Art for Government Building 6 (R6)

Hilde Skjeggestad

In the autumn of 2014, after many years of work, a kind of line is being drawn beneath the art project for Government Building 6 (R6), even though not everything is quite as it should be.

Pic

Vanessa Baird ©, Lenge gikk jeg tidlig til sengs, 2013. Photo: Trond A. Isaksen / KORO

Many people will have heard that the Ministry of Health and Care Services (HOD) refused to accept the concluding section of Vanessa Baird's monumental work for R6. Public Art Norway (KORO) responded by threatening to withdraw the entire work, including the paintings in the press room on the ground floor and those in the ministerial section of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (LMD) on the third floor. The dispute was widely covered in the media in news items, editorials, commentaries and opinion pieces. Even the foreign press reported the story. Eventually, an agreement was reached which involved temporarily locating the painting originally intended for the HOD in the administrative section of the Norwegian Cultural Council, while the two paintings that had already been hung in R6 were allowed to remain. The long-term plan is to bring the entire work together in a single building. Some people will remember that, back in 2010, there was also opposition to the plans for an outdoor project at R6. In that case, the matter was resolved and the project was completed as planned. But what was this really all about?

This article seeks to describe the background to the art project at R6. What kind of place is the Government Quarter? And what was the basis for the choices made by the responsible Art Committee?

Background

Work on the art project for R6 began in 2007. KORO was designated as the owner of and contractor for the work, and the project was scheduled in accordance with the guidelines for art in government buildings. As was usual, the Art Committee, whose task it was to oversee the production of the project, consisted of one representative for the contractor, the architect, two representatives for the building's occupants and two art consultants – Ane Hjort Guttu and myself, who also chaired the committee. In addition, the Committee was monitored by an observer from the Government Administration Services (Departementets sikkerhets- og serviceorganisasjon) (DSS) throughout its work period. The art budget was NOK 9m, including administrative costs.

R6 is located in the so-called Government Quarter at Hammersborg in Oslo. It stands on the west side of Akersgata, towards the edge of the central quarter. The building's main entrance is at Teatergata 9, on the corner of Munchsgate and Teatergate. In front of the building is an open space that serves as a kind of entrance forecourt to the Government Quarter from that part of town.

The terrorist attack of 22 July 2011 changed the familiar face of the Government Quarter. The buildings R3, R4, the Highrise and Y-block all suffered extensive damage and have not been in use as offices since. R6, which at that point was still under construction, suffered only minor damage. But the attack changed the entire nature of the Government Quarter. What had formerly been an open and functional ensemble of office blocks was changed to an area characterised by conspicuous security and surveillance measures. Although the attack did not result in the direct termination of the art projects, it did affect the context in which the works would be read.

The Art Committee's priorities at the start of the project

The task of the Art Committee in such a project is more demanding than many people realise. It involves commissioning new art of the highest quality for a public space, works that will be judged by both their contemporaries and future generations. Moreover, the task is undertaken on behalf of the general public.

When we began our work, the construction project was still at an early stage. Consequently, we had the time to "push ahead at leisure". The initial meetings for a project of this kind are particularly important. One has to get to know both the task and the team. The various members of the committee assume – or should assume – different roles, but it is the committee as a whole that has to formulate its goals and strive for the best possible result. This requires courage and constructive contributions from all involved. It takes time to work out the right approach and to decide what really matters. Anyone who has worked with this kind of process will know the fear of a dynamic developing which they no longer entirely control, or of ending up with a result they cannot wholeheartedly endorse. A good process depends on a high degree of trust. One has to endure the uncertainty of not knowing for sure where things are going, and everyone needs to be (reasonably) confident that the decisions that are made are the result of correct and approved procedures. This is necessary if there is to be any hope of a good result, but also in order to ensure the work doesn't collapse in the first gust of wind, or at the first hint of opposition. One has to believe in what one does.

The Art Committee for the R6 project began its work with a series of three whole-day seminars: one about art, one about the institutional context, and one about the building and the physical setting. One of the most important things for us consultants was to get a good understanding of the kind of place the Government Quarter is, both as a centre of power under the Norwegian Constitution, as a workplace, and as a historical and physical locality. We were given a tour of the other buildings and looked at the art that already adorns the district. Although it is not something one might think about on a daily basis, the various government buildings – like art – are products of the era when they are built and reflect the ideals, visions and/or preferences of that period. Some of the Government Quarter buildings were more radical than others in their own day, but they all reflect something, as indeed R6 already does and will do in the future. As its starting point, the Art Committee chose to emphasise the aspect of being situated in our own time. One important goal for us was that the works should be independent and distinctive as art, rather than instrumental to other purposes.

