Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
International conference
Organized by the Huizinga Research Institute of Cultural History (Amsterdam) and
the Institute for Museum Research (Berlin).
The French Revolution and the subsequent Napoleonic Wars had a major impact
on European museums. Between 1794 and 1813 enormous quantities of
artworks, natural specimens, scientific objects, books and manuscripts from
collections in the conquered areas in Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Austria and
Spain were transported to Paris by the French armies. During a relatively short
period of 15 years the general public had the opportunity to admire an overview of
what, for the first time in history, might be labelled ‘European heritage’, exhibited
in the Louvre and the Musée d’histoire naturelle. These outstanding French
museums made a great impression on the visitors and (museum) officials from
abroad but at the same time evoked criticism and strengthened the need for the
countries which had been robbed of their artistic and scientific treasures to create
their own national museums. In this atmosphere it was only logical that after
Napoleon’s final defeat at Waterloo (1815) the Allied Powers reclaimed their
artistic and scientific collections. When some of the confiscated objects returned
to their places of origin, their arrival back home formed an extra stimulus for the
(re)institution of public museums, in Berlin, Brussels, The Hague, Madrid, Vienna,
Rome, Milan and Parma, for example.
The conference Napoleon’s Legacy. The Development of National Museums
in Europe, 1794-1830 focuses on this enormous shift in the European ‘museum
landscape’. The central question is: how did various European countries in this
period, stimulated by these confiscations and subsequent restitutions, design and
disseminate the image of a ‘national culture’ through their museums. By
employing an international comparative approach in studying this process it will be
possible to examine national variations against the background of international
patterns. This museological turning point will be addressed on three levels: the
‘looting’ process, the Paris museums, and restitution and after (see program).
PROGRAM
Thursday, 31 January
(Agnietenkapel)
Friday, 1 February
(Doelenzaal)
09.00 Arrival/registration
b. Protest or Acceptance?
10.30 FLORENCE PIETERS (Universiteit van Amsterdam)
The looting of natural history collections in the Netherlands.
13.00 Lunch
b. National/international reception
14.30 ANDREW MCCLELLAN (Tufts University, Medford)
Nationalism and nostalgia in British reactions to the Musée Napoléon.
15.00 HEIDRUN THATE (Paris)
The creation of French satellite-museums in Mainz, Geneva and
Brussels.
09.30 Arrival/Registration
13.00 Lunch
For more information contact Sanja Zivojnovic: 0031 (0)20 525 3503;
S.Zivojnovic@uva.nl.
SUMMARIES and PERSONALIA
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS:
- Pantheon der Gouden Eeuw. Van Nationale Konst-Gallerij tot Rijksmuseum van
Schilderijen (1798-1896), Zwolle 1998 [Ph.D. study University of Amsterdam,
1998]
- Co-editor of De wereld binnen handbereik, Amsterdam 1992 (2 Vol.) (Exh. cat.
Amsterdams Historisch Museum, Amsterdam)
- ‘De Britse Parlementaire Enquête uit 1853. De “modernisering” van de National
Gallery in Londen’, in: Kabinetten, galerijen en musea. Het verzamelen en
presenteren van naturalia en kunst van 1500 tot heden, Ellinoor Bergvelt, Debora
J. Meijers, Mieke Rijnders (eds.), Zwolle 2005, [Ch. 12], 319-342
In Northern Italy the small duchy of Parma and Piacenza held a relevant position
in the world of the arts thanks to the presence of a high number of paintings by
Correggio, one of the most admired artists of all times, and to the artistic
patronage of the first rulers, the Farnese. The French selected 53 paintings for the
Paris museum in three different stages. In 1796 under a clause of the truce signed
with duke Ferdinand of Bourbon 15 paintings were sent to France. Particularly
painful for Parma was the loss of “La Madonna di San Gerolamo” by Correggio,
which the duke tried to avert by offering a large sum of money. In 1803 thirty
paintings were sent to Paris to represent the “second choice” masters and in 1811
Vivant Denon requested eight additional paintings, so that the primitive school
should be represented in the Paris museum.
