Loved it. Hated it. Loved it again.
Possibly Amsterdam and this family got off to a
bad start, since we waited too long to make hotel reservations. By the time we did, it was the height of the tourist season,
and hotels, etc were rather pricey. We bought a couple of IAMsterdam passes for three days and just broke even, so the pass
was worth it, given that it includes access to the city’s extensive metro/bus/tram system. But almost every site we
visited was having a "special exhibit" which was always several euros extra, even if we didn’t want to see it. And lots
of places wouldn’t take credit cards for anything less than 20 euros, so we kept having to go back to the ubiquitous
cash machines.
In the end, it was an expensive weekend, and we didn’t
even visit the hash bars or the hookers. More on that later.
For now, let’s just say that Dutch society is permissive,
and an emphasis is placed on personal responsibility to a degree that most Americans would find uncomfortable. There’s
parallel parking along most of the canals, for instance, but only some of them have guard rails to prevent cars from sliding
into the water if the driver’s aim is off. Several of the 17th century houses along the canals have been
turned into B&Bs and restaurants, but their only exit remains a single narrow spiral staircase up the spine of the building.
In the US, they’d call that a fire-hazard and demand to be protected, but that’s not the case here.
The attitude is so pervasive that Mike and I began to
joke about it every time we found an example: Say, isn’t that a bit dangerous?—Well… (shrug) Pft! At
the same time, this attitude makes them politically and socially a very open society. And that’s rather nice for a change.
Houses
ANYway, it’s Rembrandt’s 400th
birthday, and we were happy to pay extra to see those special exhibits. We began with a tour of the canals and Rembrandt’s
house on the evening we arrived, and it was the highlight of the trip. The top floor of Het Rembrandt-huis has a series of
exhibits this year, currently "Quest for Genius," which has gathered Rembrandt paintings from museums and private owners all
over the world to trace his artistic development and changes in his style over time. It’ a wonderful opportunity to
see works that aren’t always accessible. "The Girl in a Picture Frame" leans forward into a third dimension; you get
the impression Rembrandt did it just to show that he could. But his portrait of his son, Titus, is intimate and loving, perfectly
capturing a dreamy boy in a moment of rest. We chose the audio guide for the show, which we don’t usually do, and the
taped commentary by the curator was insightful and not a bit condescending.
Dutch 17th c houses—we visited three
on our trip-- are charming: tall narrow brick structures that have gone all higgle-de-piggledy over the centuries. The oldest
buildings are set on timber piers set into the marshy earth of Amsterdam, so shift has occurred and it’s rare to see
an old block of buildings that is still more or less straight. Dutch kitchens are typically on ground level, often beautifully
tiled on both floor and walls, with low timbered ceilings and a large welcoming hearth. Very comfortable and homey. A narrow
winding staircase spirals up through the center of the structure…and up…and up. At Rembrandt’s house you
must hang on to a handrail on one side and a rope on the other. The rooms are light and open, two to three on each floor.
They aren’t especially large, but they seem bigger because the ceilings are quite high.
The box beds that Rembrandt’s household used, and
can been seen in some of his paintings, are still here. His studio and office were also located in his home, and his office
has a massive carved cabinet that once held his business papers. Rembrandt kept extensive records so we have a lot of information
about who commissioned which paintings, for how much and when. But he left few personal papers, so his domestic life is open
to speculation, particularly now that fine art has profited from The DaVinci Code.
Night Watch and Nightwatching
Maybe the conspiracy theories will lead a whole new audience
to art, but when it comes to Rembrandt, I think British film director Peter Greenaway has gone a bit far.
We saw a multi-screen digital slide show based on his
new film, Nightwatching, at the Riiksmuseum. Most of the museum is closed for renovation until 2008, but
they have their greatest hits on display in the new building, fine examples of delftware, three beautiful Vermeers, and of
course Rembrandt’s famous "Night Watch." Before being admitted to the room where the painting hangs, visitors are crammed
into a holding area where Greenaway’s slide show is played, so we saw it about three times before we were able to see
the actual painting.
Rembrandt’s largest painting, a group portrait
of the militia company of Frans Banning Cocq, only became known as "The Night Watch" years later, after the varnished surface
of the painting had darkened with age. The work has since been cleaned and restored to nearly its original condition, and
shimmers with light and shadow. The work was commissioned for a hefty price by members of the guard in 1642 to hang in their
headquarters. The central figures are Cocq and his Lieutenant, Willem van Ruytenburgh, who probably paid a proportionately
larger share of Rembrandt’s commission, according to their rank. Years later the painting was cut down, most likely
to fit in its second home, the town hall, and three of the original figures were lost.
Greenaway suggests that the painting implicates several
of the depicted figures in the murder of Frans Banning Cocq. The accused were powerful men, and Greenaway contends that they
convinced their wealthy friends to pull their support for Rembrandt. This supposedly, rather than a change in fashion or Rembrandt’s
well documented spending, accounts for his financial decline. Greenaway also implies that Geertje, the woman Rembrandt was
living with at the time, was a plant, meant to gather incriminating evidence to use against the painter. It’s all very
juicy, but rather vague.
When I tried to find information about Greenaway’s
take on "The Night Watch, to see if it might have some basis in recent scholarship (and if so, whose?) I could find nothing
at all, only interviews with the film maker that suggest that Nightwatching will soon be a major motion picture.
This troubles me a lot.
When you get into the little gallery that houses
"The Night Watch," you are urged into rows of seats and treated to a sound and lightshow consisting of a thunderstorm, a barking
dog, shouts and a gunshot. Bright white lines of light trace the figures in the painting, then the painting pops into three-dimensions.
Surely these are holographic images. They can’t be projected onto the painting itself, can they? Couldn’t that
be damaging? —Well… (shrug) Pft! After this extravaganza
you are allowed to look at the actual painting for a few minutes before you are herded out and the next group is herded in.
It is all quite spectacular, and as a lightshow it’s
wonderful. I don’t think I’d mind it if it weren’t a prelude to the painting. But. Do we really need this
to make "The Night Watch" exciting? It’s a beautiful painting, compositionally, technically. There is color and light
in it already. Does the pre-basketball-game hype really add anything to our understanding of this painting, or is it just
a distraction?
Vice Tourism
Speaking of distractions (I knew I’d find a path
back to this topic) Amsterdam is big on the "vice tourism" circuit. Prostitution is legal, so is cannabis and many bars offer
absinthe (made from the semi-toxic wormwood herb) for those tourists who absolutely have to try everything. Prostitution is
confined to a "red light district," but sex toy shops and condom boutiques spill over the boundaries. "Coffee shops" where
you can indulge in various cannabis products are almost everywhere (most amusingly near the Hortus, Amsterdam’s botanical
garden) and tourists start lining up before they open at 9am. Unfortunately, the densest concentration of the vice trade is
in the city center, not far from shopping and the museums, and it drags the whole area down, making the city feel quite seamy.
I’m not a prude about such things, honestly I’m
not. If you want to order up a plug of hash and take a hooker home, in a place where it's perfectly legal, who am
I to complain? But I didn’t like the blatant commodification of the sex trade. We had to walk through a short stretch
of the red light district to get to De Oude Kerk, the oldest cathedral in Amsterdam, known for its 15th century
painted wooden ceilings. We passed through a street where garishly decorated women were on display in store windows like so
many sides of beef in vinyl lingerie. I’m not sure which was tackier, the prostitutes or the middle aged American couples
brazenly window-shopping. But what’s that old joke: If you don’t think sex is dirty, you aren’t doing it
right? We are a strange species of chimp, I supposed, and if it weren’t sufficiently seedy, it probably wouldn’t
be big business.