BUILDING-RELATED PUBLIC ART Awareness-raising measures for the management of public art

BUILDING-RELATED PUBLIC ART Awareness-raising measures for the management of public art as part of the cultural environment

Public Art Agency Sweden 31 May 2019 (Reg. No 1.1.1/2018:87) The report can be downloaded at www.statenskonstrad.se.

Contents

Summary and proposals

4

General conclusions

4

Proposals and observations

6

1 Introduction

12

1.1 Identified challenges

13

1.2 Interpretation of the assignment

16

1.3 Method and materials

17

1.4 Terms and definitions

20

1.4.1 Building-related public art

20

1.4.2 Cultural heritage, cultural environment and cultural asset

21

1.4.3 Public environment

23

1.5 Delimitations

24

1.6 Disposition and reading instructions

24

2 Building-related public art as part of the cultural environment

26

2.1 Architecturally specific art and early antiquarian practices

26

2.2 Building-related public art and the welfare state

29

2.3 The modern cultural heritage and public art

32

2.4 Conservation processes for assessment and selection

34

2.5 Aesthetic aspects and historic and artistic value

36

2.6 International comparisons

37

2.7 Proposal for increased collaboration in the policy area for designed living environments

38

3 Roles and responsibilities for building-related public art

43

3.1 National public bodies

44

3.2 Regional public stakeholders

51

3.3 Municipal stakeholders

54

3.4 Private stakeholders and the Church of Sweden

57

3.5 International comparisons

59

3.6 Proposals for a clearer distribution of roles and responsibilities

60

4 Legal and economic instruments for building-related public art

68

4.1 Legal instruments for building-related public art

68

4.1.1 Cultural property – legal principles

68

4.1.2 Laws protecting cultural environments and cultural objects

73

4.1.3 Cultural assets and artistic assets in urban planning

76

4.1.4 Regulations for government-owned art and copyright protection

80

4.2 Economic instruments for building-related public art

86

4.2.1 The cultural collaboration model

86

4.2.2 The cultural environment allocation

87

4.3 International comparisons

88

4.4 Proposals for increased awareness of building-related public art when applying instruments

89

5 Qualitative documentation and making information accessible

100

5.1 Documentation of building-related art and modern cultural environments

100

5.2 Tools for documenting building-related public art and cultural environments

104

5.3 Digital accessibility of existing documentation

106

5.4 International comparisons

109

5.5 Proposal for strengthened collaboration on documentation and data processing

110

Literature 117 Illustrations and photographs

127

APPENDIX 1 Study organisation

128

APPENDIX 2 Network group meetings

129

APPENDIX 3 International survey

132

Summary and proposals This is a report on a study of the conditions for supervision and management of building-related public art as a cultural heritage. Building-related public art is defined in this report as art commissioned or purchased for permanent, site-specific installation in public, and specifically art created largely through the one per cent rule. The government proposal on Cultural Heritage Policy (Kulturarvspolitik, prop. 2016/17:116) states the urgency of strengthening the conditions for preserving building-related public art from the 20th century. The Public Art Agency Sweden was given the assignment of studying the need for initiatives to raise awareness about the supervision and management of building-related public art and, if required, to propose measures that could promote a positive development in the field (Ku2017/02582/LS). The Public Art Agency Sweden has collaborated on this assignment with the Swedish National Heritage Board (Ku2017/00942/KL).

Building-related public art has played a prominent part in the design of the public spaces and buildings of the Swedish welfare state, and is linked to issues such as democracy, education and norms. In consequence, building-related art has thus come to be seen as an essential element in the modern 20th-century cultural heritage, a view that is emphasised in the current government assignment. This assignment thus entails the addition of a new field in the sphere of cultural environments. The fact that building-related public art from the 20th century is now regarded as a cultural heritage means that it was imperative that the committee dealt thoroughly with issues such as the current knowledge level, responsibility and roles, legal and financial control and digital access.

In Sweden, the government’s public art initiative was institutionalised in 1937, with the introduction of the so-called one per cent rule, according to which one per cent of the cost of government-funded construction should be earmarked for public art. Municipalities and regions (formerly county councils) also eventually adopted this rule in various forms. Today, there are some 1,600 building-related public works of art commissioned and paid for by the government, along with several thousand works commissioned by municipalities, regions and the private sector. Places where building-related public art is prevalent include public spaces such as parks and plazas, but also public buildings such as swimming baths, libraries, schools, city halls and stations. Moreover, building-related art is found in places with limited public access, including hospitals, penitentiaries, defence facilities, municipal services offices and power stations, but also malls and shopping centres.

General conclusions The committee concludes that awareness is currently lacking in how to manage building-related public art as part of our cultural heritage. Building-related public art has formerly been addressed primarily in terms of public art. However, since this art genre is now regarded as a constituent part of the modern cultural heritage, the professionals in the respective fields of art and cultural environment are required to have an understanding of, or expertise in, one another’s fields, in order to make well-founded assessments and prioritisations in the preservation of building-related public art. It is important to emphasise that this refers to selected works that should be incorporated and assessed in a historic assessment and selection process.

4

Insufficient exchange of knowledge between the sectors for art and cultural environment entails that the aggregate values attributed to the building-related art is not sufficiently clarified. Ultimately, this may affect the art negatively, and also risk destroying it in connection with demolitions or refurbishments. Awareness-raising efforts targeting both the responsible national, regional and municipal authorities and interdisciplinary collaborations could help to improve the management of selected building-related public art throughout Sweden. Unlike Sweden, all the nations in the international comparison responded that building-related public art constitutes an established part of their cultural heritage work on a national level.

Moreover, ambiguities have been identified at national, regional and municipal level concerning the responsibilities and roles of the involved parties regarding the supervision and management of building-related public art. At national level, it is unclear who the supervisory body is, and how its responsibilities are outlined. For instance, there are cases where the National Public Art Council and the Swedish National Heritage Board have a shared supervisory role, but where the latter should be solely responsible. Moreover, the committee highlights that the National Public Art Council’s supervisory role only includes national property management authorities, and that this supervisory capacity ceases when building-related art is transferred to a government enterprise or sold to a private property owner. Thus, the National Public Art Council loses influence over most of the art that was originally government-funded, and there are currently no instruments for preventing damage to or loss of building-related public art owned and managed by government enterprises or other parties in the public or private sector.

The regional level, and especially the municipal level, which currently manages most building-related public art, largely lacks rules and established collaborations between the responsible management bodies regarding the supervision and management of building-related public art, and this can impact negatively on the art. Thus, there is an urgent need for efforts to raise awareness about roles and responsibilities, and the committee also concludes that the target groups involved are generally asking for a national advisory body. The other countries in the international comparison have fairly well-developed collaborations at national level, whereas supervision is regulated in different ways, with different results.

Another general conclusion is that existing legislation has some potential to provide specific protection for building-related public art. The bodies responsible for the supervision and management of building-related public art have little awareness of how to implement existing legal and economic instruments. There is a risk that this can lead to arbitrariness in, say, various legal processes and the routine management of building-related public art. Awareness-raising initiatives are urgently needed to improve the potential to preserve building-related public art under existing legislation, but it is also noted that the regulations in the Land Code with regard to immovable and movable property restrict the possibility of extending the legislative protection to include building-related public art.

As a consequence of this lack of awareness on how to apply existing economic instruments such as the allocation for cultural environment conservation, along with the strains on these funds, is that few artworks today receive economic support in connection with awareness-raising and conservation efforts of various kinds. There is, thus, a need for creating a temporary government grant that can serve as a catalyst for various 5

awareness-raising initiatives in this field. The international survey shows that the legal protection is satisfactory in all but one of the included countries. In three out of five countries, preservation of building-related public art is government-funded, while in two countries preservation is co-funded by the public and private sectors.

Finally, the committee notes a lack of awareness about how standards and methods for documenting building-related public art in modern cultural environments can be used to improve the quality of preservation initiatives and accessible digital data records. This could mean that the quality of documentation and follow-ups of conservation measures may vary or be deficient. A further complicating factor is the lack of accessible and linked records of building-related public art, especially at regional and municipal level, making it harder to get an overall picture of the need for action. Thus, there is a great need to raise awareness about the documentation and accessibility of information in the form of digital data records. The international survey reveals that all the included countries, like Sweden, have national data records but no way of linking these with regional or local records, thereby making it hard to obtain an overall picture.

In accordance with the government assignment, this committee is proposing measures that could contribute to a favourable development in the field and suggestions for awareness-raising efforts. In some cases, where the committee has not been able to make any proposals, but where it highlights particularly relevant circumstances to the development of the field, these are presented in the form of observations. The committee has chosen to categorise its proposals and observations in three levels. The first level is proposals for measures that can contribute to a favourable development, and is addressed to the Government Offices. The second level consists of proposals for awareness-raising measures, and is primarily addressed to national authorities and other concerned stakeholders, but can also serve as guidelines for municipalities and regional governments. The third level is observations. As these are not formulated as proposals but are nonetheless considered to be strongly relevant to achieving a favourable development in the field, they are not directed at any specific targets.

Proposals and observations The committee’s proposals and observations with detailed assessments are presented at the end of chapters 2-5. Below is a short summary of the report’s proposals and observations, and consequences, with a focus on resources.

6

Proposals for actions that can contribute to a favourable development in the field Amendments to regulation (1990:195) on the conservation of public art (section 4.4) Proposal

The committee proposes that the rules for the management of national building-related public art in the Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of public art be clarified on two accounts: (1) art that is an accessory to immovable property cannot be returned to the Public Art Agency by property management authorities, and (2) authorities shall consult with the Public Art Agency in connection with changes in buildings and sites that affect art that is an accessory to immovable property.

Consequence

The proposal that art that is an accessory to immovable property be exempted from ยง12 and thus should not be returned to the property management authority could help to cut costs for the Public Art Agency Sweden in the longer term. The proposal that the property management authorities consult with the Public Art Agency prior to the planning of any rebuilding, demolition or other actions that affect the art is considered to be implementable within the regular budget frames.

New temporary grant regulation (section 4.4) Proposal

The committee proposes the introduction of a new temporary grant regulation for five years, funded within the government budget, of at least SEK 3 million but no more than SEK 6 million, for awareness-raising projects to improve the long-term management of building-related public art as a cultural heritage. This proposed temporary regulation would be administered by the Swedish National Heritage Board together with the Public Art Agency Sweden.

Consequence

This proposal would involve a new assignment for the National Heritage Board and therefore require more staff. Moreover, the Board needs to collaborate more closely with the Public Art Agency. Should this proposal be endorsed in principle by the government, it must be further developed in detail in a separate follow-up assignment, where the two agencies together formulate the wording of the new regulation and the procedures for processing the grant.

7

Proposal for awareness-raising initiatives Further collaboration in the policy field for designed living environment (2.7) Proposal

The committee proposes intensified collaboration between the responsible authorities at national level, and increased collaboration with concerned parties at regional and municipal level on building-related public art as cultural heritage, within the framework of the policy field of designed living environment.

Consequence

The measures to be taken by each respective government authority within the field of designed living environment began in 2018, and the final reports on several of these measures are due in 2020, while other measures are to continue. In proposing that developments in the field of public art as cultural heritage be coordinated with the measures for collaboration between authorities on designed living environments, the committee estimates that the implementation of this proposal will not affect the staff or financial resources of each respective authority.

Developing advisory work for the Planning and Building Act (2010:900) (section 4.4) Proposal

The committee proposes that the Public Art Agency Sweden and the Swedish National Heritage Board assist the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning in providing advice to municipalities on how to handle cultural assets according to the Planning and Building Act (2010:900), with regard to building-related public art as a cultural heritage.

Consequence

The proposed measures should be possible to implement within the budget for the regular activities and existing allocations of the authorities concerned, since it relates to established practices and platforms for collaboration and awareness-raising, including web seminars and the production of resources in the form of guidelines.

8

Developing provisions for the protection of historic buildings (section 4.4) Proposal

The committee proposes that the National Heritage Board and the County Administrative Board should strive, when possible, for historically and aesthetically valuable building-related public art to be covered by the provisions protecting historic buildings, in accordance with regulation 2013:558 on national historic buildings and the Historic Environment Act (1988:950).

Consequence

The work on including valuable building-related public art in the provisions for the protection of historic buildings under the Historic Environment Act (1988:950) or the Ordinance on Historic Buildings (2013:558) should be carried out within the respective ongoing activities on historic buildings of the county administrative boards and the National Heritage Board respectively, including when provisions on protection are expanded, or when formulating such provisions prior to a decision to list a historic building.

As this measure should be performed within the regular activities of the National Heritage Board, the proposal should not require any additional staff or time resources.

Making information more accessible (section 5.5) Proposal

The committee proposes establishing a collaborative project between relevant national data managers, e.g. the Public Art Agency and the National Heritage Board, to be coordinated with Lantmäteriet’s Real Property Register. The purpose would be to develop methods and standards for documentation and accessibility of vital data on building-related public art as a cultural heritage, in a format that is adapted to the needs and capacity of relevant target groups.

Consequence

Increased collaboration on documentation and data handling should be possible to achieve within the regular activities of the authorities involved, and it could be executed according to §6 in the Government Agencies Ordinance (2007:515), and within the framework of Digisam. The schedule and resources for implementing this collaboration may require further resources for the authorities in question.

9

Observations Clear boundaries for supervision (section 3.6) Observation

Until now, the boundary between the responsibilities of the Public Art Agency and the National Heritage Board has been somewhat vague with regard to supervision, and there has been double supervision in some cases relating to national historic buildings.

Consequence

The Swedish National Heritage Board should have sole responsibility for the supervision of building-related public art located in historic buildings. One practical consequence of this observation is that the Swedish National Heritage Board should improve its expertise with regard to building-related public art. Another consequence is that the Public Art Agency’s supervision should be limited and not include building-related public art located in national historic buildings. The supervisory activities of the National Heritage Board and the Public Art Agency respectively will need to be aligned over a transition period, during which the Public Art Agency will provide the National Heritage Board with information on the building-related art that currently exists in national historic buildings. The aligned approach is estimated to be ready for implementation from 2020.

Reduced supervision responsibility for the Public Art Agency (section 3.6) Observation

State-owned property management companies that own building-related art have no specified conservation responsibility according to the law on conservation of national art (1990:195), and are not covered by the Public Art Agency’s supervision activities.

Consequence

This observation has practical consequences for the Public Art Agency, and it will be necessary during a transition period to clarify that the supervision of building-related public art only applies to government authorities and not state enterprises. Other practical consequences are that the Public Art Agency will no longer be able to order state-owned property companies to perform inventories, registries, regular management, antiquarian inspections or assessment and selection.

10

Need for a national advisory body (section 3.6) Observation

There is a need for a well-defined national body to provide national, regional and municipal government agencies with advice on the management of building-related public art.

Consequence

In order to establish a national advisory body, resources must be specifically allocated and the authority in question must be given a well-defined assignment.

Limitations of the Land Code (1970:994) (section 4.4) Observation

Interpreting and applying the Land Code’s (1970:994) provisions that divide property (including cultural property such as building-related public art) into immovable and movable property negatively affects the potential of the protective legislation to cover building-related public art that has been legally classified as movable property.

Consequence

According to the current provisions of the Land Code, processes for assessing and selecting historically and aesthetically valuable building-related public art are not sufficient in themselves as grounds for decisions to legally protect these assets, since the Code only applies to immovable property.

11

1 Introduction

Art as an integrated part of architecture and construction is a cultural expression that is deeply rooted in history. The breakthrough of modernism in the early 20th century, however, launched entirely new possibilities for dynamic interaction between the fields of art and architecture.

In Sweden, the government’s public art initiative was institutionalised in 1937, when parliament agreed on a one per cent rule.1 The same year, the Public Art Agency Sweden was established and came to administer government funding for public art generated by the rule in connection with national public construction projects.2 Over the years, a large number of municipalities and regions (formerly county councils) have decided to adopt this one per cent rule, which has contributed to giving public art a very prominent position in public environments.3 Today, there are some 1,600 building-related public art works, commissioned and funded through the Public Art Agency Sweden, in addition to several thousand building-related public art commissioned and funded by municipalities, regions and private property companies.4 The one per cent rule promoted public art in the building of the Swedish welfare state.

Artistic design of these shared public spaces thus became one of many expressions of the ideas that underpinned the welfare state: democracy, inclusion, freedom of opinion, education and norms. Today’s contemporary public art also reflects similar ideas.

The government’s Cultural Heritage Policy bill (prop. 2016/17:116), which was adopted by parliament in May 2017, describes the government’s political priorities in the field of cultural heritage, and how this has evolved into a separate policy area. The section on Public art as a cultural environment (10.5) states that it is crucial to facilitate the conservation of 20th-century building-related art.5 As a result, the government concluded that the Public Art Agency Sweden should be given the assignment together with the Swedish National Heritage Board to study the need for awareness-raising initiatives for the supervision and management of building-related public art, and, if required, to propose measures that could contribute to progress in this area. The bill also stressed the importance of making an international comparison in the field.6

1 This rule was first proposed in the report SOU 1936:50, Beredande av vidgade arbetsuppgifter för svenska konstnärer. The one per cent rule was adopted by parliament in 1937, Prop. 1937:157 angående beredande av vidgade arbetsuppgifter för svenska konstnärer. Before the Public Art Agency was established, there were occasional donations of public art. See chapter 2.

2 Swedish Arts Grants Committee (2013) Ingen regel utan undantag – Enprocentregeln för konstnärlig gestaltning av offentlig miljö, 12.

3 Ibid 14. The Public Art Agency Sweden applied the one per cent rule from 1937 to 1948 in connection with government-funded construction work. Since 1948, government-funded public art is administered by the Public Art Agency Sweden’s general allocation.

4 Hermerén, Karin & Orrje, Henrik (2014) Offentlig konst – ett kulturarv. Tillsyn och förvaltning av byggnadsanknuten konst, 10.

5 Prop. 2016/17:116, Kulturarvspolitik, 152 f. For a definition of the term building-related public art, see 1.4.1.

6 ibid 153.

12

The spending authorisation for the fiscal year 2018 gave the Public Art Agency Sweden the assignment, in accordance with the government’s assessment in its bill on Cultural Heritage Policy (prop. 2016/17:116), and in collaboration with the Swedish National Heritage Board, to study the need for awareness-raising initiatives on supervision and management of building-related public art, and to present a final report to the Government Offices (Ministry of Culture) by 1 June 2019.7 The National Heritage Board received a corresponding assignment from the government in 2018 (2016/17:116), to collaborate with the Public Art Agency Sweden in its assignment to study the need for knowledge-raising initiatives within supervision and management of building-related public art.8 There are several reasons why the government decided in its proposal to highlight the importance of building-related public art in cultural environments in modern society.

One, however, is that building-related art played a very prominent part in the design of public environments and buildings in 20th century Sweden, both physically and as a fundamental idea underpinning the construction of communal spaces in the welfare state. Therefore, there is an urgent need to improve the conditions for preserving and developing this cultural heritage for the future.

Building-related public art is found mainly in environments currently or previously owned by national, municipal or regional government organisations. The Church of Sweden, and especially churches built in the 20th century, also have building-related public art.9 Through the sale of publicly-owned buildings in recent decades, building-related public art now also features in private-owned environments; there are also companies that have chosen to invest in art of this kind on their own initiative. Examples of places and buildings where building-related public art is often found are parks, plazas, swimming baths, libraries, city halls, schools and stations. Building-related public art is also common in hospitals, penitentiaries, detention centres, defence facilities, public administration offices, power stations, malls, shopping centres and other buildings and sites that are not primarily defined or perceived as being public.

1.1 Identified challenges In 2004, two years after the supervisory responsibility for public art was transferred from the Nationalmuseum to the Public Art Agency Sweden, the Agency performed an inventory of all building-related public art commissioned by the Agency in 1937–2005.

This inventory, published in the report Commissioned Art – the Property Owners’ Management and Supervision of Building-Related Art (2008), identified a number of failures relating to ownership, management and supervision.10 In view of these identified failures, the Public Art Agency and the National Heritage Board, along with other par-

7 Ku2017/02582/LS, Regleringsbrev för budgetåret 2018 avseende Statens konstråd.

8 Ku2017/00942/KL, Regleringsbrev för budgetåret 2018 avseende Riksantikvarieämbetet.

9 This art is funded by the Church of Sweden within the budget for church construction costs and is only financed by the Public Art Agency Sweden in exceptional cases. Following the separation of the Church and the state in 2000, the Church could still obtain funding for public art from the Public Art Agency Sweden until 2009. In 1998-2000, the Public Art Agency Sweden had a special assignment which involved cooperating with non-governmental organisations, including the Church of Sweden.

10 Wahlström, Klara (ed.) (2008) Beställd konst – Fastighetsägarnas vård och underhåll av byggnadsanknuten konst, 7–16.

13

ties in the fields of public art, cultural environments, research and education, and also the property sector, have proactively pursued issues focusing on public art as a cultural heritage.11 With the aim of analysing the causes of failures in the supervision and management more closely, a research project was initiated: Public Art – A Cultural Heritage. The Supervision and Management of Building-Related Art (2014).12 Together, the identified problems described in the two above-mentioned publications form a crucial starting point for the challenges outlined by this committee.13 Interviews, meetings with reference groups, and the four network group meetings held within the framework of the committee have also contributed to a deeper and more nuanced picture of the shortcomings in the field of building-related public art today, especially with regard to the cultural sector’s resources for preserving and developing this field as part of the cultural environments in modern society.14 The identified problems and challenges that guided the committee can be summarised as follows: • There is insufficient knowledge in how to manage building-related public art as part of our cultural heritage. To meet this challenge, the representatives in the respective fields of art and cultural environment need more understanding or expertise in one another’s fields, in order to make well-founded assessments and prioritisations when conserving building-related public art as part of the cultural heritage. There is not enough awareness in the public art sector about the cultural environment sector’s perspective, its antiquarian and historical expertise, and its methods and practices. This includes how to consider and include antiquarian and historical perspectives when performing inventories and documentations, and in assessment and selection processes. Similarly, the cultural environment sector lacks awareness of the artistic and art historic perspectives when performing inventories, assessments and selections of building-related public art. As a result, both sectors fail to be fully aware of the aggregate value attributed to building-related public art within the framework of what can be defined as the modern cultural heritage. Ultimately, the art is at risk or may even be destroyed in connection with, say, demolitions or refurbishments.

• The roles and responsibilities of the involved parties in the supervision and management of building-related public art are ambiguous. One challenge today is the ambiguity at national level on the responsibility for supervision, how supervision should be carried out, and the limitations of this responsibility. This is especially problematic in the case of historic buildings, as the Public Art Agency and the National Heritage Board share the supervision, albeit with different focuses; this can have a negative impact on the management of both the building itself and the art, if there is no strategic consensus on the connection between a building and its art. The supervisory role of the Public Art Agency only covers national property management authorities but does not apply to building-related public art that is owned by state enterprises or sold to a

11 See Hermerén & Orrje (2014), Lindbom, Jenni, Hermerén, Karin (2014) Riktlinjer för förvaltning av offentlig konst, and Landstinget Västmanland (2014) Kartläggning av den offentliga konsten i Västmanlands kommuner 2011 och 2014. The Department of Art History at Uppsala University, for instance, offers a course in “Public art as a future cultural heritage”, Lund University has a course in “Art in public spaces”, the Linnaeus University has “Art worlds I. Public art, and Södertörn University has a course in “Art in public spaces”.

12 This publication was generated by a R&D project funded by the Swedish National Heritage Board in 2011 – 2013.

13 For problem indicators, see Hermerén & Orrje (2014) 364f, and Wahlström (ed.) (2008), 7–16.

14 For interviews and network group meetings, see 1.3 Methods and materials.

14

non-state enterprise. The lack of supervision in such cases can cause the management of building-related public art to fail. Moreover, the ambiguous structure with regard to the roles and responsibilities of municipal and regional administrations and companies may affect the management of building-related art negatively. • The parties responsible for the supervision and management of building-related public art are not sufficiently aware of how to implement existing legal and economic instruments. The supervision and management of properties with building-related public art has a number of legal instruments at its disposal to influence how building-related art is handled in connection with regular maintenance, rebuilding and demolition. Awareness about how existing laws should be interpreted and applied in relation to building-related art is currently lacking. This entails the risk that legal issues and the regular management of building-related public art as a cultural heritage are handled arbitrarily. There is also insufficient awareness of how to use existing economic instruments. As the cost of antiquarian expertise and conservation are high, there is a general need to increase public funding for this. Poor awareness of how to implement existing economic instruments, in combination with the strained budgets, however, means that only a few works of art can receive grants in connection with various forms of awareness and conservation initiatives. • More knowledge is needed on how standards and methods for documenting building-related public art in modern cultural environments can improve the quality of preservation initiatives and digital data records. This challenge includes how standards for documentation can serve as tools to ensure the quality, development and follow-up of the activities of authorities and individuals concerning building-related public art. Currently, the quality of conservation varies, and follow-up of performed measures is poor. Things are further complicated by the lack of accessible and linked records for building-related public art, especially at regional and municipal level, making it harder to get an overall picture of what needs to be done. When such records and documentation exist, they are often scattered over different administrations and organisations and are neither coordinated nor linked, making it difficult to access information on the condition and previous conservation/measures of the works of art. • The involved supervisory and management bodies for building-related public art at national, regional and municipal level are not collaborating sufficiently. One prerequisite for strong, sustainable and quality management, more efficient supervision and preservation of building-related public art is well-developed collaboration among the parties dealing with public art, cultural environments, property and universities and university colleges. These parties currently operate mainly within their own respective fields without any interdisciplinary interaction, and rarely exchange knowledge. The lack of strategic interaction between the responsible authorities at national, regional and municipal level, and the failure to share expertise across professional boundaries, are prevailing structural problems in all four areas mentioned above. The fact that the different parties that are directly or indirectly responsible for building-related public art have tunnel vision means that issues relating to public art risk not being treated optimally in coordinated processes.

Altogether, the five challenges outlined above are barriers to the management and supervision of building-related public art as a cultural heritage.

15

1.2 Interpretation of the assignment Building-related public art has not previously been discussed within the field of cultural environments but has mainly been addressed by the authorities in the area of public art.

This assignment, however, introduces a new field within cultural environment work. The fact that 20th-century building-related public art is now regarded as part of the modern cultural heritage has prompted a need for thorough investigation of this area.

The assignment was to examine the need for initiatives to raise awareness in the supervision and management of building-related public art and, if required, to propose measures that could promote progress in the field.15 The challenges and problems described above have guided the committee and informed the measures it proposes. The report is based on a national perspective. It also highlights regional and municipal perspectives, partly since most of the building-related public art is owned by regions and municipalities, which will continue to be highly active in commissioning and managing this art.16 The structure and purpose of the assignment also required the committee to highlight the role of the county administrative boards, in view of their responsibility for national cultural environments in the counties. The committee has also looked briefly at the Church of Sweden and private property owners17, since they own building-related public art and are responsible for its management.

The broad focus on the national level, not forgetting the regions and municipalities, is based on the instruction to the Public Art Agency, emphasising the importance of collaborating with other authorities in developing the field of art and the design of public environments. This broad approach is also based on the instruction to the National Heritage Board, in line with the objectives of the national cultural policy and national cultural environment work, to be a driving and supporting force in its field of activities.18 Early on in the process, the committee agreed that it was important to define the groups to be directly targeted by the awareness-raising initiatives in supervision, management and strategic collaborations. On an overarching level, the committee chose to hone in on the following four targets: • public and private stakeholders in the field of public art • public and private stakeholders in the cultural environment field • universities and colleges with research and studies in public art, conservation, • architecture and urban planning • public and private property owners and managers with responsibility for public art.

15 Prop. 2016/17:116, Kulturarvspolitik, 152.

16 Thousands of building-related public art works were produced for municipalities, county councils and regions. Hermerén & Orrje (2014) 10.

17 In this context, private property owners include property companies such as Vasakronan and organisations such as Folkets Hus och Parker.

18 §2 in the Ordinance (SFS 2007:1188) with instructions for the Public Art Agency Sweden, §1 in the Ordinance (2014:1585) with instructions for the Swedish National Heritage Board, and Ordinance (2017:304) on amendments to Ordinance (2014:1585) with instructions for the Swedish National Heritage Board.

16

In addition to its immediate relationship to the new cultural heritage policy that the government presented in its bill on Cultural Heritage Policy, the committee has also considered the assignment’s relationship to the policy area of designed living environment (prop. 2017/18:110)19. The bill establishes a new national objective for architecture and design, stating that architecture and design, along with art and cultural environments, shall contribute to a sustainable, equal and less segregated society with sensibly designed living environments that offer good possibilities for everyone to influence the development of their communal spaces. Thus, the government has perceived that building-related public art is an important part of the designed living environment and thus clearly connects it to this new policy area.20 Altogether, the Public Art Agency’s interpretation of the assignment and the collaboration with the National Heritage Board have been characterised by sensitivity and the understanding that the conditions for managing 20th-century building-related public art differ radically between the national, regional and municipal levels, and between businesses and civil society organisations. Furthermore, the objective has been to clarify that the intention of building-related public art neither can nor should be that everything must be preserved. The committee emphasises the importance of developing methods and awareness relating to historic assessment and selection in building-related public art, to facilitate well-founded, transparent decisions on priorities in long-term management. The potential for improving the efficiency and quality of management and supervision depends largely on how the committee’s proposals are received.

1.3 Method and materials Work on the report was based on previous studies and research in the field. One of the most important of these, aimed at clarifying and developing the potential for sound and long-term management of building-related public art, is Offentlig konst – ett kulturarv (Public Art – A Cultural Heritage, 2014). The studies and materials that also influenced the conclusions of this committee include Beställd konst – Fastighetsägarnas vård och underhåll av byggnadsanknuten konst (Commissioned Art – Property Owners’ Management and Supervision of Building-Related Art, 2008), Enprocentregeln – Ingen regel utan undantag (The One per cent Rule – Exceptions to Every Rule, 2013), Riktlinjer för förvaltning av offentlig konst (Guidelines for the Management of Public Art, 2014), and Plattform kulturhistorisk värdering och urval (Platform for cultural, historic and aesthetic assessment and selection, 2015). These works were vital references in identifying the knowledge gaps and the main areas where measures were needed to raise awareness.

19 In prop. 2017/18:110, Designed living environment, 65, the government defines public art as a key area in the field of designed living environments, and states that “the designed living environment perspective entails a holistic view, that includes the cultural heritage and cultural environment”.

20 Within the framework of policies on the designed living environment, the Public Art Agency and the National Heritage Board have been given assignments that relate in different ways to this committee. The Public Art Agency was given the assignments to study how visual and sculptural designs can be integrated in government buildings (Ku2018/01350/KO) and how knowledge can be developed for public art and the rfrdesign of communal environments (Ku2018/01930/KO). The Swedish National Heritage Board was assigned to study “How historic value can be integrated and preserved in planning and building processes” (Ku2018/01351/KL). As the primary stakeholder with the primary responsibility for the implementation of policies on designed living environment, Boverket has received several assignments relating to the assignment in question. These include providing municipalities and county councils with advice, coordinating national government initiatives, and improving environments in healthcare, schools and preschools (N2018/02273/SPN, N2017/03879/SPN).

17

Other works that were essential for the committee were the inventories and lists of public art in modern cultural environments, which have been carried out by municipalities and regions throughout Sweden.21 Moreover, papers such as Karin Hermerén’s licentiate thesis Den utsatta konsten (Exposed Art) have been important to knowledge-building in the field.22 In dialogue with the reference group and networking groups, the committee members have striven to define and achieve consensus and understanding with regard to the challenges that are highlighted in the report.

In the presentation of the empirical material, the committee relates symmetrically to the responses given in interviews, surveys and network group meetings. The empirical material is thus seen as contextual, i.e. the information has been interpreted in relation to its context and is considered to be “true” from the respondent’s point of view. In short, the committee does not judge the “truth” of the information but merely reports it factually in terms of the respondents’ answers.23 The legislation pertaining to the field of building-related public art are the Copyright Act (1960:729) with an emphasis on moral rights, the Land Code (1970:994), the Historic Environment Act (1988:950), the Planning and Building Act (2010:900), the Environmental Code (1998:808), the regulation on listed buildings (2013:558), and the regulation on the conservation of national art (1990:195). The committee members have continuously conferred with the National Heritage Board’s legal advisors and with the Ministry of Culture on the parts relating to the issues of administrative law and the proposals and observations presented in the report. With regard to copyright, the committee members consulted the Swedish Artists’ National Organisation (KRO).24 Interviews As part of the assignment, four people were interviewed, each of whom represents a target group for the report, with particular insight into the issues studied by the committee.25 The purpose of the interviews was to gain an understanding, early in the process, of the challenges involved in supervising and managing building-related public art. The respective expertise of the four interviewees contributed to a more detailed picture of these challenges. The individuals also contributed valuable insights, and proposed measures to achieve long-term, sustainable management, implement awareness-raising activities, and reach the relevant target groups with more knowledge within their respective fields.

The interviews were semi-structured; the starting point was a questionnaire with open, thematic questions. In addition, follow-up questions were asked based on the respondents’ answers. The thematic questions covered subjects such as inventories, aware-

21 E.g. the project Kartläggning av den offentliga konsten i Västmanlands kommuner 2011 och 2014.

22 Hermerén, Karin (2015) Den utsatta konsten. Att förvalta konst i offentlig miljö – etik, lagstiftning och värdeförändring, Gothenburg Studies in Conservation 33, lic., Department of Conservation, University of Gothenburg. Hermerén is working on a doctoral thesis at this department, with the title Konsten att förvalta. Bevarandets utmaningar och möjligheter – värdering och beslutsprocesser i 1900-talets Sverige.

23 See Bloor, David (1991), Knowledge and Social Imagery.

24 The contact point at the Swedish Artists’ National Organisation was the legal advisor Katarina Renman Claesson, who, together with Christina Wainikka wrote the book Konstjuridik: med konstnären i fokus (2014).

25 For data on the four interviewees, see Literature, Interviews.

18

ness-building, legal protection, assessment and selection, management, and funding.

All four interviews were recorded and transcribed. The final processing of the empirical material from the interviews aims to present the interviewees’ experiences as examples of how the challenges identified above (see 1.1) are addressed in each respective category, rather than as individual opinions on the issues.

International survey To enable international comparisons, as stipulated in the assignment26, an international survey was performed. The countries included in the survey were Denmark, Finland, Norway, France, Germany and the UK. They were selected on the grounds that Finland, Denmark and Norway have legislation and practices in this field that are relatively similar to those of Sweden. Consequently, it was assumed that the survey could offer perspectives on how Sweden operates in this field compared to those countries. France was selected on the assumption that management of public art is a distinctly governmental and centralised domain in this country, while the UK was chosen on the assumption that this nation is characterised by a management that is comparatively more protective of private ownership. Germany was selected because it, unlike the other countries, deals with these issues at both the central and federal levels.

The survey was addressed to the government authority corresponding to the Public Art Agency in Sweden, or to the responsible ministry (Denmark, Finland, Norway, France, Germany) or government body equivalent to the Swedish National Heritage Board (Historic England in the UK) in each respective country. The survey questions included subjects such as records and inventories, supervision, legal protection, assessment and selection, management, economic support and strategic collaborations. The response rate was high, and all countries except Denmark completed the survey.

The summary of the survey results was important partly to find out whether other countries handle building-related public art as a cultural heritage or as a subfield of art. This, in turn, directly relates to the type of legal instruments that are the most effective for the long-term management of building-related public art. The results of the international survey also contributed to establishing a form of international reference model. Two case studies in the third chapter further illustrate how two other European countries, Belgium and Norway, have addressed similar legislation pertaining to cultural property. The case studies show how Belgium and Norway have been able to implement existing legal instruments in a forward-looking way to conserve cultural property, and aiming at a holistic approach to how building-related public art interacts with architecture and movable furnishings. In these two countries, this has enabled conservation on the grounds that art and architecture interact in a “Gesamtkunstwerk”.

Reference group A reference group of eight specialists in public art, cultural environments, property management and university/college studies was put together for the assignment27 to assist the committee with their expertise, and to assure the quality of the contents and proposals in the report. Four of the eight experts in the reference group also participated in the interviews described above. The reference group met four times.

26 An international comparison should be performed as part of the assignment – see Prop. 2016/17:116, Cultural Heritage Policy, 153.

27 For participants in the reference group, see Appendix 1.

19

Network groups To identify the most urgent areas for awareness-raising initiatives, and to achieve a broad consensus on the conclusions and proposals of the committee, four network group meetings were organised. The participants were identified as key figures in the four target areas, public art, cultural environment, property management and universities/ colleges. The network group meetings included representatives from museums, county administrative boards, regions, municipalities, government agencies, the Church of Sweden, universities/colleges and the consultancy sector. Participants were selected to represent geographic variety and different organisational levels (national, regional and local, private enterprises and religious congregations). Participants were also selected to represent different professions. Meetings were held in the form of dialogue seminars or workshops, focusing on key challenges and needs relating to the respective fields28 and were documented in writing.

1.4 Terms and definitions Key terms in this report include building-related public art, cultural heritage, cultural environment, conservation, and public environment. These terms are not unequivocal but can be used today to denote different things by the stakeholders in public art, the cultural environment sector, education and research, and by property owners and managers. Therefore, the committee has sought to clarify the definitions and interpretations of these terms as used in this report. The purpose of this was also, ultimately, to establish definitions that promote agreement on the measures proposed by the committee.

1.4.1 Building-related public art Within the framework of this committee report, the term building-related public art refers to art that was commissioned or purchased for permanent, site-specific installation in a public environment. Building-related public art is often physically integrated with the building. Alternatively, the art is integrated with the property in a legal sense, i.e. fixed to the ground (land).29 The word building in the term building-related public art is thus broadly interpreted, i.e. the art, in addition to being connected to a physical building, can also be connected to, or form part of, a construction, such as a bridge, a plaza, a park, or a garden.30 Building-related public art is a generic term for all art added to public environments and integrated with public buildings for permanent installation, created primarily through

28 See Appendix 2.

29 For the definitions of property law according to the Land Code (SFS 1970:994), see 4.1.1.

30 The word “building” should be interpreted here in the sense of, say, a historic monument, where the protected object is not necessarily a building but could also be a structure, a built environment, a park or a garden This definition of a building can be compared to the more limited definition in the recommendations for historic buildings according to the Historic Environment Act (KRFS 2018:3, 1 §), as “a durable structure consisting of a roof, or a roof and walls standing permanently on land or entirely or partially underground or permanently in a specific place in water, and intentionally built so that people can be inside it”. This definition is in line with the one in the Planning and Building Act (SFS 2010:900 ch. 1 §4). These definitions can also be compared to how “building” is interpreted in the Land Code (1970:994): “in addition to what is generally meant by buildings... all forms of built structures”. Beckman, Lars K., Bäärnhielm, Mauritz & Cederlöf, Joakim et al. (2012) Jordabalken: en kommentar till JB och anslutande författningar, 26.