The recovery for Parma of the works of art in 1815 was executed by the
diplomat Giuseppe Poggi, under the protection of the Austrian emperor, father of
the new ruler of the duchy, Maria Luisa d’Asburgo. He was assisted by a young
artist, the engraver Paolo Toschi, resident in Paris at that time. Only a fraction of
the paintings were returned (30), but the precious Correggios were among them.
The pictures returned were retained in the reorganized Galleria dell’Accademia:
pictures taken from Piacenza and from churches of Parma were not put back in
their original locations.
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS:
- La Galleria del Duca di Parma. Storia di una collezione, Bologna 1987
- Le nozze di Alessandro Farnese. Feste alle corti di Lisbona e Bruxelles, Milano
1997
- L’appartamento del Duca Ferdinando a Colorno dipinto da Antonio Bresciani,
Colorno 2000
● Adrian von Buttlar: The museum and the city – Schinkel´s and Klenze´s
contributions to the autonomy of civil culture
The growing civil autonomy of the arts becomes obvious in the process of
independence, by which collections and galleries in Germany already during the
eighteenth century were defined beyond courtly representation and step by step
physically dissociated from the structure of palace and castle. The Museum
Fridericianum in Kassel (1764), influenced by modern French and English ideas,
may be regarded as one of the first autonomous cultural Institutions primarily
addressed to the public – a role expressed not only by its neopalladian rhetoric
but also by its isolated and dominant position at the main square of the newly
planned Oberneustadt. In response to the Napoleonic enterprise Leo von Klenze
and Karl Friedrich Schinkel took up these special threads to create the prototype
of the modern art museum as an architectural and urbanistic challenge.
The lecture will follow up these monumental anti-napoleonic projects and
the urbanistic settings, Klenze created by his Glyptothek at the Königsplatz in
Munich (1815 et sqq.) and Schinkel by the Museum at Berlin`s Lustgarten from
1823 onwards. It will analyze the fading role of the monarch in favour of an
abstract idea of aesthetic and humanistic education and also pay attention to their
th
exemplary function for the triumph of Museumbuilding during the 19 Century all
over Europe.
ADRIAN VON BUTTLAR is art historian and professor at the Technische Universität
Berlin, and specialized on architectural history from classicism to modernity, the
history of garden art, and on history, methodology and politics of Preservation. He
is acting as chairman of the Berlin Council for the Preservation of Historic
Monuments, and was (1999-2007) chairman of the Scientific Council for the
Foundation of Royal Castles and Gardens of Prussia. He is participating in the
Transatlantic Graduate Program Berlin-New York on the history and culture of the
th
20 century metropolis. At present he is involved in the research and preservation
of outstanding architecture of the Post-war period.
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS:
- Leo von Klenze. Leben – Werk – Vision, München 1999 [orig.
Habilitationsschrift]
- Co-editor of Denkmal! moderne. Architektur der 60er Jahre – Wiederentdeckung
einer Epoche, Berlin 2007
● Maria de Los Santos García Felguera: The looting of Spanish art and the
first ideas about the creation of a public museum in Madrid before the
arrival of Napoleon’s army.
The first ideas on creating a painting gallery in Madrid came from the times of
Carlos III, in the 1770’s, with “enlightened” men like Mengs, Jovellanos, Ponz or
Ceán. In this circle a new sense of cultural heritage was awaking, and some rules
were dictated to protect it; it was also appearing the conscience of a Spanish
School of Painting, different from Dutch or Italian, and the need to show it to
visitors and learned people, by galleries and books. All before the French army
invaded Spain in 1808.
th th
Already in the 17 and 18 centuries the royal collections in Spain,
considered dynasty properties, served as enjoyment for the kings while giving
additionally prestige to them in front of other countries. Located in the royal
residences (like El Buen Retiro or El Alcázar in Madrid), they formed a real
“museum” at El Escorial, the most visited of all these palaces.
