| Summary: | This study Shaped grief. On Swedish Tomb Sculpture’s Artists and Commissioners begins by contextualizing the field in question, the field of the tomb sculpture and the tomb sculptor, the burial sites and representations of death, the sculpture of that period, and especially the iconography of the sepulcher art, and the situation of the female sculptors. In the analysis chapter the bourgeois Gothenburg and Stockholm, and their relation to the arts, are contextualized. The analysis of the material is made by using the history of sepulchral art, gender theory and semiotics elaborated in art science, supplemented with critical discourse analysis, Bourdieu’s field theories, Veblen's consumption theory, intersectional and mentality-historical theories. The study addresses four questions. The first is about who the commissioners of tomb sculpture of the four chosen sculptors - Sigrid Blomberg, Charles Friberg, Carl Fagerberg and Alice Nordin - were. It is generally a wealthy, bourgeois ordering group and the commission is often made in the later part of life. With regard to a division in western and eastern Sweden, it is not surprising that the largest tomb monuments and their commissioners are located in bourgeois and liberal Gothenburg, a city with an international perspective. The court and nobility culture that existed in Stockholm and Mälardalen rested on the ancestors and their tomb monuments, including chapels. The second question is whether any of the involved clients are more prominent in the commission situation. In the few examples the study includes, wives, sometimes in widowhood, are prominent commissioners. The third question concerns whether the incentives for the commission of a tomb monument are documented. One family wishes to contribute to the "fine arts" finding a place at the Swedish cemeteries and to create an environment equal to cemeteries in southern Europe. Another family wants the tomb sculpture to be an adornment to the cemetery. The fourth question is about whether tomb sculptures are dealt within contemporary newspapers and journals, to indirectly reflect the position of the tomb sculpture in the artistic field. This sepulcher sculpture is noted in the contemporary press. But it should be seen against the background that public sculpture generally did not occur in the early 20th century and that a lively debate about cemeteries and tomb art is on the period’s agenda. It is usually in short terms that the tomb monuments are mentioned in the daily press. Especially the study's two male artists are described as not being followers of contemporary avant-garde art. All in all, the impression is that the tomb sculpture, despite the attention of the press, has a lower status. What concerns the gender perspective of the study, there are only two male commissioners who say they have an intention beyond the primary - to adorn the family tomb. In some cases, the possibility appears that when husbands pass away, widows take an active order position. With regard to preserved documentation about the commission process, there are more available information around the two female sculptors. Did the two male sculptors not correspond with their commissioners? Or have they for some reason not wanted to hand it down to posterity?
|
|---|
