Issuu

UTENFOR RAMMENE

Signe Endresen

Ludvig Karsten (1876–1926) var en av sin tids mest feirede kunstnere, men er gradvis blitt marginalisert i kunsthistorien etter sin død. Grunnene er flere. Som kunstner er han ofte blitt identifisert som «kolorist» eller som Edvard Munchs disippel.1 Slik har han kommet til å fremstå som utydelig, uselvstendig og lite innovativ. En rastløs livsførsel og personlighet har også bidratt til å skyve ham ut i margen. Karsten skal ha snakket raskt, var stadig på reisefot og var kjent for sitt oppfarende temperament. Produksjonen hans er blitt forstått i forlengelse av dette, som utslag av ustadighet og nykker, heller enn et klart kunstnerisk prosjekt.

Denne publikasjonen ser med nye øyne på Ludvig Karsten. Frem trer et kunstnerskap preget av rastløs søken etter nye formspråk, en åpen – ofte rå og vill – eksperimentering med materialer og en livslang intens dialog med kunsthistorien. Jeg vil påstå at nettopp det som har gjort Karsten så vanskelig å plassere kunsthistorisk, gjør ham relevant for vår egen tid: Med en unik vilje til endring utforsket og utfordret han hele tiden sin egen kunstneriske identitet.

Fra bejublet til margina�iser�

Karsten solgte det meste av det han produserte. Han ble av kritikere og kunstkjennere omtalt i svært rosende ordelag. Ifølge Dagbladets markante kunstkritiker Jappe Nilssen var Karsten en av de fremste kunstnerne, en «maler av Guds naade».2 Han mente at Karsten malte mesterverk som i fremtiden ville stå med gullbokstaver i vår kunsthistorie, og at han ville bli sett som et unikum i norsk malerkunst.3 Kritikeren i Verdens Gang skriver om Karstens malerier at «[…] make til fandenivoldskhet er endnu ikke set i norsk kunst, selv i Munchs vildeste mareridt».4

Bildet som tegnes av Karsten nesten hundre år senere er imidlertid et annet, og han er i dag lite synlig i norske museer. Man finner ham i oversiktsverk om perioden etter 1900, men kunstnerskapet hans omtales gjerne som et sidespor, som ikke bidro vesentlig til norsk kunsthistorie. Og det er mer hans personlighet og livsførsel enn kunsten som ser ut til å prege ettertidens syn på ham. I Norges malerkunst (1993) omtales hans rastløshet som en «hvileløs vandring», og det brukes uttrykk som at han «virret videre».5 Gunnar Danbolt skriver i oversiktsverket Norsk kunsthistorie (1998) om det negative synet de norske kunstnerkollegaene hadde på Karsten. Det at «Karsten – ikkje heilt edru – i 1926 stupte utfor ei parisisk trapp og blei drepen, styrkte

dei i synet på forholdet mellom det dei oppfatta som laus form i måleriet og eit lausaktig liv».6 Er det noe ved hans kunstnerpraksis som kan ha påvirket hans posisjon i kunsthistorien?

Selvkritisk og fryktet

Karsten hadde tidlig en sterk utferdstrang. Fra sine første reiser til utlandet som 19-åring var han nesten kontinuerlig på reise frem til 1900/1901. Det er vanskelig å følge ham,7 men han skal ha vært i Roma, München, Palermo, Messina, Istanbul og Madrid. Spania hadde en egen tiltrekningskraft på Karsten, og under et lengre opphold i 1897 besøkte han både Córdoba, Granada, Sierra Nevada og Cádiz, for det meste til fots.8 Disse reisene til Spania vitner om en forfriskende individualisme.

Karstens kunstneriske produksjon bærer preg av en sterk selvsensur, særlig i starten av hans virke. Det eksisterer få tegninger og skisser fra hans hånd frem til 1905/06. Først fra 1909 er det bevart et rikelig antall malerier. Det vitner om en kunstner som stilte strenge krav til seg selv tidlig i karrieren. Dette underbygges av de som kjente ham, som hans venn og kunstkritiker Pola Gauguin: «De kravene Karsten stilte til seg selv, var i virkeligheten så store at han aldri falt til ro i sin kunst. Hadde han nådd et resultat han selv var tilfreds med, hadde han alltid en følelse av at nå gjaldt det å komme videre og høyere opp. Det var en streng disciplin han selv hadde lagt seg på og det ble derfor en tung vei han måtte tråkke opp for å nå frem til målet».9

Karsten som person fremstår som full av motsetninger. Jens Thiis og Pola Gauguin beskriver Karsten som sammensatt. Han skal ha vært impulsiv, abrupt og hastig i sine beslutninger.10 Samtidig beskrives han som revolusjonær og provoserende, stadig eksperimenterende og i konstant utvikling og endring.11 Pola Gauguin beskrev hans sinn som todelt; det skal ha skiftet mellom ømhet og raseri.12 Og selv om Karsten kunne fremstå som impulsiv, fremhevet Gauguin at han var selvstendig og hardt arbeidende.13

Karsten var kjent og fryktet for sin skarpe tunge. Ifølge Jappe Nilssen skal han ha frydet seg når han oppdaget det han oppfattet som svakheter eller dumheter hos andre. Nilssen legger ingenting imellom når han karakteriserer Karsten: «Man burde være godt rustet, før man indlot sig i nogen farlig debat med ham; hans tunge var skaanselsløs, og hans replik kunde være ikke bare saarende, men ofte likefrem dræpende».14 Karsten skal ha vært tilfreds når han ergret publikum eller ertet på seg

kritikk, sensasjonslysten og ondskapsfull med sitt vidd. Men samtidig takknemlig som et barn når han ble forstått, og trofast mot de som hadde lært ham noe verdifullt.15

Karstens egen holdning til sin rolle som kunstner var avvisende overfor forklaringer og teoretisering. I et intervju i Nationen i 1921 uttaler han: «Mine billeder sier hvad jeg har set. Og dermed har hverken jeg eller mine billeder mere at si. Jeg er maler og ikke taler. Har De forstaat? Hvis De endelig skal interviewe nogen, faar De henvende Dem til mine malerier. Hvis ikke De faar svar der, er det Deres egen skyld».16 Verkene skulle tale for seg selv, uten kunstnerens egne ord som mellomledd. Karstens individualisme, uforutsigbarhet og motstanden mot kategorisering gjør ham vanskelig å plassere, men rastløsheten hans gjør ham også spesielt interessant for oss i dag. De konstante endringene og utforskningen av maleriets grenser i Karstens produksjon kan sees som et modernistisk prosjekt. Det har ikke tidligere vært gjenstand for fokus og analyse. Hva ser vi så når vi betrakter Karstens malerier og lar dem tale for ham?