The ecclesiastical confiscation and the war removed lots of masterworks
from their original location. In this situation, some voices were raised to propose
the creation of a gallery; King Joseph, one of Napoleon Bonaparte’s brothers, also
tried to create a museum in 1809, but the conditions were not the best.
At last, with Fernando VII back in Spain in 1814, two different projects
can be considered, presented by Manuel Napoli and Pablo Recio. From different
points, one stresses the interest of the “nation” and the “public benefit”, and the
other places the Spanish School in a outstanding position in the museum.
MARIA DE LOS SANTOS GARCÍA FELGUERA is currently professor of Art History at the
University of Madrid (Universidad Complutense). After her dissertation in 1987
about La fortuna crítica de Murillo. 1682-1900 she has been researching the
th th
reception of Spanish art during the 18 and 19 centuries.
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS:
- La fortuna crítica de Murillo. 1682-1900, Sevilla, 1989
- Viajeros, eruditos y artistas. Los europeos ante la pintura española del Siglo de
Oro, Madrid, 1991
- Las vanguardias históricas, Madrid, 1993
- El arte después de Auschwitz, Madrid, 1993
- Antoine Watteau, Madrid, 1995
- M. Santos García Felguera & Javier Portús, ‘Les origines du Musée du Prado’,
in: Manet Velázquez, la manière espagnole au XIXe siécle, Paris, Musée d’Orsay,
2002
- Manet/ Velázquez. The French Taste for Spanish Painting, New York, The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2003
In this paper I want to argue, that restoration was not ‘invented’ as such during the
revolutionary period in France. It was, however, the first time that a specific
‘rhetoric of restoration’ was developed and disseminated from the part of
administrators, restorers, and the public. To research this topic, I want to
concentrate on the (scarce) reports we have at our disposal of those who visited
the conservation studios in revolutionary Paris. What were the main elements of
this new language of restoration? How did it relate to the language of art, art
history and the museum? And what were its effects on the debate on conservation
and restoration in the long term?
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS:
- Cultureel erfgoed in revolutie en restauratie, Inaugural oration, University of
Amsterdam, Amsterdam (Amsterdam University Press) 2004. (With a summary in
French)
- ‘La fête révolutionnaire aux Pays-Bas: de l’utopie à l’indifférence’, in: La
Révolution Batave. Péripéties d’une République-Soeur (1795-1813) (Annales
Historiques de la Révolution Française, nr. 326 (octobre/décembre 2001)), 107-
116
- Een Koninklijk Museum: Lodewijk Napoleon en het Rijksmuseum 1806-1810,
Zwolle 1999 (Exh. cat. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.)
- F. Grijzenhout & N.C.F. van Sas, Denkbeeldig Vaderland. Kunst en politiek in
Nederland omstreeks 1800, Den Haag 1995 (Exh. cat. Haags Historisch Museum)
- ‘Le temple et la table, la fête patriote 1781-1787’, Annales historiques de la
Révolution française, nr. 277 (juillet-septembre 1989), 185-196.
- Feesten voor het Vaderland. Patriotse en Bataafse feesten 1780-1806, Zwolle
1989 (Dissertation Free University, Amsterdam, with a summary in French)
- F. Grijzenhout & C. van Tuyll van Serooskerken (eds.), Edele eenvoud. Neo-
classicisme in Nederland 1765-1800, Zwolle 1989 (Exh. cat. Frans Halsmuseum
& Teylers Museum, Haarlem.)
th
● Mirjam Hoijtink: Collecting Egypt in 19 -century Europe: a matter of
national distinction
Napoleon’s expedition to Egypt was military in its purpose but completely scientific
in its results. The Description d’Égypte […] was published in twenty-three
enormous volumes between 1809 and 1828. It was the most monumental
th
publication of the 19 century. The project was the first in a series of events that
expressed the French intellectual and ideological appropriation of the Pharaonic
country. The monuments, collected directly after the French invasion, were
foreseen to illuminate the Louvre and to enter Paris in a triumphal procession in
the Hellenistic tradition of Alexander the Great.
