(
."
 ,#*" ,3

(
1'#(-#)(
) '#:-0 (-# -"
 (-.+2
0 #,"
 ,#!( (
-"
+  *-#)(
)
#%
#(,-+(

Mark Ian Jones

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Design at the UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA

2011 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

© Copyright by Mark Ian Jones

2011

All Rights Reserved

ii +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

   
 

‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………......

  
 

‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.'

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………......

   
 

‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format.’

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………......

iii +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

iv +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

#-.
)
& -

Table 3.1 SSF/Orrefors Network. 80 Table 3.2 English language commentary associated with the SSF/Orrefors Network 100

#-.
)
#!/, -

Figure 1.1 Cover page, Tvätt (Washing), Vicke Lindstrand for Kosta, 1951. Smålands Museum Arkiv. Figure 1.2 Part One and Part Two cover page background, Bimbo, Vicke Lindstrand for Firma Elsa Gullberg Textilier och Inredning, 1938. Private Collection.

Figure 3.1 Carl Larsson, Lathörnan. Ur Ett hem, 1894. 82 Figure 3.2 Carl Larsson , Blomsterfönstret, 1894. 85 Figure 3.3 1917 Hemutställningen (Home exhibition) 97 Figure 3.4 ‘Better Everyday Objects’ designed by Gate & Hald. 97 Figure 3.5 ‘Better Everyday Objects’ designed by Gate & Hald. 97 Figure 3.6 Edward Hald at the Orrefors exhibit, 1931. 98 Figure 3.7 Detail of Orrefors exhibit, 1931 Swedish Arts & Crafts exhibition, London. 98 Figure 3.8 Design in Scandinavia exhibition 1954-57. 123 Figure 3.9 Design in Scandinavia exhibition 1954-57. 123 Figure 3.10 Pages from Design in Scandinavia catalogue. 124 Figure 3.11 Swedish Modern Booklet, New York World’s Fair 1939. 127 Figure 3.12 Britta Hald, Ulf Hård af Segerstad and Edward Hald, H55 Helsingborg 1955. 130 Figure 3.13 Flask designed by Edward Hald at Orrefors. 133 Figure 3.14 The Australian Design in Scandinavia exhibition. 137 Figure 3.15 Arthur Hald and Dag Widman. 139 Figure 3.16 Non-functional glass objects by John Selbing. 139 Figure 3.17 Posten Swedish Design series stamps from 1994. 147 Figure 3.18 Swedish exhibit, Milan Triennale 1957. 151 Figure 3.19 SSF Network. 153

Figure 4.1 Vicke Lindstrand. Sketch. Late 1960s. 156 Figure 4.2 Vicke Lindstrand, Painting, 1930s. 163 Figure 4.3 Vicke Lindstrand, Orrefors. 166 Figure 4.4 Vicke Lindstrand, Europa and the bull, Graal technique, Orrefors 1930s. 167 Figure 4.5 Vicke Lindstrand. Glass Fountain, Swedish Pavilion. 170 Figure 4.6 Monkey vase, Vicke Lindstrand, Upsala-Ekeby, 1940s. 176 Figure 4.7 Page 145 from Contemporary Swedish Design. 177 Figure 4.8 Vase, 1940s Cobalt glaze. Private collection. 177 Figure 4.9 Kosta Glasbruk, Promotional Brochure 1951. 178 Figure 4.10 Sketch of engraved crystal vase. 182 Figure 4.11 Vicke Lindstrand Redivivus, Form magazine 1951. 187 Figure 4.12 Vicke Lindstrand at his debut Kosta exhibition at NK Stockholm, 1951. 190 Figure 4.13 Vicke Lindstrand Tvätt (Washing) Kosta LG 129, 1951. 190 Figure 4.14 Vicke Lindstrand Kosta LH 1195, 1951. Image: Smålands Museum Arkiv. 190

v +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Figure 4.15 Lindstrand Kosta objects. 192 Figure 4.16 Barbara Hepworth. 192 Figure 4.17 Vicke Lindstrand. Unique object. 194 Figure 4.18 Production drawings. 194 Figure 4.19 Timo Sarpaneva Devil’s Churn and Devil’s Fist. 194 Figure 4.20 Vicke Lindstrand, Unique sculpture. 194 Figure 4.21 Mona Morales-Schildt, Kosta Ventana. 196 Figure 4.22 Vicke Lindstrand, Kosta Svart nätt. 196 Figure 4.23 Vicke Lindstrand, Kosta Unique Prisma sculpture. 197 Figure 4.24 Vicke Lindstrand, Kosta Unique Prisma sculpture. 197 Figure 4.25 Photograph of the Artist at work. 200 Figure 4.26 Lindstrand and engraver, Tage Kronqvist. 201 Figure 4.27 Pärlfiskaren (Pearlfishers), 1932 for Orrefors. 204 Figure 4.28 Träd i dimma (Trees in fog). 205 Figure 4.29 Seasons Vases. 206 Figure 4.30 Abstracta series bowl. 207 Figure 4.31 Abstracta series vase. 207 Figure 4.32 Multicoloured threads decanter. 207 Figure 4.33 Abstracta series vase. 207 Figure 4.34 Engraved vase, Kosta. 210 Figure 4.35 Magdelena, engraved vase. 210 Figure 4.36 Bowl, Kosta. 211 Figure 4.37 Mural depicting the blowing room in the Kosta Museum, 1953. 212 Figure 4.38 Mural in the Kosta School, detail, 1960s. 212 Figure 4.39 Lindstrand and Rune Strand, 1954. 214 Figure 4.40 Manhattan Vase. 214 Figure 4.41 Glas Block sculptures, Polar Bears, c1951. 215 Figure 4.42 Bonnier’s New York window display. 218 Figure 4.43 Design in Scandinavia catalogue, 1954. 221 Figure 4.44 Kosta production drawing. 221 Figure 4.45 Table XII c, Design in Scandinavia, 1954. 221 Figure 4.46 Table XVI b, Design in Scandinavia 1954. 222 Figure 4.47 Objects received by the Design in Scandinavia selection committee. 223 Figure 4.48 Objects received by the Design in Scandinavia selection committee. 224 Figure 4.49 Svenskt Glas 1954 Catalogue. 227 Figure 4.50 Two of the Lindstrand designed objects included in Svenskt glas 1954. 227 Figure 4.51 Lindstrand at H55 Helsingborg. 228 Figure 4.52 Lindstrand at H55 Helsingborg. 228 Figure 4.53 Lindstrand in the living room of his Kosta villa, 1954. 230 Figure 4.54 Lindstrand ‘at work’ in the first floor studio of his Kosta villa, 1954. 230 Figure 4.55 Glashuset Kosta, Bruno Mathsson. 231 Figure 4.56 Ingeborg Lundin Äpplet, Orrefors 1957. 234 Figure 4.57 Ingeborg Lundin Äpplet, Orrefors 1957. 234 Figure 4.58 Lindstrand exhibition at Bonniers. 238 Figure 4.59 Lindstrand exhibition at Bonniers. 239 Figure 4.60 Unik Lindstrand Objects from the Bonniers exhibition. 239 Figure 4.61 Unique sculpture of a school of fish, shown at Bonnier’s 1957. 239 vi +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Figure 4.62 Svezia Brochure, Triennale Milan 1957. 240 Figure 4.63 Unik Colora vase included in Glass 1959. 242 Figure 4.64 A similar Unik vase No. 1096. 242 Figure 4.65 Lindstrand objects, included in Glass 1959. 243 Figure 4.66 Lindstrand with Homo Sum, Kosta Unik 1387. 246 Figure 4.67 Homo Sum detail. 246 Figure 4.68 Promotional photograph of Patina. 248 Figure 4.69 Giraffe series for Kosta, 1960s. 252 Figure 4.70 Kosta Star for Rosenthal. 252 Figure 4.71 Kosta Mambo brochure 1966. 253 Figure 4.72 Kosta Calypso brochure 1966. 253 Figure 4.73 Glasklart invitation from NK Stockholm. 254 Figure 4.74 Unique bowl from Glaskart with Octopus decoration, Kosta Unik 2046. 254 Figure 4.75 Vase from Glasklart, Kosta Unika 2038. 257 Figure 4.76 Totem series object, Kosta Unika 2012. 257 Figure 4.77 Vase from Glasklart, Kosta Unika 2039. 257 Figure 4.78 Objects from Glasklart, Kosta Unika 2087 and 2108. 257 Figure 4.79 Glasklart Exhibition at NK Stockholm, 1969. 258 Figure 4.80 Glasklart Exhibition at NK Stockholm, 1969. 258 Figure 4.81 Vicke Lindstrand, Sketches for glass objects, circa 1970. 260 Figure 4.82 Vicke Lindstrand, Sketches for glass objects, circa 1970. 260 Figure 4.83 Sketches for a table service in cut crystal, dated March 1969. 260 Figure 4.84 Vicke Lindstrand, Studies for glass plate sculpture Legend i glas 261 Figure 4.85 Vicke Lindstrand, Studies for glass plate sculpture Legend i glas 261 Figure 4.86 Detail, Legend i glas, Växjö, Sweden, 1978. 261 Figure 4.87 Detail, Grön eld, Umeå, Sweden, 1970. 261 Figure 4.88 Vicke Lindstrand for Studio Glashyttan Åhus. 262 Figure 4.89 Vicke Lindstrand for Studio Glashyttan Åhus. 262 Figure 4.90 Vicke Lindstrand. 262 Figure 4.91 Jan Erik Ritzman. 262 Figure 4.92 Promotional photograph for Glasklart. 263 Figure 4.93 Exotica objects. 265 Figure 4.94 LU 154, Orrefors 1936. 267 Figure 4.95 Alvar Aalto Savoy Vase, Iitala, 1937. 267 Figure 4.96 A Midsummer nights Dream, Kosta 1956. 270 Figure 4.97 Manhattan Vase. 270 Figure 4.98 Fisknät (The Nets) Kosta, 1951. Image: Kosta Arkiv. 271 Figure 4.99 Illustrations showing the influence of various Other, exotic themes. 272 Figure 4.100 Unik Vase, Ariel technique. 1960. 274 Figure 4.101 Unik Vase, Ariel technique. 1966. 274 Figure 4.102 Unik Vase, Kosta 1969. 278 Figure 4.103 Kosta LS 520, 1952. 278 Figure 4.104 Lindstrand with Josephine Baker. 280 Figure 4.105 Detail of mural. 288

vii +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

viii +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

-.,.

This thesis focusses on English language discourse on Swedish and Scandinavian Design during the 1950s and the reception and profile of the Swedish glass artist, Vicke Lindstrand. The principal aim is to reconstruct the context in which narratives and rhetoric emerged and to analyse its effect on Lindstrand, between 1950-1970. Swedish and Scandinavian design are described in terms of a pared-down, clichéd aesthetic associated with 1950s ‘Scandinavian Design’, now held as a ‘construct’, continuously emphasising the same preeminent exemplars. Informed by extensive field study in Sweden, detailed archival research, informant interviews, object and text analysis, I examine this ‘construct’ in two parts.

Firstly, I investigate the disproportional impact of a small actor-network associated with twentieth century English language discourse on Swedish and Scandinavian design. I argue that this demonstrates the pervasive influence of the construction of a national ideal (Swedish design) that was loosely translated to fit a regional ideal (Scandinavian Design) by the formation of an exclusive filter that determined the fit of what was included in the promotion of a cohesive identity. Thisfilter emphasised an ideology that shaped perceptions and has influenced the subsequent reception and visibility of individual designers. Not all designers were treated equally. Nationalist, regionalist and internationalist influences had an impact upon the critical reception of their work further complicated by past associations. The actor- network operated at the level of what I term selective solidarity, which was exclusive rather than inclusive. Secondly, I examine the consequences of this fit through an analysis of the position and reception of Lindstrand.

Preeminent exemplars, familial influences and the agency of an actor-network were profoundly influential in shaping perceptions and determining taste in 1950s Sweden, presenting a filtered view of design from the region. Lindstrand was strongly affected by the activities of this network. An interesting outcome of this study was the realisation that our understanding of Swedish design is incomplete, and that there is another more pluralist aesthetic concealed behind that officially promoted and exhibited during the 1950s. This investigation brings unique and unprecedented readings of a peripheral individual in the context of English language representation, and of the Scandinavian milieu.

Keywords: Applied Art/Arts and Crafts, Form, Swedish design, Swedish Society of Industrial Design, Svenska Slöjdföreningen, Mid-century design, 1950s Design, Scandinavian Design, Vicke Lindstrand, Kosta, Orrefors.

ix +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

x +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

This thesis is dedicated to my late mother,

 
 

 



 


xi +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

xii +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

%()1& ! ' (.-

The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the generosity and support of many individuals, organisations, businesses and institutions. There are many that I wish to acknowledge both in Australia and in Sweden.

I will start by acknowledging the support of my supervisors at the University of New South Wales College of Fine Arts, Dr Vaughan Dai Rees and Ms Jacqueline Ruth Clayton, for their genuine interest and continued belief in my research, even when I myself faltered. Their ability to keep me focussed and on track is commendable, their critical eyes invaluable. Thank you. At Uppsala Universitet, Konstvetenskapliga institutionen, my Swedish supervisor Dr Jan von Bonsdorff, for his warm welcome and continued advocacy under the Swedish Institute Guest Scholarship Program. Jan’s ever enquiring mind and generosity at both an academic and personal level is appreciated more than I can fully express. Over my many years of travel to and from Sweden I have been fortunate to have received a great deal of generosity from many people who were once strangers and now close friends. Gunnel Holmér and Olof Gustavsson, my Swedish ‘family’ deserve a special mention. From the moment I met Gunnel we formed a connection. She has gone out of her way to assist me and make me feel welcome both at Smålands Museum, and with her husband Olof in their home in Växjö and wonderful stuga in the Swedish countryside. Gunnel has been relentless in her pursuit of archival material and contacts, and an important sounding board and critical reader of my texts. Britt- Inger Johansson of Uppsala University has graciously opened her doors, quite literally, offering me her parents apartment during an early research visit. She has become a good friend and advocate who has welcomed me into her home and, during some tough times in Sweden, has been my saving grace. Britt-Inger introduced me to one of her doctoral candidates, Marika Bogren, who has also become a close friend, and we have engaged in many hours of deep and constructive discussions about our respective research. Kerstin Wickman, Swedish design historian of considerable reputation, has become another important advocate, sounding board and friend. Her considerable network has opened many doors for me in Sweden and for this, and her warm friendship, I am most grateful. Tack så mycket minna vänner.

The list of individuals who have assisted me in Scandinavia is long. Everyone has contributed in some tangible manner and made my time in Sweden both productive and memorable. Widar Halén, Lasse Brunström, Anne-Marie Ericsson, Mirjam Gelfer-Jørgensen - Nordisk Forum for Design Studies; Per E Berg, Hanne Dreutler and Arthur Zirnsack, Margareta

xiii +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Artéus Thor, Lars Thor - Vicke och Marianne Lindstrands Stiftelse; Thomas Hård af Segerstad, Hedvig Brander, Gunilla Frick - Uppsala Universitet Konstvetenskapliga institutionen; the late Elisa Steenberg; the late Erik Rosén; David Leidenborg, Bodil Jansson - Centrum för Näringslivshistoria; Karl Johan Krantz, Martin Hansson, Erica Månsson - Smålands Museum; Micael Ernstell, Cilla Robach, Martin Olin, Marika Bogren, Linda Hinners, Helena Kåberg - Nationalmuseum Stockholm; Per Dahlström, Kerstin Lekholm - Röhsska Museet Göteborg; Ewa Kumlin, Anita Christiansen - Svensk Form Stockholm; Kristina Sparr, Kia Lindahl, Vivienne Sjölin - Orrefors Kosta Boda AB; Nanna Johannisson - Emmaboda kommun; Ole Victor - University of Kalmar; Michael Skoglund, Niklas Dahlberg, Katrine Larsen - Swedish Institute; Gunnar and Elvor Hallenblad - Hallenbladska fonden; Ingeborg Borgenstierna - Nordiska Museet; and Katarina Renman-Claesson - Faculty of Law, Stockholm University, for her reading and expert legal opinion on the Orrefors and Kosta contracts.

I also wish to thank the staff and doctoral students of Uppsala Universitet, Konstvetenskapliga institutionen for welcoming me to the department and the postgraduate seminar program during my Swedish Institute Scholarship period. A special thank you to Stockholms Auktionsverk and Ulrika Ruding for generously granting permission for the use of the many colour images of Vicke Lindstrand’s glass, ceramics and paintings in this thesis.

In Australia, I wish to thank the following people: Liz Williamson, Emma Robertson, Gay McDonald, Carol Longbottom, Leong Chan and Bruce Carnie - University of New South Wales College of Fine Arts; Marianne Fancelli - The Swedish School in Sydney; translator Lars Johansson and proof-reader Tiger Brown. Special thanks to linguist Maria Zueva from the Learning Centre at UNSW for her close reading of my final text, her enthusiasm, constructive comments and feedback.

I also wish to thank my late mother, Elsie Constance Jones, and my late father, Wallace Vivian Jones, for their kindness, unconditional love and instilling in me exactitude and determination. This thesis ran a parallel path tomy mother’s illness with Alzheimer’s Disease and the many joys and sorrows that came with being her primary carer. Even though the disease robbed her memory over time, she remained my greatest advocate. As the details of “my Swedish work” slowly escaped her, her love and enthusiasm never faltered, and she remained confident that I would complete my studies. Thank you Mum, these pages are alive with your memory, you are missed. I also wish to thank my late Uncle, Reginald Pitt,

xiv +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

debonaire-artist-extraordinaire, for introducing me to art, architecture and design as a young boy and his daughter Jasmine for keeping his memory alive.

My most significant thanks go to my partner Owen Conlan. His ongoing encouragement, patience and support during many long days, nights, months and years at my computer allowed me the space required to complete this thesis. He has been there every step of the way, through the highs and lows, keeping things real and ticking along in my many absences whilst furthering this study in Sweden. He has been a sounding board, a proof reader, technical support and test audience. My profound gratitude to him for stepping up to fill my role as carer for my late mother during my frequent visits to Sweden can never be fully expressed.

I also wish to thank the following institutions for their generous financial support during the course of my research:

Svenska Institutet, Stockholm - The Swedish Institute Guest Scholarship Program 2008 - 2011 Hallenbladska fonden, Växjö, Sweden - Travel Grant 2010 Estrid Ericsons Stiftesle, Stockholm, Sweden - Project Grant 2007 University of New South Wales Graduate Research School, Sydney, Australia - Travel Grant 2008 University of New South Wales College of Fine Arts, Sydney, Australia - Research Grant 2006

This publication has been produced during my scholarship period at Uppsala University, thanks to a Swedish Institute scholarship.

xv +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

xvi +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

, 

As an Australian growing up in Sydney during the 1960s, my developing appreciation of design and the decorative arts, rigorously informed by my artist uncles, was ultimately drawn to Scandinavia. The construction of Jørn Utzon’s winning entry for the Sydney Opera House during my childhood began my fascination with architecture.

Growing up in a continent with a relatively small population, the romanticism for a place so far away is inevitable. Scandinavia seemed so exotic, on the one hand rich in tradition and extreme in climate yet sophisticated and stylish on the other. The Scandinavians were surely the ultimate purveyors of good taste given the predominance of simple, well designed objects from makers such as Kosta, Orrefors, Marrimeko and Iittala, which were names that were seemingly everyday in Sydney, the ‘good taste’ gifts of choice for special occasions. Swedish or Swedish inspired furniture could be found in our homes, modern, simple, pared down but still maintaining certain warmth, and we were treated to our very own Design in Scandinavia exhibition in 1968.

Volvo, SAAB and IKEA extended our appreciation in the 1970s, and made Scandinavian ‘democratic design’ seem both covetable and safe, and in the case of IKEA, well designed blonde-wood furniture much more accessible. The cultural phenomenon that was ABBA was inescapable for a teenager growing up in Australia and we are proud to have been amongst the first non-Nordic countries to take the super-Swedes to our hearts. As a fourteen year old I could recite by heart the words to their songs and digested everything I could read about them and their country, perhaps the definitive catalyst for my ongoing interest in Sweden.

A career as an architect cemented my adolescent fascination, now grounded in history and theory with a greater appreciation of the context behind the designs. Scandinavian furniture and objects number in the majority in my home, and the more I saw, the more I wanted to learn about design from this region. Investigating one of the artists/designers of the objects I had collected presented a conundrum. They were not as visible in publications on Scandinavian Design as I might have expected. In some instances, they were nowhere to be found. This was the impetus for this study, aspects of which have been presented and published along the way as several international conference papers.

Quite by chance, the timing of my investigation coincided with the reassessment of the regional design construct known as ‘Scandinavian Design’ from within the Nordic region.

xvii +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Encouraged by the reception of my research from the protagonists of this reassessment, my research on the individual artist was repositioned to focus more broadly on the collective period which forms the basis of this thesis.

Between 2005 and 2011, I was a frequent visitor to Sweden, pursuing my research while hosted by the Department of Art History at Uppsala University under a Swedish Institute Guest Scholarship. As an outsider the barriers of language and culture were, at times, intimidating. However, being an outsider also gave me the advantage of seeing things from a different vantage point.

xviii +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

 



Originality Statement iii List of Tables v List of Images v Abstract ix Dedication xi Acknowledgements xiii Preface xvii Table of Contents xix

 

>

!
"*""$"+0
'
"-) &7
&+)',+"'&
> 1.0 Introduction 3 1.1 Research Aims and Objectives 17 1.2 Theories 18 1.3 Sources and Methods 22 1.4 Defining Swedish and Scandinavian Design 28 1.5 Swedishness and Otherness 33 1.6 Terminology 34 1.7 Actors 34 1.7.1 Svenska Slöjdföreningen or SSF 34 1.7.2 Orrefors Glasbruk 35 1.7.3 Kosta Glasbruk 35 1.8 Organisation 36

 

@F

&(#"&
+!
'&*+),+8
'%%&+)0
*"&
>FE=
@F 2.0 Introduction 41 2.1 The Death of Scandinavian Design? Early Re-assessment of the Golden Era 43 2.2 Dispelling Myths? Further Revision and Re-assessment 50 2.4 Looking Beyond the Myth 56 2.5 Renewed Popular Interest 65 2.6 Challenging the Good Taste Paradigm 68 2.7 A Persistent Influence. Conclusions 71

x i x +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!




























 


 

 
 
DB

!
)%"&&
'
)) ')*
&
+!
)'%'+"'&
'
>FB=*
."*!
&
&"&-"&
*" &
DB 3.0 Introduction 77 3.1 Beauty for all. Background 82 3.2 Vackrare vardagsvara and Orrefors 86 3.3 The Preeminence of Orrefors 92 3.4 Design Siblings. Elisa & Arthur 98 3.4.1 Elisa (Hald) Steenberg, Gregor Paulsson and Swedish Glass 104 3.4.2 Arthur Hald, Sven-Erik Skawonius, Erik Wettergren and Svenska Slöjdföreningen 107 3.5 1950s. Design in Scandinavia and Svenska Slöjdföreningen 115 3.6 ‘Official’ Narratives 124 3.7 Design in Scandinavia: The Second Wave 135 3.8 New Directions for the SSF 142 3.9 The (in)visible consequences 148 3.10 Conclusions 149
































 
; <   


 

>BD

'*+
"&
+)&*$+"'&:
"#
"&*+)&
."*!
)+"*+
'&
+!
)"(!)0
>BD 4.0 Introduction 159 4.1 Background 163 4.2 After Orrefors 174 4.3 The Return to Glass. 1950s at Kosta 178 4.4 Collaboration 197 4.5 Continuity and development 202 4.6 Reception and Commentary 216 4.7 Revolution 232 4.8 American Reception 237 4.9 Trouble in Paradise - the 1960s 244 4.10 Introspection 254 4.11 Vicke Lindstrand, Swedishness, Scandinavianness and the Other. 265 4.12 The Orrefors Paradox 273 4.12.1 Subsequent critical reception 273 4.12.2 Current Reception in Context 279 4.13 In the long shadow of Swedish Grace. The Orrefors legacy. 281 xx +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

4.14 A Swedish Artist on the Periphery. Conclusions 283

 
 
?EF

'&$,*"'&*
?EF 5.0 Conclusions 291 5.1 Implications 301 5.2 Recommendations 302 5.3 Limitations 303 5.4 Exhibition Outlines 309 5.5.1 Vicke Lindstrand and the Orrefors Paradox 309 5.5.2 Design in Scandinavia - Sweden Redux 309

 +).')
9
*)!
3+"'&*
@>@

',)*
&
 )&*
@?B Sources 327 References 328

((&"*
@AB i. Biographical information - key actors 347 ii. Transcripts of interviews 351 ii.i. Interview with Hanne Dreutler and Arthur Zirnsack at their home in Åhus, Sweden on the evening of 22 November 2005 351 ii.ii. Interview with Erik Rosén at his home in Öland, Sweden, 29 November 2005 369 ii.iii. Interview with Lars Thor, Arlanda, Stockholm, 1 December 2005 380 ii.iv. Interview with Elisa Steenberg, Kungliga Biblioteket, Stockholm, 25 October 2007 386

&/
'
()*'&*
@F@

x x i +
%"
"/&-%"/6

N
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
&!
N
4"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#
& ("
&+!01/+!

xxii %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

 


%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

“Alla ska med. Så enkelt är det.”1

b
/+0)1"!
0
S3"/6 ,!6
0%,2)!
"
&+ )2!"!M
1R0
0
0&*-)"
0
1%1MT
%&0
40
1%"
caag
")" 1&,+
0),$+
,#
1%"
4"!&0%
, &)
"*, /1&
/16M
+&")
*-&+"+J
^, &)
"*, / 6^J
l%11-LUU 1"*-,//601, (%,)*"/M ),$0-,1M ,*UcaajUabU0, &)N!"*, / 6M%1*)
mJ
 "00"!
ae
2)6
cabaM 1 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

2 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

H@G
(.,)/.#)(

“Everybody should be included, its as simple as that.”2 This 2006 Swedish Social Democratic Party election slogan sums up what those from outside the Nordic region generally understand as the basis of the democratic model in Scandinavia at the height of the successful 1950s Swedish Model or so-called Welfare State. During the twentieth century, the idea of democracy crossed over from Social Democratic politics to imbue all manner of design and applied arts objects from Scandinavia. This was most succinctly manifest in the stylistic designation Scandinavian Design from the 1950s, which was marketed to the world as democratic design. Scandinavian Design has subsequently been identified as a carefully executed political and marketing exercise developed to sell “more beautiful everyday goods” to another democracy, the United States of America. Democracy became a term strongly associated with 1950s and 1960s discourse on Scandinavian Design from both Scandinavia and America. IKEA, the global behemoth of well designed flat packed furniture from Sweden, continues to trade on mid-century Swedishness. Scholar Ursula Lindqvist has described the IKEA store as “an archive of Swedish national culture.”3 In the early twenty-first century Nordic scholars4 established that ‘Scandinavian Design’ was, in fact, a ‘construct’ and not always as democratic as it has been portrayed in narratives.

In discourse on this democratic design paradigm one would, perhaps naively, expect that everybody would be included. However it was not as straightforward as that. Where individuals were included, their work was made to fit a particular persuasive narrative by subjecting it to a stylistic filter that excluded undesirable influences in favour of inherent ‘Swedishness’. Rozsika Parker and Griselda Pollock have observed that “Art is neither pure nor neutral.”5 In terms of the applied arts and design in 1950s Sweden ‘purity’ and ‘neutrality’ are features that have been ascribed to the pared down, elegant, objects that are synonymous with Swedish and Scandinavian Design. Parker and Pollock also refer to power relations where institutions play the dominant role in choosing what artists and art forms to exclude, so as “to produce representations favourable to the existing social conditions, whilst dismissing or distorting others which challenge it.”6 In the context of the 1950s Swedish contribution to Scandinavian Design, there were specific social conditions promoted, and power relations, or c
&!M d
/02)
&+!.3&01J
^%"
2)12/)
/ %&3"
,#
1%"

1,/"^J
- "
+!
2)12/"H
bcUb
Y#" /2/6
caajZM
-M
eeM e
&!/
);+
+!
"/01&+
& (*+
Y"!0MZJ
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
"6,+!
1%"
*61%
J
@#16
6"/0
,#
!"0&$+
#/,*
1%"
,/!&
,2+1/&"0
Y1, (%,)*L
/3&+&20J
caadZM f
,70&(
/("/
+!
/&0")!
,)), (J
)!
*&01/"00"0
J
4,*"+H
/1
+!
&!",),$6
Y"4
,/(L
+1%",+
,,(0J
bjibZM
-M
bfhM g
&!M
-M
bfiM 3 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

agency, that edited and filtered, included and excluded, in the pursuit of what was described then as a “loosely conceived aesthetic”7. Swedish and Scandinavian design discourse has promoted objects that have been admired for their “beauty of design, usefulness, and quality of manufacture and craftsmanship”8 but also described as “dull”, “bare and functional”.9

This study came about through a personal interest in the Swedish artist and designer Viktor Emanuel ‘Vicke’ Lindstrand (1904-1983) and developed by way of a critical examination of his work between 1950 and 1973. As a collector of Finnish and, later, Swedish glass of the mid-twentieth century, I first became aquatinted with Lindstrand’s work in 2001. There was a quality to the work - a simple, pared down, elegant, organic aesthetic - that was recognisably Swedish in clichéd terms but also something less obvious, non-Swedish and more exotic. This introduction was followed by the acquisition of a clear crystal vase with black spiral decoration that he designed for the Swedish glass factory Kosta (now Kosta Boda) in the late 1950s. As an architect, academic and lecturer in design history, research is intrinsic to my process. As such, I set out to find out more about Lindstrand and his work and happened across an essay by the Swedish art historian and curator Dag Widman. His very candid and, in many ways, refreshingly honest criticism of Lindstrand’s Kosta work was the definitive catalyst for this study. Widman set forth a certain challenge with his remarks on Lindstrand in 1994 when he stated that:

Vicke Lindstrand completely dominated the 1950s at Kosta. He loved glass as a material and sought intensively to utilise all its properties. But with all his versatility, his passion for experiment and his adaptability to public taste he somehow lost the distinct artistic profile that was so evident during his Orrefors period. Perhaps he was too hard pressed by the profit motive; or perhaps he is simply one of the ‘blind spots’ of our time and his undeniable qualities as a glass designer will later be seen more clearly and unreservedly.10

Widman, in this and other writings, revealed what he considered was a reserved view of Lindstrand. A loss of artistic profile. I set out to understandwhy there was a reserved view and how his artistic profile had become lost. Was he merely overlooked? That is where this study began. h

+
,"/1J
^"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
2 )& &16
+!
+#,/*1&,+
21)&+"^J
YbjfeZM i
&)""+"
//&0,+
""/J
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+K
 '" 10
,#

&#"
16)"
Y" ,+!
"!+MK
"4
,/(L
///J
1/20
+!
/,25U*"/& +N +!&+3&+
,2+!1&,+J
bjhfZM
+0&!"
#/,+1
B-
,#
!201
' ("1M j
+!"/0
)0,+J
^ +1/,!2 1&,+^J
&+
,+& 
,*+J
=/"+&+$"+
3"+0(
,/*J
3"+0(
+01&121"1J
Y"!MZJ
"0&$+
&+
4"!"+
Y1, (%,)*L
4"!&0%
&+01&121"
[3"+0(
&+01&121"1\
&+
,)) ,/1&,+
4&1%
4"!&0%
0, &"16
,#
/#10
+!
!"0&$+
[3"+0(
#,/*\J
bjifZM ba
$
&!*+J
^%"
,01
/1&010
N

%-0,!&
"3&"4
,#
1%"
4"+1&"1%
"+12/6^J
&+
/$/"1
/1"20
Y"!MZJ
,01
]`[J
\b_]L\dd]
]`[
"/0
,#
/#10*+0%&-
Y ,01
,!J
bjjcZJ
egNhfM
-M
gcM 4 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

An early review of literature found little on the topic of Lindstrand at Kosta. Rather, there was an abundance of discussion, at both scholarly and elementary level, on Lindstrand’s early career as an artist at the glass factory Orrefors. In the process of gathering data in the early stages of research there emerged a tenor or similarity in English language texts discussing Swedish and Scandinavian design. The texts shared a similar persuasive rhetoric which reiterated regional clichés and the preeminence of Orrefors.

Orrefors is widely held as the most famous and prestigious of Swedish glass factories. Orrefors remains the notable exemplar of the successful alliance of the artist and industry and in discourse on Swedish applied arts, particularly glass, the factory is central to discussion. Orrefors has been described variously in scholarly texts in terms of “the leading Swedish glassworks”11, or “the spectacular success of Sweden’s Orrefors”12. It has been utilised as an exemplar of Swedish art industry13, become a central focus of exhibitions14 and is widely discussed in elementary texts. This level ofdiscourse on Orrefors recognises the unique contributions of the factory during the twentieth century. However, for an artist or designer previously associated with Orrefors this may lead to an unbalanced assessment of work at other factories.

This thesis is a study of a particular milieu, where Lindstrand exemplifies the effect of persuasive rhetoric, regional ideals and the construction of a Scandinavian design aesthetic. The specific case of Lindstrand illustrates important aspects of the general Swedish and Scandinavian mid-twentieth century context. In the course of looking critically at his work, this study investigates his reception within the impact of the agency of a small actor-network of ‘tastemaker’ actors and elite commentators associated with twentieth century English language discourses on Swedish and Scandinavian design, and the promotion of preeminent exemplars. It investigates how persuasive rhetoric and agency has affected the reception of his 1950s work and how this is manifest in period and subsequent discourse.

bb
""
+1/,!2 1&,+
&+
"/"(
M
01"/$/!
"1
)MJ
%"
/&))&+ "
,#
4"!&0%
$)00
\d\cL\d^d
J
+
))&+ "
,#
/1
+!
&+!201/6
Y"4
3"+
"4
,/(L
)"
+&3M
/"00
K
/!
/!21"
"+1"/
#,/
12!&"0
&+
1%"
" ,/1&3"
/10J
bjjgZM
-M
bdM bc
3&!
"3"/"
 #!!"+
Y"!MZJ
 +!&+3&+
*,!"/+
!"0&$+H
\cc[L\dc[
Y"4
,/(L
//6

 /*0
+
2 )&0%"/0J
bjicZM
-M
jjM bd
2+&))
/& (J
,+01+8/
&
&+!201/&+
Y,/!&0(
*20""10
%+!)&+$/J
bagK
1, (%,)*L
,/!&0(
*20""1J
bjigZM
be
01"/$/!
"1
)MJ
%"
/&))&+ "
,#
4"!&0%
$)00
\d\cL\d^d
J
+
))&+ "
,#
/1
+!
&+!201/6M 5 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

My research examines the pervasive influence of the construction of a national ideal (Swedish design) that was loosely translated to a regional ideal (Scandinavian Design) in promoting a cohesive identity. It explores the subsequent perceptions, reception and documentation of the work of individuals, and how this has influenced discussion of their work. I take the position that not all designers were treated equally and that influences, international tendencies and past associations with preeminent exemplars had an impact upon the critical reception of their work. While I have positioned Lindstrand as an exemplar of this argument, there were others. This network of tastemakers and commentators, which art historian Gunella Ivanov has described as a “cultural elite”15, have practised ‘elite judgement’ in discourse and in the promotion of mid-twentieth century Swedish and Scandinavian Design. This discourse operated at the level of what I term selective solidarity, which was exclusive rather than inclusive. By selective I refer to an aesthetic (and perhaps associative) filter; by solidarity I refer to a collective emphasis and camaraderie that made Lindstrand’s position and visibility problematic.

The polemic surrounding the narratives of Swedish and Scandinavian design has gained momentum since the close of the twentieth century. What we now associate with these narratives was largely formed during the immediate post-WWII period of concentrated promotion from the Nordic countries to the English speaking world. Swedish and Scandinavian design are infused with a range of myths and fictions about “sound people” living “in hygienic houses [...] with furnishings attuned to the times”16 that have formed and defined consequent perceptions outside of Scandinavia. Both Swedish and Scandinavian design have been ascribed a particular set of characteristics since the mid-1950s. In the design world what has been described as Swedish or Scandinavian is associated with these particular stylistic characteristics, passed through a filter that excluded (and with respect to Parker and Pollock, dismissed or distorted) the work of certain individuals. This research asks the question: How have such narratives been constructed within the history of Swedish and Scandinavian design and how have they influenced public perceptions of design from the region?

English language narratives on Swedish and Scandinavian design during the twentieth century were constructed by an influential network of commentators associated with the Svenska Slöjdföreningen (Swedish Society of Applied Arts or SSF). In these narratives particular bf
2++")
3+,3J
^ (//"
3/!$03/
N
!"0&$+
#=/
))P
L
/"$,/
2)00,+
, %
3"+0(
0)='!#=/"+&+$"+
bjbfNbjcf^J
&00
Y*"9
2+&3"/0&1"1J
caaeZM
-M
dahM bg
11&0
,/)"+
("
13"+,4J
("
2)!1J
)&0
3"! "/$
Y"!MZJ
4"!&0%
,!"/+K

*,3"*"+1
1,4/!0
0+&16
&+
!"0&$+
YbjdjZM
-M
fM 6 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

exemplars were promoted time and time again. I argue that this network, and its emphasis of exemplars, focussed selection processes and promotion. Scandinavia has been seen as a model of democracy, and the notion of democratic design is rooted within these narratives to become imbedded in Swedish national identity. For a country with a population of just over nine million, Sweden has reached an unusually high level of achievement in all fields of applied design compared to the rest of the world. This is the result of the successful implementation of early twentieth century design reforms. Concurrently, there has been a commensurately small pool of historians, promotors, writers and critics associated by even smaller degrees of separation, who constructed narratives and rhetoric on Swedish and Scandinavian design. Coupled with this were some influential actors from what I term design families. Limited English language discourse has compounded this fact, whilst the small actor-network of critics and commentators has had considerable influence. This is significant in the context of my study, as most English language discourse emanated from within a small network. In the course of positioning Swedish and Scandinavian design on the world stage, and forging the considerable reputation of applied arts from the region, there have been unfortunate side effects in the reception and profile of individuals. Vicke Lindstrand is a case in point. Whilst it may be considered that these side effects were nothing more than a consequence of benign, concentrated national and regional promotion, there is an argument to support the influence of other agendas in an inclusive/exclusive paradigm. As geographer Allan Pred has argued, in his interrogation of Swedish Modern and the recognition of European modernities, it was the consequence of design reforms and social engineering that defined an inclusive/exclusive line.17 Pred has described the groundbreaking Stockholm Exhibition of 1930 as:

A multi-voiced, many-stranded tale of designing social engineers whose no-nonsense accepted mode of articulation was the pure and simple line, the spare geometric form. [...] The pure and simple line as a doubt-free boundary line, as an encloser of a unitary no-difference allowed space. On the inside of the line is the new sense of national identity, a new sense of achievement, the sensibly modern, the rational and enlightened individual who bears her expanded freedom ‘with a large portion of social responsibility.’ Without question! On the other side of the line, outside and beyond, is the different, the inferior, the repudiated, the disapproved and condemned, the unmodern, the irrational, the unenlightened. Without question! 18

bh
))+
/"!J
" ,$+&7&+$
2/,-"+
*,!"/+&1&"0
J

*,+1$"
,#
1%"
-/"0"+1
Y ,+!,+L
,21)"!$"J
bjjfZM
-M
jjM bi
&!M
-M
jjM 7 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

This research is concerned with both the inside and the other side of the inclusive/exclusive line and with what factors determined the delineation of difference, of inclusion and exclusion.

The promotion and history of Scandinaviandesign and its associated discourse was primarily written by Swedes. Thispromotion has been the subject of recent reexamination by the scholars Widar Halèn19, Kerstin Wickman20, Harri Kalha21 , Kevin Davies22 and Hildi Hawkins23, who have established that rhetoric and narratives in discourse, as a Scandinavian Design ‘construct’, were aimed at specific economic outcomes. What remains unexplored is the consequences of this promotion in the case of individual designers. This can only be interrogated by assessing its effect on the subsequent profile and reception of individuals and their work. This is my aim here in the case of Lindstrand.

The Scandinavian design aesthetic was jointly conceived by Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, yet almost exclusively described by Sweden. This aesthetic and rhetoric was manifest in what Scholar Harri Kalha has designated as the two so-called ‘bibles’24 on the subject, Gotthard Johansson’s Design in Scandinavia and Ulf Hård af Segerstad’s Scandinavian Design, published in the 1950s and 1960s, that established narratives and rhetoric, laying the foundations for subsequent perceptions of design from the region. Sweden, the author of Scandinavian Design narratives, started early in the path of promotion. This promotion was bj
);+
+!
& (*+
Y"!0MZJ
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
"6,+!
1%"
*61%
J
@#16
6"/0
,#
!"0&$+
#/,*
1%"
,/!&
,2+1/&"0J
&!/
);+J
^%"
61%0
,#
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+^J
&+
1%"/&+"
M
")0,+
+!
2)
 /
Y"!0MZJ
"4
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
Y+
/+ &0 ,L
%/,+& )"
,,(0J
caaeZM ca
);+
+!
& (*+
Y"!0MZJ
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
"6,+!
1%"
*61%
J
@#16
6"/0
,#
!"0&$+
#/,*
1%"
,/!&
,2+1/&"0J
"/01&+
& (*+
Y"!MZJ
,/*"+0
/

firmly established in 1920s, 1930s and 1940s discourse by way of exemplars of early successful efforts of the ‘Artist in Industry’ model championed by the SSF from the first decades of the twentieth century. This model, an early effort in design reform in Sweden, was of importance as a key element in institutional and cultural politics that sought to bring a high level of artistic integrity to industrially produced goods. The preeminent exemplar was the glass factory Orrefors. The catch-phrases ‘beauty for all’ and ‘more beautiful everyday things’ have their origin in Sweden, and have become associated with the notion of Scandinavian Design. The network of actors associated with the formation of thisfilter , and subsequent promotion of the construct that it supported, are all associated with the SSF and Orrefors glassworks.

TheDesign in Scandinavia (DiS) touring exhibition of the United States and Canada of 1954-57 is considered by scholars Widar Halèn and Kerstin Wickman as the catalyst for perceptions about design from the Nordic region. They further argue that the exhibition raised issues of taste and social status, along with designations of so-called ‘democratic design’. The exhibition represents the birth and promotion of a regionally focussed Scandinavian Design construct that emphasised the collective rather than the individual within a loosely conceived aesthetic idea. This had parallelsin the idea of the People’s Home, or Folkhemmet. The Scandinavian Design construct became so successful inpromoting a particular aesthetic that it has overshadowed all output from the region then and since. Bruno Latour argues that “at any given moment actors are made to fit a group, often more than one.”25 In the context of Sweden, the actors may be grouped as both Swedish and, as intended by the protagonists of DiS, as Scandinavian, made to fit a group by way of filtration. It is the consequences of this fit, in which human actors were represented by non-human object-actors in the context of discourses on Swedish and Scandinavian design, that forms the focus of this thesis.

The reexamination of this mid-century period began in Scandinavia in the 1990s with the influentialScandinavian Journal of Design History26. It reached its peak with the Scandinavian Design Beyond the Myth project in 2005, which challenged the established narratives and canonic notions of Scandinavian Design. What has emerged from this reexamination is a concentration of English language scholarship, primarily from the Finnish perspective.

cf
/2+,
1,2/J
"00"* )&+$
1%"
, &)K
+
+1/,!2 1&,+
1,
 1,/
"14,/(
%",/6
Y5#,/!L
5#,/!
+&3"/0&16
/"00J
caafZM
-M
ciM cg
"1
+0("
2+01&+!201/&*20"2*J
^ +!&+3&+
',2/+)
,#
!"0&$+
%&01,/6^J
Y,-"+%$"+L
%,!,0
+1"/+1&,+)
 &"+ "
+!
/1
2 )MJ
bjjbZM 9 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Design historian Harri Kalha was one of the first Finnish scholars to explore and discuss the element of ‘myth’ associated with national identity in Finnish design.27 Finland had achieved a high level of international recognition for its applied arts, particularly in glass and ceramics, in the immediate post-war period. This success has been cited by design historian Kevin Davies28 as the impetus for the regional Scandinavian Design construct of the 1950s. Kalha’s work in queer and gender studies has facilitated other readings of this paradigm, particularly in the heroising tendencies and gender aesthetics he identifies in discourse on 1950s Finnish design.29 Kalha’s scholarship has challenged accepted wisdom on the topic of both Finnish and Scandinavian design and presented ‘other’ readings of designers from the period. Hildi Hawkins has considered the Design in Scandinavia exhibition from a specifically Finnish perspective. She has examined the intersection of economics, politics and design, and how Finland’s extraordinary international success during the 1950s forms part of what she refers to as the ‘design miracle’ embedded in Finnish cultural history.

Reexamination from a Swedish perspective has produced new readings of Swedish design during the mid-century period. Design historian Kerstin Wickman’s research crosses borders. She has examined the significance to the Scandinavian countries of the 1950s Milan Triennale, which she describes as the ‘design Olympics’30, as well as defining the contributions of women in Swedish and Scandinavian design. Art historian and curator Helena Kåberg has examined perceptions of Swedish design, including twentieth century ideas of good taste in design through the ‘dreadful’ decorative objects of the nineteenth century.31 She has also explored issues of intellectual property, copyright and artistic value, in the mid-century metamorphosis of the artist in industry into the industrial designer.32 Kåberg was also one of the scholars responsible for the first English translations of the influential Swedish manifestos of Ellen Key and Gregor Paulsson published as Swedish Design Three Founding extsT in 2008. Art historian and curator Cilla Robach’s recent scholarship33 examined crafts debates taking

ch
//&
)%J
2,1,-2,)"+
*"/"++"&!,+
-2),&00
J
2,*"+
1&!"1",))&022!"+
(2)1(20&J
*&")&(231H
*/((&+,&+1&H
!&0(2/00&1
T +
1%"
,&)0
,#
+
06**"1/& )
"/*&!J
%"
,)!"+
$"
,#
&++&0%
"0&$+J
*$"H
/("1&+$H
&0 ,2/0"U
Y-"&/,+
Y ")0&+$#,/0ZJK
")0&+$#,/0L
2,*"+
&01,/&))&+"+
"2/J
bjjhZM ci
3&"0J
^/("1&+$
),6
,/
"*, /1&
!")P^M cj
//&
)%J
'
/+ (
B
&)1
J
$"+!"/&+$
1%"
T"01%U"1%& 0
,#
*,!"/+&0*
YcaaaZM
//&
)%J
(&+L!""-
"21&"0
J
/ "H
$"+!"/
+!
"01%"1& 0
YbjjjZJ
//&
)%J
^*,!"/+&0*&+
3),("&)00
N
0&+
*2,1,&)&'(0,
Y,!"/+&0*
1/&("0

,0"Z^J
&+
&&0
03&,
Y"!MZJ
++6
1&))
J
*,0
+!"/0,+H
")0&+(&
H
\[K]KL]dK_K][[\
Y ")0&+(&L
*,0
+!"/0,+&+
1&!"*20",J
caabZM da
);+
+!
& (*+
Y"!0MZJ
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
"6,+!
1%"
*61%
J
@#16
6"/0
,#
!"0&$+
#/,*
1%"
,/!&
,2+1/&"0M db
")"+
9 "/$
"1
)MJ


place in Sweden during the 1960s that led to new a expression in Swedish design. Robach has defined a new category of Swedish design that was focussed less on utility and function, and more on perceived good taste - a reaction to the pared down design of the 1950s - which she terms Fri Form (Free Form). Her research is focused on the 1960s and provides a point of comparison for the boundaries of my study.34

Research is progressing slowly in the Swedish context in scholarly studies on individuals. Art historian Anne-Marie Ericsson’s early, but seminal, study on the Swedish artist Arthur Percy35 is significant in this context, framing Percy from an artist in industry perspective. Art historian Marika Bogren is currently addressing the visibility of the Swedish ‘international’ artist/designer Tyra Lundgren in a scholarly study that examines not only her work but also her international web of relationships.

Design historian Kjetil Fallan has proposed that rather than focussing primarily on “a history of objects and their designers”, design history “is becoming more a history of the translations, transcriptions, transactions and transformations that constitute the relationship among things, people and ideas.”36 Since the 1960s, practitioners in the field of historiography have reexamined canonical views and have reassessed and revealed particular nuances in history that were not previously explored, discussed or considered. In design and the applied arts this has resulted in long overdue recognition of previously peripheral movements, forgotten or marginalised exemplars and their contributions to the Modernist idiom. Similarly, designers previously mentioned only in passing or subordinate to the heroic identities of canonic twentieth century design have been examined or reappraised, thus enriching discourse and in some instances setting the record straight. The role of objects themselves as actors in contextual networks, as proposed by Bruno Latour37, has resulted in a paradigm shift in how we might view the contributory role of objects in history. Objects, in the context of Swedish and Scandinavian Design, became quasi-ambassadors for the region, abstracted from their intended functionality38. My research examines these relationships and their inherent consequences in the specific context of Lindstrand and Sweden in the 1950s and 60s.

de
,  %R0
),$J
,/*"+0
#/&$

The period that forms the boundaries of my study, c.1945 - c.1970, is the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of Sweden and Scandinavia. This significant period saw considerable international interest in the Scandinavian countries for their progress in the areas of politics, economics and industry. In particular, international attention was focussed on applied arts and design, including the formation of the stylistic designation Scandinavian Design, leading this period to be identified by Kalha as the ‘Golden Era’ of Scandinavian design. This period is further defined by historian Francis Sejersted as “The Golden Age of Social Democracy” for its unusually strong and consistent economic growth in Sweden, a bridge between poverty and consumer society, and the period of stability of the Social Democratic hegemony.39

I will argue that the marketing of ‘collective’ Scandinavian Design during the 1950s became complicated by the coupling of a regional aesthetic and the championing of significant and critically acclaimed exemplars of the 1920s and 1930s Swedish Artist in Industry model. This study argues that the coupling of promotional endeavours with the promotion of exemplars has also contributed to the perceived critical value of post-1950s work, to the detriment of some Swedish designers. This is exampled most clearly in English language discourse. The collective emphasis ran parallel to the central ideologies of the Folkhemmet (Peoples Home), which is a direct manifestation of the Swedish Welfare Model and developing social democratic politics of the time. Much of what is written about Swedish design, particularly in English, emanates from 1950s and 60s discourse, framed within the 1920s and 1930s Artist in Industry model and restating the same successful collective exemplars. This is problematic in so far as it fails to recognise developments outside of the aesthetic associated with 1950s Swedish and Scandinavian Design, and also casts doubt on the veracity of earlier discourse that established 1950s rhetoric. General perceptions of Swedish design, and all the characteristics that describe it, were established by the 1950s and applied as a loose filter when selecting work or objects for exhibitions and publications aimed at the English speaking world. The application of this filter, whilst resulting in a seemingly homogenous ensemble aesthetic, had indirect consequences for some. Quite simply, those individuals whose work was peripheral to either the artist in industry or Scandinavian Design paradigms have at times been overlooked and, at other times, blatantly dismissed. The case of Lindstrand provides insights into this phenomenon.

The initiatives of art historian, educator, and interdisciplinary theorist Gregor Paulsson and the SSF in Sweden, intended to bring ‘good’ design to all through the Artist in Industry dj
/+ &0
"'"/01"!
+!
!")"&+"
M
!*0J
%"
$"
,#
0, &)
!"*, / 6
J
,/46
+!
4"!"+
&+
1%"
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
Y/&+ "1,+L
/&+ "1,+
+&3"/0&16
/"00J
cabbZM
-M
bidM 12 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

endeavours and design reforms influenced and backgrounded the 1950s discourse that is examined in my study. Art historian Gunnela Ivanov40 has examined the success and consequence of these initiatives to educate consumers and producers in issues of ‘quality’, in a process she has described as ‘elite judgement’. These taste education initiatives were interwoven with design reforms in Sweden initiated in the 1910s, in which the role of the artist working in industry would result in better quality, inexpensive and functionally designed goods which were promoted as so called ‘good taste’.

Ivanov has observed that the results of these these endeavours were ambiguous during what she defined as the decisive years of 1920-1934. Ivanov has argued that whilst there was an increase in artists being employed by industry during these decisive years, the SSF’s taste education program ultimately failed to provide better, inexpensive mass-produced goods.41 This is also the opinion of the art historian Gunilla Frick42. Ivanov has also observed what she considers to be a lack of objectivity in SSF commentary assessing the success of Paulsson’s ideas, the influence of complex relationships between Paulsson, and a number of influential individuals who were mentored by him in some way. Similarly, Kerstin Wickman43 has also observed the critics of the period as having in common an ‘education’ by Paulsson. Art Historian Hans Petersson44 has focussed on Paulsson’s unique methodology of art history, in which Paulsson sought to combine sociology and psychology. Paulsson himself later described the ‘social’ role of objects. This provides further useful insights into the social reforms and taste education initiatives spearheaded by both Paulsson and the SSF. Petersson concluded that Paulsson’s complexity of method had the effect of preventing Paulsson from completing his own investigations. The elite referred to by Ivanov have parallels in Bourdieu’s theories45, where so-called ‘elite’ individuals impose their values as to what is considered good taste on a mass of individuals.

ea
3+,3J
^ (//"
3/!$03/
N
!"0&$+
#=/
))P
L
/"$,/
2)00,+
, %
3"+0(
0)='!#=/"+&+$"+
bjbfNbjcf^J
+$)&0%
02**/6M eb
&!M
2++")
3+,3J
^"+
"0'8)!"
&+!201/&3/+^J
&+
"/01&+
& (*+
Y"!MZJ
,/*"+0
/)01"&++
+$;)#00,+H
0)+!H
'
)&+H
&+)+!H
,%+
"!")L&"-"/H
+*/(H
,/2++
"&1" "/$H
,/$"
0*1
"/01&+
& (*+H
3"/&$"
Y=1" ,/$L
=%00(
*20""1J
bjjj ZM
/))")
1"51
&+
+$)&0%M ee
+0
"1"/00,+J
/"$,/
2)00,+
, %
!"+
(,+01%&01,/&0(
1,)(+&+$"+0
-/, )"*
Y1, (%,)*U1"%$L
/2120
=01)&+$0
,(#=/)$
6*-,0&2*J
bjjhZM
+$)&0%
02**/6M ef
&"//"
,2/!&"2J
&01&+ 1&,+
J

0, &)
/&1&.2"
,#
1%"
'2!$"*"+1
,#
101"
Y ,+!,+L
,21)"!$"
C
"$+
2)J
bjieZM 1 3 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Gunilla Frick’s examination of the artist in industry model from the 1950s through the debates of the 1960s makes a useful point of reference for this study. Frick was the first to identify the lineage of followers and disseminators of Paulsson’s ideologies. Frick is notable for her critical stance, particularly given her doctoral candidature was supervised by the architect of the artist in industry paradigm in Sweden, Gregor Paulsson.46 Picking up on Frick’s observations, art historian Denise Hagströmer refers to the followers of Paulsson as ‘disciples’47. This complements Ivanov’s48 observation of the religious undertones in Paulsson’s later writings where beauty is ascribed a value, echoing Ellen Key’s writings which profoundly influenced Paulsson. This evangelistic reading of the discourses of Paulsson and the SSF can also be observed in the later writings of design critic Ulf Hård af Segerstad, where he refers to “the gospel of good design” that he considers was manifest in 1950s Scandinavian Design.49 ‘Good’ design in this sense is ascribed a moral role as opposed to the definition of ‘good’ in a more inherently ‘useful’ sense.50 None of these studies present a fine grained examination of the relationships between the ‘disciples’ of Paulsson, nor do they examine the effect and consequences of these ‘good taste’ initiatives on individual designers, which is where this study comes in.

Issues of nationalism, regionalism and internationalism are also central to understanding discourse on 1950s Swedish and Scandinavian Design. Scholar Jeremy Ansley has considered the case of Scandinavia and concludes that “during the 1950s the distinction between individual countries in the Scandinavian ‘group of five’ was lost and the general term ‘Scandinavian Design’ fostered for overseas consumption.”51 I propose that this conclusion might be extended to include the loss of distinction between both individual countries and individual designers. National characteristics were de-emphasised and re-characterised, rather, as regional tendencies. This was counter to the prevailing ‘internationalising’ trends

eg
2+&))
/& (J
3"+0(
0)<'!#

evident in design elsewhere during the 1950s, which had the effect of making Scandinavian Design appear more ‘distinctive’.

I have identified a problem in Sweden where the 1950s national/regional emphasis ran counter to the prevailing tendencies internationally. The ‘organic’ modernism that has been seen to have defined the decade was more restrained and less visible in Swedish discourse. Work that referenced non-regional ideals or lacked Swedishness or Scandinavianness was mostly absent from ‘official’ discourse and promotion. I will examine these issues in relation to 1950s Swedish design in my interrogation of Vicke Lindstrand in Part Two of this thesis. Much of Lindstrand’s work that was absent from official promotion can be seen to conform with international tendencies and trends. It had an emphasis on organic modernism, within what Jackson52 describes as the ‘New Look’ manifest in design during the 1940s and 1950s, but with perhaps less regional specificity - the reason for exclusion. Historian and curator Gunnel Holmér’s research is of interest to this study as an illustration of the range of international influences that may be attributed to the glass industry in Sweden. These influences came not necessarily from the artists and designers in industry, but from amongst the technicians, whom research suggests were collaborators with the artists and designers. Holmér, who has curated numerous exhibitions on Swedish glass in which she has explored links between Sweden and elsewhere, identifies what she has termed the ‘melting pot’ of ethnicity in the range of immigrant workers in the history of the Swedish glass industry. She promotes the idea of reciprocal influences that identify a more international flavour to Swedish glass design.53

There is much to be gained by examining 1950s Swedish and Scandinavian Design discourse from a view from outside of the region, especially in reinterpreting the propaganda that had been generated in the 1950s regarding Scandinavian design ethics and aesthetics. From an Australian perspective there has been scarce but important research into Swedish and Scandinavian Design and its local influence. Design historian Jonathan Sweet was a pioneer in this area, charting the representation and profile of the the Swedish glass factory Orrefors in Australia which was positioned as an exemplar that reinforced Swedish design as a symbol fc
"0)"6
 (0,+J
%"
"4
,,(J
"0&$+
&+
1%"

&"0
Y ,+!,+L
%*"0
C
2!0,+J
bjjiZM fd
2++")
,)*;/J
/+
,!
1&))
"4
,/(J
,+01+8/"+
/&(
,$)2+!
Y85'=L
/)00,+
&
0*/ "1"
*"!
5',
$)0*20"2*J
bjigZJ
2++")
,)*;/
"1
)MJ
(26
+,
(2+&
+,
',',
J
24"!"+
+,
$2/02
\d[[L\db[
e
6/& &0*
,#
*,!"/+
!"0&$+
J
4"!&0%
$)00
\d[[L\db[
Y--,/,L
,((&!,
20"2*
,#
,!"/+
/1J
bjjcZJ
2++")
,)*;/
"1
)MJ
3"+0(1
$)0
2+!"/
#"*
0"()"/
Y85'=L
2)12/0-/&!/"+
L
*9)+!0
*20"2*J
bjjgZJ
2++")
,)*;/J
^%"
/1&01
+!
1%"
/#10*+L

2 "00#2)
,* &+1&,+
&+
1%"
4"!&0%
)00
+!201/6^J
 +!&+3&+
,2/+)
,#
"0&$+
&01,/6H
bc
YcaacZJ
2++")
,)*;/J
^)00
&+(
1, (%,)*
X
/%
U
4"!&0%
)00
,#
1%"
ca1%
"+12/6^J
Y20"2*
,#
" ,/1&3"
/10
&+
/$2"
+!
*9)+!0
20"2*
N
4"!&0%
)00
20"2*MJ
caajZJ
2++")
,)*;/J
,01
)0 /2(
L
"+
"1+&0(
0*8)1!"$")M
/ "1"
, %
/ "10(/#10&+3+!/&+$
\d_^L\db^
Y85'=L
2)12/0-/&!/"+
=/)$J
caaj ZM 1 5 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

of modernism.54 Design historian Simon Jackson has broadly examined the reception of Scandinavian Design exhibitions and influences on design in Australia.55 Jackson has also examined the idea of national identity and myth in the Australian context, which provides an interesting counterpoint to the examination of Swedishness and Scandinavianness in the Nordic context.56 Jackson laid the foundations for applied arts curator Robert Bell’s later research, which covers similar territory to Jackson in considering the reception of Scandinavian design in Australia through major exhibitions, before looking more broadly at the Australian importers of Scandinavian design and subsequent influences in Australian domestic architecture and craft reforms.57 These studies by Australian scholars focus on the reception of Swedish and Scandinavian Design in the Australian context. Architectural historian Lucy Creagh’s ongoing doctoral research examines the role and influence of the Swedish Kooperativa Förbundet on architecture, design and consumption during the early years of the Social Democratic movement in Sweden. As an Australian, she brings a fresh set of eyes to Swedish design history. My position, as an Australian scholar examining the impact of discourse on Swedish and Scandinavian design on the reception of an individual in the Swedish and international context, has not been previously occupied.

The investigation - particularly by a researcher from a different vantage point, outside of the region - of peripheral actors in the context of English language representation remains unexamined, and it is considered that this might bring new readings of the Scandinavian milieu from a fresh set of eyes. It is here that my research is located.

There are a number of inconsistencies that I will address in this study which have informed my position. These relate to the emphasis of commentary and discourse, and the resulting consequences. Firstly, there is the persistence of particular exemplars, such as the glass factory Orrefors, in English language commentary on Swedish design. The majority of Swedish authored, English language texts exhibit this tendency to emphasise particular exemplars. These texts will be examined in detail in my study. Of interest is the identity and relationship of the authors of these texts to the exemplars, and to each other. This also raises a further area fe
,+1%+
4""1J
^
%/ &+$"/
,#
*,!"/+&0*L
//"#,/0
&+
201/)&^J
&+
"/01&+
& (*+
Y"!MZJ
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$
Y1, (%,)*L
6$$#=/)$"1
2)12/J
bjjiZM
--M
bihNbjfM ff
&*,+
 (0,+J
^),+!"
,,!
*,+$
1%"
2*
/""0L
 +!&+3&+
+B2"+ "0
&+
2/+&12/"
"0&$+
&+
201/)&J
bjdaNbjhf^J
 +!&+3&+
,2/+)
,#
"0&$+
&01,/6H
bd
YcaadZJ
dgNfbJ
&*,+
 (0,+J
^ +!&+3&+
+!
&++&0%
!"0&$+L
"5%& &1&,+0
&+
201/)&+
$))"/&"0J
bjgcNbjhg^J
%"
,)!
,#
+1&.2"0
+!
/1H
Ugi
YcaafZM fg
&*,+
 (0,+J
^%"
S12*-N'2*-"/0LT
1&,+)
!"+1&16
+!
1%"
61%,),$6
,#
201/)&+
+!201/&)
"0&$+
&+
1%"
"/&,!
bjdaNbjhf^J
"0&$+
002"0H
biUe
YcaacZJ
beNcdJ
&*,+
 (0,+J
^ /"!
 '" 10X201/)&+
"0&$+
+!
1&,+)
")" /1&,+0^J
,2/+)
,#
"0&$+
&01,/6H
bjUd
YcaagZJ
cejNcffM fh
, "/1
1"4/1
"))J
^,/!&
3"L

012!6
,#
1%"
/" "-1&,+
+!
&+B2"+ "
,#
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
&+
201/)&M^J
Y201/)&+
1&,+)
+&3"/0&16J
caahZM 16 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

of interest relating to discourse which, on the surface, tends to omit some individuals peripheral to the ideologies being discussed. As such I will also interrogate this discourse to establish why it appears to exhibit this tendency. Further, the impact of this commentary describing Swedish design, and later Scandinavian Design, will be examined to address a further question as to how earlier discourse, promotion and opinion has influenced more recent, or post ‘Golden Era’ commentary. Scandinavian Design is now understood to have been an economic construct that promoted a certain regional style. To address this, an examination of the work of Lindstrand included in official Swedish and Scandinavian promotion will form part of this study, so as to identify whether or not it represented what is regarded as his most significant work, or was simply stylistically compatible with the reining aesthetic. Finally, I will interrogate the consequences of the continuing emphasis on significant and critically acclaimed exemplars of the 1920s and 1930s Swedish Artist in Industry model, to assess the question of how this has contributed to the reception of Lindstrand’s post-WWII work. These questions will form the basis of the interrogation and discussion in Parts I and II of my thesis.

In this study I will unpack English language promotion of Swedish design and examine its effect on the reception of Lindstrand, setting forth a rationale to explain why he appears to have been marginalised in discourse associated with 1950s Swedish and Scandinavian Design. This study will contribute new perspectivesand knowledge to the understanding of the history of 1950s Swedish design, with a view of the period that is not widely understood or occupied.

H@H
 - ,"
#'-
(
$ .#0 -

The principal aims of my research are, firstly, to reconstruct the context in whichpromotion and discourse pertaining to mid-twentieth century Swedish design emerged - prior to, during and after the mid-1950sScandinavian Design paradigm - and to analyse the consequences of this promotion and discourse in an interrogation of the case of Vicke Lindstrand. From this point of departure, five principal areas of significance emerge within the research. The first is the role of a complex network of actants involved in officialpromotion of mid-twentieth century Swedish design. The second is the character, or tenor of English language discourse associated with official promotion of Swedish and Scandinaviandesign. The third is an emphasis on a loosely conceived aesthetic in the discourse. The fourth is a persistent emphasis on successful collective exemplars in said discourse. The final area of interest is the consequences of the above on the profile of an individual designer - Lindstrand.

1 7 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

I will work towards these research aims within my study, the objective being to identify the way in which agency worked in promoting or obscuring the success of an individual. In Part One, I will present an analysis of English language texts and ‘other texts’ originating from Sweden that produced narratives that promoted Swedish and Scandinavian design, and identify an actor-network responsible for these texts. In parallel with this analysis, I will map and describe the connections between a network of influential individuals, organisations, businesses and institutions involved in official promotion ofmid-twentieth century Swedish design. I will identify the emphasis of these texts and network in terms of inclusion and exclusion and the dominant exemplars of mid-century Swedish design. In Part Two I will examine the consequences of the above and the experience of Lindstrand, whose reception, I will argue, exemplifies issues of inclusion and exclusion, of national, regional or international influences, and of association.

H@I
" ),# -

The theoretical fields that have most informed my research are critical historiography, discourse analysis, biographical research, the work of the Nordic revisionists, and the idea of 1950s Scandinavian Design as a construct based on a set of myths or untruths, as evidenced in the work of Halén, Wickman, Kalha, Hawkins et al.

The theories of Bruno Latour’sANT (Actor-Network-Theory)58 provide a useful tool in considering the incorporation of the object as actant within a network. More recently, Latour has described ANT as a “sociology of associations”.59 ANT differs fromNetwork Theory in that it insists on ascribing actor status to non-humans, including objects, texts and ideas as actants within a network, a theory of interest in a study of design history. Callon and Latour have described an actor-network as “a heterogeneous network of aligned interests”60 and an actor as “any element which bends space around itself, makes other elements dependent upon itself and translates their will into the language of its own.”61 Fallan has examined ANT as a tool for the design historian and concludes that it “is probably better conceived of as a theoretical

fi
1,2/J
"00"* )&+$
1%"
, &)K
+
+1/,!2 1&,+
1,
 1,/
"14,/(
%",/6M fj
&!M
 (
,3"/ ga
& %")
)),+
+!
/2+,
1,2/
YbjibZ
&1"!
&+
,%+
4J
^,1"0
,+
1%"
1%",/6
,#
1%"
 1,/N+"14,/(L
,/!"/&+$J
01/1"$6J
+!
%"1"/,$"+"&16^J
601"*0
/ 1& "H
fUe
YbjjcZJ
dhjNdjdM
gb
& %")
)),+
+!
/2+,
1,2/J
^+0 /"4&+$
1%"
&$
"3&1%+L
%,4
 1,/0
* /,01/2 12/"
/")&16
+!
%,4
0, &,),$&010
%")-
1%"*
1,
!,
0,M^J
&+
/&+
+,//N"1&+
+!
/,+
& ,2/")
Y"!0MZJ
!3+ "0
&+
, &)
%",/6
+!
"1%,!,),$6J
,4/!
+
+1"$/1&,+
,#
& /,L
+!
 /,L, &,),$&"0K
Y,01,+L
,21)"!$"J
bjibZJ
chhNdadM
-Mcig 18 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

framework facilitating new and dynamic ways of thinking about design.”62 Amongst the many concepts associated with ANT, the Actor-Network and its associated concepts of actors, inscription and irreversibility have particular resonance for the analysis and discussion in Chapter Three. It is here that I examine the construction of narratives and discourses on Swedish and Scandinavian design and map the network of individuals, organisations and institutions involved in this construction. The concept of inscription has been defined as “a process of creating technical artefacts that would ensure the protection of the actor’s interests”63 , and irreversibility as “the degree to which it is subsequently impossible to return to a point where alternative possibilities exist.”64 Latour argues that “when groups are formed or redistributed, their spokesperson looks rather frantically for ways to de-fine them. Their boundaries are marked, delineated, and rendered fixed and durable.”65 The 1950s Scandinavian Design construct may be theoretically interpreted thus as a marked, delineated, fixed and durable ‘group’. In the context of this study, the actants within the network I will map in Chapter Three include individuals, texts, discourses, and objects that are theoretically invested in the construction of narratives and discourses on Swedish and Scandinavian Design.

In this study, the concept of intertextuality becomes a useful tool in the analysis of the construction of narratives and discourses. As Brian Roberts has argued, Intertextuality becomes useful in terms of ‘representation’ in texts in a more ‘grounded’, non- deconstructionist sense, where “various types of texts include or refer to others in a kind of conversation of discourses.”66 As Roberts has further argued, “a variety of texts should be investigated without giving advantage to one but rather to establish the interrelation between written, oral and other mediums”67, rather than following the extreme trends of intertextuality and representation found in postmodernism.

Thomas Kuhn’s attention to rhetoric, persuasion and faith in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions68 have been observed by Fallan as “decidedly poignant when considering design

gc
))+J
"0&$+
%&01,/6
J
2+!"/01+!&+$
1%",/6
+!
*"1%,!M
MhbM gd
)),+
+!
1,2/J
^+0 /"4&+$
1%"
&$
"3&1%+L
%,4
 1,/0
* /,01/2 12/"
/")&16
+!
%,4
0, &,),$&010
%")-
1%"*
1,
!,
0,M^M
-Mcig ge
&!M gf
1,2/J
"00"* )&+$
1%"
, &)K
+
+1/,!2 1&,+
1,
 1,/
"14,/(
%",/6M
-M
ddM gg
/&+
, "/10J
&,$/-%& )
/"0"/ %
Y+!"/01+!&+$
0, &)
/"0"/ %K
2 (&+$%*
K
%&)!")-%&L
-"+
+&3"/0&16J
caacZM
-M
hjM
gh
&!M
-M
hjM gi
%,*0
M
2%+J
%"
01/2 12/"
,#
0 &"+1&@
/"3,)21&,+0
Yd
"!+MK
%& $,
C
,+!,+L
+&3"/0&16
,#
%& $,
/"00J
bjjgZM 1 9 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

history.”69 The concepts ofpersuasion and faith are particularly relevant to analysis of the construction of rhetoric in discourses promoting 1950s Swedish and Scandinavian design. Kuhn’s postscript to the 1970 edition includes remarks which have resonance for this study.

Kuhn concluded:

How does one elect and how is one elected to membership in a particular community, scientific or not? What is the process and what are the stages of socialisation to the group? What does the group selectively see as its goals; what deviations, individual or collective, will it tolerate; and how does it control the impermissible aberration? [...] Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a group or else nothing at all. To understand it we need to know the special characteristics of the groups that create and use it. 70

The phenomenological theories of Pierre Bourdieu71 on distinction, taste and social classes provide a counterpoint to the development of the Peoples Home in Sweden, the social and design reforms, and the role of the SSF in improving people’s taste through the education of what constitutes ‘good design’, which aimed at breaking down the notion of classes in society.

The work of Griselda Pollock72 in the examination of the unknown artist who is peripheral and marginalised provides another useful point of reference for this study. Pollock’s theories on the forgotten or peripheral artist defined by a set of ‘truths’ is considered in relation to Lindstrand.

From a research perspective, the position of a single case study has a potential limitation. Bent Flyvbjerg, amongst others73, has argued that when studying phenomenon the case study has largely been misunderstood in the social sciences in what he has termed the “five misunderstandings”74 about the nature of case study research. He further argues that the case

gj
))+J
"0&$+
%&01,/6
J
2+!"/01+!&+$
1%",/6
+!
*"1%,!M
-M
bdbM ha
2%+J
%"
01/2 12/"
,#
0 &"+1&@
/"3,)21&,+0M
--M
cajNcbaM hb
,2/!&"2J
&01&+ 1&,+
J

0, &)
/&1&.2"
,#
1%"
'2!$"*"+1
,#
101"M hc
/&0")!
,)), (
" ,/%
%"//6J
^,*+
0
&$+
&+
/"N-%")&1"
&1"/12/"L

12!6
,#
1%"
"-/"0"+11&,+
,#
)&7 "1%
&!!))^J
/1
&01,/6H
hUc
YbjieZJ
/("/
+!
,)), (J
)!
*&01/"00"0
J
4,*"+H
/1
+!
&!",),$6M hd
)63 '"/$
%0
#,2+!
1%1
S ,/!&+$
1,
*- "))J
$&+J
""/17J
&"3&,/(J
)63 '"/$
+!
,1%"/0J
/"0"/ %"/0
4%,
%3"
,+!2 1"!
&+1"+0&3"J
&+N!"-1%
0"
012!&"0
16-& ))6
/"-,/1
1%1
1%"&/
-/" ,+ "&3"!
3&"40J
002*-1&,+0J
,+ "-10
+!
%6-,1%"0"0
4"/"
4/,+$
+!
1%1
1%"
0"
*1"/&)
%0
,*-"))"!
1%"*
1,
/"3&0"
1%"&/
%6-,1%"0"0
,+
"00"+1&)
-,&+10MT
&+
"+1
)63 '"/$J
^&3"
*&02+!"/01+!&+$0
 ,21
0"N012!6
/"0"/ %^J
&+
)&3"
")"
"1
)M
Y"!0MZJ
2)&11&3"
"0"/ %
/ 1& "
Y ,+!,+
+!
%,20+!
(0J
L
$"J
caaeZJ
ecaNedeM
-M
eciM he
&!M 20 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

study contains no greater bias than other methods. In the context of this study, his argument on the single case study is pertinent. Flyvbjerg states that:

For the present, however, we can correct the second misunderstanding - that one cannot generalise on the base of a single case and that the case study cannot contribute to scientific development - so that it now reads: One can often generalise on the basisof a single case, and the case study may be central to scientific development via generalisation as supplement or alternative to other methods. But formal generalisation is overvalued as a source of scientific development, whereas ‘the force of example’ is underestimated. 75

Flyvbjerg emphasises that good social science is methodology-driven rather than problem- driven in that it employs methods that best address the research questions. He argues that the employment of both qualitative and quantitative methods are most often best suited to the research task. Flyvbjerg turns to the insight of Thomas Kuhn in further support of the single case study, concluding that:

Fortunately, there seems currently to be a general relaxation in the old and unproductive separation of qualitative and quantitative methods.This being said, it should nevertheless be added that the balance between case studies and large samples is currently biased in favour of the latter in social science, so biased that it puts case studies at a disadvantage within most disciplines. In this connection, it is worth repeating the insight of Thomas Kuhn that a discipline without a large number of thoroughly executed case studies is a discipline without systematic production of exemplars, and that a discipline without exemplars is an ineffective one. In social science, more good case studies could help remedy this situation. 76

What I will demonstrate is that the case study of Lindstrand exemplifies generalised symptoms which have broader implications.

I have also approached this study in the manner described by organisational theorist John Van Maanen, who argues that:

Basically, the narrator of realist tales poses as an impersonal conduit who, unlike missionaries, administrators, journalists, or unabashed members of the culture themselves, passes on more-or-less objective data in a measured intellectual style that is uncontaminated by personal bias, political goals, or moral judgements. A studied neutrality characterises the realist tale. 77

hf
&!M
-M
ecf hg
&!M
-M
edcM hh
&1"!
&+
, "/10J
&,$/-%& )
/"0"/ %M
-M
eiM 2 1 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

I adopt Van Maanen’s position to address potential bias and subjectivity with relation to the case study. The discussion in Part Two of this study adopts such a neutral, moderated tone to allow the analysis and narrative to present the case study of Lindstrand in a measured and objective manner.

H@J
)/, -
(
.")-

This thesis presents the results of six years of concentrated and considered scholarly research undertaken in both Sweden and Australia. In Sweden I conducted primary research and informant interviews over ten field trips totalling six months between 2005 and 2011. During these field trips I undertook archival research, document research, object analysis of physical artefacts, and interviews with five informants. In Australia and Sweden I completed document analysis, with English as a primary source and Swedish as a secondary source, in the form of texts, literature, personal correspondence and photographic records.

My choice of primary texts is deliberately limited to English language commentary and promotional texts that originated from Sweden. The majority of English language texts about Swedish design that were published within the timeframe of my study served various roles in the promotion of Swedish design. Amongst these were marketing propaganda, superficial surveys, goodwill vehicles, and company advertising material. My bias to these ‘non- scholarly’, elementary sources relates to the fact that these were the only texts on Swedish and Scandinavian Design that were published in English, that were aimed at and available in the English speaking world. These texts have also acted as references for later texts originating from English speaking markets. These texts were, in most instances, persuasive ‘sales arguments’ aimed at selling Swedish, and Scandinavian Design. Whilst they were not conceived as scholarly texts, they have nonetheless become important historical documents as they represent the only texts that were available in English language markets. The ‘sales argument’ was all that the English speaking world received. As such, global perceptions (whether right or wrong) were based on these sales arguments as promoted in the goodwill, sales, and promotional discourses from Sweden. When discourses made up of rhetoric as persuasive as those discussed - given official endorsement by government agencies - are what the English speaking world have to reference, then the more they are referenced and reiterated over time, the more they become seen as ‘the truth’. These persuasive texts represent Swedish and Scandinavian Design in a particular way that has the power to colour perceptions. They become what Markus and Cameron refer to as “institutional discourse: a certain kind of power and status is needed to produce them, and power is also enacted by

22 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

them.”78 These same texts informed the world’s perceptions of national and regional identity in ways that had far greater influence and implications than perhaps initially intended.

Scholar Mirjam Gelfer Jørgensen has pointed to the lack of basic research into Scandinavian Design in the twentieth century. In her editorial in the Scandinavian Journal of Design History in 2003, she lamented the rise of “picture books presenting compilations of Scandinavian Design” with “few of them apply[ing] new points of view.”79 She added that “Far too many publications consolidate the impression of the course of development we rejected long ago as simplified to the point of being misleading.”80 The marketing/propaganda/survey/goodwill/ advertising, or elementary publications I refer to in the above paragraph, including many of these picture book publications Jørgensen references, provide the source for much that has been written about Swedish and Scandinavian Design.

Similarly, Cilla Robach has recently observed that Swedish crafts and design have been poorly represented in scholarly texts with the majority of material in ‘textbooks’ written by actors from, or those with an interest in, the design world.81 Jørgensen has further noted the lack of “parallel publications of [Scandinavian] research that can be read by non-Scandinavians.”82 This presented a limitation in my study where I rely on English language summaries of scholarly Nordic research. The lack of scholarship on Scandinavian design published in English reinforces the significance as primary English language sources of these elementary publications, or ‘textbooks’ as Robach describes them, and underscores the role their narratives have enacted in shaping global perceptions, knowledge and ‘truths’ about design from the Nordic region.

Kjetil Fallan, when arguing the use of journals as a primary source, turned to the American historian of technology Eugene S. Ferguson’s discussion on the use of such sources to support their value:

In order to use those journals intelligently as historical sources, we should know what was on an editor’s agenda, how his ideology influenced the words we read, what hobby or obsession or loyalty may stand behind the campaigns and crusades we encounter... The motives and purposes of editors (and hi
%,*0
M
/(20
+!
" ,/%
*"/,+J
%"
4,/!0
"14""+
1%"
0- "0
J
2&)!&+$0
+!
)+$2$"
Y%"
/ %&1"51
0"/&"0JK
,+!,+L
,21)"!$"J
caacZM
-M
bgM hj
&/'*
")#"/N >/$"+0"+J
^!&1,/&)L

%))"+$"O^J
 +!&+3&+
',2/+)
,#
!"0&$+
%&01,/6H
bd
Ycaad ZM
-M
fM ia
&!M
-M
fM ib
,  %J
,/*"+0
#/&$/$"+0"+J
^!&1,/&)L

%))"+$"O^M
-M
gM 2 3 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

publishers, when an editor was not also publisher) were varied and full of subtleties, but we can be sure that few editors saw their calling as merely a job do be done in order to collect a weekly pay envelope. 83

As such, my analysis of these elementary texts considers the ideologies and agendas therein in the mapping of the ‘network’ of individuals, organisations and institutions involved in the production of these discourses. These elementary publications on Swedish and Scandinavian Design, share similarities to journals and magazines whose ‘plastic’ ideas flex and change over time. Fallan argues that these “are interesting and important historical sources, and most of them seem to hinge on the magazines’ unique position as a site of mediation, negotiation and domestication.” 84

My secondary, Swedish language sources relate to the conception of these texts, in other texts that were authored by the same individuals, contemporaneous to English language discourses (and discourses such as the North American traveling exhibition Design in Scandinavia of 1954-57, Formes Scandinaves in Paris of 1958-59 and the Australian Design in Scandinavia traveling exhibition of 1968-69).

As a native English speaker with limited Swedish language skills, I am engaging with a particular set of texts. Whilst I have referenced Swedish language texts, I have avoided close reading and detailed analysis for this very reason. In this context, I adopt the position of Markus and Cameron in relation to language.

Discourse analysis is not only concerned with the content of texts, what they say, but also and importantly how they say it: the details of their organisation, grammar and vocabulary. Since these details are often lost in translation, this kind of analysis can only be carried out in a language the analyst understands well. 85

Translations of these texts are generally my own, with basic Swedish skills and the assistance of online translation software. The nuances Markus and Cameron refer to are more likely to be lost in translations of lengthy texts. Where I rely on translations in my arguments, I have sought the advice of native Swedish speakers to tease out nuances and to avoid misinterpretation. I have considered my position as an outsider examining Swedish history with reference to the experience of economists Richard B. Freeman, Robert Topel and Birgitta

id
2$"+"
M
"/$20,+
&1"!
&+
'"1&)
))+J
,!"/+
1/+0#,/*"!
J
1%"
!,*"01& 1&,+
,#
&+!201/&)
!"0&$+
2)12/"
&+
,/46H
K
\d_[L\db[
Y, 1,/)
1%"0"0
1
K
/,+!%"&*L
,/4"$&+
2+&3"/0&16
,#
0 &"+ "
+!
1" %+,),$6J
 2)16
,#
/ %&1" 12/"
+!
@+"
/1
"-/1*"+1
,#
/ %&1" 12/)
"0&$+J
caah ZM
-M
jM ie
&!M
-M
ba if
/(20
+!
*"/,+J
%"
4,/!0
"14""+
1%"
0- "0
J
2&)!&+$0
+!
)+$2$"M
-M
3&&&M 24 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

Swedenborg, detailed in their introduction to a book of papers by American economists analysing the 1990s Swedish economy86. I will expand on this further in the concluding discussion in Chapter Five of this study.

To clarify, the Swedish texts that I use are as follows:

1. Scholarly texts (theses) with English language summaries, where I rely on the summary in my analysis. 2. Marketing texts relating to the case study. 3. Design criticism where authored by actors in the SSF network. 4. Design criticism relating to the work of the case study. 5. Popular texts relating to the case study. 6. Correspondence relating to the case study. 7. Detailed information of an archival nature relating to the case study - agreements, facts, figures, etc.

Vicke Lindstrand is positioned as a case study and as the eyes through which I will examine the period, whose reception was affected as a consequence of collective ideals and promotional agendas. Through a critical examination of his 1950s work, he will be considered for his career that ran parallel to the development of Modernism in Sweden, the Artist in Industry model, the subsequent Scandinavian Design construct and 1960s crafts debates in Sweden.

Lindstrand represents an ideal exemplar. He participated in major Swedish and international exhibitions during his career yet his profile has been diminished by his early career associations. There exists a paradox in the perception and reception of his work, in which his earlier work for Orrefors is widely held as superior to his later work for Kosta, produced during the concentrated promotion of Scandinavian Design in the 1950s. This paradox is the focus of the investigation in Part Two of my study, through an examination of Swedish and Scandinavian Design discourse and Lindstrand’s reception. The experience of Lindstrand has been focussed by the examples of his contemporaries, who had contrasting experiences and receptions. Lindstrand was not the only artist/designer whose profile was affected by

ig
& %/!
M
/""*+J
, "/1
,-")
+!
&/$&11
4"!"+ ,/$J
^ +1/,!2 1&,+^J
&+
& %/!
M
/""*+J
, "/1
,-")
+!
&/$&11
4"!"+ ,/$
Y"!MZJ
%"
")#/"
11"
&+
/+0&1&,+J
"#,/*&+$
1%"
4"!&0%
,!")
Y1%"
1&,+)
2/"2
,#
 ,+,*&
"0"/ %K
%& $,L
+&3"/0&16
,#
%& $,
/"00J
bjjhZJ
b
N
dcM 2 5 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

perception and reception, there were others. Lindstrand’s reception is, however, the focus of this study.

My selection of primary data sources, informed by the boundaries of my research and choice of case study, follows three distinct trajectories of empirical investigation. The first trajectory examines narratives, rhetoric and preeminent exemplars in an analysis of English language texts on both Swedish and Scandinavian Design published between c1920 and 2011. I do note however that these English language texts were scarce between the 1920s and 1980s, and I reiterate that they were predominately written by Swedes. As the study progressed, I was surprised to find that amongst the texts in English, the focus of discourse was either Swedish, Finnish or collective Scandinavian design, with few texts on the other Nordic countries. As further support for the review and analysis of English language texts, I reviewed a second tier of texts in Swedish to support my historiographical analysis. This broadened the scope of my historiography and revealed information that assisted in my analysis of the primary data.

The second trajectory engaged archival resources in a variety of locations, conditions and forms. Another integral focus of this study is the SSF, which is paramount to any investigation of twentieth century Swedish design, since the SSF is the instigator (and author) of all major discourse on both Swedish and Scandinavian Design. TheSvensk Form archive held in the Centrum för Näringlivshistoria in Stockholm contrasted greatly with other archives. The paper archives of correspondence and ephemera relating to the activities of the association are perfectly organised and catalogued making access to material efficient and rewarding. Here, over several visits, I limited my research scope to focus on the Design in Scandinavia exhibition files, in order to establish the limits and criteria for the exhibition, examine correspondence and understand Sweden’s role in the selection process. I also found reports establishing the financial imperatives of the exhibition along with submissions of objects from manufacturers that were pared down by the selection committee to establish the now famous aesthetic. Amongst this material was invaluable evidence establishing the aesthetic and the selection criteria of the organising committee. TheSvensk Form Arkiv on Skeppsholmen in Stockholm held journals, catalogues of exhibitions, photographs and rare books that contribute to Part One of my study.

The photograph and press clipping archives at both theNordiska Museet and Nationalmuseum in Stockholm provided a wealth of data on the exhibitions discussed in this research and their critical reception. The archives of the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm and the Röhsska Museet in Gothenburg facilitated first hand contact with artefacts and information on donations and

26 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

acquisitions to their respective collections. The archives of theRöhsska Museet provided further contact with artefacts, access to catalogues, press clippings and photographs.

In Småland, the archives of Orrefors Glasbruk, Kosta Glasbruk and Smålands Museum were examined in detail. This exercise produced useful sources of primary research data. The Orrefors collection assisted in fleshing out and backgrounding the case study in order to understand the significance of the factory in twentieth century Swedish design. Here I had first hand contact with design drawings and artefacts, photographs and documents that form an important contribution to the cultural and social history of Sweden. At Kosta, I found an extremely disorganised collection, distributed over various locations, mostly damp basements, within the village with little logic or ordering of the material. My first visit there in 2005 coincided with a visit from the new owner, Torsten Jansson, who was unaware of the existence of the repository when he bought the company. Perhaps as a result of the disorganised state of the collection at Kosta, a spirit of discovery marked my visits there where I slowly, over six years, worked my way through the various locations to collect primary data for this study. In late 2008 it was announced in the Swedish press that the archival collections, both artefact and paper based, of Orrefors Kosta Boda were up for sale. This created great uncertainty as to the future of my research. Whilst this created some unnecessary stress at the time, it had the effect of speeding up the research process over several subsequent visits to finalise data collection. As it transpired the archives were saved and now form part of the collection of Emmaboda Kommun (Kosta, Åfors and Boda), and the not-for-profit Glasrikets Skatter (Glass Kingdom’s Treasures) (Orrefors). Smålands Museum held a wealth of material including catalogues, personal correspondence, photographs and press clippings from the personal collection of Lindstrand.

A further repository at Studio Glashyttan in Åhus in south-eastern Sweden, proved to be the most rewarding in terms of the range of artefacts it contained. This is the collection of the Vicke och Marianne Lindstrand Stiftelse, which contained an extensive range of objects in glass, ceramic, textile, paper, and wood along with paintings, drawings, sketches and models. This collection, whilst providing primary data inthe form of correspondence, also provided a rarely seen view of the creative range of Lindstrand and evidence of his contributions to Swedish and Scandinavian design.

The third trajectory was a series of informant interviews undertaken between 2005 and 2009. Informants were identified early in my research for their relationship to the actors discussed in my study. I felt that by interviewing these individuals I might gain further insights into

2 7 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

versions of events and my perception of the reception of the case study. In formulating a questionnaire that would glean as much data as possible, the questions were kept fairly general so as not to influence the informants in their answers. The questions probed their relationship to the case study and their observations of his reception and profile in discourse. Informants included Vicke Lindstrand’s biographer - Lars Thor; Lindstrand’s protégés - Hanne Dreutler and Arthur Zirnsack; Lindstrand’s employer from 1964 - Erik Rosén; and daughter of Orrefors artist Edward Hald, SSF actor and sister of SSF ‘tastemaker’ Arthur Hald - Elisa Steenberg. The data collected from these informants provided much useful, however at times conflicting information. The data was utilised to complement and triangulate my primary archival and text-based findings.

Brian Roberts has summarised the position of Temple in relation to the differences between written and oral texts, where the “types of texts should be seen as ‘social moments’”:

[Temple] argues that both written and oral texts can be interrogated although in a different manner. In both, meaning is mutually constructed or negotiated by writer/teller and researcher; texts ‘cross-reference’ each other - there is not a ‘hidden truth’. She concludes that, since the spoken may also be rehearsed while the written can be relatively spontaneous, one type should not be necessarily privileged over the other. 87

In this study both written and oral texts are interrogated, including non-linguistic representations or ‘other texts’. As an architect, my language encompasses both linguistic and non-linguistic representations - images, diagrams, plans, models, etc. As such, image forms part of my mode of communication. Illustrations are included in the text of this thesis, rather than in a separate volume or appendix, as close to the discussion as possible. The purpose of the illustrations, or figures, is to both complement, and as an extension of the text, underscoring the analysis and arguments therein.

H@K
 6(#(!
1 #-"
(
(#(0#(
 -#!(

Diversity and blurred boundaries. That pretty much sums up the contemporary Swedish design scene. A new generation of designers want to tell a story through their objects, not simply create useful things. 88

ih
, "/10J
&,$/-%& )
/"0"/ %M
-M
hjM ii
&(/!
$"/ "/$
+!
**
+!" ("/J
4"!"+H
-
,/1%H
,4+
1,
/1%
Y1, (%,)*L
%"
4"!&0%
+01&121"J
cabaZM
-M
egM 28 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

Whilst this 2010 definition of the Swedish design scene describes pluralist tendencies and narratives in the design of objects, this is a remarkably recent phenomenon. It does not sit comfortably with what we have previously understood about Swedish and Scandinavian design, namely that it has been about ‘more beautiful everyday things’ and a functionalist aesthetic.

What is Swedish Design? Does the product have to be produced in Sweden for it to be Swedish Design? Do you have to live in Sweden to be a Swedish Designer? Does Swedish design have a particular look? Is Swedish design particularly practical? Is it even relevant to talk about Swedish design at all? 89

These questions form part of the visitor experience of a permanent exhibition of twentieth century Swedish design in Gothenburg’s Röhsska Museum of Fashion and Design. The questions posed ask the visitor to consider what they understand as Swedish design. Intended as provocative and deliberately left unanswered, the questions ask the viewer to reflect and consider a range of stereotypes and assumptions about Sweden and Swedish design. For a non-Swede visiting the exhibit, blonde wood, flat packed IKEA furniture, clean lines and sensual Swedish glass might be the most common examples that come to mind. The questions form a useful starting point for considering the meanings behind them.

As a means of addressing these questions, the following chapters will examine how Swedish authors have discussed Swedish and Scandinavian design in English language texts throughout the twentieth century. What I aim to present at this juncture is an introduction to a range of both elementary and scholarly descriptions and interpretations that demonstrate the complexity in the terms Swedish design and Scandinavian Design.

Swedish Grace, which came to describe Swedish design of the 1930s, became Swedish Modern by the 1940s and finally Scandinavian Modern in the 1950s. The term Scandinavian Design was first used as a collective name for a 1951 exhibition at Heal’s furniture store in London entitled Scandinavian Design for Living 90, however its more widespread use is attributed to the travelling exhibition, Design In Scandinavia, which toured museums in the United States of America and Canada between 1954 and 1957, and later Australia in 1968. The collective

ij
=%00(
20"2*
,#
0%&,+
+!
"0&$+J
,1%"+ 2/$J
4"!"+M ja
3&"0J
^/("1&+$
),6
,/
"*, /1&
!")P^M

badM
%"
"5%& &1&,+
40
)0,
0%,4+
&+
4"!"+
1%"
#,)),4&+$
6"/
1
1%"
=%00(
2"2*
#,/
"0&$+
+!
--)&"!
/1
&+
,1%"+ 2/$
&+
bjfcM
""
)0,
01/&!
('"/3"+J
^20"2*
&("M
%"
,)"
,#
,/!&
20"2*0
&+
")1&,+
1,
1%"
2++&+$
/&7"
+!
&10
+1"+1&,+0^J
 +!&+3&+
',2/+)
,#
!"0&$+
%&01,/6H
bd
Ycaad ZJ
igNjjM
-M
jbM
2 9 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

term Scandinavian has more recently been used by art historian and curator David Revere- McFadden91 to group the entire Modern era in the Nordic countries. However it is the so- called Golden Era of cultural activity in design, c1950-c1970, coinciding with the Social Democratic hegemony in Sweden of c1945 - 1970 that represents the most concentrated activity relating to our current understanding of the terms.

Finding a definitive answer to the differences, or similarities, between Swedish and Scandinavian Design is an inherently complex problem that does not permit a simple answer. Design historian Lesley Jackson has attempted this by suggesting that “Scandinavian design isn’t a philosophical or stylistic construct, simply a straightforward geographic statement of fact.”92

Jackson’s remarks illustrate the difference of opinion surrounding Swedish and Scandinavian design, even within the informed circles of historians and curators. Whilst Jackson’s remarks may be true of geography alone and perhaps applicable prior to the 1950s Scandinavian Design construct, they constitute a view that overlooks the cultural and symbolic values inherent in the designations Swedish Design and Scandinavian Design. Scandinavian Design has become a pervasive stylistic descriptor since its first use over fifty years ago. Anything designed in Sweden or the Scandinavian countries after 1950 is imbued with the complexities of classification and, as such, the terms becomes loaded and widely contested. Jackson’s remarks also present a problem in purely geographical terms as to what constitutes Scandinavia. Geographically it is centred about the Scandinavian Peninsula, home to both Norway and Sweden. There is also an issue of terminology. Scandinavian is now more correctly Nordic when referring to the group of countries that includes Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland, and is more commonly used today when speaking of Nordic design as a means of emphasising distance from 1950s ideas.93

In 1965 Dag Widman94, in attempting to define Swedish design, searched for the “Swedish” element but concluded that there was no simple answer. He noted perceptions of Swedish design as “good taste but unexciting” and identified two strong trends at the time: rationalisation and experimentation. In a later text, rather than attempt to describe Swedish

jb
+
1%"
-2 )& 1&,+
 ,*-+6&+$
1%"
*',/
"5%& &1&,+M
""
 #!!"+
Y"!MZJ
 +!&+3&+
*,!"/+
!"0&$+H
\cc[L\dc[M jc
"0)"6
 (0,+
&+
%"/
)&3")6
/"3&"4
,#
1%"
);+
C
& (*+
"!&1"!
,,(M
"0)"6
 (0,+J
^ +!&+3&+
"0&$+
"6,+!
1%"
61%
N

"/0
,#
"0&$+
#/,*
1%"
,/!&
,2+1/&"0^J
/#10H
Ubjb
YcaaeZL
hiNhjM jd
+!
1
1&*"0
1%"
/,"
0)+!0M je
$
&!*+J
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
Y4"!"+
1,!6
YbjggNbjhbZK
1, (%,)*L
4"!&0%
+01&121"J
bjgg ZM 30 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

design Widman described a characteristic Swedish attitude to design that he defined as “the democratic cry for good quality everyday objects, the work of the designers, the blond tradition and the special feeling for materials”. 95

Design commentator Monica Boman96 has described “vitality and renewal” as characteristics of 1980s Swedish design. She acknowledges the predominate concerns with pluralism, but defines something she identifies as inherently Swedish, “a lyrical, introspective calm, a low- key mode of address, a liberating simplicity.”97 These qualities might also be said to be true of 1950s Swedish design, which suggests that these inherently Swedish qualities have successfully crossed timeframes and stylistic boundaries. Kerstin Wickman98 defines the 1960s as the period when Swedish applied arts lost their ‘morality’, reinforcing a moral elite dominance prevalent in Swedish design for the first half of the twentieth century. The neo- purism evident in Swedish design of the 1990s has been described by art historian Denise Hagströmer as a revival of an “officially endorsed aesthetic ideal of Swedish design continuity”99, a reference to the Swedish functionalist aesthetic. By contrast, design theorist Linda Rampell 100 has proposed a more sinister reading of Swedish design as a State sanctioned “socialism aesthetic”. Suggesting a more covert political mission linked it to morality and racial hygiene, this is a novel but somewhat tenuous reading.

Scandinavian Design, also referred to as Scandinavian Style, Scandinavian Modern and Scandimodern, has been described in the same terms as Swedish design and in many instances the terms are used interchangeably. In 2003, art historian and curator Widar Halén described the salient characteristics of Scandinavian design as “simple, uncomplicated designs, functionality and a democratic approach that has sought to bring well-designed objects to the broadest cross section of the populace at the least possible cost per unit.”101 In 2008, anthropologist Keith Murphy utilised Halén’s text in describing “Swedish style

jf
$
&!*+
"1
)MJ
3"+0(
#,/*
2+!"/
"11
%)31
0"(")
J
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
!2/&+$
%)#

"+12/6
Y1, (%,)*L
,01"+
/&*8/("+J
bjjeZM jg
,+& 
,*+J
=/"+&+$"+
3"+0(
,/*J
+!
3"+0(
+01&121"1J
"0&$+
&+
4"!"+
Y1, (%,)*L
4"!&0%
&+01&121"
[3"+0(
&+01&121"1\
&+
,)) ,/1&,+
4&1%
4"!&0%
0, &"16
,#
/#10
+!
!"0&$+
[3"+0(
#,/*\J
bjifZM
-M
iM jh
&!M
-M
jM ji
"/01&+
& (*+
&+
&!M
-M
ddM jj
$01/=*"/
+!
3"+0(
+01&121"1J
4"!&0%
!"0&$+M
-M
ieM baa
&+!
*-"))J
"0&$+1)0
J
"+
/"0
$"+,*
!"0&$+1",/&
\c_`L][[]
Y1, (%,)*L
 ,/
),1&
2 )&0%"/J
caadZM
+$)&0%
2**/6J
-M
hgdM bab
);+
+!
& (*+
Y"!0MZJ
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
"6,+!
1%"
*61%
J
@#16
6"/0
,#
!"0&$+
#/,*
1%"
,/!&
,2+1/&"0M
-M
hM 3 1 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

concerns”102 indicating the perceived interchangeability of the terms, even in scholarly texts. Re:form, a recent publication examining contemporary Swedish crafts, further demonstrates a parallel use, proclaiming “Swedish and Scandinavian design and crafts are famous around the world for being modernist, simple and blond. Now things have changed.”103 The legacy of the Golden Era of Swedish and Scandinavian design, c1950 – c1970, has become a measure and problem for subsequent generations of Nordic designers, who now seek to be recognised for global rather than regional work. As Hagströmer has argued, “Swedish design will survive, its geographical identity will disintegrate, with discussion of Swedish style irrelevant.”104

Keith Murphy105, despite his tendency to interchange descriptors of Scandinavian and Swedish design, has proposed another way of looking at Swedish design. He describes Swedish design in terms of “cultural geometry” and “final vocabulary” that translates as the making of things and the making of symbols. Murphy argues that the formal qualities of typical Swedish objects, characterised by straight lines, simple curves, clear function and monochromatic use of colour in materials of wood, steel, glass, textiles and plastic form the “Swedish cultural geometry”. He further argues that the ideological qualities embedded in Swedish style, being the symbolic value placed on objects that are often described as “responsible”, “democratic”, “social”, “moral” and “ethical” rendering them as something other than or more than everyday objects, as the “final vocabulary”. Murphy puts forth an argument for the preeminence of Swedish design in the Scandinavian context:

While it is true that other forms of Scandinavian design, including Danish, Norwegian and Finnish design, can be and often are characterised similarly to Swedish design in both their formal and ideological qualities, Swedish design holds a unique position vis-à-vis the national context from which it arises because of Sweden’s tumultuous social democratic history, neutral status during both World Wars, and its high international profile as a leader in global peacemaking. Moreover, the efforts of an intricate network of individuals and institutions in Sweden over the last one hundred years has developed Swedish design into an unparalleled cultural category. While there are, of course, clear connections among the national design traditions within Scandinavia, Sweden represents the clearest and most highly articulated case in which design aesthetics exist in a discursive and material relationship to cultural values and political sentiment.106

bac
"&1%
& %")
2/-%6J
^11"
,#
1%"
/1L
"0&$+J
"*, / 6J
+!
1%"
/,!2 1&,+
,#
16)"
&+
4"!"+^J
Y+&3"/0&16
,#
)&#,/+&J
caaiZM
-M
bcM bad
)#
" (*+
"1
)M
Y"!0MZJ
"J#,/*
J
,+1"*-,//6
4"!&0%
/#10
Y1, (%,)*L
/3&+&20
&+
,)) ,/1&,+
4&1%
&(021018))+&+$/J
caafZM
-M
jM
bae
$01/=*"/
+!
3"+0(
+01&121"1J
4"!&0%
!"0&$+M
-M
ifM baf
2/-%6J
^11"
,#
1%"
/1L
"0&$+J
"*, / 6J
+!
1%"
/,!2 1&,+
,#
16)"
&+
4"!"+^M bag
&!M
--M
iNjM 32 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

As I will argue, the framework for what Murphy describes as “the final vocabulary of Swedish design” was adapted to suit a Scandinavian Design rhetoric, in which the boundaries between Swedish and Scandinavian become blurred. This suggests that it is a much more loaded term and a more complex idea than Jackson has proposed.

The term Scandinavian Design is not just a geographic moniker. It is now accepted by scholars as a period-specific descriptor of philosophical concerns (rooted in socialist politics, nineteenth century utopianism, myth, morality and tradition) - and dealing with more complex issues of geography, politics, economics and marketing - which is manifest in the work it describes. Scandinavian Design - the capital ‘D’ for Design is to recognise the term as a construct rather than a geographic descriptor - is firmly rooted in a particular post-World War II paradigm that developed into a marketing construct and pervasive filter which still persists today. This filter excluded anything that did not sit well within the regional/national emphasis. As such, 1950s Swedish design cannot be viewed free from association with the context and meaning of the 1950s Scandinavian Design construct.

H@L
1 #-"( --
(
." ,( --

Central to discourse on Swedish design of the 1950s was the idea of ‘Swedishness’. I have already made reference to this term in my introduction and will continue the reference throughout this thesis. ‘Swedishness’ will also be raised in relation to ‘Finnishness’, and ‘Scandinavianness’. The idea, or collection ofideas, seeks to define certain Swedish (or Finnish or Scandinavian) attributes. In more simplistic terms it can be explained as “This is Swedish, this is not.” Swedishness, however, is much more complex.

Ethnologists have examined aspects of what constitutes ‘Swedishness’ but in the current time, in multicultural Sweden, this has become a hotly debated topic, along with ideas of the ‘Other’ and ‘Otherness’. Swedishness has been debated since the Nordic National Romantic movement of the nineteenth century. The range of clichés that abound see Swedes as practical and rational, these same qualities being apparently manifest in objects which have become ambassadors for the country. Swedishness is said to be “identified as a set of values shared amongst individuals and marked by rationalism, practicality, a belief in science, and even an accompanied degree of reservedness, coupled with an appreciation for moderation.”107 Swedishness has also been linked to national identity “in terms of the aesthetics of

bah
%,*0
^!"))J
^ 2+ 12/"0
,#
4"!&0%+"00L
" ,+0&!"/&+$
"-/"0"+11&,+0
,#
1%"
1&,+)^J
1%+,),$&
 +!&+3& 
J

',2/+)
#,/
,/!&
"1%+,),$6H
Uci
YbjjiZJ
caNdhM
-M
dcM 3 3 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

modernity”108 which emphasises stylistic clichés inherent in the term. These definitions of Swedishness are important in the context of my study as qualities that effected inclusion, exclusion and reception. Bourdieu’s phenomenological concept of ‘habitus’109 also finds resonance in the idea of Swedishness, particularly in notions of class and taste.

H@M
 ,'#()&)!3

In this thesis the term ‘Scandinavian design’ will refer to the period prior to the Design in Scandinavia (DiS) exhibition that toured North America between 1954 and 1957. ‘Scandinavian Design’ (capital D and italicised) will refer to the mid 1950s construct rather than as a geographic descriptor. ‘Nordic design’ will be used as the more correct and current designation. ‘Myths’ (italicised) will refer to the myths promulgated by the Scandinavian Design construct, whereas ‘myths’ will refer to Nordic folklore and associated mythology. SSF will be used to refer to the Svenska Slöjdföreningen (Swedish Society of Industrial Arts), a key actor in the promotion of Swedish and Scandinavian design.

H@N
.),-

The main actors I refer to in the discussion are the Svenska Slöjdföreningen or SSF, Orrefors Glasbruk and Kosta Glasbruk, along with an associated network of commentators, authors, critics, curators and propagandists, and the artists both central, and peripheral to this network. The SSF network of actors are identified in Part One, Table 1, before being discussed and analysed in Chapter Three and then examined in relation to the case of the exemplar in the main discussion of Part Two. Here I will briefly introduce and background these major actors. Biographical details on the individual actors are presented in Appendix i.

H@N@H
0 (-%
&5$ 5, (#(! (
),


TheSvenska Slöjdföreningen (Swedish Society of Crafts, SSF, now Svensk Form) was established in 1845 in Sweden, the oldest organisation of its kind in the world. The aim of the society was to protect the quality of Swedish handicrafts. The society mounted seminal exhibitions during the twentieth century in Sweden including the Art Industry Exhibition of 1909, Hemutställningen (The Home Exhibition) of 1917, The Stockholm Exhibition of 1930 and H55 in Helsingborg in 1955. The 1917 Hemutställningen is seen as the breakthrough in the SSF’s championing of the artist in industry and was a backdrop for the slogans “artists to bai
&!M
-M
dbM baj
0
&+1/,!2 "!
&+
,2/!&"2J
&01&+ 1&,+
J

0, &)
/&1&.2"
,#
1%"
'2!$"*"+1
,#
101"M 34 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

industry” and “better everyday things”. The SSF was responsible for the publication of a number of important texts during the first half of the twentieth century, including Gregor Paulsson’s influential Vackrare vardagsvara. The association is a not-for-profit organisation funded by its members and the government. Svensk Form has a government remit to be Sweden’s national venue in the field of design.110 Actors associated with the SSF who are discussed in my study are Elsa Gullberg, Arthur Hald, Edward Hald, Åke Huldt, Ulf Hård af Segerstad, Wilhelm Kåge, Gregor Paulsson, Sven Erik Skawonius, Åke Stavenow, Elisa Steenberg, Erik Wettergren, and Dag Widman.

H@N@I
,, ),-
&-,/%

Orrefors Glasbruk, formerly an iron foundry and sawmill located in Nybro Kommun in Småland, Sweden, was established in 1898 by Johan August Samuelsson before passing into the hands of Consular Officer Johan Ekman in 1913. In 1918 Ekman also purchased Sandvik Glassworks. Orrefors was taken over by Ekman’s children upon his death in 1919. The managing director and chair of the board of the glassworks until 1946 was Johannes Hellner, husband of Ekman’s daughter Agnes who became an avid collector of Orrefors glass. In 1946, the glassworks passed into the ownership of Henning Beyer and remained in the Beyer family until 1971. In the 1970s Orrefors acquired the glassworks of Alterflors, Flygsfors, Strömbergshyttan and Gullaskruf. In 1990 Orrefors acquired Kosta Boda. Today the company is known as Orrefors Kosta Boda.111 Actors associated with Orrefors who are discussed in this study are Johan Beyer, Simon Gate, Edward Hald, Agnes Hellner, Vicke Lindstrand, Nils Landberg, Ingeborg Lundin, Sven Palmqvist, Guy Robért and Edvin Öhrström.

H@N@J
)-.
&-,/%

Kosta Glasbruk is the oldest glassworks in Sweden. It was established in 1742 as the village of Kosta, in Lessebo Kommun, Småland, by Anders Koskull and Bogislaus Staël. The name Kosta is formed by the first syllables of each of their surnames, Ko-Sta. Kosta was modernised in the 1880s and in 1916 was the first glassworksto employ an artist. Kosta had many different owners over the years, passing into the ownership of the Åfors family in 1936. In 1971 Kosta became part of the Åfors Group, along with Åfors, Johansfors and Boda Glassworks. In 1976, under the ownership of Upsala-Ekeby, the Kosta Boda brand was

bba
4"!&0%
+01&121"M

bbb
,)*;/
"1
)MJ
(26
+,
(2+&
+,
',',
J
24"!"+
+,
$2/02
\d[[L\db[
e
6/& &0*
,#
*,!"/+
!"0&$+
J
4"!&0%
$)00
\d[[L\db[M
--M
ccdNcceM 3 5 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

initiated. In 1990 the group became part of the Orrefors group.112 Actors associated with Kosta who are discussed in this study are Elis Bergh, Hanne Dreutler, Ernest Gordon- Addsets, Bengt Heintz, Ulf Hård af Segerstad, Vicke Lindstrand, Bruno Mathsson, Mona Morales-Schildt,, Erik Rosén, Guy Robért, Sven Erik Skawonius, Göran Wärff, Arthur Zirnsack, and Eric Åfors.

H@O
,!(#-.#)(

This thesis is divided into two parts. This organisational device serves two functions. The first is to background the cause or symptom for the ideas I have discussed briefly in the preceding pages. The second is to examine the effect of the cause, or symptom, on a study of an individual. Put simply, Part One introduces and examines the cause, Part Two identifies and examines the effect.

