At the end of the week Anna Eriksson claims that everything in the art field is meaningless – but what is she aiming with her cannon?

There have always been doomsday prophets in art, whose mission is above all to save themselves, writes Suna Vuori, a journalist and cultural communications entrepreneur, in her column.

Suna Mountain

Yle released in April on his website a formerly known singer, now making feature films Anna Eriksson short interview, whose sound weights attracted attention. Eriksson spoke in great words about the gamblers of capitalism and the surrender of artists without a struggle.

“We live in terrible times. Our culture has never been on a similar trough. And I don’t think we’ll get up from there anymore. “

However, this was only a warm-up. In May, Eriksson were interviewed on the same agenda to Yle Radio 1, and two days later Veikkaus released personal interview, in which the artist was described as a dominant “modern witch”. In June too Helsingin sanomat newspaper grabbed Eriksson.

In all the interviews, it became clear that Eriksson is very, very angry. And why? Because art, he takes seriously, is losing its meaning, he said.

Eriksson the outputs met the needs of an annoying media and cultural bubble, although the artist himself probably thought he was on a crusade for authentic art.

Some of the Artists did stumble at her – “Je suis Anna Eriksson” – but quite a few seemed annoyed by the claims, or at least wondered. In the art audience, the interviews were shared and commented on quite enthusiastically because what Eriksson said felt from the right.

I understand Mr Eriksson’s frustration very well and I find his criticism of emptiness and equalization largely appropriate. The art of wanting to appeal to everyone doesn’t appeal to just anyone in the end.

Instead of the contents and goals of art, there is a lot of publicity focused on the artist. And even if there is a reason for it due to the attention and market economy, the space for movement in art in society is becoming quite cramped. The constraints on gathering during the pandemic and the political decisions regarding the future funding of the arts have made the low appreciation of the cultural sector quite concrete.

Anna Eriksson also deliberately countercurrently in the current debate on inclusion, questioning the forced branding of artists and the tips of marketing entertainment.

However, I do not get a fair grip on Eriksson’s generalizations, nor on what he is aiming for with his cannon. To the “technological neo-fascism” of the intelligent devices that deplete humanity mentioned in several interviews, ok, but in art?

Are we talking about aesthetics and ways of working or the themes and contents of the works? About art education, the motives of artists or the preconditions for the operation of art institutions? The thinning of meanings or the ignorance of interpreters? Everything could and should be discussed.

According to the interviews, almost everything in the current art world is hell, Eriksson thinks – except what auteur Anna Eriksson does (auteur is French and means creator, self-created factor).

It takes quite a hard poke to put one’s own art – which is only a few – on a pedestal and the norm of one’s conception of art and claim everything else is wrong or harmful. However, Eriksson has been allowed to be blinded by his statements “Everything in the art field is utterly bland” and to bark at, among other things, exhibitions he has not even seen.

There is nothing new in itself. In past decades, especially in the late 1990s, similar declarations were erupted primarily by men who were dazzled by their own talent. And even then, we journalists did not always know how to demand justifications, clarifications, clearer analysis or concrete examples.

Is it’s hard to avoid thinking of Eriksson as a kind of art awakening. He has made it quite clear in his interviews what he thinks of his successful percussion career (just shit), and now he wants appreciation in European art film circles.

The transition is big, and Eriksson may feel he needs strong weapons for the transformation. But precision suffers. Maybe he feels the need for heavy weapons for this transformation, but precision suffers.

In his work as a social counterweight to art, Eriksson is like an omniscient art student. Eriksson may have relied on all art only to find that most of it is not interesting. Deeply disappointed, he waves the stamp ax no matter where he hits. In one fell swoop all the art, in the other artists, in the third museums and others. Eggless rubbish!

Many of Eriksson’s arguments contradict how he himself acts.

He criticizes media sexiness even though he gives interviews that are himself. He declares himself an elitist but speaks vaguely and emotionally, that is, as a populist.

He declares that he admires the sperm blender of the ancient ARS95 exhibition, when in reality his conception of art and artist is shamelessly romantic – glorifying the genius that opens up to the few, the mystery of art and the mythical artist.

However, this is exactly what I think is something that also appeals to people. As if that artist lacked a sense of self-defense! After all, no one today talks about, completely devoid of (self) reflection! He is looking for the truth!

Hesarin in an interview, the artist stated that we have not seen anything yet.

It seems a little. Anna Eriksson Auteur In a text posted on his Facebook page on June 23, he speaks in a preacher’s decision to his disciples about the truth:

“You will be told, perhaps already told, that you live in the past, that you are negative, that the truth is relative. These are the sentences of deniers and fugitives. Their reward is momentary. Yours, eternal. ”

Art critics are often accused of finding new messiahs. Maybe Eriksson wants to be the next one?



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: