Kunstinstitusjonens fremvekst – et resultat av statens kunstpolitikk?

The historical development of the field of art – a result of art policy?[i] Et innlegg på et internasjonalt seminar, ukjent år. Trolig rundt 2006.

There is a widespread opinion in Nordic cultural research circles that public cultural policy started in the late 1960s or early 1970s. My participation in the Norwegian research project “Norsk kulturpolitikk 1814-2014” (Norwegian cultural policy 1814-2014)[ii] has convinced me that this is wrong. Norwegian cultural policy started the moment the country had political independence, with its own constitution, parliament and government, that is in 1814, when Norway was separated from Denmark[iii]. Cultural policy is central to a nation-state, because the building of an internally shared and internationally acknowledged cultural policy is part of building a sovereign nation-state.

My contribution to the project has been a study of the art policy, that is, the national policy towards the visual arts, particularly painting and sculpture. The point of departure was a study of the art academies as they were founded in most European countries in late 1800^th and early 1900^th century, and in Denmark in 1754. Almost all academies were, like the one in Copenhagen, founded and governed by the state, and as such an expression of art policy. Most art academies performed a substantial number of functions during most of the 1900^th century:

as art societies they should develop and spread the good taste in art.
they organised painters, sculptors, printers, architects and other artists within the field of “the fine arts” in an autonomous artist organisation. “Academy” was its name.
the academy, that is, its artist and other members, was an arts council that councilled the government in all questions of aesthetic nature.
the academy was responsible for the art school, where all artisans had to send their apprentices. The school was common for both would-be artisans and artists.
the academy was responsible for the higher education of painters, sculptors, printers, architects and others, after they had succesfully completed the art school.
because the education both at art school level and artistic level was based on copying, the art academies had to collect works of art – in original or copies, and therefore became a force behind the founding of public art collections and the teaching of art history.
the academies developed the medium of regular art exhibitions with works made in the art school, in order to present the results of pupils, and to arrange competitions among them.
one of these exhibitions became the “salon”, the regularly held juryed exhibition were young artists sought fame and recognition through the distribution of medals, prizes and honorable mentions.
the art academies were normally the first institution to build specialised exhibition rooms, the exhibition halls often called “galleries”.
members of the academy functioned as the national jury, deciding which artists to send abroad for representative purposes; they juryed national exhibitions; decided on which artists to engage for public works etc.
the academy, as national grant commitee, also dispensed the scholarships or grants made available for studies abroad.

The emergence of the art academies coincides with the historical development of the moderne institution of art. Alle these functions of the early art academies are, in a sociological sense, necessary elements of the modern field of art. Most of them are essential to to creation and maintenence of symbolic power, the ability to consecrate. Since all these functions originated with the art academies, two conclusions seem plausible: first, that the establishment of art academies in late 1800^th and early 1900^th century were instrumental for the emergence of the modern autonomous field of art; the second, that since most art academies were state owned, the modern field of art is a (non-intended) consequence of art policy.

The traditional art academy is situated on the border between the emerging field of art and the world of politics. It dominated both the field of art and the field of art policy, creating a art policy regime, dominated by an elite of artists – the academy. Control or dominance of these central art field functions may also come into the hands of other agents than the art academies. Whenever one can find a particular group in control of these functions, a control acceptet by the government, we have got an instance of an art policy regime. In my study of the history of art policy in Norway, I have identifyed four different art policy regimes: an academy regime between 1818 and 1869; an public official regime between 1869 and 1884, with public officials in command of most of these functions; a renewed academy regime between 1884 and late 1970s, controlled by an elitist artist organisation; a trade union like non-elitist and democratic artist organisation up to the beginning of the 1990s. This last trade union regime is now almost dissolved, giving place to a regime of professional curators.

Curators, both in institutions and working free lance, are now the preferred profession commanding a growing number of the positions of symbolic power within the heavily state controlled and financed Norwegian field of art.

[i] The concept “art” is her limited to the visual arts of art academies, art museums and art galleries.

[ii] The research project started in 2002, and is led by professor in history at the University of Oslo, Hans Fredrik Dahl. Thirteen researchers are contributing in the project. Their results are under publication, with a total 18 books published by Unipub. In 2006, a final overview of the project will be published, written by Hans Fredrik Dahl and the historian Tore Helseth at the University College of Lillehammer.

[iii] Norway, as a separate state, lived in a union with Sweden with a common king and foreign policy from 1814 to 1905, then becoming a separate kingdom.

| Til toppen |