Following the Introductory Chapter One, a survey and review of scholarship since 1980 is positioned in Chapter Two. In this chapter I will examine how commentary and scholarship since c.1980 has dealt with 1950s Swedish and Scandinavian Design ‘after the event’ by way of a historiographical analysis. This is followed by an examination of recent re-evaluations of canonical Swedish and Scandinavian Design, with the aim of assessing the ongoing influence of mid-century discourse. This provides an essential background for the discussion in Parts One and Two and also acts to further locate my study.

Part One consists of Chapter Three which acts primarily to trace the origins of narratives on modern Swedish design that were central to developments in the other Nordic countries, and to the preeminence of the glass factory Orrefors. Chapter Three begins by contextualising the development of twentieth century Swedish design within the emergence of the Artist in Industry model in Sweden. In Chapter Three, I identify and introduce a complex actor-network involved in discourse on Swedish design during the mid twentieth century. I further consider and interrogate the role of this community of individuals in the workings of the SSF, their relationships to the Swedish glass factory Orrefors and their championing of other factories and designers in a manner that I will argue can be viewed as favouritism. I particularly focus on the Hald family and their role within this network. As part of this critical survey, the role of Sweden, and the network of actors identified in the contribution to 1950s Scandinavian Design, is examined.

bbc
&!M
--M
ccaNccbM 36 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

In Chapter Three, I also undertake an analysis of commentary on Swedish and Scandinavian design from the twentieth century, primarily by Swedish authors and aimed at the English- speaking world. The rationale for focussing on English-language discourse is twofold: central to my argument is both the prominence of a regional/national focus in the promotion of Swedish and Scandinavian design during the mid-twentieth century, and the ways in which this impacted individual artists and designers. During this time there was a concentrated and overt marketing agenda from the Nordic countries aimed at selling democratic Scandinavian design to the world. English-language discourse is therefore viewed as central to this agenda in reiterating ideologies and in promoting national/regional identity. Moreover, the rationale for concentrating on the formation of the Scandinavian Design construct and subsequent commentary by Swedish authors in English exemplifies the what is the basis of international knowledge or ‘truths’ about Swedish and Scandinavian design. Ultimately this is fed back in a manner that influences Sweden and thus becomes embedded in narratives and truths. I conclude Chapter Three by arguing that central to the development of Scandinavian design, politics and thinking was Sweden, the largest of the Nordic countries and ultimately the most influential.

Part Two of the thesis consists of Chapter Four where I position Vicke Lindstrand as a case study in order to assess the consequences of inclusionary and exclusionary power and the effect of a constructed aesthetic on an individual. Lindstrand becomes a case study through which I examine his reception both within Sweden and America. Lindstrand represents an excellent case study as his career spans all of the major movements, periods and events in twentieth century Sweden from his debut at The Stockholm Exhibition of 1930, through the Scandinavian Design paradigm, the design and crafts revolutions of the 1960s, to the fall from grace of Swedish design in the 1970s. I will conclude Chapter Four by arguing that Lindstrand’s journey, from once-lauded artist associated with SSF exemplar Orrefors Glassworks to peripheral designer associated with the more commercial Kosta Glassworks, is related to the discourse and actor-network identified in Chapter Three compounded by his internationalist tendencies.

Finally in Chapter Five I draw some conclusions by revisiting my research questions, arguments and claims and proposing suggestions for further research. Here I further consider Bourdeiu’s concepts of distinction and class in relation to the SSF and case study, along with Cherry and Pollock’s ‘forgotten artist’, before examining the implications and limitations of my findings. I finish Chapter Five with an afterword of reflections on my research journey

3 7 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

that will assist in illuminating how the study unfolded, whilst identifying significant discoveries, setbacks and achievements.

38 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

 


+- (&+$
1%"
,+01/2 1M
,**"+1/6
0&+ "
bjia

“[...] of course writing history is a tricky thing; it depends on what you want to see and stress” 1

Helena Dahlbäck Lutteman

b
")"+
%) 8 (
211"*+J
^ +!201/&)
"0&$+
&+
4"!"+L
+
&01,/& )
2/3"6^J
&+
& ,)
*&)1,+
"1
)M
Y"!0MZJ
3"+0(
#,/*
J

,+#"/"+ "
 ,21
4"!&0%
"0&$+
YbM
"!+MK
,+!,+L
%"
"0&$+
,2+ &)J
bjibZM
-M
dbM 3 9 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

40 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

I@G
(.,)/.#)(

This chapter acts as a survey and review of literature since 1980 on the subject of Swedish and Scandinavian design. The aim is to identify critical reevaluation of twentieth century Swedish and Scandinavian design, and to assess the ongoing influence of mid-twentieth century narratives.

The period circa 1950 - 1970 is widely held as the Golden Era of Scandinavian Design, whilst Swedish design began its own golden era in the 1920s - roughly coinciding with design reforms in industry. Art Historian Mirjam Gelfer-Jørgensen explained in 2003 that:

Although a great deal has happened, and although a great number of quality products in Scandinavian design have been made over the past 50 years, the great period of Scandinavian design is still seen as having been the period 1950-1970. 2

The way in which Scandinavian Design has been described, categorised and promoted strike a startling resemblance to the way in which Swedish design was described by Swedish authors from circa 1945 onwards. In most cases, the cause of this resemblance is the pedigree of the authors who wrote about both Swedish and Scandinavian Design. These authors were associated or linked with the SSF. Scandinavian Design was said to be all about shared similarities and geographic influences resulting in a broad aesthetic or style that could very well be assigned to much of the ‘organic’ design of the mid-century period. Descriptors first applied to Swedish design during the 1920s, 30s and 40s were, during the 1950s, adapted to describe Scandinavian Design and, as will be demonstrated here, have thus become the default descriptors for any design from the Nordic region.

Whilst the 1950s traveling exhibition Design in Scandinavia, which toured art museums and galleries in North America between 1954 and 1957, may be seen as central to international awareness of design from the Nordic region, The Lunning Prize was also held to have been important in the establishment of Scandinavian Design in both the United States and Scandinavia between 1950 and 1970. This prize was the initiative of Fredrick Lunning, the agent for Georg Jensen in New York. It was a travelling scholarship awarded to two Scandinavian designers each year between 1951 and 1970, coinciding with the Golden Era. The Lunning Prize

c
&/'*
")#"/N >/$"+0"+J
^ +!&+3&+&0*
N

2)12/)
/+!^J
&+
&!/
);+
+!
"/01&+
& (*+
Y"!0MZJ
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
"6,+!
1%"
*61%
J
@#16
6"/0
,#
!"0&$+
#/,*
1%"
,/!&
,2+1/&"0
Y1, (%,)*L
/3&+&20J
caadZJ
bhNcfM
-M
cdM 4 1 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

was widely publicised and further contributed to international awareness of Scandinavian design, particularly in the United States of America.

During the 1970s, there was a shift in focus in the Nordic region from design for the home to design for the government-funded public sector. During the 1970s there was little commentary on Scandinavian Design. Rather, there was a redirection of international interest towards newer design regions such as Italy and Japan, and the widespread influence of Post-Modernism which eschewed the modernist tendencies associated with mid-twentieth century Scandinavian Design.

In Sweden art historian, educator, and interdisciplinary theorist Gregor Paulsson3 had established the ‘better things for everyday life’ paradigm in 1919. From as early as 1926 art historian and curator Erik Wettergren was describing Swedish design in terms such as “national rustic character”, “diverse as the country itself” and “simplified and unhampered form”4. This kind of rhetoric resonates in both Gotthard Johansson’s and Ulf Hård af Segerstad’s texts of the 1950s and 60s, which will be analysed in Chapter Three. The designations Swedish Grace in the 1930s, Swedish Modern in the 1940s and Scandinavian Modern during the 1950s have directly contributed to, and largely dominated, the image of how design from the Nordic region has been understood, thus creating an ongoing and persistent legacy.5 In commentary since 2000, current Swedish design is cited as “radical”, “revolutionary”6 or “figurative”7, yet remains grounded in 1950s rhetoric described in sweeping metaphors such as “beautiful tools”, “gesture [s] of simplicity”8 and the “Swedish love of clean lines”9. The same metaphors first put forward in 1940s texts - related to nature, climate, the streamlined and functional - persist as narratives and rhetoric firmly associated with any discussion of design from the Nordic region. During the 1990s the pared down, functionalist forms of Scandinavian Design, and more particularly Swedish design were rediscovered for their affinity with modernist-referencing, minimalist tendencies in design. Aggressive debates about elite taste, consumption and popular taste in

d
0
&+1/,!2 "!
&+
%-1"/
4,M e
/&(
"11"/$/"+
+!
$"
)*J
%"
*,!"/+
!" ,/1&3"
/10
,#
4"!"+
Y"4
,/(L
%"
*"/& +N +!&+3&+
,2+!1&,+J
bjcgZM
-M
bM f
0
+
"5*-)"J
1%"
1&,+)*20"2*
&+
1, (%,)*
%0
2/1"!
1%"
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
$))"/6
2+!"/
1%"
%"!&+$0J
 (//"
3/!$03/J
4"!&0%
/ "J
4"!&0%
,!"/+J
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+
+!
0,
,+M g
/!)"6
2&++J
"0&$+"!
&+
4"!"+
Y1, (%,)*L
/3&+&20J
caaeZM h
+&1
%"+,&J
4"!"+
L
&+0&!"
,21
J

0+-0%,1
/&"@+$
,+
1%"
,2+1/6
+!
&10
-",-)"
Y)*=L
(,J
caajZM
-M
bbaM i
2&++J
"0&$+"!
&+
4"!"+M
--M
bNcM j
%"+,&J
4"!"+
L
&+0&!"
,21
J

0+-0%,1
/&"@+$
,+
1%"
,2+1/6
+!
&10
-",-)"M
-M
bbaM 42 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

Sweden that surrounded the exhibition Form fantasi 10 in 1964 saw the organiser, the SSF, criticised for a narrow aesthetic selection that was out of touch with the spirit of the times.11 The public debate was widely covered by Swedish newspapers and television and may be seen as the galvanising of an ‘anti-movement’ that had begun in the late 1950s.

It is important in the context of this research to understand how more recent discourse, promotion and opinion has portrayed design from Sweden and Scandinavia ‘after the event’. The way in which more recent design from the Nordic region has been discussed before examining the 1950s ‘Golden Era’ origin of rhetoric and narratives. In considering this, the following questions are important to consider: Has later commentary been more critical, more objective and less clichéd? Has it referenced earlier writings? Are preeminent exemplars present in commentary? How have authors from outside the Nordic region (re)interpreted the period? Have previously peripheral individuals been the subject of critical reassessment?

I@H
"
 ."
)
(#(0#(
 -#!(B
,&3
 A-- --' (.
)
."
)& (
,

The term Scandinavian Design was firmly rejected by young Nordic designers during the 1970s. On July 5th, 1980 a group of Norwegian designers held a symbolic funeral for Scandinavian Design. A five metre long white coffin with the words Scandinavian Design emblazoned along the side was sunk in Oslo Fjord. Fuelled by a long standing debate between artists and designers and explained as “a symbolic action to demonstrate the problems one faces today cannot be solved by means of a philosophy that has become industry hostile”, it was felt that “the term [Scandinavian Design] is founded on the Nordic craft traditions and can therefore not ensure the role of industrial designers in today’s society.”12 Despite the symbolic funeral for Scandinavian Design the action was met with relative silence from the design establishment. It took until the turn of the century for this silence to be broken by the protagonists of a reassessment of Scandinavian Design, and the symbolic funeral may now be viewed as a watershed in the reception of Nordic design. The earlier clichés and aesthetic criteria formulated in the first half of the twentieth century in relation to Swedish design, and then adapted to Scandinavian Design, began to be questioned and re-examined. Commentators who had established narratives and rhetoric in the 1950s and 1960s remained active at the beginning of this reassessment, repositioning themselves in more critical writings that may be seen to ba
%"

"5%& &1&,+
,/*
#+10&
40
%")!
1
&)'3 %0
,+01%))
&+
1, (%,)*
&+
bjgeM
1
&0
!&0 200"!
&+
*,/"
!"1&)
&+
%-1"/
4,
,#
1%&0
1%"0&0M bb
,/
+$)&0%
1/+0)1&,+0
,#
-"/&,!
+"40--"/
+!
',2/+)
"!&1,/&)0
,+
1%"
!" 1"J
0""
+!/
%)
C
8 3&
/+(3&01J
^ +!0
,+
,3"*"+1
N
/#1"!
,/*
&+
&),$2"^J
Y/#1"!
,/*K
1, (%,)*J
caahZM
bc
'"1&)
))+J
^ ,4
+
5 31,/
,1
"01%"1&
/"1"+0&,+0X"$,1&1&+$
"0&$+
&+
bjga0R
,/46^J
,2/+)
,#
"0&$+
&01,/6H
caUb
YcaahZJ
edNfjM
-M
feM 4 3 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

question their own earlier texts. At the same time, a new generation of writers emerged who were not entrenched in the Golden Era legacy and brought new objectivity to discourse on the mid-century period.

Whilst the symbolic burial of Scandinavian Design was taking place in Oslo, across the North Sea in Great Britain there were murmurs of a critical reappraisal. The Design History Society conference Svensk Form, A Conference about Swedish Design featured papers from both Swedish and English academics that included Arthur Hald, a central actor in the mid-twentieth century Swedish and Scandinavian design paradigm.13 The proceedings of the conference14 published the following year, sought to investigate both the substance and meaning of Swedish design whilst dispelling some of the associated and, in my opinion, misconceived mythology. Whilst several of the papers did set out to interrogate misconceptions and mythologies, there was little new critical analysis or conclusions offered. Rather, there was reiteration of material from previous publications along with observations of the parallel Victoria and Albert Museum exhibition Svensk Form. In the introductory paper by the Director of Föreningen Svensk Form (previously SSF until 1976), Lennart Lindqvist discusses the Victoria & Albert Museum exhibition in terms of extremes, that of handicrafts and industrial design and in between “some examples of good Swedish mass-produced products”15 or “good everyday goods”16 - referring to the Gregor Paulsson Vackrare vardagsvara paradigm. Swedish/British presenter Eric de Maré17 observed that although Swedish design was of a generally high standard, “while Swedish Grace goes on (as seen in the exhibition here) - the situation seems to have grown somewhat static and unadventurous.”18

Design historian Penny Sparke’s paper Swedish Modern: Myth and Reality suggests some promise as a critical reassessment by an ‘outsider’ of a peripheral individual and is of interest to this study. The paper presents aspects of Sparke’s early research19 on the influence of Josef Frank bd
/1%2/
)!J
0,+
,#
!4/!
)!
,#
//"#,/0J
00, &1"!
4&1%
1%"

0
"!&1,/
,#
,/*
+!
,+12/
*$7&+"0J
21%,/
+!
,**"+11,/M
""
%-1"/
%/""
#,/

*,/"
!"1&)"!
!&0 200&,+
,#
%&0
/,)"
&+
1%"
M be
& ,)
*&)1,+
"1
)MJ
3"+0(
,/*
J

,+#"/"+ "
 ,21
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
Yb01
"!+MJ
&01,/6
,#
!"0&$+K
,+!,+L
"0&$+
,2+ &)J
bjibZM bf
"++/1
&+!.3&01J
^ +1/,!2 1&,+
1,
1%"
3"+0(
,/*
5%& &1&,+^J
&+
& ,)
*&)1,+
"1
)M
Y"!0MZJ
3"+0(
,/*
J

,+#"/"+ "
 ,21
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
Yb01
"!+MK
,+!,+L
"0&$+
,2+ &)J
bjibZJ
gNjM
-M
hM bg
&!M bh
/&
!"
/;
YbjbaNcaacZ
40
+
/ %&1" 12/)
-%,1,$/-%"/
,/+
,#
4"!&0%
-/"+10
&+
+$)+!
21
/&0"!
0

4"!"M
+
!"0 /& &+$
%&0
2- /&+$&+$
1%"
21%,/
011"0
S%1
-) "0
*"
&+

%--6
-,0&1&,+L

!,+R1
%3"
1,
"
1,,
/"#2))6
!&-),*1&
1,!6K
&+
*6
%)#N46
%,20"
0
+
,210&!"/

+
06
4%1

)&("MT
/&
"
/;J
^%"
,,10
,#
4"!&0%
,/*^J
& &!MJ
baNbeM bi
&!M
-M
bbM bj
-/("
"5-+!0
1%&0
--"/
&+

)1"/
"006
&+
,0"#
/+(
+!
&+
1/&17)"/N "3&+"J
,0"#
/+(
J
/ %&1" 1
+!
!"0&$+"/
J
+
)1"/+1&3"
3&0&,+
,#
1%"
*,!"/+
%,*"
Y"4
3"+L
)"
+&3M
/"00J
bjjgZM
44 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

on Swedish Modern. Sparke sets out to examine an alternative view of how Swedish design developed in the twentieth century “and how its component qualities combined to create an almost mythical image in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”20 Perhaps constrained by the limits of the conference paper format, Sparke does not define what she views as this “mythical image” or what “its parts” are, but reading between the lines it has much to do with the particular Swedish take on Functionalism and the origins of the term Swedish Modern (which reinforces her thesis on the central role of Frank’s work in the coining of the term).

Helena Dahlbäck Lutteman reminds the reader in her paper that “[...] of course writing history is a tricky thing; it depends on what you want to see and stress”21. This is perhaps one reading of the emphasis in Sparke’s paper and how Swedish authors previously wrote about both Swedish and Scandinavian Design, which will be discussed in Chapter Three of this thesis. Lutteman presents a historical survey of industrial design in Sweden, in which she describes the 1950s as the climax of Swedish crafts-based industrial design. She describes the SSF’s 1955 Helsingborg exhibition H5522 as “an advanced re-write of [the Stockholm Exhibition of] 1930” before offering a retrospective view of H55.

This latest [...] exhibition of Swedish design on a larger scale demonstrated that Sweden could boast of having some good everyday goods, something for which the [SSF] had started to strive since 1917. The arrangements, products and the whole display were perfect, perhaps even too perfect. It was tiring to see such perfection - a plastic ladle could be exhibited and photographed as an objet d’art. There was no flaw or imperfection. Even the crafts, glass and ceramics were serene, and you felt that it was impossible to alter one single line in order not to disturb divine order. 23

This tendency for ‘serene perfection’ in Swedish exhibitions from the editor of American Craft Horizons magazine, Conrad Brown, in his review of the Swedish exhibit at the Milan Triennale of 1957, elicited a similar sentiment.24 Lutteman qualifies her view by discussing the late 1950s move away from perfection, and the growing concerns of ergonomics and design for accessibility that had emerged in response to the function studies initiatives of the SSF. Lutteman illuminates the position of Sweden in the 1970s, where design developed for industrial production that was not craft-based as in the Golden Era. ca
"++6
-/("J
^4"!&0%
,!"/+L
61%
+!
")&16^J
&+
& ,)
*&)1,+
"1
)M
Y"!0MZJ
3"+0(
,/*
J

,+#"/"+ "
 ,21
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
Yb01
"!+MK
,+!,+L
"0&$+
,2+ &)J
bjibZJ
bfNcaM
-M
bfM cb
%) 8 (
211"*+J
^ +!201/&)
"0&$+
&+
4"!"+L
+
&01,/& )
2/3"6^M
bjibM
-M
dbM cc
ffJ
+
&+&1&1&3"
,#
1%"
M
")!
&+
")0&+$ ,/$
&+
bjffM
+
"5%& &1&,+
,#
 +!&+3&+
/10J
/ %&1" 12/"
+!
--)&"!
/10M cd
&!M
-M
dcM ce
""
,+/!
/,4+J
^
 )"
#/,*
1%"
/&"++)"^J
/#1
,/&7,+0H
 Ug
Ybjfi ZM
-M
bcM 4 5 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Arthur Hald’s contribution is of particular interest given his central role in the SSF during the 1950s as director of the association and editor of its journals Form and Kontur. At the time of the conference in 1980, Hald was the director of Gustavsberg Porcelain Factory in Sweden, an exemplar of the SSF ideology, where designer Stig Lindberg had worked variously between 1937 and 1980. Hald’s paper presented an informative history of the factory that put forward an alternate view to Sparke. Hald, emphasising his involvement in the SSF, focussed on the Artist in Industry paradigm, and cited the example of Gustavsberg’s Wilhelm Kåge, and Orrefors’ Edward Hald and Simon Gate, who in Arthur Hald’s opinion “made exquisite one-of-a-kind products alongside decent designs for the broad masses [...] one day on the factory floor, next day in the artist’s studio within the factory gates.”25 There is nothing new or particularly insightful in Hald’s text, rather, confirmation of his, and the SSF’s, previous focus and ideology.

In 1982 a more decisive reappraisal was instigated when the exhibition Scandinavian Modern Design 1880 – 1980 opened at the Cooper Hewitt Museum in New York. The exhibition was accompanied by a comprehensive, illustrated catalogue that includes important essays re- examining various aspects of Scandinavian Design, both curated and edited by art historian and curator David Revere McFadden. The exhibition was a project of Scandinavia Today, an American celebration of contemporary Scandinavian culture sponsored and administered by The American-Scandinavian Foundation.26

The American Scandinavian Foundation remains an active promotor of Scandinavian Design in America and had been responsible for the publication of the previous decade’s Scandinavian Design, Objects of a Lifestyle27, and the distribution of the American edition of Erik Wettergren’s 1926 book The Modern Decorative Arts of Sweden, both discussed in Chapter Three. Scandinavian Modern Design28 is a significant departure from previous writings on the subject being the first scholarly examination of design from the Nordic countries in English, including contributions from leading Nordic curators, commentators and academics.

According to McFadden, the aim of the exhibition and publication was “to provide a chronological survey of both internal and external developments in the history of Scandinavian design.”29 The seemingly broad timeframe, beginning c1880, roughly coincides with the cf
/1%2/
)!J
^
20130 "/$
4"!"+^J
&+
& ,)
*&)1,+
"1
)M
Y"!0MZJ
3"+0(
,/*
J

,+#"/"+ "
 ,21
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
Yb01
"!+MK
,+!,+L
"0&$+
,2+ &)J
bjibZJ
cbNcgM
-M
ccM cg
 #!!"+
Y"!MZJ
 +!&+3&+
*,!"/+
!"0&$+H
\cc[L\dc[M ch
""/J
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+K
 '" 10
,#

&#"
16)"M ci
 #!!"+
Y"!MZJ
 +!&+3&+
*,!"/+
!"0&$+H
\cc[L\dc[M cj
&!M 46 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

galvanising of issues of Nationalism by social and art theorists within Scandinavia. Ellen Key’s influential writings, Beauty in the Home and Beauty for All, became the framework for later theorists including Gregor Paulsson’s More Beautiful Everyday Things, that was incorporated into the charter of the SSF. With the inclusion of recent design from the 1970s in the scope of the exhibition, there was an opportunity to observe developments since the end of the Golden Era. McFadden, in citing the problem of substantial discourse in English on Scandinavian design, observes that “other works, particularly those in English, have attempted to reduce a multitude of ideas, individuals, and movements to a series of comprehensible, generalised principles.”30 McFadden’s observations can be seen to indirectly refer to the work of Gotthard Johansson, Arthur Hald, Åke Huldt, Ulf Hård af Segerstad, Sven-Erik Skawonius et al. from within the SSF and represent the small pool of English language texts cited by McFadden. These texts are analysed in detail in Chapter Three of this thesis.

The exhibition catalogue, Scandinavian Modern Design, is significant on many levels, not solely for its scholarly status. It contains one of the last English language essays on Scandinavian Design from the important Swedish design critic, Ulf Hård af Segerstad, which represents a radical departure from his previous English language writings. Hård af Segerstad was responsible for criticism, discussion and promotion of Swedish, Finnish and Scandinavian design in his regular column in the Swedish newspaper, Svenska Dagbladet. He was also the author of a number of important books and essays written in the 1950s and 1960s which have had a profound influence on later commentary. His contribution to Scandinavian Modern Design is the chapter Unity and Diversity in Scandinavian Design31 sharing a similar title with Frantz Wendt’s earlier essay, Unity and Diversity in Scandinavia32, included in Erik Zahle’s 1962 book, A Treasury of Scandinavian Design, demonstrating the still prevailing and persistent emphasis on similarities and differences. In the essay Hård af Segerstad declares that “not everything that is called ‘Scandinavian’ design is really ‘Scandinavian Design’”, and that in his mind the term is more specific to the 1950s Design in Scandinavia exhibition, around which he wrote extensively.33 Hård af Segerstad confirms that the basis of selection for inclusion in the

da
&!M db
)#
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
^+&16
+!
&3"/0&16
&+
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+^J
&+
3&!
"3"/"
 #!!"+
Y"!MZJ
 +!&+3&+
*,!"/+
!"0&$+H
\cc[L\dc[
Y"4
,/(L
//6

 /*0
+
2 )&0%"/0J
bjic ZM
--M
cfNdgM dc
/+17
"+!1J
^+&16
+!
&3"/0&16
&+
 +!&+3&^J
&+
/&
%)"
Y"!MZJ

/"02/6
,#
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+K
%"
1+!/!
21%,/&16
,+
 +!&+3&+
S
!"0&$+"!
2/+&12/"H
"51&)"0H
)00H
"/*& 0
+!
"1)
Y"4
,/(L
,)!"+
/"00J
bjgbZJ
hNiM dd
"#"/
#,/
,*-/&0,+
1,
1%"
=%00(
20"2*
,#
0%&,+
+!
"0&$+
%1
&0
4"!&0%
"0&$+M
-/,-,0&1&,+0
+,1"!
"/)&"/
&+
%-1"/
+"M
%"
.2"01&,+0
#,/*
-/1
,#
1%"
1"51
,#
1%"
-"/*+"+1
!"0&$+
"5%& &1M
%"6
/"L
%1
&0
4"!&0%
"0&$+M
,"0
1%"
-/,!2 1
%3"
1,
"
-/,!2 "!
&+
4"!"+
#,/
&1
1,
"
4"!&0%
"0&$+M
,
6,2
%3"
1,
)&3"
&+
4"!"+
1,
"

4"!&0%
"0&$+"/M
,"0
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
%3"

-/1& 2)/
),,(M
0
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
-/1& 2)/)6
-/ 1& )M
0
&1
"3"+
/")"3+1
1,
1)(
 ,21
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
1
))M
4 7 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

1950s exhibition was a vague ideology that nonetheless presented as a unity. This is a fact that has been verified by this researcher in archival correspondence relating to the exhibition held in the Svensk Form Arkiv in Stockholm, where a seemingly arbitrary, personal and not-so democratic selection was made by the Swedish organisers.

Art historian Jan-Lauritz Opstad’s essay in McFadden’s catalogue deals with contemporary (c1980s) design. Opstad begins with the concept of Scandinavian Design, before questioning its currency and validity, and continues by stating that whilst initially considered in Scandinavia as “a particularly Scandinavian attitude towards objects themselves that was shared among the Nordic countries”34, it ultimately became a descriptor of a style and period. Opstad also makes the astute observation that, “simply put, the concept ‘Scandinavian Design’ belongs to a society quite different from today’s.”35 Opstad concludes by observing that in Scandinavia “modern design came to be considered the visual expression of the socially just society”36 or, as it has been successfully utilised in marketing by IKEA, Democratic Design.37 The work illustrated does go some way towards dismissing clichés and misunderstandings, but without extensive commentary.

The title of art historian and curator Helena Dahlbäck Lutteman’s essay Nordic Design: A Multitude of Voices suggests a deliberate distance from the 1950s designation by her choice of the adjective Nordic rather than Scandinavian. Lutteman points out that “While the American audiences may see the Scandinavian countries as an entity, we see ourselves in a different way.”38 She emphasises that Scandinavian Design had become a stylistic descriptor like Art Deco, before concluding that:

[...] in it’s truest sense, Scandinavian Design must stand for more than how things look: it must stand equally for the ideas behind them. 39

Lutteman places emphasis on the perceptions of the American audience and how they understood the Scandinavian countries. Chapter Three of this study will demonstrate that it was, in fact, the Scandinavians themselves, or more precisely the Swedes via their authorship de
+N 2/&17
-01!J
^,+1"*-,//6
"0&$+L
%))"+$"
+!
"+"4)^J
&+
3&!
"3"/"
 #!!"+
Y"!MZJ
 +!&+3&+
*,!"/+
!"0&$+H
\cc[L\dc[
Y"4
,/(L
//6

 /*0
+
2 )&0%"/0J
bjicZM
-M
cbaM df
&!M
dg
&!M
dh
("J
"*, /1&
"0&$+H
1%"
01,/6
 ,21
1%"
1%/""
!&*"+0&,+)
4,/)!
,#

L
#,/*H
#2+ 1&,+
+!
),4
-/& "0
Y +1"/

601"*0
MMJ
bjjgZM di
")"+
%) 8 (
211"*+J
^,/!&
"0&$+L

2)1&12!"
,#
,& "0^J
&+
3&!
"3"/"
 #!!"+
Y"!MZJ
 +!&+3&+
*,!"/+
!"0&$+H
\cc[L\dc[
Y"4
,/(L
//6

 /*0
+
2 )&0%"/0J
bjicZJ
dhNefM
-M
dhM dj
&!M
-M
efM 48 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

and commentary on Scandinavian Design, who informed the Americans on how they should perceive Scandinavia.

McFadden’s exhibition publication set out to re-evaluate canonical Scandinavian Design. In his introductory essay McFadden argues that there is a potential loss of individual identities inherent in the pursuit of similarities, a central argument of this study. McFadden states that:

Design in Scandinavia has always been a combination of highly diverse influences and activities, and in our eagerness to look for similarities, we may have lost sight of many critical differences between artists, countries and ideas… [the exhibition] it is hoped, will establish a context for the present design traditions of Scandinavia and open new areas for future consideration.40

Scandinavian Modern Design 1880 – 1980 set out to illustrate points of difference, but ultimately failed to generate an immediate ongoing debate. Rather, reviews of the exhibition focussed on the objects as the impetus of a revival in interest in mid-century Scandinavian Design.41 The publication, whilst out of print since 1982, has since become a standard reference. In the decade following McFadden’s exhibition and publication there was no further analysis or discussion of Scandinavian Design in specialist English language literature.

Sweden, however, continued promotion with the 1985 publication of the latest in the Swedish Institute series Design in Sweden42, which included essays from five contributors, including the editors of the journal Form. The publication was aimed at a more elementary reader, and provides historical background as well as discussion of the theory and practice of design in Sweden at a time when attention was focussed elsewhere. The editor, design journalist Monica Boman, summed up 1980s Swedish design in her foreword where she observes that:

If the late 1960s were dominated by politics and the 1970s by morals, the 1980s have broken down all the barriers and put the hallmark of respectability on aesthetics and personal expression. “Poetic functionalism” and “the new sensualism” have become slogans in the debate on design. A new freedom has generated creativity. To the young generation of designers, beauty is a function equally important as the practical function. Today everything seems possible and permissible: sumptuous decoration, anarchistic experiments in form, startling mixtures of material, humour, impudence. But at the same time there is also

ea
 #!!"+
Y"!MZJ
 +!&+3&+
*,!"/+
!"0&$+H
\cc[L\dc[M
-M
cdM eb
""
#,/
"5*-)"
1%"
+2*"/,20
/"3&"40
+!
/1& )"0
/,2+!
1%"
"5%& &1&,+
+!
$"+"/)
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+
&+
1%"
"4
,/(
&*"0
/ %&3"0
#,/
bjicM ec
,*+J
=/"+&+$"+
3"+0(
,/*J
+!
3"+0(
+01&121"1J
"0&$+
&+
4"!"+M 4 9 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

something which perhaps can be termed Swedish: a lyrical, introspective calm, a low-key mode of address, a liberating simplicity. 43

Boman’s observations set Swedish design within both the international concerns of 1980s design whilst attempting to link it with the ‘lyrical, calm simplicity’ of 1950s Swedish design.

I@I
#-* &&#(!
3."-B
/,." ,
 0#-#)(
(
 A-- --' (.

The formation of the Nordisk Forum för Formgivningshistorie (Nordic Forum for Design History Studies or NFF) by prominent Nordic scholars, art and design historians in 1982 eventually led to the publication of the respected Scandinavian Journal of Design History (SJODH)44 between 1991 and 2005. The journal and the continuing bi-annual symposia have created a significant platform for new research and discourse relating to Nordic design history. The forum has brought together both design historians, scholars and educators (predominantly from within the Nordic countries) set on interrogating the design history of the region, and scholars from outside of Scandinavia whose outsider perspectives may provide fresh insights.45 The results of this forum have been profound. Members of the NFF contributed to a revision of canonical Scandinavian Design which first emerged in articles published in the Scandinavian Journal of Design History. Contributors to SJODH were also involved in exhibitions researched and curated by the Bard Graduate Centre (BGC) at Harvard University. The Bard Graduate Centre has become an important location for research into the decorative arts with a particular emphasis on Scandinavia. Since its foundation in 1993, BGC has curated and staged exhibitions

ed
&!M
M
jM ee
"1
+0("
2+01&+!201/&*20"2*J
^ +!&+3&+
',2/+)
,#
!"0&$+
%&01,/6^M ef
0
+
Q,210&!"/RJ

@/01
-/"0"+1"!
1%"
"/)6
01$"0
,#
1%&0
012!6
1
1%"
caag
")0&+(&
06*-,0&2*
+!
)1"/
0
+
&+3&1"!
0-"("/
1
1%"
caaj
0),
06*-,0&2*M
%"
@/01
--"/
-/"0"+1"!
"/)6
@+!&+$0
+!
%6-,1%"0"0
/")1&+$
1,
1%"
0"
012!6
-/"0"+1"!
&+
/1
4,
,#
1%&0
1%"0&0
0K
/(
+
,+"0J
^
)&+!
0-,1P
%"
-"/ "-1&,+
,#
1%"
bjfa0
$)00
!"0&$+0
,#
& ("
&+!01/+!M^J
&+
"((
,/3"+*
+!
/&01
,!/"0
Y"!0MZJ
,++" 1&+$J

,+#"/"+ "
,+
1%"
2)1&3, )&16
,#
"0&$+
&01,/6
B
"0&$+
12!&"0
Y ")0&+(&
C
))&++L
+&3"/0&16
,#
/1
+!
"0&$+
C
01,+&+
 !"*6
,#
/10L
+1"/+1&,+)
,**&11""
,#
"0&$+
&01,/6
+!
12!&"0
 
C
,/!&
,/2*
#,/
"0&$+
&01,/6J
caagZJ
baiM
%"
0" ,+!
--"/
-/"0"+1"!
#2/1%"/
@+!&+$0
&+1"//,$1&+$
)&+(0
"14""+
1%"

+!
//"#,/0
4%& %
#,/*
-/1
,#
1%"
!&0 200&,+
&+
%-1"/
%/""
,#
1%&0
1%"0&0
0K
/(
+
,+"0J
^/,*
//"#,/0
4&1%
),3"P

4"!&0%
!"0&$+
#*&)6
+!
1%"&/
&+B2"+ "^J
6*-,0&2*
,/!&0(
,/2*
#,/
,/*$&3+&+$0012!&"/
Y0),L
0',+)*20""1
0),J
caajZM
+-2 )&0%"!M 50 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

and accompanying publications on a range of subjects reassessing previously neglected and unchartered areas of Nordic design46, outside of the influence of the regional filter.

Global re-assessment of individuals that were peripheral to national versions of twentieth- century modernism accelerated during the 1980s as a result of the widespread influence of post- modernism and feminist theory. Designers who did not fit, or were somehow outside or peripheral to the Modernist program were ‘discovered’ at the same time as the tenets of Modernism had come into question in the 1960s. Irish designer Eileen Gray who practised in France is one notable example. So too is the Austrian architect and designer Josef Frank who practised in Germany and Austria but was to find most success as an immigrant in Sweden. Frank’s ‘outsider’ status and particular views on Functionalism in Sweden kept him peripheral to the design mainstream in Sweden, and to the activities of the SSF.

The case of Josef Frank presents an interesting example of how peripheral designers in Sweden have been reassessed in the last fifteen years. The 1996 BGC exhibition and publication Josef Frank Architect and Designer: an alternative vision of the modern home47 followed Christopher Long’s 1993 doctoral thesis Josef Frank and the Crisis of Modern Architecture48. Penny Sparke’s essay in the publication is of interest as a reframing of an individual within the Swedish milieu that expands and revises her 1981 paper Swedish Modern: Myth and Reality49. Sparke develops her thesis linking Frank to the formation of the Swedish Modern style which ultimately became Scandinavian Modern or Scandinavian Design. At the same time as the staging of the BGC exhibition, Christopher Long extended his doctoral thesis of 1993 towards a book on Frank with an article in the Autumn 1996 Scandinavian Review, Josef Frank: The making of modern design50. The dilemma presented in both texts is twofold. Both scholars draw attention to a previously neglected individual by examining his contribution to the development of Swedish modern design during the twentieth century. Both scholars quote the same sources and eg
""
)0,L
/&++"
3
+!
/!
/!21"
"+1"/
,#
12!&"0
&+
1%"
" ,/1&3"
/10
"0&$+
+!
2)12/"MJ
/&*"((,
J
# /& 0H
#0%&,+H
/ %&1" 12/"
Y"4
3"+L
2 )&0%"!
#,/
%"
/!
/!21"
"+1"/
#,/
12!&"0
&+
1%"
" ,/1&3"
/10
"0&$+
+!
2)12/"
"4
,/(
6
)"
+&3M
/"00J
caadZJ
/+(
+!
1/&17)"/N "3&+"J
,0"#
/+(
J
/ %&1" 1
+!
!"0&$+"/
J
+
)1"/+1&3"
3&0&,+
,#
1%"
*,!"/+
%,*"J
",/$
/1%2/
"+0"+
"1
)MJ
",/$
"+0"+
'"4")/6
Y"4
3"+
,++ML
2 )&0%"!
#,/
1%"
/!
/!21"
"+1"/
#,/
12!&"0
&+
1%"
" ,/1&3"
/10
"0&$+
+!
2)12/"
6
)"
+&3"/0&16
/"00J
caafZJ
3
2! "/$
+!
" &)&
&!"+%"&*J
1,-&
B
/")&16
J
*,!"/+&16
&+
4"!"+
\d[[L\da[
Y"4
3"+
K
,+!,+L
)"
+&3"/0&16J
caacZJ
$
&!*+
"1
)MJ
/2+,
1%00,+
Y)*=L
/"+
&+
00, &1&,+
4&1%
1%"
/!
/!21"
"+1"/
#,/
12!&"0
&+
1%"
" ,/1&3"
/10
"0&$+
+!
2)12/"
"4
,/(
+!
)"
+&3"/0&16
/"00
"4
3"+
+!
,+!,+J
caagZM
01"/$/!
"1
)MJ
%"
/&))&+ "
,#
4"!&0%
$)00
\d\cL\d^d
J
+
))&+ "
,#
/1
+!
&+!201/6M eh
&+
1/&17)"/N "3&+"
Y"!MZJ
,0"#
/+(
J
/ %&1" 1
+!
!"0&$+"/
J
+
)1"/+1&3"
3&0&,+
,#
1%"
*,!"/+
%,*"
Y"4
3"+L
)"
+&3M
/"00J
bjjgZM ei
%/&01,-%"/
,+$J
^ ,0"#
/+(
+!
1%"
/&0&0
,#
,!"/+
/ %&1" 12/"^J
Y+&3"/0&16
,#
"50
1
201&+J
bjjdZM ej
-/("J
^4"!&0%
,!"/+L
61%
+!
")&16^M fa
%/&01,-%"/
,+$J
^ ,0"#
/+(L
%"
*(&+$
,#
4"!&0%
*,!"/+
!"0&$+^J
 +!&+3&+
"3&"4H
U212*+
YbjjgZM 5 1 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

references, but in the case of Sparke, the quotations are used in a different context. In both her 198151 and 1996 writings, Sparke utilises quotations and commentary to place emphasis on her thesis linking the work of Frank with the coining of the term Swedish Modern. As an example, Sparke’s writings around the Swedish contribution to the Paris Exposition of 1937 and the New York World Fair of 1939 reveal these tendencies.

Sparke’s texts relating to the Paris Exposition of 1937 read as though the positive critical reception of the Swedish Pavilion was entirely based on the terrace design of Josef Frank and Estrid Ericson of Svenskt Tenn. She links the catch-phrase “Swedish Modern - A movement towards sanity in design” directly to Frank and Ericson’s designs, which suggests that the author of the moniker must have been referring exclusively to their work.52 What is absent in Sparke’s texts is confirmation of these facts and the context of other notable contributions to the pavilion that were directly responsible for the positive critical reception. Other contributions included, but were not limited to, Orrefors glass and Vicke Lindstrand’s monumental window that “was praised as a masterpiece of modern glass, becoming one of the most-talked about decorative elements of the pavilion”53 according to art historian Märta Holkers quoting Åke Stavenow in a parallel BGC publication. In Sparke’s discussion of the New York World’s Fair of 1939, there is no discussion or mention of the many other Swedish designers that contributed to the positive reception, again including Vicke Lindstrand’s monumental glass fountain which received widespread coverage in the New York and Swedish press. The pavilion itself was designed by Swedish architect Sven Markelius and again, according to Holkers, “was immensely popular in part because its displays presented a more humanistic interpretation of modernism.”54

The illustrated catalogue of the 1939 Swedish Pavilion, discussed in Chapter Three of this thesis, reveals much of the positive press awarded to the Swedes, demonstrating that Frank and Ericson were not solely responsible. Sparke further quotes a description of a 1940s Swedish home by Åke Huldt and Eva Benedicks (which was reiterating an SSF ideal) as something that could have been talking about a Josef Frank interior. To clarify, Huldt’s original text in Design in Sweden Today55 is illustrated with Swedish domestic interiors by a range of designers including fb
-/("J
^4"!&0%
,!"/+L
61%
+!
")&16^M fc
"++6
-/("J
^_,+3"+&"+ "
+!
)"0+1+"00_L
,0"#
/+(
+!
1%"
4"!&0%
,!"/+
,3"*"+1
&+
"0&$+^J
&+
&+
1/&17)"/N "3&+"
Y"!MZJ
,0"#
/+(
J
/ %&1" 1
+!
!"0&$+"/
J
+
)1"/+1&3"
3&0&,+
,#
1%"
*,!"/+
%,*"
Y"4
3"+L
)"
+&3M
/"00J
bjjgZM
-M
bcfM fd
8/1
,)("/0
Q//"#,/0
)00
&+
2 )&
- "0R
&+
01"/$/!
"1
)MJ
%"
/&))&+ "
,#
4"!&0%
$)00
\d\cL\d^d
J
+
))&+ "
,#
/1
+!
&+!201/6M
-M
bdcM fe
8/1
,)("/0
Q//"#,/0
)00
&+
2 )&
- "0R
&+
&!M
-M
bddM
,/
+
&))201/1&,+
,#
1%"
&+!01/+!
4&+!,4
0""
-$"
bce
,#
1%"
0*"
-2 )& 1&,+M ff
("
M
2)!1
+!
3
"+"!& (0
Y"!0MZJ
"0&$+
&+
4"!"+
1,!6
Y1, (%,)*
N
"4
,/(L
4"!&0%
+01&121"
#,/
2)12/)
")1&,+0
L
) "/1
,++&"/J
bjeiZM
52 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

Carl Malmsten, whose work shared similarities with that of Carl and Karin Larsson’s nineteenth century home in Sundborn, as advocated by Ellen Key.56 Sparke further references Huldt and Benedicks in describing an apparent “schizophrenia”57 between the trends of functionalism and traditionalism in Sweden during the late 1940s. Huldt and Benedicks’ original text does not speak of schizophrenia, rather describing a multiplicity and a merging of the two trends which might also be described as a ‘middle-way’ between tradition and function. This ‘middle-way’ is how Sweden (and later Scandinavia) has been described in the merging of Socialist and Capitalist ideals, which finds resonance in the particularly Swedish approach to the applied arts and design.58 By contrast, Long also quotes from Huldt and Benedicks’ text but does not attempt to ascribe authorship of the interior described, rather to point to the humanistic qualities of Swedish interiors of the time.

The same BGC publication on Frank contains an essay by historian Kristina Wängberg- Eriksson59 that repeats much of that discussed in both Sparke and Long’s texts. Wängberg- fg
%"
41"/ ,),2/0
6
/)
/00,+
!, 2*"+1&+$
1%"
0&*-)"J
-/"!
!,4+
%,*"
,#
%"
+!
%&0
#*&)6
&+
2+! ,/+
4"/"
%")!
6
))"+
"6
0
+
"5*-)"
,#
%"/
1%"0&0
,#
"216
#,/
))M
2 )&0%"!
&+
bijj
1%"
/00,+
--/, %
1,
)&$%1J
0&*-)"
&+1"/&,/0
%0
%!
+
,+$,&+$
&+B2"+ "
&+
4"!"+M
%&0
-/1& 2)/
--/, %
1,
4"!&0%
%,*"
&+1"/&,/0
%0
,/&$&+0
&+
1%"
/10
+!
/#10
*,3"*"+1M
""
/)
/00,+J
11
%"*
J
]_
*9)+&+$/
Y1, (%,)*L
) M
,++&"/J
bijjZM
4"!&0%
&+1"/&,/
!"0&$+"/
+!
4/&1"/
"+
/00,+
!&0 200"!
1%"
&+B2"+ "
,#
/00,+
,+
)*01"+
&+
"+
/00,+J
^%"
/00,+
!"0&$+
)"$ 6L

-"/0,+)
3&"4^J
&+
& %")
+,!&+
+!
)&0 "1
13"+,4N &!"*/(
Y"!0MZJ
/)
+!
/&+
/00,+
J
/"1,/0
,#
1%"
4"!&0%
016)"
Y ,+!,+L
& 1,/&
C
) "/1
20"2*J
bjjhZM
S)*01"+
%+!"!
,+
1%"
/00,+
!"0&$+
)"$ 6
&+
0&*-)"J
"3"/6!6J
#*&)6
#2/+&12/"J
1/!&1&,+))6
,+01/2 1"!
+!
*!"
1,
01+!
2-
1,
4"/
+!
"&+$
*,3"!
/,2+!MT
"+
/00,+
&))201/1"0
1%"
S-"0+1
1/!&1&,+T
&+B2"+ "
4&1%
1%"
0*"
-%,1,$/-%
,#

)*01"+
&+1"/&,/
#/,*

bjee
1&,+)*20"2*
"5%& &1&,+
0
#"12/"!
,+
-$"
eb
,#
2)!1
+!
"+"!& (0
"0&$+
&+
4"!"+
1,!6M
/00,+
"51"+!0
1%&0
!&0 200&,+
1,
&+ )2!"

-/,*,1"!
&+1"/&,/0J
%"/
,4+
!"0&$+0
#,/
``
+!
bjja0
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
0
"3&!"+ "!
&+
1%"
&))201/1"!
/,,*
0"11&+$0
,#

&+
1%"&/
1),$2"0M
"+
/00,+
@/01
*!"
1%&0
+)60&0
&+
%"/
bjeh
-2 )& 1&,+J
)&0
3"! "/$
+!
"+
/00,+J
"*&+/"!+&+$
Y1, (%,)*L
,/2*J
bjehZM
fh
-/("
21&)&0"!
2)!1
+!
"+"!& (0R
bjei
1"51
1,
#2/1%"/
01/"+$1%"+
%"/
1%"0&0
,+
/+(R0
-"/&-%"/)
01120
&+
1%"
4"!&0%
*&)&"2M
-/("
4/&1"0K
S%"
0 %&7,-%/"+&
1%1
%/ 1"/&0"!
*,!"/+
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
1
1%&0
1&*"
[bjda0\
N
1%"
0-" 1/2*
,#
-,00& &)&1&"0J
1%1
&0J
1%1
0-++"!
/!& )
#2+ 1&,+)&0*
1,
3"/+ 2)/
!"0&$+
N
40
01&))
--/"+1
&+
bjei
4%"+
("
2)!1
+!
3
"+"!& (0
+,1"!
1%1
S14,
!&01&+ 1
1/"+!0
/"
"3&!"+1
&+
4"!"+
1,!6
N
,+"
2&)!&+$
,+
1/!&1&,+
+!
!-1&+$
1%"
&+%"/&1"!
#,/*0
1,
*,!"/+
02//,2+!&+$0J
1%"
,1%"/
,+ "+1/1&+$
0&+$)"N*&+!"!)6
,+
#,/$&+$
-)"0+1
+"4
0%-"0
#/,*
#2+ 1&,+)
+" "00&1&"0MT
&+
-/("J
^_,+3"+&"+ "
+!
)"0+1+"00_L
,0"#
/+(
+!
1%"
4"!&0%
,!"/+
,3"*"+1
&+
"0&$+^M

-/("
,+1&+2"0
6
!"0 /& &+$
/+(
1(&+$

S1%&/!N-1%
MMM
4%& %
,* &+"!
+
&+1"/+1&,+)&01
--/, %
4&1%

/"0-" 1
#,/
1/!&1&,+
) "&1
/"4,/("!
&+

*,!"/+
*++"/M
0
02 %
/+(
!&!
+,1
"),+$
0-" &@ ))6
1,
1%"
4"!&0%
-/,$/*MT
&!M
%"
/"*&+!"/
,#
2)!1
+!
"+"!& (0R
bjei
1"51
"+1&1)"!
/!&1&,+)
#,/*0
+!
*,!"/+
+""!0
/"!0
S#1"+
1%"
14,
1/"+!0
*"/$"L

0&)3"/
,?""
0"1J
,/

!&++"/
0"/3& "J
*6
0%,4
1%"
&+B2"+ "
,#
1/!&1&,+J
+!
6"1
"
*,!"/+
+!
#2+ 1&,+)M
"0+1
1"51&)"
!"0&$+0
/"
01&))

0,2/ "
,#
&+0-&/1&,+M
21
4%"/"
1" %+& )
!3+ "0
%3"
)"!
1,
+"4
,+01/2 1&,+)
*"1%,!0J
0
&+
#2/+&12/"
*(&+$J
"+1&/")6
+"4
#,/*0
%3"
"3,)3"!J
0-"(&+$
1%"
-2/"
&!&,*
,#
,2/
,4+
!6MT
&+
2)!1
+!
"+"!& (0
Y"!0MZJ
"0&$+
&+
4"!"+
1,!6M fi
%"
Q*&!!)"N46R
40
1%"
02 '" 1
,#

"01N0"))&+$
,,(
&+
bjdg
6
/.2&0
%&)!0
1%1
012!&"!
1%"
/"#,/*
-,)& &"0
,#
1%"
4"!&0%
, &)
"*, /1&
/16
!2/&+$
1%"
bjda0M
%"
,,(
$/+"/"!
1%"
11"+1&,+
,#
/"0&!"+1
/+()&+
,,0"3")1
4%,
" *"
&+1"/"01"!
&+
4"!"+R0
02 "00#2)
21
-" 2)&/
*&5
,#
/,6)16J
0, &)&0*
+!
-&1)&0*M
%&)!0
-2 )&0%"!

0" ,+!
012!6
&+
bjia
0
1%"
0,
))"!
4"!&0%
,!")
"$+
1,
"
!&0*+1)"!M
""
/.2&0
M
%&)!0J
4"!"+I
1%"
*&!!)"
46
Y"4
3"+JL
)"
+&3"/0&16
/"00J
bjdgZJ
/.2&0
M
%&)!0J
4"!"+H
1%"
*&!!)"
46
,+
1/&)
Y"4
3"+L
)"
+&3"/0&16
/"00J
bjiaZM fj
/&01&+
8+$ "/$N/&(00,+J
^ &#"
&+
"5&)"L
,0"#
/+(
&+
4"!"+
+!
1%"
+&1"!
11"0J
bjddNbjgh^J
&+
&+
1/&17)"/N "3&+"
Y"!MZJ
,0"#
/+(
J
/ %&1" 1
+!
!"0&$+"/
J
+
)1"/+1&3"
3&0&,+
,#
1%"
*,!"/+
%,*"
Y"4
3"+L
)"
+&3M
/"00J
bjjgZM 5 3 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Eriksson, however, contextualises and expands events and quotations in a way that avoids misunderstandings. The discussion here is not intended to diminish either Sparke or Long’s research on Frank, rather it is meant as a critique to demonstrate that ongoing commentary can actually contribute to the formation of myths depending on how facts are stressed, or where attempts are made to ‘heroise’ or imply links and connections that may or may not exist.

From the 1980s, art historian Gunilla Frick emerged as an important critic of Swedish post-war applied arts and design. Although published in Swedish with a short English summary, Frick’s Konstnär i industrin (Artist in Industry)60 is important as the first critical review of the Swedish Artist in Industry paradigm and the role of the SSF via a comparative analysis of four companies in Sweden which she felt were representative of Swedish art-industry.61 Her later writings in The Scandinavian Journal of Design History, beginning in 1991, develop this earlier work in an expanded critique of various aspects of applied arts of the Swedish post-war period. Frick’s writings present a frank and unusually critical position when compared to that found previously on the subject of mid-twentieth century Swedish design. Her writings may be seen to have influenced later re-assessment, including my own. In her writings Frick teases out differences, rather than similarities, between the work of the Nordic countries. After the emphasis on similarities prevalent in commentary and propaganda from the 1950s and 1960s, it is refreshing to hear of differences. In Furniture art or a machine to sit on? Frick points to differences in the development of furniture design in Denmark, Finland and Sweden, arguing that in Denmark and Finland:

It was not the question of crafts vs industry that was essential. Design was linked to the individual designers. The close collaboration between the designer and manufacturer was built up in Denmark in a way that had no parallel in Sweden, and neither was there a company like Artek [Finland], its furniture integrated into a wealth of artistic activities. 62

In her 1996 essay Radical change or stagnation? Swedish post-war decorative art Frick also raises issues of elitism and luxury in the ‘better everyday goods’ promoted by the SSF, whose expense placed them outside the reach of “those of lesser means, no matter how prominent the reformer’s social goals might have been.”63 Frick illustrates that so called ‘poor-taste’ prevailed in Sweden alongside modern design during the Golden Era by citing a popular porcelain coffee ga
/& (J
,+01+8/
&
&+!201/&+M gb
"/*& 0
-/,!2 "/
=/01/+!J
$)00
-/,!2 "/
//"#,/0J
1"51&)"
*&))
,/90
8#3"/&
+!
#2/+&12/"
,*-+6

= ")M gc
2+&))
/& (J
^2/+&12/"
/1
,/

* %&+"
1,
0&1
,+P
L
4"!&0%
#2/+&12/"
!"0&$+
+!
/!& )
/"#,/*0^J
 +!&+3&+
,2/+)
,#
"0&$+
&01,/6H
b
YbjjbZM
-M
bafM gd
/& (J
^!& )
%+$"
,/
01$+1&,+P
L
4"!&0%
-,01N4/
!" ,/1&3"
/1^M
-M
egM 54 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

service with floral decoration and gold rim. That the coffee service was still in Rörstrand’s production in the 1950s points to what she considers evidence of the failure of the reformists to educate in matters of taste.64 Frick also proposes links between the SSF and the developing recognition of design in Stockholm’s Nationalmuseum in the mid 1940s; “It certainly helped that the museum’s chief curator, Erik Wettergren, had been one of the [SSF’s] young radicals.”65 Frick’s pointed and straightforward critique concludes with suggestions for future research, posing provocative questions that might challenge preconceptions, where she suggested:

It might be wise to study the Lunning Prize and the Design in Scandinavia exhibitions. Was the decorative art of Denmark and Finland bolder and more innovative? Was Swedish decorative art much too cautious and restrained? Did technology and practical considerations gain such prominence that artistic distinctiveness was limited? ... Post-war Swedish decorative art must be studied from several different aspects before we can get a more nuanced picture of the period, where the reasons for many of the problems of the sixties and seventies can be found. Perhaps decorative art did not attain such a clear position as we have liked to believe. There is still a great deal to be done. 66

In a later BGC exhibition publication, Finnish Modern Design, design historian Hildi Hawkins67 contributes an essay that examines the intersection of politics, economics and design. In relation to design, Hawkins proposes the idea of post-war ‘reconstruction’ as something more than physical. Given the fractured state of Finland, its proximity to Russia and the loss of former regions that inspired the National Romantic movement, its enthusiasm for Design in Scandinavia was a political tactic which ensured United States’ interest throughout the Cold War. Hawkins’ essay is critical in that it presents another agenda for Design in Scandinavia and the invention of the moniker Scandinavian Design; namely, that, Finland was central in securing the exhibition so as to appear as part of a “unified Nordic identity”68 and less Baltic, or part of the Soviet Union. Hawkins points out that Finland’s culture, language, and sensibilities are “quite different from those of the Scandinavian countries”, a fact evident in 1940s exhibitions where Finnish design was described “as being naïve, primitive, intuitive, exotic and close to nature.”69 This ‘close to nature’ theme was also central to the 1950s Design in Scandinavia

ge
&!M
--M
eeNefM gf
&!M
--M
ehNeiM gg
&!M gh
4(&+0J
^&+!&+$

) "
&+

"4
,/)!
/!"/L
&+)+!J
*"/& 
+!
1%"
_"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&_
5%& &1&,+J
bjfeNbjhf^M gi
&!M
-M
cdhM gj
&!M
-M
cdiM 5 5 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

exhibition and the texts of Gotthard Johansson and Ulf Hård af Segerstad, discussed in Chapter Three of this thesis.

I@K
))%#(!
 3)(
."
3."

Of the group of Nordic design historians that founded the Nordic Forum for Design History Studies, design historians Harri Kalha, Widar Halén and Kerstin Wickman have emerged as important voices in the reassessment of the ‘Golden Era’ of Scandinavian Design. Kalha’s work on culture, race, gender and aesthetics initially focused on this period. Kalha’s essays in the Scandinavian Journal of Design History beginning in 1992, bring into question the tenets of the Scandinavian Design phenomenon, and deal with issues of nationalism and so-called ‘Finnish- ness’. His work is of interest to this study because the construction of 1950s Swedish design has many parallels in Finland. This is due in part to their relationship within the Design in Scandinavia construct, but also a result of their long standing cultural, political and historical connections, including their closeness to Russia during the Cold War era. Kalha’s early essay in Finnish Modern Design70 first proposes this idea, as well as the prevalent discourses of “Finish- ness” in the formation of the mid-century design culture in Finland. It is here that the notion of ‘myths’ is first put forward in relation to design from the Nordic region, myths being central to the Scandinavian Design construct. Kalha extends this discussion in his later essay on Tapio Wirkkala where the idea of myths and heroising mythologies finds their logical extension:

If, as Walter Benjamin would have it, "the hero is the true subject of modernism", it is crucial for us to tackle the heroising mythology that is implicated in the construction of Modern Design, not least in a monumental case like Wirkkala's. It is only after such strategically deconstructive "exorcism" that it will be possible to consider the whole Wirkkala phenomenon - and, indeed, Scandinavian modernism - in a less complex- ridden, more nuanced and straightforward way. For Wirkkala is certainly the point of convergence for a host of truisms and taboos concerning Finnish design and, to an important extent, "Nordic" design in general. 71

Wirkkala was a highly visible and much lauded individual throughout his career and, as such, Kalha’s observations might be utilised as a framework to examine numerous other Nordic designers. A revisionist perspective is the thrust of Kalha’s discussion of Wirkkala, which examines orthodox views of nature, humanism and sensitivity whilst outlining links between representation, reception and ideology; or as Kalha articulates it, “texts and other texts.”72 The ha
//&
)%J
^%"
1%"/
,!"/+&0*L
&++&0%
"0&$+
+!
1&,+)
!"+1&16^J
&+
/&++"
1/&17)"/N "3&+"
3J
&+
/!
/!21"
"+1"/
#,/
12!&"0
&+
1%"
" ,/1&3"
/10
Y"4
,/(ZJ
Y"!MZJ
& &!MJ
ebbM hb
)%J
^61%0
+!
601"/&"0
,#
&++&0%
"0&$+L
"!&+$
_&/(()_
+!
1%"
1&,+)
12/"
/!&$*^M
--M
cfNcgM hc
&!M
-M
cfM 56 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

catalyst for Kalha’s essay was his disappointment in the Helsinki Museum of Art and Design catalogue of the 2000 exhibition Tapio Wirkkala: eye, hand and thought 73 . Kalha was critical of the publication for treading what he considered to be clichéd territory in its “attempts to recycle some of the familiar repertoire, demonstrating how difficult it is to find a fresh, contemporary approach to the subject.”74 There are parallels that can be drawn between Kalha’s observations of myths and clichés and the presentation of Swedish/Scandinavian design in the publications of the SSF (texts), exhibitions, preferred exemplars and the objects themselves (other texts). The idea of Finnish-ness can be seen to have had parallels in Swedish-ness - and in turn Scandinavian-ness - and may be interpreted as having informed the criteria for inclusion/ exclusion in discourse. For example, a Swedish designer that was “too” international in outlook might be considered to lack Swedishness, and in turn Scandinavianness, thus disqualifying themselves from nationally or regionally focussed discourse. This idea is explored in relation to Vicke Lindstrand in Part Two of this thesis.

Kalha further tackles the tenets of Scandinavian Modern by way of the idea of the gendering of objects in his essay reframing the work of Wirkkala contemporary Kaj Franck. The essay focuses on Franck’s Kilta tableware and examines the power of marketing in the success of the objects. Franck’s Kilta range for Arabia was, according to Kalha, seen by many as the culmination of modernist, democratic design firmly rooted in Modernist ideals. Kalha argues its Modernist associations were ‘dumbed down’ in both Finnish and US marketing, imbued with superficial links back to nature and handcraft traditions, in an attempt to ascribe feminine qualities that belie the machine aesthetic of its conception.75 This tendency to romanticise the object in a peasant culture was prevalent in rhetoric on 1950s Scandinavian Design.

Kalha’s interrogation of myth culminated in the 2003 exhibition Scandinavian Design Beyond the Myth 76, where Kalha, Halén and Wickman sought a new presentation for Nordic design, away from pervasive “myths about Scandinavia, the place and people who lived in there.”77 The ongoing reassessment of the Scandinavian Design phenomenon of the 1950s was championed

hd
/&++"K
!&1,/
3
Y"!MZJ
-&,
&/(()H
6"H
+!
+!
%,2$%1
Y ")0&+(&L
20"2*
,#
/1
C
"0&$+J
caaaZM
he
)%J
^61%0
+!
601"/&"0
,#
&++&0%
"0&$+L
"!&+$
_&/(()_
+!
1%"
1&,+)
12/"
/!&$*^M
M
cfM hf
)%J
'
/+ (
B
&)1
J
$"+!"/&+$
1%"
T"01%U"1%& 0
,#
*,!"/+&0*M hg
%"
"5%& &1&,+
,-"+"!
&+
"/)&+
&+
,3"* "/
caad
+!
1,2/"!
")"3"+
,2+1/&"0
"14""+
caad
+!
caagM
%"
"5%& &1&,+
40
0%,4+
&+
&)+J
/$2"J
2!-"01J
)0$,4J
&$J
,-"+%$"+J
,1%"+ 2/$J
"4
,/(
+!
0),M
%"
&$%1%,20"J
)0$,4
bj
2+"
caafNci
2$201
caafK
%"
+&0%
20"2*
,#
/1
+!
"0&$+J
,-"+%$"+
bg
"-1"* "/
caafNca
,3"* "/
caafK
%"
,%00
20"2*
,#
"0&$+
+!
--)&"!
/1J
,1%"+ 2/$
#/,*
d
" "* "/
caafNcg
" /2/6
caagK
+!
1
%"
1&,+)
20"2*
,#
/1J
/ %&1" 12/"
+!
"0&$+J
0),J
#/,*
bi
/ %Nbe
6
caagM hh
);+
+!
& (*+
Y"!0MZJ
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
"6,+!
1%"
*61%
J
@#16
6"/0
,#
!"0&$+
#/,*
1%"
,/!&
,2+1/&"0M
 (
,3"/M 5 7 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

by Halén, Wickman and Kalha, and began with the staging of the exhibition and the critical essays published in an accompanying book. As a consequence of the provocative agenda of the exhibition, 1950s Scandinavian Design is now acknowledged as a marketing construct characterised by a collective and homogenous set of myths relating to the origin of the objects included in the Design in Scandinavia exhibition(s), linked by clichéd views of the creators including primitivism, folk arts and supposed simplicity of existence.

Kerstin Wickman comes from a Svensk Form (SSF) background - as design editor of its journal Form from 1968-1999 - and maintains a refreshing and often critical voice in her writing which steers well clear of the usual clichés associated with Swedish and Scandinavian Design. Wickman came to Form during the tail end of the 1960s crafts debates and has contributed to publications in Swedish and English, both elementary and scholarly.

In the publication Scandinavian Design Beyond the Myth, Widar Halén discusses the reception of Scandinavia during the 1950s:

In those days critics spoke of the wild element, something atavistic, something genuine, that enabled us to produce interesting design. And that was how design was frequently marketed in the world; a wild man like Tapio Wirkkala with an unruly beard and an intense look. The Scandinavian principle was seen as parallel to the oriental one. It was similarly exotic. 78

As we will see in the following chapter, the critics that spoke of these primitive and harsh climatic catalysts were those within or associated with the SSF network, or those who referenced its propaganda. Halén and Wickman challenged these exotic clichés further by curating their exhibition around a new set of parameters far removed from the 1950s version of Scandinavian Design. Taking Italo Calvino’s Six Memos for the Next Millennium79 as a starting point, they organised the exhibition in a non-linear presentation that emphasised values first proposed by Calvino for a series of lectures in 1998. The contemporary work illustrated in the exhibition and book are grouped using Calvino’s values of lightness, quickness, visibility, exactitude, multiplicity and consistency. The presentation sought to avoid the usual stereotypes associated with Scandinavian Design.

The associated myths, clichés and fictions embedded in the term Scandinavian Design have sustained themselves for decades, prompting the critic Roger Connah, in discussing the

hi
&!/
);+
&+
&!M
-M
bfaM hj
1),
)3&+,J
&5
*"*,0
#,/
1%"
+"51
*&))"+&2*
Y ,+!,+L
-"J
bjjcZM 58 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

Barbican’s Tender is the North exhibition of Scandinavian Design in 1992, to declare the “new primitive” as “Homo Scandinavicus” 80, an imagined noble species embodying all of the fictional characteristics of the ideal Scandinavian - an exemplar of Scandinavianness. Art and design historian Kevin M. Davies has questioned the dichotomy of Scandinavian design as a “marketing ploy or democratic ideal”81, which he has argued has been supported by uncritical or unquestioning art and design commentary from both within and outside of the Nordic countries. Davies research is of interest in this study because this non-critical and descriptive commentary is a central theme in Part One of this thesis. Davies contends that:

[...] the authors of the period [1950s] and later, particularly the British ones, have often failed to reveal a great deal about things that came from Scandinavia when they were supposed to be writing about them. Instead they unveiled what they believed, or wanted to believe, about the place and the people who lived there. 82

Davies concludes that whilst the “fictions” were to suit the non-Nordic world, they also suited the Nordic world, especially manufacturers and “in reality must have originated there”83 , a fact I will illustrate in Chapter Three. The thrust of this conclusion is perhaps most evident in the texts of the Swedish critics Gotthard Johansson84 and Ulf Hård af Segerstad85 , as referenced and reiterated by others, particularly in English language texts. The success of Scandinavian Design in promoting the creative industries relied on exemplars - artists, craftsmen and designed goods - that were identified against a national and regional background. This assists in understanding the impact of such a construct in the promotion of persons in the creative industries. Davies clarified his approach to the topic, stating that he did not mean to imply that ideas about Scandinavian design were part of a cynical and deliberate construct aimed at fleecing unsuspecting consumers86, rather he meant:

[...] a kind of tradition about what [Scandinavian Design] was supposed to be was synthesised in the marketplace and the exhibition hall, perhaps from existing beliefs and mythologies, to satisfy the desires of consumers, manufacturers and other interested parties such as exhibition organisers. 87

ia
2,1"!
&+
3&"0J
^/("1&+$
),6
,/
"*, /1&
!")P^M
-M
bafM ib
&!M
-M
babM ic
&!M
-M
bacM id
&!M
-M
bajM ie
,%+00,+J
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
J
+
"5%& &1&,+
,#
, '" 10
#,/
1%"
%,*"
#/,*
"+*/(H
&+)+!H
,/46H
4"!"+M if
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
7"J
+!
7"J
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+J
)#
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
J
" /2/6
\dacL +2/6
\dad
J
"+*/(H
&+)+!H
,/46H
4"!"+
Y1, (%,)*JJ
bjgiZM ig
3&"0J
^/("1&+$
),6
,/
"*, /1&
!")P^M
-M
bacM ih
&!M
-M
bacM 5 9 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Davies further recognises the political role of Scandinavian Design “in coordinating ideas about what Scandinavia was supposed to be.”88

Whilst the 2003 exhibition sought to explode the ‘myths’, mythology and fictions espoused by the earlier regional construct, the majority of recent writing in this area has been authored from within, and focused upon, Finland. Examples of this revision of the Scandinavian experience is the position of Kalha, as well as architectural historian Kari Jormakka, in their readings of the work of Wirkkala and Aalto89 respectively. Kari Jormakka examined the construction of legend and the creation of brand via an interrogation of the interpretation of Alvar Aalto in his 2006 Revisionist Readings of Alvar Aalto program presented at Harvard Graduate School. Accepting the canonic interpretations championed by architectural historians including Sigfried Giedion90 and reiterated by William Curtis91, Richard Weston92 and others, Jormakka proposed other readings of Aalto’s work via psychoanalytical interpretations, feminist analysis and phenomenological thought. This interrogation of ‘other’ readings has not been exclusive to Scandinavian Design.93

Widar Halén added further to the discussion of myths associated with Scandinavian Design in a ‘Q&A’ in New Scandinavian Design94 published during the Scandinavian Design Beyond the Myth tour. In the interview, Halén stands out as an ardent commentator set on dispelling myths and misconceptions prevalent in much that is written about Scandinavian design. He covered many of the issues tackled in his previous writings but presented here in a more candid, conversational format. On the question of the typical assumptions made by critics he replies:

Probably the most repeated and unquestioned assumptions about Scandinavian design are its closeness to nature, its Protestant Puritanism, and its simplicity. Unfortunately, these descriptions are put forward without really analysing how the simplicity or Puritanism inherent in the design differs from that which you might see in work from Japan or Holland or Germany.95

ii
&!M
-M
bacM ij
/&
,/*((J
^210&!"
1%"
+,+L
"3&0&,+&01
"!&+$0
,#
)1,
^J
l%11-LUU444M$0!M%/3/!M"!2U $&N &+U ,2/0"0U!"1&)0M $&P0" 1&,+]&!kjddcmJ
 "00"!
j
" "* "/
caagM ja
&$#/&"!
&"!&,+J
- "H
&*"
+!
/ %&1" 12/"
Y* /&!$"L
/3/!
+&3"/0&16
/"00J
bjebZM jb
&))&*
2/1&0J
,!"/+
/ %&1" 12/"
&+ "
\d[[
Y ,+!,+L
%&!,+
/"00
&*&1"!J
bjicZM jc
& %/!
"01,+J
)3/
)1,
Y ,+!,+L
%&!,+
/"00
&*&1"!J
bjjfZM jd
""
#,/
"5*-)"
&*,+
 (0,+R0
4,/(
,+
, '" 10
/"-/"0"+1&+$
+1&,+)
&!"+1&16
+!
*61%,),$6
&+
201/)&+
!"0&$+
%&01,/6
&+
 (0,+J
^%"
S12*-N'2*-"/0LT
1&,+)
!"+1&16
+!
1%"
61%,),$6
,#
201/)&+
+!201/&)
"0&$+
&+
1%"
"/&,!
bjdaNbjhf^J
 (0,+J
^ /"!
 '" 10X201/)&+
"0&$+
+!
1&,+)
")" /1&,+0^M je
1%"/&+"
M
")0,+
+!
2)
 /J
"4
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
Y+
/+ &0 ,L
%/,+& )"
,,(0J
caaeZM jf
);+J
^%"
61%0
,#
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+^M
-M
cdfM 60 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

Halén also categorises the comparisons made between contemporary Scandinavian design and Viking culture as “pretty far fetched”96, and the influence of nature as “overemphasised”97, observing similar attachments to nature in Russia and most of Eastern Europe. The prevalence of descriptions of national temperaments were also seen to contribute to these myths: “It is said that the Danes are jovial, the Swedes are formal, the Finns are quiet, the Icelanders are poetic, and the Norwegians are naive.”98 Halén further clarified the dominant roles of Sweden and Denmark in the 1950s Design in Scandinavia exhibition, citing their longer history of design. Discrepancies in wealth and development between Norway and Finland, along with Finland’s independence from the communists, are cited as important reasons for their inclusion.99 The book attempts to take its cue from Halén and Wickman’s Scandinavian Design Beyond the Myth project, similarly defining an alternate reading of new Scandinavian design - in this instance under the loose headings of Democracy, Honesty, Poetry, Innovation and Craft - in a presentation of the work of a newer generation of designers.

Its aim was to promote reassessment of the characteristics usually associated with Scandinavian Design such as “simple, uncomplicated designs, functionality and a democratic approach” in the light of research on modernism. As such we continue to see ongoing references to the 1950s Scandinavian Design legacy. The alternate reading of applied arts and design from the region presented in Scandinavian Design Beyond the Myth failed to gain traction with the broader population. This is not only symptomatic in commentary but also in marketing. Apart from the obvious example of Swedish furniture company IKEA, other Nordic manufacturers continue to trade on the immediate associations with the term Scandinavian Design. As an example, Design House Stockholm refers to itself as a publisher of design rather than producer, an interesting shift in emphasis that makes it relevant to this discussion. They associate ‘Scandinavian’ with an aesthetic that is firmly rooted in the Scandinavian Design milieu, which is regional rather than national and seeks to produce “design classics” of quality and “timeless appeal”:

The ambition [as publisher of design] is to be a mirror of the very best Scandinavian design today - the term ‘Scandinavian’ referring to a philosophic and aesthetic perspective, rather than geography and nationality. To gather a collection of design classics with timeless appeal and qualities that outlives temporary trends. These are the foundations of Design House Stockholm. 100

jg
&!M
-M
cdfM jh
&!M
-M
cdfM ji
&!M
-M
cdfM jj
&!M
-M
cdgM baa
"0&$+
,20"
1, (%,)*J
^2/
1,/6^J
l%11-LUU444M!"0&$+%,20"01, (%,)*M ,*U,2/01,/6U&+!"5M%1*)mJ
 "00"!
bb
+2/6
cabbM 6 1 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

The ambition has more to do with the 1950s Scandinavian Design ‘style’ than multifaceted twenty-first century Nordic design. IKEA also trades on the Scandinavian Design legacy, publishing what might be considered a propaganda brochure in association with the opening of a new store in Singapore in 1996. Entitled Democratic Design101 it traded on and paraphrased the rhetoric of the Scandinavian Design legacy. The publication even quotes Plato in an attempt to add weight to their profile. IKEA has recognised the brand potential of Scandinavian Design, building its advertising upon this legacy and re-branding it Democratic Design, very much in the spirit of Paulsson’s “more beautiful everyday things”.

You’ve just seen an example of what we define as democratic design. Design that most of us can afford. Democratic in the sense that this design gives all of us the same opportunity to create a beautiful home […] A long long time ago we decided that […] we would side with the majority of people, and give them a chance for a better everyday life.102

Democratic Design also includes an essay by Wickman where she sets out a history of Nordic design, rather than Scandinavian, another subtle yet significant choice of adjective that subtly references her own work at dispelling and moving past myths.

Scholar of comparative literature Ursula Lindqvist’s recent paper The Cultural Archive of the IKEA Store103 examined IKEA as an effective form of cultural archive of Swedish national identity. Her paper was inspired by the work of geographer Allan Pred and his examination of Swedish “spectacular articulations of modernity”104. In Lindqvist’s paper, the IKEA store takes on the role of an exhibition or museum: an interesting counterpoint to the 1950s exhibitions promoting narratives on Swedish and Scandinavian Design. Lindqvist argues that the IKEA store functions as a house that trades on Swedish-style democracy, and signifies political power and cultural authority. Her use of the noun house is linked to the Greek origin of archive, further linked to the central idea of Swedish democracy, folkhemmet, or the People’s Home. Lindqvist sets out a convincing argument for how the IKEA store trades on what she terms “Swedish exeptionalism”105 in the wake of current debates about Swedishness and whilst promoting a democratic approach to retailing, contains many repressed and hidden narratives about Sweden. She argues that the store layout, repeated all over the world, acts as an

bab
("J
"*, /1&
"0&$+H
1%"
01,/6
 ,21
1%"
1%/""
!&*"+0&,+)
4,/)!
,#

L
#,/*H
#2+ 1&,+
+!
),4
-/& "0M bac
&!M
-M
fbM bad
&+!.3&01J
^%"
2)12/)
/ %&3"
,#
1%"

1,/"^M bae
/"!J
" ,$+&7&+$
2/,-"+
*,!"/+&1&"0
J

*,+1$"
,#
1%"
-/"0"+1M baf
&+!.3&01J
^%"
2)12/)
/ %&3"
,#
1%"

1,/"^M
-M
edM 62 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

“instructional narrative that although people worldwide can benefit from Swedish products that will make their lives more pleasant, this will never make them Swedish.”106 Lindqvist unveils what she considers amongst the many repressed Swedish histories, from Nazism and World War II to racial hygiene, to the role of women, via an interrogation of IKEA and its founder, Ingvar Kamprad interwoven with the recent debates about integration of new immigrants in Sweden. Lindqvist concludes that:

The 285 IKEA stores worldwide reproduce daily, through the stores symbolic narrative, the conditions of the Swedish national household, which naturalise social and economic hierarchies within a symbolic domestic space. The fact that IKEA makes this process fun, magical, enjoyable, and affordable for 583 million people a year, makes IKEA arguably the most effective archive of national culture in today’s global marketplace.107

The interrogation of the role of female individuals in twentieth century Scandinavian design has resulted in further reappraisal of canonical views. For example, the reassessment of Ainio Aalto108 and Karin Larsson109 has reframed previously held views on their contributions outside of the shadow of their respective spouses. Swedish female designers were the subject of a recent essay by Kerstin Wickman, part of the book 17 Swedish Designers : chez pascale110, which looks at the work of female designers who have exhibited work early in their careers at Galerie Pascale Cottard-Olsson in Stockholm. In ‘The Pioneers’, Wickman charts the history of modern Swedish design focussing on contributions from a female perspective. She begins by clarifying what she considers misconceptions about equality:

As this book demonstrates there are many successful women designers in Sweden. And so there should be. Sweden is perceived as the most gender equal country in the world. At least, that is the image presented internationally. But a closer look reveals both cracks and contradictions. Nor is Swedish history particularly rose-coloured.111

bag
&!M
--M
ejNfa bah
&!M
-M
fjM bai
""
+,+6*,20J
)3/
'
&+,
)1,
)0&+
*2,1,&)&',&+
e
)3/
+!
&+,
)1,
0
$)00
!"0&$+"/0
Y"3M
2--)M
Yb
2--)M
bjiiZ
"!+MK
836-&+,L
 (*+
"0&$+,/
6J
bjjgZJ
&+,
)1,
+!
))
&++2+"+J
&+,
)1,
Y 6380(6)8L
)3/
)1,
N*20",J
caaeZJ
%,*0
"))"&+
"1
)MJ
)3/
B
&+,
)1,
!"0&$+
J
,))" 1&,+
&0 %,?"/$"/
Y01@)!"/+N 2&1L
1'"
+17J
caafZM baj
+$/&!
+!"/00,+J
/&+
/00,+
J
(,+01+8/
, %
(,+01+8/0%201/2
Y1, (%,)*L
&!)2+!J
bjigZJ
"+
6!&+
+!
&00"
"1"/0,+J
/&+
/00,+0
38/)!
J
V&+/"!+&+$H
1/8!$9/!H
*1H
*,!"H
1"51&)W
Y
1, (%,)*L
,++&"/
#(1J
caajZM bba
/)
'")1"
"1
)MJ
\b
4"!&0%
!"0&$+"/0
J
%"7
0 )"
J
&
*0"))
Y1, (%,)*L
+$"+0(&=)!J
caahZM bbb
"/01&+
& (*+J
^%"
&,+""/0^J
&+
/)
'")1"
"1
)M
Y"!0MZJ
\b
4"!&0%
!"0&$+"/0
J
%"7
0 )"
J
&
*0"))
Y1, (%,)*L
+$"+0(&=)!J
caahZM 6 3 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Wickman’s essay crosses the fields of aesthetics, textiles, the visionary commentary of Ellen Key, the avant-garde, glass, ceramics, jewellery, interior design, journalism and furniture and illuminates the key role women have played in shaping Swedish design in the twentieth century. Names such as Karin Larsson, Ellen Key, Elsa Gullberg and Estrid Ericson may be familiar to some but most are hitherto unknown in English speaking markets, relegated to the amalgam of mid-century Swedish or Scandinavian Design that was largely dominated by male names. In emphasising the male leanings in history writing, Wickman points to the almost total absence of female furniture designers from Swedish texts prior to 2000. Wickman concludes her essay by pointing to similarities with other countries where she states that:

Women as conveyors of knowledge about housing and aesthetics have thus played a major role. The difficulties they have had in gaining respect as practitioners - creators - of design is something which they must surely share with their female colleagues in other countries.112

Wickman extended her work with Halén in a lecture at Sydney’s Powerhouse Museum in 2007 entitled Scandinavian Design is not what it used to be: new directions113, which looked at the work of a new generation of designers who were producing objects outside the familiar repertoire of Scandinavian Design.

Design historian Denise Hagströmer’s text in Swedish Design114, the first of the Swedish Institute’s irregular series of publications for the new millennium, is of note for its aim to address a scarcity of Swedish Design literature in English. Hagströmer is from within the Nordic Forum for Design History Studies network and provides a detailed and authoritative text on the history of Modern Swedish design, including the work of new designers from 1980 - 2000. Hagströmer’s dual citizen status - American born, lives in Stockholm and London - puts her in an enviable position of having an insider’s view with an outsider’s perspective, as evidenced in her text. Her research has included charting the development of design reforms in Sweden through exhibitions115, to national values in the design and architecture of Swedish embassies116. In Swedish Design, Hagströmer includes an image of a rarely seen chair by Folke Jansson from 1955 that evidences the success of the 1950s ‘cleansing’ of un-Swedish influences

bbc
&!M
-M
cgjM bbd
,4"/%,20"
20"2*J
^/,#"00,/
"/01&+
& (*+
1)(
1
^*/1
4,/(0L
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
%+!*!"^
06*-,0&2*^J
l%11-LUU444M!%2 M,/$U/1& )"0UjihmJ
 "00"!
db
+2/6
cabbM bbe
$01/=*"/
+!
3"+0(
+01&121"1J
4"!&0%
!"0&$+M bbf
"+&0"
$01/=*"/J
^4"!&0%
"0&$+
5%& &1&,+0
bjbhNbjdbL
/&1&+^0
+1&*1&,+
,#
)%))^J
Y& 1,/&
+!
) "/1
20"2*U,6)
,))"$"
,#
/1J
bjjaZM bbg
"+&0"
$01/=*"/J
^ +
"/ %
,#

1&,+)
&0&,+L
4"!&0%
* 00&"0
#/,*
1%"
&!N14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
1,
1%"
/"0"+1^J
Y,6)
,))"$"
,#
/1J
cabaZM 64 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

from official discourse. Jansson’s armchair Arabesk was described as “an atom bomb” in period reviews before being relegated to the periphery of mainstream Swedish design, until its revival in 1998. Hagströmer describes the combined state, non-profit organisations (SSF), trade union and industry initiatives of the design reformers in terms of the “crusades” of “enlighteners”, with their road shows and night-courses “spreading the gospel of good design theory and its ‘correct’ practice.”117

I@L
 ( 1 
)*/&,
(. , -.

Scandinavian Design had received renewed popular interest by the end of the twentieth century and this has continued well into the twenty-first century. The rise of Minimalist design tendencies in the 1990s, harking back to more severe modernist concerns of the early twentieth century, focussed renewed attention on a pared down, functionalist aesthetic. Driven by the success of a new generation of Nordic designers, the increasing presence of Nordic-designed mobile electronics, the global profile of IKEA and a renewed interest in mid-century modern, design from the region has became a focus of many popular publications. In 1998 Stockholm was ‘outed’ by Tyler Brulè, editor of influential British design and lifestyle magazine Wallpaper*, in his sixty-six page design guide supplement to the city, as “a snapshot of where A-list cities like New York will be five years from now.”118 Also covered by Wallpaper* was the design overhaul of SAS Scandinavian Airlines119 rolled out in 1999, “recognising that the word Scandinavian stands for quality and design around the world”120. Design team for the SAS redux, Stockholm Lab, sought to capitalise on the Scandinavian Design legacy, arguing that “There is enormous value in the concept of Scandinavian design and we have to build on it”121. As a result, Stockholm was the desirable destination for the design savvy and the Wallpaper* coverage was seen to renew interest “exponentially”122 in both Swedish and Scandinavian design. Between 2000 and 2010 there were numerous new English language titles dealing with aspects of

bbh
$01/=*"/
+!
3"+0(
+01&121"1J
4"!&0%
!"0&$+M
-M
eeM bbi
6)"/
/2):J
^"/11")0"/
,*
1, (%,)*
[1, (%,)*
1,/&"0\^J
))--"/X
1, (%,)*
"0&$+
2&!"
\ddcH

YbjjiZM
-M
bfM bbj
 +!&+3&+
&/)&+"0
601"*
YZJ
"01 )&0%"!
&+
bjfbJ
/"-/"0"+10
S
02 "00#2)
"5*-)"
,#

,+ /"1"
&+&1&1&3"
1("+
6
1%"
1%/""
 +!&+3&+
, &)
"*, /1&
$,3"/+*"+10T
&+
+
" ,+,*&
,,-"/1&,+M
""L
"'"/01"!
+!
!*0J
%"
$"
,#
0, &)
!"*, / 6
J
,/46
+!
4"!"+
&+
1%"
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6M
-M
caa
NcacM bca
6)"/
/2):J
^),+!"0
!,
&1
"11"/^J
))--"/X
Ube
Ybjji ZM
-M
baeM bcb
&!M
-M
bagM bcc
/+(3&01J
^ +!0
,+
,3"*"+1
N
/#1"!
,/*
&+
&),$2"^M 6 5 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Swedish and Scandinavian design123. The resulting texts all draw on the earlier writings that will be discussed in Chapter Three of this thesis, in a glut of glossy ‘coffee table’ books promoting the regional ‘style’. The texts in these elementary books reiterate the familiar stereotypes and clichés associated with 1950s Scandinavian Design, often sounding like they might have originated from the pen of Gotthard Johansson or Ulf Hård af Segerstad:

The twin ideals of a deference to nature and functional modernism, and the creation of items that are both objects of desire and truly functional have infused Scandinavian style. What the products, designs and environments of the five Nordic nations have succeeded in doing is melding their inherent respect for the natural and organic with the idea that design and beauty are for all. Collectively, the Scandinavians have developed a style that is simple, streamlined and utterly democratic in its approach.124

The appearance of design historians Charlotte and Peter Fiell’s Scandinavian Design125 in 2003, a quasi-encyclopaedic survey of Nordic design from 1900 – 2000, presented an opportunity for further reassessment. The introductory essay treads familiar ground, focussing on the clichéd 1950s Golden Era. Whilst presenting contemporary developments, objects and designers the publication restates the Scandinavian Design ideology, adding little to scholarly discourse. It does, however, include entries on some lesser-known names, providing evidence of the continuing reassessment now crossing over into ‘mainstream’ commentary. Conversely, the 2002 Swedish language publication Svensk form internationell design126 illustrates and discusses developments in Swedish design history in parallel with international design, emphasising and contextualising Swedish and Scandinavian contributions to global modern design. Its appearance in Swedish language only is symptomatic of much that is written about Swedish and Scandinavian design which, constrained by the costs of translation, has limited its potential impact in the international context.

bcd
""
"/+!
,)01"/J
"0&$+
!&/" 1,/6
J
 +!&+3&
Y"4
,/(L
+&3"/0"J
bjjjZM
/!)"6
2&++J
 +!&+3&+
016)"
Y ,+!,+L
,+/+
 1,-20J
caadZM
$+20
+$)2+!
C
%/601&+
 %*&!1J
 +!&+3&+
,!"/+
Y$"
+"J
caadZMJ
+$/&!
,**/J
 +!&+3&+
016)"
J
)00&
+!
*,!"/+
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
+!
&10
&+A2"+ "
,+
1%"
4,/)!
Y ,+!,+L
/)1,+J
caadZM
20++"
")$"0,+
+!
"+1
6 "/$J
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
J
1%"
"01
&+
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
1,!6
Y ,+!,+L
&1 %"))
"7)"6J
caacZM
6
4""1J
 +!&*,!"/+
Y ,+!,+L
&1 %"))
"7)"6J
caadZM
 ,
0"+0&,
+!
+'
),/"))
/&,)J
"4
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
Y "*-"+L
1""2"0J
caafZJ
$+20
+$)2+!J
%/601&+
 %*&!1J
+!
2)
6+J
 +!&+3&+
,2+1/6
Y"4
,/(L
6)+!
"1"/0
C
*))J
caahZJ
"0)"6
 (0,+J

-,0&1&3"
&+A2"+ "
J
1%"
&*- 1
,#
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
&+
/&1&+
!2/&+$
1%"
\d`[0J
")0,+
+!
 /J
"4
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+J
/
,//*+J
&*-)6
 +!&+3&+
Y ,+!,+
K
"4
,/(J
L
6)+!
"1"/0
+!
*))J
cabaZM
%,*0
& (0,+
+!
,/1"
/,$%J
+0(
!"0&$+
Y&))"/0
,&+1
K
,+!,+L
2/!, %
,,(0J
caaiZM bce
/,*
 (
!201
' ("1
,#
,**/J
 +!&+3&+
016)"
J
)00&
+!
*,!"/+
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
+!
&10
&+A2"+ "
,+
1%"
4,/)!M bcf
%/),11"
C
"1"/
&"))J
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+
Y"+"!&(1
0 %"+J
caadZM bcg
"!3&$
"!.3&01J
3"+0(
#,/*
&+1"/+1&,+"))
!"0&$+
Y[6
21$M\M
"!+MK
1, (%,)*L
,(#:,/)M
J
caadZM 66 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

Within Scandinavia, particularly Sweden, there is also a renewed interest in the mid-century period. As a result, there are many Swedish language publications and monographs on the various factories associated with the successful Artist in Industry endeavours of the early twentieth century. Centenaries or significant anniversaries of factories such as Orrefors127, Kosta128 , Gustavsberg129, Rörstrand130 , Upsala-Ekeby131 and others have led to a further tier of monographs focussing on the contributions of individual designers. Since 2000, as a result of changing global trends and recession, a number of these famous factories have either closed or scaled down their production significantly. The prestigious Orrefors glassworks is virtually a ghost town in 2011, with much of the production now taking place at Kosta. Art glass, once the strength of the factory, is significantly reduced and machine made glass dominates current ranges. Gustavsberg has also significantly scaled down production, its staple being reissues of Golden Era services from the likes of Stig Lindberg. Upsala-Ekeby ceased production in 1978, Rörstrand now produces limited ranges and the village of Kosta has diversified as an outlet shopping destination rather than trading on its significant history. The current decline began in 2005 with the sale of Orrefors Kosta Boda and the sacking of its most promising young artists for their lack of commercial return. The significant archives of the factories were more recently at risk of being broken up and sold. However, thanks to local fundraising the archives have been preserved. Whilst no longer at risk, they will be dislocated from their places of origin resulting in a quantifiable loss in cultural significance.

The influence of the Golden Era has continued as exampled in the work of Dag Widman, whose contributions to publications on Swedish glass continued to favour and reinforce the preeminence of Orrefors. Whilst most of these publications tread familiar territory and reiterate the same clichés first put forward in the 1950s, within the illustrative content is ample evidence that mid-century Swedish design was much more pluralistic than official representation and narratives have suggested. The legacy of this is summed up in Re:form, a recent publication examining contemporary Swedish crafts that proclaims “Swedish and Scandinavian design and

bch
"/01&+
& (*+
+!
$
&!*+J
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$
Y1, (%,)*L
6$$#:,/)MU 2)12/J
bjjiZ
cffJ
[cfb\
0J
"/01&+
& (*+
+!
))"
/+17J
//"#,/0K
,)K
]H
)0 /2("10
%&01,/&
\cdcL\ddc
Y1, (%,)*L
6$$#:,/)MU 2)12/J
bjjiZM
bci
/$/"1
/1"20
Y"!MZJ
,01
]`[J
\b_]L\dd]
]`[
"/0
,#
/#10*+0%&-
Y ,01
,!J
bjjcZM bcj
=01
/3&!00,+J
20130 "/$
J
-,/0)&+"1
L
# /&("+
L
(,+01+8/"/+
Y1, (%,)*L
,/01"!1J
caahZ
eccM
=01
/3&!00,+
+!
20130 "/$0
,/0)&+0*20"2*J
1&$
&+! "/$
&
20130 "/$
J
/1&01"+
, %
*8++&0(+
Y20130 "/$L
20130 "/$0
-,/0)&+0*20"2*J
caagZM
&+!"/
+!
1&,+)*20"2*J
Z
1&$
&+! "/$M bda
"+$1
601/=*
+!
+
/2+&20J


crafts are famous around the world for being modernist, simple and blond. Now things have changed.”132 Despite this proclamation, the legacy of the Golden Era of Swedish and Scandinavian design, c1950 – c1970, has become a yardstick and a significant hurdle for subsequent generations of young Scandinavian designers who seek to be recognised for global rather than regional work:

They have grown suspicious of the tenets of modernism and the long shadow of Alvar Aalto, Tapio Wirkkala, Timo Sarpaneva, Hans J. Wegner, Arne Jacobsen et al […] They want to create their own visual language that reflects the post-industrial, urban, heterogeneous world that they live in […] and they do not want to promote what they feel is the nationalistic, officially sanctioned, “Scandinavian Good Design.133

I@M
"&& (!#(!
."

 
,#!'

The debate on ‘good taste’ and the role of the SSF was amplified in the early 2000s with the publication of two texts in Sweden, designers Zandra Ahl and Emma Olsson’s 2001 Svensk smak - myter om den moderna formen (Swedish taste - myths about the modern form)134 and design theorist Linda Rampell’s controversial 2003 Designatlas. En resa genom designteori 1845-2002 (Design atlas. A journey through design theory 1845-2002)135 .

Ahl and Olsson’s text is of interest here although it was only published in Swedish with no English summary. Ahl and Olsson directed their criticism at the SSF in its role as arbiter and director of what constitutes good or bad in design and applied arts. They cited the ongoing role of the SSF in its activities (which included education initiatives in good taste) and promotion of what they determine as excellence in Swedish design. Ahl and Olsson set out to challenge the accepted norm by proposing that “there is another Sweden” outside of the image of “a nation consisting of beautiful blond people who love blond wood and stylish, simple glass.” They argued that Swedish taste “more often than not is not about good or bad design, but about who has the power to determine and set the rules. Good taste is to follow these rules, bad taste is to violate them” and that good taste belongs to a small cultural elite. Ahl and Olsson also raise the issue of gender in Swedish design, where they argue that “clean lines” are the dominant male ideal and women are relegated to the role of decorators. Ahl and Olsson’s claim of male

bdc
" (*+
"1
)M
Y"!0MZJ
"J#,/*
J
,+1"*-,//6
4"!&0%
/#10M bdd
/"11
&11*+J
^ +
"/ %
,#
1%"
 +!&+3&+
 '" 1^J
&+
)#
" (*+
"1
)M
Y"!0MZJ
"J#,/*
J
,+1"*-,//6
4"!&0%
/#10
Y1, (%,)*L
/3&+&20
&+
,)) ,/1&,+
4&1%
&(021018))+&+$/J
caafZJ
bhfM bde
+!/
%)
C
**
)00,+J
3"+0(
0*(
L
*61"/
,*
!"+
*,!"/+
#,/*"+
Y1, (%,)*L
/!#/,+1
#=/)$J
caacZM bdf
*-"))J
"0&$+1)0
J
"+
/"0
$"+,*
!"0&$+1",/&
\c_`L][[]M
&1%
+$)&0%
02**/6M 68 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

dominance and clean lines may be challenged by an analysis of female designer Ingeborg Lundin’s iconic Äpplet, with its pure, clean and ‘masculine’ form, the antithesis of Ahl’s own design work - such as her ‘Ugly’ vases and jars and ‘Happy New Craft’ - that play with kitsch to challenge ideas of taste.

In 2003 Rampell took the good taste argument further. In her doctoral thesis136 and subsequent book, which have been the subject of harsh criticism within Swedish art and design circles for a lack of scholarly rigour137, she proposed a more sinister agenda in the activities of the SSF. The thesis was later extended and published in Swedish, with an English language summary. Rampell presented a critical discussion of the Swedish Modernist project which, in her summary, she loosely interpreted as a “socialist aesthetic”. Comparing design ideals in Sweden with that of the German Democratic Republic, Rampell argued that the SSF, supported by the Social Democratic State, “chose to construct a unison “Swedish” design, rather than bringing out different forms of design in Sweden.” She further claimed that “[...] the (SSF) has received state support and financial contributions, with which they can be thought to have exercised a kind of monopoly of the design ideal.” Rampell proposed that there was a sort of Arian “racial- hygenic” content in the term “good” as utilised by the SSF, and suggested that “Swedish” design is a constructed ideal. Whilst it presents an interesting hypothesis, and ideas that might be interrogated further, Rampell’s Designatlas presents a provocative but unconvincing argument.

Gunella Ivanov responded to some of Rampell’s assertions, arguing in both SSF’s and Gregor Paulsson’s defence:

The social political role Paulsson felt they had by helping to spread "the gospel of good taste" was based on a quality of thinking about the product and consumption. The product also had a socio-political task, said Paulsson in his autobiography, and it was to "be part of a consumption style that gives quality to life".138

Functionalism, which Ahl, Olsson and Rampell set out to criticise, was an international movement, with regional variance but with particular resonance in Sweden through its link

bdg
&+!
*-"))J
^+
(/&1&0(
2+!"/0=(+&+$
3
!"1
*,!"/+&01&0(
-/,'"(1"1
#=/
!"0&$+
&
3"/&$"^J
Y+&3"/0&16
,#
2+!J
caacZM
&1%
+$)&0%
02**/6M
--M
hgbNhhjM bdh
""
"/01&+
& (*+J
^,,(
"3&"4M
&+!
*-"))J
+
(/&1&0(
2+!"/0=(+&+$
3
!"1
*,!"/+&01&0(
-/,'"(1"1
#=/
!"0&$+
&
3"/&$"M
"0&$+1)0
L
"+
/"0
$"+,*
!"0&$+1",/&
biefNcaacM
^J
 +!&+3&+
,2/+)
,#
"0&$+
&01,/6H
be
YcaaeZM bdi
3+,3J
^ (//"
3/!$03/
N
!"0&$+
#=/
))P
L
/"$,/
2)00,+
, %
3"+0(
0)='!#=/"+&+$"+
bjbfNbjcf^M
-M
cjiM 6 9 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

with the development of the social landscape. Their criticism fails to acknowledge the significant contributions Sweden and Swedish designers have made on the world stage.

Historian Francis Sejersted has, more recently, simplified what Rampell has problematised without implying anything covert or sinister in the Functionalist aesthetic. Segersted links the aesthetic of Functionalism - pure forms - as presented at the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition, with the Social Democrats in what he terms “The Social Democratic Urban Landscape”139. He argues that:

If functionalism represented the new direction, then Social Democracy represented the new initiative. It also fit into their general idea that a new society was to be developed, one that looked different, where the aesthetic was woven into practical functions.140

In 1995, geographer Allan Pred produced a critically acclaimed ‘montage’ of Swedish “spectacular articulations of modernity” in Recognising European Modernities, A Montage of the Present.141 Pred, adopting Walter Benjamin’s method of literary montage, constructed a critical reading of the Modernist project in Sweden and the stories behind the stories. With more subtlety and greater objectivity, compared to Ahl and Rampell, Pred allows history and voices to speak without bias. Amongst Pred’s observations of the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition is what he describes as the “pure and simple line” which he utilises as a metaphor for not only architecture and design, but also the new social and economic reforms that were promoted in rhetoric of the exhibition. Pred concludes his discussion of the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition by observing that:

Eventually, functionalism assumed a hegemonic status. Eventually the interests of the Social Democrats and large-scale Swedish capital were served. [...] Eventually the pure and simple lines of functionalism, its array of meanings, became as much a matter-of-fact presence on the architectural landscape of Swedish cities and suburbs as on the commodity-scapes of the country's domestic interiors, as on the ‘invisible maps’ characterising the internal worlds of Swedish men and women. Eventually people were reoriented, their habit(u)s restructured, by the severe economic and social crisis that immediately followed the exhibition. [...] they not infrequently bought into the new cornucopia of functionalist-style goods [...] because of shame, because of fear of being different (because of the most traditional form of Swedish social control assuming a new guise) because of a fear of being unmodern, of being left behind.142

bdj
"'"/01"!
+!
!*0J
%"
$"
,#
0, &)
!"*, / 6
J
,/46
+!
4"!"+
&+
1%"
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6M bea
&!M
-M
cddM beb
/"!J
" ,$+&7&+$
2/,-"+
*,!"/+&1&"0
J

*,+1$"
,#
1%"
-/"0"+1M bec
&!M
--M
bfhNbfiM 70 %-1"/
+"
V
%"
&0& &)&16
,#
&3"/$"+ "L
+1/,!2 1&,+

I@N

 ,-#-. (.
(8/ ( @
)(&/-#)(-

In this chapter we have seen how commentary and discourse on Swedish and Scandinavian design has developed since c1980. From this review it is evident that the legacy of mid- twentieth century commentary remains a prevailing influence on current reception and perception of Nordic design, particularly in the case of Sweden. Whilst some of the authors of the period had repositioned themselves by the 1990s, the legacy remains and impacts upon the ongoing reception and commentary on design from the Nordic region. A newer generation of writers and commentators from within the Nordic region have questioned the earlier rhetoric of the Scandinavian Design construct and associated narratives. These individuals have contributed critical discourse that has led to an ongoing re-assessment or re-framing of the heroic period of Scandinavian design, c1950 - 1970. Commentary since 1980 has adopted a more critical and objective stance than c1950s - 1970s commentary or propaganda, particularly from within the Nordic region. There is continued emphasis of exemplars in discourse, including Orrefors, which remains well known as a result of previous achievements and its preeminence in commentary. This situation lead Gunilla Frick to observe that Orrefors was without equal in the art industry in Sweden, remaining the closest to the ideals of the SSF through its handling of the relationship between the role of the artist and the output of the factory.143

From 1980, design from the Nordic region began to be re-assessed, re-examined and redefined both from within the Nordic region, and in England and the United States of America. A newer generation of Nordic scholars have, since 1990, led a more critical interrogation of Scandinavian Design which has attempted to analyse, revise and dispel many of the clichés and myths generated during the Golden Era and since. This is particularly evident in the writings of Frick, Kalha, Halén and Wickman. Frick questioned accepted wisdom and proposed links, agendas and perceived failings of the SSF in reaching the audience it sought to influence. Kalha interrogated myths and the heroising tendencies in the Finnish context, and placed Scandinavian Design in the realm of the exotic or ‘otherness’. This began with a re-framing and reappraisal of Finnish designers associated with the period, providing a framework for the reassessment of others. It culminated in the Scandinavian Design Beyond the Myth project of 2003-2006, where with Halén and Wickman a new reading of the 1950-1970 Golden Era was presented. Whilst much of this re-assessment challenges the perceptions of those outside the Nordic region, it was the Swedes via the rhetoric of their propaganda and commentary who provided the frame of reference for the world that informed perceptions of Scandinavia. Nordic bed
/& (J
,+01+8/
&
&+!201/&+M
+$)&0%
02**/6M
-M
cceM 7 1 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

became more frequently substituted for Scandinavian in discussion of design from the region in an attempt to avoid preconceptions or stereotypes and to disassociate from the 1950s construct. This subtle yet deliberate shift in use of the adjective has gone largely unnoticed, as evidenced by the ongoing references to Scandinavian Design in popular texts and culture. Clichés continue to be restated in popular texts via reference to the earlier writings of the SSF network.

There are a number of examples of recent re-evaluation or re-assessment of individuals associated with Scandinavian Design in English language. These include a number of the ‘heroes’ of the Scandinavian Design construct such as Kaj Franck, Tapio Wirkkala and Bruno Mathsson. The example of Josef Frank and Estrid Ericson provides evidence of a re-assessment of peripheral individuals and their contributions by non-Nordic scholars, however there are many other individuals who are yet to have their roles assessed in the first instance. An examination of forgotten, marginalised or peripheral individuals may offer further insights into a complex and important period.

What emerges from the interrogation and analysis presented in this chapter is the apparent complexity and confusion that exists around what mid-twentieth century design from the Nordic region really was. Accepted definitions of Swedish design grew from the ideals of Gregor Paulsson and Ellen Key and, via the influence of Functionalism, defined a particular Swedish version of modernism in Swedish Grace and later Swedish Modern. Scandinavian Design was presented as a highly stylised and interrelated regional ideal largely by Swedish commentators, incorporating Swedish Modern in its aesthetic language and rhetoric. Those outside the Nordic region understood the individual designers within the frame of reference of Scandinavian Design provided by this commentary. As a direct result, any designer working within the Nordic countries during the period 1950-1970 is subject to assessment via this framework or filter.

Global perceptions of Swedish and Scandinavian design have been informed by mid-twentieth century, Golden Era discourse. This study takes the position that this discourse impacted upon the profile and reception of individual designers. As such, it is important to understand how Golden Era narratives and rhetoric evolved. Part One of this thesis interrogates these issues through the analysis of mid-century discourses and a further mapping of individuals, organisations, institutions and preeminent exemplars and their relationships.

72 /1
+"
N

%"
$"+ 6
,#
"14,/(0

  
  

























%"
$"+ 6
,#
"14,/(0

73 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

74 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

 
 

%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

“The world was wide open for our Gospel of Design.” 1 Ulf Hård af Segerstad

b
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
^4,
" !"0
/,2+!
'
/+ (^M
-M
bjM 75 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

76 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

J@G
(.,)/.#)(

This chapter will analyse commentary on Swedish design from the immediate post-WWII period and the subsequent joint promotion of the Scandinavian Design paradigm in the mid-1950s. The chapter will trace the rise of Orrefors as the preeminent exemplar of the ideologies of the SSF and introduce, unpack and interrogate the network of Swedish actors identified as being associated with English language commentary and texts. The aim is to demonstrate the preeminence of Orrefors in discourse and to illuminate associations and close personal links that worked in unison to promote a particular ideological definition of Swedish design. Commentary and promotion were closely interrelated.

This chapter will also consider the grouping of, and shared belief in promoting and supporting, individuals associated with Orrefors, which was preeminent in both the Swedish and greater Scandinavian contexts. The chapter proposes that within the network of commentators was a subsidiary group that emerged around the Svenska Slöjdföreningen (SSF), which shared an interest in the glass industry in Sweden. The chapter further considers the individuals that made up this group and the interconnections that influenced the ways in which they framed commentary. This commentary had the effect of favouring certain artists or factories. The timing of the formation of this network and its associated commentary and texts, coincided with the considered promotional thrust of Swedish and Scandinavian applied arts into export markets. It was, to a large extent, subsequently responsible for how these markets understood design from the region.

The chapter finishes by drawing some conclusions regarding Orrefors’ position as a consistently promoted and preferred exemplar, and the ways in which this may have impacted on the reception and promotion of Lindstrand in later commentary. An argument can be made that due to the promotion of an ideology, the collision of events, and the aggregation of individuals, blood lines, and favoured opinion, commentary tended to promote Orrefors. The resulting commentary on Swedish design worked to promote a hierarchy in the way glass factories and individuals were regarded which has influenced later commentary, such as the example of Orrefors and the artist Vicke Lindstrand.

With the benefit of hindsight, the closeness of individuals to the factories and individuals they wrote about must be considered when analysing their writings in terms of objectivity. Swedish

77 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

art historian Gunella Ivanov has observed this closeness in relation to the writings of one of the prominent actors within the network of commentators that will be discussed in this chapter.2

During the 20th Century, texts and commentary discussing and promoting Swedish design aimed at the English speaking world were sparse, yet surprisingly effective in creating a perceived aesthetic, regional awareness and an international profile for Swedish design. The considered emphasis on English language texts began in the 1920s and accelerated immediately following the Second World War. It continued through the 1950s, with commentary and promotion associated with the successful Design in Scandinavia exhibition in the United States and Canada.3 The authors of the texts, commentary and the associated marketing material were primarily centred around the SSF and a small, influential pool of actors who dominated discourse and promoted a unison ideology.

In Chapter One, I discussed Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network-Theory, which includes amongst actants in a network non-human actors such as objects and texts. In this chapter my analysis of the construction of narratives and rhetoric is from the position of the Actor-Network as a concept, (as opposed to a traditional network), where the actants include not only a group of individuals but also the range of non-human actants that includes discourses - rhetoric in texts, objects, and the combination of both. I will also consider the Actor-Network as a community or group by examining the group (or network) with reference to Thomas Kuhn’s postscript to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. There, Kuhn concluded with some remarks and questions about communities, groups and their socialisation. He questioned how membership was elected, the goals of the group, and the tolerance of deviations and aberrations from these goals. Kuhn proposed that knowledge is like language, in that it is the common property of the group, before drawing the conclusion that in order to understand this knowledge we need to understand the groups that create and use it.4 This chapter aims to map relationships and to understand the group responsible for knowledge about Swedish and Scandinavian design, in order to understand the knowledge that they created. Kuhn’s position on rhetoric, persuasion and faith are also of relevance in the construction of the texts that form part of the Actor-Network.

Mid-twentieth century commentary and texts build upon the earlier successes of Swedish applied arts during the 1920s and 1930s and the successful Artist in Industry program, initiated by the SSF in 1916. The program paired artists with industry, with the aim of improving the c
3+,3J
^ (//"
3/!$03/
N
!"0&$+
#=/
))P
L
/"$,/
2)00,+
, %
3"+0(
0)='!#=/"+&+$"+
bjbfNbjcf^M
-MbabM d

+$)&0%
/"-) "!
"/*+
0
1%"
,##& &)
0" ,+!
)+$2$"
&+
4"!"+
#1"/
bjefM e

2%+J
%"
01/2 12/"
,#
0 &"+1&@
/"3,)21&,+0M
-M
cbaM 78 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

artistic quality of mass produced goods. The commentary was effective in utilising aspects of the developing design reforms and Social Democratic construct as a framework to emphasise the collective, sometimes at the expense of the individual. In the pursuit of this endeavour there were to be unforeseen consequences that affected the visibility of certain individuals, amongst them Vicke Lindstrand.

During the 1930s the most successful exemplars of the early Artist in Industry were promoted and discussed in commentary and texts. Of these, emphasis was placed on ceramics producers Rörstrand and Gustavsberg and glass manufacturer Orrefors. Of these exemplar factories, Orrefors may be considered the most successful in the alliance of art and industry and, as such, remains well represented and preeminent both in Sweden and internationally. Orrefors is significant as its international profile as a premium producer of both exclusive and well designed everyday goods was established by the early 1920s, and has continued to hold weight well into the twenty-first century. As a successful exemplar, Orrefors was quite understandably promoted by the SSF and was highly visible in exhibitions, commentary and texts associated with the SSF and its extended network. The individuals associated with promotion, commentary and criticism also had various connections to Orrefors. These connections are of interest in a close reading of how and what they wrote, and conversely what they did not write.

