I have a sneaking suspicion that this whole Rijksmuseum thing
may well develop into a bit of a close shave* - after all, you
didn't think the debate was being organised just to let you have your
way, did you?
* Or, as we say in Dutch, "a dime on its side".
|
Dear Debate Supremo, have mercy on me, for I have been invited to attend the
debate in response to my having put forward in what can only have been a fit
of utter lunacy the relocation scenario. Have mercy: I have caught myself
defending elements of my drastic alternatives. It can't have been anything
else than my vanity, that most perverse of pitfalls. Oh, how my fantasies
amused me, what malicious delight they prematurely gave me. The sillier the
objections, I have since realised, the easier victory comes to the
barbarians. All I have left is an appeal to historical perspective. Please
join me for a look over my digital shoulder. The older a landmark building, the more its authentic character tends to be held in esteem. At some point or other in this process, there is always a stage at which people insist on changing the original status. In the case of the Rijksmuseum, we have now entered a phase where some people wouldn't mind replacing the building altogether. This is such an unlikely option to the unsuspecting public that they won't even appreciate it's there. Those in favour of razing are real, too, and they in turn know deep down that the best they can hope to achieve is the building's partial replacement, which it should be possible to shroud by staging a couple of tender invitations and opportunities for the public to vent their spleen. The purpose of my bizarre relocation scenario is to wake people up, as if to point out that there are worse options still: the Rijksmuseum could be razed to the ground, or it could end up badly disfigured. What follows is primarily of therapeutic value. Bluntly reject any change if you like, it's still a useful exercise to look into the impact on the City of Amsterdam of Cuypers's two most striking buildings: Amsterdam Central Station, which has permanently (for as long as it lasts) sealed off the inner city from the river IJ, thus conferring inferior status on the northern part of the city, and the Rijksmuseum, which appears to have demoted its entire hinterland to metroland level as well as stubbornly acting as a spoke in the wheel of efficient traffic circulation. This is no mean feat, and calls for as much respect for the creative genius in question as it does for the courage to admit to the possible shortcomings of his philosophy (did he do it intentionally, or could it simply have been his impression that enough must surely be enough after 500 years of urban expansion?) and an even larger dose of vigour in tackling or modifying these deficiencies. Now do you see how hard it can be to formulate a consistent point of view? Fortunately my wife, as always, came to the rescue. After I had finished blowing off steam, she gave me a friendly yet slightly mocking look and suggested that we leave the Rijksmuseum where it was, on addition of a Cuypers-like extension at the rear in the direction of the Museum Meadow - on condition that the odd little kiosks should be torn down - while the main entrance should be moved from the front to the rear of the building: a scenario which would enable the Van Gogh carbuncle to be left intact as well, and which should thus find favour with the innovators. |
BACK