bioproposalhttp://www.iaspis.com/craft
I’m thinking a lot about what I would like to focus on for my part. As you all know my main issues are the image of “swedish-ness”, taste, gender and internationalization. I make no difference if I write a text; make an exhibition or a lecture. This has led me to work within institutions (not only criticize them from the outside) the last 3 years. My main interest within CM and CiD is to find new ways of exchange. Today in Sweden we see culture lending itself to the branding of the nation, but what do artists get in return?
Culture is used like something fluffy and nice, something that should promote Nation branding instead of developing exchange and grater understanding. No football player would promote a shoe or a soda for free, but culture should be grateful for being used in political ways. And culture is being measured like a competition, most visitors, and most hits on Google etc. I think this way of thinking is a dead end street. But in Sweden the old idea of “Folkhemmet” the perfect society and family, the social democrat 1960 way of thinking of culture is very strong. Culture that is not for “everyone” is considered elite in a bad way. In the same time things that do not measure up to the dream of Swedish-ness is not being let in, promoted or funded. Now politicians are mixing that 1960 ideology with management strategies seen in Tony Blair’s Britannia. Somehow bizarre in my way of thinking.
At the same time in Sweden the government gives money to Craft in Dialogue, and this is a unique project even within Sweden. They let me and Päivi do a research and development project for 3 years and we strongly say no to Nation Branding.
I can go on about this for more than 24 h, so please you need to stop me…. Otherwise only a monologue..
Any thought on this?