“Look, there it is!”, said a gray-haired lady to her husband. Just inside the ticket control at the National Museum, they had found what they were looking for: Christian Krohg’s “Leiv Eiriksson discovers America”, painted in 1893, the subject of festering debate 130 years later. After department director Stina Högkvist stated to Aftenposten that the removed picture was “colonialist”, the storm against the museum became so violent that Högkvist’s boss Karin Hindsbo ordered the picture back up on the wall, albeit only for a period of four weeks. ACT FAST: Museum director Karin Hindsbo quickly got “Leiv Eiriksson discovers America” up on the wall again. But it will only hang there for four weeks. Photo: Annika Byrde / NTB Now it appeared as a cunning move to be able to capitalize on the storm of criticism. The bench in front of the painting was full, the cafes were crowded, and all the wardrobes had been taken. Ticket revenues were probably far higher than what they would otherwise have been on a normal, sunny Wednesday during office hours. Högkvist’s statement was very unfortunate. Her inability or willingness to answer questions about her own view of art was disappointing. Moral or ideological objections are not grounds for taking down a painting in a national museum, although Hindsbo later emphasized that this was not the explanation for the picture being placed in the basement. The fact that central works from the past do not necessarily become less central, even if they are no longer completely in line with prevailing values, surely needs to be emphasized regularly. But beyond the factual criticism, Högkvist received a lot of incitement that would make even hardened ring foxes cower and beg for mercy. She and the management of the National Museum also encountered a type of argument from the country’s politicians which may not be entirely in line with the principles on which our system is based. Frps’ Silje Hjemdal asked Culture Minister Anette Trettebergstuen (Ap) to intervene, but thought she would be disappointed: “It will probably be the old tired tones about arm’s length”. In addition to that, you can say that there are countries where there is no arm’s length distance between politicians and cultural life. There, those in power can demand that pictures they like be put up on the museum walls – and works they don’t like be taken down. These usually belong in the well-worn category of “countries we don’t like to compare ourselves to”. Rødt’s Mímir Kristjánsson asked “by what right should a Danish museum director and a Swedish department head be allowed to edit the Norwegian artistic canon in the name of post-colonialism”. I don’t know how many of Högkvist’s fiercest critics have visited the second floor of the National Museum. But it is not the case that you leave with an acute and unmet need for log cabins, bunads, fjords and mountains. A large hall, “Tradisjonen tro”, is dedicated to Norwegian folk culture, costumes and customs. Tidemand’s and Gude’s wedding ceremony shines there, often, it must be said, towards relatively few visitors. It doesn’t seem like this room is the museum’s most popular. CRITICIZED: Rødt’s Mimír Kristjánsson asked by what right the museum director edited Norwegian cultural heritage. That would be the job of anyone in that position. Photo: Ole Berg-Rusten / NTB Also in the halls inside comes one Norwegian classic after another. Here is Harald Sohlberg’s moon over Rondane, Nikolai Astrup’s Midsummer bonfire, Krohg’s depictions of the distress in old Christiania. I myself have a soft spot for the small fairy tale room, where a dark and shadowy tree trunk frames Theodor Kittelsen’s illustrations of folk poetry, and makes it a magical place for children. If Högkvist and Hindsbo have joined together in a kind of Swedish-Danish woke conspiracy to crush Norwegian cultural heritage, it must be said that they have not done a particularly good job. As regards the desire to include artists who previously did not have many pictures featured in the exhibition itself, that is probably one of the reasons why a work such as Signe Scheel’s “Skrivergården” has been given a place. It’s a lovely little painting where the light filters through invisible trees and falls on a peaceful trio of women. It was not displayed in the old National Gallery. The fact that artists like Scheel have gained a more prominent presence is difficult to see as anything other than a good thing. NEW PICTURE ON THE WALLS: Signe Scheel’s “Skrivergården” did not hang up in the old National Gallery. Photo: Børre Høstland / The National Museum / Artist: Scheel Signe It was not only Kristjánsson and Hjelmdal who reacted. Young Høyre’s Ola Svenneby struck with a veiled threat of a “major clean-up” in cultural life, because “the discussion has shown how powerful cultural figures can change Norwegian culture and cultural heritage, without us, who own it, being invited into the discussion”. The insinuation in this sentence seems to be that if the museum director does the job she is set to do in a way that Svenneby does not like, she should be cleaned out or washed away. Here again, this can be recalled with the countries we are not like and do not intend to become like. As regards the concern that the leaders of Kultur-Norge in general and the National Museum in particular are too left-wing, it is also possible to mutter something that the National Museum’s chairman is not entirely without influence over the institution either. Her name is Maria Moræus Hanssen, she is also a board member of the liberal think tank Civita. The National Museum only has space to display around 6,500 of a collection of around 100,000 works. One can wonder how Svenneby envisages a kind of referendum on which 6.5 percent of the collection that should be put forward would be. But there is probably a certain danger that the people would get tired quite early in the process. Someone simply has to do the hard picking and choosing. It must be done by professionals. When it comes to such a central institution as the National Museum, there can and should be debate about how they do their job. But they must not have to defend that they do it at all. UNPRINCIPLED: Certain politicians wanted to intervene directly in the National Museum’s assessments. But the principle that politicians should have an arm’s length distance from cultural life is there for a reason. Photo: Annika Byrde / NTB As for Christian Krohg’s “Leiv Eiriksson discovers America”, Stina Högkvist should really be eager for it to stay. Where it now hangs, a few meters from Máret Ánna Sara’s reindeer skull work “Pile o’ Sápmi Supreme” from 2017, it is ironically the image’s rather weak colonialist aroma that becomes stronger, as the two images provide a positive and a negative version of what happens when people with Norwegian affiliation travel out of their original place of residence, towards new frontiers. The debate about the painting, and about Högkvist’s statements, is important and right to take. But it is marred by the fact that it has brought out the absolute worst of the Norwegian public in the comment fields. Anyone who wants to protect the Norwegian can do it in far better ways than scolding Swedes and Danes in the crudest way. An alternative, for which there are long traditions in Norwegian cultural history, could be to discuss until the factual arguments are exhausted, and then react by painting a picture. Maybe by a ship and some vikings.
ttn-69
If they have joined together in a Swedish-Danish woke conspiracy to crush Norwegian – Expression
