During the Second World War, artists had to register with the Kultuurkamer, an institute set up by the Germans. Without registration they were not allowed to exhibit in public. Jews were not allowed to register at all. How did the Dutch view this collaboration with the occupying forces after the war? Was it cowardly docility or necessity?
The Kultuurkamer was established in 1942. This institute was intended for all practitioners of creative professions and relatives such as painters, stage costume designers, writers and musicians. We do not know exactly what percentage of the artists have become members of this institute. The majority signed up, but exact figures are lacking:the archives of the Kultuurkamer were partially destroyed by the Germans at the end of the war.
Artists
The Germans were very interested in Dutch painting and they stimulated painters by means of subsidies, competitions and paid commissions. This is in contrast to the Dutch government before the war, which had little interest in the cultural sector. The Germans also paid better and many artists actually registered to take advantage of this. There was a form of censorship when registering:the Germans wanted to see a traditional painting style. With the help of Dutch landscapes, scenes from everyday life and Aryan-looking persons, they wanted to convince the Dutch of their National Socialist ideologies.
In her dissertation, historian Claartje Wesselink looked at the attitude of the Dutch towards these compliant artists, and also explained a few artists in more detail. The current opinion is that after the war artists were reviled because of their registration with the Kultuurkamer, but Wesselink contradicts this. High time to ask her for an explanation:
Did the painters change their painting style because of the demands of the occupying forces? "That was easy. The innovative, modern movements of the early twentieth century, such as Dadaism, had largely disappeared before the 1930s. In these crisis years, artists returned to traditional styles. This matched almost seamlessly with the wishes of the Germans, but also with the wishes of the general public. They preferred this style to the more abstract works and there was a lot of demand for it.”
“That was certainly the case during the war, when inflation was high and the value of money plummeted. Art was a lot more valuable and a lot was invested in it. The art trade flourished during these years. After the war, the style changed again and painters started making abstract works. This also has to do with wanting to forget a traditional style from the war. People wanted innovation and a look ahead, to the future, rather than to the past.”
Art under the Nazis
Painter Pyke Koch was influenced by Mussolini and made works of art with fascist characteristics just before and during the war. At the time, almost no one saw this. The vigilance among the general public, but also among art critics, was low. This also applies to a painting from circa 1937 by Henri van de Velde, The New Man called. He painted a broad blond man, standing by burning books and human bones.
A symbolic man, who in the 1930s was seen as a new Christ figure, going to war against capitalism and communism. After several revolutions in the early twentieth century and the economic crisis in the 1930s, these enemies were not just the hobbyhorses of the Nazis. Only now, when we look back on these works, do we find the National Socialist symbolism unmissable. Just before and during the war, people thought very differently.
What happened to 'wrong' artists, shortly after the liberation? “Just after the war, the so-called purge took place. Dutchmen who had collaborated with the enemy, or who were suspected of doing so, had to come before the Special Court. This also applied to artists. But in addition, for this target group there was also a professional legal procedure by the Purification Council for visual artists. This council looked at the extent to which artists had collaborated with the enemy on the basis of their profession, after which professional punishments followed, such as a temporary ban on exhibition. No artist was punished just for being registered with the Kultuurkamer. There had to be more going on, such as the production of propaganda material, for example.”
How did the artists themselves look back on their registration with the Kultuurkamer? “Many artists themselves felt that they had little choice; they had to put bread on the shelf. But personal stories show that they often felt guilty about this. They certainly weren't proud of it. And there had also been another choice, not everyone had signed up. Underground artists could paint on commission, for example portraits, but public exhibition was impossible. In addition, there was the National Support Fund from the resistance that paid for, among other things, resistance groups and aid to people in hiding. Underground artists could also receive a contribution from this.”
Pyke Koch is a good example of a 'wrong' artist. He painted in a style that the occupier liked, but did not do so for ideological or political reasons. After the war, he continued to work in a traditional style, also known as magical realism. During the purge period, Koch had to appear before two councils, the Special Judiciary and the Purification Council for Visual Artists. The case about his NSB membership for the Special Judiciary was dropped due to lack of evidence. From 1950, the council for professional purification allowed him not to exhibit for a year, but Koch continued to exhibit.
The rulings by the professional cleansing board had a bad start because they were not legally enshrined until 1946. Not everyone took the statements seriously and Koch certainly didn't. He was an elitist figure with an influential network and married to a noble woman. After the war, a wealthy patron in particular continued to buy his work. But because Koch was really talented, important people from the art world, such as Willem Sandberg, also remained interested in his works. Koch's wartime past didn't matter much to them.
How wrong was Koch during the war? In the first year of the war he had produced propaganda material and written articles about the salvation of the new order. He came back to this in 1941, but he did register with the Kultuurkamer and sold works to the occupying forces. However, he lived for his art, he did not paint from a political ideology. Wesselink's research also shows that there is no causal relationship between a 'wrong' war history and the end of a career in art after the war.
Could these 'wrong' artists simply continue working after their possible punishment? “That was mainly due to the talent of the artists. The people who mattered in the art world wanted to work with good painters. War history or not. Take Willem Sandberg, for example. After the war, this resistance fighter became director of the “Stedelijk Museum” in Amsterdam and has had a great deal of influence on modernization within the art world."
“When he liked a painter, he ignored the war past. Such as with Karel Appel, who had also sold works to the Germans. Sandberg received letters about Appel's war history, but did nothing with them. Except 'storage' on the letter disks. With less good artists, however, he used the war past as an excuse not to work with them. He twisted the political narrative for art. And not only him.”
Where does the current idea that these artists were ignored after the war? “That critical view of membership of the Kultuurkamer only emerged in the 1960s. Critics from the fifties did not say a word about the war to exhibiting 'wrong' artists. The protest generation from the sixties, who then enter the labor market as young critics, do refer to it. And the further we get from the war, the more fiercely the war history of artists is exposed. However, this war history of artists also attracts the public again. Evil fascinates.”