During the twentieth century the SSF was active in promoting applied arts and sought to improve public taste by way of design reform. During the 1920s the director of the SSF was Gregor Paulsson, who was also the author of Vackrare vardagsvara (More beautiful everyday things) his influential manifesto of 1919. Paulsson and the SSF ensured that the early successes of the their Artists in Industry model were well documented as examples of their ideologies. Individuals associated with Paulsson from within the SSF and its extended network continued to contribute commentary, criticism and promotion of these early ideologies well into the 1970s, and the impact of these ideologies are still evident. Included in this network were authors, critics and commentators responsible for the vast majority of English language discourse on both Swedish and Scandinavian Design, who have provided the frame of reference for how the world understands design from the Nordic region. This chapter includes an analysis and discussion of the English language writings from this network, as well as additional biographical details of relevance to the discussion. This actor-network is set out in the following table.

79 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


$ " SSF/Orrefors Actor-Network 5

          


 

+#%
&(&-

$
&(
%&("#(
)($&5
 -- +!+ (
=E><8>D5
=E?E8@>5
$""#(($& =E=?8=D 8A<

+ !)+
&($&
)&($&
%&("#(
$
&(
'($&#5
.&,,)(
=E><8=E?@
&#('
#
&+#'
)($&5
@ $""#(($&5
=E@?8=E@B &(5
)&($&5
%&$%#'(5
&$''$&
$
&(
'($&-5
%%'!
#*&'(-
=E?@8=EAB

)--"+
(*
#
 &(8#)'(&-
)"(,,)(
$!)"#'(
*#' 

0+
&
"&
$
&('( ,($#
+&
!

)($&5
= $& :=E=D8=E??5
/!&
$""#(($&5
=E@C8=ECC;
$#'(#)'(&%$# .&
$""((
#& =EC? ""&
$#
:=E??8=E@@; #)"&$)'

,($#'

#')(
-
"& &('( $#5
#(
(

#%
"& &('(
:=E>D
8
&('(

&('(
%'!8 #(,-+(
=E@<; :=EA<
8
   -
= E @ > 8 = E A <
























B:?GFA= =EC?;



















































&('(
&($&
$'(
=EA<8=EC?

f
,2/ "0L
3"+0(
,/*
/(&3J
1, (%,)*J
3
1)"
'/+"01*J
"
#,/*!"
\d[[L1)"1
J
!"0&$+

1&))

Y1, (%,)*L
12/
, %
(2)12/J
caafZM 80 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

          

 
 

+-".+
&
&($&5
$#
$
&(&5
($&5

&#,
"&
$
)(&
$
- ( +!
$& +&
! ?>=

/ (
+#%
&($&
&('(

&('(
$'(
1
%0)(#.,
=E@B8@E
1
=E?<'









%'!8 -5

F:?GF?= =EAD8B<5
=E@<' )($&5
($&
$
$""#(($&5
$&" %&$%#'(

%
.&-
"%!$-
-
&((5

*'$&
:?GFF= 
=E?E5
($
$*&''

")')"'
=EA<8AC5
:#!)#
1;5
*#'
$&"
&($&
#&!
'#
!#
&##!
#(&
=EA=5
#
'#
=EAE8B@ #
##*
,($#

%
&($&

)&($& &(
'($&#5
-/ ()0
=E?A8@B +&(&5
&(5


 

&
4+

""& *'$&
($
$!)"#'(
 ! +,-
$'(
*#' 
>D= "#&
!(5
&(5
&
$'0#
+&(&
#
*'$&
=EB<' ($
#)'(&-
:#!)#
$'(
!'&)
=EB<';

!
#'(
&($&

)&($& &(&5
&(5
>A= =E@E8A>5
$""#(($& 
=EB?8BA

81 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

J@H
 /.3
),
&&@
%!,)/(

[…] external beauty is a symbol of a decent and reasonable life. 6

To understand the origins of modern Swedish design and the conditions leading up to the development of the Scandinavian Design construct, it is pertinent at this point to trace the development of the specific ideologies and aestheticism that informed thinking in Sweden and Scandinavia during the first half of the twentieth century.


$ "
/)
/00,+J
1%

Twentieth century Swedish and Scandinavian design has its origins in the Arts and Crafts movements of the late nineteenth century. The English Arts and Crafts movement, and the work and philosophies of William Morris (1834-1896), influenced developments in other parts of Europe. The Nationalist movement in the arts, most frequently associated with Germany, was a leading force in Sweden and Finland during the 1890s. It was during this time that the idea of Swedishness was most widely debated and discussed. Art historian Michelle Facos’ work examining the development of the Swedish Nationalist movement in art has revealed a close

g
&))&*
,//&0J
^/1

"/&,20
%&+$^J
&+
,/*+
")3&+
Y"!MZJ
&))&*
,//&0
,+
/1
+!
, &)&0*
Y+1/&,L
"+"/)
2 )&0%&+$
,*-+6J
bjjjZJ
jfNbahM
-M
bagM 82 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

alignment with developing politics, where “it’s goal was to promote a national identity by preserving indigenous culture, tradition and values.”7 The movement in Sweden was less conservative than its equivalents in other countries, such as Ireland and Germany, embracing change and adopting a modernist world-view. According to Facos, the movement helped to define the core attributes that would later become the hallmarks of Scandinavian design. Facos explained: “In Sweden, National Romanticism defined ‘Swedishness’ for future generations, associating with it such attributes as simplicity, cleanliness, and social equality.”8 Whilst Nationalism ran parallel in the other Nordic countries, it was the Swedish approach that was the most influential. Noted protagonists at this time were the Swedes Carl and Karin Larsson who created what has become a symbol of the Swedish aesthetic in their home at Sundborn outside Stockholm. Larsson was influenced by Arts and Crafts furniture and interiors, which were light and airy, and the Art Nouveau style that dominated the Paris Exposition of 1889. The house and its interiors were documented by Carl in his watercolour illustrations, first published in Ett Hem (A Home) in 1899 and since then widely reproduced. As design critic Ulf Hård af Segerstad has observed:

When Carl and Karin Larsson created their home in Sundborn over two short decades, they were in unity with the best endeavours of their time. Simultaneously they succeeded with something so unusual as to have enriched those endeavours in essential aspects. Their home became unique and exemplary and so has remained. Seen in a proper international perspective, the home is unprecedented in Europe and a vital part of the culture at the turn of the century. 9

Carl and Karin Larsson have been discussed in many publications, but it is the 1997 exhibition publication by the Victoria and Albert Museum in London that presents the most thorough analysis of their contributions to Swedish design. In the catalogue, Anders Claeson summarises the Larsson legacy.

Carl and Karin Larson were children of the nineteenth century, the century of utopias […] The Larssons in their own utopia, created a permanent dream picture of Sweden and Swedishness, of a country idyll bathed in Nordic light […] Their vision of Swedishness is more firmly embedded in the national psyche even than the Swedish sense of community.10

h
& %"))"
 ,0J
1&,+)&0*
+!
1%"
,/!&
&*$&+1&,+
J
4"!&0%
/1
,#
1%"
\cd[0
Y"/(")"6J
)&#ML
+&3M
,#
)&#,/+&
/"00J
bjjiZM
-M
dM i
&!M
-M
dM j
/)N/&(
/+1%
+!
)#
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
/)
/00,+Y0
%,*"
J
V
,,(
 ,21
/)
/00,+Y0
2+! ,/+W
Y1, (%,)*
[,)+\L
3M
,(%+!)/"#=/"+M
K["")&$\J
bjhfZM
-M
hM ba
& %")
+,!&+
+!
)&0 "1
13"+,4N &!"*/(
Y"!0MZJ
/)
+!
/&+
/00,+
J
/"1,/0
,#
1%"
4"!&0%
016)"
Y ,+!,+L
& 1,/&
C
) "/1
20"2*J
bjjhZM
-M
3&M 83 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

National Romanticism ran parallel with the socialist aesthetic debates, championed by William Morris and the writings of Swedish philosopher, socialist, feminist, pacifist, pedagogue and design theorist Ellen Key. Morris saw beauty as symbolic of inner harmony and decency, which profoundly influenced Key’s social-utopian ideals promulgated in her influential manifesto Skönhet för alla (Beauty for all).11 Key advocated ethics through aesthetics, viewing “aesthetics, beauty and art as a means for the moral elevation and education of humanity.”12 Design historian Kerstin Wickman has observed that Key had “absorbed the spirit of the age and reshaped thoughts that had already been thought of, but she did so in a persuasive, journalistic way.”13 It is this persuasive manner that characterises later rhetoric and narratives about Swedish and Scandinavian design. Key became an advocate of Larsson’s aesthetic, using his drawings to promote her ideas, particularly watercolours of his family home in Sundborn, designed by his wife Karin, which has become a symbol of the idea of Swedishness. Larsson’s watercolours were first exhibited at the Art and Industry Exhibition in Stockholm in 1897. The pared down interiors, full of light, colour and simple almost spare furniture, both old and new, were counter to the dark interiors of much of Europe and a direct response to the seasons. These characteristically unpretentious and family-oriented spaces have become synonymous with Sweden. They were taken to their logical extension by IKEA in the late 20th century in a range of vernacular objects directly inspired by the Larsson home. Key’s ideas fell in line with the developing Social Democratic political movement in Sweden, furthered by the actions of trade unions seeking better conditions for workers.

The Paris exposition of 1900 demonstrated to the Scandinavian crafts organisations that to compete internationally they needed an overhaul of their manufacturing industries. Despite considerable labour skills, Sweden was merely producing copies of items designed elsewhere and no longer had a strong market for its applied arts. This led to a crafts revival and debates within these associations on how to address declining sales and quality of industrially manufactured goods. Sweden came to industrial modernisation late, in the years following the First World War (1914-1918). The Svenska Slöjdföreningen were central to debates in Sweden, influenced by the Deutscher Werkbund in Germany, towards design reforms that sought to improve design quality, with an emphasis on the domestic sphere.

bb
))"+
"6J
(<+%"1
#


$ #
),*01"/#<+01/"1
6
/)
/00,+
bijeM
%"
)&$%1
+!
/&$%1
/00,+
&+1"/&,/
%0
" ,*"
06+,+6*,20
4&1%
&+1"/+1&,+)
-"/ "-1&,+0
,#
4"!&0%
&+1"/&,/
!"0&$+M

Sweden had remained neutral during the First World War, which allowed the Swedish economy to grow fairly rapidly as a result of an increase in foreign demand for their goods. As the war progressed this resulted in high inflation in Sweden. After the war, the removal of trade barriers resulted in surpluses that dramatically affected the Swedish economy, leaving the export industry in recession and leading to an economic crisis in 1921-1922.

During the First World War, Sweden had realised the beginnings of design reforms aimed at improving the quality of manufactured goods and making them affordable to the average person. This development saw artists first cooperating with industry, at the Kosta glass factory in the forests of Småland, in Sweden’s south. However, it was not until 1916 that manufacturers saw the benefits of having artists working in factories, producing individual and specific designs.

Widespread housing shortages and poverty were evident, particularly as farmers moved from the country to the towns and cities to work in the newly developing manufacturing industries, becoming completely dependent on the workplace for their livelihood and welfare.14

be
/0
$+200,+J
^4"!"+
+!
1%"
4"!&0%
,!")^J
&+
"/"(
M
01"/$/!
+!
&+
1/&17)"/N "3&+"
Y"!0MZJ
%"
/&))&+ "
,#
4"!&0%
$)00
\d\cL\d^d
J
+
))&+ "
,#
/1
+!
&+!201/6
Y"4
3"+
"4
,/(L
)"
+&3M
/"00
K
/!
/!21"
"+1"/
#,/
12!&"0
&+
1%"
" ,/1&3"
/10J
bjjgZM
-M
biM 85 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

J@I
  
   
(
,, ),-

Gregor Paulsson, Swedish Art Historian, educator, and interdisciplinary theorist15, became well known as an early advocate for social reforms and of the cooperation of art and industry, via his influential writings and early art and architecture criticism in Swedish newspapers. Paulsson was a curator at the Nationalmuseum Stockholm from 1915-1924 and became affiliated with the SSF in 1915. By 1920 he held the position of director of the SSF and editor of its journal Föreningens Tidskrift. The SSF was active in both advising industry and finding suitable artists for collaboration, in order to raise the standard of design in mass produced household goods such as ceramic, textiles and glass. Paulsson’s influential Vackrare vardagsvara (More beautiful things for everyday use)16 became the manifesto of the SSF, promoting the ideal of mass produced better things for everyday life and advocating the role of the artist in industry.17 Vackrare vardagsvara was published in Swedish, however no English translation was available until 2008 when its title was revised to Better things for everyday life, in line with what the translators interpreted from Paulsson’s later reflection on the title.18 It is more widely known in English speaking markets as More beautiful things for everyday use, in summaries, snippets and extracts that have been included in English language texts since its publication in 1919.19 This new full translation illuminates many nuances in Paulsson’s text, previously missing in English commentary that assist in understanding his and the SSF’s ideologies.

Paulsson was profoundly influenced by the Deutscher Werkbund20 and earlier texts of Ellen Key, writer, lecturer and commentator who advocated ethics through aesthetics viewing “aesthetics,

bf
")"+
9 "/$J
^+
+1/,!2 1&,+
1,
/"$,/
2)00,+^0
"11"/
%&+$0
#,/
3"/6!6
&#"^J
&+
2 6
/"$%K
")"+
9 "/$K
/ /
&))"/
+"
Y"!MZJ
,!"/+
4"!&0%
"0&$+H
%/""
,2+!&+$
"510
Y"4
,/(L
%"
20"2*
,#
,!"/+
/1J
caaiZJ
fiNhbM
-M
fjM bg
/"$,/
2)00,+J
 (//"
3/!$03/
Y1, (%,)*L
3"+0(
0)='!#=/"+MJ
bjbjZM bh
%/,2$%
1%"
$"+ 6
0"1
2-
6
1%"

+!
%"!"!
6
1"51&)"
/1&01
)0
2)) "/$J
!3&+
))"/0
40
02 "00#2))6
&+1/,!2 "!
1,
,01
)004,/(0
&+
bjbg
+!
!4/!
)!
1,
1%"
"/*& 0
# 1,/6
=/01/+!
&+
bjbhM
6
1%&0
1&*"
//"#,/0
)004,/(0
40
)/"!6
$&+&+$
/&1& )
 )&*
#,/
1%"
/)
&+3"+1&,+0
,#
&*,+
1"
+!
+21
"/.3&01
-/,*-1&+$
2)00,+
1,
!" )/"
/)
0
1%"
$/"1
;-,.2"
&+
4"!&0%
$)00M
bi
2 6
/"$%J
")"+
9 "/$J
/ /
&))"/
+"J
Y"!MZJ
,!"/+
4"!&0%
"0&$+H
%/""
,2+!&+$
"510
Y"4
,/(L
%"
20"2*
,#
,!"/+
/1J
caaiZM
,1"
bJ
-M
gjM bj
""
1%"
!&0 200&,+
&+
)/"+ "
2/1,+
%"A")!
/MJ
^, &)
""!0
+!
"01%"1&
"*+!0L
))"+
"6J
/"$,/
2)00,+J
+!
4"!&0%
"0&$+J
bijjNbjdj^J
&+
"/"(
M
01"/$/!
"1
)M
Y"!0MZJ
%"
/&))&+ "
,#
4"!&0%
$)00
\d\cL\d^d
J
+
))&+ "
,#
/1
+!
&+!201/6
Y"4
3"+
"4
,/(L
)"
+&3M
/"00
K
/!
/!21"
"+1"/
#,/
12!&"0
&+
1%"
" ,/1&3"
/10J
bjjgZJ
dfNfbM ca
%"
"210 %"/
"/( 2+!H

"/*+
00, &1&,+
,#
/ %&1" 10J
/1&010J
!"0&$+"/0
+!
*+2# 12/"/0
"01 )&0%"!
&+
2+& %
&+
bjahJ
40
1%"
-/" 2/0,/
#,/
1%"
"01 )&0%*"+1
,#
1%"
2%20
0 %,,)
&+
bjbj
+!
%")!
0
/"0-,+0& )"
#,/
1%"
!"3"),-*"+1
,#
*,!"/+
!"0&$+
+!
/ %&1" 12/"
&+
"/*+6J
+!
-/1+"/&+$
/1&010
+!
!"0&$+"/0
4&1%
&+!201/6M

86 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

beauty and art as a means for the moral elevation and education of humanity.”21 Art historian Hans Pettersson has described Paulsson’s role at the SSF, where:

[...] he formulated a social-aesthetic programme having as a starting point strong criticism of 19th century eclectic art culture and contemporary art life, which was becoming more and more isolated, and where good quality was only available to a few. Thus in the wake of the Deutscher Werkbund, Paulsson wanted the cooperation between artists and industry be considered necessary to offer good design and high quality, even to economically weaker groups.22

Paulsson organised the SSF’s important 1917 Hemutställningen (Home exhibition), the first decisive step towards design reforms and a new aesthetic, which he described in his later publication Vackrare vardagsvara:

The idea of the exhibition was in principle to attempt to achieve for modern Swedish decorative art a definitive shift from the isolated production of individuals to the purposeful collective endeavours of a whole generation for a future culture of form founded on a broad social basis.23

Vackrare vardagsvara was directed at manufacturers and retailers in their disregard for the low- income earner. According to art historian Cilla Robach, it argued “for a homogenous up-to-date idiom in keeping with the new industrial society [with] articles that were both beautiful and modern.”24

The 1917 Hemutsällning was partly in response to the overcrowded housing conditions of the working class, a result of large numbers of farmers moving to the industrialised cities seeking work. Economic historian Lennart Schön has described the conditions in Stockholm during the early decades of the twentieth century where more than one third of apartments consisted of just one room and a kitchen, or smaller, yet often housed a family as well as lodgers.25 The premise of the exhibition was to promote the artist in industry, designing mass produced goods that would be affordable to the working classes and thus provide a better quality of living, by way of the example of simple modern and well designed interiors and objects. Despite its

cb
"+$ ,/+J
^))"+
"6
biejNbjcg^M cc
"1"/00,+J
/"$,/
2)00,+
, %
!"+
(,+01%&01,/&0(
1,)(+&+$"+0
-/, )"*M
+$)&0%
02**/6J
-M
cadNcaeM cd
/"$,/
2)00,+
&+
 (//"
3/!$03/
1/+0)1"!
&+
/"$%
Y"!MZJ
,!"/+
4"!&0%
"0&$+H
%/""
,2+!&+$
"510M
-M
jhM
%"
&1)&
"*-%0&0
&0
#/,*
1%"
,/&$&+)
1"51M ce
&))
,  %J
^"0&$+
#,/
,!"/+
",-)"^J
&+
3
2! "/$
+!
" &)&
&!"+%"&*
Y"!0MZJ
1,-&
B
/")&16
J
*,!"/+&16
&+
4"!"+
\d[[L\da[
Y"4
3"+
K
,+!,+L
)"
+&3"/0&16J
caacZM
-M
bjbM cf
"++/1
 %=+J
"+
 %2 "/1J
+!
12!&"#=/ 2+!"1
8/&+$0)&3
 %
*%8))"J
4"!"+Y0
/,!
1,
*,!"/+&16
J
+
" ,+,*&
%&01,/6
Y1, (%,)*L

#=/)$J
cabaZM
M
cdbM 87 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

intentions, the exhibition failed to elicit interest from its target audience - the working class. What Paulsson advocated were ‘everyday goods’, or utility ware that was affordable, of good design and which would improve everyday life.

Interestingly, this was not necessarily what Swedish applied arts became better known for, rather it was the unique objects that dominated the exhibited, highly awarded and publicised output of Orrefors. It is these ‘art glass’ objects that are considered to have forged the international reputation for Swedish applied arts and glass in particular, as both art and design historian Gillian Naylor and historian Clarence Burton Sheffield, Jr have pointed out. Naylor has argued that: [...] it was, for example, the expensive engraved glassware by Simon Gate and Edward Hald that was admired, rather than their simpler designs, and ideologies of Swedish craftsmanship were promoted, rather than design for industry.26

Whilst Burton Sheffield has observed that:

It is ironic that the affordable, functional, everyday objects intended for the common man did not make Swedish industrial arts famous. Instead it was the expensive, unique, individual luxury items such as Orrefors engraved glass.27

Along with the SSF’s advocacy of the artist in industry, they also set out to educate in matters of taste. To this end there remained a paragraph in the SSF charter until the 1960s regarding “raising the general level of taste” of the Swedish population, later described by Paulsson’s son Nils as an “anachronism that is more ridiculous than offensive”28. The SSF consistently pursued the ideals expressed in Gregor Paulsson’s writings and found success in Sweden as a result of cooperation with government and a small market, resulting in limited choice for consumers. Art historian Helena Kåberg has noted that:

Paulsson was part of an influential network of Swedish social democratic politicians and people active in the national cultural arena. These connections paved the way for him to inspire the grand-scale implementation of modern ideas.29

cg
&))&+
6),/J
^4"!&0%
/ "MMM/
1%"
 "-1 )"
 "
,#
,!"/+&0*P^J
&+
2)
/""+%)$%
Y"!MZJ
,!"/+&0*
&+
!"0&$+
Y ,+!,+L
"(1&,+
,,(0J
bjjaZJ
bgeNbidM
-M
bhcM ch
)/"+ "
2/1,+
%"##&")!J
/
&+
01"/$/!
"1
)MJ
%"
/&))&+ "
,#
4"!&0%
$)00
\d\cL\d^d
J
+
))&+ "
,#
/1
+!
&+!201/6M
-M
eiM ci
&)0
2)00,+
/1& )"
-2 )&0%"!
&+
1, (%,)*01&!+&+$"+J
g
6
bjge
0
-/1
,#
1%"
,/*
#+10&
!" 1"J
.2,1"!
&+
/+(3&01J
^ +!0
,+
,3"*"+1
N
/#1"!
,/*
&+
&),$2"^M cj
9 "/$J
^+
+1/,!2 1&,+
1,
/"$,/
2)00,+^0
"11"/
%&+$0
#,/
3"/6!6
&#"^M
-M
gaM 88 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

The ideology championed by Paulsson and the SSF was to make better designed goods more accessible to all. By encouraging artists and industry to collaborate, this ideology was intended to result in mass produced, inexpensive yet well designed goods that were available to many, rather than a select and affluent few. As Kåberg has observed:

The purpose of expanding the responsibilities of artists under contract was that more attractive household items could be produced if the teams planning and manufacturing cheap utility goods included specialists with aesthetic gifts and training. The desire to distribute beauty to all was born of a reformist social ideology. The hope was that beauty in the poorest of homes would create an atmosphere of positivism, underpinning social progress.30

As examples in Vackrare vardagsvara, Paulsson featured illustrations of objects he considered to best represent the principles of his arguments. Amongst these were designs by Edward Hald for Rörstrand and Orrefors. At its sister factory Sandvik, Orrefors had been producing domestic and commercial utility wares in simple, elegant shapes designed by Simon Gate and Edward Hald in serial production, that were reasonably priced. It was these simple wares that were featured amongst the numerous illustrations in Paulsson’s Vackrare vardagsvara.

The first edition of Vackrare vardagsvara included seven full-page advertisements that Kåberg claims were “considered exemplary of the message of Paulsson’s text.”31 Amongst these was an advertisement for glassware from Orrefors.32 In Vackrare vardagsvara, Paulsson discusses the role of the SSF “to draw artists and industry together through its referral agency.”33 He lists “the cases in which such cooperation has been arranged” where he includes “Simon Gate and Edward Hald at Orrefors glasbruk”34 and “Edward Hald at Rörstrand”35. Since Paulsson’s 1919 publication, the SSF referral agency has been continually credited with the introduction of Gate and Hald to Orrefors and this is widely understood in discussion of the successful Swedish Artist in Industry paradigm.36

da
/,*
1%"
+$)&0%
)+$2$"
&+#,/*1&,+
0%""1J
/1&01
&+
&+!201/6H
6
")"+
9 "/$
00, &1"!
4&1%
&+!"/
+!
1&,+)*20"2*J
Z
1&$
&+! "/$M db
/"$,/
2)00,+J
^"11"/
%&+$0
#,/
3"/6!6
&#"^J
&+
2 6
/"$%K
")"+
9 "/$K
/ /
&))"/
+"
Y"!MZJ
,!"/+
4"!&0%
"0&$+H
%/""
,2+!&+$
"510
Y"4
,/(L
%"
20"2*
,#
,!"/+
/1J
caaiZJ
hcNbcfM
,1"
jJ
-M
bceM dc
&!M
-M
babM dd
&!M
-M
babM de
&!M
-M
babM
df
&!M
-M
bacM dg
0
/" "+1)6
0
caai
1%"
&+3,)3"*"+1
,#
1%"

/"#"//)
$"+ 6
%0
""+
&1"!
4&1%
/"!&1
#,/
1%&0
#/2&1#2)
&+1/,!2 1&,+M
""
")"+
9 "/$J
^+
+1/,!2 1&,+
1,
/"$,/
2)00,+^0
"11"/
%&+$0
#,/
3"/6!6
&#"^J
& &!MJ
fiNhbM
-M
gaM 89 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

The frequently reiterated claim that the SSF were responsible for the appointment of Gate and Hald at Orrefors is worth interrogating further. In a close reading of Vackrare vardagsvara, facilitated by its recent translation, Paulsson does not categorically claim credit for this introduction, rather he discusses artists being employed by industry “as a result”37 of the SSF’s 1917 Hemutställningen, which he describes as “the first visible outcome of the general endeavours of Svenska Slöjdföreningen to draw artists and industry together through its referral agency.”38 The referral agency he refers to was headed by Elsa Gullberg, textile designer and manufacturer, and was responsible for pairing artists with industry, based on the model of the Deutscher Werkbund in Germany. Nonetheless, various readings of Paulsson’s text and the promotion of Orrefors as an exemplar by the SSF has resulted in the SSF agency being assigned responsibility for this important introduction. In more recent research and scholarship, there have however emerged other findings that provide persuasive evidence for an alternate version of the employment of Gate and Hald at Orrefors.

Design historian Alistair Duncan’s 1995 publication Orrefors Glass provides details of the employment of Simon Gate by Orrefors. Duncan’s research, based on the archival holdings at Orrefors, reports that Orrefors owner, Johan Ekman, and manager, Albert Ahlin, found Gate themselves. According to Duncan, Ekman had initially approached Erik Wettergren at the SSF but the latter was unable to recommend any suitable artists.39 The 1998 publication of Agnes Hellner’s Notes on Orrefors Glasshouse, written between 1927 and 1928, provided further elaboration of Duncan’s findings.40 Hellner, the daughter of Orrefors owner Johan Ekman, amassed an important, extensively annotated and catalogued collection of Orrefors glass during her life which now forms part of the collection of Stockholm University. According to Hellner, both Gate and Hald were employed directly by Orrefors without the involvement of the SSF. In 1917, Ahlin and Gate are reported to have met Hald in Stockholm, during an exhibition of Orrefors glass at NK department store. The Orrefors exhibition, which was reviewed by Paulsson as “the start of a new epoch in the history of Swedish glass, for its most important aspect [...] of attractively designed tableware”41, coincided with an exhibition that included Hald’s ceramics for Rörstrand. Gate and Hald expressed admiration for each others’ work, dh
/"$,/
2)00,+J
^"11"/
%&+$0
#,/
3"/6!6
&#"^J
& &!MJ
hcNbcfM
-M
babM di
&!M
-M
babM dj
S%/,2$%
"+.2&/&"0J
(*+
+!
%)&+
1%"*0")3"0
!&0 ,3"/"!
1%"
$/-%&
/1&01
&*,+
1"J
4%,
%!
!"0&$+"!
,,(
,3"/
&))201/1&,+0
#,/
&+"5-"+0&3"
3,)2*"0
-2 )&0%"!
6
%)01/=*M
[MMM\
"$,1&1&,+0
"14""+
(*+
+!
1"
"+02"!J
+!
&+
bjbf
1"
3&0&1"!
1%"
$)00%,20"
#,/

*,+1%
!2/&+$
4%& %
1&*"
%"
!"0&$+"!
0,*"
-)1"0
+!
)*-0M
%"
#,)),4&+$
6"/
1%"
/1&01
"$+
%&0
/""/
1
//"#,/0MT
&+
)01&/
2+ +J
//"#,/0
)00
Y+1&.2"
,))" 1,/0
)2 J
bjjfZM
-M
bgM ea
""
&+
"& 2))
"1
)MJ
8/)"(
1&))
$)0
J
$+"0
"))+"/0
0*)&+$
3
//"#,/0$)0
e

),3"
,#
$)00
J
$+"0
"))+"/Y0
,))" 1&,+
,#
//"#,/0
$)00
Y1, (%,)*L
01"/
L
1
M
2+$01"+"+J
bjjiZM eb
& (*+
+!
&!*+J
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$M
-M
cfM 90 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

which Hellner claims led to the employment of Hald by Orrefors. The publication of Hellner’s notes coincided with the centenary publication of Orrefors in which art historian Dag Widman, also based on archival research, reiterates Duncan’s findings and in an endnote to his text, adds further information with an extract from Hellner’s notes.42 Widman concludes that:

However, according to Agnes Hellner, the Swedish Society of Crafts and Design had nothing to do with the employment of the Orrefors artists. Quoting Albert Ahlin’s notes of 18th September, 1927, she states. “In particular, I wish to emphasise that neither the Swedish Society of Crafts and Design, nor Mrs Gullberg nor Curator Wettergren, were ever even consulted as to the employment of artists at Orrefors. But I do know that the Swedish Society of Crafts and Design, which initially was exceedingly critical of Orrefors glass, later began to patronise it and sought to claim for itself a share in its success. This is completely without justification.”43

This close-grained analysis demonstrates that the texts of Paulsson have at times been read through the lens of the SSF’s consistent promotion of Orrefors as an exemplar of its ideologies. Paulsson’s text in Vackrare vardagsvara, whilst not claiming ownership of these important introductions, has been interpreted in discourse in such a way that the SSF has been given credit. This is important in understanding the preeminence of Orrefors in the context of discourse relating to the SSF and the formation of subsequent myths and ‘truths’. Whilst the preceding analysis casts further doubt on the SSF’s role in the early employment of artists at Orrefors, it reinforces the association of Orrefors with the SSF, which is the foundation for Orrefors’ preeminence. It should be noted that the SSF agency was, however, involved in the earlier introduction of Hald to Rörstrand.

Edward Hald shared in Gregor Paulsson’s ideologies through their friendship in common with former director of the SSF and Nationalmuseum Erik Wettergren. The three shared a passionate belief in the role of the artist in industry. These friendships were not only to inform Hald’s career, but also the future careers of his children Arthur and Elisa, continuing throughout their respective lives. Paulsson remained a strong and consistent advocate of Orrefors. His positive criticism ranged from Simon Gate’s early Orrefors glass in 1916, to Hald’s faience for Rörstrand in 1917, to their joint success with Orrefors in Paris in 1925. Paulsson frequently used Orrefors glass to illustrate his texts, emphasising exemplary industrial production and the role of the artist in industry.

ec
&!M
-M
ca
C
cecM
ed
&!M
-M
cecM 91 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

J@J
"
, '#( (
)
,, ),-

It has been established and well documented in both Swedish and English language texts that Edward Hald and Simon Gate were largely responsible, through their designs in glass, for making Orrefors and Swedish glass internationally renowned during the early twentieth century. This fact is repeated in numerous texts beginning in the 1920s and has continued into the twenty first century.44 What is less known and absent in much English documentation of twentieth century Swedish design, is that Edward Hald’s two eldest children, Arthur and Elisa, also contributed to commentary, criticism and promotion of twentieth century Swedish design that further contributed to the preeminence of Orrefors. Arthur and Elisa were responsible for seminal English language publications that described and promoted the particular Swedish design paradigm from the mid-twentieth century, and were central to an extended network that was to dominate twentieth century discourse on Swedish and Scandinavian design from the 1950s onwards.

It could not have been anticipated how profound an influence the former Matisse pupil Edward Hald would have when he joined Orrefors glassworks in 1917. Hald and Gate significantly influenced the international profile of the Swedish glass industry. During the 1920s, as Sweden underwent major municipal expansion and rapid urbanisation, Gate and Hald won many accolades for their work at Orrefors, actively promoting the glassworks and, along with the SSF, organising and participating in numerous prestigious international exhibitions to promote the visibility and profile of Swedish design, and of Orrefors. The Paris Exhibition of 1925 marked the international breakthrough for Swedish applied arts and design, and particularly for Orrefors. Art historian Denise Hagströmer states that:

Mainly it was the glass designed by Simon Gate and Edward Hald for the Orrefors factory that celebrated the major victory. It was undoubtably a unique achievement for a new enterprise to have, during the course of eight years, worked itself up from nothing to become what was regarded by many as the world’s foremost glass factory.45

ee
2+ +J
//"#,/0
)00J
/& (J
,+01+8/
&
&+!201/&+J
/(

/&"!*+J
%"
"01
,#
,!"/+
4"!&0%
/1
)00J
//"#,/0
+!
,01
\d^[L\db[K
Yb01J
&*&1"!
"!&1&,+
,#
bcaa
,-&"0
"!+MK
"11)"L
/(

/&"!*+J
caagZJ
/1%2/
)!J
^%"
" /"1
,#
//"#,/0^J
/#1
,/&7,+0H
 Ug
Ybjfe ZJ
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
^+&16
+!
&3"/0&16
&+
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+^J
++
/&"

"/)&17N"7")&20J
//"#,/0H

4"!&0%
)00
)+1
Y1, (%,*L
1)+1&0
2 )&0%&+$J
bjieZJ
+!6
 ,++"))J
^/&2-*-%
,#
"0&$+M
,))" 1&+$
,01
/
)00
#/,*
4"!"+
+!
&+)+!^J
-,)),H
U-/&)
caah
YcaahZJ
 #!!"+
Y"!MZJ
 +!&+3&+
*,!"/+
!"0&$+H
\cc[L\dc[J
"& 2))
"1
)MJ
8/)"(
1&))
$)0
J
$+"0
"))+"/0
0*)&+$
3
//"#,/0$)0
e

),3"
,#
$)00
J
$+"0
"))+"/Y0
,))" 1&,+
,#
//"#,/0
$)00J
/&(
"11"/$/"+J
//"#,/0$)0
Y3"+0(
)='!#=/"+&+$"+0
0-" &)+2**"/
LK
1, (%,)*L
3"+0(
)='!#=/"+&+$"+0J
bjcbZJ
/&(
"11"/$/"+J
//"#,/0
Y1, (%,)*L
,/!&0(
,1,$/36/J
bjdhZJ
& (*+
+!
&!*+J
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$J
& (*+
+!
/+17J
//"#,/0K
,)K
]H
)0 /2("10
%&01,/&
\cdcL\ddcM ef
$01/=*"/J
^4"!&0%
"0&$+
5%& &1&,+0
bjbhNbjdbL
/&1&+^0
+1&*1&,+
,#
)%))^M
-M
bdM 92 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

Hagströmer, in discussing the content of the Swedish exhibit, which included the work of Carl Malmsten, Sven Markelius and Wilhelm Kåge, further observed that:

These show pieces were neither cheap nor utilitarian but their inclusion was defended on the grounds of being chosen with an eye to their eventual display in a grand public setting. It was only right and proper that design for civic or ceremonial display should be more ostentatious than its domestic counterpart - a statement that might sound far fetched today.46

The market for consumer goods grew during the 1920s along with standardisation, however the housing shortage worsened as an influx of people from the country descended on the newly industrialised cities. Lennart Schön has observed the rise of a new urban middle class, the role of women in the workplace and rationalisation as important factors in the growth of the Swedish economy during the 1920s.47 Whilst the Wall Street crash of 1929 affected Sweden, it did not dampen planning for a major national exhibition that would lead to the widespread dissemination of functionalism in the Swedish psyche.

The SSF and Gregor Paulsson’s important 1930 Stockholm Exhibition, which had as its theme ‘Modern’, is held as the birth of funkis, the Swedish version of Functionalism that dominated the 1930s. The Stockholm Exhibition, according to Geographer Allan Pred, “also was international to the extent that it was intended to promote Swedish design in other countries, to expose certain Swedish goods to foreign critics and wholesale purchasers, to market Sweden abroad.”48 Pred observes the exhibition as defining social reforms and progress towards the ideals of the reformist labour movement associated with the Social Democrats, a line between old and new, modernity and tradition. To emphasise this defining line, it is worth revisiting Pred’s description of what he has defined as the shift proposed by the exhibition:

The pure and simple line as a doubt-free boundary line, as encloser of a unitary, no-difference-allowed space. On the inside of this line is a new sense of national identity, a new sense of solidarity, a new sense of achievement, the rational and enlightened individual who bears her expanded freedom “with a large portion of social responsibility.”49

eg
&!M
-M
bdM eh
 %=+J
 %2 "/1J
+!
12!&"#=/ 2+!"1
8/&+$0)&3
 %
*%8))"J
4"!"+Y0
/,!
1,
*,!"/+&16
J
+
" ,+,*&
%&01,/6M
-M
chhM ei
/"!J
" ,$+&7&+$
2/,-"+
*,!"/+&1&"0
J

*,+1$"
,#
1%"
-/"0"+1M
-M
baaM
ej
&!M
-M
jjM 93 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

The Stockholm Exhibition of 1930 marked the arrival of Functionalism in Sweden - despite initial criticism - along with the birth of the term Swedish Grace50 and the transition towards Social Democratic politics in Sweden. The Stockholm Exhibition of 1930 also marked the public debut of a new Orrefors artist, Vicke Lindstrand. Ultimately, the exhibition met with substantial local criticism for its biased and intolerant approach, which promoted modernism and excluded traditionalism.51

In preparation for the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition, Gate and Hald were looking to engage a younger artist to bring a fresh Modern approach to Orrefors. This new apprentice came in the form of Vicke Lindstrand, a young illustrator, who had trained at the Slöjdföreningen School in Gothenburg and was working with a local newspaper on illustration and decoration projects. Lindstrand brought with him a modernist approach to glass that was perfectly suited to the theme of Paulsson’s 1930 Stockholm Exhibition, and can be seen to have influenced his mentors Gate and Hald. The employment of a third designer also took the pressure off Hald in the design of new production and unique objects, allowing him to later focus on his role as manager of the factory between 1933 and 1944. Further success for Orrefors’ three artists came in Stockholm in 1930 and continued throughout the following decade. New techniques, which dominated the 1930s at Orrefors, were acclaimed by both critics and the popular press, culminating in further success at the Paris exhibition in 1937 and the New York World’s Fair in 1939.52 Orrefors had, by the time of the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition, come to best exemplify the ideologies of the SSF and as such was widely promoted by the Society. This was not only in discourse. From 1927, Orrefors was exclusively represented in the United States of America by The Swedish Arts & Crafts Company, whose official representative in Sweden was the SSF.53

Edward Hald is considered to be one of Sweden’s most accomplished glass artists. In 1954, art historian Carl Hernmarck of Nationalmuseum Stockholm described him as one of the “pioneers of art glass.”54 His career as a painter, however, was halted when he became employed first in the design of ceramics at Rörstrand and then in art and utility glass at Orrefors. Hald

fa
11/& 21"!
1,
M
,/1,+
%+!
&+
1%"
/ %&1" 12/)
"3&"4J
bjdaM fb
,/

!&0 200&,+
,#
1%"
-/"00
/"3&"40J
/&1& &0*
+!
1%"
"+02&+$
/#10
&0-21"
0""
3
2! "/$J
%"
1, (%,)*
5%& &1&,+
\d^[J
,!"/+&0*Y0
/"(1%/,2$%
&+
4"!&0%
/ %&1" 12/"
Y+$)&0%
"!+MK
1, (%,)*L
1, (%,)*&
=/)$J
bjjjZM
--M
bahNcabM fc
)!
/"*&+"!
4&1%
//"#,/0
2+1&)
bjhhJ
0
,1%
+
/1&01
+!
,+02)1+1M fd
,2/ "L
3"+0(
,/*
/(&3
1, (%,)*J
1, (%,)!"/R0
&+#,/*1&,+
/, %2/"
%"
4"!&0%
/10
B
/#10
,*-+6H
+
+
,/$+&01&,+
1,
-/,*,1"
1%"
!"3"),-*"+1
,#
2)12/)
+!
1/!"
/")1&,+0
"14""+
4"!"+
+!
1%"
+&1"!
11"0
,#
*"/& J
!1"!
"-1"* "/
bhJ
bjchM
%"
0%/"
,?"/
#"12/"0
+
&))201/1&,+
,#
+
"+$/3"!
$)00
2/+
!"0&$+"!
6
&*,+
1"
,#
//"#,/0M fe
/)
"/+*/ (J
3"+0(1
$)0
\d`_
Y1&,+)*20"&
21018))+&+$0(1),$
K
cbeK
1, (%,)*L
1&,+)*20"2*J
bjfeZM
-M
ccM 94 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

was to abandon painting for the next twenty-five years in order to focus on his new role and new media - glass and ceramics. Much has been written about his career in both scholarly and popular texts, which will not be restated here. However, not much has been written about his role with the SSF, his family and their combined influence in Swedish applied arts and design, themes which will be addressed in this chapter.

Of Hald’s four children the two eldest, Elisa and Arthur, entered the design arena, not as artists but as commentators, critics and writers. Elisa and, more particularly, Arthur would later shape the perception of Swedish applied arts and its associated discourse, extending the family’s influence under the mentorship of Gregor Paulsson.

Edward Hald has been described by Dag Widman as an astute networker who was actively involved in the SSF.55 During the 1920s he had been a member of the SSF board and, through this position, he had established contacts with museums and cultural commentators. Many of these contacts joined his circle of friends and were frequent visitors to functions at Orrefors. This circle included Erik Wettergren, Gregor Paulsson, Åke Stavenow, Gotthard Johansson and a number of other influential curators, commentators and journalists.56 Hald was described by Ulf Hård af Segerstad as “unrivalled as a public relations man, not only for Orrefors but for Swedish glass in general. It was he who transformed the Småland blowing room into a church, a place of pilgrimage, a Mecca of glass.”57

In 1931 Hald was one of the members of the committee for the SSF’s Swedish Industrial Art exhibition in London, along with Åke Stavenow, Elsa Gullberg, Erik Wettergren and furniture designer Carl Malmsten. The exhibition utilised the slogan “Modern Progress - National Tradition” in promotion and amongst the objects featured was an extensive display of Orrefors glass. Other glass manufacturers were included but none to the extent of Orrefors which, by this time, had become preeminent as an exemplar of Swedish glass. Surviving photographic documentation of the exhibition in the Svensk Form Arkiv primarily feature the Orrefors exhibits. Accompanying the exhibition was the publication Modern Swedish Decorative Art, also published in the United States as Modern Swedish Arts and Crafts in Pictures,written by art historian Dr Nils G Wollin, who was head of the Arts and Crafts School in Stockholm (later

ff
& (*+
+!
&!*+J
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$M
-M
gfM fg
&!M
-M
gfM fh
)#
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
+
01++!"
1&))
#"01"+0
0)21
T "
016"!
2+1&)
@+)
#"01UH
3"+0(
$ )!"1J
ceUj
bjid
.2,1"!
&+
&!M
-M
ggM 95 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Konstfack).58 Design historian Gillian Naylor has analysed both Wollin’s text and P. Morton Shand’s reviews of the Stockholm Exhibition of 1930 in relation to the influence of Swedish design reforms on British applied arts industry. Naylor notes that where Shand emphasised modernity as central to the exhibition’s success, particularly Gunnar Asplund’s architecture, Wollin downplayed modernity and instead emphasised links to tradition in Swedish crafts. Naylor proposed that “it was left to Sweden’s glass industry to present the purist aesthetic now associated with Modernism in the twenties and thirties”59 and concluded that “Most of the [glass] ranges illustrated [in Wollin’s book] are simple and undecorated, and the cut and engraved glass is equally restrained (Edward Hald’s ‘Celestial Globe’ for Orrefors having pride of place here, as in the London exhibition).”60 The emphasis on modernity and tradition would be a central theme in promotion and commentary of Scandinavian Design during the 1950s.

The SSF maintained a firm connection with Orrefors that began when Edward Hald joined the factory in 1917. It was strengthened through Paulsson and Wettergren’s positioning of Orrefors as an exemplar of the association’s ideologies, and became firmer still during a period in the late 50s and early 60s when former director of the SSF Åke Huldt was a member of the Orrefors board, subsequent to his role as director general of the Design in Scandinavia touring exhibition.

fi
&)0
M
,))&+
YbijcNbjgeZ
4"!&0%
/1
%&01,/&+J
/" "&3"!
%&0
!, 1,/1"
&+
bjch
4&1%

1%"0&0
"+1&1)"!
_/,11+&+$%,)*
$/!"+0
+!
-/(0M_
"
)0,
4/,1"
 ,21
"+
,2&0
"0-/"7J
/ %&1" 1
+!
!" ,/1,/
&+
201320
J
+!

#*,20
$"+"/)
/1
%&01,/6
YbjehZM
"
" *"
/,#"00,/
,#
/1
1
,1%"+ 2/$
+&3"/0&16
&+
bjfg
1
$"
geM fj
6),/J
^4"!&0%
/ "MMM/
1%"
 "-1 )"
 "
,#
,!"/+&0*P^M
--M
bibNbicM ga
&!M
-M
bicM 96 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+


$ $ &1 %"+
#"12/"!
1
1%"
\d\b
"*21018))+&+$"+
T ,*"
"5%& &1&,+U
&+
1, (%,)*
!"0&$+"!
6
1%"
/ %&1" 1
2++/
0-)2+!M
*$"J
3"+0(
,/*
/(&3K


$ %

$ &. N"11"/
3"/6!6
 '" 10O
!"0&$+"!
6
1"
C
)!
+!
!*&/"!
6
2)00,+J
-/,!2 "!
1
//"#,/0R
+!3&(
# 1,/6J
MbjcaM
%"0"
4"/"
*,+$01
1%"
, '" 10
2)00,+
20"!
0
"5*-)"0
&+
%&0
4/&1&+$0
+!
)" 12/"0M
*$"0J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(
+!
//"#,/0
,01
,!K

97 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


$ '
!4/!
)!
1
1%"
//"#,/0
"5%& &1
1
1%"
bjdb
4"!&0%
/10
C
/#10
"5%& &1&,+
&+
,+!,+M
%"
")"01&)
), "
&0
1,
1%"
/&$%1
,#
)!M

$ (
"1&)
,#
//"#,/0
"5%& &1
1
1%"
bjdb
4"!&0%
/10
C
/#10
"5%& &1&,+
&+
,+!,+M
*$"0J
3"+0(
,/*
/(&3K

J@K
 -#!(
#&#(!-@
&#-
9
,."/,

Around 1950, two important books were published in English language versions that have been much referenced in the field of Swedish applied arts and design. The books were amongst the first of several English language texts that were to be associated with the SSF over the following decades. Both came at the beginning of a consistent marketing endeavour by Sweden that would reach its peak with the pan-Scandinavian Design in Scandinavia exhibition of 1954 – 57. Members of the Hald family authored both books - Elisa Steenberg Swedish Glass61 and Arthur Hald Contemporary Swedish Design.62 It is significant that these two important publications were authored by siblings and laid the foundations for the intense period of discourse that would follow in the 1950s with the promotion of Scandinavian Design, primarily by the SSF and their Finnish counterparts. The traveling exhibition Design in Scandinavia was a tremendous success in the United States and Canada, and is considered to be largely responsible for how the world views design from the Nordic region today.63

From the 1920s until recently, the majority of English language texts on Swedish applied arts and design have in some way been associated with the SSF. From the 1950s, the SSF was also associated with English language texts promoting Scandinavian Design. Amongst these texts gb
)&0
1""+ "/$J
4"!&0%
$)00
J
/+0)K#/,*
1%"
4"!&0%
6
&))&+
)):+K
V ))201/KW
Y"4
,/(JJ
bjfaZM gc
/1%2/
)!
+!
3"+
/&(
(4,+&20J
,+1"*-,//6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
J

02/3"6
&+
-& 12/"0
Y"4
,/(
C
1, (%,)*L
"))"$/&+&
C
2!%6
K
,/!&0(
/,1,$/36/J
bjfbZM gd
0
"3&!"+ "!
&+
1%"
"5%& &1&,+
+!
 ,*-+6&+$
,,(K
);+
+!
& (*+
Y"!0MZJ
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
"6,+!
1%"
*61%
J
@#16
6"/0
,#
!"0&$+
#/,*
1%"
,/!&
,2+1/&"0M 98 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

were marketing propaganda, superficial surveys, cultural goodwill vehicles and company advertising material. These texts were in most instances ‘sales arguments’ aimed at selling Swedish, and Scandinavian Design. These texts were aimed at a broad audience and are regarded as elementary rather than scholarly texts, however, their rhetoric and narratives have been profoundly influential.

These primary texts and their respective authors are set out in the following table.

99 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


$ # +$)&0%
)+$2$"
,**"+1/6
00, &1"!
4&1%
1%"
U//"#,/0
 1,/N"14,/(
&+
,/!"/
,#
-2 )& 1&,+
&+
+$)&0%
0-"(&+$
*/("10M
)0,
&+ )2!"!
/"
0"3"/)
&*-,/1+1
1"510
&+
)+$2$"0
,1%"/
1%+
+$)&0%
,/
4"!&0%M

      
    

?G@D +#%

"$&#
$&(*
(!&#," 8
 -- +!+ ( &('
$
+# -#)(&'., .'

+#%
&&$&'
!''
$& ' (!&#," +#,
1*),#-#)(
 -- +!+ ( ?GAE

?GA? $&#
+'
(!&#," (
)($.(-#)(
$&(*
&(
: ; 0#-"
0 #,"
(.,-+#&
+-
$&#
+'
&('
1"##-#)(
#(
#
&('
#
()&'
)()( :;

?GAG %
-/ ()0 +'
&('
#
-&)!.
(!&#," 
#
()-
%
.&- &('7
+'
+)'
 0
)+!(#,
-"
$&#
8

"$*"#(
)+%
)+&;,
1"##-#)(8
($+&'
'#(-
#
#+ ")0 / +
'# .-")+ 
-"
- 1-

?GBF %
.&-
'#
#
+#
(!&#," 0 #,"
(,-#-.-
$- 5


?GBF )(
&-"

$&(*
&('
$
(!&#," /#, 
2
&8
<= +# - ( +!
(
%0)(#.,

?GC> &#,
+'
!'' (!&#,"  - ( +!

?GC? +-".+
&
5
$#("%$&&-
+'
(!&#,"  / (
+#%
'# %0)(#.,

100 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

      
    

?GC@ %
.&- 
&(
$
+# "
-.#)
(!&#,"  < =

?GCB )--"+
'#
#
##* < 1"##-#)(
(!&#,"  )"(,,)( -&)!. =
<
5
(=

+-".+
& (
#&
&('(
#
+ -
(!&#,"  !- )+#3)(,
<=

+-".+
& 
'&(
$
&&$&' + -
(!&#,"  )+#3)(,
<=

?GCF %
.&- $&"'
'##*' < 1"##-#)(
+ ("  -&)!. =
<+( =

+-".+
&
+'
'# (!&#," 0 #,"
(,-#-.-
5


?GD? &
4+

##*#
'# (!&#,"8
  ! +,- 0 #,"8
+ ("8
 +'(8

%
'#
#
+# (!&#,"8
 -/ ()08
0 #," %
.&-
5
!
#'(

/ (
+#%
+# "& 8

(!&#,"8
8
.-")+ 
%0)(#., + ,.+2
)
0 #,"8
"*- +
)(
(#(/#(
(#,"8
0  (  ,#!(
+ ("8
 +'(8

101 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

      
    

?GD@ !
#'( (
#&
+'
(!&#,"8
8
&('(
#
'#& 0 #," -#)(&'., .'

?GDA &
4+

$&#
##*#
 ! +,- )&#()&

?GDC !
#'( +'
'# (!&#,"8
8
0 #,"8
-#)(&'., .' (#,"8
+ ("8
 +'(

?GDF &
4+

'#
#
##* < 1"##-#)(
(!&#,"   ! +,- -&)!. =
<.,-+&#=

?GDG &
4+

$&#
##'
'# (!&#,"8
  ! +,- 0 #,"8
+ ("8
 +'(8
#((#,"

?GEC #& (
##*#
'#
(!&#," /#, 
2
++#,)(
 +
 ('
$


(-! #'(8
4+8
<= -/ ()0
5
.&-

?GEE !
#'( 
+'
&(
'#
#
(!&#," 0 #,"
(,-#-.-
#)'(&-
=E=C8=ECA +# 5


?GF? +-".+
& *#'
$&"7

(!&#," )( + (
$#&#
$)(
*+) #(!, +'
'#

102 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

      
    

?GF@ &
4+

#(-
#
*&'(-
#
 / +
(!&#," 8
.-")+ 
 ! +,- ##*#
'#  ( "*- +
)(
##*#
(#(/#(
$&#
 ,#!( '#

?GFE +-".+
& -
&&$&'
+'
#%
 +'( 8
.-")+ 
&&$&'9 !'
#
"*- +
)(
+# ++ )+,

?GG@ !
#'( 
$'(
&('('
8

+- .,8
),-
(!&#,"8
8
%'$
*+
$
@C> 0 #," -#)(&'., .' (
+#((
#()&-

?GGB !
#'( +'
'#
)&# 0 #,"8
!

#()&- (!&#,"

?GGD !
#'( +'
!''
(!&#,"8
8
=E<<8=EB<
6
0 #," -#)(&'., .' ><
&('('5
><
+$& '

?GGF !
#'( $#&'5
#%'(8
(!&#,"8
8
& (&$)5
++ )+,9
0 #," -#)(&'., .' (&)"% )&9
?8

 (-.+2
)
0 #,"
&,,'%#(!

@>>D !
#'( &)#$
(''$#
)!&8
0 #,"8
8
(
)&#()&
'#& +.()
(!&#," -#)(&'., .' -",,)(
+"#- -
(
 ,#!( +

@>>F + !)+
((&
#'
$& #( (!&#," 
>F
#+,-
.&&
$&#
(!&#,"
+'
+(,&-#)(
0#-"
'#
8
&
#(-+).-)+2
$)##
,,2,
2
,(' )(- '*)++2
,")&+,

103 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

J@K@H
&#-
E &F
. ( ,!>
, !),
/&--)(
(
1 #-"
&--

Elisa Steenberg, the daughter of Edward Hald, received a degree in the History of Art in 1933 before undertaking a doctorate in the late 1940s at the invitation of Gregor Paulsson, who held the chair of Professor at the Department of Art History at Uppsala University between 1934-1956. Paulsson had left the SSF in 1934 in the wake of the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition due to increasing opposition to his ideas, the result of criticism of the exhibition and its functionalist stance. Elisa’s thesis Svenskt adertonhundratalsglas : en konsthistorisk studie (Swedish 1800s Glass: an art historic study)64 was a study of nineteenth century Swedish table glass from an art historical perspective. According to Steenberg, the idea of undertaking a research project dealing with everyday goods within a school of art history was, at the time, both unconventional and novel, meeting with some resistance by the more traditional academics.65 Later, Steenberg shifted her focus to aesthetics as a personal interest, adopting a psychological position on the subject influenced by Paulsson’s own interest in the field.66

In 1946 Steenberg published Svenskt Glas67, the first complete survey of Swedish glass, which in 1950 appeared in an English language edition as Swedish Glass.68 What remains significant about this publication is its wide distribution in English language territories, such that it has since become a standard reference on the subject. The book covers five centuries of Swedish glass industry, including discussion of important developments during the first half of the 20th century. The English edition of Swedish Glass included a foreword by Edward Hald, Elisa’s father, by then a well known identity in the United States and Great Britain from his work for Orrefors and his many promotional and sales visits, as well as in his capacity with the SSF. Art historian Derek Ostergard has drawn focus to the important role that Edward Hald performed in America. Hald, who spoke English, lectured in department stores and museums on modern European glass in America, “was an influential spokesperson for Orrefors and was probably responsible for the ongoing placement and expansion of Orrefors glass in the American

ge
)&0
1""+ "/$J
3"+0(1
!"/1,+%2+!/1)0
$)0
J
"+
(,+01%&01,/&0(
+!
012!&"
YbjfcZM gf
+1"/3&"4
4&1%
/
)&0
1""+ "/$H
2+$)K
& )&,1"("1H
1, (%,)*
YcaahZM
2!&,
" ,/!&+$M
""
--"+!&5
&&M3&M
,#
1%&0
1%"0&0
#,/

#2))
1/+0 /&-1M gg
/"$,/
2)00,+
%!
012!&"!
#,/

!"$/""
,#
06 %,),$6
1
,1%"+ 2/$
+&3"/0&16
+!
")&"3"!
1%1
/1
%&01,/6
,2)!
,+1/& 21"
1,
1%"
2+!"/01+!&+$
,#
%2*+&16
+!
0, &"16J
6
&+ ,/-,/1&+$
-06 %,),$6
+!
0, &,),$6M
+
bjeg
%"
&+1/,!2 "!
1%"
S/1
%&01,/& )
@")!T
4%& %
&0
1%"
/"
1""+ "/$
/"#"/0
1,
&+
%"/
&+1"/3&"4
4&1%
1%&0
/"0"/ %"/M
""
,1%
")"+
9 "/$R0
&+1/,!2 1,/6
"006
1,
1%"
+$)&0%
1/+0)1&,+
,#
 (//"
3/!$03/
&+
/"$%
Y"!MZJ
,!"/+
4"!&0%
"0&$+H
%/""
,2+!&+$
"510M
+!
3+,3J
^ (//"
3/!$03/
N
!"0&$+
#=/
))P
L
/"$,/
2)00,+
, %
3"+0(
0)='!#=/"+&+$"+
bjbfNbjcf^M gh
)&0
1""+ "/$J
3"+0(1
$)0
Y1, (%,)*L
,/2*J
bjegZM gi
1""+ "/$J
4"!&0%
$)00
J
/+0)K#/,*
1%"
4"!&0%
6
&))&+
)):+K
V ))201/KWM
,-M
&1M 104 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

marketplace”69. Hald’s foreword introduces Steenberg’s text without reference to their family relationship. Hald’s foreword is included here in full to illustrate the tenor of his text.

Much has been written about modern Swedish glass in Sweden and elsewhere. Its history has been discussed at length in general works on Swedish crafts. Until this time, however, there has been no popular summary of the origins and development of glassmaking and designing. There has been no report on the artists who have given it such a richly varied expression. In this book Elisa Steenberg, who knows and loves glass, tells its story. She discusses the artists and craftsmen connected with it, and gives illustrations of their work. Well-versed in the technicalities of her subject and sensitively aware of the aesthetic appeal of glass, the author traces a fascinating record, and notes in passing foreign influences that affected Swedish developments. She tells how glass, once so rare its value was comparable to gold, through the centuries has become today a lovely and useful necessity and a medium for the expression of great creative talents. Edward Hald Orrefors Sweden 70

In Edward Hald’s foreword, the family connection is not discernible. In Swedish Glass Steenberg, by then holding a doctorate in art history, presented a more scholarly rather than ‘popular’ account of Swedish glass history, contrary to her father’s preface. In discussing her father’s work, Steenberg groups him with Gate and Lindstrand as the three famous Orrefors designers, indicating her view of their importance as a trio. Steenberg observed the influence of trends during the 1930s being least noticeable in Hald’s work, but more pronounced in Gate’s and most particularly in Lindstrand’s. In contrast to Steenberg’s analysis, Dag Widman later noted Hald as the “trend-sensitive”71 artist.

In a recent interview with Steenberg she recalled the book fondly but modestly, describing it as “a very small book of a series on decorative arts - not so good.”72 In 1964 an updated edition of Svenskt Glas73 was published in Swedish, however with no English language edition. The updated and expanded text included developments since 1946, with additional chapters on new designers, and did not include her father’s foreword. Steenberg contributed numerous articles

gj
"/"(
M
01"/$/!J
^,!"/+
4"!&0%
)00
&+
*"/& 
bjceNbjdj^J
&+
"/"(
M
01"/$/!
+!
&+
1/&17)"/N "3&+"
Y"!0MZJ
%"
/&))&+ "
,#
4"!&0%
$)00
\d\cL\d^d
J
+
))&+ "
,#
/1
+!
&+!201/6
Y"4
3"+
"4
,/(L
)"
+&3M
/"00
K
/!
/!21"
"+1"/
#,/
12!&"0
&+
1%"
" ,/1&3"
/10J
bjjgZJ
bdhNbffM
-M
bedM ha
1""+ "/$J
4"!&0%
$)00
J
/+0)K#/,*
1%"
4"!&0%
6
&))&+
)):+K
V ))201/KWM
hb
& (*+
+!
&!*+J
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$M
-M
fbM hc
+1"/3&"4
4&1%
/
)&0
1""+ "/$H
2+$)K
& )&,1"("1H
1, (%,)*M
,-M
&1M hd
)&0
1""+ "/$J
3"+0(1
$)0
YcMJ
,*/ M
2--)M
"!+MK
1, (%,)*L
,/2*J
bjgeZM
-M
fM 105 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

on glass to Form magazine between 1938 and 1955, writing initially as Isse Hald and later as Elisa Steenberg.

Steenberg more recently chose to emphasise her shift into aesthetics, which she described as “a private pursuit influenced by Paulsson.”74 Steenberg has stated that Paulsson’s influence “made me start thinking about the aesthetic experience…all this started because I was a pupil of Paulsson”75, acknowledging his profound influence on her career. Paulsson’s own interest in aesthetics was well grounded in the propaganda76 manifestos Vackrare vardagsvara77 and Acceptera78 and extended in Tingens bruk och prägel (Use and Appearance of Objects)79, co- authored with his son Nils in 1957 but not published in contemporaneous English language editions.80 In Tingens bruk och prägel the Paulssons present a variation of Gregor’s earlier manifesto on the role of objects from both a psychological and sociological perspective.81 In the 1950s, following the completion of her doctoral dissertation, Steenberg notes that she became tired of fine and applied arts, becoming interested in design from the consumer perspective as member of the Consumer Institute in Stockholm, she consulted on such matters as kitchen design and ergonomics - a precursor to the accessible/democratic design for which the region has become known.82

Steenberg appears to have deliberately distanced herself from design and the decorative arts since the late 1950s, publishing numerous academic papers and articles on aspects of aesthetics in art in respected, scholarly journals - the legacy of Paulsson. Despite this apparent distance, as recently as the 1990s, Steenberg occasionally appeared as a contributor to other Swedish publications on glass together with occasional articles in Swedish newspapers and in SSF publications. These articles restate aspects of her doctoral research into nineteenth century table

he
+1"/3&"4
4&1%
/
)&0
1""+ "/$H
2+$)K
& )&,1"("1H
1, (%,)*M hf
&!M hg
%"
,3"/
,#
2)00,+R0
 (//"
/!$03/
++,2+ "0
1%"
-2 )& 1&,+
0
1%"
S3"+0(
)='!#=/"+&+$"+0
#=/01
-/,-$+!-2 )&(1&,+T
Y%"
R0
@/01
-/,-$+!
-2 )& 1&,+ZM
""
/"$%
Y"!MZJ
,!"/+
4"!&0%
"0&$+H
%/""
,2+!&+$
"510M
-M
hcM hh
2)00,+J
 (//"
3/!$03/M
,-M
&1M hi
2++/
0-)2+!J
 "-1"/
Y1, (%,)*L
&!"+J
bjdbZM hj
/"$,/
2)00,+
+!
&)0
2)00,+J
&+$"+0
/2(
, %
-/8$")
Y1, (%,)*L
,,-"/1&3
#=/ 2+!"1J
bjfgZM ia
 (//"
3/!$03/
+!
 "-1"/
4"/"
@/01
-2 )&0%"!
&+
+$)&0%
1/+0)1&,+0
&+
caaiM
""
/"$%
Y"!MZJ
,!"/+
4"!&0%
"0&$+H
%/""
,2+!&+$
"510M
ib
&!M
,-M
&1M
-M
hbM ic

0-"))
&+
,*"
&+
1%"
bjga0
4&1%
%"/
%20 +!J
"*&+"+1
--"/
1" %+,),$6
%"*&01
/
=/'"
1""+ "/$J
04
%"/
0&1
,+
1%"
,2+ &)
,#
1%"
,,!
+!
$/& 2)12/)
/$+&01&,+
,#
1%"
+&1"!
1&,+0
0
1%"
-"/*+"+1
/"-/"0"+11&3"
,#
1%"
+1"/+1&,+)
/$+&01&,+
,#
,+02*"/
+&,+0M 106 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

glass.83 Steenberg was known for her critical stance on aesthetics and of note is her unconventional Swedish language review of the SSF/Nationalmuseum exhibition Svenskt Glas 1954, which concluded with a warning to the glass industry in Sweden of their new enemy, plastics.84 Steenberg was associated with the SSF, both as a board member and commentator.

J@K@I
,."/,
&>
0 (A,#%
%1)(#/->
,#%
 .. ,!, (
(
0 (-%
&5$ 5, (#(! (

Published in 1951, Contemporary Swedish Design85 was co-authored by Arthur Hald, then editor of SSF’s Form magazine, and Sven-Erik Skawonius, director of SSF between 1946-49. Conceived, written and published in Sweden in both Swedish and English language versions, this book provides an overview of recent design across all Swedish applied arts, being the first broad survey in English since Erik Wettergren’s The Modern Decorative Arts of Sweden86 in 1926 and Nils Wollin’s Modern Swedish Decorative Art87 in 1931. In their introduction Hald and Skawonius restate the rhetoric of Paulsson’s Vackrare vardsagsvara88, which had become the manifesto of the SSF. Hald and Skawonius acknowledge the Paulsson ideology but also the ‘unique’ or ‘exclusive’ object:

This book presents beautiful things from Sweden, everyday wares, decorative pieces, and ornaments of good design… Swedish design involves both unique objects which are good art in the same sense as good sculpture or painting, and beautiful everyday objects available to all.89

Contemporary Swedish Design is significant on many levels. As an English language survey it was widely referenced. Its scope and rhetoric can be seen as the precursor to the regional emphasis that was restated some years later with Design in Scandinavia, which by the 1950s had become a shared ideal of the Nordic countries. The publication discussed the success of the Artist in Industry model in Sweden without singling out individual factories or designers in the text. This was instead reserved for captions of the large number of illustrations throughout the book. Ceramic artist Stig Lindberg features heavily in illustrations as does Orrefors, with several

id
1""+ "/$
,+1/& 21"!
%-1"/0
&+
)&0
1""+ "/$
+!
,
&**&+$0(=)!J
)0
Y1, (%,)*L
12/
, %
(2)12/J
bjfiZ
+!
+
/2+&20J
3"+0(1
$)0
Y1, (%,)*L
%)01/=*
C
&!01/+!J
bjjbZM ie
)&0
1""+ "/$J
^3"+0(1
)0
N
(,+01
, %
1/!&1&,+^J
$"+0
6%"1"/H
ch
2$201&
bjfeM if
)!
+!
(4,+&20J
,+1"*-,//6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
J

02/3"6
&+
-& 12/"0M
%&0
/"0"/ %"/
%0

0" ,+!N%+!
,-6
,#
,+1"*-,//6
4"!&0%
"0&$+
4%& %
%0

%+!
4/&11"+
&+0 /&-1&,+
&+0&!"
1%"
#/,+1
,3"/
1%1
/"!0L
S,
+
C
/+ 6J
,/"
/,-$+!
#/,*
4"!"+
N
,%+J
+M
bjfcMT ig
"11"/$/"+
+!
)*J
%"
*,!"/+
!" ,/1&3"
/10
,#
4"!"+M
,-M
&1M ih
&)0
M
,))&+J
,!"/+
4"!&0%
" ,/1&3"
/1
Y ,+!,+L
%"
/ %&1" 12/)
/"00J
bjdbZM ii
2)00,+J
 (//"
3/!$03/M
,-M
&1M ij
)!
+!
(4,+&20J
,+1"*-,//6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
J

02/3"6
&+
-& 12/"0M
-M
gM 107 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

examples illustrated throughout the book including a full colour double-page spread of Orrefors glass by Sven Palmqvist, Edward Hald, Ingeborg Lundin and Nils Landberg. By this time, Gustavsberg porcelain factory was included amongst the exemplars promoted by the SSF, beginning with Wilhelm Kåge in the 1930s and continuing with Stig Lindberg in the 1940s. Gustavsberg, like Orrefors, had managed to successfully combine art and industry through well designed serial production alongside unique work, one of the pioneers in this field. Lindberg’s style was influenced by Kåge, however it was more playful and whimsical and found popular success in the marketplace. Lindberg’s studio production, successfully translated into machine made production by the 1950s, realised the ideologies Paulsson had expressed in 1919. Also featured prominently was a full-page image of Skawonius’ recent, exclusive and expensive art glass for Kosta, which sits uncomfortably within the ‘everyday goods’ ideology Paulsson had expressed in Vackrare vardagsvara. Skawonius produced innovative and highly regarded work for Kosta, however his association with the factory was apparently compromised by the apparent lack of saleability of his designs, which Dag Widman has described as “too exclusive”.90

Skawonius was director of the SSF between 1946 and 1949 and a frequent writer on Swedish decorative arts. He was also associated with Kosta glass factory for two periods, 1933-35 and 1944-50, and ceramics factory Upsala-Ekeby for three periods, 1935-39, 1953-57 and 1962-66. From 1937-44 he worked as a costume and set designer at the Royal Dramatic Theatre in Stockholm. Skawonius was also the author of an SSF publication that collected what the SSF considered as the best table glass services from the Swedish glass factories. His book, Glas för hushållet (Household Glass)91, was intended as the reference for the average Swede who might use the publication as the basis of an informed selection of well designed table glass - part of the ongoing program of the SSF design reforms aimed at educating the Swedish population in matters of taste.92

Arthur Hald became involved with the SSF during the late 1940s. He was associated with the society in various capacities, as editor of Form (1946-1955) and Kontur (1950-1955), Director (1954-1955) and later as Chairman (1959-1965) and Vice Chairman (1981-1988). Several years after the publication of Contemporary Swedish Design, Arthur Hald, like his sister Elisa before him, produced a doctoral thesis under the supervision of Paulsson at Uppsala University. Entitled Konst och industri : studier i den industriella formgivningens ideologier1890-1920 (Art

ja
&!*+J
^%"
,01
/1&010
N

%-0,!&
"3&"4
,#
1%"
4"+1&"1%
"+12/6^M
-M
fjM jb
3"+
/&(
(4,+&20J
)0
#

and industry: a study of industrial design ideology 1890-1920),93 Hald’s thesis examined the early Swedish Artist in Industry paradigm in Sweden. Swedish Art Historian Gunella Ivanov, in her doctoral thesis on Gregor Paulsson, expressed reservations as to the objectivity of Hald’s thesis, given his membership and involvement in the SSF for some twenty years prior to its publication.94 The Halds knew Paulsson via the SSF and were aware of the role that the SSF played in its advocacy of their father Edward Hald’s position at Orrefors. Both siblings were influenced by Paulsson’s ideas and ideologies yet pursued their research outside the confines of the SSF, within an academic context that added the perception of distinction to their ideas.95

Arthur Hald also played an influential role as the editor of the journal Form, the official voice of the SSF. In this position he was able to influence content and to promote the manifesto of the society, whilst its international circulation proved invaluable in the promotion of Swedish decorative arts abroad. As early as 1950 an English language summary was included. Form has been described by art historian Gunilla Frick as “essential reading and writing for the industrial artist”96, however it was limited in influence in English speaking markets due to the brevity of the English language summaries. More effective in this regard was the SSF’s Kontur, an annual publication on current design that was more directly aimed at an international audience. The first two issues in 1950 and 1951 included English summaries but all subsequent issues were printed entirely in English, recognising the growing importance of English speaking markets in the promotion of Swedish design. Kontur, also, was edited by Arthur Hald until the late 1950s when he stepped aside to instead become a regular contributor, handing over to other editors and publishers that included Åke Huldt, Sven Erik Skawonius and Dag Widman. Kontur’s annual and later biannual format acted as a yearbook of Swedish design, creating more longevity for its editorial content and features. In the 1960s its regular contributors included Arthur Hald, Dag Widman and Ulf Hård af Segerstad, continuing what Gunilla Frick has described as Gotthard Johansson’s earlier “enlightenment”97 on art and industry. Articles from these authors reiterate the 1950s paradigm and Orrefors continues to be preeminent. Contributors to both Form and Kontur also included Elisa Steenberg (Isse Hald) and Edward Hald.

jd
/1%2/
)!J
^ ,+01
, %
&+!201/&
L
012!&"/
&
!"+
&+!201/&"))
#,/*$&3+&+$"+0
&!",),$&"/bijaNbjca
Y/1
+!
&+!201/6L

012!6
,#
&+!201/&)
!"0&$+
&!",),$6
bijaNbjcaZ^J
Y--0)J
bjfgZM je
3+,3J
^ (//"
3/!$03/
N
!"0&$+
#=/
))P
L
/"$,/
2)00,+
, %
3"+0(
0)='!#=/"+&+$"+
bjbfNbjcf^M jf
,/",3"/J
1%"0"
4,/(0
0%,2)!
"
3&"4"!
0
0"*&+)J
3"/6
*2 %
0%-&+$
1%"
#212/"
!&/" 1&,+
,#
1%"
"-/1*"+1
,#
/1
&01,/6
1
--0)
+&3"/0&16
4%,0"
02 0".2"+1
!, 1,/)
4,/(
%0

01/,+$
"*-%0&0
,+
!"0&$+
%&01,/6J
&+ )2!&+$
1%&0
1%"0&0M jg
/& (J
,+01+8/
&
&+!201/&+M
-M
cahM jh
&!M
-M
cajM 109 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

In 1948 Skawonius, Arthur Hald and Elisa Steenberg assisted Iona Plath, the American author of The Decorative Arts of Sweden98, in the selection of modern material to feature in her book. The modern glass illustrated is predominately from Orrefors but also includes Skawonius’ recent work at Kosta. The book was republished in 1966 as a facsimile of the 1948 edition, however not updated. The facsimile edition’s pictorial content was out of date and far removed from the current situation in Sweden during the 1960s.

Arthur Hald also appears as an occasional contributor to Craft Horizons, the American crafts magazine that regularly featured articles on Swedish and Scandinavian design. In 1954 Hald contributed two articles, one on Orrefors and the other on Stig Lindberg. In his first article, The Secret of Orrefors99, Hald describes the ‘magic’ of the glassworks as emanating from the artists and their ‘genius’, however not revealing the ‘secret’. In his expressive text, Hald paints a rather subjective and emotional picture of his father that borders on adoration, whilst further expressing the preeminence of Orrefors.

Their dean is Edward Hald, the grand old man of Swedish glass, now over seventy. He has literally lived with glass for four decades. For twenty-eight years he worked with his colleague Simon Gate in an intimate collaboration unique in the history of industrial design in Scandinavia, perhaps even in the world. Those two made the name of Swedish glass world-famous, rather than just another glassworks. [...] Hald belongs to the intellectual category of artists. [...] His work runs the gamut from practical, ingeniously designed utility glassware to wittily narrative decoration, to a rare mastery of the pure, exquisitely simple form, even when he is working with colours [...] He can pick out glassware from 1920, 1930 and 1940 and put it side by side with what he is working on now. Then you see the genuineness and timelessness of the form. 100

Hald fails to discuss the contributions of Vicke Lindstrand, the third important contributor to Orrefors success during the 1930s and the primary protagonist of Chapter Four of this study. Hald further fails to acknowledge Lindstrand’s contributions to the Ariel technique at Orrefors in his discussion of the work of the artist Edvin Öhrström, where he describes that:

In contrapuntal contrast to the heavy bulk [of the glass], he adds air bubbles or groups of holes in the glass by a method he has invented himself, in which the light is glitteringly reflected. This he calls “Ariel” glass, named after Shakespeare’s spirit of the air.101 ji
,+
)1%J
%"
!" ,/1&3"
/10
,#
4"!"+
Y"4
,/(JL
M
 /& +"/^0
,+0J
bjeiZJ
+!
,+
)1%J
%"
!" ,/1&3"
/10
,#
4"!"+
Y"4
,/(JL
,3"/
2 )& 1&,+0J
bjggZM jj
)!J
^%"
" /"1
,#
//"#,/0^M
-M
cdM baa
&!M
--M
cdNcfM bab
&!M
--M
cfNcgM 110 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

Hald credits Öhrström as the sole inventor of this technique, which is widely regarded to be a joint invention between Öhrström, Vicke Lindstrand and glass blower Gustav Bergkvist, whilst Edward Hald has claimed responsibility for coming up with the Ariel name.102 Whether this is a genuine oversight is unclear although there is a possible rationale for Hald in excluding Lindstrand’s name. To discuss the Ariel technique one must discuss Vicke Lindstrand, who at the time of Hald’s article was working with Kosta, a rival glassworks. Lindstrand had left the factory in 1940 following a highly publicised dispute in the late 1930s with Orrefors’ manager, Edward Hald. Lindstrand’s contribution to the Ariel technique and his relationship with Gate and Hald is discussed further in Part Two of this thesis.

Hald’s second article for Craft Horizons was Stig Lindberg artist in clay,103 who he described as “a brilliant, dynamic potter.”104 Hald concluded his article with what might be seen as his changing views on the role of utility and function. Commenting on Lindberg’s broad range, which included whimsical, non-functional objects as well as everyday things, he observed that:

The beauty of functional objects, and of the non-functional, are in the final analysis all part of the same cargo.105

Amongst the black and white illustrations, a familiar functionalist aesthetic is apparent which belies the distinction between functional (everyday) and non-functional (art) in Lindberg’s work. This loss of distinction would also be apparent in the aesthetic of Scandinavian Design.

Significantly, these two articles - which raised the profile of two of the SSF’s exemplar factories - appeared in the year Design in Scandinavia commenced its three-and-a-half year tour of the United States and Canada.

There were other Swedish language publications from the Hald siblings that are of particular interest in considering the preeminence of Orrefors. One example is Arthur Hald’s 1948 collaboration with Eric Wettergren in the production of the Swedish language book Edward

bac
%"
/&")
1" %+&.2"
40
@/01
&+3"+1"!
&+
bjdhM
$
&!*+
%0
1%&0
1,
06
,+
1%"
&+3"+1&,+
,#
1%"
1" %+&.2"L
S +
1%"
!" 1"
,+
4%& %
,#
1%"
!"0&$+"/0
40
@/01
4&1%
1%"
-/, "00J
8/1
,)("/0J
&+
%"/
,,(
,+
%/01/=*J
-/,-,0"0
1%1

1%&/!
-"/0,+J
1%"
*01"/
),4"/
201#
"/$(3&01J
0%,2)!
 12))6
"
/"!&1"!
4&1%
1%"
&+3"+1&,+
,#
1%"
/&")
1" %+&.2"M
,4"3"/J
"3"+
1%,2$%
"/$(3&01
*&$%1
%3"
0,)3"!
1%"
1" %+& )
!&A 2)1&"0J
1%"
&+B2"+ "
,#
1%"
!"0&$+"/0
*201
01&))
%3"
""+
!" &0&3"M
%"/"
&0
*2 %
1,
02$$"01
1%1
& ("
&+!01/+!J
1%"
,/&$&+1,/
,#
1%"
6("+"
1" %+&.2"J
40
1%"
,+"
4%,
@/01
-21
#,/4/!
1%"
&!"
,#
20&+$
"+ -02)1"!
2 )"0
0

!" ,/1&3"
")"*"+1MT
& (*+
+!
&!*+J
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$M bad
/1%2/
)!J
^1&$
&+! "/$
/1&01
&+
)6^J
/#1
,/&7,+0H
 Uf
YbjfeZM bae
&!M
-M
bbM baf
&!M
-M
bfM 111 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Hald och Simon Gate106. Wettergren was a former director of the SFF and at the time of his collaboration with Hald, Curator at Nationalmuseum Stockholm. Again published by the SSF, the book provides an overview of their thirty-year collaboration, which by this time had been brought to a close with the death of Gate in 1945. Whilst it is accepted that the Gate/Hald duo were of significance in the context of Swedish design and art industry, it is of interest that the book should emanate from the SSF and be written by Hald’s son. The publication provides further confirmation of the ongoing preeminence of Orrefors as an exemplar in SSF discourse.

Erik Wettergren’s involvement as a promoter of Orrefors dates back to the early years of Gate and Hald’s employment by the factory, his special Orrefors edition of the Svenska Slöjdföreningens Tidskrift107 in 1921, and later in his various positions at the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm between 1909 and 1950. Wettergren was director of the museum’s arts and crafts department between 1919 and 1945 and chief curator between 1942 and 1950. He also chaired the SSF between 1932 and 1943. His book, The Modern Decorative Arts of Sweden108, first published for the Paris exposition in 1925 as L’art decoratif moderne en Suède, was widely available in English language markets and was particularly influential in Britain in the debates on design reform during the 1920s. Wettergren’s commentary on the successful alliance of the artist and industry in Sweden cited Orrefors as the leading exemplar and his text concentrated solely on that factory.

The influence of the Orrefors model in the United Kingdom was the subject of Gillian Naylor’s essay Orrefors in Great Britain and Ireland109, in the official publication celebrating the Orrefors centenary. Naylor identified the profound influence of the Swedish approach to design reform in the United Kingdom based on the early circulation of Wettergren’s book and Gregor Paulsson’s influential lecture Design and Mass Production110 in London in 1931, associated with the SSF exhibition mentioned previously. Later Wettergren authored Orrefors111, a publication to accompany the Swedish exhibit at the 1937 Paris exhibition. This book came at a time during which he was concurrently director of the SSF and curator at the Nationalmuseum, responsible bag
/1%2/
)!
+!
/&(
"11"/$/"+J
&*,+
1"
J
!4/!
)!
J
"+
0(&)!/&+$
3
*8++&0(,/
, %
(,+01+8/"/
/"!&$"/!
Y1, (%,)*J
bjeiZM bah
"11"/$/"+J
//"#,/0$)0M
,-M
&1M bai
"11"/$/"+
+!
)*J
%"
*,!"/+
!" ,/1&3"
/10
,#
4"!"+M
,-M
&1M baj
&))&+
6),/J
^//"#,/0
&+
/"1
/&1&+
+!
/")+!^J
&+
"/01&+
& (*+
Y"!MZJ
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$
Y1, (%,)*L
6$$#:,/)MU 2)12/J
bjjiZM bba
6),/
, 0"/3"0
1%1
1%"
)" 12/"
+!
&10
-2 )&0%"!
3"/0&,+
S ,1%
!"0 /& "!
+!
+)60"!
1%"
4"!&0%
--/, %
[4%"/"\
2)00,+
!"@+"!
+
&!")
,#
1%"
!"0&$+
-/, "00
1%1
1%"
/&1&0%
4"/"
1,
-/,*,1"
&+
1%"
bjfa0
+!
ga0J
0
4"))
0
&+
1%"
bjca0
+!
da0J
21
" 20"
%"
)0,
,+#/,+1"!
1%"
/,)"
,#
/#1
&+
,1%
-/,!2 1&,+
+!
,+02*-1&,+MT
&!M
-M
bhfM bbb
"11"/$/"+J
//"#,/0M
,-M
&1M 112 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

for arranging exhibitions and important acquisitions for the museum collections that included Orrefors glass. Wettergren’s introduction to the book opens with the familiar tone “Edward Hald, my old friend!”112

As Sweden’s major museum of decorative arts, the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm has understandably had a long-standing relationship with Orrefors, as outlined in art historian Ulrika Ruding’s contribution to the 1998 publication Orrefors 100 years113 , which accompanied the museum’s exhibition of the same name. The publication presents an overview of the cooperation between the museum, the department store NK (Nordiska Kompaniet) and Orrefors, and the purchases and donations of glass from the factory over the years. The cooperation with NK was forged during Wettergren’s time at the museum and, according to Ruding, Orrefors “dates its artistic birth to the exhibition arranged on the initiative of Erik Wettergren at NK in the spring of 1917”114. It was at this exhibition that Gate and Hald first met which lead directly to Hald’s employment by Orrefors. Wettergren utilised NK as an ‘extension’ of the Nationalmuseum and is quoted by Ruding as having said that “as long as we do not have a modern museum of the decorative arts, the NK acts in its stead, a task we will continue to make demands of”115. This may account for the large number of important exhibitions that were presented at NK during the twentieth century. Previous exhibitions at the Nationalmuseum included Orrefors’ twenty-fifth artistic anniversary in 1942 and, in 1983, Edward Hald, Painter, Pioneer of Decorative Arts. NK also hosted numerous Orrefors exhibitions including their fiftieth anniversary exhibition in 1949 and Edward Hald’s ninetieth birthday exhibition in 1973. It should be noted that NK presented a wide range of exhibitions of decorative and applied arts, that included numerous exhibitions of many Swedish glass factories, not exclusively Orrefors. Between 1952 and 1989 the Nationalmuseum also featured six exhibitions relating to Gustavsberg, the preeminent Swedish ceramics factory that had, like Orrefors, successfully realised the ideal of the artist in industry. By way of contrast, Kosta was the feature of only two exhibitions at Nationalmuseum, the first Glas från Kosta glasbruk 1742.–1933 in 1933 and the last, celebrating the Master Glassblower Bengt Heintze, in 1972.116 Whether intentional or not,

bbc
&!M bbd
/ /,

,301!&20J
^//"#,/0
baa
6"/0^J
&+
1&,+)*20"2*
1, (%,)*
Y"!MZJ
Y1, (%,)*L
1&,+)*20"2*J
bjjiZM bbe
)/&(
2!&+$J
^
2+!/"!
"/0
,#
//"#,/0^J
&+
/ /,

,301!&20
Y"!MZJ
//"#,/0
\[[
6"/0
Y1, (%,)*L
1&,+)*20"2*
1, (%,)*J
bjjiZM
-M
ebM bbf
&!M
-M
ebM bbg
%"0"
"5%& &1&,+0
4"/"J
&)%")*
9$"J
bjfcK
+!"/0

&)'"#,/0J
bjhbK
20130 "/$
bfa
6"/0J
bjhfK
"/+!1
/& "/$J
bjhjK
1&$
&+! "/$J
bjicK
&)%")*
$"J
bjijM
,2/ "L
"/

'2/01/=*J
1&,+)*20"2*
\bd]L\dd]
Y1, (%,)*L
1&,+)*20"2*J
bjjcZM
--M
djhNeacM 113 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

the Nationalmuseum was yet another actor within the SSF network and its role cannot be denied.

If we pause to consider the relationships, exhibitions, texts and actors discussed above, what can be observed at this point is a small and familiar circle of actants, all associated with SSF, Orrefors or the Hald family, that dominated promotion and commentary on applied arts in Sweden and elsewhere. These relationships may appear harmless at face value, however the power of the SSF in promoting Swedish design and particular exemplars also had the potential to affect the visibility of other individuals and factories. The role of the SSF can perhaps be viewed as a group of actors with shared views working in unison to promote a particular shared ideology, which was interpreted by the English speaking world as a series of ‘truths’ about what design from Sweden was, and that has informed contemporary views of what Swedish design is. This unison ideology found particular exemplars that best fit the SSF’s views and these exemplars were promoted time and time again. By 1950 Orrefors had become the dominant exemplar of Swedish applied art industry, despite the emphasis on its luxury glass, as observed by Swedish artist, designer and critic Tyra Lundgren in the SSF journal Form in 1948:

Orrefors has become the pride of the nation - and justifiably so - to such an extent that its products may truly be described as ‘art’. Indeed, even the socially inclined speak of its ‘art glass’ rather than its ‘luxury glass’. [...] It is Orrefors that made Swedes interested in glass.117

The preeminence of Orrefors continued through the 1950s. The factory was included in the Design in Scandinavia exhibition which, in retrospect, may also be seen as the logical extension of both Paulsson and the SSF’s ideologies. Within the Hald network there were many other prominent Swedish writers, curators and critics including Dag Widman, Åke Stavenow, Gotthard Johannsson and Ulf Hård af Segerstad, who were all associated with the SSF and produced many of the later, much referenced works on both Swedish and Scandinavian

bbh
6/
2+!$/"+
.2,1"!
6
$
&!*+
&+
& (*+
+!
&!*+J
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$M
-M
iaM
114 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

design.118 These early contributions to English language discourse by individuals associated with the SSF set the scene for the successful endeavours of the 1950s, when this actor-network would extend its influence in the promotion of a regional aesthetic through the travelling exhibition Design in Scandinavia.

J@L
HPLG-@
 -#!(
#(
(#(0#
(
0 (-%
&5$ 5, (#(! (

The background for the Design in Scandinavia rhetoric was established during the late 1940s in Sweden. In 1948 the first of an ongoing but occasional English language series of publications in association with the Swedish Institute for Cultural Relations began circulation. Design in Sweden today119 was the first of these, published in association with the SSF and edited by Åke Huldt and Eva Benedicks. This publication on Swedish design set the tenor for how Scandinavian Design would be framed in the 1950s. The softened, Functionalist aesthetic - then popularly known as Swedish Modern - had developed to become imbued with symbolic value, as described by Huldt:

For Sweden, well designed industrial and handicraft products have proved excellent ambassadors. Their value in this respect may in fact be rated much higher than the actual cash they bring in - good taste and artistic ability naturally do not even approach in commercial importance such basic necessities as wood pulp and iron ore. But they are a kind of hallmark, a guarantee of a good general standard. Today all nations are striving, by various means, to build up a decent standard of living for all citizens, and the standard of industrial design in a country may be a measure of its success.120

Orrefors dominated the many black and white illustrations in the publication, and the aesthetic later associated with Scandinavian Design is preempted in Edward Hald’s elegant glassware, Wilhelm Kåge’s refined ceramics and Stig Lindberg’s playful faience ware. Throughout Huldt and Benedick’s text is evidence of the nascent rhetoric of Scandinavian Design - “Functionally furnished”, “light woods”, “delicately scaled furniture”, “clean, clear colours”, and “more beauty in

bbi
""
)#
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
&+$"+
, %
3&
Y1, (%,)*L
,/!M
/,1,$/36/
L
["")&$\J
bjfhZJ
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
7"J
+!
7"J
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+J
)#
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
,!"/+
 +!&+3&+
#2/+&12/"
Y ,+!,+L
2!&,
,,(0J
bjgdZJ
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
J
" /2/6
\dacL +2/6
\dad
J
"+*/(H
&+)+!H
,/46H
4"!"+J
)#
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
,!"/+
&++&0%
!"0&$+
Y"4
,/(L
/"!"/& (
M
/"$"/J
bjgj ZJ
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
^+&16
+!
&3"/0&16
&+
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+^J
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
^4,
" !"0
/,2+!
'
/+ (^M
,%+00,+J
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
J
+
"5%& &1&,+
,#
, '" 10
#,/
1%"
%,*"
#/,*
"+*/(H
&+)+!H
,/46H
4"!"+M
("
13"+,4
+!
("
M
2)!1J
"0&$+
&+
4"!"+
Y1, (%,)*L
,1%&
L
& )&,@)
3"/(J
bjgbZJ
$
&!*+J
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
Y6
1/M
"!+MJ
4"!"+
1,!6
YbjggNbjhbZ
Y1, (%,)*J
bjggZJ
&!*+
"1
)MJ
3"+0(
#,/*
2+!"/
"11
%)31
0"(")
J
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
!2/&+$
%)#

"+12/6J
$
&!*+
+!
"/"*6
/+(0J
3"+0(1
$)0
\d[[L\da[
J
][
(,+01+8/"/H
][
3"/(
e
4"!&0%
$)00
\d[[L\da[
J
][
/1&010H
][
4,/(0
Y,/!&0
(2)12/$2&!"/JK
1, (%,)*L
,/!&J
bjjgZM bbj
2)!1
+!
"+"!& (0
Y"!0MZJ
"0&$+
&+
4"!"+
1,!6M bca
&!M
-M
fM 115 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

everyday things”.121 Huldt was to become a major protagonist in the promotion of the regionally-focussed Scandinavian Design paradigm of the 1950s, beginning with his position on the organising committee for the Scandinavia at Table exhibition at the Tea Centre in London in 1951. According to design historian Kevin Davies, this exhibition was the official counterpart to the commercial exhibition Scandinavian Design for Living staged at Heals department store in London in the same year, which is understood as the first use of the term Scandinavian Design.122

Kerstin Wickman takes the view that the successful unified concept of Scandinavian Design was made possible due to Sweden’s neutrality during the Second World War. Architects and designers fleeing from the occupied Nordic countries came together with their Swedish colleagues, whilst close contacts between the Finnish and Swedish cultural elite formed the nucleus of Scandinavian Design. Widman has claimed that “the true impetus [...] was the closeness of a group of Scandinavian designers and architects, all with their roots in international modernism.”123

During the 1940s, Finland was establishing a profile in glass design and decorative arts with particular success in both Italy and the United States. Finnish design had achieved a high level of success at the 1951 Milan Triennale and, from the late 1940s, influential Italian magazine Domus frequently featured Finnish applied arts. Finland’s desire to detach itself from any connections with Russia as a consequence of the Cold War and to be seen as a sophisticated, western country drove the idea of an alliance with the Scandinavian countries.124 In America, Home Beautiful magazine and The Museum of Modern Art had been early advocates of design from the region, which led to the suggestion of a joint exhibition in 1951. Following this development, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden initiated discussions for a joint exhibition of their decorative arts and the idea of such an exhibition touring North America was established.

In 1948, at the time of the publication of Design in Sweden Today, American journalist Marquis Childs’ Sweden The Middle Way125, first published in 1936, was issued in a revised and enlarged

bcb
&!M
-M
djM bcc
3&"0J
^/("1&+$
),6
,/
"*, /1&
!")P^M
-M
bajM bcd
"/01&+
& (*+J
^ +!&+3&+
"0&$+^J
l%11-LUU444M+,/!& 46M ,*U04"!"+]!"0&$+M%1*mJ
 "00"!
ab
-/&)
cabbM bce
4(&+0J
^&+!&+$

) "
&+

"4
,/)!
/!"/L
&+)+!J
*"/& 
+!
1%"
_"0&$+
&+
+!&+3&_
5%& &1&,+J
bjfeNbjhf^M bcf
%&)!0J
4"!"+I
1%"
*&!!)"
46M 116 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

edition. In this new edition of Childs’ best-selling book, he reflected upon the changes taking place in Sweden in the wake of The Second World War - particularly the Swedish trade agreement with Russia that, he argued, recognised the existence of Soviet power so close to the Swedish border. The relationship with Russia was observed by Childs as inevitable, with Sweden in a position of limited choice in the matter. Childs also maintained that Finnish post-war policy was largely determined by what Moscow did.126 In hindsight, against this background and the Cold War that followed, the idea of promoting a unified Scandinavian identity makes sense. The targeting of another democracy, the United States of America, and the distancing of Finland and Sweden in particular from Soviet associations through a regional construct evidences a further diplomatic facet to the idea. Harri Kalha has claimed that the Museum of Modern Art in New York had first explored the idea of a Scandinavian design exhibition as early as 1948, but apparently gave up on the idea over fears of Communist overtones.127

Remaining neutral during the Second World War left Sweden in a good position to resume industrial production, although this was hampered initially by the availability of materials as a result of wartime blockades of its ports by the Allied Forces. This period of strong economic growth was known in Sweden as “harvest time”. Exports increased, resulting in an economic boom during the 1950s. Whilst initially ahead in design, Sweden fell behind its neighbours immediately after the war, particularly Finland and Denmark, who were now achieving international acclaim for their applied arts. The 1950s also saw the beginning of the successful links between markets and social developments, considered by Lennart Schön as “a pillar of the Swedish model of social and economic development that took shape during the period.”128 There remained severe housing shortages in the cities, and it was not until the 1960s that this situation improved considerably. Sweden had gone from being a predominately poor, agrarian country in the early twentieth century to a wealthy, industrial nation with a large concentration of the population moving from rural areas to the cities to work in industry.

During the 1950s, the Nordic countries achieved previously unprecedented, international joint visibility and success in the field of design and the decorative arts, under the regional designation Scandinavian Design. The term subsequently became utilised as a marketing device and broad descriptor for design from the region. The major ‘sales argument’ for the idea was the

bcg
/.2&0
M
%&)!0J
4"!"+I
1%"
*&!!)"
46
Y"4
"3&0"!
+!
+)/$"!
!&1&,+
"!+MK
"4
3"+L
)"
+&3"/0&16
/"00J
bjehZM
-M
bicM bch
)%J
^_ 201
+"
,#
%,0"
%&+$0_
N
%"
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
5%& &1&,+
bjfeNfh^M
-M
giM bci
 %=+J
 %2 "/1J
+!
12!&"#=/ 2+!"1
8/&+$0)&3
 %
*%8))"J
4"!"+Y0
/,!
1,
*,!"/+&16
J
+
" ,+,*&
%&01,/6M
-M
dcbM 117 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

powerful, apparently cohesive aesthetic of the applied arts, promoted in exhibitions such as Design in Scandinavia and the many publications that have appeared since.

It is very important to consider that these applied arts ranged from jewellery to furniture, and as the Scandinavian Design Beyond the Myth project of 2003 concluded, were characterised by a collective and homogenous set of ‘myths’ relating to the origin of the objects, linked by clichéd views of the creators which encompassed primitivism, folk arts and simplicity of existence.129 This had the effect of promoting a stereotypical and exclusive paradigm, motivated by an interest in fostering a high profile for a particular approach to design. The paradigm was largely constructed by the collective agency of the network of arts, crafts and design associations in the various countries, and represents a national/regional marketing and economic imperative.

Coined in the 1950s, the term Scandinavian Design130 has become a default frame of reference for the international view of design from the Nordic countries. Often simplistically referred to as a democratic approach to design, and considered a shared ideal of the Nordic countries, Scandinavian Design is said to be grounded in Nordic tendencies which espouse moral, humanist ideals prevalent in Lutheranism, the state religion of Sweden. Late nineteenth and early twentieth century ideas, promulgated in the influential writings of Ellen Key131 and Gregor Paulsson132, ran parallel with developing politics that had, by the 1950s, become a strong force in the Nordic Countries. These politics were to become embedded in the newly realised Social Democratic Welfare State which found form in Sweden as the Swedish Model. Economic historian Lars Magnusson comments that:

Sweden’s special character has been described as “the Swedish Model,” a phenomenon based on a society built up in progressive steps through compromise and founded on the principles of a collective democracy. The Swedish model fuses pragmatism with the security of a social welfare state, creating an environment that has been called “the peoples home.” Sweden is also known as the “land of the middle way” and the incarnation of the welfare state.133

There has been much discourse reviewing the Swedish Model. Also referred to as the ‘Nordic’ or ‘Scandinavian’ model, it has long been seen as a utopian ideal or ‘middle way’ between socialism bcj
""
1%"
-/"3&,20)6
!&0 200"!
-2 )& 1&,+
);+
+!
& (*+
Y"!0MZJ
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
"6,+!
1%"
*61%
J
@#16
6"/0
,#
!"0&$+
#/,*
1%"
,/!&
,2+1/&"0M bda
%"
bjfb
"5%& &1&,+
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+
#,/
&3&+$
1
")R0
#2/+&12/"
01,/"J
,+!,+
40
1%"
@/01
1&*"
1%"
1"/*
%!
""+
20"!M bdb
"6J
(<+%"1
#

and capitalism. It reached its height in Sweden following World War II, running parallel with the time-frame boundaries of this study, and is a major contributing factor to the way in which Sweden developed in the mid-century period. Economic historian Mary Hilson believes that:

The archetypal Nordic country was always Sweden, even to the extent that one may question whether the so-called Nordic model was in fact a Swedish one. All the elements of the Nordic model seemed to be present unproblematically in Sweden: strong social democracy, the extensive welfare state, neutrality in foreign policy, class compromise and consensus in the labour market.134

The idea of class compromise emphasised the collective of all individuals working towards the greater good. In the applied arts, Scandinavian Design emerged as a particular stylistic ideal promoted and marketed by the national crafts associations. In its most recognisable form, Scandinavian design from the countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland is said to be “characterised by clean lines, practicality, craftsmanship and democratic ideals”135, an image constructed during the 1950s which persists today. Design from these countries has been described by the Swedish art and design critic Gotthard Johansson as having its roots in a strong tradition of austerity and handicraft, produced by a predominately agrarian people “bridging the gap between the advanced taste of the elite and the conservatism of the public.”136 Bourdieu’s theories on taste and class have particular resonance in this context where the apparent advanced taste of an elite dominant class holds a certain distinction over a subordinate, conservative lower class. The coupling of democratic with the word design in the Scandinavian Design paradigm, a phrase previously associated with discourses on Swedish design, became a persuasive tool in disassociating design from the Nordic region from the communist Soviet states and the Cold War.

The founding of the Nordic Council in 1952 amalgamated Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden in international relations and regional cooperation, fostering regionalism and presenting the Nordic countries as a united Pan-Scandinavian front.137 The Nordic countries have a long but difficult history of cooperation and alliance. Links between Sweden and Norway, and between Sweden and Finland, have taken various forms over the centuries to mutual advantage. Indeed, conflicts and wars aside, the union of the countries - due to bde
/6
&)0,+J
%"
,/!&
*,!")
J
 +!&+3&
0&+ "
\d_`
Y,+1"*-,//6
4,/)!0K
,+!,+L
"(1&,+J
caaiZM
-M
bhjM bdf
,**/J
 +!&+3&+
016)"
J
)00&
+!
*,!"/+
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
+!
&10
&+A2"+ "
,+
1%"
4,/)!M
"/
!201N ' ("1M bdg
,%+00,+J
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
J
+
"5%& &1&,+
,#
, '" 10
#,/
1%"
%,*"
#/,*
"+*/(H
&+)+!H
,/46H
4"!"+M
-Mbj bdh
1+)"6
M
+!"/0,+J
%"
,/!&
,2+ &)
J

012!6
,#
 +!&+3&+
/"$&,+)&0*
Y"11)"L
+&3M
,#
0%&+$1,+
-/"00
bjghZM
+0&!"
#/,+1
B-M 119 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

proximity and, to a lesser extent language - was inevitable. Political scientist Stanley V. Anderson observed in 1967 that:

The five countries of Scandinavia – Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden – have found a “middle way” between anarchic use of force and political amalgamation in the field of international relations. Among themselves, they will neither fight nor unite; instead, they follow the way of cooperation, with a cohesiveness short of unitary, federal, or supranational integration. Since mutual advantage is officially defined to include the fostering of similarities and the elimination of hampering differences, these five countries are practicing regionalism.138

It was against this background that the idea for the travelling exhibition Design in Scandinavia, which toured North America between 1954 – 57, was realised. As plans were underway for the exhibition, the various national associations set about determining which work would be included. In Sweden, submissions from all of the major manufacturers were subjected to a rigorous selection process before being deemed suitable for inclusion in the exhibition. Central to the Swedish selection committee was the SSF, led by Åke Huldt, who was also appointed Secretary General for the exhibition.

In 1954, immediately prior to the opening of the exhibition at the Virginia Museum of Arts, an official US press release described the intent of the exhibition and the criteria used in the selection of objects. The author, exhibition director John Van Koert, stated that:

The object of the exhibition is to show the best work being done in the four countries. Wherever possible emphasis is placed on the newest designs when they measure up to the exacting standards of the selection committees appointed by the industrial design societies in each country. Included in the exhibit are a few objects introduced as far back as ten years ago but of great significance in any over-all picture of current design in Scandinavia.139

Despite the “newest designs” emphasis, earlier, high profile work was understandably included. Swedish architect Elis Bergh’s Charm stemware designed for Kosta Glasbruk in 1942 and Finnish architect Alvar Aalto’s Savoy vase designed for Karhula-Iittala glassworks in 1936140 are amongst the earliest designed objects in the exhibition. Their inclusion was prudent given they were successful mass produced objects with a popular profile. Bergh’s stemware was also frequently illustrated in Swedish publications as a good example of serial production. The inclusion of a set of simple crystal candleholders designed by Sven Erik Skawonius during the bdi
&!M bdj
+
,"/1J
^"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
2 )& &16
+!
+#,/*1&,+
21)&+"M^
-M
hM bea
)3/
)1,R0
3,6
30"
,#
bjdg
40
1%"+
+!
/"*&+0
+,4
+
& ,+
,#
&++&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+M 120 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

1940s for Kosta, however, seems out of context, as he had left the factory during the 1940s and the objects were then more than ten years old. The press release further explains the selection committee’s rationale for the elimination of objects.

The task of eliminating candidates was a difficult one, due to the generally high standard of Scandinavian output, and the obligation to present a realistic survey as free as possible from the idiosyncrasies of personal taste. The limitations of weight and durability had to be considered in the exhibition. Then too, it was felt that the exhibition would fail to express Scandinavian ideals of harmony if individual items, however meritorious, failed to look well together. This is a conscientiously edited exhibition.141

The stated rationale presents a problematic paradox. The selection of objects and candidates was curated, which by nature is a subjective process, in the act of choosing to exclude work that ‘failed to look well together.’ Based on this rationale, work that stood out - with too much individuality, too much contrast, too fragile or too heavy despite individual merit - might fall outside the boundaries of what was essentially a vague description. According to Van Koert, the final selection was then made by “a four-man jury”, representing the four countries, that was charged with the assessment of the work for inclusion based on this vague criteria. From Van Koert’s official press release, we should understand that if individual objects “failed to look well together”142 this was considered sufficient cause to warrant their exclusion. The ideal of a harmony of design from the region may thus be argued as a construct, given the vagueness of the selection criteria. This also presents a conundrum in terms of Scandinavianness - if objects failed to appear Scandinavian enough, were they too excluded? Gotthard Johansson also makes reference to the selection criteria in his essay in the catalogue for the exhibition, where he stated that:

It’s obviously impossible within the limited framework of this presentation to make a completely fair choice from the many prominent representatives of Scandinavian design, but in order to approach a reasonable objectivity we have largely brought up for discussion those names which have represented Scandinavia in official exhibits arranged by the design organizations of the four countries.143

Gotthard Johansson clarified the Van Koert authored, official press release with a more nuanced explanation for the selection of objects, however did not elaborate on the role of aesthetic judgement as a criteria. Whilst the exhibition, and associated propaganda material, promulgated the idea of a unified, harmonious aesthetic, we can never be certain that the beb
&!M
-M
hM bec
&!M bed
,%+00,+J
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
J
+
"5%& &1&,+
,#
, '" 10
#,/
1%"
%,*"
#/,*
"+*/(H
&+)+!H
,/46H
4"!"+M 121 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

exhibited work was the most meritorious or representative of then-current design in the four countries.

Screened by a committee headed by Åke Huldt, the Swedish objects selected for the exhibition were, in retrospect, representative of the simplest and perhaps most ‘Scandinavian’ of the samples sent by manufacturers for inclusion. The objects may be seen to have conformed to the ‘harmony’ criteria of the exhibition144 however even at that time, not all were considered to be amongst the most representative and meritorious works of their respective authors. Åke Huldt had earlier acted in a similar role as adviser to the Victoria & Albert Museum in London, in selecting important acquisitions from Orrefors for the museum’s collections during the 1940s.145

What has been established in recent scholarship is that the Scandinavian Design construct was more than a diplomatic tool to promote cultural exchange and national identity in a Cold War world. It was also a marketing endeavour with an intended economic outcome.146 But while selling ‘democratic good design’ to an affluent and eager market (America) would ensure a successful economic outcome, it would come at the cost of downplaying individuality and emphasising uniformity in the particular regional aesthetic. The emphasis on democratic design may be seen to have acted to counter any connotations of communism that might be misconstrued from the socialist leanings of the Scandinavian countries.

bee
&*-)&@"!
#,/*0J
) (
,#
--)&"!
!" ,/1&,+J
, '" 1U#2+ 1&,+
"5-)& &1J
) (
,#
!&0 "/+& )"
&+B2"+ "0M bef
6),/J
^//"#,/0
&+
/"1
/&1&+
+!
/")+!^M beg
""
1%"
"0060
&+
);+
+!
& (*+
Y"!0MZJ
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
"6,+!
1%"
*61%
J
@#16
6"/0
,#
!"0&$+
#/,*
1%"
,/!&
,2+1/&"0M 122 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+


$ )
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
"5%& &1&,+
bjfeNfhM
//"#,/0
$)00
+
"
0""+
,+
1%"
/"/
1 )"
4%&)01
&++&0%
$)00
&0
#,/"$/,2+!
/&$%1M
*$"L
3"+0(
,/*
/(&3M


$ * M
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
"5%& &1&,+
bjfeNfhM
*$"J
3"+0(
,/*
/(&3K

123 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


$ "!
$"0
#/,*
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
1),$2"
0%,4&+$
2+$,
"/*& 0
#/,*
20130 "/$J
4"!"+
6
1&$
&+! "/$
+!
/601)
+1"/"))&
#/,*
&11)J
&+)+!
6
-&,
&/(()M
%"
*,01
%&$%)6
/"-/"0"+1"!
/1&01U !"0&$+"/0
&+
1%"
"5%& &1&,+M
,1%
,#
1%"0"
/+$"0
,#
, '" 10
/"
+,4
%&$%)6
0,2$%1
#1"/
6
,))" 1,/0
0
"5*-)"0
,#
)00&
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+M
*$"0J
3"+0(
,/*
/(&3K

J@M
C7#&D
,,.#0 -

The official narratives of Scandinavian Design, as proposed by the Design in Scandinavia exhibition, have largely informed how the world now views design from the Nordic region. Period publications, including that accompanying the exhibition, described a united, democratic approach to modernist “good design”.147 Most of the publications from the period were authored by or included contributions from individuals associated with the SSF. These publications all share a similar framework and rhetoric, sourcing artists, designers and products from those that had been previously promoted in official exhibitions.

Two of these publications considered to be of particular significance, described by Finnish scholar Harri Kalha as the “bibles”148 on the topic, are Gotthard Johansson’s Design in Scandinavia149 - the catalogue for the North American travelling exhibition published in 1954 - and Ulf Hård af Segerstad’s Scandinavian design150 published in 1961.

beh
0
-/,-,0"!
&+
1%"
/&1"/&
"0-,20"!
6
,
!2/&+$
1%"
bjfa0M bei
""
)%J
^_ 201
+"
,#
%,0"
%&+$0_
N
%"
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
5%& &1&,+
bjfeNfh^M
-M
gjM bej
,%+00,+J
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
J
+
"5%& &1&,+
,#
, '" 10
#,/
1%"
%,*"
#/,*
"+*/(H
&+)+!H
,/46H
4"!"+M
bfa
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
7"J
+!
7"J
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+M 124 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

Johansson’s catalogue is significant as it established the framework for much of the commentary that followed in the twentieth century, and continues to be of influence today. Despite the curiosity of the period language, it puts forward a coherent and convincing case for the regional construct. Johansson links the Nordic countries together and emphasises the geographical differences that apparently inform the work by what we might now view as clichéd images of Scandinavia: “Norway’s high mountains and deep fjords, Finland’s thousand lakes and vast forests, Denmark’s green fields, trim farms and rolling heath, Sweden’s birch coppices and interplay of valley and mountain”.151 Whilst Johansson emphasises the geographic differences in his text, the publication fails to depict these differences through the illustrated works. Rather, the objects illustrated are grouped according to material or type, thus blurring the national characteristics and the individual designers whilst emphasising the regional collective. Johansson reminds the reader of the limited markets in Scandinavia and the absence of mass production in the true sense, championing the Artist in Industry model of the region, a Swedish innovation.