R6 is first and foremost a political building, and like everything else, the work carried out here is influenced by the forces currently shaping society. Of these, the one we identified as most significant at that stage of construction was globalisation. The policies enacted by the government are influenced by global decision-making processes, fluctuations in the world economy, migration, war and conflict, international conventions and supranational bodies. The impact of all these factors is felt in the offices of the HOD and the LMD, which R6 was designed to house. This global perspective also brings the role of art into sharper focus; given the problems that resonate around the world, the potential of art as a form of free expression assumes particular significance. Although art isn't always as free as we might want it to be, it is inherently inclined to strive for that condition, to claim for itself a space it can inhabit without being judged or condemned. The critical test of democracy is the extent to which citizens can speak freely about the society of which they are a part.

The Art Committee for R6 formulated its goal as follows: "The artworks should be accorded space in virtue of their condition as creative statements."

The formulation that the artworks should be accorded space applies in both the literal and the figurative senses. In the literal sense, it entails the choice of locations where the art will not conflict in any serious way with other functions of the building, and where the architectural situation is obviously suitable. Art is important and should be placed where it can function well. In addition, we stressed that the locations for the art should be places frequented by many people and/or of major symbolic significance. The committee discussed this latter criterion at great length before reaching internal agreement. It is a rule of thumb that publicly funded art projects should be located where they will be seen by as many people as possible, rather than in spaces seen by only "the few". In our case, the burning issue was whether or not we should commission works for the ministerial sections of the two occupant authorities. Architecturally, both sections contained attractive areas with large concrete walls that offered 6 x 6m of unobstructed space. These parts of the building are frequented by relatively large numbers of people, yet they are not accessible to "all and sundry". In addition to those who work there, they are visited by delegations on specific missions. These often consist of politicians and international guests on the higher rungs of the social ladder, but also representatives of various interest groups and ordinary citizens whom the cabinet or other ministers wish to meet.

Having finally decided to use these wall surfaces for an art project, the Art Committee presented its justification as follows:

It is important, however, for the Art Committee to emphasise that art in the Government Quarter has an indirect relevance to the Norwegian people. Although the works are not accessible to the population at large, the role of politicians as representatives of the people means that the art in this case should also possess a greater degree of representativeness than art in other public buildings. Consequently, artworks in the ministerial sections are addressed not only to those who see them on a daily basis, but perhaps just as much to those who are not present. (…) In the ministerial sections, the Art Committee sees the potential for critical art which could serve, albeit without appearing disrespectful or offensive, to raise awareness for ministers' responsibilities and positions. The art projects in the ministerial sections help to illustrate the function of art as free expression. The Committee regards such statements as a necessity not only in the public sphere, but also in the "corridors of power".

The art projects in the two ministerial sections are linked by means of a large concrete wall, which continues down into the press room on the ground floor of the building. Positioned one above the other, these three wall surfaces all belong to a load-bearing wall that rises up through the building from ground level to the roof. Thus they also highlight an interesting architectural feature. The Art Committee considered it appropriate to bridge the gap between different degrees of public access. In simplistic terms one could say that important decisions are discussed and made in secluded rooms in the ministerial sections, which are then announced to the public in the press room a few floors below.

The press room is located on the ground floor, outside the security zone, with large plate-glass walls looking onto the foyer – which itself has large plate-glass windows looking onto the square in front of the building. When we started our work, it was stated that the location and design of the press room consciously sought to reflect the government's desire to emphasise openness and transparency. The communication of policy decisions to the public should take place in the accessible outer parts of the building, where the process would be visible to passers-by. The broad back wall of the room faces out towards the public areas, and was therefore a particularly interesting location for art – the interface for communication between the powers that be and the rest of society.

The other two sites we selected for art projects were both in the most publically accessible areas. One of these was the forecourt in front of the main entrance, the other the large expanse of wall in the foyer just outside the press room. The extensive use of glass walls means that there are good visual connections between the ground-floor projects.