20

the so-called one per cent rule, or inspired by this rule. The one per cent rule, which has been applied in various ways since 1937, has meant that property owners, developers and other principals have been able to fund artistic design in connection with new, refurbished or extended buildings. In the committee’s report, the term building-related public art does not, therefore, primarily denote architecturally installed paintings or sculptural works created prior to the adoption of the one per cent rule or the founding of the Public Art Agency.31 The financial framework, i.e. whether the art was purchased or funded with public or private means, is not the primary criterion for the definition of the term, but whether the art was intended for permanent, site-specific installation in a public environment.

The term building-related public art can comprise many different artistic media and styles, including monumental sculptures, murals, wall reliefs, flooring, ironwork, window sections, doors, curtains, sound pieces, fountains, parks, and installations. A few examples of related terms are monumental art, architecturally specific art, architecturally integrated art, commissioned art, permanent art, artistic design, and site-specific art.32 1.4.2 Cultural heritage, cultural environment and cultural asset Cultural heritage and cultural environment are key terms in the cultural environment sector and denote two different approaches to defining, assessing and prioritising. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify how each respective term is used in the sector today.33 The term cultural asset, which is essential to the cultural environment sector, will also be defined here briefly.

Cultural heritage In 2011–2014, the National Heritage Board carried out a development project on historic assessment and selection, which led to a Platform for Historic Assessment and Selection.

The term cultural heritage is defined in this platform as follows: Cultural heritage refers to all material and immaterial expressions (traces, relics, objects, constructions, environments, systems, structures, activities, traditions, naming customs, knowledge, etc) of human activities. Regardless of whether it is referred to as a definite or indefinite term – cultural heritage or the cultural heritage – it encompasses a diversity of cultural heritage. It can often be qualified to highlight particular parts of social development, e.g. the biological cultural heritage, the industrial cultural heritage, or the modernist cultural heritage.34

31 Even before the one per cent rule was implemented, art for public places were created in the 19th and 20th centuries, e.g. for schools and museums. With the one per cent rule as a model and the Public Art Agency Sweden as a national authority, this approach with the purpose of making art accessible to the general public was formalised. See, for instance, Stensman, Mailis & Tranaeus, Björn (eds) (1987) “Konsten är på väg att bliva allas …”.– Statens konstråd 1937–1987, Hedström, Per (2004) Skönhet och skötsamhet: konstnärliga utsmyckningar i svenska skolor 1870–1940, diss., and Hermerén & Orrje (2014) 14, 28.

32 See also the section Termer och begrepp in Hermerén & Orrje (2014), 365f.

33 Both terms are described in detail in Riksantikvarieämbetet (2015) Plattform Kulturhistorisk värdering och urval. Grundläggande förhållningssätt för arbete med att definiera, värdera, prioritera och utveckla kulturarvet, 66ff.

34 ibid 12.

21

Today, cultural heritage is associated with experiences relating to identity. Cultural heritage is often seen as a fundamental social asset for democracy and is linked to issues relating to inclusion.35 In recent decades, the term cultural heritage has been discussed and problematised in the field of critical cultural heritage studies,36 where it has come to be regarded as a social construction. According to this view, cultural heritage is endowed with meaning and value in various social and cultural processes. This processual view exists alongside a more widespread monument- and object-oriented view of cultural heritage, both within academia and in antiquarian practices.37 Cultural environment A cultural environment is part of a cultural heritage and the term refers to the physical expressions, including immaterial aspects, to which the cultural heritage can be linked.

In connection with the National Heritage Board’s development initiative for historic assessment and selection, the term cultural environment was also defined as follows: Cultural environment refers to the entire environment impacted by man, i.e. environments that have been influenced to various degrees by human activity. A cultural environment can also be specified and limited to comprise a separate development, building or relic, a small or large part of the landscape, a district or a built neighbourhood. Cultural environment work per se could be defined as all activities based on the cultural history dimension of the environment, i.e. activities where the cultural environment forms the starting point, and where the intention is to examine, conserve, protect, develop and share knowledge about historic cultural phenomena and their value.38

In recent years, the term cultural environment work has become synonymous with cultural environment conservation.39 Cultural environment work is performed by many different bodies, including the National Heritage Board and other authorities, the county

35 It should be stressed, however, that the term cultural heritage is problematic. The concept itself suggests a link between cultural heritage and cultural identity, a form of essentialism in which cultures are seen as delimited. In consequence, the term cultural heritage can be perceived as excluding, but also, for a specific group or community, as inclusive. This was maintained already in the 1995 cultural study, which emphasised that cultural heritage can be utilised in the “right” or “wrong” way. Proposal 1998/99:114, Kulturarv – kulturmiljöer och kulturföremål states that cultural heritage can be “abused in a narrow-minded construction of identity, which, could ultimately lead to exclusion of the different”. Cultural heritage policy could thus contribute to reinforcing notions based on “us and them”, i.e. cultural difference thinking that neither promotes conservation nor creates an inclusive social climate, Proposal 1998/99:114, Kulturarv, kulturmiljöer och kulturföremål, 29f, Gill, Alexander (2012) “Vårt kulturarv – Sverigedemokraterna, främlingsfientlighet och bevarandearbete”, 113f., Eng, Staffan (2018) “Historien vi ärvde”, 16–19, Gill, Alexander (2017) “Agenda Cultural Heritage and the Future of Archaeology at Sweden’s county museums”, 33–37. See also Mellander, Cathrine (2011) “Mot ett vidgat kulturarv”, 63, Grundberg, Jonas (2004) Historiebruk, globalisering och kulturarvsförvaltning: utveckling eller konflikt?, 64, Motturi, Aleksander (2007) Etnotism: en essä om mångkultur, tystnad och begäret efter mening, 57ff, Lowenthal, David (1985) The Past is a Foreign Country (13th edition) 3–28, 35–74, and Aronsson, Peter (2004) Historiebruk – att använda det förflutna, 183–243.

36 See for instance, Centre for Critical Heritage Studies, University of Gothenburg, and Critical Heritage Studies Network, Stockholm University.

37 Swedish National Heritage Board (2015b) 68. See also Mårdh, Hedvig (2017) A Century of Swedish Gustavian Style: Art History, Cultural Heritage and Neoclassical Revivals from the 1890s to 1990s, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Ars Suetica 24, 345–363, diss., on the need for reinterpretations and changed meanings projected on Swedish 18th-century art history.

38 Swedish National Heritage Board (2015b) 13.

39 Ibid.

22

administrative board, regional and local museums, municipalities, private enterprises and civil society organisations such as local history societies.

Cultural asset Cultural asset is a collective term for the value as assets attributed to phenomena based on their historic, social and aesthetic qualities.40 1.4.3 Public environment Public environment is an established term that is now being debated, or renegotiated, on account of the tension in contemporary social development with regard to the boundaries between public, general and private environments.41 In this committee’s report, public environment means the shared public spaces and environments where people spend longer or shorter periods of time, including schools or healthcare facilities. A public environment can also be an outdoor space, such as a plaza, park, street, or places for public transport or cultural or recreational activities.42 Thus, the term is applied to a large variety of public settings and is used both in historic and contemporary perspectives to denote public spaces, premises or activities that are accessible to many people and usually publicly funded. Building-related art created for public environments is accessible to the public in varying degrees as soon as it is made. Public art can be public in the sense that it is accessible to a group of people who work in a public institution that is closed to the general public, for security reasons, etc.43 In such cases, the public consists of an employer that represents a public activity, i.e. is publicly funded and has a public assignment.

Consequently, the term has come to have a wider meaning and lacks an unequivocal definition. Legally, the term is complicated by the existence of several closely-related terms used in laws and regulations. One such similar term, used in the Act on Public Order (1993:1617), is offentlig plats (public place), which includes roads, streets, squares and parks that are defined as public places in the local development plan, but also some spaces in street blocks to which the public has access, including docks.44 Other related terms are public venues, public space, public land and common areas.

40 Ibid.

41 Like “public art”, the term “public environment” has been discussed in relationship to changed approaches in contemporary society and political developments towards the privatisation of public spaces. The concept of public environment has been understood as in some way neutral, but this has been challenged, since the boundary between public and private tends to be dissolving. There are also tensions between what can be perceived as public and communal. The Royal Institute of Art (2018) Researching Public Art. Nordic Conference with the Aim of Inspiring New Research in the Expanded Field of Public Art, 11–12 October 2018, 8, 11. For a definition of terms, see also Bergman, Bosse (2013), “Offentliga miljöer i ständig omvandling” in Konsten att gestalta gemensamma miljöer – Samverkan i tanke och handling, Public Art Agency Sweden, 223–229.

42 Cf. definition in Prop. 2017/18:110, Politik för gestaltad livsmiljö, 52.

43 This can apply, for instance, to defence facilities, prisons, special care institutions and legal courts.

44 Public Order Act (SFS 1993:1617).

23

1.5 Delimitations The committee has examined the need for awareness-raising in the supervision and management of 20th-century building-related public art in Sweden. Thus, the committee does not cover art that was commissioned or purchased by the government, regions or municipalities but was not intended for site-specific, permanent installation in a public environment or public place (see definition of building-related public art above). Nor does the committee’s report cover public art that could easily be moved and thus is not building-related but is classified by the Public Art Agency as movable art, such as paintings,45 smaller sculptures and works that are classified as applied art.46 Art collections belonging to national, regional, municipal or private museums are not included in the committee’s remit, nor are any other collections of art.

Because of the Public Art Agency’s and the National Heritage Board’s responsibilities according to their respective government assignments, the starting point for the committee has been the government level.47 Since regions and municipalities own and manage most of Sweden’s building-related public art and also continue to commission, purchase and manage this art, they were also considered by the committee. Regional and municipal perspectives were crucial to obtaining a comprehensive picture of issues relating to the management of building-related public art, specifically when analysing and exemplifying how non-governmental bodies have applied existing legislation. It was not within the scope of the committee, however, to report in detail on how these bodies manage building-related public art. Moreover, since the government assignment did not include proposals on how regions and municipalities should conduct their supervision and management, any proposals are aimed primarily at the government level; hopefully, they can also contribute to progress at the regional and municipal levels. The fact that the public sector has been selling property to private owners for a long time now, means that the committee, to some extent, also addresses art commissioned by public organisations but currently in private ownership. The property management of these owners, however, is only marginally considered.

1.6 Disposition and reading instructions This report begins with a summary, with proposals, observations and consequences.

This is followed by chapters 2 – 5, which are divided and arranged according to identified challenges and problem areas (see 1.1). Chapter 2 addresses the challenge of keeping expertise up to date when building-related public art is increasingly seen as part of our cultural heritage and not simply as art. Chapter 3 describes the ambiguities with regard to responsibilities and roles, and their potential repercussions for the supervision and management of building-related public art. Chapter 4 highlights the challenges that arise

45 The public art that is classified as movable according to the practice of the Public Art Agency is placed to suit the public activity that takes place in the building. There is a grey zone, however, where works that are deemed movable are installed in a public place but have eventually come to be seen as integral to their setting.

46 Within the frame work of activities of the Public Art Agency, regions and municipalities, the term impermanent art is often used to denote such public art that is intended to be shown for a limited period.

47 See ordinances 2007:1188 §2, 2014:1585 §1, and 2017:304.

24

from the insufficient awareness of how existing legal and economic instruments should be interpreted and applied. Chapter 5 is about challenges relating to the current lack of accessible and coordinated records of building-related public art, and the poor awareness of the advantage of standards for documentation when performing inventories, antiquarian examinations and conservation and preservation.

Chapters 2 – 5 have a similar structure, with a presentation of the empirical background, followed by a review of the international survey. Then comes a summary analysis, with assessments and proposals, and a brief analysis of consequences. Each chapter ends with a case study, providing a concrete and instructive example, and highlighting challenges.

The challenges span a wide variety of areas, and the chapters therefore differ somewhat in character and tone. This may seem problematic, but it can also be an advantage, since it reflects the committee’s ambition to produce a multifaceted overview of knowledge in the field, which, in turn, provides a solid base for the committee’s proposals relating to the need for awareness-raising initiatives in the supervision and management of building-related public art.

There are, of course, many different ways to approach this report. One is to read all the chapters in consecutive order. This will give a full picture of the field, but the reader may find that the chapters are repetitive. Another approach is to read the report thematically, i.e. to focus on the chapter or chapters that are particularly relevant to the reader. To facilitate this approach, therefore, some passages are reiterated in several chapters, since the subjects overlap.

The report includes both proposals for awareness-raising initiatives in supervision and management of building-related public art, and proposals for measures that can contribute to progress in the field. These two proposal categories were requested by the government in their assignment to the committee. In cases where the committee chose not to offer concrete proposals but nevertheless wants to highlight particular aspects that are relevant to developments in the field, these aspects are presented as observations. Thus, there are three types of proposals/observations. The committee has categorised proposals and observations according to three levels, based on the administrative level they address. The first, proposals for measures that can contribute to favourable progress, is addressed to the Government Offices. The second level, proposals for awareness-raising measures, is primarily addressed to government authorities and other stakeholders, but can also offer guidelines for municipalities and regional government. The third level is observations. Some of these were formulated as such because it was not possible to articulate them as concrete proposals even though they were deemed to be essential to progress in the field. Others are presented as observations rather than proposals in order to give the Public Art Agency and National Heritage Board the possibility of incorporating them in their regular activities.

25

2 Building-related public art as part of the cultural environment

This chapter begins with a historical background, describing how architecturally specific art was an integral part of the early conservation activities, but how the art, in the course of increased professionalisation in the late 19th century and the establishment of the humanities in the early 20th century, gradually became a separate field, with the result that the art lost its distinct foundation in the cultural environment. This chapter also deals with building-related public art in relation to the emerging welfare state, and elaborates on the discussion regarding the need to build more knowledge about the modern cultural heritage, to the effect that building-related art should be included in the cultural environment field. Furthermore, the chapter highlights how building-related art should be handled within the framework of cultural environment conservation processes for assessment and selection, and the need for increased inter-disciplinary collaboration between the professionals in the sectors for cultural environment and public art.

2.1 Architecturally specific art and early antiquarian practices Architecturally specific art48 was regarded as a historically valuable and fully integrated element in the historic assessments performed by the early antiquarians in the late 1800s and early 1900s. In those days, an antiquarian would have an interdisciplinary approach, embracing different fields or knowledge traditions that gradually developed into their own, clearly-defined disciplines within the humanities.

The role of the government for the protection of historic monuments was as yet undefined in the mid-1800s, and the responsibility lay largely with what we now call civil society.49 With the expansion of public administration in the late-1800s, however, what had previously been regarded as private or local concerns became part of the public domain.50 New and stricter demands on the holders of public posts led to a revaluation of universities and academic training, since the reformed government administration required increased professionalisation of civil servants. This helped establish and legitimise the professions.51

48 Architecturally specific art in this context means building-related art created in churches, castles and other public buildings, but primarily before the adoption of the one per cent rule and the founding of the Public Art Agency in 1937.

49 Jensen, Ola W. (2012a) “Kulturarv och värden 1993:1617 – expertis och demokrati” 125f. For more on early antiquarian practices, so called history of antiquities, and the origin of the subject of art history in aesthetics, see Söderlind, Solfrid (2000b) “Kosthistorieämnets förhistoria”, 11ff, and 22ff. For the emergence of Swedish heritage conservation with an emphasis on monuments and buildings, see Geijer, Mia (2007) Makten över monumenten – restaurering av vasaslotten 1850–2000, Nordiska museets handlingar 132, diss., 31-61, 63-95, and Geijer, Mia (2013) “Bakgrundsteckning” in Statens kulturfastigheter – urval och förvaltning för framtiden, app. 5, SOU 2013:55, Wetterberg, Ola (1992) Monument & miljö. Perspektiv på det tidiga 1900-talets byggnadsvård i Sverige, Chalmers University of Technology, Dept. Architecture History, 23–68, 69–163.

50 Hall, Patrik (2000) Den svenskaste historien. Nationalism i Sverige under sex sekler, 197 ff. See also Wetterberg (1992) 23 ff.

51 Andersson, Lars (2003) Sveriges historia under 1800- och 1900-talen, 105 ff, Gemzell, Carl-Axel (1993) Om politikens förvetenskapligande och vetenskapens politisering. Kring välfärdsstatens uppkomst i England, 3, Jensen, Ola W. (2012b) “Mellan dilettantism och professionalism. Om konstruktionen av vetenskapliga självbilder inom 1800-talets svenska kulturminnesvård och arkeologi”, 255–286.

26

This development most certainly included conservation, where subjects such as archaeology, and history of architecture and art became independent disciplines around 1900.52 The professionalisation that was driven by museum staff also influenced this process, in that in that the protection of monuments came to be divided into specialist fields. Practising antiquarians, who had previously had an interdisciplinary approach incorporating a broad variety of material, now worked in more limited fields of expertise, albeit with frequent contacts across disciplinary boundaries.53 The establishing of the humanities meant that protection of monuments could be based on more scientific arguments for the preservation of physical remains in the form of monuments and archaeological sites.54 With the emergence of a public and reformed management of cultural heritage, architects and antiquarians came to dominate the ideas on what was valuable from a historic perspective and formed a canon with regard to the selection of buildings and monuments of great historic value.55 Nevertheless, a lively critical debate took place in the years around 1900 between architects and antiquarians on how the conservation of historic buildings and monuments should be carried out.56 Historic buildings with architecturally specific art were considered particularly suitable as models for creating a national Swedish architecture, since awareness of the embellishment and architecture of older monuments was believed to offer technical and aesthetic insights that could generate a new, contemporary architecture.57 Thus, aesthetics, along with other historic and architectural values, were eventually adopted as the criterion for preservation, and for incorporating specific buildings into Sweden’s history of art and architecture.58

52 Jensen (2012b) 256 f, Geijer (2007) 93 ff, Söderlind (2000b) 28 ff, and Pettersson, Hans (2000) “Konsthistoria som universitetsdisciplin”, 66 ff. Art history became a separate discipline at the universities of Lund and Uppsala in 1908, but the subject had existed at Stockholm University since 1889. The fundamental ideas of aesthetics and art history had been present in Sweden since the late 18th century, however, and were thus involved in establishing the first Swedish museums. See Liepe, Lena Fornvännen 2006(101):2, 146, Söderlind (2000b, a) 28 ff and 42 ff.

53 See Richard, Pettersson (2001) Fädernesland och framtidsland. Sigurd Curman och kulturminnesvårdens etablering, Skrifter från forskningsprogrammet Landskapet som arena No 2, Dept. of History, Umeå University, diss., 32–49, 93–122, Wetterberg (1992) 28 ff.

54 Geijer (2013) 273.

55 The government’s handling of what were perceived to be historic monuments was criticised, however, by local and regional representatives and NGOs. See Geijer (2013) 267 f, Wetterberg (1992) 24, 39 ff.

56 For an international comparison on developments in conservation of monuments, see Kåring, Göran (1992) När medeltidens sol går ned: debatten om byggnadsvård i England, Frankrike och Tyskland 1815–1914, diss., Stockholm University, Miller Lane, Barbara (2000) National romanticism and modern architecture in Germany and the Skandinavian countries, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, Arrhenius, Thordis (2003) The fragile monument: on conservation and modernity, KTH School of Architecture, diss. For more on the critical debate on the restoration of Swedish monuments, see Ljungström, Lars (1987) Aendnu gamblare: Fredrik Liljekvists restaurering av Gripsholms slott och 1890-talets restaureringsdebatt, Södermanlands museum, Sörmländska handlingar 45, Wetterberg (1992) 39 ff, Geijer, Mia (2004) Ett nationellt kulturarv. Utvecklingen av en professionell vård och förvaltning av statliga byggnadsminnen, KTH, Dept. of Infrastructure, lic., 21 ff., Geijer (2007) 63–95.

57 Åman, Anders (2008) Sigurd Curman. Riksantikvarie – ett porträtt, Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, and Atlantis bokförlag, 93–99, 173–182.

58 Geijer (2013) 273, Wetterberg (1992) 28 ff, and 36 ff.

27

In the first decades of the 20th century, architects, antiquarians and art historians continued to work side by side on several projects of a national character, aiming to identify and document older Swedish architecture, including churches and profane buildings.59 The methods and scientific meticulousness that characterised these historic projects set benchmarks for both art history and architectural history.60 The objective of the national documentation projects, apart from building knowledge and developing methods and practices, was also to influence public opinion and promote interest in preservation, in an era characterised by massive and relatively rapid social change, as the foundations of the Swedish welfare state were being laid.

Against this background, it is clear that the older antiquarian knowledge tradition, alongside the aesthetic knowledge tradition from the 1800s and onwards, was seminal to the development of the subject of art history.61 Moreover, it is clear that art, and especially architecturally specific art, within the framework of professionalised conservation, has been regarded as an inherent and natural part of antiquarian practice. The aesthetic or artistic elements of the monuments were included in the monuments’ aggregate value.62 In other words, architecturally integrated public art was regarded from an early stage as a fundamental and natural part of what we today deal with within institutionalised cultural environment work.

The more specialised scientific perspective that was established in the early 1900s, with demands on its own defined objects of study and its own terminology and theories, eventually widened the gap between academia on one side, and conservation and its practices on the other. The development of museum collections and the role of museums in the late 1800s and early 1900s also contributed to this specialisation.63 This tendency towards greater diversity with regard to subject areas, was also exceedingly prevalent in conservation and was especially pronounced in connection with the expansion of the welfare state. The requirements on existing cultural environments multiplied, while cultural environment issues became more firmly established in post-war urban planning.64 Thereby, antiquarian practices were directed mainly towards archaeology and buildings, and this remains largely the case to this day. Art, and especially 20th-century building-related public art, however, has not been considered other than marginally, since art was handled within the field of public art and as part of the activities of museums and academia.

59 Noteworthy projects are the restoration of Strängnäs cathedral and the exhibition on ecclesiastical art in 1910, where mediaeval art was exhibited as an aspect of Swedish art history, the national projects Gamla svenska städer 1908–1930, Svensk arkitektur 1908–1924, Sveriges kyrkor: konsthistoriskt inventarium from 1912, which is still in progress. The announcement in 1920 on public building and Martin Olsson’s study on national historic buildings were also a result of these surveys and documentations, see Geijer (2013). See also Lindblad, Jakob (2014) “Sveriges kyrkor. Konsthistoriskt inventarium – aktuella publikationer”, 89–99.

60 Åman (2008) 81 ff. Liepe (2006) 146 f.

61 Söderlind (2000b) 10 f.

62 Today, assessments of the aesthetic features on and in buildings and monuments are not covered by the Historic Environment Act (SFS 1988:950), but by the Planning and Building Act (2010:900). Nevertheless, an appreciation of the aesthetic features should be included in assessments today – even if they are not formulated as such.

63 Söderlind (2000a) 42 ff.

64 Biörnstad, Margareta (2015) Kulturminnesvården i efterkrigstid – med Riksantikvarieämbetet i centrum, KVHA:s handlingar, antikvariska serien 51, 80–85, 215 ff. In the post-war era, and especially in the 1960s, various organisational reforms moved the emphasis in the

28

2.2 Building-related public art and the welfare state On entering a mediaeval church with preserved frescoes, few people will think of the artistic embellishment of the walls or ceiling as a form of architecturally integrated public art. The artistically designed biblical scenes, the images of saints, or the painted stellar vaults in the mediaeval church are experienced, like the other fixed or movable interior decoration, as part of a sacred spatial totality. This is because the art here is an integral part of the building’s design.

This spatial totality, however, where art and architecture interact and become part of a greater context, can sometimes be expressed in other ways and extend into a larger public space. Sometimes, moreover, there is no physical contact between the building and the work of art. This is often the case, for instance, with 20th-century architecture and public art. A free-standing modernist sculpture in the square outside a city hall is also an example of architecturally specific art. The sculpture can form a counterpart to the building and, as such, be integral to an architectonically designed totality, according to the intentions of the builder, artist or architect.

Both examples above serve to illustrate the variation in how architecturally specific art can be manifested, partly due to when it was created and the principal’s intentions. But there is yet another difference between the two examples – the free-standing sculpture was created in a context that was entirely new at the time. The breakthrough of modernism in architecture in the early 20th century brought new conceptual, technological, material- and construction-based possibilities, opening up for innovative architectonic styles. This was also true for modernist art, which was to take a more explicit role in the architectonic design of the new environments and buildings of the welfare state. It is also important in this context to stress the changing role of artists. Historically, artists were strongly linked to and controlled by the principal, whereas the modernist artist ideal advocated greater autonomy vis à vis the principal. The artist’s work was regarded more as the expression of individual and artistic freedom.65 Yet, architects and artists often collaborated closely with each other in the creative process, and the boundary between art and architecture grew fuzzier in modernism, when buildings were sometimes designed as a Gesamtkunstwerk.66 The Public Art Agency, as a principal commissioning public art, and the introduction of the one per cent rule in 1937, were crucial to this development in Sweden. The political initiative for publicly-funded art paved the way for collaborations between architects and artists, in an era when the welfare state was emerging and public construction projects

conservation of buildings to what was called ancient monuments and their conservation. By linking the fixtures of ancient monuments to the landownership map, archaeological issues were more distinctly embedded in the physical planning process. This was also true for issues relating to historic buildings, which were also firmly established in urban development, through the national physical planning process in the 1970s. Historic building conservation also benefited to some extent from the emerging environmentalism.

65 Fagerström, Linda (2014) “Modernistisk konst i kyrkan – varken konstvetenskapligt forskningsfält eller kyrkligt kulturarv”, 120 ff.

66 For examples of interactions between architecture and art in Swedish modernism, see Geijer, Mia “Bergslagens bruksorter. Moderna stadsmiljöer som kulturarv” in Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift 2011:62, 25 ff. See also Karlsmo, Emilie (2005) Rum för avsked: begravningskapellets arkitektur och konstnärliga utsmyckning i 1900-talets Sverige, Dept. of Art History, Uppsala University, diss., 177–209, 210–223.

See also Örn, Johan “Bakom den moderna fasaden. Offentliga interiörer söker sin historia” in Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift 2011:62, 46 ff.

Among other things, Örn describes the problems with interdisciplinary design.

29

were on the rise. It was the explicit vision of the National Board of Public Buildings, which had the overall responsibility for the government administration’s construction projects, planning and building should be carried out in the spirit of the mediaeval guild system, where craftsmanship and quality were the cornerstones of a successful result.67 Several of the leading Swedish architectural firms consequently had long-standing collaborations with some of the country’s top artists and craftspeople.

The artist Sven X-et Erixson’s fresco Life, Death, Life (1938–1940) in the Chapel of the Holy Cross at Skogskyrkogården (the Woodland Cemetery) in Stockholm is an early example of this type of new art initiative, where murals were an important artistic medium. Skogskyrkogården is considered one of Swedish 20th-century architecture’s finest works; financially, both the buildings, the cemetery and the art were among the most expensive projects completed during the war.68 The artist Alf Munthe’s design for the prayer room at Karolinska Hospital in Solna, titled Fragmented Light (1940), is another early example of how art and architecture interact and form a totality. Torsten Billman’s fresco Social Development (1947) in Folkets Hus in Gävle is one of the most distinct examples of how building-related public art was aimed at expressing the social and political ideas underpinning the development of the Swedish welfare state.69 In the 1950s, many of the artists working in Sweden began to change their style. Concretism, for instance, was a movement that had a huge impact on art and architecture, and gave art more space in the built environment.70 Artists such as Randi Fisher, Lennart Rodhe, Arne Jones and Pierre Olofsson, all of whom were Concretists, got private and public commissions to create works for public spaces. Furthermore, modernism spread throughout Sweden in the 1950s, with support from organisations such as Konstfrämjandet (founded in 1947), and the opening of Moderna Museet (in 1958).71 The 1950s were also an expansive phase in the building of the welfare state, giving artists new and prominent positions in construction and design of housing estates, playgrounds and schools.

In the 1960s, the one per cent rule impacted on a large scale on building-related public art, and more artists received public and private commissions. The 1960s were also a ground-breaking period in Swedish art, when traditional concepts were once again challenged. In those years, building-related public art was characterised by intense experimentation and playfulness. Artists such as Elis Eriksson, Agneta Flock and Walter Bengtsson were given great freedom in the form of colour schemes, textile elements and the design of entrance areas for buildings such as Garnisonen and Kaknästornet in Stockholm. In the 1970s, politics and social issues had an even greater impact on the development of art in Sweden and internationally – and on building-related public art. The artist Siri Derkert was a pioneer of politically and socially committed art, and her oeuvre

67 Hermerén & Orrje (2014) 29.

68 Ibid 50.

69 See, for instance, Stensman & Tranaeus (eds) (1987).

70 The term “concrete art” refers to art that does not seek to present a realistic or abstract depiction of reality. The work constitutes its own concrete reality with materials, forms and colours. Thus, concrete art is free of any figurative or symbolic elements.

71 See http://konstframjandet.se/om/konstframjandets-historia/ (accessed 2019-05-21) and https://www.modernamuseet.se/stockholm/sv/2015/01/04/historia/ (accessed 2019-05-21).

30

includes the design for the Östermalmstorg underground station and Sweden House in Stockholm. In the 1960s and 1970s, textile art became more prominent in public spaces, thanks to the growing number of textile studios specialising in art for public environments.72 One example of textile building-related public textile art from this period is Kaisa Melanton’s tapestry in Västerås City Hall, Freedom of Speech (1963).

Political awareness among artists also led to ground-breaking initiatives for building-related public art in such places that had not previously been defined as public spaces.

Back in 1967, the artist Jörgen Fogelquist had devised a colour scheme for the factory interior at the Frans Suell tobacco factory in Malmö. In the 1970s and 1980s, this was followed by commissions to artists for other types of industrial environments, such as the Tomteboda sorting office in Solna, railway engine workshops, tunnel systems and similar workplaces.73 Art for churches followed a similar trajectory; the work by Bar and Robert Nilsson for Markuskyrkan in Björkhagen outside Stockholm, which included two tapestries, a brick relief and a bronze plate, is another example of the emphasis on interaction between architecture and art.

In the 1980s and 1990s, public art was influenced by postmodernist perspectives, stressing context and challenging the existence of eternal values. Ulrik Samuelsson’s art in the Kungsträdgården underground station in Stockholm (1978) illustrates how postmodernist art can allude playfully to local history. The development of building-related public art in our time is complex and influenced particularly by the growing internationalisation of contemporary art.74 Thus, building-related art has a very long history, but modernism, as we can see from the above, generated an entirely new potential for the interaction between art and architecture. It is worth noting here, that it was not uncommon in the late-1800s that associations or individuals contributed to the funding of art for public places and buildings.75 The Swedish government’s determined one-per-cent-rule initiative, however, meant that art became a more integrated part of public construction projects in the 20th century.76 Public art thereby also gained a more defined role in society, for instance in relation to issues of democracy, education and norms. Art could be said to be one of many expressions of the notions and fundamental ideas underpinning the welfare state. The founding

72 Among these are Handarbetets vänner (HV) and Alice Lund Textilier, both of which produced a large number of building-related public textile works all over Sweden. See also Martin, Edna, Sydhoff, Beate (1979) Svensk textilkonst.

73 See Stensman, Mailis (1984) “Konsten på väg in i fabrikerna”.

74 Tendencies in contemporary art include interdisciplinarity, occasional ephemerality or transience. The graffiti initiatives in the municipalities of Nässjö and Mariestad are examples of contemporary investments in building-related public art. Another current trend is public art that serves as a way of marketing a place or a city, such as Akademiska Hus’ commissioning of art for Borås University. Moreover, new technology generates digital art in the form of moving images or sound, for example Lev (Live) in a pedestrian/cyclist subway in Umeå, and Tania Ruiz Gutiérrez’s work at Malmö Central Station. Several public works also seek to raise questions and problematise, such as Charlotte Gyllenhammar’s sculpture on the pilgrim theme, in Linköping cathedral. See also Fagerström, Linda & Haglund, Elisabet (eds) (2010) Plats, poetik och politik: samtida konst i det offentliga rummet.

75 See Hermerén & Orrje (2014) 14, 28.

76 The churches and chapels built in the 20th century show a clear continuity in the interaction between architecture and art. Several of the artists and architects who were engaged in secular buildings in the welfare state were also active in church projects. See Karlsmo (2005) 335–350.

31

of the Museum of Sketches in 1934 was yet another sign of how public art from the 20th century was established and recognised quite early as a separate genre.77 The modernist artist ideal, and the new architectural ideal, which seemed to depart radically from more traditional architecture78, contributed to the major difference between building-related art from the 20th century and onwards, and earlier architecturally specific public art. The contrast is further illustrated by the Public Art Agency, which was established as a means to institutionalise the commissioning, funding and production of building-related public art. County councils (now known as regions) and municipalities took after the government at an early stage and also funded public art, promoting the phenomenon throughout Sweden. Companies, especially those in Swedish industrial towns, have also contributed since the mid-1900s to the artistic design of public buildings and spaces.79 Altogether, this explains why architecturally specific public art from the 20th century can rightly be described by a more specific term: building-related public art.80 This term is relatively new and originates in the administrative need at government level within the activities of the Public Art Agency to differentiate between permanently-installed and intention-specific, i.e. site-specific art, and movable, so-called easel art.81 This term is already established at government level, but it would also be valuable from a pedagogical point of view, to emphasise that 20th-century building-related public art is a field that requires specialist knowledge, as the challenges identified in the introduction to this chapter clearly show.82 2.3 The modern cultural heritage and public art In terms of cultural heritage, 20th-century architecture and built environments have a brief history. Even if modernism and later architectural movements have been chronicled by contemporary historiographers and inserted into a canon, it was only in the final decades of the 1900s that modernist environments began to be looked upon as cultural heritage.83 This was the start of an international, broad knowledge production aimed at inserting modern architecture in the architectural history field, and ultimately in the cultural environment sector’s practice.

77 In his inauguration speech in 1933, the artist Georg Pauli said, “An inventory should be made immediately of our monumental paintings, before it is too late.” Josephson, Ragnar (1965) (ed.), Bilden på muren: studier, in Arkiv för dekorativ konst, Lund. This archive of decorative art was created also as an inspiration to commissioners and artists, and expresses Josephson’s ideas on the potential to analyse the creative process. On the Museum of Sketches, cf. Qvarnström, Ludwig (2010) Vigselrummet i Stockholms rådhus och det tidiga 1900-talets monumentalmåleri: Historia, reception, historiografi, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Ars Suecia 22, 297–305.

78 The status-signalling function with monumental aspirations of older buildings was transferred to the modernist idiom, and there exists a clear continuity with older architecture.

79 Cf. Vikström, Eva (1998) Bruksandan och modernismen: brukssamhälle och folkhemsbygge i Bergslagen 1935–1975, Nordiska museets handlingar 126.

80 Se 1.4.1 Definitions.

81 Hermerén & Orrje (2014) 365 f.

82 See 1.1 Identified challenges.

83 Edman, Victor, 2011, “Nittonhundratalet går till historien. Om etableringen av ett nytt kulturarv”, 78 ff.

32

The international knowledge building in “modern cultural heritage” quickly gained a foothold in Sweden, where modernist architecture, and especially its links to the welfare state, is already an recognised field of research.84 Research on Swedish modernism, which took off in the 1980s, played a massive part in the 1990s in getting early modernist buildings accepted as a cultural heritage.85 Initiatives to conserve “modern society” and its material traces has resulted, among other things, in efforts focusing on the cultural heritage of industrialism and the welfare state.86 Several projects have highlighted the potential of these cultural environments as resources for sustainable social development.

One of the major challenges, however, is the large number of buildings, especially from the post-war era, and their poor state of repair.87 In consequence, issues of knowledge building through inventories and documentation, along with assessment and selection, are forever relevant, especially when it comes to the modern cultural heritage. The fact that awareness about the modern cultural heritage is still evolving, in combination with the occasionally poor engineering and material qualities of these buildings, impact on the number of buildings and environments that are protected. Few 20th-century buildings currently have legal protection as historic buildings according to the Historic Environment Act (1988:950), corresponding government regulations, or through development plans.88 Moreover, only a small selection of Swedish churches built after 1940 are protected.89 Furthermore, public art has only been marginally considered within the framework of these initiatives for 20th-century cultural environments.90 This is probably in part due

84 Cf. Rudberg, Eva (1999) Stockholmsutställningen 1930: modernismens genombrott i svensk arkitektur, Caldenby, Claes (1998) Att bygga ett land: 1900-talets svenska arkitektur, Rörby, Martin (2002) David Helldén: modernistisk visionär på traditionens grund, Söderqvist, Lisbeth (1999) Rekordår och miljonprogram. Flerfamiljshus i stor skala: en fallstudiebaserad undersökning av politik, planläggning och estetik, Eriksson, Eva (2000) Mellan tradition och modernitet: arkitektur och arkitekturdebatt 1900–1930, and others.

85 There is a growing awareness of this within cultural environment conservation today, and more evidence relating to late 20th-century cultural environments. But the problem is connected with the need for long-term approaches in the field, with regard to assessment and selection.

86 The National Heritage Board was the driving force in projects such as Storstadens arkitektur och kulturmiljö, Det moderna samhällets kulturarv, Malmfälten – kulturarv, samhällsförändringar, and the documentation of the City of Kiruna prior to its relocation. Initiatives for the modern cultural heritage have also been promoted internationally and within the framework of Baltic cooperation, in the Baltic Region Heritage Committee. The Bergslagen project included a six-year series of seminars on Modernism in Bergslagen. See Geijer, Mia & Isacson, Maths (eds) (2016) “Modernism i Bergslagen – resandeseminarium i en nära förflutenhet” in Bergslagshistoria, 2016:28. Several county administrative boards and county museums have launched projects on their modernist cultural heritage, including Västernorrland’s project for post-war environments and monuments, see Sundborg, Peter (2005), Glimtar av en guldålder: arkitektur och bebyggelse i Västernorrland 1945–1965, and the project Modernismen i Västmanland, and Västmanland county council’s inventory (2014) Kartläggning av den offentliga konsten i Västmanlands kommuner 2011 och 2014.

87 The demographic situation also affects these buildings, as they can become supernumerary, as can churches.

88 The National Heritage Board (2017b) Nya byggnadsminnen: en utvärdering om länsstyrelsernas förutsättningar att bilda nya byggnadsminnen, and its list of national historic buildings. See also Thornberg Knutsson, Agneta (2007) Byggnadsminnen – principer och praktik: den offentliga kulturmiljövårdens byggnadsminnesverksamhet: beskrivning och utvärdering, diss., University of Gothenburg. Due to a lack of resources, the list has not been updated to keep abreast with the expanded definition of cultural heritage. The cultural property committee has also noted the under-representation of many types of environment that would make it relevant to more citizens. Some categories of government-owned cultural buildings are under-represented, especially 20th-century architecture. Bergström, Ulrika, Geijer, Mia “Kulturfastighetsutredningen – kan man välja ett kulturarv?”, 87–100, National Property Board (2009) Kulturfastighetsutredningen, parts 1–2.