The existence of an advisory committee consisting of the national export councils, national Consulate and local retailing representatives provides evidence of a marketing agenda as sub- text of the exhibition. This agenda is confirmed in post-exhibition reports on the financial success of the endeavour, which are held in the Svensk Form archives in Stockholm. The lengthy reports collect together press coverage, retail tie-ins and sales figures. Referring to the designers of the objects as artists added desirable capital and elevated the everyday goods to art objects. Touring the exhibition through North American museums added further status or distinction to the objects, which were made readily available in local department and specialty stores. The overt marketing agenda of the exhibition utilised a theme of unity rather than individuality, often a criticism of the Swedish or Scandinavian Model.152 Johansson, a noted art historian and advocate of Nordic cooperation, cautioned that Scandinavian design “is not to be seen as an ethnographic curiosity.”153 Despite this caution, later literature has often portrayed Scandinavian design precisely in that manner, as has been observed by historian Kevin

bfb
,%+00,+J
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
J
+
"5%& &1&,+
,#
, '" 10
#,/
1%"
%,*"
#/,*
"+*/(H
&+)+!H
,/46H
4"!"+M
-M
bcM bfc
4"!&0%
%&01,/&+0
/ +
2+! "/$
+!
11&0
6!;+
/$2"
1%1
S1%"
0,N ))"!
4"!&0%
,!")
&0
,#1"+
/&1& &0"!
#,/
-211&+$
1%"
,**,+
$,,!
"#,/"
1%"
&+1"/"010
,#
*&+,/&1&"0
+!
&+!&3&!2)
&1&7"+0M
 ,/!&+$
1,
*+6
,**"+11,/0J
,))" 1&3&0*J
,/
"3"+
011&0*J
%0

),+$
1/!&1&,+
&+
4"!&0%
%&01,/6MT
""
/ +
2+! "/$
+!
11&0
6!;+J
^ +
"/ %
,#
1%"
4"!&0%
,!")M

,+1"01"!
&01,/&,$/-%6^J
&+
")"+
110,+
+!
3"+N ),3
))"+01"&+
Y"!0MZJ
4"!&0%
*,!"/+&0*
J
/ %&1" 12/"H
,+02*-1&,+
+!
1%"
4")#/"
011"
Y ,+!,+L
) (
,$J
cabaZM
-M
dgM bfd
,%+00,+J
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
J
+
"5%& &1&,+
,#
, '" 10
#,/
1%"
%,*"
#/,*
"+*/(H
&+)+!H
,/46H
4"!"+M
-M
bcM 125 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Davies.154 Gunilla Frick has described Johansson’s role in discourse as his “work of enlightenment”155, centred on his position as a cultural commentator with Svenska Dagbladet, where he “helped disseminate a knowledge of art industry and its problems.”156 Johansson was also a self-declared advocate of Orrefors writing frequently about the work of Gate and Hald in his Svenska Dagbladet column.157

The rhetoric of Design in Scandinavia shares similarities with the way in which Swedish design had previously been presented. The 1937 Paris Exposition and 1939 New York World’s Fair saw the term Swedish Modern158 applied to Swedish architecture and applied arts. By the time of the 1939 New York World’s Fair, Sweden had adopted the catch phrase “Swedish Modern: A movement towards sanity in design”, utilising it as a slogan in association with the Swedish exhibit and in printed material. A book adopting the catch-phrase as its title was published in association with the exhibit (Figure 2.12). The SSF were not officially involved in the exhibition, however the text was authored by Åke Huldt and Åke Stavenow, both from the SSF. The book was vastly illustrated with photographs from the Swedish pavilion, with Orrefors well- represented, including a much publicised glass fountain designed by Vicke Lindstrand in the forecourt of the Swedish pavilion. In Huldt’s text, Swedish Modern is described in a series of declarations, as follows:

Swedish Modern means high quality merchandise for everyday use, available for all by the utilization of modern technical resources.

Swedish Modern means natural form and honest treatment of material.

Swedish Modern means [a]esthetically sound goods, resulting from the close cooperation of artist and manufacturer.159

These same declarations can be found woven into the rhetoric of 1950s Scandinavian Design or Scandinavian Modern, where Swedish was simply substituted with Scandinavian.

bfe
""
3&"0J
^/("1&+$
),6
,/
"*, /1&
!")P^M
!&0 200"!
&+
%-1"/
4,
,#
1%&0
1%"0&0M bff
/& (J
,+01+8/
&
&+!201/&+M
-M
caiM bfg
&!M bfh
,11%/!
,%+00,+J
^+
%&01,/&
&
$)0^J
3"+0(
$ )!"1H
i
'
bjecM bfi
%"
1"/*
40
0&!
1,
"
,&+"!
6
+
*"/& +
/&1&
&+
bjdhJ
4%,
") ,/1"!
%&0
!"0 /&-1&,+
4&1%
1%"
"51"+0&,+
Q
*,3"*"+1
1,4/!0
0+&16
&+
!"0&$+RM bfj
("
13"+,4
Y"!MZJ
4"!&0%
,!"/+K

*,3"*"+1
1,4/!0
0+&16
&+
!"0&$+M
-M
bdM 126 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+


$ ""
4"!&0%
,!"/+
,,()"1J
"4
,/(
,/)!R0
&/
bjdjM
*$"0J
3"+0(
,/*
/(&3K

By the end of the 1950s, design in Sweden was undergoing a revolution. There was a reaction against the pared down aesthetic associated with Scandinavian Design and younger artists began to question their role in industry. Designers sought a more artistic expression for their work, away from the constraints of industry, leading to debates about the role of design, crafts and art.

In 1958, Arthur Hald contributed to the Swedish Institute publication Swedish Design, where the revolution was not mentioned and the pared down aesthetic associated with Design in Scandinavia remains evident. The cover featured an image of Sven Palmqvists’ Fuga bowls for Orrefors, a recent, mass production innovation that utilised a centrifugal technique to produce inexpensive bowls, cups and other vessels. To some extent, these works realised the ideals expressed by Paulsson in Vackrare vardagsvara nearly thirty years earlier. Hald described Swedish design in terms of “simplicity”, claiming that “the design language of the Continental styles has been translated into a spirit of severity and thrift.”160

Our traditions seem to have fostered a specific feeling for form, which can be naturally applied in contemporary design. Our aim to create well designed everyday objects, available to all, leads to a demand for what is matter-of-fact and generally valid, shapes which have the convincing simplicity of a well-thought-out solution and truly reflect rational living.161

Whilst Hald argued for ‘matter-of-fact, well designed everyday objects, available to all’, Orrefors’ Fuga range, and tableware from Gustavsberg, Karlskrona, Gefle and Rörstrand, were an exception among the illustrations in the publication, which feature a large number of well

bga
/1%2/
)!
+!
4"!&0%
+01&121"J
4"!&0%
"0&$+
Y1, (%,)*L
,/!&0(
,1,$/36/J
bjfiZM
-M
gM bgb
&!M
-M
gM 127 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

designed yet exclusive and expensive objects that had recently been presented at the H55 exhibition in Helsingborg. H55 was envisaged by the SSF as a sequel to the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition, twenty-five years on. Of the glass objects illustrated, from six of Sweden’s glass factories, half were from Orrefors. H55 was later criticised by art historian Helena Dahlbäch Lutteman for elevating everyday goods to objet d’art 162 , the opposite of what Hald describes as ‘severity and thrift.’ Swedish Design was published a year after the close of Design in Scandinavia and the much-criticised Swedish exhibit at the 1957 Milan Triennale, which was described by the American magazine Craft Horizons as “slick and sterile”.163

During the 1960s, a national divide emerged between artists, designers and craftworkers. Norwegian Design Historian Kjetil Fallan describes the “fall from grace”164 of Scandinavian Design in the 1960s as resulting from this growing divide, along with the emergence of the industrial designer. Within this context, and following on from Design in Scandinavia, Ulf Hård af Segerstad and the Dane Erik Zahle produced the first publications on Scandinavian Design aimed at an international audience. In Scandinavian Design, Ulf Hård af Segerstad reiterated the SSF ideology:

More beautiful things for everyday use – this is the motto of those who produce “the things around us” in the four Scandinavian countries: Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. The home and its furnishings have always held a central position in the lives of the Scandinavian people. A centuries old tradition of fine craftsmanship combined with modern technology is chiefly responsible for the unique Scandinavian style, combining practical utility and beauty of form, qualities that have attracted the attention and won the praise of the whole world.165

Paraphrasing the title of Gregor Paulsson’s Vackrare vardagsvara (and catch-phrase of the SSF) in the inside jacket text, Ulf Hård af Segerstad’s Scandinavian Design was a publication primarily intended for the American market that acted as a ‘postscript’ to the previous decade’s traveling exhibition. Promoting the particular, democratic approach to modernist “good design” practiced in the Nordic countries, Hård af Segerstad describes Scandinavian Design as an almost naturally occurring phenomenon, when in fact it was a carefully constructed image that was utilised as a (successful) marketing tool.166 These texts lingered long after the Design in

bgc
%) 8 (
211"*+J
^ +!201/&)
"0&$+
&+
4"!"+L
+
&01,/& )
2/3"6^M
-M
dcM bgd
/,4+J
^
 )"
#/,*
1%"
/&"++)"^M
-M
bcM bge
))+J
^ ,4
+
5 31,/
,1
"01%"1&
/"1"+0&,+0X"$,1&1&+$
"0&$+
&+
bjga0R
,/46^M
-M
eeM bgf
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
7"J
+!
7"J
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+M
+0&!"
#/,+1
!201
' ("1M bgg
""
#,/
"5*-)"
1%"
0"/&"0
,#
"0060
1%1
"5*&+"
1%&0
,+01/2 1
&+
);+
+!
& (*+
Y"!0MZJ
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
"6,+!
1%"
*61%
J
@#16
6"/0
,#
!"0&$+
#/,*
1%"
,/!&
,2+1/&"0M 128 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

Scandinavia tour had ended and were important in continuing visibility and promotion in the newly reacquainted North American market.

Hård af Segerstad’s text described a persuasive and desirable image of applied arts in the region. He cited the Stockholm Exhibition of 1930 as the beginning of the break through in Functionalism for Scandinavia, albeit in a less radical form than elsewhere. The individual, he argued, was the centre of “a limited and unostentatious (Scandinavian) milieu”167 that was “to some extent idyllic.”168 “Unostentatious” and “unpretentious” are similar in sentiment to the adjectives Hård af Segerstad used to describe the Scandinavian home, which the reader might perhaps view as a direct result of the classless ideals of the Swedish People’s Home manifest in the Swedish Welfare Model. It is unusual, however, to read about a handicrafts tradition where the new sophisticated idea supplants this idyllic and humble notion. The restrained and sophisticated objects illustrated in the catalogue appear to be the antithesis of the humble beginnings described in Hård af Segerstad’s text.

The remainder of the book is divided into sections discussing Ceramics, Glass, Textiles, Metal, Furniture and Other Materials, and dealing with the individual countries and current designers. It is significant that, unlike Johansson’s catalogue and the actual Design in Scandinavia exhibition, certain individual designers were singled out in the text and all were listed in a comprehensive register at the back of the book. Hård af Segerstad began his text with an account of famous first words between an artist and his industry:

Make something beautiful, do something different. Take all the time you need. Just work when and how you please. These welcoming words, spoken in 1916 by the head of a large glass company to his newly appointed art director, have become famous in Scandinavia.169

So famous is this account, that it is apparent to a reader possessing more than a passing interest in Scandinavian design that the newly appointed art director is, in fact, Simon Gate and the large glass company is Orrefors. Hård af Segerstad reinforced the preeminence of Orrefors in his text. In the chapter on glass, Sweden led the text with a lengthy quotation from Edward Hald, also from Orrefors, whom he described as “the grand old man of the art, who helped give Swedish glass its reputation abroad”170. Hård af Segerstad’s text continued with “much of the

bgh
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
7"J
+!
7"J
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+M
-M
bdM bgi
&!M
-M
bdM bgj
&!M
-M
baM bha
&!M
-M
efM 129 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

credit for the current success of Swedish glass is due to the Orrefors glassworks.”171 Conversely, the remaining two paragraphs of his commentary dealt with just two of the many glass factories and artists, the “self renewing” Vicke Lindstrand at Kosta, and Monica Bratt at Reijmyre, with a broad concluding statement that “in general, Swedish glassworks span the entire register of the material.”172 Numerous illustrations address this deficiency in the text. Hård af Segerstad was an influential critic who contributed a regular column to the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet and also authored Tingen och vi (The Objects and Ourselves), a book that encompasses both applied and industrial design. The book was widely influential in Sweden as the basis for the functional/ aesthetic concerns of the emerging industrial design profession in the 1960s, however was only issued in the Swedish language.173


$ "#
/&11
)!J
)#
9/!
#
"$"/01!
+!
!4/!
)!J
ff
")0&+$ ,/$
bjffM
*$"J
3"+0(
,/*
/(&3K

Writings on Scandinavian Design were not exclusively the domain of Swedish authors. A Treasury of Scandinavian Design, the often cited, self-proclaimed “standard authority on Scandinavian-designed furniture, textiles, glass, ceramics, and metal” 174, was published in several languages by Golden Press. This book was the first thorough presentation of the Scandinavian Design phenomenon with a wide circulation. Edited by Erik Zahle, Director of the Museum of Industrial Art, Copenhagen, it contained five essays by respected representatives from four of the five Scandinavian countries - Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden (Iceland is excluded for unstated reasons) - along with a more general introductory essay by Frantz bhb
&!M
-M
egM bhc
&!M
-M
eiM bhd
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
&+$"+
, %
3&M bhe
/&
%)"J

/"02/6
,#
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+K
%"
1+!/!
21%,/&16
,+
 +!&+3&+
S
!"0&$+"!
2/+&12/"H
"51&)"0H
)00H
"/*& 0
+!
"1)
Y"4
,/(L
,)!"+
/"00J
bjgbZM
130 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

Wendt, secretary of the Nordic Council, entitled “Unity and Diversity in Scandinavia”. Wendt’s essay drew together the “integration of social and economic policies, law and justice, transport and intercourse in all spheres of human activity”175. It emphasised the affinity of language and racial origin as central to enabling the cross-ownership of (their) art and literature, and as key factors in successful collaboration in design across the region. Whilst more direct than Hård af Segerstad’s texts, the tenor is immediately familiar. The four main essays drew out the histories of modern design in the four countries, citing important developments and providing an overview of the artists and designers represented in the annotated illustrations. Zahle’s book reiterated the premise of Design in Scandinavia and previous commentaries, whilst omitting discussion of current developments and debates or the ‘revolution’ taking place in Scandinavian crafts. Whilst not originating from the SSF the book is firmly connected. The chapter on Sweden was authored by Sven Erik Skawonius, co-author of the previous decade’s SSF publication Contemporary Swedish Design.

Apart from its importance as a detailed account of the history of the SSF and the development of the Artist in Industry paradigm in Sweden, Skawonius’ lengthy chapter provides further details of the relationships examined in this thesis, and further reinforced the preeminence of Orrefors in his emphasis on the factory. This is most evident where he discussed Edward Hald’s Orrefors work, referring to Hald’s “depth of experience, his active intellect, and his artistic talent”176 where he “worked with and developed the factory’s Graal and Ariel techniques.”177 By contrast he described Vicke Lindstrand as having “great technical skill” with “an insatiable appetite for work, and a buoyant delight in experimentation with colour and form”178 in his “both useful and ornamental ware” for Kosta. There is an emphasis on Orrefors evident throughout Skawonius’ text on glass. Skawonius, in his discussion of Orrefors, incorrectly associated Hald with the Ariel technique. Hald worked extensively with developments in the Graal technique and its variations, however, there are no known examples of objects designed by him in the Ariel technique. Skawonius alluded to his disapproval of the new “primitivism” of younger designers describing Erik Höglund’s glass for Boda as “unconventional” and “the opposite of elegant and precise”179, whilst Bengt Edenfalk’s work for Skruf is described as “glass in a heavy lump, with many irregular bubbles, which nevertheless arrange themselves into

bhf
&!M
-M
hM bhg
3"+
/&(
(4,+&20J
^4"!"+^J
&+
/&
%)"
Y"!MZJ

/"02/6
,#
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+K
%"
1+!/!
21%,/&16
,+
 +!&+3&+
S
!"0&$+"!
2/+&12/"H
"51&)"0H
)00H
"/*& 0
+!
"1)
Y"4
,/(L
,)!"+
/"00J
bjgbZM
-M
fbNhaM bhh
&!M
-M
ggM bhi
&!M
-M
gg bhj
&!M
-M
gg 131 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

decorative figures.”180 In his discussion of ceramics, Skawonius emphasised another SSF exemplar, the Gustavsberg factory, home to Stig Lindberg and his former collaborator and SSF colleague Arthur Hald, who was now artistic director of the factory.181 Skawonius’ text switched between a descriptive style and restrained praise, and it is where the emphasis was on praise, as exampled above, that his personal preferences became discernible. Skawonius also discussed the origins of the national craft and design organisation, and the fact that Sweden had “received rather than exported influences”182, resulting in Swedish versions of Jugend, Arts and Crafts and later Functionalism.

This particular generation of individuals associated with the SSF maintained momentum well into the 1960s, before a reaction in Sweden to the 1950s pared down aesthetic and ensuing debates in the applied arts dimmed their influence. Whilst Design in Scandinavia toured its way across the United States and Canada, Scandinavia had become a very different place and was in the midst of a crisis in the applied arts. At the time of these debates, the SSF set forth plans to tour Design in Scandinavia once again. As early as 1960, the idea to take a version of the Design in Scandinavia traveling exhibition to Australia was considered, however, not finally realised until 1968.

Contemporaneous with Zahle’s book was a new SSF publication on Swedish design that was published simultaneously in both Swedish and English editions. Design in Sweden183, a word play on Design in Scandinavia, preempted the later, perceived interchangeability of the two terms. The book was authored by Åke Stavenow and Åke Huldt, with editorial assistance from Dag Widman who would become an important commentator on Swedish design during the 1960s. Design in Sweden saw a return to a national focus after the regional Design in Scandinavia exhibition of the previous decade. This was the fourth English language survey of Swedish applied arts published by, or in association with, the SSF and documented developments in the three years since Hald’s 1958 Swedish Institute survey.

Huldt was experienced in promoting Swedish applied arts. He had been actively involved in discourse on Swedish or Scandinavian design beginning with his article in the influential British publication The Studio184 in 1952, followed by his role in the exhibitions Design in Scandinavia bia
&!M
-M
gg bib
&!M
-M
gh bic
%)"J

/"02/6
,#
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+K
%"
1+!/!
21%,/&16
,+
 +!&+3&+
S
!"0&$+"!
2/+&12/"H
"51&)"0H
)00H
"/*& 0
+!
"1)M bid
13"+,4
+!
2)!1J
"0&$+
&+
4"!"+M bie
("
2)!1J
^%"
/1
,#
4"!"+L
/#10*+0%&-
+!
!"0&$+^J
%"
12!&,H
beeUhbc
Y 2)6
bjfcZM 132 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

in 1954 and Formes Scandinaves in 1958.185 Stavenow was a regular contributor to the SSF publications Form and Kontur. Given this background, Design in Sweden is of specific interest as an indication of the way in which Swedish design was framed following the success of Design in Scandinavia. In Design in Sweden an immediately obvious shift is evident that distances it from its predecessors and from the Design in Scandinavia exhibition - an individual face is given to both the objects and their designers. Whilst the text emphasises the collective of the SSF, it does so here as more of an undertone. The history of the activities of the SSF is nonetheless restated, in order to underscore its involvement in the realisation and promotion of the success of modern Swedish design. Design in Sweden does, however, continue to restate the role of the Artist in Industry at a time when this was being questioned by younger designers. The book sets out to inform the reader about Swedish design, referred to by Huldt and Stavenow as a ‘concept’ for the first time.

In this book the reader will learn of Swedish artists and their environment, and see traditional domestic handicraft and exclusive studio products side by side with modern design and functional industrial products. It is our hope and belief that these things together are a proper expression of the concept “Swedish Design.”186

Orrefors is emphasised in Huldt and Stavenow’s text, which refers to the “almost legendary school of artists that was established at Orrefors, with Simon Gate, Edward Hald, and later Vicke Lindstrand.”187 The appointment of Hald as managing director of Orrefors was cited by Huldt and Stavenow as decisive in the continuing success of the factory.188 Stavenow’s advocacy of Orrefors was well established, recognised by Orrefors through a gift in honour of his fiftieth birthday in 1948 (Figure 2.14), which was designed by Edward Hald.189

bif
,)),4&+$
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&J
2)!1
0"/3"!
0

*"* "/
,#
1%"
"5" 21&3"
,**&11""
#,/
,/*"0
 +!&+3"0J

0 )"!N!,4+
3"/0&,+
,#
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
1%1
+,4
&+ )2!"!
")+!M
1
40
%")!
1
1%"
20;"
!"0
/10
; ,/1�
&+
/&0
#/,*
h
,3"* "/
bjfi
N
db
+2/6
bjfjM
2)!1
40
)0,
/"0-,+0& )"
#,/
1%"
1"51
,#
1%"
"5%& &1&,+
1),$2"M
""L
("
M
2)!1J
,/*"0
0 +!&+3"0
Y/&0L
20;"
!"0
/10
!; ,/1�J
bjfiZM big
13"+,4
+!
2)!1J
"0&$+
&+
4"!"+M
-M
dM bih
&!M
-M
bafM bii
&!M
-MbafM bij
%")!
&+
1%"
,))" 1&,+
,#
*9)+!0
20"2*J
85'=J
4"!"+M 133 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


$ "$
)0(
!"0&$+"!
6
!4/!
)!
1
//"#,/0M


1,
("
13"+,4
,+
%&0
#
&"1%
&/1%!6
&+
bjeiM
+0 /& "!L
&))
("
13"+,4
\cdc
dR`
\d_c
3
38++"/
"++&+$
"6"/K
%"
"+$/3"!
!" ,/1&,+
#"12/"0
*+6
*,1�
/")1"!
1,
%&0
 1&3&1&"0
+!
)&#"
+!
1%"
&+&1&)0
M
*$"0J
*9)+!0
20"2*K

In Kontur 10, published in 1961, art historian Edward Maze’s Glittering Oasis in a Dark Wood introduced the reader to the newer Orrefors artists, Nils Landberg, Ingeborg Lundin and Sven Palmqvist, whilst further emphasising Orrefors’ prestige and the legacy of Gate and Hald.190 Maze was also responsible for the English translations of Hård af Segerstad’s books.

Published in 1963, Hård af Segerstad’s Modern Scandinavian Furniture included an introductory essay entitled Four Countries - One Furniture Ideal. Whilst, on reflection, the essay’s title may sound somewhat clichéd, Hård af Segerstad argues against the perceived Scandinavian “look”, stating that “[...] Scandinavian furniture has many different appearances.”191 The comprehensive publication is notable for its summary of the SSF function studies program. The program investigated furniture measurements and types in order to better inform the public when choosing new furniture, and lead to more standardisation in functional criteria. Hård af Segerstad also made lengthy references to Gregor and Nils Paulsson’s Tingens bruk och prägel (The Function and Design of Objects)192 as a guide on how to assess furniture (or objects) for purchase, which is significant given that Paulsson’s text was never published in English. He also reiterates Paulsson’s caution that “we should not purchase furniture which makes us seem elegant or more extraordinary than we are”193, which acts to reinforce the class hierarchies that Paulsson initially sought to break down. Function, design and quality are the paramount qualities Hård af Segerstad enforces in his text, rather than a regional style. This bja
!4/!
7"J
^)&11"/&+$
0&0
&+
/(
,,!^J
&+
/$&1
3"! "/$
+$
/&
=++/,1%
Y"!MZJ
,+12/K
\[
Y1, (%,)*L
3"+0(
0)='!#=/"+&+$"+J
bjgbZM bjb
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
,!"/+
 +!&+3&+
#2/+&12/"M
-M
iM bjc
2)00,+
+!
2)00,+J
&+$"+0
/2(
, %
-/8$")M bjd
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
,!"/+
 +!&+3&+
#2/+&12/"M
-M
ecM 134 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

marks the beginning of his own change in focus, which became more about differences and less about similarities. Hård af Segerstad abandons the previous regional clichés and instead places Scandinavia in a more global context:

It is important to point out that although Scandinavian furniture designs and interior decoration, to some extent, have regional roots, the outlook is clearly international.194

Similarly, in Kontur 13, discussing the recent collaboration of the Swede Bruno Mathsson and the Dane Peit Hein on the Super-ellipse table, Hård af Segerstad further clarifies his view that “Scandinavian design is regarded by the world as a style but actually it was originally something quite different - a sensible, rational, and (why not?) cultivated way of solving milieu problems.”195 Here Hård af Segerstad began to distance himself from previous rhetoric on Swedish and Scandinavian design, a position which became more pronounced in his later writings.

J@N
 -#!(
#(
(#(0#?
"
 )(
0

During the 1960s, the SSF continued the previous decade’s tour of Design in Scandinavia. The result was the much-delayed Design in Scandinavia exhibition that toured Australia between 1968 - 69. Originally conceived in 1960196, correspondence in the Svensk Form Arkiv reveals that the project was largely driven by the SSF, as the remaining Nordic participants appeared to gradually lose interest due to lengthy delays in the project’s realisation. Finland’s interest resumed once the exhibition was finally negotiated and much of the credit for the exhibition should be shared between the two countries. The SSF provided an ‘ambassador’, Ulla Tarras- Wahlberg, who made Australia her home during the lengthy run of the traveling exhibition before returning to Sweden to take up the role of director of the SSF, which by this time had declining membership and financial troubles.197 The exhibition was a joint initiative between the Scandinavian governments and the the Australian Gallery Directors Conference that

bje
&!M
-M
beM bjf
)#
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
^2-"/N0%-"0^J
&+
+$
/&
=++/,1%
Y"!MZJ
,+12/K
\^
Y1, (%,)*L
$
&!*+K
3"+0(
0)='!#=/"+&+$"+J
bjgfZM
-M
ghM bjg
""
)"+J
);+
+!
& (*+
Y"!0MZJ
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
"6,+!
1%"
*61%
J
@#16
6"/0
,#
!"0&$+
#/,*
1%"
,/!&
,2+1/&"0M bjh
+

)"11"/
1,
/1
))"/6
,#
"4
,21%
)"0
&/" 1,/
)
&00&+$%*J
,+
%"/
/"12/+
1,
4"!"+
#1"/
1%"
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
"5%& &1&,+
&+
201/)&J
))
//0
%) "/$
4/&1"0L
S*6
%,*" ,*&+$
40

*&512/"
,#

0%, (J
%,0
+!
"5%201&,+M
+
*+6
460J
21
-/1& 2)/)6
*6
', MMM
40
S0("!T
21
40
+,1
"5-" 1"!
1,
!" )&+"
1%"
,?"/
1,
1("
,3"/
1%"
/"0-,+0& &)&16
,#
1%"
0&+(&+$
0%&-M
1
&0
))
1,,
,*-)& 1"!
1,
!"0 /& "
1%"
20"
,#
1%"
%,1&
0&121&,+M
,+"6J
,#
,2/0"J
&0
 
/,,1
,#
1%"
"3&)M
,J
%"/"

*J

*+$&+$
!&/" 1,/
,#
%"
4"!&0%
, &"16
#,/
+!201/&)
"0&$+J

%3"
 "-1"!
&1
#,/
,+"
6"/
,+)6MT
&00
M
//0N%) "/$J
^ "11"/
1,
)
&00&+$%*^J
YbjgjZM
+-2 )&0%"!
0,2/ "M 135 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

addressed “the need for educating taste in the community.”198 It is significant that the pedagogic goals of educating in matters of taste had been downplayed by the SSF in Sweden in light of the debates around the Form fantasi exhibition of 1964. The catalogue accompanying the Australian Design in Scandinavia exhibition features an essay by Ulf Hård af Segerstad that differs in focus from the previous decade by emphasising nationalism, rather than regionalism.

To over-simplify, one can say that in the 1930s Sweden to some extent took the initiative and won recognition with Swedish Modern. Immediately after the Second World War Danish Design made brilliant contributions, especially where furniture was concerned. In this field, Denmark for a period of time set the fashion. Towards the middle and end of the 1950s it was Finland’s turn to attract attention, above all by its glass and ceramics and a series of striking exhibitions. During the first part of the 1960s Norway came forward strongly as a manufacturer of furniture that was greatly admired. This summary is clearly too superficial but I merely wish to show that Scandinavian Design has been the result of a vital interaction between the four countries.199

Hård af Segerstad drew attention to the fact that Scandinavian Design now had a more varied approach citing the recent reality of the emerging industrial design profession in Scandinavia. However, he omits any discussion of the emerging divide in design and applied arts. His chronological listing of the four countries differs from the 1950s exhibition in terms of the hierarchy of nations, placing Sweden at the forefront in his text. Here he suggests a hope for the Scandinavian designer of the future in conveying what he refers to as the “deeply Human philosophy of Scandinavian Design when shaping machines and equipment.”200

Despite the unexplained shift in emphasis from regional to national (more emphasis on the individual countries) there is an overwhelming feeling of familiarity in the text, revisiting the same territory more than a decade later. Hård af Segerstad cites the Scandinavian pursuit of “the good life” and the design of “the things around us” as central the realisation of this pursuit.201 The use of the term “the good life” has the effect of linking Scandinavian Design to more philosophical concerns grounded in the theories of Aristotle, or the simple living ideals of Henry Thoreau202, which acts to elevate the distinction of Scandinavian Design by associating it with an elite world of philosophical ideas.

bji
4""1J
^
%/ &+$"/
,#
*,!"/+&0*L
//"#,/0
&+
201/)&^M
-M
bjdM bjj
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
J
" /2/6
\dacL +2/6
\dad
J
"+*/(H
&+)+!H
,/46H
4"!"+M
-M
iM caa
&!M
-M
jM cab
&!M
-M
eM cac
0
&+
"+/6
3&!
%,/"2J
)!"+H
,/H
&#"
&+
1%"
,,!0
Y3"/6*+^0
& //6K
,+!,+L
"+1J
bjaiZJ
"+/6
3&!
%,/"2
+!
"?/"6
M
/*"/J
)!"+
J

#2))6
++,11"!
"!&1&,+
Y"4
3"+
K
,+!,+L
)"
+&3"/0&16
/"00J
caaeZM 136 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

In common with the North American tour, this exhibition was also conceived with economic imperatives in mind. Despite being hosted in art galleries and museums around the country, there was an insistence on retail tie-ins at every stop. The “vigorous retail promotion”203, as described by Harold Harland, Australian importer of Scandinavian homewares, was seen to be problematic and the cause of much concern to critics and the art galleries who hosted the exhibition. Despite this, the exhibition was a tremendous success and profoundly influential in Australian applied arts.


$ "%
%"
201/)&+
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
"5%& &1&,+
1
1%"
1&,+)
))"/6
,#
& 1,/&J
") ,2/+"
bjgiM
*$"J
3"+0(
,/*
/(&3K

The legacy and influence of the Australian version ofDesign in Scandinavia was the subject of a 2008 doctoral thesis by Robert Bell entitled Nordic Wave: A study of the reception and influence of Scandinavian design in Australia.204 Bell recently explained the success of the exhibition in Australia, stating that:

The Nordic governments were prepared to support and underwrite these kinds of projects as an accessible form of cultural diplomacy and trade. It was a successful match (with Australia) because in Australia’s post-war architecture boom, smaller houses, modernist ideas and simpler furniture cad
/,)!
/)+!J
^ "11"/
1,
&00
M
//0N%) "/$^J
YbjgiZM
+-2 )&0%"!
0,2/ "M
/)+!J
,21)&+"0
0,*"
,+ "/+0
4&1%
1%"
/"1&)
-/,*,1&,+
,#
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
"&+$
1%"
20"
,#

) (
,#
/1N /&1& )
,3"/$"
,#
1%"
"5%& &1&,+
6
2)12/)
,**"+11,/0
&+
1%"
201/)&+
-/"00M cae
"))J
^,/!&
3"L

012!6
,#
1%"
/" "-1&,+
+!
&+B2"+ "
,#
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
&+
201/)&^M 137 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

seemed more appealing. It was a way for Australia to embrace a modernity that wasn’t too industrial. It helped us find ways to celebrate the natural environment by using our native woods...The modern Australian home of the 1950s was strongly influenced by Danish and Swedish architecture in particular through simpler, smaller houses, with more light, greater use of natural materials and a stronger relationship with the garden and outside. Our way of living started to change and we were looking for ways to express that.205

Art historian Derek Ostergard has identified Australia as a major international market for Orrefors glass from the 1920s through to the 1960s, along with Great Britain and, from the mid-1930s, the United States.206 In Australia, this trend was not necessarily driven by the ‘better everyday goods’ espoused by Paulsson but rather, as art and design historian Jonathan Sweet has observed, “an uncharacteristic diamond-cut range [produced] exclusively for the Australian market.”207 The range was introduced during the 1930s at the request of the Australian distributor, in response to high import tariffs and a conservative Australian market. Sweet has observed that the range, known as Diamond Cut, “had become the best-selling Orrefors design by the end of the decade”208, available in Australia well into the 1960s alongside the more modern, characteristic Orrefors ranges of the period.209 The designer of the range is unknown, however its design is derivative of traditional diamond-cut crystal. This example suggests that the reputation and preeminence of Orrefors is not only a consequence of the art-glass and functionalist utility ware promoted in discourse, but also a result of the company’s responsiveness to market demand, assisted by astute marketing.

In contrast to his essay in the Australian Design in Scandinavia catalogue, Hård af Segerstad’s 1968 book Modern Finnish Design, which was written at the same time, discusses modern twentieth century design from Finland whilst completely avoiding use of the term Scandinavian Design. Here he also alludes to another sub-text for Scandinavian Design products, as “icebreakers on the international market.”210

Denmark exhibited ceramics and exclusive teak furniture in order to sell butter and bacon. Norway arranged displays of enamelware and knitted sweaters in order to sell its fjords and mountains. Sweden presented the beautiful everyday article, quickly changed the subject, and started talking about machinery and iron ore. Finland provided a concoction of noble ryijy

caf
/1&+
"/ "J
^,/1%"/+
&+"0^J

"40
l%11-LUU+"40M+2M"!2M2UP-kbbgimJ
 "00"!
h
2$201
caba
cabaM
cag
4""1J
^
%/ &+$"/
,#
*,!"/+&0*L
//"#,/0
&+
201/)&^M
--MbicNbifM cah
&!M
-M
bijM cai
&!M
-M
bijM caj
&!M
-M
bjcM cba
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
,!"/+
&++&0%
!"0&$+M
-M
deM 138 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

rugs and gleaming glassware as an aperitif before bringing on the wood pulp.211

After the Australian catalogue for Design in Scandinavia there was an extended silence with regard to commentary on Scandinavian design, with one notable exception: Eileene Beer’s 1975 book Scandinavian Design, Objects of a Life Style212. Published by the American-Scandinavian Foundation, it acted as another goodwill vehicle to promote Scandinavian Design in America. Thus, it is seen as a mass market source, although much-cited due to the scarcity of Scandinavian design literature during the 1970s. The book came at a time when the Scandinavians, too, viewed Scandinavian Design as a stylistic category. Beer cited the work of Hård af Segerstad, Stavenow, Huldt and Zahle, amongst others, as her “basic training” emphasising the continued influence of the SSF in discourse on Scandinavian Design. Beer traces the roots of her subject back to the medieval period, with discussion of designers and detailed annotation of the included illustrations. Whilst this work is elementary and descriptive, rather than scholarly and analytical, its lone prominence in the 1970s and oft-cited status has made it an important reference work. To this end Michael Tucker, in his review of the catalogue of the exhibition Norge 87213, noted the omission of Beer’s book in a bibliography of some one hundred items. Beer’s work omits numerous important designers and seems out of date in the selection of works illustrated. In common with both Zahle’s A Treasury of Scandinavian Design214 and Hård af Segerstad’s Scandinavian Design215 and Design in Scandinavia216, the debates between the artist, designer and crafts-maker are again absent from discussion, leaving the reader unaware of developments since the 1950s.

cbb
&!M
-M
deM cbc
""/J
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+K
 '" 10
,#

&#"
16)"M cbd
& %")
2 ("/J
^,/$"

,/*L
2+01%+!3"/(
,$
"0&$+
2+!"/
+!201/&(2)12/"+
V
,/0(
2+01%+!3"/(U"0&$+
Y/1
1),$2"
,#
1%"
,/$"
ih
,1%"+ "/$
5%& &1&,+Z
Y"3&"4Z^J
,2/+)
,#
"0&$+
&01,/6H
cUcUd
YbjijZJ
cdeNcdhM cbe
%)"J

/"02/6
,#
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+K
%"
1+!/!
21%,/&16
,+
 +!&+3&+
S
!"0&$+"!
2/+&12/"H
"51&)"0H
)00H
"/*& 0
+!
"1)M cbf
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
7"J
+!
7"J
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+M cbg
,%+00,+J
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
J
+
"5%& &1&,+
,#
, '" 10
#,/
1%"
%,*"
#/,*
"+*/(H
&+)+!H
,/46H
4"!"+M 139 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


$ "&
"#1J
/1%2/
)!
+!
$
&!*+
&+01))&+$
,/*
#+10&
1
&)'3 %0
,+01%))
&+
1, (%,)*J
bjgeM

$ "'
&$%1J
+,+N#2+ 1&,+)
$)00
, '" 10
6
,%+
") &+$
,#
//"#,/0
&+ )2!"!
&+
1%"
"5%& &1&,+
,/*
#+10&M
*$"0J
3"+0(
,/*
/(&3K

Another individual introduced at the beginning of this chapter is the art historian and curator Dag Widman, whose role as commentator and Orrefors advocate is also well established. Widman’s consistent advocacy and preference for Orrefors, and more particularly Edward Hald, became pronounced in the 1983 retrospective Edward Hald, Målare, Konstindustrinpionjär217 held at the Nationalmuseum and Waldermarsudde in Stockholm, and in his text published in both the accompanying catalogue and the Swedish language publication Konsten i Sverige.218 In his later, English language texts from the 1990s, included in both Orrefors and Kosta Boda anniversary publications, Widman is more candid in his particular preferences which emphasise Orrefors. These texts specifically impact upon the reception of Vicke Lindstrand and, as such, are analysed in detail in Part Two of this thesis.219

Widman was also an advocate of the new generation of younger designers, through his position with the Nationalmuseum. With Arthur Hald he was curator of the controversial SSF crafts exhibition Form fantasi, held in Stockholm in 1964, that attempted to capture the spirit of 1960s Swedish crafts and the new tendencies therein.220 Form fantasi was significant for the notoriety

cbh
")"+
%) 8 (
211"*+K
/1%2/
)!K
$
&!*+
Y"!MZJ
!4/!
)!
9)/"
,+01&+!201/2-&,+'8/
Y1, (%,)*L
1&,+)*20"2*J
bjidZM cbi
$
&!*+J
,+01"+
&
3"/&$"K
,+01%+13"/(H
(,+01&+!201/&H
!"0&$+
\cd`L\db`
Y1, (%,)*L
)*.3&01
C
&(0"))
=/)$
J
bjhfZM cbj
& (*+
+!
&!*+J
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$J
&!*+J
^%"
,01
/1&010
N

%-0,!&
"3&"4
,#
1%"
4"+1&"1%
"+12/6^J
&!*+
"1
)MJ
3"+0(
#,/*
2+!"/
"11
%)31
0"(")
J
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
!2/&+$
%)#

"+12/6J
&!*+
+!
/+(0J
3"+0(1
$)0
\d[[L\da[
J
][
(,+01+8/"/H
][
3"/(
e
4"!&0%
$)00
\d[[L\da[
J
][
/1&010H
][
4,/(0M cca
%&0
"5%& &1&,+
&0
!&0 200"!
1
)"+$1%
&+
,  %J
,/*"+0
#/&$

it caused for the SSF, particularly its curators Widman and Hald. Hailed as the first ever SSF exhibition of crafts, it was the subject of a highly public debate in which it was criticised for not being representative of crafts, but rather a rehash of the exclusive objects focus of 1950s SSF exhibitions. It featured a wide range of work that was current, but also included 1950s Orrefors designs such as Ingeborg Lundin’s iconic Äpplet, an ongoing symbol of all that was considered problematic with 1950s Scandinavian Design.221 The discourse of the exhibition was exclusively driven by the SSF, the Swedish catalogue contains an essay by Hård af Segerstad, the committee included Ake Huldt, Gotthard Johansson, Sven-Erik Skawonius and Åke Stavenow and exhibition leader Dag Widman was also on the jury. The emphasis of the exhibition, according to Zandra Ahl & Päivi Ernkvist, was “to show off ‘free’ creativity in the design field”222 but it was accused of doing quite the opposite. The outcome of the controversy surrounding the exhibition was manifest in widespread debates about ‘good taste’ and the role of the SSF in educating in such matters.

In 1966, a new Dag Widman-authored instalment in the Swedish Institute’s occasional English language series on Swedish design, Swedish Design223, began by asserting the emergence of a “modern international industrial style”224 before specifically discussing Swedish and Scandinavian Design in terms of purity, simplicity, utility, tradition and good taste. In his text, Widman attempted to identify what was intrinsically “Swedish” in Swedish design, before settling on what he considered were the blurred boundaries between handicrafts and industrial design and the flexibility of the artist-craftsmen and the industrial designer - who, in Sweden, “are often contained in the same person.”225 Widman backgrounds the development of Swedish design, reinforcing the preeminence of Hald, Gate and Kåge as the life-long exemplars of Swedish art industry. In the section “Swedish Design Today - Character and Tendencies” he attempted to distance Sweden from Scandinavian Design by virtue of a higher standard of everyday articles for the home, when compared to the other Scandinavian countries, suggesting that “taste is evident in Swedish production.”226 Widman cited a tendency for critical observers

ccb
S%&0
40
"51/"*")6
!&A 2)1
1,
-/,!2 "
4&1%
1%"&/
1%&+
4))0
+!

/,2+!
--)"
0%-"M
1
1%"
1,-
1%"/"
40

01)(
4&1%

%,)"J
4%& %
*"+1
1%1
--)"
,2)!
"
20"!
0

30"M
21
#"4
4,2)!
%3"
-,2/"!
41"/
&+
&1J
1%"+
&1
40
&*-,00& )"
1,
40%M
%"
30"
40
+
,/+*"+1)
, '" 1
!&0$2&0"!
0
+

"3"/6!6
&1"*M
1
40
&+
/" 1&,+
1,
1%"0"
"01%"1&
+!
#2+ 1&,+)
01+!/!0
+!
,+3"+1&,+0
1%1
[/1&010\
/" "))"!
&+
1%"
bjfa0
N
+!
^ga0MT
"51/ 1
#/,*
&))
,  %J
^,/*"+0
/&$=/")0"
),$
^J
l%11-LUU#,/*"+0#/&$,/")0"M ),$0-,1M ,*UmJ
 "00"!
bh
"-1"* "/
cabaM
ccc
/+(3&01J
^ +!0
,+
,3"*"+1
N
/#1"!
,/*
&+
&),$2"^M
-M
gM ccd
&!*+J
4"!&0%
!"0&$+M cce
&!M
-M
bM ccf
&!M
-M
cM ccg
&!M
-M
jM 141 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

to use the word “unexciting”227 when referring to Swedish design. Widman’s Swedish Design was contemporaneous with the debates surrounding the Form fantasi exhibition where “unexciting” was amongst the criticisms directed at Widman, Hald and the SSF in reference to their selection of objects for the exhibition. Widman concluded by noting two parallel trends evident in 1960s Swedish design, “rationalisation and objectivity”228 and “experimentation, freedom and imagination.”229 “Rationalism and objectivity” may be seen to correlate with the ‘unexciting, pared down, good taste’ paradigm whilst “experimentation, freedom and imagination” suggests the revolutionary Swedish crafts he and the SSF were accused of omitting from Form fantasi.

J@O
 1
#, .#)(-
),
."


In 1986 The Lunning Prize, which remains less well-known outside of the Nordic countries, was the subject of an exhibition reviewing its significance that toured the Nordic countries. In the exhibition publication are a series of essays charting the birth of the award and assessing its significance. Art historian Helena Dahlbäck Lutteman raised the idea of “star worship”230 in association with the award, a term that sits uncomfortably in the context of perceptions of equality in the Nordic countries. Held in Scandinavia as being as important as the Design in Scandinavia touring exhibition to the profile of Scandinavian design, The Lunning Prize emphasised the achievements of the individual, whilst Design in Scandinavia emphasised the collective. Åke Huldt, former Director of the SSF and Director-General of Design in Scandinavia, contributed an essay charting Nordic collaboration after World War II where he commented on the promotional activities of the SSF and its equivalents in the neighbouring Nordic countries. Huldt stated that:

It may seem that the Nordic art industry organisations did little in the 1950s except promote Nordic collaboration. That is not so. Nordic collaboration was never the only or even chief item in these organisations’ activities. They each had their particular problems to tackle, their own aspect of culture to encourage and their own system for information and education to administer.231

Given this disclosure of priority, the promotion of Nordic collaboration appears to have been even more effective. Authors associated with the SSF continued to contribute and produce

cch
&!M
-M
jM cci
&!M
-M
bbM ccj
&!M
-M
bbM cda
")"+
%) 8 (
211"*+J
/&++"
$$)J
+!
1&,+)*20"2*J
%"
2++&+$
-/&7"
J
1&,+)*20"2*H
1, (%,)*H
\dca
Y1&,+)*20"&
21018))+&+$0(1),$JK
1, (%,)*L
1&,+)*20"2*J
bjigZM

cdb
&!M
-M
chM 142 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

English texts related to Swedish and Scandinavian Design up until 2006. Ulf Hård af Segerstad, Dag Widman and Arthur Hald for the most part carried on the message and ideologies of the SSF, albeit with more critique and distance than previously.

In 1999 Kerstin Wickman, commenting on the development, and decline, of decorative arts and design criticism in Sweden during the 1950s and 60s, focussed on the circle of 1950s writers and their shared education. Wickman observed that:

Things were different in the dailies of the 1950s, for critics of decorative art and design had a much stronger position on the newspapers they wrote for and in public debate about the arts. ... At the end of the 1950s, a generation of writers left the scene. Only a few remained, and, in time, they became fewer. Ulf Hård af Segerstad, who wrote in Form, a quarterly, and SvD [Svenska Dagbladet], was an exception. Many of them had in common an education by Gregor Paulsson (1899-1977), either informally in the circle around the Swedish Society of Crafts and Design [SSF] and its periodical, Form, while he was a director (1920-33) or chairman (1943-50), or formally, from him as professor (1934-56) in the history of art at Uppsala University. They had been confronted with and sharpened against his theses on function and quality in form and material, and attended seminars or worked on the major “Swedish Town” project that constantly illuminated social contexts.232

The distance from the 1950s Golden Era, and the passing of Gregor Paulsson, may be seen to have freed some of these identities in their views, opinions and criticism.

In 1987, an Arthur Hald essay included in the German language exhibition publication Svenskt Glas 1915-1960 rather quietly acknowledged the interdependency of the SSF and Orrefors. Whilst published in German only, the essay is significant given the distance from the Golden Era and the scarce writings from Hald during the period. In his essay, Why did Orrefors become Orrefors? (Warum wurde Orrefors Orrefors?) Hald contributes a candid text that also relates to some of the research questions presented in this thesis. Here Hald sums up what he described as “the symbiosis between the Slöjdföreningen and Orrefors”233. Discussing the various SSF exhibitions featuring Orrefors, Hald concluded that:

Most of these exhibitions were initiated and organised by the Slöjdföreningen. There were direct links between the [Orrefors] factory and the association [SSF]. [Edward] Hald was a member since 1918, participated in program meetings and conferences and was for a time vice-chairman. There was a strong personal friendship between Hald and the heads of the

cdc
& (*+J
^"0&$+N
, %
(,+01%+13"/(0(/&1&("+0
!&)"**
Y"0&$+
+!
!" ,/1&3"
/10
/&1& 0
!&)"**Z^M
-M
bhjM cdd
/1%2/
)!J
^/2*
42/!"
//"#,/0
//"#,/0P
Y%6
!&!
//"#,/0
" ,*"
//"#,/0PZ^J
&+
")*21
& ("
+!
)/& %
/,+"/1
Y"!MZJ
)0
&+
 %4"!"+
\d\`
L
\da[
Y2+& %L
/"01")N"/)$J
bjigZM
-M
ciM 143 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

association, Erik Wettergren, Gregor Paulsson, Gotthard Johansson. All appeared as well as critics in the press. Orrefors for the SSF was a classic example, demonstrating the successes that could be achieved if the industry was counting on talented artists.

It is natural to call these associations cliques or Mafia. However, at the same time one can observe that the harshest criticism in the journal of the Association was to be found in the work of Hald and Gate and all parties were very concerned about integrity. The connecting link was in the ideological values and work for good form and quality.234

The exhibition was followed by a Swedish version a year later at Nationalmuseum Stockholm with a scaled down catalogue in Swedish, that included some material from the German publication. Hald’s essay was not amongst the included text and given the candid nature of his comments, was perhaps considered inappropriate for the Swedish market. Hald freely used the terms “cliques” and “Mafia” when referring to the Orrefors/SSF interdependency, which sit uncomfortably in his essay but are clear markers of a sub-text that is pertinent in the context of the assertions of this research.

Hård af Segerstad further contributes to the discussion of 1950s Scandinavian Design in his essay on the Finnish designer Kaj Franck, included in the 1992 publication Kaj Franck: muotoilija, formgivare, designer235. Here, in setting the scene for the individuality of Franck in the Finnish milieu, Hård af Segerstad emphasised the differences in the design philosophies of Sweden and Finland, concluding that Finland had much more in common with 1950s Italian elitism than with what he identified as the conformist approach of Sweden.236

For a visitor from Sweden [to Helsinki in 1955], with its friendly, tiny patterned more beautiful things for everyday use, and its ideal of unpretentious domestic comfort, the reserved, exclusive individualism of Finland appeared almost shockingly obvious… Certainly, Scandinavian Design at that time was characterised by an obvious kinship, but at the same time the different countries had their own traits… the Swedes also used the cde
&!M
M
ciM
+
bjig
")*21
& ("
&+&1&1"!
1%"
"5%& &1&,+
)0
&+
 %4"!"+
\d\`L\da[
&+
200")!,/#M
+
bjihJ
1%"
"5%& &1&,+
40
0%,4+
&+
2/& %
4%&)01

-/))")
"5%& &1&,+
3"+0(1
$)0
\d\`L\da[
40
)0,
0%,4+
1
1%"
1&,+)*20"2*
1, (%,)*M
,/
1%"
1, (%,)*
"5%& &1&,+J

4"!&0%
)+$2$"
1),$2"
40
-2 )&0%"!
4%& %
&+ )2!"0
,+1"+1
#/,*
& ("R0
bjig
-2 )& 1&,+
4&1%
1%"
+,1 )"
"5 "-1&,+
,#
/1%2/
)!R0
%6
!&!
//"#,/0
" ,*"
//"#,/0M
""L
")"+
%) 8 (
211"*+J
$+20
"/00,+J
+!
1&,+)*20"2*J
3"+0(1
$)0
\d\`L\da[
J
1&,+)*20"2*
1, (%,)*
]^KdL\`K\\
\dcb
Y1&,+)*20"&
21018))+&+$0(1),$J
fabK
1, (%,)*L
1&,+)*20"2*J
bjihZ
M cdf
'
/+ (J
'
)&+J
+!
& %")
6++"N))&0J
'
/+ (
J
*2,1,&)&'H
#,/*$&3/"H
!"0&$+"/
Y,/3,,L
=!"/01/=*J
bjjcZM cdg
%&0
%0
)0,
""+
, 0"/3"!
6
//&
)%
&+
%&0
1"510
,+
,)!"+
/
&++&0%
!"0&$+M
""
//&
)%J
&,+""/0
L
&!")0
+!
1%"&/
--)& 1&,+
J
012!&,
-,11"/6
&+
&+)+!
YbjjcZJ
)%J
^%"
1%"/
,!"/+&0*L
&++&0%
"0&$+
+!
1&,+)
!"+1&16^J
)%J
'
/+ (
B
&)1
J
$"+!"/&+$
1%"
T"01%U"1%& 0
,#
*,!"/+&0*J
)%J
^61%0
+!
601"/&"0
,#
&++&0%
"0&$+L
"!&+$
_&/(()_
+!
1%"
1&,+)
12/"
/!&$*^J
)%J
^_%"
&/ )"
,#
&)+_L
&+)+!
1
1%"
bjfb
/&"++)"^M 144 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

industrial arts as an instrument, albeit with a different, more conformist, motive than the elitism of Finland.237

Hård af Segerstad, who maintained a life-long interest in Finnish design, made a radical shift in emphasis where the transformation from Swedish everyday objects to exclusivity and elitism in Finland juxtaposed the previously unified, harmonious Scandinavian Design construct discussed in his earlier writings. This emphasis is also evident in Peter Anker’s essay in Scandinavian Modern Design 1880 – 1980 238. The shift in Hård af Segerstad’s commentary is subtle but demonstrates a certain distance from his previous writings, discussed in Chapter Three of this thesis and the emergence of a more critical analysis of the individual contributions of the Nordic countries.

In his essay on Kaj Franck, Hård af Segerstad also identified the harnessing of the media by the Finns as an important vehicle for international awareness.239 He proposed that the Norwegian architect Odd Brochmann’s Ugly and Beautiful240, Gregor Paulsson’s Vackrare vardagsvara241 and his own Tingen och vi (Things and us)242, led the Nordic dialogue on what constitutes ‘good’ design. This, Hård af Segerstad’s last English language essay, is more critical and contrasts greatly with his previous writings, particularly for the SSF-associated publications. It should be seen a precursor for much of the re-evaluation of 1950s Scandinavian Design that has followed. His scathing, Swedish language criticism of Nordform90, a joint Nordic design exhibition held in Malmö in 1990243 that he described as “a wobbly walk between the dimly-lit scenes, utilities

cdh
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
^4,
" !"0
/,2+!
'
/+ (^M
--M
biNbjM cdi
"1"/
+("/J
^&!N "+12/6L
"/0
,#
+1"/+1&,+)
/&2*-%^J
&+
3&!
"3"/"
 #!!"+
Y"!MZJ
 +!&+3&+
*,!"/+
!"0&$+H
\cc[L\dc[
Y"4
,/(L
//6

 /*0
+
2 )&0%"/0J
bjicZM cdj
&++&0%
!"0&$+"/
-&,
&/(()
40
-/1& 2)/)6
$,,!
1
21&)&0&+$
1%"
*"!&
1,
00&01
&+
1%"
2&)!&+$
,#
*61%0
/,2+!
%&0
4,/(J
0
, 0"/3"!
6
&!/
);+L
S "
4"+1
2-
1,
-)+!
+!
01
&+
1%"
*,2+1&+0
!/4&+$
-& 12/"0
,#
1%"
--0M
"
0&!
1%1
%"
B"!
#/,*
',2/+)&010J
21
&+
# 1J
1%"/"
4"/"

,2-)"
,#
3"/6
&*-,/1+1
*$7&+"0
1%1
*+$"!
1,
$"1
2-
1%"/"
+!
,+!2 1
&+1"/3&"40
4&1%
%&*M
,
%"
!"@+&1")6
%!

,++" 1&,+
1,
1%"
,210&!"
4,/)!
0
4"))
0
+12/"MT
.2,1"!
&+
")0,+
+!
 /J
"4
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+M

cdgM cea
!!
/, %*++J
+
,(
,*
016$1
,$
-"+1
J
0,*
%+!)"/
,*
1&+$"+"0
#,/*H
3"0"+
,$
&++%,)!H
,$
,*
!"1
&++1/6((
!"
$'=/
-9
,00
YcM
,-)M
"!+MK
0),L
--")"+J
bjfdZM ceb
2)00,+J
 (//"
3/!$03/M cec
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
&+$"+
, %
3&M ced
_,/!,/*ja
40

)/$"N0 )"
"5%& &1&,+
,#
/10
+!
/#10J
&+!201/&)
!"0&$+
+!
/ %&1" 12/"J
//+$"!
&+
)*=J
4"!"+J
&+
1%"
02**"/
,#
bjjaM
,/!,/*ja
40
)0,J
)&("
,1%"/
*"*,/ )"
"5%& &1&,+0J

*""1&+$N-) "
+!

0%,4 0"
#,/
1%"
&!")0
+!
*,,!0
,#
&10
"/J
,#
1%"
0-&/&1
,#
1%"
1&*"0M
,/!,/*ja
40
-/,!2 "!
6
1%"
&16
,#
)*,J
%"
4"!&0%
, &"16
,#
/#10
C
"0&$+J
+!
,/*U"0&$+
"+1"/
,#
)*,M_
"51/ 1
#/,*
1%"
 (
,3"/
,#
&+ 
"6*,40(
++&(
"&'("+0(',)!J
%,*0
")).2&01J
,/!,/*d[
Y)*=L
&("+J
bjjcZM

145 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

and contrived chair types”244, also saw a new objectivity in his writing.245 From shaping the construct in the 1950s and 60s to deconstructing it in the 1980s and 90s, it may be argued that by this time Hård af Segerstad no longer felt compelled to restate the official rhetoric of the 1950s.

Dag Widman has contributed essays to a number of publications in which Orrefors is preeminent.246 In 1994, Widman contributed the text to a commemorative booklet issued with a set of Swedish postage stamps celebrating twentieth century Swedish design. A total of six stamps made up the issue, featuring what Widman referred to as “some of the finest examples of Swedish handicraft and industrial design”247 in the work of nine Swedish designers. There were no new insights presented in Widman’s text, apart from his use of the peculiar term “the blonde tradition” and his statement that “the war cut the lines of communication and influence from abroad, and led to an increased focus on local history and Swedish values.”248 Whilst Swedish design of the 1940s can, and has, been shown to have imported influences from developments outside of Sweden, it is the tendency to downplay or exclude international influences, as evidenced in Widman’s text, that is of significance. Orrefors is represented on one of the stamps in the work of Edward Hald, the only glass factory to be featured. Widman stated that:

[...] the democratic cry for good quality everyday objects, the work of the designers, the blonde tradition and the special feeling for materials - went into creating a characteristic Swedish attitude to interior design and the crafting of objects that truly came into its own during the first half of the twentieth century.249

The term “blonde tradition” sits uncomfortably in the English text and has no explanation. The featured designers were Gunnar G:son Wennerberg, artist with Gustavsberg; Carl Malmsten, furniture designer; Uno Åhren, architect (wallpaper); Edward Hald, Orrefors; Josef Frank, architect with Svensk Tenn; Stig Lindberg, artist with Gustavsberg; Sigurd Persson, silversmith, designer and sculptor, and Astrid Sampe, textile artist. The booklet includes further illustrations of famous examples of Swedish design, not included on the stamps, including Bruno Mathsson,

cee
)#
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
^,/!,/*jaK
01,)#"1& %&0*K
$/,11,/,*+1&(M
Y %&/
#"1&0%&0*K
3"
/,*+ "Z^J
3"+0(
$ )!"1H
bj
2+"
bjjaM cef
""
)0,
&!/
)"+R0
!&0 200&,+
&+
%&0
&+1/,!2 1,/6
"006
&+
);+
+!
& (*+
Y"!0MZJ
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
"6,+!
1%"
*61%
J
@#16
6"/0
,#
!"0&$+
#/,*
1%"
,/!&
,2+1/&"0M
-M
baM ceg
""
& (*+
+!
&!*+J
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$J
&!*+J
^%"
,01
/1&010
N

%-0,!&
"3&"4
,#
1%"
4"+1&"1%
"+12/6^J
&!*+
+!
/+(0J
3"+0(1
$)0
\d[[L\da[
J
][
(,+01+8/"/H
][
3"/(
e
4"!&0%
$)00
\d[[L\da[
J
][
/1&010H
][
4,/(0M ceh
&!*+
"1
)MJ
3"+0(
#,/*
2+!"/
"11
%)31
0"(")
J
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
!2/&+$
%)#

"+12/6M cei
&!M cej
&!M 146 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

Wilhelm Kåge, Gunnar Asplund, the Hasselblad camera, the Erikphone and eight glass designs from Orrefors, two by Gate, three by Hald, two by Palmqvist and Lundin’s iconic Äpplet of 1957.


$ "(
,01"+
4"!&0%
"0&$+
0"/&"0
01*-0
#/,*
bjjeM

Widman’s last English language essay forms the lead chapter in Bruno Mathsson: Architect and Designer250, a book accompanying a 2006 exhibition originating from the Bard Graduate Centre. The intention of the exhibition was to broaden perceptions of Mathsson as an architect, an area of his practice largely overlooked in favour of his role as furniture designer - a reframing or re-assessment of sorts, where Widman cited Mathsson as “the premier symbol of Swedish design.”251 Widman’s essay charts the life and career of Mathsson as a furniture designer and, in the introductory paragraphs, he provides insights into the importance of relationships and the role of the SSF in promoting individuals who complemented its ideologies. In his essay, Widman explained his first meeting with Mathsson in 1949 as a brief from Arthur Hald to interview Mathsson about his recent trip to America for Form magazine. Widman further explained that Hald had studied under Gregor Paulsson, first director of the SSF, at Uppsala University and that “Mathsson’s furniture was well represented in Paulsson’s home in Uppsala.”252 Widman summarises:

Mathsson’s furniture represented everything that the [SSF] was striving for [;] a clearly modern concept, distinct from the prototypes of the past, furniture design that put function foremost, both experimentally and in practice, using lightweight materials that were also inexpensive. Through his early contacts with the [SSF], Mathsson was in a good position to achieve success right from the beginning of his career. His work was included in most of the society’s exhibitions, both in Sweden and abroad.253

cfa
&7
,$!)
Y"!MZJ
/2+,
1%00,+
/ %&1" 1
+!
"0&$+"/
Y)*=L
/"+
&+
00, &1&,+
4&1%
1%"
/!
/!21"
"+1"/
#,/
12!&"0
&+
1%"
" ,/1&3"
/10
"0&$+
+!
2)12/"
"4
,/(
+!
)"
+&3"/0&16
/"00
"4
3"+
+!
,+!,+J
caagZM cfb
$
&!*+J
^/2+,
1%00,+
1%"
2/+&12/"
"0&$+"/^J
&+
&7
,$!)
Y"!MZJ
/2+,
1%00,+
/ %&1" 1
+!
"0&$+"/
Y)*=L
/"+
&+
00, &1&,+
4&1%
1%"
/!
/!21"
"+1"/
#,/
12!&"0
&+
1%"
" ,/1&3"
/10
"0&$+
+!
2)12/"
"4
,/(
+!
)"
+&3"/0&16
/"00
"4
3"+
+!
,+!,+J
caagZM
-M
jM cfc
&!M
-M
jM cfd
&!M
-M
jM 147 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

This essay from Widman represents the last of the legacy of the SSF network in print. Widman’s straightforward, candid and sometimes one-eyed opinion did, during the 1990s, reveal his prejudices and preferences. In Widman’s text on Mathsson, one finds further evidence of the idea of interdependency first put forward in Arthur Hald’s 1986 text Why did Orrefors become Orrefors?254 Widman’s commentary and criticism, whilst opinionated and personal, is straightforward and clear, regardless of context.

J@P
"
E#(F0#-#&
)(- +/ ( -

The actor-network associated with Orrefors and the SSF, active in Sweden in the 1950s, selected and arranged the ‘more beautiful everyday things’ that dictated to a large extent how we view design from the region today. These ‘things’, the objects included in official exhibitions, commentary and promotion, speak a common language of simplicity of form, however their language must be consequently seen as merely a dialect of a more complex, nuanced and pluralist language that speaks of individualism, contrast, complexity and contradiction.

The consequences of the preeminence of exemplars of the Swedish Artist in Industry paradigm, rhetoric on Swedish design, the construct of Design in Scandinavia - and, subsequently Scandinavian Design - have been multifaceted and unquestionably profound. The Scandinavian Design construct was a great commercial success for the Nordic countries. Placing the exhibition in art museums gave the objects distinction and credibility imbued with status of art, having them simultaneously available in retail stores satisfied the economic thrust. Moreover, not only has the propaganda promoting the unified aesthetic been continuously restated and promulgated by many subsequent authors but, as we have seen in the survey in Chapter Two of this thesis, it still persists some fifty years later. The much-referenced ‘bibles’255 of Scandinavian Design cover common ground, promoting the unified aesthetic of the four countries and compounding this understanding of a unified aesthetic.

The exhibition Design in Scandinavia promoted a harmonious, unified, regionally-influenced aesthetic. As such, anything that was outside of this idea didn’t fit. Work that was included may be seen in retrospect as a stylistic and selective version of 1950s Scandinavian design, curated to conform to the criteria of the organisers’ desire to present a unified aesthetic. Work that was too loud, too big, or lacking ‘Scandinavian-ness’ was excluded. As a result of the Scandinavian Design paradigm, subsequent literature has been formative in espousing a particular cfe
)!J
^/2*
42/!"
//"#,/0
//"#,/0P
Y%6
!&!
//"#,/0
" ,*"
//"#,/0PZ^M cff
0
-/,-,0"!
6
//&
)%M
""
Q1%"
& )"0RL
,%+00,+J
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
J
+
"5%& &1&,+
,#
, '" 10
#,/
1%"
%,*"
#/,*
"+*/(H
&+)+!H
,/46H
4"!"+M
+!
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
7"J
+!
7"J
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+M 148 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

representation of how work should appear in order to warrant inclusion in a Scandinavian Design typology. Nationalism and regionalism were central to the Scandinavian Design construct, whilst a less-prescribed, more ‘international’ approach was anathema, counter to the prevailing ideal. As a political entity with a designed outcome, an apparently logical consequence of this pervasive notion of Scandinavian Design was that those who were outside the overtly Scandinavian paradigm were not promoted, thus were poorly recognised. Those artists and designers who were not the “ideal” Swedes or Scandinavians - those who drew on more international influences than their country’s traditions, landscape and climate to inform their work - inhabited the periphery of canonical Swedish and Scandinavian design.

J@HG
)(&/-#)(-

The promotion of Orrefors by the SSF as an exemplar of its ideology was constant throughout the twentieth century and is, on many levels, entirely justified. However, it should be remembered just how this commentary and promotion was constructed. The SSF sought to promote an ideology of well designed everyday goods, reiterating the rhetoric of Gregor Paulsson’s Vackrare vardagsvara, which became the manifesto of the Society. Orrefors was the most visible and successful of the early pioneers of this ideology.

Through a combination of artistic endeavour, promotion and astute management, Orrefors achieved an unprecedented international profile for Swedish design during the early stages of the pursuit of ideals expressed and promoted by Paulsson and the SSF. These initial successes for Orrefors, coupled with promotion as an exemplar by the SSF, led to its ongoing preeminence. The Hald family were intrinsically linked to both the SSF and Orrefors and, as authors of discourse, they later reiterated and extended the preeminence of the factory. The aggregation of individuals associated with the SSF (including significant players in cultural activity in Sweden) and their role in English language commentary further acted to reinforce earlier promotion and cannot be understated.

The promotion of Orrefors as an exemplar of the ideologies of the SSF, and in turn Swedish design, was reinforced in several significant publications that were widely available both in Sweden and abroad. The timing of commentary, publications and significant exhibitions such as Design in Scandinavia added further to extend Orrefors’ preeminence and to moderate what audiences both within and outside Sweden and Scandinavia understood and viewed. For an artist associated with Orrefors, this might be seen as a guaranteed formula for success. For an

149 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

artist previously associated with Orrefors, however, this would prove to be problematic, particularly in the case of Vicke Lindstrand. As Helmet Ricke has observed:

Despite the different personalities of its creative artists, Orrefors spoke, to a certain extent, with one voice and took its place at exhibitions as the representative of Swedish glass.256

According to Segerstad, Sweden, by the late 1950s, had become a society of experts. Swedes had become more reliant on science as a means of rationalising society through research and study, which became the basis for social reforms.257 Segersted has observed how “this new regime clearly acquired paternalistic features - the experts knew best. Reformist technocracy had come into a tense relationship with the democratic motive.”258 The SSF were amongst these professional experts and, in promoting exemplars in their discourses, their expert opinion contributed to the preeminence of particular individuals and of factories such as Orrefors.

The legacy of this collision of individuals and events is two-fold. The profile and perception of Orrefors is well established and still maintains strength today, largely due to the efforts of the artists and designers, assisted by the actor-network centred around the Halds, the SSF, Orrefors and their associated commentators, journalists, curators, objects and discourse. Whilst the SSF may be seen to have been promoting an ideology that was centred on collective and democratic ideals, it emphasised certain individuals.

Considering the position of these texts and actors, along with the objects promoted or included in discourses, as actants in the definition ascribed by Actor-Network-Theory, one can conclude the following: that these actants worked together as a network that acted, or enacted, a persuasive narrative, or rhetoric, that contained knowledge, or a series of ‘truths’ about design from the Nordic region, and knowledge about who we should understand as exemplary.

The Scandinavian Design construct was a shared responsibly of the individual Nordic countries. It downplayed the individual in favour of presenting a convincing, unified aesthetic. Significantly it was Sweden and the SSF, as prominent promotors, authors and vocal commentators, that were largely responsible for the rhetoric found in discourses on the Scandinavian Design construct. Discourses on Scandinavian Design extended earlier rhetoric on

cfg
")*"1
& ("J
^
14,N46
01/""1L
//"#,/0^
!&),$2"
4&1%
2/-,"
bjbfNea^J
&+
"/01&+
& (*+
Y"!MZJ
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$
Y1, (%,)*L
6$$#=/)$"1
2)12/J
bjjiZM
-M
bgiM cfh
"'"/01"!
+!
!*0J
%"
$"
,#
0, &)
!"*, / 6
J
,/46
+!
4"!"+
&+
1%"
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6M
-M
cbbM cfi
&!M
-M
cbcM 150 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

Swedish design with far-reaching consequences in how the world has perceived design from the Nordic region, acting as a frame of reference for future commentators.

This became problematic for both younger and older designers in the late 1950s which prompted a shift in pursuit of a new design ideology that questioned all that was considered problematic with Scandinavian Design. Even the Americans, previous advocates of Swedish and Scandinavian Design, began to question the homogenous aesthetic and in December 1957 Conrad Brown, editor of Craft Horizons, had this to say about the Swedish exhibit at the Milan Triennale:

Sweden: Table containers of steel and of glass - and nothing else. Mostly classic examples of what the rest of the world - and plenty of Scandinavians - find slick and sterile in Swedish design.259


$ ")
4"!&0%
"5%& &1J
&)+
/&"++)"
bjfhM
S,01)6
)00&
"5*-)"0
,#
4%1
1%"
/"01
,#
1%"
4,/)!
N
+!
-)"+16
,#
 +!&+3&+0
N
#&+!
0)& (
+!
01"/&)"
&+
4"!&0%
!"0&$+MT
*$"J
3"+0(
,/*
/(&3K

Sweden’s steel and glass themed exhibit at the 1957 Milan Triennale may be seen as their final stand in the pursuit of a functionalist aesthetic. On reflection, Sweden claimed ownership of the Design in Scandinavia aesthetic at the Triennale, with a familiar display that even adopted the Danish-designed exhibition system developed specifically for the earlier traveling exhibition (Figure 2.18). This may be seen as an appropriate endnote that emphasises Sweden’s dominant

cfj
/,4+J
^
 )"
#/,*
1%"
/&"++)"^M
-M
bcM 151 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

role in the construction of the unified aesthetic, which Widman later observed as “in good taste, but unexciting”.260

The early success and preeminence of Orrefors worked to promote a hierarchy in the way glass factories and individuals were regarded in commentary on Swedish design. The Scandinavian Design construct promoted a national/regional emphasis and harmonious aesthetic within which some artists and their work “failed to look well together.” As such the visibility of individuals, particularly Vicke Lindstrand, became clouded in issues of preeminence, perceived hierarchies, associations, place in time and non-representative aesthetics.

In order to interrogate and test the conclusions found here, the experience of Vicke Lindstrand will be examined to further tease out the consequences of the discourses identified and considered in this chapter. Lindstrand’s career spanned the breadth of the collision of events and individuals described in Chapter Three. His artistic reception may be seen to have been impacted by his earlier association with Orrefors, whilst he remained peripheral to activities of the SSF and the actor-network identified above. Lindstrand is positioned as an exemplar of these symptoms in Part Two of this thesis.

cga
&!*+J
4"!&0%
!"0&$+M
-M
jM 152 %-1"/
%/""
V
%"
/""*&+"+ "
,#
//"#,/0
+!
1%"
/,*,1&,+
,#
bjfa0
4"!&0%
+!
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+

153 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

154 /1
4,
N
%"
Y&+Z3&0& )"
,+0".2"+ "0

  
  





























%"
Y&+Z3&0& )"
,+0".2"+ "0

155 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% "
& ("
&+!01/+!M
("1 %M
1"
bjga0M
*$"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

156 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

 


,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

“[...] the time has come to draw attention to the designers who seem to fall outside the simpler concept of functionalism, modernism and the Scandinavian design idiom.” 1

Mirjam Gelfer-Jørgensen

b
")#"/N >/$"+0"+J
^ +!&+3&+&0*
N

2)12/)
/+!^M 157 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

158 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

K@G
(.,)/.#)(

The pure and simple line [...] On the other side of the line, outside and beyond, is the different, the inferior, the repudiated, the disapproved and condemned, the unmodern, the irrational, the unenlightened.2

Geographer Allan Pred’s interpretation of the new functionalist aesthetic that had its ‘spectacular’ debut at the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition incorporates his metaphor for Swedish functionalism - the pure and simple line. Pred’s analysis of the exhibition as a defining line between traditional and modern in Sweden also incorporates the idea of an inclusive and exclusive, primary and peripheral defining line, as evidenced in the brief quotation above. The Swedish artist and designer Viktor Emmanuel (Vicke) Lindstrand (1904-1983) had his own, ‘less spectacular’ debut at the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition with glass designs for Orrefors and over that decade, maintained a position that was on the inside of Pred’s metaphorical, pure and simple line. Later, Lindstrand inhabited what can be described as a peripheral position in Swedish and Scandinavian modern design, straddling Pred’s pure and simple line, before ultimately falling outside and beyond the other side of that line. This chapter, therefore, positions Lindstrand as a case study with the principal aim of addressing his reception, interrogating the inconsistencies and contradictions identified in the previous chapter and presenting an explanation for his peripheral status.

With the current level of international interest in mid-twentieth century decorative arts, it is not surprising to find Vicke Lindstrand’s work is now popular with museums and collectors. Vicke Lindstrand is a recognised name in the field of decorative arts and it seems reasonable to expect him to be well documented in the history of Swedish and Scandinavian design. Whilst he does feature in a many texts, most of what is written about Lindstrand, particularly in English, is framed within the lauded Artist in Industry model that is Orrefors, his apprenticeship under Simon Gate and Edward Hald, Swedish Grace and the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition. What is surprising is the scarcity of scholarly discussion of his post 1950s work which remains sparsely documented and largely unknown. At times he is associated with Orrefors, at other times he is purposefully omitted from discussion. The fact that he had a continuing career after Orrefors has at times been forgotten and at other times blatantly dismissed.

c
/"!J
" ,$+&7&+$
2/,-"+
*,!"/+&1&"0
J

*,+1$"
,#
1%"
-/"0"+1M
-M
jjM 159 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Why Lindstrand? As identified at the close of the preceding chapter, the choice of an individual to interrogate and test the conclusions would be an exemplar whose career spanned the activities and significant events in twentieth-century Swedish and Scandinavian design. Lindstrand represents this exemplar who remained peripheral to the activities and individuals of the SSF network but whose reception was impacted by their activities. His long career began in 1928 as the Artist in Industry endeavours of the SSF reached its successful realisation in Sweden at Orrefors Glasbruk and contributed to the further development of the Swedish glass industry. Lindstrand was active as an artist in industry from 1928 until his death in 1983. Between 1928 - 1940 he was engaged at Orrefors glassworks. Orrefors was the subject of much promotion and became the preeminent exemplar of the SSF. During this period he participated in important events including the Stockholm Exhibition of 1930, the Paris Exposition of 1937 and the New York World’s Fair of 1939, milestones in the development and international reception of twentieth century Swedish design and from a Swedish perspective, the efforts of the SSF. From 1942 - 1950 he continued in industry as artistic director of ceramics producer Upsala-Ekeby whilst simultaneously designing for the textile industry and producing book illustrations. From 1950 - 1973 he was artistic director of Kosta glassworks, a period which parallels the so-called Golden Era3 of regionally focussed Scandinavian Design. During this Golden Era Lindstrand participated in seminal events and exhibitions, including the 1950s Milan Trienniales, Design in Scandinavia and H55, that defined Swedish and Scandinavian modern design on the world stage. His late career parallels the subsequent Scandinavian crafts debates ofthe 1960s. Concurrently, Lindstrand engaged in designing large scale public sculptures, making his creative range arguably the broadest of any Swedish artist/designer of the twentieth century. In addition to his artistic contributions at Kosta, he also demonstrated highly developed skills as a manager, keeping all areas of the glassworks busy by predicting and responding to market trends and adapting his design solutions to suit.

Misinformation is abundant in many key reports on Lindstrand. This research provides evidence to support an argument that this can be traced back to the activities of the SSF network, associated commentary and of preeminent exemplars identified in the preceding chapter. Lindstrand, it can be argued, fits within Mirjam Gelfer-Jørgensen’s call “to draw attention to the designers who seem to fall outside the simpler concept of functionalism,

d
&/01
-/,-,0"!
6
//&
)%
&+
%&0
!, 1,/)
!&00"/11&,+
&+
bjjhJ
1%"
bjfa0
/"
+,4
4&!")6
%")!
0
1%"
,)!"+
"/
,#
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+
!2"
)/$")6
1,
1%"
&+1"/+1&,+)
02 "00
,#
1%"
,/!&
,2+1/&"0
&+
-/,*,1&+$
1%"&/
--)&"!
/10M
""L

)%J
2,1,-2,)"+
*"/"++"&!,+
-2),&00
J
2,*"+
1&!"1",))&022!"+
(2)1(20&J
*&")&(231H
*/((&+,&+1&H
!&0(2/00&1
T +
1%"
,&)0
,#
+
06**"1/& )
"/*&!J
%"
,)!"+
$"
,#
&++&0%
"0&$+J
*$"H
/("1&+$H
&0 ,2/0"U
4&1%
+$)&0%
02**/6M 160 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

modernism and the Scandinavian design idiom”4 as he did not strictly conform to the simpler concept of functionalism, modernism, or the Scandinavian Design idiom. An analysis of his work reveals pluralistic tendencies and international influences that were, at the time of their creation, not consistent with the prevailing aesthetic concerns in Sweden and Scandinavia. To be known as a Swedish designer during the 1950s necessitated subscribing to the Swedish version of Functionalism or Funkis as it was known locally. As Pred5 has observed, there was a defining line in Sweden and those on the outside of the line were peripheral to what was promoted as mainstream Swedish design. Jørgensen’s call to draw attention to such ‘peripheral’ designers has resonance in the case of Lindstrand. In this chapter it is worthwhile to travel through aspects of his later career, particularly his years at Orrefors rival Kosta, to identify and understand the nature and prevalence of oversights and misinformation. There is a great deal to be gained by examining his achievements and revisiting the period c1945-1970. By doing this one is able to see the omissions and errors more clearly. Without this one cannot understand the monumental oversights and preferential commentary referred to earlier in this study.

This chapter will examine Lindstrand’s reception and identify the consequences and longevity of the discourses of the SSF network and the preeminence of Orrefors, compounded by Lindstrand’s position in time and place. This chapter will act as a critical biography of Lindstrand’s career as an artist in industry in the context of developments in the applied arts in twentieth century Sweden. It will examine the consequences of past success, preferred exemplars, commentary and writing in both English and Swedish language texts on the subsequent reception of his 1950s and 1960s work.

This research proposes that Lindstrand’s reception has been constrained by a number of factors within the formulation, execution, timing and referencing of English language commentary on Swedish and Scandinavian design (and his earlier professional and artistic associations). His lack of visibility or the association of his name with particular factories at the exclusion of others, is however, not exclusively confined to English language commentary. Swedish texts and commentary can be found to contain the same preferences and omissions. These texts have, at times, formed the basis for later English language commentary thus reiterating and compounding this problem. Essentially there are three major factors constraining Lindstrand’s reception and visibility which may be summarised as follows.

e
")#"/N >/$"+0"+J
^ +!&+3&+&0*
N

2)12/)
/+!^M f
/"!J
" ,$+&7&+$
2/,-"+
*,!"/+&1&"0
J

*,+1$"
,#
1%"
-/"0"+1M 161 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

The first relates to narratives and rhetoric in English language publications on Swedish and Scandinavian design during the twentieth century and the role of the small but influential actor-network associated with the Svenska Slöjdföreningen and their apparent alliances.

The second factor centres around both thebirth and promotion of the regionally focussed Scandinavian Design construct of the 1950s that emphasised the creative output of the collective of countries in the region as a “loosely conceived aesthetic” rather than the work of individual countries or artists. These first two factors have been introduced and partially discussed in preceding chapters.

The third factor is the consequence of Lindstrand’s earlier significant and critically acclaimed Orrefors career which, it will be argued, has contributed to the perceived critical value of his post 1950 work. This contradictory position, where his Orrefors work is viewed as superior to his Kosta work without considered analysis, stems from the preeminent position of Orrefors as the representative of Swedish glass. In this study, this conundrum is designated the Orrefors Paradox.

In this chapter Lindstrand is positioned as an exemplar through which I examine the period circa 1950 - 1973. Research suggests that Lindstrand was a victim of the consequences of collective ideals and promotional agendas. Lindstrand represents the only Orrefors artist to have had several significant positions after he left the factory. This factor alone makes his career of significance to identify how an artist associated with the preeminent exemplar of the Artist in Industry paradigm fared in other factories. His association with the highly regarded, preeminent factory Orrefors qualifies him as a potential ‘white swan’, however, what began as a critical look at Lindstrand, his work and reception in the form of a case study, became what might be described as a ‘black swan’, or as Flyvbjerg argues:

The case study is well suited for identifying ‘black swans’ because of its in- depth approach: what appears to be ‘white’ often turns out on closer examination to be ‘black’. 6

Lindstrand’s work, significant exhibitions and second career in glass are utilised as both as an illustration and an analysis of his position in the context of twentieth century Swedish, and Scandinavian applied arts.

g
)63 '"/$J
^&3"
*&02+!"/01+!&+$0
 ,21
0"N012!6
/"0"/ %^M
-M
ecfM 162 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6


% #
& ("
&+!01/+!J
&+1&+$J
bjda0M
%&0
&0
&+!& 1&3"
,#
1%"
*+6
016)&01&
&+B2"+ "0
1%1
+
"
0""+
&+
&+!01/+!R0
4,/(M
"/"J
2 &01J
+!
2/&01
&+B2"+ "0
/"
&**"!&1")6
"3&!"+1M
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M

K@H
%!,)/(

During the early decades of the twentieth century, the successful adoption of the Artist in Industry model championed by the SSF was amongst the first manifestations of design reforms in Sweden. By 1920, Gregor Paulsson, the author of the influential manifestoBetter Things for Everyday Life (Vackrare vardagsvara)7 had become the society’s director. During this period Orrefors established itself as the prominent archetype of the success of the early Artist in Industry model in Sweden championed by Paulsson and the SSF. As the previous chapters have identified, Orrefors is widely held as the most prestigious of Swedish glassworks.

Lindstrand established himself in Gothenburg as an illustrator and painter before commencing work at Orrefors in 1928. Leading up to his employment, Lindstrand had been engaged to produce a large wall mural and decorations for the restaurant of an exhibition of

h
2)00,+J
 (//"
3/!$03/M 163 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

arts, crafts and industrial design in Jönköping, a small city in Småland, Southern Sweden. A chance meeting at the exhibition with Orrefors artist Simon Gate, and possibly Edward Hald,8 led to an invitation to inspect the factory. After the visit, Lindstrand returned to Gothenburg with the view that all was running well and feeling that there was no place for him at the factory. Certainly, the established names of Gate and Hald, and the considerable success that they had achieved to date, suggests that a third artist would need to hold considerable talent and a robust personality to avoid being overshadowed by the formidable duo. This would provide a daunting prospect for any young artist. According to Widman9, Gate felt otherwise and persuaded Lindstrand to join him and Hald at Orrefors where he commenced work in the autumn of 1928. Lindstrand is known to have formed a close relationship with Gate citing his warmth of character and he saw the artist as a mentor. Hald, however, would prove to be more aloof and eventually contributed to Lindstrand’s departure from Orrefors in 1940.

Lindstrand’s achievements during his tenure at the factory are undeniably significant. Much discussion of this period cites work of considerable invention and innovation. Lindstrand is credited with being the first of the Swedishglass artists to embrace the modernist idiom and he brought new ideas and techniques to Orrefors. His engraved works such as The Pearlfishers and The Shark Divers, as well as revisions and inventions attributed to Lindstrand in the techniques of Graal, Ariel and Mykene,10 are important innovations and milestones in the development of Swedish glass (Figure 4.3 and 4.4). Within established and new techniques, he explored a myriad of artistic possibilities utilising acid etching, dynamic engravings, the influence of Jazz and primitive art in abstract motifs, and he displayed a preference for austere and simple forms. Whilst the level of Lindstrand’s invention and innovation at Orrefors remains unquestioned, his more abstract engraved illustration, new styles and techniques influenced his mentors Gate and Hald and thus become absorbed into the house style of the glassworks.11 Lindstrand’s work for Orrefors was well represented in most exhibitions both in

i
%"/"
/"
14,
 ,2+10
,#
1%&0
@/01
*""1&+$M
+"
&+
/0
%,/R0
bjid
,,(
4%& %
40
1%"
/"#"/"+ "
#,/
$
&!*+R0
"006
&+
bjji
1%1
0""0
1"
*""1&+$
+!
&+3&1&+$
&+!01/+!M
%"
,1%"/
3"/0&,+
"5&010
&+
+
/1& )"
&+
1%"
" "* "/
bjdj
&002"
,#
4"!&0%
*"/& +
,+1%)6
4%& %
&+ )2!"0
)!
&+
1%"
@/01
*""1&+$0M
1
&0
2+(+,4+
4%& %
3"/0&,+
&0
&+!""!
,//" 1M
""
/0
%,/J
"$"+!
&
$)0
J
"+
,(
,*
& ("
&+!01/+!
Y1, (%,)*L
& "/=/)$J
bjicZM
M
cdK
& (*+
+!
&!*+J
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$M
-M
ehK
+!
,)$"/
2+! "/$%J
^01"/
,#
/601)
/1^J
%"
4"!&0%
*"/& +
,+1%)6H
" "* "/
bjdj
YbjdjZM
-M
baM

j
& (*+
+!
&!*+J
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$M
M
ehM ba
%"
/)
1" %+&.2"MMMM
%"
/&")
1" %+&.2"
40
&+3"+1"!
6
& ("
&+!01/+!J
!3&+
%/01/=*
+!
+21
"/.2&01
!2/&+$
1%"
bjda0
1
//"#,/0M

$)00
)+(
%0
!" ,/1&3"
-11"/+0
,/
&))201/1&,+0
21
+!
0+! )01"!
#/,*
1%"
)+(
/"1&+$
$/,,3"0
4%& %
&0
1%"+
/"%"1"!
+!

#2/1%"/
)6"/
,#
)"/
$)00
"+3"),-0
1%"
)+(
1/--&+$
&/M
6("+"
1" %+&.2"
40
&+3"+1"!
6
&+!01/+!
20&+$
/ ,/2+!2*
-,4!"/
1,
/"1"
&+1/& 1"
&))201/1&,+0
,+

)+(
"#,/"
"&+$
1/"1"!
1%"
0*"
0
/&")M
%"
/ ,/2+!2*
/"1"0
1&+6
2 )"0
4%& %
%"&$%1"+
1%"
!" ,/1&,+M bb
""
/&"!*+J
%"
"01
,#
,!"/+
4"!&0%
/1
)00J
//"#,/0
+!
,01
\d^[L\db[K
/&"!*+
-/,-,0"0
1%1
0
&+!01/+!
40
2+!"/
1%"
$2&!+ "
,#
1"
+!
)!J
1%1
%&0
4,/(
40
/"01/& 1"!
6
1%"
--/,3)
,#
1%"
*01"/0M 164 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

Sweden and abroad. Lindstrand embraced Modernist ideas which became manifest in both his paintings and his designs for Orrefors and in the context of the modern, functionalist theme of Paulsson’s 1930 Stockholm Exhibition, he was perfectly in sync with the stylistic concerns of the period. In 1938 Lindstrand, fascinated with the possibilities of glass, produced a series of organic form frosted dishes that parallel Alvar Aalto’s celebrated Savoy vase of the same year. (See Figure 4.106) Art historian Jarno Peltonen has noted that Lindstrand’s “purely sculptural”12 work from the early 1930s was not strictly referencing the functionalist tradition that suggests that more pluralist tendencies were evident early in his career.

The economic consequences of the collapse of the New York Stock Exchange in 1929 were eventually felt in Sweden with a sharp decline in export sales for Orrefors leading the management to consider releasing both Lindstrand and Hald from their contracts in 1933.13 This was not to transpire. In order to address the economic problems caused by the decline in sales and to avoid releasing the two artists, Edward Hald had his role extended to become the director of Orrefors and made a permanent move to Småland. Hald’s dual role as artist and manager was a position that was unprecedented in Sweden. Hald became preoccupied with the management of the glassworks and numerous sales trips abroad, the result being that he spent less time working on new designs. According to historian Alastair Duncan, this left Lindstrand “with the responsibility of carrying the firm’s modernist banner.”14 Widman has described Hald as intellectual, quiet, polite, and “a firm and forbidding character.”15 Similar descriptions have also been used to describe Lindstrand16 and anecdotal evidence confirms this. This may have proved problematic at Orrefors with two “firm and forbidding” characters, coupled with increased management pressures for Hald heightening the potential for conflict between the two artists. As Lindstrand became more successful, his self- confidence increased and there are reports from a number of sources that this affected his temperament.

bc
+
 #!!"+
Y"!MZJ
 +!&+3&+
*,!"/+
!"0&$+H
\cc[L\dc[M
-M
bbfM bd
2+ +J
//"#,/0
)00M
-M
eiM be
&!M
-M
faM bf
& (*+
+!
&!*+J
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$M
-M
ddM bg
"+$1
"&+17"J
/&(
,0;+
+!
,1%"/0
%3"
,**"+1"!
,+
&+!01/+!R0
%/ 1"/
0
!&0 200"!
)1"/
&+
1%&0
%-1"/M 165 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% $
& ("
&+!01/+!J
//"#,/0M
,-L
/)
#/,!+ "
0"
bjdiJ
+$/3"!
!" ,/1&,+
6
&+!01/+!
,+

&*,+
1"
30"
bjddJ
,11,*L
/&")
,!&("+
30"
bjdjJ
&+1"!
2/+


166 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6


% %
2/,-
+!
1%"
2))J
/)
1" %+&.2"J
//"#,/0
bjdhM
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M

167 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Conflict at Orrefors developed during Hald’s term as manager during the 1930s. In 1937 there were several reports of a crisis at Orrefors which was seen to have such grave consequences for the company and Sweden that newspapers from around the country reported the story. The headlines read “Lindstrand and Gate leave Orrefors”17, “Simon Gate in conflict with Orrefors”18 and “Orrefors Artists will probably leave for America”19 reporting that as a result of a long term dispute the two artists were headed for America with Lindstrand quoted as feeling saddened by the dispute that he felt would be impossible to resolve.20 The dispute over contract conditions and renewal was resolved by the time the 1936 contracts expired at the end of 1938, however this would also mark the final years of Gate designing glass. By 1940 contract negotiations deteriorated yet again culminating in Lindstrand leaving Orrefors for good. There are two versions of events surrounding his departure from Orrefors that are of interest here not only for their conflicting details but also because they indicate a shift in dominance between Lindstrand and Orrefors, depending on the way in which they are interpreted.

Version 1. This version published in Lars Thor’s 1982 book on Lindstrand21 quotes Lindstrand as resigning from Orrefors in 1940 following the aforementioned contractual dispute of 193822 with director of the factory Edward Hald. Lindstrand had tasted success as one of the premier Orrefors artists during the 1930s culminating in his glass fountain at the New York World’s Fair of 1939 where Orrefors received much acclaim. Based on his achievements at Orrefors and the many contacts he had made during his visit to America in 1939, Lindstrand intended to travel to New York in 1940 to follow up on offers of work.23 According to the most recent publication on Lindstrand’s work, upon his departure from Orrefors, Lindstrand was required to sign an agreement that forbade him from working in the Swedish glass industry for ten years.24 Little is known about the circumstances that led to this non-competition agreement

bh
+(+,4+J
^ &+!01/+!
, %
1"
)8*+
//"#,/0^J
3"+0(
$ )!"1H
j
2$201
bjdhM bi
+(+,4+J
^&*,+
1"
&
,+B&(1
3&!
//"#,/0^J
2+!0
$ )!H
j
2$201
bjdh M bj
MMMJ
^//"#,/0
(,+01+8/"/+
/"0
1/,)&$"+
1&))
*"/& ^J
6
$)&$1
))"%+!H
j
2$201
bjdhM ca
&!M cb
%,/J
"$"+!
&
$)0
J
"+
,(
,*
& ("
&+!01/+!M
-M
eaM cc
&!M
-M
eaM cd
,/
+
 ,2+1
,#
1%&0
0""
&!M
-M
eaM
S,/
& ("J
&1
4,2)!
%3"
""+
*"/& M
+
bjeaJ
%"
$/""!
1,
1/3")
1,
"4
,/(
1,
016
1%"/"
4%&)"
 //6&+$
,21
!" ,/1&,+
4,/(
#,/
1%"
"1/,-,)&1+
20"2*M
21
 ,/!&+$
1,
%&0
,4+
)&*0J
0"3"/)
, 01 )"
-/"3"+1"!
1%"
1/&-M
,/)!
/

),0"!
))
!,,/0
1,
1%"
MM
+!
))
1%1
/"*&+"!
40
1,
016
%,*"M
21
& ("
%!
%+!"!
&+
%&0
+,1& "
1
//"#,/0M
+!
&1
40
!"@+&1"M
%"
/1&01
)"#1
1%"
#,/"010
,#
*9)+!
+!
1%"
$)00
1,
!,
.2&1"
!&?"/"+1
1%&+$0
!2/&+$
1%"
#,)),4&+$
1"+
6"/0MT ce
"/
%)01/=*
"1
)MJ
^& ("
&+!01/+!
baa
9/^J
&+
=%00(
20""1
Y"!MZJ
Y+$)&0%
"!+MK
=1" ,/$L
=%00(
20""1J
caaeZM
-M
baM
168 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

but what appears likely is that Orrefors feared potential competition if Lindstrand were to work for a rival glass factory in either Sweden or America. His plans for travel were thwarted by the closing of ports at the outbreak of World War II, leaving him stranded in Sweden and temporarily without a job.25 As a result, Lindstrand remained absent from the glass industry until the early months of 1950.

Version 2. This version may be considered the ‘official’ Orrefors version of events given it was documented in the centenary publication of the glassworks in 1998.26 It differs somewhat from Version 1 as it sees both Lindstrand and the artist Edvin Öhrström being released from their contracts in 1941, citing financial pressures and a decline in orders due to the outbreak of WWII. Dag Widman notes that “at a meeting of the board on 3rd January, 1941, Lindstrand and Öhrström were informed that their affiliation with the glassworks would be terminated.”27 This seems inconsistent with later events that saw Öhrström remain with the glassworks until 1957.

Version 1 places Lindstrand in the dominant role of resigning from Orrefors and heading off to work in America. A confident and decisive move. It also sees Orrefors in a subordinate role of ‘damage control’ by ensuring Lindstrand did not become a rival or competitor at another glass factory. By contrast, Version 2 places Orrefors in the dominant role of terminating Lindstrand, which places Lindstrand as a subordinate and expendable employee. There has been an ongoing tendency to downplay Lindstrand by those associated with Orrefors that I have backgrounded in Part One of this study.

cf
%,/J
"$"+!
&
$)0
J
"+
,(
,*
& ("
&+!01/+!M
-M
eaM cg
& (*+
+!
&!*+J
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$M
-M
fjM ch
&!M
-M
fjM 169 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% &
& ("
&+!01/+!M
)00
,2+1&+J
4"!&0%
3&)&,+J
"4
,/(
,/)!R0
&/J
bjdjM
3"+0(
,/*
/(&3K

Lindstrand is variously reported to have left or resigned from Orrefors in 1939, 1940 and 1941, however archival data supports 1940 as the correct date.28 The difference between the two versions outlined above is significant as one sees Lindstrand resigning, the other sees him retrenched. If Lindstrand had been retrenched it would seem heavy-handed and most unlikely that Orrefors would require a non-competition undertaking from him. To require this would significantly impact upon his future livelihood and raises the question as to why he would agree to enter into such an agreement in the first instance. Given the prior difficulties reported in Swedish newspapers in 1937, Lindstrand’s departure from the glass factory is not ci
+
)/&(
2!&+$R0
&$+12/"0H
1" %+&.2"0
+!
!"0&$+"/0
%-1"/
&+
1%"
//"#,/0
"+1"+/6
-2 )& 1&,+
&+!01/+!
&0
)&01"!
0
+
/1&01
1
//"#,/0
#/,*
bjciNbjeaJ
,+B& 1&+$
4&1%
&!*+R0
.2,1"!
1"51M
""
&!M
2+ +
+,1"0
&+!01/+!
0
)"3&+$
//"#,/0
S1
1%"
%"&$%1
,#
%&0
/"1&3"
-,4"/0T
1,
$,
!&/" 1)6
1,
-0)N(" 6M
"&1%"/
-2 )& 1&,+
*("0
/"#"/"+ "
1,
1%"
+,+N ,*-"1&1&,+
$/""*"+1M
""
2+ +J
//"#,/0
)00M 170 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

surprising. Lindstrand’s trip to America in 1939 is the subject of a lengthy report in the archives of Orrefors where he argues that Orrefors must cater to varying price points in America noting that the product was “too expensive” there.29 This challenge from Lindstrand (which in retrospect resonates with the ideologies Paulsson had expressed twenty years earlier in Vackrare vardagsvara [More beautiful everyday things]), had the potential to be misinterpreted by those at Orrefors, further compounding ongoing difficulties. There has not been sufficient evidence presented to date to test the veracity of either version until this study, however, the data that informs Version 1 has been documented in several sources and is more widely accepted amongst those associated with the glass industry in Sweden. The documentation of Version 2 is confined to only one source30 and its author, Dag Widman, is well known for his favourable opinion of Orrefors and Edward Hald. In this context, and without evidence to support it, Version 2 must be considered as misinformation.

Archival correspondence and copies of both the contracts and the non-competition agreement between Orrefors and Lindstrand clarify the circumstances and versions of events. Thor refers to an “agreement” but does not elaborate on the details that are clarified and published here for the first time. The facts reveal a less dramatic and more logical rationale for Lindstrand’s ten year absence from the glass industry based upon a generous schedule of annual royalty payments throughout the 1940s.

The Orrefors contract dated 11 August 1937, in identical form for both Lindstrand and Gate, contains royalty compensation clauses that set out the circumstances should Lindstrand or Gate terminate or have their employment terminated with the factory. The clause reads as follows;

Where the artist during the period of employment or before the end of ten years from the date of cessation of employment, whether directly or indirectly, performs work for another glass manufacturer other than the Company [Orrefors] the compensation will immediately cease to be paid.31

This clause is likely to be the basis of the “agreement” referred to by Thor and reiterated by others but until this study, never fully explained. In the minutes of the Orrefors Board dated 23 April 1941 there is noted a decision to adopt a first draft of an ‘agreement’ with Lindstrand, which is assumed to be the agreement dated 17 July 1941. This agreement formalises the cj
& ("
&+!01/+!J
"-,/1
,+

1/&-JbjdjM
+-2 )&0%"!M
//"#,/0
/(&3M da
& (*+
+!
&!*+J
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$M db
//"#,/0J
^
Y$/""*"+1
"14""+
MM
//"#,/0
)0 /2(
+!
& ("
&+!01/+!Z^J
Y1, (%,)*J
bjebZM
+-2 )&0%"!
0,2/ "M 171 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

expiry of the 1937 contract between Lindstrand and Orrefors effective at the end of 1940 and further sets out a table of yearly royalty payments amounting to a total of SEK 79,258.80 between 1941 - 1950, the equivalent of AUD$250,000.00 in 2010. The period of ten years stipulated in the agreement shares similarities with Swedish copyright protection of 1926 which stipulated that works of applied art were protected for ten years from the year in which they were made public.32 Whilst a non-competition incentive, the clause in Lindstrand’s contract may be seen to have been influenced by these laws. Ultimately, there was no ‘ten- year-ban’ rather a significant financial incentive that accounts for Lindstrand’s absence from the glass industry during the 1940s. Despite his absence, Orrefors continued to produce and market Lindstrand designed objects throughout the 1940s.

Both the 1937 and 1941 contract between Lindstrand and Orrefors have recently been examined for this study by legal scholar in intellectual property, Katarina Renman-Claesson. Renman-Claesson has observed that the non-competition clauses, especially in the 1941 contract, were quite unreasonable, and it is possible that they would have not withstood a challenge even at the time. The 1937 contract clause, identical for both Lindstrand and Simon Gate, saw the yearly royalty provision reduce by fifty percent should they violate the contract conditions (e.g. work for another glass manufacturer), making this a plausible rationale for the much publicised contract dispute between Gate, Lindstrand and Orrefors in 1937. The 1941 contract clause, replacing the 1937 clause, was even more strict with an immediate one hundred percent reduction in the yearly provision should Lindstrand commence work with another glass manufacturer. According to Renman-Claesson, this was a very hard non- competition contract clause that would not hold today.33

It is not possible to verify Widman’s reference to the minutes of the board meeting of 3 January 1941 as the entire collection of minutes are now missing from the Orrefors archives. Partial copies of some minutes have been recovered and from these it can be ascertained that Öhrström entered into a a new five year contract with Orrefors, noted in minutes of the board on 23 April and 30 June 1941 and executed by 30 June 1941. This does not support Widman’s findings that both Lindstrand and Öhrström were terminated in January 1941.34

dc
&+!"/
+!
1&,+)*20"2*J
Z
1&$
&+! "/$M
-M
giM
,/

!&0 200&,+
&+
4"!&0%
,#
4"!&0%
,-6/&$%1
)40
!2/&+$
1%"
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
0""
1%"
4"!&0%
)+$2$"
"006
6
1/&+
"+*+N)"00,+M dd
1/&+
"+*+N)"00,+J
^ &+!01/+!
,**"+10^J
Y1, (%,)*J
cabbZJ
cM
,//"0-,+!"+ "
4&1%
1%"
21%,/M de
%"
,-&"0
,#
*&+21"0
/" ,3"/"!
4"/"
-%,1, ,-&"0
1("+
6
2++")
,)*;/
,#
*9)+!0
20"2*
0
-/1
,#
%"/
/"0"/ %
#,/

%-1"/
&+
1%"
//"#,/0
"+1"+/6
-2 )& 1&,+M
1
1%"
,/!
*""1&+$
,#
da
2+"
bjeb
%")!
&+
,1%"+ 2/$J
1%"
!"1&)0
,#
%/01/=*R0
+"4
,+1/ 1
4&1%
//"#,/0
/"
*&+21"!M
,2/ "L
//"#,/0
/(&3M 172 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

As is the case with much that has been written about Lindstrand and his association with Orrefors, there is much contrasting and conflicting information about who, what, where and when. The same can be observed in discussion of the invention and naming of the Orrefors Ariel technique, introduced to much acclaim at the Paris Exposition in 1937. Duncan 35 and Stritzler-Levine 36 credit the Orrefors artist Edvin Öhrström solely with the ‘invention’ of Ariel. Holkers 37 and Ostergard 38 however credit Bergqvist with the ‘development’ of the technique, whereas Welander-Berggren 39 finds in favour of both Lindstrand and Öhrström. Thor credits Lindstrand solely with the invention and in support of this argument Widman finds that “there is much to suggest that Vicke Lindstrand, the originator of the Mykene technique, was the one who first put forward the idea of using encapsulated bubbles as a decorative element.” 40 Reihnér 41 and Friedman42 credit Lindstrand, Öhrström and master glassblower Knut Bergqvist with the joint invention of the technique, however as Friedman points out, “the exact nature, scope and timing of their respective contributions have never been conclusively established or documented.”43 The naming of the technique is also the subject of conflicting views. Duncan and Widman have both credited Edward Hald with naming the technique Ariel, based on the character in Shakespeare's The Tempest. Lazlo44 however has another origin for the name, Lindstrand’s first wife Kristina.45 Lazlo believes that “The name was coined first by Lindstrand's then-wife Kristina, who was at that time involved in a production of The Tempest, in which Inga Tidblad played the role of Shakespeare’s Ariel.” 46 This version seems more likely than Duncan’s47 where Edward Hald, walking back to his office with the first piece in his hands tried to think of a suitably ‘airy’ name. As Friedman

df
2+ +J
//"#,/0
)00M
--M
fcNfdM dg
01"/$/!
"1
)MJ
%"
/&))&+ "
,#
4"!&0%
$)00
\d\cL\d^d
J
+
))&+ "
,#
/1
+!
&+!201/6M
-M
cijM dh
8/1
,)("/0
"1
)MJ
!3&+
%/01/<*
J
0(2)-1

has pointed out, there is no conclusive evidence to support any of these various versions of events although as has already been asserted in this study, there has been a tendency to downplay Lindstrand’s role at Orrefors ever since his departure in 1940.

K@I
 . ,
,, ),-

In 1940 Lindstrand moved back to Stockholm.48 The 1940s saw Lindstrand diversify with ceramics work as well as further textile designs. For the first couple of years he had a steady income as a result of his yearly royalty compensation from Orrefors, allowing him the freedom to accept a number of freelance commissions before seeking full-time employment. During this time Lindstrand continued to illustrate several children's books and his collaboration with Elsa Gullberg on designs for a series of successful fabric collections for her factory extended to one-off commissions.49 Gullberg previously ran the SSF agency that partnered artists with industry in the first decades of the twentieth century and was Lindstrand’s closest connection within the organisation. In 1945 Gullberg mounted an exhibition at Liljevalchs konsthall in Stockholm entitled Word, Wallpaper, Textiles, Ceramics and Utensils, Our Standard 1945 which featured textile and ceramics designs by Lindstrand along with work from Arthur Percy and Gullberg herself.50

In 1942 Lindstrand became artistic leader of ceramics producer, Upsala-Ekeby where he successfully worked in a new medium for the next eight years. Lindstrand’s Upsala-Ekeby work develops the formal language of his Orrefors work and his skills as an illustrator were translated into faience and glazed decoration along with exotic and figurative sculptural objects depicting eskimos, elephants, leopards, bears, zebras and tigers that evidence his interest in the exotic. Lindstrand’s illustrative decoration as exampled in the Monkey Vase (Figure 4.6) exhibits a lightness of touch and sketch like quality that preempts the engraved technique he introduced at Kosta in 1951. Lindstrand’s interests in non-Swedish themes of exotic and distant peoples and animals, feature heavily during this period, reprising earlier Orrefors and Gullberg works and preempting his later career.51 Lindstrand’s outlook and ei
2/&+$
1%"
bjea0J
&+!01/+!
)&3"!
&+
+
-/1*"+1
1
=1$1+
bj
&+
=!"/*)*J
1, (%,)*M
+
1%"
"01N0"))&+$
&))"+&2*
/&),$6
+,3")0
6
1%"
4"!"
1&"$
/00,+J
1%"
@ 1&,+)
,A "0
,#
&))"++&2*
$7&+"
/"
), 1"!
1
1%&0
0*"
!!/"00M ej
&1%
2)) "/$
&+!01/+!
!"0&$+"!
1%"
2/1&+0
#,/
1%"
)*=
%"1/"
&+
bjeeM fa
,/

!"1&)"!
!&0 200&,+
,#
1%"
)&#"
+!
4,/(
,#
/1%2/
"/ 6J
0""
/& 00,+J
/1%2/
"/ 6H
(,+01+8/
, %
#,/*$&3/"
J
/1%2/
"/ 6H
/1&01
+!
!"0&$+"/M fb
&+!01/+!R0
-0)N(" 6
"/*& 0
4"/"
,**"/ &))6
3"/6
02 "00#2)
-/1& 2)/)6
1%"
@$2/&+"0
,#
#/& +
+&*)0J
"/0
+!
1%"
")"-%+1M
2 %
40
1%"
02 "00
,#
1%"
")"-%+1
&1
&0
4&!")6
(+,4+
&+
4"!"+
+!
01&))
/+(0
%&$%
*,+$01
,))" 1,/0
,#
&+!01/+!R0
4,/(M
"
)0,
-/,!2 "!
0,*"
@+")6
-/,-,/1&,+"!
B21"!
,4)0
+!
30"0
&+
)"+
0&+$)"
,),2/"!
$)7"0
),+$
4&1%
0&*-)"
#,/*0
#"12/&+$
0-/0"
)&+"/
!" ,/1&,+
1%1
4"/"
&))201/1"!
&+
-"/&,!
-2 )& 1&,+0M
%"0"
0*"
, '" 10
/"#"/"+ "
%&0
"/)&"/
//"#,/0
4,/(
+!
-/""*-1
%&0
)1"/
4,/(0
#,/
,01M 174 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

influences were wide ranging and often decidedly international, looking further afield than his native Sweden for inspiration. Fellow Upsala-Ekeby artist Ingrid Atterberg cited Lindstrand as being of tremendous importance for the artistic development of the ceramics factory, crediting him with raising the artistic integrity of the production work and an improved working environment for the artists. Atterberg notes Lindstrand’s generosity towards his associates and an adept understanding of industrial production, specifically his view that profit did not have to suffer as a result of improved quality, again echoing the ideology of Vackrare vardagsvara.52 Lindstrand’s work at Upsala-Ekeby is poorly regarded via comparison with his earlier and later work in glass, and whilst it is not within the scope of this study to analyse this period in detail, it can be argued that this view lacks in objectivity and suggests scope for further examination.53

fc
""L
,3"
=+00,+J
^"*1&,1)"1
N
-0)N(" 60
(,+01+8/)&$
$2)!9)!"/
Y%"
@#1&"0
N
-0)N(" 6R0
/1&01&
$,)!"+
$"Z^J
&+
++N%/&01&+"
,$") "/$
+!
")"+
/)00,+
Y"!0MZJ
-0)L(" 6
\ccaL\dbc
J
"+
%&01,/&(
&
,/!
, %
&)!
,*
"11
/2(
Y--0)L
,* 20J
caahZJ
--M
jcNjd
+!
%,/J
"$"+!
&
$)0
J
"+
,(
,*
& ("
&+!01/+!J
--M
djNeeM fd
=+00,+
, 0"/3"0
S& ("
&+!01/+!R0
*&+
/1&01&
,+1/& 21&,+0
4"/"
1%"
+&*)
@$2/"0
/+$"M
)/"!6
1
//"#,/0J
%"
%!
4,/("!
4&1%
"+$/3"!J
-&+1"!
,/
1%"
$)00
,+1&+"!
+&*)
*,1�
0
0%/(0J
")"-%+10J
7" /0J
)",-/!0J
-"+$2&+0
+!
1&$"/0M
+
"/*& 0J
4&1%
&10
$/"1"/
-,1"+1&)
#,/
1%/""N!&*"+0&,+)
!"0&$+J
1%&0
"5,1&
+!
,#1"+
06* ,)& ))6
),!"!
+&*)
4,/)!
/" "&3"!

