Canadian Academy Discover, Publish, Thrive
This paper explores the debate surrounding a ten-year loan agreement between the National Museum in Norway and the Fredriksen Family Art Company Limited, examining the criticism it faced upon its public disclosure in June 2019. By analyzing media coverage during the heated debate, the study investigates the underlying dynamics and reasons behind the controversy. It highlights how Norway’s cultural values of egalitarianism and strong state support for the arts contributed to the contentious nature of the collaboration.
In recent years, there has been a significant rise in private art collectors, leading to their growing influence in the contemporary art world, particularly through donations to public museums or the establishment of private museums. This influence is evident through various means such as donations, sponsorships, partnerships, or loans of artworks, sparking debates regarding the distinct interests involved. Critics express concerns that private collectors may shape the future canon of art based on personal tastes rather than scholarly considerations, potentially shifting public heritage into private hands. This trend towards privatization of culture is exemplified by instances like François Pinault’s substantial support impacting the Centre Pompidou in France or private collectors’ influence on Norwegian museums. Factors contributing to this trend include a rise in private art collections, purchasing crises in public museums, and a shift from state to private financing. This shift from public to private financing is observable not only in business-oriented Anglo-American museums but also in traditionally public-oriented European institutions. While Nordic countries maintain significant state subsidies for museums, there’s pressure to engage in more public-private collaborations. However, controversies arise, as seen in debates over collaborations like the National Museum’s agreement with the Fredriksen Family Art Company Limited in Norway, highlighting tensions between private influence and public interests in the arts sector.
Marcel Mauss’s theory of gift-giving emphasizes reciprocity as fundamental to social bonds, as seen in Ane Moe’s study of how donations and deposits affect museums’ autonomy. Moe found that while donations enrich museum collections permanently, deposits add symbolic value temporarily. Pierre Bourdieu and Hans Abbing further explore the transformation of gifts into prestige and financial capital in the art world, with Abbing noting the influence of donors on art companies. However, the integration of private capital in art funding risks discord within the art community, as some view it as compromising artistic integrity. Victoria Alexander highlights concerns about corporations cleansing reputations through art sponsorship. Understanding these dynamics sheds light on criticisms surrounding collaborations like the one involving the Fredriksen family, against the backdrop of Norway’s art patronage history.
Historian Bodil Stenseth examines the history of art patronage in Norway from 1770 to 1970, finding that the tradition of donating to public institutions was limited among wealthy Norwegians. Unlike Denmark and Sweden, Norway lacked a strong aristocracy or royal art collection. While some individuals like Olav Schou and Christian Langaard made significant one-time donations to the National Gallery, there wasn’t a consistent tradition. Private funds, including those from groups like Friends of the National Gallery, played a crucial role in acquiring foreign artworks. Subsequent major donations by figures like Rolf Stenersen, Sonja Hennie, and Niels Onstad marked a shift, with donors often insisting on the creation of dedicated museums. However, it wasn’t until the late 20th century that private collectors gained significant visibility, reshaping Norway’s art scene and challenging the dominance of publicly funded institutions.
Critics argue that the Fredriksen sisters’ collaboration with the National Museum extends beyond public service, suggesting financial and social motives. By displaying art at the museum, the Fredriksen Family Art Collection (FFAC) could acquire pieces at reduced costs and enhance their value through association. Public validation from institutions like the museum elevates private collectors’ status, adding cultural and symbolic capital. Some view the collaboration as a capital conversion rather than genuine cultural sponsorship. Concerns arise over potential compromises to the museum’s autonomy and artistic integrity due to private influence, although research suggests private sponsors typically prioritize audience engagement over curatorial control. The National Museum asserts that the collaboration allows for mutual contribution to the collection, unlike a simple donation.
The controversy over art museum funding from potentially tainted sources, such as the Fredriksen family, parallels past protests against partnerships with entities like the Sackler family and British Petroleum. Critics highlight John Fredriksen’s controversial business history and tax practices, raising ethical concerns about institutions endorsing loans from such figures. This debate reflects a global discourse on wealthy corporations supporting museums, though less contentious than previous cases like BP and Tate. Opposition to the Fredriksen agreement stems from concerns about their values conflicting with Norwegian norms of equality and skepticism towards private actors in public spaces. Similar controversies have arisen around private initiatives in Oslo and donations to art museums, where wealthy collectors face backlash for perceived elitism and flaunting of wealth, challenging Norway’s egalitarian culture.
In the media discourse, critics used various terms like “consulting firm,” “American conditions,” and “privatization” to highlight private influence in the National Museum, portraying it negatively due to the perceived clash between art and commerce. This criticism stems from Bourdieu’s concept of disavowal of the economy. Additionally, critics, particularly on the left, tend to attribute issues in the arts to capitalism. Conservatives, however, raise concerns about ridiculing art collectors involved in public-private collaborations, fearing it may deter future donations. Advocates of such agreements downplay commercial aspects, framing them as philanthropy, echoing Bourdieu’s observation that the art business often operates by actors pretending not to engage in commercial transactions.
The Norwegian state’s historical neglect of acquiring international art has led to private entities filling the void in augmenting the National Museum’s global collection, with many Norwegian-collected artworks ending up abroad. Support from the FFAC has enabled the museum to showcase otherwise unattainable artworks, aligning with the government’s aim to elevate the museum’s international stature. This mirrors a broader trend seen in cultural policies, including investments in institutions like the Norwegian Opera & Ballet and MUNCH, aimed at bolstering Norway’s global cultural presence. Government support for culture has shifted from fostering national identity to enhancing Norway’s cultural and business brand, reflecting a broader trend of using culture to boost both national and international image and generate economic benefits. By exhibiting international art akin to the Fredriksen collection, the National Museum aims to enhance its global cultural tourism appeal, leveraging the social value of art.
This paper examines the controversy surrounding the partnership between Norway’s National Museum and the FFAC, Norway’s wealthiest family, raising concerns about ethical implications regarding tax issues. Critics argue that the collaboration could inflate the value of the Fredriksen collection, granting undue influence over museum content. However, defenders assert the collaboration’s potential to enhance the museum’s international standing and provide access to renowned artwork for the Norwegian public. The debate underscores broader challenges in museum management, emphasizing the need for clear communication and precise agreements to mitigate conflicts. As financial constraints persist for public museums and private collectors amass more wealth, such collaborations are likely to become increasingly common, highlighting the need for careful navigation of public-private partnerships.
Source:
Ida Uppstrøm Berg & Håkon Larsen (2024) Public art and private wealth: the controversial collaboration between the National Museum in Norway and Fredriksen Family Art Company Ltd, Museum Management and Curatorship, DOI: 10.1080/09647775.2024.2312576