This plan came to an end with the British destruction of the French fleet
in 1799. The Egyptian sculpture, steles with hieroglyphics, architectural decoration
and some sarcophagi were, together with the Rosetta Stone, captured by the
British and sent to London. In 1808 they were placed in the Townley Gallery that
originally was solely planned for the housing of the Graeco-Roman collection of
Sir Charles Townley. The mixture of collections was part of a process that was
steeped in national sentiments and ideas on the progress of civilization that the
British Museum represented, and came to a peak with the purchase of the ‘Elgin
Marbles’.
Both developments: a growing appreciation of Egyptian monuments and
the glorification of Greek heritage ran parallel to the devaluation of Roman culture.
The Vatican initiative for an Egyptian Museum in 1820, can therefore be
explained as an act of restoration and as a symbol of age-old cultural superiority.
In the Museo Egizio in the Vatican (1839), this was even put stronger as the
relation with Egypt was inextricably linked here to Roman history through the
ages. By stating that the Egyptianized style in Hadrian’s time marked the end of
the ‘Greek School’, the pope’s Egyptologist firmly declared retroactively the
Roman artistic development as an individual style, instead of the supposed
weaker brother of Athens.
‘Collecting Egypt’ between 1800 and 1840, can be understood in the
particular relations of individual nation states to France, either in a political
competitive, or, after Champollion’s deciphering of hieroglyphs, in a scientific,
artistic sense.
● Annie Jourdan: A National Tragedy: The return of the works of art to their
country in 1815
During the French Revolution a new ideology arose concerning the fine arts. As a
result of the wild destruction of the 1790s, the French Convention and its
committees enforced a preservation policy in France and a spoliation policy in the
conquered countries. These policies should testify to the revolutionaries’ concern
for civilization and be a sign of patriotism. For them, works of art were to be seen
all together as a proof of the genius of Liberty and of the improvement of human
kind, but also as able to educate the people. With this aim in view, the finest
works of art were brought to France to be displayed in the National Museum: the
Louvre.
In 1814, after the campaign of France, the Louvre had reached its zenith.
But at that time, the victorious allies spared this artistic temple, so as not to
alienate the French from their new king and not to make the taste of defeat more
bitter. One year later, after Waterloo, it would be completely different. The
conquerors of 1815 required the restitution of all works brought to France since
1793. Not only Prussia and Austria were taking their paintings and antiques back,
but after them came the Italians; then the Dutch, the Bavarians, the Spanish. All
Europe was playing the game and the Louvre was to be cleaned out in some
months – to the great despair of the Parisians and of the Museum director, Vivant
Denon.
My aim here is to investigate the motives the allies were using for
explaining their policy. Could they use the same as the French? Or did they have
to find new ones? And if they did, what does it say about the allies’ traumas
experienced during the Revolution and the Empire?
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS:
- Les monuments de la Révolution, Paris 1997
- Napoléon. Héros, Imperator, Mécène, Paris 1998
- L'empire de Napoléon, Champs Flammarion 2000
- La Révolution. Une exception française?, Paris 2004
- Mythes et Légendes de Napoléon, Toulouse,2004
- In print:: La Révolution batave entre la France et l'Amérique (1780-1806)
During the brief Peace of Amiens in 1802-3 and then again after the fall of
Napoleon a decade later, British visitors journeyed to France in unprecedented
numbers. Paris was their destination, and once in the capital everyone went to the
Louvre. For many, the museum was the first port of call and primary reason for
making the voyage. Repeat visits were customary and triggered a consistent set
of responses. Everyone marvelled at the sublimity of the 1300-foot long Grand
Gallery and the masterpieces it contained; the sight left visitors rhetorically
speechless. Many commented on the extraordinary social mix of visitors. If praise
for the grandeur of the collection was universal, there was also broad
condemnation of its means of assembly; the use of treaty agreements to secure
art for the Louvre was viewed by Britons as a ruse to cloak “crimes under a less
ignominious name,” as one Henry Milton put it. Beyond political objections,
experienced art lovers insisted (following the argument first made by Quatremère
de Quincy) that works of art removed from their native environments had suffered
a damaging change of identity. They echoed Quatremère’s belief that the move to
a public museum had “killed art to make art history.” Of course, nineteenth-
century nationalism propelled the art museum movement across Europe despite
such complaints; but what became of the argument against the public museum?
