ABSTRACT
How the Veiled Purchase of a Mondrian Painting became the Center of Public Debate
In 1998 the Dutch National Bank bought a Mondrian painting for 36 million Euros and gave it to the Dutch people. Journalists found out that the purchase had been handled behind closed doors using intermediaries and that a special arrangement had been used because the deal had not been entirely legal. The ‘gift’ from the bank to the Dutch people came from public money; therefore, parliament should have been asked for permission to spend this money on the purchase of the painting. The elected representatives of the Dutch people must be able to decide what the Dutch are going to give themselves. The Prime Minister, who had known about the deal all along, admitted that he thought that parliament would have never consented to the deal. Therefore, a ‘minor’ disingenuous procedure and some concealment had been required. The intention of the government and the bank director had only been to do something ‘nice’ for the country.
While the gift was meant to be public, the deal had to remain veiled. When it finally became public, a row ensued and the public reacted particularly negatively. The people were not happy with the gift because they did not like Mondrian's painting.
Alex remembers that he and his friends had mixed feelings about the affair. They liked the painting very much, although they thought that it had cost far too much money. But that wasn't their main issue.
Alex's colleague Rosa had the most extreme opinion. ‘I like this Mondrian, but I could never accept it as a gift. The president of the bank is a thief; he gives away what is not his to give. He is more than just a petty criminal. This so-called gift comes from a theft worth – think of it – eighty million guilders. For that money a thousand visual artists could paint murals on public buildings for the rest of their lives.’ This is what Rosa does when she has paid work. Then Peter asked her: “How certain are you that those murals are what the people want?” And Rosa responded, “Of course they'd rather spend their money on bus trips to the Costa Brava, but at least their local board representatives like my murals.”
Peter was really disgusted by the sneaky maneuvers of this fraternity of regents. At the same time, he was aware of the fact that as a heavily subsidized artist he was an accomplice; “It is terrible that we can only make art and have art around us at the expense of others.” This is what he hated most of all. Apparently, the whole affair depressed him very much.
Alex, like Peter, was not immune to feelings of guilt, but most of all he was angry with the bank director for such a poor and clumsy cover up job. Alex was pretty sure that the hatred of the Mondrian painting was not terribly profound. The hatred for the painting only became acute because it was so closely associated with highhanded governors who the people resented. Under normal circumstances, people would have just shrugged it off, and a few years later they'd probably be proud of this new ‘pearl’ in their national collection. Moreover, Alex began to understand that the concealment of a gift serves purposes other than just covering up some semi-illegal affairs. He realized that such a prestigious institution like the Dutch National Bank could never bequeath a national gift in an atmosphere of extravagant celebration with food, drink and entertainment for everybody, nor could it have been the source of an exciting debate in parliament. In order to show their special influential positions both the national bank and the Dutch State needed a ‘veiled'presentation.
