Follow a manual added link
Research Log
The Don Quixote Sculpture Hall
Challenges and Opportunities of Curating a Public Indoor Sculpture Garden
by Tijmen Ter Keurs
Setting a framework
“Where does one start with curating the sculpture garden?”, I asked Leontine Coelewij, who was involved in the project as Stedelijk’s curator of modern and contemporary art. She tells me that the first step in the curatorial process was to determine the precise location of the sculpture garden within the entrance hall. Together with architect Paul Cournet the museums team decided to use the north-eastern section of the space, based on the projects objective to improve the buildings recognizability as a museum – this section is the most visible from outside. Because this area originally housed the bookstore (fig. 1), the decision created a chain-reaction to relocate functions within the entrance hall. Ultimately this led to a redesign of the space as a whole; the bookstore moved to the former cloakroom area, the cloakroom area moved downstairs into the educational spaces, and the educational spaces moved back into the old building. Additionally, the redesign involved creating a coffee bar with a reading area, acquiring new furniture, and installing new signing (fig. 2).[1]
Fig. 1. Overview Don Quixote Sculpture Hall with the new museum shop designed by Cloud Architects in between the sculptures of Niki de Saint Phalle, Tête Blanche, 1970 (left) and Damien Hirst, The Incredible Journey, 2008, on loan from Don Quixote Foundation (right). Photo: Peter Tijhuis.
Fig. 2. Overview Don Quixote Sculpture Hall with the new coffee bar and reading area designed by Cloud Architects, and chairs designed by Sabine Marcelis. Photo: Peter Tijhuis.
Once the location was selected, the following step was to determine the conditions of the space. With conditions, I refer to the physical variables of the internal climate, such as the temperature, the uv-radiation, the humidity, and the air quality. Because the entrance hall was not designed as a gallery space, the architectural elements created a challenging internal climate to show artworks. For example, the glass façade brings in lots of light and UV-radiance, potentially fading the artworks. The two entrance doors continuously bring outside air into the space, creating shifts in air temperature and air humidity, which can be damaging to specific sculptures. On top of that the space posed constructional difficulties, mainly relating to the floors capacity to carry the weight of heavy sculptures. All together, these factors massively impacted whether a sculpture could be exhibited within the entrance hall, creating a basic framework for the curatorial choices.
Sculpting for outside
At work here is the dynamic relationship between two core objectives of the museum, to present and to preserve artworks. Presenting works vulnerable to the impacting conditions of the entrance hall, imposes a real threat to their conservation. Hence, the first selection mostly consisted of bronze and metal sculptures, because they are more immune to the ‘harsh’ conditions of the space. This sturdiness and robustness is mostly the result of their intended use, for example, Anne Imhof’s Diveboard II (2021) functioned as a platform during performances.
Fig. 3. Henry Moore’s Working Model for Unesco Reclining Figure, 1957-59, in front of De Nieuwe Vleugel. From Jan Hein Sassen, Het Beeld van de Eeuw (Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1992).
Fig. 4. Henri Laurens, L’automne, 1948, in front of the former sculpture gardens pond. From Jan Hein Sassen, Het Beeld van de Eeuw (Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1992).
Fig. 5. Carel Visser, Vier gestapelde blokken,1954-64, exhibited in the former sculpture garden.
Fig. 6. Shinkichi Tajiri, Overhand Knot, 1971, exhibited on top of the connection between De Nieuwe Vleugel and the nineteenth-century building. © Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.
This intended use translated to materials and techniques that improved the objects resistance to harsher conditions, that in turn make them more suitable to be shown in the new sculpture garden. Interestingly, many of the sculptures in this first selection were previously exhibited outside in the former sculpture garden of the museum. This includes but is not limited to Henry Moore’s Working Model for UNESCO Reclining Figure (1957-9) (fig. 3), Henri Laurens l’automne (1948) (fig. 4), Carel Visser Vier gestapelde blokken (1954-64) (fig. 5), and Shinkichi Tajiri Overhand Knot (1971).[2](fig. 6)
Located at the exact same spot as the new sculpture garden, the former sculpture garden was designed by architect Hans Warnau (1922-1995) in 1953.[3] (fig. 7) It was part of the municipality’s post-war redesign of the Museum Square, and the extension of the museum with a new building, the so called “Sandberg-wing.” [4] Both these projects shaped the garden design. On the one hand it focused on improving public space; it was freely accessible and included a sandbox (fig. 8), a terrace, and a pond with a fountain (fig. 9). On the other hand, it was designed to show sculptures, to the backdrop of hedges and visible from the “Sandberg-wing.”