Soon after the defeat of Napoleon In 1815, the sovereign of the new Dutch
Nation, King Willem I, dispatched the professor and rector of the University of
Leiden, Sebald Justinius Brugmans, to the Muséum d’histoire naturelle in Paris to
retrieve the famed natural history collection of Holland’s Stadhouder Willem V.
This became a daunting task as Brugmans faced unexpected resistance and
months of difficult negotiations in Paris. Ultimately, he returned to the Netherlands
with approximately 10,000 objects. However, many specimens from Willem V’s
collection were not returned while the Stadhouder had never owned a great
proportion of the naturalia Brugmans accepted. Nevertheless, Brugmans was
hailed as a hero and the king rewarded his success in Paris by donating the
naturalia to the University of Leiden thereby enriching the modest teaching and
research cabinet under Brugmans directorship. Five years later in 1820, this
university cabinet was fused with other collections, and the Dutch nation founded
the Rijksmuseum of Natural History in Leiden marking a new period in national
institution building. It also signalled the beginning of decades-long conflict
between university naturalists—stripped of their cabinet--and museum authorities
over the use and control of the growing national collection.
In each context of ownership, this collection held different meanings and
values by its owners and curators. In this paper, I will explore changing
perceptions of the collection’s utility and scientific value during its travels across
Europe, in particular, when it entered the new national museum.
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS:
- ‘Colonial Commerce and Ethnographic Collections: Dutch Ethnographic
Museums in the European Context’, in: A New History of Anthropology, ed. by
Henrika Kuklick, Oxford 2008 173-190
- Science and Culture for Members Only: The Amsterdam Zoo Artis in the
Nineteenth Century. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006.
● Debora Meijers: The Dutch way of developing a national art museum: how
crucial were the French confiscations of 1795?
For this first conference of our project we decided to focus on the episode of the
French confiscations and the subsequent restitutions, because these events seem
to have been a major stimulus for the foundation, after 1815, of national museums
all over Europe. My proposition, however, would be that for the Northern
Netherlands this only applies to a limited degree. The foundation of the Nationale
Konst-Gallerij in 1798 should be considered in the light of a number of local
traditions going back as far as the sixteenth century that produced a kind of
‘collection management’ by the municipal governments:
- In the Dutch towns a form of museification had already developed after the
abolition of Catholicism in the 1560/70’s, when the confiscated goods of
churches and convents were rendered homeless. Many of these objects
were received in the town halls, forming collections that developed further
after the abolition of the civic guards and the guilds in the following
centuries. Thus in the Netherlands the first governmental museums (be it
avant la lettre) could be found in the cities, already in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries.
- The Netherlands had been a republic since the 1580's.
- Related, in part, to this political tradition, the Dutch Patriot movement
developed in the early 1780’s, several years before the French Revolution.
The French occupation and the foundation of the allied Batavian Republic in
1795 brought the Dutch Patriots to power. The first national museum in the
Netherlands, the Nationale Konst-Gallerij, originated in the context of this
political movement; it opened in 1800, therefore not as a result of the
restitutions as was the case in Berlin, for example.
Although the French only confiscated possessions of the Stadholder, I want to
argue in favour of an approach that also pays attention to the fate of the municipal
collections – especially the paintings. These collections, originating in a local
tradition, were attributed a national (even nationalist) meaning in the course of the
nineteenth century. It seems this process started around 1800, when, by the
reallocation of a number of paintings, the fate of two municipal collections – those
of Haarlem and Amsterdam – became related to that of the newly-founded
national museum in an interesting way. Its rather poor collection was upgraded by
fourteen highly-prized pieces from these cities, Rembrandt’s Nightwatch among
them.
