Van Aura tot Stigma: Over de waardering van het werk van de katholieke beeldhouwer Steph Uiterwaal
The development of Dutch sculpture in the period between I920 and I940 may be characterised as regressive. This is commonly considered to be due to the influence of Jan Bronner, who was professor of sculpture at the state academy (Rijksacademie) in Amsterdam at that time. Bronner was an exponent of a solid education, founded on a thorough understanding of human anatomy and on materials research, rather than on frivolous form experiments. This explanation, with its emphasis on Bronner's influence, has led to a simplification of the history of modern Dutch sculpture into a genealogical scheme based on three generations of sculptors, with Bronner as the main figure. The result was that several sculptors who were not educated at the state academy were not mentioned in the history of Dutch art. This happened to many Catholic sculptors who, like craftsmen, trained as apprentices at sculptors' studios. Steph Uiterwaal (I889-I960) was one of these Catholic sculptors, but although his education was traditional, his work is not. In the late I920 s and early I930 s , Uiterwaal experimented with a number of contemporary styles, such as cubism and constructivism. He was a true avant-garde artist. Still, like many of his Catholic companions, he was forgotten. This misconception has never been rectified because between the two World Wars, Dutch society was strongly divided along political and religious lines. This meant, for example, that there was a demand for Catholic craftsmen. After the Second World War, this division of society gradually eroded, and society became more open (the Dutch refer to this as de-pillarisation, from the pillars into which Dutch society had become divided). There was no longer a demand for Catholic artists, so that both they and their work sank into obscurity, leading to a distortion of the history of Dutch sculpture. This article may help to give this group of sculptors their due.