Tre viktige trekk

Ludvig Karstens malerier er ikke bare preget av en dristig fargebruk. Når vi betrakter hans malerier er det spesielt tre aspekter som er sentrale; formspråk, materialitet og hans relasjon til eldre kunstnere. Karsten fremstår slik jeg ser det som en stilistisk kameleon. I maleriene ser vi en imponerende malerisk spennvidde og store stilistiske kast. Karsten har beveget seg mellom ulike formspråk med stor frihet. Han kunne tilsynelatende endre malemåte fra ett verk til et annet.

Vi ser også at han eksperimenterer med selve materialiteten i maleriene. Flere viser tydelige spor av en uvanlig og fysisk malerpraksis. Maleriene har synlige avvik fra det som normalt forventes, eller skavanker i selve materialene. Karsten har ikke bare malt på et lerret, han har også forholdt seg aktivt til maleriets fysiske bestanddeler, som blindramme, spiker, malingslag, sprekker, sømmer og hvordan disse samlet fremstår.

Gjennom hele sin karriere vender Karsten seg bort fra sin egen samtid, og ser til de gamle mesterne. Det ser ut til å ha vært dypt forankret i hans praksis å male egne versjoner av maleriene til kunstnere som Rembrandt van Rijn, Jusepe de Ribera og Jean-Antoine Watteau. Under Karstens reiser i Europa, spesielt i Spania og Frankrike, har besøk på museer vært viktige for å studere andre kunstneres arbeider.

Stilistisk kameleon

Karsten kan fremstå som ujevn på grunn av det brede stilistiske repertoaret han konstant spilte på. Jeg vil imidlertid hevde at stilskifter og formeksperimenter er en viktig del av hans identitet som kunstner. De vitner om en kunstner som hadde full kontroll over de maleriske virkemidlene. På grunn av de rastløse stilistiske endringene gir Karstens kunstnerskap liten mening i et narrativ der det legges vekt på utvikling, stilrenhet og gruppetilhørighet. I stedet fremstår han som en kunstner som hele tiden utfordret både seg selv og omgivelsene. Jeg tror dette var et bevisst valg fra hans side, det var hans metode.

La oss se på en håndfull portretter av kvinner i helfigur. Sammenlikner man Portrett av Asta Nielsen, Tæring, Stående kvinne og Betty Kirkeby med datter ser man et tverrsnitt av Karstens formspråk. De er malt over en periode på 12 år, fra 1907 til 1918. I det tidligste, Tæring (ant. 1907, s. 130), har Karsten malt kvinnen stående frontalt i en mørk kjole mot en tofarget bakgrunn utført i livlige penselstrøk. Denne bakgrunnen, sammen med det horisontale gulvet, deler billedflaten i tre store geometriske former. Hodet og hendene til kvinnen skaper lyse punkteringer i komposisjonen som leder blikket vårt. Ansiktet er en face, alvorlig og insisterende. Hendene er store, og fingrene forsøker å gripe om hverandre. Maleriet har et kompakt, mettet formspråk som gir komposisjonen tyngde. Kvinnen står støtt i den abstraherte billedflaten. Betty Kirkeby med datter (1912, s. 38) er nøkternt malt, og kroppene består nesten bare av flate felter med farge. Kun få penselstrøk har vært nødvendig for å få frem ansiktene. Bakgrunnen er lys og flat. I enkelte områder ser man det nakne lerretet. Betty Kirkeby var en dansk skuespiller som Karsten også portretterte i 1915, Portrett av fru Anker Kirkeby (s. 40). I begge portrettene står kvinnen med sin høyre fot frem, som om hun er i ferd med å ta et skritt. Sammenlikner vi det sene portrettet med det fra tre år tidligere, er billedflaten her dekket av synlige penselstrøk i lyse farger. Alle strøkene går i samme retning, fra øvre venstre hjørne mot nedre høyre hjørne. Penselstrøkene forsterker retningen kvinnen beveger seg med den fremskutte foten.

Portrett av Asta Nielsen fra 1917 (s. 34) er malt ganske annerledes. Motivet er mettet av dekorative mønstre i levende, myke penselstrøk. Nielsens kjole er et visuelt ekko av bakgrunnen. Den ranke kvinneskikkelsen er plassert sentralt i den dekorative overfloden. Asta Nielsen var en dansk filmskuespiller, og Karsten malte henne også i 1911 (s. 33). Sistnevnte er et langt mer dramatisk portrett. Kvinnen er fremstilt foran et skarpt lys. Detaljer i ansiktet og armene er utelatt. En grønn skygge svever over hodet og bak henne, den kraftige lyskilden er plassert lavt. Maleriet består av flate kompakte områder, slik som i kvinnens overkropp. Men skyggen bak hodet hennes er malt med løse, tynne, nesten flimrende, gjennomsiktige strøk.

Kvinnen som er fremstilt i Stående kvinne (1918, s. 41) svever i en verden av urolige penselstrøk. Klærne er store, omkapsler kroppen og gir den en uventet silhuett. Denne forsterkes av hastige penselstrøk i ulike farger. Det er som om kvinnens form vibrerer ut i rommet der hun er plassert. Kraven og ermene stikker frem som gule høylys. Skotuppen som stikker frem nederst i bildet er spenstig lilla. Slik kastes betrakterens blikk omkring i en hvileløs dans. Det eneste faste punktet er kvinnens venstre øye som, ved nærmere ettersyn, ikke er et øye. Det faste punktet der betrakteren får ro, en liten stund, er formet som en stjerne. Og denne absurditeten i det som er bildets visuelle anker kaster oss ut i en ny runddans på billedflaten.

Nødvendige skavanker

Veldig mange av Karstens malerier består av lerreter som er sydd sammen av flere flak. Sømmen er synlig og en del av motivet. Det kan virke som om Karsten har begynt å male uten noen klar formening om komposisjonen ville få plass på lerretsflaten, og

Rembrandt van Rijn, Batseba i badet med Kong Davids brev (1654)

Ludvig Karsten, Batseba (1910)

Jusepe de Ribera, La Mise au tombeau (Gravleggingen) (1628/1630)

Ludvig Karsten, Kristi gravleggelse. Kopi etter Ribera (ant. 1906)

deretter har måttet skjøte på lerretet. Dette kan tolkes som bevis på at han arbeidet raskt, intuitivt og uten en plan. Men kan det ha vært gjort med overlegg, som del av en ønsket praksis?

