MEDIDAS PREVENTIVAS

In the autumn of 1962 a public debate broke out on the basis of Rabbe Enckell’s speech at the Academy entitled ‘Ikaros och lindansaren’ (Icarus and the Tightrope-walker), for which he quickly got a response from Pontus Hultén accusing Enckell and the Academy of being reactionary. As Enckell’s speech had been a defence of sorts for the continuation of classical studies, some saw this as both old-fashioned and stalemate, and questioned the openness to new ideas within the teaching at the Academy. This in turn brought attention to the methods at the Academy, which came under attack. The debate was probably initiated by Enckell’s

13_{Karlsson, ‘Den svenska konsten 1964-74’, p13}

14_{Hannerz, Jan, ‘Öyvind Fahlström and PUSS’,Efter Majrevolten – Det “stökiga” 70-talet, Ed. Elliot, David,}

von Holten, Ragnar & Gunnarsson, Annika, exhibition catalogue, Moderna Museet, 1999, p30-31

15_{Nylén,Den öppna konsten, p157}

16_{As this periodical has been discussed in detail in various publications and shown in most exhibitions of 1960-}

48 defence, but two books had been published in the early sixties that most likely also gave reason for disputes. These were Ulf Linde’s 1960 Spejare(Scouts) and Bengt Nerman’s 1962

Demokratins kultursyn(Democracy’s cultural vision). These two did not relate directly to the ‘great’ debate, but they did make it easier to question what art was and what relationship ordinary people should have with art, or art with them. Linde’s argument figured around Duchampian ideas and the birth of artwork in the viewer, the first viewer being the artist. This was often interpreted as “everything can be or become art.”17 Nylén distils Spejaredown to: “In principle, anything can be appointed by the artist / by the viewer to be seen as art, what matters is not material, technique or style, but the linguistic conventions and the communicative act. It is the viewer who makes the artwork…”18 The proposal in Nerman’s book was to identify a democratic view of art and culture, even though he was accused of Liberalism in his view of culture, one that gave in to capitalist and commercial forces, by the Social Democrats.19 In general though, the book was conceived as a plea for broad and non- hierarchical concepts of culture, which in effect led to questioning democratisation within the arts in the 1960s.

In a sense the process became incredibly democratic, involving the entire Swedish population as it went nationwide through newspaper articles and television programmes. However, it cut through the art scene like a knife with those supporting Moderna Museet and the new ‘open art’ on the one side and those that called for a more politically motivated art that distanced themselves from art without meaning as they saw it on the other side.20 By 1965 the debate had ebbed, and as Olvång has put it, “That year – 1965 – the intellectuals were cut into two halves: those who suddenly opened their eyes widely and those who closed them intensively and persistently.”21 Just as it had calmed the cultural debate got a different focus, the Vietnam War. Invigorated and appalled, the people’s movement put American imperialism, ideology and political art on the agenda, and situated the so-called aesthetic avant-garde up against political radicalism.22During 1965/6 the Swedish art scene politicised and politically themed exhibitions started taking place mostly around Odenplan, the new gallery area of Stockholm. On the question of democratic participation, certain politically

17_{Nylén,Den öppna konsten, p111} 18_Ibid.

19_{Ibid., p112}

20_{The two main opposing theoretical forces were Ulf Linde on the one side and Torsten Bergmark on the other.} 21_{Olvång,Våga se, p66}

49 motivated artists wanted the audience to engage in the issues presented in the exhibitions on a level where the viewer would not be occupied with abstract or theoretical problems but with the circumstances of the world in which they lived, forcing the audience to take a stance.

Spanien annorlunda (A Different Spain, opened 1 May 1965) was an exhibition at Galerie Observatorium about Franco’s Spain put together by the artists Karl Olov Björk, Börje Lindberg and Sigvard Olsson. As a whole it could be characterised as somewhere between an environment, a traditional art exhibition and an informative show. Outside the gallery a typical Spanish scene was set up, a palm and Taverna arrangement, but inside the show the audience was met by documentary photographs, paintings, sculptures, texts about Franco’s regime and even a garrotte. The organisers’ intention was to show the Swedish tourist the real Spain with all its ugliness and hidden monstrosities. As shocking as this exhibition was to the Stockholm audience, it was the debut of poet and artist Jarl Hammarberg that shocked the art scene.23 Vägra döda Vägra värnplikt(Refuse to Kill Refuse conscription, 1965) at Galleri Karlsson took place in January 1965. Hammarberg, who is a pacifist and conscientious objector, put up a sign on the door advertising the exhibit, which is now seen as Sweden’s first installation piece. After a few days the police came and took down the sign, which had been deemed incendiary by the Prosecutor. Hammarberg was later convicted and sentenced to pay a fine for each day the announcement had been up. Understandably this created an uproar amongst cultural workers, which was reported in the press and on television hereby ensuring the general public came to the gallery to see what the fuss was about.24

