5.5 Allegiances
However, in January 1842 Koelman knew one thing for sure: he did not want to leave Rome under any circumstances. ‘When I think of my departure, I get the jitters, and who knows whether I will not need those lame butter and cheese eaters to live. God forbid, because then they will certainly never see me again.’ At the end of his letter, Jan Hendrik urged Ehnle ‘Never [to] mention my desire never to return, as this could be very detrimental to me.’1 In that last remark, Koelman conveyed the realisation that, as the winner of the ‘Grand Prize’, he had to fulfil not only expectations but also obligations. He would soon be reminded of this.2
When Koelman had not been heard from two years after his arrival in Rome, the board of directors of the Royal Academy in Amsterdam took action. On 14 November 1842, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs and eventually the Dutch envoy in Rome, an attempt was made to persuade the painter to send half-yearly reports to the Netherlands and to submit work for the annual exhibitions of Living Masters. However, Koelman persisted in his plan to keep the ‘butter and cheese eaters’ at bay. At the same time, he continued to claim the annual allowance of 1,200 guilders to which he was entitled.
On 17 November 1842, he sent a statement to the Dutch envoy, Charles-Florent-Auguste count De Liedekerke-Beaufort (1789-1855), in which he insisted he was unaware of any obligations. He brazenly accused the academy of leaving him to his own devices. The envoy initially defended Koelman, convinced of his ‘noble desire to, one day, join the artists who currently bring honour to our homeland’.3 But when he realised that even after receiving the academy’s new, unambiguous regulations (dated 1 March 1843), the artist was still failing to deliver and had completed only one paltry painting after three years in Rome, he lost his confidence.
On 13 May 1844, Liedekerke informed the minister that even his repeated exhortations had failed to change Koelman’s mind. The letter shows that Koelman, just as he had suggested to Ehnle, had found a way to no longer be dependent on his Dutch benefactors. He had managed to establish his name as a painter of portraits and costume pieces and could therefore afford to be stubbornly opportunistic [5-9]. In December 1844, it was clear to the ambassador that ‘Mr Koelman is doomed to languish here. He belongs to that breed of artists who are becoming more numerous by the day in Rome and who are disgracing the fine arts by turning them into a veritable industry in order to make a living.’4
The Dutch authorities would not easily forget their dissatisfaction with the ‘Koelman affair’. It would contribute to Minister Thorbecke’s decision in 1851 to put a temporary end to the Dutch Prix de Rome.5
5
Johan Hendrik Koelman,
Lady seated on horseback, 1840,
pencil on paper, 220 × 176 mm,
Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-T-1886-a-688
6
Johan Hendrik Koelman,
Girl from Subiaco, n.d.
pencil on paper, 264 × 189 mm,
Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-T-1953-473
7
Johan Hendrik Koelman,
Portrait of a young woman with a small bouquet, 1844,
aquarel, 12 × 8 cm,
private collection, photo Woolley and Wallis Salisbury Salerooms
8
Johan Hendrik Koelman,
Mandolin player, z.d.
watercolor, 449 × 340 mm,
private collection, photo Vicky Foster, RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History, The Hague
9
Johan Hendrik Koelman,
Woman playing the guitar, z.d.
watercolor, 434 × 331 mm,
private collection, photo Vicky Foster, RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History, The Hague
Notes
1 Respectively ‘Als ik aan mijn vertrek denk, krijg ik de stuipen en wie weet of ik die lamme boter- en kaasvreters niet nodig zal hebben om van te leven. God geve van niet, dan zien zij mij zeker nooit terug’; ‘Spreek nooit van mijn lust om nooit terug te komen, daar mij dit in ieder geval zeer nadelig zou kunnen zijn’, Koelman to Ehnle, 3-4 January 1842, RKD, Archive Adriaan van der Willigen (NL-HaRKD.0392), ‘Brieven Koelman’.
2 The diplomatic correspondence on the ‘Koelman affair’ discussed is kept in ISRI/FLPB, there Ms. 288, fol. 32-58. Some letters were partially published by Hoogewerff 1933, pp. 185-193. The documents on the ‘Koelman affair’ range from 14 October 1842 to 17 April 1845, and include letters from/to J.de Vos Wz, member of the board of the Amsterdam Academy; the governor of the province of North-Holland, D.J. van Ewijck van Oostbroek en De Bilt; Foreign ministers J.W. Baron Huyssen van Kattendijke, W.A. Schimmelpenninck van der Oye and J.A.H. De La Sarraz; painter Cornelis Kruseman; sculptor John de Koningh; the Dutch envoy C.F.A. count De Liedekerke-Beaufort and J.H. Koelman himself. Additional references here are limited to quotations.
3 ‘edele verlangen om zich op een dag te voegen bij de kunstenaars die ons vaderland tegenwoordig eer aandoen’, De Liedekerke to Foreign minister J.W. Baron Huyssen van Kattendijke, dated 18 November 1842, ISRI/FLPB, Ms. 288, fol. 53.
4 ‘Ik geloof dat mijnheer Koelman gedoemd is hier te verkommeren. Hij behoort tot dat slag van kunstenaars dat in Rome met de dag talrijker wordt en de schone kunsten te schande maakt door ze in een heuse industrie te veranderen om van te kunnen leven.’ De Liedekerke to Foreign minister J.A.H. De la Sarraz d.d. 4 december 1844, ISRI/FLPB, Ms. 288, fol. 36-37 (translated from the French). A similar judgement by the Dutch musician Johannes Verhulst (1816-1891), who had met Koelman in Rome in Spring 1846, and would write to Johannes Bosboom ‘Koelman can be considered lost, both as a man and as an artist’, Verhulst to Bosboom, 12 March 1846, Haags Gemeentearchief/Nederlands Muziekinstituut, accession no. 135, Archive Johannes Verhulst, II. Correspondence, inv.no. 112.
5 Reynaerts 2001, pp. 188-203.