The initiative behind the artist group The Provincialists is based on some interesting reflections that are expressed in the group’s manifesto. The idea that only the metropolitan art can capture and explain the modern world is a misconception that has originated in the metropolises themselves. It is created by its own proponents, based partly on the superficial idea that spatial distance equals distance in time, and partly on an effort to raise attention and publicity. The notion that time is reflected in physical distance is not only ridiculous, but is of course also misleading, and can have dangerous consequences. It implies that everything outside the big metropolises is outdated and therefore uninteresting, that the physical distance removes the province from the present, which exists only in the metropolis, and that the world is changing so fast that the present can only be understood by those who are in the centre of change, i.e. in the metropolis. Among these are the artists and their friends and collaborators, art journalists, critics and curators, in a perpetual whirl around the modern patrons of the arts: public and private museums, and private art investors. And because these are seen as part of the change, the notion further implies that the present can only be understood by itself.

Appointing oneself as the representative of the modern, when judging the contemporary, is a powerful tool of exclusion. This leads us to my second introductory claim, that this is a scheme to attract attention and money. One is left with the impression that the art debate and the artistic activity are all about business, and that the more or less unspoken assumption about the modernity of the metropolis is nothing but a clever paraphrase of the simple fact that this is where we find the big museums, the purchase accounts and the investment capital. This is a fleeting position, where quality (“modernity”) is a euphemism for money value. It is therefore vital to know the strategies and tactics in the struggle for power. This struggle takes place on many fronts, one of which involves the stigmatisation of competitors, for instance by labelling them as “provincial”. Provincialism is an expression which signals that the person who uses it is not provincial. The opposite of provincial is urban, and the expression is never used by people outside those circles where everyone regards themselves as urban.

When cultural circles in the Nordic capitals refer to the rest of the country as a province, and its art and culture as provincial, the expression becomes ludicrous. Especially when it is used to emphasise one’s own spiritual affinity and trendy unison with the “great” cultural metropolises like Berlin, New York, Paris, London and Milan. This affinity seems to be of vital importance to the cultural urbanist in the North. However, the whole notion becomes ridiculous when one considers the fact that Stockholm, Oslo and Reykjavik are small towns situated in remote provinces when seen from the metropolises they are so eager to be a part of. The claim that something is trendy or modern involves an extensive conceptual transformation. It is all about power, or, more precisely, market dominance. Power to exclude others and establish oneself. However, when art becomes an executor of power, it loses its critical function, which is replaced by a tyranny of taste. Moreover, it is not the artistic expression, but a work’s conceptual content that takes on this questionable role.

It has been a long time since Walter Benjamin wrote about the aura of art. His work of art was an object, a concrete material form, which could be studied both as matter and as an abstract idea. When art rejects matter and form altogether, only the idea remains. And ideas have no shape or aura. Art history describes its object through the study of technique, style, ideology and production methods. Objects can be bought and kept as investments or fetishes in warehouses and showrooms.

Conceptual art has reduced itself to illustrating ideas, and lacks the form which previously was the basis for defining a work’s quality and value. The modern work of art is instead established by a claim of being a work of art. And that claim needs to be communicated. The real communicators are not the museum custodians and knowledgeable guides. It seems to me appropriate to describe art not as a work or an expression, but as a fight for position. Any artist who seeks fame will publicise his works as part of a battle whose strategic goal is to become an “international artist”, but whose tactic offensive is to seek media exposure. A perfect sign of the times! The media are the real communicators of art, and can seal an artist’s fate. The artist is then dependent on attracting the attention of these media. And the best way to do this seems to be by way of “the great scandal”.

There seems to be no end to the artists’ inventiveness in this area. Hire a man with an axe to chop up your paintings in public, or steal them yourself and call the press. Set your own house on fire, call the media and cry for your lost art works, including those you never painted. Paint a portrait of yourself with a deformed penis. Use all the tricks in the book. If the press can be bothered to show up, you are well on your way to success, and will have the opportunity to express your thoughts on art and its role in today’s society and its ability to capture the present. Make sure you memorise a few profound clichés, as you never know when you will need them. In this situation, the critical function of art is dissolved, as there is no longer any difference between what people want and what society wishes to see expressed in the media stunts arranged by the artists. The artist and the media have the same goal, which is to achieve dominance in the money market. The role of the successful artist is to get others to share the taste he wishes them to have, and thereby control their thoughts and opinions. This is done through the media, often with the vulgar tactics described above.

These are dangerous aspects. The critical elite markets its critique as a product, but the moment this product is bought and sold, the critique has become part of the machinery of power it once fought against. In order to avoid exposure, it is crucial that the critical attitude which will arise as an inherent consequence of the artistic activity in society, is rendered harmless. This can be achieved by stigmatising artists as “old-fashioned” and “provincialist”.

Against this background, it is liberating to read the manifesto of the Provincialist group: We in the province have no need to distance ourselves from the urban. On the contrary. We know that our artistic expressions are important and can survive without empty verbal support. We see our provinciality as a strength. And we are inclusive in that we incorporate the whole Nordic region – including the small Nordic capitals – in our globally oriented art province.