Pic

Do Ho Suh ©, Grass Roots Square, 2012. Photo: Trond A. Isaksen / KORO

The outdoor project

The Art Commission's procedure for selecting an artist for the outdoor project proved controversial. Opportunities for new art projects in open spaces in the city centre are rare, and it was therefore important for us that Oslo – and Norway as a whole – should consider perspectives that differ from those that already dominate our surroundings. This was a principle that informed all our decision-making, but when it came to the outdoor project, we chose to apply it by inviting only foreign artists to compete for the commission. All those to whom we extended this invitation had backgrounds that reflected a diversity very different from the standard European or American perspective. It goes without saying that our primary consideration was the potential we perceived in their respective portfolios, but we were all agreed that on arriving at certain crossroads also the Norwegian art establishment should show daring and make choices with regard to art policy that distance it from what is safe and familiar. In our view, the Government Quarter was the right place to do this. At the time, the government's own arts policy was challenging the Norwegian cultural sphere to embrace difference through the vehicle of its Year of Diversity, initiated by the then Minister of Culture, Trond Giske. And if one couldn't rise to this challenge to show courage and innovation in an art project on the government's home turf, then where else should one expect someone to do so?

In our view, the choices were well justified artistically and were in clear accordance with the guidelines issued by the client. We were therefore seriously taken aback when the (then) senior leadership of the HOD and the LMD objected to the plans and asked us either to include Norwegian artists in the process, or to start over again. They first made their feelings known in a meeting where I, as the Art Committee's chairperson, was invited to present the art plan that had recently been approved by KORO's board. I was completely unprepared for the scepticism they expressed, and for the vehemence with which they expressed it. My attempts to explain our thinking had little impact, and the conflict was eventually referred back to KORO's board. The Art Committee was then asked to rethink their approach, and had to answer questions about how they had arrived at the decisions contained in the art plan. The documents we had produced were also sent to the Ministry of Culture for review.

Pic

Do Ho Suh ©, Grass Roots Square, 2012. Foto: Trond A. Isaksen / KORO

The Art Committee stuck to its original standpoint, drawing attention to the expert assessments given in the art plan. One representative for the building's occupants dissented and suggested that one or more Norwegian artists should be included in the competition. But the Committee was united in rejecting allegations that the views of members had not been sought in the process, and that they had not unanimously accepted the choices contained in the art plan. With that, KORO's board decided that the matter was closed, and asked us to resume our work. From that point on, a representative from the Ministry of Government Administration and Consumer Affairs (FAD), who had arbitrated in the heated dispute between KORO and the ministries, was appointed to the Art Committee as an observer. This person later assumed an official position on the Art Committee, replacing the representative from the LMD. It is my firm conviction that this matter would not have been resolved without this individual's diplomatic skills. The opposition we faced was considerable. In the end, it was the following two arguments that broke the deadlock: first, that the whole process had been conducted in a formally correct manner and the plan had been approved by the competent body, in other words KORO's board; second, that at that point in time there was in fact no project to reject. The competition had not yet been held, and as with any KORO contest involving invited artists, we too reserved the right to veto projects. The jury was legally entitled not to recommend any of the proposed projects. The argument was therefore that at that stage in the process there was little risk. The outcome would be either a good project for R6, or a decision that, in order to find a good project, the work would have to be continued with a new approach.

Whether it really was the absence of Norwegian artists in the competition that people had objected to is something many of us are now inclined to doubt. There are several indications that it was the way we presented the artists' work that prompted the building's occupants to worry about what they might get – half an aircraft fuselage or some other such junk. In this respect, I must accept some of the blame for failing to take the bureaucrats' lack of knowledge about the art field sufficiently into consideration in my presentation of the artists at the aforementioned meeting. Unlike the members of the Art Committee, the bureaucrats had not been party to the foregoing process. For those of us who work with art, it goes without saying that the works an artist has previously presented in public exhibitions do not allow one to predict what he or she will propose as a permanent work for an outdoor site in Oslo. But pictures tend to trigger spontaneous and emotional responses. Once they have been seen, and the response has been felt, it is hard to "reprogramme" their reception. The worry felt by the senior bureaucrats was real, and it was this that informed their responses in the subsequent stages of the story. Another factor is that they probably didn't realise they had no authority where the art project was concerned, beyond that which they could exert via their representatives in the Art Committee. Ministries are highly hierarchical in their structure, and their senior leaders generally expect their views to be complied with.

In all, five artists/artist partnerships were invited to take part in the closed competition: Meschac Gaba, Ayse Erkmen, Song Dong & Yin Xiuzhen, Raqs Media Collective and Do Ho Suh. The Art Committee acted as jury, with support from Professor Jan Brochmann, former director of the Museum of Contemporary Art. As is well known, the winner was Do Ho Suh with his proposal Grass Roots Square. After the results were announced, the protests died down, and as far as we can tell, "everyone" is happy with the project today.