Relocation of paintings from a local, municipal or regional frame of
reference to a national and international context (transportation to Paris) goes
hand in hand with the museification of the objects and their elevation to the status
of symbols for a ‘national identity’. This process should not be attributed solely to
the French confiscations and the subsequent restitutions between 1794 and
1815/16, but rather should be seen as a long term process, going back, in the
Netherlands, as far as the sixteenth century. But the impact of the French
Revolution and the Napoleonic wars certainly intensified and accelerated this
process enormously.
DEBORA J.MEIJERS is associate professor of Art History and leader of the Master
Program of Curatorial Studies at the University of Amsterdam. She has worked on
several topics relating to the history of collecting. She is a member of the
organizing team for this conference and one of the coordinators of the research
program National Museums and National Identity, Europe and the United States,
c. 1760-1918.
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS:
- Kunst als Natur: die Habsburger Gemäldegalerie um 1780 (Vienna 1995)
- Co-editor of The Paper Museum of the Academy of Sciences of St Petersburg,
c. 1725-1760 (St Petersburg 2003 and Amsterdam 2005) [with Renée
Kistemaker, Natalja Kopaneva and George Vilinbakhov]
- Co-editor of Kabinetten, galerijen en musea. Het verzamelen en presenteren van
naturalia en kunst van 1500 tot heden (Zwolle 2005)
- In print: ‘Ein logischer Schritt im richtigen Moment. Wie beim Bildertausch von
1792 Systematik und Politik zusammengingen’, in: Johannes Weidinger, Nora
Fischer, Elisabeth Zerbst (Red.), Ein Tausch von Gemälden 1792 – 1793 [1821].
Zur Sammlungsgeschichte der fürstlichen Galerien in Florenz und Wien.
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS:
- (with Kees Rookmaker) ‘Arnout Vosmaer, topcollectioneur van
naturalia en zijn Regnum animale/ Arnout Vormaer, grand
collectioneur de curiosités naturelles, et son Regnum animale’, in:
Le zoo du Prince – La ménagerie du stathouder Guillaume V / Een
vorstelijke dierentuin – De menagerie van Willem V (B.C. Sliggers &
A.A. Wertheim eds.), Haarlem/ Parijs/ Zutphen 1994), 11-38
- ‘De menagerie van stadhouder Willem V op Het Kleine Loo te
Voorburg/ La ménagerie du stathouder Guillaume V dans la
domaine Het Kleine Loo à Voorburg’, in: Le zoo du Prince – La
ménagerie du stathouder Guillaume V/ Een vorstelijke dierentuin –
De menagerie van Willem V (B.C. Sliggers & A.A. Wertheim eds.),
Haarlem/ Parijs/ Zutphen 1994, 61-86
- ‘Het schatrijke naturaliënkabinet van Stadhouder Willem V onder
directoraat van topverzamelaar Arnout Vosmaer´, in: Het
verdwenen museum – Natuurhistorische verzamelingen 1750-1850
(B.C. Sliggers & M.H. Besselink eds.), Haarlem/ Blaricum 2002, 19-
44
A reading of the famous “Précis of What has Happened at the Musée Royal Since
the Arrival of the Allies in Paris” written by Vivant Denon during the year 1815, of
several reports concerning the reorganisation of the Louvre and written by the civil
servants of the French State, as well as various documents and testimonials, will
enable us, after the imperial experience, to follow the genesis of a new reflection
on the museum and its functions, confronted with the assertion of national
heritage values and the political changes that marked Europe at the time.
● Bénédicte Savoy: Displaced works of art ca. 1800 and today’s discusion
about restitutions
BÉNÉDICTE SAVOY is assistant professor and director at the Institute of History and
Art History of the Technische Universität Berlin, and was a researcher at the Marc
Bloch Center in Berlin and at the Zentrum für Deutschlandforschung at Paris. She
has specialized in the exchange of art and science in Europe in the 18th and 19th
century, and in the history of museums and collections. She is a member of the
Junge Akademie at the Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
and of the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina.
