Some text on Odd Nerdrum

Some of those reading this may not be familiar with Nerdrums definition of kitsch, which deviates
sharply from the accepted art-historical understanding of the term. I offer the definition below in hopes
that it will clarify my use of the word in the letter that follows: Kitsch deals with the eternal human
love, death, drama, jealousy, family. If you seek to imbue your work with pathos, melodrama and
sentimentality, then you are a kitsch person. These qualities are not negative, as long as you master them
through handcraft. Kitsch is not dry naturalism, but a poem about life. When you portray a humans inner
feelings through handcraft, you are approaching kitsch. Michelangelos Pieta, if created today, would be
called kitsch. Kitsch puts quality over originality. Kitsch embraces talent, where art sees it as its enemy.
Kitsch represents handcraft, drama, pathos and sincerity without irony.

Where I walk there are no roads.(

the old masters are my guides, nature is my god.(
All my life I have been a lonely hunter in the wilderness.
The follower never comes first. We must become first in our own work, pursue our own directions, and
walk where there are no roads.
The aim of this letter is to challenge each painter who identifies with Odd Nerdrum and kitsch to seek out
the sensual and the timeless
The kitsch painter occupies himself with the eternal things in life- like love, death and the sunrise.
Renewal or to locally belong to your own time is uninteresting; as is personal expression. Absorption is
the goal, for in nature itself lies the personal.
As modernism and the state together have taken over the art world, kitsch is the savior of talent and
heartiness.
The same way Christianity demonised its competitors, modernism did with its competition.
Sibelius, the great Finnish composer was accused of being kitsch, and began in the 6th and 7th
symphonies to fumble after new disharmony, but gave up, and lived in silence for forty years.
Editors note:
In the October 1999 issue of ARTnews, a multi-page advertisement published three speeches/interviews
covering Norwegian painter Odd Nerdrums views of kitsch. The reader can draw his/her own
conclusions about whether the writings reveal more about Nerdrums opinions or his marketing strategy.
Nerdrum is an intriguing character given the continual push-pull between representational/figurative art
and abstract/non-figurative works.
Many think of the word kitsch as representing cheap, commercial, and often ugly objects. According to
the published pieces, Nerdrum instead considers kitsch to include the realm of the sentimental, the
sensual, and the non-metaphysical: the gypsy girl and the little boy with the tear. The grandmother with
the child on her lap and the fisherman with his pipe. The two silhouettes against a sunset, and not least

the moose by the lake. With kitsch, Nerdrum implies, quality comes down to execution and the viewers
empathic reaction, not analysis and ideas.
Nerdrum says that he is not an artist, but a practitioner of kitsch. When Nerdrum says Art, he really
means modernism, and much of what he writes seems to be a defense of figurative or empathic work in
the face of modernism. The writings imply that Nerdrum would not distinguish a Winslow Homer
watercolor from a Field & Stream magazine illustration as art versus kitsch, but as high/good kitsch
versus low/bad kitsch. It is almost as if he is so tired of modernist disregard for figurative work that he
wishes to shift figurative art to an entirely new battleground so quality can stand a chance of respect.
As interesting as the writings are, I admit that Nerdrums opinions do ring of positioning. I have a hard
time believing that he wholly embraces the ideas put forth. Nerdrums works do not offer up mere surface
imagery. He has his own blend of originality. Many paintings mix classical imagery and execution with
irony and shock-value. While the latter elements have obviously appeared in historical paintings (Manets
Dejeuner), these strike me as modern traits. Nerdrum cannot escape his context he is a modern artist.
Simply because non-figurative and metaphysical work has been embraced by critic/curator circles for so
long does not mean that we should abdicate the definition of art to a narrow subset and seek new
semantic lands under the heading of kitsch. But enough of my words, on to Nerdrum.
Excerpts from an advertisement published in ARTnews, October 1999
A work of kitsch is either good or bad, and good kitsch must not be classified as art. This would be an
error of judgement. Kitsch is not modern art. Kitsch refers to the sensual and the timeless.
Innovation is of no importance, nor is originality. Going in depth and becoming engrossed is the goal,
for in the depiction of nature itself lies the individual expression.
Because modernism has conquered art, kitsch is the savior of talent and devotion.
From Kitsch The Superstructure of Sensuality, Nedrums speech at the Haugar Art Museum in
Tonsberg, Norway, 19 June 1999
But let us for a minute look at what is lacking contemporary art. What do we miss? I see four things: 1.
The open, trustful face, 2. The sensual skin, 3. Golden sunsets, and 4. The longing for eternity. Taken
together, these values add up to kitsch whether we like it or not.
The concept of Kitsch, in the derogatory sense of cheap decoration, came into use a hundred years ago
when the new Modernism clashed with the old European culture the stagnant and regressive world.
Most people in the art world seem to believe that if 17th-century Rembrandt had lived today, he would
have been a Jackson Pollock or a conceptual artist. I dont. People develop according to their own needs.
I dont believe that all talented people bow to their times and follow the Zeitgeist. Rembrandt was
dictated by his gift for drawing, just as Puccini was dictated by his melodic repository. A modern atonal
composer is a completely different person. He is not as strongly controlled by his own destiny, and is free
enough to experiment. Rembrandt would hardly have painted his 17th-centry Dutch interiors today, but
the same eyes would have been there, the same darkness and the same sensual skin. As strange as his
heartfeltness and entire being was to his own times, so it would seem to us. Even his most timeless
pictures would be considered kitsch if they had been painted today.

