The initiator of the debate, PhD candidate Elina Zorina, did not attend the symposium on Friday about what should be done with the controversial painting by Rein Dool in the Academy Building of Leiden University. “My knowledge of the Dutch language is insufficient,” she e-mails when asked – in English – a few days before the meeting. But she didn’t really feel like it, to be honest.
The originally Russian political scientist tweeted in November 2022 that he was not a fan of a painting from 1977, of six middle-aged white men smoking. The 27-year-old woman who fled Russia in 2014 because of the repression by President Putin, tweeted a photo of the painting in a conference room calling “thoughts?”
Those requested thoughts came in plenty. Zorina was buried under an avalanche of curses. The storm of criticism about what was seen as the ‘woke brigade’ intensified when the dean of the law faculty Joanne van der Leun expressed her support because, according to her, people do not feel represented by Dool’s print. „Immediate action was taken today”, the driver tweeted combatively with a photo of employees removing the artwork from the wall. „We were a bit fed up and some of us wanted action. We will surely find a better place for this picture.”
Iconoclasm
At the university, in the House of Representatives and even abroad, the Leiden iconoclasm unleashed tongues. Should Rembrandt’s Night Watch also be upside down against the wall from now on, Remco Breuker, professor of Korean Studies, wondered in the university newspaper Mary. On social media, Van der Leun in particular got it wrong. “Dear limp bitch. How about showing a spine in place of the ears to a small group of complaining people,” tweeted Will Mikkelson, urban designer. Many people took offense to the fact that the Rector Magnificus Dolf Cohen depicted in the painting, a man who had survived the Holocaust by going into hiding, had to disappear again more than 75 years after the liberation.
The painting was hung back and a seven-member committee was set up. According to the Executive Board, ‘Insights from the symposium’ and recommendations from the committee should clarify what a university does and does not show. Zorina is happy with that solution. “It’s a satisfying way to think about the symbolic power of art and its interpretations.”
For everyone to see
Six months after the turmoil, the discussion took place in the building of the Faculty of Law on Friday afternoon. Kitty Zijlmans, emeritus professor of art history and chairman of the committee, immediately took the sting out of the debate and announced the provisional advice. “Rein Dool’s painting will be hung prominently in the Academy Building, for everyone to see and with all relevant information.” The university should also get an art committee “that seeks a new balance between past and contemporary demands”. This committee will also become the contact point for complaints and suggestions in this area.
Tipping moment
According to Zijlmans, the discussion about the white men’s print comes at a “tipping moment” in history. According to Zijlmans, the debate touches “an open nerve”. She saw an interesting parallel with the offending painting from the 1970s depicting the first more or less democratically elected administrative body of Leiden University. At the time, the university community was crying out for more democracy, explained Dolf Cohen’s sons, Floris and former mayor of Amsterdam Job. Now students especially want ‘inclusiveness’. They want to be able to identify with the people hanging on the wall in the building. “Each time has its own riot,” Floris Cohen sighed.
The audience unanimously begged for more explanation about the colorful, rather dated images in the university building. “Give context. Hang signs near the paintings. After all, footnotes fit into a university,” said one of the visitors. One of the thrifty students in the room, Hester, pointed out that representation cannot exist without participation. She wants to paint. “Let us students speak for themselves. Give us a visual voice”.
The discussion was, certainly compared to the riot six months ago, extremely civilized. “A little too peaceful even”, Floris Cohen grumbled at the end. While something really happened in November. “The symbolic significance of removing art because you don’t like it is not small.” He was supported by Hans Blom, former director of the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (NIOD). “Destroying parts of the past never helps.”
‘deadly ill’
The now 90-year-old Leiden painter Rein Dool was also invited to the debate, but because of a flu and the practical problems of getting into the center of Leiden with his wheelchair, he preferred to have the discussion through a live stream to follow at home in Dordrecht. Despite being continuously praised as a great artist by all participants on camera during the debate, Dool was not satisfied, he said by telephone at the end of the afternoon.
“I am sick of that committee,” said Dool. “No one has talked about the meaning of art. How it’s painted. That’s what this should be about.” According to him, it is not appropriate to see paintings as political instruments. He is happy with the promise to hang the curtain of the puffing university administrators ‘prominently’. “The more it can be seen, the better.”
Read also ‘One of the best works’ by painter Rein Dool has been removed by Leiden University: ‘Incredibly narrow-minded’
A version of this article also appeared in the newspaper of May 27, 2023.