collect money to distribute the print. According to Frank van den Wijngaert, this is “the first sign of protest against the official art, between the neoclassical Empire style [ … ] and the romanticism of the rebellious forces.”

1825 18 September. At the opening of the Salon, Willems delivers his famous speech, Over het karakter van den Nederlandschen schilder ( On the Character of the Dutch Painter ). He calls on the artists and the “youths [ who study ] at the Antwerp Academy to pledge solemnly” that “you will be Dutchmen”.

1827 Herreyns dies. Van Bree becomes director.

1828 Sculptor Willem Geefs ( 1805–1883 ) wins the First Prize at the Salon for his work Briseis Taken Away from Achilles.

Foundation of the technical drawing class.

Wappers stays in Paris, where he meets various artists, including the young writer Théophile Gautier.

William I appoints Florent van Ertborn to the office of governor of the province of Utrecht. Van Ertborn’s collection is famous amongst art lovers all over Europe. On her tour of Europe, the German writer Johanna Schopenhauer, mother of the philosopher Arthur, visits the Netherlands to see the collection. She writes about her visit in Ausflug an den Niederrhein und nach Belgien im Jahre 1828 ( Excursion to the Lower Rhine and Belgium in 1828 ), which is published in 1831.

1830 At the Brussels Salon, Wappers exhibits his version of The Resolve of Mayor Van der Werff of Leiden. The painting is widely acclaimed and is bought by King William I. At the same time, the patriotic subject and the style appeal to a lot of people who are dissatisfied with the “Dutch” rule.

207

1831 Wappers paints King Leopold I Taking the Oath.

1832 In Karlsruhe, Germany, Florent van Ertborn composes a will in which he bequeaths his collection to the museum of the Academy. The collection comprises 115 works, including works by Jan van Eyck, Rogier van der Weyden, Hans Memling, and Jean Fouquet, as well as works by Antonella da Messina and Simone Martini.

Wappers becomes first teacher at the Academy. A certain animosity develops between his students and those of Van Bree. Wappers’ students are member of the artists’ group De Luybrechtsgilde, which meets in the pub Het Roosken in the Gildekamerstraat ( behind the town hall ).

The Belgian government commissions Episode from the September Days at the Grote Markt in Brussels, 1830 from Wappers.

1833 Willem Geefs starts to teach sculpture in Antwerp. A year later he starts to teach at the Brussels Academy.

1834 Wappers exhibits the unfinished September Days at the Salon in Antwerp. The work is widely acclaimed.

1835 Wappers and his rival Nicaise De Keyser rent a studio in the Vleeshuis. There they teach students who want more than the programme at the Academy has to offer. De Keyser is mainly preoccupied with medieval subjects.

In the studio in the Vleeshuis he paints The Battle of the Golden Spurs ( 1836 ), probably one of the sources of inspiration for Conscience’s novel The Lion of Flanders ( 1838 ).

The French romantic writer Roger de Beauvoir ( pseudonym of Roger de Bully ) praises Wappers in the Revue de Paris as the most important Belgian artist. He criticizes Van Bree’s restorations of Rubens’ paintings in the museum of the Academy. He ruthlessly mocks Van Bree’s painting Rubens’ Death, which King William I donated to the museum in 1829.

King Leopold visits Wappers’ studio to look at the unfinished version of Episode from the September Days 1830.

Shortly afterwards Wappers exhibits the finished work at the Brussels Salon. At the king’s request, it is then moved to the museum in Brussels.

Hendrik Leys ( 1815–1869 ) stays in Paris, where he visits the studio of Eugène Delacroix.

1837 In July and August, Hendrik Conscience ( 1812–1883 ) publishes a series of articles about the Salon in Den Antwerpenaer. He has words of praise for the young Hendrik Leys and criticizes the conservative Board of the Society. Ferdinand de Braekeleer is blamed for reserving the best places at the exhibition for his own students. Conscience also writes extensively on Wappers and De Keyser, who do not participate in the exhibition, but exhibit their work in their own studio.

1838 In the Journal de Liège, former Academy student Antoine Wiertz sings the praise of Van Bree’s qualities as a teacher : “In his lessons, Van Brée was a demon, a power, a volcano that spewed forth science, which flowed into, inundated and imprinted itself on the mind of those listening to him.”

1839 Van Bree dies on 15 December. He is buried at the cemetery of St Willibrord.

After the speeches in French, Conscience delivers an inspired speech in Dutch.

Nicaise De Keyser starts to teach at the Academy.

1840 “First Professor” Wappers succeeds Van Bree as director. Conscience addresses him at a ceremony on 31 January.

29 August. By Royal Decree, the government subsidies for the Academy are increased to the amount of 25,000 francs annually. The town of Antwerp will add the same amount. There are 443 students at the Academy.

Florent van Ertborn dies in The Hague. His collection arrives in Antwerp and is exhibited in the museum.

The former mayor is buried in the family grave at the churchyard of the church of Our Lady in Hoboken.

208

Publication of a Dutch translation of Van Bree’s book on drawing.

Antwerp commemorates the second centenary of the death of Rubens. Wappers coordinates the construction of a replica of Rubens’ Triumphal Chariot of Kallo by his students. Jacob Jacobs ( 1812–1879 ) and sculptor Van den Kerkhoven assist him.

There are triumphal arches all over town. The one at the Sint-Jacobsmarkt is designed by Hendrik Leys and features scenes of the French Fury. At the entrance of the Academy memorials are placed in honour of Herreyns and Van Bree. On 25 August, Rubens’ statue is inaugurated at the Sint-Walburgisplein. Because the bronze statue by Willem Geefs is not yet ready, a plaster model takes its place.

1841 18 October. New regulations are put in place for the Academy. The King appoints thirty active members, who together constitute the Council. Half of them are Belgian, the other half are from abroad. The thirty active members elect forty additional members, half of whom are also from abroad. Each of the active members has to donate a work of art to the museum of the Academy within a year of his appointment. The aim is to create a collection of contemporary art. Wappers helps Conscience to get the job of registrar at the Academy.

In this job, Conscience is responsible for the library and other duties.

Joseph Geefs, Willem’s younger brother, starts teaching sculpture at the Academy.

Edward Dujardin starts teaching “Principles of form” at the Academy ( and continues till his death in 1889 ).

1842 Jan Antoon Verschaeren ( 1803–1863 ) starts teaching classes in “Drawing from life and the antique” at the Academy.

The French-speaking writer Felix Bogaerts ( 1805–1851 ) publishes Mathieu van Brée. Notice lue à la Séance publique de la Société libre d’émulation de Liège, le 19 juillet 1842.

1843 Conscience publishes the novella How to Become a Painter, an expression of gratitude to Wappers.

The book provides a rather accurate image of the “career” of a student at the Academy.

As director of the Academy, Wappers is indeed quite successful, as can be inferred from the increasing number of students. In 1843 there are already 1,124 students.

Bourla completes the museum. He has added a frontal extension to the former church of the monastery, with a pediment, columns, and a monumental staircase.

Jacob Jacobs succeeds Jan-Baptist De Jonghe as teacher of “Landscape, marine and animal painting” at the Academy.

9 August. Inauguration of the bronze statue of Rubens at the Groenplaats.

Queen Victoria, the British monarch, visits Antwerp. Wappers guides her around the triennial exhibition.

The royal company also visits the Academy and the Museum.

1844 The French king, Louis-Philippe, makes Gustaaf Wappers a knight in the order of the Légion d’Honneur.

Students of the Academy perform a serenade in his honour. In the evening the garden of the Academy is illuminated and a fireworks display is held.

1846 Students who have completed the programme of the Academy can continue to study in individual studios, under the guidance of their teachers.

1847 It is decided that the Prix de Rome will be organized each year. The winner is awarded a grant of 3,500 francs.

Leopold I makes Wappers a Baron.

The Royal Belgian Academy of Sciences, Letters and Fine Arts establishes a committee to supervise the restoration of Rubens’ paintings The Elevation of the Cross and The Descent from the Cross in the Cathedral of our Lady. Members of the committee include the painters De Keyser, De Braekeleer, Gallait, Leys, Navez, Verbroeckhoven, and Wappers. The paintings are moved to another location, the varnish is removed where necessary and the damaged parts are “touched up”.

209

1848 At the Academy 1,365 students are enrolled. Just under a third of them come from Antwerp. Eighty-five students are from abroad. Among them are a Russian, two Americans and two Javans. A lot of the students are craftsmen who want to enhance their skills. 251 of them are carpenters or cabinet-makers ; 105 are ornamental painters.

King Leopold I and Queen Louise-Marie visit the triennial Salon.

The government authorizes the restoration of The Elevation of the Cross and The Descent from the Cross, to be carried out under the supervision of J. Van Regemorter and E. Leroy.

1849 Hendrik Leys, Jozef Lies, Jozef Dijckmans, Ferdinand de Braekeleer, Wappers, De Keyser and other painters found the Vereniging van Antwerpse Kunstenaars ( Society of Antwerp Painters ). Josef Lies will be its secretary.

1850 Hendrik Leys becomes a town councillor.

1851 Reorganisation of the Academic Corps. From now on, there will be 45 additional members and 25 active members ; among the latter there are 15 Belgians and 10 artists from abroad. They have to donate a work of art and a self-portrait to the academic museum ( for which they will be paid a fee ). The Belgian government and the town of Antwerp will provide an annual subsidy of 5,000 francs.

For the first time a pro-Flemish party will run for the elections, i.e. a party that is separate from the both the Liberal and the Catholic party. Conscience is a candidate for the fifth district ( the part of town between the Kipdorppoort and Borgerhout ). He is supported by Wappers, who in the eyes of his French-speaking liberal friends, compromises himself by offering this support. Furthermore, Wappers opposes the plans of his friend Charles Rogier to transfer the organization of the Prix de Rome from Antwerp to Brussels. This results in a campaign in the press against Wappers and Conscience, who are accused of neglecting their duties and of mismanagement.

1852 24 March. Wappers resigns as director. Conscience remains in office.

Jan Antoon Verschaeren becomes interim director.

Louis de Taeye ( 1822–1890 ) starts teaching history of costume and literature at the Academy ( till 1866 ).

In the presence of Charles Rogier, a marble statue of Van Bree is inaugurated in the entrance hall of the museum ; the work was made by the recently deceased Jan-Baptist De Cuyper. Writer and journalist Lodewijk Gerrits publishes a Levensbeschrijving van M.I. Van Brée ( Biography of M.I. Van Brée ), which was commissioned by the “Committee of the Statue”.

The museum’s first catalogue is published. It was prepared by a commission that was headed by Léon de Burbure.

The text was written by the writer ( and later politician ) Jan-Alfried De Laet ( 1815–1891 ).

10 May. Foundation of the Cercle Artistique, Litéraire et Scientifique d’Anvers ( Antwerp Artistic, Literary and Scientific Circle ) ; its members are mainly French-speaking intellectuals and artists. Mayor Loos will preside over the society. The Cercle absorbs the Verbond van Antwerpse Kunstenaars ( Society of Antwerp Artists ) and advocates a reorganisation of the Academy. It wants to reintroduce teaching by masters and a reform of the Board. The directorship for life must be abolished. Some believe that the author of this proposal is Jozef Lies. Leys advocates the proposal in the Antwerp town council, but to no avail.

Laurens Alma Tadema ( 1836–1912 ) studies at the Academy from 1852 until 1855 ; his teachers include Wappers, Jozef Van Lerius and Verschaeren.

1853 5 September. Leopold I installs the Academic Corps.

Wappers moves to Paris, where he is warmly welcomed at the court of Napoleon III. Apart from historical scenes, he also portrays the aristocracy of the Second Empire.

1854 Conscience resigns as registrar.

Jozef Van Lerius ( 1823–1876 ) succeeds Jozef Dijckmans as teacher of “Painting and perspective”.

210

Henri de Braekeleer ( 1840–1888 ) studies at the Academy ( till 1856 ). Among his teachers are Edward Dujardin, who illustrated Conscience’s work, as well as Jacob Jacobs and possibly Van Lerius. Together with his fellow student Jan Stobbaerts, de Braekeleer often works in the open air.

The fourth centenary of the Guild of Saint Luke is celebrated. Performance of the cantata An Ode to Art by music historian and composer Léon de Burbure de Wesembeek ( 1812–1889 ).

Public notary Van Berckelaer draws up the statutes of the Cercle Artistique. There will be five departments : visual arts, science, music, French literature, and Dutch literature. The Cercle will organize numerous exhibitions and concerts. Before long a Flemish branch is founded, which becomes famous as the Kunstverbond.

1855 De Keyser becomes director of the Academy. As administrator, Léon de Burbure is in charge of the daily routine.

Ferdinand de Braekeleer becomes a member of the Academic Corps.

Eugeen Zetternam ( 1826–1855 ) publishes his novel Hoe men schilder is ( Being a Painter ). The book is a complement to Conscience’s Hoe men schilder wordt ( How to Become a Painter ). Zetterman advocates an authentic art and warns against the dangers of superficial art criticism and the practices of the ( Brussels ) art dealers. In his essay Bedenkingen op de Nederlandsche Schilderschool ( Reflections on the Dutch School of Painting ), he also severely criticizes Van Bree’s posthumous reputation. Zetterman blames Van Bree for the un-Flemish character of his paintings, fulminates against his restorations of old masters, and even denies his merit as a teacher. He therefore strongly condemns Van Bree being honoured with a statue.

On 22 October, Rubens’ vault is opened in the Church of St Jacob, in the presence of the painters Kremer, Verlinden, Ferdinand de Braekeleer, the sculptor De Cuyper, and others. According to the minutes, it is impossible to identify Rubens’ skeleton inside the vault in which fifteen people have been buried.

Leys wins the gold medal at the World Fair in Paris. On 26 November, the town organizes a banquet to celebrate the event, and Leys receives a gold wreath in the museum.

1856 To mark the 25th anniversary of his accession to the throne, King Leopold I visits Antwerp and a statue of Anthony van Dyck is inaugurated on the square in front of the Academy. The sculptor is Léonard De Cuyper ( 1813–1870 ), the brother of Jan-Baptist. At the ceremony, a cantata is performed for which Julius De Geyter ( 1830–1905 ) wrote the text. The night before, a banquet was held for the king at the museum.

Henri de Braekeleer studies with his uncle Hendrik Leys ( until 1857 ).

1857 2 June. The teaching staff of the Academy receives the royal family and the Russian Grand Duke Constantine in the museum.

1858 Henri de Braekeleer makes his debut at the Antwerp Salon.

King Leopold I visits the exhibition on 4 September.

1859 The museum receives the collection bequeathed by Baroness Van den Hecke-Baut de Rasmon, which comprises 41 paintings, most of them dating from the seventeenth century.

1861 Director De Keyser receives a commission to decorate the hall of the museum with wall paintings that glorify The History of the Flemish School. He portrays all the eminent painters that once played a part on the Antwerp art scene, but “forgets” his predecessor Wappers.

Leys receives a commission to decorate the Honorary Hall in the town hall with ten historical wall paintings that portray the main episodes of the history of Antwerp.

17 to 22 August. The Inrigtend Middenkomiteit Ceremonies and Celebrations ), which is headed a thousand participants from home and abroad. in the choir of the neogothic Church of Saint

der Kunstplechtigheden en Feesten ( Organizing Committee of Art

by Major Loos, organizes an Art Congress ; there are more than The opening day also sees the inauguration of the wall paintings George, which were painted by Godfried Guffens and Jan Swerts.

The Art Congress discusses issues of material, artistic, and philosophical interest. The French painter Gustave Courbet ( 1819–1877 ) delivers a speech in which he defends realism, albeit more on political than on artistic grounds. In the course of the Congress, the statue of Boduognat is inaugurated. It is placed in the middle

211

of the roundabout of the Leopoldlei ( now the Belgiëlei ) and the Charlottalei ; it was made by Jozef Jaak Ducaju ( 1823–1891 ).

The 50th anniversary of the Maatschappij ter Aanmoediging der Schone Kunsten ( Society for the Encouragement of Fine Arts ) is celebrated.

1862 Leys urges the members of the provincial Commission for Monuments not to install the collection of the Museum of Antiquities ( which still has to be established ) in the museum of the Academy.

1863 Town councillor and painter Jozef Bellemans ( 1816–1888 ) advocates the foundation of a museum of contemporary art. Works could be purchased at the triennial Salons.

Juliaan De Vriendt ( 1842–1935 ) studies at the Academy ( till 1865 ). He is influenced by Leys.

1864 20 to 25 August. Festivities to celebrate the second centenary of the Academy. The streets are decorated.

The Salon opens its doors. There are processions, concerts, theatre and choir contests, an agricultural show, and a festive parade.

Konstantijn Simillion ( 1837–1915 ) is laurelled for his Levensschets van David Teniers de Jonge ( Biography of David Teniers the Younger ) and F. Jos. Van den Branden ( 1837–1922 ) for his Geschiedenis der Academie van Antwerpen ( History of the Antwerp Academy ). Both monographs are published in 1865, together with a survey of the festive celebrations in a Festschrift that is entitled Kermisfeesten van Antwerpen 1864 ( Kermis in Antwerp 1864 ).

Ferdinand de Braekeleer becomes one of the administrators of the museum of the Academy.

1867 F. Jos. van den Branden publishes his Geschiedenis der Academie van Antwerpen ( History of the Antwerp Academy ). The book is a solid monograph, based on historical sources. Van den Branden concludes the book with a plea for Dutch to be used as a language in the classroom.

Inauguration of David Teniers’ bronze statue on the Teniersplaats. The statue was made by Ducaju. Léon de Burbure’s overture David Teniers of de Boerenkermis ( David Teniers or the Peasants’ Kermis ) is performed at the inauguration. Later, the statue is moved to the garden of the Academy, but in the early 1900s, it is again moved back to the Teniersplaats.

Leys receives another award in Paris and the Statiestraat is renamed Leysstraat in his honour.

1868 Jean-Baptiste Michiels ( 1821–1890 ) starts to teach engraving ( which he continues till 1886 ).

1869 Leys dies from a heart disease.

Hendrik Schaefels ( 1827–1904 ) becomes a member of the town council ( till 1872 ).

1872 Edward Vermorcken ( 1820–1906 ) starts teaching wood engraving.

Inauguration of De Keyser’s paintings in the hall of the museum.

1873 25 August. A strike of lightning causes a fire in the municipal weighing house. There is fear that the flames will spread to the museum. Fortunately, the fire brigade manages to control the fire in time. After the fire, the town council considers moving the museum to other premises.

For the first time, the museum purchases works of art at the Salon for the new department of modern masters.

The purchases are done by a commission that has a budget of 40,000 francs, half of which is provided by the government in Brussels, the other half by the town council.

18 August. Leopold II inaugurates the ornamented hall of the Cercle Artistique.

It is decorated with life-size portraits of artists and scientists.

The Cercle Artistique is given permission to call itself “Royal” from now on.

212

1874 Since Wappers does not feature in De Keyser’s wall paintings of The Flemish School, a marble bust of him is installed in the hall of the museum.

1875 2 December. The town council decides to buy a building lot for the new museum in the South district.

1876 Karel Verlat ( 1824–1890 ) starts teaching. He turns out to be a demanding, but also talented teacher.

From 1850 to 1868, Verlat stays in Paris, where he studies with Ary Scheffer ; he also frequents Courbet’s studio. From 1869 to 1874 he is director of the Kunstschule in Weimar. He also travels to the Middle East and stays there for two years ( 1875–1876 ).

1877 An architectural contest is organized and Jean Jacques Winders ( 1849–1936 ) and Frans Van Dyk ( 1853–1939 ) are commissioned to build a new museum.

1878 De Keyser resigns. Joseph Geefs ( 1808–1885 ) temporarily takes over his duties.

1879 A committee is founded which is commissioned by the minister to study a reform of the Academy.

De Keyser dies. Verlat succeeds him on the committee.

1880 Joseph Van Luppen ( 1834–1891 ) succeeds Jacob Jacobs to teach landscape painting.

Henry Van de Velde studies painting ( till 1883 ).

1883 The Irishman Roderic O’Connor ( 1860–1940 ) studies at the Academy ( till 1884 ).

Eugène Siberdt ( 1851–1931 ) starts teaching at the Academy.

Foundation of the artists’ group Wees U zelf ( Be Yourself ). Its manifesto was written by Piet Verhaert, who is a strong supporter of tradition. Members include Frans Van Kuyck ( who will later become Alderman for Fine Arts ), Eugeen Joors, Edgard Farasyn, Emile Claus, Theodoor Verstraete, and other artists.

Young artists found the circle Als ick can ( If I Can ). They are outraged by the fact that they are not allowed to show their work at the exhibitions organized by the Kunstverbond ( Art Society ). Of all the members, only Henry Van de Velde ( 1863–1957 ) is still famous.

Homage to Henri de Braekeleer after his triumph at the World Fair in Amsterdam.

1884 Alfons Van Beurden ( 1854–1938 ) starts teaching sculpture.

1885 Verlat becomes director.

Frans Lauwers starts teaching engraving ( which he continues till 1906 ).

Foundation of the Higher Institute of Fine Arts. The king appoints the teachers. The latter propose three candidates, one of which will be appointed director by the competent minister. The director will lead the school for three years. As well as having to take an entrance exam, anyone who wants to study at the Academy needs a letter of recommendation from the teacher in whose studio he will work. There are seven studios at the Higher Institute : three for painting, one for sculpture, architecture, burin engraving, and medal engraving. The lessons are taught in Dutch, but the students have to prove that they also know French.

By the end of November, Vincent van Gogh ( 1853–1890 ) arrives in Antwerp. He visits the house that Leys used to live in and writes about his visit to his brother Theo.

213

1886 Juliaan De Vriendt becomes the first president of the Higher Institute ( till 1894 ). Under his management, the students’ evaluation takes into account the whole of their achievements, not just their exam results.

Pieter Van Havermaet ( 1834–1897 ) and Piet Van der Ouderaa ( 1841–1915 ) start teaching at the Academy.

In January, Van Gogh starts taking lessons at the Academy. He becomes embroiled in a conflict with Verlat, Frans Vinck ( 1827–1903 ) and especially with Eugène Siberdt ( 1851–1931 ). Van Gogh leaves the Academy and moves to Paris. A month later, on 31 March, the teachers at the Antwerp Academy decide that seventeen students, including Van Gogh, have failed their exams.

1887 Lessons begin at the Higher Institute. Of the thirty-three students, twelve start classes in figure painting, five start landscape painting and another five animal painting. The class of animal painting is taught by Verlat. The other teachers are Frans Baeckelmans ( 1827–1896, architecture ), Joseph Coosemans ( landscape, till 1904 ), Louis de Taeye ( monumental art, theory ), Juliaan De Vriendt ( figure painting, till 1894 ), JeanBaptiste Michiels ( engraving ), Piet Van der Ouderaa ( figure painting, and from 1896 also drawing, till 1914 ), Edward Vermorcken ( wood engraving ) and Thomas Vinçotte ( 1850–1925 ) who teaches sculpture ( till 1921 ).

The Irishman Dermod O’Brien ( 1845–1945 ) studies at the Academy ( till 1890 ).

1888 20 July. Death of Henri de Braekeleer.

1889 The Belgian government and the town of Antwerp increase the subsidies for purchasing work by modern masters : both will contribute 25,000 francs.

1890 13 January. In the presence of his academic colleagues, the town council honours architect Schadde for the award he received at the World Fair in Paris.

11 August. King Leopold II inaugurates the new museum in the Volksplaats ( now Leopold de Waelplaats ).

The works of the museum of the Academy stay in the Mutsaertstraat.

The statue of Mattheus Ignatius van Bree is moved from the hall of the old museum to the garden of the Academy.

Gustave Biot ( 1833–1905 ) starts teaching engraving at the Higher Institute.

Verlat dies.

1891 Albrecht De Vriendt ( 1843–1900 ) becomes director of the Academy.

Victor Lagye ( 1825–1896 ) starts teaching at the Academy and the Higher Institute. At the latter he teaches drawing and “Figures in dress and historical types”.

Alfred Cluysenaer ( 1837–1902 ) starts teaching decorative and monumental arts at the Higher Institute ( till 1902 ). Frans Van Leemputten ( 1850–1914 ) starts teaching animal painting.

Juliaan De Vriendt paints murals in the Antwerp courthouse, assisted by Karel Ooms and Piet Van der Oudera.

1892 At the Academy, Albrecht De Vriendt establishes the “Historical Gallery of Military Dress in the Netherlands”.

The collection is destroyed during World War II. Eugeen van Mieghem ( 1875–1930 ) studies at the Academy ( till 1896 ).

1894 Albrecht De Vriendt teaches figure painting and composition at the Higher Institute.

Juliaan De Vriendt becomes a member of parliament for the Catholic Party ( till 1900 ). He addresses the assembly in Dutch for his maiden speech. De Vriendt is also the father of the Equality Law ( 1898 ), which grants equal rights to both national languages.

214

1895 A Royal Decree makes the museum an autonomous institution, separate from the Academy.

Victor Lagye becomes director of the Higher Institute.

1896 Leonard Blomme ( 1840–1918 ) starts teaching architecture at the Higher Institute.

1897 Alderman Van Kuyck ( 1852–1915 ) commissions five teachers from the Academy to decorate the stairwell of the town hall. The five are all former students of Verlat : Hendrik Houben, Edward de Jans, Edgard Farasyn, Piet Verhaert and Karel Boom. Director Albert De Vriendt supervises the project. The scenes depict events from the first half of the sixteenth century. The keeper of the town records that F. Jos. Van den Branden deliberates with the artists on the project.

1899 Solemn inauguration of the paintings in the staircase of the town hall.

215

18 17

th th

Dries Lyna

Dreaming of Rubens The Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture in Antwerp ( 1663–1794 ) 1

1 The author would like to thank Bert De Munck, Filip Vermeylen, and Carl Goldstein for their valuable remarks on earlier versions of this article, as well as the FWO ( Fund for Scientific Research ), the Fulbright Commission and the Getty Research Institute for their continued support.

2

“the only means [ … ] to restore these arts to their former glory.”

David Teniers the Younger, 1662

Unless otherwise indicated, the details from the historical overview of the Antwerp Academy are based on the nineteenth-century work by Frans Jos. Van den Branden, Geschiedenis der Academie van Antwerpen ( Antwerp 1867 ).

3

Zirka Zaremba Filipczak, Picturing Art in Antwerp, 1550–1700 ( Princeton 1987 ).

4

Filip Vermeylen, Painting for the Market : Commercialization of Art in Antwerp’s Golden Age ( Turnhout 2003 ).

5

Bert De Munck, “Le produit du talent ou la production de talent ? La formation des artistes à l’Académie des beaux-arts à Anvers aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles”, in : Paedagogica Historica 37 ( 2001 / 3 ), 576.

6

Neil De Marchi and Hans J. Van Magroet ( eds. ), Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe and the New World, 1450–1750 ( Turnhout 2006 ).

Pieter II de Jode after David Teniers the Younger, Portrait of the Painter David Teniers the Younger, engraving from Cornelis de Bie, Het Gulden Cabinet van de Edel Vry Schilderconst, Antwerpen, 1662 ( Museum Plantin-Moretus / Print Room, Antwerp )

In the first months of 1662, the respected Antwerp painter David Teniers the Younger ( 1610–1690 ) asked a Brussels cleric to translate a letter into Spanish.2 Though Teniers enjoyed the support of the Antwerp mayor and the Guild of Saint Luke, this was almost a one-man campaign, addressed to no less a person than King Philip IV of Spain, who ruled the Southern Netherlands. Teniers had been chamberlain and then court painter to the Brussels governor Leopold Wilhelm and his successor Don Juan of Austria. The reputation he had acquired in these functions in seventeenth-century Europe was such that he dared to ask the Spanish king for a favour. Teniers’ letter was born of frustration : over the course of the previous decades, he had seen with great sorrow how his beloved hometown and the arts had gradually withered away. Antwerp had buzzed with artistic creativity during the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth, but painting had been languishing since the deaths of the great masters, Rubens and Van Dyck, who had died in 1640 and 1641 respectively.3 Another factor was the changing nature of the art market in the early seventeenth century, with an ever increasing concentration of power in the hands of the art dealers, a state of affairs that put Teniers, the former deacon of the Guild of Saint Luke — the professional organization of artists — on the defence.4 The decrease in the public and private demand for art drove more and more young talent into the large studios, where they mass-produced paintings for the expanding export market.5 With this large supply of paintings, the art dealers went in search of new markets, in nearby towns and neighbouring countries, and even as far afield as Eastern Europe or territories overseas.6 The urban economy did not fare any better, after the Peace 219

7

Bruno Blondé and Ilja Van Damme, “Low Countries : Southern Netherlands between 1585 and 1830”, in : Joel Mokyr ( ed. ), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Economic History ( Oxford 2003 ), 392–394.

8

Van den Branden, Geschiedenis der Academie, 17.

9

A.Th. Van Looij, “De Antwerpse Koninklijke Akademie voor Schone Kunsten”, in : Anton Boschloo et al. ( eds. ), Academies of Art between Renaissance and Romanticism ( ‘s-Gravenhage [ The Hague ] 1989 ), 308.

of Münster ( 1648 ) had made it impossible to have free shipping traffic on the River Scheldt, and commercially speaking, Antwerp was bleeding to death.7 The artistic and economic decline of his hometown confirmed Teniers and his fellow artists in their belief that the town urgently needed a public, free academy of fine arts, as existed in Rome and in Paris, and that this academy would be “the only means to revive the arts and restore them to their former glory”.8 And indeed, thanks to his reputation, Teniers’ plea for financial aid did not fall on deaf ears : King Phillip’s decree of 6 July 1663 allowed the town to found an academy, which would come under the local Guild of Saint Luke. When Teniers arrived back in Antwerp with the Royal Charter, on 27 August 1663, festivities broke out in the town — the foundation of the Royal Antwerp Academy of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture was a fact.9

10 Nikolaus Pevsner, Academies of Art : Past and Present ( New York 1973 ) 34–36 ; Linda Olmstead Tonelli, “Academic Practice in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries”, in : Children of Mercury.

The Education of Artists in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century ( Providence 1984 ) 96 ; Carl Goldstein, Teaching Art : Academies and Schools from Vasari to Albers ( Cambridge 1996 ) passim.

David Teniers the Younger, The Painting Gallery of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm in Brussels, ca. 1651, oil on canvas ( Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna )

With this text I wish to ( re )discover the early history of the Antwerp Academy, from its glorious foundation in 1663 to its — albeit temporary — abolition under French rule in 1794. In the first instance, I will show how the sixteenth and early seventeenth-century academic tradition is rooted in Florence, Rome, and Paris, which were the outright sources of inspiration for the dream that Teniers and his Antwerp supporters sought to realise. As the years unfold, the first 150 years of the Academy prove tumultuous in a history that is characterized by blind ambition, naive hope and sometimes bitter disappointment.

The question then arises of how the Antwerp Academy was able to maintain its existence through all the inevitable ups and downs of those first 150 years, despite the fact that its good intentions of restoring Flemish art “to its former glory” were never really brought to fruition. Paradoxically, the key to answering this question resides not in the unremitting ambition of reviving the Flemish school, but in the unexpected importance of the Flemish school as a training centre for craftsmen and artisans in the context of the urban economy of eighteenth-century Antwerp.

THE ROOTS OF THE ACADEMIC TRADITION Thanks to Teniers’ remarkable initiative, one of the oldest public academies in the world was founded in Antwerp in 1663 — preceded only by the academies of Florence, Rome and Paris. These well-structured art schools had their roots in the Italian city states of the sixteenth century, where they were part of a much wider ideological programme that aimed to improve the socio-economic situation of artists in society, but was also meant to create a structured art education, intended not merely to teach skills, but rather to provide a broadly based and humanist schooling.10 Painting, sculpture and architecture took their place among the seven artes liberales — the liberal arts — which constituted the basic programme of the late medieval university programme, and they therefore had to wrest themselves free from the crafts ( the so-called artes mechanicae ). From that point of 220

view, the early academies became something like temples of emancipation that in the Italian society of the sixteenth century, had to support, as it were, the birth of the artist as creative genius.11

11 This emancipatory view of the academies was articulated emphatically in : Nathalie Heinich, Du peintre à l’artiste. Artisans et académiciens à l’âge classique ( Parijs 1993 ).

12

Bert De Munck, Technologies of Learning.

Apprenticeship in Antwerp from the 15th Century to the End of the Ancien Regime ( Turnhout 2007 ).

13

The length of time that an apprenticeship lasted differed from town to town and sometimes even from master to master. Hessel Miedema, “Kunstschilders, gilde en academie. Over het probleem van de emancipatie van de kunstschilders in de Noordelijke Nederlanden van de 16de en 17de eeuw”, Oud Holland 101 ( 1987 ), 19. For extra anecdotal evidence, see : Gabrielle Bleeke-Byrne, “The Education of the Painter in the Workshop”, in : Children of Mercury. The Education of Artists in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century ( Providence 1984 ), 29.

14

Pier-Francesco Alberti, An Academy in Rome ( probably the Accademia di San Luca ), end of the sixteenth century, engraving ( Metropolitan Museum, New York )

Pevsner, Academies of Art, 42–45 ; Olmstead Tonelli, “Academic Practice”, 96.

15

This academic ideal was transformed into a revolutionary system of education that passed over the then prevailing system of apprenticeship in the studio of the master painter or sculptor.12 During their academic education, which lasted on average from four to six years, young teenagers received intense practical training that was aimed at developing the basic skills required to become a good artist.13 But enlightened minds such as Leonardo da Vinci ( 1452–1519 ) and later Giorgio Vasari ( 1511–1574 ) — writer of the famous Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects — were increasingly convinced that painting and sculpture were more an intellectual occupation than a simple craft, and that young artists had to acquire more theoretical knowledge.14 They therefore developed a specialized academic programme, which by definition had to be complementary to the practical training received in the art studio, rather than seeking to replace it. Apart from drawing from plaster casts and nude models, the academy also had to provide lessons in perspective and geometry, as well as lectures on art theory and mythology. In addition, a library well equipped with books on art theory, building plans and engravings with antique sculptures was also designed to facilitate the intensive study of the academicians.15 Shortly after Vasari had presented his revolutionary plans to the Florentine Grand Duke Cosimo de’ Medici, Europe witnessed the birth of the first public Accademia del Disegno in 1563.16 Thirty years later followed the famous Accademia di San Luca in Rome.17 But these drawing schools were anything but unique in the Italian city states of the late sixteenth century : countless small private academies were founded by individual artists, who provided drawing lessons to young men according to a regular timetable. The most famous among these was the Accademia degli Incamminati that was founded in around 1582 by the brothers Carracci in Bologna.18 It would take until the foundation of the Parisian Académie Royale de Peinture et Sculpture in 1648 for the academic tradition to crystallize into its definitive shape.19 The curriculum of this French arts school, which was probably devised by painter and art theorist Charles Le Brun ( 1619–1690 ), emphasized the tremendous importance of a basic knowledge of architecture, perspective, mathematics, anatomy and history. However, as was the case with its Italian predecessors, drawing from a live model remained the backbone of the 221

Pevsner, Academies of Art, 92 ; Olmstead Tonelli, “Academic Practice”, 96–97.

