Kiasma: From fury to tenderness
The Kiasma Contemporary Art Museum project has elicited passionate stands - both supportive and critical. As the project advanced, the newspaper columns were increasingly filled with comments expressing either delight or indignation, as well as views ranging from the well-grounded to the off-the-wall.
"Holl's Chiasma clearly has the form, the roof construction and other details which together constitute the image of the horrifying Old Testament Leviathan, a creature of chaos from the final apocalypse, a slithering snake which, according to the book of Job, is the king of all beasts. Its back is covered by armoured plates like silicon-hard razors....inviting horror as it moves ahead. The Book of the Prophet Isaiah knows it as a slithering, lethal sea snake....the Museum is a temple for satan." Thus writes Jaakko Puokka in a June 1994 Letters to the Editor column of the Ilta-Sanomat newspaper. Kiasma had, at this juncture, already been drawing public commentary in the press. And this was only the prelude.
The planning competition for the Museum of Contemporary Art was declared open on a Tuesday evening in September 1992 in the Ateneum Hall. A raging war of words was whipped up in the public editorial columns of the press due to the museum's planned location next to the Central Post Office. The museum lot was considered to be too small or in the wrong place. A further argument was that construction on the lot shouldn't start before the Kamppi-Töölönlahti plan had been fully laid out. The museum's planned location was not considered an issue, however, even though many alternative sites had been suggested. According to the public, any one of a number of available lots could have measured up to the museum's requirements (ie. the Tennis Palace, the Glass Palace, the abandoned Koff brewery on Bulevardi, or East Pasila which already has other cultural facilities such as the main library).
The architectural competition was won by an American architect. The Helsingin Sanomat was instrumental in orchestrating a debate on the outcome of the competition. The participants included notable Finnish architects and museum supporters.
While architects were busy exchanging their views about the competition winner, the newspaper columns were sprinkled with public pronouncements giving Kiasma labels such as 'iron sausage', 'sea cucumber', and 'vacuum nozzle'. While the press was reporting on project developments, the public press columns and hot lines were running amok because of Mannerheim's equestrian statue. Infantry general Adolf Ehnrooth was able to collect his troops. Patriotic sentiment became pitted against the Museum of Contemporary Art's excessive proximity to Mannerheim's statue. According to the opponents, the statue was not to be moved an inch, let alone moved to another location. The sculptor Laila Pullinen took a stand on behalf of the monument by making an appeal to copyright law. Many of the public figures interviewed by the media were outspoken regarding this issue. A national referendum was demanded. Mannerheim's Heritage Foundation gathered a petition made up of over 23000 names for the purpose of generating opposition to the museum and its location. The Foundation also sought the support of the President. By the end, however, the official opinion was that the Art Museum was a better backdrop for the statue than the rail yard.
The different phases of Finland's highest profile construction site were followed with great interest from the shadows of the economic depression. A protective fence was erected around the construction site as is the norm for such centre of town sites. A competition was organized for the purpose of adorning the monotonous fence. The winning idea was proposed by Nanne Prauda. In June 1996, the fence would be painted aniline red, and a new public outcry was about to hit the columns. "Pinkish red so close to Mannerheim's statue. Insolent. Did the evaluation committee wish to provoke? A tasteless choice of colour. Against the creation of humanism", ran the Letters to the Editor headlines. The Ministry tried to calm down the debate by ordering the fencing closest to Mannerheim's statue to be painted a masculine grey.
It is now spring 1997 and the museum already has a clearly defined exterior. Deputy Mayor Pekka Korpinen is finally able to breathe a sigh of relief: "When nearly the entire architectural profession began lamenting that the building lot was too small, even I started to have my doubts. Yet the building has ended up fitting in surprisingly well. Even the statue can now boast a backdrop which enhances its dignity" (Helsingin Sanomat, February 18, 1997).
Fortunately, Jari Tervo's "Tervo and feathers" column was not read too earnestly. He had, in fact, suggested that, "A circle with a radius of ten kilometers is drawn with the monument as its centre. All buildings within that area will be demolished or moved and all roads closed down. Töölö Bay will be filled with concrete in order to drive away birds that shit in flight. An armoured fence would be erected around the area. The monument will be raised on top of a kilometer-long column made of gold so that it will be visible from Hanko to Petsamo. Aviation will be prohibited." (Ilta=Sanomat)
Architect Reijo Perko wrote an article for the Helsingin Sanomat with the heading, "The Contemporary Museum of Art under lucky stars", noting that "no cultural event or building project has ever been the object of such sharp-tongued, broad-based and long-standing debate. This controversial project has been a catalyst for many fruitful discussions". Hopefully, the discussions will continue in all their fury and tenderness. Much remains to be trashed out: what kinds of possibilities are in the offing through partnerships with business enterprises; is all pink contemporary art?- is contemporary art plain pink?
Päivi Oja
The Finnish National Gallery's Art Archives maintains a clippings archive based on newspaper articles which are about the visual arts. It was also a source of material concerning the Kiasma debate.