Det er såpass mange malerier som har disse sømmene, og de er derfor vanskelige å overse. Det er ikke mulig å si hvem som har sydd dem sammen. I enkelte av bildene virker det ikke som Karsten har forsøkt å kamuflere sømmen, men plassert den slik at den blir et element i komposisjonen. I Hvitkledd mann i Skagenlandskap (1924, s. 167) er sømmen plassert i nedre del av motivet. Den går horisontalt over mannens venstre ben. Strukturen i lerretet er ganske forskjellig i de to lerretene som er brukt. Det øverste er grovt med sine kraftige, synlige tråder. I det nederste er trådene i lerretet så jevne og tynne at de nesten ikke synes. Lerretflakenes ulike tekstur har påvirket hvordan Karstens penselstrøk fremstår i maleriet. Det øverste lerretet har sugd til seg mye maling, og penselstrøkene ser veldig tørre ut. På den nederste delen har ikke det samme skjedd. Penselstrøkene ser nesten ut som akvarellfarge på papir. Ved å bruke to ulike lerreter til dette maleriet oppstår et tydelig skille i motivet som er svært synlig for betrakteren. I Golgatha (1923, s. 92) er sømmen plassert helt sentralt. Den går vertikalt ned fra toppen av korset, langs høyre side av Jesu nakne, bleke kropp, og kan tydelig sees på det høyre låret.

En annen ukonvensjonell bruk av et av maleriets bestanddeler er å montere lerretet på forsiden av blindrammen. Det vanlige er at lerretet festes tilblindrammen med spiker langs sidene. Når denne så dekkes av pynterammen, skjules spikerne for betrakteren. I Badende kvinner (1921, s. 48) er spikerne synlige på forsiden av blindrammen, på venstre og høyre side av motivet. Deretter har Karsten fortsatt å male motivet på blindrammen, som om dette var en del av komposisjonen. Slik blir den fysiske materialiteten til maleriet innlemmet som en del av motivet.

Hvor mye av Karstens eksperimentering med malerienes materialitet var en bevisst handling, og hvor mye kan skyldes økonomiske begrensninger, en impulsiv arbeidsmåte eller praktiske omstendigheter? Karsten har selv kommentert dette: «Ethvert billede skal have en skavank. Har det ikke det, får man lave det».17 Dette antyder at han ikke bare aksepterte skader og det andre vil oppfatte som feil, men så dem som nødvendige for at bildet skulle få liv. Det peker på en bevisst holdning til maleriet som et levende, uperfekt objekt, snarere enn en glatt overflate. Karsten forsøker ikke å skape en illusjon av at maleriene er et vindu til en annen verden. Skjøter, spikre og lerretskanter minner oss på at vi ser på et fysisk objekt. Malerienes materialitet viser tydelige spor av arbeidsprosessen. Den vitner om en malerisk prosess som er fysisk, og hvor det ferdige verket bærer med seg de praktiske og estetiske sporene av selve tilblivelsen. I ettertid gir denne materialiteten oss en dypere forståelse av Karstens kunstnerskap. Den åpner opp for en videre lesning av bildene. De er mer enn bare visuelle komposisjoner, de er objekter med historie, fysiske sår og spor etter levd liv. Karstens malerier fremstår i dag som nyskapende nettopp fordi de ikke skjuler tilblivelsesprosessen. I vår tid, der det perfekte og idealiserte ofte står i sentrum, føles hans brutale og uperfekte materialitet både oppriktig og radikal. Det gir verkene en ekstra dimensjon av nærhet og autentisitet.

Tilb�keskuende fornyel�e

Praksisen med å male kopier var først og fremst vanlig i en kunstners opplæring, og disse forholdt seg gjerne tett opp til originalen. Karsten lot seg imidlertid inspirere av eldre mestere gjennom hele sin karriere, og i stedet for å strebe etter likhet ga han versjonene sine et selvstendig uttrykk. Batseba (1910, s. 91) er malt etter Rembrandts Batseba i badet med Kong Davids brev (1654) i Louvre. Karsten har beholdt komposisjonen til Rembrandt. Men bakgrunnen og kvinnen til venstre har fått mindre oppmerksomhet, og utførelsen er også ganske ulik Rembrandts. De myke, jevne overgangene mellom lys og mørke i Rembrandts versjon har hos Karsten blitt en overflate av fargefelter og rette penselstrøk plassert i ulike vinkler. Kvinnens ansikt, sett i profil, består av dristige, dynamisk vinklede penselstrøk i gult og orange. Det lyse kledet nede til høyre har blitt et stilleben i valører av grønt, rødt og gult. Ser man dette området isolert, kunne det vært et kubistisk maleri.

Som vi ser, er Karstens versjon av Rembrandts maleri ikke en direkte kopi. Det blir derfor upresist å kalle den for det. Jappe Nilsssen skriver at «Kopier i egentlig forstand malte han [Karsten] jo ikke. Den nøiagtige, minutiøse gjengivelse av alle originalens detaljer og finesser interesserte ham ikke og indlot han sig ikke paa».18 Arbeidet med disse maleriene har hatt en annen funksjon for Karsten enn for de som kopierte i opplæringsøyemed. Selv om Karsten sto i Louvre foran Rembrandt og Watteaus malerier, gjorde han ikke dette med mål om å gjøre det så likt som mulig. Hva skal man kalle Karstens kopier av gamle mestere? Og hvilken funksjon hadde de for ham som kunstner? I sin samtid fikk Karsten en del oppmerksomhet for sine versjoner av gamle mestere. Christian Krohg bruker i en omtale av Karstens flotte versjon av Jusepe de Riberas La Mise au tombeau (Gravleggingen, 1628/1630) ordet parafrase: «Han [Karsten] malte noget, som man kan kalde: En paraphrase […] Jeg tror, det er første gang noget saadant har været gjort og det blir sandsynligvis også siste, med mindre Karsten selv vil gjøre flere av den slags kopier».19 Dette støttes av Jappe Nilssen, som i 1927 skriver følgende: «Det var omdigtning, en parafrase av kunstverket han lavet, et helt nyt og selvstændig maleri».20 Begrepet parafrase benyttes gjerne i litteratur, og det betyr at man omskriver eller omdikter noe med andre virkemidler for å oppnå en økt grad av klarhet. I kunsthistorien er det ikke uvanlig å låne elementer eller motiver og gjenskape disse til selvstendige kunstverk. En slik tilnærming omtales gjerne som appropriasjon. I dette ligger en intensjon om å bruke andres ideer eller motiver som materiale for sine kunstverk, slik for eksempel Roy Lichtenstein og Andy Warhol gjorde fra slutten av 1950-tallet, og kunstnere som Richard Prince og Cindy Sherman har gjort de siste tiårene. Karstens tilnærming er beslektet med en slik appropriasjon, men likevel er den noe annet. Det Karsten gjør er nettopp å parafrasere maleriene til eldre kunstnere. Han forholder seg aktivt til de opprinnelige motivene, men omsetter dem til sitt eget formspråk.