16 Karen-Edis Barzman, The Florentine Academy and the Early Modern State : the Discipline of Disegno ( Cambridge 2000 ).

17 Pevsner, Academies of Art, 55.

18

Idem, 73 ; Charles Dempsey, “Some Observations on the Education of Artists in Florence and Bologna during the Later Sixteenth Century”, Art Bulletin 62 ( 1980 ) 552–569 ; Idem, “The Carracci Academy”, in : Boschloo et al. ( eds. ), Academies of Art, 33–43 ; Carl Goldstein, “The Carracci Academy”, in : Carl Goldstein, Visual Fact over Verbal Fiction : a Study of the Carracci and the Criticism, Theory, and Practice of Art in Renaissance and Baroque Italy ( Cambridge / New York 1988 ).

19

Reed Benhamou, Public and Private Art Education in France, 1648–1793 ( Oxford 1993 ).

20 Pevsner, Academies of Art, 86–87.

21

Reed Benhamou, Regulating the Académie : Art, Rules and Power in ‘Ancien Régime’ France ( Oxford 2009 ).

22

Olmstead Tonelli, “Academic Practice”, 104–105.

23

Van Looij, “De Antwerpse Koninklijke Akademie”, 309.

24 Filipczak, Picturing Art, 167.

academic programme, to the extent that Louis XIV even granted the Academy a monopoly on public drawing lessons, which de facto meant that individual artists were banned from teaching drawing.20 This monopoly emphasized the absolute power of the Académie Royale de Peinture et Sculpture in late seventeenth and early eighteenth-century France over both the local art guilds and individual painters and sculptors.21 Though the Italian and French academies were founded against different political and cultural backgrounds, they both embodied the same academic ideology : the emancipation of art and artists from craftsmanship in general and manual labour in particular, by providing an intellectual education to young, creative minds, with a focus on drawing skills.

Before long, the splendid example that they set was being followed throughout Western and Central Europe, and in the late seventeenth and a fortiori in the early eighteenth century, numerous towns welcomed public drawing schools and fine arts academies. Whilst it is the Berlin Academy, founded by Frederick I of Prussia in 1697 that is usually seen as the first to follow in the footsteps of the French Academy,22 it was in fact Antwerp, not Berlin, that became home to the second oldest academy of fine arts north of the Alps.

DREA MING OF RUBENS As mentioned above, following the Italian and French examples, Teniers wanted to provide a broad programme at the Antwerp Academy. Students would not only be introduced to drawing from a live model, the basic principles of painting, engraving and sculpture — they would also learn about geometry, perspective and architecture. But despite these good intentions, financial constraints compelled the deacons of the Guild of Saint Luke to limit the art curriculum in the first decades of the Academy’s existence to free morning classes in summer and evening classes in winter with a course in drawing from a live model.23 The teaching staff consisted of the deacons of the Guild of Saint Luke.

The first generation of teachers comprised the best painters in Antwerp at that time, such as Jacob Jordaens ( 1593–1678 ), Jan Cossiers ( 1600–1671 ) and Frans Francken ( 1607–1667 ).

But this close link with the painter’s craft, which was so important in the first decades of the existence of the Antwerp Academy — and which was almost unique in Europe24 — would cause problems at the end of the seventeenth century.

Jacob Jordaens, Pegasus, ca. 1664, oil on canvas, from the Painting Room of the Guild of Saint Luke in the Oude Beurs ( KMSKA )

222

When the new governor Maximilian II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria, announced that he would visit Antwerp in February 1693, the Guild of Saint Luke saw a splendid opportunity to ask for much-needed subsidies for the Academy. Since its foundation, the deacons had never given up the hope of providing not only drawing lessons dal nudo, but also from antique plaster casts, as well as offering courses in perspective. Furthermore, the rather large student population — some hundred students every year — had also confronted them with the acute shortage of space on the first floor of the Antwerp Exchange. In great haste, the guild commissioned a stage play intended to highlight their plea for financial support.

In this play, the personification of the Antwerp Academy presents its specific needs ( and thus a possible solution ) to the governor with these words : “But give the artist the Borze [ stock exchange ], so that the treasure of art can praise the fame of this city.” 25

Jacob Jordaens, Industry and Trade Promoting the Flowering of the Arts, ca. 1664, oil on canvas, from the Painting Room of the Guild of Saint Luke in the Oude Beurs ( KMSKA )

Jacob Jordaens, Justice, or Human Law Based on Divine Law, ca. 1664, oil on canvas, from the Painting Room of the Guild of Saint Luke in the Oude Beurs ( KMSKA )

The writer of this play was Barbara Ogier, the wife of the sculptor Kerrickx, who was also deacon of the Guild of Saint Luke and a teacher at the Academy. As such, she is a very reliable source with regard to the self-image of the Academy. With these words, spoken in 1693, she characterized the Academy in the same way that Teniers had done at the time of its foundation : a training centre for artists that aimed to revive the Antwerp school of painting. Back then, King Philip IV of Spain had provided financial aid for the foundation 223

25 Barbara Ogier, Verwellecominghe op de saele van pictura aen syne keurvorstelycke doorluchtigheydt Maximiliaen Emanuel … gouverneur deser Nederlanden, gheschiet op den 21. februarius 1693 ( Antwerp 1693 ).

26 Dries Lyna, The Cultural Construction of Value. Art Auctions in Antwerp and Brussels ( 1700–1794 ) ( unpublished PhD thesis ) ( University Antwerp 2010 ), 101.

27

“Heur, Joseph Cornelis d’”, in : Abraham Hans Van der Aa, Biographisch woordenboek der Nederlanden, V. 8 ( Haarlem 1867 ), 731 ; A. Siret, “Heur, Corneille Joseph d’”, in : Biographie Nationale, V. 9 ( Brussels 1887 ), 329–330 ; “Herreyns, Guillaume Jacques”, in : Van der Aa, Biographisch woordenboek, V. 8 ( Haarlem 1867 ), 687 ; Willem Jacob Herreyns ( 1743–1827 ) : een monografische benadering ( unpublished MA thesis ) ( K.U.Leuven 1999 ).

of the Academy, and in 1693, the new governor could not resist this siren song. After viewing the apparently very convincing stage play, Maximilian promised to lobby with King Charles II, the son of Philip IV, for new financial privileges.

The governor kept his word and to a certain extent, the new financial means provided by the Spanish king allowed the Academy to grow. In the winter of 1694 the new course in “drawing from antique model” was introduced, which meant that the Academy could organize higher and lower classes ( “drawing from a nude model” and “drawing from plaster casts”, respectively ), and that it could hope to reach a wider public. Indeed, in the first decade of the eighteenth century, the free drawing lessons attracted a growing number of students, not only from Antwerp itself and the surrounding region, but also from distant places in French, English, and German territories.

Willem Kerrickx, Bust of Maximilian II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria, governor of the Spanish Netherlands, 1694, marble ( KMSKA )

At the end of the seventeenth century, however, the Academy became the victim of the increasing financial problems that beset the Guild of Saint Luke, the organizer of the classes. Paradoxically, in 1701, the Guild even came knocking at the door of the Academy — its subsidiary — for financial assistance.26 As the deacons of the artisan guilds — who also taught courses at the Academy — were supposed to make up any yearly deficits on the accounts with their own means, the guild found it increasingly difficult to find candidates for these functions. They were therefore forced to turn to the art dealers and book printers to fill the vacant positions for deacons. Compared to the trained painters and sculptors these new deacons were of course less qualified to give drawing lessons.

More and more deacons therefore started to neglect their teaching duties, which led to a decreasing number of classes and to dwindling numbers of students in the remaining classes. Students in turn lost their motivation and respect for the teachers that remained.

In 1719, the drawing classes were even temporarily suspended because the students had thrown clay and dirt at the nude model. In 1722, the classes in drawing from plaster casts were simply abolished because hardly any students had enrolled for them and because of the general economic recession.27

224

In the summer of 1741, six artists — including the architect Jan Peter van Baurscheit the Younger ( 1699–1768 ) — were fed up with this situation and offered a way out for the Guild of Saint Luke : they would give drawing lessons free of charge, which meant that the deacons were released from their teaching duties. The guild consented, but contrary to what they had hoped for, the six artists actually managed to find the necessary funds amongst the Antwerp elite to breathe new life into the Academy and to lure more students to the town. In just one year the number of students more than doubled from thirty to seventy-five. The guild was not particularly pleased with this success, and it sought to regain control of the Academy through the court. After a long judicial battle, the guild and the Academy finally decided to part amicably in November 1749. From now on the Antwerp Academy was an independent institute, though the deacons remained personally involved with the school.

Jan Jozef Horemans II, Joyous Entry of Charles of Lorraine in Antwerp in 1749, undated, oil on canvas ( KMSKA )

Andries Cornelis Lens, Portrait of the Engraver Pieter Francis Martenasie, 1762, oil on canvas ( KMSKA )

225

28 Quoted in : Van Looij, “De Antwerpse Koninklijke Akademie”, 314.

29 “Lens, Andreas Cornelis”, in : Van der Aa, Biographisch woordenboek, deel 11 ( Haarlem 1865 ), 335–336.

In the years that followed, the Antwerp Academy blossomed like never before. In June 1755, the governor of the Austrian Netherlands, Charles of Lorraine, famous as a patron of the arts, proposed a reform of the Antwerp Academy, modelled on the programme of the other European academies. In the introduction to his 24–point plan, Charles referred to the flowering of other art schools as a direct consequence of the establishing of academies that followed the French model. According to the governor, the Antwerp Academy had the same potential to revive the glory of the Flemish painting school, and that end could finally be achieved with his reform plan. But the Antwerp town council voted against Charles’ plans, as it rightly feared that it was his intention to increase the control of the central authorities over the Academy. Charles understood the council’s objections and withdrew his plan, though he remained an important patron for the Academy by sponsoring the silver medals awarded in its contests.

Willem Jacob Herreyns, Portrait of the Painter Andries Cornelis Lens, undated ( ca. 1770 ), oil on canvas ( KMSKA )

Except for a brief intermezzo featuring “drawing from plaster casts” at around the turn of the century, the academic curriculum was limited to “drawing from a live model” till the mid-eighteenth century. Teniers’ ambitious plans to organize theoretical lectures like those seen in Florence, Rome and Paris, had thus come to nothing. However, after 1749, the welcome financial independence of the Academy resulted in a renewed urge for action : for example, the new Board member Jozef d’Heur ( 1707–1762 ) provided free lessons in geometry, perspective and architecture.28 A few years after his death, the young teacher Willem Herreyns ( 1743–1827 ) breathed new life into these subjects, because he believed that the student “was lacking in basic knowledge” about them. He obviously endorsed Teniers’ wider curriculum by claiming that “the need to study these subjects had been recognized since the time of the foundation of the Academy”.29 In the summer of 1765, “drawing from antique plaster casts” was also resumed by Pieter Martenasie ( 1729–1789 ). Thus the Antwerp 226

Academy gradually lived up to its original ambition and developed into a fully-fledged school of fine arts.

Despite the formal separation and its financial independence, close ties between the Academy and the Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke continued to exist in the third quarter of the eighteenth century. A number of deacons were always involved with teaching, and the guild regularly made its large hall in the Antwerp Exchange available for teaching when there were too many students in certain classes. When, in 1755, the town council opposed Charles of Lorraine’s reform, the guild emphasized its complementary character and the fact that a link was inevitable, since the Academy provided drawing lessons, but the basic training of the artist still took place in the studios of the masters of Saint Luke.

30 J. Dierckx, “Kunstschilder Andreas Cornelis Lens als theoreticus 1739–1822”, Gentsche bijdragen tot de kunstgeschiedenis 7 ( 1941 ), 173–209.

31

Van Looij, “De Antwerpse Koninklijke Akademie”, 313.

32 Frans Baudouin, “Bouw, beeldhouw- en schilderkunst”, in : Antwerpen in de XVIIIde eeuw : instellingen, economie, cultuur ( Antwerp 1952 ), 227. Christophe Loir has written an interesting study about the consequences of this “freeing” of the artists in the Southern Netherlands : L’émergence des beaux-arts en Belgique : institutions, artistes, public et patrimoine ( 1773– 1835 ) ( Brussels 2004 ).

33

Marcel Kocken, “De Koninklijke Academie voor Beeldende Kunsten te Mechelen ( 1772– 1972 )”, Handelingen van de Koninklijke Kring voor Oudheidkunde Mechelen 76 ( 1972 ), 200–260.

34

Van den Branden, Geschiedenis der Academie, 20.

Andries Cornelis Lens, Hercules Protects the Muse of Fine Arts against Envy and Ignorance, 1763, oil on canvas, from the director’s office at the Academy ( KMSKA )

However, the changing spirit of the age brought about the slow decline of the guilds of Saint Luke. In the Southern Netherlands, it was above all the painter Andries Cornelis Lens ( 1739–1822 ) who played a part in this. After undergoing successful training at the Antwerp Academy, Lens started teaching at the school in 1763, and shortly afterwards he was appointed director.30 Governor Charles of Lorraine was impressed by Lens’ work and promptly appointed him court painter before sending him on a study tour of Italy in 1765. It was there that Lens gradually became convinced that the Guilds of Saint Luke actually hindered the artist and that art education should do away with the system of the guilds.31 As a result of Lens’ constant lobbying with the central authorities in Brussels and Austria — Austria had ruled over the Southern Netherlands since 1713, when the War of the Spanish Succession had ended — Empress Maria Theresa passed a decree in November 1773 in which she expressed surprise at the fact that in the Southern Netherlands the fine arts “are still on a par with the mechanical arts and some of the masters in the liberal arts are obliged to be a member of the Guilds and the Corpora, which consist of manual workers and craftsmen”.32 To revive the languishing state of Flemish art, the Empress therefore decided to “free” the artist from the compulsory membership of the Guilds of Saint Luke, a move that in fact condemned these institutions to a certain death.33 Though the two had officially been separate since 1749, the abolition of the guild had a strong impact on the Academy, and after the period of renewed flowering, things stagnated in the last quarter of the eighteenth century. By 1771, because of problems with director Lens, the passionate teacher Herreyns had moved to Mechelen, where he founded a new drawing school.34

227

35 Goldstein, Teaching Art, passim.

36

Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp ( KASKA ), Old Archive, 293 ( 16 ).

37 De Munck, Technologies of Learning, 252–253.

Whereas during the Brabant Revolution ( 1789–1790 ), the Academy only closed its doors for a few days, the invasion of the French revolutionary troops inaugurated a period of hardship. On 15 September 1794 the Board took the difficult decision to suspend lessons for an indefinite time because of a lack of funding — with the exception of the classes in construction and perspective, which apparently did not cost any money. After a difficult decade, the Academy would reopen its doors in September 1805. In 1811 lessons started in the Mutsaardstraat, and since that year, classes have continued there without interruption.

Jan Antonie van der Ven, Bust of the Painter Willem Jacob Herreyns, 1827, marble ( KMSKA )

THE ACADEMY OF FINE ARTS AND THE URBAN ECONOMY Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth century, the Antwerp Academy was often referred to as the institute par excellence that would restore the former glory of the Flemish painting school. This specific argument was used by the deacons of the Guild of Saint Luke and later teachers to legitimize the existence of their Academy and its unabated hunger for subsidies. However, the permanent sense of melancholia and the continual references to the dream of giving birth once more to a talent like that of Rubens are witness to the fact that the Board never managed to revive the glorious days of the past. But how then was it possible that the Academy, with such ups and downs, managed to survive for more than 150 years, and even succeeded in filling so many students with enthusiasm, especially after 1749 ?

Although Teniers’ initial plea from 1662 was intended to convince the Spanish king with the argument that the Academy “would generate [ … ] good and great artists”, an accompanying report from the Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke also referred to the ripple effect that Teniers and his supporters aspired to. A successful Academy would not only draw artists to the town, but also art lovers, as well as creative craftsmen, from paint makers to picture framers and goldbeaters. Furthermore, from the very start, Teniers mentioned that academic subjects such as architecture, geometry and perspective were not only essential for visual artists, but could also play an important part for a variety of craftsmen : they could be “useful for silversmiths, stonedressers, builders, carpenters, cabinetmakers, and all those who would attend the courses.” 35 This remarkable openness towards other crafts — which was a crucial element in its eighteenth-century history — essentially distinguished the Antwerp Academy from its Italian and Parisian counterparts, where, in the last days of the Ancien Régime, only visual artists were admitted.36 Student records for classes in both the lower and higher years ( plaster casts and nude model respectively ) from the period of 1696–1705 show that for three decades or so, the Academy was on the right track towards making Teniers’ dream come true.37 For indeed, around the turn of the century, drawing lessons on the first floor 228

of the Antwerp Exchange were mainly attended by painters and carvers in ivory and wood who wanted to follow in the footsteps of Rubens and his ilk. About nine in ten students practised fine arts. But the silent hope that the Academy would also support the applied arts and related professions was a reality, for there were a few dozen woodcutters and engravers from the printing business, as well as silversmiths who studied at the Academy.38 As we mentioned earlier, the first four decades of the eighteenth century were simply dramatic for the Academy because of all sorts of financial problems and the parallel decline of the Guild of Saint Luke. Teachers and students alike excelled, above all, in a total lack of enthusiasm, which led to the number of drawing classes being decreased or simply abolished. In addition, in 1722, the Academy had to cede one of its classrooms in the Exchange to the Imperial Ostend Company. It is only after the remarkable initiative of Van Baurscheit and its subsequent autonomy that the Academy regained its familiar dynamism from the late seventeenth century. In 1756, for the first time in its history, it offered lessons in geometry, perspective and architecture ; after 1765, with the arrival of Herreyns, these would become a definite part of the curriculum. Actually, this extension of the curriculum would provide the basis for an architecture programme, and only seven years later, the first architecture contest was organized. Still in 1765, Martenasie breathed new life into the classes in drawing from plaster casts, and the town council hoped to organize anatomy classes shortly thereafter. Sadly, the latter wish remained unfulfilled.

Yet thanks to Herreyns and Martenasie, the curriculum had become explicitly broader, which meant that after years of inertia, the Academy could once more connect to similar art schools in Europe.

The renewed dynamism went further than just the teaching programme. Other personal initiatives emphasized the ambition to transform the Academy into a local knowledge centre. Oddly, at the time of its foundation, the Academy did not own a library, which was a sine qua non for its Italian and French predecessors — precisely the models Teniers and his successors sought to emulate. In 1760, director Jan-Baptist Verdussen, a descendant of a famous family of printers, therefore decided to donate to the Academy the most important works that were fundamental to the teaching of art. These included, for example, Florent le Comte’s Le Cabinet des Singularités d’Architecture, Peinture, Sculpture ( The Curiosity Cabinet of Architecture, Painting and Sculpture, 1702 ), Johan Van Gool’s De Nieuwe Schouburg der Nederlantsche Kunstschilders en Schilderessen ( The New Theatre of Dutch Painters, 1750 ), and Jean Baptiste Descamps’ La Vie des Peintres Flamands ( The Lives of the Flemish Painters, 1754 ).

Modest as it was, the importance of this donation cannot be overestimated. Young people hardly had access to books and written knowledge at the time, because the only “public” library in the Antwerp town hall was simply unknown to the general public. The visual literacy was also stimulated by the addition of new works to the collection of sculptures.

For his new lessons in 1765, Martenasie had 25 plaster sculptures cast at his own expense from the famous collection of the Duke of Arenberg. Later, he would donate the collection to the Antwerp Academy.39 These remarkable initiatives, combined with a dynamic teaching staff, enabled the Academy to attract a marked increase in the number of students in the third quarter of the eighteenth century. Though it is hard to find concrete numbers, the accumulation of indirect signals that have come to us from these decades is truly overwhelming. These indirect signals include, for example, the fact that the Board radically changed the teaching regulation only a year after the newly gained independence.40 It is no coincidence, moreover, that the extension of the curriculum after 1765 and the accompanying increase in the number of students both occurred at a time when Antwerp was prospering once again after a period of economic and demographic recession that had lasted a hundred years.41 In a letter to the town council from 1766, the Board of the Academy urgently required more classrooms in the buildings of the Exchange, “because the number of students from the town itself, from the surroundings, as well as from abroad has increased to such an extent that the current school for drawing from life has become too small”. 42 The class of “Drawing from plaster cast” was equally crowded, as can be inferred from the fact that hardly one year after Martenasie had started this course, he had to introduce a winter semester as well.

It was around the same time that the Academy managed, for the first time since the turn of the century, to look over the Antwerp walls. The plea for additional classrooms was not 229

38 Van Looij, “De Antwerpse Koninklijke Akademie”, 314.

39

Idem, 313.

40

Bart Willems, Leven op de pof. Krediet bij de Antwerpse middenstand in de achttiende eeuw ( Amsterdam 2009 ), 35–91 ; Blondé and Van Damme, “Low Countries”, 392–394.

41

Van den Branden, Geschiedenis der Academie, 120–121.

42

Idem, 121.

43 Gustaaf Albert De Wilde, Geschiedenis onzer Academiën van Beeldende Kunsten ( Leuven 1941 ), 160–161.

44 Pevsner, Academies of Art, 130.

45

Van den Branden, Geschiedenis der Academie, 122–123.

46 Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp ( KASKA ), Old Archive, 317 ( 30 ).

47 De Munck, Technologies of Learning, 252–253 ; Laura Van Geyt, De rol van de Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten binnen het Antwerpse timmerliedenambacht in het laatste kwart van de 18de eeuw ( unpublished MA thesis ) ( University Antwerp 2011 ).

48

Despite the growing importance of fashion, the Anwerp tailors and similar professions did not receive their design training at the Academy. Harald Deceulaer, Pluriforme patronen en een verschillende snit. Sociaaleconomische, institutionele en culturele transformaties in de kledingsector in Antwerpen, Brussel en Gent, 1585–1800 ( Antwerp 2001 ).

49

On the situation in Antwerp, see : Bruno Blondé, “Tableware and Changing Consumer Patterns. Dynamics of Material Culture in Antwerp, SeventeenthEighteenth Centuries”, in : Johan Veeckman ( ed. ), Majolica and Glass.

From Italy to Antwerp and Beyond. The Transfer of Technology in the Sixteenth – Early Seventeenth Century ( Antwerp 2002 ), 295–311 ; Idem, “Cities in Decline and the Dawn of a Consumer Society : Antwerp in the 17th-18th Centuries”, in : Bruno Blondé et al. ( eds. ), Retailers and Consumer Changes in Early Modern Europe : England, France, Italy and the Low Countries ( Tours 2005 ), 37–54.

just inspired by the increase in students, but was also intended “to preserve the leading position [ of the Antwerp Academy ] over the younger Dutch and foreign academies”. 43 At the time there were five more academies within the boundaries of the present state of Belgium, namely in Brussels ( founded 1711 ), Bruges ( founded 1717 ), Ghent ( founded 1751 ), Doornik ( founded 1757 ), and Kortrijk ( founded 1760 ).44 The Antwerp Academy was the oldest in the entire Netherlands — and similar public drawing schools in the Northern Netherlands were all founded much later ( The Hague in 1682, Amsterdam in 1708, and Utrecht in 1717 ).45 The Antwerp Academy was therefore no longer a local institute : in a short span of time it had become a knowledge centre that attracted students from far beyond the city walls and even from far beyond the borders of the Duchy of Brabant. In 1769 the Board therefore filed a petition for “national” subsidies from the States of Brabant ( i.e. the representatives of nobility, clergy and commons ). The States approved of the request, which added the sum of 200 guilders annually to the 300 guilders that the town of Antwerp provided each year.

However, there are clear signs that the majority of the strongly increasing student population of the 1760s did not enrol at the Academy in order to pursue the dream of becoming the new Rubens, but for entirely different reasons. After 1750, the extension of the curriculum attracted a significant number of students in the applied arts to Antwerp.

In April 1780, the Board issued new regulations for the classes of architecture, geometry and perspective ; and the regulations for the latter class in particular mentioned both the fine and the applied arts : “because the lessons in perspective would be useful and to the benefit of both the practitioners of the free arts and those of the artful crafts”. There was also a reference for that matter to the “laudable lessons” of Jozef d’Heur, who was apparently focusing on students of crafts as early as the late 1750s.46 Indeed, student records from the 1780s surprisingly show that for the classes of architecture, geometry and perspective it was not only practitioners of the applied arts that increasingly found their way to the Academy, but the strong increase in the student population was also partly due to “real” artisans and craftsmen enrolling.47 A handful of artists who practised the applied arts ( such as jewellers and glassblowers ) came to study, but more than half ( ! ) of the student population consisted of trainee carpenters, cabinetmakers and cartwrights.48 By using the phrase “artful crafts” in 1780, the Board was probably mainly referring, therefore, to the woodworking trades, and not so much to the traditional applied arts.

Frontispiece to Johan Van Gool, De Nieuwe Schouburg der Nederlantsche Kunstschilders en Schilderessen, ‘s Gravenhage [ The Hague ], 1750 ( KASKA )

It would be too hasty to infer from the growing numbers of artisans and craftsmen at the Academy that the programme to revive the fine arts had failed. What should become obvious, however, is the crucial role the Antwerp Academy played in the training of the craftsmen that stimulated the urban economy — a role that has so far been underestimated.49 Design and drawing skills played an ever-increasing role in the production of new consumer goods in the eighteenth century. In the late seventeenth century, the consumption pattern of 230

Antwerp citizens had undergone remarkable changes.50 Together with the introduction of new overseas commodities, a series of innovations in production and manufacturing had resulted in a growing diversification of the existing material culture. The use of cheaper raw materials and lower production costs resulted in cheaper but also less durable objects.51 “Fashionable” ousted “durable” as the main characteristic of objects. The continuous call for novelty, which resounds so strongly in our contemporary society, began as a soft whisper in seventeenth and eighteenth-century Europe.52 The growing importance of the epithet “fashionable” implied that design skills became more and more important to the successful artisan in the creative industries. It was not just the visual arts therefore that benefited from drawing classes that stimulated creative ideas — other sectors also welcomed these design skills.53 The growing number of craftsmen at the Antwerp Academy and their relatively high median age of twentyone54 should therefore be considered proof of the crucial role of the continued training in crafts, a training that was complementary to lessons learned on the shop floor with a master.55 Furthermore, it seems as if the programme of the Antwerp Academy was so popular among craftsmen that they came to the school from far and near. More than half of the carpenters and cabinetmakers that studied geometry, perspective and architecture in the last two decades of the eighteenth century, came from outside town, mostly from the age-old recruitment region east of Antwerp,56 but also from distant regions in the Southern Netherlands and even from France.57 However, the Antwerp Academy was certainly not the only art school in the Austrian Netherlands that welcomed an increasing number of craftsmen in the last decades of the eighteenth century. At the academies of Ghent and Bruges, the number of visual artists was, relatively speaking, even lower. 58 And whereas the foundation of a new wave of drawing schools in towns such as Mechelen ( founded 1771 ), Oudenaarde ( founded 1773 ), Ath ( founded 1773 ), Liège ( founded 1773 ), Temse ( founded 1776 ), Ypres ( founded 1780 ), and Mons ( founded 1781 ) is usually viewed within the context of amateurs taking an increasing interest in art, new research would doubtless show that in these cases, too, countless craftsmen came to hone their design skills in order to be more competitive in the urban economy. Though in the eyes of the outside world, the academies and drawing schools of the Austrian Netherlands continued to focus on the long-awaited revival of the Flemish school of painting, at the end of the eighteenth century, they were certainly as important as alternative training centres for young craftsmen who dreamt of a future in the urban economy.

TO CONCLUDE

Maxine Berg, “From Imitation to Invention : Creating Commodities in Eighteenth-Century Britain”, Economic History Review 55 / 1 ( 2002 ), 1–30 ; Idem, “New Commodities, Luxuries and their Consumers in Eighteenth-Century England”, in : Maxine Berg and Helen Clifford ( eds. ), Consumers and Luxury in Europe 1650–1850 ( Manchester 1999 ), 63–85.

51 About the desire for novelty in our contemporary consumer society, see : Colin Campbell, “The Desire for the New. Its Nature and Social Location as Presented in Theories of Fashion and Modern Consumerism”, in : Daniel Miller ( ed. ), Consumption. Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences ( London / New York 2001 ), 246–261.

52

Berg, “From imitation to invention”, 1–30 ; John Styles, “Product Innovation in Early Modern London”, Past and Present 168 ( 2000 ), 124–169.

53

Van Geyt, De rol van de Koninklijke Academie, 12.

4

With regard to the Ghent Academy, De Doncker has noted that for craftsmen, the start of their academic classes coincided with the start of their apprenticeship, or shortly afterwards. Tim De Doncker, The Institutional Context of Art Production in the Southern Low Countries during the Early Modern Period ( paper at the Posthumus Conference Antwerp, 13 May 2011 ).

55 Anne Winter, Migrants and Urban Change : Newcomers to Antwerp, 1760–1860 ( London 2009 ).

In the first months of 1663, the Spanish king, Philip IV, gave his permission for the famous painter David Teniers the Younger and some of his fellow artists to found an

56

Academy of Fine Arts in Antwerp, to be modelled after earlier Italian and French examples.

According to Teniers, such a school was urgently required, because it was “the only means to revive the arts and restore them to their former glory”, by which he was referring to the glorious days of Rubens, Van Dyck and other successful Antwerp painters. In the 150 years that followed, the same discourse emerged time and again, a discourse that was promoted by the Academy itself, because — despite its good intentions — it never managed to entirely realize its initial goal, namely that of an artistic revival. Generations of artists trained in this artistic centre, and though hope flared up every now and then, the success of the sixteenth and seventeenth century was never again equalled.

57 De Doncker, The Institutional Context ; Dominiek Dendooven, De Brugse academie in de achttiende eeuw ( unpublished MA thesis ) ( Vrije Universiteit Brussel 1994 ), 129.

But while the so-called “dream of Rubens” impatiently haunted the corridors of the Academy, the school rooted itself more firmly in the Antwerp soil, especially in the period after 1750. The Academy turned into an institute that was more than merely an artistic training centre where the fine arts were taught : it also became a knowledge centre for young craftsmen in the context of the urban economy. Changing consumption preferences and a growing desire for fashionable products attracted hundreds of students to the academy — students who were engaged in a trade that was connected to woodworking, and who wanted to indulge the needs of their ( future ) customers. Lessons in geometry and 231

50

Van Geyt, De rol van de Koninklijke Academie, 14.

58 Dendooven, De Brugse Academie, 8 ; De Doncker, The Institutional Context, 8.

perspective were complementary to training on the shop floor with a master craftsman and also helped to develop the basic skills of drawing, as well as stimulating the creative mind, in order to add a touch of individual inventiveness to their products.

Oddly enough, after 1750 the Antwerp Academy never wholeheartedly embraced its wider significance as a training centre for creative talent beyond the fine arts. In its discourse, the Board somewhat stubbornly continued to emphasize the artistic character of its programme, and time and again it reiterated that its aim was to revive the Antwerp painting school, which was considered a pars pro toto for Flemish art as a whole. But looking back on 150 years of history of the Antwerp Academy, it was probably precisely this much hoped for additional value created by the students involved with the applied arts and by craftsmen that inspired Teniers to found “his” Academy in 1663, and it was students of useful arts that also assured its survival in the eighteenth century. By providing ( almost ) free “ingenious” education and by putting visual material and library books at the disposal of the students, the Academy made sure that the craftsmen were able to acquire the necessary visual vocabulary to express their creativity — an advantage that became more and more important in the urban economy of the eighteenth century. Even if, with hindsight, the Antwerp Academy of Fine Arts never realized its aspiration of emancipating painters and sculptors from their artisanal backgrounds, it did provide craftsmen with the opportunity to become artists.

232

Beatrijs Wolters van der Wey

Peter Thys’ Foundation of the Academy : Comments on an Iconic Image

1

Archive of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp ( hereafter KASKA ), Modern Archive, bundles C 958 ( Creytens, Julien ).

2

Written communication dated 23 March 2008, for which I am very grateful to Dr Guido Persoons.

3

In 1956 the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp ( KASKA ) received an exceptional present. In a letter dated 27 December, the then director Julien Creytens ( 1949–1962 ) expressed his thanks to the donor, “Mr Jacobs van Merlen, president of Artibus Patriae” with the following words : “Mr President, I have the honour and the great pleasure to thank you sincerely for the painting by Peter Thys you have donated, a painting that refers to the foundation of the Academy. This remarkable document will certainly draw the attention of anyone who is interested in the history of our Flemish art school. Please find enclosed a copy of an image of this painting. Yours sincerely, J. CREYTENS Director”.1 It was Guido Persoons, who later joined the staff of the Academy as scientific librarian ( 1960–1995 ), who reported this, along with other important first-hand information that had to do with the impressive group composition ( oil on canvas, 246 x 529 cm ) that has adorned the stairwell of the Henry van de Velde Institute ( the former National Higher Institute for Architecture and Urban Planning ) since 1963 / 64.2 Creytens had told Persoons that Louis Jacobs van Merlen — an important art patron from Antwerp, who had also been a member of the Supervisory Committee of the Antwerp Academy and a governor of the non-profit organization the Royal Society for the Encouragement of the Fine Arts — had discovered Thys’ painting at an antique dealer’s in Paris. Persoons only discovered the work in 1962, “in a perfect state” in the former Rubens Hall on the first floor of the old Museum of the Academy, an area which served as a storage space. In this space the painting “had been carefully stored, leaning against the wall, with the front facing the wall”. It is Persoons who should be thanked for the fact that the painting was put in a prominent place that was accessible to the public, where it could draw attention, and from where it could be included in the exhibition to mark the occasion of 300 years of the Antwerp Academy.3 A lot has been written since then about Thys’ painting and it has become almost an icon of the Academy.4 The 350th anniversary of its foundation is an excellent occasion, therefore, to draw up a state of affairs and comment on some aspects of the work.