89 All churches built before 1940 are protected according to ch. 4 of the Heritage Protection Act, but only a few built that were built after 1940.

90 One exception is Västmanland County Council (2014).

33

to the embryonic state of the knowledge and documentation of public art, but also to the fact that antiquarian practices have not always deemed themselves capable of considering the specific artistic value ascribed to 20th-century public art.91 One explanation for this is that the cultural environment sector lacks sufficient knowledge in connection with the assessment and selection situations for building-related public art. Another explanation is that public art is rarely included in the assignment for antiquarian investigations.

Occasionally, therefore, building antiquarians don’t inventory and assess building-related public art, for instance when performing antiquarian investigations prior to planning necessary refurbishment,92 meaning that property owners do not get adequate data for the planned work, and risking the loss of valuable building-related public art.

In the interviews conducted by the committee, it was suggested that a special knowledge platform for this are should be created at government level.93 Academia has recognised the need for more knowledge, and a few art history departments now offer courses in building-related public art as a cultural heritage,94 aiming to expand awareness of public art within the subject of art history. But the purpose is also to encourage interdisciplinary practices, as the courses respond to the need for more knowledge within other professionals, such as architectural antiquarians, urban planners and engineers.

The capacity to assess building-related public art is essential to understanding and describing the aesthetic and symbolic qualities of the public environments as a whole. Investigating the potential for improving the supervision and management of building-related public art as a cultural heritage involves more than mere follow-ups how public investments in art are managed. Supervision and management are also influenced by larger and more complex structural changes in society. Long-term sustainable supervision and management requires an overarching knowledge and understanding of the development of the welfare state and the design of public spaces – from a bourgeois public sphere, via a public sphere of citizens, to today’s public sphere characterised by increasing privatisation of ownership and the design of our shared living environment.95 2.4 Conservation processes for assessment and selection In addition to an awareness of building-related public art in the respective fields – art and cultural environments – a holistic perspective requires increased collaboration across

91 Knowledge production and research on public art is in progress but still in development. Fagerström (2014) 117 f. Emilie Karlsmo’s (2005) thesis is nevertheless a valuable contribution to the field of ecclesiastical 20th-century art, as is Ludwig Qvarnström’s (2010) research on the registry office at the Stockholm Court House and early 20th-century monumental painting in Sweden.

92 Interviewee 1, June 2018. See also the example of Rindö, Vaxholm in Hermerén & Orrje (2014) 192 ff.

93 Interviewee 4, June 2018.

94 The Dept. of Art History at Uppsala University, for instance, offers a course in public art as part of the future cultural heritage. This part-time 10-week course is aimed at art historians, urban planners, architectural antiquarians, social scientists and cultural geographers.

Interviewee 1, June 2018. For other courses in this field, see note 11.

95 According to Jürgen Habermas, the theories of the 18th-century Enlightenment were considered to be crucial to a modern understanding of the public sphere. Habermas links the public sphere to the emerging middle class and states that this gave rise to a new social space that lay the foundations for a discursive democracy. This model of democracy is characterised by the idea of rational conversation as a means of creating a better society. See Habermas, Jürgen (1962) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.

34

sectors between professionals from both fields, if a coordinated assessment and selection process is to be achieved. Today, cultural environment issues are being absorbed into increasingly complex contexts, and more public influence means that more stakeholders are involved in the cultural heritage process. This, in turn, requires partly new approaches when defining, assessing, prioritising and developing cultural environment work.96 Even if the public’s perspective on cultural heritage has broadened, it is the public conservation sector and its institutions that are ultimately responsible for assessing and selecting which cultural environments are of general interest. As specialists, the public conservators have been publicly assigned – and thus, by the Swedish citizens – the task of performing such assessments.97 The historic assessments, and the selections made within the framework of public conservation, on which the government’s decisions are based, adhere to a process that ensures that this task is carried out in accordance with the law. To ensure the clarity and transparency of the historic assessment and selection process, it is always essential to define the standpoints on which the assessment criteria are based. A lack of resources, or the fact that other aspects of social development are valued more highly in the aggregate final assessment in specific cases, are examples of factors that can mean that the historic aspect is not given precedence despite its great value.

There are several approaches within the field of cultural environments, all of which involve different aspects of assessment. In addition to the historic ones, these are aesthetic, social, ecological and financial. The assessment of the historical characteristics of an object or phenomenon involve conscious and qualified standpoints based on expertise in fields such as history, archaeology, architecture and architectural history, ethnology, art, art history and cultural geography. However, the decision which exact qualities to focus on in the assessment and further conservation measures is not static. Changed approaches to assessment and new knowledge entail new requirements and possibilities for dynamic and ongoing additions and adjustments to previous standpoints, but also the option to reject or write off certain objects or phenomena.98 This, for instance, means that something that was assessed to have certain cultural, historic and archaeological merits can be assessed differently on aesthetic grounds.

The fact that the same general development in cultural history can be described and interpreted from different angles, means that the grounds for assessments and selections can also vary over time. This is largely because they depend on the historic focus we choose to apply. A selection process of this kind calls for openness and flexibility when evaluating and categorising the cultural environments, and that the ideas, knowledge and skills on which selections and standpoints are made are explained and clearly described.99

96 For more on historic assessment, see the National Heritage Board (2015b).

97 Ibid 17.

98 The National Heritage Board (2015b) 20 ff. What is considered of high value today may have been less so in the past, and vice versa.

Therefore, the process of assessment has to be constantly discussed. This applies to all disciplines, to both material and immaterial objects and phenomena, that have been seen as historically or otherwise valuable.

99 Ibid 20 ff.

35

It is also important, therefore, that the process for cultural historic assessments and selections is transparent. A different approach makes it possible to problematise, assess and revalue an object or phenomenon. With regard to public art, this is taken even further. Here, the assessment and selection process also has to include aspects such as the artist’s intentions, durability, and the qualities of the materials. Regarding the intentions of the artist, or sometimes the builder/owner, one must take into account that some works neither can nor should be preserved. In the field of art, therefore, we use the term impermanent art to denote works that, for various reasons, are shown for a limited period or are somehow “perishable”.100 In other cases, the actual material or medium is neither intended nor suitable for preservation beyond a certain date. These aspects are therefore important to take into account in an early stage, since they indicate whether a work of art should even be considered for a more long-term assessment and selection process.

2.5 Aesthetic aspects and historic and artistic value Attempts to regard public building-related art as part of the cultural heritage were made in the final decades of the 20th century, but the time was not quite ripe for addressing this issue from an antiquarian perspective.101 When the Nationalmuseum was assigned to review and classify government-owned building-related public art, in view of the imminent phasing out of the National Board of Public Buildings in 1993, the works were assessed mainly in terms of artistic value. The understanding of the historic value of building-related public art grew successively, however, in the 1990s and early 2000s.102 Which aspects should be considered when assessing building-related public art, and what expertise should a historic assessment and selection process be based on? Public building-related art represents a variety of assets. Hermerén and Orrje (2014), for instance, highlight the artistic, historic and economic value.103 The artistic merits, in turn, can be assessed in terms of their historic value. Moreover, a specific work of art can be evaluated in terms of its social aspects. Beauty is certainly subjective, and everyone can thus have their own opinion on the architectonic or artistic value of a building or work of art. Not everyone, however, has the same profound expertise in architecture or art, or the experience in performing qualified assessments of the aesthetic merits of buildings or works of art. To fairly assess such merits requires profound knowledge in various subjects, including the history of architecture and building, art history, aesthetics or cultural history, along with detailed knowledge in the principles for assessing and selecting.104

100 Impermanent is used to denote public art that is not handled as a museum object.

101 An application was made to the County Administrative Board in 1988 to list the Alf Munthe and Greta Gahn baptism room at the Karolinska Hospital as a historic monument, and for funding through the cultural environment budget, but it was rejected. See Hermerén & Orrje (2014) 136 ff.

102 Interest in public art as a cultural heritage has grown with the added focus on modern cultural environments. For a definition of historic value, see national Heritage Board (2015b) 12.

103 Hermerén & Orrje (2014) 282. It is worth noting that cultural environment conservation rarely attributes economic value to the cultural environment.

104 Otero-Pailos, Jorge, Gaiger, Jason & West, Susie (eds) (2010) “Heritage values”, 55 f.

36

In a given assessment and selection situation, however, it is important to note that what could be called “conflicts” may arise between different aspects that are to be included in the historic assessment. As mentioned above, these conflicts can concern the historic, aesthetic, social, environmental and economic aspects, where one or more aspects are more essential than the others in the overall evaluation and thus have more impact on the end result. Moreover, different disciplines in the artistic, art historic or historic fields can offer different perspectives or opinions when assessing or selecting, leading to a form of conflict, since the same phenomenon can be interpreted in different ways. In the case of building-related public art, for example, some works are now seen to represent obsolete ideas or offensive subject matter. The historic assessment and selection process must take different interpretations and new perspectives into consideration. Therefore, it is vital to maintain a problematising approach in assessments. This makes it more likely that the assessment is based on conscious standpoints, which, in turn, will guide the selection.105 The assessment and selection of building-related public art also takes the economic value into account. Since building-related art, as a rule, is integrated in the building, or intended for permanent, specific installation in a public place or environment, it does not have the same potential market value106 as art that consists of detachable paintings, sculptures, etc. Therefore, other principles for economic assessment must be applied for moveable art. Here, the specific artistic value, i.e. its value as art, is a crucial aspect, along with a richer historic context and antiquarian documentation to clarify the period or time that influenced the artist when creating the work. Moreover, the economic assessment is cross-referenced with prices in auction catalogues, exhibition catalogues, etc.107 Increased awareness about the aggregate value that building-related public art represents, together with better awareness of the arts sector’s assessment and selection processes, are fundamental if public art is to be included in the cultural environment work focusing on the modern cultural heritage.108 2.6 International comparisons The international survey that was distributed to representatives of government bodies in Finland, Norway, the UK, France and Germany in autumn 2018 was based on these countries’ traditions for government commissions of building-related public art. One question concerned the degree to which public buildings and environments are seen to represent the modern cultural heritage, and whether the conservation of these are an established activity within the government’s programme for cultural environment conservation. All respondents confirmed that building-related public art is currently covered.

105 National Heritage Board (2015b) 31 ff.

106 Building-related public art is not intended for sale but is defined by the fact that it is permanently installed.

107 Hermerén & Orrje (2014) 285. For further discussion on assessing modernist art in the Church of Sweden, see, for instance Fagerström (2014). Occasional auction prices and assess,emts in recent years, however, indicate rising prices on some public works of art, e.g. assessment in 2016 of John-E Franzén’s painting Cadillac Eldorado at Lund Institute of Technology, where the value was estimated at SEK 15 million. Public Art Agency Sweden annual report 2016, 42.

108 Interviewee 4, June 2018.

37

They also had varieties of Sweden’s one per cent rule. All the representatives to whom the survey was sent in autumn 2018, with the exception of the UK, replied that new building-related public art commissioned by the government was fully or partly government-funded.109 The UK does not apply government funding entirely but has a variety of schemes combining public and private funding. The French government also combines public and private funding when commissioning new building-related public art.

A general problem that the committee needed to explore through the survey was the degree of established procedures for assessing and selecting building-related public art as a cultural heritage, and if so, who is responsible for these processes. This is important, since a broad and deep awareness of the value of building-related public art is a prerequisite for well-founded and long-term priorities for strategic conservation. Finland, France, Germany and the UK have assessment and selection processes at national level. In Germany and the UK, the standard of assessment, selection and prioritisation for conservation is considered to be satisfactory. In France, moreover, these processes are handled by organisations such as regional museums and municipal administrations.

Norway replied that there is no assessment or selection process for national building-related public art. In line with this, Norway and Finland replied that they consider their assessment, selection and prioritisation processes for conservation to be unsatisfactory.

2.7 Proposal for increased collaboration in the policy area for designed living environments This chapter shows that building-related public art recently has increasingly come to be regarded as part of the cultural heritage. This government assignment supports this view, and the international comparison reveals that building-related public art is an established part of the cultural environment field in our Nordic neighbours, in France, the UK and Germany. This ultimately expands the understanding of what is generally considered to be the modern cultural heritage, and which has primarily consisted of 20th-century architecture and buildings. Development has moved towards a more overarching perspective, where the valuation of public environments also includes the aesthetic and symbolic qualities that building-related public art represents. Incorporating parts of building-related public art in the management of our cultural heritage increases our potential to understand the aesthetic and symbolic value of public spaces, but more knowledge is required before we can achieve this.

Based on the challenges presented here (see 1.1) with regard to the growing need for knowledge and more collaboration and interdisciplinary professional exchange, the committee has formulated a proposal for awareness-raising measures.

109 The survey was completed by the following government organisations: Finnish State Art Commission (Finland), KORO – Kunst i Offentlige Rom (Norway), Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung (Germany), Ministère de la Culture (France), and Historic England (UK). The survey was also sent to Statens kunstfund (Denmark).

38

Proposal for awareness-raising measures The committee proposes intensified collaboration between the responsible authorities at national level, and increased collaboration with the concerned stakeholders at regional and municipal level on building-related public art as a cultural heritage, within the policy field of designed living environment.

Assessment The committee has identified a great need for coordinating awareness-raising measures in the area of public art as a cultural heritage with national authorities in the new policy field of designed living environment. The proposal aims to achieve increased general awareness of the field of building-related public art as a cultural heritage at national, regional and municipal level, and to increase the knowledge and skills of the responsible parties and decision-makers in the fields of public art and cultural environments.

Classifying building-related public art as a cultural heritage requires the representatives of the fields of art and cultural environment respectively to understand and know one another’s fields, in order to be in a position to produce material on which long-term, well-founded assessments and prioritisations can be formed. The assessment of this committee, based on interviews, network and reference group meetings, is that more knowledge in art and art history is necessary among those working in the field of cultural environments in order to adopt a more critical or problematising perspective on the management of building-related public art as a 20th-century cultural heritage. Similarly, professionals in the field of public art need more knowledge about the approaches and methods used by antiquarians and historians working with buildings and architecture.

The lack of collaboration and continuous knowledge exchange between professionals in the field of art and cultural environments is deemed to result in substandard inventories and antiquarian documentation, since they are not based on aggregate assessments that include both perspectives. This, in turn, could indicate that the awareness of building-related public art as a cultural heritage is not handled in a coordinated process for historic assessment and selection, where priorities for long-term supervision and management are transparent and based on unambiguous standpoints.

Insufficient collaboration between the national authorities involved, and with regional and municipal stakeholders, has meant that issues of building-related public art are handled at different levels without any joint coordination. The lack of collaboration between and within national, regional and municipal levels will continue to obscure the aggregate value attributed to building-related public art, which could have negative consequences or even lead to art being lost in connection with change of ownership, rebuilding, expansive plans for urban development and demolitions.

The proposed intensified collaboration is in line with the general duties of all government authorities to “strive to benefit, for individuals and for the nation as a whole, from collaboration with other government bodies and others”.110 Thus, collaboration is an obligatory duty for government authorities, but the way in which this is organised between

110 Government Agencies Ordinance (SFS 2007:515) §6.

39

the concerned authorities in order to actually enhance the capacity to preserve modern cultural environments in general and building-related public art in particular, is up to the authorities to decide. One tendency, however, that speaks for increased interdisciplinary collaboration between professionals in architecture, design and art and cultural environments is the new policy for designed living environments that was adopted by parliament in 2018.111 This policy stresses the importance of greater collaboration between the stakeholders responsible for the above areas, which includes building-related art.

By collaborating with the policy field for designed living environment the measures to raise awareness can contribute to appropriate supervision and management of building-related public art in our public spaces. The new national objectives for architecture and design, which include art and cultural environments, aim to promote a sustainable, gender equal and less segregated society, with carefully-designed living environments.112 Building-related public art, like all other aspects of 20th-century construction work in the welfare state, is a natural part of our collective environment and should therefore have a strong influence on new policies. Increased interdisciplinary collaboration on a national level, including in the policy area designed living environments can have positive effects on building-related art at regional and municipal level. Within the framework of the new policy area, the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, the Public Art Agency, the National Heritage Board and ArkDes will collaborate according to their respective government mandates, in designed living environments and according to their specific duties as government authorities.

If this proposal is implemented, the effects are expected to lead not only to greater knowledge in the field of building-related public art as a cultural heritage within the relevant authorities, but also at regional and municipal level and in civil society. Increased collaboration between authorities on this issue is also expected to raise awareness among building antiquarians and case workers in the field of cultural environments, and curators, project managers, art consultants and other involved specialists and case workers in the field of art, so that they include and make use of each other’s expertise when performing inventories, antiquarian documentations and historic assessments and selections.

Consequence Measures started to be taken in 2018 by each respective national authority within the framework of designed living environments, and reports on them are due in 2020, while other measures are continuous. In proposing that development of the field of public art as cultural heritage should be coordinated with the measures for collaboration between authorities on designed living environment, the committee estimates that the implementation of this proposal will not affect the staff or funding resources of the authorities.

111 Prop. 2017/18:110, Politik fĂśr gestaltad livsmiljĂś.

112 Ibid 1.

40

Case study: The Swedish Armed Forces Headquarters – pilot project for increased collaboration In the field of public art as a cultural heritage, the Public Art Agency Sweden and the Swedish National Heritage Board collaborated for the first time in 2016 on a pilot project for the government-owned property company Specialfastigheter’s management of the Fortifications Administration’s former headquarters in Stockholm.113 This building has been the headquarters for the high command of the Swedish Armed Forces. Built in 1968-1970 and designed by the architect Bengt Gate, it is a typical example of the high quality of national initiatives in the 1960s and 1970s, providing new, modern offices for government authorities.114 In these public settings, art was a deliberate and important feature, aiming to create attractive living and working environments with stimulating aesthetic expressions.115

The north courtyard of the Headquarters, Pierre Olofsson, Untitled, 1971, Kavalleristen block, Stockholm.

Architect: Bengt Gate.

113 Public Art Agency (2016) Public Art Agency annual report 2015, 39.

114 Bengt Gate was working at Ancker Gate Lindegren Arkitekter at the time, the builder was Jacobsson & Widmark. Örn, Johan (2015) Antikvarisk förundersökning och konsekvensanalys. Kavalleristen 3. AIX Arkitekter, 4.

115 Public Art Agency (2017) Varsam renovering av konst i en modern kulturmiljö. https://statenskonstrad.se/article/varsam-renovering-av-konst-i-en-modern-kulturmiljo/ (accessed 16 April 2019).

41

The Headquarters building is an almost square block built in a technique that was advanced at the time, consisting of prefabricated elements. The large scope and the extreme uniformity of the prefabricated brick elements had only been applied in places such as the Soviet Union.116 Two large courtyards provide daylight to the innermost reaches of the building. These courtyards are expressly designed to combine the art, architecture and green plants into a totality. The artistic design of the north courtyard, which adjoins the auditorium, is by Pierre Olofsson, and the south courtyard is by Folke Truedsson. Some one thousand Swedish Armed Forces employees currently work here, and the courtyards are used daily.

Pierre Olofsson was a pioneer of Concrete and non-figurative art where geometric forms often give the illusion of motion, and he used colour contrasts to create a spatialities. He applied the Concretist idea that art should be incorporated with our daily lives and was therefore particularly interested in designing public spaces for modern society. The design for the north courtyard of the Headquarters is one of his lesser-known public works, despite its monumental scale and radical synthesis of architecture and art.117 It is an untitled totality, comprised of both free-standing sculptural works and sgraffito murals on the outer walls of the auditorium.118 The art extends to the auditorium ceiling, which is covered with by a 400 sqm work in marble terrazzo.119 It is illuminated at night and is visible both at close range and from the corridors and hundreds of offices overlooking the courtyard.

In the first half of the 2010s, recurring problems with leaking waterproof lining of the auditorium ceiling prompted the national property owner Specialfastigheter to carry out a major inspection to plan necessary repairs. In 2015, after conferring with the Public Art Agency Sweden and the Swedish National Heritage Board, Specialfastigheter decided to do an antiquarian inspection to identify the courtyard’s artistic, architectonic, cultural and social value.120 The inspection provided crucial material for Specialfastigheter’s decisions on the merits and disadvantages of the technical and material measures needed for the long-term roof repair, and on the reconstruction of parts of Olofsson’s work. Collaboration thus formed the basis for a constructive process where all the professionals involved reached consensus on the great artistic and historic value of the work of art.

In 2017, after two years of thorough and careful conservation, Olofsson’s work was unveiled for the second time. This project is unique in its technical, financial and artistic scope. But it is also important as a pilot case, or reference point, demonstrating how national authorities can collaborate and agree on the conservation of a central part of a cultural heritage, here in the form of 1970s building-related public art and a modern cultural environment.

116 Örn (2015) 4 f.

117 National Public Art Council (2017).

118 Sgraffito is a technique for decorating plastered walls or ceramics by carving decor or patterns in the top layer before the material dries and hardens, so that the pattern appears in the colour of the underlying layer.

119 Terrazzo is one of the world’s oldest flooring techniques using natural stone. See also Örn (2015) 7 f.

120 Johan Örn made this study for AIX Arkitekter, commissioned by Specialfastigheter and in consultation with the Public Art Agency, the National Heritage Board, Rebecka Forsberg Arkitektkontor and Åsa Olofsson, the artist’s daughter.

42

3 Roles and responsibilities for building-related public art

The following chapter is an overview of the fields in which building-related public art is handled, and the stakeholders with some form of direct or indirect responsibility for the art. These stakeholders, with their various focuses and instruments for the production and management of public art, are found at both national, regional and local level, and in the private sector and civil society. Each stakeholder is discussed only with regard to their role for building-related public art, and their other activities are not described in any detail. The aggregate result paints a complex picture of the roles and responsibilities for building-related public art today. The chapter describes both those with a formal responsibility for supervision and management, and those with more indirect controlling or supporting roles for building-related public art and cultural environments in modern society.

National stakeholders

Regional stakeholders

Municipal stakeholders

Other stakeholders

Public Art Agency

County administrative boards

Municipal administrations

Cultural environment and art consultants

National Heritage Board

Regions

Building and planning boards

Church of Sweden

State-owned propertymanagement authorities

County museums

Municipal property companies

Private property companies

State-owned property companies

NGOs

Nationalmuseum

Moderna museet

Museum of Artistic Process and Public Art

ArkDes

Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of stakeholders handling building-related public art covered in this report. Swedish National Heritage Board (2019).

43

This chapter on roles and responsibilities for building-related public art is closely connected to how legal and economic instruments for the area are regulated. However, this committee addresses the two subjects – roles and responsibilities on the one hand, and legal and economic instruments on the other – in two separate chapters. This is mainly because it is difficult to obtain an overview of both the stakeholders and the instruments.

For clarity, the two are dealt with in separate chapters. In consequence, some parts of chapter 3 will be repeated in chapter 4, which deals with legal aspects.

3.1 National public stakeholders The Public Art Agency Sweden is mandated to promote art as a vital feature in the urban environment. Moreover, the Agency should also develop and share knowledge in the field of public art and the design of public spaces. The founding of this government authority in 1937 can be specifically linked to the implementation of the recommendation that at least one per cent of the cost of national building projects be earmarked for art.121 Since the start, the Agency’s activities have included project-based collaborations with national property-management agencies on the artistic design of buildings and spaces with government activities. These projects have been carried out by commissioning artists to create permanent, building-related public art for new or refurbished buildings and spaces throughout Sweden and, in some cases, for Swedish authorities abroad. Since the closure of the National Board of Public Buildings in 1993, the Public Art Agency’s activities for permanent art in government buildings and spaces include collaborations with national property-management agencies and state-owned companies. Moreover, it includes collaborations with municipal, regional and private property owners who lease premises to government authorities. In 1997, the Agency’s assignment was extended to promote the addition of art to public spaces that are not used for government bodies or activities, such as municipal schools, plazas, sports facilities and housing areas. Over the past two decades, some 300 building-related public works of art for non-governmental spaces have been completed through collaborations.122 Within the framework of this committee, it was essential to analyse the Public Art Agency’s mandate to supervise various target entities, i.e. government agencies and companies, with regard to the conservation of building-related public art. The Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of national art regulates the Agency’s supervision of government authorities’ conservation of their national art, both in the form of movable property and art that is a fixture to immovable property.123 The Ordinance (2007:1188) with instructions for the Public Art Agency regulates the supervision of “how government bodies conserve permanently-installed art belonging to the government” (the committee’s italics).124

121 The one per cent rule was applied by the Public Art Agency Sweden from 1937 to 1947, after which the Agency obtained an annual budget. See the Swedish Arts Grants Committee (2013). The Public Art Agency has a government assignment for 2018–2020 to design a model for how up to one per cent of the budget for state building projects can be earmarked for artistic design (Ku2018/01350/KO).

122 The data is from the Public Art Agency’s collection index RiwArt. 123 State borrowing of art from non-governmental organisations is regulated by the Ordinance (SFS 1984:535) on government authority borrowing of art objects for decoration of premises. For the legal definition of immovable and movable property, see 4.1.1.

124 The Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of national art over and above its supervision is discussed in more detail in 4.1.4.

44

Thus, the target entities to be supervised by the Agency are government authorities and government bodies, and the framework for this supervisory mandate is outlined below.

The focus of the Agency’s supervision with regard to national art has been on authorities as objects of supervision and their conservation of national art that is movable property.

One reason for this focus is that the Agency’s assignment according to the Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of national art differentiates between movable and immovable art. The Ordinance does not regulate the supervision of government-owned building-related public art in the same detail as it does the conservation of movable art.125 Therefore, the Agency’s procedures for the supervision of government authorities’ conservation of movable art are more firmly established than for building-related public art.126 Movable art is intended to be returned or relocated when government activities move or change their premises, whereas building-related public art is designed for site-specific, permanent installation.127 However, despite this, there are cases where the property owner either moves or returns building-related art when buildings are refurbished or demolished. This has consequences for both the supervision and management of building-related public art (see also 4.1.4).

The Public Art Agency has a practice for the supervision of national building-related public art, which includes both government authorities and government enterprises, with a focus on knowledge development, recommendations and concrete conservation measures.128 The authorities responsible for the conservation of national building-related public art are primarily the Swedish Fortifications Agency, the National Property Board, and the Swedish Transport Administration. The government property management companies with which the Public Art Agency has established contacts for its supervision activities include Akademiska Hus, Jernhusen, Specialfastigheter and Swedavia.129 On the whole, the supervision of national building-related art is organised in such a way that government property management authorities and enterprises formally appoint art officers for their respective organisations. These officers receive earmarked funding and information from the Public Art Agency and are responsible for preventing, detecting and repairing damage and loss, with the aid of inventories and surveys. The Public Art Agency has no antiquarians or conservators of its own and consults external specialists for examining damages or other problems. Previously, the knowledge-building part of the supervisory activity focused primarily on property owners, artists and others operating in the field of public art, but in the past decade, this activity has also focused on engaging more closely with professionals in cultural environment conservation.130

125 Issues surrounding the supervision of building-related art were highlighted in the projects Wahlström (ed.) (2008) and Hermerén & Orrje (2014).

126 The supervision of national art that is movable property currently covers more than 200 national authorities.

127 See 1.4 Definitions.

128 The Public Art Agency based this practice on the fact that government enterprises can be defined as publicly governed organisations, which has been considered to approximate the concept of government agency in the Ordinance (2007:1188) with instructions for the Public Art Agency. This interpretation is evident in the Agency’s annual reports.

129 There are some ten national property management companies. The category government-owned permanently-installed building-related public art includes works of art in both listed and non-listed state-owned national historic buildings.

130 E.g. participation in conferences and the Public Art Agency’s R&D project Public Art – a cultural heritage, 2011–2013.

45

Although government enterprises have been included in the Public Art Agency’s supervisory activity since 2004131, this committee has found that it cannot cover building-related public art owned by property owners in the form of government enterprises. The term government body, which is found in the instructions to the Public Art Agency, comprises both decision-making political bodies (the Riksdag) and government authorities. In connection with its supervisory activity, however, this term should be interpreted as only applying to government authorities, since a government agency cannot supervise the Riksdag. In Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of national art, the term authority is only used to define objects of supervision. The ordinance does not support the supervision of private legal entities, such as government-owned limited companies.

The responsibilities of government-owned property companies for conserving and managing building-related public art commissioned by the Public Art Agency since 1993 and onwards is regulated by agreements. However, although the agreements offer some form of assurance that these companies will care for the art, this is not the same as them being supervised by a government authority. The committee also found that the above-mentioned ordinances do not give the Public Art Agency any official right to supervise the government enterprises. This would need to be regulated by law, since the enterprises are private law bodies, rather than public legal organisations.132 In consequence, there is no supervisory authority with responsibility for the new building-related public art commissioned by the Agency together with government enterprises.

Moreover, the current ordinance does not entitle the Agency to supervise building-related public art in property that is sold to another government body. In effect, the supervision and influence over publicly-funded art is annulled in the event of a sale.133 This can be compared to the National Heritage Board’s supervision of national historic buildings, which extends to property managed by government authorities such as the Fortifications Agency, the National Property Board and the Swedish Transport Administration, to name but a few. When a property is sold to another government body that is not an authority, or to a private body, its legal protection is transferred from Ordinance (2013:558) on national historic buildings to the Historic Environment Act (1988:950).

The supervisory role is transferred from the National Heritage Board to the County Administrative Board.

Several participants in the network groups consulted by the committee have highlighted the advantages of having one supervisory authority for all building-related public art,134 since a supervisory body could potentially highlight any call for conservation and maintenance. Some group members referred to this as need for directives “from above”, in order to get art owners to take responsibility for management. As explained above, this is not covered by the Public Art Agency’s supervisory role.

131 When the supervisory role was transferred from the Nationalmuseum to the Public Art Agency.

132 The committee came to this conclusion based on ch. 8 §2, and ch. 9 §8 in the Instrument of Government (1974:152), and after speaking to Tanja von Brünken, deputy director of the Ministry of Culture on 22 March 2019.

133 One example of a former government enterprise is the property company Vasakronan, which was sold in 2008 and is therefore no longer covered by the supervision process. Akademiska Hus, Specialfastigheter, the National Property Board and several other government property management companies have gradually sold off a number of their buildings with building-related art.

134 This applies mainly to the network group meeting with property owners and managers, see App. 2.

46

Another problem is the slight confusion between the Public Art Agency and the National Heritage Board on who is responsible for building-related public art that forms part of a national historic building. The responsibilities of these two supervisory bodies overlap.

The Public Art Agency’s supervision is aimed at ensuring that the art is managed well, while the National Heritage Board focuses on maintaining the historic value attributed to the object when it was listed as a historic building. It could be said, however, that this divided supervision is fuzzy and inefficient. One might also ask what the consequences would be if the two supervisory bodies came to different conclusions about the same object.

The committee noted that the Ordinance (2007:1188) with instructions for the Public Art Agency limits its supervision to “collections and works of art that are not under the supervision or care of other authorities or organisations with a satisfactory knowledge of such art.” This has generally been interpreted by the Public Art Agency to refer to government authorities caring for national art that is lent by, and guarded by, the national museums. Moreover, the ordinance has been interpreted to mean that supervision does not apply to government authorities that have expertise in the field of art, such as national museums and universities with their own museum collections.135 In the course of its work, however, the committee identified that the wording in the instructions to the Public Art Agency should also be understood in light of the supervisory duties of the cultural heritage authorities, and not merely from a museum perspective. A closer reading of the instruction raises the issue of whether the Public Art Agency and the National Heritage Board should share the supervisory role for building-related public art in national historic buildings, or whether the National Heritage Board should have sole responsibility, in accordance with the Ordinance (2013:558) on national historic buildings.

The National Heritage Board has the overall responsibility for issues relating to cultural environments and cultural heritage.136 As the Board’s activities and fields of activity have broadened, cultural environment conservation in general has developed into an activity involving several sectors. The Board also allocates funding, including the funding for cultural environment conservation that the County Administrative Boards then distribute to various initiatives.137 Today, the Board’s handling of matters relating to building-related public art primarily concerns the processes for the consideration of applications and the supervision of national historic buildings.138 Moreover, it is the role of the Board to oversee cultural environment work in Sweden. This means that the Board inspects how the county adminis-

135 For instance, the Gustavianum Museum of Uppsala University, and the Museum of Sketches at Lund University.

136 The National Heritage Board has the national responsibility for issues relating to the cultural landscape, cultural environments, historic monuments, historic objects and museum. Ordinance 2014:1585.

137 The government allocation for cultural environment conservation, which is currently SEK 270 million, is regulated by the Ordinance (SFS 2010:1121) on funding for the management of valuable cultural environments.

138 The number of objects supervised by the National Heritage Board was halved in the corporatisation until 1993. When the National Property Board was phased out, the management of almost one hundred national historic buildings were reclassified. They are now covered by the Historic Conservation Act and are no longer under state management. (In comparison, by the end of 1994, when the Board had been phased out completely, 214 national historic buildings remained.) It should be mentioned in this context that the number of supervised objects has grown in recent years.

47

trative boards handle, evaluate and assess the Historic Environment Act (1988:950) with its regulations and provisions.139 The National Heritage Board has also focused in various projects on developing awareness on built environments in the welfare state.140 Building-related public art, however, has only been marginally included in these initiatives.

Boverket is the authority responsible for urban planning, building and housing. This includes the physical planning and management of buildings.141 Boverket has an extensive mandate to produce regulations for the Planning and Building Act (2010:900) and the Planning and Building Ordinance (2011:338). In addition, Boverket issues general recommendations and building regulations, all of which are collected in its statute book.

The supervisory role, according to the Planning and Building Act (2010:900) is shared by several parties: the government, Boverket, the county administrative boards, and the local building boards. (For the role of the county administrative boards and local building boards, please see below.)142 Boverket’s supervisory role is the general supervision of planning and building nationally.143 Its supervisory role falls within its mandate to give recommendations and support, to follow up and analyse how the Planning and Building Act has been implemented.144 Thus, Boverket has the greatest jurisdiction for interpreting and spreading awareness about how the Act should be implemented, and this Act, in turn, has the largest impact on the development of built environments and consequently on building-related public art. Boverket also coordinates the joint work by the authorities on policies for designed living environments.145 The national authorities and companies that manage property were formerly part of the National Board of Public Buildings that was responsible for practically all government property management throughout the 20th century until 1993.146 In the early 1990s, government property management was reformed and aligned with the market.147 The

139 Historic Environment Act (1988:950) ch. 1, §2. Moreover, the National Heritage Board has the responsibility and mandate to clarify the implementation of ch. 2–4 in the Historic Environment Act by issuing provisions for its practical application and general recommendations. The National Heritage Board can also appeal most decisions made by the county administrations.

140 See 2.3.

141 Ordinance (SFS 2012:546) with instructions for Boverket, the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning.

142 The Planning and Building Act (SFS 2010:900), ch. 11, §3. Boverket, 2015, PBL Kunskapsbanken, Tillsyn, https://www.boverket.se/sv/ PBL-kunskapsbanken/lov--byggande/tillsyn/ (accessed 21 November 2018). The legislative history shows that the supervision of planning and building should primarily be forward-looking. Direct supervision is limited and mainly focused on preventing aberrations in the implementation of the Act. National Audit Office, 2005:12, Uppsikt och tillsyn i samhällsplaneringen – intention och praktik, 23.

143 Prop. 1985/86:1, with proposal for a new Planning and Building Act, ch. 1, §8. At the time, Boverket (the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning) was called Statens planverk.

144 Boverket (2015) PBL Kunskapsbanken, Tillsyn, https://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-kunskapsbanken/lov--byggande/tillsyn/ (accessed 21 November 2018).

145 Uppdrag att förstärka arbetet med arkitektur och gestaltad livsmiljö, N2018/02273/SPN, N2017/03879/SPN. 146 Formerly the National Board of Public Buildings (Kungl. Byggnadsstyrelsen), founded in 1918, and originated in the Board of Public Works and Buildings (Överintendentämbetet).

147 SOU 2013:55 264 ff.

48

government’s property holdings were radically restructured and transferred to government enterprises or sold to private, non-governmental parties, with the aim of achieving a more distinct management and ownership structure. Two premises for the reform were that government property management should be separated from the use of the properties, and that it should yield a profit at market rate.148 When the National Board of Public Buildings was phased out, its remaining roles were transferred to other parties, including the newly-formed National Property Board and the government property companies Vasakronan and Akademiska Hus.149 The National Property Board manages national property of historic value, some of which is listed as national historic buildings; it is the government authority with the greatest expertise in management of such property. Neither the government property companies nor other national property management authorities have the explicit mandate to manage historic assets, which the National Property Board does.150 On the other hand, they do manage a large volume of publicly-financed building-related art. Ownership of the building-related public art, in the form of fixtures to the immovable property, is transferred upon installation from the Public Art Agency to the property owner. Roles and responsibilities for the management of the art is regulated by an agreement between the property owner and the Public Art Agency, and in cases where the property is owned by a government authority, this responsibility is also supported by the Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of public art.151 However, the Ordinance does not specify that the government property management company is responsible for conservation. When national property with building-related art is sold, the ownership and responsibility for the management of the art is transferred to the new property owner.152 In effect, this means that no one supervises the building-related public art in these properties, unless the property is legally protected in some way.

The national property management authorities and companies pay for conservation and maintenance of building-related public art within their maintenance budget. Unlike property management authorities, the government property management companies shall operate activities that generate income for the government, i.e. with an overall objective to create value in the long term. The Riksdag can also decide that some of these companies have special public assignments.153 Funding for maintenance of building-related public art is normally included in the annual budget for planned maintenance, except in the case of urgent damages. With good planning, maintenance of art can be

148 SOU 2013:55 59–60.

149 Other national property companies that deserve mention in this context are Jernhusen, which manages property relating to the railway network, and Specialfastigheter, which manages high-security property, including the property of the Swedish Prison and Probation Service. Vasakronan was sold in 2008 to AP-fastigheter.

150 These include Akademiska Hus, the Swedish Fortifications Agency, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the Swedish Maritime Administration, and the Swedish Transport Administration.

151 “Every government authority that has art installed in its premises shall maintain it with care. The care of art that is a fixture to immovable property, however, is the responsibility of the government authority that manages the building.” Ordinance 1990:195, §2.

152 Unless the parties concerned have agreed differently. Wahlström (2008) 7.

153 See Government Offices (2016) Statens ägarpolicy och riktlinjer för bolag med statlig ägande 2017, Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation.

49

financed within the budgets for other planned property maintenance and can be one way of contributing towards fulfilling the objective of adding value in the long term.

Akademiska Hus, the government enterprise that owns the most building-related public art, has highlighted the financial perspective in the context of prioritising future conservation initiatives. At Campus Frescati in Stockholm, Akademiska Hus has applied a new funding model by earmarking one per cent of the annual maintenance budget for maintenance of art that belongs to immovable property. The investment budget, i.e. the funds made available by the one per cent rule for production of new art in connection with new construction or redevelopment, is thus complemented by a corresponding allocation for future conservation and operation. The annual maintenance budget for Campus Frescati is approximately SEK 100 per square metre, which means that approximately SEK 1 per square metre is earmarked for the conservation of building-related public art.154 The practice of Akademiska Hus to match the one per cent rule with a corresponding budget for maintenance is probably unique, and the committee has not come across any similar practice within other national authorities, government enterprises, municipalities or regions. Long-term financial solutions for the maintenance of building-related public art is crucial to counteract short-term and ultimately more expensive maintenance measures.

The formula developed by Akademiska Hus offers a good example for how maintenance can be funded.

Nationalmuseum and Moderna Museet are both government authorities with museum assignments. Nationalmuseum’s assignment is to vivify and promote art, with an emphasis on older forms of art.155 The purpose of Moderna Museet is to collect, preserve, exhibit and educate about 20th- and 21st-century art of all kinds, and to engage people throughout society in its activities.156 Nationalmuseum was responsible for the supervision until 2004, with an emphasis on movable art.157 When this responsibility was transferred to the Public Art Agency, the Nationalmuseum no longer had any formal responsibility for building-related public art.158 Moderna Museet’s field of responsibility and collection comprises all forms of expression from after 1900, but not public art. Nevertheless, Moderna Museet has unique expertise and strategic resources in 20th century art and its conservation, and this has been valuable in collaborative projects on building-related public art.159

154 Interviewee 3, June 2018.

155 The Nationalmuseum’s remit includes handling applications for the export of art objects.

156 Ordinance (SFS 2007:1177) with instructions for Moderna Museet, §1. Moderna Museet has also placed several works from its collection in public places in Stockholm and Malmö.

157 In 1992-1993, however, the Board made a list of all the building-related art in the National Board of Public Buildings’ premises, in view of its imminent conversion into several national property companies. This list was particularly interesting as an early attempt to assess, categorise and protect building-related art against changes and demolitions. Hermerén & Orrje (2014) 308.

158 The Public Art Agency, however, has regular contacts with the Nationalmuseum on depositions and long-term loans to national authorities of state-owned works of art that belong to the Nationalmuseum collection in pursuance of Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of national art.

159 Moderna Museet has collaborated with the Public Art Agency by supporting conservation initiatives, including the conservation of building-related public art and rooms with artistic design in the UN Headquarters in New York. The project was coordinated by an advisory group with representatives from the Public Art Agency, the Foreign Ministry, the National Heritage Board and Moderna Museet, who consulted together on the renovation of public art in 2008–2013. Moreover, the Public Art Agency and Moderna Museet have had a continuous dialogue concerning the transfer of state-owned public works to the Moderna Museet collection, in pursuance of §12 in the Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of national art.

50

In addition to the national public sector parties mentioned above, ArkDes and the Museum of Sketches deserve to be mentioned.160 Neither of these has any formal responsibility for the conservation of building-related public art, but they nevertheless contribute with their collections and awareness-raising initiatives to promote progress in the field. The Museum of Sketches was founded in 1933, i.e. prior to the Public Art Agency and the one per cent rule. The Museum, with Lund University as its principal, has the world’s largest collection of sketches, models and drafts for Swedish and international public art.

3.2 Regional public stakeholders According to the introductory regulations in the Historic Environment Act (1988:950), the county administrative boards are responsible for national cultural environment conservation in their respective regions. This includes considering permit applications and supervision of historic buildings and historic churches.161 Thus, the county administrative boards may be in charge of considering permit applications and supervising the building-related public art in historic buildings and listed churches. In addition to the Historic Environment Act, the county administrative boards are also responsible for supervision according to the Planning and Building Act (2010:900), in the form of providing recommendations and support to the planning and building committees, and following up how they have applied the laws and regulations. This should give the county administrative board some insight into how the municipalities deal with, say, the requirements on due care with regard to building-related public art (see also 4.1.3).162 They are also responsible for advising on the Planning and Building Act and are the first instance of appeal for planning and building permission.163 The county administrative boards also develop awareness in the cultural environment field. In recent years, 20th-century built environments and building-related public art have been dealt with in numerous development projects run by the county administrative boards in collaboration with other organisations.164 According to the National Her-

160 Sweden’s National Centre for Architecture and Design (ArkDes) is a central government administrative authority and a museum tasked with raising awareness and mobilising around architecture and design. Ordinance (2013:71) with instructions for ArkDes. 161 Historic Environment Act (1988:950) ch. 1, §2 para 2, National Heritage Board (2015c) Amendments to regulations on ecclesiastical historic buildings. Report of Ku2013/1343/KA 22–23.

162 Planning and Building Ordinance (SFS 2011:338), ch. 8, §18. Most of the management activities are agreed on in the planning consultations on new local development plans, or when previous plans are changed or dropped. The consultations result in written statements to municipalities. National Audit Office (2005:12), Uppsikt och tillsyn i samhällsplaneringen – intention och praktik, 25. The County Administrative Board informs the municipality on whether the plan is acceptable with regard to the management of national interests. Boverket (2017) PBL Kunskapsbanken, Tillsyn, https://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-kunskapsbanken/planering/detaljplan/lansstyrelsens-tillsyn/ (accessed 2018-11-27). The County Administrative Board’s supervisory role also entitles it to cancel decisions to adopt local development plans that are not sufficiently mindful of national interests. Presumably, the only thing that could prompt the County Administrative Board to cancel the adoption of a local development plan would be if it disregards the national interest in conserving a cultural environment, or, in this case, building-related public art. Boverket (2017) PBL Kunskapsbanken, Tillsyn, https://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-kunskapsbanken/ planering/detaljplan/lansstyrelsens-tillsyn/ (accessed 2018-11-27).

163 The County Administrative Board’s supervision of planning permissions can involve taking over the municipality’s task of granting planning permissions within a certain geographic area, if it finds that general interests have been damaged through the municipality’s handling of such permissions. This, however, is only so if the damage is extensive.

164 Cf. the projects Modernismen i Bergslagen and Modernismen i Västmanland.

51

itage Board’s key ratio breakdown, the county administrative boards handle the cultural environment allocation, which has in a few cases been granted for measures concerning building-related public art.165 The regions are responsible for general cultural matters in each county166 and deal with public art and cultural environment matters mainly via their museum activities.167 The regions both commission and manage public art. The county infrastructure for culture is described in the cultural plan for each respective region.168 The cultural cooperation model that was adopted for the regions means that the regions are yet another party in the public cultural environment work, albeit to varying extents.

In addition to government funding for regional arts activities, the regions allocate their own regional funding to the cultural sector, and marginally to public art –mainly through the one per cent rule, but also through the cultural cooperation model (see 4.2.1). Many regions currently apply the one per cent rule in connection with building, say, hospitals, travel centres and other buildings for regional public activities. Thus, a large proportion of building-related public art in Sweden is produced and funded by the regions, they consequently handle the conservation of this art.169 As for the government property management, the regions’ funding for maintenance of art accompanying property is a challenge, since they own a great deal, and funding is generally short. The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SKL) regularly publishes statistics on regional property management, including maintenance costs in the form of key ratios per square metre and year. The regions’ aggregate costs for management, repair and maintenance, along with planned maintenance for premises are SEK 188 per square metre per year. SEK 67 of this sum is for planned maintenance, which is meant to include maintenance of building-related public art.170 If the regions were to apply the model used by Akademiska Hus at Campus Frescati (see 3.1), and earmark one per cent of their budgets for planned maintenance of art (not the investment budget), this would average at SEK 0.67 per square metre per year. This may sound modest, but the regions manage very large premises, such as hospitals. It is worth noting in this context that although the regions’ budgets for planned maintenance are generally under pressure, the average annual property investments in buildings and land have risen from some 3 billion SEK in 1997, to some 11 billion in 2017, a 500 per

165 See also 4.2.2.

166 The county councils are called Regions since 1 January 2019.

167 National Heritage Board (2016b) Kulturmiljöarbetets genomslag inom kultursamverkansmodellen, 18 f.

168 The priorities for the regions’ arts and their relationship to national cultural policy objectives are outlined in arts plans that are valid for a period of 3–4 years. The Public Art Agency allocates national funding for each region based on these regional arts plans, and the regions then distribute the funds to cultural activities through a model for arts partnerships, “kultursamverkansmodellen”. Funds are distributed according to the Ordinance (2010:2012) on government contributions for regional arts activities.

169 For more on how the one per cent rule is applied in municipalities and regions, see the report published by the Swedish Arts Grants Committee (2013).

170 Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (2018) Fastighetsnyckeltal 2017.

52

cent increase.171 Thanks to the one per cent rule, these major investments in buildings and land generate funds for new building-related public art, but it is unclear whether the long-term management of this art can be financed within the framework of regular planned maintenance.

Many regions have adopted so-called art policies, regulating both the commissioning, purchase and conservation172 of movable and immovable public art. The art policy documents also offer general recommendations and guidelines on the management of building-related public art, for instance with regard to inventories, conservation, selection, assessment and weeding out. Some regional art policies include guidelines and support to municipalities on how to write their own art policies. The art policy document is usually an independent instrument with no direct connection to the strategic cultural environment documents for regions and municipalities.173 The responsibility for maintenance and conservation is usually shared by the region’s cultural administrations and public property management companies. The regions have no supervision for public art corresponding to that on national level, but as a rule, they take a proactive approach to providing good conditions for the conservation of building-related public art. One important contributor in this context is the art consultants who serve as a kind of hub for art in the regions174 Conservation of existing building-related public art is occasionally funded with assets from the one--per cent rule in connection with refurbishments or extensions of older buildings and environments.175 At network meetings organised as part of this study, the participants confirmed, however, that the conservation of building-related public art is not a priority in the regions. Instead, officials working with public art have developed conservation activities on their own initiative, due to an increasing need for action in this area. This lack of clarity around the roles and responsibilities at the regional level when it comes to conservation of building-related public art means that measures rely largely on individuals, and this, in turn, makes it hard to work with a long-term perspective.

County museums and other museums with regional mandates176 could be said to make up the third party active in the regional cultural environment arena, alongside the county administrative boards and the regions. Unlike the other two, the county museums have a more explicit public, educational and knowledge-building assignment. The county museums can choose what fields to focus on, but public art and cultural environments are two of the most common. The county museums’ approach to cultural environment work is formalised in §2 in the Historic Environment Ordinance (1988:1188), which allots

171 Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (2018).

172 On policies and guidelines for public art in regions and counties, see, for instance, Regionförbundet i Kalmar län (2015) Offentlig konst i Kalmar län – policy och riktlinjer.

173 E.g. cultural environment strategies and cultural environment programmes.

174 The purpose of art consultants is to enhance, promote and develop the field of art in their counties and regions.

175 E.g. Karolinska University Hospital in Solna, where several older works of art were conserved or repaired with funding through the one per cent rule.

176 Hereinafter called county museums.

53

the responsibility for cultural environment conservation to the county administrative boards, in collaboration with the county museums and others. There are also various forms of collaboration, paid or within the framework of explicit assignments, between county museums and municipalities, for instance as consulting bodies on urban planning and when performing inventories and drafting plans for cultural environments.177 These matters may include building-related public art. Moreover, the county museums operate as antiquarians on the open consultancy market. Thus, the county museums have a dual role in cultural environment conservation – to build knowledge and serve as consultants. The county museums’ activities are also part of a cultural collaboration model. Although they do not have an explicit assignment within this model, it provides them with government funding for their activities.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the county museums have contributed directly to building knowledge in the field of public art within the framework of the modern cultural heritage.178 Several county museums have listed the building-related public art in their county and are active in sharing knowledge about public art to the general public and professionals.179 By making information about public art accessible, the county museums help to raise awareness of the importance of public art to the modern environment.

3.3 Municipal stakeholders Sweden’s 290 municipalities have a strong influence on building-related public art through their diverse roles as property owners, managers and commissioners of public art. They also have a municipal planning responsibility and handle applications for building and demolition according to the Planning and Building Act (2010:900).180 As municipal authorities, the local building committees are also responsible for supervision according to the Planning and Building Act. Altogether, Sweden’s municipalities own tens of thousands of works of this kind, making them the largest public stakeholders by far, when it comes to commissioning and conserving building-related public art.181 The conservation and management of building-related public art is generally handled by local administrations such as the cultural administration, the city or local building administration, the technical administration or property management units or companies, i.e. the local body that manages the art.182 In many municipalities, art that would appear to be building-related, such as monumental sculptures, are classified as movable property (see 4.1.1) and belong to a municipal collection managed by a city museum or

177 National Heritage Board (2015) Länsmuseernas och motsvarande museers kulturmiljöarbete. Kartläggning och redovisning av förutsättningarna för samverkan och verksamhetsutveckling på regional nivå, 42.

21 E.g. Västmanland County Council (2014) Kartläggning av den offentliga konsten i Västmanlands kommuner 2011 och 2014.

179 E.g. Stockholm County Museum, Örebro County Museum and Västmanland County Museum.

180 The municipal planning responsibility is defined in the Planning and Building Act (2010:900), ch. 1 §2.

181 Hermerén & Orrje (2014) 14.

182 Hermerén & Orrje (2014) 299.

54

art museum.183 The municipalities do not have anything corresponding to the national regulations that specify who is responsible for supervision and conservation.184 Some municipalities, however, have separate agreements and contracts with municipal enterprises and private property owners on the conservation of municipal building-related public art. In other municipalities, the municipal administration only cares for the art that is installed in public places.185 In cases where no such agreements or contracts exist, the main instrument available to local activities for the conservation of public art is the regulations in the Planning and Building Act (2010:900) (see 4.1.3). Moreover, there may be strategic documents such as programmes for architecture, design and arts, art policies, and consulting bodies such as beauty councils and antiquarian consultants.

Most municipalities practice the so-called one per cent rule for the production of public art, which is administered by the local cultural administration together with the urban planning administration. However, there is no general funding model for the conservation of building-related public art. According to the persons interviewed by the committee, whether or not the local administrations take responsibility for public art depends on what resources are earmarked for this purpose.186 A few municipalities currently reserve funding for conservation of building-related public art, but this is an exception rather than the rule.187 The local building committee is the body within the municipal administration that carries out the municipality’s undertakings according to the Planning and Building Act (2010:900). Moreover, it is responsible for supervision according to the same Act.188 Its supervision takes the form of an obligation to intervene in the event of failure to adhere to legal regulations and provisions, court rulings or other decisions.189 A property owner, for instance, is required to follow the legal requirement to keep its buildings in a state of good repair. Maintenance should be appropriate to the historic, cultural, environmental and artistic value of the building.190 If the building is of particular value in this respect,

183 E.g. the City of Stockholm, where the Stockholm City Museum is responsible for collections and conservation, and Lund Municipality, where Lunds konsthall is responsible for municipal building-related public art, and Norrköping Municipality, where Norrköpings konstmuseum is responsible for public art.

184 Cf. Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of national art, and Ordinance (2013:558) on national historic buildings. See also 3.1.

185 E.g. the City of Stockholm, where public art in public places is managed by the Stockholm City Museum, while art in schools is managed by the municipal company Skolfastigheter i Stockholm AB (SISAB).

186 Interviewee 1, June 2018.

187 See the City of Helsingborg’s system for conservation of public art. Lindbom & Hermerén (2014).

188 There are respective advantages of having a central or a local supervisory authority, e.g. at national or municipal levels. Central supervision is potentially more legally certain and efficient, as complex areas of supervision may require a larger organisation. It also reduces the risk of bias. Local supervision, on the other hand, entails better knowledge of local conditions and a holistic rather than sectorial perspective. National Audit Office Report (2018) Preparing for better supervision, 8–9.

189 Boverket (2017) PBL Kunskapsbanken, Exempel: Ovårdade eller förfallna byggnadsverk, https://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-kunskapsbanken/lov--byggande/tillsyn/exempel-pa-tillsynsarenden/ovardade-och-forfallna-byggnadsverk/ (accessed 21 November 2018).

190 The Planning and Building Act defines maintenance as “one or more measures that are taken for the purpose of retaining or restoring a building’s design, function, use, appearance, or cultural-historical value”. (2010:900) ch. 1, 4 §.

55

for instance due to its building-related art, it should be managed in a way that preserves this asset.191 As major owners and managers of property, in particular 20th-century housing and schools, municipal property companies play an important and crucial part in the conservation of building-related public art.192 In municipalities that have taken a political decision to apply the one per cent rule, municipal property companies are normally expected to apply the rule on new buildings, extensions and rebuilding. Only exceptionally, however, do they have access to in-house antiquarian or art experts for maintenance or conservation of artistically or historically valuable features. Municipal companies collaborate to a varying degree with the local administrations for arts, heritage and urban planning. Moreover, municipal companies can request services from the private sector, such as antiquarian examinations and programmes for property development and new public art.193 In addition to the one per cent rule, which is implemented in many municipalities since the 1950s, the government subsidy for artistic embellishment of housing estates that was introduced in 1962 has contributed to the large amount of building-related public art found all over Sweden today.194 This subsidy took the form of an addition in the basis for government loans for building rental apartments and condominiums; it was replaced in 1997 by the Public Art Agency’s so-called extended mandate, where the Agency collaborated in 1997–2000 with many municipal building companies on the commissioning of new public art.195 Many of the works produced with support from the Public Art Agency Sweden are now in need of major or minor conservation, and the practice of the Agency for many years has been to offer recommendations to the municipal and private property companies that own art produced within the scope of this extended mandate.

This situation has arisen both because the government has either co-funded public art in non-government-owned environments over the years, and as a result of selling government property to non-government owners (see also 3.1). Formally, providing recommendations to non-governmental property owners is not part of the Public Art Agency’s supervisory activities but has been seen as part of the Agency’s mandate to raise awareness in the field of public art. The need for advice and guidance on the conservation of public art in municipal properties has increased in recent years.

191 Ibid ch. 8, §4, 14. If these requirements are not met, the local planning committee can intervene by ordering measures or demolition and fines. If these measures are not implemented, the local planning committee can take further action. (2010:900) ch. 11, §19, 21, 37. For other infractions against the Planning and Building Act, the local planning committee can also issue pecuniary penalties or impose injunctions or prohibitions. See Boverket, 2015, PBL Kunskapsbanken, Tillsyn, https://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-kunskapsbanken/lov--byggande/ tillsyn/ (accessed 2 November 2018).

192 Municipalities can also own and manage property without forming a company for this purpose, e.g. through a municipal housing company.

193 In recent years, some larger municipal companies have implemented their own projects to survey the need for conserving building-related public art in their properties. In 2016, for instance, HIGAB, owned by the City of Gothenburg, hired a conservator for this. HIGAB owns several works of art originally commissioned by the Public Art Agency, after buying buildings belonging to Gothenburg University from Akademiska Hus. 194 SOU 1995:18, Konst i offentlig miljö, 57.

195 During 1997–2009, it was possible for municipal developers to apply for collaborations on building-related public art. Swedish Arts Grants Committee (2013) 12.

56

Normally, municipal property companies include the regular maintenance of building-related public art in their budgets for planned property maintenance. In connection with more extensive renovation and rebuilding, funding for maintenance of existing building-related public art is sometimes included in the construction costs, i.e. part of the investment budget.196 The annual budgets for planned property maintenance in Sweden’s 290 municipalities vary considerably.197 This is a challenge, especially to small municipalities facing more expensive conservation measures. In exceptional cases, a few municipalities have decided separately to allocate extra funds outside their annual budgets for planned maintenance, to cover more demanding and costly maintenance.198 3.4 Private sector stakeholders and the Church of Sweden The corporatisation of government property that began in the 1990s can also be seen in the regional and municipal administrations. This tendency has continued, with the public sector selling off property to private enterprises. But the opposite also happens. Thus, there are many examples of buildings that were built for public purposes but now house private activities, such as former post offices, legal courts and schools. Despite being repurposed, many of them contain aesthetically and historically valuable building-related public art. Some of these buildings are recognised and protected by regulations in the local development plan,199 although more commonly the art is neither protected nor covered by regulations on the care of buildings or art. This means that historically and aesthetically valuable material is at risk.

This committee found it important to highlight the central role of the private sector in this context. A large part of the operative work with antiquarian examinations, assessing the condition of the art, historic evaluations and selections, along with writing and establishing plans for the building-related public art and modern cultural environments, is carried out by the private sector. The people working for these companies come from a variety of professions, including architects, architectural antiquarians, curators, art consultants, artists and conservators.200 Both private sector antiquarian consultants and the county museums can participate in the planning and building process, when historically valuable buildings and building-related public art are altered.

But it is much easier to find private consultants in the major city regions than in rural areas,201 and a side effect of using private consultants for such a large share of the work

196 E.g. the 2018 renovation of Gunnar Larson’s work in Tekniska nämndhuset in the City of Stockholm.

197 The report Fastighetsnyckeltal 2017 states that the total budget for planned maintenance is very limited in some regions and may only be around SEK 8 per square metre per year. Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (2018).

198 One such case is the renovation in 2019 of Bengt Lindström’s sculpture Y in Timrå, costing the municipality several million SEK. 199 One example is the building-related art in the Tomteboda mail sorting facility, which is listed according to the City of Solna’s local development plan. See the case study in chapter 4. For listed ecclesiastical buildings and national historic buildings, however, the building remains listed when sold on. See also 4.1.2.

200 The art consultants at the Public Art Agencies work with public art projects, and should not be confused with the art consultants of the regions.

201 E.g. Vinnova (2016) and chapter 4.1, “Konsultföretag är ett storstadsfenomen” (Consulting companies are a city phenomenon).

57

with public art and cultural environments is that the knowledge-building from their experience remains in the private sector and is not always shared with the public sector.

This has led to a fragmentation of knowledge, which, in turn, makes it hard to obtain a national overview of developments in the built environment. It also means that knowledge about the ongoing care and maintenance of specific objects is not always shared with the relevant administrations and decision-makers.

According to the Planning and Building Act (2010:900), the developer should have access to relevant expertise in connection with building and demolition projects, or should contract expertise when required. The local planning committee can demand the participation of an antiquarian in cases regulated by the Planning and Building Act (in the form of certified specialist controllers to protect culturally valuable environments), and the county administrative board can demand expertise for cases regulated by the Ordinance (2013:558) on National Historic Buildings. Many of these antiquarians are private consultants. This group of professionals often finds it hard to access information, recommendations and guidelines for the conservation of public art. It is also difficult to find the necessary background material on building-related public art, and decisions are therefore made without regard for these works in connection with urban regeneration, property development, regular maintenance, refurbishments and demolitions.

The Church of Sweden is one of Sweden’s largest property managers. The Church ceased to be a legal entity governed by public law when it separated from the state in 2000.202 Ownership and conservation of ecclesiastical historic buildings was then transferred to the congregations.203 According to chapter 4 of the Historic Environment Act (1988:950), the congregations are responsible for the conservation and maintenance of the ecclesiastical historic buildings, and also for the building-related public art in these church environments (see also 4.1.2). When state and church were separated, the two parties agreed on maintaining the historic value of the churches belonging to the Church of Sweden.204 The limitations on the Church of Sweden’s disposal in chapter 4 of the Historic Environment Act are largely compensated through an allowance for ecclesiastical antiquarian measures.205 This funding is reserved for additional costs for the conservation and maintenance of historically valuable property.206 Since the separation, the Church has

202 Some exceptions are noted, however, in the Church of Sweden’s new position after the separation from the state, the most distinct of these perhaps being the Church of Sweden Act (SFS 1998:1591). After the separation, congregations and dioceses of the Church of Sweden are individual legal entities covered by the basic protection of property according to ch. 2 §15 of the Instrument of Government (SFS 1974:152). Bexhed, Jan-Mikael (2017) “Kulturmiljölagen i rättspraxis” in Förvaltningsrättslig tidskrift, 490.

203 The Church of Sweden is structured in three levels – centrally, consisting of the Central Church Office and the Central Board, regionally, consisting of the 13 dioceses, and locally, of congregations and parishes.

204 It was agreed that it is the responsibility of the Church of Sweden to have the requisite expertise in issues relating to the management of ecclesiastical historic buildings, and that the ecclesiastical historic buildings should continue to be accessible to the public to the same extent as before the separation. Ku2000/470/Ka, Överenskommelse mellan staten och Svenska kyrkan i frågor som rör de kulturhistoriska värdena i Svenska kyrkan.

205 Historic Environment Act (1988:950) ch. 4, §16. Government contribution 7:3. The Church of Sweden has received compensation for the antiquarian conservation of churches since 2002. This amounts to SEK 460 million per year since 2009, which is nearly half of the current government spending on cultural environment conservation. Prop. 2017/18:1, UO17.

206 Funding can therefore be granted for historically motivated costs regarding measures on church buildings, burial grounds, church plots and ecclesiastical furnishings. The Church of Sweden decides how the funding for antiquarian measures is distributed. The Historic Environment Act (1988:950), ch. 4, § 1, 16, Church of Sweden (2013) Villkor för kyrkoantikvarisk ersättning. Version 1.1. According to

58

expanded its access to in-house antiquarian expertise. The County Administrative Board is the authority that handles permits and supervision for ecclesiastical historic buildings according to the Historic Environment Act. Building-related public art in ecclesiastical environments therefore stands a good chance of being managed in in a satisfactory way with regard to laws, expertise and funding.

Moreover, there are many public premises that were built by civil society organisations, including those owned by Folkets Hus och Parker all over Sweden, which are currently managed by local organisations. Unlike the public sector, civil society generally lacks the resources in the form of antiquarian or art historic expertise to handle conservation of building-related public art and modern cultural environments.207 The combination of poor knowledge of historic value and limited funding pose a considerable threat to the building-related public art in environments and buildings owned and managed by civil society.

3.5 International comparisons The questions in the international survey cover responsibilities and roles and are intended as a means of making international comparisons on a national level.208 A crucial issue for this committee was the need for increased collaboration between public art and cultural environment conservation, in order to improve the situation for conserving public art in modern cultural environments. One of the main questions to the representatives of each country in the survey, therefore, was whether there existed any established collaboration between national stakeholders in these fields. The survey results showed that all countries except Norway have collaborations at national level in both public art and cultural environment conservation. In the UK, most stakeholders participate in strategic collaborations, in fields such as cultural environment, museums, academia and property ownership. France also has extensive collaboration between these parties, and also with policy-makers. In Germany, collaboration mainly takes place between the public art sector, the cultural environment sector, and property owners.

In Finland, supervision of national building-related public art is regulated by the ordinance for the Finnish National Gallery and the Finnish State Art Commission, which have joint responsibility for acquiring art for national public buildings since 1956.209 These regulations are primarily focused on the management of collections corresponding to those in Sweden.210 Germany regulates the supervision of building-related public art in national guidelines for public art and architecture, thereby achieving a clear col-

ch. 4, ยง6 in the Historic Environment Act, the National Heritage Board and the County Administrative Boards shall be given the opportunity in the negotiating process to comment on the national and regional distribution of the funding.

207 The only resort for these stakeholders is thus contacts with authorities, and they are often dependent on the cultural environment grants for maintaining the historic value.

208 It was not possible to perform a survey that enables regional and local international comparisons.

209 See http://kokoelmat.fng.fi/vttk/app?lang=se (accessed 13 May 2019).

210 Cf. Ordinance 1990:195 on the conservation of national art.

59

laboration between the management of collections and cultural environment conservation.211 The UK answered that the supervision of building-related public art is subject mainly to the protective regulations in its cultural heritage legislation.212 This should be seen in relation to the fact that the survey was filled out by representatives from Historic England.213 France did not specify whether supervision is regulated but replied that art is protected by law.

3.6 Proposals for a clearer distribution of roles and responsibilities The mapping that was performed as part of this committee shows that there are many stakeholders with responsibility for issues relating to building-related public art. They are found at national, regional and municipal level and in the private sector. This complexity leads to ambiguity as to who has the formal mandate for supervision and other examinations in specific cases, and who is supposed to protect and conserve building-related public art. This can complicate management and conservation.

The committee noted that the management of public art in the regions and municipalities, where most of the building-related public art is situated, relies on political decisions or established practices. The supervision of art is not clearly formalised in the municipal administration. The picture of how regions and municipalities approach building-related public art was further clarified by meetings in the network groups organised by the committee. Public art activities can be based within different sections of the regional and municipal organisation, but the common factor is that the work requires the various administrations to collaborate. For instance, the arts administration, technology administration, city or county museums and the physical planning need to cooperate more to achieve a satisfactory standard of management for building-related public art.

The international comparison reveals that supervision of building-related public art in the countries covered by the survey is either regulated by separate ordinances and guidelines on art and architecture, or by cultural heritage legislation. Supervision is satisfactory in all countries except Norway.

Based on the challenges presented in 1.1 with regard to roles and responsibilities for building-related public art, and the empirical evidence presented in this chapter, the committee has made three observations (A-C). As noted in the introduction to this report (see 1.6), the committee has made observations in cases where it was not possible to formulate concrete proposals, but where these observations were nevertheless deemed essential to achieving a favourable development in the field.

211 See https://www.bbr.bund.de/BBR/DE/Bauprojekte/KunstAmBau/leitfaden_KunstamBau.html (accessed 13 May 2019).

212 See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/9/contents (accessed 13 May 2019).

213 The organisation Arts UK was also asked to complete the survey but referred us to Historic England.

60

A. Observation Until now, the boundary between the roles and responsibilities of the Public Art Agency and the National Heritage Board has been somewhat vague with regard to supervision, and this has meant that both agencies have performed supervision in some cases relating to national historic buildings.

Assessment Supervision is an important instrument, which is primarily used by public institutions at national, regional and municipal level. In the government’s official letter 2009/10:79 En tydlig, rättssäker och effektiv tillsyn, supervision is defined as “independent inspection ensuring that the supervised object fills requirements according to laws and other mandatory regulations”.214 In general, the purpose of supervision is to ensure that rules are followed, but ultimately also to maintain public confidence in the public institutions by guarding public interests. Supervision can include measures that are both promoting and controlling, but the supervisory authority shall not take action beyond its remit as specified by the regulations in question.215 Efficient and law-compliant supervision requires that the regulations are known to the target, enabling the target to foresee the result of the supervision. The objectives and ambitions must also be clear and reasonable and the operative supervision proportionate to the regulations on which it is based.

This ideal does not correspond with the current supervisory practices of the National Heritage Board and the Public Art Agency. The current practice is that the Public Art Agency takes more responsibility than stipulated in the government remit and regulations, by including art that should reasonably form part of the National Heritage Board’s supervision of national historic buildings. This cannot be considered an effective management of resources. Moreover, this overlap risks causing confusion among property managers as to which authority is in charge of supervision.

The committee therefore considers that the Swedish National Heritage Board’s supervision of national historic buildings should include the building-related public art and also the assessment of its artistic and historic value. A clearer division of the roles and responsibilities of each respective authority could best be achieved by the National Heritage Board and Public Art Agency reviewing their records of national historic buildings and public art and specifying exactly who is responsible for the supervision of the building-related public art in each national historic building. Some of the art will presumably require discussion, to determine whether it is covered by the protection of historic buildings, and if it should be classified as building-related or movable art.

214 Writ 2009/10:79, En tydlig, rättssäker och effektiv tillsyn, 14. In the early 2000s, the government appointed a committee to study how to make public supervision a less ambiguous and more efficient political governance instrument. This was done because of certain problems, including that the term supervision was used to mean different things in various ordinances, leading to unclarity with regard to the meaning and purpose of the word. The committee submitted its final report in 2004, and in 2009, the government issued an official communication with general considerations to support future work on public sector laws covering supervision, and as a basis for the future regulation of supervision. See also National Audit Office Report (2018) Preparing for better supervision, 9–10.

215 SOU 2017:63, Environmental supervision and sanctions – supervision based on responsibility, respect and simplicity.

61

The above alignment of the supervision carried out by the Public Art Agency and the National Heritage Board is expected to achieve a more efficient and appropriate supervision of building-related public art in national historic buildings. This applies to both the authorities’ handling of supervision of this category of art in national historic buildings and the property management authorities’ handling of issues relating to them.

Consequence The Swedish National Heritage Board should have sole responsibility for supervising building-related public art located in historic buildings. One practical consequence of this observation is that the Swedish National Heritage Board should develop its skills with regard to building-related public art. Another consequence is that the Public Art Agency’s supervision should be limited and not include building-related public art located in national historic buildings. The Public Art Agency is thus responsible for the supervision of a declining number of objects. The supervisory activities of the National Heritage Board and the Public Art Agency respectively will need to be adjusted over a transitional period, during which the Public Art Agency will provide the National Heritage Board with information on the building-related art that currently exists in national historic buildings. The adjusted approach is estimated to be ready for implementation from 2020.

B Observation State-owned property management companies that own building-related art have no specified conservation responsibility according to the law on conservation of national art (1990:195), and are not included in the Public Art Agency’s supervisory activities.

Assessment Clearly, the disposition of government-commissioned art is no longer confined to the public sphere in the same way as before the corporatisation of the national property holdings in 1993. This change has led to a dramatic reduction in the number of supervised objects, and the public property management companies no longer have a specified responsibility for conserving the art. The committee noted that the responsibility for conservation and supervision of building-related public art, as regulated by the Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of national art, and the Ordinance (2007:1188) with instructions for the Public Art Agency, apply to government authorities but not to government property companies, as these are legal entities governed by private law.

It has previously been unclear whether government enterprises should be covered by the Public Art Agency’s supervision of building-related public art. In consequence, the Agency has supervised government enterprises. However, for it to be permissible for a government authority to supervise how government-owned property management companies handle the conservation of building-related public art, this supervision needs to be regulated by law. The Public Art Agency’s limited right of disposition of building-related public art owned by government enterprises and art in property sold by the government cannot be addressed with additions or amendments to the ordinances regulating the Agency’s supervision.

62

In consequence, only 300 of the 1,600 building-related public works of art commissioned by the Agency since 1937 are formally included in the Agency’s supervision.216 They are found mainly in three government properties: the National Property Board Sweden, the Swedish Fortifications Agency and the Swedish Transport Administration. Some 900 of the 1,600 works are owned by government property companies, and are not included in the Public Art Agency’s supervision. Also the 400 or so works in former government properties that are now owned by private property companies are not supervised by the Public Art Agency.217 Altogether, the result is a lack of instruments to prevent the damage and loss of building-related public art that is currently owned and managed by government enterprises and other stakeholders in the public and private sectors. Thus, the Public Art Agency has also forfeited its influence on the majority of art that was originally bought with government funding.

Consequence This observation has practical consequences for the Public Art Agency, and it will be necessary during a transitional period to clarify that the supervision of building-related public art only covers government authorities and not government enterprises. Other practical consequences are that the Public Art Agency will no longer be able to order state-owned property companies to perform inventories, registries, regular management, antiquarian inspections or assessment and selection. All that remains for the Agency to do within its remit is to spread knowledge and awareness.218 C. Observation There is a need for a well-defined national body to provide national, regional and municipal government agencies with advice on the management of building-related public art.

Assessment A key group that needs extensive advice and support on issues relating to the management of building-related public art is public and private property owners and managers.

They have contacts with cultural environment and art conservation authorities to a greater or lesser extent. This contact is only formalised in connection with applications for, say permissions required by the Historic Environment Act (1988:950), the Ordinance (2013:558) on national historic buildings, or local planning permission. Moreover, these groups have marginal opportunities to get advice and support from cultural environment and art conservation authorities on the conservation and maintenance of art. Private professionals in the field of art and conservation also make up a large share of those who deal with building-related public art in various ways. The task of drafting plans prior to

216 This figure can be compared to the Public Art Agency’s great authority over the disposition of art that is movable property, supervising more than 200 government authorities that together have some 100,000 national works of art. These figures are based on the Public Art Agency’s records for supervision and collections.

217 See Wahlström (ed.) (2008).

218 By “developing and sharing knowledge in the field of public art and the design of public spaces”. Ordinance (2007:1188) §1 section 1.

63

alterations or development is often handled by consultants, who need to make assessments and selections on which decisions are made that affect the art and would benefit from support and guidance. Based on discussions with network and reference groups the committee identified an urgent need for a national advisory body that could, in individual cases, offer support and advice on management issues that often arise when setting up inventories or records of building-related public art, or in connection with demolitions, refurbishments or extensions that affect the art in buildings or environments.

Apart from supervising government authorities in their conservation of national art, the Public Art Agency’s government remit includes sharing knowledge in the field of public art and the design of public environments. This task is not limited to specific target groups. It would, however, be exaggerated to interpret the government remit to include offering advice on individual cases, but in addition to the regular government remit, the Public Art Agency has also been given the assignment Kunskapsnav offentlig konst (Knowledge Hub Public Art) for the period 2018–2020, as a temporary strengthening of its assignment to spread knowledge.219 The management perspective is one of many development areas included in the Hub.220 Since the time frame is limited, however, it does not fulfil the identified need for a national body that can provide continuous and long-term advice on the management of building-related public art. The National Heritage Board’s focus does not include giving advice and guidance in individual cases and it cannot, therefore, fill the identified need.

The absence of a national advisory body for management issues in this area could lead to arbitrary handling of public art as a cultural heritage. This, in turn could entail irreparable damage and loss of significant artistic, historic and economic assets, which would be diametrically contrary to the purpose of public art.

Consequence In order to establish a national advisory body, additional resources must be made available, and a well-defined assignment given to the relevant authority.

219 The assignment is described in the government’s letter of authorisation to the Public Art Agency Sweden for 2018 under the heading of Kunskapsutveckling för offentlig konst och gestaltning av gemensamma miljöer (Knowledge development for public art and design of public environments).

220 The knowledge hub is designed “to support those who work or wish to work with art in public environments”, and “the aim of the knowledge hub is to help find concrete information on issues ranging from how to start an art project, how to implement it, and how to manage it (the committee’s underlining). https://www.statenskonstrad.se/utveckla-konsten/kunskapsnav-offentlig-konst/, (accessed 1 February 2019).

