Kurdish artist Ahmet Ogut has asked the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam to remove his installation Bakunin’s barricade (2015–22) from the display, amid a deepening row over the terms of the purchase agreement accompanying the work.

The sculpture is a barricade made of fences, wrecked cars, construction materials and other debris. 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 National Museum’s collection in front of the barricades, reasoning that the Soldiers the Prussians would not dare destroy these expensive works of art”.

Stedelijk acquired and displayed Bakunin’s barricade in 2020, and now incorporates works by Nan Goldin, Kazimir Malevich, and Käte Kollwitz, among other artists. According to Ogut, the purchase contract states that “the barricade can be requested and deployed in economic, social, political, transformational moments and extreme social movements,” a condition confirmed by a Stedelijk spokesperson.

However, in a statement posted online yesterday, Ogut claims that in June the Stedelijk “refused” to lend Bakunin’s barricade to a group of activists who planned to use the work to “protect student demonstrations against the Gaza genocide from police brutality.”

A statement from the group, known as the Not Surprised Collective and made up of cultural workers, artists and activists, confirm that their request was to use the barricade to “protect student protesters from police brutality”. The statement continued: “We are deeply concerned about the ongoing genocide and human rights violations against the Palestinian people.”

The war intensified when the Not Surprised Collective criticized the Stedelijk, saying in a statement that “the museum set out to build Bakunin’s barricade in the public space in front of the Gerrit Rietveld Academy, but without using a selection of original works of art of considerable economic and cultural value.”

The statement continued: “The museum invoked a remarkable clause in the contract which stated that reproductions could also be used. Moreover, the museum proposed to use the reproductions without disclosing this, which would effectively constitute a forgery.”

Stedelijk responded in a statement: “Although the contract offers the option of using reproductions in place of the original artworks, the collective rejected this possibility as it would be ‘too performative’ for them.” They have also informed us that they will not accept our invitation to organize a public program 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 “collides with an integral part of our mission and values: to take responsible care of our collection and 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 are trying to further limit the museum’s obligation to issue a public statement explaining any justified refusal in relation to their code of ethics”. Crucially, he adds: “Although the museum legally owns the work, I expect them to respect both the integrity of the artwork and my role as author.”

The Stedelijk spokesperson says: “As far as we are concerned, we are still talking about adjustments to the existing contract. To be clear: We are not seeking to limit our obligation to issue a public statement in the event of a loan application being denied.”

For now, the work is on display as it was presented 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 this regard.”