ORIGIN OF THE IDENTIFICATION AND HISTORY OF THE PAINTING The composition that the Antwerp artist Peter Thys ( 1624–1677 ) painted in 1664 ( according to the year that is painted on the work ) and signed by the artist with the words “Peeter Thys fecit” ( in the top right corner ), features ten life-size men, portrayed full length, gathering around a stately figure on a throne. The figure on the throne, wearing a suit of armour, an ermine cape and a plumed hat, is handing a document to a man kneeling in front of him. The men portrayed are dressed in black gowns. They are distributed harmoniously over the steps of the throne, and they are accompanied by a few allegorical figures. In the background watching on are the goddess Minerva and Time — characterized in the form of an hourglass and a scythe. Time is trampling over a naked figure underfoot.

Above the group floats a winged female figure with a trumpet and a laurel wreath, as well as two putti ( cherubs ) with a brazier. In the foreground we notice, as it were, the depiction of a still life with several elements from a suit of armour. The widely draped red canopy, the red carpet on the steps and the deliberately antique appearance of the architecture with its heavy columns and the sculpted bust of a Roman general in a niche all add to the baroque character of this monumental group portrait that is directly reminiscent of the work of Anthony van Dyck ( 1599–1641 ) — as is often the case in Thys’ paintings.

Thys has used a variety of compositional lines, poses and gestures to portray a story in this work. Jacobs van Merlen and Creytens were convinced that the painting related to the presentation of the founding decree of the Antwerp Academy in 1663, which of course made it particularly attractive in its new setting. The ruler on the throne would therefore be King Philip IV of Spain ( 1610–1690 ), who is handing the founding charter to the painter David Teniers ( 1610–1690 ), co-founder of the drawing school, in the presence of a number 233

1663 / 1963.

1863 / 1963. Geschiedenis en uitstraling van de Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen ( exh. cat. KASKA ) ( Antwerp 1964 ), no. 44 ( illustration ).

4

The following articles about the painting appeared after 1964 : Marie-Louise Hairs, Dans le sillage de Rubens. Les peintres d’histoire anversois au XVIIe siècle ( Liège 1977 ), 268 ; Guido Persoons, “Betekenis van het historisch schilderstuk van Peter Thys 1664”, VRI.K.A. Periscoop 13 / 3 ( 1990 ), 30–34 ; Beatrijs Wolters van der Wey, “350 jaar Antwerpse Academie ( 1663–2013 ) : geen reden tot feestvieren voor het schilderij Stichting der Academie ( 1664 ) van Peter Thys”, Antwerpsche Tydinghen 33 / 4 ( 2012 ), 115–122. The work is also mentioned briefly and with a photograph of a fragment in Antwerpen. 1200 jaar Antwerpenaren en hun kunstenaars ( Waar is de tijd 5 ) ( Zwolle, Antwerp 1997 ), 113.

5

City Archive ( hereafter SAA ), Collection Guilds and Craft Guilds ( Gilden en Ambachten ), no. 5706 ( previously 4578 / bis ), Academy 1663–1784. The actual founding decree is quoted in : 1663 / 1963.

1863 / 1963. Geschiedenis en uitstraling van de Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen ( exh. cat. KASKA ) ( Antwerp 1964 ), no. 45.

6

Cf Hairs, Dans le sillage de Rubens, 268. The correspondence is conserved in the Archive of the Royal Museums of Fine Arts Belgium ( hereafter KMSKB ), FM, III, C24 / 239 ( my thanks to Mrs Michèle Van Kalck, archivist at the museum, for tracing this correspondence ).

7

Cf Jozef Glassée, Burgermecenaat in Antwerpen. De vereniging Artibus Patriae ( 1864 – ca 1964 ) ( unpublished MA thesis ) ( Leuven 2007 ).

8

Hairs, Dans le sillage de Rubens, 268. Gilberte Gepts was the main curator at the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp from 1973 to 1981, and in that role she announced a thorough study of the painting ( which was never carried out, so far as I have been able to check ).

9

Alfred Michiels, Histoire de la Peinture flamande depuis ses débuts jusqu’en 1864 9 ( Paris 1874² ), 16–18.

10 Frans Baudouin, “Concept, Design and Execution : The Intervention of the Patron”, in : Hans Vlieghe, Arnout Balis and Carl Van de Velde ( eds. ), Concept, Design & Execution in Flemish Painting ( 1550–1700 ) ( Turnhout 2000 ), 1–26, 13.

11 Persoons, “Betekenis van het historisch schilderstuk”, 31.

12

Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Art, inv. no. 132.

of eminent figures of that time who were seen as being the donors of the painting. Indeed, a “Memorandum for the directors of the Royal Academy in Antwerp” reminded that “This Academy was founded by Philip IV, King of Spain, on 6 July 1663, at the request of the famous David Teniers, who was at that time the Deacon of the Guild of Saint Luke in this town”.5 In the meantime a reconstruction of the history of the painting has allowed us to trace the origin of this interpretation. In April 1954 the work was offered for sale to Paul Fierens, chief curator at the Royal Museum for Fine Arts of Belgium in Brussels.6 From the correspondence between Fierens and the middleman, an art expert by the name of A. Kalmar ( Hôtel le Peletier, Paris 9 ), we know that the owner of the painting was a private individual from France, not mentioned by name, who owed the identification of the subject to a staff member of the museum in Antwerp : “still according to the owner, a photograph had earlier been sent to the Museum in Antwerp, where the subject was recognized as the Foundation of the Antwerp Academy”. In Brussels the offer was refused because of the size of the work. Shortly afterwards, or in any case before 27 December 1956, it landed in the Antwerp Academy through the agency of Jacobs van Merlen. The latter may have been informed about this painting in Paris by one of the persons in Antwerp or Brussels who had been contacted by the Parisian owner attempting to sell the work. Indeed, in his ( negative ) answer to Kalmar, curator Fierens explicitly mentioned that it might be useful “to signal the existence of this work to the Antwerp Academy”.

Marie-Louise Hairs has given a slightly different version of events, apparently on the basis of information that was handed to her by the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp ( KMSKA ) : that the group portrait had allegedly been bought in 1955 “by Fernand Stuyck ( 1887–1960 ) from Antwerp”, who was himself an art collector. According to this version, van Merlen bought the work in the course of 1955–1956 from Stuyck and then donated it to the Academy. The role of Artibus Patriae — an art society that had been founded mainly in order to add works to the collection of the Antwerp museum by appealing to the patronage of art lovers in Antwerp — is unclear in this matter.7 Creytens addresses van Merlen as “president” in his letter of thanks, but then makes no further reference to the society, so it might well be that he simply used the term “president” as an official term of address, but that the donation by van Merlen was a personal matter, i.e. that it was made without the intervention of Artibus Patriae. On an earlier occasion, Van Merlen had already intervened as an individual patron for a group portrait of Antwerp carpenters, which he had donated to the Cathedral of Our Lady.

DOUBTS ABOUT THE ACCEPTED IDENTIFICATION OF THE PAINTING In 1977, curator Gilberte Gepts from the Antwerp Museum of Fine Arts voiced the first doubts about the accepted interpretation of the subject, through Marie-Louise Hairs.8 Both Gepts and Hairs knew about a much older historical source, Alfred Michiels’ Histoire de la Peinture flamande ( History of Flemish Painting ; second edition published in 1874 ), whose author had provided a detailed description of the painting in his biographical article on Peter Thys.9 In 1854, Michiels had had the opportunity to see the work in Paris, in the house of a certain Madame Abèle of “rue Chapelais no 6” in the quarter of Batignolles, and he praised it as “a painting by his [ Thys’ ] hand that would have been very important for Belgium, and in particular for the town of Antwerp, as a work of art and a historical monument”. This is the oldest reference to the painting that we have, and the explanation of the subject that the author provided in the middle of the nineteenth century — which he had probably heard from its owner — is in fact surprising. Cracks, or perhaps craquelures started to appear in the traditional interpretation of the work, which have more recently started to spread.

Frans Baudouin voiced publicly that he disagreed with the identification of the main characters.10 Earlier, Guido Persoons had suggested a valid alternative for the ruler on the throne.11 Indeed, the facial features of the so-called Spanish king and of David II Teniers bear little resemblance to other documented portraits, like the portrait of Philips IV painted by Cornelis de Vos for the Philippus Arch, which was erected on the occasion of the Joyous Entry of Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand of Austria in Antwerp in 1635,12 and the portrait of Teniers Thys himself, that was painted in 1659 ( and later engraved by Lukas Vorsterman II, 1624–1666 ).

234

My own research has shown that during the entire seventeenth and eighteenth century, there is no trace of a painting by Thys that is supposed to depict the foundation of the Academy in its art collection — which was originally housed in the Exchange — whereas it is reasonable to suppose that such a painting would be intended for the school itself. Such a painting is not mentioned in a seventeenth-century register that lists the works of art that were made for the “Royal Academy of the Arts of Painting and Sculpture” between 1663 and 1670. Nor does Jacobus Van der Sanden mention a painting depicting the event in his comprehensive commentary on the foundation of the Antwerp Academy and on the charter granted to David II Teniers by Philip IV.13 Such an omission would be particularly strange, because other works present in the Academy — including a few that explicitly commemorate its foundation — are elaborately described, and indeed, there is also a reference to two portraits by Peter Thys : “Thus this Van Dyck-like touch is excellent in two portraits [ of Hendrik van Halmale ( 1596–1679 ) and Maximinus Gerardi ( 1617–1701 ) ] that Thys has hung in our art room.” In an “Addendum to P. Thys”, there is also mention that “in the Directors’ room of our Royal Institute is his symbolic work …”, a reference to the painting of Daedalus and Icarus that the artist made for the Antwerp drawing school.14 In general, Jacobus Van der Sanden was well informed, and in his function as secretary of the Academy ( from 1757 ), he certainly would not have failed to comment on Thys’ depicting the foundation of the Academy, even if the painting was held elsewhere in Antwerp. In the inventory of the works of art belonging to the Academy director Herreyns that were handed over to the French authorities on 30 July 1801, once again, there is no mention of the group portrait.15 One more element that makes us distrust this myth of the foundation of the Academy, is the suit of armour that is so prominently present on the foreground of the painting — an item that bears hardly any relevance to the foundation of the Academy. It features frequently, however, in works of art that relate to “shooting companies” ( city guards ) and in genre scenes with a military connotation, where it is meant to characterize the work. In a way that is similar to what is seen in the foreground of the composition, ‘still lifes of armour’ are also ‘added in’ to other works, such as the group portrait of Antwerp fencers ( 1716 ) by Frans Verbeeck ( 1686–1755 ),16, and paintings such as Guardroom, by David Teniers II.

A SUGGESTION FOR REINTERPRETATION This motif brings us back to Alfred Michiels : his interpretation had to do with rebellion and pardon, which seems more in line with the content of the painting. Michiels related the image to the socio-political troubles in Antwerp in 1659, when the guilds and craft guilds rebelled against their own town council, because it was in their opinion too indulgent towards the central and royal authority ( which was embodied in the Council of Brabant ), to the detriment of the town privileges.17 In the course of the rebellion, there was also protest against the central government’s decision to grant the monopoly of the mail service to Von Thurn und Taxis. With a display of force, the mail was removed from the Antwerp post office. Furthermore, the mayor and the aldermen were attacked in the town hall, and several houses, including that of Mayor Hendrik van Halmale, the alderman responsible for security, were plundered on 30 September 1659. According to Michiels, Thys’ painting portrayed the final episode of the rebellion, when the deacons of the guilds, together with the city magistrate and the quartermasters, subjected themselves to the royal authority, which had arrived in the person of Luis Francisco de Benavides ( 1608–1668 ) — Marquis of Caracena and governor of the Spanish Netherlands — who had set off to Antwerp with an army of 10,000 soldiers.

13

Cf Jan Baptist Van der Straelen, Jaerboek der vermaerde en kunstryke gilde van Sint Lucas binnen de stad Antwerpen. Behelzende de gedenkweerdigste geschiedenissen in dit genootschap voorgevallen sedert het jaer 1434 tot het jaer 1795.

Mitsgaders van de Koninklijke Academie sedert hare afscheyding van Sint Lucas tot hare overvoering naer het klooster der Minderbroeders byeenvergaderd zoo uyt de archieven der zelfde gilde als uyt andere geloofweerdige bewysschriften ( Antwerp 1855 ), 121–130.

14

The portraits mentioned and the painting Daedalus and Icarus are now in the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp ( resp. inv. nos.

350, 351, and 353 ).

Jacobus Van der Sanden, Oud Konst-Toneel van Antwerpen, of Historische Denkschriften op de Academische Instellingen, de vermaerdste Konstenaeren, en Oeffeningen der Nederduytsche Rhetoryke in de Belgische Provintien 2 ( Antwerp [ 1771 ] ) [ 511–512 ], 160B [ 553 ].

15

Ch. Piot, Rapport à Mr. le Ministre de l’Intérieur sur les tableaux enlevés à la Belgique en 1794 et restitués en 1815 ( Brussels 1883 ), reissued by the Algemeen Rijksarchief en Rijksarchief in de Provinciën ( General State Archive and State Archive in the Provinces ) ( Brussels 1996 ), 260–262.

16

17 Cf P. Génard, Anvers à travers les âges 2 ( Brussels 1888 ) 476–478 ; P. Geyl, Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse stam ( revised edition 2 ) ( Amsterdam 1949 ) 30–33 ; and the recent contextual study of this concrete historical event

by Birgit Houben, “Violence and political culture in Brabant. The Antwerp craft guilds’ opposition against the central authorities in 1659”, in : Hugo de Schepper en René Vermeir ( eds. ), Hoge rechtspraak in de oude Nederlanden ( Publicaties van de Vlaams-Nederlandse Vereniging voor Nieuwe Geschiedenis 5 ) ( Maastricht 2006 ), 23–49.

18

Yet, as Gepts and Hairs note, one can hardly identify the figure on the throne as Governor de Benavides : we have a very realistic and fine marble bust of the governor that was made by Artus Quellinus I ( 1609–1668 ), in 1664 to be precise, which was destined for the Antwerp Academy.18 Guido Persoons has suggested that the figure on the throne is actually Duke Jan II of Brabant ( 1275–1312 ), who then, “as the general of Brabant, symbolizes … the mighty seventeenth-century marquis de Caracena”.

I think that Persoons’ identification is correct. His argument is based on the first words of the painted document that the figure holds in his hands, which Michiels himself copied from the painting, but which in the meantime have become almost illegible : “Jan by der 235

KMSKA, inv. no. 487.

KMSKA, inv. no. 701.

19

Persoons, “Betekenis van het historisch schilderstuk”, 31–32. The author changes Michiels’ “Gedoulorch” ( i.e. the Duchy of Gelderland, which borders Northern Brabant, and which does not come under the Duke of Brabant ) into “Lemborgh”, i.e. Limburg.

gratie Gods Hertoch van Brabant en Lemborch ( Jan, Duke of Brabant and Limburg by the grace of God )”.19 In its present state, the words “JAN … GRACE … OF” can still be distinguished on the painting with the aid of a detailed photograph. With foreknowledge, the words “DUKE” and “BRABANT” can also still be distinguished. There is no actual portrait of Jan II of Brabant, but we should mention that his father, Jan I, is characterized in some paintings with a plumed helmet.20

20 For example on his tomb, which is depicted in an engraving in Le Grand Théâtre Sacré du Duché de Brabant ( Den Haag 1734 ).

Persoons linked the painted text to the charter that Jan granted the town of Antwerp on 6 December 1306,21 in which the Duke promised to respect the old privileges of the town, and he left it to the town magistrate to draw up the statutes and regulations of the guilds and craft guilds.22 Unfortunately, the text on the painting is too fragmentary to match it to the original document, which is preserved in the Antwerp town archive.23 If some sort of match were to be made, the text on the painting would have had to be a sort of condensed version of the charter, which is much longer : it comprises thirty-four lines with some thirty words to each line. Even the opening words of the document are different : the charter starts with the words “Bi Jan bi der gratien van gode hertoghe van lothrike van braband ende van lemborch” ( By Jan, Duke of Lothrike [ i.e. Lothier, a region within the Duchy of Lower Lotharingia ], Brabant and Limburg ). This makes us suspect that the painter used a text that was quoted freely, maybe by heart. As it is hard to distinguish a few words on the detailed photographs of the relevant area, it has so far been impossible to deduce the real content of the painted text.

21

Persoons wrongly dates the charter 3 December 1306.

22

Prims refers to a “vrijheidsbrief” ( freedom letter ) for Antwerp, cf Floris Prims, Geschiedenis van Antwerpen. III. Onder Hertog Jan den Tweede ( 1294–1312 ) 6 ( Brussels 1931 ), 64–69.

23

SAA, CH 58.

24

Cf Birgit Houben, Antwerps verzet tegen de centrale macht in 1659 ( unpublished MA thesis ) ( Ghent 2004 ), chapter VII, 3.1 “Genomen maatregelen” [ consulted at www.e-thesis. net, 29 December 2012 ].

25 Both group portraits were lost in a fire in 1737. Cf Nora De Poorter, “Rubens ‘onder de wapenen’. De Antwerpse schilders als gildebroeders van de kolveniers in de eerste helft van de 17de eeuw”, in Jaarboek Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen ( 1988 ), 203–252.

26 Antwerp, Museum Plantin-Moretus, Print Room, inv. nos. 21 and 48.

27 Valetta ( Malta ), National Museum of Fine Arts, inv. no. 197–198 ; cf Hans Vlieghe in collaboration with Bernard Descheemaeker and Inge Wouters, “Dream and Adjuration : On the allegorisation of war and peace in the Southern Netherlands after Rubens”, in : Klaus Bussmann and Heinz Schilling ( eds. ), 1648 War and Peace in Europe 2 ( Münster, Osnabrück 1998 ) 575–585, 577–578 ( illustration 5 ).

If, as Persoons claimed, Duke Jan has been rendered in the group portrait as a symbol of the then governor de Benavides, the composition, intended to portray the reconciliation of the Antwerp deacons of the guilds with the central authorities, would have initially had a certain ironic overtone : it gives the impression that the deacons wanted to remind everyone of the precious municipal autonomy, which had been guaranteed by Jan II of Brabant, and which was precisely the cause of the rebellion. Persoons suggested that the seventeenthcentury governor “demanded subjection, but did not intend to punish or take away freedoms”, but the historical truth is different. The ‘Deed of Grace and Forgiveness’ that de Benavides published on 23 October 1659 and the accompanying ( new ) “political regulations” that were promulgated on the same day in the name of Philip IV, demanded that the rebels subjected themselves to almost all the conditions imposed by the central authorities.24 A more plausible interpretation, still in line with Michiels’ identification, would be that the composition is not a literal representation of the concrete, historically accurate Deed of Subjection to the central authorities of the time around 1600 — but rather, that this is an allegorical representation that refers to the restoration of peace, and casually seeks to recover the old privileges. The representation of an historical figure invested with authority occurs in other Antwerp paintings that were commissioned by the guilds, and which were indeed intended to legitimize the rights of the figures portrayed. For example, Cornelis de Vos ( 1584 / 5–1651 ) and Peter Thys himself painted, in 1644 and 1677 respectively, a group portrait of the Antwerp arquebusiers in the presence of the sixteenth-century emperor Charles V, because the latter had granted a special and exclusive privilege to their guild.25 By referring in the painting to the figure of Duke Jan, to whom the town owned much of their freedom, the commissioners made clear what they meant by being accommodating to the ruling order. At the same time, Thys’ painting presents a message of peace : the weapons have been put to rest. Minerva, the goddess of battle, still wears her helmet, breastplate and holds her lance, but she has put her shield aside. Time has floored Vis, i.e. brute force : the nude male figure at Chronos’ feet used to be identified with Discordia, perhaps because of the wisps of hair, but the muscular shoulders and upper arm make identification with Vis more logical ; for the personification of Discordia, for that matter, one would normally expect a woman. Above the ruler on his throne floats a winged female figure, adorned with a blowing ribbon. She blows on a trumpet and carries a laurel wreath. When we compare her to two allegorical drawings from a series by Marten de Vos ( 1532–1603 ),26 she both resembles Fama and Pax, Fame heralding Peace with her trumpet. In the sky, two putti use a brazier to chase a winged dragon, which may symbolize hate and envy. The latter three allegorical elements also feature on a painting by Theodoor van Thulden ( 1606–1669 ) from about 1640, Allegory on the Prosperity of Antwerp, which clearly alludes to the longing for a lasting peace among the inhabitants of Antwerp.27 236

Considering all this, the question — already explicitly formulated by Gepts and Hairs — remains the same : who actually commissioned the painting from Thys, and, taking into account its exceptional size, for what space was it intended ? An answer to these questions would of course make it easier to interpret the meaning of the work, and might possibly clear the issue up, once and for all.

The identity of the men portrayed has not as yet been established. Certainly two of them belonged to a shooting guild, as can be inferred from a ( now hardly distinguishable ) insignia on the sleeve of their gown. Persoons suggested that the man in front of the group on the left, who casts a sideways glance and demands attention with a suggestive gesture, is Francisco de Moncada ( 1586–1635 ), Marquis of Aytona, who became Dutch envoy to the court of the Infante Isabella in Brussels in 1629. However, this identification must be rejected on chronological grounds : de Moncada had already died on 17 August 1635.

Likewise, the theory should be rejected that among the men in the right-hand group it is possible to recognise a portrait of Mayor Van Halmale. The most striking figure on the right has been characterized as a leading figure from the city guard. He wears a pink-and-white sash, and a leather bandolier crosswise over his chest ; in his hand he holds a hat with white and red feathers. The stick he ostentatiously holds out is not pointed. It is therefore not a rapier or a sword, but a capiteijns or deacon stick, which may indicate that he was a captain with the city guard.

The presence of this man makes it certain that the scene is indeed linked to Antwerp.

The man can in fact be identified as the family father who poses in a portrait by Gonzales Coques ( 1618–1684 ) in front of the tower of the Antwerp cathedral, surrounded by his family, while practising acts of charity.28 A few years later, Peter Thys portrayed the same family in a similar manner, but a different setting.29 In both these family portraits, the father is presented as an almoner, dressed in a black gown with a red sash interwoven with gold thread hanging from his left side. He must therefore have been one of the four governors who headed the Antwerp Chamber of “Huisarmen”, i.e. poor people who continued to live in their own house, but were in need of material assistance. Everything points to the fact that he belonged to the well-off citizens of the town, but unfortunately, he is yet to reveal his identity.

CODA Alfred Michiels’ evaluation of Thys’ group portrait mentioned above can doubtless be stated in affirmative terms : “a painting by his [ Thys’ ] hand that is very important for Belgium and in particular for the town of Antwerp, as a work of art and an historical monument”. However, Michiels had discovered it in a very poor condition in 1854 : “a rag, abandoned in a decrepit house in Batignolles! It hung without frame, without stretcher, from a rope in the middle of the room, flapping with the slightest wind.” It is therefore particularly fortunate, that “thanks to” an erroneous identification, the painting should land in the Antwerp Academy, a place where all the necessary expertise is available to secure its safe conservation. In the 1990s, Peter Eyskens of the Conservation-Restoration Department started with an initial treatment : the painting was re-varnished — in order to bring a certain uniformity to the retouching, and to revive the colours — and all the dust was removed from the back. Before the painting had been brought to the Academy, it had been “tripled”, as well as painted over and retouched in various places. The painting is currently being taken in hand by Griet Blanckaert and Veerle Stinckens ( see their contribution in this book ). Their restoration campaign will hopefully emphasize the value of this works. It may have lost its iconic value with regard to the foundation of the Academy, but as a top work of art, it is a credit to the art institute.

237

28

Oil on canvas, 110 x 105 cm ; private collection.

Cf Katlijne Van der Stighelen, Hoofd- en Bijzaak ( Leuven 2008 ), 154–155 ( illustration ).

29 Painting auctioned at Sotheby’s in London on 5 July 2006 ( lot no.

30 ), current whereabouts unknown. Cf Katlijne Van der Stighelen, Hoofd- en Bijzaak ( Leuven 2008 ), 155–156 ( Illustration ). I am grateful to Professor Van der Stighelen for bringing this family portrait to my attention.

238

Peter Thys, The supposed Foundation of the Academy, 1664, oil on canvas ( KASKA )

239

Griet Blanckaert & Veerle Stinckens

Peter Thys’ Foundation of the Academy : The Historical Materiality of the Painting Peter Thys’ group portrait has enjoyed the attention of the Conservation-Restoration Department for many years. Yet it was not until 2012 that a restoration campaign actually started. That is no coincidence, as the problems faced by the restorer are particularly intricate, and the size of the painting adds to the complexity of the issue. Preliminary investigations were carried out on several occasions, the last of which dates from the academic year of 2010–2011, but like others before, this one also turned out to be very incomplete.1 To mark 350 years of the Academy, however, and 25 years of the ConservationRestoration Department, this allegorical painting has once again been thoroughly studied.

M ATERIAL-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PAINTING’S CONDITION Typical seventeenth-century painting techniques were used to create the work. The canvas used is rather heavy ( plain linen weave ) and has been treated with a pigmented oil ground, which was applied in a double or single layer. In some areas a reddish-brown layer can be noticed under the black apparel, which has been lifted in some parts with grey paint, consisting of white lead and probably carbon black, which was meant to create an intermediate shade between the dark and light areas. Rubens, Van Dyck and Jordaens used the same technique.2 The canvas itself consists of three pieces that have been joined horizontally. Though broader looms did actually exist in the seventeenth century, Thys simply used what he had in stock in his studio. In the top piece of the canvas we notice a square insert in the middle, which dates from later. From this insert it can be inferred that the painting once hung in an interior around the tie-beam that supported a wooden floor. The cut-out is probably not original, because it would have severed the wing of the personification of Death and the body of one of the putti ( cherubs ) would be missing, which seems very improbable in Thys’ composition.

According to Dr Beatrijs Wolters van der Wey ( see the previous essay ), A. Michiels discovered the work in 1854, where it hung loosely “like a rag” from the wall in a derelict Paris residence. The top cut-out corroborates Michiels’ claim, as does further damage.

It appears that the painting was once trimmed slightly at the top and the bottom, and that a part was cut off to the left. A part of the bottom step now seems to be missing ( see the positioning of the right foot and the leg of the figure furthest to the left ). The heads of the winged female figure and the putti almost touch the edge once the overlapping frame has been removed, which makes it look as if they are “squeezed” in the composition and also creates a certain asymmetry in a composition that was meant to be very balanced.

If the painting had been intended for an interior, the painter would certainly have taken the point of view into account. In that case we would have had elongated proportions in the top part, instead of this “oppressive” construction. One might therefore suspect that the painting was once adapted to fit a surrounding that was not its original context, which was probably the supposed residence near Montmartre. The present painting is 2.61 metres high and probably hung above a wainscot panelling, as was usual in eighteenth and nineteenth-century interiors.

That the canvas was discovered in 1854, “flapping loosely” on the wall of a “derelict” residence, is corroborated by its very poor condition. Numerous old holes, tears and folds are visible. The original canvas must have been very much weakened and suffering from oxidation before it was removed from the wall. The mainly vertical pattern of large tears is 241

1

Research conducted by S. Vandenbussche and A. Top, Behandelingsdossier.

Schilderij “Stichtersportret Peeter Thijs”, AntwerpenCollectie KASKA ( unpublished ) ( Antwerp 2011 ).

2

S. Bergeon, Painting Technique : priming, coloured paint film and varnish, in : R. Van Schoute and H. Verougstraete ( eds. ), Art History and Laboratory.

Scientific Examination of Easel Paintings ( Pact, 13 ) ( Straatsburg 1986 ), 38.

3

In nineteenth-century recipes, alum is used to remove fat and dirt from glue. Adding alum influences the reversibility. See : H. Willers, Herstellung van tierischem Leim und seine Verwendung im bereich der Tafel- und Fassmalerei nach Angaben deutschsprachiger Quellenliteratur des 16.bis zur Mitte des 19.Jahrhunderts ( Institut für Museumskunde ) ( Stuttgart 1986 ), 38 ff. ; S. Nijhuis, “Gelatine en dierlijke lijm”, in : CR 4 Rijksdienst voor het cultureel Erfgoed ( Amersfoort 2006 ), 20.

particularly conspicuous. After taking down the painting, the canvas was probably rolled up, without due consideration of its very fragile condition, and without using a support bolt. The rolled-up painting would have started to sag under the weight of the paint and the canvas ; it may even have been crushed. That would account for the mainly vertical character of the damage to the support and the layer of paint.

In the century that followed A. Michiels’ description of the portrait, and before the work was donated to the Academy by — or through the mediation of — Jacobs van Merlen, the painting had been taken in for a “thorough” restoration by an “artist-restorer” who used quite a series of bravura techniques. This restorer first strengthened some of the tears separately at the back with thin canvas, before filling in the cut-out from the tie-beam, and then lining the original canvas with a support fabric whose mesh was too wide.

The support fabric was glued to the original canvas with ( probably animal ) protein glue, and with the use of a lot of heat and pressure, which caused the pattern of the support fabric to become visible through the pictorial layer. Because warp and weft were not evenly stretched, an S-shaped swerving motion had been pressed into the present “ribbed” structure of the painting. The glue that was used for the lining was very probably made with alum — an ingredient found in numerous nineteenth-century recipes.3 Alum, a hydrated double sulphate of aluminium and potassium, binds to proteins and has an astringent effect. It is now very difficult, therefore, to dissolve this glue.

It was not only the back of the painting that was given rough treatment — something similar was also reserved for the original layer of paint. First, the painting was thoroughly cleaned, which caused wear to the paint layer. Then some areas were very crudely overpainted, covering large parts of the background — the painted historical document — as well as the black gowns and the numerous tears and craquelures in the incarnadine parts. Several lacunas in the layer of paint were not filled ahead of this process. They were “retouched” directly onto the original canvas and these lacunas are therefore still visible to this day.

For the moment, therefore, the question of how much of the original paint will be rediscovered in the course of further treatment remains unanswered. The results of some of the tests that were made during the preliminary research in 2010–2011 make it likely that a lot of retouching was done. Despite the strong protein adhesive used in the lining, a few distracting blisters are visible between the original and first lining. That was probably the reason why, in the previous century, another lining was undertaken. In other words, the pictorial layer was “tripled”. For the last lining, wax / resin was used, without the first lining being removed. Apparently it was hoped that through the use of heat, the wax / resin would penetrate the canvas to the layer of paint. That proved a vain hope, as even water barely causes the protein glue to swell, and in some places this layer is several millimetres thick.

The current stretcher frame is made of coniferous wood ; the parts are assembled with the “Dutch assemblage technique”, which ( probably ) dates from the restoration campaign.

The nail holes in the second support fabric correspond with those in the frame, and there are no traces of earlier use. To date, the question of the extent to which extra overpainting and / or retouches were applied during this restoration remains unanswered. The Painting Department has never undertaken a real restoration. Colleague Peter Eysekens has merely attempted a soft “visual” optimization.

A STATE OF AFFAIRS AND A PROPOSAL FOR A TREATMENT In the first instance, the current proposal involved the treatment of the support, a flattening of the blisters, and gluing of the numerous tears. That implied removing the two linings and exposing the original support. The front of the painting was therefore protected with Japanese paper. Removal of the wax / resin doubling did not pose any problem, as the adhesive strength of this layer is weak. The remains of the wax / resin were removed from the protein layer by dry sanding. Removal of the rest of the glue and of 242

the first coarse lining fabric is particularly difficult. Elaborate tests were performed, from using polar solvents to micro-abrasive blasting. The latter method was rejected, because it was too abrasive. The original canvas cannot endure this treatment, because of its general weakened state.

The restorers used an aqueous cellulose gel to which resin soaps were added that produce a caustic effect. The gel slows down the process of the moisture penetrating the original support. After about one hour, the layer of glue has softened and can be scraped off mechanically with a violinmaker’s knife. If necessary, the process needs to be repeated several times, and is particularly time-consuming. The gel is applied in a draughtboard pattern, covering areas of about 100 square centimetres at a time, in order to prevent excessive tension in the original canvas. Once the back has been completely cleaned, the tears and holes will be glued ( and small pieces of fabric will be fitted in ). The fabric used will be polyamide textile, which will be applied with a warm welding needle. When this operation is finished, a new support fabric will be applied. We are examining whether a heavy woven polyester canvas can be used ( 18 STS ; available in a width of 3.60 meters ), a material that is almost impervious to oxidation. A thin support would be insufficient to keep the painting flat and would stretch along with the current distortions of the damaged whole. Preliminary research is still going on with regard to the adhesive to be used.4 The intention is to finish the treatment of the support by the end of June 2014. In a second stage, the front of the painting will be treated. To what extent can the surface be cleaned ? Can the old retouches endure thinning, or are they in such a poor condition that they must be removed and perhaps reapplied ? The questions are clear and overwhelming.

The answers are much harder to determine. They prompt a debate in a wider context. What is the role of the restorer ? How far can he or she go with the treatment ? What are the limits ? How does the historical value relate to further intervention and how can in-depth scientific research function in this context ?

After 25 years, the Conservation-Restoration Department is about to undergo a process of reprofiling. The Academy’s “foundation portrait” can no longer function as an “icon”.

Yet further treatment continues to constitute a fascinating challenge, because critical thinking, scientific method and the empirical knowledge of experienced restorers will inevitably continue to go hand-in-hand.

243

4

An up-to-date survey of recanvasing techniques is described in S. Hackney et al., Lining Easel Paintings, in : J.H. Stoner and R. Rushfield ( eds. ), Conservation of Easel Paintings ( Routledge series in Conservation and Museology ) ( New York 2012 ), 415–452.

Carolien van der Star

The Academy as Museum ?