!""-"/
"5-/"00&,+M
&1%,21
"&+$
!&0-/$&+$
,#
%&0
,+1/& 21&,+0J
&1
*201
"
+,1"!
1%1
1%"
,*-/&0,+
4&1%
%&0
4,/(
1
//"#,/0J
+!
)1"/
,01
$)004,/(0J
"/*& 0
&0
+
&+1"/*"!&1"
-"/&,!
,#
%&0
,"23/"MT
&+
=+00,+J
^"*1&,1)"1
N
-0)N(" 60
(,+01+8/)&$
$2)!9)!"/
Y%"
@#1&"0
N
-0)N(" 6R0
/1&01&
$,)!"+
$"Z^M
-M
jdM 175 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% '
,+("6
30"J
& ("
&+!01/+!J
-0)N(" 6J
bjea0M
%"
0("1 %
)&("
.2)&16
,#
&+!01/+!R0
&))201/1&,+
-/""*-10
1%"
)&$%1"/
016)"
,#
"+$/3&+$
%"
&+1/,!2 "!
1
,01
&+
bjfaM
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M

176 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

The late 1940s also saw early coverage of Lindstrand’s work in Swedish authored English language publications associated with the SSF. His work had been regularly featured in foreign newspapers and magazines, however it was Elisa Steenberg’s Swedish Glass 54 and Hald and Skawonius’s Contemporary Swedish Design55 as discussed in Part One of this thesis, that were amongst the first widely distributed books to feature his work since he had left Orrefors.56 As both books were written in the 1940s, they associate Lindstrand with Orrefors and Upsala-Ekeby, however were not available in English speaking markets until 1950 when he was debuting with Kosta. In Contemporary Swedish Design Lindstrand is listed in the Artist Directory as “Lindstrand, Vicke. Kosta” yet only his Upsala-Ekeby ceramics are included (Figure 4.7). This combination of factors is bound to have caused confusion in the marketplace by associating his name with factories he no longer worked for. To compound this confusion Orrefors continued to market Lindstrand designs throughout the 1940s and 1950s. The Orrefors catalogues of 1945 and 1952, contain many Lindstrand attributed designs which remained in production.57


% (
$"
bef
#/,*
,+1"*-,//6
4"!&0%
"0&$+
6
)!
+!
(4,+&20M
 '" 10
#/,*
-0)N(" 6
6
&+!01/+!
1,
1%"
/&$%1M

% )
0"J
-0)N(" 6J
bjea0M
/&31"
,))" 1&,+K

fe
1""+ "/$J
4"!&0%
$)00
J
/+0)K#/,*
1%"
4"!&0%
6
&))&+
)):+M ff
)!
+!
(4,+&20J
,+1"*-,//6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
J

02/3"6
&+
-& 12/"0M fg
)0,
&+
)1%J
%"
!" ,/1&3"
/10
,#
4"!"+M
4%"/"
&+!01/+!R0
//"#,/0
4,/(
&0
#"12/"!M
%"
/,)"
,#
1%"

&+
1%&0
*"/& +
-2 )& 1&,+
&0
!&0 200"!
&+
1%"
-/"3&,20
%-1"/M fh
/&$&+)
1),$2"0
&+
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3J85'=J
4"!"+M
""
)0,
")*21
& ("
+!
/0
%,/J
4"!&0%
)00
 1,/&"0
/,!2 1&,+
1),$2"0
\d\`
S
\da[
Y/"01")
"/)$J
bjihZM
&+!01/+!R0
bjde
!"0&$+J
1%"
&+$20
/1&+&
-&1 %"/J
,/&$&+))6
-/,!2 "!
1
//"#,/0R
+!3&(
# 1,/6
&0
1%"
)01
,#
%&0
!"0&$+0
1,
/"*&+
&+
2//"+1
-/,!2 1&,+M
1
&0
&+ )2!"!
&+
1%"
-"/*+"+1
,))" 1&,+
,#
%"
20"2*
,#
,!"/+
/1
&+
"4
,/(M 177 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

K@J
"
 ./,(
.)
&--@
HPLG-
.
)-.


% *
,01
)0 /2(J
/,*,1&,+)
/, %2/"
bjfb
#"12/&+$
"+$/3"!
30"
&+
)"/
/601)
+!
&))201/1&,+0
6
&+!01/+!M
*$"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

In 1950 Lindstrand returned to Småland to commence his second career as a glass artist/ designer at Kosta Glasbruk, the long time rival of Orrefors. Research has found that Lindstrand had been planning his return to glass since at least the mid-1940s, however his royalty agreement with Orrefors prevented him acting on plans until early in 1950. He would remain at Kosta for the next twenty-three years, almost twice as long as at Orrefors. Events leading up to Lindstrand’s employment at Kosta have been and remain the subject of much debate, misunderstanding and misinformation within design circles in Sweden and abroad. In common with his departure from Orrefors, there are also two versions of the events culminating in his employment at Kosta. These may be classified as the ‘bidding war’ and ‘hearsay’ scenarios.

Version 1. Bidding War Both Lars Thor58 and journalist Hans-Olof Lundmark59 have outlined the ‘bidding war’ version in their respective books. This version sees Orrefors General Manager Johan Beyer

fi
%,/J
"$"+!
&
$)0
J
"+
,(
,*
& ("
&+!01/+!M fj
+0N),#
2+!*/(J
801"/
"+$1
)0)"$"+!"+
Y85'=L
8+$"+
/,!2(1&,+J
bjjdZM 178 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

fiercely bidding with Kosta Director Erik Åfors to secure Lindstrand’s services. Lundmark has reported that:

The newly signed contract with Kosta glassworks was incredibly good! Director Erik Åfors had to outbid the Orrefors management who once again were extremely interested in artistic cooperation with the star of the thirties.60

Based on this account, Orrefors attempted to secure Lindstrand’s services but were unsuccessful. This version of events was told by Lindstrand and Kosta Master Glassblower Bengt Heintze to their respective biographers and this version is likely to have originated from Lindstrand himself in his series of interviews with Thor forLegend i glas. Lundmark cites Thor’s book on several occasions and as such it is likely to have been a cross reference for this version of events.

Version 2. Hearsay There is also the ‘hearsay’ version of events that has not been previously documented, and remains unable to be verified. This version exists largely as rumour amongst those close to the Hald family and Orrefors.61 It is both important and relevant in this discussion as it further reinforces the apparent dominant role of Orrefors and the diminished role of Lindstrand. In this version Lindstrand is said to have approached Orrefors manager Johan Beyer sometime in the late 1940s looking to return to his previous position at Orrefors. These discussions are estimated to have taken place somewhere between 1947 and 1949. In 1945 Simon Gate had died and Edward Hald had retired from Orrefors. Based on the absence of Orrefors’ ‘star’ artists, Gate and Hald, this would have seemed a rational move for Lindstrand. The absence of Hald would have meant he would no longer be exposed to conflict. The artists at Orrefors during the late 1940s were Nils Landberg, Sven Palmqvist, Edvin Öhrström and recent arrivals Ingeborg Lundin and John Selbing. Landberg and Palmqvist had both started work in the Orrefors engraving school during the 1930s and had been assistants to Gate and Hald. The story suggests that Beyer discussed Lindstrand’s request with (at least) Landberg and Palmqvist in the first instance who wereunanimous in their disapproval of the idea. Lindstrand was seen as a difficult personality and perhaps with Hald and Gate now absent, Orrefors had become a place for the younger artists to blossom amidst relative calm. Upon being met with this response, rather than offend Lindstrand, Beyer approached Erik Åfors

ga
&!M gb
%&0
3"/0&,+
,#
"3"+10
40
1,)!
6
,1%
"11"/
)*.3&01J
0,+
,#
3"+
)*.3&01
+!
)&0
1""+ "/$J
!2$%1"/
,#
!4/!
)!
1,
1%&0
/"0"/ %"/
,+
0"-/1"
, 0&,+0
!2/&+$
,3"* "/
caajM 179 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

and asked that he might offer Lindstrand a position in one of his factories. Erik Åfors owned Kosta and his long term artist, the architect Elis Bergh, was about to retire. As such Åfors, apparently offered Bergh’s position to Lindstrand.

To counter Version 2, Hearsay is evidence that some form of discussion with Kosta was taking place prior to 1950, given the existence of sketch designs for Kosta engraved glass signed and dated by Lindstrand in 1949. During archival research in November 2005, this researcher uncovered early sketches of glass designs that predate Lindstrand’s employment at Kosta (Figure 4.10). From the 1949 date on the sketches it is likely that Lindstrand had been in discussions with Kosta prior to 1950. Edward Hald came out of retirement in 1947 to rejoin the team of artists at Orrefors, which would have added established star quality to the roster in anticipation of Lindstrand’s return to the industry. Version 2. Hearsay is of interest here in providing further evidence of the conflicting views and misinformation that exist and the ongoing impact of the SSF/Orrefors actor-network identified previously.

Version 1, Bidding War is widely accepted and remains the only previously documented version of events that has been restated as recently as 2004 in Lars Thor’s Swedish language book on Erik Rosén.62 Hald’s absence from Orrefors, Lindstrand’s previous track record there and the position of the factories as rivals are compelling preliminary evidence to support this version of events. Given Orrefors had gone to such lengths as to have Lindstrand sign an agreement to ensure he did not compete at another glassworks during the 1940s adds further evidence to support the ‘bidding war’ version and brings into question the ‘hearsay’ version of events. Lars Thor writes that, at the expiry of the ten year period, Lindstrand had offers from both Orrefors and Kosta literally “within hours.”63 Lundmark confirms that Lindstrand “had quite simply received a good salary, just about free hands and a position on the board of Kosta glassworks,”64 evidence of back and forth negotiations which would be unusual for someone not in a competitive position. Lindstrand’s contract with Kosta, executed on 26 April 1950, sets out the terms of his employment which correlates with both Thor’s and Lundmark’s accounts. The contract substantiates the generosity of the remuneration package secured by Lindstrand at Kosta and his subsequent royalty payments that I have verified in the company ledgers. Thor notes a further decisive factor in this debate: for Lindstrand there were several “competitors” at Orrefors whereas at Kosta “he alone could act as an innovator.”65 gc
/0
%,/J
/&(
,0:+
J
/!&()
#

The 1950 contract with Kosta gave Lindstrand complete control over the artistic direction of the company. As renumeration he was granted a percentage of the total annual sales plus an additional bonus percentage on works he designed, over and above a guaranteed amount. In addition he was given free housing in a company owned villa (designed specifically for Lindstrand), a motor vehicle for company and private use, negotiated annual holidays, generous sick leave and travel arrangements.66 In the subsequent contract extensions in 1955 and 1960 the terms for Lindstrand were even more favourable.67

gg
,01J
^31)M
,+1/ 1
"14""+
,01
)0 /2(
+!
& ("
&+!01/+!
!1"!
cg
-/&)
bjfaM^J
Y,+1/ 1
"14""+
,01
)0 /2(
+!
& ("
&+!01/+!
#/,*
b
2)6
bjfa
N
b
2)6
bjff
"!+MK
1, (%,)*J
bjfaZM
+-2 )&0%"!
!, 2*"+1M gh
&!M
!!"+!2*
bjff
C
bjgaM
+-2 )&0%"!
!, 2*"+1M
181 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% "!
("1 %
,#
"+$/3"!
/601)
30"M
& ("
&+!01/+!J
bjejM
,01
/(&3K

182 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

During archival research for this study, unpublished correspondence between Lindstrand and Johan Beyer was discovered that illuminates the differing versions of events outlined above with new information that clarifies and supports the details.

In October 1949, Lindstrand was approached by Johan Beyer in relation to a private commission. Between October and December 1949 there was an ongoing dialogue between Lindstrand and Beyer in correspondence centred on the subject of Lindstrand returning to Orrefors. As this dialogue developed, it saw Beyer, Orrefors board member Margareta Jacobsson and technical and economic adviser Harald Topsøe, eventually meeting with Lindstrand in Stockholm on 30 November 1949.68 Beyer confirmed this meeting and his approach to Lindstrand about returning to glass in his letter to Lindstrand dated 21 December 1949, where he said:

Dear Brother As I promised you hear now from me in connection with the matters we discussed at our previous meetings. It is very good that we have managed to make this Christmas rush, having sought to discuss the issue, taking into account your comments. First, I say to you, that my initial idea to ask you, whether next to your present position, would be willing to devote yourself again to glass. When you put yourself in favour of this idea, I considered it to be of great value for Ing. Topsøe and Margareta to hear your opinions. When we met you said that you wanted to engage in the glass industry more permanently, and the question of a new location was raised. It brings with it, that we need to think through all of our artists concerned, and we can not give you any response for another month. We regret this lag, but I will call you next time I come up to Stockholm. I conclude by wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. With cordial greetings, Your affectionate B 69

In January 1950, whilst Orrefors were considering their position, Lindstrand received a firm and generous offer from Erik Åfors to join Kosta and it is here that the so-called bidding war begins. Beyer again invited Lindstrand to a further meeting in Stockholm on 26 January 1950, at the Grand Hotel, for more detailed discussions. Lindstrand then called Beyer on 29 January 1950 to advise him he was also considering an offer from Kosta which is confirmed in a letter from Beyer of the same date. Beyer refers to Lindstrand’s call in his letter where he says

gi
,%+
"6"/J
^ "11"/
#/,*
,%+
"6"/
1,
& ("
&+!01/+!
!1"!
ce
,3"* "/
bjej^J
Y//"#,/0L
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3M
+-2 )&0%"!
)"11"/MJ
bjejZM gj
,%+
"6"/J
^ "11"/
#/,*
,%+
"6"/
1,
& ("
&+!01/+!
!1"!
cb
" "* "/
bjej^J
Y//"#,/0L
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3M
+-2 )&0%"!
)"11"/MJ
bjej ZM 183 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

“Soon I hope to hear from you, oh! to hear of your conversation with our old rival.”70 By March 1950, Lindstrand had made the decision to join Kosta. His rationale for doing so is explained in his emotional letter to Johan Beyer where he formally declines the offer from Beyer and Orrefors. Lindstrand’s letter of 06 March 1950 is reproduced here in its entirety;

Brother Johan

In vain have I sought Thee by phone. It would have been more important for me to speak with you personally about the recent events. You've probably already heard rumours of me in connection with Kosta. However, the rumour - as often happens - went far in advance and told the decision that has yet not been taken.

But as it is now definitely clear with my engagement at Kosta, I would immediately inform you about this. As you remember I told you that I had been pursued by Kosta but of course not thought seriously on the good will from there. However, it proved in many respects certainly advantageous for me to accept the offer from Kosta. It is by no means the good financial conditions they offer me, but above all that I do not have to jostle with colleagues, which I appreciate, but who probably are not very happy to see my presence.

It hurts not be working with you whom I personally like a lot. However, you do not yet know if you in the future would be my boss ......

When I go back to my old love - the glass - it is because I will work with it “for a long time”. From our conversations it has well become apparent how much I appreciate Orrefors and would have preferred to return if the soil has been favorable. Now when I will be a competitor - a dirty word - I hope our friendship should continue and that it will be a noble and mutually stimulating competition.

Your always affectionate friend Vicke 71

Beyer responded immediately to Lindstrand’s letter stating that he understood his decision and inviting Lindstrand to consider Orrefors again in the future;

8/3-50 Brother Vicke

My sincere thanks for your very kind letter. You have a fine and abundant way of finding what to say in the relationship between us. I hope our rivalry be rewarding and most stimulating.

ha
,%+
"6"/J
^ "11"/
#/,*
,%+
"6"/
1,
& ("
&+!01/+!
!1"!
cj
+2/6
bjfa^J
Y//"#,/0L
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3M
+-2 )&0%"!
)"11"/MJ
bjfaZM hb
& ("
&+!01/+!J
^ "11"/
1,
,%+
"6"/
#/,*
& ("
&+!01/+!
!1"!
ag
/ %
bjfa^J
Y1, (%,)*L
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3M
+-2 )&0%"!
)"11"/J
bjfaZM 184 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

I understand your position, and hope that you in your new workplace must find much pleasure that I understand you yearn for. It is my hope for that, you will find your way back to Orrefors in good time and to discuss common problems. So I finish by wishing you welcome to Småland while I say a sincere good luck!

With warm greetings Your Friend Johan 72

Contrary to the private correspondence between Lindstrand and Beyer, rumours had begun to circulate that Orrefors had made the decision not to take Lindstrand back, rumours that continue to persist today. Lindstrand was alerted to this a week after his letter from Beyer in correspondence from Dr Fredrik W. A. Kurtz of Nybro, dated 16 March 1950. Kurtz advised that:

Last Friday I was in Gothenburg [...] In Gothenburg I bumped into Guy Robért [Orrefors Export Manager]. I asked him how Orrefors' felt about the new competition. [...] He said, You had sought to come back for a long time, but Orrefors could not accept your offer, then it would otherwise have been too much fighting among the artists, and it's already hard enough. My objection, that You would be superior to the others both as an artist and personality, he would only partly agree. His view was that you could not continue with the same techniques and composition as before, Orrefors, otherwise it is said at once, he has no longer any new ideas. And to find something new in such a short time, would be impossible. For that reason they felt to do without you. In any case, I believe, however, that at some point you have to do something against the Orrefors rumour that it was you who tried to come back but they refused. [...] 73

Guy Robért, the source of the rumour relayed to Lindstrand by Kurtz, would later become affiliated with Kosta and be the catalyst for a management reshuffle in the 1960s that would have repercussions for Lindstrand, as discussed later in this chapter. 74 It is this rumour that has perpetuated from Orrefors and the descendants of the Orrefors artists and, based on the evidence in the correspondence between Lindstrand and Beyer, is erroneous. Based on extant documentation and this newly discovered archival evidence Version 1, Bidding War is supported by fact, whilst the disparity between the versions further supports the favoured commentary on Orrefors and the continuing divide. The ‘hearsay’ version also adds further to the tendency to downplay or diminish Lindstrand’s later career. hc
,%+
"6"/J
^ "11"/
#/,*
,%+
"6"/
1,
& ("
&+!01/+!
!1"!
ai
/ %
bjfa^J
Y//"#,/0L
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3M
+-2 )&0%"!
)"11"/MJ
bjfa ZM hd
/
/"!/&(


2/7J
^ "11"/
#/,*
/
/"!/&(


2/7
1,
& ("
&+!01/+!
!1"!
bg
/ %
bjfa^J
Y6 /,M
L
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3M
+-2 )&0%"!
)"11"/J
bjfaZM he
""
1%"
!&0 200&,+
,+
-$"
cef
,#
1%&0
%-1"/M 185 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Prior to Lindstrand joining Kosta, the architect Elis Bergh had been the chief designer since 1920. Bergh has been described by Dag Widman as “an unassuming, sensitive man, a lifelong bachelor and fairly anonymous as a person”75 who “felt neglected by comparison with the bright stars of Orrefors and doubtless harboured some bitterness at this”76 further illustrating the divide and rivalry between the two factories. Bergh’s designs were controlled and concise and his drawings apparently so exact that there was never room for experimentation.77 During his time at Kosta he was the only full-time artist and produced many fine table glass series including the SSF favoured Charm series of 1942. Bergh’s role was supplemented over the years by a series of part-time or freelance artists including Tyra Lundgren, Sven Erixson and the SSF’s Sven-Erik Skawonius who is said to have shared a similar character to Bergh.78 Skawonius was associated with Kosta for a period in the 1930s and for a subsequent period in the 1940s, and despite the ongoing critique of his role in the SSF, his work for Kosta should be regarded as truly innovative and ahead of its time. He was also associated with Upsala-Ekeby until 1939, prior to Lindstrand’s arrival, and he left Kosta along with Bergh in 1950, again prior to Lindstrand’s arrival there. Skawonius later took on Lindstrand’s previous position as Artistic Leader at Upsala Ekeby in 1953 and did not return again to glass design. Skawonius’ role in the SSF actor-network is discussed in the preceding chapter. According to Widman, Skawonius’ glass was too exclusive, and did not sell.79

Lindstrand commenced work at Kosta as Artistic Director on 1 July 195080. Now a mature artist of 46, Lindstrand worked swiftly, producing a remarkably wide and varied range of work during his first year at Kosta, presented in an exhibition at Nordiska Kompaniet department store in Stockholm during September 1951 (Figure 4.12). The work was met with immediate commercial success, reviewed in the local press and some of the simplest objects were selected for inclusion in the Swedish exhibit at the ninth Triennale in Milan of the same year.

By the time of Lindstrand’s commencement at Kosta, the stylistic direction of the 1950s had already been established. Abstract Expressionism via the work of Jackson Pollock had made its highly influential debut. The organic Modernism espoused by Alvar Aalto, Charles and

hf
&!*+J
^%"
,01
/1&010
N

%-0,!&
"3&"4
,#
1%"
4"+1&"1%
"+12/6^M
-M
fiM hg
&!M
-M
fiM hh
&!M
-M
fiM hi
&!M
-M
fjM hj
&!M
-M
fjM ia
,01J
^31)M
,+1/ 1
"14""+
,01
)0 /2(
+!
& ("
&+!01/+!
!1"!
cg
-/&)
bjfaM^M
+-2 )&0%"!
!, 2*"+1M 186 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

Ray Eames, Saarinen, Isamu Noguchi and others had softened the strictly functionalist lines of Modernism. In Scandinavia, Tapio Wirkkala had produced the iconic ‘Kanterelli’ vase, Aalto the Savoy, Lindstrand himself the LU 154 series for Orrefors, Gunnel Nyman’s ‘Calla’ and ‘Shell’ vessels, Tyra Lundgren’s work with Venini, Bruno Mathsson’s bent-wood furniture and the ceramics of Stig Lindberg continued this approach. Couturier Christian Dior launched his influential ‘New Look’ collection in 1947, establishing the tight-waisted silhouette that would dominate 1950s design forms, across disciplines.


% ""
& ("
&+!01/+!
"!&3&320J
,/*
*$7&+"
bjfbM
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

Lindstrand’s first review as the ‘new’ Kosta artist was published in the SSF’s journalForm, edited by Arthur Hald (Figure 4.11). The review was authored by Åke Stavenow who ultimately failed to be convinced by Lindstrand’s new work, with the exception of the innovative engraved vases which he applauded. Stavenow’s review noted Lindstrand’s sensitivity to current trends in the apparently obvious influences of the Finnish artists Tapio Wirkkala and Gunnel Nyman, the French artist Maurice Marinot and the Italian artist Paolo Venini concluding that Lindstrand “has an unusual ability to target the taste of the general public and create both saleable and beautiful objects, which would be an enviable quality for a commercial designer.”81 Significantly, Lindstrand was no longer the Orreforsartist , he was ib
("
13"+,4J
^& ("
&+!01/+!
"!&3&320^J
,/*H
Uh
YbjfbZJ
-M
bgbM 187 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

now associated with the position of commercial designer. This distinction distanced Lindstrand’s work from artistic associations and preempts the artist/industrial designer debates of the 1960s. It was also early acknowledgement of the new ‘design’ profession and ‘designer’ designation in applied arts. This review turned out to be the first published inForm during his 23 years at Kosta, but despite subsequent exhibitions and many international triumphs it was also the last until 1966. Inevitably Lindstrand’s new work was unable to be considered without being compared to his Orrefors work and it is here that preferences are revealed.82 Widman has noted Stavenow’s association with Orrefors as one of Edward Hald’s frequent guests and having personally recommended one of his students, Ingeborg Lundin, to the factory in 1947.83

Ulf Hård af Segerstad’s parallel review in the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet began with genuine enthusiasm for the exhibition and Lindstrand’s “enchanting blend of experimental desire and maturity.”84 Hård af Segerstad, like Stavenow, noted the Abstract Art influences and was generally complimentary of the engraved work and his “new stipple technique, which gives a lively, vibrant line.”85 (Figure 4.13) However Hård af Segerstad’s preferences for the 1930s Orrefors work86 become obvious in his text, and ultimately may have influenced his objectivity as demonstrated by his somewhat ambiguous concluding paragraph where he states that:

[...] As a whole, this view is a stimulating prelude to what we all hope will be a successful time for Vicke Lindstrand at Kosta. He has embarked on a road in a direction very different from those he walked with Orrefors in the golden age of Swedish glass during the 1930s. The style-conscious rigour from this era almost twenty years ago has turned into a more open, freer but also more whimsical flowering. The Thirties as a whole had a strong cohesive appearance. Today there is a full guerilla-war, a fight for the right audience with rather exciting but also delicate methods. In such a situation it is usually - at least in the short term - the virtuoso who takes home the game at the expense of the serious-minded artist. What we hope for Swedish glass art is that in the current situation it shall not forget the essential values of the material’s character and the right balance.87

ic
6
,+1/01
13"+,4R0
/"3&"4
,#
&+!01/+!R0
/)
$)00
1
//"#,/0
-2 )&0%"!
&+
,/*
&+
bjdh
&0
$"+2&+")6
"+1%20&01& M
""
.2,11&,+
,+
-$"
cec
,#
"& 2))
"1
)MJ
8/)"(
1&))
$)0
J
$+"0
"))+"/0
0*)&+$
3
//"#,/0$)0
e

),3"
,#
$)00
J
$+"0
"))+"/Y0
,))" 1&,+
,#
//"#,/0
$)00M id
& (*+
+!
&!*+J
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$M
--M
gf
C
hiM ie
)#
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
^)0(,+01+8/
$=/
0&+
+!/
!" 21^J
3"+0(
$ )!"1H
bg
"-1"* "/
bjfbM
if
&!M ig
"3"/)
//"#,/0
, '" 10
#/,*
)#
9/!
#
"$"/01!R0
-"/0,+)
,))" 1&,+
4"/"
2 1&,+"!
6
1, (%,)*R0
2(1&,+03"/(
,+
f
2$201
caahM ih
&!M
/+0)1&,+
6
/0
,%+00,+M 188 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

Hård af Segerstad appears to question Lindstrand’s choice of the road away from the 1930s Orrefors paradigm. Lindstrand is portrayed as the prolific ‘virtuoso’ stealing the thunder from the more ‘serious-minded artist’. The concluding caution seems to indicate an overall dissatisfaction with the current direction in Swedish glass. Stavenow and Hård af Segerstad’s reviews, along with the recently published Swedish Glass88 and Contemporary Swedish Design89, signal the beginning of what might be described as the Orrefors Paradox: the frequent tendency to define Lindstrand by his previous work for Orrefors. Moreover, due to the scarcity of English language coverage, these reviews, particularly Stavenow’s, have been an ongoing source of reference for English speaking historians.90

Lindstrand’s new work was particularly inventive, plentiful and international with discernible influences from Italian, Finnish and Czechoslovakian glass in the techniques he employed. His work also referenced both Surrealism and Abstract Expressionism in his engraved objects “that seamlessly links to the current movement in abstract art.”91 Familiar African and Oriental themes from his Upsala-Ekeby and Orrefors oeuvre were evident, along with more simplified forms and techniques. Lindstrand’s work was widely referential in the breadth of influences resulting in ideas that were quoting both international and recognisably Swedish themes. Stavenow’s review picks up on influences and similarities between Lindstrand’s work and the work of others without analysis or expanding on details leaving the reader to connect the dots. Upon considered analysis of the work referred to by both Stavenow and Hård af Segerstad, the influences are quite obvious. Tapio Wirkkala’s Kanterelli forms and Gunnel Nyman’s controlled bubble teardrop forms are immediately discernible in Lindstrand’s work. Maurice Marinot’s heavy, thick walled forms are also referenced, as they were frequently at Orrefors, combined with Lindstrand’s original adaptation of Paolo Venini’s use of underlay colour (Figure 4.14).

ii
1""+ "/$J
4"!&0%
$)00
J
/+0)K#/,*
1%"
4"!&0%
6
&))&+
)):+K
V ))201/KWM ij
)!
+!
(4,+&20J
,+1"*-,//6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
J

02/3"6
&+
-& 12/"0M ja
/(
+
,+"0J
^%"
$"+ 6
,#
"14,/(0M
%"
Y&+Z3&0& )"
,+0".2"+ "0
,#
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+M^J
&+
&3
&+1,+
Y"!MZJ
"14,/(0
,#
"0&$+
Y+&3"/0&16
,))"$"J
)*,21%J
+&1"!
&+$!,*L
"0&$+
&01,/6
, &"16J
caaiZM jb
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
^)0(,+01+8/
$=/
0&+
+!/
!" 21^M 189 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% "#
& ("
&+!01/+!
1
%&0
!" 21
,01
"5%& &1&,+
1

1, (%,)*J
bjfbM
*$"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K


% "$
& ("
&+!01/+!
3811
T0%&+$U
,01

bcjJ
bjfbM
*$"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3M

% "%
& ("
&+!01/+!
,01

bbjfJ
bjfbM
*$"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3M

190 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

More recent discussion of Lindstrand’s work from this period has addressed some of the analysis missing from Stavenow’s review. Art historian Jack Dawson of The University of Sunderland has written on both Swedish and Finnish glass and his work is of great interest as he is part of a small pool of contemporary scholars examining this period. In the publication accompanying the 2003 exhibition Innovation and Diversity: 75 Years of Swedish Glass Art, Dawson, like Stavenow, casts doubt on the originality of Lindstrand’s work at Kosta. Dawson observed that “Lindstrand clearly took a profound interest in and was well informed about the latest techniques in glass art and design.”92 He continued by drawing similarities between Lindstrand’s 1955 work and the earlier work of the Italian glass artist Fulvio Bianconi, citing a “striking resemblance”93 and obvious influence94. Dawson did, however, add a disclaimer of sorts by noting “a more clearly organic and Scandinavian approach”95 in Lindstrand’s objects sharing an affinity with the work of the Finn Timo Sarpaneva. These observations again suggest derivative tendencies in Lindstrand’s work where he was able to make the ideas his own by the influences and subtleties of his habitus, but fall short in identifying the characteristics of what Dawson views as a “Scandinavian’ approach”.96

A similar view has been presented by design historians Charlotte and Peter Fiell who also cited the influence of Bianconi but noted a point of difference: “Unlike the Italians, however, Lindstrand’s designs were distinguished by less expressive organic forms and by a more restrained use of colour.”97 There are ample examples that contradict the Fiell’s view, where Lindstrand forms are exceptionally expressive and feature strong use of colour.98 Colour was used widely in Swedish art glass prior to the 1950s as can be observed in the work of Orrefors, particularly from Lindstrand and Edvin Öhrström. Lindstrand has been credited with reintroducing colour in art glass by Röhsska Museum director Elsebeth Welander-Berggren who argued in 2004 that “his palette was, however, more daring and clearer than that of Jugend glass from around 1900.”99 Lindstrand and master glass blower Bengt Heintze were known to have visited Italy, and Swedish press articles from 1951 report the pair visiting jc
 (
40,+J
++,31&,+
B
&3"/0&16J
b`
"/0
,#
4"!&0%
)00
/1
Y&/01
"!+MK
2+!"/)+!L
+&3"/0&16
,#
2+!"/)+!J
caaaZ
cdfM
-M
fcM jd
&!M
-M
fcM je
/"02* )6
40,+
&0
/"#"//&+$
1,
*,!")
+2* "/0

bbig
W

bbijJ
#/,*
-$"
ba
,#
1%"
,01
b
1),$2"
,#
bjffJ
""
-$"0
dfc
W
dfd
,#
& ("
+!
%,/J
4"!&0%
)00
 1,/&"0
/,!2 1&,+
1),$2"0
\d\`
S
\da[M jf
40,+J
++,31&,+
B
&3"/0&16J
b`
"/0
,#
4"!&0%
)00
/1M
-M
fcM jg
+
1%"
 0"+ "
,#
+
"5-)+1&,+
#/,*
40,+
&1
&0
002*"!
1%1
%"
/"#"/0
1,
1%"
--/, %
0
-/,-,0"!
6
1%"
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+
,+01/2 1
,#
1%"
bjfa0
+!
/"&1"/1"!
0&+ "M jh
&"))J
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+M
-M
ebiM ji
""
#,/
"5*-)"
1%"
1&+
, '" 10
#/,*
bjggJ
*+6
,#
1%"
, '" 10
&+ )2!"!
&+
)0()/1
&+
bjgj
+!
&+!01/+!R0
01/,+$
20"
,#
,),2/
&+
%&0
//"#,/0
4,/(M jj
%)01/=*
"1
)MJ
^& ("
&+!01/+!
baa
9/^M
-M
gM 191 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

exhibitions of Venetian glass in Stockholm and the glassworks of Murano.100 Certainly there is considerable scope for a further analysis of these influences on his work. In direct opposition to Dawson and the Fiell’s observations, the Victoria and Albert Museum’s Jennifer Opie cited Lindstrand’s early Kosta work as important, proposing that some “predicted the work of the Italians in the following decade.”101 The significance of Opie’s view is that Lindstrand is positioned as an innovator rather than an imitator.


% "&
&+!01/+!
,01
, '" 10

bbifJ
&+
)"/
/601)J
,),/
+&(J

bbib
&+
) (
/601)J
bjfbM
*$"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3M

% "'
/ /
"-4,/1%
4&1%
14,
,#
%"/
&"/ "!
,/*
0 2)-12/"0
#/,*
1%"
bjga0M

Glass historian Helmet Ricke has clarified this conflict of views by reference to what he described as the “exchanges of information”102 between the Venetian and the Swedish glass industries. Ricke, in an essay focussing on Italian glass, observed that “An interaction between the glassworks of Scandinavia and Seguso Vetri d’Arte, [Flavio] Poli’s firm, is clearly discernible. Encouraged by exchanges of information at the Milan Triennali of 1951 and 1954 [the Scandinavians] partly reacted to Muranese forms and partly inspired the Italian firm to produce novel designs.”103 Whilst Ricke does not make specific reference to Lindstrand, baa
3"+0(
$ )!"1J
cc
-/&)
bjfbM bab
"++&#"/
-&"J
 +!&+3&
"/*& 0
+!
)00
&+
1%"
][1%
"+12/6
Y ,+!,+L
& 1,/&
C
) "/1
20"2*J
bjijJ
caabZM
-M
bdcM
bac
")*21
& ("J
^_1&)"
,3" "+1,_
+!
_,/*"
2,3"_M
1)6^0
,+1/& 21&,+
1,
2/,-"+
)00
2)12/"
&+
1%"
4"+1&"1%
"+12/6M^J
1)&+
)00
2/+,L&)+
\d^[L\db[
Y+$)&0%
"!+MK
2+& %
N
"4
,/(L
/"01")J
bjjhZJ
bbNdeM
-M
ciM bad
&!M
-M
ciM 192 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

coverage of the Milan Triennale in Domus magazine of 1951 and 1954 confirm his participation.104 These exchanges were not only between Sweden and Italy as evidenced by the recent scholarship of Helmet Ricke105 and Gunnel Holmér106 on links between Swedish and Czech glass. In addition Kings Lynn Glassworks in Great Britain employed Swedish designers, and the English designer Ronald Stennett Wilson, during the 1950s, designed Swedish inspired glass that was manufactured by several Swedish factories and marketed in the United Kingdom as Swedish glass.107

Lindstrand’s acute observations of contemporary movements in the arts, particularly abstract expressionism and sculpture, influenced his work profoundly and is evident throughout his career. Dawson echoed the earlier words of Stavenow in describing Lindstrand as a versatile “artist, designer and ardent observer of current trends”108. He suggested that Lindstrand’s pierced vessels, widely regarded to be influenced by Jean Arp and Biomorphism (a branch of Surrealism), may have had an inherent marketing agenda suggesting they were more contrived in their intent: “The association with Surrealism also guaranteed attention because of the notoriety that the Surrealist group retained throughout the 1940s and 1950s.”109 Art historian Martin Eidelberg, however, correctly argues that the pierced vessel was in evidence across a range of crafts during the 1950s, including the work of the Finnish glass artist Timo Sarpaneva (1926-2006), who cites Barbara Hepworth and Henry Moore as influences, but is more likely to be influenced by Fulvio Bianconi than the Surrealists.110

Of more than passing interest in this discussion is Sarpaneva’s voice on the subject. Sarpaneva contributed an essay on ceramics and glass to the catalogue for the exhibition Design Since 1945 held at the Philadelphia Museum of Art in 1983. Sarpaneva, in discussing recent developments in Scandinavia, concluded that “the heavy sided objects created by Lindstrand had links with the works of Henry Moore and Barbara Hepworth, and should be regarded as truly innovative.”111 Given the often cited influence of Sarpaneva on Lindstrand’s assymetrical

bae
+,+J
^,+
/&"++)"
!&
&)+,
bjfbJ
3"7&^J
,*20H
Ucfj
YbjfbZL
--M
deNecM
baf
")*21
& ("
Y"!MZJ
7" %
)00
\d_`L\dc[
"0&$+
&+
+
$"
,#
!3"/0&16
Y&/01
"!+MJ
1211$/1L
/+,)!0 %"J
caafZM bag
,)*;/J
^)00
&+(
1, (%,)*
X
/%
U
4"!&0%
)00
,#
1%"
ca1%
"+12/6^M bah
6),/J
^//"#,/0
&+
/"1
/&1&+
+!
/")+!^M
M
bhiM
+,+6*,20J
^
%"
"216
,#
,!"/+
)00
N
&,$/-%6^J
l%11-LUU/,+)!01"++"114&))0,+M ,*U&,$/-%6M%1*)mJ
 "00"!
be
2$201
cabbM bai
40,+J
++,31&,+
B
&3"/0&16J
b`
"/0
,#
4"!&0%
)00
/1M
-M
fcM baj
&!M
-M
fbM bba
/1&+
&!") "/$
Y"!MZJ
"0&$+
\d^`
S
\da`
%1
,!"/+
0H
")" 1&,+0
#/,*
1%"
&)&+"
+!
3&!

1"4/1
,))" 1&,+
Y "0
20""
"0
/10
" ,/1�
!"
,+1/")U /*0J
bjjbJ
caabZM
-M
bbiM bbb
&*,
/-+"3J
^"/*& 0
+!
)00^J
&+
1%/6+

&"0&+$"/
+!
",/$"

/ 20
Y"!0MZJ
"0&$+
&+ "
\d_`
Y%&)!")-%&L
%&)!")-%&
20"2*
,#
/1J
bjidZ
-M
baaM 193 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

objects this is a significant view that suggests a reassessment of this aspect of both Lindstrand’s and Sarpaneva’s respective oeuvres may further illuminate their respective contributions (Figures 4.21 - 4.24).


% "(
& ("
&+!01/+!M
+&.2"
, '" 1
+&(
\]b]J
,01J
4"!"+J
bjfjM
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M

% ")
/,!2 1&,+
!/4&+$0
#,/
&+!01/+!
!"0&$+"!
, '" 10
#/,*
"/)6
bjfbJ

bbhfJ
bbhgJ
bbiiJ
bbjj
+!
bbjaM
*$"0J
,01
/(&3
4"!"+K


% "*
&*,
/-+"3
"3&)O0
%2/+
+!
"3&)O0
&01J
bjfa0
#,/
&11)J
&+)+!M
/&31"
,))" 1&,+K 
% #!
& ("
&+!01/+!J
+&.2"
0 2)-12/"
&+
)"/
/601)J
%+!4,/("!J
21
+!
-,)&0%"!J
bjfbM
/&31"
,))" 1&,+K

194 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

Lindstrand’s Prisma experiments parallel similar developments in Czechoslovakia and there exists debate as to the originality of the idea.112 ThePrisma series (Figure 4.27 and 4.28), using prismatic crystal forms with cut and engraved decoration that was multiplied by refraction and reflection, were first exhibited by Lindstrand at a Kosta exhibition at Lund Konsthall in 1959, then in New York in November 1960, alongside Ventana works by Mona Morales-Schildt (Figure 4.25).113 Morales-Schildt was the first new artist employed by Kosta since the departure of Ernest Gordon in 1955. Morales-Schildt came to Kosta in 1958 after having worked with exhibitions of glass and ceramics at NK in Stockholm and as a ceramic artist at both Sweden’s Gustavsberg and Finland’s Arabia.114 She had also studied under Paolo Venini in Murano and it was there that she developed her deft hand with glass and the cut underlay technique most famously manifest in her Ventana range from 1959. Given the distinctive qualities of Schildt’s Ventana range and her experimentation with cut glass, there was likely to be a degree of cross referencing between her and Lindstrand. Other accounts place the idea for the technique in an accidental discovery by Lindstrand when handling the triangular crystal blocks and observing the reflections of his own hand.115 Regardless of the origin, Lindstrand’s earlier works at both Orrefors and Kosta demonstrate considerable experimentation and understanding of optic possibilities with glass, facilitated by adapting different techniques of cutting. Various cutting techniques were a constant in Lindstrand’s Kosta work, on both clear and coloured crystal emphasising the particular optic qualities of the material (Figure 4.26).

bbc
$
&!*+
011"0
S&*&)/
"5-"/&*"+10
%!
""+
!"3"),-"!
1
1%"
0*"
1&*"
&+
7" %,0),3(&L
&+!01/+!
40
+
)"/1
, 0"/3"/
,#
,+1"*-,//6
$)00
!"0&$+MT
&!*+J
^%"
,01
/1&010
N

%-0,!&
"3&"4
,#
1%"
4"+1&"1%
"+12/6^M
M
gbM
,+3"/0")6J
&+
+
&+1"/3&"4
4&1%
1%&0
/"0"/ %"/J
,01
,))"$2"
++"
/"21)"/
$3"
+
 ,2+1
,#
%,4
&+!01/+!
--/"+1)6
!&0 ,3"/"!
1%"
*&//,/&+$
1" %+&.2"
6
 &!"+1
4%"+
%,)!&+$
1%"
21
/601)
+!
, 0"/3&+$
1%"
/"B" 1&,+0
+!
/"#/ 1&,+0
,#
%&0
,4+
%+!M bbd
5%& &1&,+
1
,++&"/0J
"4
,/(J
"4
,/(
,3"* "/
bNbc
bjgaM bbe
1)"
'/+"01*J
"
#,/*!"
\d[[L1)"1
J
!"0&$+

1&))
M
-M
bfhM bbf
+1"/3&"4
4&1%
++"
/"21)"/
+!
/1%2/
&/+0 (
1
1%"&/
%,*"
&+
%20H
4"!"+
,+
1%"
"3"+&+$
,#
]]
,3"* "/
Ycaaf ZM 195 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% #"
,+
,/)"0N %&)!1J
,01
"+1+K
+&.2"
, '" 10
&+
2+!"/)6
+!
21
/601)J
bjfiM

% ##
& ("
&+!01/+!J
,01
3/1
+811

gbcJ
bjfjM
*$"0J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M

196 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6


% #$
& ("
&+!01/+!J
,01
+&.2"
/&0*
0 2)-12/"J
bjfjM

% #%
& ("
&+!01/+!J
,01
+&.2"
/&0*
0 2)-12/"
bdbbJ
bjfjM
*$"0J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M

K@K
)&&),.#)(

Lindstrand’s success in the 1950s can be attributed to many factors including his solo status at Kosta. As the lone artist until 1954, the names Lindstrand and Kosta became synonymous in the recognisable acid stamp LIND-STRAND KOSTA on all early output from the factory. An examination of the financial ledgers inKosta Arkiv illustrate the growth in sales during the 1950s, in part due to Lindstrand, Bergh’s legacy and a steady international market for cut crystal.

Historian Lars Thor’s 1982 publicationLegend i glas is of importance in the context of this research as it is the only monograph specifically devoted to Lindstrand. The book originates from Smålands Museum, Sweden’s only dedicated glass museum, where Lindstrand designed a glass mosaic mural in 1962 and was the subject of a major retrospective exhibition in 1980, Vicke Lindstrand – 52 år i glaskonstens tjänst, ett av den svenska glaskonstens mest självlysande

197 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

namn116, preceding the publication of Thor’s book. Lindstrand was well known in Småland where he spent the majority of his life working in the glass factories. Thor did not present a critical analysis of Lindstrand’s work, rather a popular account of his career that briefly elaborates on events, working methods and relationships between Lindstrand and his colleagues. Thor touched on the various phases of Lindstrand’s career based largely on lengthy interviews he conducted with Lindstrand117 and press clippings from the Museum’s archives. The chapter dealing with the Kosta period, 1950-73, presented an account of the key events and achievements during Lindstrand’s time with at the factory and discussed his distinctive collaborative working relationship with master glassblower Bengt Heintze. In Thor’s book Heintze recalled that:

Vicke and I rather soon became a unit, we almost read each other’s thoughts. He said that he only needed to draw a couple of lines, because I understood precisely and did what he was thinking. He had the design idea and I materialised it.118

This information is of particular interest as it provides scarce documentation of the relationship between Lindstrand and Heintze which was referred to by Lindstrand elsewhere as “a composer-conductor and his orchestra”119 without reference to specific individuals. A further, more detailed account of the Lindstrand/Heintze relationship is elaborated in Hans- Olof Lundmark’s monograph on Heintze, Mäster Bengt120 where through interviews with Heintze he revealed much about Lindstrand’s employment at Kosta, aspects of Lindstrand’s process and elaborated on Lindstrand’s difficult and ambiguous relationships with fellow artists hinted at in other publications. The importance of Heintze as collaborator in the realisation of Lindstrand’s designs is suggested by the accounts of Lindstrand’s “quite incomparable manners”121 and apparent jealousy towards fellow Kosta artists Ernest Gordon and Mona Morales-Schildt.

Lindstrand’s predecessor, the architect Elis Bergh, was a precise designer, producing detailed scaled drawings and instructions for the glass workers. The arrival of Lindstrand at Kosta bbg
& ("
&+!01/+!
L
`]
6"/0
&+
1%"
0"/3& "
,#
/1
$)00H
,+"
,#
1%"
4"!&0%
$)00
/1Y0
*,01
)2*&+,20
+*"0
L
+
"5%& &1&,+
%")!
1
*9)+!0
20"2*
85'=
")" /1&+$
1%"
4,/(
,#
&+!01/+!M bbh
+1"/3&"4
4&1%
/0
%,/H
/)+!H
1, (%,)*
\
" "* "/
YcaafZM bbi
%,/J
"$"+!
&
$)0
J
"+
,(
,*
& ("
&+!01/+!M
-M
igM bbj
&1
"&#J
^4"!&0%
/601)
%,4+
&+
,1 )"
5%& &1&,+^J
"4
,/(
&*"0H

YbjfhZL
ccM
"&#R0
/1& )"
/")1"0
1,
& ("
&+!01/+!^0
4,/(
,+
!&0-)6
1
,++&"/0
&+
"4
,/(M
&0 200"0
1%"
"5%& &1&,+
,#
&+!01/+!^0
+"4
,))" 1&,+
,#
, '" 10
#,/
,01
&+ )2!&+$
1%"
0"/&"0
,+1/01
6
06**"1/6
4%& %
/"
)&01"!
0
&1"*
,^0

gfb
W
gfi
&+
1%"
,01
c
1),$2"
,#
bjfjM bca
2+!*/(J
801"/
"+$1
)0)"$"+!"+M
--M
chNdgM bcb
&!M
-M
dgM 198 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

along with his more spontaneous working methods, new ideas and passion for experimentation came as quite a shock to the glassworkers as was recalled by the engraver Rune Strand in Thor’s book, where he stated that:

When Vicke arrived at Kosta, it was like they had dynamited everything. He cleaned out everything that was bad. And if his arguments were weak, he raised his voice and got what he wanted. He got the craftsmen on his side, because work was more fun when something happened. And Vicke himself understood to take care of the skills available.122

Lindstrand’s collaborative interaction with the glass workers is documented in a series of period publicity photos that depict a dapper Lindstrand with cigarette in hand and resplendent in beret alongside Master Glassblower Heintze sketching out a glass design on the floor of the hot shop (Figure 4.29 and 4.30). Appearing as both staged and contrived, the images at first seem unlikely but present an image based largely in fact. These staged portraits were typical of the sorts of images used to portray the Artist in Industry paradigm in Sweden during the 1950s. Heintze has commented on these portraits stating that Lindstrand made sure he was always around when a photo opportunity arose, whether he was intended to feature or not.

bcc
%,/J
"$"+!
&
$)0
J
"+
,(
,*
& ("
&+!01/+!M
-M
jcM 199 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% #&
%,1,$/-%
,#
1%"
/1&01
1
4,/(J
#"12/&+$
&+!01/+!
+!
*01"/
$)00 ),4"/
"+$1
"&+17"M
*$"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

200 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6


% #'
&+!01/+!
+!
"+$/3"/J
$"
/,+.3&01J
bjfbM
*$"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

201 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

K@L
)(.#(/#.3
(
 0 &)*' (.

For me the glass was from the first moment the medium which best expresses what I am most fond of i.e. clarity, transparency and materiality. Items of glass live their own life also when the hot mass has left the pipe of the master-blower and has become a transparent body in which the light and air melt together. Glass changes its aspect all the time, depending on the light which it ‘drinks’. Glass is not unlike a day full of sunshine or a day of sombre, grey weather. In the glasshouse one can see the whole process of creation starting from the red-hot, viscous mass and ending in a shape that is the right one for the material. You cannot force glass into unnatural shapes. On the contrary I must - in my quality of creating artist - try to find out its possibilities and use them for my work. Glass can be heavy or fragile. Glass means luminosity and sound.123

There are many aspects of Lindstrand’soeuvre that demonstrate a linear development of ideas and themes, contrary to previous criticism. Despite the apparent preferences for his Orrefors work, the same ideas - albeit developed and adapted to the changing styles and fashions - permeate his body of work throughout his career. As a demonstration of this, an analysis of Lindstrand’s most well known works in glass, Pärlfiskaren (Pearlfishers), 1932 for Orrefors (Figure 4.27), and Träd i dimma (Trees in fog), 1951 for Kosta (Figure 4.28) demonstrate linear development and share much in common, despite being conceived twenty-years apart.

Each work is representative of both the time of their creation and the invention of the designer. With the Pärlfiskaren (Pearlfishers), Lindstrand used a simple, austere, thick walled form for the vessel (modernist influence), utilising an undulating inner face of the glass to suggest the movement of water. The copper wheel engraved figures, three naked, muscular male divers, are dispersed around the circumference of the vase (Figure 4.27). The result is a controlled, elegant and precise design contrasting with the tension of the dynamic engraved illustration against the undulating interior.

In Träd i dimma (Trees in fog), a heavily hot worked vase utilising a highly original interpretation of the Venetian sommerso or underlay technique, the black forms of the bare trees are, like Pärlfiskaren, dispersed around the circumference of the vase, whilst opal glass in increasing opacity is utilised to suggest the fog. The form of the vase has been heavily hand worked and deliberately distorted, resulting in an asymmetric form (organic modernism). The result here is a boldly graphic, organic form with inherent imperfection that captures the liquid qualities of the material (asymmetry, unevenness).

bcd
& ("
&+!01/+!
.2,1"!
&+
+(+,4+J
^%6
'201
$)00P^J
*, &)&H
UeeNef
Y*/ %N-/&)
bjfjZM 202 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

Both outcomes are carefully designed and executed to produce these specific results. The precise, controlled nature of Pärlfiskaren imbues the vase with a monumental quality, austere, graceful, dignified and befitting the reference toSwedish Grace.124 The plastic qualities of Träd i dimma have more in common with sculpture than utilitarian ware, providing both an abstracted narrative and an exploration of the ductility and transparency of the material, consistent with Lindstrand’s view of working with glass as “painting and drawing and sculpture all combined, and yet none of them.”125 Gillian Naylor has observed that during the 1920s and 1930s Orrefors had realised the Ruskinian ideal in glass and this, too, is evident in Lindstrand’s Kosta work. Ruskin abhorred cut glass instead proclaiming the properties of ductility and transparency as the essential qualities in work in glass.126 Lindstrand was sympathetic to Ruskin’s ideals and also believed that “the purpose of the artist when he paints or decorates the glass should really be only to enhance its natural beauty.”127 Whilst Pärlfiskaren and Träd i dimma emerged from differing stylistic contexts in time, their conceptual framework, that is to work with the material and enhance its inherent qualities, is shared.

bce
%"
1"/*
4"!&0%
/ "
40
@/01
20"!
6
1%"
+$)&0%
',2/+)&01
M,/1,+
%+!
&+
1%"
bjdbJ
1,
!"0 /& "
4"!&0%
/ %&1" 12/"
&+
1%"
/ %&1" 12/)
"3&"4M
+
/"0-,+0"
1,
1%"
1, (%,)*
5%& &1&,+
,#
bjdaJ
1%"
1"/*
" *"
06+,+6*,20
4&1%
4"!&0%
"0&$+J
!"*,+01/1&+$

/"01/&+"!
")"$+ "
+!
" ,+,*6
,#
#,/*M bcf
,)$"/
2+! "/$%J
^ ,01
&+!01/+!^J
Y"4
,/(L
,++&"/0J
bjfhZM bcg
6),/J
^//"#,/0
&+
/"1
/&1&+
+!
/")+!^M
-M
bhgM bch
2+! "/$%J
^ ,01
&+!01/+!^M 203 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% #(
8/)@0(/"+
T"/)@0%"/0UJ
bjdc
#,/
//"#,/0M
*$"J
//"#,/0
/(&3M

204 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6


% #)
/8!
&
!&**
T/""0
&+
#,$UJ

caafJ
bjfb
#,/
,01M
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M

205 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Lindstrand’s acute observations of contemporary movements in the arts, particularly Abstract Expressionism and sculpture, influenced his work profoundly (Figures 4.31 - 4.33). Design historian Lesley Jackson has made reference to this influence in her book on 1950s design The New Look. Design in the Fifties.128 Jackson, in discussing the widespread influence of Jackson Pollock upon 1950s design and decoration, described Lindstrand as the first to produce Abstract-Expressionist glass.129 In a later publication Jackson provides a counter response to the Italian underlay influence, as observed by Stavenow in 1951, and states that “His organic and often asymmetrical art glass shapes were particularly inventive, and his use of coloured underlay was very original, especially the atmospheric effects ofTrees in Fog (Träd I dimma) (1951) and Autumn (Höst) (1953, Figure 4.29).”130 Lindstrand’s success in the 1950s can be attributed to many factors including his solo status at Kosta. His plastic, organic forms were deliberately linked to these movements, and by virtue of the process of glassblowing, fluid, sculptural forms were achievable. Imprecise forms were less expensive to produce, as they required less stringent accuracy in the hot shop and even production series pieces achieved greater status and distinction, as no two were ever exactly the same.


% #*
"0,+0
0"0M
"#1
1,
/&$%1L
&+1"/
T&+1"/U
,01

biabJ
bjgcK
<01
T212*+U
,01

cabaJ
bjfbK
,01

cacjJ
bjfbM
*$"0J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M bci
 (0,+J
%"
"4
,,(J
"0&$+
&+
1%"

&"0M bcj
&!M
M
haM
&*&)/)6J
%)"
!"0 /& "0
&+!01/+!
0
S1%"
"5-/"00&,+&01
&+
4"!&0%
/1N$)00T
4%,R0
S 1&3"
1)"+1
&0
)460
0"/ %&+$
#,/
Q!&?"/"+1R
"?" 10MT
%)"J

/"02/6
,#
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+K
%"
1+!/!
21%,/&16
,+
 +!&+3&+
S
!"0&$+"!
2/+&12/"H
"51&)"0H
)00H
"/*& 0
+!
"1)M
-M
bigM bda
"0)"6
 (0,+J
][1%
"+12/6
 1,/6
)00
Y&1 %"))
"7)"6J
caaaZM
-M
bbbM
206 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6


% $!
 01/ 1
0"/&"0
,4)M
,01

cacaJ
bjfbM
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M


% $"
Y "#1Z
 0/ 1
0"/&"0
30"M
,01

caccJ
bjfbM
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M 
% $#
Y&!!)"Z
2)1& ,),2/"!
1%/"!0
!" +1"/M
,01

bajcJ
bjfbM
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M 
% $$
Y&$%1Z
 0/ 1
0"/&"0
30"M
,01

cadgJ
bjfbM
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M

207 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

During the 1940s, Lindstrand’s ten year agreed hiatus from the glass industry, he was formulating a considerable range of ideas for his return to the glass industry as evidenced by the extensive collection of forms and decorative devices presented at his first exhibition under the Lindstrand Kosta brand in 1951. A detailed examination of his ceramic designs of the 1940s reveals forms, details and decorative motifs which, whilst popular at the time, were later extended upon his re-acquaintance with glass at Kosta. Vertical lines, undulating rims, chanterelle forms and heavily ribbed vessels exist alongside more figurative objects of animals. These themes translated with apparent ease into his glass designs, and the extensive range and invention of Lindstrand’s first works for Kosta suggest he had been working on new ideas for some time prior to returning to glass. This is evidenced by sketches produced by Lindstrand131 depicting engraved decoration for glass objects that precede his employment with Kosta. The sketches, however, do not pre-empt the subsequent innovation and reinvention of his engraved vessels first presented to the public in an exhibition atNordiska Kompaniet (NK) department store in Stockholm in 1951. Certainly, due to his previous achievements at Orrefors, and based on the tone of the first reviews, there were high expectations of what he might produce. Whilst Lindstrand’s early Kosta work might appear, on first examination, to be a complete stylistic departure from his earlier work at Orrefors there exists an underlying continuity and development of his earlier ideas in the new works, as evidenced in the preceding comparison of Pearlfishers (Figure 4.27) and Trees in Fog (Figure 4.28).

It is, however, the engraved and cut glass produced alongside the hot worked glass that was something new altogether. Lindstrand himself has described his intent, explaining that:

There is also the air to reckon with. Take a wide jar or vase. Instead of engraving the entire design as one picture, I achieve a much more interesting effect of movement by placing the figure on one side of the vessel, and the birds on the opposite side. In other words, I make use of the void. A play as it were, between that which exists, and that which doesn’t.132

The preceding quotation comes from a promotional booklet produced by Kosta in connection with a 1957 exhibition of new Lindstrand glass objects at Bonniers in New York. The source is actually an earlier article dating from the 1930s that was published during Lindstrand’s

bdb
2/&+$
/ %&3)
/"0"/ %
&+
,3"* "/
caafJ
1%&0
/"0"/ %"/
2+ ,3"/"!

+2* "/
,#
"/)6
0("1 %"0
1%1
-/"!1"
&+!01/+!R0
"*-),6*"+1
1
,01M
/,*
1%"
!1"
,#
1%"
0("1 %"0
&1
&0
)&(")6
1%1
&+!01/+!
%!
""+
&+
+"$,1&1&,+
4&1%
,01
#,/
0,*"
1&*"
-/&,/
1,
bjfaM
%"
0("1 %"0
!"-& 1
*,/"
1/!&1&,+)
"+$/3"!
&))201/1&,+0
,+
1"/!/,-
#,/*0
+!
!,
+,1
-/""*-1
1%"
&+3"+1&3"
!"0&$+0
/"3")"!
&+
bjfbM bdc
2+! "/$%J
^ ,01
&+!01/+!^M 208 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

Orrefors period.133 Its use by Kosta in this context was most likely instigated by Lindstrand and demonstrates that, at least in his own mind, he was still working within the same conceptual framework as at Orrefors. Even though it dates from the 1930s, the quote succinctly describes the ideas behind the ‘new’ style of engraved vases, the idea of utilising the void and transparency of the vessel to suggest movement in a deliberately sculptural manner. This was also observed by Hård af Segerstad in his review of Lindstrand’s 1951 debut of work for Kosta at the exhibition at NK, referring to the engraved vases that “highlight the space of the fragile glass objects [...] which provides power to both surface and depth.”134 As will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter, Lindstrand was the inventor of this technique which was largely unprecedented but has since been widely emulated. Whilst the muscular nudes, heavily detailed and precise engravings of Orrefors no longer feature as pictorial matter in favour of the more mundane everyday scenes in keeping with the times, Lindstrand’s ongoing interests in African and primitive art continues. This can be observed in the sculptural busts of Amazonian women and engraved decoration inspired by ancient Swedish rock carvings in the first Kosta catalogue under Lindstrand’s direction. Lindstrand’s avoidance of familiar themes and motifs from his Orrefors work was a conscious marketing decision as the copyright he had assigned to Orrefors for his designs in 1937 had long since expired under the ten year protection provided in Swedish law.

Upon Lindstrand’s arrival at Kosta in 1950, cut and engraved glass were out of favour with the public and Kosta was struggling financially.135 Lindstrand’s predecessor since 1929, the architect Elis Bergh, had excluded virtually all engraved work from his oeuvre in favour of cut glass.136 During Lindstrand’s absence from the glass industry in the 1940s, Orrefors had become a dominant force in both artistic and commercial terms, largely due to the 1930s legacy and the creative work of a pool of new, younger artists including Sven Palmqvist, Nils Landberg and Ingeborg Lundin, whilst Kosta was producing mostly table services designed by Bergh. The growing cost of labour in producing engraved glass had become a major factor in Orrefors decision to drop or reduce heavily engraved work from their range during the Depression and WWII. Lindstrand’s engraved work for Kosta continued his interest in the technique from his years with Orrefors, but now that he was no longer tied to the Orrefors tradition heavily grounded in the idea of Swedish Grace, he was free to explore, develop and

bdd
/&$&+))6
.2,1"!
&+

bjda0
/1& )"
 ,21
//"#,/0M
""
2+! "/$%J
^01"/
,#
/601)
/1^M bde
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
^)0(,+01+8/
$=/
0&+
+!/
!" 21^M bdf
+1"/"01&+$)6J
0""*&+$)6
"3"/64%"/"
"5 "-1
201/)&M
,01
-/,!2 "!

!&01&+ 1
21
/601)
-/,!2 1&,+
1%1
40
"5 "-1&,+))6
-,-2)/
+!
-/1& 2)/)6
1"/"!
#,/
1%"
,+0"/31&3"
101"0
,#
1%"
201/)&+
+!
"4
")+!
*/("10M
bdg
,2/ "L
,01
bjea
1),$2"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3J
4"!"+M


209 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

innovate on this traditional technique. The growing popular interest in and acceptance of modernism finally flowered in the 1950s and traditional cut or engraved crystal was seen as old fashioned and the antithesis of the tenets of the new modern era. Faced with these dilemmas, Lindstrand found a way to reinvent these techniques in a manner that was both contemporary and economically viable, whilst keeping the workers gainfully employed. At Kosta, Lindstrand was not only employed as Artistic Director but also held a position on the board of the company137 ensuring a say in the future direction of the glassworks. As an artist he was faced with an artistic challenge, however, as a manager he was faced with the financial constraints of a workshop of skilled engravers who were not being utilised to produce saleable products. Rather than terminate the employees and lose these skills, Lindstrand sought an alternative expression for the traditional techniques, in keeping with current trends, that would ensure an ongoing need for the workers (Figure 4.34 - 4.36).


% $%
+$/3"!
30"J
,01
+&(
bgeh
"/)6
bjga0M
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M

% $&
$!")"+J
"+$/3"!
30"J

bgeJ
bjfbM
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M

bdh
,2/ "L
*&)
,//"0-,+!"+ "
4&1%
"/

"/$J
" /"1/6
&+!01/+!
,2+!1&,+J
1, (%,)*J
e
" /2/6
caagM
%"/"
4"/"
e
,+1/ 10
"14""+
& ("
&+!01/+!
+!

,01
)0 /2(
)&01"!L
bjfaJ
bjffJ
bjga
+!
bjgfM
210 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6


% $'
,4)J
,01

fac
#"12/&+$
21
!" ,/1&,+
&+0-&/"!
6
+ &"+1
4"!&0%
/, (
"+$/3&+$0M
&+!01/+!
#/".2"+1)6
20"!
1%"0"
*,1�
&+
%&0
4,/(
1
//"#,/0Mbdi
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M

In recent interviews with Lindstrand’s former colleagues undertaken specifically for this study, Hanne Dreutler, Arthur Zirnsack and historian Lars Thor, all spoke of Lindstrand’s sense of responsibility to the workers, citing their welfare as his greatest concern.

His only problem was to give work to everybody in the village, and then he played in his free time and made something exciting.139

If the cutters had very little to do he said make cut glass, and if the engravers had very little to do he made engraved glass to keep the people employed in the glass works. All the time he made sure people had enough to do; nobody should not have anything to do. So that was the purpose for him. He always drew things for the different craftsmen too.140

These statements suggest that not all of his decisions were market driven in contrast to how his portrayal in several critical reviews. Invention and reinvention, and the subsequent market response is what would dictate the success of his endeavours.

Lindstrand’s concern for the welfare of his workforce can also be attributed to the tradition of paternalism historically common in small Swedish bruk, mill or company towns, known in Sweden as the Bruksmentalitet. A Bruk is a small, almost self-sustaining community that was centred about a manufacturing industry, usually an ironworks or mill in the countryside. The bdi
""
01"/$/!
"1
)MJ
%"
/&))&+ "
,#
4"!&0%
$)00
\d\cL\d^d
J
+
))&+ "
,#
/1
+!
&+!201/6M
-M
cedM bdj
+1"/3&"4
4&1%
++"
/"21)"/
+!
/1%2/
&/+0 (
1
1%"&/
%,*"
&+
%20H
4"!"+
,+
1%"
"3"+&+$
,#
]]
,3"* "/M bea
+1"/3&"4
4&1%
/0
%,/H
/)+!H
1, (%,)*
\
" "* "/M 211 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

workers in the industry lived in a small community located about the mill that provided power, a forest that provided fuel for the factory, and included residential and farmland owned by the bruk and used to grow food to feed the community. The workers relied on the factory owners for a form of social security, education and social life. It is here that the germ of social democracy was established. As political scientist Henry Milner has observed:

Practical moderation, public-spiritedness, equity, individuality and the work ethic: these are the values that observers time and again discern among the Swedes (and Scandinavians) - values compatible with, if not integral to, social democracy. The roots of these values are in thebruk and villages of pre-industrial Sweden 141

This tradition and its strong emphasis on the individual as part of the collective are also evident in the People’s Home, central to the Swedish Welfare model.

Kosta and Orrefors were such bruk communities. Kosta was the oldest glass factory in Sweden being first established in 1742. By the time of Lindstrand’s employment, the town was a well established bruk community. Lindstrand, through his role as artistic director and board member, took on a paternalistic role in the village becoming involved in community projects and activities contributing, amongst other things, to the interior renovation of the Folkets hus and murals for the school and new exhibition hall built during the 1950s.


% $(
Y "#1Z
2/)
!"-& 1&+$
1%"
),4&+$
/,,*
&+
1%"
,01
20"2*J
bjfdM

% $)
Y&$%1Z
2/)
&+
1%"
,01
 %,,)J
!"1&)J
bjga0M
*$"0J
/&31"
,))" 1&,+K

beb
"+/6
&)+"/J
4"!"+J
0, &)
!"*, / 6
&+
-/ 1& "
Y5#,/!
+&3"/0&16
/"00J
J
bjjaZM
--M
fdNfeM 212 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

In 1951, Lindstrand had found the means to reinvent engraved glass by the employment of the engraver Rune Strand (Figure 4.39). Strand had introduced pin engraving as an alternative to the traditional copper wheel technique whilst in the employ of a rival glassworks142 and it is likely that Lindstrand saw the possibilities of this new technique as a way to rejuvenate a dying tradition. The pin engraver, likened to a dentist’s drill, freed up the technique of engraving, being more akin to freehand drawing or sketching. With the benefit of the pin engraver, Lindstrand introduced a new, lighter expression to his illustration that combined traditional copper wheel engraving in tandem with the new technique. The resulting designs utilised the entire body of the vessel in a completely new manner143 to critical acclaim and commercial success. The design is carried around the body of the vessel enhancing three-dimensionality and creating a sense of movement in the illustration. Whilst a linear development of his earlier Orrefors work, the new work for Kosta abandons the precise and heavily worked illustrations of Orrefors and introduces a more spontaneous and whimsical quality. There was less emphasis on front or back. Unnecessary detail was omitted and figures became more abstract, heightening the lighter expression. Whilst the less labour intensive method of engraving was more economically viable, it was the freshness of the work and critical acclaim that ensured a ready market for the wares.

Lindstrand seems to have deliberately set out to distance himself from his well-known work for Orrefors by way of this new expression. Lindstrand himself conceived the new lighter style of engraving, executed initially by Rune Strand. Strand gave an account of Lindstrand’s first instructions to produce an engraving “so light that one could imagine blowing it off the surface”144 and the resulting illustrations capture this sense of lightness with engravings that have more resemblance to sketches or line drawings, fluid and freehand in character, than the heavily detailed work associated with Orrefors.

Whilst he still designed heavily worked engraved pieces such as Katedralen (The Cathedral), which is documented as taking 100 ‘man hours’ to engrave, Lindstrand also produced less

bec
2+"
1/+!
01/1"!
4,/(
1
1/=* "/$0%611+
&+
bjdjJ
+!
40
4,/(&+$
4&1%
/"))" ,/$
)0 /2(
&+
bjfbJ
4%"+
%"
40
&+3&1"!
1,
4,/(
1
,01M
1
/"))" ,/$
%"
&+1/,!2 "!
1%"
-&+
"+$/3"/
1%1
%"
)1"/
1,,(
1,
,01M
%"
-&+
"+$/3"/
Y)&("+"!
1,

!"+1&010
!/&))Z
*!"
-,00& )"
1%"
" "/$0
4%"/"
1%"
"+$/3"!
!" ,/1&,+
&0
4&1%&+
1%"
$)00M
,/

*,/"
!"1&)"!
 ,2+1
0""
%,/J
"$"+!
&
$)0
J
"+
,(
,*
& ("
&+!01/+!M bed
+-/" "!"+1"!
&+
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+M
1
//"#,/0J
)*.3&01
C
2+!&+
-/"0"+1"!
4,/(0
4%& %
21&)&0"
1%"
"+1&/"
3"00")
&+

0&*&)/
21
*,/"
 01/ 1
*++"/
#/,*
bjfe
0""
& ("
+!
%,/J
4"!&0%
)00
 1,/&"0
/,!2 1&,+
1),$2"0
\d\`
S
\da[MM
-
cfhJ
%&)01
0&*&)/&1&"0
,#
,1%
1%"*"
+!
1%"
1%/""
!&*"+0&,+)
&))201/1&,+
+
"
0""+
&+
7" %
$)00
#/,*
1%"
-/" "!&+$
!" !"J
02 %
0
& "+0(6R0
S-/&/,$/-%T
,4)J
bjeiJ
S&/)0
%+$&+$
)2+!/6T
30"
bjeh
4%"/"
1%"
!" ,/1&,+
&0
$"+"/))6
-&+1"!
/1%"/
1%+
"+1&/")6
"+$/3"!M
""
& ("
Y"!MZJ
7" %
)00
\d_`L\dc[
"0&$+
&+
+
$"
,#
!3"/0&16M
$"0
cdb
W
cdeM bee
/,*
+
&+1"/3&"4
4&1%
2+"
1/+!
&+
%,/J
"$"+!
&
$)0
J
"+
,(
,*
& ("
&+!01/+!M
-M
ijM 213 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

labour intensive works celebrating popular themes and interests of the period utilising the new techniques. The illustrative subject matter of Lindstrand’s engraved work reflected a tendency toward the everyday, again a parallel theme in fine art. Tvätt (Washing) (Figure 4.13) and Fisknät (The Nets) (Figures 4.48 and 4.111), whilst depicting seemingly mundane and familiar functions or scenes of everyday life, also provided the perfect vehicle for this new technique of engraving, incorporating nets, lines, and textiles.145 The work produced using this method imbues an almost whimsical lightness to the designs which is also evident in I fiskehamnen (In the harbour) and Norsfiske (Fishermen). A similar sense of whimsy can also be observed in the later mid-1950s work of Ingeborg Lundin (Orrefors) and Erik Höglund (Boda). Lindstrand’s innovations in this technique may be seen as a precedent for this later work.


% $*
Y "#1Z
&+!01/+!
+!
2+"
1/+!J
bjfeM

% %!
Y&$%1Z
+%11+
30"J

bgdJ
bjfbM
*$"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

Lindstrand did not confine his utilisation of the void exclusively to engraved glass. His underlay work, influenced by Venetian cane techniques, twisted coloured glass canes within an outer casing of thick crystal which utilised the void to form a grid of nets, sometimes over a brightly coloured transparent underlay. His cut glass also utilised the void for its optic enhancement of various olive-cut decorations resulting in striking optical effects that echo experiments in Op-Art works such as those by the artist Victor Vasarely.

bef
%&0
1%"*"
40
)0,
20"!
6
1&$
&+! "/$
&+
#&"+ "
!" ,/1&,+
#,/
20130 "/$
&+
1%"
bjea0M 214 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

Around October 1951, Lindstrand introduced his engraved Glas Block sculptures for the first time (Figure 4.41). Conceived by Lindstrand utilising waste cullet from the production of window glass at nearby Emmaboda glassworks146, the first examples championed another entirely new engraved technique. Utilising pressure on the pin engraver the illustrative content was now engraved within the glass via a reverse carving technique that required great three-dimensional appreciation and skill in the engraver. Rune Strand was excited at this new technique and credits Lindstrand with an idea that was well suited to the material, stating that: “Vicke did what he did to all the other glass. He reinforced its own effect. The green colour became more evident when there were polar bears and fish in the blocks.”147


% %"
)0
), (
0 2)-12/"0J
,)/
"/0J
bjfbM
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/("1K

This was another of Lindstrand’s innovations which explored the potential of the new engraving technique. A subsequent, less labour intensive version became part of the Kosta production series, with engraved illustration mostly on the surface rather than hollowed out of the glass. These popular ‘sculptures’ were a significant commercial success for Kosta, remaining in production for decades and have been widely copied. Erik Rosén, former director of Kosta has claimed that during the 1960s, the factory could barely meet the international demand for these objects.148 Whilst commercially successful, these mass market sculptures have been criticised by Dag Widman for being produced “ad nauseum”149. Widman opined that:

beg
,1%
,01
+!
** ,!
$)00
# 1,/&"0
%!
1%"
0*"
,4+"/J
/&
#,/0J
*(&+$
1%"
401"
2))"1
"0&)6
 "00& )"
6
&+!01/+!M beh
&!M
-M
ijM bei
/(
+
,+"0J
^ +1"/3&"4
4&1%
/&
,0;+
1
%&0
%,*"
&+
)+!J
4"!"+
cj
,3"* "/
caaf^J
Ycaaf ZM bej
&!*+J
^%"
,01
/1&010
N

%-0,!&
"3&"4
,#
1%"
4"+1&"1%
"+12/6^M
-M
gbM
215 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Vicke Lindstrand’s original idea was, with the help of engraving, to make people discover “the inherent beauty of glass” - a diffuse idea with results of doubtful value in my opinion.150

The commercial success of theGlas Blok series, later renamed Isberg to reflect their uneven iceberg shape, ensured decades of ongoing work for the engravers at Kosta. This series, several of Lindstrand’s engraved designs, and the many variations on the Prisma polyoptic sculptures first unveiled in 1959, have proved to be the most enduring of Lindstrand’s designs and continued in production well into the late 1980s.151 Lindstrand’s engraved work for Kosta represents the last significant production of this technique from the Swedish Glass factories. In the current ranges from Orrefors Kosta Boda152 engraved glass is entirely absent.

K@M
  *.#)(
(
)'' (.,3

Looking back to the foundation of what became known internationally as Swedish Modern, the SSF’s one-hundred year jubilee exhibition at Liljevalchs Konsthall in Stockholm in 1945 is an important catalyst. Featured in the exhibition were objects representing the ‘new’ modern that Sweden, and Scandinavia, would become renowned for in the 1950s. Spare, elegant, pared down and to some critics, cold and sterile; Stig Lindberg’s ceramics and Elis Bergh’s glassware were amongst those favoured by the SSF. This exhibition debuted several classic Swedish table ware services, Stig Lindberg’s LB and Wilhelm Kåge’s Praktika-II for Gustavsberg, that both found a sympathetic partner in Elis Bergh’s Charm stemware for Kosta.153 This early start would leave Lindstrand significantly behind by the time he returned to work in glass in 1950 and his work only ever fitted this paradigm comfortably on few occasions. Lindberg was well established at Gustavsberg by the early fifties and had become an internationally renowned designer, whereas Lindstrand was still settling in at Kosta, reacquainting himself with glass.

As Lindstrand was establishing himself at Kosta it was the beginning of what Gunilla Frick has described as “a flowering high summer for Swedish design.”154 Concurrent with Lindstrand’s debut for Kosta, and a successful Triennale for the Scandinavian countries in bfa
&!M
M
gcM bfb
""
,01
,!J
%"
,01
,!
,,(
,#
$)00
Y ,01L
,01
,!J
bjigZ
daeM
%&0
1),$2"
,#
-/,!2 1&,+
-&" "0
#,/
bjig
0%,40
0"3"/)
,#
&+!01/+!R0
"+$/3"!
!"0&$+0
01&))
&+
-/,!2 1&,+M
%"0"
&+ )2!"
" "/$0J
@/01
&+1/,!2 "!
&+1,
0"/&)
-/,!2 1&,+
&+
bjffJ
@/01
--"/0
&+
bjfbK
"1%"/0J
@/01
&+1/,!2 "!
&+
bjfhJ
,+%J
@/01
&+1/,!2 "!
&+
bjfhJ
"/#2*"
,11)"0J
@01
&+1/,!2 "!
&+
bjfiJ
/&0*
YbjffZ
+!
,,
YbjgcZM
,*"
,1%"/
"+$/3"!
, '" 10
4"/"
3&) )"
6
0-" &)
,/!"/M bfc
,01
" *"
,01
,!

&+
bjjcJ
+!
@+))6
" *"
//"#,/0
,01
,!
&+
bjjiM bfd
""
& (*+
Y"!MZJ
,/*"+0
/

1951, plans were underway for a joint travelling exhibition to North America, Design in Scandinavia. From Sweden, all of the major manufacturer’s wares were represented. Kosta, the oldest Swedish glass factory, was a recognisable brand internationally by the 1950s and the SSF, according to Dag Widman, promoted Ellis Bergh’s 1940s Kosta design Charm as its favourite stemware.155

Design in Scandinavia, a diplomatic goodwill vehicle in the Cold War, sought also to capitalise on the market awareness of Scandinavian design in North America. By the time of the opening of the exhibition at the Virginia Museum of Art in 1954, Lindstrand was already well known in the American market156 due to his work for Orrefors and his monumental glass fountain at the 1939 New York Worlds Fair. His more recent exhibitions of Kosta glass at both Georg Jensen and Bonniers in New York and significant coverage in American newspapers reinforced his profile (Figure 4.42). Lindstrand’s Pollock inspired objects tapped into the notoriety generated by the New York based Abstract Expressionist movement in art, linking the objects to more avant-garde ideas. Given an overt marketing agenda in the conception of the Design in Scandinavia exhibition, established brand and market awareness was important. Lindstrand’s international profile and solo status at Kosta was, in itself, enough to warrant his inclusion. Research suggests that there was, however, a perception of the ‘quality’ of his work and its lack of inherent Swedish-ness that was a deciding factor. By this time he had created many important, successful and celebrated designs for Kosta including the new engraved works, the Pollock inspired Abstracta series as well as Träd i dimma, Höst and a range of sculptural objects.

bff
""
&!*+J
^%"
,01
/1&010
N

%-0,!&
"3&"4
,#
1%"
4"+1&"1%
"+12/6^M
-M
fiM bfg
&+!01/+!
40
#"12/"!
&+
0"3"/)
"5%& &1&,+0
1
,++&"/0
&+
"4
,/(
+!
40
)0,
(+,4+
#,/
%&0
$)00
#,2+1&+
1
1%"
"4
,/(
,/)!R0
&/
,#
bjdjM 217 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% %#
,++&"/O0
"4
,/(
4&+!,4
!&0-)6
,+
1%"
, 0&,+
,#
1%"
N

"5%& &1&,+
,#
bjfcM
%&0
&+!& 1"0
1%"
"01""*
&+
4%& %
&+!01/+!
40
%")!
&+
*"/& 
&+

0&$+&@ +1
0,),
"5%& &1&,+
,#
%&0
@/01
,))" 1&,+
#,/
,01M
*$"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

The Swedish selection committee for Design in Scandinavia was headed by the SSF’s Åke Huldt, facilitated by the network of individuals identified in the preceding chapter. This complex network contributed to commentary, texts and promotion of Swedish design and were affiliated with and championed particular exemplars and individuals. Therefore, as has been argued in Part One of this study, their collective opinion may be seen to have been tainted in terms of objectivity due to the nature of the network and its alliances to Orrefors. How this might have impacted upon Lindstrand is of considerable interest.

All of the Swedish objects included in the Design in Scandinavia exhibition were sourced from samples sent by manufacturers, screened by a selection committee led by Åke Huldt. Of Lindstrand’s most current work for Kosta, the purist, simplest objects were what made the final selection, with a total of thirteen objects included. Whilst the objects can be seen to have conformed to the stylistic criteria of the exhibition157 only one has gone on to be considered amongst Lindstrand’s most representative and meritorious works. By contrast, Lindstrand has

bfh
&*-)&@"!
#,/*0J
) (
,#
--)&"!
!" ,/1&,+J
, '" 1U#2+ 1&,+
"5-)& &1J
) (
,#
!&0 "/+& )"
&+B2"+ "0M 218 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

become known and associated with works from the same period that were omitted from the exhibition, omissions which in retrospect may be seen to fit the national/regional paradigm more comfortably. As identified and discussed in Part One of this study, the ‘conscientious editing’ of the exhibition in favour of a selection of objects that ‘looked well together’, combined with aspects of scale and suitability for travel, presented what can be argued as a skewed and potentially more exclusive than inclusive exhibition that strayed from its stated intentions.

The omission of what are amongst Lindstrand’s most notable works, particularlyTräd i dimma and the Pollock inspired series seems, initially, incomprehensible if one considers the aims of the organisers to present a current view of applied arts from the region. Certainly, in examining the overall aesthetic of the exhibition these works may be seen to lacking perfect form, too loud or simply not ‘Swedish’ enough, given their sometimes obvious international and fine art influences. In August 1953, Kosta submitted a total of fifty two of Lindstrand’s designs along with ten glass services, and a few objects designed by Skawonius and Bergh, for the consideration of the selection committee. Amongst the Lindstrand objects was Träd i dimma, several of the Pollock inspired ‘threads’ vases and bowls and seven of his engraved designs. From the archival photographs of the exhibition display tables featuring Lindstrand objects (see Figures 4.45 and 4.46) it is apparent that a further series of more recent objects were submitted for consideration and subsequently selected for inclusion in the exhibition. The inclusion of Fisknät (The Nets) over some of the more exotic themes is significant in this context. Its subject matter, a peasant woman carrying a basket of fish, is a scene loaded with vernacular imagery suited to the rhetoric of the exhibition that could be seen in almost any Swedish (or Scandinavian) seaside town. Gotthard Johansson’s publication accompanying the exhibition featured amongst its illustrations Lindstrand’s black crystal, pierced, bottle shaped, Fulvio Bianconi inspired vase158 (Figure 4.43), an object subsequently excluded from the exhibition in favour of a simpler object in clear, uncoloured crystal (Figure 4.44).159 In retrospect, the object’s international or Surrealist connections would not have looked well together with the predominate exhibition aesthetic. What is apparent in this example is an attempt to tone down any non-Swedish influences out of keeping with the regionally influenced themes, and to emphasise what would later be identified as the “too much [a] esthetically washed clean”160 Scandinavian modern aesthetic.

bfi
/,*
1%"
,01
b
1),$2"J
/1& )"
+2* "/

bbib
bfj
/,*
1%"
,01
b
1),$2"J
/1& )"
+2* "/

bbic bga
&)%")*
9$"
.2,1"!
&+
,+/!
/,4+J
^,*&+$L
"3,)21&,+
&+
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+^J
/#1
,/&7,+0H
 Uc
YbjfiZM 219 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

The most highly represented artists in the exhibition were the Swede Stig Lindberg161, and the Finn Tapio Wirkkala162 whose previous successes and international profiles made them obvious drawcards. Lindberg’s style was original, illustrative, playful, colourful and humorous, not obviously internationally influenced but also not always representative of the typical Scandinavian Design language. Included in Design in Scandinavia was his work that best ‘fit’ the aesthetic of the exhibition such as the Pungo range for Gustavsberg, as illustrated in the exhibition catalogue.

Whilst Sweden had been regarded as a leader in glass in the 1920s and 1930s, Finland had by the late 1940s and early 1950s achieved much success and an international profile that suddenly challenged the preeminence of Sweden, particularly due to the work of Wirkkala and Timo Sarpaneva. Lindstrand’s Pollock, or Abstract Expressionist referencing objects, despite being inspired by influences from abroad, were too firmly associated with American national identity to be effectively utilised in marketing a regional ‘Scandinavian’ identity. The Swedish Artist in Industry and ‘better everyday things’ model had, via Design in Scandinavia, become the Scandinavian model by the 1950s which resulted in the application of a filter to curate a regional aesthetic that excluded international influences. Curator and historian Jan Brunius has noted this tendency, observing that Scandinavian design exhibited “a certain complacency and conservatism in its exclusion of design inspiration from abroad.”163

bgb
+
bjehJ
1&$
&+! "/$
" *"
/1&01&
)"!"/
1
20130 "/$
,/ ")&+
 1,/6
4%"/"
%"
%!
""+
"*-),6"!
0&+ "
bjdjM
&+! "/$J
14")3"
6"/0
&+!01/+!R0
'2+&,/J
1/&+"!
2+!"/
&)%")*
9$"
21
%!
!"3"),-"!
%&0
,4+
/" ,$+&0 )"
016)"
6
1%"
)1"
ea0M
&+! "/$
%!

-/))")
/""/
1,
&+!01/+!
+!
40
0
-/,)&@
6"1
1%"
14,
/" "&3"!
!&?"/&+$
)"3")0
,#
--/" &1&,+
+!
,+0&01"+ 6
&+
1%"&/
/&1& )
/" "-1&,+
+!
,3"/$"
&+
"5%& &1&,+0
+!
!&0 ,2/0"M
%"/"
/"
# 1,/0
%,4"3"/
1%1
$,
0,*"
46
1,
"5-)&+
1%&0M
&+! "/$
40
1%"
1%"+
2//"+1
Q-,01"/
,6R
#,/
20130 "/$
-,/ ")&+
# 1,/6
4%,0"
4,/(
40
(+,4+
&+
1%"
+&1"!
11"0
,#
*"/& 
+!
&+ )2!"!
&+
20"2*
,#
,!"/+
/1R0
bjea0
,,!
"0&$+
"5%& &1&,+0J
&* 2&+$
&1
4&1%
/1
4,/)!
01120M
bgc
&/(()R0
02 "00
&+
&)+
+!
1%"

*!"
%&*
+
, 3&,20
!/4 /!
#,/
1%"
&++&0%
0")" 1&,+
,**&11""M bgd
+
/2+&20
&+
& (*+
+!
&!*+J
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$M
-M
jbM 220 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6


% %$
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
1),$2"J
bjfeM
&+!01/+!
) (
/601)
30"J

bbibM3"+0(
,/*
/(&3K

% %%
,01
-/,!2 1&,+
!/4&+$
,#
1%"
02 01&121"
, '" 1

bbicM
,01
/(&3K


% %&
 )"

J
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&J
bjfeM
&+!01/+!
, '" 10
,+
!&0-)6
Y NZ

bbfj
&+
) (
+!
4%&1"
/601)J
&0(+81

bdb
"+$/3"!
)"/
/601)J
,+12/

bcdh
)"/
/601)
4&1%
) (
)&+"J

bbhcJ

bbha
,1%
&+
)"/
/601)M
+
1%"
#,/"$/,2+!
/"
4,,!"+
, '" 10
6
,%++6
1100,+M
*$"J
3"+0(
,/*
/(&3K

221 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% %'
 )"

J
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
bjfeJ
&+!01/+!
, '" 10
,+
!&0-)6M
Y NZ
+1&):+"

bdbbUjaJ
bdbeUjaJ

bdbiUja
+!

bdbhUja
&+
-)"
)2"U$/"6
/601)
4&1%
)2"
,),2/"!
2+!"/)6
#/,*
bjfeJ
+!
, '" 10

bcigJ

bcibJ

bchj
+!

bcia
&+
)"/
$/"6
/601)
#/,*
bjfdM
3"+0(
,/*
/(&3K


% %(
$"
ccdM
 '" 10
/" "&3"!
6
1%"

)"!

"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
0")" 1&,+
,**&11""
,+
da
2$201
bjfdM
#
1%"0"
, '" 10J
@3"
4"/"
0")" 1"!
"#,/"

0" ,+!
02 *&00&,+
,#
+"4"/
, '" 10
&+
bjfeM
%"
, '" 10
/"
0
#,)),40
,-
/,4J
)"#1
1,
/&$%1K

bcj
0%&+$J

bdb
%"
+"10J

bfb
#1"/
1%"
1%J

bfe
2))@$%1J
" ,+!
/,4K

bgf
+!,)&+"H

ffeJ
fff
C
ffgK

fgcJ
fge
C
fgf
#/,*
,01
\
1),$2"K
%&/!
/,4K

fge
-/,!2 1&,+
!/4&+$K

caaf
/""0
&+
#,$K

bacdJ
bacf
C
bacg
#/,*
,01
\
1),$2"K
%&/!
/,4K

baccJ

badbJ

bade
/ "0.2"
0"/&"0J
#/,*
,01
\
1),$2"K
,11,*
/,4K
/ "0.2"
0"/&"0

badeK

baea
C

baebK

baeb
) (
1%/"!0K

bbfdM

% %)
$"
cceM
,-
/,4J
)"#1
1,
/&$%1K
,)), (
&+0-&/"!

baihK

baijK

bajcK

bajd
#/,*
,01
\
1),$2"K
0" ,+!
/,4K

bbaeK

bbccJ

bbceK
#/,*
,01
\
1),$2"K

bccbK
1%&/!
/,4K

bbcj
C
bbda
0&*&)/
#/,*
,01
\
1),$2"K

bbfjK

bbjeK

bbha
C
bbhb
#/,*
,01
\
1),$2"K

bbic
-/,!2 1&,+
!/4&+$K

bbif
C
bbie
#/,*
,01
\
1),$2"K

bbieK

bbic
C
bbigK

bbii
-/,!2 1&,+
!/4&+$K

bbii
#/,*
,01
\
1),$2"K

bcafK

bbgi
C
bbgj
-/,!2 1&,+
!/4&+$M
*$"0L
,01
/(&3H
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3H
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(H
/&31"
,))" 1&,+K

222 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

223 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

224 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

Another artist who may be seen as an outsider was the young English artist Ernest Gordon- Adsetts. Lindstrand was the lone designer at Kosta for several years before being joined by Gordon, who had trained as a sculptor in Sheffield, England. Gordon, who had married a Swede, arrived in Stockholm in 1953 spurred on by the successful developments in Swedish design, and keen to work in glass. He was introduced to Erik Åfors via the SSF and was subsequently employed by Kosta between 1953 – 1955. As a glass artist he was known as Ernest Gordon and is most frequently associated with Åfors Glasbruk which, like Kosta, was owned by Erik Åfors. Lindstrand was criticised for being a keen observer of current trends, yet Gordon’s work, whilst very much in the spirit of the time, covered very similar territory to Lindstrand and numerous parallels can be observed in their work in both form and technique. Other objects Gordon designed could easily be mistaken for Lindstrand glass so great are the similarities, particularly in the Colora series. Gordon was twenty-six years old when he arrived at Kosta and was widely regarded to be quite talented yet he is mostly absent in period publications, both English and Swedish, and he was not included in Design in Scandinavia for unknown reasons, perhaps due to the fact that he was not Swedish. Gordon’s relationship with Lindstrand was difficult as has been observed by Lindstrand’s 1950s assistant at Kosta, Sven Pihlstrom, who has said that:

When Ernest Gordon came in 1953, I remember him as a real talent, Vicke became touchy when Gordon wanted to help people in the foundry. There were times when he treated Gordon so badly that we felt very uncomfortable [...]164

Gordon was relocated to sister factory Åfors in 1955 where he continued to produce stylistically similar work, branching off into versions of bothGraal and Ariel techniques, previous Lindstrand standards, which were downplayed at Kosta due to their associations with Orrefors.165 It has been suggested that the difficult relationship with Lindstrand was perhaps amplified by the similarity of their work, andprompted Gordon’s redeployment to Åfors. Gordon himself later downplayed Kosta and emphasised his work at Åfors in the sparse interviews published during the period. He is briefly mentioned in Björn Önnerhag’s essay on Bertil Vallien166 in relation to Åfors, but in a recent publication on the history of

bge
++
/&"
"/)&17N"7")&20J
,01
Y1, (%,)*L
&$+2*J
bjihZM bgf
,4"3"/J
&+!01/+!
!&!
-/,!2 "
/&")
!"0&$+0
1
,01
1%1
4"/"
-/,!2 "!
0
+&(
, '" 10
!2/&+$
1%"
bjfa0
+!
bjga0M bgg
'=/+
++"/%$J
^))&"+
-21
#,/0
,+
1%"
-^J
l%11-LUU444M "/1&)3))&"+M0"U#,/0M%1*mJ
 "00"!
ac
"-1"* "/
cabaM
S%"
@/01
/1&01
1,
"
"+$$"!
1
#,/0
40
/+"01
,/!,+
YbjfeZM
,/!,+J
%,4"3"/J
!&!
+,1
$"1
),+$
4&1%
/&
#,/0
+!
)"#1
1%"
# 1,/6
&+
bjgbMT 225 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Åfors Glasbruk he is omitted entirely.167 The significance of Gordon in the context of this study is twofold. His relationship with Lindstrand was far from that of apprentice and mentor, which was how it worked in other applied arts industries. More significant however, is Gordon’s invisibility in discourse. Being an ‘outsider’ might be seen to have parallels in terms of the assessment of Swedishness in his work. Gordon may be considered as another forgotten artist who inhabited the periphery of 1950s Swedish and Scandinavian design.

Running concurrent with the final plans for Design in Scandinavia was the planning of Svenskt Glas 1954 a jointly organised exhibition of the SSF and the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm. The exhibition committee included representatives from all of Sweden’s major glass manufacturers and as such, the exhibition presented a representative selection of current Swedish glass. Lindstrand, Johan Beyer, Edward Hald, Åke Huldt, Åke Stavenow and Eric Åfors were amongst the fourteen person committee for the exhibition. In contrast to Design in Scandinavia, Svenskt Glas 1954 encompassed a much broader and eclectic aesthetic. Noticeably free from the rigorous regional emphasis of Design in Scandinavia or the criteria for the work to ‘look well together’, the objects that were included were more indicative of current design styles. The exhibition also featured the work of younger designers that included Erik Höglund and Bengt Edenfalk, who within the next few years would bring a new expression to Swedish glass that was more rustic than sophisticated. Gordon, too, was included in Svenskt Glas 1954 which featured several of his Kosta works and he was mentioned briefly in the exhibition catalogue text as “a new artist showing signs of promise at Kosta”168 although no work is illustrated. Gordon all but disappeared from discourse after this exhibition and little has been written about his remaining career.

bgh
,/!,+
)"#1
#,/0
&+
bjgc
!2"
1,
+
&*-00"
4&1%
/&
#,/0
+!
/"12/+"!
1,
+$)+!
4%"/"
%"
/"*&+"!
#,/
1%"
/"01
,#
%&0
)&#"M
"
02 "00#2))6
/+
+
/*
,#

4"!&0%
)&$%1&+$
,*-+6
2+1&)
%&0
/"1&/"*"+1
21
+"3"/
4,/("!
&+
$)00
$&+M
"
&0
(+,4+
1,
%3"
("-1

02**"/
%,20"
+"/
#,/0
&+
*9)+!
4%"/"
%"
%,)&!6"!
/"$2)/)6M
bgi
"/+*/ (J
3"+0(1
$)0
\d`_M 226 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6


% %*
3"+0(1
)0
bjfe
1),$2"M

% &!
4,
,#
1%"
&+!01/+!
!"0&$+"!
, '" 10
&+ )2!"!
&+
3"+0(1
$)0
\d`_K
*$"0J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M

In the context of Svenskt glas 1954 it is significant that the Lindstrand work included in the exhibition profoundly contrasts with his work that was included in Design in Scandinavia. In Svenskt Glas 1954 the objects were mostly in brightly coloured crystal and not entirely spare, representing his preoccupation with the possibilities of the material rather than their fit in a cohesive aesthetic. Amongst the Lindstrand objects featured in Svenskt Glas 1954 were several that were rejected by the Design in Scandinavia selection committee suggesting the application of a less rigorous stylistic filter than that used for international consumption (Figure 4.50). The exhibition received widespread publicity and the catalogue included English language translations of all text, perhaps with a marketing subtext given its summer schedule and obvious tourist appeal. In numerous reviews and newspaper articles associated with the exhibition, Lindstrand’s glass was frequently illustrated. Form published a slightly biased but lengthy review of the exhibition written by Sven-Erik Skawonius. Orrefors stable of artists under the direction of Edward Hald was praised by Skawonius, and singled out were Ingeborg Lundin’s “charming objects”169 and Sven Palmqvist’s “most versatile and beautiful collection.”170 Kosta did not fare well in Skawonius’ review which found the new work by Ernest Gordon dated and out of fashion, and given the obvious similarities with Lindstrand’s own work, perhaps a backhanded criticism, whilst retired artist Elis Bergh’s 1940s Charm service, a firm SSF favourite then more than ten years old, was once again praised. bgj
3"+
/&(
(4,+&20J
^3"+0(1
$)0
bjfe^J
,/*H
Uf
YbjfeZM bha
&!M 227 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Lindstrand’s work was illustrated in the review although Skawonius avoided any substantive discussion of the work, preferring to conclude with the evasive statement that “there is always something happening, which is interesting to witness, but it is not easy to write an outline around his innate talent.”171


% &"
+!
% &#
&+!01/+!
1
ff
")0&+$ ,/$J
-,0"0
&+
#/,+1
,#
%&0
$)00
*,0&
*2/)M
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

Whilst the United States and Canada were becoming reacquainted with design from Scandinavia via the touring exhibition, Sweden was preparing for another major exhibition. TheH55 exhibition in Helsingborg, held over the summer months between 10 June and 28 August 1955, was a forward thinking ensemble of architecture and decorative arts that firmly associated Sweden with the modern era. The exhibition was conceived and arranged by the SSF as a sort of ‘sequel’ to the Stockholm exhibition of 1930 and included an international range of participants. Amongst the working committee for H55 were Gotthard Johansson, Åke Huldt and Simon Gate’s architect son Bengt. Participants from Sweden included Lindberg and Lindstrand. Lindstrand’s Kosta wine glass service Parapeten was specifically designed for the restaurant at the exhibition whilst Lindberg’s Teema ceramics were used alongside. Lindstrand also designed a mosaic mural for the wall of the Swedish Industrial Arts Hall at H55 using his recently produced glass mosaics for Kosta. The mosaic, inspired by boats and the harbourside setting of the exhibition, greeted visitors arriving by ferry and shared similarities with his engraved illustrations of the period. H55 became a measure of all

bhb
&!M 228 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

things modern in Sweden and its influence is still being felt today.172 The main architects of the exhibition grounds and buildings included Sven Silow who was a contributor to Form and former student of Gregor Paulsson. Silow discussed H55 in Formens rörelse (The movement of Form)173, a celebratory publication to mark 150 years of Svensk Form (SSF) in 1995, where, in reference to the Parapeten wine glass service, he referred to Lindstrand as an artist at Orrefors rather than Kosta, an indicator of the all consuming legacy of the Orrefors Paradox and the continuing problem of misinformation.

Lindstrand’s influence at Kosta and importance in the context of 1950s Swedish design extended beyond the confines of glass production. In addition to his own villa at Kosta built in 1953, a benefit of his generous contract, he was responsible for commissioning early and important buildings from the Swedish architect Bruno Mathsson. Both of these projects are testament to Lindstrand’s considerable influence at Kosta but they are, however, also further sources of misinformation.

Lindstrand’s Kosta villa was designed by the Uppsala County architect, Viking Göransson who had replaced Lindstrand as artistic leader at Upsala-Ekeby in 1950. Göransson had worked with Gunnar Asplund as a “young radical”174 on the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition at which Lindstrand made his debut as a glass artist. Göransson was, according to architectural historian Eva Rudberg, “a convinced functionalist”175 and was also amongst the defenders of the exhibition contributing to the architectural and public debates that followed.176 The villa has been credited to Kalmar architect Gösta Gerdsiöö177 however this is incorrect. Göransson was correctly credited in Svenska Hem, where the house was featured in 1954, and archival plans of the villa are signed and dated by Göransson in May 1950. This also provides evidence that Lindstrand waited no time in commissioning the villa design after signing his contract with Kosta one month earlier. What seems likely is that local architect Gerdsiöö managed the project for Göransson who was located in Uppsala. Lindstrand created several painted decorations in the villa, in the dining room and a Pollock-esque mural on the kitchen cupboards. Lindstrand maintained a large studio on the first floor and the villa provides the bhc
ff
)0,
04
1%"
!" 21
,#
3"+
)*.3&01R0
"+1/$))6
-/,!2 "!
2$
0"/&"0
,#
%,20"%,)!
$)00J
//"#,/0
@/01
#,/6
&+1,
* %&+"
-/,!2 1&,+
1%1
40

$/"1
,**"/ &)
02 "00M
%&0
1" %+&.2"
+,4
!,*&+1"0
1%"
2//"+1
-/,!2 1&,+
,#
1%"
# 1,/6M bhd
3"+
&),4J
^ ff
N
*"!
+0&(1"1
38+1
*,1
#/*1&!"+
Y ff
N
 &+$
1%"
212/"Z^J
&+
"/01&+
& (*+
Y"!MZJ
,/*"+0
/

setting for a number of iconic period photographs of the artist and his wife Marianne ‘at home’, taken by Stockholm based photographer Anna Riwkin (Figues 4.59 and 4.60).


% &$
&+!01/+!
&+
1%"
)&3&+$
/,,*
,#
%&0
,01
3&))J
bjfeM
&+!01/+!
1
")0"
/(&3K 
% &%
&+!01/+!
Q1
4,/(R
&+
1%"
@/01
B,,/
012!&,
,#
%&0
,01
3&))J
bjfeM
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

Mathsson’s first building at Kosta was a new exhibition hall built in 1954 dubbed “glass surrounded by glass” by Arthur Hald in Form the same year (Figure 4.55). Hald is known to have attended the opening of the exhibition hall and Åke Stavenow, also of the SSF, had visited the exhibition hall and Lindstrand’s villa in mid-1954. Stavenow took the time to write to Lindstrand in September 1954 noting his enthusiasm and congratulating Lindstrand on the two new buildings at Kosta.178 Mathsson’s exhibition hall received widespread coverage in international design and architecture publications, including American Interiors magazine, which assisted in raising his profile overseas.179 Lindstrand commissioned Mathsson after seeing his completed design for a new showroom for his family company in nearby Värnamo. Lindstrand’s recently developed glass mosaic tiles were used for the floor of the new hall and subsequently became a standard feature in many of Mathsson’s buildings. The Kosta building was specifically designed for both permanent and temporary exhibitions and brought a further modernist edge to the brand.

bhi
("
13"+,4J
^ "11"/
#/,*
/
("
13"+,4
1,
,+01+8/
& ("
&+!01/+!
!1"!
bd
"-1"* "/
bjfe^J
Y1, (%,)*L
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3
85'=M
+-2 )&0%"!
)"11"/J
bjfeZM bhj

J
^
"4
))
#,/
)00
&+
*)+!M
/2+,
1%00,+
!"0&$+0
+
++"5
1,
,01^
bi1%
"+12/6
*20"2*M^J
+1"/&,/0H
U 1, "/
YbjffZM 230 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6


% &&
)0%20"1
,01J
/2+,
1%00,+M
&+!01/+!
$)00
, '" 10
&+
#,/"$/,2+!M
/,*

bjfa0
-,01 /!M
*$"J
/&31"
,))" 1&,+K

The second Mathsson building was adjacent row housing for glass workers completed in 1955 which also featured Lindstrand’s glass mosaics. Lindstrand’s development of glass mosaics as a sideline to glass production at Kosta proved to be a prudent promotional and economic initiative. The mosaics were first produced for the exhibition hall and subsequently marketed in 1954 and became an important source of income for the glassworks, exported around the world and used in a number of iconic buildings from the period.180 Produced in an extensive range of colours, the glass mosaics further demonstrate Lindstrand’s breadth of work at Kosta influenced by his astute management skills. In Stavenow’s aforementioned letter, he was most interested in the glass mosaics which he felt would be of great interest to his students at Konstfack. Lindstrand collaborated with Bo Simmingsköld from the Glass Research Institute in Växjö on the production of the mosaics.181 182

bia
/&1&0%
/ %&1" 1
&/
0&)
-"+ "R0
,3"+1/6
1%"!/)
#"12/"0
$)00
*,0&
B,,/
1&)"0
#/,*
,01J
!,+1"!
6
1%"
-",-)"
,#
4"!"+M bib
%,/J
"$"+!
&
$)0
J
"+
,(
,*
& ("
&+!01/+!M
-M
fiM bic
&**&+$0(=)!
)1"/
,)) ,/1"!
4&1%
)&0
1""+ "/$J
!4/!
)!R0
!2$%1"/J
,+

,,(
,+
$)00
-2 )&0%"!
&+
bjfiM
""
1""+ "/$
+!
&**&+$0(=)!J
)0M 231 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

K@N
 0)&/.#)(

In the late-1950s changing attitudes and aesthetics began to be reflected in the work of a vocal younger generation of Scandinavian designers who eschewed mass production. Work was no longer viewed as Swedish, Danish, Finnish or Norwegian - so successful was the joint regional marketing in the 1950s that all was viewed as Scandinavian Design. The debates about crafts vs art seemed to favour less beautiful things in contrast to the pared down Scandinavian modern aesthetic and this is evidenced in the new era at Kosta. Alastair Duncan has succinctly described the basis of these debates:

Great changes in attitude began to take place throughout Scandinavia towards art and industry, and their interrelationship. Artists started to distance themselves from the manufacturing process and to reconsider their role within it. The negative aspects of mass-production – its anonymity, cost-reduction considerations and functionalism - led many young artist/designers to disengage themselves and to pursue their work on a smaller, more personal level.183

So great were the changes taking place in Sweden and Scandinavia during the late 1950s that influential American journal Craft Horizons dedicated its March/April 1958 issue to what was described as The Revolution in Scandinavian Design. Craft Horizons had been a major advocate of Scandinavian Design throughout the 1950s and the first to report on the coming revolution of “dissident” designers. Conrad Brown’s introductory editorial is of interest where he described the rebellion being supported by the older generation of designers. Brown reported that:

This is not an organised revolt. It is simply that an extraordinary number of young designer-craftsmen for whom Scandinavian modern design has turned sour, have gone to work in seclusion to do something positive about it. The answers they are coming up with dispense with words. They take the form of craft in a variety of media - all through which runs one stunning common denominator, an ardent desire on the part of every one of these young craftsmen to bring life back to Scandinavian design. The cumulative effect adds up to revolution.184

Brown’s editorial suggested that Scandinavian Design had reached a cul-de-sac, at least in the eyes of the generations of Swedish designer-craftspersons. Craft Horizons takes credit for being the first to introduce this shift and the opportunity to make known what Brown described as the “revolution’s leaders” to one another via the distribution of the magazine in

bid
2+ +J
//"#,/0
)00M
-M
ghM bie
/,4+J
^,*&+$L
"3,)21&,+
&+
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+^M
-M
baM 232 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

Scandinavia. The support of the older generation of designers as mentors to these young dissidents suggested a widespread dissatisfaction with the ‘too much washed clean’ aesthetic within the whole of the applied arts fraternity. Brown continued by observing that:

A singular aspect of this rebellion, however, is that the protagonists have no antagonists among the elder Scandinavian craftsmen, and here’s the reason why. The need for new blood in Scandinavian design is so keenly felt by established designers like Kaj Franck, Stig Lindberg, Ingeborg Lundin, Hans Wegner, Tapio Wirkkala and Dora Jung that they themselves have become the young dissenter’s mentors.185

The emergence of a quiet revolution or “counter-culture” in the arts that was anti- establishment witnessed artists and designers leaving industry and searching for more individual expression in smaller crafts basedstudios. This was also the beginning of the debates between art and crafts and breaking from the confines of functionalism in Sweden. Duncan has further observed that the glass industry in Sweden was impacted by an invasion of foreign goods including synthetic materials and cheap glass that became popular, creating competition for the established factories such as Orrefors.186

Lindstrand is not mentioned in Brown’s discussion of these elder mentors and based on his relationship with Ernest Gordon, and later Mona Morales-Schildt, Lindstrand appeared both disinterested and unwilling to act as a mentor at this time.187 This revolution led to much debate in Sweden. The role of the artist in industry was seen to have become questionable, designing objects for production that were increasingly putting form before function. As an example Cilla Robach has pointed to Ingeborg Lundin’s iconic Äpplet of 1955, a non- functional object that presented itself as a functional vase, as symptomatic of this tendency for form over function that contributed to the rebellion (Figure 4.56).188

bif
&!M big
2+ +J
//"#,/0
)00M
--M
giNhaM bih
,4"3"/J
++"
/"21)"/
+!
/1%2/
&/+0 (
&1"
&+!01/+!
0

*"+1,/
&+
1%"
bjha0
) "&1
&+

0&$+&@ +1)6
!&?"/"+1
,+1"51M
""
)1"/
!&0 200&,+
&+
1%&0
%-1"/M
bii
S +
1%"
@/01
%)#
,#
1%"
bjaa0
04
1%"
-/,-$1&,+
,#
1%"
"01%"1&
"!2 1&,+
*,3"*"+1
&+
4"!"+
#,/
$,,!
101"J
,/
_*,/"
"21)
"3"/6!6
, '" 10_M
,,!
101"
&0
,#1"+
%/ 1"/&7"!
6
0&*-)"
0%-"0J
0*,,1%
02/# "0
+!
)"+
)&+"0J
+!
1%1
1%&+$0
%!

)"/
#2+ 1&,+M
)/"!6
&+
bijhJ
))"+
"6
011"!
1%1
1%&+$0
1%1
4"/"
,+)6
#,/
!" ,/1&,+
,2)!
+,1
"
"21)M
"1
1%"
+""!
#,/
"21)
, '" 10
4%,0"
*&+
#2+ 1&,+
40
+,1
-/ 1& )M
+"
"5*-)"
40
1%"
--)"
30"
#/,*
bjffM
%&0
40
"51/"*")6
!&A 2)1
1,
-/,!2 "
4&1%
&10
1%&+
4))0
+!