Fig. 7. The new garden as seen from De Nieuwe Vleugel, April 1958. Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Archief van de Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening.
Fig. 8. Children playing in front of the sandbox in the sculpture garden, 3 September, 1959. Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Archief van de Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening.
Fig. 9. Terrace with a pond. © Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.
The new building and the garden were part of director Willem Sandberg’s vision of the modern art museum. Through architectural design, it focused on bridging the gap between the inside and the outside space, the museum, and the public. This translated to a building with big windows that connect the gallery to the street and the garden, making the modern museum visible and inviting to all audiences. [5] In this light, Sandberg’s vision was to transform the museum from a treasury of artworks from the past into a center for everyday life, a place for gathering that drives social change through the influence of modern art.[6]
After opening in 1957, the garden quickly became a beloved spot for people to meet up, relax, and view artworks in a more casual setting. (fig. 10) Sadly, with time, the safety of the objects in the garden became a significant problem. Children were using the sculptures as climbing obstacles and many artworks were frequently vandalized (fig. 11). Eventually this led the museum board to request the municipality to close off the garden in 1984.[7] Ultimately, this changed the attitude towards the garden, paving the way for its later disappearance in favor of a new building.
In some ways, the history of the sculpture garden is still visible in some objects. Conservator Susanne Meijer shows the marks this period left on the sculpture by Henry Moore (fig. 12). After being continuously exhibited in the garden, the patina turned green through natural processes initiated by its environment. But as children climbed on top of the work, they rubbed of this green patina revealing the brown color of the bronze underneath. This created a unique pattern on the sculpture that reminds us of both of the object’s and of the institution’s past.
Fig. 10. Two men laying down in the sculpture garden, 1960. © DPG Media B.V.
Fig. 11. Children playing on top of the sculpture by André Volten, Kubus, 1970. © Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.
Fig. 12. Restoration process of Henry Moore’s Working Model for Unesco Reclining Figure, 1957-59. Photo: Susanne Meijer.
Towards a contemporary sculpture garden
Understandably so, a lot happened since the former sculpture garden was demolished. Artists challenged the traditional terms of sculpture, experimented with new materials, and reflected on a rapidly changing world. All the while, institutions became more self-critical of their role in establishing and upholding a white, male, Western art history. As much as the former sculpture garden was a beloved example of modern architecture and sculpture, it is very much a historical one. Although both the former and the new sculpture garden focus on showing sculpture as a medium, the width and variety of what sculpture can entail has increased drastically, demanding to bring the selection in contemporaneity.
Again, the architectural space heavily impacted the curatorial process. In this case, it did not lead to limitations, but to opportunities. The indoor/outdoor space of the entrance hall presents far less extreme conditions than the fully outdoor sculpture garden, opening up the possibility to display sculptures that were previously restricted to the indoor spaces of the galleries; such as Alexander Calders Mobile XII.V-III.H (1955) (fig. 13), that needs to hang from the ceiling, Martial Raysse’s Encore un instant de bonheur (1965) (fig. 14), that uses neon light and light bulbs, and in the case of Willem de Kooning’s Large Torso (1974) (fig. 15), because it was shown in relation to his paintings. By adding these “indoor” sculptures to the current sculpture garden, it offers a marriage between what was previously restricted to the historically divided indoor and outdoor sculptures, thus more accurately representing the experimental nature of sculpture within the twentieth century.
As one would expect, creating the contemporary sculpture garden also meant including more recent works of art, such as Hans Josephsohn’s Halbfigur (1990), Laurence Weiner’s SCATTERED MATTER/BROUGHT TO A KNOWN DENSITY/WITH/THE WEIGHT OF THE WORLD/CUSPED (2007), and Damien Hirst’s The Incredible Journey (2008).[8] More importantly, it includes female themes and perspectives, something that was mostly missing in the former sculpture garden. The only example found in the museums archives thus far was of Niki de Saint Phalle in 1967. Apart from L’orage (1947-8) by Germaine Richier, the new sculpture garden includes recent works by Rebecca Warren EuGeune (2012), Paulina Olowska The Volleyball Player (2013) and Diveboard II (2021) by Anne Imhof. [9]
Fig. 13. Alexander Calder, Mobile XII.V – III.H, 1955, old staircase view, 1969. © Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.
Fig. 14. Martial Raysse, Encore un instant de bonheur (sculpture moderne), 1965, exhibition gallery view (center), 1965. © Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.
Fig. 15. Willem de Kooning, Large Torso, 1974, exhibition gallery view (left), 1976. © Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.