The Heritage Collections of the Academy and the Care for Them Over the course of the centuries the Royal Academy of Fine Arts has collected a large number of works of art. Traditionally, paintings by former students were considered suitable teaching material and they were therefore kept and stored down the years, by director Willem Herreyns ( 1743–1827 ), for example. But the core of the collection consisted of the archives of the Guild of Saint Luke, in addition, of course, to the archives of the Academy itself. In the course of the nineteenth century this core collection was expanded with bequests and with examples of contemporary art. The latter found their way to the collection through donations from the Academic Corps and through the annual Prix de Rome. In 1890, the leading works from the collection were transferred to the newly built Royal Museum of Fine Arts. These works became the basis of the museum’s collection.

Lots of documents and publications were also transferred to the Antwerp Heritage Library Hendrik Conscience. The collection of antique furniture and musical instruments remained in the Academy, as well as a number of remarkable paintings, such as Peter Thys’ famous Foundation Portrait, a copy after Rubens’ depiction of a lion-hunting party, and the triptych with the names of the deans, princes and deacons of the Guild of Saint Luke.

Triptych with the names of the deans, princes and deacons of the Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke, 1679, wood, made by P. Verbruggen ( KASKA )

The numerous objects that remained on the campus of the Academy can be divided into three collections. Firstly, there are the Prix de Rome works. Most of these are plaster casts, paintings1 and engravings. At the end of the nineteenth century, it is clear that the Academy did not really know what to do with these works that represented the beginnings of artists’ careers. In the course of the twentieth century, this national heritage was handled rather negligently. Fortunately, there have always been colleagues that cared for the collections. One such example was the scientific librarian Guido Persoons, who took the initiative, in the early 1970s, of making an inventory of the Prix de Rome collection.

Shelves were installed to preserve the paintings in the basement of the empty director’s residence — which proved, unfortunately, to be a damp environment.2 The ninety-eight Prix de Rome works that had been preserved were photographed in the late 1970s and the 245

1

A. Van Eeckhaute, “Een grooten prijs. De Prijs van Rome schilderkunst 1819–1920”, in : Gelauwerde Beelden ( Antwerp 2004 ), s.p.

2

P. Eyskens, “De Romeprijzen in de verzameling van de Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten te Antwerpen”, in : Gelauwerde Beelden ( Antwerp 2004 ), s.p.

photographs were compiled in an album. But a lot of these paintings are in poor condition.

Many of them show the marks of the screw-eye fittings of the painting that had been leaning against them for years and the bottom edges are affected by moisture from the floor of the basement.

Edward Deckers, The Bacchanal, 1897, plaster, work submitted for the Godecharle Contest 1897 ( KASKA )

An additional problem is that not all the Prix de Rome works are recognized as such.

The painting that won the 1888 prize stood neglected for years in one of the student toilets.

Joe English’s Prix de Rome piece emerged from a heap of rubbish. Important works emerged from the most hidden locations. A bronze statue by Jef Lambeaux stood covered with dust between the plaster casts in the Fivez Building, before finding a safe haven in the restored buildings in the Blindestraat. Some large plaster sculptures stored at the Academy won prizes elsewhere. The Bacchanal by Ed Deckers ( 1873–1956 ), which won the Godecharle Prize in 1897, was on view at the World Fair in Brussels in 1897, and at the Antwerp Salon in 1898. Now it adorns the stairwell of the Academy. The plaster reliefs that were made for the Prix de Rome were for a long time hidden in the garage of the director’s residence. Luckily, the original portrait busts of the honorary directors of the Academy were stored in the basement of the director’s residence, where they were protected from damage and vandalism.

The plaster collection in the Academy, situation 1959 ( photo : Frank Philippi ) ( KASKA )

Secondly, there are the plaster casts from highlights of Western sculpture. These date from the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth century, and are based mainly on sculptures from classical Greek and Roman Antiquity. From the middle of the nineteenth century onwards, the Academy also bought plaster casts from all over Europe. The 246

collection of didactic sculptures was particularly large. That is obvious from photographs of a crammed sculpture gallery from 1920 ( now the refectory of the school ). Because of changing ideas about education in the 1960s, the original collection has unfortunately been decimated. And since they were regularly moved, those that remain are seriously damaged. Most of the smaller works are beyond repair or have simply vanished. One section of what remains is a collection of blurry casts of casts. As for the rest there are damaged parts of the east pediment of the Parthenon, as well as the monumental sculptures of the Nike of Samothrace, the Venus de Milo, the central part of the LaocoÜn group and parts of Michelangelo’s tombs from the Medici Chapel. These plasters are installed here and there in the buildings of the Academy. In all, they still provide a fairly representative image of the role that the plasters played in past art education.

Thirdly, there is the large collection of books and documentation in the library of the Academy. The archive and documents heritage of the Academy is particularly diverse, both with regard to its content and the type of material. There are, for example, historical books made of parchment and bound in leather, modern books ( made of paper that is either acid-free or acidic ), photographs, engravings and all sorts of medals. Almost all of the important periods from the history of Western art are represented in photographs or engravings. Graphic portfolios with work by various artists have been created. Staff records, student records with registration forms and voluminous photo albums from the interwar period provide a good insight into the developments of art education. All these objects have been catalogued in handwritten record books that include an inventory number and acquisition date. Though precious historical records are conserved in a separate, closed part of the library, there was a lack of special shelves for oversized material. Photographs, engravings, drawings, archive documents and books all suffered from dust, an excessively dry atmosphere, and careless repairs.

Arrotino or Knife-Grinder, plaster cast or copy in plaster, undated ( KASKA )

Though these three collections are historically related, they are not conserved in the same place. They are scattered over the library, the corridors and the classrooms, in the storerooms and the basements of the campus. The campus is in the first instance a place that is intended for teaching practice, not a museum. According to contemporary standards, the conservation conditions of these historical objects are not favourable. As neither the Academy, nor Antwerp University College, of which the Academy became a department in 1994, considered the conservation of heritage material their responsibility, no initiatives for making an inventory were taken at the time, nor for the conservation and management of the cultural heritage. Then there is also the fact that collections from other departments ( including the library of the Royal Conservatory, with Albert Michiels’ historic jazz archive ) came under the care of Antwerp University College. Up until now, there has been little investment in the conservation and management of the collection of 247

3

The text about the history of the Conservation-Restoration programme is based on: J. Caen, “De Opleiding Conservatie / Restauratie aan de Hogeschool Antwerpen”, which was written for the OPEN DAY, 15 March 2008.

the Academy. Furthermore, the campus of the Academy has been struggling with a lack of space for years.

The start of Conservation-Restoration training in 1988 was accompanied by an increasing interest in the art and heritage collection of the Academy. In 1980 the École Nationale Superieure des Arts Visuels de La Cambre ( Brussels ) had already started with the organization of a five-year training course in Conservation-Restoration. It was in close contact with the Koninklijk Instituut voor het Kunstpatrimonium ( Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage ), which had been responsible for making an inventory of works of art since 1957, as well as for research and conservation. The success of the new curriculum in La Cambre made it clear that similar training was necessary in Flanders. However, Gerard Gaudean, then director of the Academy, did not want to end up skating on thin ice and therefore sought the support of a number of eminent Antwerp politicians and esteemed experts such as Roger Marijnissen, Henri Pauwels, Liliane Masschelein, and Hans Nieuwdorp. After intensive contacts with the people in the field and the relevant administrative departments, a ‘Restoration’ option was started at the National Higher Institute, with the approval of the Flemish Minister for Education, Theo Kelchtermans.3 The option was open to everyone with a degree in higher art education, architecture, or history of art. The first six students had all been trained as artists and they were therefore familiar with the techniques of the restoration option. The teachers had been trained at the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage, or had been active for some time in the field of restoration. Because the budget was tight, the studios ( which were scattered around the former police station in the Blindestraat and the sculpture studio ) were not optimally equipped. They were fitted out with furniture that had been discarded by the Belgian army.

The microscopes were financed with the money earned from restoration commissions.

Arrotino or Knife-Grinder, plaster copy as exhibited in the Academy in 1924 ( photographer unknown ) ( KASKA )

Caring for the collection of the Academy was integrated into the pedagogical project of the curriculum from an early date. Students used works from the collection of the Academy for study purposes, and some of the limited funds available were used to make this collection accessible. Special attention went to the study of material aspects and the historical and chemical analysis of the objects. Drawing, copying plaster casts and specific conservation and restoration exercises were used to develop the manual skills of the students and acquire insight into the artefacts. Thus the collection of plaster casts again fulfils its initial function. For a lot of first-year students, it is the collection that actually introduces them to sculpture, making a cast, traceology ( mapping chisel traces ), and working with archive documents ( such as the original nineteenth-century lists of purchases ). From the very start there was a focus on collaboration among the teachers and the exchange of information with the students. A lot of attention is paid to the deontological aspects of the restoration practice. There is an emphasis on conservation and the reversibility of possible 248

interventions. The international recommendations of the Charter of Venice ( 1964 ) and the ICOM Charter of Copenhagen ( 1984 ) serve as a certain set of guidelines.

The inventory for the collection of paintings of the Academy is gradually growing.

A number of works have been treated. One example would be the painting Coriolanus Bids Farewell to his Family before Going into Exile, by Antoon van Ysendijck, which had a large lengthwise tear. Under the supervision of Peter Eyskens, the painting studio lined the canvas and retouched the painting. For every painting that is treated by the students, a detailed record is created.4 Since the Restoration programme was housed in the restored buildings in the Blindestraat, the paintings of the Academy collection have been conserved in a separate space with shelving. Climate control, a burglar alarm, and permanent supervision guarantee the optimal conservation of the works. Gradually, an inventory is also being made of the collection of plaster casts and of the works for the Prix de Rome. Restored plaster casts are put on a protective plinth and reinstalled in the corridors of the school. Interesting artefacts are returned to the studios. The wood studio, for example, found a nineteenthcentury lathe in the basement of the Academy. The textile studio acquired costumes from the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York to use them as didactic material. For these costumes, too, a special storeroom is available within the renovated buildings.

Antoon Van Ysendijck, Coriolanus Bids Farewell to his Family before Going into Exile, 1823, oil on canvas ( KASKA )

The reform of the Flemish colleges ( institutes for non-university higher education ) in 1994 briefly constituted a threat to the young restoration programme. Thanks to Academy director Johan Swinnen and others, the restoration programme was categorized as “long course higher education”. The Academy became a University. As a result, a new sort of student embarked on the restoration programme : young people who had just finished secondary school and therefore did not have the same material-technical skills that art students possessed. The Bologna Declaration ( 1999 ) also struck a different balance between scientific knowledge, technical skills and attitude formation. Furthermore, considering the statute of the training, the school had to work with larger groups of students. In 1996 the Academy therefore started with the renovation of two historical, protected buildings in the Blindestraat ( the former “Charity Office” and the “Institute Arthur van den Nest” ).

In 2002, the Restoration-Conservation classrooms in the renovated buildings were finally ready. Some of the Prix de Rome works and a number of smaller plaster reliefs were hung in the buildings. The rest of the paintings from the academic collection are safely stored in 249

4

See also Sarah Swinnen, De KASKA-verzameling.

Beheerssuggesties voor een verwaarloosde collectie ( thesis submitted for obtaining an MA in Conservation-Restoration of Paintings, June 2007 ).

special rooms. These works are available for study purposes or for borrowing, and various paintings and plaster casts have thus been exhibited at temporary exhibitions.

Further steps have been taken to make the academic collection more accessible for research. A number of fragile works and photo albums from the Prix de Rome collection have been digitized, in collaboration with the Visual Media studio. The studios for Paper and for Visual Media work together to study the current state and conservation conditions of fragile books, prints and paper documents in the library of the Academy. The intention is to develop a multi-stage plan that is intended to control and improve the condition and conservation of these objects. The Paper studio has already started with the acid-free conservation of the most fragile books in special boxes. These inventories, studies and interventions all aim to achieve a durable conservation, but also an optimal accessibility.

Digitization plays a major part in this matter. The heritage of the Academy, which has been treated rather poorly in the twentieth century, actually constitutes a unique testimony to the way in which art and art education evolved over the course of 350 years. With regard to the future of this heritage, a long-term policy is prerequisite. But this article may perhaps turn the tide! In November 2012, administrative staff members were recruited for the “heritage� project, which involves the catalography of the heritage collections, their preservation, conservation, restoration and digitization.

In February 2013, the Minister of Culture decided to provisionally include the Archive of the former Guild of Saint Luke and of the Old Royal Academy Antwerp within the framework of the Master Works Decree for the movable heritage of the Flemish Community. Thus it may become possible to subsidize measures for the secure conservation of the collection.

250

Virgilius Bononiensis, Map of Antwerp ( detail ) with the Nieuwe Beurs in the centre, woodcut, 1565 ( Museum Plantin-Moretus / Print Room, Antwerp )

Piet Lombaerde

An Illuminating Stroll through the Buildings of the Academy DRAWING AND PAINTING IN THE NIEUWE BEURS Tijs Tellier was born in Turnhout on 12 May 1652. He loved buildings and he loved to draw them, though he found it hard to put them on paper. One day his father decided to enrol his son at the newly founded Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Antwerp. Evening classes were free and ran from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the summer and from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the winter. Among the teachers were some of the greatest masters of the seventeenth century : Jacob Jordaens, Frans Francken, Ambrosius Brueghel, Abraham van Diepenbeeck and Artus Quellinus.1 But Tijs could not study architecture there. The reason was very simple : when the Academy was founded in 1663, there was simply insufficient interest and money for an architecture department.2 Furthermore, there was probably not much demand for new buildings in Antwerp. He would be able to take classes in drawing from a live model and classical models ( which included drawing the classical orders ). Tijs was happy with that, and he therefore chose to enrol for the painting programme.

In the metropolis of Antwerp, Tijs hurried to the Nieuwe Beurs — the New Exchange : a large building dating from the sixteenth, with an open courtyard that measured 52 metres by 40 metres. The building had been designed by the Antwerp architect Domien de Waghemakere ( 1460–1542 ) and the contractors were the brothers Adriaen and Peter Spillemans.3 Around an almost perfectly square court, four wings were built, each two storeys high ; at street level there was an open gallery with late Gothic trefoil arcading supported by cylindrical pillars. The shafts of these were decorated with late Gothic arabesques, inspired by Moorish art ( after the fire that destroyed the Beurs in 1858, one of the original columns was moved to the present site of the garden of the Academy — the last witness to the original building ). Ribbed stellar vaults span the galleries. These line a piazza that is situated within the complex. Above the surrounding houses, two towers rose, with hour hands. The south tower was in fact a bell tower with an elegant lantern. The building was actually a commodity exchange, modelled on the typical Early Renaissance palaces.4 Tijs saw the numerous bankers, moneychangers, merchants, insurers and their clients walking about busily in their black tabards. What also struck him was the absence of horses or carts on the inner courtyard : this was the first pedestrian area in town. But there were fine, tempting stalls and shops, both on the ground floor and on the first floor, where lots of paintings and other works of art were displayed for sale.5 Four narrow streets each gave onto one of the sides of the square courtyard. Tijs accessed the courtyard via the Borzestraat. He made his way through a busy crowd and ran to the eastern wing of the yard, and climbed the stairs till he reached the “upper premises of the Beurs” ( i.e. the first floor ). It was here in 1663 that the Guild of Saint Luke had been granted permission to start a painting class and a drawing school. Due to the downwardly spiralling economy of the city, a number of rooms on the first floor of the Beurs were empty. In the Spanjepand, the guild hall of the Old Arbalest on the Grote Markt, the main marketplace, where the Guild of Saint Luke also met, there was no place for lessons. From a commercial point of view, the new exchange seemed the perfect place to market the creations of the young Antwerp talents. Well-to-do potential buyers from home and abroad walked about there in great number, all year long. It was on 26 October 1665 that the Academy would open its doors here. As mentioned above, it occupied the entire first floor of the east wing, as well as part of the smaller north wing. Tijs entered via the director’s office, which was next to the classroom. In the director’s office, he had to enrol with administrator Hendrik Peris. Behind this room, there was the office of the deacon of the Guild of Saint Luke, behind that the Great Painting Hall, and finally a stockroom that used to house the town library. The Great Painting Hall was a real “picture gallery” ; its walls were covered with gold leather. Tijs was very curious to see this room and he sneaked in. The walls were 253

1 F.J. Van den Branden, Geschiedenis der Academie van Antwerpen ( Anwerp 1867 ), 24–27.

2

Idem, 26.

3

L. de Barsée, “De bouwkunst te Antwerpen in de XVIde eeuw”, in : Antwerpen in de XVIde eeuw ( Genootschap voor Antwerpse Geschiedenis ) ( Anwerp 1976 ), 361–389.

4

K. De Jonge, “Bâtiments publics à fonction économique à Anvers au XVIe siècle : l’invention d’un type ?”, in : K. Ottenheym, M. Chatenet en K. De Jonge ( eds. ), Public Buildings in Early Modern Europe ( Architectura Moderna, 9 ) ( Turnhout 2010 ), 183–200.

5

J. Materné, “De Antwerpse Nieuwe Beurs : modelbouw met internationale uitstraling”, in : J. Van der Stock ( ed. ), Antwerpen verhaal van een metropool ( Ghent 1993 ), 234.

6

R.A. D’Hulst, “Jacob Jordaens en de Schilderskamer van de Antwerpse Academie”, in : Jaarboek KMSK Antwerpen ( Antwerp 1967 ), 131–150.

7

F. Donnet, Het Jonstigh Versaem der Violieren.

Geschiedenis der Rederijkkamer de Olijftak sedert 1480 ( Uitgaven der Antwerpsche Bibliophielen, 23 ) ( Antwerp, Ghent, Den Haag 1907 ), 328–329.

covered with paintings that were part of the collection of the guild. In the second half of the seventeenth century, the busts of three governors were placed in the room : of Luis Francisco de Benavides, a work by Artus Quellinus from 1664 ; of the count of Monterey, sculpted by Lodewijk Willems in 1675 ; and of Maximilian Emanuel of Bavaria, by Willem Kerrickx from 1694. In 1665, Jacob Jordaens had painted two ceiling paintings. One depicted Pegasus, and the other was entitled Industry and Commerce, Stimulating the Flowering of the Arts.6 The latter painting was also an allegory on the art of poetry,7 for the room was not just used for meetings and as an exhibition space, but also for theatre performances by the Chamber of Rhetoric De Violieren.8 Poetry and painting went hand in hand : Horace’s dictum “Ut Pictura Poesis” was well known.

8

T. De Paepe, “Une place pour les commedies …”

De relatie tussen inrichting, repertoire en gebruik van de Antwerpse theatergebouwen tussen 1610 en 1762 ( unpublished thesis University Antwerp ) ( Antwerp 2010 ), 485 ff.

The Nieuwe Beurs in Antwerp, as depicted in Lodovico Guicciardini, Descrittione di Tutti i Paesi Bassi, Antwerp, 1582 ( Museum Plantin-Moretus / Print Room, Antwerp )

Gaspar Bouttats, The upper floor of the Nieuwe Beurs in Antwerp, where art dealer Hendrik van Soest organized a lottery in 1695, copperplate engraving, late seventeenth century, ( Town Archives, Antwerp )

There was a strong emphasis on drawing and modelling from live models. The lighting in Tijs’ drawing class was very primitive. There was a copper lamp with fourteen burners ; 254

around the lamp was a tin plate light-screen that reflected the light across the room, which produced a smooth, even light. Coal was burnt in two copper tubs in order to heat the room in winter.9 Tijs sat on a wooden bench. When the lighting was insufficient, he could sit near a wooden candlestick in which several candles were lit.

9

F.J. Van den Branden, Geschiedenis der Academie, 26.

10 R. Fabri, De 17de-eeuwse Antwerpse kunstkast.

Typologische en historische aspecten, in : Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten 53 ( Brussel 1991 ) 53, 95 ( illustrations 43, 44 ) ; Idem, “‘L’occasion favorable’ de Henri van Soest à Bruxelles en 1716.

Ou comment un ébéniste anversois tente de duper ses collègues bruxellois”, in : Annales de la Société Royale d’Archéologie de Bruxelles 62 ( 1998 ), 169–191.

11 F.J. Van den Branden, Geschiedenis der Academie, 35–36.

12

Galleries around the courtyard of the Nieuwe Beurs, lithograph, first half of the nineteenth century ( Museum Plantin-Moretus / Print Room, Antwerp )

Little was to change for the students who enrolled to study art in the Nieuwe Beurs between 1670 and 1690. The deacons of the Guild of Saint Luke, such as Hendrik Verbruggen, Ignatius van Coucercken, or Peter Ijkens, constantly guarded the quality of the training.

But in 1690, precisely that would become the problem : the quality of the teaching was below the level required, and the number of students dwindled drastically. The sub-deacon of the guild, Hendrik van Soest ( born 1659 — died after 1718 ; date unknown ) was a shrewd businessman and used the situation to his advantage. He obtained the permission of Maximilian II Emanuel, the Elector of Bavaria, to use the Great Painting Hall for his lotteries.10 A reorganisation of the classrooms was imposed. In 1694, Van Soest arranged for a new “drawing room” to be installed in the north wing of the Beurs. In it, the students drew plaster casts and worked “from life”.11 Thanks to the lotteries, unsold artworks by Academy members or their students still brought in some money. But the Board of the Academy was in turmoil. Various members considered the situation to be intolerable and claimed that the curriculum had to be reformed and that new courses might have to be introduced. Jan Peter van Baurscheit the Elder ( 1669–1728 ) saw a serious threat arising from the Guild of the Vier Gekroonden, which made frantic efforts to restore the earlier situation and reduce the training of ( mainly ) architects to the level of craftsmen.12 The Academy was dying a slow death.

In 1741 the Academy’s programme took a sudden turn. On the initiative of Jan Peter van Baurscheit the Younger ( 1699–1768 ) lessons were once again free — no enrolment fee had to be paid. There was a staff of six teachers : Alexander van Papenhoven, Peter Bouttats, Jacob Rottiers, Maerten Geeraerts, Peter Snijders and Jan Peter van Baurscheit himself. Van Baurscheit really did take initiative for the whole thing : the Guild of Saint Luke had nothing to do with it. From then on, the city of Antwerp would take charge : it took over from the Guild on matters with regard to education. In 1749 The Guild of Saint Luke and the Academy became entirely separate entities. The city of Antwerp and the central council now became the organising authorities. Thanks to their initiative, more emphasis was placed on architecture. In 1756 the painter Cornelis d’Heur ( 1707–1762 ) was the first to teach “the principles of geometry, architecture and perspective”.13 The architecture programme became better organized and classes were more regular. In 1765 the painter Willem even arranged for a course in geometry, perspective and the classical orders of architecture, which was now separate from the classes in drawing from live and classical models. He is therefore considered the founder of the Architecture Department at the Academy.14 But nothing changed with regard to the buildings.

255

For more on this subject, see : P. Lombaerde, “Jan Peter van Baurscheit d. Ä. und d.

J. : zwei Generationen von Baumeistern in Antwerpen ( Belgien ) um 1700”, in : W. Oechslin ( ed. ), Architekt und / versus Baumeister.

Die Frage nach dem Metier ( Zurich 2009 ), 114–123.

13

J.B. Vanderstraelen, Jaerboek der vermaarde en kunstryke gilde van Sint Lucas binnen de Stad Antwerpen ( Antwerp 1855 ), 367.

14

J. Lampo, Een tempel bouwen voor de muzen.

Een korte geschiedenis van de Antwerpse Academie ( 1663–1995 ) ( Lier 1995 ), 10.

15

H. De Groote, “Onderwijs en geestelijke stromingen”, in : Antwerpen in de XVIIIde eeuw ( Genootschap voor Antwerpse geschiedenis ) ( Antwerp 1952 ), 348–385, 363.

16 J.B. Vanderstraelen, Jaerboek der vermaarde en kunstryke gilde, 370.

17

Idem, 372–378.

18

J. Van den Nieuwenhuizen, “Histoire matérielle”, in : Bulletin de l’Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique 5 ( 1962 ) 27–85, 40.

19

E. Poffé, Antwerpen in de XVIIIe eeuw na den Inval der Franschen ( Antwerp 1897 ), 447.

ACADEMY AND MUSEUM IN THE FORMER MONASTERY OF THE FRIARS MINOR With French rule in place in Flanders, a lot would change in Antwerp, too. The city would cease to look like it had done in the past. The law of 12 August 1793 abolished all the academies and replaced them with écoles centrales. On 18 September 1794, the management informed the town council that it no longer had the financial means to continue its mission. A response from the council was not forthcoming and the Board therefore resigned in October of the same year.15 The town architect Jan Blom was willing, however, to continue giving lessons in architecture without taking a fee.16 But with the approval of the town council, Simon Pierre Dargonne ( 1749–1839 ), a commissioner under the Directoire, established an École spéciale de Peinture, Sculpture et Architecture. The aim was to continue the Academy with a curriculum based on his own views.17 The former teachers were dismissed and replaced by new teachers. For the Painting Department these included Willem Schaeken, Balthasar Paul Ommeganck and Pierre van Regemorter ; for the Sculpture Department there was Jean-Baptiste Dubois ; and for Architecture there was Jan Blom. At this revolutionary school that replaced the Academy, Melchior Thielemans from Lier, who wanted to become a painter, had ample opportunity to draw. As it was, Dargonne had gathered a large collection of artworks by robbing the churches and monasteries of their treasures. A large part of these were first collected in the Abbey of Saint Michael, from where they were transported to Paris. Some of them remained in Antwerp, however, and

were placed on view in the Academy.18 Edward Poiffe commented : “The marble columns of our temples would be used as models, or to adorn public buildings ; treasures from the church were sold at giveaway prices ; Quellin’s large painting was cut up and the pieces were sent to the École spéciale.” 19 At school, Melchior was able to see paintings by Rubens, Jordaens and Van Dyck, as well as sculptures by Quellinus and Verhaeghen. He had the choice of a number of classes : antique art, lessons in perspective, architecture, copying various genres of paintings and drawing from a model, “when the time is right for modelling without heating”.

Jan Blom, Floor plan of the monastery of the Friars Minor, 1797 ( Town Archives, Antwerp )

256

The director of the Academy, the painter Willem Herreyns, had been able to save 328 works from the churches and monasteries. He had also managed to retrieve two works by Rubens from Paris. They were placed in the Carmelite monastery ( between the Meir and the Graanmarkt ).20 The monastery, which belonged to the Brothers of Our Lady, was set up as an école centrale in November 1797.21 Herreyns was responsible for the drawing lessons, and Carllier, who had been sent to Antwerp as a civil engineer, taught mathematics.

Herreyns continued to teach perspective in the Nieuwe Beurs, as well as geometry and “the five orders of architecture”. The situation in the Beurs was therefore confused : on the one hand, there was the École spéciale de Dessin, Peinture et Architecture, but on the other hand courses were also organized by the École centrale.

Hendrik de Cort ( attributed to ), The churchyard of the monastery of the Friars Minor, in the front, right, the south aisle of the church, situation in 1788 ( KASKA )

Joseph Nicolas Mengin, Drawing for the façades of the new museum and the classrooms of the Antwerp Academy, 1807 ( Town Archives, Antwerp )

Eventually a law dictated that only the École centrale was allowed to organize courses.

The adoption of the law was preceded by a sort of occupation of the Nieuwe Beurs. On 7 May 1799, a delegation of artists headed by Herreyns marched to the Beurs and informed Dargonne that from now on, they were in charge : “we have installed our colleague citizen Herreyns [ … ] to continue his classes in the so-called École Spéciale with the teachers listed below [ … ] to fulfil their function as public teachers [ … ]”.22 257

20 National Archives, Province of Antwerp, J&K, 1125, N 260.

21

G. Verboven, Historische Schets van het Koninklijk Atheneum voor Jongens te Antwerpen ( Anwerp 1949 ), 25.

22

National Archives Antwerp, Province of Antwerp, J&K, 1109, letter from floréal an 8.

23

Herbouville issued a new set of regulations for the Academy. See : P. Rolland, Archief van het Oud Sint Lucasgild en van de Oud Koninklijke Academie van Antwerpen ( Antwerp 1939 ) nr. 303–304 : Register der resolutiën, acten ende archiven concerneerende de opcomsten, voortganck ende vernieuwingen der vermaerde Conincklijcke Academie van de teekenconst, perspetive, enz, 282 ff.

24

Idem, 335.

25 J. Immerzeel, De levens en werken der Hollandsche en Vlaamsche kunstschilders, beeldhouwers, graveurs en bouwmeesters van het begin der 15de eeuw tot heden ( Amsterdam 1842 ) 98 ; P. Lombaerde, “De stedebouwkundige werken van François Verly ( 1760– 1822 )”, in : P. Lombaerde ( ed. ), Antwerpen tijdens het Franse Keizerrijk 1804–1814.

Marine-arsenaal, metropool en vestingstad ( Brugge 1989 ),125.

26 National Archives Antwerp, Province of Antwerp, J&K, 1109.

27

Ibid.

28

KASKA, MA 1, Séances du Conseil d’Administration, Procès-Verbaux, 88.

29 On Mengin, see : P. Mengin Lecreulx, “Joseph Nicolas Mengin ( 1760– 1842 ). Hoofdingenieur van Bruggen en Wegen van het Departement der Twee Neten ( juli 1803–januari 1813 )”, in : P. Lombaerde ( ed. ), Antwerpen tijdens het Franse Keizerrijk 1804–1814.

Marine-arsenaal, metropool en vestingstad ( Brugge 1989 ), 57–69.

30 The Friars Minor belong to the Order of Francisans.

They settled in Antwerp in 1446. The construction of the monastery started in 1449, but construction was only complete around 1500. See : S. Schoutens, Geschiedenis van het voormalige Minderbroedersklooster van Antwerpen ( Antwerp 1894 ).

31

The description in the text is based on two documents : the copperplate engraving of the monastery by A. Sanderus, entitled Chorographia sacra Brabantiae ( Den Haag 1726 ), and Jan Blom’s floor plan “Plan du Couvent des Récollets à Anvers levé l’An six de la République Française, 1797”, SAA, DWG # 5720.

On 7 August 1804, the École Centrale de Peinture, Sculpture et Architecture — as it had been named in the meantime — was also dissolved ; it was replaced on 27 September by the Académie de Peinture, Sculpture et Architecture de la Ville d’Anvers, which was still housed in the Nieuwe Beurs, with Herreyns again at its head.23 New students could enrol free of charge for classes in antiquity, architecture and theory ( “basic principles” ).24 All courses were now taught in French and so a secondary-school teacher, Jean-Francois D’Hulst, was called in to assist. Jan Kaulman ( 1764–1812 ) taught architecture to “architectes et architectesingénieurs”. Kaulman, who succeeded Jan Blom, was particularly skilled in perspective and the theory of shadows.25 The refounding of the Academy was a direct result of Napoleon’s first visit to Antwerp in 1803. It also meant that the option of a new location was considered that might house the museum and the Academy.26 Prefect d’Herbouville decided that the former monastery of the Friars Minor ( which had been closed on 31 August 1796 ) should be transformed into a new museum. Auguste Martin Debourges ( 1775–1851 ), a civil engineer, listed the specifications and started the works. Some of the exhibition spaces would be ready as early as 1806.27 However, work on the new classrooms started with some difficulty. In 1806 merchants from the Nieuwe Beurs urged prefect Cochon de Lapparent to allow them to retake possession of the building’s galleries. They invoked the laws of 19 March 1801 and 24 December 1802 on commodity exchanges. The rooms in which the Academy was housed were in effect their property and they had spent a lot of money on their maintenance.

At that time, no one at the Academy had any idea that they would have to leave the Nieuwe Beurs. The prefect complied with the request of the merchants, though he was aware that the Academy needed “a permanent place to stay, a place that was suitable and spacious”.28 He adhered to his conclusion that the site of the former monastery of the Friars Minor was indeed suitable. During the meeting of the Board on 25 July 1807, Herreyns informed the members that the prefect had asked to make new plans to house the Academy and a new museum in the former monastery. Herreyns and Kaulman each elaborated their project. On 8 August the projects were ready and they were submitted to the prefect. But at the committee meeting on 14 November 1807, only Mengin’s project was presented.29 The project was discussed and finally accepted, albeit with a few minor changes that included, for example, using one of the wings of the monastery instead of the front side of the church. Herreyns and Van Bree were charged with informing Mengin of the alterations, which they did on 3 December 1807.

Let us now go for a stroll through the monastery of the Friars Minor, as it was three centuries ago. It was a special monastery, which was also relevant from a social point of view.30 The Friars Minor took care of the poor, the needy and strangers, and so in the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth century they had therefore built a hospital with a chapel next to the church and cloister ( the present Winter Garden ), as well as accommodation for strangers. To enter the premises, there were two entrances at the present Mutsaardplein.31 One could either enter through the gate opposite the nave of the church, or one walked through the gate with the gatehouse that was situated near the present entrance of the Academy. This entrance led the visitor to the actual monastery. Behind the nave, there was an elongated choir, which was almost as long as the nave of the church. Today it is still possible to see the sidewalls at the choir’s exterior. These high walls have been constructed with sandstone and brick ; they are supported by narrow buttresses — a typical example of Franciscan architecture : unadorned and yet refined, with an emphasis on structure, simplicity and verticality. Behind the choir were the apse chapels. To the north the transept gave onto the Stadswaag, the medieval weighing house ( which now houses the Dieperik auditorium on its first floor ) ; to the south it joined the chapter room. To the south, the choir met the refectory. Between the refectory and the chapter room, there was the cloister with the “quadrangle” in the middle ( which is now the Winter Garden ). The rooms of the Father Provincial and those of the friars occupied the ground floor and the first floor of the southern part of the cloister. To the south of the cloister was the accommodation for the guests. The hospital was still farther to the south, next to the Blindestraat, where there was also an infirmary and an herb garden. To the east, behind the herb garden, a brewery was located, with an ornamental garden next to it. The vegetable gardens of the monastery stretched over the entire space behind the apse chapels to the Venusstraat and the Blindestraat. The orchard or mutsaard lay in front of the monastery and the church.