/,2+!
--)"
0%-"M
1
1%"
1,-
1%"/"
40

01)(
4&1%

%,)"J
4%& %
*"+1
1%1
--)"
,2)!
"
20"!
0

30"M
21
#"4
4,2)!
%3"
-,2/"!
41"/
&+1,
&1J
1%"+
&1
40
&*-,00& )"
1,
40%M
%"
30"
40
+
,/+*"+1)
1%&+$
!&0$2&0"!
0
+
"3"/6!6
&1"*M
1
40
&+
1%"0"
"01%"1&
+!
#2+ 1&,+)
01+!/!0
+!
,+3"+1&,+0
02 %
0
1%"
#/""
#,/*
/" "))"!
&+
1%"
bjfa0
N
+!
^ga0MT
,  %J
^,/*"+0
/&$=/")0"
),$
^M
233 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% &'
+$" ,/$
2+!&+
--)"1J
//"#,/0
bjfhM
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M 
% &(
+$" ,/$
2+!&+
--)"1J
//"#,/0
bjfhM
*$"J
3"+0(
,/*
/(&3K

TheCraft Horizons survey found that most young Swedish craftspersons were engaged by big production companies on a part-time basis leaving the rest of their time free for research and experimentation. As a result it is not surprising that the greatest concentration of the dissident designer-craftsmen were in Sweden.189 Brown found problems with the Scandinavian Design aesthetic which he saw as stemming from Swedish and Finnish glass and ceramics and their refined aesthetic. Objects of this kind were, according to Brown, purchased by Scandinavians “because a piece of contemporary art glass or ceramic of clean, classic form and exquisite finish had become ‘the thing’ to have, whether its new owner knew or cared anything about craft art or not.”190 Scandinavian Design began to be accused of being “sterile” and lacking in “warmth and understanding of humanity and life” by young Scandinavian designers and those outside Scandinavia.191 Certainly the heavily edited selection of Lindstrand objects included in Design in Scandinavia is testament to the tendency to promote a pared down aesthetic. The effect of this revolution was manifest in a new Scandinavian Design aesthetic in the 1960s that embraced international influences, pop culture and art, and demonstrated less emphasis on the function of objects and more emphasis on the sculptural possibilities, a concern that had been lost under the influence of functionalism. This shift in focus in Sweden has been newly categorised as the Free Form by

bij
/#1
,/&7,+0
)0,
/"3")"!
1%"
-/ 1& "
,#
# 1,/&"0
"*-),6&+$
$,,!
),,(&+$
#"*)"
!"0&$+"/R0
#/"0%
,21
,#
,))"$"
#,/
)&11)"
/"+2*"/1&,+
40
--/"+1)6
4&!"0-/"!J
20&+$
1%"&/
+*"0
#,/
-2 )& &16
21
1%"&/
!"0&$+0
+"3"/
-/,!2 "!M
0
!&0 200"!
&+
,+/!
/,4+J
^ +!&+3&^0
,2+$
&00"+1"/0^J
/#1
,/&7,+0H
 Uc
Ybjfi ZM
"+1/"
&+0"/1M
bja
&!M bjb
&!M 234 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

Cilla Robach in her recent doctoral dissertation, Formens frigörelse.192 Lindstrand, it seems, remained silent or disinterested in these debates, however by the late 1960s he became known for his outspoken remarks about the young iconoclast designers and their new ideas.

Whilst Craft Horizons had reported that Scandinavian Design was undergoing a transformation, Formes Scandinaves, an updated version of Design in Scandinavia, opened in Paris in November 1958. Åke Huldt authored the exhibition catalogue and both he and Sven- Erik Skawonius represented Sweden on the Executive Committee. There is little to distinguish it from the North American traveling show apart from a much reduced scale, a few notable omissions and the inclusion of Iceland alongside the previous four countries.193 Of the omissions, the exclusion of Kosta from the list of exhibitors is significant, given France represented a healthy export market for Kosta glass and that Scandinavian Design had come to represent the very idea of democracy. 194 Art historian Denise Hagströmmer has argued that Formes Scandinaves typified the idealisation of Scandinavian design reality and that Sweden’s love of tradition and position as Europe’s most Americanised nation would have compromised the image of Scandinavia as the ultimate design utopia.195 Herein lies a possible rationale to explain the considerable omission of Kosta: Lindstrand’s international (and particularly American) influences. Included in the glass exhibit from Sweden were only three factories, Orrefors, Skruf and Boda. Orrefors was consistently an SSF exemplar and typified Swedish glass whilst Skruf and Boda were receiving international attention for the uncharacteristically rustic work of Bengt Edenfalk and Erik Höglund who were both profiled in the Revolution in Scandinavian Design issue of Craft Horizons.196

The tensions between art and production of theArtist in Industry paradigm had become problematic by the late 1950s. The role of the artist became entangled in the economics of industry. Objects were manufactured to be purchased rather than used, as such function took on less importance. The objects became exclusive, status symbols rather than liberators of the working classes. The paradox of a movement in social (and aesthetic) reform became entrenched in the profits and balance sheets of industry. Brunius observed that from as early bjc
,  %J
,/*"+0
#/&$

as 1956 Gregor and Nils Paulsson had argued “that the function in Functionalism had been understood in too narrow a sense” and that “the ‘social use’ of an object” had been ignored. The role of objects as visual evidence of the rise in standard of living was frequently discussed.197 By the 1960s, this had become a point of discussion in Sweden that manifest itself in an animated public debate upon the opening of the SSF exhibition Form fantasi in 1964.

Whilst contributing to the production of better everyday things, the artist also brought an added prestige, or sense of distinction, to the manufacturer’s wares. This sense of distinction can be illustrated in the case of the artist Anders Liljefors at Gustavsberg porcelain factory. Liljefors was the grandson of the influential Swedish wildlife painter Bruno Liljefors. Anders initially worked as assistant to Stig Lindberg from 1947 and his early works for Gustavsberg, exhibited at NK in Stockholm in 1952, whilst a commercial success, led to him resigning from the factory. According to art historian Gösta Arvidsson, the reason for his leaving Gustavsberg was that Liljefors did not wish to limit his artistic development on the basis of commerciality. He did however return to the factory in 1955, based on the artistic possibilities of working with sand-cast ceramics, the results of which were in the form of sculptural forms rather than vessels. Arvidsson198 credits the Orrefors artist Edward Hald, on a visit to Gustavsberg, as the first to recognise the potential in Liljefors sand-cast technique. This subsequently influenced Hald’s son Arthur, Artistic Director of the factory, in allowing Liljefors to continue experimentation. Edward Hald’s opinion was very influential. Liljefors non-functionalist, sand-cast ceramic sculptures were first exhibited in 1955 and were the antithesis of the functionalist aesthetic. He remained at Gustavsberg creating sculptural work, however, not working in serial production. According to Arvidsson, Arthur Hald had attempted to convince Anders Liljefors to translate the sculptural objects into a line of serial production, however Liljefors resisted the idea to the point of avoiding Hald and discussion of the project. He subsequently left Gustavsberg in 1957 without ever working in serial production.199 As a more recent example of the tension between art and production in industry is focussed in the case of Swedish ceramicist and glass artist Per B Sundberg and Orrefors. During Sundberg’s tenure with Orrefors between 1995 and 2005 he was responsible for maintaining the artistic profile of the factory with his work, including his innovative

bjh
+
/2+&20
&+
,)),
,$")01/=*J
"!"/
'=/("$/"+J
+!
& %")
1"3"+0J
&+$
8$"/
/2*
J
+21&!
03"+0(1
(,+01%+13"/(
, %
!"0&$+
J
1"51&)H
$)0H
("/*&(H
*"1))
, %
*< )"/
J
a
*'L]c
2$201&
\dcc
Y &)'"3) %0
(1),$JK
1, (%,)*L
&)'"3) %0
(,+01%))J
bjiiZM
-M
bf bji
+!"/0
/2+,
&)'"#,/0
+!
=01
/3&!00,+J
+
("/*&0(
/"3,)21&,+8/
J
+!"/0
/2+,
&)'"#,/0
Y1, (%,)*L
/)00,+J
cabbZM
4&1%
+$)&0%
2**/6M
-M
idM bjj
&!M
-M
jjM 236 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

Fabula technique that extended the earlier achievements of the factory in the techniques of Graal, Ariel, Kraka and Ravenna. Sundberg became well known for his artistic achievements rather than profitable production series which eventually led to him being dismissed when ownership of the factory passed into new hands in 2005, during extensive economic rationalisation.

Lindstrand, however, managed to negotiate the line between mass produced goods and the one-off ‘artistic’ objects, described by Danish art critic Svend Erik Møller in 1962 as the “necessary inessentiality”200. During the 1960s, the crafts debates challenged previous divisions between arts and crafts, and discussion of the role of objects as purely functional became more widespread in Scandinavia, a divide between art and design. The distinction between ‘tools’ and ‘art’ became a point of discussion. Møller called for a greater distinction between “the pure everyday article and the necessary artistic inessentiality”201 which became a career choice for younger craftspersons. Lindstrand was from an older generation of artist- designers where art and production were of equal standing. His broad referencing of styles and trends also freed his work from being constrained by what Swedish art critic Anders Åman had described in 1962 as the “anaemic refinement of Swedish arts and crafts”202, as evidenced in the earlier discussion of the fit of his work included in the previous decade’s Design in Scandinavia exhibition. In ceramics, Stig Lindberg may also be seen to have successfully negotiated this balance, and like Lindstrand, this was facilitated by the stylistic breadth of his work.

K@O
' ,#(
  *.#)(

Lindstrand held a fondness and enthusiasm for America that was reciprocal, a more consistent experience than his reception in Sweden. The New York retailers of Scandinavian designed and manufactured home wares and furniture, Georg Jensen and Bonniers, held several widely publicised and successful exhibitions of Lindstrand’s work during the 1950s (Figure 4.58 - 4.61). Lindstrand was interviewed for a New York Times review of his May 1957 Bonniers exhibition where he cites New York and “the tempo at which the Americans live”203 as the inspiration for his new work that was described as “alive with movement.”204

caa
3"+!
/&(
>))"/
.2,1"!
&+
/2+&20
&+
,$")01/=*J
'=/("$/"+J
+!
1"3"+0J
&+$
8$"/
/2*
J
+21&!
03"+0(1
(,+01%+13"/(
, %
!"0&$+
J
1"51&)H
$)0H
("/*&(H
*"1))
, %
*< )"/
J
a
*'L]c
2$201&
\dccM
-M
bh cab
&!M cac
+!"/0
*+
.2,1"!
&+
/2+&20
&+
&!M
-M
bh cad
"&#J
^4"!&0%
/601)
%,4+
&+
,1 )"
5%& &1&,+^M cae
&!M 237 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

The exhibition was considered by the New York Times reporter as “the finest and most important collection of imported crystal shown [in New York] since the Thirties.”205 The exhibition featured Lindstrand’s new production series for Kosta that included Contrast by Asymmetry (Figure 4.62) and numerous unique objects and sculptures alongside Bruno Mathsson’s bentwood furniture. Nina Strizler-Levine has described Bonniers as an influential player in New York and greater American design circles that “also worked with museums [...] and stimulated interest among architecture and design magazine editors”206. Not surprisingly, the exhibition was met with critical praise by the equally influential Interiors magazine where Lindstrand was endowed with the clichéd characteristics of the ‘average’ Swede:

With deceptively simple artistry this versatile designer seems to have captured in glass all of the natural beauties of his northern homeland. Here is the wonderful simplicity of an icicle, a bubble, a blade of sea grass, a school of glassy fish. Here too is the dignity, retrospection, and playful humor of the Swedish race.207


% &)
&+!01/+!
"5%& &1&,+
1
,++&"/0J
gaf
!&0,+
3"+2"
"4
,/(J
6
bjfhM
*$"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

caf
&!M cag
&+
1/&17)"/N "3&+"J
^%,2
%))U,1
"
/+!"!^J
&+
&7
,$!)
Y"!MZJ
/2+,
1%00,+
/ %&1" 1
+!
"0&$+"/
Y)*=L
/"+
&+
00, &1&,+
4&1%
1%"
/!
/!21"
"+1"/
#,/
12!&"0
&+
1%"
" ,/1&3"
/10
"0&$+
+!
2)12/"
"4
,/(
+!
)"
+&3"/0&16
/"00
"4
3"+
+!
,+!,+J
caagZJ
-M
ccbM cah
+(+,4+J
^)00
N

,!"/+
/1^J
+1"/&,/0H
U 2)6
YbjfhZM 238 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6


% &*
&+!01/+!
"5%& &1&,+
1
,++&"/0J
gaf
!&0,+
3"+2"
"4
,/(J
6
bjfhM
*$"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3M

% '!M
+&(
,01
&+!01/+!
 '" 10
#/,*
1%"
,++&"/0
"5%& &1&,+J
+& 
ghe
+!
,),/
30"J
+& 
gieM
*$"0J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(K


% '"
+&.2"
0 2)-12/"
,#

0 %,,)
,#
@0%J
0%,4+
1
,++&"/R0
bjfhM

0&*&)/
0 2)-12/"
40
)&01"!
4&1%

/"1&)
-/& "
,#
`eaa
&+
1%"
"4
,/(
&*"0
,+
d
6
bjfhM
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(K

239 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% '#
3"7&
/, %2/"J
/&"++)"
&)+
bjfhJ
4&1%
&))201/1&,+0
,#
&+!01/+!
, '" 10
#"12/"!
&+
1%"
4"!&0%
"5%& &1M
"#1L
,+1/01
6
06**"1/6J
,!")
,M

gff
C

gejM
&$%1L
)0
),(
 2)-12/"M
&*&)/
, '" 10
4"/"
&+ )2!"!
&+
1%"
&+!01/+!
"5%& &1&,+
1
,++&"/0J
gaf
!&0,+
3"+2"
"4
,/(J
6
bjfhM
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

At the close of the 1950s The Corning Museum of Glass in the United States organised the touring exhibition Glass 1959, a ‘critics choice’ selection of international contemporary glass which opened at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York on November 1, 1959. Submissions were accepted from around the world and from these the final selections were made by a panel of predominately American tastemakers that included director of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts and Design in Scandinavia collaborator Leslie Cheek, former director of the ‘Good Design’ project of New York’s Museum of Modern Art Edgar Kaufmann Jr, Harper’s Magazine editor Russell Lynes, furniture designer George Nakashima and the Italian Architect Gio Ponti, Trienalle director and editor of influential Italian design journal, Domus. Sweden was represented by all of the major factories and designers.208 Six recent, unique objects by Lindstrand were selected by the jury including his early faceted, prismatic sculptures, a cut bowl featuring an original combination of the Graal and Ravenna techniques209 and a development of his Glas Blok series featuring an elaborate Medusa

cai
#,/0
Y/+"01
,/!,+ZJ
'=/(0%2)10
Y +
%/M
$+"/ZJ
,!
Y/&(
=$)+!ZJ
)6$0#,/0
Y& 1,/
"/+!1ZJ
2))0(/2#0
Y "++/1
+!"/00,+J
'"))
),* "/$J
/1%2/
"/ 6ZJ
,+%+0#,/0
Y"+$1
/2-ZJ
,01
Y& ("
&+!01/+!ZJ
&+!0%**/
Y2++/
+!"/ZJ
//"#,/0
Y&)0
+! "/$J
+$" ,/$
2+!&+J
!3&+
%/01/=*J
3"+
)*.2&01J
,%+
") &+$ZJ
"&'*6/"
Y,+& 
/11J
,%++6
110,+ZJ
(/2#0
Y"+$1
!"+#)(Z
+!
1=* "/$%611+
Y"/!
1/=* "/$ZM caj
")*"1
& ("
%0
, 0"/3"!
1%1
4&1%
1%&0
/+$"
,#
, '" 10
&+!01/+!
40
1"01&+$
+"4
,* &+1&,+0
,#
1%"
//"#,/0
/)
+!
3"++
1" %+&.2"0M
,),2/"!
$)00
-,4!"/
40
--)&"!
"14""+
)6"/0
1,
 %&"3"
1%"
!" ,/
#1"/
,,)&+$M
%"
)+(
40
1%"+
/"N%"1"!J
+!

1%& (N4))"!
,),/)"00
)6"/
40
!!"!
+!
1%"
!"0&/"!
0%-"
),4+M
%"
3"++
1" %+&.2"
40
!"3"),-"!
1
//"#,/0
&+
1%"
bjea0
6
3"+
)*.3&01M
""
")*21
& ("J
)/& %
/,+"/1J
+!
2+01*20"2*
:200")!,/#MJ
)0
&+
 %4"!"+H
\d\`L\da[
Y:2+ %"+L
/"01")N"/)$J
bjigZM
-M
cbiM
240 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

engraving (Figures 4.63 and 4.65). Lindstrand’s work was singled out in several American publications for displaying fresh new ideas which illustrates an ongoing appreciation of his work in the United States. Lindstrand’s work was exhibited alongside work from the young dissident Erik Höglund whom Craft Horizons saw as a form of quasi-savior for Swedish and Scandinavian design. Their reviewer, Dido Smith, was surprised to find new ideas “from the sometimes ‘turn of the century’ older designers”210 that included Lindstrand. Lindstrand’s work was well received, but for Smith, the clear highlights were Höglund and Edenfalk “whose uninhibited joy in the direct handling of the glass fluid has replaced Scandinavian self-conscious “purity”[...]”211, something that, it can be argued, Lindstrand had been engaged in for decades.

In the introduction to the catalogue, Corning Museum Curator Axel von Saldern groups the three hundred objects into the traditions of Venetian, Central European, Western European and Scandinavian and observes the cross referencing of ideas, or as he describes it, “reciprocal influences.”212 Scandinavian glass as “frozen liquid [...] expressed in the most humble utilitarian object as well as in the most sophisticated luxury wares” was cited as the reason for Scandinavia being a dominant region, with its origins in Sweden. The two aforementioned Lindstrand objects, Prism and Medusa were thought to be innovative enough to prompt specific mention in von Saldern’s essay. Lindstrand was considered by von Saldern as being both innovative and breaking with tradition in his glass Prism work although observed as sharing affinities with similar developments in British, German, and Dutch work also included in the exhibition.213 Lindstrand’s Medusa is considered another innovation but again likened to similar developments in Czech glass. Lindstrand must have been pleased with this reception. It may be argued that the American/Italian make up of the jury allowed his work to be seen more objectively and assessed on its relative merits rather than against his Orrefors work as was most often the case in Sweden and Scandinavia. Lindstrand’s former Kosta colleague Ernest Gordon’s Åfors work was also included in the exhibition. Ultimately, it was America that provided instances of positive criticism and reception for Lindstrand’s work in this and several other publications, but the epicentre of promotion of Swedish and Scandinavian design was Sweden and it was Swedish commentary that was most widely referenced.

cba
&!,
*&1%J
^)00L
/&1& 0
%,& "^J
/#1
,/&7,+0H
 Uf
YbjfjZM
-M
dfM cbb
&!M
-M
dfM
cbc
,/+&+$
20"2*
,#
)00MJ
)00
\d`dI

0-" &)
"5%& &1&,+
,#
&+1"/+1&,+)
,+1"*-,//6
$)00
Y,/+&+$JL
,/+&+$
)00
"+1"/J
bjfjZM
-M
dbM cbd
3,+
)!"/+
/"#"/0
1,
1%"
4,/(
,#
)
,00&J
++0
,!")
+!
&))"*
""0,+M
""
&!M
-M
dbM 241 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% '$
+&(
,),/
30"
&+ )2!"!
&+
)00
bjfjJ
+&(
ijiJ
*+2# 12/"!
6
,01
)0 /2(M

% '%

0&*&)/
+&(
30"
,M
bajg
-/,!2 "!
&+
1%"
0*"
1" %+&.2"J
&+
,--"/
/"!
+!
12/.2,&0"
)2"
2+!"/)6
4&1%
4%&1"
-11"/+&+$M
%"
, '" 1
#,/
)00
bjfj
40
1%"
@/01
,#
+
,+$,&+$
0"/&"0
,#
2+&.2"
30"0
+!
,4)0
1%1
&+ ,/-,/1"!
0&*&)/
$",*"1/&
!" ,/1&,+M
%"0"
, '" 10
4"/"
"5" 21"!
&+

,* &+1&,+
,#
/)
+!
3"++
1" %+&.2"J
,1%
//"#,/0
00, &1"!
1" %+&.2"0J
+!
&+
1%"

/&")
1" %+&.2"
&+
bjggM

242 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6


% '&
&+!01/+!
, '" 10J
+!
"+1/&"0
&+
+&(
"$&01"/
1
,01J
&+ )2!"!
&+
)00
bjfj
1
,/+&+$M

243 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

K@P
,)/&
#(
,#-
A
."
HPMG-

The 1960s proved a troubled time for Lindstrand in Sweden. In 1964 Erik Rosén was brought in to take over the management of the glassworks as a result of alleged production and financial difficulties.214 Rosén, then manager at nearby Boda glassworks, was responsible for the employment of the ‘dissident’ Lunning Prize215 recipient Erik Höglund who commenced work at Boda in the 1950s. Höglund was promoted as an exemplar of the dissident designer- craftsman in Craft Horizons and his rustic designs in glass and timber were far removed from the pared down, pure form Scandinavian Design aesthetic. Rosén also maintained strong ties to the SSF as a member of the board and one of his important sounding boards was the critic and commentator Ulf Hård af Segerstad.216

Lindstrand, Kosta’s savior in the 1950s, was said to have neglected both administrative and economic realities later in the decade. Given much of the comment on these difficulties has come via interviews with Rosén, their veracity is yet to be established. During the contract negotiations in 1950 for Lindstrand’s employment at Kosta then manager Lennart Rosén, Erik’s brother, had resigned as a result of disagreements over the generous terms of the contract. He felt this gave Lindstrand the power to essentially bypass management in all matters if he so desired.217 Erik Rosén and Vicke Lindstrand were never to find an easy working relationship. Lindstrand had enjoyed an unusual level of autonomy and artistic independence during the 1950s which was guaranteed by his generous contract with the glassworks so long as he turned a profit, which may account for the vast array of designs for objects he produced that have caused much angst to some critics.218 In 1961, sales manager Guy Robért resigned from Kosta and made his feelings known about what he considered to be a lack of variety in production that made stock hard to sell, to first the Kosta management, then the board and subsequently the owners of the glassworks. It should be noted that Robért had been the individual responsible for spreading the rumour in 1950 that Orrefors had refused to take Lindstrand back and may have harboured some resentment towards cbe
S
40
))"!
&+
1,
-21
& ("
&+!01/+!
&+
,/!"/M
&0
.2&1"
&+ ,*-/ )"
*++"/0
0

*+$"/
%!
/"1"!
%,0
&+
1%"
-/,!2 1&,+M
,*",+"
40
+""!"!
1,
,+1/,)
%&*
,1%"/4&0"
1%&+$0
%!
$,+"
1,
)7"0
@++ &))6OT
/&(
,0;+
0
.2,1"!
&+
2+!*/(J
801"/
"+$1
)0)"$"+!"+M
--M
dgM cbf
%"
2++&+$
/&7"
40
&+&1&1"!
&+
bjfb
6
/"!/&(
2++&+$
,4+"/
,#
1%"
",/$
"+0"+
01,/"
&+
"4
,/(M
,/

!"1&)"!
"5*&+1&,+
,#
1%"
/" &-&"+10
+!
1%"
02 "00
,#
1%&0
&+&1&1&3"
0""
01/&!
('"/3"+J
^20"2*N)&("L
%"
,)"
,#
1%"
,/!&
20"2*0
&+
")1&,+
1,
1%"
2++&+$
/&7"
+!
&10
+1"+1&,+0^J
 +!&+3&+
,2/+)
,#
"0&$+
&01,/6H
bd
YcaadZM
+!
%) 8 (
211"*+J
$$)J
+!
1&,+)*20"2*J
%"
2++&+$
-/&7"
J
1&,+)*20"2*H
1, (%,)*H
\dcaM cbg
,2/ "K
%,/J
/&(
,0:+
J
/!&()
#

Lindstrand. Robért’s persistence saw the situation escalated and it was finally resolved by the board of directors in late 1963 to recruit a new works director and employ new artists.219 At the same time Kosta and Boda became part of the Åfors group and this is where the idea of Rosén taking on management of Kosta was first flagged. Reports of export sales under Lindstrand’s management of Kosta being as low as ten percent of total production in 1960220 do not correlate with figures held in the company ledgers. During the 1950s, sales had increased steadily within Sweden and in various export markets. From 1951 the United States, United Kingdom and Australia were important markets, followed closely by Denmark and Switzerland. By 1956, when the impact of Design in Scandinavia was at its height in America, imports rose sharply in that market and remained steady up until 1959. By 1960 export sales were at least twenty five percent of gross earnings, with Lindstrand’s glass mosaics representing a healthy share. All this proves that Kosta was performing well under Lindstrand’s direction. Whilst economics were ultimately cited as one deciding factor in the recruitment of Erik Rosén to Kosta in 1964 this also coincided with the expiry of Lindstrand’s original 1950 contract so fiercely opposed by Lennart Rosén.

Lindstrand’s relationship with Rosén can be best described as strained and became more so as the years progressed. One of Rosén’s first tasks at Kosta was to renegotiate Lindstrand’s contract. The negotiations broke down in late 1964, prior to the expiry of Lindstrand’s existing 1950 contract, and its subsequent extensions. Correspondence from Rosén to Lindstrand indicate an air of hostility dominated discussions, and a lack of response from Lindstrand resulted in Rosén terminating the existing contract. A period of ‘stand off’ ensued prior to an agreement finally being reached with entirely new contract terms and conditions which were more restrictive for Lindstrand than previously. Rosén insisted on a more structured reporting process whereby Lindstrand and he would meet to discuss ideas and progress on a regular basis, which had been cited as the root of problems leading up to Rosén’s employment. This would have been difficult for Lindstrand after many years of having relative autonomy and being largely unanswerable to anyone. Again in 1972, discussions were initiated by Rosén with regard to an ongoing working relationship between Kosta and Lindstrand, however this was never to eventuate.221

cbj
%,/J
/&(
,0:+
J
/!&()
#

For Lindstrand, his adjustment to the new Kosta management was compounded by the changing times which produced a further dilemma. The 1962 Kosta catalogue included objects designed by Lindstrand that were a continuation of ideas first produced in the 1950s, along with his newer prismatic experiments. Unfortunately, his new work was no longer ‘new’, despite the range of ideas he explored, being firmly associated with all that was considered wrong with the pared down Scandinavian Design aesthetic of the 1950s. Lindstrand grappled with the rise of the younger ‘dissident’ designers and the changing market and ultimately his response was to turn his focus more to unique work and sculpture. There were, however, several other important exhibitions where Lindstrand was featured including at the Röhsska Museum in Gothenburg in 1963. During the late 1950s and early 1960s America was still a receptive market as a result of Design in Scandinavia and so names associated with the pared down aesthetic still found a hearty welcome there. As a result, Lindstrand achieved continuing recognition in both the popular press and exhibitions. He was also recognised with awards, notably his Homo sum sculpture of 1963 which was awarded by the American Society of Interior Designers (Figure 4.66 and 4.67).


% ''
&+!01/+!
4&1%
,*,
2*H
,01
+&(
bdihM
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

% '(
,*,
2*
!"1&)M
,01
/(&3K

Rosén sought to mirror his 1950s success at Boda by introducing younger artists to Kosta in an attempt to capture a more youthful market. The result of Orrefors’ high profile and

246 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

Lindstrand’s association with the factory, Rosén was of the view that “we couldn’t succeed with Lindstrand to make Kosta famous so we had to get someone new - Göran.”222 The first new artists introduced to the factory by Rosén were Ann and Göran Wärff in 1964. Lindstrand found the arrival of the new artists difficult to accept and is known to have been openly hostile towards them harboring the opinion that they did not respect the glass, rather made it dirty.223 Göran Wärff has recalled that “Vicke Lindstrand saw us as outsiders and said that now is the end of the pure tone at Kosta, the Beatles have arrived.”224 Master glassblower Bengt Heintze has also commented on the growing divide in the glassworks as Lindstrand had to share Heintze with the newer artists who also wanted their experiments made by Heintze, recalling when, in the 1950s, he had been working with Morales-Schildt that “Vicke then reacted like a child. He became jealous and sulky. “You have really hurt me” he once said when I had worked a whole day with Mona Morales in the smelting house.”225 In the early 1950s Lindstrand had enjoyed a level of autonomy and ready access to the skills of the glass workers and thus unhindered provision for experimentation. As such it is here that his most innovative period is located and after this time his periods of creativity became somewhat sporadic, constrained by access to his favoured craftsmen collaborators.

Rosén, by all accounts, was an astute but uncompromising businessman and he has personally described the approvals process he instigated with Lindstrand ensuring that Rosén signed off on any designs that went into the hot shop or blowing room.226 Lindstrand maintained a great deal of perceived freedom under Rosén, but the process of sketch to production was a difficult one. Numerous Lindstrand design sketches in the Kosta Arkiv feature either Rosén’s signature of approval or crosses through those not approved. Erik Höglund has also related a similar process in interviews for Gunnel Holmér’s 1986 monograph.227 Significantly, Lindstrand’s new production output during the 1960s reduced significantly and appears sporadic, however hundreds of unrealised sketches and design drawings in the archives at Kosta demonstrate that this was hardly the case. There were also many of his 1950s designs that were still in production. Rosén has admitted being frustrated by the ‘generosity’ of the royalty terms of Lindstrand’s existing contract which may account for why Rosén rejected so many of his

ccc
,+"0J
^ +1"/3&"4
4&1%
/&
,0;+
1
%&0
%,*"
&+
)+!J
4"!"+
cj
,3"* "/
caaf^M ccd
""
2+!*/(J
801"/
"+$1
)0)"$"+!"+M
--Mec cce
"/)&17N"7")&20J
,01M
-M
jaM ccf
2+!*/(J
801"/
"+$1
)0)"$"+!"+M
-M
dfM ccg
+
+
&+1"/3&"4
4&1%
1%"
21%,/
,0;+
+,1"0
SMMM
1,)!
%&*J
& ("
&+!01/+!J
1%1
&#
%"
4+1"!
1,
*("
+
&1"*
1%"+
%"
+""!"!
*6
0&$+12/"MMMT
,+"0J
^ +1"/3&"4
4&1%
/&
,0;+
1
%&0
%,*"
&+
)+!J
4"!"+
cj
,3"* "/
caaf^M cch
,)*;/J
/+
,!
1&))
"4
,/(J
,+01+/"+
/&(
,$)2+!M 247 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

1960s designs.228 Central to Lindstrand’s sporadic output was his relationship with Rosén and the fact that he had to share master glassblower Heintze, his collaborator since the 1950s, with the newer artists. Despite the difficult relationship between Rosén and Lindstrand, Rosén understood the commercial appeal and value of Lindstrand’s contributions and is known to have encouraged the artist Anna Ehrner upon her arrival at Kosta in 1973 to “do a little as Vicke Lindstrand."229


% ')
/,*,1&,+)
-%,1,$/-%
,#
1&+H
bjggM
*$"L
,01
/(&3K

Despite the difficulties Lindstrand encountered thwi the new Kosta management and artists, he remained productive. In 1966 he unveiled his first new collection since the arrival of the Wärff’s in 1964. Working closely with the master glassblower Bengt Heintze, Lindstrand, now in his sixties, attempted to respond to the nascent 1960s Scandinavian aesthetic with an uncharacteristically rustic collection under the name Patina which was unlike anything he had done before (Figure 4.68). Rustic was not something usually associated with Lindstrand, rather exuberance. The crafts debates surrounding theForm fantasi exhibition of 1964 had

cci
,+"0J
^ +1"/3&"4
4&1%
/&
,0;+
1
%&0
%,*"
&+
)+!J
4"!"+
cj
,3"* "/
caaf^M ccj
%"
/"02)1
40
%"/
&+"
+!
 )&-0"
0"/&"0
,#
1 )"
$)00"0
01&))
&+
-/,!2 1&,+
6
,01
4%& %
#"12/"

0-&/)&+$
)&+"J

,+01+1
/" 2//&+$
*,1&#
&+
&+!01/+!R0
4,/(
0&+ "
%&0
//"#,/0
!60M
2,1"
#/,*
"/)&17N"7")&20J
,01M
-M
bcjM 248 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

seen the move away from the predominate pared down aesthetic of Scandinavian Design, and Patina was Lindstrand’s response.

Developed in close collaboration with Heintze, Patina utilised a chemical technique230 that ‘aged’ the glass in the unique series that had a small production run but good sales. In a Kosta advertising leaflet the newPatina range was described as “simulated antique crystal with all the charm of the sombre colour spectrum of a bygone age.”231 The range was conceived whilst Lindstrand was working on his early glass plate public sculptures and included in the brochure is an illustration of the model for the Prisma sculpture in Norrköping. The credit for the technique was attributed to Lindstrand however glass exhibited by Heintze in 1983 in Ghent suggests otherwise. The Ghent exhibition,Glas van Bengt Heintze, followed on from the 1972 Stockholm Nationalmuseum exhibition En glasblåsare ett halvsekel på Kosta that was organised and curated by Dag Widman, and features a vast range of forms by Heintze that feature the ageing technique of Patina and it is likely that it was his innovation. Lindstrand had come to rely on Heintze and Lindstrand’s innovations were very much theirs. Patina was debuted at Hantverket - a handcrafts gallery in Stockholm - a somewhat unusual location for Lindstrand but calculated to emphasise the crafts origin of the work in the light of the changing attitudes of the 1960s.232 Reviewed by Hård af Segerstad in his Svenska Dagbladet column, Patina was considered a patchy collection where Lindstrand’s wide range was seen as a problem.

“After 39 years, one begins to get a small idea of the creative possibilities available with glass”, artist Vicke Lindstrand exclaims in a leaflet published in connection with his ongoing exhibition at Hantverket. Indeed, this pioneer and veteran can certainly stand on his own without any trace of false modesty. The unquestionable, down-to-earth truth is rather that Vicke Lindstrand knows more about the artistic opportunities of glass art than almost anyone else among current glass designers in this country. For decades he served as a kind of geyser, an incessant flow of ideas, a glass miracle man, charming and generous, vibrant, keeping a vigilant eye on whether anyone of the pushy young people could conceivably keep pace with him as design innovator. It is thus quite in Lindstrand's style that when he comes to Hantverket, instead of the expected overview of his production, he presents a completely new collection, conjured with quick fingertips, probably in the margin of a busy working period. This intensively fast challenge is both Vicke Lindstrand’s strength and his weakness. Not everything can be of the same quality, and the collection spans from a somewhat inconsistent range of small, delicate bowls and vases to more pretentious sculptures, which cannot reasonably be said to be cda
%"
%"*& )
+1&*,+6
40
20"!
1,
-/,!2 "
1%&0
"?" 1M cdb
,01J
^& ("
&+!01/+!
,01^J
YbjgeZM cdc
%"
"5%& &1&,+
,+0&01"!
,#
@#16
,+"
2+&.2"
, '" 10
+2* "/"!

bgei
N
bgjjM 249 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

as good. The variety of techniques can also be strained, with on one side both coloured, chemically treated and ground glass, and on the other "glass glue" [referring to the Prisma public sculpture model] in contexts where you would expect what one may call a monolithic technique. What we are looking forward to is a more homogenous exhibition by Vicke Lindstrand at the height of his ability.233

In 1964 at the height of the debates on art and design in Sweden, the SSF and Nationalmuseum jointly arranged an exhibition of applied arts entitled Form fantasi which has been discussed at length in Cilla Robach’s recent dissertation.234 The exhibition, which was curated by Arthur Hald and Dag Widman, documented the shift in approach and aesthetic of the new ‘dissident’ Swedish designers along with a few older names favoured by the SSF. Significant in the list of exhibitors is the inclusion of Stig Lindberg but the absence of Lindstrand, further evidence of his diminishing relevance and increasing distance from current ideas and trends. By contrast Lindberg was considered a playful designer yet his 1950s work is firmly associated with the Scandinavian Design aesthetic. What differentiated Lindberg from Lindstrand was his playfulness and willingness to accept and support, the younger ‘dissidents’ in their rejection of the canonic style. Not only was Lindberg cited as amongst a group of ‘older’ Scandinavian designers235 who were mentoring the younger designer-craftsmen but he is also on record as to his positive support, as opposed to Lindstrand’s documented negativity. Lindberg provides an astute explanation in Craft Horizons:

cdd
)#
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
^ ,+01%+13"/(
#/9+
*9)+!
, %
-+
Y/#10
#/,*
*9)+!
+!
-+Z^J
3"+0(
$ )!"1H
c
,3"* "/
bjggM
/+0)1&,+
6
/0
,%+00,+M
/&$&+)
4"!&0%
1"51L
#1"/
^d
9/

My generation has learned to make things in a very finished way, not only in the material and the form, but in the design. Now there comes a reaction to that from our very young. It is a healthy thing.236

Lindberg managed to remain relevant perhaps due to his lighthearted approach. His work included in Form fantasi is a development of his previously subdued sense of humour into more exaggerated forms that sat well alongside the work of younger designers, not to mention his obvious advantage of being a firm favourite of curators Hald237 and Widman.238

According to Rosén, Lindstrand’s most commercially successful designs in the 1960s were his table services Mambo (Figure 4.71) and Calypso (Figure 4.72) along with crystal animal sculptures of giraffes and birds (Figure 4.69).239 The glassware ranges sit well within the 1960s aesthetic and demonstrate Lindstrand’s adaptability to changing market forces in producing relevant and most importantly, saleable series production. Another commercially successful range was the Kosta Star candleholder designed by Lindstrand and produced by Rosenthal of Germany (Figure 4.70). Kosta did not have the skills required to produce Lindstrand’s complex design as evidenced in the rough early prototypes. As a result, Lindstrand sought permission to shop it around other manufacturers which was granted on the proviso that, should it be accepted, all profits would return to Kosta and the factory name should be included. A royalty was also paid to Lindstrand. The Kosta Star became a best seller for Rosenthal and a steady earner for Kosta, and Lindstrand. This early design sits comfortably alongside the optic cutting experiments Lindstrand became preoccupied with during much of the 1960s and seen in many sketches and designs that reached the prototype stage only.240

During the 1960s, Lindstrand was still well regarded outside of Sweden and his efforts at Kosta were not always overshadowed by Orrefors. Art historian Ada Polak’s well researched and still invaluable reference Modern Glass, published in 1962, spoke highly of Lindstrand.

Vicke Lindstrand, formerly at Orrefors, has been head designer at Kosta since 1950, and his output is impressive, in artistic variety as well as in cdg
/,4+J
^ +!&+3&^0
,2+$
&00"+1"/0^M cdh
)!
!"0 /& "!
&+! "/$
0
S
/&))&+1J
!6+*&
-,11"/MMM$/"1
1)"+1MMM$
"!MMM4%,
+
"3"+
4/&1"

$,,!
/1& )"T
&+
%&0
+$)&0%
)+$2$"
/1& )"
,+
&+! "/$
&+
/#1
,/&7,+R0
&+
bjfeJ
1
1%"
%"&$%1
,#
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&M
""
/1%2/
)!J
^1&$
&+! "/$
/1&01
&+
)6^J
& &!M Uf
YbjfeZM
cdi
&!*+
4/,1"
1%"
@/01
+!
1,
!1"
,+)6
+$)&0%
)+$2$"
,,(
,+
&+! "/$
&+
bjgcM
&!*+
!"0 /& "0
&+! "/$
0
S
,)!
(+&$%1
&+
1%"
0"/3& "
,#
1%"
/"1&3"
&*$&+1&,+MT
&+
"/+!1
)63/"
+!
$
&!*+J
1&$
&+! "/$
J
4"!&0%
/1&01
+!
!"0&$+"/
Y1, (%,)*L
 ;+
C
'=$/"+J
bjgcZM cdj
,+"0J
^ +1"/3&"4
4&1%
/&
,0;+
1
%&0
%,*"
&+
)+!J
4"!"+
cj
,3"* "/
caaf^M cea
%&0
&0
"3&!"+1
&+
1%"
0"/&"0
!"-& 1"!
&+
/ %&3)
0("1 %"0
#/,*
,01
/(&3
Y0
&))201/1"!Z
+!
-/,1,16-"0
%")!
&+
1%"
,))" 1&,+
,#
12!&,
)0%611+
&
%20
+!
1%"
21%,/R0
-"/0,+)
,))" 1&,+M 251 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

sheer bulk. [...] At Kosta, Lindstrand has developed the Orrefors idiom of the ‘thirties to its utmost limit of sophisticated elegance.241

Polak, nonetheless, could not avoid making the comparison with Orrefors but importantly she observed continuity and development.

In 1966 Donald Connery published a detailed examination of national characteristics, politics, culture, and arts of the five Scandinavian countries.The Scandinavians was highly regarded internationally as an authoritative source and remains one of the most detailed references on the subject, despite now seeming quite dated. It is of interest in the context of this discussion as a snapshot of Sweden and Swedes during the early 1960s. In the section discussing Swedish arts and culture, Connery refers to Lindstrand as a “superstar”, a term that sits uncomfortably in the 1960s Swedish context:

In glass companies like Orrefors and Kosta, which do most of their business in assembly-line glassmaking, a visitor has the impression that the whole factory has been created to respond to the whim of superstars like Vicke Lindstrand, Mona Morales-Schildt, Ingeborg Lundin and Sven Palmqvist.242

Importantly, Connery’s observations emphasise the view of an outsider.


% '*
&/?"
0"/&"0
#,/
,01J
bjga0M
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(K 
% (!
,01
1/
#,/
,0"+1%)M
*$"J
/&31"
,))" 1&,+K

ceb
!
,)(J
,!"/+
)00
Y ,+!,+L
 "/
+!
 "/J
bjgcZM
-M
hbM cec
,+)!
M
,++"/6J
%"
 +!&+3&+0
Y ,+!,+L
6/"
C
-,11&04,,!"J
bjggZM
-M
eciM 252 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6


% ("
,01
* ,
/, %2/"
bjggM

0&*-)"J
02 "00#2)
1 )"4/"
/+$"
#,/
,01
&+
1%"
bjga0
+!
bjha0
1%1
!"*,+01/1"
&+!01/+!R0
!-1 &)&16
1,
1%"
%+$&+$
!"0&$+
016)"0
,#
1%"
-"/&,!M
*$"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K


% (#
,01
)6-0,
/, %2/"
bjggM
+,1%"/
02 "00#2)
1 )"4/"
/+$"M
*$"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

253 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

K@HG
(.,)-* .#)(

Amongst Lindstrand’s final works for Kosta were those specifically designed and produced for the exhibition Glasklart (Crystal Clear) at NK in Stockholm, which opened on 27 February 1969. The traveling exhibition spent ten days at each of the NK stores in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. Erik Rosén claimed to have initiated the idea and given Lindstrand total creative freedom for the exhibition, placing the resources of the glassworks at his full disposal. This was explained by Rosén as his ‘parting gesture’ to Lindstrand. Given Lindstrand was nearing retirement, Rosén felt that he should have complete freedom with the opportunity to create his ‘testament’ in his final exhibition as a Kosta artist.243


% ($

)0()/1
&+3&11&,+
#/,*

1, (%,)*M
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

% (%
+&.2"
,4)
#/,*
)0(/1
4&1%
 1,-20
!" ,/1&,+J
,01
+&(
caegM
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M

Lindstrand spent one full year year in preparation and some one thousand objects were created in the lead-up to the exhibition from which around three hundred were selected. The objects, given article numbers U1900 - U2119, are the last entries in the Lindstrand Unik inventory books in the firm’s archives. Of these, approximately three hundred were newly created over the preceding four months in close collaboration with the glassworkers, fleshing out the final selection for the exhibition.Lindstrand acknowledged the role of the glassworkers in the realisation of the exhibited work. In the invitation printed by NK for the exhibition, Lindstrand described “glass creation as a teamwork - where each operation is important for the outcome. The artist must have a responsive team of employees who can interpret his intentions.”244 Here we can detect Lindstrand making a guarded reference to ced
%"
"5%& &1&,+
40
+,1
%&0
)01
%,4"3"/M
+
bjhb
+
"5%& &1&,+
40
01$"!
1
*9)+!0
20"2*
4%& %
#, 200"!
*,/"
,+
%&0
-&+1&+$
+!
0 2)-12/"
1%+
$)00M cee
+,+6*,20J
^)0()/1^J
Y1, (%,)*L

,/!&0(
,*-+&"1J
bjgjZM
5%& &1&,+
+3&11&,+M 254 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

what he viewed as the passing fashion in the crafts in his statement that “art glass is hand work - not fashion. Glass must live, and be passed on, from generation to generation.”245 Here, Lindstrand broke his silence on what he felt was a disrespect for glass by the new fashionable ‘dissident’ designers.

The exhibition featured mostly unique work which included the Totum series referencing primitive influences along with introspective work that dominated his output in the late 1960s, revisiting earlier techniques combining sparse abstract colour and optic cutting with an emphasis on uncoloured crystal (Figure 4.75 - 4.80). Some of the sculptural Totem objects reprised almost identical ceramic sculptures Lindstrand had designed in the 1940s whilst at Upsala Ekeby, now executed in colourless crystal heavily sandblasted and acid etched (See Figure 4.76 and 4.93). The exhibition was met with a mixed but mostly lukewarm reception in the national newspapers with minor coverage in Form under the title Circus art in glass. This was the only other review of Lindstrand’s work in Form since Åke Stavenow’s review of Lindstrand’s Kosta debut and it would be the last. Monica Boman payed tribute to Lindstrand’s long and distinguished career in a short review which she described as a belonging “to a generation that works as an artist more than a designer, as an expression of personal whims and private experiments.”246 Boman describes the exhibition as an “orgy of colours, techniques and forms” before rather negatively concluding “but one is looking in vain for a common denominator behind all these quirky works of an unrestrained imagination. Sure, it’s good to be able to - but don’t you also have to be willing?”247

Other press articles reporting and reviewing the exhibition also made note of Lindstrand’s belated comments on the crafts debates and disinterest in the new ‘hot-headed’ designers and their ‘many -isms’, portraying Lindstrand as a cantankerous elder statesman.248 Appropriately, Ulf Hård af Segerstad bookended his 1951 review of Lindstrand’s first solo exhibition for Kosta, with another short review of what was to be Lindstrand’s final solo exhibition. Hård af Segerstad’s text reads more as a retirement homage or obituary than review, whilst dramatically describing the exhibition without further comment or criticism.

cef
&!M ceg
,+& 
,*+J
^&/(20(,+01
&
$)0^J
,/*H

YbjgjZM
%"
@+)
0"+1"+ "
&0
0,*"4%1
/6-1& J
1%"
,/&$&+)
4"!&0%
1"51
&0L
"+
*+
)"1/
#

He plays with ambiguity, transparency, layers, he plays with optical illusion, he grinds and blasts and acid-etches, he plays with abstractions and patterns, suddenly a muscular 1930s figure emerges from a shimmering mass, while pop colours explode in the surrounding pieces. In itself this untamed will to express eventually becomes the central concern in this glass artists devoted career.249

Rosén held the view that this exhibition finally illustrated to Lindstrand that he was no longer relevant and that the public no longer cared for his designs. The objects inGlasklart were seen as too conservative, reprising familiar territory and certainly this marked the end of Lindstrand’s working life at Kosta. He was understandably disappointed and Rosén has stated that Lindstrand “had no-one to blame but himself as he had been given complete freedom in preparation for the exhibition.”250 In Lars Thor’s recent book251 celebrating Rosén’s working life, he avoids discussion of Rosén and Lindstrand’s tense relationship which is well known in Sweden, instead focussing on the new artists Rosén employed at the glassworks. Rosén has been particularly candid in reference to this relationship describing Lindstrand as both “dominating” and “difficult”.252

cej
)#
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
^
$)0"10
1" ("+^J
3"+0(
$ )!"1H
=/!$"+
!"+
i
*/0
bjgjM cfa
,+"0J
^ +1"/3&"4
4&1%
/&
,0;+
1
%&0
%,*"
&+
)+!J
4"!"+
cj
,3"* "/
caaf^M cfb
%,/J
/&(
,0:+
J
/!&()
#


% (&
0"
#/,*
)0()/1
"5%& &1&,+H
bjgjJ
+&(
cadiJ
*+2# 12/"!
6
,01
)0 /2(M
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M

% ('
,1"*
0"/&"0
, '" 1J
bjgjJ
+&(
cabcJ
*+2# 12/"!
6
,01
)0 /2(MM
*$"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

% ((
0"
#/,*
)0()/1
"5%& &1&,+J
bjgjH
+&(
cadjJ
*+2# 12/"!
6
,01
)0 /2(M
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M


% ()
 '" 10
#/,*
)0()/1
"5%& &1&,+J
bjgjJ+&(
caih
+!
cbaiJ
*+2# 12/"!
6
,01
)0 /2(M
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M 257 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% (*
)0()/1
5%& &1&,+
1

1, (%,)*J
bjgjM
+&.2"
,1"*
0"/&"0
, '" 10
,+
1 )"M
*$"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K


% )!
)0()/1
5%& &1&,+
1

1, (%,)*J
bjgjM
*$"J
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

258 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

By the late 1960s Lindstrand appeared even more introverted - an eccentric flaneur resplendent with beret befitting the bohemianartiste - focussing his attention less on production work and more toward sculpture outside of the confines of the village of Kosta (Figure 4.92).

Massive glass plate public sculptures were to dominate his later practice, this time referencing his glass fountain at the 1939 New York World’s Fair. Constructed of sheets of plate glass stacked on top of each other, the sculptures take on prismatic forms that play with the refraction of light and reference Lindstrand’s Kosta sculptural objects. The first was Ikaros nål in 1964 Stuttgart, Germany, commissioned by Professor John H Argyris, prominent scientist and private collector of Lindstrand glass. This early work benefitted from the patronage of the Stuttgart University enabling many of the wind tunnel and temperature tests that would facilitate the later sculptures. Prisma followed in 1967 in Norrköping, Grön Eld in 1970 in Umeå (Figure 4.87) and finally the much delayedLegend i glas in Växjö in 1978 (Figures 4.84 - 4.86). The sculptures, all private commissions for Lindstrand, were fabricated by Kosta with glass produced at nearby Emmaboda glassworks.

Lindstrand left his employment at Kosta in 1973, and although he and his wife Marianne remained in the factory owned villa until his death in 1983, he was never to return to work for the glassworks. During the 1970s he began to work with friends and former Kosta colleagues, Hanne Dreutler and Arthur Zirnsack, on designs for their new glassworks in Åhus where he mostly sketched forms which featured engraved decoration executed by Lindstrand using the dentist drill engraver introduced by Rune Strand in the 1950s (Figure 4.103 and 4.104). Lindstrand’s influence on Dreutler and Zirnsack wasprofound and is more than recognisable in both their early and late work and they have cited Lindstrand as both a mentor and collaborator, remaining guardians of the Vicke och Marianne Lindstrand Stiftelse collection and staunch defenders of his legacy. The permanent exhibition held at their factory showroom in Åhus, Skåne is from the personal collection of Lindstrand and his wife and contains many experimental and prototype objects, sketches and paintings of considerable interest and importance. The collection provides insights into the broad range of influences that are rarely seen alongside his prolific working method.

259 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% )"
+!
% )#
& ("
&+!01/+!J
("1 %"0
#,/
$)00
, '" 10J
&/ 
bjhaM
*$"0L
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

% )$
("1 %
#,/

1 )"
0"/3& "
&+
21
/601)J
!1"!
/ %
bjgjM
,01
/(&3K
%&0
0"/3& "
40
-/,1,16-"!
21
+"3"/
-21
&+1,
-/,!2 1&,+M

260 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6


% )%
& ("
&+!01/+!J
12!6
#,/
$)00
-)1"
0 2)-12/"
)0#,)(H
bjhcM

% )&
& ("
&+!01/+!J
12!6
#,/
$)00
-)1"
0 2)-12/"
"$"+!
&
$)0J
85'=J
4"!"+J
bjhfM
,2 %"
,+
--"/M
*9)+!0
20"2*
/(&3K
%"
0 2)-12/"
40
!")6"!
6
-2 )&
!&0 200&,+
 ,21
,1%
1%"
,01J
+!
1%"
-/,-,0"!
), 1&,+
,#
1%"
0 2)-12/"M
&+!01/+!
%!
2+!"/1("+

+2* "/
,#
012!&"0
#,/
1%"
0 2)-12/"J
0
0("1 %"0
+!
*,!")0M
%"
3"/0&,+
&+
1%"
012!6
&))201/1"!
%"/"
40
-/,-,0"!
#,/
1%"
)("
&+
1%"
"+1/"
,#
85'=M
1
40
@+))6
"/" 1"!
&+
1%"
,2/16/!
,#
1%"
1!0%,1"))"1
&+
bjhiJ
&+

*2 %
/"!2 "!
3"/0&,+M


% )'
"1&)J
"$"+!
&
$)0H
)00
-)1"
0 2)-12/"J
85'=J
4"!"+J
bjhiM
%,1,J
&"1"/
2&-"/K 
% )(
/<+
")!H
)00
-)1"
0 2)-12/"J
*"9J
4"!"+J
bjhaM
%,1,J
&(")
&+!*/(K

261 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% ))
& ("
&+!01/+!
#,/
12!&,
)0%611+
%20
M M
bjha0M

% )*
& ("
&+!01/+!
#,/
12!&,
)0%611+
%20
bjigJ
!"0&$+"!
)1"
bjha0M
*$"0J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M

Lindstrand’s influence can also be seen in the work of Jan Erik Ritzman of Transjö Hytta, former glassblower at Kosta between 1957 and the early 1970s. A number of his series of production glass, particularly his Nets series of the 1980s, owe a great debt to Lindstrand’s designs from the late 1950s, and early 1960s (Figures 4.90 - 4.91).


% *"
 





 


% *!
& ("
&+!01/+!J

bfjc
#/,*
1%"
bjfj
,01
1),$2"J
0"!
,+
2+&.2"
, '" 10
#/,*
1%"
*&!Nbjfa0M

% *"
+
/&(
&17*+
"10
30"0
#/,*
bjia0J
01&))
&+
/+0'=
611R0
2//"+1
-/,!2 1&,+M
*$"0J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(M

262 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6


% *#
/,*,1&,+)
-%,1,$/-%
#,/
)0()/1
#"12/&+$
+&.2"
, '" 10
+&(
bjie
+!
+&(
bjicM
*$"J
,01
/(&3K

Lars Thor’s book on Lindstrand appeared in 1982 and is, to date, the only monograph specifically devoted to his work in glass. Its publication was the catalyst for Ulf Hård af Segerstad to devote his weekly column in Svenska Dagbladet in a quasi-homage to the artist with little critique of Thor’s book. The article is contemporaneous with Hård af Segerstad’s contribution to Scandinavian Modern Design253, as discussed in Part One of this thesis, and shares that essay’s more critical voice, straying from the rhetoric of the 1950s and 60s. In this article Hård af Segerstad not only proposes that Lindstrand was born in the wrong time, but also makes reference to Lindstrand having to make a career in the shadow of Gate and Hald offering his own ambiguous view of Lindstrand’s achievements:

cfd
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
^+&16
+!
&3"/0&16
&+
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+^M 263 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

The significant innovator, especially in the artistic fields, may have significant advantage from letting himself be born "on time". Only then, he has a reasonable opportunity both to make a contribution and to enjoy the appreciation of it. Such was the case for example, in the Swedish glass industry, where just a handful of innovators won considerable fame from the 20s to, say, early 50s, because, one could say, they were in phase with time. Once a pioneer, always a pioneer, as the saying goes in Finland, fully applicable also among us. [...] It is not rare that in these less glamorous times that one sighs for new Gate & Hald-type artists to come to save our glass industry, persons who could compare well with the old ones but with the difference that he/she happened to be born at the wrong time. [...] It would not have been particularly easy to make a career in the shade of the pioneers, which now 78-year old Victor Emanuel Lindstrand, aka Vicke, experienced when he already in 1928 was invited to Orrefors as a talented young illustrator and artist to complement the two older colleagues and carry on the legacy. Vicke Lindstrand quickly adapted to the environment and the tradition, first quite naturally with pastiches of the aforementioned body-builders by his treasured friend Gate, but he gradually moved to increasingly independent things. [...] I have allowed myself to state that not all that Vicke Lindstrand has made belongs among the indispensables in Swedish glass art. It is actually one of the characteristics of designer life. Lindstrand - and before him, Gate and Hald - learned early enough the bitter lesson that a glass factory can never entirely live on what qualified reviewers consider “good”. On the contrary, the situation is probably that the elite products represent the tip of the iceberg, floating on top of the mediocre and banal, and the "pure rubbish" at the bottom . Everyone who has the slightest understanding of the cruel conditions in the art industry knows this. And we have reason to look with understanding and respect on the enthusiasts, who during a long life still managed to keep the faith alive in this something we know is quality.254

1982 was too late for Hård af Segerstad’s belated recognition of Lindstrand’s difficult career in the shadow of Orrefors. The shadow by this time had grown long and dark. The shadow of Orrefors, Gate and Hald was already written into the canonical history of Swedish and Scandinavian design by a combination of the success and renown of the factory, and the discourse emanating from the SSF.

cfe
)#
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
^11
0"
!'2-1
&
$)0"1
Y,
0""
!""-)6
&+1,
1%"
$)00Z^J
3"+0(
$ )!"1H
h
 1, "/
bjicM
/+0)1"!
6
/0
,%+00,+M
_11
0"
!'2-1
&
$)0"1_
%0

!,2 )"
*"+&+$
&+
4"!&0%J
)1%,2$%
0")!,*
20"!J
*"+&+$
_!/&+(&+$
1,,
*2 %_M 264 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

K@HH
#%
#(-.,(>
1 #-"( -->
(#(0#(( --
(
."
." ,@

Vicke Lindstrand was often influenced by themes atth were non-Swedish. His earliest work for Orrefors referenced the exotic: African, Asian and mythical imagery being most prevalent. If we examine the most highly represented objects from his oeuvre, those included in exhibitions and publications, more abstract influences are the norm, whereas these themes of Otherness are mostly absent. The Pearlfishers is not a particularly obvious example however the activity of pearl diving, depicted in Lindstrand’s engraved illustration, whilst largely superseded by pearl farming in the early 1900s, was practised in Asia, the Caribbean and South America - an exotic, non-Swedish activity. Throughout Lindstrand’s Orrefors work there are themes and engravings that also speak of the Other - African American jazz musicians, African and ‘Oriental’ or Asian women.


% *$
"#1
1,
/&$%1K
5,1& 
, '" 10
#,/
,01J
bjfbK
,1"*
30"J
-0)N(" 6J
bjea0K
5,1& 
30"J
,01J

bjfbM
*$"0J
*)+!0
20"2*
/(&3H
/&31"
,))" 1&,+H
,01L,!K

By the late 1940s, when the discourse in Sweden was more focussed on national influences under the guise of a particular Swedish version of Functionalism that had become known internationally as Swedish Modern, exotic and obvious non-Swedish influences appear to have been downplayed or even suppressed suggesting that they were undesirable and out of line with the prevalent discourses. The 1950s represented a period of internationalising in design and whilst Swedish design of the period has many stylistic features that link it to this internationalising trend, international influences in the work of Swedish designers were significantly less visible in period discourse. This was most certainly the case with Lindstrand.

265 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Design historian Lesley Jackson has argued, that Sweden’s pre-eminence in design in the 1950s was not surprising given its achievements in ceramics, glass and furniture during the 1920s and 1930s and the continuity facilitated by its neutrality during the Second World War.255 This enabled some designers, including Lindstrand, to play a major role both before and after the war. Sweden had progressively sought to emphasise the Swedish-ness of its design and applied art by focussing on climate, landscape and tradition as catalysts for the design aesthetic. The “New Look”, as Lesley Jackson has defined design from 1947 onwards, was influenced by optimism and a new age that sought a new expression. This is where the more organic tendencies are said to come into play, influences from fine art and sculpture. The softening of Modernism. These tendencies were manifest in Scandinavia much earlier, during the 1930s, in Alvar Aalto’s architecture, furniture and glass designs in Finland, and Lindstrand’s organic glass designs for Orrefors in Sweden (Figures 4.94 and 4.95).

As the preceding discussion has demonstrated, there is a discernible continuity of themes and influences in Lindstrand’s work across all mediums and at both Orrefors and Kosta. In his Kosta work we see similar exotic influences. These were not exclusively figurative or literal but also abstract. The influences of Surrealism, Abstract Art and associated movements have been discussed earlier in this text. These influences were most notably manifest in the Abstracta series of 1951, referencing Jackson Pollock’s 1940s Action Paintings, a widely influential aesthetic256 that was also present in Swedish and Scandinavian design yet completely absent from the Design in Scandinavia rhetoric. It can be argued that the apparent ‘Swedishness’ of Lindstrand’s work impacted on his reception and that his work included in Design in Scandinavia is a good example of what might be considered ‘Swedish’, or conversely ‘un- Swedish’ which in turn determined its fit as ‘Scandinavian’ or ‘un-Scandinavian’. I have discussed earlier in this text the aesthetic of the objects selected but will now interrogate the selections in more detail in terms of their inherent Swedishness.

cff
 (0,+J
%"
"4
,,(J
"0&$+
&+
1%"

&"0M
-M
bhM cfg
0
!&0 200"!
&+
%-1"/
e
,#
&!M 266 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6


% *%

bfeJ
//"#,/0
bjdgM
//"#,/0
/(&3K

% *&
)3/
)1,
3,6
0"J
&1)J
bjdhJ
0
#"12/"!
&+
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
1),$2"
bjfeM
3"+0(
,/*
/(&3K
,1%
, '" 10
-/""*-1
1%"
,/$+&
1"+!"+ &"0
*+&#"01
&+
bjea0
+!
bjfa0
 +!&+3&+
!"0&$+M

Thomas O’Dell has pointed out that “there is an overwhelming tendency to describe Swedishness as national identity in terms of the aesthetics of modernity.”257 According to Michelle Facos, the concept of Swedishness emerged from the National Romantic period of the late nineteenth century where “it’s goal was to promote a national identity by preserving indigenous culture, tradition and values.”258 O’Dell has further pointed out that:

Swedishness was (and often still is) identified as a set of values shared amongst individuals and marked by rationalism, practicality, functionalism, a belief in science, and even an accompanying degree of reservedness, coupled with an appreciation for moderation (see Arnstberg 1989; Ehn 1989; Frykman; 1989; Löfgren 1993; O’Dell 1993). The central intention behind most of this work has been directed towards explaining how these qualities have developed as cultural processes and thereby become an aspect of something which many people identify as Swedish. But stated somewhat pointedly, it can be said that indirectly, the result has been to continuously reassert (and perhaps even reify) these qualities as typically Swedish.259

Lindstrand’s Kosta work was widely influenced and he himself did not conform to the clichéd ‘practical and rational’ Swede. Lindstrand was not reserved nor is moderation manifest in his work. Rather, his work could be restrained in one instance and exuberant in another. He was described by Hård af Segerstad as “the formidable every artist, frantic active and incessantly

cfh
^!"))J
^ 2+ 12/"0
,#
4"!&0%+"00L
" ,+0&!"/&+$
"-/"0"+11&,+0
,#
1%"
1&,+)^M
-M
ddM cfi
 ,0J
1&,+)&0*
+!
1%"
,/!&
&*$&+1&,+
J
4"!&0%
/1
,#
1%"
\cd[0M
-M
dM cfj
^!"))J
^ 2+ 12/"0
,#
4"!&0%+"00L
" ,+0&!"/&+$
"-/"0"+11&,+0
,#
1%"
1&,+)^M
-M
dcM 267 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

on the lookout for the latest in new trends and developments around the world.”260 In short, a true Internationalist.

As discussed in Chapter Three, the narrative and rhetoric prevalent in Swedish design discourse of the 1950s was very much formulated in the late 1940s by the disciples of Gregor Paulsson who advocated all things Modern. What differed in the discourse surrounding Scandinavian Design was the inclusion of more overt references to peasant crafts and traditions, references that can be traced back to the National Romantic movement of the nineteenth century. Inherent in O’Dell’s discussion of Swedishness is the absence of ethnicity and the exclusion from discourse of anything that is not seen as Swedish, where he argued that:

The general discourse of Swedish modernity has become in this way a homogenising discourse in which the ”usual” is equated with the rational and practical. Divergence is divorced from the picture, and ethnicity remains singular, non-hyphenated, and unproblematic.261

Lindstrand’s Design in Scandinavia objects can be assessed as conforming to the notion of modernity as rational (clear, simple form) and practical (obvious function, vase, bowl, etc), not machine-made, but with a crafts lineage as emphasised in the associated rhetoric. However, ideas that are divergent, outside of National influences and references (such as ethnic, or international referencing) are thus excluded. For example, looking at the rejected submissions of Lindstrand objects for Design in Scandinavia (refer Figures 4.47 and 4.48) we find work referencing Jackson Pollock (not Swedish), Tapio Wirkkala (Finnish, not Swedish), Italian glass (not Swedish) and finally an engraved illustration of a bull fight (not Swedish).

Lindstrand’s experience with both the selection process of Design in Scandinavia, and his critical reception in Sweden during the 1950s, finds parallels in Murphy’s recent study on Swedish design. Murphy points out that:

[...] the ideology of Swedish design is an exclusionary force, both in terms of what counts as fitting the category and what (or who) the category is allowed to represent. Many designers working in Sweden craft objects that do not conform to the Swedish cultural geometry, while many designers working outside Sweden do. Nevertheless, such objects tend to be ignored in official tallies of Swedish design, either because they do not look or work like Swedish design, or because they do not come from the same political tradition. Moreover, as far as Swedish design has

cga
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
^11
0"
!'2-1
&
$)0"1
Y,
0""
!""-)6
&+1,
1%"
$)00Z^M cgb
^!"))J
^ 2+ 12/"0
,#
4"!&0%+"00L
" ,+0&!"/&+$
"-/"0"+11&,+0
,#
1%"
1&,+)^M
-M
ddM 268 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

become a powerful, marketable icon of Swedish national and cultural identity, it depicts a highly specific and essentialised model of Swedishness that, despite the best efforts of the Social Democrats to install conformity in Swedish culture, is not entirely representative of the population as a whole.262

Lindstrand’s work did not always conform to what Murphy describes as the “Swedish cultural geometry”, the formal qualities of typical Swedish objects, characterised by straight lines, simple curves, clear function and monochromatic use of colour in materials of wood, steel, glass, textiles and plastic. This was a decisive factor in the inclusion or exclusion of his work in discourse.

Lindstrand’s designs for engravings were also widely influenced. Referencing a broad range of illustrative themes from Africa to New York, architecture to literature, and celebrity to peasantry (Figure 4.98 - 4.111). The new techniques Lindstrand developed to set his engraved illustration apart from the previous achievements discussed earlier in this text, were (mostly) the subject of positive critical commentary. However, in visual discourse (illustrations, exhibitions) a preference for peasant themes is evident, themes which exhibited more institutionalised Swedishness. This is perhaps most evident in the selection forDesign in Scandinavia where the obvious choice of Lindstrand’s Fisknät (The Nets) (Figure 4.98) that depicts peasant imagery,(of an almost identical theme to one of Stig Lindberg’s 1940s faience designs for Gustavsberg), which makes the omission of Träd i dimma (Trees in fog) depicting a typical Swedish (and Scandinavian) winter image, more perplexing.263 The answer might be found in the sommerso technique used in the production of Träd i dimma that originated in Italy.264 O’Dell’s paper finds further resonance here in his concluding remarks;

I would argue that the question which has to be asked in the explanation of Swedishness, is what has been forgotten, whom is forgotten, and what is denied access to [the Swedes] emotions through its exclusion from the discourse of national identity.265

cgc
2/-%6J
^11"
,#
1%"
/1L
"0&$+J
"*, / 6J
+!
1%"
/,!2 1&,+
,#
16)"
&+
4"!"+^M
--M
fcNfdM cgd
%"
&))201/1&,+
"/0

01/&(&+$
/"0"* )+ "
1,
1&$
&+! "/$R0
!" ,/1&,+
,#

#&"+ "
30"
0
&))201/1"!
-"/&,!
20130 "/$
1),$2"0
+!
+
!3"/1&0"*"+1
#,/
20130 "/$
&+
,/*
*$7&+"
cNbjegJ
#"12/"!
&+
1%"
caag
1&,+)*20"2*
"5%& &1&,+
Z1&$
&+! "/$K cge
%"
,**"/0,
1" %+&.2"
YQB,,!"!RJQ02 *"/$"!RZ
S&0
"51/"*")6
1%& (
$)00
1%1
%0
202))6
""+
0"!
0"3"/)
1&*"0M
1
*6
"
20"!
&+
,* &+1&,+
4&1%
&+ )20&,+
,#
0*))
2 )"0J
*1)
#,&)J
"1 M
0&+$
&0
1%"
,3"/&+$
,#
,+"
)6"/
,#
$)00
4&1%
+,1%"/
)6"/
,#

!&?"/"+1
,),2/M
02))6
1%"
,21"/
)6"/
&0
),4+
@/01J
+!
1%"
&++"/
)6"/
),4+
&+1,
&1MT
,2/ "L
3
 %*&11
")*"1
& ("J
1)&+
)00
2/+,L&)+
\d^[L\db[
Y+$)&0%
"!+MK
2+& %
N
"4
,/(L
/"01")J
bjjhZM
--M
dec
C
defM

cgf
^!"))J
^ 2+ 12/"0
,#
4"!&0%+"00L
" ,+0&!"/&+$
"-/"0"+11&,+0
,#
1%"
1&,+)^M
-M
dcM 269 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Design has become integral in the make up of Swedish national identity and much has been excluded from discourse.


% *'
& ("
&+!01/+!J
+$/3"!
30"J

&!02**"/
+&$%10
/"*H
*+2# 12/"!
6
,01
)0 /2(J
bjfgM
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(K

% *(
&+!01/+!
4&1%
+%11+
0"J
,01
bjfbM
*$"J
*)&+!0
20"2*
/(&3K

270 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6


% *)
& ("
&+!01/+!J
+$/3"!
30"J
&0(+81
Y%"
"10Z
*+2# 12/"!
6
,01
)0 /2(J
bjfbM
*$"J
,01
/(&3M

271 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% **
))201/1&,+0
0%,4&+$
1%"
&+B2"+ "
,#
3/&,20
1%"/J
"5,1&
1%"*"0
&+
&+!01/+!R0
,"23/"
"14""+
bjda
+!
bjgjM
), (4&0"
#/,*
1,-J
2))@$%1

\`_H
,01
\d`\I
 "0
30"H
//"#,/0
\d^[I
&+1&+$H
\d_[0I
&+$3&+I
,01
\d`\I
("1 %H
,01
\d`[0I
"/2+0(
0(H
/&")
1" %+&.2"H
//"#,/0
\d^dI
&+!01/+!
-& 12/"!
4&1%
,+"
,#
1%"
,1"*
0"/&"0
+!
,4)0
#/,*
)0()/1H
,01
\dadI
&* ,H
1"51&)"
2)) "/$0H
\d^aI
,+01"/&H
1"51&)"H
2)) "/$0
\d^aK
*$"0L
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(H
&+!01/+!
01
")0"H
/&31"
,))" 1&,+K

272 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

K@HI
"
,, ),-
,)2

K@HI@H
/- +/ (.
,#.#&
,  *.#)(

Since Lindstrand’s death in 1983, English language commentary has had little to say with regard to his Kosta period. One of the most prominent and vocal critics of his work was the Swedish art historian and curator Dag Widman, formerly of the Nationalmuseum and Prins Eugens Waldemarsudde in Stockholm. In 1992, to mark the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Kosta glassworks, the company published a book entitled Kosta, 250 Years, which presented an appropriate opportunity to review the importance of Lindstrand’s lengthy term as Artistic Director of the factory. Despite this opportunity, Widman’s dramatically titled lead essay, The Kosta Artists - A Rhapsodic Review of the Twentieth Century, reached an impasse on the subject of Lindstrand. Acknowledging his “undeniable skill and inventiveness”266 Widman unreservedly dismisses aspects of Lindstrand’s engraved work as “superficially decorative”267 and his forms as “sloppy and imprecise”268. Rather, his essay leaned towards the subsequent stable of artists, whilst focussing a lengthy critique of Lindstrand’s well intentioned and commercially successful Glas block objects. Widman concluded his discussion of Lindstrand with a statement that was the impetus for this research, where he proposed that:

[...] with all his versatility, his passion for experiment and his adaptability to public taste he somehow lost the distinct artistic profile that was so evident during his Orrefors period. Perhaps he was too hard pressed by the profit motive; or perhaps he is simply one of the ‘blind spots’ of our time and his undeniable qualities as a glass designer will later be seen more clearly and unreservedly.269

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the Americans had already recognised Lindstrand’s undeniable qualities and this was confirmed in the appeal of his work to the buying public. Also of note in Widman’s lengthy essay is the omission of any discussion at all on the matter of Ernest Gordon’s period at Kosta, despite including an illustration of a Gordon designed bowl from 1954 in the publication. In direct contrast, Widman focussed much attention and praise on Sven Erik Skawonius, artist, colleague and personal friend describing him as “an

cgg
&!*+J
^%"
,01
/1&010
N

%-0,!&
"3&"4
,#
1%"
4"+1&"1%
"+12/6^M
cgh
&!M
-M
gbM cgi
&!M
-M
gbM cgj
&!M
-M
gcM 273 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

aesthete to his fingertips” before concluding that “Kosta allowed yet another major talent in glass design disappear through its revolving door.”270

In The Kosta Artists Widman mistakingly stated that Lindstrand avoided Graal, Ariel and other Orrefors techniques. Whilst there are a limited number of examples of Lindstrand Kosta objects in these techniques, there is no evidence to support Widman’s statement. Rather these techniques were utilised by Lindstrand at Kosta, further demonstrating his continuity and development. This can be evidenced in a series of unique objects combiningGraal and Ravenna, another Orrefors technique, beginning in the mid-1950s and included in the Corning Glass 1959 exhibition (see figures 4.63 and 4.64).271 Lindstrand also produced unique objects in the Ariel technique during the 1960s (see figures 4.100 and 4.101)272 and utilised carborundum powder in both production and unique objects for Kosta, first explored at Orrefors during the 1930s in his Mykene technique, the precursor to Ariel.


% "!!
+&(
0"J
/&")
1" %+&.2"J
,01
bjgaM
*$"J
 (0,+0
1, (%,)*K
%&0
30"
/"3&0&10
&))201/1&3"
1%"*"0
@/01
20"!
6
&+!01/+!
1
//"#,/0
&+
1%"
bjda0M

% "!"
+&(
0"

bhcaJ
/&")
1" %+&.2"J
,01J
bjggM
*$"J
/&31"
,))" 1&,+K
%&0
30"
#"12/"0

0&*&)/
$",*"1/&
!" ,/1&3"
-11"/+
@/01
21&)&0"!
&+

,* &+1&,+
,#
/)
+!
3"++
1" %+&.2"0
&+
1%"
,4)
&))201/1"!
&+
@$2/"
eMgdM
cha
&!M
-M
fjM chb
%&0
,* &+1&,+
,#
1" %+&.2"0
40
@/01
, 0"/3"!
6
")*"1
& ("M
""L
& ("J
/,+"/1J
+!
2+01*20"2*
:200")!,/#MJ
)0
&+
 %4"!"+H
\d\`L\da[K
-M
cbiM chc
2/1%"/
, '" 10
&+
1%"
/&")
1" %+&.2"
/"
&))201/1"!
&+
1%"
,01
+&(
&+3"+1,/6
,,(0
&+
,01
/(&3
4&1%
*,!")
+2* "/0

bcbbJ

bcbcJ

bhcaJ

bhcbJ

bhcgJ

bhch
+!

bhciM 274 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

Several years later Widman again dismissed Lindstrand’s Kosta work. On this occasion he once more acknowledged Lindstrand’s versatility and productivity but chose to emphasise the earlier canonical work for Orrefors at the exclusion of Kosta. Widman stated that:

[...Lindstrand] became artistic director at Kosta in 1950. His productivity and tireless will to move onwards dominated the 1960s: no other Swedish artist in glass has matched him in versatility but I have chosen to emphasise work from the springtime of his career, his first twelve years at Orrefors that were dominated by tense forms and technical invention.273

Lindstrand’s Orrefors work is, in Widman’s opinion, more superior and significant but without discussion of the Kosta period, this emphasis is ambiguous. Given the populist nature and wide readership of the book this might be considered irresponsible. In the same publication, Widman again praises his SSF associate Skawonius. The artistic integrity of Lindstrand’s work for Kosta was seen by Widman to be compromised by the profit motive.

Widman’s trilogy of subjective commentary on Lindstrand concluded in his detailed essay in the centenary publication of Orrefors glassworks where again he praised the work that Lindstrand produced during his tenure at the factory, before concluding that:

Lindstrand was later to design glass for Kosta almost twice as long as he had been at Orrefors, but hardly ever again did he achieve the bold inventiveness and inspired creativity that had marked his early years.274

Widman has been candid in his many texts of his preferences for Orrefors, and disregard for Lindstrand’s Kosta work. Whilst this may be understandable as a personal preference, his position as an art historian, curator and arbiter of taste, makes his subjective opinion somewhat questionable. His inclusion in the SSF network is noted. Widman began his career in the SSF as assistant editor of Form under Arthur Hald between 1949 - 52, then as their director between 1963 - 65 and finally as their chairman between 1971 - 75. In between he was chief curator of the applied arts department of the Nationalmuseum Stockholm from 1957. He wrote widely on Swedish decorative arts, most notably on Stig Lindberg, Signe Persson-Melin and most recently Bruno Mathsson, all contemporaries of Lindstrand. Widman was also responsible for recognising the role of master glassblower Bengt Heintze in the work of the many Kosta artists, with an exhibition at the Nationalmuseum Stockholm in

chd
&!*+
+!
/+(0J
3"+0(1
$)0
\d[[L\da[
J
][
(,+01+8/"/H
][
3"/(
e
4"!&0%
$)00
\d[[L\da[
J
][
/1&010H
][
4,/(0M
-M
deM che
&!*+J
^%"
,01
/1&010
N

%-0,!&
"3&"4
,#
1%"
4"+1&"1%
"+12/6^M
-M
ffM 275 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

1972, the first time a glass blower, rather than an artist, has been featured in the museum.275 Of the Lindstrand Kosta objects in Nationalmuseum’s collection, only one was acquired during Widman’s term, a unique vase from the Glasklart exhibition at NK Department Store in Stockholm in 1969.

Conversely, German glass historian Helmet Ricke holds an opposing view to Widman with regard to Lindstrand’s Kosta period. Ricke views Lindstrand as epitomising the 1950s era of the new artist-designer, who was prepared to compromise, finding a balance between artistic integrity and economic reality, making Lindstrand the right person for an internationally sales-oriented company such as Kosta in the 1950s. His ability to predict and respond to future trends in the market, evident early in his Orrefors period, and his engraved glass positioned him, according to Ricke, as a trendsetting artist and Kosta as a serious competitor to Orrefors. Ricke also cites Lindstrand’s ability to adapt foreign influences, such as Venetian cane techniques, into the vocabulary of Swedish glass as important, balancing 1950s asymmetric-plasticity against fine-line classicism and “no-strings attached” decoration. Ricke observes Lindstrand’s thick-walled, unique art glass with its elaborate decorative interlayers responding to Orrefors’ Graal and Ariel glass, however unlike Orrefors, Lindstrand used a method that offered alternate opportunities, with decoration that required less cooling between stages resulting in dynamic results. Ricke’s views on Lindstrand and his significance are not widely known due to the fact that they have, thus far, been limited to scarce German and Swedish language publications.276

The lack of recognition of Lindstrand’s Kosta work frustrated not only Lindstrand but also the Kosta management who found this a major hurdle in achieving a positive profile for the factory. Erik Rosén cited the success of Orrefors in the 1930s as the root of this problem and that “for them”, referring to the Swedish commentators, curators and critics such as Widman “Lindstrand would always belong to Orrefors. We could not succeed to make Kosta famous with Lindstrand therefore we needed new artists like the Wärff’s.”277

chf
%"
"5%& &1&,+
S
$)00N ),4"/

%)#

"+12/6
1
,01T
,-"+"!
1
1&,+)*20"2*
1, (%,)*
,+
h
" "* "/
bjhc
+!
&+ )2!"!
4,/(
6
)&0
"/$%J
3"+N/&(
(4,+&20J
6/
2+!$/"+J
0 /
%)J
& ("
&+!01/+!J
/+"01
,/!,+J
,+
,/)"0N %&)!1J
4"
+! "/$J
++
+!
=/+
8/?J
,)#
&+"*/(J
&$2/!
"/00,+J
&0
2"/
+!
2)
,?
4&1%
4%,*
"&+17"
%!
,)) ,/1"!
4&1%
!2/&+$
fa
6"/0
1
,01M
""
$
&!*+J
+
/&(
+!"/ '=/(J
+!
+
/2+&20J
^+
$)0 )90/"
"11
%)30"(")
-9
,01^J
&+
1&,+)*20"2*
Y"!MZJ
Y1, (%,)*L
1&,+)*20"2*J
bjhcZM chg
& ("R0
"006
+
"
#,2+!
&+
"/*+
&+
& ("J
/,+"/1J
+!
2+01*20"2*
:200")!,/#MJ
)0
&+
 %4"!"+H
\d\`L\da[M
+!
&+
4"!&0%
&+
%) 8 (
211"*+J
"/00,+J
+!
1&,+)*20"2*J
3"+0(1
$)0
\d\`L\da[
J
1&,+)*20"2*
1, (%,)*
]^KdL\`K\\
\dcbM chh
,+"0J
^ +1"/3&"4
4&1%
/&
,0;+
1
%&0
%,*"
&+
)+!J
4"!"+
cj
,3"* "/
caaf^M 276 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

Inconsistencies and errors in the placement of Lindstrand’s works in time, coupled with the preferential reception of his earlier career have also contributed to a clouded picture of his development and the influences on his work. As an example, in Innovation and Diversity, Dawson attributed a 1969 Unik278 series vase (Figure 4.114) to the mid-1950s, citing as its influence a 1930s Skawonious technique. Dawson mistakingly argued that:

In the mid-1950s he revived the deep cutting sandblasting technique that had first been employed by Skawonius in the 1930s, and created a number of unique vases that were decorated with whimsical and comic animal motifs, as in the 'Vase' (plate 24) with its encircling design of rather strange stylized birds”279

The deep cutting and sandblasting technique that Dawson refers to was not a Skawonius innovation. This technique became popular in association with Art Deco and can be seen in the period work of Orrefors, including Lindstrand, and Tyra Lundgren for Kosta. The technique features heavily in the Unik objects that formed Lindstrand’s final exhibition for Kosta at NK in 1969 which reference several periods and themes from throughout his career. This sort of commentary does much to diminish the quality and standing of Lindstrand’s work by incorrectly attributing influences and periods. Skawonius’ own work can be seen to reference earlier Lindstrand Orrefors work such as in a series of leaf shaped bowls and ashtrays.280

As a further example, in Mel Byars recent, comprehensive, The Design Encyclopedia, jointly published by New York’s Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), there is an entry on Lindstrand that is partially incorrect. The entry inaccurately states that Lindstrand “was the design director at Kosta Boda glassworks, while concurrently active in his own studio in Århus.”281 Kosta did not become Kosta Boda until 1976, after Lindstrand had left the factory. Further, as discussed earlier in this chapter, from 1983 Lindstrand produced designs for Studioglashttan in Åhus, rather than Århus, and not concurrently with Kosta. The inclusion of an entry on Lindstrand in such a comprehensive publication from a prestigious institution such as MoMA has the potential to work in two ways. The expert opinion of MoMA positively reinforces

chi
+&(J
1/+0)1"!
0
2+&.2"J
/"#"/0
1,
1%"
Q,+"N,?R
/1
$)00
, '" 10
-/,!2 "!
1
,01M
40,+
/"#"/0
1,
*,!")
+2* "/
fghab
!1"!
bjgj
&+
1%"
&+!01/+!
+&(
/"$&01"/
1
,01
+!
&+ )2!"!
&+
1%"
bjgj

"5%& &1&,+
)0()/1K chj
40,+J
++,31&,+
B
&3"/0&16J
b`
"/0
,#
4"!&0%
)00
/1M
-M
fbM cia
%"
&+!01/+!
//"#,/0
*,!")
+2* "/
&0

bjabJ
!"0&$+"!
&+
bjdbJ
0""
"& 2))
"1
)MJ
8/)"(
1&))
$)0
J
$+"0
"))+"/0
0*)&+$
3
//"#,/0$)0
e

),3"
,#
$)00
J
$+"0
"))+"/Y0
,))" 1&,+
,#
//"#,/0
$)00M
-Mdbc
)0,
&+
1%"
bjdj
1),$2"
&+
& ("
+!
%,/J
4"!&0%
)00
 1,/&"0
/,!2 1&,+
1),$2"0
\d\`
S
\da[M
--MbggK
1%"
(4,+&20
,01
*,!")
#/,*
1%"
bjea0
&0
&))201/1"!
,+
-$"
bcd
,#
)1%J
%"
!" ,/1&3"
/10
,#
4"!"+M


cib
%"
"0&$+
+ 6 ),-"!&M
--M
ediNedjM 277 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Lindstrand’s significance and the publication will be widely referenced as an authoritative source. However, the lack of correctness in an entry from an expert institution also has a potentially negative effect by becoming imbedded in ‘the truth’, further problematising Lindstrand’s position in design history.

If we were to take as read all that has been hinted at in various publications concerning the Swedish glass industry, we would draw the conclusion that it was overrun by difficult personalities. Whilst much of this ‘gossip’ has little to do with the integrity of the object, it may go some way to assist in understanding loyalties and preferences. Lindstrand is portrayed as a temperamental artist in commentary throughout his career. Lindstrand’s Kosta colleagues Sven Pihlström, Mona Morales-Schildt282, Erik Rosén and Göran Wärff have all made reference to this aspect of his character, however, several of them were also known to have had similar traits.


% "!#
+&(
0"J
fghabJ
,01
bjgjM
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(K

% "!$
,01

fcaJ
bjfcM
*$"J
1, (%,)*0
2(1&,+03"/(K
,1%
30"0
#"12/"
1%"
0*"
211&+$
1" %+&.2"M

By contrast, Lindstrand has also been described as “loveable and charming”283 by Ulf Hård af Segerstad. Bengt Heintze, however, seems to have had the opportunity to see both sides of

cic
"/)&17N"7")&20J
,01M
--M
hj
+!
idM cid
9/!
#
"$"/01!J
^11
0"
!'2-1
&
$)0"1
Y,
0""
!""-)6
&+1,
1%"
$)00Z^M 278 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

Lindstrand’s personality describing him on one hand as “kind, open, cooperative, understanding”284 and on the other “jealous and sulky”285. Engraver Rune Strand also noted his harrowing arrival at Kosta which led to him being prescribed Valium to deal with bullying by the older engravers at the factory. Strand described a turnaround, facilitated by a brief from Lindstrand, where he related that:

Then Vicke drew a special piece for me, but at that time [1951] I had lost so much confidence that I wanted to say no to the task. ‘Do it’, said Vicke and when it was finished, he went around from workshop to workshop and said that this is how engraving should look. Since then I had no more problems.286

This proves that Lindstrand was a complex personality capable of both denigrating and praising his collegues.

Recent evidence of the consequences of the reiteration and overt preference for Orrefors has become manifest in many popular publications. Andy McConnell, English journalist and writer on antique glass published Miller’s 20th Century Glass, a guide for collectors in 2006 where, despite his reassurance that “Nordic glassmaking did not revolve around Orrefors alone”287, it is the only Swedish factory he covers in his text. His sixteen page section on Orrefors features a two page spread devoted to Lindstrand and his work for the factory. Although unintentional, this too acts to compound the effect of only associating Lindstrand with Orrefors, as evidenced in Steenberg and Widman’s earlier publications.

K@HI@I
/,, (.
  *.#)(
#(
)(. 2.

The last ten years have seen considerable reassessment of this fertile period in Scandinavian design history. The perception of Lindstrand’s work for Kosta between 1950 and 1973 has been varied, but it is reasonable to say, mostly overlooked in favour of his achievements at Orrefors during the 1930s. Some commentators such as Dag Widman have suggested he may have been a blind spot, and this apparent blindness might be attributed to perceptions of quality288, status, or artistic achievement. These factors aside, the significance of Lindstrand’s cie
%,/J
"$"+!
&
$)0
J
"+
,(
,*
& ("
&+!01/+!M
-M
igM cif
2+!*/(J
801"/
"+$1
)0)"$"+!"+M
-M
dfM cig
%,/J
"$"+!
&
$)0
J
"+
,(
,*
& ("
&+!01/+!M
-M
ijM cih
+!6
 ,++"))J
&))"/Y0
][1%L"+12/6
)00
Y ,+!,+L
 1,-20J
caagZM
-M
hfM cii
//"#,/0
" ,*"
/"+,4+"!
#,/
-/,!2 &+$
@+"
$)00
0
"/)6
0
1%"
bjda0
#2/1%"/
&!"!
6
1%"
-/,*,1&,+)
"?,/10
,#
!4/!
)!M
""
&!*+
&+
"/01&+K
!&1,/
& (*+J
//"#,/0H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$
Y6$$#,/)$"1N 2)12/
bjjiJ
bjjiZM
--M
gf
W
ggM 279 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Kosta work should not be diminished. The factors that informed the work could not be further distanced from the period at Orrefors. At Orrefors, Lindstrand was removed from the financial pressures and everyday business of the glassworks, which were handled by others, and was free to place all of his efforts into design, albeit within the limitations of his mentors.


% "!%
&+!01/+!
4&1%
,0"-%&+"
("/
,+

3&0&1
1,
1, (%,)*
&+
bjfhM
+,1%"/
+,+N4"!&0%
&+B2"+ "
,+
%&0
4,/(M
("/
%,)!0
1%"
+&16
30"
4%& %
40
!"!& 1"!
1,
%"/
6
&+!01/+!M
"
%")!
+
,+$,&+$
#0 &+1&,+
4&1%
("/M
+
bjdh
&+!01/+!
!"0&$+"!
+
//"#,/0
30"J
*,!")
+2* "/

bgeiJ
1%1
)0,
#"12/"!
+
"+$/3&+$
,#
("/Mcij
*$"J
,01
/(&3K

Lindstrand’s work at Kosta was constrained by many factors, notwithstanding issues of creativity. Rather than hindering the creative process, these constraints facilitated invention. Lindstrand’s passion for glass and his highly developed understanding of the material resulted in a diverse and much varied range for Kosta which was commercially and in many instances critically successful. Adaptable and inventive, Lindstrand was quick to address any decline in the market often searching for new ways of doing things.

A reassessment of the work of Vicke Lindstrand for Kosta, unclouded by the prevailing cultural biases and considered more dispassionately, might also be regarded as the most significant body of work in glass to be produced by a single Scandinavian artist. This significance was rooted not only in artistic endeavour, but coupled with important inventions generated by the constraints of industry manifest in an underlying concern for the welfare of the workers. The substantial range of ideas and concepts that explore the nature of material, cij
& ("
+!
%,/J
4"!&0%
)00
 1,/&"0
/,!2 1&,+
1),$2"0
\d\`
S
\da[M
-M
bcjM 280 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

whilst engaging in dialogue within the conceptual paradigm of parallel movements in the arts, an acute understanding of popular taste, and a profound understanding of the role of the craftsman lend his work richness, complexity, and significance.

K@HJ
(
."
&)(!
-")1
)
 
 
"
,, ),-
& !3@

Orrefors has been widely held as an exemplar of the ideology of the SSF, the positive manifestation of the artist in industry and more beautiful things for everyday use. This is not without merit. Orrefors was one of the earliest factories to successfully implement the Artist in Industry model in Sweden where the artist held a position as an integral part of the business.290 The factory is considered the most continuously successful Swedish model of art industry as a result of continued craftsmanship rather than machine production (although sadly not the case today) and as Frick has observed because “the artist was involved from the very outset in the build-up of the art glass factory.”291 Edward Hald and Simon Gate were responsible for this, along with a progressive owner, Johan Ekman, who encouraged the artistic integrity of the factory to blossom. Edward Hald can be credited with the continuation of this integral marriage of art and industry during his time as director of the factory between 1933 and 1944. Vicke Lindstrand cemented the reputation of the glass factory in international acclaim, more particularly America. As a result Orrefors featured prominently and frequently in publications. The publicity machine at Orrefors also ensured this by constantly looking to raise the visibility of the factory and the artists. Close collaboration with museums and the SSF assured its profile.

It is however unfortunate that the reception of Lindstrand’s post-Orrefors career was to be compromised by his earlier successes at Orrefors, not necessarily because his later work was of less merit, as Widman has proposed, but because the reputation and foundations for Swedish art glass industry had been built essentially single-handedly by Orrefors during the 1920s and 30s. This was still the case during the 1940s with the introduction of younger designers although somewhat hindered by the war. Lindstrand’s variable reception was further compounded by much discourse on the success of Orrefors, their profile in design publications, especially Form, and the writings that featured particularly Hald and Gate.

cja
,/

!"1&)"!
 ,2+1
,#
1%"
/1&01
&+
&+!201/6
&+
4"!"+
+!
-/1& 2)/)6
1
//"#,/0J
0""
/& (J
,+01+8/
&
&+!201/&+M cjb
&!M 281 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Family had played an important role at Orrefors292 from the Ekman/Hellner293 ownership to the generations of artisan families working side by side through to the Hald and Gate families. Arthur and Elisa played a role as participants in the propaganda machine of the SSF and may be seen to have been aligned to the ‘family’ company. Equally, Paulsson and the SSF played a profound role in the life of the Hald family, beginning with their advocacy of Edward and shaping the careers of the two siblings. The extended family network included many prominent critics, commentators, curators and the SSF who have continued to espouse the Orrefors legacy in both English and Swedish language commentary, the side effect being that Lindstrand’s Kosta career is most often peripheral to discussion.

By the time Lindstrand was settled at Kosta, the focus of the SSF was geared towards the massive Design in Scandinavia endeavour which emphasised issues of nationalism and regionalism rather than the Artist in Industry focus of earlier decades. It was here that Lindstrand began to become peripheral - his work was either excluded or stripped clean of undesirable references in the pursuit of an ideal. A keen observer of current trends, he was consciously international in his influences and subject matter seemingly avoiding national or regional stereotypes, as observed by Stavenow, Steenberg, and others. The Hald’s, particularly Arthur, through his involvement in the SSF and his writings, were participants in the promotion of the Swedish contribution to Design in Scandinavia. The late 1950s sowed the seeds for the crafts debates of the 1960s and a new guard emerged in the SSF along with many new, younger designers.

Simon Gate, Edward Hald and Vicke Lindstrand, through their work with Orrefors glassworks, were early exemplars of the Artist in Industry. Arthur Hald and Elisa Steenberg had their time and voice in discourse associated with the SSF and Swedish applied arts. Their associates, actors such as Widman, Huldt, Stavenow and Johansson continued to be of influence and some, notably theprominent critic and curator Dag Widman, were either unable or unwilling to see past Lindstrand’s Orrefors achievements. By the time of the 1960s crafts revolution, Edward Hald’s career was drawing to a close whilst Simon Gate had passed some 15 years earlier. Their legacy was secure and those close to the Orrefors ‘family’ had ensured the safe documentation of this early model of the Artist in Industry.

cjc
*&)6
,++" 1&,+0
,+1&+2"!
1
//"#,/0M
+
bjfh

+"4
"5%& &1&,+
%))
40
2&)1
!"0&$+"!
6
/ %&1" 1
"+$1
1"J
0,+
,#
&*,+
1"M cjd
$+"0
"))+"/J
!2$%1"/
,#
//"#,/0
,4+"/
,%+
(*+
*00"!

/"*/( )"
Q-"/0,+)R
,))" 1&,+
,#
//"#,/0
$)00
1%/,2$%,21
%"/
)&#"M
"/
%20 +!
,%++"0
"))+"/
" *"
%&/*+
,#
1%"
,/!
,#
//"#,/0
#1"/
(*+R0
!"1%
&+
bjcaM
"))+"/R0
,))" 1&,+
%0
""+
-2 )&0%"!
0
"& 2))
"1
)MJ
8/)"(
1&))
$)0
J
$+"0
"))+"/0
0*)&+$
3
//"#,/0$)0
e

),3"
,#
$)00
J
$+"0
"))+"/Y0
,))" 1&,+
,#
//"#,/0
$)00M 282 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

K@HK

1 #-"
,.#-.
)(
."
 ,#*" ,3@
)(&/-#)(-

As I stated in the introduction to this thesis, the principal aim was to reconstruct the context and analyse the consequences of Swedish promotion and commentary pertaining to mid- twentieth century Swedish design on an individual designer, Vicke Lindstrand. In Chapter Three, a complex network of actants involved in official promotion of mid - twentieth century Swedish design has been identified that draws into focus the character of English language discourse authored by this network. The commentary and associated exhibitions and promotion emphasised a loosely conceived aesthetic and promoted favoured exemplars. Orrefors has been identified as the preeminent exemplar of the SSF, within which was a network that sustained numerous complex relationships and alliances to the factory and its main artists. Through the influence of this network, much that has been written since, sources and reiterates narratives and rhetoric that originated from the SSF actor-network. Lindstrand had been, and continues to be, associated with Orrefors and, as demonstrated in this chapter, his standing, significance and reception can be seen to have been compromised by agency. Lindstrand’s post-Orrefors reception has been impacted by this agency in much subjective, dismissive commentary and conflicting narratives perpetuated by actors from within the network. This has resulted in Lindstrand’s Kosta work being largely overlooked and under- analysed resulting in a diminished profile. What has been written about Lindstrand’s later career contains misinformation and oversights. As such, the significance of Lindstrand’s work from the 1950s has been diminished. Lindstrand exemplifies the way in which narratives and rhetoric promoting national and regional ideologies has worked in affecting the contributions and visibility of individuals. This is evidenced via the consequences and impact of the activities of the SSF network, favoured opinion, place in time and the construction of promotional frameworks centred on regional ideals.

Lindstrand began his career with Orrefors as modernism established itself in Sweden at what Pred has termed as one of Sweden’s “spectacular articulations of modernity”, Paulsson’s 1930 Stockholm Exhibition. The exhibition brought modernist concepts to Sweden at a time when they were being questioned elsewhere. The 1930s also saw the the first phase of the ‘Swedish Model’ which had gained much momentum following the war in the construction of a specific ‘Swedish way’ which was centred on ‘Swedishness’ and a spirit of collaboration somewhat removed from the fallout of the war. The Artist in Industry model represented an aspect of the “Swedish way” which was widely documented, being subsequently studied and

283 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

emulated in other countries.294 The central concept of ‘Swedishness’ was embedded in how applied arts were viewed in Sweden and how they were marketed internationally. This was manifest as ‘Scandiavianness’ by the mid 1950s as the Swedish model became the shared Nordic model. ‘Scandiavianness’ in applied and decorative arts was most effectively represented by the Design in Scandinavia exhibition and several key publications, a particularly effective snapshot of individuals working together as part of a greater collective. The pared down “too much esthetically washed clean”295 character of 1950s Swedish and Scandinavian Design emphasised reduction, simplicity and democracy in the objects it represented that was grounded in national and regional influences. Lindstrand was active during the flowering of Swedish Modern in the 1930s, however by the 1950s his work can be seen to be characterised by ‘Internationalness’ and perhaps lacking in ‘Swedishness’ or ‘Scandiavianness’, the result being that much of his output did not ‘sit well’ within the regional aesthetic. He was on the inside of Pred’s metaphorical pure and simple line in the 1930s, but by the 1950s Orrefors had cemented itself a reputation as being the preeminent Swedish glass factory. The timing of his return to glass at Kosta was unfortunate in terms of the focus of promotion of the SSF. Lindstrand did not form close connections with any of the Swedish critics or arbiters of taste such as Gotthard Johansson or Ulf Hård af Segerstad unlike fellow artists or designers such as Stig Lindberg or Bruno Mathsson. The consequences were that Lindstrand had no advocates within critical circles, nor promotors to push for his inclusion in discourse. Rather he alone was responsible for his profile and success, and this may account for the dominant personality referred to by some individuals. In many ways Lindstrand’s work was left to speak for itself, when not silenced or excluded from discourse. Lindstrand was then on the other side of the pure and simple line, peripheral to the preeminent exemplars and the mainstream promotion of Swedish design.

Lindstrand’s acute awareness of changing styles, fashions and movements were great influences on his work, however did not strictly conform to the prevailing late 1940s aesthetic promoted by the SSF and their Nordic cohorts. Lindstrand was sometimes too obvious in his influences,too loud, too colorful, too big, too international, and ultimately not quite Swedish or Scandinavian enough. Lindstrand was at the peak of his second phase as a glass artist when the reaction against the pared down, pure and simple aesthetic and ensuing crafts debates began in the late 1950s. He was to become a victim of association with the old guard, compounded by the preeminence of Orrefors and the timing of key English language

cje
")"+
110,+
+!
3"+N),3
))"+01"&+J
4"!&0%
*,!"/+&0*
J
/ %&1" 12/"H
,+02*-1&,+
+!
1%"
4")#/"
011"
Y ,+!,+L
) (
,$J
cabaZM
-M
iM
cjf
&)%")*
9$"
.2,1"!
&+
/,4+J
^,*&+$L
"3,)21&,+
&+
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+^M 284 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

publications. His dominant and inflexible character aside, Lindstrand remained firmly associated with Orrefors, and his Kosta work was tainted by what was, in the 1950s, an outdated aesthetic.

Design in Scandinavia presented a series of complex cultural, political and artistic concepts that were reduced to a range of more simplistic ideas and a pared down, domesticated aesthetic grounded in clichés of landscape and primitive culture.296 This may also be considered in terms of Bourdieu’s discussion of dominant groups (the SSF and their Nordic cohorts) legitimising their superior taste (exhibitions, publications) to the disadvantage (exclusion) of more subordinate groups (the artists/designers, the general public). The focus of the SSF was to improve the taste of the general public in Sweden as exampled in the writings of Gregor Paulsson and the activities of the society. In selecting or editing objects for exhibitions and publications, the superior taste of the SSF was that which decided what was seen or discussed, and it can be argued, created an aesthetic that domesticated the objects for popular consumption. In some instances these objects, promoted as objects for use in domestic settings, held little utilitarian function, rather becoming functionally disguised vehicles for artistic expression. This worked to the disadvantage of both the artist, in this case Lindstrand, whose work was viewed through a subjective filter applied by the SSF, and the general public who were also subjected to a further filter that presented what was considered an acceptable aesthetic or ‘good taste’ in the range of domesticated objects curated by the SSF.

Lindstrand’s inclusion in commentary at the time of the 1930s developments in Swedish Modern was important as he was a young designer who was absorbing new ideas and influences. His subsequent inclusion/exclusion, or de-emphasis of his contributions, in the exemplar of Orrefors is related to the network construct of the SSF and their opinion. His inclusion in Design in Scandinavia and other prominent exhibitions was subject to considerable editing or ‘cleansing’ of undesirable influences, or critically dismissed by commentators from within the network in favour of preferred exemplars (Orrefors).

The activities of the SSF in promoting factories such as Orrefors as part of a group of exemplars that also included Gustavsberg and Rörstrand was in the interest of promoting its agenda and ideologies. Individuals were made to fit these specific groups by editing of their work. For Lindstrand this was most clearly evident in the selections made for Design in Scandinavia that were not representative of his body of work but, rather, conformed to the cjg
""
#,/
"5*-)"
)%J
^_ 201
+"
,#
%,0"
%&+$0_
N
%"
"0&$+
&+
 +!&+3&
5%& &1&,+
bjfeNfh^M
+!
"3&+

3&"0J
^/("1&+$
),6
,/
"*, /1&
!")P^J
& &!MJ
--M
babNbbaM 285 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

desired aesthetic. Bruno Latour’s theories related to the activity of forming and dismantling groups and the idea of actors being made to fit a specific group provides a useful point of reference.297 Lindstrand’s work, when included in ‘official’ SSF related commentary and exhibitions, was made to fit the homogenous ensemble aesthetic evident in the work selected. Latour argues for giving actor status to objects and in the case of the mid-century Swedish and Scandinavian aesthetic, these object-actors took on a greater role as cultural ambassadors for the region, to a much greater extent than their human creators. These groups consisted of the SSF actors and the object-actors they selected to promote in exhibitions and commentary. The groups included and excludedactors depending on the specific thrust of the various promotional objectives of the SSF. The timing of publications was informed by these various groupings of object-actors resulting in longer term consequences of an inclusive/exclusive paradigm through ongoing reference to these publications.

In Sweden, the SSF assumed the role of Bourdieu’s dominant group. The group was made up of a board of upper-class, educated individuals with backgrounds in museums, art history and applied arts. Its (apparent) audience were the subordinate lower classes who were perceived to lack taste by the educated upper class heading up the SSF. The SSF set themselves up as being distinctive by what constituted classifying good taste. As a visible outcome of its manifesto that emphasised the collective, the SSF also became the dominant group within design and the applied arts in its role as arbiter, judge, editor, promotor and commentator. Individual artists and designers became (by default) the subordinate group, lacking an individual voice yet reliant on the collective power of the SSF for promotion and inclusion. This was a criticism of the members of the society in the wake of the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition, marking Lindstrand’s debut, and in the wake of the 1964 Form fantasi exhibition, marking Lindstrand’s firm peripherality. Despite earlier associations with Orrefors, Lindstrand belonged to the subordinate group within the Swedish and Scandinavian milieu.

These factors have, as has been stated previously, impacted on the perception of Lindstrand’s post-1950s work. In consideration of the potential significance of his work, aspects of invention and reinvention driven by economic and welfare constraints are cited as important. Not only did Lindstrand have to navigate the vagaries of popular taste, fashion and changing styles, but there was also the complex makeup of the SSF network and favoured opinion with which he had to contend. The impact of technical constraints were important in an effort to distinguish his new Kosta work from his iconic Orrefors work. He was able to realise this by

cjh
1,2/J
"00"* )&+$
1%"
, &)K
+
+1/,!2 1&,+
1,
 1,/
"14,/(
%",/6M 286 %-1"/
,2/
V
,01
&+
1/+0)1&,+P
& ("
&+!01/+!
4"!&0%
/1&01
,+
1%"
"/&-%"/6

collaboration with the glass workers, notably Bengt Heintze on whom he came to rely, and the engraver Rune Strand whom Lindstrand effectively utilised as a medium to realise his ideas. This invention and reinvention was further driven by a social responsibility for the welfare of an inherited workforce that were impacted by the idiosyncrasies of popular taste and fashion. Financial incentives may be seen to have driven Lindstrand’s creative capacity however, again, this was countered by the need to keep work fresh to appeal to a fickle market. Politics were also a constraint, the external forces of the SSF network coupled with the internal forces at Kosta during the 1960s from management and relationships with fellow artists. These factors of twentieth century Swedish design have not been previously considered.

Lindstrand’s career followed the major Swedish and international events and exhibitions of twentieth century modernism, the regionally emphasised Nordic version manifest in Scandinavian Design and its fall from grace in the 1960s. Lindstrand participated yet remained peripheral to the primary stylistic thrust of mid-twentieth century Swedish and Scandinavian Design. His work, broadly influenced and internationally referencing, did not often fit comfortably within the prevailing stylistic paradigm. He was responsible for contributing a pluralistic design language into Swedish design, his use of colour, form and engraving were innovative and influential. Ultimately, in the eyes of the Swedish critics he was to firmly remain in the shadow of Edward Hald and Simon Gate through his association with the much lauded Orrefors glassworks early in his career. The Hald family, its powerful role in the SSF and the network of Swedish critics, commentators and tastemakers, had profound consequences for the reception of his later career. In the pursuit of national and regional ideologies, the education of taste and more beautiful everyday things, the SSF subjectively suppressed work that strayed outside of its precise aesthetic intentions. Lindstrand, was too imprecise, as Widman has opined, thus he would never be seriously considered an exemplar of their manifesto.

287 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!


% "!$
"1&)
,#
*2/)
!"-& 1&+$
1%"
),4&+$
/,,*
1
,01
"5" 21"!
6
&+!01/+!
&+
1%"
"5%& &1&,+
%))
!"0&$+"!
6
/2+,
1%00,+J
&)
,+
+30
bjfeM
&+!01/+!R0
")" /1&,+
,#
1%"
4,/("/0
&+
1%"
/2(
1%1
%"/,&0"0
1%"
!6
1,
!6
 1&3&1&"0
&+
1%"
),4&+$
/,,*M
*$"J
/&31"
,))" 1&,+K

288 %-1"/
&3"
V
,+ )20&,+0

 
 

,+ )20&,+0

289 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

290 %-1"/
&3"
V
,+ )20&,+0

L@G
)(&/-#)(-

This study has investigated and set forth a rationale to explain why the Swedish artist and designer Vicke Lindstrand appears to have been marginalised in discourse associated with 1950s Swedish and Scandinavian Design. This study has contributed new perspectives and knowledge to the understandings of the history of 1950s Swedish design by providing an alternative view of the period that is neither widely understood or occupied. These perspectives are from the position of a non-Swedish design historian, an individual who was an observer of that history rather than culturally invested in it; in short, an outsider.

The examination and interrogation presented in Parts One and Two of this study had not previously been considered in this manner. The study is unique in its reading of this fertile period in Swedish design history, examining the construction of narratives and rhetoric in discourse and the mapping of an actor-network and its actants - individuals, exhibitions, texts and objects - and their association to the case study. Previous studies in English have focused on the larger Scandinavian Design construct, in the work of Halén and Wickman, or the Finnish context, in the work of Kalha, Davies and Hawkins. Studies in Swedish have focussed on some individuals, however in a broad sense, rather than in terms of their fit within discourse on Swedish and Scandinavian Design. Cilla Robach has recently illuminated the challenges taking place in 1960s Sweden to the notion of the SSF’s perceived good taste, via her discussion of the Free Form1 and the parallel crafts debates in Sweden during that decade. These 1960s debates challenged the veracity of the pared down aesthetic associated with 1950s Swedish and Scandinavian design. They further questioned the role of the SSF as arbiter of taste, in a critique of its inclusion and exclusion of work in the Form fantasi exhibition of 1964, which was criticised for presenting an abundance of what have been described as sterile, good taste objects that did not reflect the current state of 1960s Swedish design. I have asserted that Design in Scandinavia, staged a decade earlier, suffered similarly in curating what is now regarded as a clichéd and non-representative aesthetic. Halén, Wickman et al.2 have interrogated the Scandinavian Design construct in terms of the construction of myths and clichés. They have similarly critiqued the overt marketing agenda of the 1950s exhibition Design in Scandinavia, but without interrogating or questioning the selection criteria of the individual countries, nor their dominant roles.

b
,  %J
,/*"+0
#/&$

This study has contributed a new perspective to the field in that it proposes a more dominant role for Sweden in the construction of Swedish and Scandinavian Design discourse, as well as in the construction of a history of Swedish glass, for international consumption, based upon a preeminent exemplar. I tested these assertions through the case study of Lindstrand. This study examined the effect of preeminence, rhetoric, and narratives in selective discourse on a previously central artist/designer who became a victim of association, dynastic influence and marginalisation in his fall from grace.

Today, those of us outside of Sweden and Scandinavia have been conditioned by knowledge and truths to understand what Widman has referred to as “the blonde tradition”3 of Swedish design. This has been strengthened by the global profile of IKEA, which trades on this tradition in what Lindqvist has referred to as a Swedish Cultural Archive. We believe we know what Swedish design looks like. We know the names of manufacturers more than we know the names of the individual designers. In the example of Swedish glass, there is disparity between the big names, Orrefors and Kosta, once fierce competitors and now brand stable- mates. Orrefors - the preeminent Swedish glass factory - is subdued, restrained, elegant, exclusive, expensive Swedish crystal. Kosta, on the other hand, is playful, colourful, popular, less expensive and more mass market. Just as IKEA followed the Swedish design rhetoric by initially downplaying the names of their designers and emphasising the origin, democracy and Swedishness of their products, 1950s Swedish design was about Swedishness, national influences, and a collective approach.Scandinavian Design as an extension of these ideas was regional rather than national, however it emphasised the same aesthetic. Internationalism was an anathema.