The police struck against Galleri Karlsson again, two years later in 1967, but this time they removed almost two entire editions of prints. Marie-Louise and Carl Johan De Geer exhibited mixed media at the gallery, which included painting, clothes, textiles, lithographs and photography. The morning after the exhibition opened, the police broke into the gallery and carried out all the copies they could find of two posters made by Carl Johan De Geer,

USA Mördare(USA Killer, 1967, Fig. 3.10) andSkända Flaggan Vägra Vapen(Desecrate the Flag Refuse Weapons, 1967, Fig. 3.11). De Geer was prosecuted for incitement and desecration of the national as well as a foreign national symbol. Skända Flaggan Vägra Vapen contains a Swedish flag that is seemingly burning with the word ‘kuken’ (the cock) written across the middle. Karlsson, the gallery owner, recalls that at the opening the night before the king’s aide, Vice Admiral Stig Ericson said upon seeing the poster, “That's what I

23_{Spanien annorlundahad a record breaking 5,000 people go through it in 16 days, according to Bo Karlsson}

normally an exhibition would have approximately 700 visitors.

50 always said; there is COCK in the Swedish flag.”25After this last case of ‘illegal’ activity the gallery was always visited by SÄPO (Swedish FBI) an hour after each exhibition opening. Karlsson remembers, “We named them SÄPO’s Art Association…”26

During this period the first protests against the Vietnam War took place by the establishment of groups supporting FNL in South Vietnam and art exhibitions such as

Viet/nam and Vi stöder FNL (We support FNL).27 All the exhibitions mentioned above occurred at small galleries clearly outside the establishment, which treated both artists and activists with animosity and disdain, at least in 1965-6. The discussion of art in the press had turned to more moral and political issues such as the artist’s role in society and art’s potential to influence public opinion.28 The private and the political became blurred at the end of the sixties, and in October 1967 the first anti-Vietnam War demonstrations took place across the country gathering thousands of people. By the end of the year demonstrators were seen as youthful radicals. On the 20 December, police violently clashed with demonstrators in Stockholm, inspiring the young ‘image activist’ Håkan Nyberg to make a commemoration of the day simply titled20 december 1967 (1967, Fig. 3.12). The drawing is expressive in style, with the frightened and surprised demonstrator on the left awaiting the imminent hit from the riding policeman. Nyberg depicts realistically what happened during the demonstration, the single moment when the policeman’s whip hangs in the air just about to deal the all important blow, the surprise and horror as the demonstrator looks up at the whip and realises what is about to happen. For most Swedes this incident was far removed from their collective national identity, aggressive moves against innocent people were something that happened elsewhere, not in neutral and peaceful Sweden, not in a society that considered itself inclusive of political minorities into decision-making processes. All of the action was of course caught on television and broadcast throughout the country, and the police had, in the public’s mind, no excuse. However, the end of 1967 was only the beginning of years of upheaval against society amongst a generation that had grown up after the war and were radicalised by disbelief in the egalitarianism that seemed to be failing from within. The social democratic state showed its

25_{The police burnt all of the posters they confiscated; therefore these are relatively rare today. Karlsson, ‘Den}

svenska konsten 1964-74’, p25

26_{Ibid., p26}

27_{The first FNL-group was started in Stockholm in 1965, but the movement quickly spread to the rest of the}

country, and a coalition between the groups came into effect and was named FNL-rörelsen (FNL-movement). The ad hoc movement had no other political agenda than an end to the Vietnam War, although it has been misconceived as a leftist organisation culminating in the revelation of phone tapping and espionage by the Swedish secret agency IB or Information-bureau in the late seventies. Exemplified by the so-called IB-Scandal.

28_{Sigvard Olsson encouraged debate and collaboration (or use of) with the mass media in his article ‘Konstnären}

51 fascist face through the suppression of demonstrations as well as prosecuting artists. Young idealistic students, artists and intellectuals responded with a fighting spirit.