In his 1998 monograph on SMK, former SMK director Villads Villadsen clearly states his belief that the committee was created specifically as a response to the museum\u2019s then director, Niels Lauritz H\u00f8yen [Fig. 1]<\/strong>, and to his politicised view of art, which prompted him to use the museum as an instrument in a wider political struggle. In Villadsen\u2019s view, H\u00f8yen thereby set in motion an arrangement that essentially suspended the museum\u2019s ability to exercise its professional expertise for a prolonged period. It also introduced \u2018a long and bitter conflict\u2019 in the world of Danish art, and SMK thus acquired \u2018for all time its distinctive status as one of the principal arenas for the clashes within contemporary Danish art\u2019.Statens Museum for Kunst 1827\u20131952<\/em>, Copenhagen, 1998, pp. 8 and 48.\">2<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Is his analysis true? It is certainly accurate that acquisitions often became a battleground \u2013 and a public one at that \u2013 but was this solely H\u00f8yen\u2019s doing? Such a claim can hardly be a satisfactory explanation for why the political authorities maintained the arrangement for more than a century, and did not allow the museum to determine for itself how acquisitions should be made until 1983, ten years after the committee had been dissolved. Why did the ministry keep the museum constrained by a historically conditioned structure for so long? And how are we to explain the committee\u2019s composition, which gradually changed from consisting of art-loving barons and wealthy patrons to become a body that, for long periods, was dominated by artists appointed by the Academy Council?<\/p>\n These are questions the article seeks to answer by analysing the museum\u2019s acquisitions and the committee from the perspective of cultural policy. The analysis will contribute new knowledge about the formation of SMK\u2019s Danish collection and thereby provide a deeper understanding of the museum\u2019s collecting history. The article does not examine individual acquisitions or assess their quality; in this regard I refer instead to Villadsen\u2019s evaluations. Rather, the present text offers an understanding of the structural frameworks \u2013 and power relations \u2013 within which acquisitions took place during the lifetime of the committee. In this way, it provides a broader context for each individual acquisition.<\/p>\n The acquisitions committee is not unknown in the existing art-historical literature, but no single comprehensive account has been provided so far, and the committee\u2019s abolition has not been discussed at all. Villads Villadsen\u2019s 1998 book on SMK contains the most extensive review, but it ends in 1952, meaning that the committee\u2019s closure is not included. Another important source on the committee\u2019s early history is the architect Ferdinand Meldahl\u2019s [Fig. 2]<\/strong> two books on, respectively, the history of the Academy (written with Peter Johansen) from 1904 and the history of the juried Charlottenborg exhibitions from 1906.Det Kongelige Akademi for de Skj\u00f8nne Kunster 1700\u20131904<\/em>, Copenhagen, 1904; Ferdinand Meldahl, Kunstudstillingerne ved Det Kongelige Akademie for de Skj\u00f8nne Kunster<\/em>, Copenhagen, 1906. Although Johansen is the principal author of the chapters on the period 1800\u20131904 in the book on Det kongelige Akademi, he relies on information supplied by Meldahl, as is clear from p. 121.\">3<\/a><\/sup> This is to say that former directors of these central institutions have laid the foundations for our present knowledge of the acquisitions committee. Their respective standpoints will inevitably have coloured their accounts to some extent.<\/p>\n The historian Jens Engberg also discusses the acquisitions committee in the three-volume work Magten og kulturen. Dansk Kulturpolitik 1750-1900 <\/em>(Power and Culture: Danish Cultural Policy 1750\u20131900) from 2005.Magten og kulturen. Dansk Kulturpolitik 1750\u20131900.<\/em> vols I\u2013III, Copenhagen 2005.\">4<\/a><\/sup> As the title suggests, Engberg\u2019s approach concerns an analysis of power, and in this context he offers a relevant reading of the committee as part of the political power relations of the time. However, he only considers developments up to 1900.<\/p>\n In what follows, I draw on all three, albeit primarily on Villadsen. And although the existing literature mainly focuses on the early period of the committee\u2019s life, there are still gaps that have not been investigated, including the crucial years in which the state assumed ownership of the museum. There is an interesting interlude here that has not previously been recognised, and which I will argue was significant for the later developments.<\/p>\n My perspective follows on from Engberg\u2019s. Given that the establishment of the acquisitions committee was a political decision, it makes sense to view it as a manifestation of cultural policy in the visual arts \u2013 an expression of a (more or less) conscious policy that the Ministry of Culture imposed on the museum\u2019s acquisition of Danish art. When a state seeks to govern, it does so through legislation and funding. That is very much what happened here. Over the years, a whole series of rescripts, resolutions and ordinances laid down rules for the committee and, in particular, for how it was to be composed. This was admittedly legislation of a lighter kind: while legally binding, these measures were not passed by parliament but issued by the ministry. The museum\u2019s other collections \u2013 older foreign art, the collection of prints and drawings, and the plaster cast collection \u2013 were not subject to comparable control.<\/p>\n The Norwegian cultural policy scholar Geir Vestheim has developed a theoretical framework for analysing cultural policy that I will use here, even though this article deals more specifically with policy in the visual arts. In his view, cultural policy takes shape in an overlapping zone between culture and politics, and in negotiations between the actors operating within that zone: on the one hand we find artists\u2019 organisations and leaders in the arts and cultural sector, and on the other politicians and civil servants.The International Journal of Cultural Policy<\/em>, vol. 18, no. 5, 2012, p. 540.\">5<\/a><\/sup> These stakeholders all have their own rationales, values and interests which they seek to advance. Thus, this is an arena of conflict. The outcome of their negotiations \u2013 cultural policy itself \u2013 is determined by the relative status and power of the parties involved. This is the overall understanding I apply to my study of the committee, and thus I see it as a zone that produces policy in the visual arts.<\/p>\n Vestheim observes that the stakeholders involved in such negotiations tend to become institutionalised \u2013 that is, they attain a position of entitlement in relation to cultural-policy decisions. He draws on historical institutionalism, a theory from social science that explains how institutions evolve over time. In this context, \u2018institution\u2019 should be understood both as the formal organisation (for example, the acquisitions committee) and as the informal rules and procedures (for example, where acquisitions take place) that structure behaviour. The theory places particular emphasis on an institution\u2019s origins, since its observations suggest that institutions base their conduct on logics that can be traced back to the values, cultures and traditions that produced them.Nordisk Kulturpolitisk Tidskrift<\/em>, vol. 13, no. 2, 2010, p. 279.