537

Business & Education

On display, then bottoms away at the academy

Cathy Conlon
April 7th, 2017


This article is more than 7 years old.

How a group of artists stood up to the stale sensibilities in the name of free art

Genius or smut? (photo: Wilhelm Freddie)

When the avant- garde art group Grønningen launched an exhibition at the Art Academy’s Charlottenburg venue overlooking Nyhavn in Copenhagen in January 1933, offending the public’s sensibilities was possibly the last thing this innovative band of artists had in mind.

They hired theatrical decorator Svend Johansen (1890-1970) to design and paint the exhibition poster.

Known for his provocative sense of humour, Johansen decided to shake up both the art world and the public by choosing a highly questionable motif for his poster: a voluptuous woman with a bare behind.

While such an image may seem rather innocent to us today, the year 1933 was part of an altogether more modest era. To say the poster raised a few eyebrows would be an understatement. The public was more or less used to new and innovative movements in the sometimes confusing world of art, but this was more movement than most could bear.

Public outraged
The poster was deemed “a horrifying sign of the times”, and the well-rounded maiden depicted therein characterised as “of obvious easy virtue”, and a “Jezebel … enticing us into the exhibition with unspoken promise of forbidden fruit in her provocative gaze” by disgusted citizens writing to the newspapers of the day.

Public outrage at the poster was perhaps best illustrated when members of the royal family paid an official visit to the exhibition. Responding to popular demand the police stepped in and ordered the poster’s most conspicuous element to be covered up.

Exhibition organisers were forced to capitulate. Artists Albert Naur and Hans Bendix masked out the offending posterior by pasting an advert for Jean Gaugin’s ceramics on top. Although the delicate sensibilities of many art lovers of the day were thus accommodated, the poster’s new ‘clean’ image became a source of much hilarity.

Johansen claimed to be perplexed by the reaction to the provocative buttocks. He argued that such a “motif”, as he called it, had been used in art for centuries.

A fresh coat
In fact from the 1890s onwards, the nation’s artists had become disgruntled with the direction in which art was moving. Many claimed the academy was out of tune with the mood of the times. As a result many young artists took to classes in so-called free art schools, rather than endure the staid, old-fashioned methods of the Royal Academy.

Subsequently, a group with the painter Johan Rohde at its helm banded together to form The Free Exhibition in 1892. Twenty-three years later, Grønningen was put together by a number of these ‘free’ artists rebelling against the original movement.

Grønningen’s aim was to push art to the limit. Grønningen artists, such as Harald Giersing, Olaf Rude, Edvard Weie, William Scharff and Jais Nielsen, began experimenting with Cubism during World War I.

The movement became more and more experimental, constantly pushing the boundaries of public perception and expectations. When the young Vilhelm Lundstrøm exhibited in 1918 with tree stumps mounted onto his canvases, critics moaned that now finally the concept of art had gone beyond all limits.

Fabulous Freddie
In the years that followed, other techniques were explored awakening such controversy and shock that exposed rear ends seemed like positive child’s play.

One of the nation’s first surrealists was the painter Wilhelm Freddie. In 1937 some of his works were shown at an exhibition in a gallery on what is now Copenhagen’s pedestrian street, Strøget.

In the public’s eye this was the last straw. Freddie’s dream-like scenes using sexual imagery “were nothing less than pornographic”. Just two days after the exhibition opened a band of police officers arrived and arrested Freddie and confiscated his beloved, yet controversial artworks.

The ‘offence’ cost Freddie, who was later to become a professor at the Academy of Art, his freedom for three days. The captured paintings were never returned but instead went on display at the Museum of Criminality for the next six years – in what became in its own right a popular exhibition – alongside an impressive array of murder weapons.


Share

Most popular

Subscribe to our newsletter

Sign up to receive The Daily Post

















Latest Podcast

A survey carried out by Megafon for TV2 has found that 71 percent of parents have handed over children to daycare in spite of them being sick.

Moreover, 21 percent of those surveyed admitted to medicating their kids with paracetamol, such as Panodil, before sending them to school.

The FOLA parents’ organisation is shocked by the findings.

“I think it is absolutely crazy. It simply cannot be that a child goes to school sick and plays with lots of other children. Then we are faced with the fact that they will infect the whole institution,” said FOLA chair Signe Nielsen.

Pill pushers
At the Børnehuset daycare institution in Silkeborg a meeting was called where parents were implored not to bring their sick children to school.

At Børnehuset there are fears that parents prefer to pack their kids off with a pill without informing teachers.

“We occasionally have children who that they have had a pill for breakfast,” said headteacher Susanne Bødker. “You might think that it is a Panodil more than a vitamin pill, if it is a child who has just been sick, for example.”

Parents sick and tired
Parents, when confronted, often cite pressure at work as a reason for not being able to stay at home with their children.

Many declare that they simply cannot take another day off, as they are afraid of being fired.

Allan Randrup Thomsen, a professor of virology at KU, has heavily criticised the parents’ actions, describing the current situation as a “vicious circle”.

“It promotes the spread of viruses, and it adds momentum to a cycle where parents are pressured by high levels of sick-leave. If they then choose to send the children to daycare while they are still recovering, they keep the epidemic going in daycares, and this in turn puts a greater burden on the parents.”