Karsten jobbet ikke med parafrasene i en isolert periode. Det var noe han stadig kom tilbake til. Den første gangen var trolig i 1897. Da skrev han seg inn i Museo del Prados protokoller

over kunstnere som kopierte verk i samlingen. Der skal han ha «kopiert» Bartolomé Murillos La Inmaculada de El Escorial (ca. 1665, Den ubesmittede unnfangelsen av El Escorial ) og ett av Diego Velazquez’ portretter av Don Felipe 4.21 Karstens versjoner av disse maleriene har etter all sannsynlighet gått tapt. Den tidligste parafrasen fra Karstens hånd som fortsatt er bevart, er Kristi gravleggelse (ant. 1906). Her har han parafrasert Jusepe de Riberas La Mise au tombeaui, (1628/30).

Jens Thiis skriver om Karstens behov for å lage egne versjoner av eldre malerier. Han mener det var et ønske om å gjenkalle slagkraften originalene opprinnelig hadde med sin egen moderne teknikk i sine egne omgivelser.22 Jappe Nilssen mener Karsten stadig vendte tilbake til de gamle mesterne i perioder der han trengte påfyll: «… – jeg mener at det fortrinnsvis var i perioder hvor han instinktivt følte at de livgivende kilder ikke sprang så sprudlende og selvfølgelig i ham, at han for å stille sin energi tok sin tilflugt til disse kopier, som han jo rigtignok utførte paa en mesterlig maate og med opbud av hele sin vældige koloristiske evne».23 Det kan slik sett virke som om Karsten malte parafrasene som en form for rekalibrering.24 Han viet seg til dette som en måte å justere og forbedre egne evner og tekniske ferdigheter på, men også for å teste ut nye muligheter i maleriet. Karstens studier etter gamle mestere er ikke bare tekniske gjengivelser – de er ladet med egne stemninger og vitner om selvstendige valg. Hos Karsten er de mer enn studier; de er også kilde til fornyelse og selvrefleksjon. Parafrasene er viktige i Karstens kunstnerskap fordi de speiler hans ustanselige søken etter malerisk fornyelse.

En fornyet relevans

Karstens plass i kunsthistorien har vært skiftende; fra å ha vært hyllet i sin samtid ble han ansett som et kunstnerisk blindspor og nesten glemt. Han var rastløs både som person og i sin måte å jobbe på. De hurtige stilistiske endringene og uortodokse arbeidsmåtene gjør ham vanskelig å forholde seg til, fordi han utfordrer forståelsen av hvordan en kunstners karriere skal forløpe.

Karstens kunstneriske identitet var ikke statisk. Endring og prosess er en integrert del av uttrykket i hans kunstnerskap. Han er overskridende og omskiftelig. Det er i denne konstante utviklingen, i endringene og motsetningene, at hans fascinerende kunstnerskap virkelig trer frem. Sett i lys av dagens mer åpne forståelse av identitet og kunst, fremstår Karsten som forut for sin tid; i kunstnerskapets rastløshet og kompleksitet speiles det moderne subjektet tydeligere enn hos mange av hans mer kjente samtidige.

I tillegg til å utdype de viktige særtrekkene ved Karstens kunstnerskap, som det stilistiske spennet, eksperimenteringen med maleriets materialitet og hans stadige parafrasering av gamle mestere, viser denne publikasjonen bredden i produksjonen hans og viktige motivkretser. Publikasjonen kartlegger også reisevirksomheten og den internasjonale aktiviteten hans. Ikke minst drøfter den historieskrivingens virkemåter og peker på noen faktiske årsaker til at Karsten etter sin død er blitt tildelt en så marginal plass i kunsthistorien.

I 2026 er det hundre år siden Karsten døde, 50 år gammel. Fortsatt evner maleriene hans å både fascinere og provosere, med ville og rå virkemidler som kan lugge i den mest blaserte betrakters synsnerve.

Ludvig Karsten på Skagen

Foreword (p. 179)

Beyond the Framework

The Restless Artistic Practice of Ludvig Karsten Signe Endresen (p. 181)

From Leading Figure to Side Story On the Downfall of Ludvig Karsten in Scandinavian Art History MaryClaire Pappas (p. 191)

Ludvig Karsten in Europe

A Well-Travelled Artist and Perpetual Student Vibeke Röstorp (p. 197)

The Flight into Egypt (sister/sketch)

Pedro Carmona-Alvarez (p. 205)

Between the Seen and the Imagined The Uncanny in Ludvig Karsten’s art Ellen Egemose (p. 213)

Come on in The Home as Subject Luisa Aubert (p. 221)

Exhibited Works and Illustrations (p. 228)

Authors’ biographies (p. 232)

In his time, Ludvig Karsten (1876–1926) was a colourful rebel of enormous originality. Since his death, he has received relatively little attention in Norwegian art history. With this exhibition and publication, MUNCH hopes to bring out the breadth of Karsten’s artistry and strengthen his position in both art history and the public consciousness.

Karsten was a pupil of the French artist Henri Matisse for a brief spell in 1910, although he was not a typical Matisse student. Like Matisse and the fauvists, Karsten employed rich colours and expressive brushstrokes, but primarily he was an individualist who followed his own paths. Being impulsive as well as a stylistic chameleon has made him difficult to situate from an art-historical point of view.

By offering a range of new perspectives, this publication invites you to look afresh at Karsten’s artistry. In her introductory essay, the exhibition’s curator Signe Endresen points out the breadth of his art and the extraordinary materiality of the paintings, showing how Karsten was inspired by the art of older painters throughout his career. Art historian MaryClaire Pappas examines the reasons behind Karsten’s marginalisation in the history of art, while art historian Vibeke Röstorp writes about his international connections, especially his time in Paris. The fiction writer Pedro Carmona-Alvarez contributes a poem that ties in with Karsten’s work The Flight into Egypt. Copy after Bassano and draws lines connecting it to today’s wars that force people to flee. Art historian Ellen Egemose writes about a selection of Karsten’s works and particularly singles out the methods he uses to depict the uncanny. Finally, art historian Luisa Aubert takes a closer look at his interiors and still lifes, highlighting the ways in which they also have a social dimension and tell stories about lived lives.

MUNCH would like to give special thanks to the institutions that have lent works for the exhibition: KODE , Bergen; Lillehammer Art Museum; the National Gallery of Denmark, Copenhagen; the National Museum, Oslo; Trondheim Art Museum and Ystad Art Museum. Additionally, we would like to thank the many private collections that have contributed with generous loans: Canica Art Collection, Christen Sveaas’s Art Collection, Galleri K, Grieg Foundation, Hornemann, The Gundersen Collection and Trygve Hegnar’s Collection as well as those who wish to remain anonymous.

A big thank you to curator Signe Endresen, curatorial assistant Margrethe Lømo, editor Nina Mauno Schjønsby and all the other colleagues at MUNCH who have made this exhibition possible.

Finally, we would also like to thank our sponsors and supporters, who make it possible to realise our wide-ranging programme of exhibitions, event and publications.

