As part of the Reframing Radboud project, PhD candidate Oscar Ekkelboom replaced the portrait of the controversial politician Louis Beel with that of an Indonesian resistance fighter. The intervention in the Grotius Building was quickly reversed. According to Ekkelboom, this proves that critical voices are not welcome at the university, and he decided to withdraw from the project.

On Wednesday October 11^th, Oscar Ekkelboom removed the portrait of the controversial politician Louis Beel from the wall in the Grotius Building. He replaced it with a painting of Diponegoro (leader of the resistance against the Dutch during the Java War from 1825 to 1830). This intervention is part of the Reframing Radboud project, where a list was made of uncomfortable artworks on campus and the public can vote for a winner.

Not a good idea

Dean Roel Schutgens was not in the Grotius Building that day, but decided upon hearing the news that the portrait of Beel should be put back. He stated, ‘It didn’t seem a good idea to me to leave the painting on the floor in the corridor. Furthermore, we have authority over our own possessions, so if someone takes a painting off the wall without permission, we will put it back.’ The faculty was not informed in advance about the action.

‘I do, however, find it a playful action,’ Schutgens continued, ‘and we certainly do not want to stifle debate within the academic community. That’s why we decided to hang Diponegoro’s portrait next to it with the accompanying flyer. Oscar Ekkelboom and I had a nice conversation about it, but he later decided that he didn’t want to leave it in this form and removed it. That wasn’t necessary as far as I’m concerned.’

‘If someone removes a painting without permission, we will put it back.’

According to Oscar Ekkelboom, the compromise proposed by the law faculty does not do justice to the original form of his work. He said, ‘As a heritage specialist, my work was intended to show suggestions for possible solutions in the debate surrounding this portrait.’

He is also surprised that he was initially given free rein by Radboud Heritage to make interventions for Reframing Radboud, but that he doesn’t see the willingness to restore his artwork. ‘That’s disappointing. You are asked to express a critical voice, but when you do, you are obstructed. This raises the question of how welcome criticism is at Radboud University.’

‘A fantastic action’

Johan Oosterman, director of Radboud Heritage, confirmed that Reframing Radboud had the freedom to be inspired by problematic heritage at Radboud University. However, he emphasized, ‘It is not the intention to compromise the integrity of the collection.’

Oosterman found the intervention regarding the Beel portrait a ‘fantastic action,’ but he claimed he was not in a position to prevent the return of the portrait. ‘Firstly, I was not aware of it in advance, and secondly, the faculty can decide to hang the portrait back up, and I have no say in that.’ Oosterman believes that the impact might not have been much greater if the intervention had remained for a week, as intended. ‘This action caused commotion and discussion, and in my opinion, it has been a valuable project because of that.’

According to Roel Schutgens, the law faculty is currently discussing its’ stance on the Louis Beel portrait. ‘Discussions are ongoing. Soon, we will announce whether we want to do something with it or not.’

Translated by Siri Joustra