258

It was partially hidden behind a wall bordering the present Mutsaardplein. Where now the so-called director’s residence is situated, there used to be the house of the caretaker, which had a private ornamental garden. But the White Sisters ( the Maricoles — Franciscan nuns ) also had an abode within this compound. It was a small monastery with enclosed gardens, bordered by two transverse buildings with a gabled front. These buildings were situated between the friars’ guest accommodation, the walls of the cloister and a number of houses on the corner of the Blindestraat and the Mutsaardstraat. In 1864, the sisters sold their property, which had long since been turned into a girls’ school, to the town.32 That was the site that the engineers Debourges and Mengin had to work with to house a museum and the new Academy. Mengin completed his drawings in December 1807.33 It is unclear what each of the engineers contributed to the project, but we know that in the Year 12 work was already going on with Debourges in charge. It is therefore possible that certain adaptation works had already been done, before the actual work of readying the premises for the school was carried out. For the latter work, drawings were used on which the destination of the renovated premises was marked. It is also obvious that the premises were initially intended to be used as a museum, and that the Academy was added later. But both functions, i.e. the museum and the school, remained clearly separate. Mengin’s plans did not involve the entire complex of the Friars Minor, but only the church and the northern and western parts of the cloister, as well as the gatehouses at the Mutsaardplein. He kept the two entrances that provided access to the orchard and to the complex he was to renovate.

Through a hall ( which Bourla enlarged and turned into the so-called Temple ), one could access the church. In its nave, the splendours of the Flemish School were exhibited. The choir was turned into the museum of the Italian School. Nikolaas Rockox’ chapel, behind the choir, was turned into a cabinet, possibly a room used for administrative purposes and supervision. The north transept would be used for temporary exhibitions. Apart from a small connecting door, the museum was completely separate from the premises of the academy. That was made possible because Mengin wanted to extend the walls of the choir over the entire length of the nave. That created two small spaces that occupied the aisles of the church. They would be used as a museum for sculpture, but also as a “studio for copying paintings”, which probably means that the students of the Academy were able to copy paintings from the museum in this space.

Via the old orchard, one could access the entrance ( with stairwell ) to the Academy.

The entrance hall, with circulation, was new. It was situated next to the former chapter room. The chapter room itself was turned into a “classe d’après nature” ( a classroom for drawing from a model ), a spacious room that was heated with stoves. A part of the cloister was connected with the stairwell and provided access to the council chamber of the new Academy and to a second classroom where antique statues were drawn.34 There was also a “salle des principes” ( a “classroom for principles”, i.e. for teaching theory ). Taking the stairs in the aforementioned stairwell, one reached the first floor. This is where the classrooms for architecture were situated. There was the actual “classe d’architecture”, and next to that was a large room where the theory of perspective was taught. Next to the choir, still on the first floor, various ornaments were on display, mainly capitals and other fragments of classical columns, which the students could copy. Mengin also designed new façades, both for the entrance to the museum and for the buildings of the Academy.35 The reason for this is that a second floor is to be added to the building of the Academy and the front of the church will be adorned with a pediment ; beneath it a semi-circular arch that rests on two Doric columns accentuates the entrance to the museum. The upper part of the façade is completed with a semi-circular arch and the transition of the nave to the aisles is decorated with two volutes. To the left and right of the entrance gate, two niches are constructed with statues of Pictura and Sculptura.

Following Napoleon’s second visit to Antwerp in 1810, the project that Mengin had commenced years earlier is to be finished. The decree of 5 May 1810 allocates the sum of 30,000 francs to the project. Article 7 of the Imperial Decree runs : “The church and the buildings of the Friars Minor in the town of Antwerp, marked on the enclosed plan, are put at the disposal of the town mentioned above, in order to accommodate a drawing school and a museum. The expense, which is reckoned to be thirty thousand francs, will be met by the town and will be divided equally over the 1810 and 1811 budgets.” 36 The work is entrusted to a contractor named Peltier, who 259

32 M. Debruyn, Hogeschool Antwerpen. Bouwhistorisch onderzoek van de Campus ( unpublished monograph Henry Van de Velde Institute ) ( Anwerp 1997 ) 4 volumes, V 1, Het Zuid-Westpand, 2.

33

National Archives Beveren-Waas, Province of Antwerp, series J&K, 1109 : various drawings of the new musem, signed by Mengin, 1807. See also : SAA, DWG # 5703, 5704, 5705, 5710, 5717 and 5720.

34

These auditoriums were very typical in academies.

Compare : G. Lambert and E. Thibault ( eds. ), L’atelier et l’amphithéâtre. Les écoles de l’architecture, entre théorie et pratique ( Waver 2011 ).

35 SAA, DWG # 5705, 5706 and 5717.

36

KASKA, MA 1, Séances du Conseil d’Administration, Procès-Verbaux, 1804– 1817, 88.

37 National Archives Antwerp, Province of Antwerp, 1109.

38 On Bourla, see especially : M. Manderyck, “Pierre Bruno Bourla 1783–1866”, in : M. Manderyck et al., De Bourla Schouwburg. Een tempel voor de muzen ( Tielt 1993 ) ; I. Van Reeth, Pierre Bruno Bourla. Stadsbouwmeester te Antwerpen ( unpublished MA thesis ) ( K.U. Leuven 1994 ) ; P. Lombaerde, Het Bourlahuis & het ontstaan van het Eilandje ( Deurne 1994 ).

39

has to be urged on several occasions, however, to carry out the work correctly. In 1811 the doors of the new site of the Academy and museum open. In a letter dated 15 January 1811, upon completion of the outside walls, we read : “The façade of the Academy of Fine Arts has been done very well.” 37 And yet on two occasions around that time, the museum had been closed.

In 1809, when the English invaded Walcheren, and all the paintings were taken off the walls and gathered “in a safe place outside the Museum” while the buildings were set up as a military hospital. The same would happen again in 1814, when the Nieuwstad ( or “New town” ) came under heavy bombardment from the English and General Lazare Carnot, the governor of the occupied town of Antwerp, had the museum cleared.

SAA, MA # 80546.

Pierre Bruno Bourla, Floor plan and elevations of the new gatehouse for the Museum of Fine Arts and the Antwerp Academy, 1841 ( Town Archives, Antwerp )

There was one special event that would be of tremendous consequence for the museum and the Academy in the long run. At the end of November 1815, a few months after the French troops had been defeated at Waterloo, the paintings that had been taken from the Antwerp churches were retrieved from Paris. They arrived in Antwerp via Brussels on 5 December. They were then brought to the museum in the former monastery, expanding the existing collection of works of art.

EXPANSION AND FACELIFT BY PIERRE BRUNO BOURL A In the years from 1828–1850, Pierre Bruno Bourla ( 1783–1866 ), “Town architect” of Antwerp since 1819 and a teacher at the Academy, further elaborates Mengin’s concept, which is to say that he departs from Mengin’s idea to house the new museum in the church and the classrooms in the rest of the buildings of the former monastery. He is also set on expanding the original French project.38 In the end, the structure of the former church will disappear almost entirely in the transformation of the site. Bourla gives the complex its definitive appearance, which it has to date retained. Both the development of the plans and their realization would be achieved over various stages.

In order to understand the reallocation of the entire site of the former monastery, we should go back to the ‘general plan’ that was developed in 1829.39 The church and half of the cloister are meant to become the museum and classrooms for the Academy. A large part of the site ( next to the Blindestraat ) and the east wing of the monastery are destined for the “Charity Office”. Thus three separate zones are created : museum, Academy, and offices for the town’s social service. Broadly speaking, the situation as it was under French rule is preserved. The “quadrangle” ( the garden enclosed by the cloister ) has now been 260

Pierre Bruno Bourla, Floor plans, elevation and section of the charity school, 1828 ( Town Archives, Antwerp )

Pierre Bruno Bourla, Drawing for the monumental staircase that was part of the entrance to the Museum of Fine Arts, 1841 ( Town Archives, Antwerp )

Pierre Bruno Bourla, The director’s residence on the site of the Academy, situation in 1975 ( photo : Liliane Lacasse ) ( KASKA ) 261

Pierre Bruno Bourla, The “Long Hall” of the museum as exhibition room for the live model class, situation in 1924 ( KASKA )

Pierre Bruno Bourla, The gatehouse of the Academy, with a temporary “false” façade on the occasion of the visit of King Leopold I to Antwerp for the inauguration of the Kattendijkdok on 22 October 1860 ( KASKA )

262

covered by Bourla. A wooden truss with a pyramid-shaped top rests on the existing walls and on four columns that are placed in the middle of the garden.40 The glass cover of the pyramid allows sufficient light to penetrate the now covered space, which will become the “sculpture hall”. A small space is left open, to separate this “sculpture hall” from the soonto-be-set-up “Charity Office”. The plans also mention that this open space must function to prevent “fire from spreading”. The Charity Office will be housed in the east wing of the cloister and in the space behind the choir and the former vegetable garden — a space that stretches as far as the Blindestraat. In 1824, the architect Le Mineur had already presented a drawing with the workhouses of the Charity Office next to the Blindestraat.41 His drawing shows a simple building with a neoclassical façade that was made of plastered brick, with the doors and windows lined with bluestone. The ground floor was decorated with bossage.

The one-storey building was accented with pediments above the side entrances and the outward parts.

The workhouses stopped functioning in 1870. The building was demolished and in 1886 architect Victor Durlet ( 1837–1900 ) designed a new, neo-baroque building for the administration of the Charity Office. The building was square, with a courtyard in the middle that was surrounded by offices and secretariats. Later, the building was transformed into a police station. Next to it, the École spéciale de musique de la Ville d’Anvers was located — the predecessor to the Antwerp Conservatory of Music. The building along the Blindestraat was demolished in 1891. In 1906, construction began on the Arthur van den Nest Gesticht, an institute for the prevention and control of tuberculosis ; the architects were Ferdinand Dermond and E.J. Tyck.42 Especially beautiful are the graffiti on the façade, which were designed by Paul Cauchie ( 1875–1952 ) and others. A little further along stood the building that housed “Licht en Lucht”, designed by Dermond in 1922.

But let us return to Bourla, who had been commissioned by the town council to design accommodation for the Charity Office. In the first instance he was to design a chapel for the organization. In June 1820, he drew up plans for a single-nave chapel without transept and with just a modest choir.43 It was a rectangular volume with a gabled roof, with a lower volume for the choir on the eastern side. Inside, a sort of antechapel was separated from the nave by columns. The bays were marked out with pilasters. The ceiling of the nave was flat ; the altar and the apse were covered with a barrel vault. Only the entrance in front was slightly ornamented : an architrave was supported by two fluted Doric columns.

It was spanned by a segmental arch with a window that lit the rood screen.44 The chapel was built on the site of the vegetable gardens of the former monastery, parallel to the Blindestraat. In 1889 it was renovated and transformed into a reception hall, which met with little success. In 1912 it was partially pulled down and in the 1930s most of it was demolished. A few remnants were stored in a garage, where sculpture students worked. In 2007 this site was cleared for the present building that now houses the evening classes of the Academy ; the building was designed by architect Tomas Ooms, from RDBM Architecten & Adviseurs and was completed in 2009.

In 1828, Bourla is also to build a Charity School next to the Charity Office.45 A boys’ school was housed on the ground floor, and in the attic there was more space for the Charity Office. On the floor plan we notice three parts : an entrance hall with a staircase that leads to the attic ; a middle part — subdivided by a lengthwise wall — with small classrooms ; and in the back, a teachers’ room, as well as a toilet and a storage space for coal.

The façade is modest, yet also monumental, thanks to four Doric columns on which an architrave rests that is spanned by a rounded arch. The building still exists and continues to be used by the Academy.

In the meantime, Bourla had also embarked on the further renovation of the Academy site. In 1822 he drew up the plans for the director’s residence, which was built in the garden of the monastery, on the site where the caretaker’s lodge we mentioned above used to stand.46 Only the foundations of the lodge remained. To date, the new building still radiates an austere, simple neoclassicism and draws attention with its harmonic proportions, its median risalit, Doric columns, and pediment. Inside there is a splendid wooden spiral staircase, situated in a semi-circular niche.

263

40

SAA, DWG # 5716 and MA # 80515.

41

SAA, MA # 80515.

42 M. Debruyn, Hogeschool Antwerpen, Gesticht Arthur van den Nest, 1.

43 SAA, MA # 875 / 2 and 879.

44 Bourla would adopt this design — almost without any changes — in 1821 and once more in 1824, for the first Saint Lawrence Church at the Markgravelei in Antwerp. See : B. Van de Vijver, De St.-Laurentiuskerk en pastorij ( 1824–1827 ) van Pierre Bruno Bourla. Een architectuurhistorische studie ( unpublished architectere thesis, Henry Van de Velde Institute ) ( Anwerp 1996 ) 2 volumes, V 1, 46–47.

45

SAA, MA # 80515.

46 SAA, MA #, 882, 1299, 9010 and 80407.

47 SAA, DWG # 5712, MA # 882, 80549, 80558 and 80628.

48

F.J. Van den Branden, Geschiedenis der Academie, 60 ; Schone Kunsten in Antwerpen ( exh. cat. ) ( Anwerp 1976 ).

49 50 51

SAA, MA # 80694.

SAA, MA # 80714.

SAA, MA # 80966.

52

Compare S. Beele, “Nicaise De Keysers schilderijencyclus in de Antwerpse museumvestibule : archivalia omtrent een academisch project”, in : Jaarboek KMSKA ( 1991 ) 315–368 ; Idem, “De roem van de Antwerpse kunstschool”, in : Dossier Tentoonstelling ( Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten ) 1 ( 2000 ) 2, 6–13.

53

SAA, MA # 80711, 80713 and 80966.

54

SAA, MA # 80713.

The cross-section on this plan clearly shows the layout of the buidlings.

55 56 57

SAA, MA # 80714.

SAA, DWG # 5713.

SAA, MA # 80711 and 80713.

In 1830 Bourla designs a new large exhibition hall,47 which is now called the Long Hall.

He intends to create a new entrance to the entire complex that comprises the Academy and the museum in the Venusstraat. White sandstone lined with bluestone was used for the façade of this monumental entrance. Bourla used pilasters to articulate the monumental panelled gate. A semi-circular fan spans the entrance. First one enters a vestibule that lies higher than the actual exhibition hall. The hall is visually divided in two places by columns with high bases. The coffered ceiling creates a diffuse light in the entire space. In the middle of the south wall of the hall, a space was provided for “sculpture”, the so-called Square Hall. In 1839, the space between the Long Hall and the Square Hall was filled in with an exhibition space for the Royal Society for the Promotion of Fine Arts in Antwerp ( established in 1788, and re-established in 1817 ).48 Openings were made to link the new hall with the older ones.49 With regard to the former church, Bourla’s main intervention was realized in 1841.50 That year saw the entire nave of the former church demolished and a new museum was built. For this museum, Bourla created an enfilade, a successive series of volumes. The visitor who comes to see the museum and the art collections thus experiences his visit as a promenade architecturale, an architectural stroll through successive rooms, each with their own design. It is quite possible that Bourla used fragments of the foundations from the nave of the old church. The entrance is one of Bourla’s true masterworks. An imposing hall, two storeys high, leads to two symmetrically placed staircases.51 In 1862, the stairwell was adorned with a series of paintings by Nicaise De Keyser ( 1813–1887 ), The Fame of the Antwerp Art School. From 1855 to 1879, De Keyser was director of the academy and curator of the museum. With state funds he created a monumental cycle of thirty-nine oil paintings that featured the three themes of the Antwerp painting school : the history of the Academy ; its character ; and its international repute.52 The work was inaugurated on 19 August 1872, together with the museum hall. But five years later, a competition was organized for a new museum in the southern part of town. It is only in 1890 that this new museum opens its doors. The new museum hall is renamed De Keyserzaal and will be an almost identical copy of Bourla’s vestibule. This makes it possible to hang all of De Keyser’s paintings in the new Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp.

The façade of the monumental vestibule of Bourla’s new museum — also known as The Temple — is neoclassical.53 The façade comprises two storeys and is punctuated with pilasters that are decorated with foliated capitals. In the middle, the lintel is topped with a pediment. A large oculus adorns a median risalit that is topped with a pediment, which is supported by four monumental Ionic fluted columns. The visitor entering the portal can either climb the monumental stairs to the first floor, or continue on the ground floor through a stately door that leads to the salle des antiquités, or hall of antiquities : a large hypostyle hall in which the plaster casts of the Academy used to be arrayed ( and which now serves as the refectory ). The hall gives onto the various studios of the Academy, which are now in the former choir of the church. These studios in turn give onto a series of smaller studios that lead to the salle de distribution, a merging of the former sculpture class and the exhibition hall of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Fine Arts.54 These rooms give onto the Long Hall, which is used as exhibition space. The visitor climbing the stairs in the entrance hall will enter this new museum. The museum spans a large rectangular space and is situated over the present refectory. The museum hall gives directly onto the space that used to be the choir of the church. Apart from the exhibition hall, the upper floor comprises three consecutive rooms, which are all aligned on the same axis. It is in these museum rooms that the paintings of the museum are exhibited.55 In 1841, in his capacity as town architect, Bourla also addresses the problem of renovating the public space of the site. The corner of the Mutsaardstraat and the Blindestraat housed a sugar refinery. Bourla has the premises expropriated and the buildings are demolished in order to create the present Mutsaardplein.56 On Bourla’s zoning plan, it is clear that he draws a straight line through the refinery, so that the buildings in the Mutsaardstraat and the Blindestraat are aligned along the same building line. In doing so, he is also able to build a new monumental entrance gate to the museum that is situated in the produced axis of the Minderbroederstraat. The garden is fenced off with a wrought iron fence and to the left and the right of the entrance gate two symmetrical garden pavilions are constructed. 57 264

The museum now has its own monumental entrance gate on the side of the Mutsaardplein ; the Academy only has an entrance in the Venusstraat. The word “Museum” is inscribed in gold letters on three sides of the entrance portal on the Mutsaardplein. When the museum is relocated to the southern part of the town, the inscription “Museum” is replaced with the inscription “Academy”. Both Hendrik Conscience and Edmond Van Offel have written about the Academy entrance in the Venusstraat : “Long ago, a noisy bunch of youngsters crowded together near the gate that still exists in the Venusstraat, waiting for their classrooms to open.

A whirl of pushing bodies, a jumble of arms and legs, stomping and stamping, pushing and pulling, squabbling, shouting, screaming, cursing and laughing, all at once, without stopping. Till at 6 am, the gate yields, and crying out, their shoes and clogs clattering on the paving of the classrooms, the rascals storm in …” 58 The entrance gate on the Mutsaardplein can still be seen when one turns into the Minderbroederstraat from the Minderbroederrui. The gatehouse also refers to the triumphal arches that were built in Antwerp on the occasion of Joyous Entries. The style of the gate is neoclassical. The gatehouse comprises two storeys, with an articulated median risalit. The windows on the upper floor are flanked by small Ionic columns and spanned by blind, semi-circular arches. Through a rectangular monumental gate one enters the garden of the museum and the Academy. The garden is considered the first open-air museum in Antwerp, a true predecessor of the Middelheim Museum. Numerous architectural relics have been placed in this garden, including, amongst other items, columns, ornamental

gates, and Gothic tracery — all parts of ancients houses that have been demolished.59 These three-dimensional works of art used to serve as drawing models for the students.

Once the sugar refinery had been pulled down, engineer-architect Frans Stoop ( 1815– 1861 ) — inspector of public works in the town of Antwerp and teacher at the Academy — had a new studio built on the site, with extra classrooms and stockrooms.60 That was in 1856.

The studio was intended for painting : it had a large upright window on the north side and it was actually built for Nicaise De Keyser. The style is remarkably different from Bourla’s. Stoop opts for eclecticism, with large areas of glass and sumptuous ornaments.

That same year, the town engineer also extends the director’s residence ( towards the Mutsaardstraat ).61 He adds a new building with a large veranda ; the whole now becomes an L-structure. It must be added that Stoops tries to connect to Bourla’s neoclassicism as much as possible. Pieter Dens ( 1819–1901 ), who succeeds Bourla as town architect, and who starts teaching at the Academy in 1862, adds more changes and extensions to the buildings.

In 1864, for example, he builds two spaces for temporary exhibitions that will be used by the Royal Society for the Promotion of Fine Arts.62 The exhibition spaces were situated just in front of the Charity School, on the site of the present car park.

THE ACADEMY, THE PUBLIC LIBRARY AND THE CHARITY OFFICE : LIVING APART TOGETHER With the interventions of town engineer Gustaaf Royers ( 1848–1923 ), who also teaches at the Academy, the school acquires its more contemporary look. In 1883 the engineer draws a new plan for the Academy and the museum.63 It features all the changes that will be effected during his term of office. The new plan is motivated by the education reforms of 5 June 1882, which include the foundation of the National Higher Institute of Fine Arts ( NHISK ), and the introduction of a series of free studios. Royers’ plan requires the surface area of the site to be extended. Apart from adaptation and modernization works, such as pulling down classrooms, raising ceilings, walling up windows etc, Royers’ main interventions comprise constructing a new wing with an entrance in the garden ( the so-called “main building” ), as well as four classrooms with a corridor that links to the Blindestraat, and a slightly protruding two-storey building.64 To realize these extensions, Royers had the director’s studio of Nicaise De Keyser pulled down in 1883, as well as the rear part of the convent of the White Sisters and an old pump house. Between these constructions and the rear of those houses that remained in the Blindestraat, two wood-and-glass studios were constructed. One of these still exists : the so-called Animal Class ( or “Beast Class” ).

The building is remarkable because of the roof constructions with propped beams.

265

58 E. Van Offel, Antwerpen 1900 ( Anwerp 1950 ), 42–43.

59 For a description of these statues and the recycled gate casings and ornaments, see : Bouwen door de eeuwen heen in Vlaanderen. Stad Antwerpen 3 nb ( Ghent 1979 ), 345–346.

60 SAA, DWG # 5725, 1855.

61 SAA, MA # 1299, 80862 and 9010.

62 63 64

SAA, MA # 81468.

SAA, MA # 81909.

SAA, MA #81909.

65 P. Lombaerde, “De architectuur van de Antwerpse Stadsbibliotheek : 1879–1936”, in : De Nottebohmzaal. Boek en mecenaat ( publicaties SBA / AMVC, 34–36 ) ( Anwerp 1993 ), 29–39.

66

M. Debruyn, Hogeschool Antwerpen, De Volksbibliotheek , 5.

67 68 69

SAA, MA # 82612.

SAA, MA # 82666.

SAA, MA #1299 / 2.

Behind it, it is still possible to spot the remains of the second pavilion, with its airy glass-andwood construction.

Royers wanted to accommodate the library in the wing next to the Blindestraat, but in the end it will be housed in three rooms of the newly built main wing, to the right of the main entrance ( where it still remains today ). Royers’ new buildings are different from Bourla’s in their simple articulation of the outer walls and the use of sawtooth roofs. The entrance to the main building is articulated with a small protruding portico with two Doric columns. To date Royers’ construction continues to look modern and functional. In 1894 Royers also sets out to transform the east wing of the former cloister and he designs a new Public Library. The old Public Library was housed in the Antwerp Town Hall, as was the larger Municipal Library. Because of a lack of space, both would move to the former sodality building at the Conscienceplein. Still in 1894, the Public Library moved to the site of the Academy. Royers drew up the plans for the new building. The ground floor would be reserved for the Academy, and the floors above would be destined for the Public Library.

The three classrooms on the ground floor are incorporated in the former cloister ( now the Aula Pand ). In the library, the bookcases are arranged in parallel lines and divided over the walls and between the windows. Galleries along the wall can be accessed via metal staircases. The new library system was introduced at the request of librarian C.J. Hansen, who also used it in the Nottebohm Room in the Municipal Library.65 On the first floor of the building there was an antechamber, where the books that were being borrowed or being brought back were registered, as well as a secretariat and a huge number of bookcases. In 1915, the town architect Alexis Van Mechelen ( 1864–1919 ) will add a second floor with a spacious attic. What makes Van Mechelen’s extension interesting is his use of a metal skeleton — one of the first uses of a new construction technology on the Academy site.66 The simple façade of the Public Library now gives onto the parking lot of the Campus Mutsaard in the Blindestraat.

In 1897, Royers will also design seven rooms for the candidates that are selected for the Prix de Rome ( Rome Prize ). These rooms are situated on the first floor in the former choir of the church of the Friars Minor.67 He will also renovate the Square Hall. Walls are built and a new roof is constructed ; the ceiling is coffered.68 In 1884, garden and landscape architect Henri De Bosschere ( 1824– ? ), director of the Public Gardens Department in Antwerp, designs the new layout of the garden.69 De Bosschere’s plan was necessary because of Royers’ extensions to the buildings. In a typical late-nineteenth century landscape style, a wide, sloping path is divided into two at the entrance pavilion. One path leads up to the entrance of the museum, and the other to the new south wing. A large, square garden is laid out between the north and south wings of the museum and the Academy. De Bosschere proposes to move the statue of Quinten Matsijs ( which is already installed at the site ) to the middle of a round flowerbed. The statue will be flanked by four laurels.

For the other gardens he lays out various flowerbeds and along the fence he plants “shrubs that stay small”. Since Royers completed his renovations and extensions, the site of the Academy has remained almost the same as it was then. The Academy gets through the two World Wars without any particularly serious problems and the damage caused during World War II could certainly have been worse. On 16 December 1944, a V-bomb hit the corner of the Mutsaardstraat and the Minderbroederstraat, just in front of the garden. The damage made it necessary to carry out repairs to the windows, the glazing, the plaster and the ceilings. And during the night of 6 to 7 October 1947, a fire broke out in the rooms next to the Long Hall. As late as 1949, Andre Fivez ( 1892–1978 ), chief town architect in Antwerp, prepared a damage report on the Temple. The Square Hall and the rooms that Royers had added alongside suffered heavy damage. In the end, they were demolished and a new building was constructed ( see below ).

MODERNISM AND FUNCTIONALISM CONQUER THE SITE Anyone who enters the main building today — the wing that Royers constructed — is confronted with a beautiful mixture of art deco and modernism, typical of the 1930s.

266

At the end of the central hall there is a monumental marble staircase with a wooden handrail, which links the three storeys. Behind the staircase, a sober construction with high, narrow windows and slim concrete pillars allows a lot of light into the new stairwell.

In 1963, architect Renaat Braem ( 1910–2001 ), then director of the Architecture Department, added an abstract, conceptual, brightly coloured wall painting. When the stairwell was built, a second storey was added to the main building, with large horizontal windows.

New, north-south oriented sawtooth roofs covered the building. The modernist additions were probably the idea of architect Léon Stynen ( 1899–1990 ), who was appointed teacher of architecture at the Academy in 1937.

View of the site of the Academy with the entrance at the Mutsaardplein, situation ca. 1950 ( photo : Julien ‘t Felt ) ( KASKA )

In 1946, Visual Arts, on the one hand, and Architecture and Town Planning on the other become two separate departments at the Academy. The National Higher Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning ( NHIBS ), too, becomes separate from the National Higher Institute of Fine Arts ( NHISK, founded in 1885 ). The modernist architect Léon Stynen is to be the first director of the new Department of Architecture ( till 1950 ).70 During his term in office, two important rooms of the Academy are restyled : the ceilings of both the Wintergarden and the Long Hall are replaced by a new coffered glass ceiling. The side walls and articulations of the Long Hall are stripped of all nineteenth-century ornaments and the curvature of the ceiling towards the walls disappears.71 Supported by Camille Huysmans, the Education Minister at the time, Stynen had tried on previous occasions to elaborate new Bauhaus-inspired plans for the entire site of the Academy.72 In October 1944 Stynen produced some proposals for a radical renovation of the site. He wanted to pull down the entire wing built by Royers and replace it with a new building with a large patio.73 Another patio would be constructed in the Wintergarden ; the new library would be housed next to it, as well as classrooms for the visual arts and for theory of materials.

Behind the Long Hall, he would create a “theatre-concert hall”. On the first floor of the new building there would be painting classes, modelling studios, drawing classes and drawing studios. The director’s office would be situated just over the Hypostyle Hall. In Stynen’s proposals, the Temple, the Hypostyle Hall and the entrance pavilion remain. Stynen’s plans are well organized, with spacious green patios and a regular arrangement of the classrooms and studios. However, in November of 1945, he elaborates an entirely different project, starting over from zero. The site is now conceived as a landscape park with sloping paths, with various pavilions scattered over the park. The drawings feature two new entrances to the site : one on the Mutsaardplein and one in the Blindestraat. In the park, rectangular pavilions are built : the library, a lecture hall, exhibition rooms, a museum of modern art and studios for animal painting and sculptors. The central nine-storey building is situated opposite the entrance at the Mutsaardplein ; it is constructed parallel to the Temple. Behind 267

70

A. Bontridder, Léon Stynen, gevecht met de rede ( Anwerp 1979 ).

71

M. Debruyn, Hogeschool Antwerpen, V. 1, 9.

72 A. Bontridder, Léon Stynen, 103.

73

APA ( Architecture Archives Province of Antwerp ), Léon Stynen, 102.

LĂŠon Stynen, Drawing for a new campus on the historicl site of the Academy, 1945 ( Architecture Archives Province of Antwerp )

268

this building lecture halls are situated to the left and right of a central hallway. The highrise building stretches to the Venusstraat. All the Academy classrooms, including those for architecture, are located on the various floors.

The first floor will be home to the classrooms for the students of architecture and interior design, from the first to the fourth year. The fifth, sixth and seventh year architecture students find accommodation on the second floor. Modelling, clay and colour are on the third floor. The fourth floor houses the painting classes ( first to sixth year ). The floors above are home to various studios. On the top floor, under the roof, there is a refectory and a recreation room. There are two possible variations for the plans that exist for this project : one which preserves the Temple, the Hypostyle Hall and Bourla’s entrance gate, and one in which all of these are pulled down. Though these projects were never realized, they are the first attempts to develop on a rational, modern basis this historic site that has already been renovated so many times. All the renovations and extensions from former centuries were considered useless. Reforms in education also required new, functional buildings. Stynen’s projects are unique accounts of how architecture was conceived. Still in 1949, Stynen designed a new school of architecture on the Linkeroever in Antwerp.

The modernist five-storey building is long and narrow ; it is partially built on concrete pillars.74 It would have been situated between the bank of the River Scheldt and the ring road on the Linkeroever. But there were no funds to realize this grand new building. The increasing lack of space for the new architecture and urban planning programme on the existing site would have to be solved in a different way.

From 1948 there are plans to build new classrooms on the south side of the Long Hall.75 These plans are directly linked to the foundation of the National Higher Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning in 1946. As the new Department of Architecture and Urban Planning was housed on the first and second floor of the main building, it was a matter of urgency to find additional classrooms and studios for the Visual Arts. Stynen’s idea of starting from zero had been abandoned, but the idea of a large, functional building remained. Fivez, who also taught at the Higher Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning from 1950 to 1960, planned a new building on the site of the burnt-down Square Hall.76 In 1950 he drew a first plan that was particularly functionalist in its inspiration.77 It is a medium high-rise building with four floors, situated more or less on a line with the nave of the former church. On both sides of a long, wide entrance hall there will be classrooms and studios on each floor ; each classroom has large windows, with plenty of daylight entering.

He works out the details of the functionalist design and in 1953, the architect Ferdinand Peeters ( 1913–1975 ) draws up the final plan and the workshop drawings.78 Fivez will also add a second and third storey to the choir of the former church. Thus the choir and the new building can be used as a whole.

In the years that follow, the search is on for extra space and new locations for a number of departments. The so-called AMI Building ( Compagnie Maritime Internationale, Ambtmanstraat 1 ) had already been bought by the Ministry of Education in order to find more space for the National Higher Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning ; when the Hogeschool Antwerpen ( Antwerp University College ) is established in 1996, the ARGO ( High Council for Public Education ) transfers the ownership to the newly established College. The Department of Product Development, founded in 1965, is housed in the AMI Building. The three-storey building was constructed with yellow brick in 1903, in Art Nouveau style, by the contractor Laporte. The entrance is still beautifully adorned with Fantasy Ionic capitals and rocaille work.79 When the Salvator House and the De Keyser House ( Ambtmanstraat 3–5 ) are also purchased, the buildings of the College are increasingly scattered over the city. The new acquisitions will house the then postgraduate studies in Monument and Landscape Protection, Town and Country Planning, and Architectural Drawing. The historical buildings date from 1515 and 1626 respectively ; both have a garden with a pavilion. In 2007 they were sold to the real estate agent Immpact. In 2006, Antwerp University College purchased the “Ballet of Flanders” building ( Keizerstraat 14 ) to accommodate the bachelors and masters programmes of Visual Arts and Graphic Design.

There are two large auditoriums. The Fashion Department is now housed in the Modenatie ( Nationalestraat 28 ), which is being rented for 33 years. The same building houses the Fashion Museum Antwerp ( MoMu ).

269

74

A. Bontridder, Léon Stynen, 107.

75 KASKA, MA 413, October 1948.

76 Een eeuw openbare werken te Antwerpen 1863–1963 ( Antwerp 1964 ), 49–50.

77 SAA, DWG # 327–328 and 333.

78 79

SAA, DWG # 312.

Bouwen door de eeuwen heen, V. 3nb ( Town of Antwerp, Ghent 1979 ), 7–8.

André Fivez, Drawing with front and section for the south extension of the Academy, 1953 ( Town Archives, Antwerp )

FROM CA MPUS MUTSA ARD MONUMENT TO ‘GOING GREEN’ In the 1970s, Bourla’s so-called Temple was radically transformed with a sheet of concrete in the vestibule. Today, the extra room that was created stands empty. The Temple, too, was abandoned.

In the early 1990s, the idea resurfaced to raze the site and restart building from zero.

The then Henry Van de Velde Institute counted some 1,000 students and urgently needed more space — a challenging problem. The menace of complete demolition became a real threat. Some staff members therefore informed the Board of Monuments and Landscape Protection of the drastic plans. An emergency procedure was started to save the historical buildings and on 10 July 1997, the entire complex of the Academy was protected by Ministerial Decree.

On 1 September 1995, the ownership of the entire complex was transferred from Public Education to the Flemish Autonomous University College of Antwerp. The latter included the Charity Office, the Institute Arthur Van den Nest and Licht en Lucht. These buildings housed the Department of Conservation and Restoration. The renovation of these buildings was given priority ; it was undertaken by the firm BREBUILD. The plans were drawn by ARCH-I. The project was completed in 2002 and a year later it was awarded the Vlaamse Monumentenprijs ( Flemish Monuments Prize ).