Today, the solid superstructure Art has become an overwhelming force, unparalleled in history. It protects
all kinds of intellectual scribble, while a beautifully drawn nude can be criticized to pieces, because a
work like this lacks a respectful superstructure.

The great misconception of the modernists is that they have demanded everything that a classical

figurative painter can not give them constant renewal, exciting experiments and compliance with
contemporary styles, etc. A painter using the old master style is sensual. His aim is to become engrossed
in his work and skillfully render lifes eternal moments without prejudice. But in doing this, he is not
protected by his time. He has to compete with the best ever created in all times. This is a heavy burden to
bear, which becomes heavier when his striving is ignored or een laughed at. When additionally he claims
to be an artist, he is of course placed at the bottom of the hierarchy. Because he is in a false situation, all
he does is wrong.

Kitsch must be separated from art. A kitsch painter works toward different goals than the artist. I know
that kitsch is a difficult word, but being strictly pragmatic, it is the only thing which can give the sensual
form of expression a superstructure of its own, something which can in its turn restore the shine to a
beautiful work. Maybe then can the others the modernists gain respect for such a work, when it
honestly presents itself for what it is, and does not come disguised as art.
From Nerdrums speech at the Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art in Oslo, 24 September
1998
[editor's note: on how he came to the decision that he was not about art, but kitsch:]
My path to this insight ran through art history and the story of the great Cezanne breakthrough at the
beginning of the century how art became the metaphysical applause for the new sciences, and how it
got its meaning and substance by being the expression for a certain truth. It could be the truth about man
as a social being, as a rational or irrational being, or the truth about the agonized or ironic relationship
between the artist and reality. From that time on, art received its justification for existence from the
rebellion against tradition, history and power in all forms. Subsequently, it became a characteristic trait
with the new art to seek innovation instead of tradition, and legitimize itself by something outside the
work of art.
Kitsch is about the eternal human questions, the pathetic, whatever its form, about what we call the
human. The task of kitsch is to create a seriousness in life, at its best so sublime it will bring the laughter
to a quiet.
From Nerdrum on Kitsch, cover story in Morgenbladet, Oslo, 23 October, 1998, interviewed by
Sindre Mekjan
Mekjan: What is beauty?
Nerdrum: The presence of substance, the sublime presence of matter when light hits it in the dark. When
the light tears the darkness off the naked bodies, this beautiful expression originates.
Mekjan: Much of the criticism against kitsch and bad art is ethical.
Nerdrum: Yes, because kitsch somehow wants to be left alone with its beauty and drama. I believe I am
a genuine kitsch personality. I have no ideology, and have never had. I have no religion, but I know a
madonna can be badly painted and become a mockery to religion. Well painted, it can surpass religion
that is what is so amazing about kitsch. On its highest level it transcends truth. At its lowest, truth laughs
at it. Kitsch is the credo of aesthetics. It is an experience of life at its most wonderful, without involving
morality. If you do involve morality, its no longer kitsch, its art religion. Aesthetics is and will be a
problem for all of us, because it is all we are left with at the end of the line. We are kitsch on our
deathbeds.