64

Case study: The Rosenbad block – an example of ambiguous roles

The Rosenbad block is centrally located on the waterfront of Stockholms ström opposite the Swedish Riksdag. It consists of four buildings, constructed between 1895 and 1902. Rosenbad is a national historic monument and is managed by the National Property Board Sweden. Ferdinand Boberg designed the buildings facing Strömgatan, in a style influenced by Venetian architecture. The opposite side of the property, on the corner of Drottninggatan and Fredsgatan, was designed by Gustav Wickman for Skånes Enskilda Bank. Several alterations have been made since the block was converted into government offices, most notably the major rebuilding by the Tengbom architectural firm in the late 1970s. In connection with the restructuring, several building-related public works of art were installed, commissioned by the Public Art Agency Sweden on behalf of the then owner, the National Board of Public Buildings, and the Government Offices.221

Lars Millhagen, Untitled, 1983, painted wood and red crayon. Building-related art work commissioned for floor seven at Rosenbad (waiting room outside the Prime Minister’s Office). Tengbom. The work will be moved to the entrance level in 2020 due to refurbishment.

In 2015, the National Property Board Sweden and the Government Offices began planning a major and extensive refurbishment of the government building at Rosenbad. The ongoing rebuilding, which will alter the entrance, stairs and layout, has been approved by the Swedish National Heritage Board.

However, neither the National Property Board, the National Heritage Board, nor the building antiquarians or architects consulted by the Property Board

221 See the publication Statens konstråd 5/6, Public Art Agency Sweden (1983).

65

to perform preliminary antiquarian examinations, noted that the rebuilding would also affect several walls with building-related public art.222 The rebuilding is so extensive that two building-related works by the artists Lars Millhagen and Jörgen Fogelqvist will be partly torn down and moved.

This was discovered by the artists’ relatives in the final planning stage, when they contacted the Public Art Agency Sweden, who, in turn informed the National Property Board and the architects involved of the merits of the art and the regulations that applied.

Jörgen Fogelqvist (1927–2005) was a Swedish post-war abstract expressionist. He is represented in several museum collections and has made monumental building-related public works of art all over Sweden, including the enamelled tiles in the western ticket hall at T-Centralen in Stockholm (1957– 1962 and 2000). The painting Rowing in Rosenbad is from 1981 in stucco lustro, a very old and time-consuming mural technique. Jörgen Fogelqvist described the painting as a portrayal of man in relation to the systems he exists in on earth and ultimately as part of the universe.223 The sculptor and illustrator Lars Millhagen (1936–1996) is represented in several museum collections and has made many public works of art in Sweden. His practice has recently been associated with international 20th-century conceptualism and minimalism.224 His work on floor seven at Rosenbad is a sculptural wall relief with red chalk drawings. Lars Millhagen has said that the work refers to Leonardo da Vinci’s sketches, many of which are in red chalk, to visualise an inkling of “the most magnificent imaginary solutions...”.225 In 2018, the National Property Board and the architects ensured that the building-related art affected by the construction work at Rosenbad would be preserved, in consultation with the heirs who hold the copyright. Expert conservators have also been tied to the rebuilding. Altogether, extensive re-planning was required in order to reach solutions that fulfil the requirements for building-related public art and the regulations for the protection of national historic monuments.

This case revealed that regulations protecting property that is a national historic monument do not automatically extend to assets such as buildingrelated art from the 20th century. Moreover, it showed that the Swedish National Heritage Board’s responsibility for national historic monuments is not currently applied to the extent needed to guarantee the protection of

222 Ahrbom & Partner Architects handled the rebuilding.

223 Public Art Agency Sweden (1983) 7.

224 See the Moderna Museet exhibition The Clouds Between Us (2006).

225 Public Art Agency Sweden (1983) 10.

66

building-related public art. The case also showed that the Public Art Agency has supervised national historic monuments according to its own practices, even though this is the responsibility of the National Heritage Board, and that the National Heritage Board did not take the building-related public art into account when granting permission for the rebuilding. Ultimately, the case study highlights the need to develop more distinct boundaries between the roles and responsibilities of the Public Art Agency and the National Heritage Board respectively, with regard to supervision and permission granting.

67

4 Legal and economic instruments for building-related public art

This chapter describes the laws and ordinances that regulate building-related public art in one way or another. The laws discussed in section 4.1 are the Land Code (1970:994), the Historic Environment Act (1988:950), the Ordinance (2013:558) on national historic buildings, the Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of national art, the Planning and Building Act (2010:900), the Environmental Code (1998:808, and the Copyright Act (1960:729). Section 4.2 describes the economic instruments that can apply to building-related public art. The chapter concludes with proposals and considerations on how to promote a positive development for building-related public art.

4.1 Legal instruments for building-related public art Cultural environment and cultural assets are regulated by law, along with other areas of public interest. Public interest is specified in several laws. The Planning and Building Act (2010:900) lists cultural assets as a public interest among others that the municipality must consider when altering its use of land and water. The Environmental Code (1970:994) also specifies this – cultural assets that are deemed to be important to the public shall be considered when applying regulations, including the Environmental Code’s rules on due consideration. The opening paragraph of the Historic Environment Act (1988:950) states that it is of national interest to protect and preserve cultural environments and that we all share the responsibility for the cultural environment.226 4.1.1 Cultural property – legal principles Cultural property legislation refers to the national and international laws that are of particular relevance to the protection, management and trade with cultural property.227 Simply put, the laws pertaining to cultural property have three means of regulating actions or measures affecting property.228 One of these is prohibitions against measures to the property, for instance by including a demolition ban in the local development plan if a building is of particular cultural, historic or artistic value. The laws regulating permission for measures affecting cultural property are another means of protecting such property.

They can be used in connection with applications to alter historic monuments or ecclesiastical cultural monuments. A less common instrument influencing cultural property is examination of the intended physical location of an object; the purpose here is to protect the physical context. This can be done through ch. 5–8 in the Historic Environment Act

226 Historic Environment Act (1988:950) ch. 1, §1.

227 At European level, ownership is protected in the European Convention on Human Rights, which is part of Swedish law since 1995. In short, the Convention states that a nation’s limitations on the right to dispose of one’s private property must be reasonable.

228 The three ways in which law primarily influences cultural property, and which the committee focused on, are based mainly on Adlercreutz, Thomas (2001) Kulturegendomsrätt – med en kommentar till kulturminneslagen.

68

on exporting cultural objects, or through ch. 5 of the same Act, when the county administrative board is processing an application to relocate ecclesiastical fittings.

The basic principles of property law are stated in the Instrument of Government (1974:152),229 along with the basic restrictions on disposal of property. The Land Code (1970:994) regulates matters relating to immovable property.230 Immovable property is land divided into different properties. All that is not immovable property is movable property. According to the Land Code, a property has property fixtures, and a building has building fixtures.231 Property fixtures include buildings, cables, fences or other items added to the property for permanent use.232 Thus, a building can have fixtures and is, in turn, a fixture to the property. The property fixtures should have been added to the property for permanent use and be fixed directly to the ground.

Building fixtures include permanent fittings and other additions to the building intended for permanent use, that are indirectly fixed to the ground through the building.233 Building fixtures are divided into permanent fittings and other additions to the building intended for permanent use. Permanent fittings include lifts and banisters. Building fixtures that are not permanent fittings are harder to define, but they would include typical interior design details that a new owner intending to use the building for the same main purpose could be assumed to find permanently useful. It is worth noting that objects classified as immovable property in the Land Code may be easy to move, and objects classified as movable may be very difficult to move.234 The permanent use requirement serves to distinguish property fixtures from movable property and should be interpreted as meaning that there is an objective relationship of purpose between the object, the property and the building. A practical example of a building fixture in a residential building is a bathroom sink. A bathroom sink has a purpose linked to the building, since a new owner who uses the building in approximately the same way can be expected to need it, and it has been added to the building by being attached to the wall. Unlike movable objects, property fixtures and building fixtures go with the property or building when it is sold unless the parties have come to a different agreement.235

229 Announcement of a new agreed Instrument of Government (SFS 1974:152) ch. 2, §18.

230 The term immovable property in the Land Code (1970:994) is used in two senses; partly to denote concrete physical objects, but also referring to the ownership of such objects. Beckman, Lars K., Bäärnhielm, Mauritz & Cederlöf, Joakim et al. (2012) Jordabalken: en kommentar till JB och anslutande författningar, 15.

231 Land Code (1970:994) ch. 2, §2-3.

232 The Land Code (1970:994) defines building as follows: “in addition to what is generally meant by buildings... all forms of built structures”. Beckman, Lars K., Bäärnhielm, Mauritz & Cederlöf, Joakim et al. (2012) 26.

233 The distinction between property and building fixtures as omedelbara/immediate (directly connected to the ground) and medelbara/ mediated (indirectly connected to the ground) is from Beckman, Lars K., Bäärnhielm, Mauritz, Cederlöf, Joakim, et al (2012) 26.

234 A curtain, for instance, can be a fixture to immovable property despite being easy to move. Inversely, a heavy bronze sculpture on a town square can be movable property despite being hard to move.

235 Cf, the case of Skärva mansion in Blekinge, Växjö administrative court decision on 16 July 2014, case 994-14.

69

The Public Art Agency and other commissioners of building-related public art in the 20th century have usually defined this art as fixtures to immovable property. However, when a building is repurposed, the requirement on permanent use is challenged. This can mean that a work of art that was considered to be building-related when it was commissioned is legally reclassified as movable property. One example is an auditorium that is converted to accommodate another activity, changing the context of the artistically designed curtain so that it no longer fills the requirement of permanent use. When art is included in a property or building, the functional perspective and relationship of purpose between property or building and art seem hard to justify, as art is rarely functional in the same way as a banister or technical installation such as a water mains. Building-related public art, however, can be said to fill a purpose, for instance because art in a public environment can be enjoyed by more people, or because it enhances the experience of aesthetic and spatial qualities. It would probably be hard, however, to find support for such a reasoning in the regulations on purpose and context in the Land Code (1970:994).

International perspective I: Palais Stoclet, Brussels One international example of building-related public art that is interesting from a legal perspective is Palais Stoclet in Brussels. The management of movable cultural property in this building is diametrically opposite to the practice for movable and immovable property in Swedish cultural property law.

In all three Belgian regions, the legislation236 protecting buildings and monuments includes permanent fixtures and fittings237. The extent of this ensemble protection has been clarified in fairly recent court decisions. One of the cases concerned Palais Stoclet in Brussels, a sumptuous private palace designed

by Josef Hoffman and completed in 1911. The palace is a Gesamtkunstwerk, where the architecture interacts with commissioned bronze statues, furniture, and mosaics by the artist Gustav Klimt. To ensure the legal protection of the palace as a whole, the region in Brussels determined in 2006 that interiors and fixtures are “inseparably linked” to the already listed building, even though the Belgian constitution only provides protection for immovable property. The case went through the court system with the same result everywhere. Moreover, the ensemble protection was not considered to infringe on ownership rights, and the heirs of the private palace were therefore not awarded any compensation.238

236 Belgian law differentiates between movable and immovable cultural heritage. Furthermore, different legislation for these two categories exists for the Flemish, French and German-speaking communities in the Belgian federation. Clippele, Marie-Sophie de, Lambrecht, Lucie (2015) “Art Law and Balances. Increased Protection of Cultural Heritage Law vs. Private Ownership: Towards Clash or Balance?” in International Journal of Cultural Property. 2015:22: 261.

237 Fixtures and fittings.

238 Clippele, Marie-Sophie de, Lambrecht, Lucie (2015) 2015:22: 268–270.

70

Interior, Palais Stoclet.

International perspective II: Villa Korsmo, Oslo Another international comparison that is legally relevant is Villa Korsmo in Oslo, Norway. Designed in 1954 by the architect Arne Korsmo in close collaboration with his wife, the designer Grete Prytz Kittelsen, it is a combined private home, studio and workshop.239 Again, the handling of cultural property in the form of movable property is radically different from Swedish practice.

Arne Korsmo is considered to be one of Norway’s most prominent architects, and Villa Korsmo is regarded as an icon of Scandinavian modernist architecture. The villa has a versatile design and, besides being the private home of the architect and his wife, it was a workplace, a classroom and a venue for creative gatherings. The architecture, together with its permanent and movable interior fixtures, has been assessed as being of great value as a cultural heritage.

239 Steen, Olaf (2017) “The Korsmo House, Oslo, Norway. How to Protect a Designer and Architect’s combined Home, Workshop and Studio from the 1950:s” in Modern Heritage – Identifying, Assessing and Managing its Protection and Conservation, Heritage for Future 1 (4) 2017, Acts from the conference: International Scientific Committee for Theory and Philosophy of Conservation and Restoration ICOMOS, Romualdo Del Bianco Fondazione, ICOMOS Poland, Florence–Warsaw (2017) 1. The architect Christian Norberg-Schulz was also involved in working on the villa.

71

Interior, Villa Korsmo.

A proposal to protect both the exterior and interior of the villa, along with its fixtures and fittings, was made by the municipal authorities in 2010 and adopted in 2014 by Riksantikvaren, Norway’s national cultural heritage board.240 The administrative process was performed within the Norwegian framework corresponding to Sweden’s Historic Environment Act.241 The purpose was to preserve the building’s architectonic and historic value and to preserve the entire complex as a private home, where parts of the movable property was included in the legal protection.242 The movable property, in the form of chairs, tables, cushions, desks, daybeds and other items, was considered to be highly essential to the understanding of the multiple purposes of the villa.243 It is now privately owned, and a contract has been signed between the new owners and the cultural environment authorities, stipulating that the building continue to be used as a home, as long as the cultural and historic assets listed in the decision are preserved for posterity.

240 Protection Order of Planetveien 10A, 12 and 14 of 7 January 2014. The Norwegian Directorate of Cultural Heritage. Steen (2014) 7.

241 The Norwegian Cultural Heritage Act (§ 22) of June 1978 No. 50 Concerning the Cultural Heritage. Ministry of Climate and Environment, Norway.

242 Ibid. Cf. Fechner, Frank G., 384: “National laws and international conventions should not tolerate or even encourage a tearing apart of cultural entities. A judicial means of linking an object to a certain place might be to treat cultural objects as immovables, even if they are movable in fact”.

243 Steen (2014) 7 f.

72

4.1.2 Laws protecting cultural environments and cultural objects The Historic Environment Act (1988:950) is the central legal instrument for the cultural environment sector. Above all, it regulates the protection against physical measures affecting the historic value of specifically identified objects and cultural environments.

The law is aimed mainly at property owners, although its introductory section states that the responsibility for cultural heritages is shared by all. The objects and environments covered by this Act are either specifically defined in the Act or protected through authority decisions based on it. For historic buildings, a separate decision is required, declaring them as listed buildings. Ecclesiastical historic buildings are universally protected through the Act. The county administrative boards are entitled to set their own conditions and requirements on documentation and antiquarian participation in connection with applications for permission to alter historic buildings or ecclesiastical historic buildings.244 Buildings, built environments, parks, gardens and other constructions of particularly significant cultural heritage value can be declared listed buildings according to ch.

3 of the Historic Environment Act (1988:950).245 For a listed building, the county administrative board shall specify in protective provisions how it should be maintained, and in which respects it may not be altered. Only those objects that are classified as fixtures to immovable property (property or building fixtures) according to the Land Code (1970:994) can be covered by the protective regulations for a listed building.246 Also, for listed buildings, only the building itself, including its immovable fixtures and fittings, can be encompassed in a decision about such protection.247 No law prevents declaring a building as listed, or specifying protection for only part of a building.248 Moreover, there is nothing preventing a free-standing building-related work of art from being declared a construction and thereby including it in the protective cover.249 Only a small minority of buildings or built environments that have been protected as historic buildings are objects or environments from the 20th century, where the building-related public art is found.250

244 Historic Environment Act (1988:950) ch. 3, §14, ch. 4 §3.

245 The number of historic buildings according to the Historic Environment Act was just over 2,400 in 2019. See https://www.raa.se/ hitta-information/bebyggelseregistret-bebr/forteckning-over-statliga-byggnadsminnen/ (accessed 2019-04-17).

246 Bexhed (2017) 483. Furthermore, building-related public art must be owned by the person who owns the property in which the art is installed in order for it to be protected by law. Adlercreutz (2001) 119, 253.

247 Historic Environment Act (1988:950) ch. 3, §1. The area around a historic building can, if stated in the legal protection, be regulated in such a way that it is kept in a condition that does not misrepresent the character of the building. The surrounding land, however, is not itself part of the historic building. Bexhed (2017) 483.

248 “[...]even if the value of such a limited protection is often questionable with regard to ‘especially remarkable’ buildings”. Adlercreutz (2001) 255.

249 See KRFS 2018:3. National Heritage Board mandatory provisions and general recommendations on historic buildings.

250 Just under 8,500 historic buildings, or more than 2,400 sites are protected under the Historic Environment Act. Few of them are from the 20th century. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Sveriges miljömål, Skyddad bebyggelse, http://sverigesmiljomal.se/ miljomalen/god-bebyggd-miljo/skyddad-bebyggelse/ (accessed 7 May 2019), National Heritage Board (2017b) Nya byggnadsminnen: En utvärdering om länsstyrelsernas förutsättningar att bilda nya byggnadsminnen. See also note 88.

73

Ecclesiastical cultural heritage according to ch. 4 in the Historic Environment Act (1988:950) can be seem as the most comprehensive protection of cultural property.251 Legislation on the ecclesiastical historic heritage covers churches, church plots252 and ecclesiastical furnishings belonging to the Church of Sweden. The ecclesiastical furnishings covered are those of cultural and historic value belonging to a church or other ecclesiastical building, church plot or burial ground.253 Moreover, individual and general burial grounds may be protected according to ch. 4 of the Historic Environment Act,254 regardless of whether the Church of Sweden is its principal. Church buildings and church plots shall, furthermore, have been consecrated for worship by the Church of Sweden prior to 2000, and owned or held in trust by the Church of Sweden at that time.255 In addition, the Act applies to church buildings built, or church plots established, prior to the end of 1939. A special decision by the county administrative board is required for churches and burial grounds established after 1939 to be covered by the same legal protection.

Unlike ch. 3 of the Historic Environment Act (1988:950) ch. 4 uses the term artistic decoration. In this context, the term is used to clarify what alterations of church buildings require a permit; changing the artistic decoration is one such measure.256 Building-related public art is thus included in the protection according to ch. 4 of the Historic Environment Act if it is installed in an ecclesiastical building, church plot or burial ground and also fulfils the criteria stated in the above paragraph. Furnishings that are legally protected may include decorative objects. Furnishings are not subject to the same age criterion as church buildings; even furnishings of later date may be covered by legal protection.

Thus, age makes no difference in this context.

A part of the Historic Environment Act (1988:950) which deals with movable property is chapters 5–8 on the rules on export protection of certain older cultural objects.257 With

251 Moreover, the separation of state and church in 2000 could be said to have strengthened the government’s influence over ecclesiastical historic buildings, since the management of historically valuable Church property was detailed in an agreement between the two parties, and also because the County Administrative Board was given the mandate to act to ensure compliance with the Historic Environment Act. Bexhed (2017) 488, Adlercreutz (2001) 163, 276.

252 And the buildings, walls, doors other fixtures and plantations found in church plots.

253 “Ecclesiastical fixtures should include objects [...] intended for use in connection with ceremonial worship and other religious acts, as interior features and decorations or as memorials”. The distinction between ecclesiastical fixtures and immovable fixtures (that are protected as part of the building) is based on the Land Code’s (1970:994) definition of immovable and movable property. KRFS 2012:2, National Heritage Board mandatory provisions for ecclesiastical historic buildings, 3, 44.

254 And the buildings on the burial site that are not ecclesiastical, permanent features such as walls and doorways and plantations. A burial site is specified in ch. 1, §1 of the Burial Act (SFS 1990:1144) as “...areas or spaces that are designated for the storage of the remains or ashes of the deceased, and which have been appropriated for this purpose, mainly church plots or other burial grounds, memorial groves, columbariums or columbarium walls...”.

255 As mentioned, the reason for this time span is the separation of state and church, which took place then, and that the Church of Sweden ceased to be a state church and became a separate religious community.

256 “In respect of a church building, a permit is always required for its demolition, relocation or conversion, as well as for interventions in or alterations to its exterior and interior, including its permanent fixtures and fittings and artistic decoration and for alteration of its colour scheme.” The Historic Environment Act (1988:950), ch. 4, §3. The term artistic value is not used in the Historic Environment Act, but it does occur in the preliminary work for the government bill 1987/88:104 on cultural environment conservation, 48.

257 The first provisions on exporting cultural objects were introduced in 1927. In the original version, parts of buildings and fixtures were included in the categories covered by the legislation. In the mid-1980s, this category was dropped, with the argument that it should instead

74

regard to building-related public art, which is characterised by belonging to a specific place, the art has to be removed from its context in order to be deemed a cultural object.

In theory, building-related public art could be regarded as cultural objects according to the definition in the Historic Environment Act and thereby be covered by the export prohibition.258 This would require, however, that the art is no longer physically linked to the place for which it was created, and that it is of a certain age.259 Another criterion is that the object has been in Sweden for 75 years. The export provisions only stipulate that the object remain in Sweden; there is nothing in them to prevent cultural objects from being wrongly handled or destroyed.260 The provisions in the Ordinance (2013:558) on national historic buildings are largely identical to those in ch. 3 of the Historic Environment Act (1988:950), apart from the fact that national historic buildings are listed by government decision. The National Heritage Board is the authority that issues permits and is responsible for supervision. Thus, government-owned buildings, parks, gardens and other constructions considered to be of particular cultural and historic value can be included in the protection.261 According to the Historic Environment Act, a special decision and specific protective provisions are required for each national historic building. Another similarity between historic buildings according to the Historic Environment Act is that the protection of national historic buildings is aimed at preserving the cultural and historic value of the objects and the environment. Building-related art is found in currently listed national historic buildings, especially those that are or have been used for public purposes. If the building-related public art is considered to reflect the cultural and historic value ascribed to the historic building as a whole, it should be included in the protective provisions in a way that clarifies how the historic building should be maintained and conserved, and which aspects must not be altered.262 Commonly occurring terms in the protective provisions are protection of surface and that the historic building should be kept in a condition such that the appearance and character of the listed building is not distorted.263 And yet, there may be reason to consider including building-related public art more specifically in the protective provisions or recommendations.

be covered by being listed as a historic building. Adlercreutz (2001) 174. Cf. National Heritage Board, 2013. Översyn av regelverket om kulturföremål. Ku2013/1344/KA, 11.

258 An appendix to the Historic Environment Act defines a number of object categories, where some could be building-related public art, including light fixtures, mosaics and sculptures. See National Heritage Board (2018) Förteckning föremålskategorier för utförsel, https:// www.raa.se/lagar-och-stod/kulturmiljolagen-kml/utforsel-och-export-av-kulturforemal-5-8-kap/forteckning-foremalskategorier-for-utforsel/ (accessed 30 January 2019).

259 Object categories have different criteria for age and value in order to be covered by the export restrictions. See appendix to the Historic Environment Ordinance (SFS 1988:1188) 260 Adlercreutz (2001) 168, 183.

261 The number of listed national historic buildings was just over 280 in 2019.

262 National Heritage Board (2017d) Statliga byggnadsminnen. Vägledning för tillämpning av förordningen om statliga byggnadsminnen, 17.

263 The surface layer protection usually covers artistically designed or older surfaces with some patina. National Heritage Board (2017d) 22.

75

4.1.3 Cultural assets and artistic assets in urban planning The Planning and Building Act (2010:900) is the law that municipalities use when planning and giving permits, to regulate the use of land and water and designing the built environment. The legal instruments offered by the Act are building permits and legally binding plans such as detailed development plans and area regulations, as well as non-legally binding plans, including comprehensive plans. Every municipality is obliged to have a comprehensive plan that indicates the fundamental features of the municipality’s envisaged use of land and water, and how it intends to develop and preserve the built environment. The legally binding plans for more limited areas, such as the development plan, regulate alterations in built areas. The development plan is, in general, development-driven; i.e., it is initiated by a request to convert or build on a property or site.

Municipalities can stipulate various provisions in their development plans and area provisions, to ensure that future buildings are designed with regard to existing cultural assets. Building density may be limited, and provisions concerning the location and design of new buildings may be imposed. Special rules on due care can be used to clarify the general requirement of due care (see the second and third paragraph in the box below).

Buildings, built environments, constructions requiring planning permission and lots of particular value can be protected by provisions in the plan and prohibitions on demolition (see the fourth and fifth paragraph in the box below) to regulate development and alterations of individual buildings or built environments.264 It is the developer, i.e. the person who commissions a project, who is responsible for ensuring that construction, demolition and site improvements are carried out in accordance with the legal requirements, primarily as expressed in the planning provisions and decisions on building permits.265 Cultural assets as a public interest is expressed in ch. 2, 8 and 9 of the Planning and Building Act (2010:900). Below is a summary of the requirements on the planning and building process with regard to cultural assets in urban development.266 Built environments and constructions must be designed and placed on the intended land in a manner that is suitable to the townscape and landscape, natural and cultural assets of the site, and in the interest of ensuring a favourable overall impression. (2:6) The particular history, cultural heritage, environment and art of the built area must be protected. Alterations and additions to the built environment must be carried out cautiously so that existing characteristic features are respected and maintained. (2:6)

264 Unlike the provisions on due care, the protection provisions can give rise to compensation claims. “The protective provisions should include provisions that entail requirements on: using the same materials (i.e. not just the same design), costly maintenance, design that puts demands on very special and expensive qualities.” Boverket (2014) PBL Kunskapsbanken, Kulturvärden, https://www.boverket.se/sv/ PBL-kunskapsbanken/Allmant-om-PBL/teman/kulturvarden/ (accessed 2018-11-26).

265 The Planning and Building Act (SFS 2010:900), ch. 10, §5.

266 References to chapter and paragraph in the Planning and Building Act are given in brackets. Words in bold are the committee’s additions.

76

Alterations to buildings and moving of buildings must be carried out cautiously, so that the building’s characteristics are considered and its technical, historical, cultural heritage, environmental and artistic value is protected. (8:17) A building that is particularly valuable from a historical, cultural-historical heritage, environmental or artistic point of view may not be distorted. (8:13) Demolition permits may not be issued for measures that relate to a building or part of a building that should be preserved due to its historical, cultural heritage, environmental or artistic value. (9:34)

Note that neither the requirement on cautiousness nor the ban on distortion prevent the demolition of a building or work of art. For such a prohibition to be legally binding, a provision banning demolition needs to be added to the development plan. Municipalities can, however, refuse demolition permits for buildings or constructions that are culturally or historically valuable.267 The mandatory provisions and general recommendations (BBR) of Boverket specify what can be considered to be cultural assets, highlighting artistic value.268 The following general recommendation is given on the term particularly valuable building: A building can be particularly valuable from an artistic point of view if it shows special aesthetic qualities or a high level of ambition regarding architectural design or in construction and material choice or in artistic design and decoration.269

The Planning and Building Act (2010:900) is the only law in the cultural environment area where the terms valuable from an artistic point of view and aesthetic qualities are used.270 This should be seen in the context that artistic value consists of several values that together form the cultural asset. For instance, the prohibition against distortion in (ch. 8, §13) applies both to cases where either the cultural and historic or the artistic values are concerned, and cases where they are combined. This is an important aspect here, since building-related public art can be considered to be culturally and historically valuable, but also be valuable solely on its artistic merits. Unlike the Historic Environment Act (1988:950), and the Ordinance (2013:558) on national historic buildings, the Planning and Building Act gives more authority to protect building-related public art based on its artistic value explicitly. In the Historic Environment Act, artistic value is merely a com-

267 This is possible even if demolition is prohibited or the value of the building is specified in the development plan, site provisions or in draft plans, etc. Planning and Building Act (SFS 2010:900), ch. 9, §34, 2. See also Boverket (2015) PBL Kunskapsbanken, Kulturvärden rivningslov, https://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-kunskapsbanken/Allmant-om-PBL/teman/kulturvarden/kulturvarden-i-plan---och-bygglagen/lov-byggande-och-kulturvarden/kulturvarden-rivningslov/ (accessed 22 January 2019).

268 Boverket’s building regulations (BRB) prescribe how parts of the Planning and Building Ordinance (SFS 2011:338) should be applied.

The Planning and Building Ordinance consists of specifications, and design and technical requirements. The government has noted that the terms due care and distortion in its bill on a policy for designed living environments (2017/18:110) are ambiguous. Therefore, the government has mandated Boverket to draft general recommendations or guidelines to clarify these terms.

269 BFS 2011:6, Boverkets byggregler – föreskrifter och allmänna råd, BBR 1:2213.

270 Artistic design is addressed, however, in ch. 4 of the Historic Environment Act on Ecclesiastical Historic Buildings, but with a different aim than cultural value in the Planning and Building Act. See 4.1.2.

77

ponent of the cultural and historic value. However, the artistic aspect alone will probably not provide sufficient grounds for listing a building.

The Planning and Building Act (2010:900) makes it clear that cultural environments and cultural assets should be considered as a public interest, and building-related public art is a part of this. Usually, there are no provisions in the development plans or area regulations on building-related public art in public environments. Only 1–3 per cent of all built environments are covered by provisions protecting cultural assets.271 However, the requirements on caution and consideration cover all alterations in buildings and built-environments. These requirements apply regardless of the age of the building or environment and can be implemented by the building committee even when there is no previous mention of, or background material on, the cultural, historic and artistic assets.

The assessment is made when the application for planning permission is being considered, laying a huge responsibility on the decision-making municipal authority to ensure that these assets are maintained.

Previous studies by the National Heritage Board have identified considerable failures in the handling of cultural assets in the permit and building processes in connection with alterations of culturally valuable buildings. In most cases, the cultural value is entirely ignored.272 Only rarely are antiquarian surveys made to determine whether alterations would affect the building’s cultural value prior to the local building committee’s decision on planning permission.273 Yet another problem is that municipalities find it hard to assert the Planning and Building Act’s requirements on caution and consideration, supposedly due to lack of documentation of the cultural assets and provisions for protection in the plan.274 One obstacle to protecting the value of building-related public art through the requirements in the Planning and Building Act (2010:900) could be the different scale of art and local development plans. The building-related public art may be monumental in size, but it could nevertheless be so discreet in style or so integrated with the building that it is hard to handle with the local development plan as an instrument. There is no documentation, however, in the form of development plans or legal cases corroborating this.

271 The data were accessed on 15 June 2018, from one of the indicators for the environmental objective for a good built environment, God bebyggd miljö, and are based on the counties included in the Räkna Q project. National Heritage Board (2018) Kulturvärden försvinner i byggprocessen. Intervjuer och aktgranskning av bygglovsärenden, 5. See also Boverket, Sveriges miljömål. Skyddad bebyggelse. http:// sverigesmiljomal.se/miljomalen/god-bebyggd-miljo/skyddad-bebyggelse/ (accessed 8 May 2019). Even with an ambition level as low as one per cent of all buildings, it would entail on average that each municipality would have to protect considerably more than 100 buildings, a number that only a handful of municipalities claim to have achieved. “[...] in view of how few demolitions are prohibited so far, and how few prohibitions are issued on a regular basis, the goal seems hard to reach.” Boverket (2009) Kulturhistoriskt värdefull bebyggelse. En analys av miljömålsenkäten 2009, 16.

272 “Even when a building has been identified as a cultural asset or is located in an area where consideration should be taken to the cultural assets of the built environment, this is ignored in most planning permit cases. Positions or statements to the effect that cultural assets are linked to the building, are usually not presented in decisions to grant planning permits, and the message to go ahead rarely contains any requirements on adjustments or consideration.” National Heritage Board (2018) 23.

273 The information is based on an inspection of documents showing that antiquarian surveys had been made in 8 of the 110 reviewed building permit cases (7%). These preliminary surveys concerned listed buildings in the local development plan, or buildings whose merits had been identified in building inventories.

274 National Heritage Board (2017a) Kulturvärden i planerings- och bygglovsprocesser – en utvärdering om kommuners förutsättningar för att ta hänsyn till kulturvärden, 43–44.

78

One of the interviewees with experience of using q-listing, i.e. protective provisions in the development plans for building-related public art, says that even if a building is identified as culturally and historically valuable or covered by protective regulations in the development plan, the art must still be mentioned specifically to be included in the protection.275 Another interviewee stresses that case workers handling the development plan need to be aware of the possibility of protecting artistic assets, and also highlights the need for educational material, including web-based resources, on handling artistic and cultural heritage assets in the planning and permit process.276 It is harder for municipal planners to argue their value when property owners want to develop a property and large sums of money are involved. This gives property owners greater influence on the future of building-related public art.

A study by the National Heritage Board on how cultural assets are handled in the municipal planning and building permission process also showed that many municipalities lack adequate background material for their planning and the knowledge needed to address cultural assets as a public interest. The study revealed that the most important resources for these activities, in order of importance, are: 1. formal protection in local development plans or area provisions 2. a politically adopted cultural environment programme 3. access to professional antiquarians 4. a description of cultural assets in the comprehensive plan.277 In addition to the Planning and Building Act, the Environmental Code (1998:808) is the fundamental legislation for the management of land and water. The Environmental Code is linked to building-related public art in that it states clearly that valuable cultural environments should be protected and preserved when the environment is used.278 This provides legal support for valuable cultural environments and culture as a public interest in urban development and is therefore also relevant to building-related public art as part of the cultural environment.

The more specific form of protection for cultural environments in the Environmental Code (1998:808) is the one for cultural reserves.279 A cultural reserve is an area designated by the municipality or county administrative board as a landscape with clear traces of historical land use. The purpose of the culture reserve instrument is to preserve valuable cultural landscapes, which, in itself does not exclude landscapes consisting of, say an urban environment featuring housing with building-related art, interacting with

275 Interviewee 4, June 2018.

276 Interviewee 1, June 2018.

277 National Heritage Board (2017a).

278 Environmental Code (FS 1998:808) ch. 1, §1, ch. 2 1–3, §6, ch. 3, §6, ch. 4, 279 Ibid ch. 7, §9.

79

the natural landscape. This protection has almost exclusively been applied to agrarian landscapes in the two decades since it was introduced.280 281 The Environmental Code (1998:808) can also be used to define a culturally valuable environment as being a national interest.282 Being defined as a national interest does not provide protection in itself, but the municipality must consider this national claim when processing applications for planning and building, in accordance with the Code. National interests should be protected as far as possible against measures that could seriously damage the cultural environment. Both of these instruments for cultural environments (culture reserves and national interests) are regulated through the Environmental Code and comprise large, often contiguous areas of certain landscape types, where buildings or constructions are only part of a larger totality.283 There are examples, however, of artistic designs that have been declared national interests as part of a larger totality.284 It should be added that the national interest category can only, in principle, apply to art that is located outdoors.

4.1.4 Regulations for government-owned art and copyright protection The Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of national art regulates the supervision and conservation of public art belonging to the government, mainly public art that is moveable national property. The committee found it relevant to analyse what mandate the Ordinance gives the Public Art Agency to conserve and maintain building-related public art.

The first paragraph states that the regulations in the Ordinance apply to art belonging to the government in the premises of authorities. The Ordinance also specifies the authorities’ responsibility for the conservation of building-related public art: Every government authority that has art placed in its premises shall maintain it with care. The care of art that is an accessory to immovable property, however, is the responsibility of the government authority that manages the building.285

280 Cultural reservations as a form of protection was introduced together with the Environmental Code (1998:808) in 1999.

281 National Heritage Board (2017) Förteckning över samtliga kulturreservat i Sverige, https://www.raa.se/app/uploads/2017/08/Förteckning-över-kulturreservat-i-Sverige-2017-12-13.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018).

282 Environmental Code (1998:808) ch. 3, §6.

283 Agrarian environments also dominate the selection for national cultural environment conservation. See National Heritage Board (2017c) Riksintressen i siffror – statistik över kulturmiljövårdens riksintressen, 21 ff.

284 On national interests in the City of Västerås: “Central area with homogeneous modernist buildings from the 1950s-1970s, artistic design in and near the buildings, large department stores with malls and parking buildings as part of the modernist ideal, and separation of traffic, with tunnel systems under the city centre, making room for plazas for street life and cultural arenas.” National Heritage Board, updated 2018-06-20, Riksintressen för kulturmiljövården – Västmanlands län (U), Västerås U 24, 11. It would be appreciated if the indepth descriptions of national interests that are continuously produced by the county administrative boards could highlight artistic designs.

285 Ordinance (1990:195) §2.

80

From this, it clearly follows that the Ordinance, in addition to movable art, applies to government-owned art that is an accessory to immovable property, and that the care for this art is the responsibility of the authority that manages the building (see 3.1).

The contents of the Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of national art is divided into two parts, one describing the conservation responsibility of the authorities, and one describing the Public Art Agency’s supervision of how the authorities care for their national art. The supervision and conservation of national art is regulated with regard to inventories, reporting, consulting, damages and handling of any failures in the authorities’ care for their art. Moreover, the Public Art Agency’s supervision includes providing authorities with recommendations on how to care for national art.286 The Ordinance focuses mainly on collections and is hard to apply to environments with building-related public art. This is particularly true of the paragraphs regulating the return and relocation of art.

According to the Ordinance, authorities must consult the Public Art Agency on conservation and repairs, but this obligation does not apply to rebuilding, demolition or comparable modifications affecting the art and its surroundings.287 Moreover, no permit is required for alterations affecting national building-related public art.288 Nor does the Ordinance allow for any direct sanctions when authorities fail to care for the art. This could lead to arbitrary alterations and demolitions of valuable works of art.

Copyright is relevant in preventing alterations to building-related public art. For many years, the Act has been central to stakeholders in public art. Building-related public art is a particularly complex field for copyright law, since the boundary between art and the built environment is not always clear. This justifies the following detailed description of how moral rights in particular can apply to building-related public art.

The legal principles of copyright ownership are stipulated in the Instrument of Government’s (1974:152) constitutional rights on freedom of expression and freedom of the press,289 guaranteeing authors, artists and photographers the copyright to their works.

A key principle of the Copyright Act is that the transfer of a copy of a work does not include a transfer of its copyright. Thus, unlike the legal principles for cultural property, ownership of the physical object is not relevant; it is the author of the work who owns the copyright.290 The Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works (1960:729), hereinafter referred to as the Copyright Act, details the copyright rules laid down in the Constitution.291 The Act

286 Ordinance (1990:195) §7.

287 Ibid §5–6.

288 Cf. the permit requirement for national historic buildings.

289 Instrument of Government (1974:152) ch. 2, §16. Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works.

290 Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works (SFS 1960:729) ch. 1, §27, Olsson, Henry (2009) Upphovsrättslagstiftningen. En kommentar, 233 ff.