\">6<\/a><\/sup> This early development is formative, and I use the concept of path dependence to explain why institutions are often locked into a particular trajectory of development, making change difficult. The past binds us, and alternatives fall away once a path has been chosen. Tradition can in itself legitimise continuation.7<\/a><\/sup> Reflecting this, the concept of path dependence can be used to explain the high degree of stability that characterises the cultural sector.<\/p>\n According to Vestheim, the central value or interest for which stakeholders in the arts and cultural field will fight is autonomy. This draws on Pierre Bourdieu\u2019s theory of fields and on his historical analysis of how art fought to win its independence and the right to be judged solely according to its own internal criteria in the modernist period.The Rules of Art<\/em>, Stanford 1992.\">8<\/a><\/sup> One might therefore expect to see a similar development at SMK, one where the museum gradually achieved greater independence in its relationship with the political system over the period in question. Yet that is not what happened. In the following analysis, I will therefore distinguish between different aspects of autonomy: first, the artistic autonomy just mentioned, which relates to the art field\u2019s right to define and produce its own understanding of quality; and secondly, a more general conception of autonomy, tied to the way in which the state governs its institutions, where the degree of autonomy can be inferred from and observed in the legislation. The more general the legal text and its administration, the higher the degree of autonomy.The International Journal of Cultural Policy<\/em>, vol. 27, no. 5, 2020, p. 639.\">9<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Vestheim\u2019s theoretical framework will be used to answer why the committee was established and why it displayed such extraordinary resilience, as well as to provide an analytical framework for the power relations at stake and for how they changed over time. The concept of autonomy will be used to understand which values and interests were contested, and how this affected the composition of the committee as well as the relationship of governance between the museum and the ministry.<\/p>\n As a consequence of this cultural-policy perspective, the legislation in force over the entire period surveyed will structure the study. The resolutions of 1866, 1887, 1901, 1929 and 1937, and finally the dissolution of the committee in 1973, will be subjected to analyses focusing on the power aspect.10<\/a><\/sup> Who wielded the greatest influence: the ministry, the museum director, or the artists? And how was the outcome determined by the parties\u2019 relative positions of power? In terms of method, I will examine how arguments were framed and use the concept of autonomy to understand the relationship between the ministry and the museum. In order to uncover why artists gained such extensive influence, I will investigate which competences they highlighted as decisive for acting as decision-makers in the state\u2019s acquisitions. I will also examine the committee\u2019s gender balance and artistic representation.<\/p>\n Since the purpose of this article is to contribute new knowledge about the nature of SMK\u2019s collection of Danish art, the material has been examined for the ways in which the purpose of the collection have been defined and articulated historically, which criteria were applied, and what acquisition procedures were followed. The empirical material consists partly of the resolutions held in the Danish National Archives, and partly of relevant material on the acquisitions committee in the SMK archives.11<\/a><\/sup> This material in turn pointed towards selected case files in the ministry\u2019s archive, a review of the museum\u2019s appropriations in the annual Finance Acts, and the one parliamentary debate concerning the arrangement. The last of these is source material that has not previously been examined.<\/p>\n The collections of the National Gallery of Denmark \u2013 the Royal Collection of Paintings, the Royal Collection of Graphic Art, and the Royal Cast Collection \u2013 have three very different points of origin, each with its own distinct history.12<\/a><\/sup> The collection of paintings was founded on the Danish monarchs\u2019 acquisitions of older foreign art, with roots stretching far back in time and modelled on the princely galleries of Europe. The collection of Danish art, which forms part of the painting collection, has a much later starting point and \u2013 at least initially \u2013 served a different purpose.<\/p>\n The Danish collection was first established in 1812 through the purchases made by Prince Christian Frederik (later Christian VIII) from young Danish artists at the annual juried academy-run exhibition at Charlottenborg in Copenhagen. Christian Frederik was president of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts, and his purchases were less a matter of building the royal collection in any carefully planned way than of providing financial support to young artists.13<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n This is clear from the formalisation of the arrangement in 1840, when 3,000 rigsdaler a year was allocated for such purchases of Danish art, \u2018particularly in order to encourage promising young artists.\u201914<\/a><\/sup> \u00a0These acquisitions laid the foundations of the collection of Danish art even though not all the works entered the royal art collection, some being hung instead at Christiansborg Palace and other public buildings. The practice also created an expectation among artists that purchases would be made for the museum at the annual exhibition.<\/p>\n After N. L. H\u00f8yen was appointed curator at Det kongelige Billedgallerie (Royal Picture Gallery) in 1839, alongside Christian J\u00fcrgensen Thomsen, he too began making acquisitions for the collection. For a number of years, therefore, acquisitions of Danish art had a twofold nature: there were royal purchases and the curator\u2019s purchases, based on different principles. H\u00f8yen bought art according to a national programme that closely aligned purchases with the broader National Liberal political project that was on the rise in Denmark at the time.SMK Art Journal<\/em>, 2005, pp. 42\u201359.\">15<\/a><\/sup> His acquisitions were governed by a museum logic, whereas the king purchased according to a patronal rationale, in keeping with his role as protector of the Academy and as a collector for his personal collection.<\/p>\n Jens Engberg has described this as a struggle between two manifestations of cultural policy: one absolutist, aristocratic and internationally oriented, the other bourgeois and national.16<\/a><\/sup> The conflict also divided Denmark\u2019s art scene into two camps: the so-called \u2018Europeans\u2019, who were associated with the Academy (and favoured by the king), and the so-called \u2018nationals\u2019, several of whom stood in opposition to the Academy (and from whom H\u00f8yen made most of his acquisitions).