‘Imagine a Rijksakademie led by artists’ – On a future-proof Rijksakademie
The growing role of private funding is a key issue in today’s art world, highlighted by a critical letter from Rijksakademie alumni circulated in late December. They urge management to provide more transparency about finances, among other matters. Alumni worry that the residency is becoming too dependent on a few major donors, potentially undermining the public interest. Timo Demollin, a former resident, places these concerns in a broader context.
In recent years the Rijksakademie faced a tumultuous period marked by the departure of several key staff members, most notably in senior management positions. Martijntje Hallmann, head of Residency and deputy director, and Susan Gloudemans, director of Strategy & Development, both left the institution shortly after one another after decades of service. In October, the Supervisory Board announced that Emily Pethick, the general director, would also be stepping down mid-2025, following the completion of her six-year term. As leadership dissipates, concerns about the future of the Rijksakademie continue to mount.
The global community of Rijks alumni, advisers and other stakeholders has closely observed the unfolding changes, which now seem a signal a sweeping restructuring of the organisation. Just hours after the Rijksakademie’s year-end mailing went out on December 24th, the action group The House is on Fire Committee issued a pointed letter addressing the Supervisory Board, posted on a dedicated website. The anonymous collective of alumni called for a public dialogue, requesting clarity on the course of events, access to financial details, and a forward-looking strategy. The letter’s call to action invited others who shared its concerns to add their names in solidarity. By New Year’s Day, the list of signatories had grown to 155, a symbolical nod to the number of years since the Rijksakademie’s founding.
The current postgraduate residency program has its roots in a successful reorganisation in the early 1990s, orchestrated by Janwillem Schrofer, with key contributions from his later successor, Els van Odijk. Their restructuring of the former art school fostered numerous collaborations, propelling the Rijksakademie to acclaim as an international hub for upcoming artists. Yet, the framework that long thrived on studio visits from artistic advisers and technical mentorship, a model inspired by De Ateliers’ format developed in the 1960s, today no longer seems to meet all of contemporary art production’s expansive demands. Both the art world and the Rijksakademie’s primary funder, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science have rising expectations, asking of institutions a greater social engagement and an increased connection to the outside world. Artists are increasingly regarded not solely as innovative makers, but also as critical thinkers.
When Emily Pethick, former curator and director of The Showroom in London, assumed the directorship in 2018, she appeared to be the ideal candidate to spearhead such a transformation. However, the realities of the institution proved far more complex. In an organisation steeped in tradition and routine, with an informal yet demanding work environment, competing interests, and an ever-growing bureaucratic burden, the desired innovations have struggled to take root.
As a resident, I have witnessed first-hand the numerous challenges confronting daily operations and the dedicated staff during this transitional period. Despite the establishment of a social practice workshop – now dismantled – there remains much untapped potential for the Rijksakademie to deepen its engagement with the community. Meanwhile, operating costs have steadily risen, and government funding has not kept pace. This financial imbalance has left the Rijksakademie increasingly dependent on private patrons, who often bring their own expectations and agendas when supporting an postgraduate institution.
In the Dutch arts ecosystem, heavily reliant on increasingly strained public funding, philanthropists and private foundations have stepped in to play a critical role. Their financial backing is often crucial to bridging budgetary shortfalls or facilitating extra programming. However, these private benefactors tend to operate within the same circles, with the same names emerging as key institutional partners. The Rijksakademie, for example, maintains a prominent partnership with Stichting Ammodo, an organisation that not only positions itself as ‘main partner’ of the Rijksakademie but equally shares a relationship with De Ateliers.
One notable recurring patron is Rob Defares, a fintech entrepreneur and managing director at global trading firm IMC. As a multi-faceted philanthropist and passionate art enthusiast, Defares has solidified his position as one of the Netherlands’ leading benefactors. Alongside Beatrix Ruf, former director of Kunsthalle Zürich and the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, he oversees the Hartwig Art Foundation. Together, they have been orchestrating ambitious international art projects and are currently developing the Hartwig Museum (previously announced as the MCA for Amsterdam), located near Amsterdam’s Zuidas district. This initiative involves transforming the former courthouse on Parnassusweg, set to be renovated and expanded by prestigious architecture firm OMA and collaborators, into more than just a museum—it will be a hub for artists, offering studios, production facilities, and accommodation spaces, aiming to draw global talent to the city.[1]
While on the surface these developments appear promising, one cannot help but reflect on the Hartwig Museum’s broader implications. Defares served as member of the Rijksakademie’s Supervisory Board from 2009 to 2020, during which he witnessed what might be considered the peak of the institution’s international standing. In this capacity, Defares was instrumental in securing private funding for the purchase of the building on Sarphatistraat in 2013, through the Stichting Trustfonds Rijksakademie, an auxiliary support foundation for which he was also a trustee. Undoubtedly, his contributions have had a profound and lasting impact on the Rijksakademie. However, it appears that the institution has come full circle, with the Rijksakademie now serving as a source of inspiration for Defares’ ventures at the Zuidas.
Imagine a Rijksakademie led by artists, where they, alongside staff, advisors and technical specialists, are integral to its governance, actively shaping the institution's future direction.