The Importance of Being Odd:

Nerdrum's Challenge to Modernism

By Paul A. Cantor

The Norwegian artist Odd Nerdrum is one of the greatest painters of the century. Unfortunately,
according to his detractors, the century in question is the seventeenth. Thus Nerdrum has emerged as one
of the most controversial artists of our day. His admirers praise him for his superb Old Master technique,
while his critics condemn him as hopelessly reactionary. His work calls into question all our customary
narratives about art history, and especially the modernist dogma that the artist can be creative only by
turning his back on the past.
Nerdrum has openly acknowledged his debt to the Old Masters. He uses heavy layers of paint to create
chiaroscuro effects reminiscent of Caravaggio and Rembrandt, and he also continually recalls the
achievement of the great Italian and Dutch painters in his ability to capture the texture of things on canvas
-- from shiny metals to rich fabrics. Above all, he knows how to convey every shade of human flesh. And
yet the subject matter of Nerdrum's works is usually enough to place him in the modern world. His dark
palette seems to underwrite a disturbing vision of the end of civilization as we know it. For those who
have not seen Nerdrum's paintings, I try to describe them this way: imagine the result if Rembrandt had
painted the sets of The Road Warrior.
Nerdrum's career thus presents a challenge to the modernist establishment that still dominates the
international art scene. He refuses to paint like a modernist, but thematically he seems to be responding to
a crisis in the modern world; indeed he seems to be coming to grips with the spiritual state of modernity
in a way far more profound than that pursued by most modernist painters. As a result, few contemporary
painters have managed to enrage the modernist establishment as much as Nerdrum has. The artists,
critics, and curators who comprise the modernist establishment somehow sense that if Nerdrum is right,
then they must be wrong. By returning to the Old Masters, Nerdrum is violating what has come to be the
fundamental convention of modernist art. Thumbing his nose at the whole art establishment, Nerdrum
used the occasion of a series of exhibitions of his paintings from 1998 to 2000 in Norway to proclaim
himself publicly the King of Kitsch.

Nerdrum's career as an artist has been one long struggle against modernism. Like many artists, Nerdrum
was precocious and began to demonstrate an eye for form and color at an early age. Thus Nerdrum's
encounter with and struggle against modernism began in his childhood, as he explains in his book On
Kitsch:
I was captured by art at an early age, and painted Poliakoff-like abstractions before I turned 9. A reason
for this was probably my stepfather. He was a cultivated man who collected modern art. Often he took me
on skiing trips... Once, when we reached a height, we stopped and looked at the scenery. The valley in
front of us lay bathing in the light from a magnificent sunset. Then he said: It is beautiful, but remember
never to paint anything like this if you become an artist, then you will not be accepted at the Autumn
Exhibition.
This anecdote of little Odd being browbeaten into becoming a modernist by a wicked stepfather is a
marvelous inversion of the foundation myth of modern art: the young Picasso rebelling against his father
who kept telling him that he must paint in a traditional style if he wanted to be a commercial success.

Temperamentally a rebel, Nerdrum quickly began to develop doubts about the artistic principles being
forced upon him. In 1962, he entered the National Academy of Art in Oslo, but in such a way that to him

the whole process seemed tainted. As one of his supporters, Jan ke Pettersson, explains: "The
application had included three paintings. Two of them were reasonably finished, while the third one had
been hurriedly thrown together to meet the deadline. The fact that this was the one that the committee
found so promising as to admit him into the nation's leading art school, made him question the criteria
applied to modern art. This was too easy; it offered too little resistance." Already in his early teens,
Nerdrum traveled all over Europe and eventually even to New York to broaden his knowledge of art.

He grew increasingly disillusioned with the work of modernists such as Robert Rauschenberg. As
Nerdrum himself reports: "Modernism felt old and sad. I had seen so much of it that I was fed up." With
such an attitude, it was not long before Nerdrum ran afoul of the Norwegian art authorities. In 1964 he
took part in an exhibition in Oslo, revealing for the first time his old-master style and immediately
provoking the hostility of the Norwegian art press. A critic named Ole Henrik Moe wrote in Afterposten:
"It simply won't do to ignore a whole generation of progress towards the limits of abstraction, to deny
surrealism, cubism, Klee, Kandinsky, Picasso, Francis Bacon... It takes courage, however, to face up to
one's own time, more courage than is needed to beat the baby drum of reactionism." One might doubt the
generosity of an art critic who beats a twenty-year old art student with the stick of Picasso, but the real
question is whether Nerdrum was in fact exhibiting more courage by challenging what had become in his
day the orthodoxy of modernism.