There were reasons for this. These reasons can be found in the rhetoric of discourse that began to appear in the 1920s, and accelerated in the late 1940s, before exploding in the 1950s and early 1960s. The associated texts and commentary established the frame of reference for Swedish design (and later Scandinavian Design) by way of persuasive rhetoric, based in a Functionalist aesthetic, which was democratised by the influence of sensitive designers creating objects that had been softened by natural materials, climate, landscape and the influence of handicraft traditions. However, as I have demonstrated, not all designers were working strictly within this framework, which brings into question the homogeneity of the regional aesthetic.

d
&!*+
"1
)MJ
3"+0(
#,/*
2+!"/
"11
%)31
0"(")
J
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
!2/&+$
%)#

"+12/6M 292 %-1"/
&3"
V
,+ )20&,+0

In the introduction to this study I posed several questions that would assist in understanding this problem. The first related to the emphasis on certain exemplars, such as the preeminent Orrefors, that are consistently favoured in English language commentary and promotion of twentieth century Swedish (and Scandinavian) design. The second question dealt with the relationships and associations of the authors of this commentary to the favoured exemplars. The answers to these questions were found to be complex, interrelated and intertwined.

Regarding 1950s Swedish and Scandinavian Design, I have argued that the work selected for exhibition and written about by Swedish commentators have become the frame of reference for how we from outside of Scandinavia understand design from the region. This constructed frame of reference has also influenced understanding within Scandinavia. The preceding interrogation and discussion provides new insights into this complex, important and influential period. Based on this study, I propose that Swedish design from the 1950s is more nuanced, pluralistic and post-modern than we have been led to believe. The ‘pure and simple line’, the aesthetic that we on the outside are conditioned to understand as Swedish, or Scandinavian, is in fact just a small selection of work that ‘looks well together’, a tasting of a much broader range of ideas, influences and origins that omits anything with too much flavour or difference. As Allan Pred has observed, in Sweden difference was seen to be unmodern. 1950s Swedish design was not all clean lines and pure forms. Not all Swedish designers worked exclusively in what is now considered a clichéd aesthetic.

English language exhibitions, texts, commentary and promotion of Swedish design during the twentieth century emphasised certain exemplars over others. These constructed narratives can all be linked to an actor-network centred on the SSF and Orrefors. Unique to my study is the mapping, identification and interrogation of causal relationships within this actor- network of authors who were responsible for, or associated with, all English language commentary published between 1921 and 1964 on Swedish and Scandinavian Design. Some of these authors had particular familial alliances that, research has demonstrated, produced both subtle and obvious favouritism by way of what might be defined as selective solidarity. Family connections between Orrefors, the SSF and authors of English language commentary cannot be understated. These connections influenced several generations of commentators in their promotion of the preferred exemplar Orrefors in commentary, exhibitions, collections and promotion by way of persuasive rhetoric and constructed narratives. The Hald family had a profound impact on Swedish design. Edward Hald was the celebrated Artist in Industry at Orrefors. He had studied under Matisse and so brought considerable distinction to decorative and applied arts in Sweden. Two of his offspring were influential in Swedish design, Arthur by

293 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

extending Gregor Paulsson’s role of ‘cultural elite’ through the SSF, and Elisa through writings on Swedish glass that were endorsed by her father. Edward Hald was friends with the authors of the SSF actor-network - Paulsson, Wettergren, Stavenow, et al. - and they ensured a continuing profile for himself and for Orrefors. Paulsson influenced Arthur and Elisa in their view and they became advocates of his ideologies, disciples, spreading what Hård af Segerstad referred to as the “gospel of good taste” along with other SSF evangelists. These authors frequently, and at times exclusively, put forward Orrefors as the ideal manifestation of the Artist in Industry and ‘Better everyday things’. Not only did this actor-network maintain a stranglehold on all English language commentary on Swedish and Scandinavian Design throughout the 1950s and 60s, they also dominated criticism of design in the Swedish press. Some of these actors also extended their influence as members of the board of the SSF and Orrefors, or were advisors to industry heavyweights such as Kosta.

By the 1980s, as Scandinavian Design began to undergo a reassessment, actors from the SSF network tended to distance themselves from the constraints of the ‘official‘ SSF rhetoric, authoring writings that were on the whole more self-critical and objective than previously. Unfortunately, this was to have little influence in English speaking markets, as evidenced by the vast array of Swedish and Scandinavian design texts that continue to reference and reiterate earlier SSF writings and trade on the 1950s construct, as observed by Jørgensen. This bias is exhibited in narratives from selective discourse, initially with subtlety but later more overtly, as in Dag Widman’s position on the superiority of Lindstrand’s Orrefors work. Discourse has the power to shape perceptions or knowledge around what is considered normal or accepted. In Sweden, discourse presented knowledge of a particular aesthetic, grounded in issues of national identity. This knowledge was exclusive; that which did not fit, was not ‘accepted’, and thus either excluded or viewed as not representative of the truth.

Discourse appears to have been biased or selective for the simple reason that it was. This was not only a result of the relationships of the authors to the exemplars, but also because the exemplars were exemplary. Connections, networks, advocates, critics and discourse were important. This was true of 1950s Sweden as much as it has resonance today. Networking was central to success. Edward Hald was an astute networker with a large number of influential advocates in what Widman has described as the Orrefors “Mecca”4. Hald played the game, he was a team player. He was actively involved in the network of taste-makers, critics and arbiters; in fact he was one of them. He lectured, wrote and travelled as an ambassador for

e
& (*+
+!
&!*+J
//"#,/0K
,)K
\H

"+12/6
,#
4"!&0%
)00*(&+$M 294 %-1"/
&3"
V
,+ )20&,+0

Swedish glass. Two of his children followed his example and became the next generation of the network. Lindstrand was ambitious, however less interested in politics than in promoting himself and making design. He was more of a loner, he was on the periphery.

The bias in discourse had a profound impact on individual designers. In the example of Orrefors, Lindstrand represents the only artist who had worked for the factory before successful periods with other factories, across a number of different areas of design, during the twentieth century. Lindstrand also participated in many local and international exhibitions and events associated with Modernism in Sweden, debuting at the important and defining moment for Swedish functionalism, the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition. This has been largely omitted from the written history in English. Gate and Hald worked at Orrefors for their entire lives, while Öhrström did eventually leave the factory to concentrate on sculpture but faded from discussion. Ingeborg Lundin, also scarcely written about in English, left the factory in 1970, never to be heard of again. To be associated with the preeminent Orrefors presented a paradox: work was always measured against this benchmark - the Orrefors Paradox. Individuals were omitted from discourse when they did not suit the context being championed, or because they did not ‘fit’ as a result of being divergent, different, not normal, unmodern, peripheral. Some were made to fit by the editing of their work, others by downplaying their non-Swedishness. Lindstrand and Ernest Gordon-Addsets are examples I have cited.

Misinformation has been identified as a major contributing factor to how we outside have, and continue to, understand Swedish design and Swedish designers. This misinformation is based on many factors, including misunderstanding, omission of context, inconsistent scholarship and, at times, deliberate actions. Most recent publications on Swedish and Scandinavian Design reference a scarce number of English language texts and so reiterate the same clichéd rhetoric. In addition, some of the English language texts published more recently were written by those within the SSF network and thus exhibit the same rhetoric, preferences and prejudices. I have identified the family associations in key discourse and promotion, and the effect of this network and its activities on the reception of the case study, Vicke Lindstrand. I have clarified circumstances and events that, in previous narratives, have diminished the role of Lindstrand and subjugated him to lesser status. This has contributed to clarification and correction of previous misinformation.

Wilhelm Kåge, ceramics exemplar, contemporary of Hald and Gate, and friend to Lindstrand, has been quoted in Part One of this thesis as seeing 1950s Swedish design as “too much

295 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

[a]esthetically washed clean.”5 This was also how influential commentators outside Sweden received Swedish and later Scandinavian Design. Through the interrogation presented in my own study, I have found that this ‘aesthetic cleansing’ was in fact heavy-handed editing of work that actors felt did not “look well together”, edited to emphasise what these same actors described as a “loosely conceived aesthetic”. Whilst an argument of ‘curatorial discretion’ might be used to counter my assertions, the Scandinavian Design discourse promotes a ‘conscientious’ selection free from the idiosyncrasies of curatorial or personal taste. Democracy is something we often read as associated with design from Sweden and Scandinavia during the 1950s, and still to an extent today. The presentation and emphasis of objects in officially sanctioned exhibitions and English language publications did not necessarily reflect this notion of democracy. Rather, they contradicted it. The attempts of Gregor Paulsson and the SSF to educate the average person in what was deemed ‘good taste’ were not democratic in their conception, becoming manifest in a sort of regional ‘cleansing’ of what was officially selected and promoted to underscore an ideology. Paulsson’s pursuit of Vackrare vardagsvara or better everyday things has also been translated as more beautiful everyday things. This idea of better or more beautiful had become, by the 1950s, embedded in the idea of ‘good design’ as evidenced by the 1940s ‘Good Design’ initiatives of MoMA in New York. Good, better, and beautiful are subjective terms that are essentially the antithesis of bad, worse, and ugly. Kåberg has observed this distinction in one of Paulsson’s writings from 1934 where he attempted to educate the reader in matters of taste, defining by example what is ‘ugly’ and what is ‘beautiful’ and differentiating desire from need (function).6

Nordic design historians have more recently illuminated 1950s Scandinavian Design as a carefully executed marketing and economic construct which promoted a particular regional style. I have shown, via the interrogation of Lindstrand, that the work of an individual designer included in official Swedish and Scandinavianpromotion did not necessarily represent his most significant or representative work, rather, that which was stylistically compatible. It was very much an edited selection, as evidenced in the organising committee’s own words. Work tended to fit into the established stylistic criteria which were based largely upon perceptions of Swedish design. I have demonstrated that the Swedish authors had already been utilising the tenor of what became the Scandinavian Design rhetoric in their writings on Swedish design, both in the 1940s, and again in the 1950s. Nowadays, this rhetoric continues to be recycled in discussing the so-called Swedish or Scandinavian style.

f
/,4+J
^ +!&+3&^0
,2+$
&00"+1"/0^M g
9 "/$
"1
)MJ


In the conclusion to Chapter Four, I briefly considered Bourdieu’s theories relating to dominant groups legitimising their superior taste to the disadvantage of more subordinate groups. I have also speculated on the composition of these groups and the manner in which the dominant group conveyed their superior taste. Bourdieu has described these groups in more general terms that might be equated with ‘cultured’ and ‘barbaric’, which in the case of Sweden would arguably refer to the upper-class and the working-class. It is appropriate here to expand this discussion in relation to the SSF network and Vicke Lindstrand. In Sweden, the SSF - which was made up of a board of upper-class, educated individuals with professional backgrounds in museums, art history and applied arts - assumed the role of Bourdieu’s dominant group. Its (apparent) audience was the subordinate lower classes, who were perceived to lack taste. The SSF set themselves up as being ‘distinctive’, in Bourdieu’s usage of the term, by classifying good taste. Due to its manifesto, which emphasised the collective, the SSF also became the dominant group within design and the applied arts in its exclusive role as arbiter, judge, editor, promotor and commentator. Individual artists and designers became (by default) the subordinate group, lacking an individual voice yet reliant on the collective power of the SSF for promotion and inclusion. Despite earlier associations with Orrefors, Lindstrand belonged to the subordinate group within the Swedish and Scandinavian milieu. This is further implicated by Lindstrand’s own lack of network: no advocates or promoters amongst the classifiers, arbiters or critics.

The objects featured in discourse became imbued with both symbolic and cultural capital - symbolic in that they represented the ideal, cultural in that they assumed the ambassadorial roles bestowed on them by those dominant individuals who held ‘superior taste’. As I have argued, for Lindstrand this placed his Orrefors work as the ideal, imbued with substantial symbolic and cultural capital. By contrast, his Kosta work lacked in capital for being a) too populist, and b) not Orrefors. Lindstrand’s work was viewed through a subjective filter applied by the SSF, and the general public were also subjected to a further filter that presented what was considered a representative and acceptable aesthetic or ‘good taste’.

Swedish and Scandinavian design rhetoric made use of the idea that peasant traditions and closeness to nature were central to how design from the region evolved. This idea has been discussed in the field of art geography, in reference to the place of art, the consideration of art in relation to place. The idea of Swedish-ness - this is Swedish, this is not - may be seen to have some parallels in Bourdeiu’s theories of habitus, where the idea of what is Swedish will have come from the Swede’s individual habitus: where they have come from, what they have been exposed to and their current context.

297 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Taking Cherry and Pollock’s7 framework and applying it to the case of Lindstrand, there are parallels in terms of the peripheral and marginalised. Cherry and Pollock, in their groundbreaking study of the representation of the nineteenth century artists’ model, poet and artist Elizabeth Siddall, have identified the influence of common knowledge on the representation and perception of a female subject “entangled in the web” of discourse on the artist’s work. Siddall, according to Cherry and Pollock, “functions as a sign.”8 They propose that recognition of Siddall’s art “is usually defined exclusively in relation to [the pre- Raphaelite artist Dante Gabriel] Rossetti’s.” “The materials for producing a history of Elizabeth Siddall are intricated in class and gender power relations which have determined who is recorded, how, and by whom - and who is not.”9 Whilst Cherry and Pollock deal with ideas of female and femininity in the construction of ‘truths’ about male artists and masculinity, in essence they examine the portrayal of the peripheral or marginalised. They argue that “art history is a field invested with power, and that the production of knowledge is historically shaped within relations of power. The discourses on the artist and on creativity which are circulated in and by art history have ideological effects in the reproduction of socially determined definitions of masculinity and femininity”10. Masculinity is associated with centrality, femininity with peripherality. For Cherry and Pollock, their subject Elizabeth Siddall has been reduced to a sign, marginalised by her association with ‘truths’ about the pre- Raphaelite artist Rosetti.

If we consider the position of Ahl and Olsson11 in relation to Swedish taste, where they argue links between gender and taste, masculine form is the clean lined aesthetic associated with Scandinavian Design whilst the female designers, they believe, are more often reduced to decorators of male forms. The position of power in the case of Lindstrand is the dominant SSF (which also parallels Bourdieu’s theories) and its promotional endeavours of good taste and a functionalist aesthetic (masculine form). Siddall was made to fit a history determined by Rosetti in his writings, further reiterated by others. Lindstrand was also made to fit a history determined by the SSF network, also further reiterated by others. In Sweden, Lindstrand and his work is defined almost exclusively in relation to Orrefors. He has been denied an objective history of his own. Lindstrand was further marginalised by associations

h
" ,/%
%"//6J
^,*+
0
&$+
&+
/"N-%")&1"
&1"/12/"L

12!6
,#
1%"
"-/"0"+11&,+
,#
)&7 "1%
&!!))^M i
&!M
-M
caiM j
&!M
-M
cbbM ba
&!M
-M
cceM bb
**
)00,+
+!/
%)J
3"+0(
0*(
L
*61"/
,*
!"+
*,!"/+
#,/*"+
Y1, (%,)*L
/!#/,+1
#=/)$J
caacZM 298 %-1"/
&3"
V
,+ )20&,+0

which remained outside of his control, association with the feminine (Widman’s views - superficially decorative and imprecise12), Orrefors and the Other. When he was included in the Swedish and Scandinavian context it was the masculine forms, centred on Pred’s metaphorical pure and simple line, that were emphasised. Lindstrand’s Orrefors work was also imbued with the requisite criteria and clean lines and, as such, was the work of choice for arbiters of taste such as Widman. It remained, however, subordinate to the work of the ‘heroes’ of Swedish glass, Gate and Hald.

Sweden was responsible for the formative rhetoric on Scandinavian Design, which shares similarities with the way in which Swedish design had been portrayed previously. Whilst my emphasis in Part One of this study is on English language texts, the majority of the texts discussed were subsequently translated. The timing of English language publications, delayed by translations, had the potential to create confusion as to the whereabouts of individuals and their attachment to particular factories. This they did.

The pivotal role of Sweden as author of commentary and discourse is further evidenced in the Swedish exhibit at the 1957 Milan Triennale, where Sweden claimed ownership of the Design in Scandinavia aesthetic. The (Danish designed) exhibition system adopted for their display was strictly themed ‘steel and glass’. Surprisingly, the exhibit and its contents, which in retrospect acted as a sort of footnote to the Scandinavian Design construct, left American critics, and many Swedish designers cold. The exhibition fell on tired eyes and prefaced a revolution in Scandinavian Design that rejected the pared down aesthetic and good taste filter.

The continuing emphasis on significant and critically acclaimed exemplars of the 1920s and 1930s Swedish Artist in Industry model has impacted upon the reception of their post WWII work. I have considered the position of Lindstrand as a case study. I found that Lindstrand was the perfect model. His role as an artist in industry began in the late 1920s at the exemplary Orrefors, debuting at the breakthrough of Swedish functionalism; the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition. I also found that he maintained a difficult relationship with the well- connected Edward Hald, and left the factory under strained circumstances. This must have had some impact on the Hald children in their assessment, although Elisa seems to have maintained critical distance. I looked at Lindstrand’s reception in America, where audiences were able to appreciate his Kosta work without viewing it through an Orrefors filter. I also

bc
&!*+J
^%"
,01
/1&010
N

%-0,!&
"3&"4
,#
1%"
4"+1&"1%
"+12/6^M 299 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

considered how his work may have fallen into gender prejudices, not masculine enough in form to fit the desired aesthetic.

Widman13 has proposed that by the 1950s, Lindstrand had lost the artistic profile he had attained when with Orrefors. This statement is double-edged as it presents a further paradox. It suggests a superior artistic profile associated with a superior factory, Orrefors. If Orrefors is therefore considered ‘good’, there is the potential to conclude that Kosta is ‘not as good’. Widman’s authority as part of the cultural elite, an arbiter of taste, an educated scholar and curator might lead us to such a conclusion, at least in the case of Lindstrand. Lindstrand’s later, diminished profile was the result of favourable opinion of Orrefors and negative commentary on Lindstrand from the dominant SSF network. Lindstrand was seen by Widman to be perhaps too hard pressed by profit, producing work that was popular with the mass market and which might, as such, be considered ‘poor’ taste. In Sweden, the objects that attained critical acclaim in exhibitions and discourse were mostly expensive, luxury goods that were out of the reach of the average Swede. This was contrasted by the positive reception Lindstrand received in America, which strengthened his artistic profile there as evidenced in Connery’s reference to Lindstrand as a ‘superstar’14. What stands out as curious in this apparent about-face in criticism of Lindstrand’s work, as a result of his ‘selling-out’ to popular (bad) taste, is the idea that the more popular the work becomes, the less high-brow the audience and thus the less status or capital it holds. ‘Superstar’ has connotations of populism, appealing to the masses, of ‘selling-out’. It might be argued that in finding popularity with the broad masses, Lindstrand had to some extent realised the basic ideologies in the design reforms proposed in Vackrare vardagsvara. This would presume that his work was considered as exemplary - good, rather than bad.

What was considered good was determined by a cultural elite, the SSF. In terms of the study presented here, there is evidence of the ‘construction’ of an aesthetic. However, this is more discernible in the example of Design in Scandinavia and Scandinavian Design. I have demonstrated this distance by interrogating the example of Lindstrand and his work, which was seen to fit or not fit. In terms of the discourse analysed and interrogated there is evidence of a network of ‘elite’ commentators, however my study demonstrates that this network was an influential extended familial group potentially biased to a particular exemplar, Orrefors, that best fitted the rhetoricthe network wished to promote. The SSF consisted of various actors with shared views working in unison to promote a particular shared ideology. They bd
&!M be
,++"/6J
%"
 +!&+3&+0M
-M
eciM 300 %-1"/
&3"
V
,+ )20&,+0

projected this ideology on the English speaking world as a series of ‘truths’ about what Swedish and Scandinavian Design was, which in turn has informed contemporary views of what Swedish and Scandinavian Design is. This unison ideology found particular exemplars that best fit its views and these exemplars were promoted time and time again. Of these exemplars Orrefors was preeminent, however the exemplary object-actors promoted in said discourse were predominately luxury items. The emphasis of an ideology thatpromoted the cooperation of the artist with industry producing better everyday things was thus compromised by the promotion and profile of luxury items.

My study has mapped and described the connections between influential individuals, organisations, businesses and institutions. It has identified the preeminence of exemplars in discourse and the importance of a dynastic family in Swedish design. It has demonstrated how influential they and the SSF were in shaping perceptions, determining taste and reiterating myths and clichés. The case study, Vicke Lindstrand was, both directly and indirectly, profoundly effected in a negative way by the activities of this actor-network, a victim of perceived hierarchies, associations, place in time and constructed aesthetics.

L@H
'*&#.#)(-

Emerging from my study are a number of implications that provide new readings of the way in which Swedish and Scandinavian design has been portrayed.

The construction of rhetoric and narratives has influenced knowledge on Swedish and Scandinavian design. Lindstrand was affected by this and there are other individuals that have been, and remain, peripheral in the narrow understanding of design from the region. Global perceptions and understanding of Swedish design is incomplete. There is another aesthetic which has been clouded by that officially promoted and exhibited during the Golden Era, as evidenced in Cilla Robach’s recent classification of Fria formen, the reactionary design in 1960s Sweden. Based on the example of Lindstrand, this ‘clouded’ aesthetic draws on divergent influences, hence is more pluralistic, more international and more exotic. Swedish design rhetoric was adapted to fit a persuasive Scandinavian design rhetoric, translating national influences into regional ideals. Scandinavian Design is not what we understand it to be, rather there exists a more internationally-influenced stream that has been denied visibility.

Familial influences and agency of an actor-network has contributed to what can be considered a censored view of design from the region. My study has identified and discussed

301 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

the importance of an influential family in Swedish design, describing how they contributed to the profile of Swedish design by shaping perceptions and determining taste. The SSF held a position of power in knowledge that was based on persuasive rhetoric in order to forward its ideologies.

Lindstrand has been a hot collectable in the market for mid-century Swedish design for some time. My study places Lindstrand in a new light and demonstrates that his work has not been critically examined because of inherent bias. As such, this is the first study to critically examine his work within the context of the time, politics, economics, events, and relationships.

The preeminence of Orrefors as the exemplary Swedish glass factory has left other factories, such as Kosta, less visible in discourse and neglected from a scholarly perspective. This suggests potential for further investigation, which may shed new light on the contributions of Kosta and other Swedish art industries.

L@I
 )'' (.#)(-

A more detailed analysis of Lindstrand’s body of work would be beneficial in fleshing out a fully considered study of influences, innovations and the divergent and exotic references throughout his career. This is my intention with the translation and extension of this study into an exhibition and publication.

Further extension of the discussion of Lindstrand’s reception in America might be contrasted and strengthened by considering his reception in other markets, such as the United Kingdom and European countries. Further analysis of exports and sales might also reveal the popularity of certain objects and themes.

It would be of great value to utilise the model or filter I have used to examine Lindstrand, as a means to interrogate the reception of his contemporaries. As a starting point, some of the individuals that are mentioned in my text, such as Ingeborg Lundin, Edvin Öhrström, Nils Landberg, Sven Palmqvist, Sven-Erik Skawonius, Elis Bergh, Mona Morales-Schildt and Ernest Gordon-Addsets, are poorly represented in English language discourse. As such, a study of these individuals might further illuminate this important period in design history. Relevant lines of inquiry would include how were they written about in history, what work was included and what was excluded and their Swedish vs American reception. The artist/

302 %-1"/
&3"
V
,+ )20&,+0

designer Stig Lindberg may also be seen to have produced pluralistic work, which, it may be argued, was also filtered to fit rhetoric. Lindberg is also poorly represented in English texts at both elementary and scholarly level, and would provide a useful point of comparison with the position and reception of Lindstrand.

Finally, there exists the opportunity to look at further arms of the SSF actor-network - has it survived and in what context?

L@J
#'#..#)(-

Whilst the findings presented in my thesis may be subject to challenge by those more intimately acquainted with the context, actors, events and associations discussed and interrogated therein, I hold the position of an outsider who has examined the material with associated distance and objectivity. Being an outsider is a limitation but also a strength. The boundaries of English language historiography have certain limitations in terms of the scholarship related to the topic, however this has been addressed by a secondary review and analysis of selected Swedish language texts authored by the actors identified in Part One. This has enabled views in primary texts to be measured against the position of the same authors in commentary for Swedish, as opposed to international, consumption.

My research was initially limited by my complete lack of understanding of the Swedish language. Early archival research was undertaken in a carefully considered manner. Preparation for visits was planned well in advance and, initially, always in the company of a native Swedish speaker who could assist in preliminary review of data of interest. Some archival material was in English, particularly that relating to the British, American and Australian exhibitions and reception. This was addressed by intensive Swedish language classes to assist in the research. In this context it would be beneficial to revisit some of the archives overviewed in the early stages of my research now that I have a better grasp of the written language. My research has also been limited by the time and costs of translation of Swedish texts into English, initially outsourced in the early stages of research. Later translations in the final stages of research are my own, facilitated by my intermediate understanding of Swedish language and online translation software. The time needed to complete these translations has been substantial, compounded by limited knowledge of the nuances of the Swedish language and difficulties in identifying and sourcing these texts.

303 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Access to primary research material, archives, informants, etc has been limited by distance and costs associated with travel, however this has also had the benefit of necessitating maximum efficiency in field research and the uncovering of material that might otherwise have been overlooked. A field trip to the United States to examine Lindstrand’s reception in closer detail would have strengthened the arguments I have made regarding the differing views of Swedish and American critics.

Holding dual roles as scholar and collector may be seen to present a conflict of interest. The closeness to the objects of Lindstrand, which I have come to know intimately, and the relationships I have established with Swedish individuals invested in promoting his legacy, some of whom have become friends over the course of my research, might also be viewed as limitations on the objectivity of the results presented here. Whilst this may be perceived as a potential weakness, I confess at this juncture that my appreciation for Lindstrand as an individual has diminished as a result of this research. His personality was likely to be contributory to his reception. As a ‘black swan’ he was an artist out of time, and his position within the context of 1950s Sweden non-typical. What the research has strengthened is an appreciation for the depth, breadth and magnitude of the work produced by Lindstrand, and his significance in the Swedish and international context of twentieth century design.

I was fortunate to meet and interview a handful of informants who knew Lindstrand in various capacities, and who offered contrasting and conflicting perspectives through which I had to navigate: his employer Eric Rosén, his Kosta protégé Hanne Dreutler and Elisa Steenberg, an actor in the SSF actor-network. Unfortunately, these informants died as my research progressed, leaving me unable to conduct follow-up interviews to clarify data. An interview planned with the Finnish glass artist Timo Sarpaneva, who considered Lindstrand “truly innovative”, did not eventuate due to his illness and subsequent death. The death of Ernest Gordon-Addsetts, who I was in the process of arranging to interview, extinguished an important source of information that would have added further depth to a number of my arguments. The study might be very different had all of the individuals referred to in my text, including Lindstrand, been alive and agreeable to acting as informants.

My position as an outsider may be seen to present limitations in this study. In response to this potential limitation I have considered the experience of economists Richard B. Freeman, Robert Topel and Birgitta Swedenborg, detailed in their introduction to a book of papers by American economists analysing the 1990s Swedish economy. They asked the question: “what

304 %-1"/
&3"
V
,+ )20&,+0

insights might outsiders contribute to understanding Sweden’s problems and possible path to recovery?”15

Whilst my study does not set out to reform the Swedish Model, nor provide avenues to economic recovery, there are parallels in terms of the value of a non-Swedish perspective. Freedman, Topel and Swedenborg also examined the positive and negative aspects of the outsider’s perspective, arguing that their project, whilst causing some offense, advanced the Swedish debate by doing exactly what they hoped it would do: “allowing Swedes to see themselves through outsiders’ eyes.”16 This is where I have situated my study. It is not positioned as subjective criticism from an outsider. Rather, it presents observations and fresh perspectives on Swedish design history and the profile and reception of a Swedish designer from a non-Swedish scholar, offering new readings of Swedish (and Scandinavian) design history from an objective viewpoint. Readings that interrogate narratives and rhetoric of Swedish origin, intended for outsiders, by an outsider.

Freedman, Topel and Swedenborg further argued that “The great risk of an outsider’s evaluation is that an outsider will get it all wrong.” An outsider, in my case an Australian design historian, may be seen to lack “the institutional knowledge of how things work in Sweden that natives gain from daily experience. Living in a society can give insights into social processes that a disinterested scholarly analysis might miss. Moreover, outsiders’ analyses can be colored by the analysts’ own values.”17 Whilst the outsider is not invested in the everyday culture and details of Swedish life, their ignorance of details can also be argued to be a strength, one which Freedman et al. believe makes it easier to see problems from a broader perspective, “the forest instead of the trees” in the questioning of conventional wisdom.18 In their project, Freedman, Topel and Swedenborg addressed these potential risks by pairing American economists with Swedish counterparts. How did I address the potential for this form of criticism in my study? I took my research to Sweden. I tested my hypotheses along the way with Swedish audiences. From my initial hypothesis on the visibility of Lindstrand’s Kosta period in discourse, to the framing of Scandinavian Design rhetoric by Swedish authors, to the preeminence of Orrefors and the influence of the Hald family- and finally the combination of all three - at conferences, lectures and seminars before Swedish and

bf
/""*+J
,-")J
+!
4"!"+ ,/$J
^ +1/,!2 1&,+^J
-M
dM bg
&!M
-M
eM bh
&!M
--M
dNeM bi
&!M
-M
dM 305 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Nordic scholarly audiences in Universities and Museums. Audiences that provided critical feedback and who have championed this study from its inception.

Finally, access to the events and individuals discussed in my research has been limited primarily to written and oral histories. In these histories I found much conflicting and confusing information. As an ‘Outsider’ researcher, I have had to translate, analyse, interrogate, quantify, question and reconsider much, in the process of making a contribution to the revision of Swedish design history. Perhaps the final limitation is one that affects all history writing, as expressed in Helena Dahlbäch Lutteman’s words, quoted at the beginning of Chapter Two of this thesis: “of course writing history is a tricky thing; it depends on what you want to see and stress.”19 For me, the things I initially wanted to see and stress led me on a research journey that revealed particular facts and nuances which turned out to be tangental to my initial hypotheses. I began this study with the view that Lindstrand had merely been overlooked. What I have stressed in this thesis is informed by considered research and analysis, embodied within the rigour of academic scholarship. Lindstrand was not merely overlooked, his visibility was constrained. As I discussed in Chapter Four, Lindstrand, one of the Swedish designers within the Scandinavian Design paradigm, turned out to be a black swan - an exception, a misfit within an homogenous, regional design construct.

bj
%) 8 (
211"*+J
^ +!201/&)
"0&$+
&+
4"!"+L
+
&01,/& )
2/3"6^M 306 %-1"/
&3"
V
,+ )20&,+0

307 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

308 %-1"/
&3"
V
,+ )20&,+0

L@K
2"##.#)(
/.&#( -

B8B8>
"#
"&*+)&
&
+!
)) ')*
)'/

Outline proposal for an exhibition based upon the findings of this thesis, drawing on the exemplar chapter and incorporating the SSF actor-network theories.

B8B8?
*" &
"&
&"&-"
9
.&
,/

Outline proposal for an alternative version of the 1950s exhibitions that presents a selection of Swedish work that which, without the application of an aesthetic filter, more accurately represents the most current work of the period. The exhibition would attempt to avoid clichés associated with Scandinavian Design and include many of the ‘missing’ works that have gone on to be considered exemplary of practitioners’ work. This exhibition is put forward as a proposal but not fully fleshed out.

309 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

310

+
%"
"/&-%"/6
N
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
&!
N
4"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#
& ("
&+!01/+!

311 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

312 #1"/4,/!

 . ,1),
A
 - ,"
 8 .#)(-

When I commenced this study, I was looking to understand just why the Swedish glass artist Vicke Lindstrand was so poorly represented in discourse on Swedish and Scandinavian design, at least in terms of his career with Kosta Glasbruk between 1950 and 1973. Whilst my initial interest was in a Swedish individual, this interest led me to discover far more about the larger concept of Scandinavian Design, particularly the existence of a network of individuals, the SSF actor-network.

As I stated in the introduction to this thesis, Dag Widman’s 1990s criticisms of Lindstrand were the impetus for this study.

My first field research within Sweden was marked by discovery and contradiction. In Sweden, I found a receptive audience for my developing hypotheses amongst a range of informants, eager to tell their version of events around their knowledge of, or relationships with, Lindstrand. These narratives contrasted greatly between informants, yet yielded a wealth of new information that I would subsequently interrogate in my analysis and research.

Contact with the artefacts, particularly Lindstrand’s own collection of his output, represented a profound stage in the developing research. Here I became intimate with a wide range of objects in a broad variety of different media. Glass, ceramics, textiles, drawings, paintings, many experimental and developmental representations of process. Significant as the artist’s own collection, that which he chose to keep at the expense of others, provided additional insights. This also demonstrated how ideas were developed, and how influences were tested and interpreted. I became perplexed as to why some rather ‘dull’ objects remained in his collection. I noted a wide register, wider than I had imagined, evidence I thought of a prolific artist rather than a pragmatic industrial designer. I was left with the impression that Lindstrand was perhaps more significant than I had previously considered. This added to my perplexity as to his lack of profile in literature.

I met Lindstrand’s friends, colleagues and his former employer, Erik Rosén. As they became informants in the study, interviews revealed further contradictions. My visit to Sweden, an Australian architect researching Swedish design deep in the Swedish forests, aroused curiosity, leading to newspaper coverage of my study in Småland.

313 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

I came to this study as a collector. This is a perilous place to start. As a collector, you are invested in your subject. You hope to see the best in his life and career. For me, this is something I did not find. Rather, I leave this study with a certain ambivalence towards Lindstrand. He was a much more complex and multifaceted individual than he has been portrayed, or than I had imagined. As my research progressed, my focus as a collector shifted. I was no longer assembling a collection of visually pleasing objects, rather I was documenting a body of work that was academically informed and representative of ideas, developments, experiments and significant periods of a career. I sought out evidence of the arguments I was forming in my study in the objects that I collected.

Further archival research at disparate locations in Sweden uncovered more complexities and contradictions. For an artist with low visibility in English language texts, he was well represented in Swedish newspapers, exhibitions and popular press. Lindstrand was also well represented in period press in the United States of America. The source of this enlightenment came from a collection, kept by Lindstrand and his wife, of scrapbooks containing press clippings, invitations, flyers, etc, covering his career from his early days as a newspaper illustrator in Gothenburg right through to his death. The collection is kept by Smålands Museum in Växjö along with sketches, photos and correspondence. At the museum I found a welcome from curators, historians and scholars which was at first reserved, in a characteristic Swedish manner, but which became enthusiasm, advocacy and friendship as my research progressed. This enthusiasm helped me to better understand the significance of my study. Further contact with informants and individuals deep within the forests of Småland confirmed the esteem with which Lindstrand was held in the SwedishGlasriket , the Kingdom of Crystal.

My first field trip to Sweden came at a difficulttime in the history of the glassworks. Orrefors Kosta Boda was in the midst of redundancies that came about through a change in ownership. This saw the retrenchment of many artists and personnel, a fact that resulted in setbacks to my study due to loss of contacts established earlier. Against this uncertain background, on my arrival at Kosta Arkiv I was rewarded with primary research material in the form of sketches, inventories, catalogues, economic material, and objects that would take five years and ten visits to fully examine. This first overview provided critical discoveries in the form of sketches from 1949 that supported versions of events that had previously been the subject of speculation. Books cataloguing unique objects designed by Lindstrand had the potential to assist in clarifying misinformation and contextualising his work.

314 #1"/4,/!

The opportunity to present findings of my developing research on the case study at a conference in Helsinki in 2006 resulted in the paper “A Blind Spot? The perception of the 1950s glass designs of Vicke Lindstrand”1 - a title that acknowledged my debt to Widman for the challenge I interpreted from his criticism of Lindstrand. This paper acted as a sort of ‘sketchbook’ that raised key questions, setting out a framework that would inform Part Two of this study. The presentation, in Helsinki, was before a mostly Nordic audience of design historians, curators, scholars and academics forming The Nordic Forum for Design History Studies, publishers of the Scandinavian Journal of Design History. This was my first opportunity to test my developing hypotheses before a critical audience. An outsider presenting to a group of eminent insiders. This was further compounded by the pedigree of the audience. I was not quite prepared for the positive reception I received. A last minute decision to abandon my notes and speak less formally about my study proved to be a decisive move. The feedback I received came mostly from Widar Halén, Kerstin Wickman and Lasse Brunnström, key individuals in Nordic design history who would become ongoing advocates and supporters throughout my candidature, providing important introductions, acting as sounding boards, opening many doors and facilitating access to crucial funding from within Sweden. A second paper, “Reinventing Tradition. Vicke Lindstrand and the Kosta dilemma”2, focussed on invention and reinvention and was presented at the Design History Society conference in Delft a week later, providing further important international feedback. These conference presentations were pivotal in the progress and direction of my study. The Helsinki experience, particularly, founded networks of advocacy and support that gave me the confidence to set forth on my PhD journey.

The conference allowed me to see more clearly a possible symptom for Lindstrand’s peripheral status. I began to research further and in reviewing Elisa Steenberg’s 1950s book, Swedish Glass3, I noted a foreword by Edward Hald. I began to connect the dots. Further research on Steenberg’s writings revealed her maiden name, Hald. She was the daughter of Edward Hald. This pivotal moment is when the network theories first began to take form. Although I had not yet seen it, this was an unexpected discovery that would reshape my study.

b
,+"0J
^
)&+!
0-,1P
%"
-"/ "-1&,+
,#
1%"
bjfa0
$)00
!"0&$+0
,#
& ("
&+!01/+!M^M c
/(
+
,+"0J
^"&+3"+1&+$
/!&1&,+M
& ("
&+!01/+!
+!
1%"
,01
&)"**^J
&+
&*,
"
&'(
+!
4
/2(("/
Y"!0MZJ
"0&$+
+!
3,)21&,+
Y 2)16
,#
+!201/&)
"0&$+
+$&+""/&+$J
")#1
+&3"/0&16
,#
" %+,),$6J
%"
"1%"/)+!0L
"0&$+
&01,/6
, &"16J
caag ZM d
1""+ "/$J
4"!&0%
$)00
J
/+0)K#/,*
1%"
4"!&0%
6
&))&+
)):+K
V ))201/KWM 315 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Obstacles along the way included family and work pressures, and access to funding to support extended fieldwork in Sweden. Opportunistic individuals in possession of copies of primary data who sought financial gain in exchange for access temporarily halted progress. This was to prove beneficial. In appealing to the Swedish contacts established in Helsinki and on my earlier travels, I was offered assistance by Smålands Museum, which arranged copies of the original data from its source. It was suggested by others that I should seek funding from Estrid Ericsons Foundation, which was successful and coincided with my upgrade to PhD and a further extended field trip to analyseprimary data. The Estrid Ericson Foundation offers grants, solely to Swedish nationals, to assist in research in the fields of design, art, craft and industrial design. Upon notification of my successful application in April 2007, I was advised that by awarding me, a non-Swede, a grant for my research, the Foundation had made an exception out of great interest in my research.

The extended research and data collection trip to Sweden facilitated by the Estrid Ericsons Foundation Grant allowed more in-depth analysis of archival holdings. Two weeks at Smålands Museum, where I examined, analysed and documented the extensive primary data, proved to be time well spent. I also had the time to immerse myself in the Swedish context, and ponder the factors that led to Lindstrand’s peripheral status. The opportunity to interview Elisa Steenberg was presented to me whilst in Stockholm - as a potential informant she had thus far been elusive - via the introduction of an individual who had heard me present in Helsinki. The interview was initially disappointing. Steenberg avoided discussion on the subject of Lindstrand and her father, and offered little insight into her book. She did, however, further flesh out my developing network theories in her discussion of the influence of Gregor Paulsson on her career. The SSF actor-network began to take shape.

Research at Svensk Form Arkiv in the suburbs of Stockholm was again most revealing. Here is where I found the material relating to Design in Scandinavia and the final pieces regarding the SSF network fell into place. It would take the next twelve months before I would crystalise the wide spread of the small network. This researchwas pivotal in the reframing of my study and the repositioning of Lindstrand as a case study within the context of an interrogation of the SSF network and associated English language discourse. This was also my first introduction to the Department of Art History at Uppsala University, which would lead to a fruitful relationship as a guest researcher a year later. My reason for visiting Uppsala was to meet Thomas Hård af Segerstad, son of Ulf. Ulf Hård af Segerstad was an individual within the SSF actor-network and I was in the process of reviewing his writings. Here I also met academic staff who would prove to be important contacts in a scholarship application to the Swedish

316 #1"/4,/!

Institute in 2008. This was also when I began to undertake Swedish language lessons to assist in utilising my time in archives with more efficiency, allowing me a better grasp of the value of what I was looking at.

The application for a Swedish Institute Guest Scholarship in early 2008 was my second, the first in 2007 proving to be unsuccessful. At the time of this second application I had valuable support and contacts in Sweden, and an invitation from Uppsala University.

The reframing of my study presented an opportunity to test my thesis once again. I submitted a proposal to the 2008 Design History Society Annual Conference, where the theme was Networks of Design, a perfect fit for my developing networks theories. My blind, peer- reviewed abstract was accepted and I was also successful with my Swedish Institute Guest Scholarship Application.

My first month as guest researcher in Uppsala during September 2008 allowed much reflection and primary research. The presentation and writing of the conference paperThe “ Agency of Networks. The (in)visibleconsequences of Scandinavian Design”4 during this time was again pivotal as it became the overall framework for this study, with the SSF network discussed via the exemplar of Lindstrand. Well received at the conference, and at a later presentation in Sydney, I progressed with renewed confidence and enthusiasm. The time in Sweden allowed space for the consolidation of my thesis, including research and reflection that would steer the direction of future research and writing. The paper was accepted for publication and appeared in an ebook in 2009, and a soft cover volume in 2010.5 The keynote speaker at the conference, Bruno Latour, was another important influence on my developing thesis, expanding the idea of actor-networks and the role of objects as actants through Actor- Network Theory.

January 2009 saw a further field trip, and the presentation of my developing study at Uppsala University. The presentation incorporated The Agency of Networks with an extended discussion of the case study. The lecture was attended by academics from Uppsala and

e
/(
+
,+"0J
^%"
$"+ 6
,#
"14,/(0M
%"
Y&+Z3&0& )"
,+0".2"+ "0
,#
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+M^J
&+
,+1%+
)6++"
&,+
 (+"6J
C
&3
&+1,+
Y"!MZJ
"14,/(0
,#
"0&$+J
/, ""!&+$0
,#
1%"
][[c
++2)
+1"/+1&,+)
,+#"/"+ "
,#
1%"
"0&$+
&01,/6
, &"16
T U
+&3"/0&16
,))"$"
)*,21%H
^La
"-1"* "/
Y, 
1,+J
),/&!L
+&3"/0)
2 )&0%"/0J
caaj ZJ
fhdM f
/(
+
,+"0J
^%"
$"+ 6
,#
"14,/(0M
%"
Y&+Z3&0& )"
,+0".2"+ "0
,#
 +!&+3&+
"0&$+M^J
&+
,+1%+
)6++"
&,+
 (+"6J
C
&3
&+1,+
Y"!MZJ
"14,/(0
,#
"0&$+J
/, ""!&+$0
,#
1%"
][[c
++2)
+1"/+1&,+)
,+#"/"+ "
,#
1%"
"0&$+
&01,/6
, &"16
T U
+&3"/0&16
,))"$"
)*,21%H
^La
"-1"* "/
Y-"/  (
"!+MK
, 
1,+J
),/&!L
+&3"/0)
2 )&0%"/0J
cabaZJ
fhdM 317 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Stockholm, and provided invaluable feedback that confirmed my assertions. This led to an invitation from the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm to present at their Fridags seminarium in November 2009.

A further invitation was received to present a paper to the Nordic Forum for Design Studies at their symposium in Oslo in June of 2009. The paper,“From Orrefors with love? A Swedish design family and their influence”6 was written specifically to address the theme of ‘twosome’ design, couples as designers, which I extended to a familial relationship with an examination of the Hald family and the favoured discourse on Orrefors. The paper drew on the network theories I had been developing and, in preparing the presentation, the important process of visualising the network was first undertaken, albeit in a rudimentary form. The paper was well received by the esteemed audience, feedback being that I was exploring something new and of great interest via my status as an outsider. The paper, which is yet to be published, informs Part One of this study.

Further examination of museum collections and, most importantly an interrogation of acquisitions in Gothenburg and Stockholm added further depth to my study. A review of the details of exports, economic material and correspondence was undertaken at Kosta and Smålands museum, revealing data that is incorporated into Part Two of this study. This data established the importance of Lindstrand to Kosta from an economic perspective.

The invitation from Nationalmuseum led to further invitations from Smålands Museum and Kalmar University School of Design, and a mini lecture tour in Sweden in November. On 27 November 2009, the 105th anniversary of Lindstrand’s birth, I presented an invited lecture at the Nationalmuseum, Stockholm. The lecture formed part of the museum’s research seminar series, staged in the autumn each year and open to the public. In the lecture, I presented the findings of my developing research to academics, scholars, curators and individuals from throughout Sweden that included Swedish art historians Gunilla Frick, Anne Marie Ericsson, Cilla Robach, Ulrika Ruding, Britt-Inger Johansson, and 96 year-old Elisa Steenberg, who forms part of the actor-network discussed in Chapter Three of my thesis. The lecture, which forms the basis of Part Two (Exemplar) of this study, was very well received by the audience and generated much discussion and debate. Afterthe lecture I was offered a detailed critique by Gunilla Frick, who is noted for her research and writing on the Artist in Industry construct in Sweden. Frick’s critique was both positive and encouraging with reference to my assertions

g
,+"0J
^/,*
//"#,/0
4&1%
),3"P

4"!&0%
!"0&$+
#*&)6
+!
1%"&/
&+B2"+ "^M
+-2 )&0%"!M 318 #1"/4,/!

and findings, the lecture was given a positive review by the Vicke and Marianne Lindstrand Foundation on their website.

I presented the same lecture to curators and researchers at Smålands Museum in Växjö, Sweden on 01 December 2009. The glass curators, particularly, were intrigued at the thrust of my thesis and most interested in the final findings. This lecture proved to be significant on another level, as members of the assessment panel for the Hallenbladska fonden grant were amongst the audience, leading to further funding in 2010. That evening I delivered the lecture a third time, at Pukeberg Design Skolan in South-West Sweden co-presented by Svensk Form, University of Kalmar and Smålands Museum. The public lecture was widely advertised and drew an audience from throughout Southern Sweden that included descendants of individuals discussed in my research. The lively discussion that ensued provided information which has further assisted in triangulating my findings. The basis of Version 1; Hearsay as discussed in Part Two of this study was told by two individuals, Petter Palmqvist and later Elisa Steenberg. If the story from Palmqvist aroused my curiosity, hearing it again two days later in Stockholm from Steenberg seemed even more curious, given my previous interview with her in 2007. This information set forth the direction of future archival research in 2010. These lectures provided an important forum for testing the reception of my most recent progress, whilst providing an opportunity to summarise my findings. The lectures led to further invitations to discuss my research with many esteemed individuals and researchers within Sweden.

After positive reception and feedback, publications and scholarships, progress slowed due to family pressures and the sudden death of my mother in April 2010. During this difficult time, I submitted an application to the Hallenbladska Fonden in Sweden for a grant to cover two further field trips to Sweden. I was awarded a grant in May 2010 and presented with the award at a luncheon ceremony during my visit to Sweden in August 2010. The fund awards grants for research projects at PhD level in the fields of archeology and history that are pertinent to the profile of Kronoberg County in Sweden. My application argued that my research in design history was important to the county, the home of the glass industry in Sweden, which has been in crisis the past few years. At the award ceremony it was noted that the donor, Gunnar Hallenblad, was particularly enthusiastic about my application. I was the first Australian to be awarded a grant, and the first researcher from the field of Design History.

319 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

During August 2010 I received feedback from a Swedish reader, Dr Britt-Inger Johansson, that assisted in further restructuring of the thesis. An agreement with Dr Jan von Bonsdorff, my supervisor at Uppsala University, also in August 2010, resulted in a schedule of submissions of drafts that accelerated the writing up of my results, which form the basis of Parts I and II of this thesis. However, there were still issues of speculation in my findings, which in late 2010 I sought to find further evidence to support. During November 2010, further archival research was undertaken at Orrefors and Kosta archives to locate documents that might support my arguments. Unfortunately, these visits proved unsuccessful. Quite by chance, during the relocation of Smålands Museum’s archives to an off-site facility, several archive boxes were uncovered which I had, over several hours, the opportunity to briefly review. The contents, mostly correspondence and contracts from Lindstrand’s personal documents, proved invaluable and provided the evidence I had been looking for. This material took several weeks to translate, with assistance from Gunnel Holmér of Smålands Museum, and now fleshes out theVersions of events presented in Part Two of this study. Some of the translations proved to be difficult even for a Swede, being handwritten. This exercise was complemented by a parallel review of a further tier of secondary research material in Swedish language, an onerous task given the complex use of period language and my limited, but developing Swedish language skills. The translations have proved worthwhile, adding further support to my arguments, and in retrospect may have served me better if undertaken earlier in the process.

A Slutseminar at Uppsala University in June 2011 provided an opportunity to defend my thesis against an opponent, before an audience of art historians and academics. This invaluable forum led to the final text of thisthesis, the repositioning of one chapter and the crystallisation of the hypotheses and findings.

My research journey has profoundly affected the person that I was. It has brought new skills and networks to my professional life, new friends and acquaintances to my personal life, and new culture, language, insights and experiences to both. The outcome of my research, the results that form this thesis, will I hope go some way towards encouraging other researchers to examine further aspects of this rich and important area of Swedish history.

I have, in my role as researcher and history writer, taken on a great responsibility. I have become an actor within the context that forms part of the historical record of Swedish design.

320 #1"/4,/!

321 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

322 #1"/4,/!

323 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

324 ,2/ "0
+!
"#"/"+ "0

,2/ "0
+!
"#"/"+ "0

325 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

326 ,2/ "0

+!
"#"/"+ "0

)/, -

)"'"$*

Form: 1945 - 1970 Craft Horizons: 1950 - 1965 Various other magazines and newspapers were also consulted.

)!"-*

Kosta Arkiv - Kosta, Lessebo, Sweden Orrefors Arkiv - Orrefors, Nybro, Sweden Svensk Form Arkiv - Svensk Form, Stockholm Svensk Form Arkiv - Centrum för Näringlivshistoria, Bromma, Sweden Nationalmuseum Arkiv - Stockholm Röhsska Museum Arkiv - Gothenburg, Sweden Smålands Museum Arkiv - Växjö, Sweden

& ')%&+*

Elisa Steenberg (1913-2010) Erik Rosén (1924-2009) Hanne Dreutler (1943-2009) Arthur Zirnsack (1944-) Lars Thor (1938-)

327 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

 , ( -

Aalto, Aino and Kinnunen, Ulla (2004), Aino Aalto (Jyväskylä: Alvar Aalto -museo). Aav, Marianne and Bard Graduate Center of Studies in the Decorative Arts Design and Culture. (2003), Marimekko : fabrics, fashion, architecture (New Haven: Published for The Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts Design and Culture New York by Yale Univ. Press). Aav, Marianne (ed.), (2000), Tapio Wirkkala, Eye, Hand And Thought (Helsinki: Museum of Art & Design). Åke Stavenow, Mattis Horlen, Åke Huldt, Elias Svedberg (ed.), (1939), Swedish Modern. A movement towards sanity in design. Anderson, Stanley V. (1967), The Nordic council : a study of Scandinavian regionalism (Seattle: Univ. of Washington press). Andersson, Ingrid (1986), Karin Larsson : konstnär och konstnärshustru (Stockholm: Gidlund). Anker, Peter (1982), 'Mid-century: Years of International Triumph', in David Revere McFadden (ed.), Scandinavian modern design, 1880-1980 (New York: Harry N Abrams Inc Publishers). Annika Heijkenskjold, Bianca Heymowska, Thomas Hellquist (1992), NordForm90 (Malmö: Wiken). Anon (1951), 'Nona Triennale di Milano 1951, Svezia', Domus, 34-42. Anonymous (2011), 'RSW The Beauty of Modern Glass - Biography', , accessed 14 August. Anonymous (1969), 'Glasklart', (Stockholm: AB Nordiska Kompaniet). Anonymous (1996), Alvar ja Aino Aalto lasin muotoilijoina = Alvar and Aino Aalto as glass designers (Rev. uppl. (1 uppl. 1988) edn.; Sävypaino: Hackman Designor Oy). Arteus, Margareta (ed.), (1992), Kosta 250: 1742-1992 250 Years of Craftsmanship (Kosta Boda). Arvidsson, Gösta (2007), Gustavsberg : porslinet - fabriken - konstnärerna (Stockholm: Norstedt). Arvidsson, Gösta and Gustavsbergs porslinsmuseum (2006), Stig Lindberg i Gustavsberg : artisten och människan (Gustavsberg: Gustavsbergs porslinsmuseum). Asensio, Paco and Oriol, Anja Llorella (2005), New Scandinavian design (Kempen: teNeues). Asplund, Gunnar (1931), Acceptera (Stockholm: Tiden). Atle Bjarnestam, Eva (2005), De formade 1900-talet : design A till Ö (Stockholm: Natur och kultur). Aynsley, Jeremy (1993), Nationalism and Internationalism (Design in the 20th Century, 1; London: Victoria and Albert Museum). Baudrillard, Jean (2005), The system of objects (Radical thinkers 3; London: Verso). Beckman, Ulf, et al. (eds.) (2005), Re:form : contemporary Swedish crafts (Stockholm: Arvinius in collaboration with Riksutställningar). Beer, Eileene Harrison (1975), Scandinavian Design. Objects of a Life Style (Second edn.; New York: Farrar, Straus and Groux/American-Scandinavian Foundation).

328 ,2/ "0

+!
"#"/"+ "0

Bell, Robert Stewart (2007), 'Nordic Wave: A study of the reception and influence of Scandinavian design in Australia.', (Australian National University). Berg, Per (2004), Vicke Lindstrand 100 år (Strängnäs: Axplock). Beyer, Johan (1949a), 'Letter from Johan Beyer to Vicke Lindstrand dated 24 November 1949', (Orrefors: Smålands Museum arkiv. Unpublished letter.). --- (1949b), 'Letter from Johan Beyer to Vicke Lindstrand dated 21 December 1949', (Orrefors: Smålands Museum arkiv. Unpublished letter.). --- (1950a), 'Letter from Johan Beyer to Vicke Lindstrand dated 29 January 1950', (Orrefors: Smålands Museum arkiv. Unpublished letter.). --- (1950b), 'Letter from Johan Beyer to Vicke Lindstrand dated 08 March 1950', (Orrefors: Smålands Museum arkiv. Unpublished letter.). Bjurström, Per (1992), Nationalmuseum 1792-1992 (Stockholm: Nationalmuseum). Boman, Monica (1969), 'Cirkuskonst i glas', Form. Boman, Monica, Föreningen Svensk form, and Svenska institutet (1985a), Design in Sweden (Stockholm: Swedish institute [Svenska institutet] in collaboration with Swedish society of crafts and design [Svensk form]). --- (1985b), Design in Sweden (Stockholm: Swedish institute [Svenska institutet] in collaboration with Swedish society of crafts and design [Svensk form]). Bourdieu, Pierre (1984), Distinction : a social critique of the judgement of taste (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul). Brochmann, Odd (1953), En bok om stygt og pent : som handler om tingenes form, vesen og innhold, og om det inntrykk de gjør på oss (2. opl. edn.; Oslo: Cappelen). Brown, Conrad (1958a), 'Coming: Revolution in Scandinavian Design', Craft Horizons, XVIII (2). --- (1958b), 'Scandinavia's Young Dissenters', Craft Horizons, XVIII (2). --- (1958c), 'A Cable from the Triennale', Craft Horizons, XVII (6). Brulè, Tyler (1998a), 'Berattelser om Stockholm [Stockholm Stories]', Wallpaper* Stockholm Design Guide 1998. --- (1998b), 'Blondes do it better', Wallpaper* (14). Brunius, Jan (1991), Svenskt glas (Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand). Callon, Michel and Latour, Bruno (1981), 'Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: how actors macrostructure reality and how sociologists help them to do so.', in Karin Knorr- Cetina and Aaron Cicourel (eds.), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro- and Macro-Sociologies. (Boston: Routledge), 277-303. Calvino, Italo (1992), Six memos for the next millenium (London: Cape). Childs, Marquis W. (1936), Sweden; the middle way (New Haven: Yale University Press). --- (1947), Sweden; the middle way (New Revised and Enlarged Edition edn.; New Haven: Yale University Press). --- (1980), Sweden, the middle way on trial (New Haven: Yale University Press). Clason, Anders (1985), 'Introduction', in Monica Föreningen Svensk form Boman, Svenska institutet, (ed.), Design in Sweden (Stockholm: Swedish institute [Svenska institutet] in collaboration with Swedish society of crafts and design [Svensk form]). Connery, Donald S. (1966), The Scandinavians (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode).

329 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Corning Museum of Glass. (1959), Glass 1959; a special exhibition of international contemporary glass (Corning,: Corning Glass Center). Creagh, Lucy, Helena Kåberg, Barbara Miller Lane, (ed.), (2008), Modern Swedish Design, Three Founding extsT (New York: The Museum of Modern Art). Curtis, William (1982), Modern Architecture Since 1900 (London: Phaidon Press Limited). Dahlbäck Lutteman, Helena (1981), 'Industrial Design in Sweden: An Historical Survey', in Nicola Hamilton, et al. (eds.), Svensk form : a conference about Swedish Design (1. edn.; London: The Design Council). --- (1982), 'Nordic Design: A Multitude of Voices', in David Revere McFadden (ed.), Scandinavian modern design, 1880-1980 (New York: Harry N Abrams Inc Publishers), 37-45. Dahlbäck Lutteman, Helena, Uggla, Marianne, and Nationalmuseum (1986), The Lunning prize : Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 1986 (Nationalmusei utställningskatalog; Stockholm: Nationalmuseum). Dahlbäck Lutteman, Helena, Persson, Magnus, and Nationalmuseum (1987), Svenskt glas 1915-1960 : Nationalmuseum Stockholm 23.9-15.11 1987 (Nationalmusei utställningskatalog, 501; Stockholm: Nationalmuseum). Dahlström, Per, et al. (2004), 'Vicke Lindstrand 100 år', in Röhsska Museet (ed.), (English edn.; Göteborg: Röhsska Museet). Davies, Kevin (1998), 'Norwegian Wood? : Scandinavian Design in Britain 1950-65', Scandinavian Journal of Design History, 8. Davies, Kevin M (2003), 'Marketing Ploy or Democratic Ideal?', in Widar Halén and Kerstin Wickman (eds.), Scandinavian design beyond the myth : fifty years of design from the Nordic countries (Stockholm: Arvinius), 101-110. Dawson, Jack (2000), Innovation & Diversity: 75 Years of Swedish Glass Art (First edn.; Sunderland: University of Sunderland). Deborah Cherry, Griselda Pollock (1984), 'Woman as Sign in Pre-Raphaelite Literature: A Study of the Representation of Elizabeth Siddall', Art History, 7 (2). Det Danske Kunstindustimuseum (1991), 'Scandinavian journal of design history', (Copenhagen: Rhodos International Science and Art Publ.). Dickson, Thomas and Krogh, Dorte (2008), Dansk design (Millers Point ; London: Murdoch Books). Duncan, Alastair (1995), Orrefors Glass (Antique Collectors Club). Eidelberg, Martin (ed.), (1991, 2001), Design 1935 – 1965 What Modern Was, Selections from the Liliane and David M Stewart Collection (Les Musee Des Arts Decoratifs de Montreal/Abrams). Englund, Magnus, Schmidt, Chrystina, and Ryan, Paul (2007), Scandinavian country (New York: Ryland Peters & Small). Ericsson, Anne-Marie (1980), Arthur Percy, konstnär och formgivare : Arthur Percy, artist and designer (Nordiska museets handlingar, 95; Stockholm: Nordiska mus.). Ernkvist, Zandra Ahl & Päivi (2007), 'Hands on Movement - Crafted Form in Dialogue'. , accessed 15 January 2010.

330 ,2/ "0

+!
"#"/"+ "0

Facos, Michelle (1998), Nationalism and the Nordic imagination : Swedish art of the 1890s (Berkeley, Calif.: Univ. of California Press). Fallan, Kjetil (2007a), 'How an Excavator Got Aesthetic Pretensions—Negotiating Design in 1960s’ Norway', Journal of Design History, 20 (1), 43-59. --- (2007b), Modern transformed : the domestication of industrial design culture in Norway, ca. 1940-1970 (Doctoral theses at NTNU; Trondheim: Norwegian university of science and technology, Faculty of architecture and fine art Department of architectural Design). --- (2010), Design history : understanding theory and method (English edn.; Oxford: Berg). Fiell, Charlotte & Peter (2003), Scandinavian Design (Benedikt Taschen). Flyvbjerg, Bent (2004), 'Five misunderstandings about case-study research', in Clive Seale, et al. (eds.), Qualitative Research Practice (London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 420-434. Fogelberg, Ann-Christine, et al. (2007), Upsala-Ekeby 1886-1978 : en historik i ord och bild om ett bruk ([Uppsala]: Bombus). Fogelström, Lollo, Björkegren, Peder, and Stevens, Michael (1988), Ting äger rum : nutida svenskt konsthantverk och design : textil, glas, keramik, metall och möbler : 6 maj-28 augusti 1988 (Liljevalchs katalog; Stockholm: Liljevalchs konsthall). Franck, Kaj, Kalin, Kaj, and Wynne-Ellis, Michael (1992), Kaj Franck : muotoilija, formgivare, designer (Porvoo: Söderström). Frank, Josef and Stritzler-Levine, Nina (1996), Josef Frank : architect and designer : an alternative vision of the modern home (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press). Frick, Gunilla (1978), Svenska slöjdföreningen och konstindustrin före 1905 : [Svenska slöjdföreningen und die Kunstindustrie vor 1905] (Nordiska museets handlingar, 91; Stockholm: Nordiska museet). --- (1986), Konstnär i industrin (Nordiska museets handlingar, 106; Stockholm: Nordiska museet). --- (1991), 'Furniture art or a machine to sit on? : Swedish furniture design and radical reforms', Scandinavian Journal of Design History, 1. --- (1996), 'Radical change or stagnation? : Swedish post-war decorative art', Scandinavian Journal of Design History, 6. Friedman, Mark D (2006), The Best of Modern Swedish Art Glass: Orrefors and Kosta 1930-1970. (1st, Limited edition of 1200 copies edn.; Seattle: Mark D Friedman). G, O (1955), 'A New Hall for Glass in Smaland. Bruno Mathsson designs an annex to Kosta'a 18th century museum.', Interiors, (October). Gelfer-Jørgensen, Mirjam (2003a), 'Scandinavianism - a Cultural Brand', in Widar Halén and Kerstin Wickman (eds.), Scandinavian design beyond the myth : fifty years of design from the Nordic countries (Stockholm: Arvinius), 17-25. --- (2003b), 'Editorial: A Challenge!', Scandinavian journal of design history. Giedion, Sigfried (1941), Space, Time and Architecture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Granath, Karl-Erik and Hård af Segerstad, Ulf (1975), Carl Larsson's home : [a book about Carl Larsson's Sundborn] (Stockholm [Solna]: Sv. bokhandlarefören;[Seelig]) 100.

331 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Hagströmer, Denise (1990), 'Swedish Design Exhibitions 1917-1931: Britain's Intimation of Valhalla', (Victoria and Albert Museum/Royal College of Art). --- (2003), 'An "Experiment's" Indian Summer The Formes Scandinaves Exhibition', in Widar Halén and Kerstin Wickman (eds.), Scandinavian design beyond the myth : fifty years of design from the Nordic countries (Stockholm: Arvinius), 93-99. --- (2010), 'In Search of a National Vision: Swedish Embassies from the Mid-twentieth Century to the Present', (Royal College of Art). Hagströmer, Denise and Svenska institutet (2001), Swedish design (Stockholm: Swedish Institute). Hald, Arthur (1954a), 'Stig Lindberg artist in clay', Craft Horizons, XIV (5). --- (1954b), 'The Secret of Orrefors',Craft Horizons, XIV (6). --- (1956), 'Konst och industri : studier i den industriella formgivningens ideologier1890-1920 (Art and industry: a study of industrial design ideology 1890-1920)', (Uppsala). --- (1981), 'AB Gustavsberg Sweden', in Nicola Hamilton, et al. (eds.), Svensk Form : a conference about Swedish design (1st edn.; London: Design Council), 21-26. --- (1986), 'Warum wurde Orrefors Orrefors? (Why did Orrefors become Orrefors?)', in Helmut Ricke and Ulrich Gronert (ed.), Glas in Schweden 1915 - 1960 (Munich: Prestel-Verlag). Hald, Arthur and Wettergren, Erik (1948), Simon Gate : Edward Hald : en skildring av människor och konstnärer redigerad (Stockholm,). Hald, Arthur and Skawonius, Sven Erik (1951), Contemporary Swedish design : a survey in pictures (New York & Stockholm: Pellegrini & Cudahy; Nordisk rotogravyr). Hald, Arthur and Institute, Swedish (1958), Swedish Design (Stockholm: Nordisk Rotogravyr). Halén, Widar (2004), 'The Myths of Scandinavian Design', in Katherine E. Nelson and Raul Cabra (eds.), New Scandinavian design (San Francisco: Chronicle Books), 235 - 238. Halén, Widar and Wickman, Kerstin (eds.) (2003), Scandinavian design beyond the myth : fifty years of design from the Nordic countries (Stockholm: Arvinius). Hamilton, Nicola, et al. (1981), Svensk Form : a conference about Swedish design (1st edn., History of design; London: Design Council). Hård af Segerstad, Ulf (1951), 'Glaskonstnär gör sin andra debut', Svenska Dagbladet, 16 September. --- (1957), Tingen och vi (Stockholm: Nord. rotogravyr : [Seelig]). --- (1963), Modern Scandinavian furniture (London: Sudio Books). --- (1965), 'Super-shapes', in Inga Mari Lönnroth (ed.), Kontur. 13 (Stockholm: Dag Widman; Svenska slöjdföreningen). --- (1966), 'Konsthantverk från Småland och Japan (Crafts from Småland and Japan)', Svenska Dagbladet, 2 November. --- (1968), Design in Scandinavia : February 1968-January 1969 : Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden (Stockholm). --- (1969a), 'I glasets tecken', Svenska Dagbladet, Lördagen den 8 mars. --- (1969b), Modern Finnish design (New York: Frederick A. Praeger). --- (1982a), 'Att se djupt i glaset (To see deeply into the glass)', Svenska Dagbladet, 7 October.

332 ,2/ "0

+!
"#"/"+ "0

--- (1982b), 'Unity and Diversity in Scandinavian Design', in David Revere McFadden (ed.), Scandinavian modern design, 1880-1980 (New York: Harry N Abrams Inc Publishers). --- (1990), 'NordForm90; stolfetichism; grottoromantik. (Chair fetishism; cave romance)', Svenska Dagbladet, 19 June. --- (1992), 'Two Decades around Kaj Franck', in Kaj Kalin and Michael Wynne-Ellis (eds.), Kaj Franck : muotoilija, formgivare, designer (Porvoo: Söderström). Hård af Segerstad, Ulf, Maze, Nancy, and Maze, Edward (1961), Scandinavian design (Stockholm: Nord. rotogravyr). Harland, Harold (1968), 'Letter to Miss U. Tarras-Wahlberg'. Hawkins, Hildi (1998), 'Finding a Place in a New World Order: Finland, America and the "Design in Scandinavia" Exhibition, 1954-1975', in Marianne Aav, Nina Stritzler- Levine, and Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts (New York) (eds.), Finnish modern design : utopian ideals and everyday realities, 1930-1997 (New Haven; London New York: Yale University Press ; Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts), 233-251. Hedqvist, Hedvig (2003), Svensk form internationell design ([Ny utg.]. edn.; Stockholm: Bokfèorl. DN). Helgeson, Susanne and Nyberg, Kent (2002), Swedish design : the best in Swedish design today (London: Mitchell Beazley). Helmersson, Johan, Asplund, Per-Anders, and Grödinge antik & design (2002), Upsala-Ekeby keramik (2. tr. edn.; Grödinge: Grödinge antik & design). Helmet Ricke, Eva Schmitt (1997), Italian Glass Murano-Milan 1930-1970 (English edn.; Munich - New York: Prestel). Herlitz-Gezelius, Ann Marie (1987), Kosta (Stockholm: Signum). Herlitz-Gezelius, Ann Marie (1984), Orrefors, a Swedish Glass Plant (Stockhom: Atlantis Publishing). Hernmarck, Carl (1954), Svenskt glas 1954 (Nationalmusei utställningskatalog ; 214; Stockholm: Nationalmuseum)l. Hilson, Mary (2008), The Nordic model : Scandinavia since 1945 (Contemporary worlds; London: Reaktion). Hjelte, Carl, et al. (2007), 17 Swedish designers : chez Pascale : Pia Amsell (Stockholm: Langenskiöld). Hogdal, Liz (ed.), (2006), Bruno Mathsson Architect and Designer (Malmö: Arena in association with the Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts Design and Culture New York and Yale University Press New Haven and London). Holkers, Märta, et al. (1991), Edvin Öhrström : skulptör i glas (Stockholm: Carlsson i samarbete med Glasmuseet). Holmér, Gunnel (1986), Fran Boda till New York: Konstnaren Erik Hoglund (Växjö: Carlsson i samarbete med Vaxjo glasmuseum). --- (2002), 'The Artist and the Craftsman: A Successful Combination in the Swedish Glass Industry', Scandinavian Journal of Design History, 12. --- (2009a), 'Glass Link Stockholm — Praha / Swedish Glass of the 20th Century', (Museum of Decorative Arts in Prague and Smålands Museum - Swedish Glass Museum.).

333 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

--- (2009b), Kosta Glasbruk - en etnisk smältdegel? Arbete och arbetskraftsinvandring 1943-1973 (Växjö: Kulturspridaren Förlag). Holmér, Gunnel, et al. (1992), Hakuya no kuni no jojo : Suweden no gurasu 1900-1970 = Lyricism of modern design : Swedish glass 1900-1970 (Sapporo: Hokkaido Museum of Modern Art). Holmér, Gunnel, et al. (1996), Svenskt glas under fem sekler (Växjö: Kulturspridaren : Smålands museum). Hovstadius, Barbro (1998), 'Orrefors 100 years', in Nationalmuseum Stockholm (ed.), (Stockholm: Nationalmuseum). Huldt, Åke (1952), 'The art of Sweden: craftsmanship and design',The Studio. Huldt, Åke H. (1958), Formes scandinaves (Paris: Musée des arts décoratifs). Huldt, Åke H. and Benedicks, Eva (eds.) (1948), Design in Sweden today (Stockholm - New York: Swedish Institute for Cultural Relations: Albert Bonnier). Ikea (1996), Democratic Design, the story about the three dimensional world of IKEA - form, function and low prices (Inter IKEA Systems B.V.). Ivanov, Gunnela (1995), 'Den besjälade industrivaran', in Kerstin Wickman (ed.), Formens rörelse : Svensk form genom 150 år (Stockholm: Carlsson). --- (2004), 'Vackrare vardagsvara - design för alla? : Gregor Paulsson och Svenska slöjdföreningen 1915-1925', Dissertation (Umeå universitet). Jackson, Lesley A positive influence : the impact of Scandinavian design in Britain during the 1950s. --- (1998), The New Look: Design in the Fifties (London: Thames & Hudson). --- (2000), 20th Century Factory Glass (Mitchell Beazley). --- (2004), 'Scandinavian Design Beyond the Myth - Fifty Years of Design from the Nordic Countries', Crafts, (191), 78-79. Jackson, Simon (2002), 'The “Stump-jumpers:” National Identity and the Mythology of Australian Industrial Design in the Period 1930-1975', Design Issues, 18 (4), 14-23. --- (2003), 'Blonde Wood among the Gum Trees: Scandinavian Influences in Furniture Design in Australia, 1930-1975', Scandinavian Journal of Design History, 13, 36-51. --- (2005), 'Scandinavian and Finnish design: exhibitions in Australian galleries, 1962-1976', The Wold of Antiques and Art, (68). --- (2006), 'Sacred Objects—Australian Design and National Celebrations', Journal of Design History, 19 (3), 249-255. Jensen, Georg Arthur, et al. (2005), Georg Jensen jewelry (New Haven Conn.: Published for the Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts Design and Culture by Yale University Press). Johansson, Gotthard (1942), 'En historia i glas', Svenska Dagbladet, 8 Maj. --- (1954), Design in Scandinavia : an exhibition of objects for the home from Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden (Oslo). Jones, Mark Ian (2005a) ‘Interview with Lars Thor, Arlanda, Stockholm 1 December 2005”. Transcript of audio recording. --- (2005b), Interview with Hanne Dreutler and Arthur Zirnsack at their home in Åhus, Sweden on the evening of 22 November 2005. Transcript of audio recording.

334 ,2/ "0

+!
"#"/"+ "0

--- (2005c), 'Interview with Eric Rosén at his home in Öland, Sweden 29 November 2005'. Transcript of audio recording. --- (2006a), 'A blind spot? The perception of the 1950s glass designs of Vicke Lindstrand.', in Pekka Korvenmaa and Krista Kodres (eds.), Connecting: A Conference on the Multivocality of Design History & Design Studies (Helsinki & Tallinn: University of Art and Design & Estonian Academy of Arts: International Committee of Design History and Studies ICDHS & Nordic Forum for Design History), 108. --- (2006b), 'Reinventing Tradition. Vicke Lindstrand and the Kosta Dilemma', in Timo de Rijk and JW Drukker (eds.), Design and Evolution (Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands: Design History Society). --- (2007), Interview with Dr Elisa Steenberg, Kungl. biblioteket, Stockholm (Audio Recording, 25 October 2007). --- (2008), 'The Agency of Networks. The (in)visible consequences of Scandinavian Design.', in Viv Minton (ed.), Networks of Design (University College, Falmouth, United Kingdom: Design History Society). --- (2009a), 'From Orrefors with love? A Swedish design family and their influence', Symposium Nordisk Forum for Formgivningsstudier (Oslo: Nasjonalmuseet Oslo). --- (2009b), 'The Agency of Networks. The (in)visible consequences of Scandinavian Design.', in Jonathan Glynne Fiona Hackney, & Viv Minton (ed.), Networks of Design: Proceedings of the 2008 Annual International Conference of the Design History Society (UK) University College Falmouth, 3-6 September (Boca Raton, Florida: Universal Publishers), 573. --- (2010), 'The Agency of Networks. The (in)visible consequences of Scandinavian Design.', in Jonathan Glynne Fiona Hackney, & Viv Minton (ed.), Networks of Design: Proceedings of the 2008 Annual International Conference of the Design History Society (UK) University College Falmouth, 3-6 September (Paperback edn.; Boca Raton, Florida: Universal Publishers), 573. Jönsson, Love (2007), 'Femtiotalet - Upsala-Ekebys konstnärliga guldålder (The fifties - Upsala-Ekeby’s artistic golden age)', in Ann-Christine Fogelberg and Helen Karlsson (eds.), Upsala-Ekeby 1886-1978 : en historik i ord och bild om ett bruk (Uppsala: Bombus), 90-100. Jormakka, Kari (2006), 'Outside the Canon: Revisionist Readings of Aalto ', , accessed 9 December. Jr., Clarence Burton Sheffield (1996), 'Social Needs and Aesthetic Demands: Ellen Key, Gregor Paulsson, and Swedish Design, 1899-1939', in Derek E. Ostergard, et al. (eds.), The brilliance of Swedish glass 1918-1939 : an alliance of art and industry (New Haven New York: Yale Univ. Press; Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts), 35-51. Kåberg, Helena (2008), 'An Introduction to Gregor Paulsson's Better Things for Everyday Life', in Lucy Creagh; Helena Kåberg; Barbara Miller Lane (ed.), Modern Swedish Design, Three Founding extsT (New York: The Museum of Modern Art), 58-71.

335 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Kåberg, Helena, et al. (2007), Förfärligt härligt (Nationalmusei utställningskatalog,; Stockholm: Nationalmuseum). Kalha, Harri (1992), Pioneers - ideals and their application : studio pottery in Finland. --- (1997), Muotopuolen merenneidon pauloissa : Suomen taideteollisuuden kultakausi: mielikuvat, markkinointi, diskurssit (In the Coils of an Asymmetrical Mermaid: The Golden Age of Finnish Design: Image, Marketing, Discourse) (Apeiron (Helsingfors), [1]; Helsingfors: Suomen Historiallinen Seura). --- (1998), 'The Other Modernism: Finnish Design and National Identity', in Marianne Stritzler-Levine Aav, Nina Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts (New York), (ed.), Finnish modern design : utopian ideals and everyday realities, 1930-1997 (New Haven; London New York: Yale University Press; Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts). --- (1999), Skin-deep beauties : race, gender and aesthetics. --- (2000), Kaj Franck & Kilta : gendering the (aesth)ethics of modernism. --- (2001), 'modernismin valokeilassa - Lasin muotoilijakso (Modernism Strikes a Pose)', in Liisa Kasvio (ed.), Nanny Still : Amos Anderson, Helsinki , 10.2.-29.4.2001 (Helsinki: Amos Andersonin taidemuseo). --- (2002), 'Myths and Mysteries of Finnish Design: Reading "Wirkkala" and the National Nature Paradigm', Scandinavian Journal of Design History, 12, p. 24-47. --- (2003), '"Just One of Those Things" - The Design in Scandinavia Exhibition 1954-57', in Widar Halén and Kerstin Wickman (eds.), Scandinavian design beyond the myth : fifty years of design from the Nordic countries (Stockholm: Arvinius), 67-75. --- (2004), '"The Miracle of Milan": Finland at the 1951 Triennale',Scandinavian Journal of Design History, 14, 60-71. Kant, Immanuel and Guyer, Paul (2001), Critique of the power of judgment (Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Kellein, Thomas, et al. (2005),Alvar & Aino Aalto design : Collection Bischofberger (Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz). Key, Ellen (1899), Skönhet för alla : fyra uppsatser (Studentföreningen Verdandis småskrifter, 77; Stockholm: Bonnier). Klyvare, Berndt and Widman, Dag (1962), Stig Lindberg : Swedish artist and designer (Stockholm: Rabén & Sjögren). Kosta (1950), 'Avtal. Contract between Kosta Glasbruk and Vicke Lindstrand dated 26 April 1950.', (Contract between Kosta Glasbruk and Vicke Lindstrand from 1 July 1950 - 1 July 1955 edn.; Stockholm). --- (1964), 'Vicke Lindstrand Kosta'. Kosta Boda (1986), The Kosta Boda book of glass (Kosta: Kosta Boda). Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996),The structure of scientific revolutions (3 edn.; Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press). Kurz, Dr Fredrik W A (1950), 'Letter from Dr Fredrik W A Kurz to Vicke Lindstrand dated 16 March 1950', (Nybro: Smålands Museum arkiv. Unpublished letter). Lagerberg, Rikard and Randecker, Emma (2010), Sweden, Up North, Down to Earth (Stockholm: The Swedish Institute).

336 ,2/ "0

+!
"#"/"+ "0

Lampinen, Daniel (2010), 'Social Democracy', , accessed 04 July. Larsson, Carl (1899), Ett hem : 24 målningar (Stockholm: Alb. Bonnier). Larsson, Lena (1997), 'The Larsson design legacy: a personal view', in Michael Snodin and Elisabet Stavenow-Hidemark (eds.), Carl and Karin Larsson : creators of the Swedish style (London: Victoria & Albert Museum), 220-229. Laszlo, André (1989), Svenskt konstglas (Stockholm: Sellin & Blomquist). --- (2011), 'Swedish Crystal', , accessed 03 April. Latour, Bruno (2005), Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor Network Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Law, John (1992), 'Notes on the theory of the actor-network: ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity', Systems Practice, 5 (4), 379-393. Lengborn, Thorbjörn (1993), 'Ellen Key 1849-1926',Prospects: the quarterly review of comparitive education., XXIII (3/4), 825-837. Liljefors, Anders Bruno and Arvidsson, Gösta (2011), En keramisk revolutionär : Anders Bruno Liljefors (Stockholm: Carlsson). Linder, Karin and Nationalmuseum (2006), © Stig Lindberg (Stockholm: Nationalmuseum). Lindqvist, Lennart (1981), 'Introduction to the Svensk Form Exhibition', in Nicola Hamilton, et al. (eds.), Svensk Form : a conference about Swedish design (1st edn.; London: Design Council), 6-9. Lindqvist, Ursula (2009), 'The Cultural Archive of the IKEA Store', Space and Culture, 12 (1), 43-62. Lindstrand, Vicke (1950), 'Letter to Johan Beyer from Vicke Lindstrand dated 06 March 1950', (Stockholm: Smålands Museum arkiv. Unpublished letter.). Littman, Brett (2005), 'In Search of the Scandinavian Object', in Ulf Beckman, et al. (eds.), Re:form : contemporary Swedish crafts (Stockholm: Arvinius in collaboration with Riksutställningar). Long, Christopher (1993), 'Josef Frank and the Crisis of Modern Architecture', (University of Texas at Austin). --- (1996), 'Josef Frank: The making of Swedish modern design', Scandinavian Review, (Autumn). Lundberg, Urban and Tydén, Mattias (2010), 'In Search of the Swedish Model. A Contested Historiography', in Helena Mattson and Sven-Olov Wallenstein (eds.), Swedish modernism : architecture, consumption and the welfare state (London: Black Dog). Lundbergh, Holger (1939), 'Master of Crystal Art', The Swedish American Monthly, (December 1939). --- (1957), 'Kosta Lindstrand', (New York: Bonniers). Lundmark, Hans-Olof (1993), Mäster Bengt Glaslegenden (Växjö: Mängen Produktion). Magnusson, Lars (1996), 'Sweden and the Swedish Model', in Derek E. Ostergard and Nina Stritzler-Levine (eds.), The brilliance of Swedish glass 1918-1939 : an alliance of art and industry (New Haven New York: Yale Univ. Press; Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts).

337 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Maré, Eric de (1981), 'The Roots of Swedish Form', in Nicola Hamilton, et al. (eds.),Svensk Form : a conference about Swedish design (1st edn.; London: Design Council), 10-14. Markus, Thomas A. and Cameron, Deborah (2002), The words between the spaces : buildings and language (The architext series; London: Routledge). Mattson, Helena and Wallenstein, Sven-Olov (2010), Swedish modernism : architecture, consumption and the welfare state (London: Black Dog). Maze, Edward (1961), 'Glittering Oasis in Dark Wood', in Margit Svedberg Inga Mari Lönnroth (ed.), Kontur. 10 (Stockholm: Svenska slöjdföreningen). McConnell, Andy (2006), Miller's 20th-Century Glass (London: Octopus). --- (2007), 'Triumph of Design. Collecting Post War Glass from Sweden and Finland', Apollo, (April 2007). McFadden, David Revere (ed.), (1982), Scandinavian modern design, 1880-1980 (New York: Harry N Abrams Inc Publishers). Milner, Henry (1990), Sweden: social democracy in practice (Oxford University Press, USA). Morris, William (1999), 'Art A Serious Thing', in Norman Kelvin (ed.),William Morris on Art and Socialism (Ontario: General Publishing Company), 95-107. Murphy, Keith Michael (2008), 'State of the Art: Design, Democracy, and the Production of Style in Sweden', (University of California). Museum, Powerhouse (2011), 'Professor Kerstin Wickman talk at 'Smart works: design and the handmade' symposium', , accessed 31 January. N.D.A. (1937), 'Orrefors konstnärern resa troligen till America', Nya Dagligt Allehanda, 9 August. Naylor, Gillian (1990), 'Swedish Grace...Or the Acceptable Face of Modernism?', in Paul Greenhalgh (ed.), Modernism in design (London: Reaktion Books), 164-183. --- (1998), 'Orrefors in Great Britain and Ireland', in Kerstin Wickman (ed.), Orrefors. Vol. 1, A Century of Swedish Glassmaking (Stockholm: Byggfèorl./Kultur). Nelson, Katherine E. and Cabra, Raul (2004), New Scandinavian design (San Francisco: Chronicle Books). Norrman, Sara (2010), Simply Scandinavian (London; New York, NY: Ryland Peters and Small). Nyström, Bengt and Brunius, Jan (2007), Rörstrand 280 år : med fajans, flintgods, porslin & stengods (Västerås: Ica). O'Dell, Thomas (1998), 'Junctures of Swedishness: Reconsidering Representations of the National', Ethnologia Scandinavica : a journal for Nordic ethnology, (28), 20-37. Olsson, Zandra Ahl & Emma (2002), Svensk smak - myter om den moderna formen (Stockholm: Ordfront förlag). Önnerhag, Björn (2010), 'Vallien put Åfors on the Map', , accessed 02 September Opie, Jennifer (1989, 2001), Scandinavia Ceramics and Glass in the 20th Century (London: Victoria & Albert Museum).

338 ,2/ "0

+!
"#"/"+ "0

Opstad, Jan-Lauritz (1982), 'Contemporary Design: Challenge and Renewal', in David Revere McFadden (ed.), Scandinavian modern design, 1880-1980 (New York: Harry N Abrams Inc Publishers). Orrefors (1941), 'AVTAL (Agreement between A.B. Orrefors Glasbruk and Vicke Lindstrand)', (Stockholm). Ostergard, Derek E. (1996), 'Modern Swedish Glass in America 1924-1939', in Derek E. Ostergard and Nina Stritzler-Levine (eds.), The brilliance of Swedish glass 1918-1939 : an alliance of art and industry (New Haven New York: Yale Univ. Press ; Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts), 137-155. Ostergard, Derek E., et al. (1996), The brilliance of Swedish glass 1918-1939 : an alliance of art and industry (New Haven New York: Yale Univ. Press; Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts). Parker, Rozsika and Pollock, Griselda (1981), Old mistresses : women, art and ideology (New York: Pantheon Books). Paulsson, Gregor (1919), Vackrare vardagsvara (Stockholm: Svenska slöjdföreningen). --- (2008), 'Better Things for Everyday Life', in Lucy Creagh; Helena Kåberg; Barbara Miller Lane (ed.), Modern Swedish Design, Three Founding extsT (New York: The Museum of Modern Art), 72-125. Paulsson, Gregor and Paulsson, Nils (1956), Tingens bruk och prägel (Stockholm: Kooperativa förbundet) 125 s. Pearce, Martin (2010), 'Northern Lines', ANU News , accessed 7 August 2010. Petersson, Hans (1997), Gregor Paulsson och den konsthistoriska tolkningens problem (Stockholm/Stehag: Brutus östlings Bokförlag Symposium). Plath, Iona (1948), The decorative arts of Sweden (New York,: C. Scribner's Sons). --- (1966), The decorative arts of Sweden (New York,: Dover Publications). Polak, Ada (1962), Modern Glass (London: Faber and Faber). Polster, Bernd (1999), Design directory : Scandinavia (New York: Universe). Pred, Allan (1995), Recognizing European modernities : a montage of the present (London: Routledge). Quinn, Bradley (2003), Scandinavian style (London: Conran Octopus). --- (2004), Designed in Sweden (Stockholm: Arvinius). Rampell, Linda (2002), 'En kritisk undersökning av det modernistiska projektet för design i Sverige', (University of Lund). --- (2003), Designatlas : en resa genom designteori 1845-2002 (Stockholm: Gabor Palotai Publisher). Reif, Rita (1957), 'Swedish Crystal Shown in Notable Exhibition', New York Times. Renman-Claesson, Katarina (2011), 'Lindstrand Comments', (Stockholm). Richard B. Freeman, Robert Topel, and Birgitta Swedenborg (1997), 'Introduction', in Robert Topel Richard B. Freeman, and Birgitta Swedenborg (ed.), The Welfare State in Transition: Reforming the Swedish Model (the National Bureau of Economic Research; Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 1 - 32.

339 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Ricke, Helmet (1998), 'A two-way street: Orrefors' dialogue with Eurpoe 1915-40', in Kerstin Wickman (ed.), Orrefors. Vol. 1, A Century of Swedish Glassmaking (Stockholm: Byggförlaget Kultur). Ricke, Helmut (1997), '"Stile Novecento" and "Forme Nuove". Italy's Contribution to European Glass Culture in the Twentieth Century.', Italian Glass Murano-Milan 1930-1970 (English edn.; Munich - New York: Prestel), 11-34. Ricke, Helmut and Thor, Lars (1987),Swedish Glass Factories Production Catalogues 1915 – 1960 (Prestel Verlag). Ricke, Helmut, Gronert, Ulrich, and Kunstmuseum Dèusseldorf. (1986), Glas in Schweden, 1915-1960 (Mèunchen: Prestel-Verlag). Ricke, Helmut (ed.), (2005), Czech Glass 1945-1980 Design in an age of Adversity (First edn., Stuttgart: Arnoldsche). Robach, Cilla (2002), 'Design for Modern People', in Eva Rudberg and Cecilia Widenheim (eds.), Utopia & reality : modernity in Sweden 1900-1960 (New Haven ; London: Yale University). --- (2010), 'Formens Frigörelse Blog ', , accessed 17 September. --- (2010b), Formens frigörelse : Konsthantverk och design under debatt i 1960-talets Sverige (Stockholm: Arvinius Förlag). Roberts, Brian (2002), Biographical research (Understanding social research; Buckingham ; Phildelphia: Open University). Rudberg, Eva (1999), The Stockholm Exhibition 1930: Modernism's Breakthrough in Swedish Architecture (English edn.; Stockholm: Stockholmia Förlag). Rudberg, Eva and Widenheim, Cecilia (2002), Utopia & reality : modernity in Sweden 1900-1960 (New Haven; London; Yale University). Ruding, Ulrika (1998), 'A Hundred Years of Orrefors', in Barbro Hovstadius (ed.), Orrefors 100 years (Stockholm: Nationalmuseum Stockholm). Rydin, Lena and Peterson, Nisse (2009), Karin Larssons värld : [inredning, trädgård, mat, mode, textil] (Utök. och bearb. utg. edn.; Stockholm: Bonnier fakta). Sarpaneva, Timo (1983), 'Ceramics and Glass', in Kathryn B Hiesinger and George H Marcus (eds.), Design Since 1945 (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art), 97-101. Schmidt, Magnus Englund & Chrystina (2003), Scandinavian Modern (Page One). Schön, Lennart, Schubert, Ken, and Studieförbundet Näringsliv och samhälle (2010), Sweden's road to modernity : an economic history (Stockholm: SNS förlag). Sejersted, Francis and Adams, Madeleine B. (2011), The age of social democracy : Norway and Sweden in the twentieth century (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Shenoi, Anita (2009), Sweden - inside out : a snapshot briefing on the country and its people (Malmö: Kakao). Silow, Sven (1995), 'H55 - med ansiktet vänt mot framtiden (H55 - Facing the Future)', in Kerstin Wickman (ed.), Formens rörelse : Svensk form genom 150 år (Stockholm: Carlsson). Skawonius, Sven Erik (1954), 'Svenskt glas 1954', Form, (5).

340 ,2/ "0

+!
"#"/"+ "0

--- (1960), Glas för hushållet (Household Glass) (Supplement to January Form; Stockholm: Svenska Slöjdföreningen). --- (1961), 'Sweden', in Eric Zahle (ed.), A Treasury of Scandinavian Design. The Standard Authority on Scandinavian – designed Furniture, Textiles, Glass, Ceramics and Metal (New York: Golden Press). Skjerven, Astrid (2003a), 'Museum-like: The Role of the Nordic Museums in Relation to the Lunning Prize and its Intentions', Scandinavian Journal of Design History, 13. --- (2003b), 'Museum Like. The Role of Nordic Museums in Relation to the Lunning Prize and its Intentions', Scandinavian journal of design history, 13, 86-99. Smith, Dido (1959), 'Glass: Critics Choice', Craft Horizons, XIX (5). Snodin, Michael and Stavenow-Hidemark, Elisabet (eds.) (1997), Carl and Karin Larsson : creators of the Swedish style (London: Victoria & Albert Museum). Söderlind, Karin and Håkansson, John (2006), Upsala-Ekeby keramik : porträtt av fem konstnärer (1. uppl. edn.; Karlskrona: Albinsson & Sjöberg). Sommar, Ingrid (2003), Scandinavian style : classic and modern Scandinavian design and its influence on the world (London: Carlton). Sparke, Penny (1981), 'Swedish Modern: Myth and Reality', in Nicola Hamilton, et al. (eds.), Svensk Form : a conference about Swedish design (1st edn.; London: Design Council), 15-20. --- (1996), '"Convenience and Pleasantness": Josef Frank and the Swedish Modern Movement in Design', in Nina Stritzler-Levine (ed.), Josef Frank : architect and designer : an alternative vision of the modern home (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press). Stavenow, Åke (1951), 'Vicke Lindstrand Redivivus', Form, (7), 130-131. --- (1954), 'Letter from Dr Åke Stavenow to Konstnär Vicke Lindstrand dated 13 September 1954', (Stockholm: Smålands Museum arkiv Växjö. Unpublished letter). Stavenow, Åke and Huldt, Åke H. (1961), Design in Sweden (Stockholm: Gothia: Bibliofila verk). Steenberg, Elisa (1946), Svenskt glas (Stockholm: Forum). --- (1950), Swedish glass : Translated from the Swedish by Lillian Ollén. [Illustr.] (New York). --- (1952), Svenskt adertonhundratals glas : en konsthistorisk and studie. --- (1954), 'Svenskt Glas - konst och tradition', Dagens Nyheter, 27 augusti. --- (1964), Svenskt glas (2., omarb. uppl. edn.; Stockholm: Forum). Steenberg, Elisa and Simmingsköld, Bo (1958), Glas (Stockholm: Natur och kultur). Stockholm, Design House (2011), 'Our Story', , accessed 11 January Stritzler-Levine, Nina (2006), 'Thou Shall/Not Be Branded', in Liz Hogdal (ed.),Bruno Mathsson Architect and Designer (Malmö: Arena in association with the Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts Design and Culture New York and Yale University Press New Haven and London), 197-215. --- (ed.), (1996), Josef Frank : architect and designer : an alternative vision of the modern home (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press). Svedberg, Elias and Larsson, Lena (1947), Heminredning (Stockholm: Forum). Sweet, Fay (2003), Scandimodern (London: Mitchell Beazley).

341 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Sweet, Jonathan (1998), 'A harbinger of modernism: Orrefors in Australia', in Kerstin Wickman (ed.), Orrefors. Vol. 1, A Century of Swedish Glassmaking (Stockholm: Byggförlaget Kultur). Tarras-Wahlberg, Miss U. (1969), 'Letter to Hal Missingham'. Thor, Lars (1982), Legend i glas : en bok om Vicke Lindstrand (Stockholm: LiberFörlag). --- (2004), Erik Rosén : radikal förnyare av svensk glaskonst , verksam 1947-2003 (Fagerhult: Frommens förl.). Thoreau, Henry David (1908),Walden, or, Life in the Woods (Everyman's Library; London: Dent). Thoreau, Henry David and Cramer, Jeffrey S. (2004), Walden : a fully annotated edition (New Haven; London: Yale University Press). Tucker, Michael (1989), 'Norge I Form: Kunsthandverk og Design under Industrikulturen | Norsk Kunsthandverk/Design (Part Catalogue of the Norge 87 Gothenberg Exhibition) (Review)', Journal of Design History, 2 (2/3), 234-237. Unknown (1937a), 'Lindstrand och Gate lämna Orrefors', Svenska Dagbladet, 9 August. --- (1937b), 'Simon Gate i Konflikt vid Orrefors',Lunds Dagblad, 9 August. --- (1957), 'Glass - A Modern Art', Interiors, (July). --- (1959), 'Why just glass?', mobilia, XXV (44-45). Van Koert, J (1954), 'Design in Scandinavia Publicity and Information Outline.'. Vird (1969), 'Vicke Lindstrands "skimrande hav" attraktion på ny expo i storstäderna', Barometern, 1 February. Wängberg-Eriksson, Kristina (1996), 'Life in exile: Josef Frank in Sweden and the United States, 1933-1967', in Nina Stritzler-Levine (ed.), Josef Frank : architect and designer : an alternative vision of the modern home (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press). Weibull, Nina, et al. (1998), Kärlek till glas : Agnes Hellners samling av Orreforsglas = A love of glass : Agnes Hellner's collection of Orrefors glass (Stockholm: Raster : Stift. Kungstenen). Wendt, Frantz (1961), 'Unity and Diversity in Scandinavia', in Eric Zahle (ed.), A Treasury of Scandinavian Design. The Standard Authority on Scandinavian – designed Furniture, Textiles, Glass, Ceramics and Metal (New York: Golden Press), 7-8. Weston, Richard (1995), Alvar Aalto (London: Phaidon Press Limited). Wettergren, Erik (1921), Orreforsglas (Svenska Slöjdföreningens specialnummer I; Stockholm: Svenska Slöjdföreningen). --- (1937), Orrefors (Stockholm: Nordisk Rotogravyr). Wettergren, Erik and Palm, Tage (1926), The modern decorative arts of Sweden (New York: The American-Scandinavian Foundation) 204 s. Wickman, Kerstin (1999a), 'Modern Swedish design in France ', Scandinavian Journal of Design History, 9. --- (1999b), 'Design- och konsthantverkskritikens dilemma (Design and decorative arts critics dilemma)', in Lasse Brunnström (ed.), Röhsska museets katalog för Torsten och Wanja Söderbergs pris, Nordiska designskribenter : Aðalsteinn Ingólfsson, Island, Kaj Kalin, Finland, John Vedel-Rieper, Danmark, Jorunn Veiteberg, Norge samt Kerstin Wickman, Sverige (Göteborg: Röhsska museet).

342 ,2/ "0

+!
"#"/"+ "0

--- (2004), 'Book Review. Linda Rampell, En kritisk undersökning av det modernistiska projektet för design i Sverige. Designatlas : en resa genom designteori 1845-2002, Scandinavian Journal of Design History, 14. --- (2007), 'The Pioneers', in Carl Hjelte, et al. (eds.),17 Swedish designers : chez Pascale : Pia Amsell (Stockholm: Langenskiöld). --- (2011), 'Scandinavian Design', , accessed 01 April. Wickman, Kerstin and Krantz, Olle (1998), Orrefors. Vol. 2, Glasbrukets historia 1898-1998 (Stockholm: Byggfèorl./Kultur). Wickman, Kerstin and Widman, Dag (1998), Orrefors. Vol. 1, A Century of Swedish Glassmaking (Stockholm: Byggfèorl./Kultur). Wickman, Kerstin (ed.), (1995), Formens rörelse : Svensk form genom 150 år (Stockholm: Carlsson). Wickman, Kerstin; Editor (1998), Orrefors, A Century of Swedish Glassmaking (Byggforlaget- Kultur 1998). Widman, Dag (1966a), Swedish design (Ny tr. edn., Sweden today (1966-1971) (Stockholm: Swedish Institute). --- (1966b), Swedish design (Sweden today (1966-1971); Stockholm: Swedish Institute). --- (1975), Konsten i Sverige. Konsthantverk, konstindustri, design 1895-1975 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell Förlag AB). --- (1992), 'The Kosta Artists - A Rhapsodic Review of the Twentieth Century', in Margareta Arteus (ed.), Kosta 250: 1742-1992 250 Years of Craftsmanship (Kosta Boda), 46-75. --- (2006), 'Bruno Mathsson the Furniture Designer', in Liz Hogdal (ed.), Bruno Mathsson Architect and Designer (Malmö: Arena in association with the Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts Design and Culture New York and Yale University Press New Haven and London). Widman, Dag and Franks, Jeremy (1996), Svenskt glas 1900-1960 : 20 konstnärer, 20 verk = Swedish glass 1900-1960 : 20 artists, 20 works (Cordias kulturguider; Stockholm: Cordia). Widman, Dag, Anderbjörk, Jan Erik, and Brunius, Jan (1972), 'En glasblåsare ett halvsekel på Kosta', in Nationalmuseum (ed.), (Stockholm: Nationalmuseum). Widman, Dag, et al. (1994), Svensk form under ett halvt sekel : Swedish design during half a century (Stockholm: Posten Frimärken). Widman, Dag, et al. (2006), Bruno Mathsson (Malmö: Arena in association with the Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts Design and Culture New York and Yale University Press New Haven and London). Widman, Helena Dahlbäck Lutteman; Arthur Hald; Dag (ed.), (1983), Edward Hald Målare Konstindustrupionjär (Stockholm: Nationalmuseum). Wollin, Nils G. (1931), Modern Swedish Decorative Art (London: The Architectural Press). Zahle, Eric (1961), A Treasury of Scandinavian Design. The Standard Authority on Scandinavian – designed Furniture, Textiles, Glass, Ceramics and Metal (New York: Golden Press).

343 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Zandra Ahl, Emma Olsson (2002), Svensk smak - myter om den moderna formen (Stockholm: Ordfront förlag).

344 --"+!& "0

--"+!& "0

345 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

346 --"+!& "0

#@
#)!,*"#&
#( ),'.#)(
A
% 3
.),-

"%'&
+
>EE@9>FAB Swedish painter, book illustrator and glass artist. Father of Bengt Gate Architect; Artist at Orrefors Glasbruk 1916-45; Ceiling mural Sörängens Folkhögskola Nässjö 1915.

)&*+
')'&9*++*
>F?C9?==E English Sculptor and Glass Artist. Studied at Sheffield College of Art 1941-44, the Royal College of art London. Participant in the Ideal Homes Exhibition 1947 and Festival of Britain 1951; Artist at Kosta Glasbruk Sweden 1951-54 under the direction of Vicke Lindstrand, Artist at Åfors Glasbruk Sweden 1954-61. Director of Konst Smide UK Ltd, the UK arm of the Swedish lighting company.

)+!,)
$
>F>C9>FF@ Swedish design historian, writer, editor, commentator. PhD in Art History 1956. Son of Edward Hald. Director of Svenska Slöjdföreningen, Editor of the journals Form 1946-55 and Kontur 1950-55; Art Director Gustavsberg Factories 1956-72 and Information Director 1972-81; Board member of Design Centre Stockholm and editor of the publication Design until 1985; Author of Simon Gate, Edward Hald 1948, Contemporary Swedish Design 1951 with Sven Erik Skawonius, Swedish Design 1958, Gustavsberg verktyg för en idé (Gustavsberg, tools for an idea) 1991.

.)
$
>EE@9>FE= Swedish painter, ceramic artist, glass artist. Studied economics in Leipzig 1903-05; architecture in Dresden 1905; fine arts in Dresden, Copenhagen and Paris under Matisse 1906-09; Painter 1912-17 exhibited at Der Strumm Berlin in 1915; Artist for Rörstrand Porcelain Factory 1916-24; Artist at Orrefors Glasbruk 1918-33 & 1947-77, Manager 1933-44; Artist for Karlskrona Porcelain Factory 1924-33; Member of Board, Svenska Slöjdföreningen; Author, commentator, committee member on numerous SSF exhibitions; contributor to Form magazine.

#
%(,*
,$+
>F>=9>FEE Swedish Architect and writer, employed by Svenska Slöjdföreningen 1939, CEO 1950-57; Director of Svensk Form Design Centre 1959-64; Board member Orrefors Glasbruk 1959-71; Principal of Konstfack 1964-76; General secretary World Crafts Council 1976-81; Advisor to overseas museums (including V&A), Director General Milano Triennale 1951, Design in Scandinavia exhibition 1954-57, H55 Helsingborg 1955; author Swedish Arts and Crafts. Swedish Modern - A movement towards sanity in design 1939 with Åke Stavenow, Design in Sweden 347 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

Today 1948, The Art of Sweden 1952, Formes Scandinaves 1958, Design in Sweden 1961 with Åke Stavenow and Dag Widman, regular contributor to Form and Kontur.

$
1)

 )*+
>F>B9?==C Swedish columnist, critic, writer. Critic with Svenska Dagbladet on art, industrial design and architecture from 1939-2005; editor of Form 1957-60; advisor to industry including Kosta Glasbruk and Philips during the 1960s; Author Scandinavian Design 1961, Modern Scandinavian Furniture 1963, Modern Swedish Textile Art 1963, Design in Scandinavia 1968, Modern Finnish Design 1969, contributor to Scandinavian Modern Design 1982.

'++!)
'!&**'&
>EF>9>FCE Swedish art-industry columnist and critic. Active with Svenska Slöjdföreningen; Art critic with Svenska Dagbladet from 1939; contributor to Form magazine, author of Funktionalismen i verkligheten (Functionalism in the real world) 1931, Trettiotalets Stockholm (Nineteen Thirties Stockholm) 1942 & 2004, lead essay in Design in Scandinavia catalogue 1954.

+"
"&)
>F>C9>FE? Swedish artist and designer. Artist and designer at Gustavsberg 1937-82 in ceramics, plastics and sanitary ware; Assistant to Wilhelm Kåge 1937-40, artistic leader 1949-1957; textiles for NK from 1947; Television and radio designs for Luma 1959; contributor to Form from 1951.

"#
"&*+)&
>F=A9>FE@ Swedish illustrator, painter and designer. Artist at Orrefors Glasbruk 1928-40; Artistic Director at Upsala-Ekeby 1942-50; Artistic Director at Kosta Glasbruk 1950-73; Artist at Studio Glashyttan Åhus 1977-83. Inventor of the Mykene technique in 1932 using carborundum powder to produce tiny bubbles in illustrations, beneath a layer of overlay glass. Co-inventor of the Ariel technique in 1936 at Orrefors Glasbruk, with Edvin Öhrström and Knut Bergqvist. Introduced colourful Venetian influences into Swedish glass in the 1950s and links to movements in fine arts whilst at Kosta, as designer and manager who adapted the skills of the workforce at the factory predicting, and in response to changing market trends. Facilitated the widespread adoption of the engraving pen in glass production during the 1950s. Designer of glass, light fittings, textiles, glass mosaics and ceramics and illustrator of books and magazines. Created the first in a series of glass plate sculptures at the New York World’s Fair in 1939 which was developed in Sweden and Germany in massive public sculptures during the 1960s and 70s.

348 --"+!& "0

-&
)"#
#.'&",*
>F=E9>FE> Swedish painter, scenographer, designer, author, commentator, propagandist.. Director Svenska Slöjdföreningen 1946-49 & 1958-60; contributor and editor of Form; Artist at Kosta Glasbruk 1933-35 and 1944-50; Scenographer with the Stockholm Opera and Royal Dramatic Theatre 1937-44 Artistic Director and designer at Upsala-Ekeby 1935-39, 1953-57 and 1962-66; Author Contemporary Swedish Design 1951 with Arthur Hald. Married Gunilla Wettergren, journalist and daughter of Erik Wettergren, in 1941.

#
+-&'.
>EFE9>FD> Swedish art historian, writer, critic, commentator. Director Svenska Slöjdföreningen 1935-46; Principal Konstfack 1946-64; lieutenant in the Swedish military during WWII and a close associate of Count Folke Bernadotte. Advocate in the Svenska Slöjdföreningen for the wider public acceptance and further development of Nordic cooperation; Author Swedish Arts and Crafts. Swedish Modern - A movement towards sanity in design1939 with Åke Huldt, Design in Sweden 1961 with Åke Huldt and Dag Widman, regular contributor to Form and Kontur.

$"*
+&)
>F>@9?=>= Swedish art Historian, writer and academic; PhD in Art History 1952; Daughter of Edward Hald; Member of Board of Svenska Slöjdföreningen; Author of Swedish Glass 1950; wrote extensively on glass and aesthetics; regular contributor to Form, Kontur and numerous scholarly journals as both Elisa Steenberg and Isse Hald; Sat on the Council of the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations as the permanent representative of the International Organisation of Consumer Unions 1960s.

) ')
,$**'&
>EEF9>FDD Swedish art historian, author, commentator, critic, curator, propagandist. Curator Department of Prints and Drawings 1915-24 with Nationalmuseum Stockholm 1916-24; Director Svenska Slöjdföreningen 1920-34; Director of the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition; Chairman Svenska Slöjdföreningen 1943-46; Author of Den nya arkiteckturen (The New Architecture) 1916, Vackrare vardagsvara (Better everyday things) 1919, acceptera (Accept) 1931 with Sven Markelius, Uno Åhrén, Gunnar Asplund, Eskil Sundahl and Walter Gahn, Tingens bruk och prägel (The Function and Design of Things) with Nils Paulsson; Professor of Art History, Uppsala University 1934-56. Inaugural recipient of the Gregor Paulsson Prize established by the Svenska Slöjdföreningen in 1950. Regular contributor to Form.

349 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

)"#
'*2&
>F?A9?==F Swedish glass factory manager. Manager of Boda Glasbruk from 1947; Manager of Åfors Glasbruk 1958; Kosta Glasbruk 1964; Responsible for the appointment of Erik Höglund at Boda in 1953 and renowned for rebellious and youthful glass in contrast to Orrefors refinement and perfection. Retired as president of Kosta Boda in 1978. In the 1980s he was director of Kosta Boda; Chairman of Målerås glassworks until 2003. Between 1953 and 1978 he hired sixteen designers. Five of them, Bertil Vallien, Ulrica Hydman-Vallien, Goran Wärff, Anna Ehrner and Kjell Engman remain as current artists at Orrefors Kosta Boda.

)"#
++) )&
>EE@9>FC> Swedish art historian. Head of Art department, Nationalmuseum Stockholm 1920-28 and 1934-42, Museum Director 1942-50; Secretary of Svenska Slöjdföreningen 1913-18, Chairman 1931-43; Director of Dramatic Theatre Stockholm 1928-34. Author of The Modern Decorative Arts of Sweden 1925, Orrefors Glass Works 1937, Modern Swedish Decorative Art/Modern Swedish Arts and Crafts in Pictures 1931.


"%&
>F?A9?==@ Swedish art historian, writer, critic and commentator. Active in Svenska Slöjdföreningen 1949-52, CEO 1963-65, Chairman 1971-75; Chief curator of design Nationalmuseum Stockholm 1966-80; Superintendent Prins Eugens Waldermarsudde 1981-89; regular contributor and editor of Form and Kontur; Author Stig Lindberg Swedish artist and designer 1962, Swedish Design 1965, The Swedish Art Industry 1917-1975 1977, Swedish glass 1900-1960 : 20 artists, 20 works 1996, Bruno Mathsson the furniture designer 2006.

350 --"+!& "0

##@
,(-,#*.-
)
#(. ,0# 1-

The following transcripts retain all inconsistencies, grammar, oddities and the like as true representations of the actual interviews. All measures were taken to seek the consent of the informants for the inclusion of these transcripts in this document.

""8"8
(. ,0# 1
1#."
((
, /.& ,
(
,."/,
#,(-%
.
." #,
")'
#(
"/->
1  (
)(
."
0 (#(!
)
II
)0 ' ,
IGGL

MIJ: Okay, um, so some general questions about, the first is how you came to know Vicke and um what your relationship with Vicke was, um, so yes? Hanne: As I told you before, he just took me in is arms, watched me from the feet up to the head and he said oh little girl I will take care of you. And then it was done.