<\/p>\n We see, then, that embedded in the origins of the collection is an understanding that purchasing from living artists always involves an element of support, and that the collection arose out of an alliance with the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts. We may also note that acquisitions were causes of conflict and controversy almost from the outset.<\/p>\n The museum was nationalised and so became state property in 1849, and one might well have expected that, with the king removed from the equation, calm would now descend on the matter of acquisitions. However, immediately before the transfer of ownership Denmark had seen a change of monarch, and this proved decisive for the power struggle between the museum and the Academy \u2013 a struggle that would become part of the acquisitions committee\u2019s institutional DNA.<\/p>\n The new king, Frederik VII, was less interested in art than his predecessor and so transferred his right to carry out acquisitions to the Academy shortly before ownership of the royal collection passed to the state.Rescript af 30te Marts 1848<\/em>, which confirmed that the Academy was now given the right to propose which works should be purchased for the 3,000 rigsdaler. Meldahl 1906, p. 230.\">17<\/a><\/sup> According to Meldahl, H\u00f8yen protested against this move, but to no avail.<\/a>18<\/a><\/sup> For two years (1848 and 1849) it was the Academy, that is, the artists, who purchased works for the museum for the 3,000 rigsdaler allocated to the purpose. Then H\u00f8yen had his revenge.<\/p>\n In the new National Liberal government\u2019s first Finance Bill, passed in the spring of 1850, the grant of 3,000 rigsdaler was transferred from the Academy to the Royal Collection of Paintings and earmarked for \u2018the enlargement of the collection with works by Danish artists\u2019. This did not happen without a struggle. During the parliamentary debates ahead of this decision, a counterproposal was put forward, urging the government to return both the grant and the decision-making power to the Academy, and to restore the earlier purpose of the purchases, insisting that they should be intended to encourage promising young artists or at least, in a somewhat broader sense, to serve \u2018the encouragement of art\u2019.Rigsdagstidende. Forhandlingerne paa Folkethinget<\/em>, 1850, cols. 3980\u20133984. \u00a0The counterproposal was put forward by the Member of Parliament Julius Wilkens on behalf of a large number of artists.\">19<\/a><\/sup> The argument that artists should be in charge of the purchases was explained \u2013 with a scarcely concealed reference to H\u00f8yen \u2013 on the grounds that artists possessed \u2018the greatest possible understanding of art, the greatest possible impartiality and the greatest possible freedom from all personal and accidental sympathies\u2019.20<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n This argument did not persuade the Minister for Ecclesiastical and Educational Affairs, Johan Nicolai Madvig, who replied that the state had a responsibility to \u2018seek out that understanding of art which is found not in the artist himself \u2026 but in men who have made the study of art their task\u2019. The objective was precisely to ensure impartiality, since it was problematic to \u2018impose upon the very men who themselves submit works to the exhibition the additional task of judging which works should be acquired.\u201921<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Madvig was supported in this view by the parliamentary spokesman, who considered it absolutely necessary that the curator of SMK should in the main determine such matters, and that a certain one-sidedness of taste was not necessarily a negative thing, but might instead be an expression of profound insight and extensive knowledge.22<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n It is perhaps not surprising that the National Liberal politicians gave H\u00f8yen and his position their full backing. But, as is evident, other views were also in play. As a result, at the very moment when the Danish state took over the collection, it also took over the conflict concerning who should make acquisitions and what acquisitions ought to mean in terms of artistic policy. The parliamentary debate offers a very early example of a political desire to make art-historical expertise decisive \u2013 something that may be interpreted as an expression of a wish to grant the museum institutional autonomy.<\/p>\n The new arrangement did not last for long. In 1866, a political decision was taken to introduce an acquisitions committee to manage the scheme that had existed since 1840: an annual allocation of 3,000 rigsdaler for the purchase of Danish art for the museum. The immediate reason given in the legal document was that J\u00fcrgensen Thomsen, H\u00f8yen\u2019s co-director, had died, and so the committee was introduced, as the minister wrote directly to H\u00f8yen, in order to prevent the director from \u2018[\u2026] pursuing a direction too one-sided for art as such.\u2019Kongelig Resolution angaaende Ledelsesforholdene ved de Kongelige Kunstsamlinger i Anledning af Konferentsraad Thomsens D\u00f8d<\/em>, and transcription of Theodor Rosen\u00f8rn-Teilmann\u2019s letter to H\u00f8yen dated 27 February 1866. SMK archive, Gallerikommissionen ca. 1840-1963<\/em>. Yellow file: Galleriets Indk\u00f8bskomite, korrespondance 1860\u20131963<\/em> (1850).<\/em>\">23<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Now, H\u00f8yen had more or less single-handedly determined acquisitions for sixteen years, so why introduce an acquisitions committee in 1866? Villadsen explains this move by arguing that H\u00f8yen\u2019s acquisition policy had become the object of such vociferous criticism, not least from Kunstforeningen (the Copenhagen Art Society), that the ministry could no longer afford to ignore it. It therefore appointed a committee in order to deflect the attacks directed at H\u00f8yen.Perspective<\/em>, September 2020. https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/national-kunst-national-kunst-wilhelm-marstrand-og-p-c-skovgaards-opfattelser-af-national-kunst-omkring-1854\/<\/a>\">24<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n If one widens the lens still further, however, the full explanation is more likely to reside in the overall political situation in Denmark at the time. The National Liberals, who had supported H\u00f8yen \u2013 and whom he had in turn supported \u2013 and who, as shown above, had no problem with his one-sidedness, had lost political power. In 1866 a conservative landowning government came to office.<\/p>\n As Engberg notes, the committee was entirely in keeping with the new political climate. It consisted of two aristocratic landowners, Otto Rosen\u00f8rn-Lehn and Sophus Danneskiold-Sams\u00f8e, alongside two members of the Copenhagen bourgeoisie who politically belonged to the National Liberal camp: the philanthropist Emil Hornemann and the patron of the arts J. C. Jacobsen.25<\/a><\/sup> All were appointed by the Minister for Ecclesiastical and Educational Affairs, Theodor Rosen\u00f8rn-Teilmann, himself a landowner and actively opposed to the National Liberals. Villadsen describes these men as knowledgeable amateurs and art aficionados whose involvement was intended to ensure a certain populism in the acquisitions.26<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The minister wrote to the committee that \u2018only such pictures should be acquired for the collection as worthily represent Danish art in its various periods, and it is art<\/em>, not the individual artist<\/em>, that is to receive support.