Tone Hansen Director, MUNCH

Signe Endresen

Ludvig Karsten (1876–1926) was a highly celebrated artist in his time, but since his death he has gradually been marginalised in art history. There are several reasons for this. He has often been identified as a ‘colourist’ or as Edvard Munch’s disciple,1 and he has therefore come to appear obscure, derivative and uninventive. His unsettled life and restless personality have also served to sideline him; Karsten is said to have spoken rapidly and constantly been on the move, and he was known for his short temper. His artistic output has come to be understood as an extension of this – a result of instability and caprice, rather than any clear artistic project.

This publication takes a fresh look at Ludvig Karsten. From this new perspective emerges an oeuvre characterised by the restless search for new artistic styles, an open – and often raw and wild – experimentation with materials, and a lifelong, intense dialogue with art history. I would claim that it is precisely that which has made Karsten so difficult to place within the history of art that makes him relevant to our own time: with a unique desire for change, he constantly explored and challenged his own artistic identity.

(1998), Gunnar Danbolt writes about the negative perceptions Karsten’s artistic peers had of him; how the fact that ‘Karsten – not entirely sober – fell down a staircase in Paris and was killed in 1926 only further convinced [his peers] of the relationship between what they perceived as a loose form of painting and a loose life’.6 Is there anything about Karsten’s artistic practice that might have influenced his position within art history?

Self-critical and Feared

Karsten felt a strong sense of wanderlust early on. From his first journeys abroad as a 19-year-old, he travelled almost constantly until 1900/1901. It is difficult to follow him,7 but he is said to have visited Rome, Munich, Palermo, Messina, Istanbul and Madrid. Spain held a unique attraction for him, and during a prolonged stay in the country in 1897 he visited Córdoba, Granada, Sierra Nevada and Cádiz, mostly on foot.8 These journeys to Spain testify to a refreshing individualism.

Karsten sold most of the works he produced. He was lauded by critics and connoisseurs alike. According to the Dagbladet newspaper’s prominent art critic Jappe Nilssen, Karsten was one of the eminent artists of his age, a ‘painter by God’s grace’.2 Nilssen believed that Karsten painted masterpieces that would be written into art history in gilded lettering, and that he would come to be regarded as an unrivalled master of Norwegian painting.3 Of Karsten’s works, the Verdens Gang newspaper’s critic wrote that ‘such devilish brutality has never been seen in Norwegian art, not even in Munch’s wildest nightmares’.4

The image that is drawn of Karsten almost a hundred years later is, however, a rather different one, and he is rarely seen in Norwegian museums today. We find him in presentations and overviews of the period following 1900, but his oeuvre is often referred to as a sidetrack that made no significant contribution to the history of Norwegian art. And it is more his personality and lifestyle, rather than his artworks, that seem to characterise posterity’s view of him. In Norges malerkunst (1993), Karsten’s restlessness is referred to as an ‘agitated wandering’, and terms such as that he ‘meandered’ are used.5 In the reference work Norsk kunsthistorie

Karsten’s artistic output is marked by an intense self-censorship. Few of his drawings and sketches prior to 1906 are preserved; and only from 1909 onwards have a substantial number of his paintings survived. This testifies to an artist who set high standards for himself early in his career, and is further supported by those who knew him, such as his friend the art critic Pola Gauguin: ‘The demands Karsten made of himself were in reality so great that he was never satisfied with his art. If he achieved a result he was satisfied with, he always had the sense that the important thing was to keep moving forward, to reach greater heights. It was a strict discipline he demanded of himself, and it was therefore a difficult path he had to walk in order to achieve his desired ends’.9

As a person, Karsten seems to have been full of contradictions. Both Jens Thiis and Pola Gauguin described him as complex. He is said to have been impulsive, abrupt and hasty in his decisions.10 But at the same time, he is described as revolutionary and provocative; always experimenting and in a constant state of development and change.11 Gauguin described his mind as binate, shifting between tenderness and rage.12 And even if Karsten could seem impulsive, Gauguin emphasised that he was also independent and hard-working.13

Karsten was known and feared for his sharp tongue. According to Jappe Nilssen, he delighted in discovering what he perceived to be weaknesses or foolishness in others. Nilssen doesn’t hold back in his assessment of the artist: ‘One should be well-prepared

before engaging in any fraught debate with him; his tongue was merciless, and his retorts could be not only hurtful, but often downright deadly’.14 Karsten is said to have been happy when he irritated his audiences or provoked criticism, and sensationseeking and malicious with his wit. But at the same time, he was grateful as a child when he felt understood, and loyal to those who taught him something valuable.15

Karsten’s own attitude to his role as an artist was dismissive of explanations and theorising. In an interview with the newspaper Nationen in 1921, he said: ‘My paintings say what I have seen. And therefore neither I nor my paintings have any more to say. I am a painter, not a speaker. Do you hear me? Actually, if you’re going to interview anyone, you can interview my paintings. If you don’t find an answer there, then that’s your own fault’.16 His works should be allowed to speak for themselves, without the artist as an intermediary. Karsten’s individualism, unpredictability and resistance to categorisation make him hard to place, but his restlessness also makes him especially interesting to us today. The constant shifts and the exploration of painting’s limits in his oeuvre can be viewed as a modernist project, and this has not previously been the subject of focus and analysis. What might we see when we consider Karsten’s paintings and allow them to speak for him? Three Important Aspect�

Ludvig Karsten’s paintings are not only remarkable for their daring use of colour. When we consider them, three aspects in particular are central: his style, the works’ materiality, and his relation to older artists. In my opinion, Karsten appears to have been a stylistic chameleon. In his paintings, we see an impressive artistic range and great stylistic leaps. He has moved between various styles with immense freedom, apparently able to change his painting method from one work to the next.

In Karsten’s paintings, we also see that he experiments with their very materiality, and several show clear signs of an unusual and physical painterly practice. The paintings feature visible deviations from what is usually expected, or flaws in the materials themselves. He has not simply painted onto the canvas – he has also actively responded to the painting’s physical components, such as the stretcher, nails, layers of paint, cracks and seams, and how these appear in combination.

Throughout his career, Karsten turned away from his own time and looked to the old masters. Painting his own versions of works by artists such as Rembrandt van Rijn, Jusepe de Ribera and Jean-Antoine Watteau appears to have been a deeply embedded part of his artistic practice. During his travels around Europe, and especially in Spain and France, museum visits were important to Karsten as a means of studying the works of other artists.

Stylistic Chameleon

Karsten can appear somewhat erratic due to the broad stylistic repertoire with which he constantly experimented. I would claim, however, that these shifts in style and formal experimentation are an important part of his identity as an artist.

They testify to an artist in full control of his artistic means and methods. Due to these restless stylistic changes, Karsten’s career makes little sense within a narrative that emphasises development, purity of style and group identification. Instead, he appears to have been an artist who constantly challenged both himself and his surroundings. I believe this was a conscious choice on his part – that it was his method.