MIJ: And what about... what about you Arthur? Arthur: I come to Kosta in 1968, and this time was the summertime and the whole factory was closed down. There was only one team working and I helped them and that was when I met Vicke. He was working for an exhibition in Stockholm. I was about 22 years old and I never forget his enthusiasm and his open mind. To me, he called me the little boy – he was very big! I was very short... Hanne: He was very tall... Arthur: …and very tall and I think, I have blown glass six, eight years and I blow wine glasses, beer glasses, glass for using, bowls and things like that and this was the first time I met someone who make art glass, makes something special from the glass material, and I was so surprised that you could do that! And I think if I can learn that, I will never finish at Kosta!

MIJ: It is fairly widely known that Vicke was very close with the craftsmen, and the whole orchestra and conductor thing. But his relationship with other artists is more ambiguous, like there are things written that allude to him not necessarily getting on with other artists or as we discussed having a good relationship with other artists. What experiences have you both had that might sort of, um, clarify that point? Hanne: I don’t know what relationship he had with other glass artists, with some he had a very good relationship for example Sven Palmqvist and Simon Gate - who of course brought him to the glass at Orrefors. Even with me - really he teached me everything - but with other artists I think he had a very good relationship and perhaps it is because of the competition between so he was always so powerful he knew, not only knew he felt he was, um … Arthur: Full of knowledge. Hanne: Yes, full of knowledge but also, um, convinced about his ideas so he was the most powerful out to others because he knew that if I bring this idea it is the very best for the moment. Yes, he was really strong.

351 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

MIJ: Okay. Um, there is little that I have been able to find about his working process, how he actually designed what he designed at Kosta apart form the photographs we discussed where he is sketching with chalk on the floor. Um, did... I know that when he was at Orrefors that he did do a lot of sketches of his designs, um, but when he was at Kosta, were most of them designed as the glass was being blown or on the hot shop floor? Hanne: Oh yeah you gave me this question before today, but now I can recognise it. Yes, some, the art pieces perhaps, but not all was done by sketches but the pieces for the production, for example drinking glasses. You have to do exacting drawings because you have to do the moulds, yeah, and you have to know what, um, volume they will contain and everything so that, so of course he had to make a very correct drawing.

MIJ: Okay, alright. The... with any artist, yourselves included, um, non-production or unique pieces provide an avenue for experimentation and artistic expression. How important do you believe or know that these unique pieces were in Vicke’s process? Like some of the pieces that we looked at today? Hanne: Yes, I know a special example, it is the Prisma. He was, became very known about the Prisma and he told me, “You see Hanne one day I held a Prisma in my hand and I could see my fingers on the opposite side and I thought am I crazy or is something else crazy or what can I do with it?” And he said, “If I do a drawing here I can see it here so I make a ballet or something like that” and he got the engraving around the whole piece. Yes, so now I remember it, I saw my finger here but then I saw them here… Arthur: The mirroring Hanne: Yes the mirroring, yeah.

MIJ: Lindstrand’s relationship with his fellow Orrefors artist, such as Simon Gate and Edward Hald is fairly widely documented, the relationship they had. But very little is known of his relationships with the other artists he worked with during his Kosta years, such as Mona Morales, and Göran Wärff. Arthur: It was so late, Vicke was so lonely, a lonely artist for many years. Hanne: From ‘50 to almost ‘60, ‘64, Göran came to Kosta in ‘64. Mona Morales I think she came already in the late ‘50s. She was also a very strong lady she also had a personality and Vicke respected it. Arthur: Yes. Hanne: So... I think they never went into each others way but perhaps they observed each other but they did’t touch each other as artists they had respect for each other. Arthur: I remember I worked together with her too for several years... Hanne: I expressed it a little different in the afternoon but now I can express it... Arthur: she was a very strong lady. A beautiful lady too, looked MIJ: Yes, I have seen photographs. Arthur: I remember, I work in her garden.

352 --"+!& "0

H: And she know that she was beautiful. A: And she lived up in the forest, long up in the forest and she had a garden there, once she sent me up... H: You in the garden! A: Sent me up to fix her garden, I remember I liked her. But Vicke was a good connection to them but when the people, the young people, Wärff, I think it was a little more difficult for Vicke. H: Yes, as I told you. A: Young people coming in. H: They knew better and they knew in a different way and... A: New times. H: Yes and I think Vicke was, felt a little lost of this connection with the young artists. They never came to him to ask for some advice or something and I think he felt a loss of it because he had so much to give but nobody knew about it but they were all so young and so they thought when you are young you think you know everything! A: Anna Ehrner, you know Anna, she had good contact with Vicke. H: Yes, especially her parents. A: She comes with contact. H: She didn’t have very good contacts. A: She comes in the early 70s. H: Yes, she came after me, or whilst I was there. But didn’t it also you see the personal… A: The personality have to, have to connect. H: Yes and the personal... um, philosophy. MIJ: Has got be thinking the same way? H: Yes and also the feeling and everything needs to be in the same way. If you don’t have it you can do whatever you want it will not work. Yes, and it is nothing against the one or the other it’s just because you don’t have this personal um … A: Connection. H: Connection, yes.

MIJ: What about with the people that he previously worked with at Orrefors such as, um, Nils Landberg, Sven Palmqvist, and some of those people. What where his ... after he had started at Kosta, did he still maintain relationships with these people? H: I think with Sven Palmqvist he was in a relation, yes and I think he had a very big respect for him because he was also a fantastic artist and a very nice person, fantastic. A: A very, very nice person. MIJ: And did they... was the respect mutual? H: Yes, it was. Yes, yes of course. It was very mutual. Perhaps some of them could feel a little behind because Vicke was so strong but Vicke never wanted them to feel that they were behind because he

353 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

thinks they had their personality and he had his. He never would sit on a person and say that you are nothing. Never. He said you have all possibilities but it is your choice to do something from it. A: Vicke was very humble against the material. Very humble about it, that was his philosophy. He said if maybe some people don’t like it, Vicke don’t care about that. He’d go right on and make his glass. I think it’s right, you can’t ask anybody if you feel well about that, he could never do that H: You have to believe in yourself. A: This was my feeling about Vicke always. H: Not only feeling. He always said you have to listen to your material. You cannot make violence to your material, yes? But he didn’t say “you cannot make violence (mimics Vicke dramatically saying you cannot make violence and gestures). A: There is a special word in English…

MIJ: On that, Vicke’s relationship with the glassblowers, and the engravers is widely documented as the team relationship (Hanne agrees) would you care to expand on your knowledge or understanding of how much of a team it really was and how integral the craftsmen were in realising his designs? H: Oh yes. Because he saw a finished product in front of his inner eye. That was his goal. So he knew exactly if I go to the craftsman and I say can you make this and this he will say we have never done it, it doesn’t work, but he would say “I am so much wondering if we do so and so do you think we can afford to get it to this and this” and the craftsman starts to think and do his dreaming and he say “oh you are thinking what I am thinking” so he just got them involved, he inspired them, in the right way so they felt that they was developing a new idea. It was Vicke pushing it to the right direction. A: There was many, many craftsmen in Kosta, hundreds. But Vicke know there was always one of the best in the engraving shop, one of the best in the hot shop, one of the best in the cold shop and Vicke, he was smart, he always picked the right person then when the right person make it he would give it to the rest of the crew. He would go on and make production. H: Yes, they also want to be as well as good as... A: What they make in the hot shop always. I remember that. H: Everywhere. A: He know how to do... H: Vicke worked with me and models. A: You have to remember in the fifties and sixties in Kosta was almost the end of the world. Foxes say goodnight there. People who live there have never outside Sweden or the town, when I came to Sweden in the 60s they had never been, they had been to Växjö. It was far. Maybe in Stockholm, some of them. And Vicke, he met people and he got inspired from people and to come in the hot shop, to the ordinary glassblower he will get nothing. You have to find out some little… H: He always said you have to be with open mind and if there was people who couldn’t open their mind he opened it for them.

354 --"+!& "0

A: He don’t take them either! He take the ones he know! He was open and he wants to find out something new and was interesting to do something new, and Vicke he was so clever he find out this, like a hen to the corn. H: He not only was clever Arthur, he also but he had the right feeling, yeah, because he was always open with open mind and could see or feel now its the right moment to take this person or to push this one and then he got the very best result. MIJ: So he could see who was receptive? H: Yes. He never said “I am coming here please do what I want to”. Never! He was always flexible. A: What did he say about me the little German boy who come? “He looks quite good maybe he has a future there”, he said something like that!

MIJ: Vicke’s participation and experiences in the Milan in the Trienniales, the big design exhibitions, particularly in the 1950s, um, do you know if he met and maintained any relationships with any of the Scandinavian or other artists from abroad that he met potentially at those exhibitions? For example Tapio Wirkkala or Timo Sarpaneva or Venini or Dino Martens, Gunnel Nyman or those sorts of people. A: No I don’t think he did. He had a connection to Swedish architects a lot, some of them for example Bruno Mathsson people like that he was together with but it was not quite international yet in Scandinavia this was in the 50s you must remember but not too easy to meet people. I don’t know if he was in Finland once Vicke, do you know that? H: No, that I don’t know. But I know that Tapio Wirkkala has been in Sweden. And Tapio Wirkkala and Timo, they have been in Sweden and I think he has met them and I know there is one piece where they were discussing who was first it wasthe piece with the asymmetric bubble. MIJ: Ah, The Orchidea (Timo Sarpaneva glass object)? H: Yes, exactly. And it was really a big discussion if it was Tapio or if it was Vicke first. A: I think it was coming from Venice anyway. H: I don’t know. I really cannot say. But it was not a very close friendship or something like that I don’t think so anyway. MIJ: More of professional colleagues? H: Yes. More of an exchange on a more official level I think so, yes. A: At this time we have Iittala. Iittala starts in the 50s to make frozen glass, I remember these schnapps glasses. H: It was in the early 60s. A: They sold in a six pack, they make them in a machine and remember that? It was really successful. We don’t yet have all the industries in Germany and Austria all these countries and Czechoslovakia there was after in the Modern design. You have to remember in the end of the 1800 century the Swedes go to Leipzig to the fair, watching what they are doing in Europe and go home to do the same. At the beginning of the 1900 century, the Swedes start to employ artists. H: That was when Orrefors started.

355 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

A: Then they started to develop their own style. MIJ: But it was by employing the artists that set them apart? H+A: Yes. A: They tried to make something Nordic, from Scandinavia.

MIJ: Okay. There were several exhibitions of Italianand Finnish glass that were staged in Sweden at various times during the 1950s and the 1960s of course, um, and it is likely that Vicke would have been aware of these, um, and possibly attended the exhibitions. Do you know anything about ... I guess what I am looking at is whether you are aware or perceive any direct influences on Vicke from the Italian’s for instance? A: Yes, he had been in Venice several times. MIJ: He had? A: Yes, also together with the master Bengt Heintze once. Yes? Of course the glass we make in Sweden, the technique is Venetian. All the ways we work in the hot shop is Venetian, not like the German way or like the Czechoslovakian way, I don’t know why it has been so this way since most of the glassblowers that come to Sweden are from Germany. H: But some even came from Italian glass works. A: Yes, the first glass blowing hot shop in Sweden was in Stockholm and this was a guy from Venice, the glass maker. But funny, the way to make glass in the Venetian way is also more, you have a bigger possibility to do different things and the German way to make glass its like a theatre from the where you work up in the air, how would you say? H: at a higher level and you blow downwards. A: You don’t sit down on a chair, you stay up and... When I come to Sweden it was hell for me to change my technique to come in to the Swedish way to work with glass, or the Venetian way to make glass. H: And the Czech and Yugoslavian way is very different again. A: There are different ways. H: You see the Italian way is to roll the pipe and the German and East European way is work slow, and then you are much more difficult to form by freehand. A: That is why in Europe we do more Vicke type glass which is easier to do this way but if you want to do figures or things like that then you have to sit . H: You have to have it in front of you, in the Italian way. And I think if you want to see any connections or influence from the Italians in relation to Vicke, then it is the way how to to handle on the chair and his imagination gave him ideas how to do in his way so I can see it.

MIJ: So the visits to Venice, were they early I his time at Kosta? A: 1950s. H: Yes, it must have been in the fifties. A: He used to come in this time to Venice in a different shop. H: If you come as a tourist.

356 --"+!& "0

A: You are not allowed to come in otherwise. H: When we started it was a closed world. We couldn’t come we were looking for Livio Seguso for four days. And then one morning we met a man and we asked him and he said “Artisto? Ci, ci Senore” and he said where it was and we knocked on the door and he opened and he was as surprised as we were. A: It was not easy. H: No, but we got friends from that day. MIJ: So, um, with Vicke going to Venice, did ... A: I think with Vicke takes Bengt Heintze with him, the glassblower to show him that there are a lot of glassblowers in the world that are much better than we are. I think that was Vicke’s idea about it. MIJ: Ah, for motivation. A: Yes, to motivate him. H: Not to put him down. To inspire him that you had ... A: That you had a lot of good glassblowers around the world. There really are, not only in Småland.

MIJ: So you forged a relationship with Seguso? H: We did. MIJ: Did Vicke forge any friendships with any... H: No. But that was also at a different time as Arthur said. It was not at all easy and so open. No. A: There was also the feeling that if we live in Sweden we are the best in the world. In a way... H: It was not only that Arthur it was not open. A: Half the glassblowers in Småland they do not know that there are so many good glassblowers around the world. I mean, in Sweden you have only been blowing glass for about five hundred years. It is nothing compared to Europe where you find glass that is one or two thousand years old. The difference with Vicke is that he know that. H: And he wanted to teach and to show that there is a time before and that we can all give something to each other. A: You have to know about history if you have to, if you like to go to the future. You have to know, for sure.

MIJ: The ... talking about contemporary things when Vicke was active designing, the 1950s and 1960s were a real growth in the number of design journals and craft magazines across the world. A number of them in Europe and a number of them in the UK, such as Domus magazine. I assume this was of interest to Vicke but do you know that he was constantly looking to see what was happening elsewhere and keeping abreast of what was happening in other countries? H: Yes. I think he informed and I know that he, um, had a subscription for the Domus and yeah, he was forced also to inform what was going on outside. Yeah? MIJ: Why do you say forced? H: I mean, um, you had to see how times changed to know where you should put your ideas.

357 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

A: Kosta, I can remember Kosta in the 1950s already started export and Sweden was much too small for Kosta. Kosta in this time was six hundred people employed. Six hundred people employed. And you had ... H: I think there was even more. A: There was even more it was really big and he eed,n I mean all these people need a job to do something. and then at this time Kosta go out and start exports. Also there were not so many on the market at this time. There was not so many glass factories that make the art glass or nice glass. There was not so many artist either. I think today look at America you have over one thousand studios. In Vicke’s time there was not one. MIJ: So if there are six hundred people who were working at Kosta and one designer being Vicke, that would account for the huge volume of designs that he produced, to keep people busy. H: I think there were many different kind of designs. He had many. The ladies with the mosaic and he had the engravers and he had the cutters and he had the blowers and he had, everybody had work because of his designs. A: He had to make a lot. H: And nobody said “oh, if you are so good doing you can make two or three exhibitions because you have so many ideas.” He only had his problem, his work was to give work to everybody in the village. A: That was his, that was what he was employed for. H: And then he played in his free time and made some beautiful, exciting works and people said “oh, can you show it in the exhibition?”. Well, why not. A: In this time people don’t ask for much for art glass. You don’t call it art glass they called it decoarative glass. This was the first difference. Today everybody talks about unique pieces. I’m a glassblower since forty-five years. I know if I make ten pieces I make them much better than a new piece, than the first piece. MIJ: So the first piece is usually the experimental piece and then you perfect it? H: You learn from every piece you make how you can make it better.

MIJ: Of course, that makes sense. Um, in 1964, Erik Rosén became the managing director. And he had new strategies to make the product more youthful and had a agenda to employ younger artists. How did Vicke react to this? A: We don’t know as much about that. H: No, we don’t know so much about it but I think I know so much, but, first he was not asked if he liked it or not. A: And he always, he come to the age, the age when ... sixty. H: It’s now the third age you start, now you have experience but you still have ideas and its wonderful. But it was not the exchange to say “oh, if we take young artists, what can we do together?” He was never asked. Because, I think, he would have been the first person who say “oh, great. We can do something new together.” But he was just put beside and was surprised by the young people. And the young people I think, as I told you, when you are young you think you are best and they didn’t know about

358 --"+!& "0

this wrong connection and so they thought what they are doing it is okay. So they never got the idea to be in touch with Vicke and he felt the loss of this exchange, because he had so much to give. And he wanted to give, yeah? He was very much there when I came and I didn’t know very much and didn’t know who Vicke Lindstrand was. But he could just see or feel and he said: “I will take care of you.” Oh, thank you! A: He had a lot of energy. H: Oh, he had so much energy, yeah. A: He was quite strong physical too. MIJ: He looks quite imposing. H: I think he felt very bad when nobody was asking for his experience. A: The problem was Erik Rosén, he liked to be the king by himself. Vicke Lindstrand was the king of Kosta. H: Yes, he was. A: This guy, Erik Rosén, he felt afterwards, for many years after Erik Rosén came to Kosta but then you have to change production. The clear glass, because he felt he couldn’t go on with that as he employed more people it becomes more and more expensive. He couldn’t go on with that. Then the Wärff’s come and make this snowball, there are no seconds. He make the plates... H: Erik Höglund made it in Boda before [rustic glass]. A: And Erik Höglund made to my eyes the biggest shit in the world, for a glassblower, when I come to the glass material. He made good forms, I don’t mean that. When you work you have to be careful and you have to be clean. That is what you learn. But when it is shit, you can’t be happy with it. That is my opinion and many of my colleagues. But you have to survive and I don’t know, when Hanne and I finnish we make clear glass we make nice glass. That was Vicke’s philosophy, that was our philosophy. We take over. H: But I also want to say that Vicke also had items they could use exactly without any seconds. But he didn’t want to only make the seconds. Yes? He want to show that they are able to make high quality in material, in design, in everything. Yeah? He had a different, can you say proudness? Something like that. MIJ: Erik Rosén had a different agenda that didn’t share the same artistic vision. A: But he was the director, he saw more the economy. He made the Snowball and he was so happy. H: Yes, but that’s the breaking point. Because Erik saw the economy, he was forced to it. But Vicke also saw the economy but was also so sure about his ideas so he could tell the salesmen “you can sell this. You will sell this.” Yeah, and he was so convinced about it that they really did it. But then when Erik came and he new generation without all this experience, eh, from a long time back so they was listening at Erik but they couldn’t put anything against. But Vicke always could put his experience against. That was their problem. A: That was why it never worked. It never worked. H: It will be interesting to hear his interview.

359 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

A: I am sure if you asked Göran Wärff and Ann Wolf and others they would say the exact opposite. But we were a little bit outside form that. We could see it from a little bit of distance. I think so. I think so. H: Yes, we were not even so accepted by our colleagues, the artists. No no! MIJ: Ah. A: It’s not so easy. It’s a little bit of a roller-coaster, believe me. Not easy.

MIJ: Um, okay. So Vicke left Kosta in ’73 under, what I’ve read, apparently difficult circumstances. Now I know you mentioned some things to me today, but is there anything you’d care to expand on about the circumstance that led to him leaving Kosta? Was it, and you don’t have to answer the question if you don’t fell comfortable, um, so we’ll move onto the next question. H: No, I think there was something. Because he only took his car and drove from there. I know that Lars Thor met him, he saw his car driving from Kosta and he left forever. And he never got, as I told you, he never got a flower or a thank you or anything from Kosta when he retired. A: We have to tell that. I think nobody knows that in the whole company. Vicke made a star for Kosta. He sold millions. Millions and millions of his star. The most sold piece in the world. The Rosenthal Star. And Kosta Boda give him fifty percent. Vicke always pay himself. Kosta Boda never pay him, he pay himself. All his salary, he make it by himself. And people don’t know. H: Nobody talks about it. A: No, nobody talks about it. Such a shame. MIJ: And that star that you are talking, that you were telling me about. H: Started in 1964, the star was made first time in 1964. A: The most selling glass thing in the world. H: Yes, it was a best-seller until ’95, and they still sell quite good. We know it. A: We have a lot of customers in Germany that sell this star. One in Munich, he sell a lot of them MIJ: I like the pieces I saw today they were prototypes. H: They were prototypes, they never was produced in that colour. But I remember in the sixties it was very popular with the lilac and even the pink, but especially the lilac, it was very popular for America. But as I know, it was never produced. Only in the clear. A: Vicke was a great artist and was also very good to make money. He said “Hanne, if you like to make art glass you have to make money.” So you can afford it. H: So you won’t be a slave of your ideas, or for your ideas. But he didn’t say it so softly. He said (raises her voice) “Hanne! Remember, you have to make money so you won’t be a slave for your ideas.” A: He was good. H: He was so... MIJ: It’s a nice mantra. H&A: Yes.

360 --"+!& "0

MIJ: The thing, you mentioned that the star sold very well in America and that leads on to my next couple of questions. It was known that Vicke was to take a position with the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, and he was prevented for doing so because of the outbreak of war. Can you tell me anything about any regrets, or anything that he had about not being able to travel to America? And I know we had discussed this a little bit this afternoon. H: Yeah, I only know that he was talking about it many times. Many times. And I think he really would have appreciated to come there but life didn’t want it so he also accepted that and continued to be creative and really to work strong with all his ideas. But he loved to talk about that he, can you say that he loved to talk about how sad he was? Yeah? About that it didn’t work out. A: It was a big market and would have been a big market for him at this time in America. H: I think he could have become a very big artist, a very well known artist. But, as you say, and who knows what was good for the time he stayed here. He made a lot of good things. A: He did a lot for Swedish glass. H: He did a lot for Swedish glass and he had a possibility to develop his personality and you never know when you can over there in such big perspective, you never know if you get lost or if you can handle it, or if you will make it, or if you will be successful. Even if everything is sounds so perfect, you never know. So perhaps it was good for us. You really never know, but he talked a lot about it. Many times. A: I will talk a little bit about that. In the sixties, when the young alliance come - Wärrf, Göran and Ann, this was a big ... they tried to come with new ideas, H: To take over. A: which today, which today, what does Göran Wärff makes Vicke glass today, and everybody in the world. In my mind, clear glass, if you really go back. I remember Göran Wärff, he was a young man when he came to Kosta. He come with his Snowball. He got technical. He make the moulds for that. His wife had the ideas and he make the technical things that help with that. Now, after so many years, forty years, now he makes typical Kosta glass, for the fifties and sixties. Clean and nice glass. Because nobody do that today. All the other ones, anyone can do a Snowball today.

MIJ: It is interesting that you say that. At my presentation before I came, at my university, I had some illustrations of your work, and various other peoples work of the people that I was going to be interviewing whilst I was away. And I had one of the latest vases from Göran. A: One of the coloured? Yes, exactly! MIJ: And one of the examiners said “Oh, when did Lindstrand do these pieces?” H: Yes, the asymmetric. You see Vicke tried to make a asymmetric hole in the pipe. That was the idea. A: I make a lot of pieces for him in this type. I make the fish, only simple fishes, simple form. We blow a lot of them. On the little pipe we made these. And Göran make a lot of glass like this today, a lot. The most bestseller we have just now. I am so happy about this, as if he had come from our time. He came there and tried to make something new, in that time that made all these things like the Snowball. But he is still there and he almost seventy-years old now and he makes Vicke glass, Kosta glass. Like I do.

361 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

MIJ: Okay. This fascination that Vicke had with America and New York, in particular, he designed pieces of glass with names like “Manhattan”. What was the fascination he had with America? I read interviews in the New York Times from the fifties where he talked about a range of glass that he, um, it was about 1957, form 1954 actually, that he said was inspired by the fast pace of the American lifestyle. Was he, did he visit America a lot? Was he quite, was he obsessed with America? What was the interest there, what was the ‘thing’? H: It is difficult to give a correct answer. I think he was never there. He had an imagination of what was America. I think he was fascinated of the open mind. I think he was fascinated of his trust to an open mind. A: He also liked the music, forties fifties. MIJ: Jazz. A: Jazz, yes. An Glen Miller, at this time America was, I said it before it was bubblegum, he loved all this. H: It was the New World, yeah? A: And they won the War. MIJ: Of course. A: I couldn’t understand as a young kid, but now after fifty years I have a little distance to that and I see America many times. H: But also, when you compare Kosta and New York, yeah? Of course you want to go to New York! Because Kosta is only trees... A: And New York is houses and houses and they have lofts everywhere! H: Yes, of course. It is because you are this fascinated optimist. A: I see this time America was, especially for the artist in Sweden, was something new, I mean you see the movies coming from there. MIJ: It was an exciting time. A: It’s like “hello baby. Do you have a match?” H: I think Vicke could say to Marianne, not hello baby but “hello Marianne. Do you have a match?” A: America was to us like heaven in a way, Europe was broken down it was messy, everything was destroyed. Yet a lot people dreaming to go to New York. H: I think it was imagination. A: It was a dream, a Hollywood dream. H: If it was a dream or not, it was an imagination of future. And here everything was dark and poor and broken and there it was like, the big light. Yeah? And it was mirrored itself in the production of artists, more or less. A: My father, my grandfather he was in two wars, two world wars. He never had a good time. They always have to fight to satisfy the greed. H: They still had to believe in the future. Otherwise they could have killed themselves directly.

362 --"+!& "0

A: But we, we were born in the forties. In Europe everything was gone. The fifties started and the Marshall help come to Europe and then we start again and start to dream about the future. We come to Sweden in the sixties. We don’t make a lot of money. It was really not much. It was quite enough to live poor. H: You didn’t need any money. A: But you have a dream, that gets better and better. Now we get a lot better but we have a lot of other problems anyway. We talk about this before. I see, I worry about my children when they grow up, now I worry about my grandchildren.

MIJ: So expanding on that, do you know if Vicke travelled very much? H&A: Yes. A: He travelled to the east, Buddhism, you can see that in the paintings. Vicke went to Thailand, and when he came home, he was painting a lot. He make a lot of things. He gets very inspired. H: The sculpture, Contemplation. It’s from there. As I told you, we should go out and have a look because we have got the model, the first model fromit, and Marianne also gave me a painting from the monks because she said Vicke always wanted, together with the sculpture, you have to have the painting from the monks. So he had several paintings from the monks and normally, we always show the painting by the monks with this model. But actually, as we now show the different models I thought it will be disturbing, so I didn’t put it up, but she always said it should be together. And this model, they had at home in their private home. And she put in her will that it would come to Arthur and I. A: It was not for many people to be travelling much. H: It was in the sixties when they travelled a lot. But they travelled a lot. They loved to travel and to get to see and to... you see when you have an open mind, you never get... you are always hungry. I don’t want to say you never get satisfied but are always hungry. And that forced them. MIJ: And that’s why I’m here! H: Yes, exactly!

MIJ: There has been a lot written about Vicke’s work for Orrefors, but his work for Kosta, from what I have read, has been largely dismissed. Not seen as being as important or of as value as the Orrefors work. Do you have any views on why that might be? A: I think that at Orrefors in 1920s, Orrefors was the first hot-shop in Sweden. They made some new glass, in a new way. At least the engraving was new. H: So the exhibitions in the thirties. A: That’s why people read about it. In Kosta, Vicke made the bread and butter first of all for six- hundred people. Remember, Orrefors is a small town compared to Kosta. Kosta is much bigger, much more people. And Vicke, I don’t think he... H: It was the mother company A: I think Vicke was not to make art glass in Kosta, to make a living for all of the people. H: It was not to make a name for himself first, it was to make living for the people in Kosta.

363 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

A: This come later, this talking about art and all that. But not so common in this time. H: And he was asked for many art pieces, special. For example the companies and they said “we have a celebration for this, and we have a meeting” or something special happens. “Can you do a nice gift?” and he says of course, and he, then he was asked to make, um, wall paintings or outdoor sculpture in glass. People came to him and said “can you do something.”

MIJ: So why do you think then that his, even though the work was not intended as art glass, um, why is it that we read, or I read things about his works that says that it’s sloppy, it’s imprecise, It’s not, I read in the Kosta 250 book that it never reached the heights of the creativity that he had at Orrefors, um, which I don’t personally believe, but why do you think there seems to be this, um, negativity about the work? H: I think it is again I would say, as Vicke would say, it’s the organisation. MIJ: And because he was producing a large quantity of work that was commercially successful? H: He was always successful. A: if you are a little bit successful... it is a little bit like Chihuly. A little bit.

MIJ: Okay. Right. Next few questions are more specific to the two of you. I have read, and from our discussions, understand that Lindstrand was sort of like a tutor to the both of you and you worked from a young time with him at Kosta. Um, would you please, maybe expand on how that has affected and influenced you in your later career with your own glassworks? H: Oh well, it still does! MIJ: Yeah? H: Yes, of course. Of course. We are always influenced from his inspiring and from his, um, specially from, as he always said, “You have to listen to your material.” Yeah? And that is in my neck. If we or I think about an idea, I always think about “You have to listen to your material.” And many times I work glass together with, for example, bronze or stone or something. Then you have to listen to two materials as they fit good together and he opened my mind that you have to listen, you have to make, um, or violence to your material. It’s better if you listen and work together than against. And that has influenced me and it still does everyday. And you see it’s also you even can translate it to people to relations to anything, yeah? So if you think about it it helps you in many other situations too. You have to open your mind, to listen, and then you can have an exchange. If you come and say, it is so-and-so, then you are already at the wall. First you have to open the door, then you can get. That is really still very important, very important for me, and for you [gestures to Arthur] I think. A: Me? I don’t know, because for artists, for what is important to me was very important for me was to come to Kosta in the sixties. The glass was fantastic. You see today, after thirty years, I still love it. My heart is in Kosta. It’s a special hot-shop, Kosta, compared to all the other ones in Sweden. For me Kosta are number one, they still are. H: But particular Vicke?

364 --"+!& "0

A: Yes, a particular style, but to work with glass, the mirror of glass has always fascinated me. I blow hundreds of thousands before I came to Kosta. I did it as a job. But when I came to Kosta, it was different.

MIJ: When the younger designers joined in the 1960s, and we talked about Lindstrand not really being consulted on that, and perhaps feeling a little hurt, shall we say, by not being... Um, and my research has shown that in the sixties there is less of his work in the Kosta catalogues. Was he less productive do you think at Kosta in the 1960s and concentrating on other things, or was he as productive but that something that I have missed? H: No, I think he was as productive as before but he was not allowed to put out his production as much as he did before. And that was why he also started to concentrate on other projects. A: He makes big sculptures. MIJ: Do you think not being allowed to produce his designs, do you think that had an effect on what he did, or those pieces were allowed to go into production, do you think he paid less attention to them because of the difficulties of them perhaps not being able to be... H: Because he didn’t pay less attention to the craftsmen. He had a big respect and he talked with them even on his free time. So they came to visit him, or he visited them and he was discussing ideas and everything. But, you can see that if you have, say you have six-hundred employees you have to produce so-and-so much and one person has designed for all these people, and now they are perhaps three and five people designing but there are not more people to produce. So someone has to, to take a step back, yes? And of course he got forced, or felt forced, to ... that his space got smaller. But as he still had so many ideas, and he could still make the production for everyone, he was first to do something else. You had to get off your ideas to get space for new ideas. And that was when he started to do the bigger sculptures and special works and such things. A: He find new ways, before he got sick he do a lot of things. H: I showed you the engraving he did when the sales went down, and he was always observant and thought, what’s happening? The Prisma! “Oh, that’s interesting! Ah, I can do such an engraving.” He was good painter, so it was no problem for him to do. A: He was a good craftsman also. H: He was always open for all new ideas, for all new possibilities. He was always a very open person, therefore he was very special for us. Like we told you, when we left there the car was flying one and a half metre over the street. He was so filled with energy. He gave all of his energy to us.

MIJ: So, how did he end up coming to work with you at your own glassworks after retirement? How did that come about? Was that at your request, or was that something that just happened or, how did that come about? H: You see we told Vicke about the idea that we had the possibilities to start our own. A: We got a lot of encouragement from him. H: He said “Oh?” and then he was...

365 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

A: Like a tiger. H: And he was like, and he had ideas and oh! A: I won’t forget the lunches and his help with problems. He was great. MIJ: So, you ... with that involvement, did he design any pieces that were... A: Absolutely. The most selling product that we have at Studio Åhus is our little apple. H: I should tell you the story about it because it is such a typical Vicke thinking. He said: “Hanne, when you come to Skåne”, this area here, “you should know that the people in Skåne, they do not know anything about glass, and they know absolutely nothing about crystal. But, remember, they know everything about apples” because they have all the apple plantations here. “So give them an entry ticket and make an apple.” And our first product is the apple, and it’s still our best seller. A: That was thirty years ago! We get the prize for that here, from the community. It is the souvenir for this area. Unbelievable! And they looked terrible in the beginning these apples, but today is great. H: We was very proud about our first apple! But when we celebrated twenty-five years, we showed all the different apples. They looked so different. The first looked so terrible. But that was Vicke.

MIJ: Okay. I’ve seen photographs of Vicke engraving some pieces from your studio. Was that the limit of what he did of the work from your studio, or did he design any further pieces? A: You know, he become sick, he did not feel well. He was down once or two times. H: I think three times. A: He get so sick. So we send him pieces so he has something to do. H: We made pieces to send to him. A: But he was sick, so he couldn’t see any engraving so he made a lot of portraits. H: he made the Linné on a big vase. A: And the Jewish relativity in America. H: Einstein. A: Yes, He make, instead of painting he engraving at home to do something. MIJ: So the bowls, the one I saw today. A: He did it for fun, for something to do. H: He also used to do engraving on raw material, form us and Kosta. Plates and bowls if you can call them raw materials. For example, plates where he put some optical effects and then he engraved them from two sides. And he got beautiful effects for example it looked like a fish coming through the waves. And so just because of this double engraving. So he did a lot of new things even then. Even until the last days, yeah. A: Following he get so ill. It was so bad. But we had so much fun with him and his wife.

366 --"+!& "0

MIJ: So I know you told me today, how you came to have the collection of his work that you did. But can you just go over that again, um, how you came to have that very unique and interesting collection of his work? H: It was because, as we have discussed, we had a fire in 1985 and when we started to work again after that, we were so busy and we made some money. So we said we dared to start again after the fire, so why not dare to make a nice exhibition space and shop for us. And we decided to do it and we did it, and then we had our old shop and we got the idea, and we asked Marianne Lindstrand, Vicke’s wife, and said would you mind if we could show the pieces that are packed at the museum in Småland, the glass museum to show them here in our exhibition. And she got very happy. Really very happy, and she said “oh, I will appreciate it”. So we opened a little, like a showroom. We didn’t even call it an exhibition of Vicke’s work, as he was my master and best friend. And then we had it for some years until she died and she put it in her will that the rest of her private collection - pictures, models, statues, everything - should be in this collection, in what do you call it? A: Stiftelsen. H: Stiftelsen, yes. So and then we did this glass wall and I made the room like a living room with all the Vicke around her, and it was really very nice. And now it is more strict and open space and so it’s also nice now but you can’t see so many things at the same time.

MIJ: Okay. Um, so how - and this is a very broad question - how significant do you believe Vicke was to Swedish glass design and why? Would you, depending on what you say, would you expand on why you believe that? H: Yeah, he was very significant um, both because of his knowledge, his personality, his openness and his strong power or personality to operate with craftsmen. As I told you he said “I am the conductor, they are my orchestra and together we get a great result.” And that was very significant for him, very significant and he also could inspire craftsmen to do their unbelievable thing because he could convince them of his ideas and they wanted really to show that I can also do it. Yes, so he got everybody with him. Every craftsmen he got them with him. You have seen the big sculpture in gold- plated in the centre of Nybro, and also the models? You see to be an ironsmith and do such work, it is so thick iron, to turn it, I’m a silversmith and I have also worked with iron and I know how hard and how tough the work is, and to make it so fantastic and so convincing, and so touching. You can be the best designer in the world but if you don’t have the craftsmen who can translate it for you, then it is nothing. But he could get everything out of them... A: Find the right people. You know, this is different from America. In America all the artist have studios and can blow themselves. In the fifties, sixties and seventies in Sweden no artist was blowing. A lot of Americans asked him, do you blow the glass yourself. But that is not the way in Europe. In Germany either, we have special artists that have the ideas, and then they go to the craftsmen. I think we get a much better result. H: For example me. I never could work, now for example, our Graal work; there has to be four strong guys to make it. How should I be able to do it as a woman? I can’t. But I can instruct, yeah? And we can

367 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

work together. I very often use my master’s works, a conductor yeah? We get a nice result, or a perfect result together. Yeah, and we also sign all of our pieces with all that were involved.

MIJ: very good. So, we talked about this earlier today, the studio glass movement that happened in America in the sixties because there was always the strong tradition here of the artists working with the craftsmen the studio idea via America, didn’t really take hold here? Would I be correct in saying that? It didn’t really, that sort of thing didn’t happen much here perhaps. A: No, not here. Not so much. It comes a little bit, we have some. H: yes but you see they are mostly, they are ... A: Girls. H: No not girls, what do you say, not all freedom they are limited either because of their strength or because of their technical possibilities or because of something, yeah? But if you are a team in a studio with good craftsmen and good ideas, you can do much more together. But if you do it by yourself you are limited in your own position or your own possibilities. Yeah? I don’t mean to be bad, but limited. For example, me, I am so free with ideas because I have such a good team. Yeah? So I am really privileged to work with a good team to get out much more ideas and much better. A: We get also a lot of students in Sweden in the seventies and the eighties, I think we were the second in Sweden studio. The first one was Åsa Brandt in Sweden, then we. You can see these studios are survivors, because they are professional glassblowers. Sven Carlsson, Jan Erik Ritzman the three, four that all of us come from Kosta, they work together with artists that was a possibility to allow survival. All these young girls that go to the glass school in Orrefors - you never hear from them. H: yes, and you see you need the artistic-al education and the crafts education. so you can, um, complete each other with all the knowledge for a good result. If it is only a simple glassblower starting a studio then you don’t have education, the artistic-al education so then he is limited. And I think our combination was perfect because I had the artistic-al education and Arthur had the technical education and together we could develop it into something very good. And without him, or my team, I would be nothing. But without me, they would be something but not so much as we are together. MIJ: I can relate, it’s like architecture, without a good builder, you don’t have good architecture. H: No. I think that, Vicke understands from the very beginning. So he really took care of all of his, er, possibilities around him and made something special. A: Oh, there were a lot of good craftsmen. H: Oh... and you see they loved to work with him. They could come in in the middle of the night, they could come every time he wanted because he inspired them. They felt they were part of the result. That was so great. And I always think of it, that is so important. MIJ: Okay, I am going to turn that off now...

368 --"+!& "0

##@##@
(. ,0# 1
1#."
,#%
)-4(
.
"#-
")'
#(
&(>
1  (>
IP
)0 ' ,
IGGL

Erik Rosén [without prompting]: In Sydney, there is where you buy vegetables and things. We [Kosta Boda] rented a little flat there, one room or two.We had our exhibitions there. And then from there we went to Kippax Street [Double Bay] and had a good office there. And then we went, you know, when you cross over the [harbour] bridge... MIJ: To North Sydney? ER: Yes. We had a big location there. So I myself have, I know, I was friends with all of the customers in Australia. I went to Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Canberra and wherever you like. And I saw myself together with MIJ: So you know all the people that were collecting the glass? ER: I was at least twice every year, you know. MIJ: Fantastic! So, I mentioned to you that the research I’m doing is about Vicke Lindstrand, and what I am looking at in my research is the Kosta period, because everybody talks about the Orrefors period... ER: And Upsala-Ekeby. MIJ: And Upsala-Ekeby, but nobody talks about the Kosta work as well as I think they should. So I am doing some research to understand how... ER: Have you written about all of the books that he had? MIJ: I have every, single... ER: You know the background? MIJ: I know the background. So, um, I have prepared some questions I will ask you. Just about Vicke, and hopefully, you might be able to shed some light. ER: You know, I work with him from sixty-four. I was, I was managing director for Kosta in sixty-four. And when he retired it was seventy-three, or something like that. So I worked with him for eight or ten years, or something like that.

MIJ: And, well, let me ask you the first, a few questions. Um, one of the questions... It is very widely known in books that I’ve read that Vicke had a good relationship with the glassblowers and the engravers, and it was like a team relationship. Is that your recollection of it? ER: You know... if you... my opinion you know... MIJ: And that’s all I’m asking for. ER: You can take coffee there you know. MIJ: Yes thank you, would you like some more? ER: No, You know, you know, Vicke Lindstrand, he was a very strong personality. MIJ: I have gathered that. ER: Very strong personality. Egoist, you say egoist? You know what that means? MIJ: He was egotistical?

369 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

ER: Yes, he concentrates very much on himself. He was a dominant man also in physical you know. He have tall, he was... and he had a voice you know, like an opera singer. And dominating you know. And, um, then He was, so, what should I say, he was so ... he know everything, besides that he was a good artist. Besides that was, he had ... he know everything else you know: politics, whatever you like. He was ... had an opinion on everything you know. And he was so dominating in his personality you know. He was got about the workers you know. I mean, I think he was, he was not too well, he was not too friendly with them you know because he was so dominating.

The best glass blower we had was a man called Bengt Heintz and they were very close together he was very, he was ... I mean Bengt Heintze made a lot of suggestions to Vicke Lindstrand you know and I ... but he didn’t like Vicke Lindstrand either you know because he was too dominating, he want, you know, he decided everything you know and Bengt Heintz was more like an artist you know he had his own opinion. So it was, it was natural that that they had, um, problems together you know. But at the same time everybody respected Lindstrand because he was so famous and he was so skillful you know. So by that, they respect him like I did also. But I had ... but Lindstrand, he was a difficult man, because of his personality. And he was so dominating you know and, I ... besides ... it’s only me who knows it you know. But I don’t criticise him for that but he was so difficult ... when I went to Kosta you know, sixty-four, he had a contract before that that he had a special position in the company so he could decide himself, if he wanted, he if he had an engraver and a cutter and the glassblowers it was his decision and not the managing, management there. Then I ... and he ... Kosta made losses at that time, you know, which was why I was brought in you know. Because I should, I had been in Boda so I know a little about glass.

So, when I was there you know I had to tell Vicke Lindstrand that now it is my decision if want to have a time in the engraving department or he wanted to make an item or whatever it is, I had to signature you know. If you can understand, I was rather younger than he you know. So we had lots of trouble in that respect. But at the same time, I respected him and he respected me. It was you know. MIJ: So he, um... ER: But you know I say when we talk about the workers they respected him. And they know that he was very artistic-al and a good designer and they a very good, they had a respect respect for him personally you know because he was so dominating you know. In voices, in physical and everything. MIJ: He certainly seems that way in everything I have read and heard. ER: He was so self-confident you know, he said to me that “I already world famous” he said, “so you don’t need to advertise me because I am already world famous” he said to me. MIJ: He was very aware. ER: He was, you know. And it was because he had so many, so many successful ideas you know from Orrefors and Upsala-Ekeby. That was, and I know, at the same time you understand, I don’t want to criticise him but he was a difficult man in that respect he was so self confident you know.

370 --"+!& "0

MIJ: Well, I guess I am trying to pull out and understand more about the man. ER: It’s my own opinion.

MIJ: It has been documented that when you came to Kosta, that you had had success with Erik Höglund... ER: He was in Boda you know. MIJ: Yes, and you had an idea with Kosta to make the glass more appealing to a younger market, and to be fresher. How did Vicke Lindstrand fit into trying to design for... he was getting older, the market was younger, how did he work? ER: You know, it was all ... to start with I went to Boda already in nineteen-hundred and forty-seven, you know. And Boda in that respect, had a ... was very new to design you know. We had our own design you know we made restaurant glass and so like that you know, so it was no design. So then, it was nice to say, to be more design conscious you know, and by that I employed Erik Höglund it was very successful. He was a very fantastic designer. An artist. And then, then I went to Kosta. And, according to my opinion, you know, Kosta was already founded in seventeen-hundred and sixty-four you know. And they had a big tradition and to me you know, I, we should base our designs according to the tradition. Because they made crystal you know, they made full lead crystal, they had famous reputation all over the world so. And ... Vicke Lindstrand, you know, he had the same opinion because he came from Orrefors because they were, what should I say, they were very conservative in design. Lindstrand had about the same idea and he worked very much with engravers and cutting and also with the glassblowers but it was according to Orrefors Kosta style. The traditional but more the traditional style you know. And, when I was there you know, I was of course a little influence by the success of Erik Höglund and Vallien you know. And then I went to Kosta it was too much conservative design in Kosta according to my opinion. In that respect, Lindstrand, he was conservative designer in that respect you know. And he couldn’t understand Höglund and his design you know. And, at the same time, it was difficult to sell Lindstrand’s design and Orrefors’ design because it was too neutral and too conservative and they have seen it for fifty years you know! And therefore I had to do something more. I advertised for designers and then we, I employed the Wärff’s. Göran Wärff and Ann Wärff you know. And they worked ... it was the first year I went to Kosta I employed then you know and he didn’t like it Lindstrand you know. There were, he meant these designers they should hurt the Kosta image you know. Because they have lots of new impressions you know. I don’t have much of them here. It meant that we went too far for the modern time you know, but it was necessary because Göran Wärff and so, they had success you know. And Lindstrand he was the king before you know and now he had a competition, Göran Wärff and so, and he didn’t like it but he accepted it.

MIJ: I have noticed in looking at the glass that Lindstrand designed, he, in the 1960s, he didn’t produce as much, and that is probably, or as I understand it, because there were other designers as well. And his work wasn’t perhaps as exciting as the work that he did when he first came to Kosta in

371 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

the 1950s. Um, do you, what do you remember or recall about his productivity? How productive was he? ER: He was very productive. MIJ: He was? ER: Because in contrast to Erik Höglund and Wärff, he could work all the scale you know. He could design engraved things, he could design cut things, he could design cup things he could design glasses we call it ... we call it ... when you made it in the glass you know you made some effects in the glass, that he was very for, all these stripes, coloured things you know and know everything about. So the he was good designing drinking glasses so he had all the scale you know. Instead of like Höglund you know he could’t make very much of drinking glasses and couldn’t make the engravings and so on - the same with Vallien you know. They had these more modern vases and bowls which was already in the glasshouse you know. So, in that respect Lindstrand was the most complete designer because he could do everything. If you think about his engraved things you know they are fantastic. MIJ: They are, yes. ER: Yes, yes. Fantastic because he was a good, what do you call it? MIJ: Illustrator? ER: Yes, illustrator. We had lots of success with that you know, with his figures. You know it was the best you could get but you know it was too expensive then you know and there was no interest in the market. Besides, it was so fantastic workmanship also because we had so many fine engravers in Kosta in that respect you know which were trained. They worked very much with Lindstrand you know. He was, I mean, in that respect he was fantastic. He was, he was almost like Hald and Gate in Orrefors you know. The same style you know.

MIJ: So, in the sixties then, when you were running things at Kosta, he... ER: He was very productive then. MIJ: Yeah. What I have seen of the work he produced, and I have spent a couple of days at the museum in Växjö going through the archives there, he was interested in cut glass and engraved glass. More so in the sixties than any of the blown and underlay glass and coloured glass. And, um, I wonder - and this is me thinking - if the younger artists were exploring new ideas that were perhaps a little foreign to Lindstrand, that perhaps he concentrated on things that he knew and worked with the engravers and cutters that the younger artists were not utilising. Would that be a fair thing to say? ER: Yes. Because he didn’t like ... he liked design that was very, very strict you know. Because it was his mind you know. He was interested in cut and engraved in 60s. I wonder because younger artists were exploring foreign ideas he worked with what he know. He liked design which was very strict. It was his mind. He didn’t like to play around. Like Erik Höglund, like Wärff. They made lots of things you know which he didn’t like at all you know. Like the Snowball you know. It was not Lindstrand’s thing you know to make snowball. And the same like that you know. This is [picks up a plate] a plate Göran Wärff you know it was to free for his, if he had made it it would have been much more neutralistic you know. Like a face or so, but he didn’t like these fantasy things you know.

372 --"+!& "0

MIJ: It was too abstract? ER: And you could see it also in his behaviour and clothes and everything. He was conservative you know. He was a man who made, who had this like I do you know[refers to clothing]. You couldn’t think that he was come into the office with a shirt and,what do you call it, jeans. He was formal, all his clothing. MIJ: So he was always very well dressed? ER: When he talks you know he talked very well you know, formally and so on. The same with the glass. He didn't like to play around.

MIJ: I know, from what I have seen, there are a lot of Lindstrand’s work had been unique pieces, rather than production pieces, from the 1960s. ER: Yes, we should talk about the engraving. We made lots of things which were not produced you know, just one or two you know.

MIJ: Is there a reason why that, why he mainly did - and this is my observation of the sixties - he mainly did more limited rum pieces rather than... ER: It is not right because he made lots of things like drink glasses which was made in big quantities you know. I mean he was, I can show this when we go down there, like all his glasses you know. He made at least four successful bar lines. He called them like Caribbean songs you know. He had Calypso, Mambo, and we four of these lines you know which was very successful. And he designed bar lines, and um, ice buckets and things you know.

MIJ: So, with the younger artists and during your time, what sort of relationship did he have with them? Professionally, was there... ER: He didn’t like Wärff. They were very fine people if I say so, but he didn’t like to tell them, to discuss with them, for some, I can’t see because they were so friendly. But he was not friendly with them you know. And it can be that he was jealous because of their success you know and of course they had great support of mine, from myself you know. It’s like all the new scenes you know. He was now more or less retiring and they was successful and a good feeling of the younger generation you know It was natural that he, everybody should feel this way.

MIJ: Yes, that’s understandable. Um, he, do you know, in your time of knowing Vicke, he travelled a lot. Was he interested in other things that were happening? From what you have told me, he didn’t tend to get along with the new designers. But was he watching what was happening in other countries, like perhaps Italian glass and Finnish glass. ER: Ja, ja, ja. I mean, I can’t really judge but as I feel, you know, he was, he worked very much at home, and concentrated on that in a way. I couldn’t see that... international, he travelled very much to America and England. It was, I don’t think he ... something. He was not keen on that. And he had a

373 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

wife also. I don’t know if his influenced of it youknow. He had one sone you know. In his first marriage. But I didn’t see him at all you know.

MIJ: What about other glass artists? ER: No. Of course he had friends in Orrefors you know, Landberg and Palmqvist but I couldn’t feel that he was so friendly of them and mates. I think he was lazy, I think he thought he was a little more famous than them to some extent, more skillful. I think he was very isolated.

MIJ: So, you mentioned that he did most of his work at home? ER: Ja. He had a very fine house in Kosta. MIJ: So he would produce most of his design in the studio in the house and then bring them to... ER: Yes, and then if he made a design for drinking glasses or a design that was a kind of a vase or whatever and then he went to me and then we discussed it and so I decided that I liked that or didn’t like that then I signed it you know, what I liked, and then he went. It was possible for him to take it to the factory to make it you know. But I refused many times his designs of course he didn’t like that. He could thump on the table.

MIJ: So, the designs that you didn’t like, was it because they were not right for the market and the time? ER: Of course. They were not good for production or whatever so it was that aspect. And, of course, if we talk about the drinking glasses you know, of course I had my opinion what was good for the market and so on. And also the sizes that they like.

MIJ: The Kosta star I am interested in? ER: Ja. The Rosenthal star you mean. It was before my time. MIJ: Ah. So that was produced, because I wondered why it was produced by Rosenthal. ER: Because it was so difficult to make you know so we Kosta had not the resources to make it you know. Because it was the moulds you know were so difficult, complex you know. And Rosenthal, you know had the technical skills to make it you know. So he had a bonus from them you know all the time. We signed a contract so they had the right to produce it you know and we got a bonus and the same with Lindstrand.

MIJ: Ah, okay. Um... ER: It was fine, fantastic shape that. MIJ: Yes, it’s a very successful piece of glass. Um, he, when Lindstrand, in the sixties tended to concentrate more on the public sculptures and the grand sculptures. And I have also seen in his Kosta work from the sixties that he was doing more sculpture than he was - or perhaps my perception - than he was doing more vases and utility objects.

374 --"+!& "0

ER: No, because have you seen these sculptures with flat glass? MIJ: Yes, I have. ER: And it was his own work, we only made them for him you know. All the negotiation with the customers, it was his decision you know. So we made them for him you know. We had special people. So he had to pay us for that but I would say that in the years I was there he worked at least eight or ten moths for Kosta and the rest he had other things.

MIJ: So, in the books that do mention Lindstrand, and his work from the Kosta period, um, there seems to be a tendency to, I guess, not view the Kosta work at the same level as the Orrefors work. So when people write about Vicke Lindstrand, they’ll talk about the Orrefors work as being very important, and why they think it is important. And the Kosta work they tend to downplay. ER: It is right. It really irritate us you know. MIJ: do you have a view as to why that has happened? ER: No. But you know this is because of history you know. Because Orrefors in the twenties you know, was so famous and well known, and they had Hald and Gate, and you know all the exhibitions they made you know, made Orrefors a star you know. And then Lindstrand was tutored to them you know an therefore, I think, these names, Hald and Gate, influenced Lindstrand so they thought that it was the combination together you know, which means they only concentrate on Orrefors designer that Kosta. Because they consider Lindstrand to be an Orrefors designer, instead of Kosta designer. Because he started with Orrefors and he became famous there you know, and they made lost of fine exhibitions with Orrefors you know. So it probably a lot of time before they considered him to be a Kosta man you know. MIJ: Even in recent publications, in the last few years, they still tend to favour Orrefors over Kosta. [Rosén agrees]. You said this annoyed the people at Kosta during your time there. ER: Yes. Because you know, when I started at Boda you know, of course Orrefors famous leading name in Sweden. Many times they said to me you know, that Orrefors we have to have you know, but Boda we could skip you know. Because you are not famous enough and you don’t have the designs you know. And that irritated me of course you know. And the same with Kosta. So we couldn’t succeed with Lindstrand to make Kosta famous you know, we had to do something else and it was then that we had Göran Wärff. When we had Göran Wärff it was a new developments you know. Now, they consider that something happens at Kosta because it’s a new artist and there are new impressions. And Lindstrand was about the same as he was at Orrefors. They associated him with Orrefors all the time of course. But he made lots of things in Kosta because when he went to Kosta, Kosta was really declining. So we have made lots of fine things with him, and that he was famous from Orrefors and so on. Lindstrand was a man we couldn’t make it on. And then he was, he was a man who can make popular designs you know. He know much of the market you know.

375 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

MIJ: So, in the 1960s, I mean he was very successful in the 1950s, particularly in America with the glass. In the 1960s things were changing and tastes were changing, was his work still commercially successful? ER: Yes. Perhaps half of the production in Kosta was Lindstrand design. But at same time he had, he was alone more or less so he could design all the production for Kosta you know without competition from anybody else like Orrefors for example, so they could split the production. He could at least At, Kosta was larger than Orrefors you know. So he had lots of capacity by that respect you know. We had all the, we had an engraving department, we had cutting department, painting department whatever you like you know. So he could do whatever he liked.

MIJ: So, in your time with Kosta, what was his most successful work, in terms of, what was the most commercially successful of his newer work when you were there? ER: But you know it’s the Iceblocks! You remember them? It was fantastic, fantastic production. He made a technical also, it was an invention. Because he could make the bears from the bottom you know. And he made an invention in that respect, because before we had the cutting wheel like that, and he made with a tooth, what do you call it, tooth drill. So he worked in that respect from the bottom you know. And it was his idea you know. So now everybody, all the engravers work with the tooth drill instead of cutting wheels you know. So it was you call invention. MIJ: So the Iceblocks sold in great numbers? ER: Oh yes. We couldn’t make enough of them you know. And that was, and then we had all the drinking lines, the bar lines. They were successful as well. And oh, his vases you know. Giraffes and so on, and lots of them because you know he was a fine sculptor. And the birds were there you know, I have nothing left of them here you know. It was a fantastic, big production of that. And also vases you know.

MIJ: And a lot of the pieces he designed in the 1950s were still being produced in the late sixties? ER: Ja. But we couldn’t, but his design with Orrefors was Orrefors. MIJ: yes, but some of the pieces... ER: But you know, he was, some of the pieces, you know Graal? Graal he worked very much with that in Orrefors you know, together with Hald and Gate you know. But I was so, I had such a fair play you know, so I said to Lindstrand: “this Orrefors invention it’s their production. So I don’t like you to work with it in Kosta because I like to have it, I don’t like to copy Orrefors.” And he didn’t, because he could make lots of Graal glass that was fantastic, but I did not want him to do that. No. And nowadays you know, I can see that Ulrika Vallien, and Kjell Engman, and others, they make Graal glass you know at Kosta Boda you know. I think that was their style, their invention you know. For example, if Orrefors had made our Iceblocks, you know. They didn't do that you know. So I think we should, the limits should be morally right you know. MIJ: Yes. It’s the branding.

376 --"+!& "0

MIJ: He left Kosta in 1973, eventually, he retired? ER: Eventually, he retired. I think he was sixty-five. MIJ: Was he still producing right up to his retirement at Kosta? ER: I can say you know, but at the same time, I can’t understand Vicke you know. He was not so successful in last years you know, his designs didn’t sell so much. And he was of course very disappointed about that. Of course he could blame on me and say I didn’t help him in that respect and all that. So when he should retire I said to Vicke “Now we have one year and we have an exhibition of NK” which was the best department store “and you can do whatever you like and that can be your last exhibition. And you are free to everything you like” I said. “ So don’t come blame on me that I’m ...”. So he did it for half a year in one year he had lots of designs you know, of all kinds of styles you know. And then we made an exhibition in NK you know and lots of advertising and so. But they were not appreciated at all you know. It was old style. I think he was very disappointed about that. But they didn’t like his designs and so. MIJ: That was in the early seventies? ER: No, no. That was when he left. But for me it was very, what do you call it, I liked him to really to ... make whatever he likes you know and he first of all that he had made a lot of designs and he was so successful. He made a lot of good thing for us. And I think now he could make his testament. I can really, in my own conscience that I can say that he had the possibility to do whatever he like and I told him that. But he didn’t succeed you know. No. It was too conservative. The public, people you know had seen it before you know. But the same with all of us you know. We are too old you know.

MIJ: Absolutely. Vicke, from what I have read, was fascinated with America and New York. ER: But I don’t know about that. MIJ: That was the 1950s? ER: But he was a good singer you know and played guitar. MIJ: yes, I have heard, and played the piano. ER: He was a fantastic voice you know. He could sing you know.

MIJ: And he, did any artists from any other countries like maybe Tapio Wirkkala or Timo Sarpaneva or Paulo Venini, did they visit? ER: No, not in my time. MIJ: Not in your time? ER: He probably know them. Because Rosenthal you know Philip, he had probably contact because of his star you know. But he didn’t employ him. I don’t think they need him so much, Rosenthal because they have Wirkkala and among other things. But I don’t think that Lindstrand got an offer from Rosenthal. It might be that it was true, maybe they didn’t like him? I don’t know. MIJ: He remained living in Kosta? ER: Yes, all the time. He had no mates and he didn’t like to entertain with other people in Kosta you know he was very selective. I had my home in Boda you know. I had a wife who was very good you

377 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

know with entertainment and dinners you know. So when it was customers like NK, I always invited Vicke Lindstrand because he was famous and he was interesting to discuss with because he knows so many things you know. But, at the same time you know, he had such an anger you know, so if he get irritated by somebody you know, he could, what do you call it, aggressive you know it was a little, it was too much you know, because they think that, what do you say, it was not good humouristic you know. MIJ: So he didn’t have a sense of humour? ER: No. It was because he thought of himself that he was the best man at everything you know. If it was politics whatever it was his view. And couldn’t respect other people you know, other people’s opinion you know.

MIJ: So, if I had to ask you the question, um, how do you think Vicke Lindstrand fits in the history of Swedish glass from last century? How significant do you think he is. ER: I mean, he was in his style the pupil. It was two things, it was Hald and it was Gate and then it was Lindstrand. But he was as good as them. I must say. So if he could have the same reputation as Hald and Gate if he had been another man you know. But he was fantastic man. So he has a good reputation in history of Swedish glass factories. He had the same standard as Hald and all, but it was their time you know, fifty years and then it was ours. And then eth revolutionary of the whole thing, it was Erik Höglund because it was quite, Orrefors and all that were together with Lindstrand. They were too elegant you know and they couldn’t use their designs because it was too weak and thin and whatever you know. And was so expensive also. Then Erik Höglund come. He made colour glass you know, with the bubbles and it was something new and you could use. It was salad bowls, jugs, whatever you like. Then young people, they could do with it in the table you know. It had a practical. MIJ: So it was useable? ER: It was useable you know, and then it was not too expensive. And then you could do it with your washing machine. And Orrefors and Kosta and that, and Lindstrand you know, it was too elegant. They were tired of it all the young people you know. They had their time you know. And now there should be a new time. For now what Höglund made you know, in the fifties, it has now developed so Vallien has it and Kjell Engman has it Monica Backström. Now they have to do something else. There must be a new revolution in the Swedish glass industry. There is no designer who can make it nowadays, in my opinion. MIJ: You don’t see a standout designer currently? ER: Well, Hald and Gate you know. They were a revolution. Instead of this cutting glass we had before. And Göran in that resect you know. MIJ: So you don’t think there are any younger designers out there at the moment? ER: No. Kjell Engman is skilled for example. He doesn’t have style I like a least. MIJ: What do you think of Göran’s work? ER: Ah, he is fantastic. He could be, but you know he was a man he could use the brilliance of the glass and the colour of the glass you know. Together with the glassblowers I mean. So he, because it is fantastic to study that you know, study the brilliance of the glass, the crystal and so on. He had the

378 --"+!& "0

patience to do it you know. The skillful. And he should realy be the man that could, much more famous than he is. He is a man who didn’t like to sell himself you know. MIJ: Very humble? ER: Very humble. Not like Lindstrand. MIJ: He is very well known in Australia because he spent time there. ER: It was my fault that he went there. MIJ: Because you took him for an exhibition and he met and married a woman and stayed there. Yes, because he... ER: I don’t remember, but she lived also in Kosta at one time. She was a scriptwriter in, we had an advertising agency. MIJ: Okay that is all the questions I have.

379 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

##@###@
(. ,0# 1
1#."
,-
"),>

,&(>
.)%")&'>
H
  ' ,
IGGL

MIJ: How did you come to know Vicke Lindstrand and perhaps expand on your relationship? LT: I met him for the first time in 1975 because then he had made a model to Legend i glas and Hannelore as you know had made a silver model. The chairman of the of the community in Växjö was my chairman at the Museum too, where I was the manager of the Smålands Museum at that time. So he said to me one evening “now we go out to see Vicke Lindstrand and see what he has to show”. So we went there, and there were three people, and Vicke showed the model and said “this one should be at the big market in Växjö” and he had done, you know what it is the Legend, and you have seen the model?... and you know he also thought that there should be a stone wall around it, a Smålands stone wall, and then we had a very long discussion in Växjö and people were thinking not in the big market, we place it another place, and the discussion lasted for some years about this, where shall Legend i glas be? Many said we should not have it, and then Vicke had made one in Umeå, Grun Eld and Prisma in Norrköping and all three of these had been ordered by the cities there, but in Växjö, there was no Legend i glas.

So finally just the Chairman said in the community, we make it but we build it at the new library, and so the stone wall it wasn’t, you have a very dull wall today and it became smaller than it was thought to be from the beginning. A little over one metre or so. These are the last 8mm glass from Emma Boda Glassworks, they stopped making the glass in Emma Boda three weeks later. So you had glass in sheets, 8mm, he had to make it in paper first and they cut out every piece and then put t all together. You should have met one more man Hans Eric Andersson at Kosta who was the one who made the glue and made them. I don’t think that he speaks English but we could have done it with somebody. But I think on the other had it doesn’t give you anymore for your work. So that was the first time I met him. The impression I had of him, I have written about that in my article from last year. I was fascinated with him and the man who was the manager of the museum before me ????? was a very good friend of Vicke Lindstrand and he became a very good friend of mine also. We met Vicke at several parties, dinners and so on in Växjö. So I became more and more fascinated with his work, I happen to read art history as an Historian and that is the way I made it a history of Vicke Lindstrand. Of course I have a lot of pieces but that was not the main purpose it was to show how he thought and how he handled the glass, how he did it, so he was an old man at that time but he was still going strong.

MIJ: Was he pleased that you were writing a book about him? LT: Yes, he was. Of course he had wanted more, a bigger book and a life history and so on. I have made many interviews with him so I had lots of hours of tape so I picked out the most important of it and made the book out of it.

380 --"+!& "0

MIJ: One of the things I have read a lot about, including in your book was his relationship with the craftsmen, that it was a team effort. The relationships with the other artists is not written about very much. What do you know about the relationships with say Mona Morales etc. LT: Lets say it like this. When he started at Kosta in 1950, he was the one, the only one on the arena and the manager at the time, the director of Kosta was very weak (name). So Vicke was the manager, was the director, he decided what to do and how to do it, and he said to (director) “you can count on the money but I make the art”. So he was a very dominating person but in a very lovely way. Some people didn’t like him and you have others like Erik Rosén and Vicke Lindstrand was dog and cat. That was a little later in 1964 when Vicke had come to the point where he should have started thinking of leaving everything to other people, that was in 1964. But from 1950, until Mona Morales came, he was the only man on the arena, he did what ever he wanted to do and he always thought of bread and butter so if the cutters had very little to do he said make cut glass, and if the engravers had very little to do he made engraved glass and keep the people in the glass works. All the time he made sure people had enough to do, nobody should go and don’t have anything to do. So that was the purpose for him he always draw things for the different craftsmen too. And his favourite glassblower was Bengt Heintze till Mona Morales came when she also discovered that he was the most skilful one, he was the only one who could make her dreams come true so that was … of course Vicke was always very polite to women of course and you can see that there was beginning of dog and cat between those two but Vicke was no longer alone with Bengt Heintze. Then came the next step when Erik Rosén came in 1964 and he recruited Ann and Goran Warff, and they also discovered Bengt Heintze so then you can understand. Ann Wolf says today that then “we were just air for Vicke” she says about herself and Goran. He ignored them. So in 1964 you can say the great Vicke era is over. And then you shall remember Vicke and Bengt Heintze after 1964 they were not friends any longer they didn’t talk to each other anymore. So when the Vicke Lindstrand Prize, he should have had the Vicke Lindstrand Prize but Vicke’s wife Marianne said no-no they were not friends.

MIJ: There was also the Englishman Ernest Gordon who was there in the early 1950s but he left and went to Åfors… LT: Yes. Vicke lifted him away to Åfors. And Ernest Gordon was, I think he was a very good artist and he did very many good things at Åfors but I think Vicke didn’t like him and Vicke wanted to be alone, as it was the same owner of the factories it was no problem to move him to Åfors.

MIJ: The way that Vicke worked with glass, and designing glass there are lots of very beautiful photographs of the period where he is drawing with chalk on the floor of the hot shop. It is thought that perhaps they are staged. What do you know about the way that he worked, was it in the blowing room with the glassblower or did he sketch away first? LT: You know who the photographer is, Sten Robért, Sten followed Vicke, accompanied Bengt and Vicke during the 1950s so of course it is an arranged photo when Vicke draws on the floor it also shows

381 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

that he had a relation when Vicke told Bengt to do so and so and so and of course they developed each other because when Vicke was dead and Bengt continued to blow glass and made his own glass, it was Vicke glass. So the ideas when Bengt blew his own glass, they were the ideas from Vicke. So he couldn’t make any of his own glass, it was the old ideas that came out when he made his own glass.

MIJ: With any artist, Lindstrand included, non-production or Unik art glass provides an avenue for experimentation and artistic expression. In your conversation with Vicke, was there ever any discussion as to how important that was, the experimentation, was that first and foremost in his mind in those later years or was he still concerned with making production pieces? LT: In the 1950s he was thinking he was aware of you can’t make experiments and unik things if you don’t make bread and butter so the thing is he didn’t make very many drinking glasses, he made very little, but there were vases and there were bowls there were a lot of things, so he always thinking of bread and butter and also of the unik things. The glass industry always says that they don’t make any money on the unik things but they are the sign for the company so there is a story I wrote down once when Olsen said to Vicke “I sold the one of the big Ice blocks and they paid a lot of money for it and Vicke wrote to him and said “are you mad? You take down the sign.” He meant that they should have had that ice block left showing what they could make, just to make people come in and buy the cheaper things. So that was his thinking.

MIJ: His relationship with the artists he worked with at Orrefors like Simon Gate and Edward Hald is documented for the Orrefors period do you know if he maintained relationships with any of the artists for his time there? LT: I don’t think that… Simon Gate and Vicke Lindstrand were best friends all the time, but Vicke Lindstrand and Edward Hald not. So that was the point in 1940 when Vicke said “I go to America”, Edward Hald was very glad. I don’t think either that Edward and Simon were not of course good friends … they were not so much good friends when Simon died. MIJ: What about Sven Palmqvist and Nils Landberg etc, was he friendly with them? LT: They hadn’t come yet. Sven Palmqvist was an engraver before he was an artist so I don’t think he had started but you have Edvin Öhrström he came in 1936 and you know not Graal glass but Ariel? Vicke always says I invented the Ariel technique and Öhrström says until he dies I invented the Ariel technique and the truth is the firstAriel was made in 1936 the same year as Öhrström arrived but he had never been working with glass before so he was a sculpture and the truth is that the craftsmen invented Ariel technique, they knew how to do it. Some other relationships, I don’t think so. Sven Palmquist and Ingeborg Lundin they had not started very much yet…

MIJ: They were certainly around and producing work during that fifties period. I guess I am curious to know whether he corresponded with his colleagues if he socialised with the people that were working at Orrefors during the 50s or wether he kept very much to himself and didn’t mix with other glass artists?

382 --"+!& "0

LT: In the 50s he had shut out everything to do with Orrefors and the truth is that Orrefors killed Vicke Lindstrand because you know in 1940 he went away from Orrefors and he said himself in 1950 he could make a choice. He could go back to Orrefors or he could go to Kosta, then he was released from the contract he had not to work with glass for ten years and the truth is that if Vicke had gone back to Orrefors he had not been alone, but in Kosta he was alone. So he was like an actor. So after 1950 he had no contact with Orrefors and Orrefors didn’t want any contact with him. I think they killed his old work because I mean artistically the Orrefors period was the best in Vicke’s life. MIJ: That is a unanimous view. LT: Yes, but Orrefors didn’t they could have picked up his works and continued to make them but they did not. They killed him.

MIJ: What do you know of Lindstrand’s participation and experiences in the Milan Triennale’s in the 1950s and do you know if he met any contemporary designers and artists from Scandinavia and abroad? (for example Tapio Wirkkala, Timo Sarpaneva, Paulo Venini, Dino Martens, Jackson Pollock, Gunnel Nyman etc.) If so, do you know if he forged any professional relationships? LT: I don’t know, and if there had been continuing contact, Vicke would have told me that. But he never talked about this thing. I know he was in Venice. Marianne and he bought a huge lamp in Venice that was in the house. Per Berg owned the house later so he can tell you about the lamp. They loved Venice I think, but I don’t know, I don’t think they had very many contacts with other artists.

MIJ: I read in one of the press clippings in the archive at Smålands Museum, of an exhibition of Italian glass that was held in Stockholm in 1950 or 1951 and it was like a gossip columnist talking about Vicke and Bengt Heintze being seen at this exhibition. How interested was he in parallel developments in glass in say Finland and Italy and America and France. Was he the sort of person that would be constantly reading magazines about what other people were doing or was he very much concentrating on his own work? LT: I don’t really know. I think he had influences but Ithink he was very concentrated to himself. He travelled a lot. There are pictures from Africa and I know he was in London with Bengt Heintze for exhibitions and so on. So they were around in Europe but I don’t know he had very many close friends among other artists. He didn’t talk very much about it, because I gave him the freedom to talk and talk and talk and put in questions of course and tried to lead him to such things. He didn’t like to talk about it it was just H55 he talked about.

MIJ: So he talked about that a lot? LT: Not a lot but he mentioned H55 as a peak. It was the middle of the 50s he had created a lot of things at Kosta already and I think that was a peak to him.

383 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

MIJ: In 1964, Eric Rosén became Managing Director at Kosta, with new strategies to make the product more youthful and employing younger artists. How did Vicke feel creatively under the new management? LT: Yes and no. He was never angry abut Erik Rosén. He never talked negatively about him. He just said we had not the same thinking. He was a gentleman. And he said the same about Edward Hald too. And you know with both Edward Hald and Erik Rosén they were dog and cat. And of course Vicke was 60 at that time when Erik came into the picture and he should have realised he should have left the arena to the younger people, but there was something left in him they told him he could go on. So that is why the big sculptures and the new things came. He wasn’t finished at all, he was creative until he died. Because he didn’t have the ear of Erik Rosén so he couldn’t tell them anymore what they should produce, it was the director who told Vicke what he could produce.

MIJ: Lindstrand left Kosta in 1973 under apparently difficult circumstances. Would you care to expand your understanding of this? LT: I think it was a long chain of things that made him suddenly went away. The thing is I came to Smålands Museum in 1973 and the director then took me to Kosta in the summer of ‘73 and he pointed to a Mercedes 780 that was leaving Kosta, and he said “there goes Vicke Lindstrand”. Vicke Lindstrand I thought was dead. The thing was that was the time when Vicke had left Kosta Glassworks and he never came back again. So he went home to his house, it was not his house the company owned the house and they let him stay there until he died. But he did not come back to Kosta Glassworks again. That was the summer of ‘73. And then you know what happened with Arthur and Hanne and so on.

MIJ: It is known that Lindstrand was to take a position with the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, when he resigned from Orrefors, but was prevented from travelling due to the outbreak of the war. Can you tell me if he had any regrets about this? LT: No, I think he was in America and made his glass there… when it came to the point when he and Edward Hald didn’t talk any longer he decided to leave Orrefors and go to America but as he himself says he couldn’t get out because the last flight from Europe to America went from Portugal or Spain and he didn’t catch it so he had to stay home. And then he went to Upsala-Ekeby. But I don’t think he regretted anything, he focussed, because he had the opportunity to go after the War if he wanted to but he didn’t, he stayed in Sweden.

MIJ: With regard to travel, did he speak fondly of particular places? LT: No. He never talked about his travelling, we have reconstructed it afterwards. But you know, you can see in the ceramics the very many Lions and Tigers and so on, and Margareta [Artéus Thor] perhaps showed you some pictures she has from journeys where you have the markets and the dancing black women and so on. Josephine Baker, all that.

384 --"+!& "0

MIJ: Much is written on Lindstrand’s Orrefors work, but his Kosta work is largely dismissed. What is your view on this? LT: I think there are very many highlights at Kosta too. Like the Ice Blocks, no-one else could have picked them up that was dirt lying on the ground and picked them up, looked into them went to the engravers and said we can do something with this and especially it was Rune Strand the engraver who came from Helsingborg and Rune used to say he was sorry about the copper wheel engraving and Rune went over to the dentists drill, but thanks to that drill he could make the ice blocks. Because they had some pressure in it and could get into the blocks to make them. There are very few blocks known from that time, they are known from museums with collectors all over the world, many of them were birthday presents for 50th or 60th and they are not on the market today because people who bought them are eager to keep them, and those who bought them for birthday presents they go on to their children as well, so they keep them. So you never see a big Ice Bock out on the market, never. And if they would come up it would be a sensation, because one director of the forest company in Växjö has a big block and it was they had drilled trees all through the block and in the bottom were beavers sitting and chewing on the trees. It is fantastic, but I think you don’t see them today.

Of course there are other highlights too. You can see the engraved pieces, you have Romeo and Juliette it is a real highlight, and you have an engraved head of a girl. Rune Strand did the work but Vicke draw it. And there are many Unik pieces during his Kosta time that are very, very good. But it is a different style as I can see from the Orrefors period. Something quite else, but that is what it shows, that Vicke was very, very broad he could do anything, content he could do anything.

MIJ: Okay, is there anything else that you wanted to ask me about what I am doing? Or anything else that you think is important to add to what we have talked about today? LT: I think there are many things coming up afterwards. So I think you had better write this down, and send it to me. You have my email address? Then I can read it and see. I think I will have very many other remarks to make.

385 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

##@#0@
(. ,0# 1
1#."
&#-
. ( ,!>
/(!&#!
#&#). % .>
.)%")&'>
IL
.) ,
IGGN

MIJ: Since I last spoke to you my research has changed from a masters to a PhD from focussing on Lindstrand to looking more specifically at the Scandinavian Design idea that started in the 1950s and how that affected the way that artists and designers within Scandinavia were publicised or not. One of the reasons I wanted to meet you was out of respect fro the work you have done in your research on Swedish glass. You were actively writing in the 1950s about things Swedish and Scandinavian? ES: Did you see my doctoral thesis? On table service glass of the nineteenth century. My doctors thesis in Uppsala, Gregor Paulsson, you know Gregor Paulsson? He was my supervisor, not from the beginning it was Connell in Stockholm then it was Gregor Paulsson.

MIJ: I have just come from the Nationalmuseum where I met with Helena Kåberg who along with some other academics has translated Paulsson, Ellen Key and acceptera into English for the first time. It is going to be published next year. ES: Oh, that is interesting! Very interesting.

MIJ: So, I have a few questions. ES: If you want to know something special about Vicke Lindstrand I have to tell you that when he left Orrefors, after that I never met him. I don’t know anything about him after Orrefors, Kosta I don’t know anything. Of course I knew his wife, I was a friend of his wife [Kristina], and I was babysitting for Ola [son] in the thirties... but Vicke, what happened with, all the things that started I didn’t follow, I don’t know anything.

MIJ: That’s okay, because what I wanted to talk to you about was more general Swedish design in the 1950s. And I guess, for someone like me from Australia, we have this idea of what is Scandinavian Design what it is... what people like Kerstin [Wickman] have recently written, that it was constructed very conscious about marketing and selling Scandinavian Design to the world. What I am interested in is how affected design in Sweden, for instance, those that are not very well know from Sweden of the period who are not very well known in Sweden which I think is because their work was not Swedish enough, not Scandinavian enough, it was a little too international to fit with what the Scandinavian Design idea was all about. Do you have any views on that? ES: Well, I’m afraid that because Swedish design, Scandinavian design, or when Finnish design was came to the top after Danish design - to us Danish design was the best, so to speak. More or less then suddenly Finland rose to the top and it was the constellation between Denmark Sweden and Finland at that time I’m not quite sure about what happened and why suddenly the Finns were... it was Aalto, Aalto of course was a world name, still is. We have nobody in Scandinavia [Sweden] who is as well known as Aalto.

386 --"+!& "0

MIJ: But your father [Edward Hald] for instance was quite famous for his glass designs? ES: He was the artist and became the director, everybody was stupefied by this. No can an artist be a managing director of a glass factory, that is impossible. He is an artist but he had, before he became an artist he studied economics because he was supposed to take over his father’s firm he was a making machines for harvesting and things. So he did study economics somewhere, in Dresden, but he changed his mind and asked could I be this he wanted to be an artist. So he started in an artist school in Dresden and, that was that. He went on and went to Matisse, you know all this already?

MIJ: Yes, I know a lot of this history. ES: There is a book on his ... that my brother has written. Anyway there well he came to Orrefors in 1917 and he stayed. There were difficult times in 21 there was supposed to be a strike and they were very difficult times. But they managed somehow.Then came ’32 and the depression and Kruger and all that a difficult time. And then the old director, Strömberg, Eda Strömberg, who owned another factory, left and they tried to hire a man, an economics man, and but he didn’t ... he was interviewed by my father and then my father asked “What are you going to do to put Orrefors on top again?” well, I think we should try to make some pink things” and my father went well that is not the sort of thing we want a director of Orrefors. He had been selling cookers, he had been trying to sell these in India and to become director of Orrefors from this, well it was quite interesting. I think he stayed for half a year or something and then they asked my father, this was in ’33, and he took it over and said “okay”, I will live here, we moved - the family moved, we lived in Stockholm, we moved to Orrefors and moved into the building for the director and he somehow managed it and he hired one of the best new artists Öhrström, you know him? This was a happy thing, a very happy thing because he was very good and he made new Ariel glass, and Vicke - I don’t know which year Vicke left.

MIJ: 1939 or thereabouts. ES: Yes and there were I remember meeting him and his wife in Paris at the Expo 1938 they came to look after the things and I stayed for half a year, to look after things, to sell the things. This was alright and he had then made some good things, some beautiful things - no not beautiful, no, things that were easy to sell, very easy to sell. I find them strange and I don’t like them.

MIJ: I guess they were modern? ES: They were modern, there was the Divers, and there was Jesus Christ and he made some Graal

MIJ: With African figures ES: Yes. Quite.

MIJ: I saw some of those yesterday at Stockholms Auktionsverk. ES: Yes.

387 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

MIJ: They have a Pearldiver vase. During the 1950s, what were you doing? Were you writing? ES: After my doctoral thesis I was in 1953, I was tiredof art and design and more or less switched over to what we call at that time consumer matters, consumer information and we got in Sweden in ’59 I think we got an organsiation called Konsumentrådet. There were people form the various political parties, the Chairman was I think he was an economist from the Social Democrats and there were people variously trained. There were journalists writing on design and consumer problems. The consumer institute was founded and I was kind of international secretary, I had to read the international consumer which the English, the american paper on consumer education, consumer information. The english paper Which, that with the consumer matters, consumer things. Not form an aesthetic or design point of view but useful things. So I switch over more from aesthetics to play in how to use things and the new consumer institute, they constructed new kitchens and new kitchen equipment and they counted how many steps does a housewife take to make a meal.

MIJ: So more ergonomic type things? ES: Yes. So I sort of left the art piece. I am very bad at English!

MIJ: So, you wrote your book, Swedish Glass in 1949 I think it was. There was another one in 1962 or 1963. ES: The first one, it was a very small one published by the Nordiska Museet, and this has been translated in America to English, very small in a series on furniture and so on. And then I don’t remember... the very thick one where half is the technical one, Simmingsköld who wrote part of the book, technical - he was a chemist, and he wrote the second half of this big book. And then there is the one called, I don’t know what Lindqvist.

MIJ: Swedish Glass in 196? In that you wrote about what had been happening at that time and you wrote about some of the newer artists that had been working such as Mona Morales and Lundin, and people like that who weren’t include din the first book. So what I am trying to understand is that you moved away from art and design in 1953? ES: Yes, more or less... but privately I still was a pupil of Gregor Paulsson and did write on the aesthetic problem, what is aesthetic experience and published in Holland and ...

MIJ: There is an exhibition at Nationalmuseum in Stockholm that looks at, questions aesthetics and taste. Have you seen that yet? Is very interesting as it uses objects from the nineteenth century that Paulsson and Key wrote about as being not functional, it revisits those questions of taste. Your brother was the editor of Form magazine for many years? ES: And then he came to Gustavsberg.

388 --"+!& "0

MIJ: Was he involved with the Design in Scandinavia exhibition that toured America 1954-57. Do you remember anything about that being very much publicised here in Sweden? The success Sweden was having abroad, was that something that was talked about a lot? ES: Difficult to tell... it was talked about and although I had more or less left it and went to the consumer side or economic side of it, I was a member of the board of the Slöjdföreningen at one time but as coming from the consumer, economic side not design side so to speak it is difficult to tell

MIJ: That is interesting, the whole idea of Design in Scandinavia and selling design to America and other parts of the world was partly a consumer and an economic idea to try and increase the consumer market for goods from Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway outside of Scandinavia but also as a marketing idea to increase the economy of the countries. ES: Yes, there is always the economy comes into the picture if you send things and our, Orrefors had a representative in England to sell Orrefors in England and for some time I think they had one in New York to o.

MIJ: And also in Australia. ES: Yes, yes!

MIJ: The [Orrefors] Canberra Cup [a gift from Sweden to Australia upon the inauguration of the new capital city of Canberra]! ES: Yes, I remember this. Australia! Oh, they were wanting heavily cut things, brilliant, Oh - this is for Australia, this is not for England, this is not for America this is for Australia because it is heavily cut things. Yes I remember that, it was funny, Australia! It was very successful, I think it was a very good market they did sell quite a lot.

MIJ: The things I have found in the archives indicate that Australia was the Third biggest export market for Swedish glass. America was the biggest. ES: How long did that last?

MIJ: Right into the 1960s. From the 1920s both Orrefors and Kosta were exporting glass to Australia. ES: How did that start? How did Sweden find Australia of did Australia find us?

MIJ: I don’t know yet. When you were living at Orrefors did it seem like a very remote place to live? Out in the middle of the forest, was that a good place to live or not? ES: Well, I never personally lived there. Because we as a family lived in Stockholm and my father, he would commute all the time. But when he became a director in 1933, he moved with his family, his new family. My mother died in 1931 and he remarried and had a son Fibben who is an illustrator with Svenska Dagbladet, Fibben Hald. He moved the same year I left school and made my bachelor in 1933 and studied history of art here at Stockholm University then hired a room and lived without my family

389 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

and in took my first exam in 1936 and went abroad for two years, half a year at the Expo in Paris, Swedish Pavilion, then I came back and after a couple of years Gregor Paulsson asked me whether I wouldn’t take part in... he was going to write a book on Swedish townscapes, small towns in Sweden. In the 19th Century and what people did then and I was supposed to write about what kind of furniture they had, and glass and that sort of thing. And then in 1953 in wrote my doctoral thesis on Swedish table glass. So I never lived on Orrefors in the woods. I came down from Stockholm for holidays and saw my family now and then but after the two years abroad. And then my father said yes I will take this but not until the end of my life, I will take it for ten years, from 1933 to 1943 when he was pensioned and started painting again.

MIJ: I have seen reproductions of the paintings from that period. ES: Not very good I think - some were. But I thinks what is interesting is that after ten years as a manager and director he could go back to painting again.

MIJ: Studying with Paulsson must have been influential? ES: Yes. It was ... he was a strange and the other professors in Lund and Stockholm didn’t like him. He was modern and had funny ideas and they though. and he had funny ideas but it was interesting to hear them, to hear him read his books on art and theory of aesthetics and so on. This made me start thinking of the aesthetic experience and arts, what is it? And my last paper, very funny paper, no good, but my last paper in the Journal of Aesthetic Education in America, last Spring, have you seen it? I think I have a copy here I can give you one. This is my last paper and all this started because I was a pupil of Gregor Paulsson who had new ideas. Funny ideas but new ideas. And when I wrote my doctoral thesis on Swedish table set all the other art historians said well this is not art, this is not art! You cannot have a doctoral thesis on something that isn’t art. You are not an art historian! But Gregor Paulsson said “Yes, this belongs within the history of art.”

MIJ: That was the time that the history of design was becoming the debate between art history and design history was going on. But Paulsson, form someone form so far away, seems like a very influential thinker and writer on design in Sweden. ES: Yes. He was a new things, new trends. I won’t say now that he was right I think there was some funny thinking in it but he was influential and the other professors in the history of art in Lund and Stockholm hated him, not hated him, but no he was a funny guy. And he was so taken by this and he was the director of the 1930 Stockholm Exhibition and he was the head of the... this was his ... funkis, kitchen were to be functional. He used all these terms for this.

MIJ: He was to some extent influenced by Ellen Key and she was the first to start talking about these ideas in Sweden.

390 --"+!& "0

ES: Yes, but he was not alone. There were others too that suddenly discovered Ellen Key, some women journalists discovered Ellen Key - Eva Lindberg who wrote about design and the household in Svenska dagbladet is very important.

MIJ: From outside Scandinavia, particularly in my profession as an architect, we look at Sweden and Scandinavia with great affection because there seems to have been this massive change in the way people lived towards functionalism and to a more modern way of living and the objects being more modern and it is quite fascinating to look at this form outside and see how two people, essentially two people - I know there were others - but essentially Paulsson and Key could be so influential. ES: Do you know the book in Sweden acceptera? Written by Paulsson, Gotthard Johansson and Asplund and five or six who wroteacceptera , to accept modern to live functionalism.

MIJ: Ellen Key Beauty for All, Gregor Paulsson’s Vackrare vardagsvara and acceptera are the three texts that are now translated into English and will be published next year. ES: Then there was the man, not against, but that they quarreled with Carl Malmsten. Old fashioned handi-things. There was quite some quarrels in SSF with Carl Malmsten and Asplund or Gregor Paulsson. It was quite some interesting quarrels.

MIJ: It looks like Paulsson may have won the debate? ES: Yes. But of course Malmsten was appreciated and everything went alright for him but it was a kind of bygone time.

MIJ: Today when you look at Swedish design and see what is happening, do you have any view about it? Is it good? Is it bad? Is it Swedish still or is it international? ES: Very, very hard to say. What has happened within glass things - I don’t like it. Personally I don’t like it. I think it is just too ... doesn’t give anything within the glass. China I don’t know really, there were some very good china things with Stig Lindberg and some women, I can’t remember the names. Maybe design in small things, I’m not with them anymore, but maybe within architecture is everything I would say yes to. Modern architecture, I think the modern architects in a way, Swedish architecture is better than design of small things. I don’t know if I am saying the wrong thing now - I have never had the question!

MIJ: It was just to see - having lived through such an important period to hear what you think of it now and whether you think it is difficult for your designers now because of the 1950s. Some of the things I read are that young Swedish designers feel constrained by 1950s Swedish design because it was so popular. 1950s Danish design was so popular, and still is. Arne Jacobsen, Hans Wegner, we all still buy them. Young Scandinavian designers have to compete with that, they don’y get the recognition that they might because everyone has this view of what comes from this part of the world. That it is all based in modernism and functionalism and the ideas of Paulsson and there is

391 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

some interesting design coming out of Sweden now that is not typically Swedish, or not what you would think was typically Swedish. I find that interesting, it is like the world has become a smaller place. People can travel cheaply now and can be influenced by other things. ES: The modern glass I don’t I can’t take it Vallien makes all these strange things. That may pass, I don’t know they have all these things no new thinking. They just make funny things in a way.

MIJ: For you, what was the high point of Swedish glass? ES: I would say the very early ones. Yes. When we got engravers from Czechoslovakia. The household goods made at Sandvik, not particularly the brown, they had the new brown colour which isn’t very good. They started this shop in Copenhagen, very famous Bo, by Kaj Dessau and he wanted to find a new colour, green colour made at Sandvik. They were successful in bringing out the green colour that he wanted, but they never sold it. Never. It was a flop. The early 1930s was alright and some high points Öhrström in the Graal. But Lindstrand, that’s a different question. Lindstrand - no, no. But I don’t know the things he made at Kosta, I don’t know about them. Maybe there are some better things at Kosta?

MIJ: I think at Kosta he was more relaxed. He was the only designer. He could do what he wanted. What he did with engraved glass in the 1950s was very important. New tools, new lighter sketch like qualities. It was cheaper to produce so more people could afford to buy it. I think this is one of the things that he did at Kosta. He made more affordable glass and still did art glass, sculpture and all sorts of other things. He also took on influences. ES: I suppose Mona Morales did that too. Influence from Venice.

MIJ: That’s what I think is interesting about the period. Lindstrand has a legacy of what he had done at Orrefors that was very highly regarded and when he went to Kosta everybody thought it was not as good as what he had done at Orrefors and that’s what interests me. Why is it not as good? What makes it not as good? Because it is less expensive? Because it is not as complex? These are the things I am interested in exploring in my research. It’s about the perceptions we have of quality. What makes something good quality? Is it because it is expensive or it has taken a long time to make it? Certainly something that is inexpensive and made quickly can be good quality. It is the ideas that go into it as you will understand from you interest in aesthetics. Thank you for your time, I’m just going to turn this off now...

392 +!"5
,#
-"/0,+0

( 2
)
* ,-)(-

)1,J
&+&,J
gd !"
/"J
/& J
ee )!J
!4/!J
ciJ
dfJ
egJ
c[J
ijJ
)1,J
)3/J
gaJ
bcaJ
bigJ
cggJ
]ab &,/J
%/&01&+J
bih jaJ
jbJ
jcJ
jeJ
jfJ
jgJ
dbH
baeJ
bafJ
%)J
+!/J
giJ
gjJ
haJ
bebJ
cji /"21)"/J
++"J
ciJ
dgJ
cbbJ
cfjJ
baiJ
bajJ
bbaJ
bbcJ
bbdJ
bcjJ
bdaJ
%)&+J
) "/1J
jaJ
jb dae bdbJ
bdcJ
bddJ
beaJ
bebJ
beeJ
begJ
+!"/0,+J
1+)"6J
bca 2+ +J
)&01&/J
jaJ
bgfJ
bhdJ
cdc behJ
bfjJ
bgeJ
bgfJ
bgiJ
bhdJ
bhiJ
+("/J
"1"/J
be *"0J
%/)"0
C
6J
big biaJ
biiJ
ccgJ
cchJ
cdgJ
cgdJ
cgeJ
/$6/&0J
,%+
J
cfj !"+#)(J
"+$1J
bdbJ
ccgJ
cdfJ
cibJ
cicJ
cihJ
cjdJ
cjeJ
cjfJ
cjjJ
/&01,1)"J
bdg cebJ dehJ
dej /-J
"+J
bjd %/+"/J
++J
ceiJ
dfa ):+J
&!/J
iJ
jJ
biJ
dbJ
fgJ
fiJ
/3&!00,+J
=01J
cdg &!") "/$J
/1&+J
bjd fjJ
gaJ
gbJ
geJ
hbJ
cjb 0-)2+!J
2++/J
jgJ
dbJ
behJ
dej (*+J
,%+J
dfJ
jaJ
cibJ
cic /)+!J
/,)!J
bdh 11"/ "/$J
+$/&!J
bhf +$*+J
'"))J
dfa 4(&+0J
&)!&J
iJ
biJ
ffJ
cjb #,/0J
/& J
dgJ
bhjJ
biaJ
bidJ
ccfJ
/& 0,+J
01/&!J
fcJ
geJ
hc "&+J
&"1J
bdf ccg
/& 00,+J
++"N/&"J
bb "&+17J
"+$1J
dgJ
bbdJ
bhjJ
bjbJ
%/;+J
+,J
begJ
dej /+(3&01J
8&3&J
beb bjiJ
bjjJ
][[J
cehJ
ceiJ
cejJ
chfJ
*+J
+!"/0J
cdh  ,0J
& %"))"J
icJ
idJ
cgh chiJ
cih ("/J
,0"-%&+"J
]c[ ))+J
'"1&)
J
bbJ
biJ
bjJ
cdJ
ceJ
"))+"/J
$+"0J
dfJ
jaJ
jbJ
cic ""/J
&)""+"J
bdj bci "))+"/J
,%++"0J
dfJ
cic "))J
, "/1J
bgJ
bdh "/$20,+J
2$"+"
J
cd "-4,/1%J
/ /J
bjd "+"!& (0J
3J
fcJ
fdJ
bbf &"))J
%/),11"J
ggJ
bjbJ
bjc "/+*/ (J
/)J
je "/$%J
)&0J
dgJ
bcaJ
biaJ
bigJ
bjhJ
&"))J
"1"/J
ggJ
bjbJ
bjc &)0,+J
/6J
bbj bjiJ
cbgJ
cbhJ
cbjJ
cchJ
dac )63 '"/$J
"+1J
caJ
cbJ
bgc ,)("/0J
8/1J
fcJ
bhd "/$.3&01J
+21J
bhdJ
dei /+ (J
'J
fhJ
hcJ
beeJ
befJ
cdd ,)*;/J
2++")J
bfJ
bjdJ
ceh "6"/J
"++&+$J
df /+(J
,0"#J
eeJ
fbJ
fcJ
hcJ
beg 2)!1J
("J
ehJ
fcJ
fdJ
ibJ
jgJ
bajJ
"6"/J
,%+J
bhiJ
bhjJ
bidJ
bieJ
/""*+J
& %/!
J
ceJ
daeJ
daf bbfJ
bbgJ
bccJ
bcgJ
bdcJ
bddJ
bdjJ
bifJ
ccg /& (J
2+&))J
bdJ
beJ
feJ
ffJ
hbJ
jcJ
bebJ
becJ
cbiJ
ccgJ
cciJ
cdfJ
cicJ
&+ ,+&J
2)3&,J
bjbJ
bjd bajJ
bcgJ
cbgJ
cib dehJ
dej ,$&0)20J
1<)J
df /&"!*+J
/(J
bhd 6!*+N))&"+J
)/& J
dfa ,$/"+J
/&(J
bb %+J
)1"/J
dej 9/!
#
"$"/01!J
)#J
beJ
dgJ
ecJ
,*+J
,+& J
dbJ
ejJ
cff 1"J
"+$1J
cciJ
deh ehJ
fgJ
ggJ
hfJ
ibJ
idJ
jfJ
bajJ
bbeJ
,2/!&"2J
&"//"J
caJ
deJ
cigJ
cjh 1"J
&*,+J
dfJ
egJ
c[J
ijJ
jaJ
bceJ
bciJ
bcjJ
bdaJ
bdeJ
bdfJ
bdgJ
/11J
,+& J
bda jeJ
dbH
bafJ
bbaJ
bbcJ
bddJ
bebJ
beeJ
bdiJ
bdjJ
bebJ
bedJ
beeJ
befJ
begJ
/, %*++J
!!J
bef behJ
bfjJ
bgeJ
bgiJ
bhbJ
bhcJ
bhjJ
biiJ
bijJ
cajJ
ceeJ
cejJ
cffJ
cgdJ
/,4+J
,+/!J
efJ
bfbJ
cdcJ
cde cciJ
cgdJ
cgeJ
cibJ
cihJ
cjfJ
cjjJ
cgeJ
cghJ
chiJ
cieJ
cjeJ
dehJ
dei /2);J
6)"/J
gf deh =$)2+!J
/&(J
cbeJ
ccgJ
cdfJ
cebJ
/2+&20J
+J
ccaJ
cdf ")#"/N >/$"+0"+J
&/'*J
cdJ
ebJ
ceeJ
cehJ
dfa 6/0J
")J
chh bfhJ
bgaJ
bgbJ
cje 3+,3J
2+"))J
gJ
bdJ
gjJ
hiJ
baj )),+J
& %")J
bi "/!0&==J
=01J
ccj  (0,+J
"0)"6J
daJ
cagJ
cgg )3&+,J
1),J
fi &!",+J
&$#/&"!J
ga  (0,+J
&*,+J
bg *"/,+J
" ,/%J
ccJ
ce ,/!,+N!!0"10J
/+"01J
dgJ
bjiJ
 , 00,+J
/$"1J
bid %""(J
"0)&"J
cea ccfJ
ccgJ
cchJ
cddJ
cebJ
chdJ
cjfJ
+00,+J
,)("J
geJ
gf %"//6J
" ,/%J
dhJ
cji dacJ
daeJ
deh "+0"+J
",/$J
ebJ
cdh %&)!0J
/.2&0J
bbgJ
bbh /6J
&)""+J
fb ,%+00,+J
,11%/!
J
iJ
ehJ
fgJ
)"0,+J
+!"/0J
id 2)) "/$J
)0J
geJ
jaJ
jbJ
jfJ
bhe fjJ
ggJ
c[J
jfJ
bajJ
bbeJ
bbjJ
bcbJ
,++%J
,$"/J
fi =/+00,+J
&(&+$J
ccj bceJ
bcfJ
bcgJ
bebJ
beeJ
cbjJ
cciJ
,++"/6J
,+)!J
cfcJ
daa $01/=*"/J
"+&0"J
beJ
dbJ
dcJ
cicJ
cieJ
dei ,11/!N)00,+J
0 )"J
gd geJ
gfJ
jcJ
jdJ
cdf ,/*((J
/&J
ga /"$%J
2 6J
bg )!J
/1%2/J
ciJ
egJ
ehJ
c\J
jbJ
jcJ
2+$J
,/J
cdd /,+.3&01J
$"J
][\ jfJ
jiJ
bahJ
baiJ
bajJ
bbaJ
bbbJ
bbcJ
)%J
//&J
iJ
baJ
bcJ
biJ
fgJ
fhJ
2/1&0J
&))&*J
ga bchJ
\_[H
beaJ
bebJ
bedJ
beiJ
bhhJ
fiJ
gaJ
hbJ
bbhJ
bceJ
cjb %) 8 (
211"*+J
")"+J
djJ
bihJ
cdaJ
cdgJ
cfaJ
cfbJ
chfJ
cicJ
2#*++J
!$/J
cea ebJ
efJ
eiJ
bciJ
becJ
dag cjdJ
dehJ
dej "6J
))"+J
baJ
beJ
geJ
ieJ
bbi 3&"0J
"3&+J
iJ
fjJ
gaJ
bbgJ
bcfJ
)!J
/&11J
bda ,0(2))J
+!"/0J
df cjb 2%+J
%,*0J
bjJ
caJ
hi 40,+J
 (J
bjbJ
bjcJ
chh 2/17J
/"!/&(
M
J
/MJ
bif

393 +
%"
"/&-%"/6
V
+
"5*&+1&,+
,#
*&!
N
14"+1&"1%
"+12/6
4"!&0%
!"0&$+
+!
1%"
/" "-1&,+
,#

& ("
&+!01/+!

9 "/$J
")"+J
baJ
iiJ
ijJ
cjg ,$2 %&J
0*2J
bih *2")00,+J
,%+
2$201J
df 9$"J
&)%")*J
egJ
jdJ
baiJ
bbfJ
6*+J
2++")J
bihJ
bii /-+"3J
&*,J
bjbJ
bjdJ
bjeJ
bebJ
behJ
cbgJ
cjfJ
dei R"))J
%,*0J
cghJ
cgiJ
cgj dae +! "/$J
&)0J
dfJ
baiJ
bhjJ
dac )00,+J
**J
giJ
cji  %=+J
"++/1J
jdJ
bbh /00,+J
/)J
c]J
idJ
ieJ
c` -&"J
"++&#"/J
bjc "'"/01"!J
/+ &0J
bcJ
haJ
bfa /00,+J
/&+J
gdJ
geJ
idJ
ie -01!J
+N 2/&17J
ei ") &+$J
,%+J
\_[ 07),J
+!/;J
bhd 01"/$/!J
"/"(J
baeJ
bdiJ
bhd %+!J
M
,/1,+J
jg 1,2/J
/2+,J
jJ
bbJ
biJ
bjJ
hiJ
%/01/=*J
!3&+J
dfJ
bbaJ
bbbJ
bgjJ
%"A")!J
)/"+ "
2/1,+J
ii cig bhdJ
bhjJ
bjbJ
cjfJ
dac &!!))J
)&7 "1%J
cji &)'"#,/0J
+!"/0J
cdg ++"/%$J
'=/+J
ccf &),4J
3"+J
ccj &)'"#,/0J
/2+,J
cdg )*.3&01J
3"+J
dfJ
baiJ
bchJ
behJ
&**&+$0(=)!J
,J
cdb &+! "/$J
1&$J
egJ
ghJ
bahJ
bbaJ
bhjJ
cchJ
dac (4,+&20J
3"+N/&(J
dgJ
ehJ
c\J
bbbJ
bbfJ
\]_J
bdcJ
begJ
bihJ
cbgJ
/("/J
,70&(J
d bahJ
baiJ
bajJ
bbaJ
bcaJ
bdbJ
bdcJ
ccaJ
cciJ
cddJ
cdgJ
cdhJ
cfaJ
cfbJ
2)00,+J
/"$,/J
baJ
bcJ
bdJ
beJ
bebJ
bhhJ
bigJ
cbjJ
cchJ
cciJ
cdfJ
cgjJ
chfJ
cieJ
dadJ
dei ecJ
eeJ
gjJ
hjJ
c[J
igJ
iiJ
ijJ
jaJ
chfJ
chhJ
dacJ
dehJ
dej &+!.3&01J
"++/1J
ee jbJ
jdJ
jfJ
jgJ
baeJ
bagJ
bahJ
baiJ
*&1%J
&!,J
ceb &+!.3&01J
/02)J
dJ
gcJ
gdJ
cjc bajJ
bbcJ
bbeJ
bbiJ
bchJ
bciJ
bdeJ
-/("J
"++6J
eeJ
egJ
fbJ
fcJ
fdJ
&+!01/+!J
/&01&+J
bhd bdiJ
bedJ
beeJ
befJ
behJ
bejJ
bgdJ
fe &+!01/+!J
/&++"J
cdaJ
cfj bhbJ
ccjJ
cdgJ
cgiJ
cidJ
cifJ
cjeJ
13"+,4J
("J
c\J
jfJ
bbeJ
bcgJ
&+!01/+!J
& ("J
eJ
fJ
gJ
hJ
iJ
bbJ
cjgJ
dej bdcJ
bddJ
bdjJ
bebJ
bihJ
ccgJ
cicJ
bcJ
bfJ
bhJ
biJ
caJ
cbJ
ccJ
cfJ
cgJ
chJ
2)00,+J
&)0J
bagJ
bdeJ
cdgJ
dej cjeJ
dehJ
dej ciJ
dfJ
dgJ
dhJ
fcJ
fhJ
hhJ
hjJ
c[J
jeJ
")1,+"+J
/+,J
bgf 1""+ "/$
Y )!ZJ
)&0
Y 00"ZJ
ciJ
bafJ
bbaJ
bbbJ
bcgJ
bdaJ
bdbJ
bddJ
"/ 6J
/1%2/J
bbJ
bhe c\J
jbJ
jcJ
jfJ
jiJ
baeJ
bafJ
bagJ
beaJ
bfaJ
bfbJ
bfhNciiJ
cjbNdagJ
"/00,+N")&+J
&$+"J
chf bahJ
baiJ
bajJ
bbaJ
bhhJ
cdaJ
cdbJ
dei "/00,+J
&$2/!J
beg chjJ
cicJ
cjeJ
cjjJ
daeJ
dej ,+$J
%/&01,-%"/J
fbJ
fe "1"/00,+J
+0J
bdJ
ih 1/+!J
2+"J
bjjJ
cbdJ
cbfJ
cfjJ
2+!$/"+J
6/J
bbJ
bbeJ
bihJ
chh &%)01/=*J
3"+J
chi chjJ
cih 2+!&+J
+$" ,/$J
dfJ
gjJ
baiJ
bebJ
)1%J
,+J
bba 1/&7)"/N "3&+"J
&+J
bhdJ
cdi behJ
biiJ
cbeJ
cchJ
cddJ
]^_J
cjfJ
,)(J
!J
cfbJ
cfc 2+! "/$J
"/
J
cdgJ
cdh dac ,)&J
)3&,J
bjc 2+!%)J
0(&)J
dej 2+!*/(J
+0N),#J
bhiJ
bhjJ
,)), (J
/&0")!J
dJ
caJ
dhJ
gcJ
cji 4"!"+ ,/$J
&/$&11J
cfJ
daeJ
daf biaJ
bji ,)), (J
 (0,+J
bigJ
cbhJ
cbjJ
4""1J
,+1%+J
bfJ
bdi 2++&+$J
/"!/& J
eb ccjJ
cgi //0N%) "/$J
))Jbdf 6+"0J
200"))J
cea ,+1&J
&,J
cea %,/J
/0J
ciJ
bgiJ
bhbJ
bhdJ
bhiJ
$+200,+J
/0J
bbi /"!J
))+J
hJ
haJ
jdJ
bfjJ
bgbJ
bhjJ
biaJ
bjhJ
cbbJ
cfgJ
cgd )*01"+J
/)J
fdJ
jdJ
jf cidJ
cjd %,/"2J
"+/6J
bdg /&+,1J
2/& "J
bihJ
bii *-"))J
&+!
JdbJ
giJ
gjJ
ha &! )!J
+$J
bhd /(")&20J
3"+J
jdJ
dej "&%+;/J
+!"/0J
bhd ,-")J
, "/1J
ceJ
daeJ
daf /(20J
%,*0
MJ
ccJ
ce "+*+N)"00,+J
1/&+J
bhc ,-0>"J
/)!J
bid 1%00,+J
/2+,J
dgJ
hcJ
bdfJ
begJ
& ("J
")*"1J
bfaJ
bjcJ
chg 2 ("/J
& %")J
bdj behJ
beiJ
bihJ
ccjJ
cdaJ
]^\J
cdbJ
&17*+J
+
/&(J
cgcJ]a] ))&"+J
"/1&)J
ccfJ
dfa cdiJ
chfJ
cieJ
dfa &4(&+J++J
cda +
,"/1J
,%+J
bcaJ
bcb 7"J
!4/!J
bde ,  %J
&))J
baJ
cdJ
ihJ
cddJ
cdfJ
+
+"+J
,%+J
cb  ,++"))J
+!6J
chj cfaJ
cjbJ
dab 0/")6J
& 1,/J
cbe  !!"+J
3&!
"3"/"J
daJ
egJ
, ;/1J
26J
dfJ
dgJ
bifJ
ceeJ
cef "+&+&J
,),J
bihJ
bii ehJ
ej , "/10J
/&+J
jJ
ci 3,+
)!"/+J
5")J
ceb &)+"/J
"+/6J
cbc ,0;+J
/&(J
ciJ
dgJ
cbfJ
ceeJ
cefJ
"$+"/J
+0J
cdd ,,/"J
"+/6J
bjd cegJ
cehJ
ceiJ
cfbJ
cfeJ
cfgJ
chgJ
"))+!"/N"/$$/"+J
)0" "1%J
,/)"0N %&)!1J
,+J
dgJ
bjfJ
chiJ
daeJ
dfa bhdJ
bjb bjiJ
cddJ
cehJ
chiJ
dac ,0;+J
"++/1J
ceeJ
cef "+!1J
/+17J
ehJ
bdb ,//&0J
&))&*J
icJ
ie ,00"11&J
+1"
 /&")J
cji "++"/ "/$J
2++/
L0,+J
beg 2/-%6J
"&1%J
dbJ
dcJ
ddJ
cgiJ
cgj 2! "/$J
3J
ccj "01,+J
& %/!J
ga >))"/J
3"+!
/&(J
cdh 2!&+$J
)/&(J
bbd "11"/$/"+J
/&(J
ecJ
egJ
ffJ
c[J
(0%&*J
",/$"J
cea /&+"+J
"/,J
bih jbJ
jfJ
jgJ
bahJ
bbbJ
bbcJ
bbdJ
beeJ
6),/J
&))&+J
iiJ
jgJ
bbcJ
cad *-"J
01/&!J
beg cjeJ
dej

394 +!"5
,#
-"/0,+0

"11"/$/"+J
2+&))J
dej & (*+J
"/01&+J
iJ
jJ
baJ
bdJ
biJ
dbJ
fgJ
fiJ
gbJ
gcJ
geJ
hbJ
cjb &!*+J
$J
eJ
daJ
ghJ
c\J
jfJ
bafJ
bajJ
bbeJ
bbfJ
bdcJ
\_[J
beaJ
bebJ
becJ
bedJ
begJ
behJ
beiJ
bfcJ
bgeJ
bgfJ
bgjJ
bhcJ
bigJ
cbfJ
cfaJ
cfbJ
chdJ
cheJ
chfJ
chgJ
chjJ
cibJ
cicJ
cihJ
cjeJ
cjjJ
daaJ
deiJ
dej &)0,+J
,+)!
1"++"11J
bjd &/(()J
-&,J
fgJ
fhJ
gaJ
hcJ
\]_H
bihJ
biiJ
ccaJ
cddJ
cgi ,))&+J
&)0
J
jfJ
jgJ
bah 8+$ "/$N/&(00,+J
/&01&+J
fdJ
fe 8/?J
++J
cehJ
ceiJ
chg 8/?J
=/+J
dgJ
cehJ
ceiJ
chgJ
chi %)"J
/&(J
ehJ
bciJ
bdaJ
bdbJ
bdcJ
bdj &/+0 (J/1%2/
J
ciJ
dgJ
cbbJ
cfj

395