291 In addition to Swedish legislation, copyright is subject to various international agreements and EU directives.

81

is part of intellectual property law and aims to protect authors of intellectual, independent creations (works), not physical objects. Copyright is protected partly through intellectual property rights and also by preventing unlawful copying, including alterations and unlawful distribution of works to the public (economic rights). The former concerns the author’s right to be named in connection with their work (the right to be named), and the right to refuse permission to alter the work or make it accessible in a form or context that damages the artistic reputation and originality of the author (right to respect).292 The right to respect thus applies to two contexts, of which damaging alteration of a work of art is one. Any alterations shall be made with consideration for the value of the art, the artist’s intentions, or the purpose of the alteration, and this infers that restoration of a work can usually be deemed a permitted alteration.293 Assessments of whether an alteration is damaging to the author should be made from the artist’s perspective, but should be objective in all other matters.294 The right to respect can also be cited when a work is made accessible in a form or context that is damaging to the author. Breach of copyright is not claimed by the owner of the work but by the copyright owner, which is usually the author or their estate.295 One condition for categorising an object as a work of art in the copyright sense is that it is original, i.e. the author’s own (not copied) intellectual creation.296 Originality has nothing to do with the quality or value of the work. Copyright is automatic as soon as the work is created. It subsists until the end of the 70th year after the year in which the author died.297 The types of object included in the Copyright Act are “literary or artistic works”. The Act lists examples of categories of works, of which the ones relevant to this committee are primarily cinematographic works, photographic works or other works of fine art, works of applied art, works of architecture or building works.298 Works of fine art include paintings, sculptures and prints. Applied art includes the design of furniture, textiles, glass and metal. The terms “works of architecture” and “building works” (corresponding to the Swedish words byggnadskonst and byggnadsverk in the Act) are synonymous and include two- and three-dimensional expressions in architecture and landscape architecture such as drawings, buildings and environments.

The term building works also includes uniquely designed building details.299 The chapter specifying the areas to which the provisions apply clarify that they can apply to “works of

292 A closer look at moral rights is found in Renman, Claesson & Wainikka (2014) 91 ff.

293 See the legislative history, which states the following: “The purpose of the measure is also relevant. Therefore, measures to restore a work of art, for instance, are never considered to be prohibited, even if these measures are unable to preserve its original unique qualities.”

SOU 1956:25, Upphovsmannarätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk: lagförslag, 124 f.

294 Ibid.

295 The penalties that may occur are reasonable compensation for use, damages, and, if the infringement was intentional or due to gross negligence, fines or imprisonment.

296 The term originality is discussed in greater detail in Renman, Claesson & Wainikka (2014) 10 ff. In Swedish practice, the term verkshöjd is still (2019) used to denote originality. It should, however, be interpreted according to the EU definition of originality. In recent years, the European Court of Justice has ruled in a number of cases where the concept of originality has been explained in greater detail.

297 The economic, but not the moral, rights can be transferred from the author to another person.

298 Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works (1960:729) ch. 1, §1 4–6. See also the use of the term applied arts in other contexts, 2.4.

299 Olsson (2009) 43.

82

architecture constructed here [in Sweden]” and “works of fine art incorporated in a building situated here [in Sweden] or in some other way permanently fixed to the ground”.300 Examples of art that forms part of a building are exterior, or interior, sculptural designs and murals. One criterion is that the work of art is permanently fixed to the building.

Moreover, the requirement of being permanently fixed to the ground relates to, say, statues with a cast plinth. In other words, the art must not be easy to move.301 The difference between visual art in the form of, say, sculptures and prints, and works that are part of a building (works of architecture in the Copyright Act), is that visual art consists of art where “the image is the actual purpose and where there is no utility purpose, as in the case of architectural art or applied arts”.302 There are a number of limitations to copyright. One of these is that the owner of a building (work of architecture or building work) is entitled to alter the property without the consent of the author.303 This limitation differentiates works of architecture and building works from other works of art, according to the Copyright Act (1960:729), and weighs copyright against ownership rights. The entitlement to make alterations only applies to physical buildings, not fine art in the form of sculptures or other building-related art.

Alterations of buildings without consent may not, however, exceed what is required for the purpose. The right to make alterations should be interpreted restrictively.304 In the legislative history of a revision of the enactment, it is said that buildings are works with practical use, where the public supervision of construction activities should, as a rule, prevent invasive measures that would otherwise have required the author’s guidance.305 Based on the mentioned studies on the municipal capacity to protect cultural assets in urban planning, however, it is currently uncertain whether artistic assets are sufficiently protected in the permit and supervision processes of municipalities.306 A common denominator for the large number of artists who were commissioned in the 1900s to create building-related public art is that the environment for which the art was designed is usually integral to the expression of the art. In some cases, the boundary between building and art is blurred. In modern times, building-related public art often expands the boundaries for what can be considered to be art, or a functional building or other construction.307 From a copyright perspective, therefore, building-related public art should ideally be regarded as art, rather than as a building fixture, to make it possible for authors to contest disrespectful alterations. One condition for this is that property owners are aware that this is, in fact, a work of art, for instance by including it in an inventory or record.

300 Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works (1960:729) ch. 8, §60.

301 Olsson (2009) 524.

302 Ibid. 43.

303 Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works (SFS 1960:729) ch. 2, §26 c.

304 Olsson (2009) 119 ff, 193.

305 Government bill 1992/93:214 on amendments to the Copyright Act, 74.

306 See 4.1.3 Cultural assets and artistic assets in urban planning. See also the case study on alterations to Endre Nemes’ work Marmorintarsia (1955) in Hermerén & Orrje (2014).

307 E.g., the work Concrete Transcendence by Ebba Bohlin (2012) in the form of a pedestrian bridge over water in Sundbyberg.

83

Over the last 50 years, those who commission, own and manage building-related public art, have developed a practice of contacting the author or the author’s estate before planning to alter building-related public art or its surroundings. This practice is based on the immaterial rights in the Copyright Act, which includes provisions on alterations and access to works of art that restrict how the art can be handled. These restrictions are aimed at protecting the author’s artistic reputation or originality from violations, such as putting a doorway through a painting. The Public Art Agency applies this practice since 1970, through the acknowledgments it issues to regulate the maintenance role for new building-related public art. The standardised wording of these acknowledgments indicates an interpretation of the Act, where site-specificity is connected to violating alterations of a work of art: The art was acquired for a specific place and is installed in a particular environment. Change of location or other significant alterations affecting the art must, therefore, only be made after consulting the authority that supervises the works of art, and the artist if the Copyright Act (1960:729) so requires.308

The committee has not been able to ascertain whether there are any legal cases that serve as guidance on how this practice for building-related public art should be applied with regard to the Copyright Act (1960:729) to ensure that the artist’s intentions concerning the geographical location of site-specific art are protected. Instead, the Public Art Agency’s wording in the contracts with government property managers has been developed into recommendations and approaches, based on decades of practical experience. This is to ensure that the artists’ intentions are respected, for instance, when advertising in public environments near the art, or rebuilding that impacts physically on the expression of the art. The committee has found that the Public Art Agency’s application of the Copyright Act vis-à-vis building-related public art corresponds to practices in Denmark and France. The Danish equivalent of the National Heritage Board, Slots- og kulturstyrelsen, interprets the Danish Copyright Act’s provisions on the right to respect as meaning that artists can expect their work to remain in the place for which it was created, and that the owner should care for the work in a way that fulfils the artist’s intentions.309 The regulatory framework described above regarding the right to respect only covers alterations to building-related public art and not total demolition of such art. Although owners of building-related public art are allowed to totally demolish the art, this rarely happens. In cases where this has occurred, it was due to the owner’s lack of awareness of the art and its value, for instance when a property with building-related public art was sold and the new owner had not been informed about the art in the building prior to demolition or rebuilding.310 In cases where building-related public art is demolished or removed by a property

308 Acknowledgment from the Public Art Agency to the National Board of Public Buildings for Rosenbad (reg no 32-378-81-82).

309 Slots- og kulturstyrelsen (2016) Kunst i offentlige rum. https://slks.dk/bygningsfredning/kunst-i-offentlige-rum/ (accessed 2 October 2018), https://slks.dk/omraader/kulturarv/bevaringsvaerdige-bygninger-og-miljoeer/kunst-i-offentlige-rum/ (accessed 2019-03-28).

310 The Public Art Agency’s 2006–2008 survey of national building-related art highlighted this problem. Even if Swedish moral rights or copyright laws do not protect against total destruction of works of art, there are cases in other countries where this has been regarded as an infringement on the author’s moral rights. One example is the US Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), which protects against damage to works of art created mainly after 1 June 1991. Renman Claesson & Wainikka (2014) 114–116.

84

owner, the individual viewing compensation to the author is affected, and the right to economic compensation for public viewing of the art generally ceases.311 The table below is based on estimates made in the above chapter. It represents a simplified image of the laws that affect the management and supervision of building-related public art. This diagram does not aspire to give the whole picture and cannot be used for assessing individual cases. Nevertheless, the table does give an overview and can serve as a pedagogical aid for increased understanding of the complexities of the legal framework for building-related public art.

Identified supervisory responsibility

Identified responsibility for conservation

Processing of permits etc in connection with alterations

Preventing damages

Land Code (1970:994)

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of national art

Public Art Agency

Government authorities

No

No

Historic Environment Act (1988:950) Ch. 3 on historic buildings

County Administrative Boards

Yes

County Administrative Boards

Yes

Historic Environment Act (1988:950) Ch. 4 Ecclesiastical cultural heritage

County Administrative Boards

Yes

County Administrative Boards

Yes

Historic Environment Act (1988:950) Ch 5-8 cultural objects

Yes, under the National Heritage Board’s supervision

Not applicable

National Heritage Board in consultation with other authorities

No

Ordinance (2013:558) on national historic buildings

National Heritage Board

Government authorities

National Heritage Board

Yes

Planning and Building Act (2010:900)

Boverket, County Administrative Boards, local planning committee

Yes, according to 8:14

Local planning committee

Yes, if demolition is prohibited

Environmental Code (1998:808) Ch. 7 cultural reserve

County Administrative Boards (national cultural reserve), municipalities (municipal cultural reserve)

Yes

County Administrative Board

Yes, through reserve provisions

Environmental Code (1998:808) ch. 3 national interest for cultural environment conservation

County Administrative Board

Not applicable

County Administrative Board

Not applicable

Copyright Act (1960:729)

Not applicable

Not applicable

Yes, the author must be consulted

Not applicable

Table 1. National Heritage Board (2019).

311 The individual viewing remuneration should be seen as compensation for copyright infringements, since the author cannot claim compensation for public viewing of transferred works of art. This remuneration is regulated by the Ordinance (1996:1605) on individual viewing compensation and is paid by the organisation Bildupphovsrätt i Sverige. See also SOU 2018:23, Konstnär – oavsett villkor?.

85

4.2 Economic instruments for building-related public art Within the framework of the inventory and research projects carried out in recent years, several important works of art have been recognised for their great artistic and historic value. In connection with these inventories, it was found that several of the works of art were in urgent need of various conservation measures.312 A fundamental obstacle to ensuring the long-term care and management of building-related public art is the sketchy knowledge of what art actually exists, since records are not always available, and the managers do not know who or which bodies they should contact about preservation and conservation. Nor does the national, regional and municipal funding earmarked for the management of building-related public art cover the needs. This was verified by the participants in the four network group meetings held by the committee.313 Moreover, the network group meetings and interviews confirmed that property owners focus on the production of new art, which they have budgeted for, rather than on managing existing art.314 The government support available for building-related public art in secular environments comes from the funding within the cultural collaboration model and the cultural environment budget. For building-related public art in the Church of Sweden, there is funding in the form of church antiquarian compensation for those churches that are protected by law.315 4.2.1 The cultural collaboration model The national allocation that is distributed through the cultural collaboration model makes up nearly 20 per cent of the total government allocation for the arts.316 The purpose of the model, which was introduced in 2011, is to contribute to the national cultural policy goals and regional variations and priorities in cultural activities. The Swedish Arts Council distributes the funding to the regions, which then decide how divide it between their cultural activities. The allocation is intended as a complement to the regions’ and municipalities’ own budget for cultural activities. Funding through the cultural collaboration model can only be granted for such regional arts activities that also get funding from a municipality, a region or other responsible authority. The model targets seven fields of activity for reinforcement. Fields relevant to this committee include museum activities and the museums’ cultural environment work317, and professional art and design activities.

312 Hermerén & Orrje (2014) 269–270.

313 See appendix 2.

314 Interviewees 1 and 3, 3 June 2018, and the network group meetings, see appendix 2.

315 All churches built before the end of 1939 and selected churches built after that date are protected according to ch. 4 of the Historic Environment Act. See 4.1.2.

316 The Riksdag 2015/16:RFR4, Är samverkan modellen?, 19.

317 After a clarification in 2017, the Ordinance (2010:2012) on the allocation of government grants for regional arts was amended by adding “the cultural environment activities of museums” to “museum activities”. The National Heritage Board’s report Kulturmiljöarbetets genomslag inom kultursamverkansmodellen and the parliamentary evaluation report Är samverkan modellen? both noted that the role of cultural environment work was unclear.

86

The purpose of the government funding for regional museums, which antedates the cultural collaboration model and was handled by the Swedish Arts Council, was to support museums in their efforts to “collect, process and share knowledge about the region’s cultural heritage, its artistic development, and about the local community and environment in general”.318 This funding has now been incorporated with the cultural collaboration model’s funding for museums, and the regions thus have an express role in the cultural environment work. In its first years of existence, the model was vague on whether cultural environment work is included; moreover, the cultural environment work that was actually carried out by the regional museums was largely unreported, since it was not included in the regular follow-ups and evaluations of the model and its distribution of funding.319 4.2.2 The cultural environment allocation The cultural environment allocation provides economic support for the preservation of cultural environments, including the conservation and accessibility of cultural environments of cultural heritage value, but can also be used for knowledge building, such as inventories and evaluations of antiquarian efforts.320 Funding is currently seriously overstretched. Due to the competition over available economic resources, and the fact that most of the funding goes to protected cultural environments, building-related public art rarely receives funding from the cultural environment budget.321 Moreover, preservation of building-related public art is often very expensive, which would tax the already overstretched cultural environment budget.

Nevertheless, some county administrative boards have granted cultural environment funding for the preservation of building-related public art in rare cases.322 One interviewee stresses that few people are aware that they can apply for that kind of funding for building-related public art.323 Moreover, it can be especially hard to obtain funding for art in a building that is not deemed to be a highly valuable cultural heritage as a whole.324

318 This grant was regulated by the Ordinance (SFS 1996:1598) on the allocation of state grants to regional cultural activities.

319 National Heritage Board (2016) Kulturmiljöarbetets genomslag inom kultursamverkansmodellen, 52 ff.

320 The allocation for cultural environment conservation is regulated by the National Heritage Board but distributed regionally by the county administrative boards.

321 Building-related public art exists mainly in buildings that have no formal protection.

322 The Gotland County Administrative Board contributed in 2014 to the conservation of the mural Rytm, kraft, rörelseglädje, part of the immovable fixtures in the stairwell of the old part of the Södervärnskolan school in Visby, and provided antiquarian expertise (Reg. no 4343040-14). Örebro County Administrative Board has contributed funding from the cultural environment grant for a photographic wallpaper in Karlskoga City Hall. Västra Götaland County Administrative Board granted funding for the conservation of a mural by the Gothenburg colourist Kristian Lundkvist.

323 Interviewee 1, June 2018.

324 Interviewee 1, June 2018. The interviewee stated that it should be possible to assess the work of art separately, and come to the conclusion that the work is of greater cultural heritage value than the rest of the building and thus qualifies for funding or conservation measures.

87

As we have shown above, the cultural environment conservation grant offers only limited scope for proactive measures to promote a positive development in the field of public art as a cultural heritage. Even if the cultural environment allocation could eventually allow for funding more preservation measures and knowledge building, the most crucial issue is that additional economic resources are earmarked to remedy the urgent need for more knowledge in this field.

4.3 International comparisons The responses to the international survey showed that building-related public art is generally managed according to the laws and regulations on public art and cultural environment conservation in Finland, Norway, England, France and Germany, but that the rules and their implementation vary. Norway does not have laws and regulations on the conservation of building-related public art, and they replied that legal protection for this part of the cultural heritage is deficient.

Altogether, the survey responses indicate that legal protection for building-related public art is satisfactory in Finland, France, England and Germany.325 The response from France stresses that modern building-related art is also covered by copyright aspects, unlike older art. In France, as a consequence of the 70-year limit on copyright, the author or the author’s estate is entitled to compensation, and their approval is required prior to any alteration to building-related public art. Even if the other countries do not mention copyright in their survey responses, it can be assumed that it would apply to all building-related public art in Europe. The responses do not specify, however, how it is applied in each country.

One of the intentions behind the international survey was to find out the extent to which property with state-financed building-related public art is sold to private owners. According to the Finnish response, no sale of public buildings has taken place. France also states that this is extremely unusual, stating that less than five properties with building-related public art have been sold to private owners. Germany responded that state-owned public buildings are rarely sold off. Norway has no data in this field, since property sales are not reported to the body that keeps records on national building-related public art.326 England also lacks documentation of sales of property with building-related public art to private owners.

The survey’s section on property sales includes a question on the responding institution’s overall impression of how property owners and managers care and maintain building-related public art in their country. England and Germany replied that they consider the situation to be satisfactory, while Norway responded that it is deficient. Finland replied that they don’t know, and France refrained from replying.

Economic support systems for conservation of building-related public art as a cultural heritage is currently a critical issue for national, regional and municipal stakeholders in

325 Legal protection in Germany consists of regulated maintenance, but there is no specific juridical protection.

326 Kunst i offentlige rum (KORO) is responsible for keeping a record of state-owned building-related art in Norway.

88

Sweden. Therefore, the committee found it relevant to ask how conservation measures are funded in each country in the survey. Finland, Norway and Germany stated that care and maintenance were exclusively state-funded. France responded that the state is the primary source, but that there is also some private funding. England gave a similar reply, since state funding is complemented by the Heritage Lottery Fund and independent charitable funds. Finland, England and Germany replied that their national support systems are satisfactory for funding the care and maintenance of building-related public art, regardless of ownership. Norway alone responded that their financial support systems for this purpose are deficient.

It is worth noting in this context that none of the four countries responded that the situation is “very good� or that there is no funding. It is also important to clarify that the quantitative need for maintenance differs between them. Finland estimated the number of national building-related public works of art to be between 500 and 2,000. France and Germany estimate the number to more than 2,000, and England was unable to give an estimate. Asked whether owners of building-related public art can apply for funding for ongoing care and special conservation measures, responses showed that this is possible only in England.327 Neither Norway nor Germany have any such state funding. The German response was that conservation is satisfactory despite the lack of a support system.

Finland replied that plans are under way for support systems of this kind, suggesting that new support systems will be needed in the future for the management of building-related public art as a cultural heritage, even if they consider the existing support systems to be satisfactory.

4.4 Proposals for increased awareness of building-related public art when using legal and economic instruments The committee identified two challenges for building-related public art relating to legal and economic instruments. In recent decades, the sale of public property has had legal consequences for the supervision and management of building-related public art. Moreover, regional and municipal supervisors and property managers have a poor knowledge of how to interpret and implement the laws that regulate building-related public art in various ways. This may cause arbitrariness in the processing of individual cases and in practical management. Another challenge is that building-related public art is often associated with major economic costs, and that there is a lack of knowledge about how to obtain funding for the management and conservation of building-related public art.

The committee notes that there are no laws specifically for the protection of building-related public art. Instead, there is a legislative framework that has legal implications for building-related art. Which laws influence or regulate this type of art, and how each respective law is applied in relation to the art, depends on factors such as ownership, cultural heritage recognition (or lack of the same), whether the art is classified as immovable or movable property, and any measures that require examination by the local building committee. The study also notes a need for raising awareness of building-related public art to improve the long-term outlook for its conservation. The economic means for such measures are currently lacking.

327 France did not respond to this question.

89

Moreover, there is a widespread belief that publicly-funded art is legally protected, but this is not the case for the absolute majority of building-related art in public environments.328 A further observation concerning most of the legislation described in this chapter is that a decisive factor is often how the building-related public art is perceived, i.e. whether it is defined as art or as part of a building. This may result in potential limitations of the copyright protection and affect whether a work of art can be banned from export as a cultural object, and whether it can be included in the protective regulations for historic buildings.

The result of the international survey showed that legal protection and economic support systems for building-related public art at national level are satisfactory on the whole in Finland, France, England and Germany. The surveys confirmed that the extensive sale of public property to private property companies in Sweden over the past few decades is not matched by the other countries in the survey.

With regard to the challenges in terms of legal and economic instruments for building-related art (see 1.1) the committee has made the following proposals and observations. The committee has two proposals for awareness-raising measures (A–B), two proposals for measures to promote a positive development (C–D), and one observation (E), with regard to legal and economic instruments for building-related public art.

A. Proposal for awareness-raising measures The committee proposes that the Public Art Agency Sweden and the Swedish National Heritage Board assist the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning in providing advice to municipalities on how to handle cultural assets according to the Planning and Building Act (2010:900), with regard to building-related public art as a cultural heritage.

Assessment A fundamental premise for building-related public art, seen in relation to so-called movable public art (movable property), is obviously whether the art is attached to a building or environment. The management of building-related public art is relative to such factors as property development and altered use of buildings and environments, which, in turn, can prevent the conservation-oriented management of the art. Unlike movable art, this art can be affected by permit applications for changes to a building, or such requirements on safety or materials that apply to the built environment.

328 This was stressed, for instance, by interviewee 2, June 2018.

90

Knowledge and skills are required in order to take into account the Planning and Building Act’s (2010:900) requirements concerning cultural assets and the aggregate value of complex historic, cultural heritage-related, environmental and artistic aspects. Boverket actively engages in sharing knowledge and information with stakeholders who deal with the Planning and Building Act in their daily activities, including developers, officials at the planning authorities of municipalities and local politicians. Handling the requirements in the Planning and Building Act on cultural and artistic assets in urban planning, building and management requires a broad knowledge of the legislative provisions and their potential implementation. In several cases, the implementation of requirements on due care have been considered to be unclear, and the instrument is wide open to interpretation.329 Boverket has also noted that municipalities are uncertain of how the Planning and Building Act (2010:900) can be utilised to protect cultural assets.330 There is currently a web-based training initiative to raise awareness of cultural assets in spatial planning. This is a collaborative project between Boverket, the National Heritage Board and the county administrative boards. The National Heritage Board and the County Administrative Board have highlighted building-related public art and its cultural assets as one of the perspectives in the training programme. Further web seminars, seminars and conferences linked to Boverket’s continuous information efforts are needed to promote building-related public art as part of the cultural environment, with participation from the Public Art Agency, the National Heritage Board, the county administrative boards and others. Moreover, the county administrative boards can contribute to raising awareness and knowledge in this field through their advice on supervision to the municipal building committees.

The proposal would empower municipalities to give due consideration to cultural assets and valuable building-related public art in their planning and building process, for instance by increasing awareness of public art as a part of the cultural environment and as cultural assets in the built environment.

Consequence The proposed measures should be possible to implement within the budget for the regular activities and existing allocations of the authorities concerned, since it relates to established practices and platforms for collaboration and awareness-raising, including web seminars and the production of resources in the form of guidelines.

B. Proposal for awareness-raising measure The committee proposes that the National Heritage Board and the County Administrative Board should strive, when viable, for historically and aesthetically valuable building-related public art to be covered by the provisions protecting historic buildings, in accordance with the regulation (2013:558) on national historic buildings and the Heritage Conservation Act (1988:950).

329 This was stressed, for instance, by interviewee 1, June 2018.

330 Boverket (2009) 14 ff. Sveriges miljömål. Skyddad bebyggelse. http://sverigesmiljomal.se/miljomalen/god-bebyggd-miljo/skyddad-bebyggelse/ (accessed 8 May 2019).

91

Assessment It is possible to include building-related public art in the provisions for historic buildings according to the Historic Environment Act (1988:950) or the Ordinance on Historic Buildings (2013:558). However, these instruments are only applied to a few objects, and only a very small proportion of buildings and building-related public art enjoy the protection of being classified as historic buildings. In the cases where building-related public art is covered by the historic building protection, it is extremely important that there is an awareness of the fact that the art is present in the building, and that its value is known.

This is to ensure that the historic building is given due care and maintenance, and that it is not altered in a way that would affect its cultural, historic and artistic value.

Proper knowledge of art and art history is required for processing matters relating to historic buildings according to the Historic Environment Act or the Ordinance on Historic Buildings, to avoid the risk of neglecting building-related public art. One way of increasing the chances of the art being correctly managed with proper expertise would be to clearly state the rules for alterations, care and maintenance of building-related art in the provisions for the protection of a historic building.

Consequence The efforts to include valuable building-related public art in the provisions protecting historic buildings under the Historic Environment Act (1988:950) and the Ordinance on Historic Buildings (2013:558) should be carried out within the framework of the continuous activities on historic buildings of the county administrative boards and the National Heritage Board respectively, for instance, when provisions on protection are expanded, or when formulating such provisions prior to a decision to list a historic building. As this measure should be performed within the regular activities of the National Heritage Board, the proposal is deemed not to require any additional staff or time resources.

C. Proposals for measure that can promote a favourable development The committee proposes that the rules for the management of national building-related public art in the Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of public art be clarified on two accounts: (1) that art that is an accessory to immovable property cannot be returned to the Public Art Agency by property management authorities, and (2) that authorities shall consult with the Public Art Agency in connection with changes in buildings and sites that affect art that is an accessory to immovable property.

Assessment The most unequivocal responsibility for the supervision and management of building-related public art is defined in the Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of public art.

This ordinance applies to all publicly-owned art that is cared for by national authorities.

The ordinance is unclear, however, on two points relating to art that is an accessory to immovable property. The first is that the ordinance does not specify that building-related public art cannot be returned to the Public Art Agency since it is site-specific and considered to be an accessory to immovable property. Today, property management authorities routinely carry out rebuilding and demolitions, which raises the question of returning art. The committee therefore sees a need for clarifications in the ordinance, to the effect that the Public Art Agency should not accept building-related public art that is returned 92

by property management authorities, since this art was created and adapted for a specific environment.

The second ambiguity concerns the authorities’ conservation of art that is part of our modern cultural environment in the form of accessories to immovable property. The committee recommends specifically that building-related public art should be handled with care in connection with rebuilding, demolition or other measures affecting the art.

It is reasonable, therefore, that the Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of public art include a requirement that property management authorities consult the Public Art Agency prior to making any alterations that affect art that is an accessory to immovable property.

The proposed amendments below to the Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of public art are intended to enhance the Public Art Agency’s capacity for long-term conservation of building-related public art in property managed by national authorities, by preventing returns, distortions and destruction. Failure to implement this proposal could undermine the fundamental purpose of permanent, site-specific public art in these properties. The proposed amendments to the Ordinance (1990:195) on the conservation of public art are indicated in the additions in italics in the right-hand column below.

CURRENT WORDING

PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Consulting the Public Art Agency etc.

Consulting the Public Art Agency etc.

§5 The authority shall consult the Public Art Agency on care of the art. Conservation or repairs may not be undertaken without first consulting the Public Art Agency. Ordinance (2003:1060).

§5 The authority shall consult the Public Art Agency on care of the art. Conservation or repairs may not be undertaken without first consulting the Public Art Agency. Ordinance (2003:1060). If the work of art is an accessory to immovable property, the authority that manages the building shall confer with the Public Art Agency prior to planning any rebuilding, demolition or other measures affecting the art.

The Public Art Agency’s supervision etc

The Public Art Agency’s supervision etc

§10 If an authority is neglectful in its care or maintenance of a work of art, and the work risks damage, or, if damage has already occurred, to be further damaged, the Public Art Agency is entitled to take care of the work of art. The Public Art Agency may also take care of a damaged work of art, if the responsible authority has decided not to repair it, in accordance with §3. Ordinance (2003:1060).

§10 If an authority is neglectful in its care or maintenance of a work of art, and the work risks damage, or, if damage has already occurred, further damage, the Public Art Agency is entitled to take care of the work of art. The Public Art Agency may also take care of a damaged work of art, if the responsible authority has decided not to repair it, in accordance with §3. Ordinance (2003:1060). This paragraph does not apply, however, to art that is an accessory to immovable property.

§12 A work of art at a government authority whose activities cease, or whose activities are transferred to another body, shall be handed over to the Public Art Agency to be installed in a new place, unless other agreement is made.

§12 A work of art at a government authority whose activities cease, or whose activities are transferred to another body, shall be handed over to the Public Art Agency to be installed in a new place, unless other agreement is made.

93

If an authority no longer wants to have a work of art, the work shall be handed over to the Public Art Agency to be installed in a new place.

If an authority no longer wants to have a work of art, the work shall be handed over to the Public Art Agency to be installed in a new place.

When the Public Art Agency has received a work of art according to the first or second section, the Agency shall, if required, confer with the authority or institution in charge of the collection to which the work belongs. Ordinance (2003:1060).

When the Public Art Agency has received a work of art according to the first or second section, the Agency shall, if required, confer with the authority or institution in charge of the collection to which the work belongs. Ordinance (2003:1060). This paragraph does not apply, however, to art that is an accessory to immovable property.

Consequence The proposal that the property management authorities consult with the Public Art Agency prior to the planning of any rebuilding, demolition or other actions that affect the art is considered to be implementable within the regular budget frames. The proposal that art that is not an accessory to immovable property be exempted from §12 and thus not be returned by the property management authorities could help to cut costs for the Public Art Agency Sweden in the longer term.

D. Proposals for measure that can contribute to a favourable development The committee proposes the introduction of a new temporary grant regulation for five years, funded within the government budget, of at least SEK 3 million but no more than SEK 6 million, for awareness-raising projects to improve the long-term management of building-related public art as a cultural heritage. This proposed temporary regulation would be administered by the Swedish National Heritage Board together with the Public Art Agency Sweden.

Assessment According to the committee’s assessment, there is a strong need for increased funding for measures to raise awareness about building-related public art as part of the cultural environment. Without additional funding of SEK 3-6 million per year, the prospects are not good for incorporating public art in the modern cultural heritage. Moreover, the committee assesses that the cultural environment budget cannot cover the huge need for measures to raise awareness in this area. Therefore, the committee proposes a designated grant, with the general intention of enhancing the capacity to conserve building-related public art on the basis of an overall vision requiring a well-developed synergy between the perspectives of art and cultural history.

This grant should be available for a limited period. After an initial five-year period, the grant should be distributed by the regions within the framework of the cultural environment allocation, and not be separate from the other cultural environment work undertaken by the county administrative boards, and according to their overall responsibility for cultural environment work within the county. When this temporary grant is merged with the cultural environment allocation, the latter shall be increased by the amount of the former. There is a huge demand for such funding among the target groups.331

331 This was revealed in network group meetings and interviews.

94

This grant should be available for municipalities, regions, organisations, foundations and individuals. Economic support should not be given to government-owned property management authorities, or to the Church of Sweden for measures that are eligible for ecclesiastical antiquarian funding. Applications should be accepted for projects to build knowledge and raise awareness about building-related public art in modern cultural environments. Examples of such knowledge is how to perform inventories, antiquarian preliminary surveys and coordinating basic information prior to conservation or considering artistic and historic assets in the planning and building processes. The common denominator for this initiative and projects eligible for the grant is that they should be knowledge-building, method-developing and interdisciplinary, so as to generate substantial benefits to society.

The committee assesses that the Public Art Agency, the National Heritage Board, and the county administrative boards need to urgently enhance their long-term collaboration and contribute to good management and, ultimately, to conservation. Therefore, the committee proposes that the authorities be given a new, coordinated assignment to manage a temporary government grant. The reason why the government should be able to propose the introduction of a special temporary grant is that this would manifest that building-related public art needs to be handled urgently within the field of art and cultural environments, interconnected with the new policy for designed living environments.

Another reason for introducing a temporary grant is to encourage the art and cultural environment sectors to raise and spread more awareness. The temporary grant could be used for a formalised, long-term collaboration between the Public Art Agency, the National Heritage Board and the county administrative boards, where the administration of the grant wound be an important instrument for increased cooperation and knowledge building concerning building-related public art. It could also be an important incentive for other stakeholders, including regions, municipalities, property owners and managers, to focus on the issue.

Below, in view of the respective responsibilities, expertise and networks of the Public Art Agency and the National Heritage Board, the committee especially highlights the potential effects of the initiative with either the Agency or the Board as the principal.

With the Public Art Agency as the principal of the proposed grant, a strong focus on artistic skill and quality is ensured, and more emphasis is placed on the issue in the field of public art. However, since the task of administering the proposed grant requires indepth knowledge in cultural environments, the Agency would need to expand its expertise in order to manage the grant as part of the cultural environment, e.g. in consultation with architectural antiquarians and conservators. The Public Art Agency is considered capable of handling the proposed grant in the short perspective in accordance with the Agency’s responsibility for public art. In the long term, however, there are several obstacles to the Agency establishing this subject within the cultural environment sector, primarily that the Public Art Agency’s assignment does not include cultural environment conservation. Even if the Agency’s assignment were to be extended to working within the cultural environment sector, the Agency would need to build more expertise in this field, and this work would develop into an activity that runs parallel with that of the National Heritage Board. This would not be an efficient use of resources. Another hampering factor is that the Public Art Agency currently does not operate any other activity that distributes funding within which the proposed grant could be administered.

95

With the National Heritage Board as principal, the focus would be on the role and responsibilities of the cultural environment sector vis à vis public art as a cultural heritage.

It is, of course, desirable that the proposed grant initiative should contribute to favourable effects in both public art and cultural environment conservation, but the decisive factor in the long term is that building-related public art is integrated as a natural part of the cultural environment sector’s responsibility for modern cultural environments. Unlike the Public Art Agency, the National Heritage Board has long-standing contacts with the county administrative boards and other stakeholders in cultural environment. The Board also has wide experience and expertise in administering various grants, including the allocation for cultural environment conservation. What it lacks, however, is sufficient expertise in building-related public art in order to administer the proposed grant on its own. The need for more expertise could most obviously be satisfied by administering the grant through a formalised collaboration with the Public Art Agency.

In summary, the committee assesses that the proposed temporary grant should initially be administered by the National Heritage Board, and that it should eventually be included in the county administrative boards’ administration of the cultural environment allocation. The main arguments in favour of this is that the National Heritage Board and the county administrative boards have • good expertise in the field of cultural environment and modern cultural environments.

• well-established national networks in the field of cultural environment • a well-functioning organisation for grant administration.

To guarantee that expertise on building-related public art and public environments is factored into the administration of the grant, and to achieve innovative interdisciplinary perspectives and knowledge-building, the administration of the grant should • be carried out in close collaboration with the Public Art Agency • be carried out in collaboration with the cultural environment department of the county • administrative boards.

The proposed grant would serve as a bridge in the transition from a narrow perspective to innovative collaboration between the sectors for public art and cultural environment.

In this way, it would contribute to spreading best practices throughout Sweden and increase awareness in the county administrative boards about building-related public art as part of the modern cultural environment. A new temporary grant of this kind could raise awareness generally with regard to building-related public art as a cultural heritage, and among stakeholders in public art and the cultural environment sector of the specific approaches and processes within one another’s fields. These awareness-raising measures could, in the long term, benefit the managers of this art, since property owners and managers would have better access to advice and support on maintenance and conservation.

Consequence This proposal would involve a new assignment for the National Heritage Board and therefore require more staff. Moreover, the Board needs to collaborate more closely with the Public Art Agency. Should this proposal be endorsed in principle by the government, it must be further developed in detail in a separate follow-up assignment, where the two agencies together formulate the wording of the new regulation and the procedures for processing the grant.

96

E. Observation Interpreting and applying the Land Code’s (1970:994) provisions that divide property (including cultural property such as building-related public art) into immovable and movable property negatively affects the potential of the protective legislation to cover building-related public art that has been legally classified as movable property.

Assessment Building-related public art is part of the modern cultural environment and a general interest that should be considered in social development. The laws that apply to cultural environments usually include the limitation that the art must be classified as immovable in order to be covered by any form of protection. One problem in this context is that 20th-century and contemporary art is hard to classify according to the Land Code’s (1970:994) definitions of immovable and movable property, making it complicated to include many building-related public works of art in the protection it offers.

One crucial issue for the committee was the requirement on regular use that must be fulfilled in order for art to be classified as an accessory to immovable property. Clearly, it can be hard to assess whether this requirement is fulfilled, and that the verdict of such an assessment can be detrimental to the possibility to obtain legal protection for the art.

This is not solely the case for building-related public art but applies to the protection of any form of cultural property. It is also clear that a total environment with building-related public art consisting of both movable and immovable property is currently not possible to protect with legal provisions, with the exception of ecclesiastical environments, where a building and its fixtures can be covered by ch. 4 in the Historic Environment Act (1988:950).

According to the findings of this committee, there are no legal cases in the higher courts that could serve as a guidance concerning cultural objects and whether they can constitute building accessories or not.332 When the boundaries are ambiguous, it becomes unclear who is responsible for operations, maintenance and conservation. A practice has developed over time, however, in the field of public art, entailing that the intentions of the principal who commissioned the art and the property owner or developer, and their assignment to and contract with the artist, determine whether a work of art is categorised as an integral part of a specific architectonic environment or building. The possibility of applying existing protective laws with this interpretation of the artistic totality is limited, however. The difference between the legal protection available for immovable and movable property respectively exists even though the artistic and cultural heritage value of the art is the same. Thus, works of art that were created together form a totality that is not protected by law against alterations, destruction or other damage. This problem should be highlighted in connection with other awareness-raising efforts in the field of building-related public art, as proposed in chapter 2 (see 2.7).

332 The committee studied two examples that were Sweden’s nearest equivalent on this issue. The first is the so-called Venngarn case involving the Disa paintings commissioned by Magnus Gabriel de la Gardie. Sollentuna district court, judgment on 12 May 2004, case T 2294-03, and Svea court of appeal, judgment on 8 July 2005, case T 4829-04. It was not tried in the highest court of appeal. The second case concerns art and interior fixtures in the historic building Skärva Manor outside Karlskrona. Växjö Administrative Court judgment, on 16 July 2014, case no 994-14.

97

Consequence The Land Code’s (1970:994) provisions for immovable and movable property has negatively affects the protection of cultural property. According to the current provisions, processes for assessing and selecting historically and aesthetically valuable building-related public art are not sufficient in themselves as grounds for decisions to legally protect these assets, since the Code only applies to immovable property.

Case study: Tomteboda mail sorting facility – legal instruments in theory and practice In recent years, Solna City has applied protective regulations in its development plan, to ensure the long-term preservation of building-related art. This includes the former mail sorting facility in Tomteboda. The purpose of the new development plan is to enable a new bus depot on and near the Tomteboda site. The local development plan was based on the City of Solna policy document Gestaltningsprogram för Solna stads offentliga miljöer (Design Programme for Public Spaces in the City of Solna). The plan was adopted but planning permission will not be granted until after further analysis.333

Examples of art protected through q-listing (q). Petter Zennström, Waves and Bird on the Beach, Floor 1, former parcel sorting hall at the Tomteboda mail sorting facility, City of Solna.