Let’s take a look at a handful of his full-length portraits of women. If we compare Portrait of Asta Nielsen, Consumption, Standing Woman and Betty Kirkeby with Daughter, we are presented with a cross-section of Karsten’s artistic style. These works were painted over a period of twelve years, from 1907 to 1918. In the earliest, Consumption (prob. 1907, p. 130), Karsten has painted the woman standing frontally in a dark dress against a two-tone background of animated brushstrokes. This background, along with the horizontal floor, divides the surface of the image into three large geometric shapes. The woman’s head and hands create spots of brightness in the composition, which lead our gaze. The face is en face, serious and insistent. The hands are large, the fingers of one attempting to grasp the other but without entirely managing it. The painting has a compact, saturated style, which gives weight to the composition. The woman stands steady within the abstract scene.

Betty Kirkeby with Daughter (1912, p. 38) is soberly painted, the bodies consisting almost solely of flat areas of colour. Very few brushstrokes have been necessary to elicit the faces. The background is bright and flat, and in some areas, it is possible to see the naked canvas. Betty Kirkeby was a Danish actor whom Karsten also painted in 1915. In both of these portraits, the woman stands with her right foot forward, as if in the process of taking a step. If we compare the later portrait with that from three years earlier, the surface here is covered with visible brushstrokes in pale colours. All the strokes move in the same direction, from the top left corner and down towards the bottom right. The brushstrokes intensify the direction in which the woman appears to be moving with her outstretched foot.

Portrait of Asta Nielsen (p. 34) from 1917 is very different. The subject is saturated with decorative patterns in vivid, soft brushstrokes. Nielsen’s dress is a visual echo of the background. The erect female figure is placed centrally within the decorative abundance. Asta Nielsen was a Danish film actor, and Karsten also painted her in 1911. This is a far more dramatic portrait. The woman is depicted before a harsh light. Details of her face and arms have been excluded. A green shadow floats above and behind her, and the intense light source is low. The painting consists of flat, compact areas, such as in the woman’s torso. But the shadow behind her head has been painted in loose, thin, almost shimmeringly transparent strokes.

The woman portrayed in Standing Woman (1918, p. 41) floats within a world of anxious brushstrokes. Her clothes are oversized, encapsulating her body and giving it an unexpected silhouette, that is emphasised by the rapid brushstrokes in various colours. It is as if the woman’s form vibrates out into the space in which she is situated. The collar and cuffs of her coat stand out with their yellow highlights; the toe of her shoe is a vibrant shade of purple. In this way, the viewer’s gaze is cast around the

Rembrandt van Rijn, Bathsheba at Her Bath (1654)

Ludvig Karsten, Bathsheba (1910)

Jusepe de Ribera, La Mise au tombeau (The Entombment of Christ) (1628/1630)

Ludvig Karsten, The Entombment. Copy after Ribera (prob. 1906)

painting in a restless dance. The only fixed point is the woman’s left eye, which, upon closer inspection, is revealed not to be an eye at all. This point, where the viewer obtains ease for a brief time, is shaped like a star. And this absurdity within what constitutes the painting’s visual anchor casts us out into yet another round of the image’s surface.

Necessary Flaws

A large number of Karsten’s paintings use canvases sewn together from several pieces. The seam is visible, and part of the motif. It can seem that he has begun painting without any clear idea of whether there would be enough space for the composition on the canvas surface, and has then been forced to add to it. This can be interpreted as evidence that he worked quickly, intuitively and without a plan. But might he have done this deliberately, as part of a desired practice?

So many of Karsten’s paintings feature these seams, and they are therefore difficult to overlook. It is impossible to say who has sewn the canvases together. In some of the paintings Karsten appears not to have attempted to camouflage the seam, but placed it so that it becomes an element in the composition. In White-Clad Man in Skagen Landscape (1924, p. 167), the seam is placed in the lower part of the picture plane, passing horizontally across the man’s left leg. In each of the two canvases that have been used, the weaving is rather different. The top piece is rough, with thick, visible threads; in the bottom one the threads of the canvas are so even and thin that they can hardly be seen. The differing texture of the two pieces of canvas influences how Karsten’s brushstrokes appear in the painting. The uppermost canvas has absorbed a great deal of paint, and the brushstrokes appear very dry. On the lowermost part, this hasn’t happened – the brushstrokes almost look like watercolours on paper. By using two different canvases, a clear divide within the motif arises, which is highly visible to the viewer. In Golgotha (1923, p. 92), the seam is at the very centre of the image, running vertically from the top of the cross along the right side of Jesus’s pale, naked body, and can be clearly seen over the right thigh.

Another unconventional use of one of the painting’s components is to mount the canvas on the front of the stretcher. Usually, the canvas is affixed to the stretcher using nails along the sides; when this is then covered by the decorative frame, the nails are hidden from the viewer. In Bathing Women (1921, p. 48), the nails are visible on the front of the stretcher, on the left and right sides of the composition. Karsten has then continued to paint beyond the canvas and onto the stretcher, as if this were part of the composition. In this way, the physical materiality of the painting is incorporated as part of the image.

How much of Karsten’s experimentation with his paintings’ materiality was a conscious act, and how much is due to financial limitations, an impulsive work method, or practical circumstances? Karsten himself commented on this: ‘Every painting must have a flaw. If it doesn’t have one, one must make it’.17 This indicates that he not only accepted damage and what others would have perceived as faults, but saw them as necessary in order to bring a painting to life. It points to a conscious

attitude to the painting as a living, imperfect object, rather than a smooth surface. Karsten does not attempt to create the illusion that his paintings are a window to another world. Seams, nails and canvas edges remind us that we are looking at a physical object; the painting’s materiality shows clear traces of his way of working. It testifies to an artistic process that is physical, and in which the finished work carries within it the practical and aesthetic traces of its very creation.

In retrospect, this materiality gives us a deeper understanding of Karsten’s artistic oeuvre, and opens up for a broader reading of the images. They are more than just visual compositions – they are objects with a history, physical wounds and traces of lived life. Today, Karsten’s paintings appear innovative precisely because they do not hide the process of their creation. In our time, where focus is often placed on the perfect and the idealised, his brutal and imperfect materiality feels both genuine and radical. It gives his works an extra dimension of intimacy and authenticity.

The practice of painting copies was common during an artist’s training, and such works generally aimed to reproduce the original as closely as possible. Karsten, however, was inspired by the works of old masters throughout his entire career, and rather than striving for likeness in his versions of these paintings, he instead made them unique. Bathsheba (1910, p. 91) is painted after Rembrandt’s Bathsheba at Her Bath (1654), which hangs in the Louvre. Karsten has retained Rembrandt’s composition, but the background and the woman on the left are given less attention. The execution is also fairly different from Rembrandt’s. In Karsten’s painting, the soft, even transitions between light and dark of Rembrandt’s version become a surface of planes of colour and straight brushstrokes applied at various angles. The woman’s face, seen in profile, consists of dynamic, slanting brushstrokes in orange and yellow. The pale cloth in the lower right quadrant has become a still life in shades of green, red and yellow. Viewed in isolation, this area could almost be a Cubist painting.