\u2019Gallerikommissionen ca. 1840\u20131963<\/em>. Yellow file: Galleriets Indk\u00f8bskomite, korrespondance 1860-1963 (1850)<\/em>.\">27<\/a><\/sup> The artists concerned should be talented and accomplished, but acquisitions could only be made from living artists, not from the deceased.<\/p>\n The question of whether acquisitions were to serve as support for artists had evidently continued to smoulder. Indeed, the fact that the committee was permitted to buy only works by living artists and not by deceased one seems somewhat arbitrary. But the minister made it clear that the aim was \u2018worthy\u2019 acquisitions, and that the overall objective was to build a representative collection showing Danish art in its full breadth (as opposed, one must assume, to a \u2018one-sided\u2019 display).<\/p>\n The details concerning the purpose of acquisitions are crucial, because these lines from the minister in 1866 came to form the basis for how the scheme would be understood thereafter. It was here that the arrangement was defined, and these were the lines to which people returned when interpreting the guidelines for the acquisition of Danish art. The purpose of the scheme as such was not addressed in the subsequent resolutions, nor elsewhere.<\/p>\n The composition of the acquisitions committee changed quite fundamentally twenty-one years later with a new resolution. The same conservative government was still in power, so the changes cannot be satisfactorily explained in terms of a political change of regime. In the text of the new resolution, the change was explained by a desire to align the committee with the reorganisation of the Academy and the establishment of the Academy Council, which came into force at the same time. The two were, quite literally, two sides of the same matter: Resolution no. 1.a concerned the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, while 1.b concerned the committee.Allerunderdanigst Forestilling om Sammens\u00e6tningen af en Komitee til <\/em>Indkj\u00f8b af Kunstv\u00e6rker til den Kongelige Maleri og Skulptursamling<\/em>.\">28<\/a><\/sup> <\/a>Under the revised arrangement, the committee was to have two permanent members: the museum\u2019s director and the lecturer in art history at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts. Besides them, there were to be three members serving six-year terms, nominated respectively by the Academy Council, by the director of SMK, and by the ministry.<\/a><\/p>\n The Academy Council was a new entity intended to settle the conflict that had surrounded the Academy for decades and that, as mentioned earlier, had divided the Danish art scene into two camps. The establishment of an Academy Council was a compromise designed to give influence to those artists who had broken with the conventions of the academic style and who, as a result, had either been excluded altogether from the Academy or kept from holding positions of influence within it.Kunstakademiet 1754-2004<\/em>, Det Kongelige Akademi for De Sk\u00f8nne Kunster & Arkitekturs Forlag 2004, vol. I, pp. 121\u2013124 and 130.\">29<\/a><\/sup> The governance of the Academy was now entrusted to a smaller council of thirty-two members \u2013 one in which those artists who had hitherto stood outside would be able to gain representation.30<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n As far as the acquisitions committee is concerned, this meant that the ministry now had at its disposal a council that \u2013 at least in theory \u2013 embraced the full breadth of the Danish artistic profession and was therefore understood to represent all artists. This was important because the Academy was not merely an educational institution, but also an institution of judgement. Formally, it was obliged to advise both the state and private individuals on artistic matters. With this change, the state could now use the Academy Council as an appointing body with greater legitimacy. The acquisitions committee became the Academy Council\u2019s first appointive responsibility; later it was granted a whole series of rights of nomination to committees, boards and other bodies \u2013 a function it still performs today.<\/p>\n On paper, this looks like a radical transformation of the acquisitions committee, but this was true in appearance only. For if one looks more closely at the committee\u2019s development after 1866, it was already moving in a direction where those whom Villadsen called \u2018knowledgeable amateurs\u2019 were gradually replaced by professional expertise. Even so, baron Otto Rosen\u00f8rn-Lehn still sat on the committee and, after H\u00f8yen\u2019s death in 1870, had become the museum\u2019s director. To fill the vacant seat, the ministry chose to appoint the painter Wilhelm Marstrand, who at that time was director of the Academy. When he died in 1873, the architect Ferdinand Meldahl stepped in instead, at the same time taking over the post of director of the Academy from Marstrand. In 1878 the committee was further strengthened by the addition of Julius Lange, who was then a lecturer at the Academy, thus once again bringing an art historian into the body.<\/p>\n The concept of autonomy and a perspective focusing on the analysis of power relations can help explain this 180-degree turn towards once again giving artists influence over acquisitions. On the one hand, there is clearly a movement towards allowing the art field itself to define artistic quality. H\u00f8yen\u2019s death undoubtedly left a professional vacuum, and artistic expertise was needed now that a non-specialist occupied the director\u2019s chair. An analysis of power relations would suggest that the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts now re-entered the zone. H\u00f8yen had, in a sense, been the Academy\u2019s adversary. Now he was gone. This left room for a powerful figure such as Meldahl, who, as Engberg points out, was used by the conservative landowners to implement their cultural policy.31<\/a><\/sup> Meldahl\u2019s position in relation to the museum had been further strengthened by his role as the hero of the hour when the collection of paintings was rescued from the burning Christiansborg Palace in 1884, and by the fact that in the years that followed he was the prime mover when the state decided to build (and fund) a new, independent museum building.32<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n If one looks at who the Academy Council chose for the first committees, Engberg\u2019s assessment appears justified. These were not artists from the opposition, but members of the old guard of professors belonging to the more conservative wing. The first member was Carl Bloch, followed by Frederik Vermehren and then Otto Bache.