On 31 January 2005, the Vlaamse Bouwmeester ( Flemish Government Architect ) Marcel Smets launched an Open Appeal for the renovation and reallocation of the Temple. A decision was made in favour of a soft renovation of the exterior walls. This would then allow the exhibition spaces and studios to be re-accommodated in the building, and the concrete slab would be removed to restore the vestibule to its former glory. These renovation and restoration projects are part of a global master plan for Campus Mutsaard.

The aim of the plan is to allocate the various spaces and entities in an appropriate way for the various departments that will be housed on the site. The contest was won by the Antwerp architectural firm Driesen-Meersman-Thomaes. Actually, the project should have been completed by 2010, but insufficient funds and other priorities have delayed its completion. Today, however, work is being done on a 2012–2023 master plan for a Green Campus. The plan comprises mapping out the ways in which the various buildings on the campus can be made more energy-saving, and how much this will cost, as well as setting out a timetable.80 In practice that means measuring the energy efficiency of the 270

buildings, which involves listing all possible problems, such as the lack of double glazing, poorly insulated roofs, obsolete boilers, central heating units and circuits, etc. Additionally, a study is being made of all the utilities and lighting, taking into account the current rules that prevail in Antwerp, as well as the regulations of the utility companies. Once the study is complete, economically and ecologically sound solutions will be elaborated, which will then be implemented. Schedules are proposed for the various stages, and black points and priorities have been listed. The project is being conducted in close consultation with the Department of Monuments and Landscape Protection of the Flemish Community.

The design and drawing office that was commissioned for the project is POLO-architects ( Poponcini & Lootens ). Architect Stephan Vanderlooven is pursuing the project. It would be wonderful if this Green Campus approach were linked to a global renovation and restoration project, but that involves investing heavily in the entire campus.

Interior of the Academy with the cloister next to the Winter Garden ( on the right ), situation in 1959 ( photo : Frank Philippi ) ( KASKA )

Though the integration of the Faculty of Design Sciences ( i.e. Architecture, Product Development and Conservation-Restoration ) in the University Antwerp ( UA ) will become a fact in 2013, these programmes will continue to be housed on the Campus Mutsaard.

In the medium term, the classrooms of the Department of Visual Arts will be rearranged, and additional sites will possibly be sought in the surrounding areas. However, as yet there are no concrete plans. It is currently out of the question for the Faculty of Design Sciences to relocate to a new building at the university-owned Campus Groenenborgerlaan To conclude, we could claim that an architectural stroll through time and space on the Campus Mutsaard shows that the complex does indeed accommodate a genius loci. The site in the heart of Antwerp acquired its structure when the monastery of the Friars Minor was built. Up till now, the structure is preserved rather well in the layout of the buildings.

The functions, of course, have changed radically : the former church and monastery were transformed into a museum and academy ; later, social welfare offices and workshops were added, as well as the municipal library. All these layers of history are clearly present on the site, dating back to the fifteenth century and right through to the functionalism of the twentieth century. Though much of their history has been lost, the buildings and their remains will invite us to discover more about their origin for a long time to come.

271

80

Antwerp College, Bestek 2012 / CA / F&P03.

Openbare aanbesteding.

Aanstellen ontwerper opmaak masterplan groene campus Mutsaard ( Antwerp 2012 ).

The garden of the Academy with the statues of Teniers ( on the foreground ) and Van Bree ( on the background ), situation ca.1965 ( photographer unknown ) ( KASKA )

272

Jan Lampo

Chronicle of an Art School : 1655–1799 1655 Thanks to the intervention of Cardinal Mazarin, the Académie Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture in Paris receives a royal subsidy. The Academy becomes the only legitimate institute for art education in France.

When Louis XIV assumes total power, the influence of the school increases tremendously.

David Teniers II, painter at the court of the governor of the Spanish Netherlands, corresponds with Hendrik van Halmale — Antwerp’s Alderman of Security, and since 1665, the Dean of the Guild of Saint Luke. Both try to find a solution for the crisis in the Antwerp art sector. Teniers is inspired by what he hears about the recently established Académie in Paris, where artists from the Netherlands are active. Teniers and van Halmale find a way to have their Academy subsidized by the town of Antwerp : the magistrate can sell “licenses” that exempt the holder from certain official duties. The system is already in use with the “armed guilds”, i.e. the guilds of the archers, arbalesters and arquebusiers that defend the city. But the town can only sell these licenses if the king grants his permission.

1662 Teniers composes a petition for King Philip IV. The Guild of Saint Luke pays for its translation into Spanish.

5 May. Philip IV sends Teniers’ petition to the new governor of the Netherlands, the Marquis of Caracena, whom he commissions to submit it to the Secret Council, the most important advisory council in the Brussels government.

1663 January. The Secret Council asks the Antwerp town council for its opinion. The magistrate appoints the former mayors Floris van Berchem and Gregorius Martens to gather information. The two inform the Guild of Saint Luke of their task. The guild hands them a document that was written with Teniers’ collaboration. The guild claims that “due to the bad times and the recent war”, the practice of art is languishing and the young artists are poorly trained. In their view, only “the proposed Academy” can change things for the better. They refer explicitly to the “free public Academy” in Paris. The foundation of an academy will also “benefit a lot of people who are indirectly involved with art, namely the suppliers of paint, oil, canvas, copper, wood and stone, as well as the makers of brushes, frames, etc.”

The guild also provides an estimate of the costs involved. The school will need accommodation “to seat a hundred students” who will draw from a model, “the main foundation” of painting and sculpture. Two models are required : a young and an old man. A stove is also necessary, as well as sufficient lamps. For the classes in “the sciences of perspective and architecture”, specialized teachers must be engaged ( which implies that none of the deans possess the necessary expertise ).

26 January. Mayors and aldermen agree to the sale of eight licences ; the proceeds will go to the Academy.

A few days later, Teniers delivers the text of the decision from the town council in Brussels. Madrid immediately receives word that both the Secret Council and the Marquis of Caracena have given their approval.

6 July. Philip IV signs a decree that approves the foundation of the Academy and its financing through the sale of eight licenses.

1664 9 October. The guild is allowed to use the upper floor of the east wing of the Exchange, where a new meeting room is furnished and a drawing school is organized.

End of October. Ambrosius Brueghel and Artus Quellin the Elder ( 1609–1668 ) travel to Brussels to model the portrait of the Marquis of Caracena. Quellin later carves the bust in white marble. It is installed in the Painting Room.

The town had donated 5,240 guilders to the guild for the foundation of the Academy, but a lot of this money has already been used. For the time being, there is no money for architecture classes. The students can only enrol for classes in drawing and sculpting from a live model.

1665 26 October. The start of the first academic year ( which lasts till 6 March 1666 ). The lessons are free and take place in the evening : in winter from 6 to 8 p.m. and in summer from 5 to 8 p.m. The teachers are deacons

273

and former deacons ; they include Jordaens, Artus and Jan-Erasmus Quellin ( 1634–1715 ), Teniers’ son-in-law, Jan Cossiers, Ambrosius Brueghel, and Frans Francken III ( 1607–1667 ).

1676 The Guild of Saint Luke asks the town council to oblige a number of deacons and former deacons to attend the meetings and supervise the lessons in the Academy on penalty of a fine. Their absence can be explained by the fact that they are not paid for teaching. When they die, some have been succeeded by printers or other artisans that are unfamiliar with teaching drawing. Less and less deacons therefore have to teach at the Academy. The students also misbehave. They are consequently forbidden to behave “improperly” or “to make noise”.

1677 The Olive Branch, the Chamber of Rhetoric of the Guild of Saint Luke, stages the tragedy The Faithful Panthera

by Barbara Ogier ( 1648–1720 ), daughter of the comedy playwright Guilliam and since 1680, the wife of sculptorpoet Willem Kerrickx. At the same performance, a new play by her father entitled Laziness also premiers.

The following year he writes Greed and in 1680, The Ludicrous Misunderstanding or Peasant’s Madness.

1684 The Board of the Guild of Saint Luke reaffirms that the deacons that teach at the Academy “have the power and the authority [ to temporarily exclude ] the students who behave disrespectfully towards the teachers or who commit some other form of insolence”.

1685 The painter Abraham Genoels returns from Paris to Antwerp.

He is a member of the Académie Royale and has worked with Le Brun.

1690 There is a problem with “boisterous behaviour by some malicious youngsters”, i.e. “yelling, screaming [ … ] and other sorts of disorderly behaviour”, such as “uttering infamies, abusive language, mockery expressed verbally, in writing or in drawings”. The Guild of Saint Luke therefore asks the magistrate to draw up “precise regulations” that will oblige the students “to behave with proper subservience, and silently”.

1691 Each student has to pay an annual fee of 12 stuivers to the model for cleaning the classroom.

1692 Abraham Genoels’ studio attracts a lot of students. The artist therefore asks the town council for a classroom of his own in the Exchange in order to teach architecture — a subject that had not as yet been taught at the Academy. The town council refuses.

1693 18 February. A Joyous Entry is organized in Antwerp for Maximilian Emanuel II, Elector of Bavaria, on the occasion of his appointment as governor. The Board of the Guild of Saint Luke invites the Duke to see the Painting Room and the Academy. The members of the Olive Branch stage A Welcome in the Painting Room to His Highness Maximilian Emanuel of Bavaria… or The Arts United, a play by Barbara Ogier. The registrar of the Guild of Saint Luke reads a petition to the governor, in which he asks for more subsidies for the Academy. Maximilian Emanuel II then visits the Academy.

1694 Inauguration of the new classrooms in the north wing of the Exchange. Barbara Ogier’s play The Enriched Academy is staged at the inauguration.

1699 Due to a shortage of funds, the winter courses are suspended.

It takes a few years before they are organized again. The exact date is unknown.

1700 The Olive Branch takes part in The Procession of the Holy Blood, in Bruges. Willem Ignatius Kerrickx ( 1682–1745 ), son of the sculptor Willem ( 1652–1719 ) and poet Barbara Ogier ( 1648–1720 ), acts as an agent of the Olive Branch. However, before long he devotes himself entirely to sculpture.

The register of the Olive Branch ends in 1722.

274

1716 During the very severe winter the River Scheldt freezes over for seven weeks. All over town, the students of the Academy make large snow sculptures. Two small books are later published containing images of the sculptures.

1722 The town council claims some of the rooms that the Guild of Saint Luke is using in the Exchange in order to accommodate the Imperial Ostend Company, which wants to trade with the Far East. Teachers and students are banished to a small room in the Exchange. The Guild of Saint Luke has a hard time : it is barely able to survive and keep the school running.

1723 The money for the classes in drawing from plaster casts has run out and there is no longer a classroom available. The annual contest ceases to be organized ( till 1727 ).

1738 The Guild of Saint Luke numbers only fifty-three master painters ; together they employ seventeen “helpers” and there are only two students. There are twenty-seven sculptors and thirty-seven art dealers. Furthermore, four engravers are registered in Antwerp, as well as sixteen printers, two harpsichord builders, five doll decorators, seven tin plate painters, one marble painter, eight “image vendors” ( who sell hand-painted images on parchment ), etc.

1740 During the severe winter of 1740 the Academy closes its doors. Only one of the deacons, the sculptor and architect Alexander van Papenhoven ( 1668–1759 ), disagrees with the closure. He is supported by his colleague Jan Peter van Baurscheit the Younger ( 1699–1768 ) and by four other artists. They start to look for sponsors — so that the Academy will no longer cost the guild money. In addition, they will themselves renounce any fee for teaching. Eighteen Antwerp noblemen promise in writing that they will pay seven guilders each year to cover the costs of running the Academy. Almost all of the donors belong to recently ennobled merchant families. Ten of them are clients who have previously commissioned work from van Baurscheit, or will do so in the near future.

1741 Classes start up again in both drawing from a live model and drawing from plaster casts. Van Baurscheit and his colleagues enjoy tremendous prestige. They are good at teaching and their views about art are appreciated by their students. Before long, the number of students enrolled increases from 30 to 75. Though they initially consented to van Baurscheit’s initiative, the deacons of the guild envy his success. They take the matter to the Court of the Council of Brabant in order to regain control of the Academy. Needless to say, the six teachers disagree with their action.

1743 Pending the final decision of the Council, the deacons are granted a certain amount of control over the Academy.

For the first time, the Academy organizes a contest in drawing from a live model. Former students and even artists that have no links with the Academy are also allowed to participate. The three best participants will receive a silver medal.

1746 The army of King Louis XV of France occupies the Southern Netherlands. Marshal Maurice of Saxony has brought the theatre company of C. Favart ( 1710–1792 ) with him. The actors stage their plays in the Painting Room and find accommodation in the Academy, because the theatre in the Tapissier Building has burnt down.

1748 The Guild of Saint Luke and the “saviours” of the Academy reach an agreement. The guild hands over the Academy and the furniture to the artists who saved the school in 1740, but the town magistrate will supervise the school : “provided that they renounce and hand over the care, command, administration and authority they have had over the aforementioned Royal Academy [ … ] to the honourable gentlemen of the town magistrature.” The aldermen appoint a dean, a “director-in-chief”, and a number of other “directors” or teachers. In exchange the town will pay all of the guild’s debts.

275

1749 18 August. Charles of Lorraine ( 1712–1780 ) becomes the new Austrian governor. The town council asks him to take the Academy under his protection. That same evening Charles visits the Academy and attends a play staged by the Chamber of Rhetoric. He donates a silver coffee pot, two silver candlesticks, and a silver teapot as the first, second and third prizes for the contest in drawing from a live model. Members of the magistrature and eminent citizens follow his example and donate gifts in the years to come. A new set of regulations stipulates that participants must have been present in at least two thirds of the winter classes.

1751–1752 The Repaired Olive Branch stages plays in the Painting Room. The proceeds are used amongst other things for repairing the Church of Saint Andrew, whose tower has collapsed. The group stages adaptations after plays by Molière, Scarron and other French authors.

1755 On Shrove Tuesday the students pay tribute to the Academy : they organize a procession with five floats that carry representations of the five senses ; a sixth features an allegory of the Academy itself.

Charles of Lorraine proposes a reorganization of the Academy, which he would like to model on the other academies for literature and sciences that are founded everywhere in Europe. The artist-members would appoint the teachers. Furthermore, the members would be allowed to practise their art throughout the entire empire, without having to become a member of the local guild. The teachers would exhibit their work in public every two years. The new Academy would be allowed to call itself “Imperial”.

The town council responds by saying that improvements in art education at the Academy are possible, but that it unfortunately has no money. If the governor wants changes, he will have to fund them himself. Furthermore, the Academy is less important than Charles thinks : the lessons at the Academy are merely a complement to the training in the artist’s studio.

A novelty : when a teacher resigns or dies, his colleagues make a list of artists who may be suitable successors. The dean and the director-in-chief each propose one name ; the magistrate will then appoint one of these two candidates.

1757 Jacob Van der Sanden ( 1726–1799 ) from Turnhout becomes secretary at the Academy. He has been registrar for years in various villages near Turnhout and Antwerp. Since 1753 he has lived in Antwerp, where he also publishes the Gazette van Antwerpen.

1758 From now on only the town donates prizes ( namely medals ) for the annual contest. It is around this time that the students’ habit of honouring the contest winners originates. With music and flags, they parade through the city and stop at the winner’s house to serenade him. They then return to the hall of the Academy for a feast.

Beer is brought from a pub next to the Exchange.

1762 Alderman and “director” Jan-Baptist Verdussen III ( 1698–1773 ), who is born to a famous family of printers, lays the foundations for the library of the Academy. He donates several biographies of artists to the school.

Verdussen is a famous bibliophile and bibliographer ; he possesses a collection of manuscripts, incunabula and monographs on the history of the Southern Netherlands. Between 1763 and 1773 he holds the office of alderman.

The engraver Pieter Martenasie ( 1729–1789 ) starts teaching.

1763 Andries Cornelis Lens ( 1739–1822 ) starts teaching. Charles of Lorraine engages the promising young artist and sends him to Italy for six years. Willem Herreyns ( 1743–1827 ) takes his place at the Academy.

The Brussels painter G.P. Mensaert publishes Le Peintre amateur et curieux ou Description générale des Tableaux des plus habiles Maîtres, qui font l’ornement des Églises [ … ] & Cabinets particuliers dans l’Étendue des Pays-Bas Autrichiens. ( The amateur painter, or a general description of the paintings of the most skilful masters that adorn churches [ … ] & private rooms in the Austrian Netherlands. ) In this work he comments on works of art in Antwerp churches and monasteries, the town hall, the Painting Room in the Exchange, and in some private collections.

1765 Herreyns organizes a geometry and perspective class ; he also teaches a course on “the five orders of architecture”.

276

Pieter Martenasie starts a course in drawing from an the antique. The course lasts from May to August and is compulsory for all students who are enrolled for the winter course of drawing from a live model. Martenasie’s course is so successful that in the following year, the course is also organized in winter.

Martenasie obtains permission from the Duke of Arenberg to have twenty-five antique sculptures cast from his collection. Martenasie pays for the casting himself and donates the plaster casts to the school.

In Rome, Lens comes under the spell of Roman sculpture and comes under the influence of his German fellow painter Anton Raphael Mengs ( 1728–1779 ), who wants to put Winckelmann’s ideas into practice. Lens visits the villa of Cardinal Alessandro Albani ( 1692–1779 ), one of the driving forces of neoclassicism. He makes notes for his book Le Costume ou Essai sur les Habillements et les Usages de plusieurs Peuples de l’Antiquité prouvé par les Monuments ( The Costume, or An Essay on the Apparel and the Uses of Various Peoples in Antiquity Proved

by Monuments ), which is published in 1773 in Liège.

1767 Herreyns leaves Antwerp and moves to Mechelen. He dedicates himself to founding an academy there ; the school opens in 1772.

The Board of the Academy imposes rules on the “draughtsmen from life”, who make merry after the prize ceremony. They have to vacate the rooms at 11 pm and are not allowed to bring women with them. Only they are allowed to accompany the winner home and serenade him. If they decide to continue feasting in a pub, they are not allowed to pressure fellow students into to joining them. The young students of the “plaster academy” are forbidden to celebrate in any way at all.

1768 Lens returns to Antwerp. The Academy is relatively prosperous. Lots of artists from abroad enrol. The school receives gifts from private sponsors, an annual subsidy from the town council and from the central government.

The Board is able to spend 2,000 guilders on two shares in the Bank of Vienna.

Lens is not content with an art education that forces the students to copy nature. He aspires to achieve “the real ideal” or “the art to correct and embellish nature”. He wants “to stir up in those who are gifted with genius the first sparks of the fire that raises painters above themselves, which causes them to breathe a soul into their figures and which replaces that which is called enthusiasm in poetry”. According to Lens, there should be four lessons of drawing from a live model every week, instead of three — an idea that is not particularly sympathetic to his colleagues. The governor of the Austrian Netherlands has to intervene to impose the extra lesson. The painter is also convinced that art is more than just skill and that the system of the guilds merely encumbers the artist. Because his ideas fall on deaf ears in Antwerp, he once more asks Charles of Lorraine to intervene. The governor shares his point of view — also in part because the Austrian government wants to limit the power of the guilds.

1772 So much snow falls in January that the students of the Academy make snow sculptures all over the city — an age-old tradition. In all some 90 students make some 30 or 40 works of art. Secretary Van der Sanden publishes an occasional poem, “Antwerp, Pallas’ trumpet of fame, praise and honour the nobility of both sexes, and dear fellow townsmen, encourage [ … ] the industrious art drive of the pupils of the Royal Academy …” Publisher J.P. De Cort publishes a small volume with texts by the poet Joannes Antonius Franciscus Pauwels, A notice on / Artfully made snow sculptures / Seen in Antwerp from mid-January to early February, much to the surprise and great amusement of the inhabitants, published to praise the indefatigable lovers of sculpture and to the eternal memory of such praiseworthy diligence. Count Eugène Jean Baptiste de Robiano publishes a small book with images of the snow sculptures : Collection des desseins des figures colossales & des groupes qui ont été faits de neige dans plusieurs rues [ … ] de la ville d’Anvers, le mois de janvier 1772, par différents artistes & élèves de l’Académie royale de dessein ( A collection of drawings of the giant snow figures & groups that were made in several streets [ … ] in Antwerp in the month of January 1772, by various artists & students of the Royal Drawing Academy ; published J.B. Carstiaenssens, Antwerp 1773 ).

1773 20 March. In Brabant, a Royal Decree comes into effect that relieves painters, sculptors and engravers from the obligation to become a member of a guild. The decree ( re )emphasizes that “painting, sculpture, engraving and architecture are not dishonourable activities”. In November the decree comes into effect in other regions as well. In Antwerp the decree is generally considered a victory for Lens. Yet a number of painters — not the least of them — continue their membership of the Guild of Saint Luke. Jan Jozef Horemans II is deacon of the guild in the turbulent period 1773–1774. In 1787–1788 Jan Frans Jozef Mertens is the head deacon ; his successor in 1788–1789 is Balthasar Paul Ommeganck ( 1755–1826 ).

1774 Peter-Jozef Verhaghen ( born in Leuven ) is appointed court painter by Empress Maria Theresia. Jacob Van der Sanden publishes De bloeyende konsten of Lauwer-Krans van Apelles, door de koninglyke academie van Antwerpen opgezet Tooneelsgewyze aen haer Roemweerdigen queekeling Petrus Josephus Verhaghen ( The prospering arts or Apelles’ Laurel Wreath, staged by the Royal Academy of Antwerp in honour of its famous pupil Petrus Josephus Verhaghen ).

277

1781 During his visit to Antwerp, Emperor Joseph II offers Lens the chance to become director of the Imperial Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna. The painter declines. Lens moves to Brussels.

1783 Mattheus Ignatius van Bree ( 1773–1839 ) studies at the Academy.

1788 Foundation of the Konstmaetschappy ( Art Society ) by a group of painters who meet every Sunday morning in the pub De Stad Oostende in the Israëlietenstraat, near the Exchange. Members include Jan Jozef Horemans II, Jan Frans Jozef Mertens and Ommeganck, but also Hendrik Frans de Cort, the flower painter Peter Faes and “architecture painter” Ferdinand Verhoeven. The artists exchange ideas and judge each other’s work. When more members join, the group request a separate room in the pub, where they store books, prints, drawings, paintings and sculptures. According to the statutes of the society, painters, sculptors, engravers, draughtsmen and architects can become active members, and “amateurs” can become honorary members. Artists that want to join have to present a “masterpiece” and three quarters of the group must accept their membership. Members have to show up at least once a week. Newspapers are available in the room. Every member has to make a drawing or a sketch in an album ; every week one or several members exhibit their work. The space in De Stad Oostende becomes too small and the group rents a house, named De gulden Poort ( Torfbrug no. 2 ), where the servant Grammet is accommodated. Bishop Nelis becomes an honorary member and pays for the furniture.

1789 September. First public exhibition by the Konstmaetschappy in the Schermershuis ( Schermersstraat no. 30 ).

There are 88 works on view : 69 paintings and drawings, 17 sculptures and 2 engravings. What strikes the public is that only Antoon Herry and Willem Schaeken ( 1754–1830 ) present paintings with “traditional” subjects.

For the rest, there are a lot of landscapes and townscapes — paintings that meet the taste of the middle-class public.

1790 History painter and teacher Willem Schaeken proposes that the Frenchman Simon Pierre Dargonne ( 1749–1839 ) becomes a member of the Konstmaetschappy. Dargonne has been living in Antwerp for almost twenty years.

He owns a school, where he teaches dance and deportment to the children of the nobility and the well-off bourgeoisie. Dargonne becomes a member of the masonic lodge La Concorde Universelle, which was founded in 1766 ; at the time, it is one of the two lodges that are active in Antwerp.

1791 The Konstmaetschappy moves to the ground floor apartment in the house of public notary Funck, which is situated “in the corner of the Jezuïetenplein”. The flowering of the society is short-lived : when the French occupy the Southern Netherlands, it ceases to exist in all but name. However it will later be re-founded and will play an important part in the nineteenth-century art scene.

1794 28 July. The French army confiscates the most important paintings from churches and monasteries, and from the premises of the Guild of Saint Luke. In all, sixty-six works disappear to the Louvre : paintings by Rubens, Van Dyck and sixteen other artists. In other towns, too, the French confiscate works of art.

The new town council — the Municipalité — has no more money for the Academy and the school closes. But Dargonne, who has become officier municipal, aspires to see it reopening. He wants to base the classes on the French model and to that end he corresponds with the Paris painter, restorer and chemist Léonor Merimée ( 1757–1836 ), who is the father of the writer and protector of monuments, Prosper Merimée, author of Carmen and other novels.

1795 Dargonne and another civil servant are appointed as commissioners to oversee the foundation and functioning of the École spéciale de Peinture, Sculpture et Architecture. The new school “inherits” all property of the former Academy. The town council gets permission from Paris to subsidize the school, but for the time being, it survives thanks to gifts from anonymous donors. Classes begin in drawing from antique model on 30 Messidor ( 18 July ), and are followed a few days later by classes in architecture. In autumn, classes in life drawing also start again.

Van Bree is awarded first prize at the Academy. On 5 May he becomes assistant teacher.

1796 Van Bree leaves for Paris, where he studies with François-André Vincent ( 1746–1816 ).

278

1797 With Cato’s Death, Van Bree wins the Second Prize in the Prix de Rome contest in Paris.

In every departmental capital — including Antwerp — the French found an École centrale. Willem Herreyns is appointed drawing teacher. As such he has the right to collect books and art works that are prerequisite for the school. That proves easy, because on 12 January 1797, the painter was made a member of a committee of nine that has to collect the remaining art objects from churches and monasteries, for their use in public schools.

Herreyns teaches painters, sculptors and engravers how to draw flowers and ornaments. He also teaches composition, historical costume and history. In his view, his students are not learning how to paint very well in the studio of their masters and he therefore starts the first course in copying paintings by old masters at the Academy.

Dargonne organize attended of every

notices that his competitor is successful and he requests permission from the Municipalité to his own painting course at the Academy, but this time from a live model ( the class will also be by the six best students from the drawing class ). The lessons will take place on the first four days décade ( the new French ten-day “week” ), running from 7 a.m. to 12 noon and from 3 p.m. till 6 p.m.

Because teaching takes a lot of time, Dargonne claims that the teachers should be paid. But the Municipalité does not manage to get funds from Paris. Once more, an appeal is addressed to local art lovers. In the meantime, town architect Jan Blom is commissioned to open up the roof of the rooms where the classes in drawing from a live model take place and to build domes, so that there is enough light for the students.

Dargonne also has some paintings confiscated from private homes.

The law of 3 Brumaire of the Year IV orders the closure of all schools that compete with the Écoles centrales.

Up till now, a blind eye had been turned in Antwerp, but this situation can no longer continue. To limit the damage, Herreyns and Dargonne will work together. The École spéciale in Antwerp becomes a part of the École centrale, but for the rest nothing changes — except that Herreyns teaches his lessons in the exchange on even days, and in the École centrale on odd days.

1798 Van Bree becomes professeur-adjoint in the drawing class of the École de Peinture, Sculpture et Architecture.

Ferdinand de Braekeleer ( 1792–1883 ) is one of his protégés.

279

CHRONICLE OF AN ART SCHOOL / BIBLIOGRAPHY Antwerpen in de XVIIIde Eeuw. Instellingen - Economie - Cultuur ( Genootschap voor Antwerpse Geschiedenis ) ( Antwerp 1952 ).

F. Baudouin, Architect Jan Peter van Baurscheit de Jonge 1699–1768 ( Liers Genootschap voor Geschiedenis, Jaarboek 4, 1994 ) ( Lier 1995 ).

S. Boucquey, Geen tronen blijven staan. Gustaaf Wappers ( 1803–1874 ). De rol van een kunstenaar in het publieke leven ( unpublished MA thesis, Catholic University Leuven, Faculty of Letters - Department of History ) ( Leuven 2003 ).

F. Jos. Van den Branden, Geschiedenis der Academie van Antwerpen ( Antwerp 1867 ).

F. Jos. Van den Branden, Geschiedenis der Antwerpsche schilderschool ( Antwerp 1883 ).

Jean F. Buyck, Antwerpen 1900. Schilderijen en tekeningen 1880–1914 ( Antwerp 1985 ).

M. Carnier and A. Gilleir, Een vrouw op reis. België anno 1828 volgens Johanna Schopenhauer ( Leuven s.d. ( 1998 ) ).

Hendrik Castel, Chronijke van Antwerpen ( Antwerp s.d. ).

D. Coekelberghs and P. Loze ( eds. ), 1770–1830. Om en rond het Neo-Classicisme in België ( s.l.n.d. ( Brussels 1986 ) ).

Albert Dasnoy, Les beaux Jours du Romantisme belge ( s.l. ( Brussels ) s.d. ).

K. Degryse, De Antwerpse fortuinen : kapitaalsaccumulatie,-investering en -rendement te Antwerpen in de 18de eeuw ( Bijdragen tot de Geschiedenis 88 ( 2005 ) 1–4 ) ( Antwerp 2005 ).

A. Deprez, Brieven van, aan en over Jan-Frans Willems. 1793–1846 ( Brugge 1965–1968 ) 6 volumes.

A. Deprez, Jan Frans Willems ( s.l.n.d. ( 1993 ) ).

A. Deprez, W. Gobbers, K. Wauters, Hoofdstukken uit de geschiedenis van de Vlaamse letterkunde in de negentiende eeuw. Deel III ( Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde ) ( Ghent 2003 ).

De Romantiek in België. Tussen werkelijkheid, herinnering en verlangen ( Tielt s.d. ( 2005 ) ).

H. Greefs, “5 December 1815. Scheldestad krijgt haar schatten terug”, in : G. Asaert ( ed. ), De 25 dagen van Antwerpen ( Zwolle 2007 ).

Gustaf Wappers en zijn School ( Antwerp 1976 ).

Historiek Nationaal Hoger Instituut voor Schone Kunsten 1663–1885 / 1945 ( Antwerp 1985 ).

L. de Jong ( ed. ), Het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen. Een Geschiedenis 1810–2007 ( s.l. 2007 ), 13–27.

Kermisfeesten van Antwerpen ( Antwerp 1865 ).

J. Lampo, Een tempel bouwen voor de muzen. Een korte geschiedenis van de Antwerpse Academie ( 1663–1995 ) ( Antwerp 1995 ).

J. Lampo, “‘Zie daer de trekken van een Nederlandsch penseel’. Nogmaals Jan-Frans Willems over de schilderkunst, 1815–1825”, in : Zacht Lawijd 10 ( 2011 ) 1, 26–45.

L. Theo Van Looij, Een eeuw Nationaal Hoger Instituut voor Schone Kunsten te Antwerpen 1885 / 1985 ( Antwerp 1985 ).

Y. Morel-Deckers, Deelcatalogus Schilderijen uit de 18de Eeuw ( Antwerp 1988 ).

F.H. Mertens and K.L. Torfs, Geschiedenis van Antwerpen sedert de Stichting der Stad tot onze tyden uitgegeven door de Rederykkamer De Olyftak ( Antwerp 1975–1977 ) 8 volumes. ( anastatic reprint ).

Na & Naar Van Dyck. De romantische recuperatie in de 19de eeuw ( Antwerp 1999 ).

J. Van den Nieuwenhuyzen, “Antwerpse schilderijen te Parijs ( 1794–1815 )”, in : Antwerpen. Tijdschrift der Stad Antwerpen, deel VIII ( 1962 ), 66––83.

J. Van den Nieuwenhuyzen, J. Polak and F. Verbist, Beknopte Inventaris van de Koninklijke Maatschappij tot Aanmoediging der Schone Kunsten te Antwerpen 1788–1955 ( Antwerp 1973 ) ( photocopied ).

Oostenrijks België. 1713–1794. De Zuidelijke Nederlanden onder de Oostenrijkse Habsburgers ( Brussel 1987 ).

G. Persoons, G. Bedeer and J. Buyck, Schone Kunsten in Antwerpen. De Koninklijke Vereniging tot Aanmoediging der Schone Kunsten te Antwerpen, sinds 1788 ( Antwerp 1976 ).

F. Prims, Antwerpen door de Eeuwen heen ( Antwerp 1951 ).

F. Prims, Antwerpen in 1830. Nota’s, Volume I ( Antwerp s.d. ).

F. Prims, Geschiedenis van Antwerpen. Nieuwe uitgave van de oorspronkelijke tekst van 1927–1948 geïllustreerd met talrijke reproducties van dokumenten door de zorgen van dr. J. Van Roey, Archivaris van de Stad Antwerpen ( Brussel 1977–1985 ) 8 volumes ( anastatic reprint ).

Schatten uit de Bibliotheken van de Hogeschool Antwerpen ( Antwerp 1996 ).

G. Schmook, Een Parijse “Beau” onder de Antwerpse “Jolikes”. Roger de Beauvoir op doorreis in de winter van 1834 / 35 ( Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde, series V, no. 21 ) ( Ghent 1959 ).

G. Schmook, Hoe Teun den Eyerboer in 1815 sprak tot de Burgers van Antwerpen of het Aandeel van de Rubens-Viering in de wording van het Vlaamse Bewustzijn ( Antwerp 1942 ).

J.-B. Van der Straelen, Jaerboek der vermaerde en kunstryke Gilde van Sint Lucas binnen de Stad Antwerpen ( Antwerp 1855 ).

J.-B. and J.-F. Van der Straelen, De Kronijk van Antwerpen. Deel VIII : 1803–1817 ( Antwerp 1936 ).

A. Thys, Historiek der Straten en Openbare Plaatsen van Antwerpen ( Antwerp 1973 ) ( anastatic reprint ).

Toejuyching / der Leden van het Genootschap ; / Tot Nut der Jeugd : / Aen / d’Antwerpsche Maetschappy / Der / Schoone Konsten : / By gelegenheyd van de wederkomst der, aen haer / ontroofde, / SCHILDERSTUKKEN : Van de vermaerdtste Meesters / Der Nederlandsche School ( Antwerp s.d. ( 1815 ) ).

L. Torfs, Nieuwe Geschiedenis van Antwerpen, of Schets van de Beginsels en Gebeurtenissen dezer Stad, alsmede van de Opkomste harer Instellingen en Gestichten ( Antwerp 1862–1866 ) 2 volumes.

Herwig Todts, Henri de Braekeleer. 1840–1888 ( Antwerp 1988 ).

25 jaar Provinciaal Centrum Arenberg ( Antwerp 1993 ).

J.-F. Willems, Quinten Matsys, of wat doet de Liefde niet ! ( Antwerp 1816 ).

Stephen McKenna

An Academy for our Time ?

The original Academy was founded by Plato, in an olive grove, and was a place where he and his fellow philosophers could discuss and teach. The interaction of the two activities is significant. In Renaissance times the Accademia de Disegno was founded in Florence in 1562, by Cosimo de Medici, on the advice of Giorgio Vasari. One of its aims was to promote the status of artists, for them to be seen as educated members of a cultural circle, rather than simple craftsmen belonging to a Guild. During the 17th century academies increased in number, and we may note in particular those of Antwerp and Bologna. A special development was in Paris, where Louis the Fourteenth instituted the Academy of Painting and Sculpture under Charles Lebrun. The purpose of this was to promote orthodoxy, both in teaching and practice, of subject matter and technique. In the 18th century academies flourished throughout Europe, based on both the then current rationalism of the Enlightenment and the neo-Classical dream of a return to the grandeur of the past. At the Royal Academy in London, Joshua Reynolds laid down a theoretical and practical basis for the Grand Manner, in themes and execution.

By the 19 th century the hegemony of the academies was being undermined from two directions — by the independent stance of individuals and groups of artists, and by the rise of the Romantic concept of the artist as genius. The confusion and disintegration persisted throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. The old academies were completely discredited and the term ‘academic’ came to mean anachronistic and conformist.

But conformism has always been an essential part of success in the art world and the art market. Conformism has to include the predictable and self-conscious attempts by individual artists to distinguish themselves from their contemporaries.

The philosophy of Historicism, which underlies the developments and movements which came to be classified as Modernism, as well as the political disasters of totalitarianism which ravaged the 20th century, eventually led inexorably to the rejection of Modernism itself. The Post-Modernism which declared itself to be its replacement has, however, unsurprisingly turned out to be no more than a series of fashions. And just as innovation has degenerated into novelty, so the acclaim of the genius has been replaced by the adulation of the celebrity.

So how may the artists of to-day be trained and educated, or better still how may they take these procedures into their own hands ? Part of the answer lies in the distinction between ‘training’ and ‘educating’. To clarify this we may look at some of the past attempts to reform the academic attitudes of the 19 th and 20th centuries.

The rise of the ‘Arts and Crafts’ movements, which aimed at producing visual designers and craftsmen, and has had various manifestations from the ideas of William Morris and Roger Fry in England, to those of Walter Gropius and the Bauhaus in Germany, was accompanied by a decline in the role of the traditional academies, which were run by artists and had the aim of producing painters, sculptors, draughtsmen and perhaps architects. A large part of the problems of these academies was the quality of the teachers involved in them.

After the Second World War the ‘craft and skill’ tradition was gradually weakened by an attempt to make state-run art schools more educationally respectable by stressing the academic, intellectual values of a kind associated with universities. At the same time, the practice of learning to draw and paint in the ‘ateliers’ of established artists was discontinued almost entirely. By the end of the sixties almost all state-financed art schools in Western Europe had been integrated with the third level educational system.

Thereafter a large part of their purpose was to sustain student and staff numbers in order to justify institutional expenditure and attract fee-paying students. The goal of the student was to be awarded a recognised honours degree, rather than to be trained as a painter or 281

sculptor. Professorships multiplied. This fundamental change took place at the same time as teachers were no longer encouraged, or indeed able, to teach the basic skills of their professions. There was thus a new generation of art school graduates who were without these skills, and who fell back in their practice on the often ill-understood technologies of multi-media. A conformity of political correctness re-inforced the idea that the practice, as well as the enjoyment of art, was for everyone. In public museums and galleries ‘outreach’ and participation degenerated rapidly into entertainment. A pseudo-intellectual gloss was put over this by asking what ‘issues’ were being addressed by the painter, rather than looking at what was on the picture and how it was painted. This can be seen as a return to the Platonic valuation of art in terms of its usefulness to society rather than to its inherent beauty or spirituality.

Carlo Maratta, The school of design, 1682, pen and brown ink with brown wash ( Devovnshire Collection, Chatsworth )

These changes in the philosophy of art education were of course influenced by the various movements in art which ran parallel to them, and by the shifting philosophies of art underlying these movements.The dominant theory of art history during the 20th century was that there had been a natural and inevitable progression from Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, through Fauvism and Cubism to Abstraction. But there were different markers and other strands. Gustave Courbet, who taught himself to paint studying the paintings in the Louvre, can be called the last of the Old Masters, in the sense that what he developed was not his style, but the depth of his vision. His goal was to supplant the mimetic naturalism of the academies with a new realism. In this he was not dissimilar to Manet, who looked to past Masters to find an escape from the same Salon mentality.

282

Arnold Boecklin, the near contemporary of Cézanne, we may see as the first Modern Master. Although he had been through the standard academic training of his time, he found the resulting skills inadequate for his vision of what painting could be. This vision turned very much on the possible subject matter of painting, rather than on the more fashionable speculation about the nature and limits of representation and the problems inherent in observing nature. Boecklin was also one of those rare masters who introduced humour into his works, in both the choice of subject and how it was represented.

Stradanus, The arts of painting and sculpture, 1573, pen and brown ink ( The British Museum, London )

He was followed in this, as in many other aspects of his work, by Giorgio de Chirico, whose creative, theoretical and polemical writings are on a level with his achievements as a painter.

De Chirico was one of several key 20th century artists whose later work was denigrated or even ridiculed by commentators because it did not fit with their misunderstanding of the earlier works, and their ignorance of the changing historical contexts in which the artists saw themselves. We may include in this number André Derain, Francis Picabia, Kasimir Malevich, Otto Dix, Fernand Léger and Philip Guston. Other major painters who appeared oblivious to the necessities of any so-called historical imperative were Pierre Bonnard, Giorgio Morandi, Jack Yeats and Edward Hopper. In more recent times Lucien Freud and Balthus may be added to this group, many of whom were largely self-taught.

So in the 20th century there existed, as always, an alternative to the historicist orthodoxy of the establishment. Interestingly, the high prices paid for the works of many of these painters did not correspond to the critical scepticism in which they were held. To-day, a high market price and celebrity belong invariably together, so that the nature of critical esteem has changed. The ideological positions and passions of the 20th century have been replaced by a consensus using the pseudo-intellectual jargon referred to earlier.

283

The real danger in this is that it provides a linguistic charade which hides the lack of a serious visual appraisal of works. The increasing uniformity and cohesion of the art establishment — art schools, galleries, museums, collectors, auction houses and the media — have made any attempt to break the mould more difficult. But difficulty is the business of the serious artist, whose primary duty is, as it always has been, to see through and past the conventions of seeing in his time. But what is the greatest conventional limitation on seeing in our age ? We may define this as the shift from experiencing the spatial to the temporal. From concentration to communication. The ubiquitous moving and changing digital images with which we are surrounded are signs without substance. They represent a virtual reality rather than a lived experience. The recognition of the presence of a sign, or a signal, replaces the concrete reality of observing people and objects in a defined space.

To look at space and to order it, both in the external world and on the canvas, is the business of the painter. It requires time and experience and concentration. Just as the invention of photography in the 19th century made painting not superfluous, but indispensable, so the digital extensions of photography re-inforce the importance of painting as a corrective to our accepted ways of seeing.

To return to our earlier question, what role can an art academy have in all this ? We must first look at the motives and ambitions of students who enroll in an academy, as well as the skills and capabilities of their teachers. Many will be simply looking for a degree in third level education which will qualify them to pursue a career in academia or arts administration. A few bold spirits will imagine the possibility of fame and riches in the art world in the manner of the pop-star. Most of those who continue their career as artists, at least initially, will follow the methods, techniques and ambitions of their teachers and contemporaries. A small minority will have the intention of becoming painters or sculptors. It is with these that we will be concerned here, in particular with painters, because paintings are clearly not part of the natural world or of useful manufactures. The distinction between sculptures and other objects is less definite, particularly now when much sculpture is either industrially produced or consists of assemblages of ready-made or found objects.

While the requirements of the majority of students can be taken care of by the current systems in use in third level educational academies, there would seem to be a need for a smaller group outside of or within the larger institution : an Academy of Drawing and Painting. No art school, of course, can produce great artists or even good ones, nor can it prevent them from emerging. The purpose of an academy is not to produce great painters, but to give a competent basic training which will enable them to continue if they have the determination. A famous jazz musician once said that to be twenty and to play the trumpet was to be twenty. To be forty and to play the trumpet was to be a trumpeter. This is yet more so in the visual arts. What makes a painter is not simply ability, but the determination not to stop extending and refining his abilities. This is in the end a character trait which cannot be taught, but which can be encouraged and supported. And this brings us back to the practicalities of our small Academy, or small section of an Academy.

Drawing is the basis of learning to see and of thinking about seeing. Nulla dies sine linea, no day without a line, was the dictum of Pliny, and was repeated in a variety of forms by countless major artists from the Renaissance onwards. Now while the rudiments of drawing can be taught, there is no such thing as an absolutely objective standard. This is not just a question of measuring the quality of the finished drawing, but also of the procedures which the draughtsman adopts, which inevitably limit what can be achieved.

The long established tradition of the life class, of drawing from the nude model, fell into disrepute because the teaching methods used were aimed at the production of a particular kind of drawing. The purpose of drawing is not the acquisition of a skillful routine. On the contrary, drawing is a way of seeing alternatives, of comparing and extending ideas.

A painting should never be the illustration of an idea, or a set of ideas, but should rather contain enough visual complexity to engage the spectator’s concentrated reflections, which will generate ideas, not all of which were necessarily foreseen by the artist.

To escape from the routine of practice it is necessary to copy drawings and paintings, both of past artists and contemporaries. It is learning from these examples that enables 284

one to see the external world more clearly. It is of course essential that copies are made only in front of original works. For this reason academies should always be situated in cities which contain major collections. A knowledge of art history is more important than art theory, even though practice without knowledge will not allow an artist to develop.

A painter develops by expanding his ability to concentrate while looking — at existing paintings, at the external world, at his own canvases while working on them. The painter has always been someone who is able to meditate on what he sees, to look slowly and with concentration at what is in front of him. But such periods of meditation are followed by the urge to action — to use his skills and techniques to advance the painting.

What are these techniques, for which the academy must also provide a basis to be built on ? Perspective, anatomy, the chemistry of materials, colour theory. One might add to these History, Philosophy and Literature. So that for an Academy of Painting, Sculpture and Drawing to be attached to a university is not altogether a mistake. What is vital is that these Liberal Arts are taught by professionals in their fields, rather than by artists with an amateur interest, and that they are not seen as an alternative to the practical training of the eye and hand. There have always been doctorates in the History of Art and in Aesthetics, but these indicate a knowledge of art, not an ability to practice it. But although a doctorate in painting could be seen as an absurdity, we can admire the artist who is pictor doctus, a painter with a wide culture which he can apply to the content of his work. It could even be argued that a painter who is not intelligent and knowledgable would be incapable of formulating an appropriate working philosophy. But whatever academic titles may be conferred on him, the only qualification for a painter is the quality of his paintings and drawings.

285

INDEX OF NAMES

Aders, Charles

Blom, Jan

Albrecht, Archduke of Austria

Andrews, Nick

99, 111

Ankoné, Frans

83

Ansiau, Antonius Josephus

192

102

96, 283

Boduognat

211

Auquier, Yves

57

Ausloos, Paul

50, 92

283

50

Charlier, Guillaume

153

Bols, Godelieve

72

Charon, Christophe

79

131

Bolten, Jaap

215

Boom, Karel

82

197

Bouttats, Peter

32, 38, 103 179, 187

Baudelaire, Charles 234

Berckmans, Ferdinand

197

Bervoets, Fred 18, 48, 54, 59, 89–91, 96–99, 106–107, 110, 112, 118 Bervoets, Pol

50

Beuys, Joseph

22, 93

Bijl, Guillaume

65, 85, 96, 111

Cluysenaer, Alfred

214

189

65 112

Constantine, Grand Duke of Russia

58, 63

113

Cools, Arthur

17

Cools, Bob

253, 273–274 54

64 214

Coosemans, Joseph

237

Coques, Gonzales

57

Corinth, Louis

55

Cornelis, Bart

158

43, 46, 202

17

Cornelis, Jef

63

Cornette, Arthur 113

Cossiers, Jan 127–129

128 72 150–151

211

99, 112

108

Carlier, Modeste

258

79–80

Büchner, Georg

Cardin, Pierre

289

104

Cordier, Pierre

Canova, Antonio

Bikkembergs, Dirk 72, 79–80, 94, 109–110

Clijmans, Frederik

80, 84

Caen, Joost

63

50

Bruloot, Geert

Busch, Wilhelm

116

Claus, Mark

Coolen, Caroline

Broodthaers, Marcel

Camuccini, Vincenzo

Bierwerts, Willem

108

Conscience, Hendrik 27, 71, 180–182, 208–211, 245, 265

32

Buisseret, Auguste

94, 111

Claus, Hugo

Colfs, P.

Brueghel, Pieter the Elder

212

Bellemans, Jozef

54, 213

Colson, Vaast

Branquinho, Veronique

Brueghel, Ambrosius

71

Béjart, Maurice

Claus, Emile

Coene, Pieter

255

Brown, Ford Madox

195

Beaufaux, Polydore

79

Coecke van Aelst, Serlio and Pieter

254

Breitner, George

Claes, Willy

Cochon de Lapparent, Charles

Braem, Renaat 56, 104–105, 200–201, 267

283

Baseleer, Richard

37

Bourla, Pierre Bruno 94, 99–111, 194–195, 206, 209, 259–266, 269–270

Baeckelmans, Louis

Baudouin, Frans

34

171

Bouttats, Gaspar

Bex, Flor

180

Bourgeois, Victor

130

Ciamberlano, Luca 252

224

102

Ciamberlani, Albert 283

198, 214

Balthus

236

129, 209

Bourceret

61, 93, 95

Charles V, Emperor

Bogaerts, Felix

Baeckelmans, Frans

Baert, John

Charles II of Spain, King

Botticelli, Sandro

58, 96–98

225–227, 276–277

Charles of Lorraine

111

Bosmans, Jozef

Avermaete, Roger 33–37, 40, 44–46, 51–52, 55, 60, 103

71, 94

Chanel, Coco

Bosboom, Johannes 96–98

Auerbach, Frank

Bacon, Francis

Cézanne, Paul

Bononiensis, Virgilius 72, 80, 94

Armani, Giorgio Artôt, Paul

198, 215

Bonnard, Pierre

58

Appel, Karel

263

Bogaert, André

179

Apostool, Cornelis

Cauchie, Paul

Boël, Philip

Alma Tadema, Laurens 17, 180, 182–184, 186–187, 210

97

192–194, 256, 258, 279

Boecklin, Arnold

58

Alechinsky, Pierre

160

29

221

Carracci, brothers Cassiman, Bart

Blomme, Leonard

221

Alberti, Pier-Francesco

237

180

Bles, David

277

33

Albert I, King

Carolus-Duran, Emile Auguste

Blanckaert, Griet

64

Aguirre y Otegui, Philip

260

Carnot, Lazare

214

Biot, Gustave

71–72

Adriaenssens, Agnes

Albani, Alessandro

108

Binneweg, Herbert

170

39

222, 274

Cotteleer, Anton Coulommier, Julien

112 57

Courbet, Gustave

27, 29, 179, 187, 211, 213, 282

Courtens, Herman

103

Cox, Jan

18, 42, 55, 59, 104–105

Craeybeckx, Lode

48, 52, 105

Creytens, Julien 47–48, 52, 55, 87, 102–105, 233–234 106

Crommelynck, Albert Cuypers, Pierre J.H.

180, 195–197

Daeye, Hippoliet

55, 101

da Messina, Antonella

208

Daniels, René

97

Dante

152

Dargonne, Simon Pierre

256–257, 278–279

David, Jacques-Louis

178

Da Vinci, Leonardo

221 205

de Beauharnais, Joséphine

208

de Beauvoir, Roger (Roger de Bully)

de Benavides, Luis Francisco (Marquis of Caracena) 235–236, 254, 273

211

de Givenchy, Hubert

74

de Haas, J.H.L.

180

de Jans, Edward

215

de Sainte-Phalle, Niki

209

De Jonghe, Jan-Baptist

163

de Keverberg de Kessel, Charles De Keyser, Gilbert

De Smedt, Raf De Smet, Gust

De Keyser, Nicaise 27, 54, 145, 150, 165–166, 179, 194, 208–213, 264–265, 269 82–83

Dekock, Yvonne

De Koninck, Louis Herman de Kooning, Willem

Dethier, Hubert

234, 236

de Vos, Cornelis

62, 92, 109 236

de Vos, Marten

55, 61

De Vree, Paul

195–197

Delacenserie, Louis

109

De Vos, Bérénice

Devos, Danny

64

33, 102

de Troyer, Prosper

98

96

184, 210, 214

de Taeye, Louis

201

111

186

De Taeye, Edmond-Louis

57

92

168, 189, 229

Descamps, Jean Baptiste

130, 219

de Jode, Pieter

107

De Roover, J.

De Vriendt, Albrecht (Albert)

214–215

210

De Vriendt, Juliaan 30–31, 36, 101, 199, 212, 214

151–152

de Lelie, Adriaan

179

de Vries, Jeronimo

170

De Bosschere, Henri

266

de Bosschère, Jean

141

258–259 74, 77

Debouvry, Freddy (Fred)

de Braekeleer, Ferdinand 157–158, 206–212, 279 de Braekeleer, Henri 27, 54, 186–187, 211, 213–214, 280 De Bruycker, Jules De Bruyne, Gustave

102 87

de Bully, Roger (see: de Beauvoir, Roger) 210–212

de Caisne, Henri

170

de Caisne, Pierre

170

Decarpenterie, Jean-Christophe

66

de Chirico, Giorgio

283

Deckers, Ed (Edward)

246

91, 117

De Cordier, Thierry de Cort, Hendrik Frans

De Geyter, Julius

De Laet, Jan-Alfried

160

De Coninck, René

93, 106

De Deken, Albert

97

de Bosschaert, Charles

de Burbure de Wesembeek, Léon

De Roover, Carlo 87–88, 91, 102–103, 107

208

de Bom, Jos

Debourges, Auguste Martin

71

Delacroix, Eugène

De Beul, Bert De Boeck, Jean-Baptiste

De Decker, Anny

97

257, 278

De Cuyper, Floris

149

De Cuyper, Jan-Baptist

210

De Cuyper, Léonard

211

Deleu, Luc

22, 62–63

De Ley, Gerd Delville, Jean

108

143, 152–153

de Vylder, Paul de Waghemakere, Domien

179 62 253

27, 41–42

De Wilde, G.A.

195

De Winne, Lieven

195

de’ Medici, Cosimo

221, 281

de Wit, Jacob

130

de’ Medici, family

159–160

Deman, Gustave

d’Herbouville, Charles

Demeulemeester, Ann 65, 72, 79–80, 94, 109–110 De Meyer, Lutgart

50

DeMille, Cecil B.

17

de Moncada, Francisco

237

de Moor, Bob

105

De Muynck, Patrick

Denis, Simon

d’Heur, Cornelis Jozef 190–192, 226, 230, 255 D’Hulst, Jean-François Dijckmans, Jozef

153

Dillens, Julien Dine, Jim

61 283

158

Dockx, Nico

113

Dolphyn, Vic (Victor)

158–159, 161–162

87–88, 93, 103

Dolphyn, Willem

87, 106

97

Donas, Marthe

101

198, 265

Don Juan of Austria

219

Denmark

de Pret de Terveken, Philippe Antoine Joseph 161 Derain, André Dercon, Chris Dermond, Ferdinand de Robiano, Eugène Jean Baptiste

182, 210

Dix, Otto

161–162, 172

Dens, Pieter

258

82, 84

Denis, Geneviève Denis, Louis

160, 194, 205, 258

283

192, 277

De Roover, Albert

178

Dries, Antoine

57

Dries, Jan

63 263

Dou, Gerrit

50, 56, 105

Driesen-Meersman-Thomaes

270

Dubois, Jean-Baptiste

256

Dubuffet, Jean

103 290

58

212

Ducaju, Jozef Jaak

Francis I, King of France

89, 98

Duchamp, Marcel

97

Dujourie, Lili

195

182, 206

197

Durlet, Frans

83

Eeckhout, Jacob Jozef Eekelers, Willem

106

Eggermont, Jean

74

Gal

60

Engels, Pieter

101, 246

Ensor, James

32

Eysselinck,

Gaston

Fabiola, Queen

63, 83, 110

Falck, Anton Reinhard

135

213, 215

Farasyn, Edgard

93

Faulkner, William

102, 106, 108

Fialetti, Odoardo Fierens, Paul

234

Figus, Angelo

85

Fivez, André

207–209

Geefs, Willem

Genet, Jean

246, 266, 269–270

40 234–235, 237

Fontana, Lucio

58, 87

Fouquet, Jean

163, 208

253 135, 210

18, 22, 60, 106

Geyskens, Vincent Gezelle, Guido

194

189–190, 274

50, 56, 103–104

Gerrits, Lodewijk Geys, Jef

96, 111–112, 120

63

Ghemar, brothers Ghysen, Jos

184

108

Gijsen, Marnix (see: Goris, Jan-Albert)

291

Guston, Philip

283

Haarsma, Akke

71

Haesaerts, Paul

38

Hageman, Victor

17

Hairs, Marie-Louise

234–235, 237

56

Hammacher, Bram 266 56

96, 99, 113 94

Hauptman, Bruna Heck, Kati

254

40

Hals, Frans

Harris, Pat

Genoels, Abraham II

126

211

37, 51

Hansen, Oskar

18

Gerardi, Maximinus

281

Guiette, René

Hansen, C.J.

168

Gepts, Gilberte

72

Fontaine, Pierre

57

George, Waldemar

110, 113

255

Geeraerts, Maerten

Gentils, Vic

130

164–165, 170

Fiorucci, Elio

207

Gautier, Théophile

Génard, Pieter

Ferdinand of Austria, Cardinal-Infante 234

Filip, Prince

72, 79–80, 83, 95

Gaultier, Jean Paul

Geirlandt, Karel

275

Felbier, Maurice

Fijt, Jan

60, 63–64, 109

Geefs, Joseph 54, 163, 165, 184, 209, 213

278

Faes, Peter

58–59

177

Gauguin, Paul

201

57

Guicciardini, Lodovico

113

Gaudaen, Gerard

237, 249

Eyskens, Peter

80

Guffens, Godfried

184

Ganzevoort, Wybrand

50

17

Guérin, Pierre-Narcisse

209

Gamboa, Harry

Estercam, Vic

182, 284

Gropius, Walter

74

Gambart, Ernest

74, 84

Esch, Gerdi

43

Grauls, Jan

Grooteclaes, Hubert

90

Gallait, Louis

58

Ernst, Max

278

Grognard, Inge

Galitzine, Irène

English, Joe

50

Graafmans, Daan

Griffith, D.W.

278

Funck

184

Gosse, Edmund

Grammet

103

87, 103, 105

Gorus, Jacques

Gregory of Tours

281

Fry, Roger

111

Elias, Willem

102

Frey, Alice

113

El-Asmar, Nedda

Favart, C.

193

222

96–98, 283

Freud, Lucian

59, 90, 106, 108

Goris, Jan-Albert (Marnix Gijsen)

60

Frenken, Jacques

101

Goossens, Walter

Frederick I of Prussia

65

Duwaerts, G.

115

Fransen, Chris

58

104–105

Godderis, Jack Gogo, Felix

Frederick, Prince of the Netherlands 179

263

Durlet, Victor

83

Franque, Dani

102

Gilsoul, Victor Godard, Jean-Luc

222, 253, 274

Francken, Frans III Franklin, Caryn

Durand, Jean Nicolas Louis Dürer, Albrecht

168

Francken, Frans II

181, 209, 211

Dujardin, Edward

159

99, 112

Heinz-Berzina, Anna (see: Zarina, Anna) 102, 106

Hendrickx, Jos Hens, Frans

102

Hermans, Flor Hermans, Jos

88 92

Herreyns, Willem Jacob 128–129, 170, 191–194, 205, 207, 209, 226–229, 235, 245, 257–258, 276–277, 279 Herry, Antoon

278

Heyrman, Hugo

59, 71, 106–109

Hodgkin, Howard

97

63, 111

Hoet, Jan

Hollander, Fernand Homer

79

127, 133, 152

Hopper, Edward

283

Horace

254

Horemans, Jan Jozef II

225, 277–278

Horsfield, Craigie Horta, Victor

102, 198–199, 201 Hoste, Elke

Houben, Hendrik Huet, Jan Huet, Wilfried

199, 201

135

Ibou, Paul

60, 106

IJkens, Peter Ilegems, Paul

108

255

63–64, 87–88, 90–91, 93, 95, 97–98, 109, 111 Indiana, Robert

Ingres, Jean Auguste Dominique Isabella, Archduchess of Spain

58 54

160, 237

Israël, Nissim

79

Israëls, Jozef

180

Ivaneanu, Andreï

78

Le Mineur, J.

263

Joris, François

58

Joyce, James

93

Kalmar, A.

234

194, 258

Kaulman, Jan Kelchtermans, Theo

82, 248

Kelley, Mike Kempeneers, Gustave Kemps, Lene Kerrickx, Willem

Jacobs, Jacob

Jacobs, Lode

93

Jambers, Mark

111

Jan I of Brabant, Duke

236

Jan II of Brabant, Duke

235–236

Janssen, Jan

109

Janssens, Dimitri

112

Janssens, Josette

74, 77, 93, 109

Janssens, Philip

112

Jirásková, Klára

111

Joors, Eugeen

213

Lemonnier, Camille Lens, Andries Cornelis

Keustermans, Jan

178

225–227, 276–278 Leo X, Pope

159

33, 37, 101–102

Leonard, Jos Leopold I, King

208–211, 262

Leopold II, King

149, 212, 214

Leroy, E.

97 145 77

274

169–170, 172

Lemmé, Jean-Louis

210

Leroy, Eugène

97

Leroy, Véronique

79

Levêque, Auguste

223–224, 254, 274

149

Leys, Hendrik 27, 35, 54, 182, 184–187, 208–213

53

Lichtenstein, Roy

61

33, 37, 101

Liekens, Tom

112

97

Lies, Jozef

210

Klee, Paul

48, 92

Lobe, Dany

110

Klein, Yves

50, 58

Kiemeneij, Jan

Kippenberger, Martin

Lohaus, Bernd

71

Klinkan, Alfred

108

Loos, Jan Frans

Koch, Pierre

171

Loppa, Linda 72, 74, 77–78, 80–84, 95, 110

Kokoschka, Oskar

56

Kossoff, Leon

98

Kosuth, Joseph

62

103–104, 108 Kremer

113

209, 211, 213

147

Jorn, Asger

Kreitz, Willy

Jaar, Alfredo

58, 283

Jespers, Oscar 33, 37, 55, 101–102, 154

Kerrickx, Willem Ignatius

Ibens, Wim

Léger, Fernand

229

161

Huysmans, Camille 33–34, 37, 39, 41, 43–47, 49–50, 54, 105–108, 112, 202, 267 Huysmans, Constantinus Cornelius

le Comte, Florent

Le Grelle, Gérard

101, 103, 149–150

Huygh, Jef

221, 274, 281

33, 55, 101–102

Jespers, Floris

215

58, 62, 90, 108

50–51, 56–57, 106

Le Brun, Charles

278

Jozeph II, Emperor

82

90, 108

Leblanc, Walter

Jordaens, Jacob 161, 222–223, 241, 253–254, 256, 274

37, 201

Hoste, Huib

Huygelen, Frans

113

Joostens, Paul 33–34, 37, 56, 97, 101

Krushenik, Nicholas Kuypers, Julien

Lacroix, Ludo Lagye, Victor

211 61

Louis, Morris

Louis XV, King of France

275

Louis-Philippe I, King of France

209

Louise-Marie, Queen of Belgium

210

Loze, Pierre

128

Lu, Jiang

111

Luyten, Henry (Jan Hendrik)

54, 246

Lamorinière, François Lampo, Hubert Lampo, Jan Largot, Serge

171 48 111

Mack, Heinz

213

Lavicková, Lucie

111

113

50, 52, 58, 107

Macken, Mark 38, 52–53, 56–57, 59–61, 65–66, 69, 85, 90, 92–94, 103–105, 107–109 Maclot, Guy

50

Lauwers, Frans

28, 101

Luyten, Mark

185, 214–215

Lambeaux, Jef

58

222, 273, 281

Louis XIV, King of France

203

96, 108

210–211

53, 90, 93, 107

Malevich, Kasimir Manders, Jos Manet, Edouard

292

283 60

28, 35, 282

58

Manzoni, Piero

95

Mapplethorpe, Robert Mara, Pol

Maria Theresia of Austria, Empress 277, 227 157

Marie-Louise of Austria 248

32

Minne, Joris

37

Ommeganck, Balthasar Paul 162, 205–206, 256, 277–278

113

58

Molière

Martenasie, Pieter 225–226, 229, 276–277

Moons, Spank

Mortelmans, Franck

112

Matyn, Michèle

275

Maurice of Saxony, Marshal

Maximilian II Emanuel of Bavaria 254, 274 Mazarin, Jules Raymond

273

108

Mazy, Marcel

42, 94, 103, 105

Meerbergen, Rudolf Mees, Guy

223–224,

56–57, 88, 106, 117

Meewis, Wim

95

Memling, Hans

206, 208

Mengin, Joseph Nicolas

194, 257–260 277

Mengs, Anton Raphael 168, 276

Mensaert, G.P.

Merimée, Prosper

Metzger, Gustav

Muller, Sofie

111

Pas, Johan

Muñoz, Juan

97

247 293

107

Pauwels, Joannes Antonius Franciscus Payen, Auguste

210

Peeters, H. 178, 209

Nelis, Cornelius Franciscus 180

Neuhuys, Jan Antoon

185–186

206 206

248 82–83

105

O’Brien, Dermod

142, 214

269

61

Peeters, Jan

111

Peeters, Jozef 31, 33, 35, 55–56, 101–102 Peire, Luc 36–37, 55–56, 104–105 Peltier

171

Nieuwdorp, Hans

278

277

196

Peeters, Ferdinand

98, 112

Neuhuys, Albert

248

Pauwels, Henri

57

Napoleon I Bonaparte 127, 157, 193, 205, 258–259

Nys, Jef

103

Pauwels, Achiel 197

Nakajima, Yoshio

Naveau, Nadia

112

Paulus, Pierre

Naert, Joseph

108

Pas, Wilfried 53, 59, 89, 92, 98–99, 107

39

32

90–91, 189, 247

Michiels, Albert

Paolozzi, Eduardo

Nooren, Nellie

15, 105, 121

Meunier, Constantin Michelangelo

277–278

112

Metten, Philip

72, 95

Nicolié, Paul

Mertens, Jan Frans Jozef

111

Mugler, Thierry

Nicolié, Jean-Chrétien

278

Panamarenko 18, 48, 57, 59, 69, 71, 89–90, 106–107

102, 105

Paola, Queen

Muls, Jozef

83

82

105

Nicolié, Jan

278

Merimée, Léonor

50

113

Pairon, Walda

Navez, François-Joseph

42, 56, 103, 105

Mendelson, Marc

111

Mortier, Firmin

Napoleon III 143–144, 149

Mellery, Xavier

92

Paillée, Elisabeth 283

29–30, 281

Morris, William

206, 266

Matsijs, Quinten

Pacquée, Ria

113

Morandi, Giorgio

248

Masschelein, Liliane

263

Overberghe, Cel

149

72, 95

Montana, Claude

208

Martini, Simone

Ooms, Tomas

Oukhow, Michel

276

Montald, Constant

273

214

Opsomer, Isidoor 18, 33–41, 43–44, 47, 53, 55, 87–88, 90–91, 101–105, 202

45

205

Molé, Mathieu

Ooms, Karel

Oppenheim, Meret

79

Marstboom, Antoon 33, 48, 51–52, 55, 87–89, 91, 102, 106, 109

Martens, Gregorius

103

Minne, George

Moholy-Nagy, Laszlo

40, 43

Marlier, Georges

274

Ogier, Guilliam Oleffe, Auguste

Mis, Willy

180

Maris, Matthijs

223, 274

Ogier, Barbara

152

Miró, Joan

90

206

Milton, John

Mircan, Mihnea

180

Maris, Jacob

107

Mich(ielsen), Ludo

Margiela, Martin 65, 67, 72, 79–81, 94, 109

Marini, Marino

212, 214

213

O’Connor, Roderic Odevaere

Michiels, Jean-Baptiste

282

Marijnissen, Roger

93

Michiels, Ivo

50, 56, 104

Maratta, Carlo

234–237, 241–242

Michiels, Alfred

259 194

Percier, Charles Peris, Hendrik

253

Permeke, Constant 105, 202

37, 43–46, 48, 55, 88, 91,

Persoons, Guido

53, 61, 63, 107, 233–237, 245

Persoons, Jurgi

85

Peruzzi, Baldassare Pessers, Hieron

189

72, 74

Pevsner, Nikolaus

80

Rochussen, Charles

180

219, 223–224, 231, 233–236, 273

Rockox, Nikolaas

259

283

Picabia, Francis Picasso, Pablo

Robyn, Patrick

158

Pfeiffer, C. Philip IV, King of Spain

40

34, 48–49, 58, 64, 89–90

Piene, Otto

50, 52, 58, 107 179

Pieneman, Jan Willem Pieters, Bruno Pille, Heidi

85 82

22, 113

Pistoletto, Michelangelo

207

Pius VII, Pope

281

Plato

284

Pliny Poels, Albert

92 256

Poffé, Edward

271

Poponcini & Lootens (architects)

179

Portaels, Jean Pound, Ezra

93

Prijot, Mary 18, 65–74, 77, 81, 92, 94–95, 107 Prims, Floris

158

Proost, Alfons

102

Proust, Marcel

93

Putteneers, Jan

60, 108

Puvrez, Henri

55, 105 160

Pycke, Pierre

Quant, Mary

164–165 274

Roelandt, Hugo

62

Roelandt, Lodewijk

194–195

Rogier, Charles

197, 210

Romano, Giulio Rombaux, Egide

Serneels, Piet 53–54, 58, 70, 92–93, 109 Servaes, Louise Servellon, Sergio

62 169

Roobjee, Pjeroo

111

Rosenquist, James

61

Rossetti, Dante Gabriel

17

Roth, Alfred

56

Rottiers, Jacob

255

Royers, Gustaaf

Ruskin, John

Sabbe, Maurits Saint Laurent, Yves

111

Seuphor, Michel

56

Seurat, Georges

28

Shrimpton, Jean

70

Siberdt, Eugène

17, 176, 213–214

Sickert, Walter

97

Sijsmans, Lieve

112

Simillion, Konstantijn

212

94, 107

Slabbinck, Rik

Smekens, Theofiel

171

Smets, Marcel

270

Smits, Frans Marcus

191

265–267

Rubens, Pieter Paul 17, 27, 60, 128, 145, 150, 155–156, 158, 161, 165–166, 170–171, 175, 178, 187, 206, 208–209, 211, 219, 222, 228–231, 233, 241, 245, 256–257, 278

50

45–46

Servranckx, Victor

189

Rombouts, Philippe

133

Seneca

102, 150–152

Rombouts, Guy

112

Smolderen, Jos

29

198, 200–201

Smolderen, Victor

103

Snijders, Frans

161

Snijders, Peter

255

102

Snyers, Jean-Adrien

159–160

72

Socrates

151–152

Sala, Anri

113

Salens, Ann

71

Somville, Roger

58

112

Sparkes, John

17

Saman, Geert

55, 104

Somers, Jan Louis

Spillemans, Adriaen and Peter

105

253

Saville, Jenny

98

Spindler, Amy

83

Scarron, Paul

276

Spoerri, Daniel

50

Schadde, Joseph

198, 214

Springer, Cornelis

180

212

Steele, Valerie

82

Schaeken, Willem

256, 278

Steeman, Jean

60

59, 63, 108, 111

Scheffer, Ary

180, 213

Stella, Frank

58

55

Schelfhout, Andreas

179–180

Sterckx, Piet

49

Quellinus, Jan-Erasmus (Quellin)

Raemdonck, Adriaan

90

Saverys, Albert 70

Quellinus, Artus I the Elder (Quellin) 235, 253–254, 256, 273 Quellinus, Erasmus II

Rodin, Auguste

Segers, Lieven

Ramah, Henri Rauschenberg, Robert

61, 91

Ravijst, Helena

79

Redding, Brian

79

Schaefels, Hendrik

Schiltz, Marcel Schmalzigaug, Jules

45

31, 101

Schneiders-Elst, Mia

74

Regnaut, Eugène

162

Schopenhauer, Arthur

207

Renfrum, Saya

78

Schopenhauer, Johanna

207

Reynolds, Joshua

281

Schraenen, Stéphane

111

97

Schut, Cornelis

161

Richter, Gerhard Ritchie, Alick P.F.

19–20

Scott, Ridley

Stier d’Aertselaer, Charles 160, 170, 206 Stier d’Aertselaer, Henri

160

Stinckens, Veerle

237

Stobbaerts, Jan

211

Stoop, Frans

265

Stoops, Ronald

80, 109

Stradanus

17

294

283

Van Beirendonck, Walter 18, 65, 72–73, 78–83, 94, 109–110, 112

Strebelle, Olivier 48, 53, 90, 106–107 Strijbosch, Jan

50

van Berchem, Floris

Stuyck, Fernand

234

Van Berckelaer

Vandaele, Roger

Thielemans, Melchior

Thorvaldsen, Bertel

Tordoir, Narcisse Tosseyn, Tom

Trouillard, John Tuymans, Luc Tyck, E.J.

Van der Goes, Hugo

48

Van der Loo, Jan

99, 112

70

Ubben, Eric Vaerten, Jan

50, 58

Valentino (Garavani) Van Akelijen, Roger

151

Van Bastelaere, Dirk

van Baurscheit, Jan Peter the Elder

295

17–18, 213

57

Van Gool, Johan

229–230

Van Gorp, Lieve

110

214

Van Hal, Jean Jacques 235,

192 160, 206

235, 237, 273

van Halmale, Hendrik

214

Van Havermaet, Pieter

103

van de Velde, Henry 18, 28–31, 33, 37, 213, 233, 270 van de Velde, Wim (Wannes) 50, 57, 59, 106, 117

179

74

Vanhecke, Jean Paul Van Herp, Willem

228

208

171

van Havre, Baron

206

54, 107

van der Willigen, Adriaan

van Baurscheit, Jan Peter the Younger 190–191, 225, 229, 255, 275

110

Van der Ouderaa, Piet

van der Weyden, Rogier

255

55

van Goubergen, Egidius

Van der Werff, Pieter Adriaansz.

112

62

271

van der Ven, Jan Antonie

59, 108

206

Van Geel, Jan Frans

van Gogh, Vincent 16–18, 29, 48, 54, 89–90, 175–177, 179, 182, 187, 213–214

103–104

Van der Velden, Renier

72

170, 206, 208

Van Golden, Daan

van der Straelen, Jan-Baptist

Vaes, Walter 32, 34, 37–38, 40, 55, 87, 101–102

157–158, 162–165,

Vanderlooven, Stephan

Vandersteen, Willy

54, 91, 106–107

van Eyck, Jan

van Gogh, Theo

Van der Sanden, Jacobus (Jacob) 276–277

112

Uecker, Günther

207

60

Van der Linden, Gerard

164–165

170

Van Gijsegem, Paul

206

Vanderheyden, J.C.J.

95, 97, 111, 119

263

Tyfus, Dennis

151

130

Van de Passe, Crispijn

112

213

Van Dyk, Frans

Van Goethem, Nicole

van den Wijngaert, Frank

62, 93–94, 109

155

Van Gestel, Fik

209

Van den Kerkhoven

32, 38–39, 55, 102, 105

Van Dyck, Albert

van Eyck, Hubert

Van den Kerckhove, Charles

157

Titz, L.

37, 101

Van Dooren, Edmond

van Ertborn, Joseph (Jozef Karel Emmanuel) 158–161, 205

93

Van den Heuvel, Karel

50

Tinguely, Jean

91

Van den Hecke-Baut de Rasmon, Adelaïde 163–167, 169–172, 211

38, 44

Timmermans, Felix

Twiggy

127–129, 207

33

van Ertborn, Florent 168–172, 206–208

80

Van den Broeck, Phara

96–97, 99, 113

van Ertborn, Caroline

109

Van den Bremt, Stefaan

233–237, 239, 241, 245

Thys, Peter

126

113

Van den Brempt, Stanislas

102

Van Dijck, Bruno

Van Dyck, Henri

Van den Branden, Franz Jos. 178, 181, 212, 215

256

99, 112

van Dyck, Anthony 40, 158, 161, 211, 219, 231, 233, 235, 241, 256, 278

103

Van Den Bosch, Steve

89, 92, 94, 96, 98–99, 113

Thonet, Victor

255

253

Van Dijck, Bart

van Doesburg, Theo

van den Berghe, Ignatius Joseph

253–255

Teniers, David II the Younger 104, 110–111, 189, 212, 219–220, 222–223, 226, 228–229, 231–235, 272–274 Theys, Hans

149

59, 108

Van de Heyning, H.

152

Tasso, Torquato Tellier, Tijs

213

van Coucercken, Ignatius

58

50

Tas, Filip

55

van Bree, Mattheus Ignatius (Van Brée) 125–136, 140, 145, 151, 158, 161, 163, 165, 194, 205–211, 214, 258, 272, 278–279

171

Tapiès, Antoni

van Diepenbeeck, Abraham

Van Biesbroeck, Jules 110–111, 249

Swinnen, Johan M.

Taeymans

108

Van Beurden, Alfons

211

Swerts, Jan

63

Van de Woestijne, Karel

Van Beselaere, Walter

97

Swennen, Walter

Van de Woestijne, Gustave 37–38, 45, 55, 103

273

211

van Bergen, Thé

Stynen, Léon 45–47, 52, 102, 104–106, 202–203, 267–269

65, 85

Vandevorst, A.F.

205, 207

169

Van Herwegen, Henri (see: Panamarenko) Van Hoenacker, Jan

200

Van Hool, Jan-Baptist

207

Van Kerckhoven, Anne-Mie

62, 92, 109

Van Kerckhoven, Pieter-Frans Van Kuyck, Frans

213, 215

107

Van Kuyck, Walter

102

Van Ysendijck, Antoon 125, 150, 207, 249

Van Leemput, Marthe 68–70, 72–74, 78, 94–95, 107 Van Leemputten, Frans

214

Vasarely, Victor

58

29

Velázquez, Diego

Van Leemputten, Jef

29

Verbeeck, Frans

235

54, 210–211

Verbesselt, Rudolf

109

162, 168–169

Verbroeckhoven, Eugène

209

Van Looij, L. Theo 58, 60–61, 63, 95, 109

Verbruggen, Hendrik

255

Verbrugghe, Emile

150

Van Lerius, Théodore

Van Luppen, Joseph

213

van Marcke de Lummen, Herman Josephus Leonardus 184 Van Mechelen, Alexis van Merlen, Louis Jacobs van Mieghem, Eugeen

266

229, 276

Verdussen, Jan-Baptist III

Verhaeghen, Theodoor Verhaert, Piet

256

277

55, 102, 214

Verhas, Jan

186

Verhelst, Bob

80

Van Raemdonck, Dis 91, 102–103, 105 van Rysselberghe, Theo

32

Van Offel, Edmond

265

Van Oost, Lilly

108

van Os, Pieter Gerard

179

33, 90, 102

van Ostaijen, Paul

van Papenhoven, Alexander

255, 275

Van Regemorter, J.

210

206, 256

van Regemorter, Pierre

Verheyen, Jef

48–50, 56–57, 59, 87, 105

Verhoeven, Ferdinand Verhoeven, Leo

107

96, 108

Victoria, Queen

209

Van Soom, Luk van Spaendonck, Gerard

62 161

33, 37, 55

Van Straten, Henri

van Susteren, Joan Alexander

190

van Thulden, Theodoor

236

Vantongerloo, Georges

32, 101, 154

Van Vlasselaer, Julien

48, 105

Van Vliet, Eddy van Wijngaarden, Ysbrant

108

88, 106

William I, King 130–131, 143–144, 163, 178–179, 197, 206–208

Vilain, Walter

Wolters Van der Weij, Paul

90

Vinck, Frans

Vitruvius

214

38, 87, 105

Wouters, Rik

49, 154

Wright, Cindy

98, 111

Wyckmans, Jo

69, 79

Yamamoto, Kansai

72, 95

Yeats, Jack Yee, Marina

283

72, 79–80, 94, 109–110

Zadkine, Ossip

53, 107

Zarina, Anna (Anna Heinz-Berzina) 41, 46, 48, 104–105

149, 214

Zetternam, Eugeen

211

152

Zielens, Lode

104

189, 193

Zix, Benjamin

157

Virgil

Vloors, Emiel

110

95 241

Wolters van der Wey, Beatrijs

126, 206, 278

Vinçotte, Thomas

169

Wilsen

Vignola, Giacomo Barozzi 189, 193, 197

Vinck, Jozef

65, 85

Willhelm, Bernhard

56, 106

Verstraete, Luc

Vincent, François-André

254

Willems, Lodewijk

180

Vertessen, Liliane

254–255

178, 206–207

Witsen, Willem

167

van Soest, Hendrik

Willems, Jan Frans

219–220

72, 80, 95

Van Ruysdael, Jacob

50, 56, 106

Wilhelm, Leopold

43

213

213

Van Severen, Dan

Wildiers, Frans

Winders, Jean Jacques

Verstraete, Theodoor

180

38, 52, 55, 103

212, 214

178

van Schendel, Petrus

Wijnants, Ernest

277

van Rijn, Rembrandt

72, 79–82, 94, 109–110

135, 143, 207–208

Winckelmann, Johann Joachim

108

Van Saene, Dirk

61 168

Weyerman, Jacob Campo

94

Verschaeren, Jan Antoon 144–145, 184, 209–210 Verstockt, Mark

184

Wesselmann, Tom

Wiertz, Antoine

61

211

Verlinden

Versace, Gianni

43–44, 104

Weiser

Verlat, Karel 17–18, 28–29, 54, 176, 213–215

Vermorcken, Edward

105–106

Warhol, Andy

278

Vanriet, Jan

Van Ruyssevelt, Jozef

Wappers, Jacques

213, 215

Verhaghen, Peter-Jozef

57

Wappers, Gustaaf 27, 54, 145, 150, 162, 165, 178–182, 197, 207–211, 213

40

233–234, 242

Van Noten, Dries 65, 72–73, 80, 83, 94, 109–110

Wallet, Taf

199, 221, 281

Vasari, Giorgio

Van Leemputten, Frans Antoon

Van Lerius, Jozef

Vostell, Wolf

32, 34, 39, 102

Voerman, Jan

180

Von Thurn und Taxis

235

Vorsterman, Lukas II

234

Vos, Herman

46 296

ABOUT THE AUTHORS & COLLABORATORS

Griet Blanckaert ( born 1964 ) was trained as a

Nico Dockx ( born 1974 ) works as a visual artist,

restorer of paintings at the Laboratoire d’Etudes des

curator, publisher and researcher with a fundamental

Oeuvres d’Art ( Université Catholique de Louvain ) and

interest in archives. His interventions, publications,

then obtained her MA in Art Sciences at the Catholic

soundscapes, texts, images, installations and conver-

University of Leuven ( 1988 ). Since 1986 she has

sations — which are usually the result of collaboration

worked with various institutes, museums and private

with other artists — embody the relationship between

individuals, including the National Higher Institute and

perception and memory, which he interprets differently

Artesis College ( 1988–2000 ). Initially she focused on

each time. He graduated from the HISK Antwerp in

the art of the old masters and “large formats”. Over the

2001. His work has won him a DAAD grant ( 2005 )

course of time she has added modern and contempo-

and various prizes : the Greatest Belgian ( 2005 ), the

rary art to her areas of interest. Since 2010 she has

Cera Prize ( 2005 ), the Ars Viva Prize ( 2007 ), and the

been involved again in the Conservation-Restoration

Young Belgian Art Prize — the Emile & Stephy Langui

programme at Artesis College. She is currently involved

Prize ( 2009, together with Helena Sidiropoulos ).

in the integration of this curriculum in the programme of

Since 1998 he has exhibited his work at home and

the University of Antwerp.

abroad, as well as publishing more than forty artists’ publications with his independent imprint Curious. He is

Saskia de Bodt ( born 1952 ) has taught at the

co-founder of interdisciplinary projects such as Building

University of Utrecht since 1990, in the Department of

Transmissions ( 2001–2013 ), Interfaculty ( 2007 ), Extra

History and History of Art. Since 2008 she has been

Academy ( 2010 ) and Dog Republic ( 2012 ). He is

extraordinary professor of Illustration at the Faculty of

represented by LIGHTMACHINE agency and Esther

Humanities at the University of Amsterdam. Her special

Donatz Gallery. Together with Louwrien Wijers and

field of attention is the history of book illustration, as

Egon Hanfstingl, he delivered his PhD project, The

well as the visual arts from 1850 to 1950, with a focus

New Conversations, at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts

on the Netherlands and Belgium. In 1995, to mark the

Antwerp, in 2014.

publication of her thesis Halverwege Parijs : Willem Roelofs en de Nederlandse schilderskolonie in Brussel

Jozef Glassée ( born 1981 ) studied Germanic

1840–1890 ( Halfway to Paris : Willem Roelofs and

Languages and Art History. He currently works with the

the Dutch Painting Colony in Brussels ), De Bodt also

research group on “Cultural History from 1750” at the

presented a large exhibition on this subject. Since

Catholic University of Leuven. He is finishing his thesis

1980 she has written for the art column of the Dutch

on the donations made between 1800 and 1960 to

newspaper NRC Handelsblad. She has collaborated

the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, the Museum

on various exhibitions at home and abroad and has

of Fine Arts in Ghent, and the Groeninge Museum

worked as a curator for the department of Applied Arts

in Brugge. He has published texts about the Royal

and Design at the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen

Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp in the Antwerp Museum

and other museums. De Bodt is a member of the Royal

Annual ( 2010 ) and in Het KMSKA. Een geschiedenis

Flemish Academy of Belgium in Brussels.

1810–2007 ( The Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp.

A History 1810–2007, 2008 ).

Els De bruyn ( born 1977 ) studied Political and

299

Social Sciences at the University of Antwerp. Since

Sarah Heynssens ( born 1985 ) obtained an MA

2008, she’s coördinating several research projects at

in Contemporary History ( 2008 ) and in General

the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp, where she

Economics ( 2009 ) at the University of Ghent.

has also initiated and coached several art-related

From 2010 until 2012 she worked at the Centre for

research and PhD projects. In 2009, together with

Historical Research and Documentation on War

Johan Pas, Nico Dockx, Bert Danckaert, and Thomas

and Contemporary Society on a research project

Crombez, she founded Track Report, a publication

concerning the history of mixed race childhood in the

platform for research in and about art. In order to

Belgian colonial territory. Currently, she is affiliated with

make artistic research more accessible to students she

the Antwerp University research team Power in History

organises a large number of masterclasses, as well

as a PhD fellow. Her current research interests include

as the series of films and lectures Academiegasten

Antwerp fashion history, gender and sexuality, Belgian

( Academy Guests ), together with Sonja Spee and

colonial and post-colonial history, adoption studies and

the teachers of Visual Arts.

oral history research methods.

Katrien Dierckx ( born 1984 ) studied Romance

Paul Ilegems ( born 1946 ) studied History of Art

Languages and Literature at the Catholic University of

in Ghent. From 1981 to 2005, he taught History

Leuven and Art Sciences at the Free University Brussels.

of Art, Sculpture and Graphic Arts, Semiotics and

Since 2011 she has worked for the Centre for Urban

Contemporary Arts at the Royal Academy of Fine

History at the University of Antwerp. She is currently

Arts Antwerp. From 1998 to 2004 he organized

working on an interdisciplinary thesis about the complex

Ponderabilia at the Academy, an evening programme

relationships between art criticism and the Brussels art

with lectures by artists and documentaries. From 1981

market throughout the nineteenth century.

to 2007 he was self-appointed curator of the travelling

“Chip Stand Museum” ( now in the Chips Museum in

Goed ( 2001–2006 ), Richard Foncke Gallery

Brugge ). He is the author of various works about the

( 2003–2005 ), and the non-profit organization On Line

Belgian Chip Stand culture and works of humorous

vzw ( 2001–2012 ), as a researcher and developer of

poetry, which he compiled in Frying Chips, The Second

digital archiving systems for artists. He is represented by

Round and Belgium– Switzerland ( together with Drs. P ).

LIGHTMACHINE agency.

He has also written articles in various newspapers and magazines on “entertainment poetry” and humour, as

Stephen McKenna ( born 1939 ) is a painter. He

well as on art and literature.

studied at the Slade School of Fine Art from 1959-64.

He taught at various art colleges in England, and

Jan Lampo ( born 1957 ) studied History. He works

was guest professor for painting at the Hochschule

in the Letterenhuis, where he is making an inventory of

für Bildende Künste, Braunschweig 1995-96. He is a

the archives of Flemish writers. From 1990 to 1995 he

member of the Royal Hibernian Academy of which he

worked as an editor with the newspaper De Standaard.

was President from 2005 until 2009. He has exhibited

From 1994 to 1996 he worked in the library of the

widely in galleries and public institutions throughout

Academy. He has written some ten books about the

Europe and the USA, and was shortlisted for the Turner

history of Antwerp. Lampo teaches at the Kunsthistorisch

Prize in 1986. McKenna has published numerous

Instituut ( Art Historical Institute ) in Antwerp and

articles on art and culture, and in 1997 curated The

delivered guest lectures for the students in Conservation-

Pursuit of Painting at the Irish Museum of Modern Art.

Restoration at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts ( Artesis

His work is hold in major public collections all over

University College ) in Antwerp.

the world.

Piet Lombaerde ( born 1948 ) obtained a degree

Johan Pas ( born 1963 ) obtained his PhD in Art

in Architectural Engineering, as well as a PhD in Urban

Studies at the University of Ghent with his research on

Planning, both at the Catholic University of Leuven. He

the International Cultural Centre ( ICC ) as experimental

is professor emeritus at the Faculty of Design Sciences

art platform. He currently teaches modern and

( Artesis and University Antwerp ) and currently guest-pro-

contemporary history of art at the Royal Academy of

fessor at the University Antwerp (Faculty of Design

Fine Arts Antwerp. He is editor-in-chief of Track Report

Sciences), where he teaches History of Urban Planning

( a publication platform for research in and about

and Theoretical Models of Urbanism.He is also series

art ) and together with Thomas Crombez he mans the

editor of International Series Architectura Moderna

research cell ArchiVolt ( archives and avant-gardes ).

( Brepols Publishers, Turnhout ). His publications about

Since 1993 he has curated some thirty exhibitions

the history of architecture and urban planning won

about contemporary visual arts. His research focuses on

him the Samuel H. Kress Foundation Award ( 2006 ),

the presentation and publication history of the visual arts

a prize bestowed by the Society of Architectural

after 1958. He also dedicates himself to collecting and

Historians.

studying publications from the neo-avant-gardes. His own recent publications include Multiple / Readings.

Dries Lyna ( born 1983 ) teaches Cultural History at

51 kunstenaarsboeken ( 51 Artists’ books, 2011 ),

the Radboud University Nijmegen ( the Netherlands ).

Fred Bervoets. Prent Werk ( Print Work, 2011 ), and

In his research, he concentrates on the art of the Low

Neonlicht. Paul De Vree & de Neo-avant-garde ( Neon

Countries ( seventeenth–nineteenth century ), but he has

Light. Paul De Vree & the Neo-Avant-Garde, 2012 ).

also published about various subject that are related to urban economics, material culture, visual studies and the

Stephan Peleman ( born 1965 ) works as a

historical art market.

photographer. He specializes in portraits and has

Jan Mast ( born 1980 ) is active as a visual

and other magazines. His passion for post-war visual

artist — though he prefers the less restrictive term

arts in Belgium gradually developed into a great wealth

Renaissance man — from an irresistible urge for

of knowledge in this area. In the meantime, his own

the visibly hidden. Departing from his Petit Prince

archive comprises a great deal of visual and sound

wondering love for the surrounding world and from

material related to Belgian art in the period post-1945.

a deeply rooted urge for literary escapades, he uses

He is currently working on a series of portraits about

various media — texts, drawings, paintings, interactive

the Belgian art scene from the period of 1945–1978.

installations, publications and films — to turn personal

Peleman was responsible for the image research for the

stories into abstract suggestions / experiences. He

publication Contradictions. Royal Academy of Fine Arts

lives and works in Ghent as an artist, author, producer,

Antwerp 2013–1663.

created dozens of photo reportages for HUMO, Libelle

designer and internet wizard. He is co-founder of interdisciplinary projects such as Morphologies

Veerle Stinckens ( born 1976 ) obtained her MA

( 2003–… ) and Interfaculty ( 2007–… ), as well as the

in the Conservation-Restoration of Paintings from the

LIGHTMACHINE agency ( 2005–… ) — a curatorial

Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp in 2001. After

project and experimental production platform / gallery.

graduating, she was initially employed as a restorer,

He was also deeply involved with Ontroerend

but later set up on her own as a self-employed restorer.

300

She initially focused on the conservation and restoration

Patrimoine artistique. In 2014 the Metropolitan Museum

of easel paintings. As she became interested in the

of Art in New York awarded Peter a Sherman Fairchild

restoration of exceptionally large paintings, she started

Fellowship in Painting Conservation, to further pursue the

to study the problems involved in such demanding

study of conservation of Western easel paintings.

work. Since 2011, Stinckens has been on the teaching staff of the Conservation-Restoration unit and she

Carolien van der Star ( born 1956 ) studied

co-ordinates the restoration of Peter Thys’ Foundation of

Restoration at the National Higher Institute in Antwerp

the Academy.

( 1993–1996 ) after teaching Visual Culture in the Netherlands and Tanzania. After working for a brief

Hans Theys ( born 1963 ) is an author, designer,

period at the Monumentenwacht Interieur ( Monument

curator and lecturer. His field of expertise is contempo-

Care Interior ) in the province of East Flanders

rary art, a subject that he teaches at the academies of

( 1997–1998 ), she started to work in the Conservation-

Antwerp and Ghent. In 2012, he obtained his PhD from

Restoration unit ( C / R Stone–Polychromy ) at the Royal

the University of Antwerp with his thesis Het Kijkbeeld

Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp. She is also active in the

( The Viewing Image ). His recent books include Over

Netherlands as an advisor in heritage matters.

Vorm ( On Form, 2010 ), and Focus. Een blik op 100 kunstenaars ( Focus. A View of 100 Artists, 2012 ).

Beatrijs Wolters van der Wey ( born 1969 )

In 2010 he curated XANADU! De collectie van het

studied Classical Philology and Art Studies at the

S.M.A.K. belicht door Hans Theys ( The S.M.A.K.

universities of Antwerp and Leuven. She obtained

Collection Explained by Hans Theys ) at the S.M.A.K.,

her PhD in January 2012 from the Catholic University

in Ghent. In 2012 he realized the exhibitions Oronooko

of Leuven with a doctoral thesis about civic group

in Triangle Bleu, Stavelot, A Whitsun Wedding in

portraits in Brabant in the period of 1585–1800. She

Galerie EL in Welle, and The New Candour in Galerie

has worked for several years as a scientific assistent

Tatjana Pieters, Ghent.

at the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage in Brussels.

She currently works on the scientific staff of the Royal

Eric Ubben ( born 1960 ) has been head of the

Museums of Fine Arts in Brussels. She also taught at

Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp since 2005. After

the Restoration-Conservation unit of the Royal Academy

graduating from the KASK College in Ghent as an

of Fine Arts ( Artesis College ) in Antwerp and at the

animated cartoonist, he was active as a film director,

Art Historical Institute in Antwerp. Her special field of

layout designer, and screenwriter. In 1990 he started

interest is Flemish painting, in particular portraiture from

to work as an assistant at the KASK in Ghent, and

the sixteenth to the eighteenth century.

later as a lecturer and senior lecturer. He was head of the school from 1999 to 2005. He has taught as a visiting professor at the VGIK in Moscow, at Shenzhen University, at the QCA in Brisbane, the NIAF in Tilburg, Sint-Lukas in Brussels, and at Bidai Kanazawa in Japan. From 2005 to 2009, he was advisor to the Dutch Filmfund. Ubben sits on the Board of the Higher Institute of Fine Arts, on the BOF reading committee for humanities and the arts, and is vice-president of the Arts Faculty Council. In 2008 he directed Raoul 80, an homage to the Belgian pioneer of animation, Raoul Servais, which was made to mark the occasion of Servais’ honorary doctorate. He publishes writings on higher education and our visual culture.

Peter Van de Moortel ( born 1986 ) obtained his MA in Conservation and Restoration of Easel Paintings from the Antwerp Royal Academy of Fine Arts in 2009.

After having graduated he continued his training with an additional MA in Art Science and Archaeology from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Peter is passionate about easel painting and he is especially fascinated by nineteenth-century Belgian painting. Therefor he published several articles on Willem Geets ( 1838–1919 ) — a second generation Belgian romantic painter. Peter has worked as a trainee in conservation at the SRAL in Maastricht and at the Royal Museum of Fine Arts of Antwerp. In 2012–2013 he worked as an Inbev-Baillet Latour trainee at the Brussels-based Institut royal du

301

Contradictions. Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp 2013-1663 was published originally in Dutch on the occasion of the 350th anniversary of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp in 2013. This English edition is released together with its accompanying volume Pro-Positions. Art and / as Education 2363–2013. Both volumes also appear in a limited edition of 150 copies with silkscreened box.

The works and documents featuring in this book are from the archive of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp ( KASKA ), and from the archives of the University of Antwerp, TU Delft, DESY and the Kröller-Müller Museum © Collection Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo ( page 36 ) ; the Archive of the Royal Palace, Brussels ( page 47 ) ; the Collection Letterenhuis Antwerp ( pages 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 60, 67, 68, 74, 145, 146, 171, 209, 223, 227 ) ;

Concept and general editing : Els De bruyn, Nico Dockx & Johan Pas

the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp ( KMSKA ); the Museum

Image research and digitization : Stephan Peleman

of Fine Arts Ghent ; the Museum of Brugge © Lukas-Art in Flanders

Image processing : LIGHTMACHINE agency, www.lightmachine.Info

vzw, photo Hugo Maertens ( pages 48, 50, 53, 58, 59, 67, 71,

Text editing : Duncan Brown

155, 156, 160, 185, 189, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 210, 213,

Translation into English : Dirk Verbiest

214, 218, 219, 223, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256 ) ; the

Design and typography : Jan Mast, Ghent, 2014

Archive of the Foundation Jenny & Luc Peire, Knokke ( page 56 ) ;

Silkscreen printing of limited edition : Nico Dockx & Jan Mast, Antwerp, 2014

the library of the University of Leiden Collection Management Emmy

Printing and binding : GuidoMaes.printingdeluxe, Ghent, 2014. This book is printed on FSC certified paper The editors would like to thank Fred Bervoets, Marc Bourgeois, Jan Ceuleers, Kaat Debo, Dré Demet, Nico De Brabander, Gabina De Paepe, Alain De Waele, Willem Dolphyn, Vincent Geyskens, Kati Heck, Flor Hermans, Karine Houthuys, Wilfried Huet, Lieve Laporte,

Andriesse ( page 63 ) ; the Archive Stephan Peleman, Rumst ( page 65, 79, 223, 224, 226, 228 ) ; the Archive Jef Verheyen, Leonore Verheyen, Heffen ( page 69 ) ; the Archive Jan Marstboom, Antwerp ( page 71 ) ; Collection ModeMuseum, Province of Antwerp ( page 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106 ) ;

Jan Marstboom, Gustav Metzger & Leanne Dmyterko, Mariette Moens-Philippi, Spank Moons, Nadia Naveau, Panamarenko,

Condé-Nast photo Philippe Costes ( page 107 ) ; Collection Museum

Wilfried Pas, Walter Pas, Marc Peire, Mia Prce, Arne Rombouts, Sonja Spee, Sergio Servellon, Narcisse Tordoir, Joris Tas, Greta

Plantin-Moretus / Print Room, Antwerp ( pages 108, 110, 111, 156,

Tote, Luc Tuymans, Eric Ubben, Walter Van Beirendonck, Jef Van Gool, Anne-Mie Van Kerckhoven, Marthe Van Leemput, Johan

247 ) ; Collection Felix, Archive Town of Antwerp ( pages 110,

Van Steenkiste, Ysbrant van Wijngaarden, Léonore Verheyen, Cindy Wright, the teaching staff of the Academy and all others who

112, 113, 116, 117, 126–127, 187, 188, 218, 221 ) ; Architecture

contributed with words, images or ideas to the realization of this publication.

Archive for the Province of Antwerp ( page 124 ) ; Collection Flemish Institute for Immobile Heritage, Brussels ( page 228 ) ; Collection

Edition of 600 copies : AsaMER, an imprint of MER. Paper Kunsthalle vzw / Geldmunt 36 B-9000 Ghent / www.merpaperkunsthalle.org Limited edition of 150 copies : Curious031 / Curious vzw / Bredastraat 24 bus 4 B-2060 Antwerpen / nicodockx@yahoo.com

Walter & Hilde Pas, Antwerp ( page 148 ) ; Collection Luc Tuymans, Antwerp ( page 149 ) ; Collection Vincent Geyskens ( page 150 ) ; Collection Gustav Metzger, London, photo Jan Mast ( page 151 ) ; Collection Musée du Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins, Paris ( pages 157 and 187 ) ; Collection Museo di Capodimonte, Napels ( page 158 ) ; Collection Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen ( page 159 ) ; Collection National Museum of Northern Ireland ( page 172 ) ;

ISBN 978 94 9177 547 5

Archive of Contemporary Art, Royal Museums of Fine Arts Belgium

D/2014/7852/199

( KMSKB ), Brussels ( page 184 ) ; Collection Van Gogh Museum,

© 2014 the authors / © 2014 AsaMER for this edition / All rights reserved

Amsterdam ( page 203, 204, 205 ) ; Archive of the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage, Brussels Collection, Royal Museums of Fine Arts Belgium, Brussels ( page 207 ) ; Heritage Library Antwerp ( page 209 ) ; Smithsonian Institute, Washington ( page 210 ) ; Cuypershuis Roermond, the Netherlands ( pages 223 and 224 ) ; Collection Photo Museum Province of Antwerp ( pages 230 and 231 ) ; Collection Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna ( page 248 ) ; Collection The Elisha Whittelsey Collection © 2013. Image copyright The Metropolitan Museum of Art / Art Resource / Scala, Florence ( page 249 ) ; and various private collections.

LIG H T M ACHINE

AGENCY

Happy Birthday Dear Academy is an initiative of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp and Antwerpen Open vzw, with the support of Artesis Plantijn College Antwerp and the town of Antwerp. Happy Birthday Dear Academy is a joint project of Antwerpen Open vzw, the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp, the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, MoMu – Modemuseum Province of Antwerp, MAS | Museum aan de Stroom, M HKA, University Antwerp, NICC and Antwerp Toerisme & Congres. Steering committee and art working group : Kaat Debo, Dré Demet, Gabina De Paepe, Alain De Waele, David Flamee, Paul Huvenne, Stella Lohaus, Johan Pas, Mia Prce, Sonja Spee, Eric Ubben, Walter Van Beirendonck, Katharina Van Cauteren, Anne-Mie Van Kerckhoven and Johan Vansteenkiste. With thanks to the entire staff of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp, the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, MoMu – Modemuseum Province of Antwerp, MAS | Museum aan de Stroom and M HKA. With thanks to our “presenting partners” Toerisme Vlaanderen and the National Lottery, our media partners De Standaard, Canvas, Klara, Cobra.be, HART and ATV, and our sponsors Farrow & Ball, Thalys, NMBS and HP.

CONTRADICTIONS ROYAL ACADEMY OF FINE ARTS ANTWERP

2013 – 1663

Els De bruyn , Nico Dockx & Johan Pas ( eds )

.

1663