by Jurri Rooyackers, President of Haagse Kunstkring (1992)
When the Haagse Kunstkring celebrated its centennial in May 1991, it was, of course, plenty of “fin de siècle.” But how different from this present end of the century is that of a hundred years ago, when the Circle was founded. One only revisits the richly illustrated commemorative book published on the occasion of the eighty-fifth anniversary.
How delightfully not the Hague Bohème presents itself here!
It may be that the more distant the past becomes more beautiful. The longer ago, the more glorious the history of the Circle appears. The more fabulous, the more flamboyant, in a legendary and celebratory way. In part, this may be due to a perspective illusion. In many a life, whether a person or an institution, there is always a Golden Age and the further away the more beautiful!
In the 1990s, the belle époque, artists’ associations and societies shot up like mushrooms. Example were sometimes the cercles d’art at our southern neighbors. There was apparently good reason for artists in all branches of Fine Arts to seek each other’s presence. A not unimportant factor was the ideal of Gesamtkunst propagated by Richard Wagner. It never came to that, but the idea did bring minds together. And here also lay the roots of the Haagse Kunstkring. How could these thoughts about the origins of the Circle take shape in a tangible memento of this centennial?
Preparations for an anniversary program were well underway in 1990. In the early summer of that year, The newly appointed chairman Jan Verstegen and Henri Mühl, chairman of the Literature, Drama and Dance Department, developed the idea of publishing a special commemorative book. They invited Ton van Kalmthout, an expert on the history of the Circle, and Ellen Fernhout, the soon-to-be general secretary.
They wanted something other than another “commemorative book.” After all, that had been done fifteen years earlier with dedication and success. Their thoughts went in the direction of a book, in which the light would fall on the topicality of the ideas that had moved the founders of the Circle one hundred years ago.
There was cause enough. The subject of cultural ties with Dutch-speaking Belgium in particular was suddenly in the spotlight again, also – yes, precisely – because of political statements made by some ministers at the time. So did the theme of cooperation of the arts – in a different way. And these were precisely the themes that had played such a major role in the founding of the Circle.
Thus thoughts grew toward a collection of essays by expert hands. To this end, a number of well-known writers – experts in their fields – would be invited. Starting point: how topical are these themes now?
Here is the result.
“The Hague Bohème in search of Europe,” is the main title of this volume. What is meant, of course, is not the European Union or the Europe of the EC or of the Council of Europe or of Europe as a continent.
But: the culture of Europe. Or perhaps – authors like, for example, Mourik and Heldring deny the existence of a European culture – the cultures of Europe. What will become of these?
The Haagse Kunstkring is a typical Hague artists’ association. And when it comes to the future, that typical Hague must not be concealed. Otherwise the Kring would be denying itself. No vision of the future without nostalgia. At least not here, in The Hague. The view of the future is therefore unfolded against the backdrop of our beloved and remarkable city, with the murmur of the North Sea in the background. Legend, anecdote, some gossip too and woofy backbiting cannot possibly be missed in the residence, city of Louis Couperus after all. A little history has also been extracted from the most dashing and artistically imaginative past in the form of a number of nostalgia-inducing drawings from the so-called Golden Book of the Circle. Moreover, we are convinced that any culture, whether it is any European culture or a national one, or the culture of a language area, can only truly flourish in the existence of flourishing partial cultures. How then could we ignore that typical Hague? That would even be contrary to our starting point which is precisely this.
In fitting Calvinist fashion, no one knows what the future may bring, including culture. If national culture is threatened by European developments, then it is important to resist them. If not, international orientation is no less desirable. The eyes are on the international forum anyway. So even if there are no pertinent threats, it is still important to accept wholeheartedly the challenge of Europe with its cultural ambitions, and to blow a nice party with it. That has nothing to do with national or local chauvinism.
We think back to the finest years of the Circle. These were the finest years precisely because the Circle was then strongly internationally oriented and in this international orientation it found even its deepest raison d’être.
In modern, dynamic cultures, what is typically one’s own only transcends the narrow-national, the provincial, the folkloric in a lively contact with other typically one’s own cultural circles. Indeed, that uniqueness only becomes vital and interesting in that open contact.
Cultural cosmopolitanism only flourishes, we suspect, when idiosyncratic subcultures participate in it unborn and self-consciously. But, skeptics sometimes wonder, what can the Netherlands, what can Flanders add to the international art scene? Simply this. Suppose, indeed suppose, that the Dutch or Flemish cultural contribution is of less quality – which in many areas remains to be seen – than that of great cultural nations like France, Germany or England, then this is very simple: that essential contribution of the Netherlands and Flanders is of value in the other. The more cultural variety, the greater the cultural richness, the more vibrant, the more exciting, the more spiritual also the international artistic life. But if that is so, then not only should governments pursue a self-conscious international cultural policy. But then it must also be supported locally. Indeed, the artists themselves must be convinced of its meaning and support it. Even stronger. If what I am saying here is true, international orientation must also be enthusiastically driven by local art life and local artists. After all, international cultural exchange does not take place somewhere high in the sky, but always in places, in places, and only there can it become reality, and be experienced as reality. From the bottom up. A nice basis could be, to begin with, Dutch-Flemish local and urban cultural twinning.
It is nice to note in this context that a European project for a Gesamtkunstwerk was designed after all.
The zeitgeist is so different from what it was then, a hundred years ago, that the Wagnerian mystical concept cannot hover behind it. Such a project could be interesting. On one condition. And that is that it is not conceived and implemented from above. In fact, at the European level there cannot even be a cultural policy, other than in the form of a little supplement. European bodies are far too far removed from the cultural intricacies, whether the reality of the culture of Europe or that of the Europe of culture.
The director of The Hague’s Gemeentemuseum, Rudy Fuchs, rightly brings up on the idea of the Gesamtkunstwerk how interesting it would not be if artistic life manifested itself collectively.
International. But – we add – if that becomes supra-national, that is, detached from local and national roots, it can only result in symbols of a European culture as fiction. A mirage that will mean nothing to citizens. Perhaps this too is not true. Not for nothing are we here but looking for Europe.
Of more significance, then, is found here to do some justice to the mosaic of opinions than to formulate firm answers to firm questions.
The editors found it enlightening to be the first to ask the ministers responsible for cultural policy, Ministers Dewael and d’Ancona, to give their opinions. Not in response to questions formulated in advance, although we did ask the Dutch Minister of Culture to highlight a few technical aspects in the government’s vision that have remained in the background of the discussion to date. Peter Berger is represented in this volume by two articles. As an official involved in the Flemish-Dutch cooperation, he preferred a personal impression. And in order to still evoke an image of The Hague and its art life, the editors asked him to write down an improvisation he made for Haagse Kunstkring about a number of artists from The Hague.
In addition to a few authors such as Pierre H. Dubois and Simone Dubois, eminently familiar with the subject matter, the editors have asked mainly, but not exclusively, those authors to comment, who have recently dealt with Dutch and Flemish culture or Dutch-language culture in the press to a special extent and with special involvement in the light of the coming Europe.
In what, for the time being anyway, can only be a search, the editors have deliberately refrained from creating the illusion of positing certainties. But one certainty we do want to state here: we do not know what the developments will be like. But these will only be interesting if artists care about cultural development in the first place and take responsibility for it.
The word vocation may sound a bit strange, however, therein lies a new and exciting vocation for the cercle d’art of that future!