Aesthetics and accessibility
One of the final stages of the non-linear curatorial process looks at the aesthetics of the sculptures. With aesthetics, I refer to the ‘look and feel’ of the artworks, created by their size, material, color, and composition. Having a variety of aesthetics is important to create an interesting composition of the presentation as a whole. The architectural space of the entrance hall impacted these aesthetic choices in a specific manner: the glass curtain façade, the mix of functions, the signing, and the contrast between the new and old building, create a visually chaotic space in which artworks need to have a significant visual impact to stand out. In other words, the artworks need to have a certain aura through their look and feel to be easily identifiable as such by visitors.
Lastly, the placement of sculptures within the space impacts the visual appearance of the presentation, creating viewing axes through which the visitor views the works, juxtaposing different perspectives on sculpture. This process extends strictly curatorial choices and includes practical aspects that deal with safety and accessibility. Placing the works on pedestals, spacing them from one another, and using distance keepers where necessary to increase the objects’ safety.[10] Moreover, correct placing makes sure that all visitors can move through the presentation.
Looking towards the future
All together the sculpture garden is a valuable addition to the museums display. It brings the artworks closer to the audience and provides a permanent space to highlight sculpture; something that has been missing since the disappearance of the former sculpture garden. On the one hand the new sculpture garden poses a continuity by being located in the same spot as the former sculpture garden and by showing several corresponding artworks. On the other hand, the new building brings the garden inside the architectural space, resulting in a significantly different ‘garden.’
As illustrated, the contemporary sculpture garden shows a diversification on the axes of date of origin, technique, material, themes, and perspectives. Many of the decisions that contribute to this diversification would not have been possible without the sculpture garden’s position within the indoor/outdoor space of the entrance hall. Whether a sculpture was intended for a natural environment, an urban area, or within the gallery, the indoor/outdoor space of the entrance hall manages to bridge the gap between these distinctions, within a setting that presents the artworks to the public more openly, all the while safeguarding their preservation. This brings to the front the unique relationship between architectural design, conservation practices and curatorial processes.
When asked about his vision for the future of the sculpture garden, director Rein Wolfs tells me “I would like to be able to present the sculptural garden in the same thematic way as the collection presentations. This is not yet possible because our collection of sculptures is not extensive enough. Enriching the collection with sculptures suitable for the space is one of the key factors to accomplish this and will enable us to curate the sculpture garden through a thematic lens, instead of providing an overview of different perspectives on sculptures.”[11]
About the Author
Tijmen ter Keurs is a graduate student at the University of Amsterdam specializing in modern and contemporary art and architecture. His primary interest encompasses the intersection of architectural space and visual arts. He holds a degree in Art History from the University of Amsterdam, where he completed his thesis on the appropriation of sub-urban space by queer people in Los Angeles. He was a visiting student at the TU Delft and the University of Technology Sydney. During his internship with the curatorial and research team at the Stedelijk Museum, he conducted research on the twentieth-century sculpture garden and contributed to the exhibition text of the current sculpture garden.
[1] Cloud Architects designed the Sculpture Hall, the shop, the coffee bar with reading area, the new information-desk, and the signing. For the project, the Stedelijk Museum commissioned designer Sabine Marcelis to design a chair. Benthem & Crouwel designed the wardrobe area downstairs, and Studio L A designed the educational spaces.
[2] Henry Moore’s Working Model for UNESCO Reclining Figure was exhibited next to the entrance of De Nieuwe Vleugel, as seen in figure 1.
[3] Gerrie Andela en Anja Guinée, Vanzelfsprekende schoonheid: tuin- en landschapsarchitect Hans Warnau (Wageningen: Uitgeverij Blauwdruk, 2006), 40.
[4] The Sandberg-wing was developed during the directorship of Willem Sandberg (1897-1984), who was curator at the museum prior to his role as director from 1945-63.
[5] Paul Kempers, Binnen was buiten : de Sandbergvleugel Amsterdam (Amsterdam: Valiz, 2010), 112-3.
[6] Kempers, Binnen was buiten, 46. Willem Sandberg, “Réflexions disparates sur l’organisation d’un musée d’art d’aujourd’hui,” Art d’Aujourd’hui 2, no. 1 (1950): 1-9.
[7] “’Stedelijk’ wil beeldentuin laten sluiten,” Het Parool, June 23, 1984, 15.
[8] Damien Hirst, The Incredible Journey, 2008 is on loan from the Don Quixote Foundation.
[9] Rebecca Warren, EuGeune, 2012 is on loan from Don Quixote Foundation.
[10] Pedestals were designed by Cloud Architects.
[11] Interview on June 6, 2024.