333 This local development plan became legally binding on 21 April 2017.

98

The Tomteboda mail sorting facility in Solna was built in 1981–1983 by Rosenberg & Stål Arkitekter through Gustaf Rosenberg and Bo Zachrisson, on behalf of the National Board of Public Buildings. It is one of Sweden’s largest buildings, with an interior floor space of some 104,000 square metres. When it was being built, the Public Art Agency and the Swedish post office Posten decided to invest in both building-related public art and movable public art on a virtually unparalleled scale in Sweden, with regard to quantity, artistic variation and quality. The artists include Curt Asker, Marie-Louise Ekman, Hertha Hillfon, Olle Ekman, Hertha Hillfon, Olle Nyman, Petter Zennström and P O Ultvedt.334 With its monumental proportions, the Tomteboda mail sorting facility was the culmen of a long initiative for artistic design for industrial government-owned working environments.335 Solna City’s new development plan for the site records the aesthetic value found in the new building.336 The plan also emphasises the value of including public art in this national building project. Moreover, it indicates that planning permission is required prior to any alterations that affect the art listed.337 Since rebuilding of interiors does not normally require planning permission, this extended requirement provides a strong protection for the artistic and antiquarian assets at the Tomteboda mail sorting facility. The plan includes a detailed list of what is to be protected and is linked to the planning map. The City of Solna’s interpretation of the Planning and Building Act (2010:900) is of interest as it shows how laws can be applied to building-related public art in similar cases in municipal planning. It also demonstrates how artistic and historic assets can be protected in cases where a property is sold and is no longer government-owned.

334 Millroth, Thomas (1985) Konsten i Tomteboda. Stockholm.

335 Stensman, (1984). 2.

336 Local development plan for a new bus depot at Tomteboda and appendix to local development plan for the Posten site (P98/0826) in the Huvudsta district, filed in November 2016, City of Solna.

337 Local development plan for a new bus depot at Tomteboda and appendix to local development plan for the Posten site (P98/0826) in the Huvudsta district, filed in November 2016, City of Solna, 15–18.

99

5 Qualitative documentation and making information accessible This chapter describes the overall need for developing methods and standards for documenting and making information accessible on building-related public art as a cultural heritage. This is a priority for all those who are responsible for and engaged in the supervision and management of building-related public art in modern cultural environments.

The chapter also discusses the need to coordinate existing digital records over building-related public art, cultural environments, property and buildings.

5.1 Documentation of building-related art and modern cultural environments According to the terms and definitions in the Swedish Standard for Conservation of Cultural Heritage, documentation is defined as registered information that is created, collected, archived and maintained for current and future preservation and as reference material.338 The term documentation here refers to descriptions of materials and media and assessments of the artistic and cultural heritage value. The word reference means that the documentation should be searchable and possible to refer to at a later date.

Searchability requires that documentation is carried out uniformly and according to an agreed standard, i.e. that the information needed for good, long-term care and management has been identified beforehand.

For building-related public art, special data on its location in a property are essential to preventing damage and loss, e.g. in connection with regular management, rebuilding and demolitions. Data on cadastral designation, building designation and location of the art, along with data on the artist, materials, media, dimensions, construction, care and maintenance instructions, are all essential to the long-term management of public art.

This aggregate information339 on cultural environments and works of art forms a good base for supervising and handling matters such as prohibitions against alterations and demands on due care in connection with processing building permits and demolitions.

It should be noted that undocumented objects risk being overlooked in these processes, and therefore, artistic and cultural heritage assets need to be documented and made accessible, as a basic requirement for achieving long-term, satisfactory supervision and management of building-related public art. According to our interviews, national property owners, municipalities, regions and other stakeholders seem to have a poor knowledge of international standards for documentation that could also be used for creating consistent data pools on building-related public art.

338 Conservation of cultural property: Main general terms and definitions (SS-EN 15898:2011), 2011, Stockholm, Swedish Standards Institute (SIS).

339 A data pool is the amount of information that is limited for a certain purpose and which is generated, used or managed by a process. In this report, the term data pool denotes all the information that should be included in a documentation process for building-related public art and the cultural environments of which it forms a part.

100

In recent decades, major changes have taken place in numerous public environments all over Sweden, often affecting a large number of building-related public works of art.340 In many of these cases, there was no thorough documentation and background material on the building-related art and its environment on which decisions could be based; this, in turn, has led to ill-founded measures that have led to damages and loss of artistic, cultural and historic assets. Documentation is a crucial part of the cultural conservation process or management cycle, where analyses and measures alternate with documentation and follow-up (see fig. 2).

One problem that the committee noted is that the current records of building-related public art are incongruous and therefore hard to coordinate with the records used in cultural environment conservation. Despite the considerable resources spent on documentation, it is hard to get an overview of the historic, architectonic and artistic value of various built environments and buildings. It was also noted that existing records are incomplete and that the quality of data entries341 varies. The lack of a holistic approach to documenting building-related public art in modern cultural environments is known today and has been raised as a key issue in previous inventory and documentation projects.342 For a long time, the possibility of coordinating cultural heritage data has been very limited, but this obstacle could be removed in the future through standardised documentation methods.

The existing documentation of building-related art is usually available primarily from the organisation, unit or person who performed or ordered it, with the result that separate data pools are created according to local approaches, objectives and purposes. Overall, this counteracts the above-mentioned national objectives to develop common solutions for digitalisation, digital preservation and digital accessibility. To give a full picture of the cultural, historic and artistic value that building-related public art represents, the data that on buildings and environments must be compatible with the data on the art.

Harmonising these data is key to making the aggregate data pool searchable in a way that would make it useful in contexts where the artistic, cultural and historic assets need to be acknowledged, e.g. when planning and building, and in antiquarian examinations.

There are obvious advantages of letting those with specialist knowledge about the collected data also handle the documentation and management of the data pool. When coordinating different data pools, it should be clearly specified which institution is responsible for the management and accessibility of each data pool, and how they should be combined. There should be clearly defined systems for performing and communicating updates, to avoid the risk of using old or wrong information, or that vital information is missing, which could ultimately jeopardise the handling of artistic and cultural heritage assets in built environments.

340 Wahlstrรถm (ed.) (2008).

341 A data entry consists of a part of the data pool and can be, for instance, information on the artist, work of art, cadastral designation, address, protective regulations, etc.

342 E.g. Wahlstrรถm (ed.) (2008).

101

Documentation and communication

Completion

Establishing conservation projects

Implementation in organisation, administration and tenant

Developing a care and maintenance plan

Risk assessment

Identifying, evaluating and selecting conservation measures

Fig. 2. Illustration of the different stages in the cultural conservation process. The different stages show when and why documentation is essential to long-term sustainable management. Swedish National Heritage Board (2019)343

Who documents?

The professionals in charge of documenting building-related public art and those in charge of documenting historic buildings and environments have different practices; as a rule, the latter is documented by specialists in cultural conservation or antiquarians.344 Normally, professionals from several disciplines are involved in documenting, inventorying or recording building-related public art in various forms of cultural environment.

These include antiquarians, conservators, property managers, art consultants, art historians, artists, painting entrepreneurs and architects, documenting from their own respective professional role or their principal’s objective. The involvement of so many disparate specialists obviously results in variations in the contents, quality and rigour of the documentation.

Previous research projects have stressed the importance of consulting the right professionals for the right purpose to achieve a high standard of documentation.345 Documenting the material and technical status or condition of the art requires conservation skills, while judging the artistic or cultural heritage value requires art historic or antiquarian

343 This figure was based on Conservation of cultural heritage – Conservation process – Decision making, planning and implementation (SS-EN 16853:2017), 2017, Stockholm, Swedish Standards Institute (SIS).

344 The network group meetings performed as part of the committee’s work revealed that it is unclear who is responsible for documenting and performing inventories, both nationally, regionally and locally. See app. 2.

345 Lindbom & Hermerén (2014).

102

expertise respectively. Consulting specialists is obviously crucial to quality. However, the committee learned from the network group meetings that there is a need to develop an interdisciplinary professional role for those who are responsible for documenting building-related public art. One term that was proposed is art antiquarian with expertise in handling both artistic, art historic and antiquarian aspects when documenting building-related public art.346 What is documented?

Thus, what data are documented in an inventory and mapping of building-related public art depends on who performs the documentation, and in which phase of the life cycle of the art the documentation is performed. In the 2000s, it has become more common to document and inspect the condition of building-related public art as part of the planning and building processes and antiquarian examinations. This activity is often performed by antiquarians, conservators or art historians, but also by laymen without specialist knowledge in public art or cultural environment conservation.

What data is considered necessary varies depending on whether the art is managed as a collection or a cultural environment, or both. Stakeholders in public art today agree that the initial basic documentation when commissioning and acquiring new building-related public art should include the artist and the title of the work, the medium, construction, materials, dimensions and instructions on care. Moreover, the basic documentation should include the reasoning behind the decision to acquire the art, and a description of the artist’s intentions, often referring to the specific location in an environment or building where the art is installed. There is also a practice of documenting the sale or destruction of building-related art, stating the reason, the decision and the consequences. It is not as common in the field of public art, however, to systematically document data such as cadastral designation, address, municipal or regional belonging, architect or similar information, even though this is often vital to linking data to the records used in spatial planning and cultural environment conservation.347 Condition (any damages and their causes) is occasionally recorded digitally or by filling in forms devised by the responsible organisation, but this is rarely structured according to any agreed standard.348 That means that relevant data for the future management of the art can be missing, even after documentation has taken place. The committee’s interviews revealed that simple tools are needed to ensure that the necessary information for the management and conservation of the art is collected, both in terms of data on the works of art, and the cultural environments of which they are an integral part.349

346 This need was voiced by participants in the network group meetings within the fields of public art, cultural environments, and by property managers and owners. See app. 2.

347 This picture was confirmed by participants in the network group meeting for stakeholders in public art. See app. 2.

348 This was the overall opinion of all interviewees, June 2018.

349 Interviewees 3 and 4, June 2018.

103

5.2 Tools for documenting building-related public art and cultural environments Documentation support A variety of databases and apps are used nationally, regionally and municipally for inventories and recording data on building-related art.350 For basic inventories, i.e., the first occasion when the art is inventoried, photographed and recorded, an inventory form is used in some cases to systematise the documentation before it is entered into the database.351 Although inventories are generally performed quite frequently, it is not certain that conservation measures or other highly relevant data for estimating the condition and value of the art are documented in the database. Documentation in the form of maintenance instructions, drawings, antiquarian assessments, photographs. written reports, computer files, photogrammetry, laser scans and x-rays are often instead kept in the archives of the property owner or authority in charge of inspection, or of an external consultant who performed the documentation.352 There are examples of stakeholders who have created complementary templates to support documentation, e.g. in the form of archive search records, inventory records, pre-inspection reports, acquisition records and conservation and maintenance plans.353 These documents are rarely easy to access in the databases used for documentation support or for professionals engaged in conservation or antiquarian matters.

National and international standards In a recently-developed national strategy for standardisation, the government has stressed the importance of increased use of standards as a tool for quality assurance, development and follow-up of the activities of authorities and private service providers.354 Standards are mutually agreed solutions to recurring problems. They apply both to the service providers and the commissioner of the service, regardless of whether they are operating publicly at national, regional or municipal level, or in the private sector.

The Swedish Standards Institute (SIS) is an NGO with members in both the private and public sector. SIS provides standards for many different activities, including the building sector, where they are widely influential. There are also several standards for cultural conservation.355 At European and international level, the development and publication

350 Konstdatabasen and RegitWise are two common databases used by these stakeholders. Region Stockholm has designed an app for inventory support. Some national property management authorities and state-owned companies document building-related public art in their real property records in the same way as other accessories to immovable property (e.g. lifts, ventilation, doors).

351 In 2006–2008, the Public Art Agency designed an inventory form for basic inventories. Today, property management authorities and state-owned companies usually document their art assets directly in the Konstdatabasen or related digital records.

352 Since the inventory undertaken in 2008, the Public Art Agency has established new procedures for establishing instructions for the care and final inspections of new building-related art. These documents include detailed information on the art, its location and cadastral designation.

353 Lindbom & Hermerén (2014). App. 2–8. It is unclear, however, to what extent such templates are in current use.

354 Appendix to government decision. 2018. (UD2018/12345/HI). The government’s strategy for standardisation.

355 The standards are aimed at anyone working with cultural conservation and sectors that deal with cultural heritage. They serve as process and method support for both the regular management, and in the procurement, planning, performance and documentation of measures, and are relevant to authorities, county administrative boards, municipalities, dioceses, museums and businesses, and for building maintenance, architects, conservators, engineers, etc.

104

of standards is coordinated by the Commité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) and the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) respectively. SIS represents Sweden and Swedish interests in the activities of the CEN. The technical committees at the SIS monitor and participate in the CEN’s activities in each respective field. It is voluntary to apply standards, but they can serve as mandatory references in, for instance, the provisions of authorities and in procurement.

At the international and national level above, SIS has participated for the past ten years in a European technical committee, the CEN/TC 346, which produces standards especially for the conservation of cultural heritage. The 30 or so standards published by this committee include two that are specifically aimed at documenting cultural heritage. Both have simple templates for recording relevant data for long-term management, which are suitable for building-related art.356 The Swedish organisations that contribute expertise to the CEN/TC 346 through the Conservation of Cultural Heritage standard are authorities focusing on property management and museum collections, universities and private stakeholders such as the Church of Sweden, smaller companies and entrepreneurs.357 So far, knowledge of existing standards and their potential application appears to be poor. Therefore, the National Heritage Board has agreed with the SIS that the standards issued by this committee can be downloaded free of charge by authorities, entrepreneurs, municipalities and others for three years (2018–2020). The purpose of this agreement is to encourage the use of standards among the plethora of stakeholders in cultural environment conservation, but it can also be useful to managers and commissioners of building-related public art.

Since building-related public art is usually defined as an accessory to a building (an accessory to immovable property), it may be beneficial to coordinate the development of standards in this field with the building sector, where the process has evolved from national to European standards.358 The technical committees that develop new standards include a variety of expertise and professions, which vouches for high functionality and broad applicability where many different specialists need to access and understand one another’s processes and products. Coordination with the building sector should, therefore, make standards for building-related public art more relevant and easier to apply for both property owners and managers, and other stakeholders in cultural environment conservation engaged in inventories, recording and conservation.

356 Conservation of cultural property – Condition reporting for movable cultural heritage (SS-EN 16095), 2012. Stockholm, Swedish Standards Institute (SIS), Conservation of cultural property – Condition survey and report of built cultural heritage (SS-EN 16096), 2012, Stockholm, Swedish Standards Institute (SIS).

357 SIS/TK 479.

358 For instance, Swedish rules for structural design have been based on the European standards, the so-called Eurocodes, for a few years now. Another relevant example is the standardisation of management documentation for buildings. The government’s standardisation strategy from 2018 (UD2018/12345/HI) emphasises that it is important for Swedish authorities and businesses in urban building to know the standards for building.

105

5.3 Digital accessibility of existing documentation Digitalisation in society will strengthen the capacity to preserve, use and develop the cultural heritage. However, this also imposes conditions on institutions that were previously adapted to analogue approaches. Most documentation created and processed today is digital, focusing on specific implications. The government’s bill Time for Culture (2009/10:3) emphasises the importance of finding common solutions for proceeding with digitalisation, digital preservation and digital accessibility. Moreover, the government’s national strategy for digital cultural heritage (Ku11.015) from 2011 identifies user-friendliness and accessibility as key issues.359 For instance, the government establishes that increased access “is crucial to achieving the cultural policy objective of a living cultural heritage that is used and developed”.

Since 2011, the authorities’ digitalisation work in the field of culture has been coordinated by Digisam.360 This is one of the most comprehensive coordinated and collaborative initiatives in the area of digitalisation and aims to digitalise and digitally preserve the cultural heritage and make it digitally accessible. It originated in Digisam, the national coordinating secretariat for digitalisation, which started in 2011 under the auspices of the National Archives. Digisam currently caters for 22 authorities and institutions and has an operational secretariat at the National Heritage Board.361 Digisam has produced principles intended as guidelines for when a large number of participants collaborate on digital cultural heritage in an efficient way.362 These principles are also suitable as a checklist for digital data processing.

One vital condition for long-term management of building-related public art is that all relevant documentation is easy to access for managers and decision-makers. It is equally important that all documentation concerning a specific work of art can be linked to other management documentation relating to the building. Building-related art is part of a totality and should not be seen as an isolated phenomenon. Thus, there is also a need for clear markers in the management documentation of property, signalling which surfaces and parts of a property or building constitutes building-related public art. Accessible documentation enables an overview of the existing building-related art at local, regional and national level, facilitating planning and prioritisation of measures and funds. Below are descriptions of a few of the most important nationwide data pools in the form of digital records for building-related public art.

359 The Government Offices Ku11.015. 2011. Digitalt kulturarv: Nationell strategi för arbetet med att digitalisera, digitalt bevara och digitalt tillgängliggöra kulturarvsmaterial och kulturarvsinformation 2012–2015.

360 See http://www.digisam.se/ (accessed 10 May 2019).

361 The authorities and institutions participating in Digisam are the Museum of Work, Sweden’s National Centre for Architecture and Design (ArkDes), the Living History Forum, the Institute of Language and Folklore, the National Library of Sweden, Moderna Museet, the Swedish Agency for Accessible Media, the Nationalmuseum and Prince Eugen’s Waldemarsudde, the Swedish Museum of Natural History, Nordiska Museet, the National Heritage Board, the National Archives, Skansen, the National Swedish Museums of Military History, the National Historical Museums, the Public Art Agency, the Swedish Arts Council, the Swedish National Maritime and Transport Museums, the National Museums of World Culture, Music Development and Heritage Sweden, the Swedish Film Institute, and the National Museum of Science and Technology.

362 Digisam (2018) Vägledande principer för arbetet med digitalt kulturarv. http://www.digisam.se/vagledande-principer-for-arbetet-med-digitalt-kulturarv/ (accessed 8 May 2019).

106

Fastighetsregistret – the Real Property Register Lantmäteriet is responsible for the operation and management of the real property register according to the Real Property Register Ordinance (2000:308). The Ordinance describes what information should be included in the register, e.g. property, associations, coordinates, plans (the general section of the register), and title deeds, building leases and their transfers, and other data (the register section). According to §14 of the Ordinance, a registry unit may not have the same registry name as any other registry unit. Thus, each property has a unique identifier (universally unique identifier, or UUID). Property data can be accessed most easily via the digital services provided by Lantmäteriet. These digital services enable external registers to keep continuously updated on changes, such as when a property is split up or de-registered.

Constant access to continuously updated information on cadastral designations makes it possible to track the owner of a specific property. Ownership data is managed by Lantmäteriet and is included in the Real Property Register’s register section. This can be useful, for instance, in supervision matters. The Real Property Register includes a building section, with data on individual buildings. This data is provided by each respective municipality. Each building is a separate report unit, identifiable by its registry name and an appended serial number. Lantmäteriet is entitled to add or remove data in the building section, and municipalities have the corresponding right for data relating to their own municipality.

To describe the relationship between building-related public art and its building, both the art and the building must be identified and documented. Lantmäteriet’s Real Property Register not only gives an up-to-date overview of the extent of buildings but also provides identifiers for buildings and property. Using the same identifier as other stakeholders in the urban building process improves the accessibility of documented artistic, cultural heritage assets in contexts where they risk being overlooked, e.g. in local development plans and building permit processing. When a building is listed, data on the historic building can be transferred from the county administrative board’s case management system to the Real Property Register.

Information on cultural heritage buildings Cultural heritage data is managed by many different public organisations. It is often generated for processing purposes by county administrative boards, municipalities and government authorities, but is also used by museums, archives and libraries.

In 1998, the National Heritage Board launched its Data Base of Built Heritage (Bebyggelseregistret, BeBR). Originally conceived to improve access to background data for municipal planning, it now contains data on more than 100,000 buildings. The National Heritage Board has a special responsibility for data on buildings that are listed according to the Cultural Heritage Act and the Ordinance on National Historic Buildings. Entries in the BeBR are voluntary and reserved for stakeholders in cultural environment conservation. In consequence, the data is not complete. There are huge gaps, for instance, in the built environments that are protected in the municipal development plans.

The BeBR has not succeeded in fulfilling the original intention. The failure to incorporate the register into existing activity processes means that entering data is regarded as yet another chore, one that is of marginal use to the activity, with the result that its information is not updated. The purpose of the register has become increasingly unclear.

107

Combined with unfortunate decisions on technical and content-related solutions, this has meant that the BeBR is currently in dire need of regeneration.

Thus, the need for a database that was identified at the launch of the BeBR is largely the same as before. In 2019, the National Heritage Board embarked on a review of its administration of building data. This review includes a complete revision of definitions of roles and responsibilities for the Board’s management of data on buildings and built environments. A committee has been appointed to obtain a current picture of internal and external user needs. Legal requirements and data responsibility have been examined by a preparatory study. This work will form the basis for requirements on the processing of building data. Highlighting the value and merits of building-related public art together with the cultural heritage value of its built environment, will give a more complete picture of the value of specific environments. A clearer coordination of data could raise the identified value of the buildings and art in new contexts.

The separation of church and state in 2000 meant that the Church of Sweden is now an independent religious organisation. Since the Church of Sweden owns and manages an essential part of our collective cultural heritage, legal protection is still regulated by Ch. 4 of the Cultural Heritage Act.363 As the owner and administrator of art and buildings, the Church is responsible for providing a large part of the relevant documentation framework. According to the recommendations for ecclesiastical cultural heritage (KRFS 2:2012), the Church of Sweden should provide conservation and maintenance plans for the county administrative boards’ consideration and comment. As a framework for its conservation and maintenance plans, the Church of Sweden devises characterisations to describe the cultural and historic value of the objects.364 Data on protected objects are mainly produced within the administrative domain, i.e. at local and regional level. It is not currently registered in any nationwide system, which means that it is difficult for the Church of Sweden to obtain an overarching, continuous picture of the state of its buildings. For years, the Church of Sweden has been trying to improve the access to data on the objects it owns and manages. One database was set up for recording church inventories, and another is currently being created to give an overview of property owned by the Church. It goes without saying that the administrative data could be sensitive, and the databases are therefore largely tools for internal use.

With regard to building-related public art, the Church’s approach could serve as an example for how the documentation of cultural, historic and artistic value has been naturally integrated with the administration. Since documenting, assessing and planning care and maintenance are required in order to obtain funding for management, the Church a structure where cultural, historic and artistic value form a natural part of the documentation, despite a severely decentralised administrative organisation. The Church of Sweden follows up its documentation by constructing technological solutions for its own

363 See 3.4 Private stakeholders and the Church of Sweden.

364 Legislation for ecclesiastical historic buildings is described in greater detail in 4.1.2.

Laws protecting cultural environments and cultural objects.

108

administration, while also looking for collaborative solutions with other organisations, for instance with the National Heritage Board’s BeBR database.365 Digital records of building-related public art In collaboration with national and non-governmental property owners, the Public Art Agency performed an extensive inventory in 2006–2008 of all building-related public art commissioned by the Agency from 1937 to 2005.366 This uncovered many problems, including damaged, removed and destroyed art, but also widely varying standards of expertise among the many private property owners who have taken over former stateowned property after the National Board of Public Buildings was phased out in 1993. The inventory findings were entered by the property owners through their accounts into the Art Database and by the Public Art Agency into its own collections records.367 The national property owners then performed their own follow-up inventories, and alterations have been updated regularly by them and the Public Art Agency in the aforementioned records.

Since 2015, the Public Art Agency has been developing an archive of public art within the framework of Digisam, based on technology for linked open data.368 The idea is that this archive will make all the data that the Agency has compiled over the years, in the form of a collection record, image archive and Agency archive accessible, either through the Public Art Agency’s website or other services, since the published data is open and can be linked to other records, e.g. cultural environment conservation databases.

The principles used by the Public Art Agency for documenting building-related public art are also applied in similar ways by municipalities and regions, some of which have designed their own digital documentation solutions, while others use records developed and sold by companies to various bodies in the art sector.369 5.4 International comparisons A central question in previous Swedish R & D projects studying the conditions for conservation of building-related public art as a cultural heritage has been the extent to which stakeholders have access to data on this cultural heritage through national, regional or local records. This question was therefore included in the committee’s international sur-

365 It deserves to be stressed in this context that the Church of Sweden gets government funding in the form of church antiquarian grants and also has an organisation structure that has enabled its documentation work.

366 The results of this inventory were compiled in Wahlström (ed.) (2008).

367 Government authorities are to use the art database Konstdatabasen to record data on their art assets and the current location of the art.

Authorities are to use the data entered in the Konstdatabasen as a framework for their annual inventory of art assets, and also in the event of damages, loss or theft. The Public Art Agency also has access to the authorities’ data in order to supervise the authorities’ care of national art. See National Public Art Council (2017). Konstdatabasen. https://statenskonstrad.se/article/konstdatabasen/ (accessed 8 May 2019).

368 See National Public Art Agency (1.1.1/2011:121). Statens konstråds plan för digitaliseringsverksamhet 2016–2018 (2015) www.digisam. se/myndighets-och-institutionsvisa-planer/ (accessed 8 May 2019), and the Public Art Agency’ website for the project Arkiv över offentlig konst. https://statenskonstrad.se/arkiv-over-offentlig-konst/#noscroll (accessed 8 May 2019).

369 See also note 350.

109

vey, focusing on whether such national records of building-related public art exist. The responses show that Finland, Norway, England and France have records that provide a national overview of building-related public art. Moreover, all countries except Norway considered the quality of their existing national records and databases to be satisfactory.

The responses also indicated that the responsibility for keeping records over public art as a cultural heritage varies between national, regional and local bodies.

Procedures for inventories of national building-related public art in modern cultural environments vary between the countries in the survey. France, Norway and Germany replied that inventories are carried out regularly. In Germany, inventories are performed regardless of whether the art is state-owned or has been transferred to private ownership, while Norway and France only do inventories on art that remains publicly-owned.

Documentation and inventories are based on both national and regional templates or systems. France has well-established forms for inventories at the national level, while Finland and England answered that inventories of state-owned building-related public art are not undertaken regularly. Both countries emphasised, however, that there is a great need to map building-related public art as a cultural heritage, but that there are no plans at present for doing this. The survey included a question on what standards, if any, were applied for documenting building-related public art as a cultural heritage. None of the respondents stated that they use certified standards.370 In England and Germany, however, they use policies and guidelines based on national regulations.371 In Finland and Norway, the authorities responsible for the regulations have devised their own procedures for documenting building-related public art.

5.5 Proposal for strengthened collaboration on documentation and data processing As mentioned above, the government bill Time for Culture identified the importance of finding common solutions to the challenge of digitalisation. Developing a strategic and sustainable data processing for building-related public art in modern cultural environments requires organised forms of collaboration. This can comprise anything from voluntary agreements between stakeholders to collaborations based on regulations or laws. Regardless of how collaborations are structured, participants need to agree on user-friendliness and the purpose of the exercise.

The committee found that many different professions and stakeholders are currently involved in documenting building-related public art. Moreover, it found varying levels of awareness about the tools available for documentation, and which data needs to be documented in order to achieve sustainable management in the long term, with regard to the artistic, cultural and historic perspectives. As a result, different data pools are not harmonised, linked searches are made more difficult, and the information that is generated is not processed in an efficient and structured way. Altogether, this leads to greater

370 E.g. Finnish Standards Association (SFS), Association française de normalisation (AFNOR), or ComitÊ EuropÊen de Normalisation (CEN).

371 England refers in its survey response to Principles of Selection, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and Germany refers to the provisions in Leitfaden Kunst am Bau (guidelines for art in architecture).

110

risks of damages and loss at the planning and building stage, and in management and antiquarian processes.

The committee’s international survey gave a uniform impression of the situation in Finland, Norway, France and England, which all have digital national records that provide a national overview of building-related public art as a cultural heritage. Certified standards (e.g. SFS, AFNOR and CEN) are only used to a small extent in the surveyed countries for systematising their documentation of building-related public art. Instead, they use standards based on national regulations, or internal standards created by the national body in charge. Like Sweden, their national digital records and systematic documentation initiatives urgently need to be developed in order to make data pools accessible to relevant target groups in the supervision and management of public building-related art as a cultural heritage.

Against the background of the above challenges (see 1.1) in coordinating documentation and recording activities, the committee makes the following proposal for awareness raising measures: Proposal for awareness-raising measures The committee proposes that a collaborative project between relevant national data managers, e.g. the Public Art Agency and the National Heritage Board, be established and coordinated with Lantmäteriet’s Real Property Register. The purpose would be to develop methods and standards for documentation and accessibility of vital data on building-related public art as a cultural heritage, in a format that is adapted to the needs and capacity of relevant target groups.

Assessment The committee finds that there is a lack of coordinated data processing that could fill a need for sharing and searching data that normally arises in connection with cultural conservation measures or property development. This shortcoming is an obstacle to sustainable and sound conditions for preserving building-related public art as a cultural heritage – both locally, regionally and nationally.

More knowledge is therefore needed on how standards and methods for documenting building-related public art in modern cultural environments can improve the quality of preservation initiatives and digitally accessible records. National and international standards are still relatively unknown and unimplemented, both among those who commission or manage building-related public art, and the authorities that, for instance, could refer to them in connection with procurement. A concrete proposal on how to combat this, is to do a trial implementation and evaluation of the CEN/TC 346 standards.372

372 These standards were especially designed for cultural conservation and are available free of charge during 2018–2020 according to an agreement between the National Heritage Board and SIS. See 5.2.

111

A common problem that arises when linking different data pools, is that the objects to be linked are not clearly identified or delimited. It is important not only that the objects have unique identifiers, but also that the scope of the object is clearly defined. This limit can be spatial, such as a surface, but depending on the object it can also be a time limit or a category. To benefit from coordination, standards need to be relevant to each respective field, but the data pools in question must also be related to one another. A particular data pool may, for instance, take precedence within a certain field.373 A typical example would be that Lantmäteriet’s Real Property Register takes precedence when identifying specific properties and buildings.

To process data rationally, we need to find out what the processes that generate and use the data look like. This involves doing an inventory on existing data pools, but also researching what the requirements users have on the data, and agreements on which roles the various stakeholders should play in the processes. These roles are often defined by policy documents, including government mandates, laws and provisions, but there may be good reason to unconditionally examine who has the best potential to manage and make accessible a certain type of data.

The committee finds that a structured data handling for building-related public art could most advantageously be coordinated with the forthcoming development of the BeBR. This is in line with the increased need in society for common solutions to drive the process of digitalisation, digital preservation and digital accessibility. Coordinating data pools in this way would enable authorities, property owners, antiquarians, conservators and other target groups to perform data searches on previous conservation measures, antiquarian pre-examinations or existing protective provisions, using isolated pieces of information such as cadastral designation or geographical coordinates.

An advantage of linking the Public Art Agency’s records of building-related public art with the BeBR would be that it would give access to the unique IDs for buildings and property in the Real Property Register and the identifiers in the BrBR for those buildings that are not in the Real Property Register but have been considered for their value as cultural heritage. The latter is important, not least in demonstrating how artistic, architectonic, cultural heritage assets interact into a total environment where the totality forms an asset in itself that is greater than its parts. Linking records would also facilitate quality assurance and searchability.

Extended collaboration between the Public Art Agency and the National Heritage Board should, among other things, test and evaluate the possibility of implementing CEN/TC 346 standards created specifically for cultural conservation during the period 2018– 2020. This would include developing and conveying procedures for care instructions and inspections, inventory forms and templates for inspection reports, and sharing of good and bad experiences of actual management – preferably through workshops or seminars for building managers and commissioners of building-related public art.

373 Precedence, in this context, is given to official or unofficial data pools with a strong standing in their field. One example is the national library system Libris, to which one may need to refer in order to clearly identify a publication.

112

The central objective of such collaboration should be to develop a comprehensive perspective on building-related public art as part of the modern cultural environment, with regard to digitalisation, data handling and national government records. A priority area is to develop procedures for implementing unique identifiers (persistent links) that can be used to link information on building-related public art and the buildings and environments of which it is an accessory, and different data pools on identified artistic, cultural and historic assets.374 Different types of data can be harmonised without storing them in the same technological system, but this requires that everyone uses the same standards. It is vital that the communication channels between data managers are safe and clear, so that changes that could jeopardise linking between data pools are communicated clearly. The data should be managed by stakeholders with expertise in the respective subject, who know how the data should be structured and made accessible to be useful to the relevant target groups.

Seminars, webinars or internet workshops could be used by the Public Art Agency and the National Heritage Board together to help raise awareness and offer opportunities to share experiences for those who manage or handle building-related public art. Boverket could also be a partner in these activities, to interface better with Sweden’s municipalities. Contract education at universities is another possibility to consider. These courses would ideally include experiences from institutions who manage buildings and collections, such as the Church of Sweden and museums, with regard to setting up care and maintenance plans, tools for collection management and weeding.

Without efforts to raise the level of knowledge in documentation and increase the accessibility of existing data pools relating to building-related public art as a cultural heritage, valuable art that represents a significant part of the modern cultural environment is in great danger of being damaged or destroyed through unsatisfactory care, or in connection with rebuilding and demolitions.

Consequence The proposed increased collaboration on documentation and data handling should be possible to achieve within the regular activities of the authorities involved, and it could be executed according to §6 in the Government Agencies Ordinance (2007:515), and within the framework of Digisam. However, the schedule and resources for implementing this collaboration may require further resources for the authorities in question. A more detailed analysis of the resources required for increased collaboration should be carried out in the context of the respective authorities’ budgets for 2021-2023. It should be noted, however, that this is a complex field, and that a planning period of 2–3 years

374 See Öppna data och PSI. Rekommendationer gällande beständiga länkar, https://oppnadata.se/rekommendation-gallande-bestandiga-lankar/ (accessed 8 May 2019).

113

will be needed to analyse relevant data pools and strategic solutions for linked open data, persistent identifiers, etc. After this, it is reasonable to assume that a more concrete coordination of the data pools managed by Lantmäteriet, the National Heritage Board, the Public Art Agency and other stakeholders can be implemented.

Case study: Inaccessible information can lead to damage and loss The work Transire by Ann Edholm was commissioned by the Public Art Agency with the then property owner GE Real Estate and the sitting tenant, the National Courts Administration, and was unveiled in 2005, when the Helsingborg District Court was built. Since then, the building has been sold to Wihlborgs fastigheter AB, and has been rebuilt and repurposed several times in recent years to accommodate the requirements of the National Courts Administration on accessibility and other needs.

The original architecture and artistic design were created in close collaboration between the architectural firm EcoScape through the architect Carl-Åke Bergström and the artist Ann Edholm. The 135 sqm mural is based on the glass section and the proportions of the different floor levels. Every detail, such as the cherry wood veneer doors and floors, and the limestone plinths, is integral to the overall composition of the work of art. Transire thereby forms an essential part of the architecture. But the work also contains several associations to art, literature and philosophy.

The title, Transire, refers to transcending the limits of reality, like the Chinese artist Wu Daozi, when he studied a wall painting he had made during the Tang Dynasty.375 When he clapped his hands, the temple gates suddenly opened, and he stepped into his work and the gates closed after him. This myth is often referred to in discussions about the possibility of entering and living in a work of art.376 With a knowledge of the painting’s associative layers, it becomes clear that the building’s cherry veneer doors are also conceptually vital to the art. Through these doors, the judges, the lay assessors, the prosecuted and others enter the work of art, and that is when the transcendence can take place.

375 Sandqvist, Tom (2005) “Att överskrida det omöjliga. Om Ann Edholms Transire”, Catalogue 35, Public Art Agency.

376 E.g. Lindqvist, Sven (1967). Myten om Wu Tao-Tzu. Stockholm.

114

Ann Edholm, Transire, 2005, mural in two levels, commissioned by the Public Art Agency Sweden for Helsingborg new district court in 2005. The mural will probably be painted over in 2019 because the artistic value has been damaged by the rebuilding and repurposing of the building.

The receipt signed by the previous property owner GE Real Estate in 2005 states that “The art was commissioned for a specific place and a particular environment. Moving or other significant changes that affect the art may therefore only take place in consultation with the artist/the Public Art Agency Sweden, in accordance with the copyright law (1960:729)”.377 This clause is generic and does not specify any information relating to this particular work of art. Instead, information must be sought on the Public Art Agency’s website or year books.378 A further problem is that there are no guarantees that the receipts for building-related art will be transferred to the new property owner on the purchase of a building. In this particular case, there is no indication that the current owner took any initiatives to inspect or document the art with the aid of, say, an art historian or architectural antiquarian.379 Nor is there any information stating that the work has been documented by the City of Helsingborg.

377 Receipt signed by GE Real Estate on 27 September 2005 (reg no 32–54/04).

378 See Sandqvist (2005).

379 The work was included in the 2006–2008 inventory, see Wahlström (ed.). (2008).

115

On behalf of the current property owner, the architects in charge of the planned rebuilding contacted the Public Art Agency and were recommended to make the plans in close consultation with the artist.380 This did not happen, however, and four doors will probably be walled up in 2019 and two new doors installed on the lower floor. On the upper floor, two doors will be exchanged, and one door be replaced with a wider door. Moreover, the inner ceilings on both levels will be lowered. Altogether, this rebuilding will depreciate the artistic value of the building to the degree that the artist, in accordance with the Copyright Act, can no longer agree that the work be shown in public but wants it to be entirely painted over.381 It is hard to claim unequivocally that more knowledge about the artistic merits of the work Transire would influence the premises for the plans to rebuild the Helsingborg District Court. But it is reasonable, based on previous case studies, to assume that access to more information and documentation of building-related public art would, in fact, contribute to more cautious alterations to modern cultural environments.382 The absence of a strategically coordinated approach to digitalisation, digital preservation and digital accessibility of information about the building-related public art in modern cultural environments means that there is a substantial risk that this part of our cultural heritage will not be preserved.

380 Letter from the Public Art Agency to Fojab arkitekter dated 4 April 2017 (reg no 3.2.7/2017:96).

381 The artist notified Wihlborgs fastigheter of this in a letter dated 29 January 2019.

382 See case studies in HermerÊn & Orrje (2014) 200–207 on, for instance, the underpasses in Rosenbad, which were restored with great care and consideration by the National Property Board.

116

Literature Printed material Laws, regulations and administrative provisions Burial Law (SFS 1990:1144). 1990. Stockholm, Ministry of Culture.

Boverket’s building regulations – mandatory provisions and general recommendations, BBR (BFS 2011:6).