As we have seen, Karsten’s version of Rembrandt’s painting is not a direct copy, and it is therefore imprecise to define it as such. Jappe Nilssen wrote that: ‘[Karsten] did not paint copies in a true sense. The accurate, meticulous reproduction of all the details and subtleties of the original did not interest him, and he therefore did not engage in it’.18 The work on these paintings therefore had another function for Karsten than copying for training purposes. Although Karsten stood in the Louvre before the paintings of Rembrandt and Watteau, he did not do so with the aim of making his own paintings as similar to these as possible. What should we call Karsten’s copies of works by old masters? And what function did they serve for him as an artist?

Among his contemporaries, Karsten attracted considerable attention for his versions of works by old masters. In reference to his stunning version of Jusepe de Ribera’s La Mise au tombeau (The Entombment, 1628/1630), Christian Krohg uses the term ‘paraphrase’: ‘[Karsten] painted something one might call a paraphrase […] I think this is the first time something like this has ever been attempted, and it will probably be the last,

unless Karsten himself wishes to create more copies of this kind’.19 This is supported by Jappe Nilssen, who in 1927 wrote the following: ‘It was a rewriting, a paraphrasing of the artwork that he created, an entirely new and independent painting’.20 The term ‘paraphrase’ is often used in the context of literature, and means to rewrite something using other means in order to achieve an increased degree of clarity. Throughout art history, it isn’t unusual to see artists borrowing elements or subjects and reproducing these as independent artworks – such an approach is often referred to as appropriation. In this lies an intention to use others’ ideas or subjects as material for one’s own artworks, such as Roy Lichtenstein and Andy Warhol did from the end of the 1950s, and as artists such as Richard Prince and Cindy Sherman have done in recent decades. Karsten’s approach is related to such appropriation, but is nevertheless something else. What he does is precisely to paraphrase the paintings of old masters. He responds actively to the original subjects, but transforms them using his own artistic style.

Karsten did not work with his paraphrases during an isolated period – they were something to which he continually returned. The first time was probably in 1897, when he was entered in the Museo del Prado’s records of artists who copied works in the museum’s collection. Karsten is said to have ‘copied’ Bartolomé Esteban Murillo’s The Immaculate Conception of El Escorial (c. 1665) and one of Diego Velázquez’s portraits of Philip IV, King of Spain.21 Karsten’s versions of these paintings have in all probability been lost. The earliest paraphrase by him that has been preserved is The Entombment (c. 1906), a paraphrasing of Jusepe de Ribera’s The Entombment (1628/30).

Jens Thiis wrote about Karsten’s need to create his own versions of older paintings, believing he did so out of a wish to recall the force of the originals using his own modern techniques in his own surroundings.22 Jappe Nilssen believed Karsten constantly returned to the old masters at times when he needed to fill his artistic well: ‘… – I believe that it was primarily during periods in which he instinctively felt that the life-giving springs were not flowing so effervescently and naturally within him that he resorted to these copies to calm his energy, and which he certainly executed in a masterful manner and using the full array of his vast colouristic skill’.23 Viewed from this perspective, it can seem that Karsten painted the paraphrases in order to undertake a kind of recalibration.24 He devoted himself to them not only as a way of adjusting and improving his skills and technical abilities, but also to test out new possibilities within painting. His studies after the old masters are not just technical reproductions – they are charged with their own moods and testify to independent choices. For Karsten, they are more than studies; they are also sources of renewal and self-reflection. The paraphrases are important within his artistic oeuvre because they reflect his incessant search for painterly renewal.

A Renewed R�levance

Karsten’s place in art history has shifted dramatically: from having been acclaimed by his contemporaries, he came to be regarded as an artistic dead end, and almost forgotten. His rapid

stylistic changes and unorthodox methods make him difficult to relate to, because he challenges our understanding of how an artist’s career should unfold.

Karsten’s artistic identity was not static. Change and process are integral parts of his artistic expression. He is transgressive and mercurial. It is within this constant development, within the changes and contrasts, that his fascinating artistry truly comes to the fore. Viewed in the light of today’s more open understanding of identity and art, Karsten appears ahead of his time; in his oeuvre’s restlessness and complexity, the modern subject is reflected more clearly than it is in the works of many of his more famous contemporaries.

In addition to elaborating upon the important features of Karsten’s art, such as his stylistic range, experimentation with painting’s materiality, and continual paraphrasing of works by old masters, this publication shows the breadth of his artistic output and central subjects. It also maps the journeys he made, and his international activity. Not least, the texts discuss the workings of how history comes to be written, and point to some of the truths behind why Karsten, after his death, has been allocated such a marginal place in the history of art.

The year 2026 will mark one hundred years since Ludvig Karsten’s death at the age of fifty. His paintings continue to both fascinate and provoke, with their wild and raw artistic effects that can tug at even the most blasé viewer’s optic nerve.

Ludvig Karsten at Skagen

Luis� Aubert

Luisa Aubert is an art historian with a master’s degree from the University of Oslo’s programme Curating, Art Criticism and Modernism’s Cultural Heritage. Her master’s thesis was a curated exhibition and scholarly essay on Ludvig Karsten’s intimate subjects, with the title Intimt og Oppløst: Ludvig Karstens utforskning av kropp og rom (2022). Aubert first worked closely with Karsten’s art through her role as an art mediator at Munchmuseet and Stenersenmuseet. She later worked for the Grev Wedels Plass Auction House, which specialises in sales of Ludvig Karsten’s works to the private market. Since 2023, Aubert has worked as a curator at the National Museum in Oslo, specialising in both older and modern art. She has previously published in the National Museum’s publications and on forskning.no.

Pedro Carmona-Alvarez

Pedro Carmona-Alvarez is a poet, writer and musician born in La Serena, Chile, in 1972. At the age of ten, he and his family fled to Argentina, before moving to Norway. He made his debut with the poetry collection Helter (Heroes) in 1997, and has since published several award-winning books, among them The Weather Changed, Summer Came and So On, which was longlisted for the Dublin Literary Award in 2017. He has received the literary prizes Sultprisen, P2-lytternes romanpris, Kritikerprisen, and Riksmålsprisen. His latest novel is Chiquitita (Kolon forlag, 2023). His books are translated into several languages.

