The Turkish artist Ahmet Ogut has called on the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam to remove his installation Bakunin’s Barricade (2015–22) from display, amid a deepening row over the terms of the acquisition contract accompanying the work.
The sculpture is a barricade made of fencing, car wrecks, construction materials and other detritus. The Stedelijk website explains the reasoning behind the piece, saying that “as Prussian troops prepared to crush the 1849 socialist uprising in Dresden, the anarchist thinker Mikhail Bakunin proposed placing paintings from the collection of the National Museum in front of the barricades, reasoning that the Prussian soldiers wouldn’t dare destroy these costly works of art”.
The Stedelijk acquired and displayed Bakunin’s Barricade in 2020, and it now incorporates works by Nan Goldin, Kazimir Malevich, and Käte Kollwitz, among other artists. According to Ogut, the acquisition contract stipulates that “the barricade may be requested and deployed during extreme economic, social, political, transformative moments and social movements”, a condition confirmed by a spokesperson for the Stedelijk.
However, in a statement posted online yesterday, Ogut claims that in June the Stedelijk “refused” to loan Bakunin’s Barricade to a group of activists who planned to use the work to “protect student demonstrations against genocide in Gaza from police brutality”.
A statement from the group, known as the Not Surprised Collective and made up of cultural workers, artists and activists, confirms their request was to use the barricade to “protect protesting students from police brutality”. The statement continued: “We are deeply concerned about the ongoing genocide and human rights violations against the Palestinian people.”
The row intensified when the Not Surprised Collective criticised the Stedelijk, saying in a statement that “the museum proposed to build up Bakunin’s Barricade in the public space in front of the Gerrit Rietveld Academy, but without using a selection of original artworks of considerable economic and cultural value.”
The statement continued: “The museum invoked a remarkable clause in the contract stating that reproductions could also be used. Moreover, the museum proposed to use the reproductions without disclosing this, which would practically constitute forgery.”
The Stedelijk responded in a statement: “Although the contract offers the option of using reproductions instead of original artworks, the collective rejected that possibility, as it would be ‘too performative’ for them. They also let us know that they will not accept our invitation to co-curate a public programme around the presentation of the work at the Stedelijk in the summer of 2024.”
The museum added that providing original works of art for use in a demonstration “clashes with an integral part of our mission and values: to care responsibly for our collection, and to preserve it for future generations. As a museum, we have this role and responsibility”.
Ogut claims that “after weeks of negotiations, the museum and its legal apparatus is trying to further limit the obligation of the museum to issue a public statement explaining any refusal justified in relation to their code of ethics”. Crucially, he adds: “Though the museum legally owns the work, I expect it to respect both the integrity of the artwork and my role as its author.”
The Stedelijk spokesperson says: “As far as we are concerned, we are still speaking about adjustments to the existing contract. To make things clear: we are not striving to limit our obligation to issue a public statement in the case of refusing a loan request.”
For now, the work is on display in line with how it was shown in 2020. The spokesperson adds: “We do not wish to remove the work from the gallery without a valid argument. It is a public work, purchased with public funds, and we have a responsibility in that regard.”