2011. Karlskrona, Boverket.

Expropriation Act (SFS 1972:719). 1972. Stockholm, Ministry of Justice.

Ordinance (1984:535) on government authorities’ borrowing of art objects for embellishment of premises.

1984. Stockholm, Ministry of Finance.

Ordinance on the conservation of public art (SFS 1990:195). 1990. Stockholm, Ministry of Culture.

Ordinance (1996:1598) on government funding for regional arts. 1996. Stockholm, Ministry of Culture.

Ordinance on compensation to individuals for exhibition (SFS 1996:1605). 1996. Stockholm, Ministry pf Culture.

Ordinance (2000:308) on Real Property Register. 2000. Stockholm, Ministry of Justice.

Ordinance (2007:1177) with instructions for Moderna Museet. 2007. Stockholm, Ministry of Culture.

Ordinance (2007:1188) with instructions for the Public Art Agency Sweden. 2007. Stockholm, Kulturdepartementet.

Ordinance (2010:1121) on funding for the management of valuable cultural environments. 2010.

Stockholm, Ministry of Culture.

Ordinance on distribution of certain government funding to regional arts (SFS 2010:2012). 2010.

Stockholm, Ministry of Culture.

Ordinance (2012:515) with instructions for the Swedish Arts Council. 2012. Stockholm, Ministry of Culture.

Ordinance (2012:546) with instructions for Boverket, the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning. 2012. Stockholm, Ministry of Finance.

Ordinance (2013:71) with instructions for ArkDes. 2013. Stockholm, Ministry of Culture.

Ordinance on historic buildings (SFS 2013:558). 2013. Stockholm, Ministry of Culture.

Ordinance (2014:1585), with instructions for the Swedish National Heritage Board. 2014. Stockholm, Ministry of Culture.

Ordinance (2017:304) on amendment in Ordinance (2014:1585), with instructions for the Swedish National Heritage Board. 2017. Stockholm, Ministry of Culture.

Land Code (SFS 1970:994). 1970. Stockholm, Ministry of Justice.

Historic Environment Ordinance (SFS 1988:1188). 1988. Stockholm, Ministry of Culture.

Historic Environment Act (SFS 1988:950). 1988. Stockholm, Ministry of Culture.

117

Instrument of Government (SFS 1974:152). 1974. Stockholm, Ministry of Justice.

Church of Sweden Act (SFS 1998:1591). 1998. Stockholm, Ministry of Culture.

Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works (SFS 1960:729). 1960. Stockholm, Ministry of Justice.

Swedish Environmental Code (SFS 1998:808). 1998. Stockholm, Ministry of the Environment.

Government Agencies Ordinance (2007. Stockholm, Ministry of Finance.

Public Order Act (SFS 1993:1617). 1993. Stockholm, Ministry of Justice.

Planning and Building Ordinance (SFS 2011:338). 2011. Stockholm, Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation.

Planning and Building Act (SFS 2010:900). 2010. Stockholm, Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation.

The National Heritage Board’s mandatory provisions and general recommendations on historic monuments (KRFS 2018:3). 2018. Stockholm, Swedish National Heritage Board.

The National Heritage Board’s mandatory provisions and general recommendations on historic churches (KRFS 2012:2). 2012. Stockholm, Swedish National Heritage Board.

Parliamentary publications Report and proposal on process to extend tasks for Swedish artists, submitted on 1 December 1936, by experts called upon by the head of the Ministry of Education. Reports of official commissions of enquiry (SOU) 1936:50. Stockholm, Ministry of Education.

Appendix to government decision. 2018. (UD2018/12345/HI). The government’s strategy for standardisation.

Geijer, Mia. 2013a. “Bakgrund” in Statens kulturfastigheter – urval och förvaltning för framtiden. Reports of official commissions of enquiry (SOU) 2013:55, appendix 5. Stockholm, Ministry of Finance.

Cultural Heritage Policy: Government proposal 2016/17:116. 2017. Stockholm.

His Royal Majesty’s proposal to parliament on the process of extending tasks for Swedish artists. Proposal 1937:157. 1937. Stockholm.

Environmental supervision and sanctions – supervision based on responsibility, respect and simplicity.

Report by the Environmental Inspection Committee. SOU 2017 Politik för gestaltad livsmiljö, regeringens proposition 2017/18:110. 2018. Stockholm, Kulturdepartementet.

Regleringsbrev Ku2017/02582/LS. Regleringsbrev för budgetåret 2018 avseende Statens konstråd.

Stockholm, Kulturdepartementet.

Regleringsbrev Ku2017/00942/KL. Regleringsbrev för budgetåret 2018 avseende Riksantikvarieämbetet.

Stockholm, Kulturdepartementet.

Regeringens proposition 1985/86:1 med förslag till ny plan- och bygglag. 1985. Stockholm.

Regeringens proposition 1987/88:104 om kulturmiljövård. 1988. Stockholm.

Regeringens proposition 1998/99:114. Kulturarv, kulturmiljöer och kulturföremål. 1999. Stockholm, Kulturdepartementet.

118

Regeringens proposition 1992/93:214 om ändringar i upphovsrättslagen. 1993. Stockholm.

Regeringens proposition 1995/96:80. Ändrade relationer mellan staten och Svenska kyrkan. 1995.

Stockholm, Civildepartementet.

Regeringens proposition 2009/10:3. Tid för kultur. 2009. Stockholm, Kulturdepartementet.

Regeringens proposition 2012/13:96. Kulturmiljöns mångfald. 2013. Stockholm, Kulturdepartementet.

Regeringens proposition 2017/18:1. Utgiftsområde 17. Kultur, medier, trossamfund och fritid. 2017.

Stockholm.

Regeringens skrivelse 2009/10:79. En tydlig, rättssäker och effektiv tillsyn. 2009. Stockholm, Finansdepartementet.

Regeringskansliet Ku11.015. 2011. Digitalt kulturarv: Nationell strategi för arbetet med att digitalisera, digitalt bevara och digitalt tillgängliggöra kulturarvsmaterial och kulturarvsinformation 2012–2015.

Regeringskansliet. 2016. Statens ägarpolicy och riktlinjer för bolag med statlig ägande 2017. Stockholm, Näringsdepartementet.

Konst i offentlig miljö. Betänkande av utredningen om konst i offentlig miljö. Statens offentliga utredningar 1995:18. Stockholm, Kulturdepartementet.

Konstnär – oavsett villkor? Betänkande av Konstnärspolitiska utredningen. Statens offentliga utredningar 2018:23. Stockholm, Kulturdepartementet.

Kulturutskottet 2015/16:RFR4. Är samverkan modellen? En uppföljning och utvärdering av kultursamverkansmodellen. Rapport från riksdagen, 2015. Stockholm. Riksdagstryckeriet.

Spela samman – en ny modell för statens stöd till regional kulturverksamhet. Delbetänkande av Kultursamverkansutredningen. Statens offentliga utredningar 2010:11. Stockholm, Kulturdepartementet.

Statens kulturfastigheter – urval och förvaltning för framtiden, Betänkande av utredningen om omstrukturering av statens bestånd av vissa kulturfastigheter. Statens offentliga utredningar 2013:55.

Stockholm, Finansdepartementet.

Uppdrag att förstärka arbetet med arkitektur och gestaltad livsmiljö. N2018/02273/SPN, N2017/03879/ SPN. 2018. Stockholm, Näringsdepartementet.

Uppdrag till Riksantikvarieämbetet om hur kulturhistoriska värden integreras och tas tillvara i plan- och byggprocesser. Ku2018/01351/KL. 2018. Stockholm, Kulturdepartementet.

Uppdrag till Statens konstråd om hur bild- eller formkonstnärlig gestaltning kan integreras när staten bygger. Ku2018/01350/KO. 2018. Stockholm, Kulturdepartementet. Överenskommelse mellan staten och Svenska kyrkan i frågor som rör de kulturhistoriska värdena i Svenska kyrkan. Ku2000/470/Ka. 2000. Stockholm, Kulturdepartementet.

Legal cases Sollentuna District Court judgment, 12 May 2004, case T 2294-03.

Svea Court of Appeal judgment 8 July 2005, case T 4829-04.

Växjö Administrative Court judgment 16 July 2014, case no 994-14.

119

Standards Conservation of cultural property Main general terms and definitions (SS-EN 15898:2011), 2011, Stockholm, Swedish Standards Institute (SIS).

Conservation of cultural heritage – Conservation process – Decision making, planning and implementation (SS-EN 16853:2017), 2017, Stockholm, Swedish Standards Institute (SIS).

Conservation of cultural property – Condition survey and report of built cultural heritage (SS-EN 16096), 2012, Stockholm, Swedish Standards Institute (SIS).

Conservation of cultural property – Condition recording for movable cultural heritage (SS-EN 16095), 2012, Stockholm, Swedish Standards Institute (SIS).

Other printed material Adlercreutz, Thomas. 2001. Kulturegendomsrätt – med en kommentar till kulturminneslagen. Stockholm.

Andersson, Lars. 2003. Sveriges historia under 1800- och 1900-talen. Stockholm.

Aronsson, Peter. 2004. Historiebruk: att använda det förflutna. Lund.

Arrhenius, Thordis. 2003. The fragile monument: on conservation and modernity. Diss. Stockholm, KTH Royal Institute of Technology.

Beckman, Lars K., Bäärnhielm, Mauritz & Cederlöf, Joakim et al. 2012. Jordabalken: en kommentar till JB och anslutande författningar. 2. edition. Stockholm.

Bergman, Bosse (2013), “Offentliga miljöer i ständig omvandling” in Konsten att gestalta gemensamma miljöer – Samverkan i tanke och handling. Stockholm, Public Art Agency Sweden.

Bergström, Ulrika, Geijer, Mia. 2009. “Kulturfastighetsutredningen: kan man välja ett kulturarv?” in Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift. 2009:57.

Bexhed, Jan-Mikael. 2017. “Kulturmiljölagen i rättspraxis” in Förvaltningsrättslig tidskrift. 2017:3.

Biörnstad, Margareta. 2015. Kulturminnesvård i efterkrigstid – med Riksantikvarieämbetet i centrum.

Stockholm, Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities.

Bloor, David. 1991. Knowledge and Social Imagery. 2. edition. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

National Board of Housing, Building and Planning. 2009. Kulturhistoriskt värdefull bebyggelse. En analys av miljömålsenkäten. Reg no 214-1579/2009.

Caldenby, Claes. 1998. Att bygga ett land: 1900-talets svenska arkitektur, Stockholm.

Clippele, Marie-Sophie de, Lambrecht, Lucie. 2015. “Art Law & Balances. Increased Protection of Cultural Heritage Law vs. Private Ownership: Towards Clash or Balance?” in International Journal of Cultural Property. 2015:22.

Edman, Victor. 2011. ”Nittonhundratalet går till historien. Om etableringen av ett nytt kulturarv” i Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift. 2011:62.

Eng, Staffan. 2018. “Historien vi ärvde” in Populär arkeologi. 2018:4.

Eriksson, Eva. 2000. Mellan tradition och modernitet: arkitektur och arkitekturdebatt 1900-1930, Stockholm.

120

Europarådet. 1950. Europeiska konventionen om skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna.

Fagerström, Linda, Haglund, Elisabet (eds). 2010. Plats, poetik och politik: samtida konst i det offentliga rummet. Malmö.

Fagerström, Linda. 2014. “Modernistisk konst i kyrkan – varken konstvetenskapligt forskningsfält eller kyrkligt kulturarv” in Karlsmo, Emilie, Lindblad, Jakob & Widmark, Henrik (eds). De kyrkliga kulturarven.

Aktuell forskning och pedagogisk utveckling. Uppsala, Acta universitatis Upsaliensis.

Fechner, Frank G. 1998. “The Fundamental Aims of Cultural Property Law” in International Journal of Cultural Property. 1998 7:2.

Geijer, Mia. 2004. Ett nationellt kulturarv: utveckling av en professionell vård och förvaltning av statliga byggnadsminnen. Lic. Stockholm, KTH Royal Institute of Technology.

Geijer, Mia. 2007. Makten över monumenten: restaurering av vasaslott 1850–2000. Diss. Stockholm, KTH Royal Institute of Technology.

Geijer, Mia. 2011. “Bergslagens bruksorter. Moderna stadsmiljöer som kulturarv” in Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift 2011:62.

Geijer, Mia, 2013. “Bakgrundsteckning” in Statens kulturfastigheter – urval och förvaltning för framtiden, bilaga 5, SOU 2013:55.

Geijer, Mia, Isacson, Maths (eds). 2016. “Modernism i Bergslagen – resandeseminarium i en nära förflutenhet” in Bergslagshistoria, 2016:28.

Gemzell, Carl-Axel. 1993. Om politikens förvetenskapligande och vetenskapens politisering: kring välfärdsstatens uppkomst i England. D.2 Ställföreträdarna. Institut for samtidshistorie.

Gill, Alexander. 2012. “Vårt kulturarv – Sverigedemokraterna, främlingsfientlighet och bevarandearbete” in Fornvännen, Journal of Swedish Antiquarian Research. 2012(107):2.

Gill, Alexander. 2017. “Agenda Cultural Heritage and the Future of Archaeology at Sweden’s county museums” in Current Swedish Archeology. 2017:25.

Grundberg, Jonas. 2004. Historiebruk, globalisering och kulturarvsförvaltning: utveckling eller konflikt? 1 edition, Department of Archaeology, Gothenburg Univ. Diss.

Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Polity, Cambridge, 1989. (German: Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Unterschungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft, 1962.)

Hall, Patrik. 2000. Den svenskaste historien: nationalism i Sverige under sex sekler. Stockholm.

Hedström, Per. 2004. Skönhet och skötsamhet: konstnärliga utsmyckningar i svenska skolor 1870–1940.

Diss. Stockholm University.

Hermerén, Karin. 2015. Den utsatta konsten. Att förvalta konst i offentlig miljö – etik, lagstiftning och värdeförändring, Gothenburg Studies in Conservation 33. Lic. Gothenburg University.

Hermerén, Karin, Orrje, Henrik. 2014. Offentlig konst – ett kulturarv. Tillsyn och förvaltning av byggnadsanknuten konst. 2nd edition. Public Art Agency Sweden, Stockholm.

121

Jensen, Ola W. 2012b. “Mellan dilettantism och professionalism. Om konstruktionen av vetenskapliga självbilder inom 1800-talets svenska kulturminnesvård och arkeologi”, in Hodacs, Hanna & Federhofer, Marie-Theres (eds) Mellom pasjon og profesjonalism. Dilettantkulturer i skandinavisk kunst og vitenskap mellom 1660–1970.

Jensen, Ola W. 2012a. “Kulturarv och värden – expertis och demokrati” in Fredengren, Christina, Jensen, Ola W. & Wall, Åsa (eds) I valet och kvalet. Grundläggande frågor kring värdering och urval av kulturarv.

Swedish National Heritage Board, Stockholm.

Josephson, Ragnar (ed.). 1965. Bilden på muren: studier in Arkiv för dekorativ konst i Lund. Stockholm.

Karlsmo, Emilie. 2005. Rum för avsked: begravningskapellets arkitektur och konstnärliga utsmyckning i 1900-talets Sverige. Diss. Department of Art History, Uppsala University.

Konstnärsnämnden. 2013. Ingen regel utan undantag – Enprocentregeln för konstnärlig gestaltning av offentlig miljö. Stockholm.

Kåring, Göran. 1992. När medeltidens sol gått ned: Debatten om byggnadsvård i England, Frankrike och Tyskland 1815–1914. Diss. Department of Art History, Stockholms University.

Liepe, Lena. 2006. “Konstvetaren, medeltiden och Fornvännen” in Fornvännen. 2006(101):2.

Lindblad, Jakob. 2014. “Sveriges kyrkor. Konsthistoriskt inventarium – aktuella publikationer” i Karlsmo, Emilie, Lindblad, Jakob & Widmark, Henrik (eds). De kyrkliga kulturarven. Aktuell forskning och pedagogisk utveckling. Uppsala, Acta universitatis Upsaliensis.

Lindbom, Jenni, Hermerén, Karin. 2014. Riktlinjer för förvaltning av offentlig konst. Swedish National Heritage Board, Stockholm.

Lindqvist, Sven. 1967. Myten om Wu Tao-Tzu. Stockholm.

Ljungström, Lars. 1987. …Aendnu gamblare: Fredrik Lilljekvists restaurering av Gripsholms slott och 1890-talets restaureringsdebatt. Nyköping, Södermanlands museum.

Lowenthal, David. 1985. The past is a foreign country. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Martin, Edna, Sydhoff, Beate. 1979. Svensk textilkonst. Stockholm, LiberFörlag.

Mellander, Cathrine. 2011. “Mot ett vidgat kulturarv” i, Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift. 2011:62.

Millroth, Thomas. 1985. Konsten i Tomteboda. Stockholm.

Miller Lane, Barbara. 2000. National romanticism and modern architecture in Germany and the Scandinavian countries. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press.

Motturi, Aleksander. 2007. Etnotism: en essä om mångkultur, tystnad och begäret efter mening.

Gothenburg.

Mårdh, Hedvig. 2017. A Century of Swedish Gustavian Style: Art History, Cultural Heritage and Neoclassical Revivals from the 1890s to the 1990s. Diss. Department of Art History, Uppsala University.

Olsson, Henry. 2009. Upphovsrättslagstiftningen. En kommentar. 3rd edition. Stockholm.

Olsson, Henry. 2014. “Bilaga 1 Upphovsrätt för offentlig konst” in Lindbom, Jenni, Hermerén, Karin.

Riktlinjer för förvaltning av offentlig konst. Stockholm, Riksantikvarieämbetet.

Otero-Pailos, Jorge, Gaiger, Jason & West, Susie (eds). 2010. “Heritage values” in West, Susie (ed.).

Understanding Heritage in Practice. Manchester, Manchester University Press in association with the Open University.

122

Pettersson, Richard. 2001. Fädernesland och framtidsland. Sigurd Curman och kulturminnesvårdens etablering. Diss. Department of History, Umeå University.

Pettersson, Hans. 2004. “Konsthistoria som universitetsdisciplin” in Gillgren, Peter, Johansson, BrittInger & Pettersson, Hans (eds). 8 kapitel om konsthistoriens historia i Sverige. Stockholm.

Qvarnström, Ludwig. 2010. Vigselrummet i Stockholms rådhus och det tidiga 1900-talets monumentalmåleri: Historia, reception, historiografi, Diss., Dept. of Art History, Uppsala University.

Regionförbundet i Kalmar län. 2015. Offentlig konst i Kalmar län – policy och riktlinjer.

Renman Claesson, Katarina, Wainikka, Christina. 2014. Konstjuridik: med konstnären i fokus. 1 edition.

Stockholm.

Researching Public Art. Nordic conference with the aim of inspiring new research in the expanded field of public art, 11–12 October 2018, Royal Institute of Art, Stockholm.

Swedish National Heritage Board. 2013. Översyn av regelverket om kulturföremål. Ku2013/1344/KA. Swedish National Heritage Board. 2015a. Länsmuseernas och motsvarande museers kulturmiljöarbete.

Kartläggning och redovisning av förutsättningarna för samverkan och verksamhetsutveckling på regional nivå.

Swedish National Heritage Board. 2015b. Plattform Kulturhistorisk värdering och urval. Grundläggande förhållningssätt för arbete med att definiera, värdera, prioritera och utveckla kulturarvet.

Swedish National Heritage Board. 2015c. Översyn av regelverket om de kyrkliga kulturminnena.

Redovisning av Ku2013/1343/KA. Swedish National Heritage Board. 2016. Effekter på den byggda miljöns kulturvärden efter förenklingar i plan- och bygglagen.

Swedish National Heritage Board. 2016. Kulturmiljöarbetets genomslag inom kultursamverkansmodellen – samverkan påverkar och otydlighet motverkar.

Swedish National Heritage Board. 2017a. Kulturvärden i planerings- och bygglovsprocesser – en utvärdering om kommuners förutsättningar för att ta hänsyn till kulturvärden.

Swedish National Heritage Board. 2017b. Nya byggnadsminnen: En utvärdering om länsstyrelsernas förutsättningar att bilda nya byggnadsminnen.

Swedish National Heritage Board. 2017c. Riksintressen i siffror – statistik över kulturmiljövårdens riksintressen.

Swedish National Heritage Board. 2017d. Statliga byggnadsminnen. Vägledning för tillämpning av förordningen om statliga byggnadsminnen. 2 rev. uppl. Stockholm, Riksantikvarieämbetet.

Swedish National Heritage Board. 2018. Kulturvärden försvinner i byggprocessen. Intervjuer och aktgranskning av bygglovsärenden.

Swedish NAO. 2005. Uppsikt och tillsyn i samhällsplaneringen – intention och praktik. 2005:12.

Stockholm.

Swedish NAO. 2018. Preparing for better supervision – State guidance on municipal supervision. RIR 2018:31. Stockholm.

Rudberg, Eva (1999) Stockholmsutställningen 1930: modernismens genombrott i svensk arkitektur, Stockholm.

123

Rörby, Martin (2002) David Helldén: modernistisk visionär på traditionens grund, Stockholm.

Sandqvist, Tom. 2005. “Att överskrida det omöjliga. Om Ann Edholms Transire” in Catalogue 35, Public Art Agency Sweden.

National Property Board. 2009. Kulturfastighetsutredningen. D. 1. Stockholm, National Property Board RIR 2018:31.

National Property Board. 2009. Kulturfastighetsutredningen. D. 2, Berättelser. Stockholm, National Property Board.

Public Art Agency Sweden. 1983. Public Art Agency Sweden 5/6.

Public Art Agency Sweden. 1984. Public Art Agency Sweden 8.

Public Art Agency Sweden. 2016. Public Art Agency Sweden annual report 2015. Stockholm, Public Art Agency Sweden.

Public Art Agency Sweden. 2017. Public Art Agency Sweden annual report 2016. Stockholm, Public Art Agency Sweden.

Public Art Agency Sweden. Catalogue. 2005:35.

Public Art Agency Sweden, National Heritage Board, National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, ArkDes. 2013. Gestaltning av offentliga miljöer – samverkansprojekt.

Stensman, Mailis. 1984. “Konsten på väg in i fabrikerna” in Public Art Agency Sweden 8. Public Art Agency Sweden.

Stensman, Mailis, Tranaeus, Björn (eds) 1987. “‘Konsten är på väg att bliva allas…’: Statens konstråd 1937–1987”. Stockholm, Public Art Agency Sweden.

Sundborg, Peter. 2005. Glimtar av en guldålder: arkitektur och bebyggelse i Västernorrland 1945–1965, Länsmuseet Västernorrland, Sundsvall.

Church of Sweden. 2013. Villkor för kyrkoantikvarisk ersättning. Version 1.1.

Söderlind, Solfrid. 2000a. “Konsthistoria på museerna” in Gillgren, Peter, Johansson, Britt-Inger & Pettersson, Hans (eds). 8 kapitel om konsthistoriens historia i Sverige. Stockholm.

Söderlind, Solfrid. 2000b. “Konsthistorieämnets förhistoria” in Gillgren, Peter, Johansson, Britt-Inger & Pettersson, Hans (eds). 8 kapitel om konsthistoriens historia i Sverige. Stockholm.

Söderqvist, Lisbeth. 1999. Rekordår och miljonprogram. Flerfamiljshus i stor skala: en fallstudiebaserad undersökning av politik, planläggning och estetik, Stockholm.

Thornberg Knutsson, Agneta. 2007. Byggnadsminnen – principer och praktik: den offentliga kulturmiljövårdens byggnadsminnesverksamhet: beskrivning och utvärdering. Diss. Gothenburg University.

Vikström, Eva. 1998. Bruksandan och modernismen: brukssamhälle och folkhemsbygge i Bergslagen 1935–1975. Stockholm, Nordiska museet.

Wahlström, Klara (ed.). 2008. Beställd konst. Fastighetsägarnas vård och underhåll av byggnadsanknuten konst. Public Art Agency Sweden, Stockholm.

Wetterberg, Ola. 1992. Monument & miljö. Perspektiv på det tidiga 1900-talets byggnadsvård i Sverige.

Diss. Chalmers Institute of Technology, Gothenburg.

124

Åman, Anders. 2008. Sigurd Curman. Riksantikvarie – ett porträtt. Stockholm, Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, in collaboration with the publishing house Atlantis. Örn, Johan. 2011. “Bakom den moderna fasaden. Offentliga interiörer söker sin historia” in Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift. 2011:62. Örn, Johan. 2015. Antikvarisk förundersökning och konsekvensanalys. Kavalleristen 3. AIX Arkitekter.

Digital publications, websites Boverket. PBL Kunskapsbanken, https://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-kunskapsbanken/ (accessed 2 November 2018).

Digisam. 2018. Vägledande principer för arbetet med digitalt kulturarv. http://www.digisam.se/ vagledande-principer-for-arbetet-med-digitalt-kulturarv/ (accessed 8 May 2019).

Giertz, Eric, Hjorth, Mikael, Lindhagen, Maria, Engwall, Mats & Gens, Magnus. 2016. Svensk konsultsektor i ny belysning – Utvecklingstrender och dynamik. Verket för innovationssystem – VINNOVA, https:// publector.org/publication/Svensk-konsultsektor-i-ny-belysning/Title (accesseed 18 April 2019).

Konstfrämjandet. Konstfrämjandets historia, http://konstframjandet.se/om/konstframjandets-historia/ (accesseed 18 April 2019).

Landstinget Västmanland. 2014. Kartläggning av den offentliga konsten i Västmanlands kommuner 2011 och 2014, file:///C:/Users/lisaf/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/ TempState/Downloads/Kartläggning_off_konst_vml_2014%20(1).pdf (accesseed 18 April 2019).

Moderna museet. 2015. Historia, https://www.modernamuseet.se/stockholm/sv/2015/01/04/historia/ (accesseed 18 April 2019).

Naturvårdsverket. Sveriges miljömål, Skyddad bebyggelse, http://sverigesmiljomal.se/miljomalen/godbebyggd-miljo/skyddad-bebyggelse/ (accessed 7 May 2019).

Riksantikvarieämbetet. 2017. Förteckning över samtliga kulturreservat i Sverige, https://www.raa.se/ app/uploads/2017/08/Förteckning-över-kulturreservat-i-Sverige-2017-12-13.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018).

Riksantikvarieämbetet. 2018. Förteckning föremålskategorier för utförsel, https://www.raa.se/lagar-ochstod/kulturmiljolagen-kml/utforsel-och-export-av-kulturforemal-5-8-kap/forteckning-foremalskategorierfor-utforsel/ (accessed 30 January 2019).

Riksantikvarieämbetet. 2018. SBM november 2018 webb. Excel-fil, https://www.raa.se/hitta-information/ bebyggelseregistret-bebr/forteckning-over-statliga-byggnadsminnen/ (accessed 8 January 2019).

Slots- og kulturstyrelsen. 2016. Kunst i offentlige rum, https://slks.dk/bygningsfredning/kunst-ioffentlige-rum/ (accessed 2 October 2018).

Statens konstråd. Arkiv över offentlig konst. https://statenskonstrad.se/arkiv-over-offentligkonst/#noscroll (accessed 8 May 2019).

Statens konstråd (1.1.1/2011:121). Statens konstråds plan för digitaliseringsverksamhet 2016–2018. 2015. www.digisam.se/myndighets-och-institutionsvisa-planer/ (accessed 8 May 2019).

Statens konstråd. 2017. Konstdatabasen. https://statenskonstrad.se/article/konstdatabasen/ (accessed 8 May 2019).

125

Statens konstråd. Kunskapsnav offentlig konst, https://www.statenskonstrad.se/utveckla-konsten/ kunskapsnav-offentlig-konst/, (accessed 1 February 2019).

Statens konstråd. 2017. Varsam renovering av konst i en modern kulturmiljö, https://statenskonstrad.se/ article/varsam-renovering-av-konst-i-en-modern-kulturmiljo/ (accesseed 18 April 2019). Öppna data och PSI. Rekommendationer gällande beständiga länkar, https://oppnadata.se/ rekommendation-gallande-bestandiga-lankar/ (accessed 8 May 2019).

Unpublished material Interviews Interviewee 1: Anna-Karin Ericson, Project manager, Stockholm konst. Interview on 27 June 2018.

Interviewee 2: Emilie Karlsmo, senior lecturer, art history, Uppsala University. Interview on 29 June 2018.

Interviewee 3: Lena Knöös Myrelid, property manager, Akademiska Hus. Interview on 26 June 2018.

Interviewee 4: Marcus Schramm, architect – urban planning, City of Solna. Interview on 15 June 2018.

Oral communication Tanja von Brünken, deputy director, Ministry of Culture. 2019-03-22.

Planning document local development plan for a new bus depot at Tomteboda and appendix to local development plan for the Posten site (P98/0826) in the Huvudsta district, filed in November 2016, City of Solna.

126

Illustrations and photographs Fig. 1, 43. The parties involved in building-related public art, National Heritage Board, 2019.

Fig. 2, 102. The conservation process, National Heritage Board 2019.

Tab. 1, 85. Overview of legislation, National Heritage Board, 2019.

Photo 1, 41. Artist: © Pierre Olofsson/Photo Copyright 2019. Foto: Tommy Jansson.

Photo 2, 65. Artist: © Lars Millhagen/Photo Copyright 2019. Foto: Mailis Stensman.

Photo 3, 71. Interior Palais Stoclet, Bryssel. Photo: unknown.

Photo 4, 72. Interior Villa Korsmo, Oslo Photo: Morten Henden Aamodt.

Photos 5–6, 98. Artist: © Petter Zennström/Photo Copyright 2019. Photo: Tyréns AB. Photo 7, 115. Artist: © Ann Edholm/Photo Copyright 2019. Photo: Örjan Gran.

127

APPENDIX 1 Committee members

Project team Public Art Agency Sweden Henrik Orrje Therese Segerstedt Klara Wahlström Annika Enqvist Swedish National Heritage Board Cathrine Mellander Backman Lisa af Edholm Kathrin Hinrichs Degerblad Jonas Malmdal Hanna Sofia Johansson Cecilia Wallin Hanna Gelotte Fernandez Reference group Anna-Karin Ericson, Stockholm Konst, City of Stockholm Emilie Karlsmo, Dept of Art History, Uppsala University Karin Hermerén, Moderna Museet Lena Myrelid Knöös, Akademiska Hus Marcus Schramm, City of Solna Mia Geijer, County Administrative Board, Örebro County Ola Wetterberg, Department of Conservation, University of Gothenburg Suzanne Pluntke, Boverket, National Board of Housing, Building and Planning For further information on the individuals and organisations contributing to the committee, please see Appendix 2 for a list of participants in network group meetings, and literature relating to the interviewees.

128

APPENDIX 2 Network group meetings

Seminar on public art for the network group Swedish National Heritage Board, Stockholm, 31 January 2019

Participants Andreas Bjersby, project manager public art, Region Uppsala Ann Landgren Danielsson, curator, Museum of Sketches Anna Ehn, head of public art, Uppsala Municipality Anna Wälivara, project coordinator, Uppsala Municipality Anna-Karin Ericson, project manager Stockholm Konst Annika Petersson, cultural secretary, Falun Municipality Elisabeth Wengström, head of the Art Department, Region Stockholm Emily Norton, art consultant, Norton & Cederström (absent) Filip Zezovski Lind, art curator, Jönköping Municipality Hans Sundvall, artistic director, Konsthallen, Luleå Municipality Helena von Bergen, activities developer, public art, Region Dalarna Henrik Ygge, antiquarian, public art, Region Norrbotten Inga-Lill Bäckström, project manager, artistic design, Region Stockholm Jaana Järretorp, developer, image, sculpture and design, Region Skåne Jan Dahlqvist, art register and web, Göteborgs Konst Jenny Nilsson, officer/coordinator, public art, Region Gävleborg Johanna Molvin, section manager, art, City of Solna Tuva-Li Peter, curator, public art, Uppsala Municipality Ulrika Liljenström, curator, Lunds Konsthall, Lund Municipality Åsa Nacking, director, Lunds konsthall, Lund Municipality Workshop questions On what grounds can/should building-related public art be assessed as part of society’s cultural heritage / cultural environment?

How can we achieve a comprehensive catalogue of building-related public art?

How should collaboration between public art and the cultural environment sector proceed to achieve long-term potential for the conservation of building-related public art as a cultural heritage/cultural environment?

Seminar for the network group of property owners and managers Swedish National Heritage Board, Stockholm, 5 February 2019

Participants Anders Zander, cultural heritage specialist, National Property Board Sweden Anna Mazetti-Nissen, property engineer, Svenska bostäder Annika Nordberg, property manager, Region Uppsala (absent) Caroline Särnqvist, building antiquarian, Royal Djurgården /National City Park administration Charlotte Mattsson, technology manager, Jernhusen Christina Wohlfart, architect, Riksdag Administration 129

Ingela Andersson, cultural heritage specialist, Swedish Fortifications Agency Jessica Einebrant, brand and design manager, Swedavia Lena Knöös Myrelid, property manager, Akademiska Hus. Markus Dahlberg, unit manager, cultural heritage issues, Church of Sweden Nirmala Mandic, manager, Gothenburg property administration, art Otto Ryding, antiquarian, Boverket, National Board of Housing, Building and Planning Sara Hamon, property development manager, Familjebostäder Åsa Welander, head of administration, Specialfastigheter Workshop questions What are the incentives and obstacles (legal, financial, cultural, etc) for property owners and managers to conserve 20th-century building-related public art?

Do we need more opportunities for property owners and managers to improve their awareness?

What are the arguments in favour of government funding of conservation of buildingrelated public art?

Seminar for the university network group Swedish National Heritage Board, Stockholm, 7 February 2019

Participants Abdellah Abarkan, professor, Department of Physical Planning, Blekinge Institute of Technology Annika Öhrner, docent, School of Culture and Education, Södertörn University Catharina Gabrielsson, senior lecturer, KTH School of Architecture Catharina Nolin, Professor, Department of Culture and Aesthetics, Stockholm University Cecilia Sagrén, senior lecturer, architectural conservation, Royal Institute of Art Emilie Karlsmo, senior lecturer, Dept of Art History, Uppsala University Linda Fagerström, docent, Department of Arts and Cultural Sciences, Lund University (absent) Peter Ekbäck, professor, Department of Real Estate Planning and Land Law, KTH Royal Institute of Technology Stavroula Golfomitsou, senior lecturer, Department of Conservation, Gothenburg University Thomas Borén, docent, Department of Human Geography, Stockholm University (absent) Workshop questions How has education and research changed in recent years with regard to views on the value of building-related public art as part of the cultural heritage/cultural environment, and as a field within art history?

The conservation of building-related public art requires a multidisciplinary approach (art history, cultural environment conservation, law, real estate economics, administration, etc).

What educational resources are prioritised to improve the potential to conserve building-related public art as a cultural heritage/cultural environment?

130

Seminar for the cultural environment network group Swedish National Heritage Board, Stockholm, 12 February 2019

Participants Adam Moll, architectural antiquarian, Dalarnas museum Alexandru Babos, city antiquarian, Linköping Municipality Anna Ahlberg, architectural antiquarian, County Administrative Board, County of Västmanland Annika Wångby-Stattin, manager, Mannaminne Berit Ångman Svedjemo, curator, Gotlands museum Björn Siesjö, city architect, Gothenburg Municipality (absent) Carl Brädde, conservator, Västarvet Christina Morén, architectural antiquarian, Västmanland County Museum Elinor Magnerus, head of department, Örebro County Museum Emma Tibblin, city antiquarian, Södertälje Municipality Fredrik Olsson, architectural antiquarian, AIX Arkitekter Henrik Nerlund, office manager and secretary, Stockholms skönhetsråd (absent) Ingela Broström, head of department, Gävleborg County Museum Johan Örn, curator, ArkDes Kerstin Barup, professor emerita and architect, the Academy for cultural environments, Architects Sweden Lisen Tamm, conservator, Nordic Society for Conservators Louise Schlyter, head cultural environment unit, Stockholm County Council Marcus Schramm, architect – urban planning, City of Solna Mari Ferring, architectural antiquarian, WSP Olof Martinsson, city antiquarian, City of Malmö Suzanne Pluntke, urban antiquarian, Boverket National Board of Housing, Building and Planning Tove Nyhlén, conservator, Tyréns AB Åsa Dahlin, architect, urban planning office, City of Stockholm Workshop questions On what grounds can/should building-related public art be assessed as part of society’s cultural heritage / cultural environment?

How can the government, regions and municipalities better exploit existing instruments to conserve building-related public art as part of the cultural heritage/ cultural environment?

How should collaboration between public art and the cultural environment sector proceed to achieve long-term potential for the conservation of building-related public art as a cultural heritage/cultural environment?

131

APPENDIX 3 International survey

Survey questions Date Version

2018-10-04 1.0

First page Survey on the management and protection of 20th-century building-related public art.

Department Cultural Environment

Information about the survey

Author Hanna Sofia Johansson

This survey is part of the study Public art as cultural heritage, which the Swedish government has commissioned the Public Art Agency and the Swedish National Heritage Board to carry out.

The purpose of the survey is to compare how the preservation of building-related public art as a cultural heritage is handled, primarily at national government level, in several European countries. The responses to the survey will be used in the report that the Public Art Agency will produce jointly with the Swedish National Heritage Board, within the framework of the above mentioned government commission.

The objective of the assignment is to improve the supervision and management of building-related public art in Sweden. The assignment also has the purpose of generally improving knowledge and awareness of building-related public art as part of the 20th-century modern cultural heritage. The assignment also includes arranging for more adequate implementation of existing legal and economic instruments, and to review the registry system, in order to create an adequate national survey of existing building-related art.

The assignment focuses specifically on so-called building-related public art, including sculptures, murals and other art created specifically for interior and exterior public spaces. Building-related art is often integrated physically with the building, but can also be installed in direct connection to the building, forming an integral part of the building or site according to the intentions of the artist, developer or architect.

The commissioned organisations will present their study as a report no later than 1 June, 2019. The report will be in Swedish, with a short summary in English.

Survey responses will be anonymised, and no names will be mentioned in the report. Names of countries may be mentioned in the presentation of responses in the report, however. After completion of the project, the survey responses will be registered. The GDPR entitles you to receive information from the Swedish

132

National Heritage Board stating which of your personal data has been collected and processed. You also have the right to request that the personal data be corrected or deleted, to make an objection to the processing, or request a restriction of the processing.

To read more about how the Swedish National Heritage Board processes data in accordance with the GDPR, please click on this link: https://www.raa.se/inenglish/general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr-in-english/.

The survey consisted of some 35 questions on the following themes: - Building-related public art as a cultural heritage - Inventories - Supervision - Legal protection - Evaluation and assessment - Management and maintenance - Funding - Economic support/subsidies - Strategic collaboration 133