Pic

The press room. In the background: Vanessa Bairds Lyset forsvinner - bare vi lukker øynene, 2012. Photo: Hilde Skjeggestad

The indoor projects

Once the decision for the outdoor site had been made, and we had satisfied ourselves that Grass Roots Square was technically feasible, we turned our attention to finding projects for the indoor spaces. Here we decided to announce an open, international prequalification competition, in recognition of the fact that, collectively, the members of the Art Committee were already familiar with the work of almost all the artists who might be suitable. A total of 184 artists responded, covering a spectrum from amateurs to solid and relevant candidates.

For the press room and the two ministerial sections, the Art Committee eventually selected a proposal by the Norwegian artist Vanessa Baird, while the foyer project was granted to the Swedish artist Kajsa Dahlberg. Vanessa Baird was the first to be chosen. Initially, she was not at the centre of our attention; she seemed an interesting, but not entirely suitable candidate. The turnaround came as we began to appreciate the wealth of reference in her work – and in particular, that she established a connection to the Norwegian mural tradition that many people will recognise from older Norwegian public buildings. One of Vanessa Baird's central concerns in her work is the relationship between daily life, the public sphere and history, a theme she approaches with a surprising, somewhat distorted perspective. One of the works she proposed for R6 seemed to promise a reinvigoration of the fresco as a medium for narrating human affairs. In other words, it was a question not just of what Baird's work would contribute to R6, but also of the kind of dialogue her work would establish with works in existing Norwegian public buildings, such as Oslo's City Hall. Incidentally, much the same can be said of Do Ho Suh's sculpture project, which clearly paraphrases bronze public monuments.

One difficulty – or danger – with public art projects is the need of the contractors (the Art Committee, KORO) to know what they will get. Everyone agrees that it is impossible to know in advance exactly how a work will turn out, but it is expected that working drawings should give a fairly clear idea of a project, allowing one at least to imagine the final result. This might help to explain why, in the case of some artists, their proposals for public art projects seem weaker and less dynamic than the work they do otherwise. There is a tendency to trim projects too much at an early stage.

If it hadn't been for the Art Committee's strict working drawing requirements in the case of R6, Vanessa Baird's work would never have come about. She made it clear at an early stage that she was not in the habit of making preparatory drawings, preferring instead to let her work evolve organically. This is how many artistic processes function, and when procedures demand "product descriptions" at an early stage, there is a danger of missing out on many potentially important and excellent works. One work that Norway would never have acquired if such requirements were always adhered to is Hannah Ryggen's tapestry Vi lever på en stjerne (We live on a star) for the Highrise in the Government Quarter. When the building's architect, Erling Viksjø, commissioned the tapestry, Ryggen's principal conditions were that there be no requirement to supply working drawings, and that no one be allowed to see the work before it was finished.

In the case of Vanessa Baird we were able to meet halfway, with a solution that provided both parties with reassurance and elbow room. Baird sketched out a loose structure that conveyed an impression of the main composition and themes. To this the Art Committee attached a variety of written comments, while the consultants were authorised to monitor the work as it then unfolded. On a few occasions, other members of the Art Committee, or the Committee in plenum, also visited her studio. Although there were periods that we all found nerve-racking, we could see that Baird possessed both the ability and the strength to manage this difficult commission. Pictorial elements came and went. It was obvious that the process was productive, and that she knew what she was doing.

The work for the press room, the first to be completed, was duly handed over and unveiled in December 2012. As is now common knowledge, the picture raised objections in the ministries, mainly from the upper echelons of the HOD. According to them, it prompted unpleasant and distressing associations among some of the staff who had experienced the terror attack of 22 July. Responsible for this impression were some of the picture's details, such as sheets of paper wafting through the air and a depiction of the Highrise at one edge of the composition.

However, it wasn't until many months after the work had been unveiled that the media began to report these reactions. We had been prepared for the possibility of a backlash, but it took a while to make itself heard. The feedback we had received during the process, via the ministries' own representatives in the Art Committee, was that opinions differed, but it seemed that people would get used to the work. Many liked it, and among the public it was well received. Consequently, it caused some consternation internally when the ministries conveyed their concerns about the 22 July issue to the media. For some employees the negative associations were a genuine problem, but others felt they were being cast as victims in a game that had nothing to do with their well-being. The ministries, initially both the HOD and the LMD, informed KORO that they did not want to accept the works intended for their respective ministerial sections. By that time, work on the wall painting for the LMD was well advanced, while work on the one for the HOD had yet to begin. The LMD was invited to view the work in progress in the artist's studio, after which they decided to accept the picture. The HOD was offered a similar viewing, but declined. The offer was repeated later in the process. When the work was shown to the public at Kunstnernes Hus in summer 2014, the HOD had still not seen it, despite promises and assurances of full discretion. They rejected the picture without having seen it.

