Art and cultural institutions are not neutral

When the world is on fire, art and the institutions that manage and convey it should play a role. If not, who are we?

This is a chronicle. Any opinions expressed in the text are the responsibility of the writer. If you want to send a feature proposal, you can read how here.

At the time of writing, over 70 employees of the National Museum and more than 1,950 others have signed an open letter to museum director Ingrid Røynesdal.

Here, one asks, among other things, that the museum:

• joins calls for a cease-fire in Gaza
• contributes to preserving and disseminating Palestinian art and cultural heritage, which can also be found in the museum’s collection
• shuts down artists and employees who express support for Palestine
• boycotts artistic and financial collaborations with Israeli institutions

Several media have taken an interest in the matter. Røynesdal says to NRK: “The main line of the board and management as the National Museum is not to take a position on geopolitical conflicts. The National Museum’s vision is to make art accessible to anyone and everyone easily.”

If only it were that easy. And if only one could discard the other part of the vision to the museum at will.

When the art is not shown

The National Museum’s complete vision states that the museum “makes art accessible to everyone and each individual and reflects society and the times we live in”. What does this mean? What time do we live in now? We believe that we live in a time when art can play an important and unifying role, and we ask the museum’s management to facilitate this.

The museum management at Røynesdal and chairman Maria Moræus Hanssen have further presented their view in a debate article in Aftenposten. There they put forward the claim that the museum’s main task is “to be an arena for artistic expression, not a political actor”, and that one would otherwise risk “restricting this space of expression”.

Such a belief in museums as neutral arenas means that the management appears out of step with the art field. The numerous signatures on the open letter also testify to this.

In the post, Røynesdal and Moræus have mentioned the rest of the vision, to “reflect society and the times we live in”, and they also add “through art”. But how is art to be heard when it is not shown?

A dangerous terrain

We see with concern that the museum’s line has led to several proposals for the dissemination of a Palestinian costume from the National Museum’s collection being rejected. As if showing off a folk costume in itself could be perceived as “taking a stand” and making someone feel unwelcome. Then we end up in dangerous terrain.

No one should feel afraid to see or learn about Palestinian art and cultural heritage. If someone feels uncomfortable in the face of Palestinian art, we as a society should talk more about exactly that. It is, for example, not right that communicating Palestinian culture in itself should be interpreted as anti-Semitism.

The solution can never be to lie and deliberately withhold cultural heritage that is actually threatened. To remain silent during a genocide and the ongoing destruction of our common global cultural heritage is not neutral. Is there actually neutrality in a world that burns?

Not a neutral business

The National Museum has previously shown integrity in a geopolitical conflict.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the National Museum responded quickly. A museum wall was lit up in the colors of the Ukrainian flag, Ukrainian art was shared in the museum’s social media, attractive magazines were even made available for the storage of Ukrainian art.

In 2024, the museum management rejects proposals for programming and dissemination that can be interpreted as being relevant in some way to the genocide in Gaza or related freedom of expression issues.

While artists often stand on the barricades and fight for freedom of expression, it is the museums that decide which art is bought, exhibited, researched and preserved for posterity.

This is not a neutral business either. As artist Marianne Heier writes in Morgenbladet on 12 April: “When museums actively avoid central, topical themes and leave responsibility to individual artists and small, underfunded exhibition venues, restrictions are in effect placed on art’s space for expression. This is a serious breach of the social contract in the art field.”

Paints itself into a corner

Art and cultural institutions such as the National Museum seem to be more concerned with what they should not say, rather than what they should actually say. The management of the National Museum would probably have been wiser by inviting staff and the public to dialogue on difficult topics and to talk about how one can and should be relevant.

Large cultural institutions, especially those with new buildings costing several billion, have a lot of bureaucracy. It is easier to get approval to mark “World Horse Appreciation Day” with some of the beautiful horses in the National Museum’s collection than it is to update Palestinian art by showing works by, among others, Jumana Manna, who is also in the museum’s collection. But when the National Museum deliberately avoids disseminating relevant works of art from its own collection, they paint themselves into a corner.

How will it be in the future? Can the museum still exhibit political art and communicate this? Can one somehow respond to what is happening in the world, with current works of art from Norway’s entire art collection? In that case, what happens to the dissemination of the collection’s many political works, for example by Synnøve Persen or Victor Lind, or art with a purely conciliatory message?

There is always a “no”

Despite a lot of bureaucracy at times: Cultural institutions and the public are made up of people. People who despair when children die in the ruins of their own home, and by young people who shout that they want a world they can live on in the future. People who have known racism and other forms of oppression on the body. If we who work in cultural institutions do not reflect this in some way, then who are we?

“Allereie” in October, the International Council of Museums, the international member organization for museums and museum workers, expressed concern about the war and the call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Without saying it particularly loudly, after pressure, the National Museum has recently backed both this and the statement for the protection of cultural heritage that the Museums Association adopted at its annual meeting on 24 April. A joyful development and a commitment that obliges.

As colleagues in the National Museum, we have something important in common:

We have wanted to work in a city which, among other things, has a rich collection and world-class exhibitions. In the collection and in the exhibitions we find stories about human dignity, Palestine, Israel, indigenous rights, women’s freedom struggle, racism, queer liberation, love and freedom of expression. All this art has also been “no”. By raising these stories, institutions such as the National Museum can actually become more relevant.

Because one thing is certain: art will not be accessible to everyone and anyone if it is not communicated.

Camilla Frøland Sramek, curator dissemination
Ellisiv Brattfjord, senior communications advisor
Geir Haraldseth, curator collection
Hannah Vickers, conservator
Håkon Lillegraven, curator dissemination
Ida Hove Solberg, text editor
Ingvild Hammervoll, curator dissemination
Kachun Lay, tour guide
Lisa Andrine Bernhoft-Sjødin, adviser on artistic events
Malin Rebekka Bakken, service coordinator
Marius Wang, exhibition technician
Mei Silja Szetu, coordinator exhibition on tour
Solveig Ane Kirkaune Øksendal, foreman
Victoria Bugge Eye, curatorial collection