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS:
- Patrimoine annexé. Les biens culturels saisis par la France en Allemagne autour
de 1800, with preface by Pierre Rosenberg (2 Vols.), Paris 2003
‘Des musées nationaux aux vases antiques du comte de Paroy. Regards
allemands sur les collections parisiennes autour de 1800’, in: Philippe Sénéchal
and Monica Preti-Hamard (eds.), Collections et marché de l´art en France, 1789-
1848, Rennes 2005, 387-405
- ‘Krieg, Wissenschaft und Recht. Die Erinnerung an Napoleons Kunstraub um
1915’, in: Osteuropa 56 (2006) (special issue Kunst und Kultur im Schatten des
Krieges)
- ‘Peintres berlinois à Paris 1800-1820 ‘: in: Marie-Claude Chaudonneret (ed..) :
Les artistes étrangers à Paris de la fin du Moyen Âge aux années 1920, Bern
2007, 57-176
- Editor of: Tempel der Kunst. Die Entstehung des öffentlichen Museums in
Deutschland. 1701-1815, Mainz 2006
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS:
- ´Der Zugang zum Kunstwerk: die Republik der Niederlande´, in: Akten des XXV.
Internationalen Kongresses für. Kunstgeschichte, Wien-Köln-Graz 1986, vol. 4,
63-71.
- ´La notion de patrimoine artistique et la formation du musée au XVIIIe siecle´, in:
Les musées en Europe à la veille de l´ouverture du Louvre, Paris 1995, 111-124.
- 'Art of the state: forms of government and their effect on the collecting of art
1550/1800´, Simiolus 24 (1996), 275-286.
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS:
- ‘Das Décret Chaptal’ , in: Beutekunst unter Napoleon. Die französische
Schenkung an Mainz 1803, Hrsg. von Sigrun Paas & Sabine Mertens, Mainz
2003, 187 – 190
- ‘Die Gründung der Gemäldegalerie’, in: Beutekunst unter Napoleon. Die
französische Schenkung an Mainz 1803, Hrsg. von Sigrun Paas & Sabine
Mertens, Mainz 2003, 322 – 327
● Elsa van Wezel: Denon’s Louvre and Schinkel’s Alte Museum: War Trophy
Museum versus Peace Memorial
ELSA VAN W EZEL has done research on museum history both for the Berlin State
Museums and on a freelance basis. Presently she is doing research at the
Institute for Museum Research in Berlin, where she is working on a museum-
historical project financed by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. She is a
member of the organizing team for this conference and one of the coordinators of
the research project National Museums and National Identity, Europe and the
United States c. 1760-1918.
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS:
- ´Die Konzeptionen des Alten und Neuen Museums zu Berlin und das sich
wandelnde historische Bewusstsein´, Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen, N.F. 43
(2001),Beiheft, 1-244 [ = Publication of Ph.D. study The Conception of the Alte
and neue Museum in Berlin and the changes in historical consciousness,
University of Amsterdam 2001]
- ´Das akademische Museum. Hirts gescheiterte Museumsplanungen 1797/98,
1820 und 1825´, in: Berliner Klassik. Eine Großstadtkultur um 1800, Bd. I, Aloys
Hirt. Archäologe, Historiker, Kunstkenner, Claudia Sedlarz (Hrsg.), Laatzen 2004,
105-128.
- ´Museumconcept en geschiedopvatting. Het Alte en Neue Museum in Berlijn´, in:
Kabinetten, galerijen en musea. Het verzamelen en presenteren van naturalia en
kunst van 1500 tot heden, Ellinoor Bergvelt, Debora J. Meijers, Mieke Rijnders
(eds.), Zwolle 2005, [Ch. 11] 289-318.
Colophon
Organizing committee: Ellinoor Bergvelt, Debora Meijers (both University of
Amsterdam), Lieske Tibbe (Radboud University Nijmegen), Elza van Wezel
(Institute for Museum Research, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin).