Author:

Abstract:

Whether 19th-century nationalism or the preference for the own people and rejection of the foreign (Van Dale dictionary) influenced the acquisitions of 17th-century Dutch and Flemish masters by the national museums of Belgium and the Netherlands is the central question of this paper. A comparison of the number of Dutch and Flemish masters in the museums of Amsterdam and Brussels, based on collection catalogues from the beginning and the end of the 19th century, seems to confirm the influence of nationalistic feelings in acquisition policies - art works by Flemish masters appear in the largest amount in Brussels, the Dutch masters in Amsterdam. Yet a more nuanced reality goes behind the figures. Although the Rijksmuseum and the Brussels museum were organized on a different level before the Belgian Revolution (1830) - the former nationally and the latter municipally -, both made acquisitions from the 17th-century northern as well as southern Netherlandish schools of painting, and for both Rubens was the champion of these schools. After the Belgian Revolution a nationalistic rejection of the foreign remained out of the question as well. The Royal Museum of Fine Arts in Brussels, which became the state museum in 1842, was even very eager to buy Dutch master-pieces to enforce its status as a young Belgian institution. The Amsterdam museum kept on accepting Flemish paintings via bequests or buying them after the acquisition stop, imposed by the government, had been lifted in 1870. The explanation for this is the belief of most 19th-century art theorists: l'Ecole flamande et l'Ecole hollandaise sont des branches de la même famille (Loir 2004). Both branches and the accompanying different genres (Flemish school: history paintings; Dutch school: landscapes and genre pieces) were to be represented in the overview of the history of art that the Amsterdam and the Brussels museum wanted to offer their visitors. It's remarkable that the best example of this notion of the oneness of the Dutch and Flemish schools is the most municiple museum of the three that I will discuss, the museum of Antwerp. Its acquisition policy mainly focused on Antwerp 17th-century masters, especially Rubens, Van Dyck and Jordaens. Yet in 1860 Génard, city archivist and closely related to the museum board, complained about the lack of what we call nowadays Dutch masters. About 30 years after Belgian Independence and in spite of strong Antwerp patriotic feelings the principle that both the Flemish genres as well as those of son ancien frère du nord couldn't lack in the museum lived on. The unification of both schools of painting is also reflected in 19th-century private collections in the Netherlands and Belgium. Rather than contemporary politics, art theoretical concepts explain the purchases of paintings from both Netherlandish schools. Art works were principally bought for their artistic value - whatever the master's country of origin - and because they were affordable within limited budgets. However, at the end of the 19th century nationalistic considerations did influence museum display. Due to increasing complaints about among others the lack of space, the museums were urged to build new accommodations for their treasures. In these newly built temples of arts (which opened in 1880 in Brussels, in 1885 in Amsterdam and in 1890 in Antwerp) national schools were shown separately and the rooms with national painter heroes - Rembrandt for the Netherlands and Rubens for Belgium - were climatic highlights of the museum tours.