<\/p>\n That the acquisitions made nonetheless came to reflect a degree of breadth is, in Villadsen\u2019s view, due largely to Lange, who was now the committee\u2019s permanent member. This made it possible, at an early stage, to secure representation for French-inspired Naturalism through the acquisition of Peder Severin Kr\u00f8yer\u2019s Two Gypsy Women Outside Their Cottage. Spain <\/em>(1878).33<\/a><\/sup> And although the committee had been born out of the alliance with the juried Charlottenborg exhibitions, this did not prevent it from also inspecting the first exhibition held at the newly established alternative exhibition set-up, Den Frie Udstilling, in 1891, where it purchased Kristian Zahrtmann\u2019s Leonora Christina in Bl\u00e5t\u00e5rn<\/em> (1891) [Fig. 3]<\/strong> and Peder Severin Kr\u00f8yer\u2019s A Street in Torello, Italy<\/em> (1890). Nor did it hesitate to visit the gallery Kleis Kunsthandel in the 1890s, another alternative to Charlottenborg, which showed the new currents of Naturalism and Symbolism.<\/p>\n The committee still mattered politically, as is evident by fact that the museum chose the Minister for Ecclesiastical and Educational Affairs, Jacob Scavenius \u2013 part of the conservative wing in parliament \u2013 as its representative on the committee. As its final member, the ministry appointed the lawyer Peter Frederik Koch. This set a precedent whereby, with very few exceptions, the ministry would henceforth choose either a lawyer or one of its own officials as its representative.<\/p>\n What was decisively new in the 1887 resolution was that it established an arrangement under which the two principal actors, the museum and the Academy, were each allowed to choose a representative. This arrangement formalised the Academy\u2019s position of power in relation to the museum\u2019s acquisitions.<\/p>\n The new arrangement can be seen, on the one hand, to constitute a delegation of power by the ministry, which no longer hand-picked all the members itself, and on the other as an acknowledgement that the committee was a site of negotiations between different parties, corresponding to Vestheim\u2019s conceptualisation of how cultural policy in the arts is produced. It also meant that each individual member would come to see themselves as a representative of particular interests and values, structurally paving the way for internal power struggles within the committee.<\/p>\n This is, at any rate, what happened in 1896, when Emil Bloch had just become director of SMK, meaning that, for the first time in twenty-five years, the museum once again had an art historian at the helm. It was also the year in which the museum opened in its new building in S\u00f8lvgade, thereby acquiring its own independent identity.<\/p>\n The Academy had expressed a wish to the ministry to have a sculptor on the committee. This request triggered a prolonged discussion within the committee regarding its composition and representation. In a note to Bloch marked \u2018confidential\u2019, Carl Goos, a former Minister for Ecclesiastical and Educational Affairs, wrote that the intention behind the 1887 resolution had been that the director\u2019s standpoint and the Academy\u2019s standpoint should be equally represented, with two members each.Gallerikommissionen ca. 1840\u20131963<\/em>. Yellow file: Galleriets Indk\u00f8bskomite, korrespondance 1860\u20131963 (1850).<\/em>\">34<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Lange, who was loath to be taken as representing the Academy, maintained that he had been appointed because he was not an artist and possessed a critical understanding of art.Gallerikommissionen ca. 1840\u20131963<\/em>. Yellow file: Galleriets Indk\u00f8bskomite, korrespondance 1860\u20131963 (1850).<\/em>\">35<\/a><\/sup> Bloch, too, believed that the committee was becoming divided into artists and non-artists, which was fundamentally a mistake, since the original intention of the committee had been precisely that it should consist of non-artists.Gallerikommissionen ca. 1840\u20131963<\/em>. Yellow file: Galleriets Indk\u00f8bskomite, korrespondance 1860\u20131963 (1850).<\/em>\">36<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Despite the director\u2019s point of view, the Academy nevertheless gained another artist on the committee when Lange died in 1896 and Vilhelm Bissen entered in his place.Gallerikommissionen ca. 1840\u20131963<\/em>. Yellow file: Galleriets Indk\u00f8bskomite, korrespondance 1860\u20131963 (1850).<\/em>\">37<\/a><\/sup> The choice of a sculptor is not explicitly explained in contemporary sources, but one possible reason may be that in 1886\u201387 the committee was put in charge of all acquisitions for the Royal Collection of Paintings and Sculpture, receiving an earmarked grant of 15,000 kroner for the purpose.38<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n When the terms of the sitting members came to an end, Bloch took the opportunity to write to the ministry requesting an amendment to the resolution so that it would revert to its original form, under which the ministry chose all the committee\u2019s members \u2013 in other words, removing the Academy Council\u2019s right of nomination.Gallerikommissionen ca. 1840\u20131963<\/em>. Yellow file: Galleriets Indk\u00f8bskomite, korrespondance 1860\u20131963 (1850)<\/em>.\">39<\/a><\/sup> The Academy pulled in the opposite direction and wanted the number of artists on the committee increased to three: two painters and one sculptor.<\/p>\n They justified this by pointing to the unique professional expertise held by artists, as Meldahl argued in his letter to the ministry:<\/p>\n At a time when the importance of professional training and expertise is asserted in all other walks of life, it is puzzling indeed that artists \u2013 as is in fact the case \u2013 are, so to speak, regarded as incompetent in so specifically artistic a matter as the enlargement of the State\u2019s collection of Danish works of art.40<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The ministry decided the matter, and it must have been receptive to Meldahl\u2019s argument regarding the professional expertise of artists. Under the 1901 resolution, the Academy Council was given the right to appoint two members to the committee, while the lecturer\u2019s permanent seat was abolished.Allerunderdanigst Forestilling om Forandring i de ved allerh\u00f8jeste Resolution af 18. Januar fastsatte Regler om Sammens\u00e6tning af en Komit\u00e9 til Indk\u00f8b af Kunstv\u00e6rker til den kongelige Maleri- og Skulptursamling<\/em>.\">41<\/a><\/sup> The ministry presented the outcome as one that satisfied all legitimate concerns. Yet it is quite obvious that the Academy\u2019s wishes had been given greatest weight. In the power struggle between the director and the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, it was once again the latter that emerged as the stronger party, and whose expertise was accorded the greatest importance.<\/p>\n Given all this, the committee had become something of a battleground, and SMK\u2019s director clearly felt challenged by the artists on the committee. This makes it all the more relevant to look more closely at how the committee worked, how it made decisions on acquisitions, and whether these disagreements were reflected in its procedures.