Ellen E�emose

Ellen Egemose holds a PhD in art history from Aarhus University, which she completed in 2022 with a dissertation on Scandinavian interior painting from the period 1880–1910, with a particular focus on emptiness and ambiguity as visual phenomena. She is a curator at Kunstmuseum Brandts in Odense, Denmark, where she has organised a wide range of exhibitions. Her research primarily explores the relationship between form and perception in late 19th-century painting, most recently in the article ‘Lys i mørket: Viggo Johansens afteninteriører’, published in the book Hos mig: Skagensmaleren Viggo Johansen (Strandberg Publishing, 2025).

Signe Endresen

Signe Endresen is a senior curator at Munchmuseet, where she works with the collection of works on paper (drawings, graphic prints and photographs) and temporary exhibitions. She holds a PhD in art history from the University of Oslo (2015). Her dissertation is an analysis of a series of experimental paintings by Edvard Munch from 1907, collectively known as The Green Room Endresen has previously worked as a curator at Lillehammer Art Museum and as a lecturer at the University of Oslo and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim. Her principal research interest is Scandinavian and European modern art, with a particular focus on new visual media, gender, identity construction and material culture.

MaryC�aire Pappas

MaryClaire Pappas is a professor of art history at Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD) in Georgia. She specialises in Norwegian and Swedish modern art with an interest in colour theory, national identity and somatic experience. Before beginning at SCAD, Pappas held positions at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York, Indiana University and Munchmuseet in Oslo. She has recently published the edited volume Landscape and Nature in Scandinavian Art with Tonje Haugland Sørensen, and she is currently writing her first monograph entitled Somatic Citizenship: Painting and Pedagogy in Norway and Sweden, 1908–1925 Her research has been funded by the Einar and Eva Lund Haugen Memorial Scholarship, the Swedish Fulbright Commission, the Lois Roth Endowment and the American-Scandinavian Foundation.

Vibeke Röstorp

Vibeke Röstorp holds a PhD in art history from the Sorbonne university. Her doctoral thesis ‘Le mythe du retour, les artistes scandinaves en France de 1889 à 1908’ was published in 2013. Rostorp is based in Paris and Stockholm, and works as an independent art historian and curator. Her particular focus and expertise are on French and Scandinavian art on the Parisian art scene of the 19th and 20th centuries. She has notably written about Anders Zorn (Zorn och Frankrike, 2017) and Oskar Bergman (Oscar Bergman: A Life in Nature, 2021). Röstorp is a regular contributor to Scandinavian and French exhibition catalogues on Nordic art.

Published by MUNCH on the occasion of the exhibition Ludvig Karsten—Restless 17 October 2025–15 March 2026

Head of MUNCH Publishing: Josephine Langebrekke

Editor and curator: Signe Endresen

Editor: Nina Mauno Schjønsby

Editorial consultant: Karen Elizabeth Lerheim

Translations from Norwegian: Alison McCullough: ‘Beyond the Framework. The Restless Artistic Practice of Ludvig Karsten’ by Signe Endresen; ‘Come on in: The Home as Subject’ by Luisa Aubert

Diane Oatley: ‘The Flight into Egypt (sister/ sketch)’ by Pedro Carmona-Alvarez

Rob Young: ‘Foreword’ by Tone Hansen; all quotes in ‘Between the Seen and the Imagined. The Uncanny in Ludvig Karsten’s art’ by Ellen Egemose

Design: Aslak Gurholt

Typeface: JJannon (François Rappo), Helvetica Megafont (Fraser Muggeridge)

Paper: 90 g Munken Pure Rough, 130 g G-Print

Repro: JK Morris

Print and binding: Livonia Print

Cover: Portrait of Asta Nielsen, 1917 (crop)

ISBN: 978-82-8462-054-1

MUNCH thanks its sponsors and partners

Details of Karsten’s works on the book’s first pages:

Portrait of Mrs Inger Magnussen, 1921

In the Garden at Gilleleje, 1914

The Red Kitchen, prob. 1913

Boys Bathing, 1913

Three Figures, 1919

Interior: Professor Oluf Thomsen’s Living room, 1924

The Flight into Egypt. Copy after Bassano, prob. 1922

Reclining Model, 1916

Landscape in Sunshine, 1925

Dagmar Karsten, 1906

The Sisters at Gilleleje, 1914

Still Life with Hat and Walking Stick, 1912

The Blue Kitchen, 1913

The Cottage in Julebæk’s Garden, 1918

Outside the Flower Shop, 1921

Standing Woman, 1918

White-Clad Man in Skagen Landscape, 1924

In Thought, 1920

The Red Room, prob. 1913

Landscape with a Gate, 1914

The Breakfast Table, 1925

Utgitt av MUNCH i forbindelse med utstillingen Ludvig Karsten – Rastløs 17. oktober 2025–15. mars 2026

Forlagsansvarlig MUNCH : Josephine Langebrekke

Redaktør og kurator: Signe Endresen

Redaktør: Nina Mauno Schjønsby

Redaksjonsmedarbeider: Karen Elizabeth Lerheim

Oversettelse fra engelsk: Halvor Haugen «Fra hovedrolle til biperson. Ludvig Karstens fall i skandinavisk kunsthistorie» av MaryClaire Pappas; «Ludvig Karsten i Europa. Bereist kunstner og evig student» av Vibeke Röstorp

Design: Aslak Gurholt

Skrift: JJannon (François Rappo), Helvetica Megafont (Fraser Muggeridge)

Papir: 90 g Munken Pure Rough, 130 g G-Print

Repro: JK Morris

Trykkeri: Livonia Print

Omslag: Portrett av Asta Nielsen, 1917 (utsnitt)

Alle rettigheter forbeholdt. Innholdet i denne boken kan ikke reproduseres i noen form, hverken helt eller delvis, uten skriftlig godkjennelse fra utgiver.

ISBN: 978-82-8462-054-1

MUNCH takker sine sponsorer og støttespillere

Utsnitt av Karstens verk på bokens første sider:

Portrett av fru Inger Magnussen, 1921

I haven Gilleleje, 1914

Det røde kjøkken, ant. 1913

Badende gutter, 1913

Tre figurer, 1919

Interiør. Professor Oluf Thomsens salong, 1924

Flukten til Egypt. Kopi etter Bassano, ant. 1922

Liggende modell, 1916

Sollandskap, 1925

Dagmar Karsten, 1906

Søstrene i Gilleleje, 1914

Stilleben med hatt og stokk, 1912

Det blå kjøkken, 1913

Hytten i Julebæks have, 1918

Utenfor blomsterhandelen, 1921

Stående kvinne, 1918

Hvitkledd mann i Skagenlandskap, 1924

I tanker, 1920

Den røde stue, ant. 1913

Landskap med port, 1914

Frokostbordet, 1925

Ludvig Rastløs Restless K�rsten

Ludvig Karsten

LUDVI � � A � STEN

INNHOLD

UTENFOR RAMMENE