Unfair competition
The overlap between the Hartwig Museum’s functions and those of existing postgraduate institutions raises the question of how these entities should relate to one another. The same concerns extend to De Appel’s renowned Curatorial Programme, which has received multi-year financial backing from the Hartwig Art Foundation (100,000 euros annually since 2019). How does the CP position itself in relation to the Hartwig Art Foundation Fellowships, which also aim to mentor emerging curators? The Stedelijk Museum, too, maintains ties with Defares, IMC, and Hartwig, yet has not yet established a clear stance vis-à-vis the Hartwig Museum. Rather than expanding or reinforcing the art ecosystem, the Hartwig Museum’s infrastructural ambitions risk undermining the financial stability and viability of already established institutions. For example, if governments were to perceive that a private initiative is fulfilling a particular cultural function, they may come to reconsider or even withdraw subsidies from other institutions. This could lead to yet a greater reliance on private funding, potentially sidelining public institutions or incorporating them under private control. Such a scenario threatens to erode the carefully cultivated democratic accountability that has long defined these institutions.
To be clear, I do support private funding for art institutions, provided it is genuinely altruistic and takes into account the broader ecosystem. Private patrons can certainly help foster diversity in artistic output and protect vulnerable players in the field—consider, for example, the precariousness faced by smaller institutions that struggle to survive in today’s increasingly competitive landscape. As noted by Falke Pisano and Jack Segbars in the December 2024 issue of this magazine, the Dutch public subsidy system, with its bureaucratic constraints, is far from perfect.[2] Still, the reliance on patronage brings its own set of problems. Institutions may find themselves inadvertently subject to the whims of their benefactors, with little to no checks in place. Artistic voices and public stakeholders are often not adequately integrated into the governance structures of prestigious institutions, raising critical questions: does the system have enough safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest? And what happens if a major donor suddenly withdraws their support? The central issue is how to cultivate sustainable, long-term partnerships that expand opportunities for art, without compromising administrative integrity, continuity, and artistic freedom.
What should the Rijksakademie do now? First and foremost, it must clearly separate its interests, particularly in relation to its emerging competitor: the Hartwig Museum. However, if recent developments are any indication, the opposite seems to be occurring. While the identities and contributions of the donors to the Rijksakademie’s Trustfonds remain opaque, it is evident that strong ties are in place. In 2023, the Hartwig Art Foundation co-organised Art in the Age of the Metaverse, a collaboration now evolving into Digital Cosmos.[3] Emily Pethick serves on the Commissioning Committee for the Hartwig Art Production | Collection Fund. The Hartwig Museum has already announced its intent to collaborate with the Rijksakademie. However, the real concern appears to be in governance.
During the May-June 2024 Open Studios, I observed Marian Scheele, co-chair of the Supervisory Board and board member of the Stichting Trustfonds Rijksakademie, strolling around with Defares just after closing time. Scheele, a fintech lawyer, has worked with Defares’ company IMC in recent years. She took on her role as supervisor at the Rijksakademie in 2021, a year and a half after Defares himself stepped down. Scheele is an acquaintance of Patricia de Weichs de Wenne, who took office as interim manager in 2023 because of the administrative impasse. De Weichs de Wenne has since overseen the transition to a new general director in her capacity as Director of Internal Affairs, yet her name is conspicuously absent from the annual report.[4] The interconnections are intimate. The Dutch Council for Culture (Raad voor Cultuur) also seemed to share this assessment, highlighting the Rijksakademie’s governance in its BIS advisory report for 2025-2028.[5] It stated: ‘The Rijksakademie provides only a limited explanation of how it adheres to the principles outlined in the Governance Code Cultuur.’ (translation by the author).
Alternative
The fact that these developments are unfolding amid a shifting administration is cause for concern for many. The question looms: will the Rijksakademie remain the institution we have long known for upholding public values, fostering inclusivity and embracing a pluralistic view of art? Without substantial co-determination, independent leadership, and transparent partnerships, I fear the increasing sway of wealthy patrons will steer the institution toward a more regressive mode of art production—one that caters to the tastes and whims of a financial elite. On close inspection, one can see the subtle encroachment of privatisation already at play: in recent years the juries assessing artists’ applications have shrunk, with certain partners able to nominate candidates. Even the prospect of a private takeover is no longer inconceivable, once the balance tips definitively in favour of private funding. Does the name ‘Hartwigakademie’ have a ring to it?
Still, there are compelling alternatives. On the opposite end of the spectrum from this private shift, a rising interest in self-organised initiatives, such as cooperative artist practices, continues to gain momentum. These efforts often strive to redistribute knowledge, power, and resources away from the hierarchical structures of the art world, redirecting them into local networks and communities. Examples like ruangrupa’s lumbung during documenta 15, or projects by CATPC in Lusanga, DRC, Theaster Gates in Chicago, and Ibrahim Mahama in Tamale, Ghana, serve as powerful illustrations. These practices advocate for social values like solidarity, pedagogy, equal opportunity, and a deepened sense of collective responsibility. While such values are increasingly celebrated in the art world, they seldom break through the established structures. By and large most traditional institutions express interest through merely discussing such models, without internalising their core principles and enacting real transformation. And yet, here lies tremendous opportunity for profound change.
Imagine a Rijksakademie led by artists, where they, alongside staff, advisors and technical specialists, are integral to its governance, actively shaping the institution’s future direction. Empowering the alumni network with co-determination would not only leverage a wealth of artistic expertise and managerial know-how, but also strengthen the Rijksakademie’s connections to the global network of influential artists and their patrons. This alignment of interests could preserve institutional memory while unlocking new fundraising opportunities—two birds, one stone. What is stopping the Rijksakademie from embarking on this path of transformation?
A Dutch version of this text has been published in Metropolis M No 1 – 2025
Timo Demollin