<\/p>\n Throughout the entire period, brief minutes were kept from every meeting. Meetings took place either at the museum or at various exhibitions. To a considerable extent, exhibitions structured the committee\u2019s work. In its earliest years, the committee\u2019s activities were concentrated primarily in the first months of the year, coinciding with the juried Charlottenborg Spring Exhibition. This changed as the Copenhagen exhibition scene became more diverse and exhibitions more numerous. As noted earlier, this development also freed the committee from its original attachment to the Charlottenborg exhibition venue. A review of the minute books makes clear that the committee developed its own understanding that it was obliged to view all relevant exhibitions. Although this obligation was never formalised in the resolutions, it became an informal institutional practice \u2013 a norm.<\/p>\n The committee could also acquire works directly from artists, either through studio visits or by means of commissions, though the latter were relatively rare [Fig. 4].<\/strong>The Great Relief<\/em> is an example of a commission placed by the acquisitions committee in 1923. Villadsen 1998, p. 200.\">42<\/a><\/sup> Asking artists to submit works for the committee\u2019s consideration was a common occurrence.Gallerikommissionen ca. 1840-1963<\/em>, archive box: Gallerikommissionen ca. 1840\u20131963 Indk\u00f8bsanordning 1973-1991<\/em>. Yellow file: Galleriets Indk\u00f8bskomit\u00e9 \u2013 Liste over Comit\u00e9ens m\u00f8der, v\u00e6rker til overvejelse ved k\u00f8b, etc.<\/em>: 1872-1913<\/em>. See also, for example, Kilder til dansk kunsthistorie<\/em>, letter from Johan Rohde to Jens Ferdinand Willumsen dated 27 October 1911.\">43<\/a><\/sup> Finally, the museum was offered a considerable number of gifts, and its practice in this regard varied over the years, as will be discussed later.<\/p>\n The brief minutes show that generally speaking, the director of SMK would put forward a proposal to purchase, which the other members would then either support or oppose. These proposals were rarely reasoned, and the explanations given are mostly concerned with why a particular work ought not to be acquired. Throughout the period, purchases and refusals were decided by vote [Fig. 5]<\/strong>. Here, the fact that the committee often found itself divided into factions becomes most apparent. During Leo Swane\u2019s time in particular (1931\u20131952), the combative tone is unmistakable in the minutes, and Swane was entirely dependent on the ministry\u2019s representative in order to get his way.44<\/a><\/sup> He usually succeeded, but in one instance, in 1948, the artists used their numerical majority to force through an acquisition that the director opposed: Egill Jacobsen\u2019s Blue Lines. Cagnes<\/em>,1947 [Fig. 6]<\/strong>.45<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Clearly, such conditions made it difficult to pursue a strategic or long-term acquisitions policy. Nor is there any trace in the archive of a formally articulated policy for acquisitions. The closest approximation is a brief note from 1885 outlining which artists in the exhibition were not yet represented in the collection, which were represented by a single work, and which already had several works in the museum\u2019s holdings. This may indicate an underlying principle of considering new acquisitions in light of the existing collection and prioritising artists not yet represented, reflecting a desire to build the collection broadly in accordance with its original intentions.Gallerikommissionen ca. 1840-1963<\/em>, archive box: Gallerikommissionen ca. 1840-1963 Indk\u00f8bsanordning 1973-1991<\/em>. Yellow file: Galleriets Indk\u00f8bskomit\u00e9 \u2013 Liste over Comit\u00e9ens m\u00f8der, v\u00e6rker til overvejelse ved k\u00f8b, etc.: 1872-1913<\/em>.\">46<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n All this is to say that acquisitions were very much governed by what works were currently on offer. This was reinforced by the fact that decisions were made on the spot. In other words, a purchase at an exhibition was decided while the work was being viewed for the first time. Such a practice must undoubtedly have introduced a certain degree of arbitrariness.<\/p>\n Nor does one find any written procedures in the archives for dealing with conflicts of interest on the part of artists or the director. A later resolution from 1929 makes clear that an internal rule stated that members of the committee could not sell works to the museum while serving on it. As regards the director, too, it would appear that the rules were tightened later on. At any rate, during his directorship Leo Swane did not take part in the handling of acquisitions of works by his brother, Sigurd Swane [Fig. 7]<\/strong>.47<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n In the early twentieth century, only minor shifts in the composition of the committee took place. Most strikingly, as long as Bloch remained director, he nominated his curator Karl Madsen as a member of the committee. This created a balance between art historians and artists. That balance was upset when Karl Madsen became director in 1914 and chose instead to nominate an artist.48<\/a><\/sup> Quite exceptionally, the ministry did the same, meaning that until 1917 the committee consisted of four artists: Carl Thomsen, Ludvig Brandstrup, Valdemar Irminger and Johan Rohde, together with the director.<\/p>\n Johan Rohde was Karl Madsen\u2019s choice. One may well speculate as to why. One possible explanation is that Madsen wanted the committee to reflect recent developments in Danish art. Modernism had had its breakthrough, and a number of exhibition venues and artists\u2019 groups had set a new aesthetic agenda. Madsen may have wanted this modern point of view to be represented on the committee, which until then had been dominated by older, more conservative artists. With Rohde, a representative of Den Frie Udstilling entered the committee for the first time \u2013 the artists\u2019 association that he had helped to found. Rohde had also been one of the initiators of Malende Kunstneres Sammenslutning (Society of Painting Artists) in 1909. By every measure, Rohde embodied the artistic-political opposition to the Academy. And since renewal apparently did not come through the Academy Council, the director himself had to secure the committee\u2019s artistic profile. Madsen also chose to reappoint Rohde repeatedly until 1923, even though this meant that the artists were in the majority.<\/p>\n That did not prevent the early decades of the century from seeing growing public criticism of the Gallery Commission. There was dissatisfaction with Madsen\u2019s line in acquisitions in 1907 and 1908 because he prioritised the \u2018peasant painters\u2019 over the Symbolist painters. More generally, critics pointed out that the acquisitions committee was failing to purchase the art of its own time \u2013 the modern \u2013 even though that had been the original intention of the arrangement. This criticism culminated in 1917, when a group of artists and art historians proposed that the committee be abolished.49<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Criticism also came from other quarters. One of the declared aims of Kvindelige Kunstneres Samfund (KKS, The Danish Women Artists\u2019 Association), founded in 1916, was to secure places for women artists on \u2018committees, juries and the Academy Council\u2019.50<\/a><\/sup> Such efforts were highly pertinent: strikingly, the list of all the artists who sat on the committee up to 1973 does not include a single woman.