Nerdrum soon found that he could not get along with his professors at the Oslo Academy and eventually
was "chased out like a mangy dog," as he put it. He never gave up trying to exhibit his works in his native
country, but his efforts continued to meet with opposition. In 1998, he recalled with some bitterness the
humiliation he had suffered some twenty years earlier: "I had been allowed to hang two of my larger
paintings -- The Arrest and The Murder of Andreas Baader -- in the new students house at the University
of Oslo... They were beautifully hung in a staircase, which almost looked like a Caravaggio chapel. But it
did not take long before someone disliked the show. A committee at The Academy of Art had decided that
the paintings in this particular staircase had to come down."

As recently as the 1990s, Nerdrum became embroiled in a bitter battle with the Norwegian art
establishment. Nerdrum had long been publicly complaining that the Norwegian National Academy of Art
did not offer classes in figurative painting, and in 1988 a group of his private students joined in the
agitation. By 1994, Pettersson had become head of the Academy in Oslo, and tried to get two
professorships in figurative technique established. As Pettersson himself describes the results: "All hell
broke loose. Staff and students alike protested vociferously against the idea, internally as well as in the
media." With his international reputation as a figurative painter, Nerdrum was clearly in line for one of
the new professorships, and was indeed judged "in a class of his own" by the committee charged with
evaluating his credentials. But as Pettersson reports, "the resistance at the Academy, as well as in parts of
Norwegian society, now escalated into hysteria."

Even foreigners became involved in the dispute. The Norwegian minister of education, Gudmund Hernes,
had used the occasion of a speech at the Academy to defend the idea of teaching figurative technique at a
public art institution. The American artist Joseph Kosuth, who was in Oslo at the time, published a piece
in which according to Pettersson "he argued against the minister and for banning this type of art from an

academy, because it was 'popular' and not in line with the art of our century." Remember that what we are
talking about here used to be a standard part of artistic instruction -- learning how to draw the human
figure. And yet a Norwegian government official came under fire for advocating such a curricular reform.
By the end of 1995, Nerdrum actually applied for the new teaching position, but the opposition to him
was so strong that just one day before he would have been appointed, he chose to withdraw his name
from consideration.

To give an idea of the violence of the opposition to Nerdrum, Pettersson describes how he was treated in
the press: "Dagbladet, the tabloid that is Norway's third largest newspaper, printed an editorial that must
be exceptional even in Norwegian cultural history... It concluded: 'Let it be said: Norwegian art ought to
find room for many forms of expression, also Odd Nerdrum's. But we do not believe that he represents
the future of Norwegian art, either at the Academy or anywhere else.'" Pettersson is obviously biased in
favor of Nerdrum; one must therefore allow for the possibility that he may be narrating this story in a way
as favorable to Nerdrum as possible. And yet one cannot help concluding that Nerdrum was done an
injustice in the Academy affair.

Coming as it did at the end of the twentieth century, the Norwegian Academy affair provides a neat
counterweight to the various modernist scandals at the beginning. In the early 1900s, Picasso began to
shock the world by radically departing from traditional ways of representing the human figure, and he at
first encountered fierce opposition from the art establishment. By the late 1990s, Nerdrum was faced with
equally fierce opposition for championing traditional ways of drawing the human figure. One must
wonder about the insecurity of modernists who feel it necessary to insist that their art and only their art is
"the art of our century" or "the art of the future." Do the modernists fear the challenge traditional art still
represents to the triumph of their own aesthetic? Under the circumstances, we are lucky to have heretics
like Nerdrum to remind us of what modernism tries to exclude from the art world today. When asked to
define "what is lacking in contemporary art," Nerdrum characteristically put together an odd but
suggestive list of four things:
1. The open, trustful face,
2. The sensual skin,
3. Golden sunsets, and
4. The longing for eternity
Fortunately, the rebellious child in Nerdrum continues his battle against his wicked stepfather and the
modernist fear of beautiful sunsets.