Pic
Pic
Pic
Kajsa Dahlberg ©, Hundre år på en arbeidsdag, 2012. Foto: Trond A. Isaksen / KORO

Kajsa Dahlberg ©, Hundre år på en arbeidsdag, 2012. Photo: Trond A. Isaksen / KORO

This was not the first time that individuals or groups of people in a client institution had reacted negatively to an artwork commissioned for their workplace. What distinguishes this case from most of the others is the rather surprising refusal of the management to acquaint themselves with the artwork, a refusal they justified by referring to the interests of their employees, i.e. by claiming it was work environment issue (and hence legitimate). But why should the management make such a point of protecting their employees against something none of them had even seen? Was this extreme and categorical reaction the most effective way to remedy the discomfort and anxiety some people claimed to feel? Isn't it so that the management shares some of the responsibility for the state's initiatives in the field of art – where from the outset they had had a say in the process via the inclusion of their representatives in the Art Committee? And do ministerial bureaucrats really believe they can freely sabotage the policies of others?

It is difficult to believe that the HOD leadership had no alternative but to act as they did. By failing to make any effort to negotiate a solution, they demonstrated that their concerns had little at all to do with the care of their employees. This was art the senior officials did not want, and they were unscrupulous enough simply to impose their will. We can assume that it wasn't specifically Vanessa Baird or 22 July that troubled them. Any other artwork that wasn't to their taste would probably have received the same treatment.

Kajsa Dahlberg's project for R6 has been somewhat overshadowed by all the media fuss; unfortunately it has also been beset by technical difficulties that have prevented it from functioning as intended during long periods. The work, which consists of texts projected onto a large concrete wall in the foyer, features slogans from the women's movement of a century ago, in other words from around 1913 when universal suffrage was introduced. Arranged in chronological order, the slogans are projected individually, so as to dominate the space for their allotted seconds, before gradually being erased and vanishing. Entitled Hundre år på en arbeidsdag (A hundred years on a working day), the full projection sequence lasts seven and a half hours. Simple but striking, it is a work that uses this one democratic movement's struggle to gain respect as a means to reflect developments in Norwegian society, while at the same time fearlessly exposing power struggles that are still ongoing today.

The situation today, hope for tomorrow

None of the three art projects in R6 enjoys ideal conditions, with the possible exception of the one in the ministerial section of the LMD. Out on the forecourt, a temporary security hut has been erected right beside Grass Roots Square. This low-lying, subdued sculpture was designed to stand on one side of the square with plenty of free space around it. There it would offer an element of surprise to anyone approaching the Government Quarter and R6 for the first time. It is still a good work and widely appreciated, but the relationship between it and its surroundings is compromised and diminished due to the conspicuous security hut. Vanessa Baird's work in the press room has, for its part, become the victim of a poorly thought-out internal redesign. The ministries have chosen not to adhere to the interior design plans that were originally drawn up for the press room, and instead to install a podium that dominates the space, obscures parts of the picture, and generally does the room and the art no favours. The visual messiness also has a negative impact on Kajsa Dahlberg's work. Thus at present, the art in R6 does not enjoy the prominent, prioritised status it deserves. If anything, it looks as if it is now being ignored because it hasn't been possible to get rid of it entirely.

The problems this art is faced with today could be solved given the necessary goodwill. It is sad that these excellent artworks have not been better received. But – and it's important to remember this – the works are now in place, and they are not going to disappear. In this respect, I consider the art projects for R6 a success, even if the indications are that we will have to wait for them to be accorded the space they deserve. This is not the first time powerful works of art have been treated unkindly by their contemporaries.

--

FACT SHEET:

Government Building 6 (R6)

Client: Statsbygg

Architect: BA arkitekter

R6 houses the Ministry of Health and Care Services (HOD) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (LMD). The Ministry of Government Administration and Consumer Affairs (FAD) has overall responsibility for government buildings, and is also the proprietor of the construction project. The Government Administration Services (DSS) has responsibility for managing art in the Government Quarter.

The art project is owned by Public Art Norway (KORO), an administrative body that answers to the Ministry of Culture (KUD). An Art Committee, which includes representatives from the various parties involved, is assigned the tasks of developing a plan for the art that will be integrated in a building and of overseeing the production of those projects. The art plan is approved by KORO. KORO appoints art consultants, while the other parties appoint their own representatives.

The HOD was represented in the Art Committee for R6 from the Committee's inception in 2007 through to conclusion of its duties in 2014. The LMD was represented from 2007 through to 2010, when the FAD took over the representation through to project completion in 2014.

 

Kunstjournalen B-post #1_15: Battle and Consensus