<\/p>\n Women were also, to some extent, excluded from influence within the Academy Council, and the fact that female representation never reached the committee undoubtedly contributed to the committee\u2019s limited acquisition of works by women artists [Fig. 8]<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Nor were women alone in feeling unrepresented. This was a period in which artists organised themselves into professional associations precisely in order to exert political influence, and they did so in opposition to the Academy Council. Dansk Billedhuggersamfund (The Danish Sculptors\u2019 Society), founded in 1905, was the earliest such organisation, and its aim was to work for the interests of the profession, including specifically \u2018to promote questions concerning acquisitions for the National Gallery of Denmark, as well as other public purchases of sculpture\u2019.Love for Dansk Billedhugger-Samfund<\/em>, Copenhagen 1906, p. 3.\">51<\/a><\/sup> Malende Kunstneres Sammenslutning (The Society of Painting Artists), founded in 1909 as mentioned above, was likewise an organisation chiefly concerned with exhibition conditions and with making Danish art known abroad, but also explicitly with addressing its members\u2019 relationship to the Academy.Korrespondance med Akademier, Museer og Foreninger. Kilder til dansk kunsthistorie<\/em>, https:\/\/jfwillumsen.ktdk.dk\/d\/Bjoc?q=Malende%20Kunstneres%20Sammenslutning<\/a>.\">52<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Yet none of these three organisations ever succeeded in gaining a place on the acquisitions committee. The Academy Council managed to retain control of this bastion of artistic-political power, which accords with Vestheim\u2019s observation that once a given entity has attained a position of entitlement within the cultural-political zone, change becomes difficult. As a result, only a limited segment of artists was represented on the acquisitions committee.<\/p>\n The historical point of departure for the committee was the acquisition of Danish art, and, as specified in 1866, of art by living artists. This was a relatively limited task. Over time, however, the committee quietly appropriated ever wider powers. First, gifts also came under the committee\u2019s remit.Gallerikommissionen ca. 1840\u20131963<\/em>. Yellow file: Galleriets Indk\u00f8bskomite, korrespondance 1860\u20131963 (1850)<\/em>.\">53<\/a><\/sup> Gradually, acquisitions of foreign art and older Danish art likewise became part of its responsibilities. From the director\u2019s point of view, this represented a significant restriction of the museum\u2019s professional room for manoeuvre.<\/p>\n In 1929, director Gustav Falck took up the fight. Because these extensions of the committee\u2019s remit had taken place informally, he was able to invoke the historical record, the earlier resolutions and the original intentions behind the acquisitions committee. He succeeded in having the committee\u2019s powers restricted so that they applied only to the acquisition of Danish art, both contemporary and olderGallerikommissionen ca. 1840\u20131963<\/em>. Yellow file: Galleriets Indk\u00f8bskomite, korrespondance 1860\u20131963 (1850)<\/em>.\">54<\/a><\/sup> \u2013 not to gifts, and not to foreign art. He also secured the introduction of a provision allowing the director of SMK, on his own authority, to make urgent purchases of older Danish art up to the value of 8,000 kroner.Allerunderdanigst Forestilling angaaende Komit\u00e9en til Indk\u00f8b af Kunstv\u00e6rker til den kongelige Maleri- og Skulptursamling paa Statens Museum for Kunst<\/em>.\">55<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Of all the resolutions, this is the only one to convey the impression that the director held a strong hand and, as a result, succeeded in having all his desired changes implemented. I would argue that the concept of path dependence can explain why the museum\u2019s director won this battle. His negotiating position was strengthened by the fact that the issue was one of returning the arrangement to its original basis, to what Falck himself called \u2018the historical right\u2019.Gallerikommissionen ca. 1840\u20131963<\/em>. Yellow file: Galleriets Indk\u00f8bskomite, korrespondance 1860\u20131963 (1850)<\/em>.\">56<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n In that respect, the resolutions are highly revealing, since they were structured in such a way that they first set out the background and history of the matter, then explained what one party (the museum director) had requested, and then what the other party (the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts) wanted. Finally, they account for the political decision and set out the resulting change. They make it clear that this was a forum of negotiation between competing interests, a zone for the production of artistic policy.<\/p>\n At the same time as the committee\u2019s powers were curtailed, it was also reduced in size. This had been desired both by the director and by the artists. The membership was reduced from five to four. The museum\u2019s own nominated seat was the one that disappeared. In compensation, however, the director\u2019s vote would henceforth count double. This was done in order to simplify and streamline the committee\u2019s procedures. A system of alternate members was also introduced, and the term of office was reduced from six to four years in consideration of the artists.Allerunderdanigst Forestilling angaaende Komit\u00e9en til Indk\u00f8b af Kunstv\u00e6rker til den kongelige Maleri- og Skulptursamling paa Statens Museum for Kunst<\/em>. The argument for shortening the term of office was that, for artists, it was \u2018quite a burdensome task given that they often already hold various offices at the Academy and elsewhere, to which we may add that during their service, the artists on the committee may not sell works to the museum\u2019.\">57<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The Royal Academy of Fine Arts was far from satisfied with the new provisions. With great persistence, it campaigned to recover influence over the museum\u2019s acquisitions of foreign art and the acceptance of gifts, as well as to secure more artists on the committee, on the grounds that artists, when it came to the art \u2018being created now, have greater insight and are better able to judge which works ought to be incorporated into the State\u2019s art collection than the scholar or museum man.\u2019Gallerikommissionen ca. 1840\u20131963<\/em>. Yellow file: Galleriets Indk\u00f8bskomite, korrespondance 1860\u20131963 (1850)<\/em>.\">58<\/a><\/sup> In 1934 it raised the stakes by obtaining the support of all artists\u2019 associations in Denmark for its demands.<\/p>\n This led to yet another resolution in 1937, though despite lengthy negotiations between the parties it produced only a minor change. Faced with the Academy\u2019s demands, Swane, then director of the museum, stated that he found the proposal \u2018predominantly objectionable\u2019 and that \u2018in the composition of the committee, greater consideration ought rather to be given to museum-based art-historical expertise.\u2019Allerunderdanigst Forestilling angaaende Tilf\u00f8jelse til de ved kongelig Resolution af 15. November stadf\u00e6stede Regler vedr\u00f8rende Komit\u00e9en til Indk\u00f8b af Kunstv\u00e6rker til den kongelige Maleri- og Skulptursamling paa Statens Museum for Kunst<\/em>.\">59<\/a><\/sup> The ministry stipulated that, provided a rule was introduced requiring at least three of the committee\u2019s four votes in order for any acquisition to be made, sufficient account had thereby been taken \u2018of the interests here emphasised\u2019.Allerunderdanigst Forestilling angaaende Tilf\u00f8jelse til de ved kongelig Resolution af 15. November stadf\u00e6stede Regler vedr\u00f8rende Komit\u00e9en til Indk\u00f8b af Kunstv\u00e6rker til den kongelige Maleri- og Skulptursamling paa Statens Museum for Kunst<\/em>.\">60<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Villadsen writes of the period that, although the Academy generally had little difficulty in preserving its (conservative) stamp on acquisitions, the overall landscape surrounding the museum\u2019s acquisitions was nevertheless changing. The New Carlsberg Foundation had begun purchasing younger Danish art \u2013 works that might subsequently find their way into the museum\u2019s collection. Independent endowments had also emerged, making funds available for acquisitions outside the acquisitions committee, among them the R\u00f8nnenkamp Bequest in 1937. In this way, the museum director acquired more instruments with which to steer the direction of acquisitions independently.61<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The winds of change had begun to gather force. In a 1969 cultural policy report which reviewed the entire field covered by the Danish Ministry of Culture, the section on SMK asked, somewhat rhetorically, whether the Gallery Commission ought still to be maintained, since \u2018it is surely desirable that responsibility for decisions within artistic fields should not be diffused\u2019. Yet once again the risk of one-sidedness was raised should the director of SMK (at that time J\u00f8rn Rubow) be left to decide alone. The report floated the possibility of fixed-term appointments as a solution, or of altering the composition of the committee so that representatives of artistic life in the provinces might also be included.En kulturpolitisk redeg\u00f8relse<\/em>. Ministeriet for Kulturelle Anliggender, Copenhagen 1969, p. 166.\">62<\/a><\/sup> Those ideas never came to fruition.<\/p>\n A few years later, the Academy Council chose to push against the prevailing wind. Having repeatedly tried to expand the scope of the artists\u2019 powers, it now dug in its heels. It launched a press strategy [Fig. 9]<\/strong>, while at the same time threatening the ministry that it would withdraw from the committee unless it was given influence over all acquisitions: Danish and foreign art, the acceptance of gifts, and influence over what was displayed. In December 1972, the two serving artist-members of the committee, Bent S\u00f8rensen and Gunnar Aagaard Andersen, wrote to the minister, arguing that otherwise no artistic coherence could be achieved in the collection \u2013 a collection that had suffered because \u2018too much Danish art has escaped the museum\u2019s attention, just as the museum, through its failure to acquire, has lost more than a generation of foreign art\u2019. As advisers to the state, they could not countenance this, and so they asked to be relieved of their appointments.Gallerikommissionen ca. 1840-1963<\/em>. Pale blue file: Indk\u00f8bsanordning<\/em>.\">63<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Their demand did not receive unqualified support in artistic circles. In an article in the left-wing newspaper Information<\/em>, Erik Thommesen stated that he advised against giving the protesting members greater influence, since they represented a way of thinking primarily concerned with favouring the profession of artists \u2013 not art, nor society. It was a view to which the Ministry of Culture paid heed.<\/p>\n The ministry therefore took the two artist-members at their word. In a memorandum to the minister, the head of department Erik Thrane wrote:<\/p>\n To allow artists to sit on an acquisitions commission for the National Gallery of Denmark is, when one pauses to think on it, rather questionable. It could easily give rises to issues concerning directional art policy or organisational nepotism (not to mention personal nepotism). Purchases ought presumably to be made on the basis of an assessment of the works\u2019 artistic value and their place within the museum\u2019s art-historical totality. Such an assessment is presumably best made by art historians, that is, by the museum\u2019s own staff.Gallerikommissionen ca. 1840-1963<\/em>. Pale blue file: Indk\u00f8bsanordning<\/em>.\">64<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Despite the somewhat guarded tone, the result was unequivocal: the committee was abolished. The transfer of responsibility to the museum was, however, handled rather cautiously. First came an ordinance in 1973 laying down detailed rules for the composition of an internal committee consisting of the museum\u2019s professional staff, with the director as chair, elected annually. It was also specified that this should be preceded by a discussion \u2018in which the main guidelines and principles for the museum\u2019s acquisition policy in the coming year are laid down\u2019.Anordning om indk\u00f8b af danske kunst til den kgl. Maleri- og Skulptursamling ved Statens Museum for Kunst<\/em>.\">65<\/a><\/sup> The result of the election was then to be communicated to the ministry. Not until 1986 did the ministry remove all regulatory requirements governing the museum\u2019s acquisition of Danish art.66<\/a><\/sup> As the minister wrote, it was left to the museum itself to determine the procedure for acquisitions, \u2018since the matters to which the royal ordinance relates now naturally belong among those matters that should be organised by the institution itself.\u2019<\/a>What do we know about the acquisitions committee?<\/h2>\n
Acquisitions as cultural policy: theoretical framework<\/h2>\n
Method, empirical material, and the structure of the article<\/h2>\n
![\"Fig.](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Fig-1-1.jpg\")
The origins of the collection of Danish art<\/h2>\n
30 May 1849: the state takes over<\/h2>\n
1866: \u2018a direction too one-sided for art\u2019<\/h2>\n
![\"Fig.](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/05\/KMS1475.jpg\")
1887: The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts strikes back<\/h2>\n
![\"Fig.](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Fig-2.jpg\")
1901: More artists on the committee<\/h2>\n
![\"Fig.](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Fig-3.jpg\")
The committee\u2019s acquisition procedures<\/h2>\n
![\"Fig.](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Fig_4.jpg\")
![\"Fig.](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Fig.6.jpg\")
![\"Fig.](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Fig.-7.jpg\")
The committee and representation<\/h2>\n
![\"Fig.](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Fig-5.jpg\")
The acquisitions committee: an institution<\/h2>\n
The fight to regain lost ground<\/h2>\n
![\"Fig.](\"https:\/\/www.perspectivejournal.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Fig.-8.jpg\")
1973: The committee is abolished<\/h2>\n