Practical Transparency

PRACTICAL TRANSPARENCY

I am Marianne Heier, visual artist from Oslo. I led the memorial committee for Utøya until its completion last Summer. I am not a member of the Labour party, and have never been part of AUF, its youth organisation which was attacked for political reasons on 22nd of July 2011. In fact I had never been to Utøya before taking on this assignment. To work on this project and with the people involved has been an immense honour. Here I will concentrate on the process behind the final result, and I will try to do that as pragmatically and clearly as I can.

THE SCENE

It is important to clarify that Lysning (Clearance), the title of the memorial, is placed on the actual site of the attack, on the island itself, where 69 people, most of them young, were killed. The island is private property, owned by AUF. Almost every inch of it is a crime scene. Death is present everywhere, this is where they actually were killed, it is where the horror happened. It is obviously a very different task to build a memorial on Utøya than to build one on land at Sørbråten, the national memorial close by. We saw these two memorials as fulfilling each other, covering different functions and needs in the aftermath of the terrorist attack of 22. July. They were not competing, nor intended to do so.

THE IMAGE

The mandate we received from AUF initially indicated a process towards an artwork, probably some kind of monument, to represent the horrors of what had happened. But through talking to the bereaved we very soon decided to abandon the idea of anything that could be described as a conventional artwork. It just didn’t seem like there was any space for it, this was not an occasion for art production. Someone who has experienced to carry the weight of his or her own dead child does not need anyone or anything to interpret or represent that feeling, to give it a form. The form is already and always there in the body, the weight and the image of the unthinkable loss forever etched into it. One parent said every time he blinked he saw the same thing. He could never look away, never rest, it was like a continuous, uninterrupted projection. No image can ever compete with that one. It is, I think, the image of images, everything else is simply dwarfed by it, less true, less urgent, less horrible, less significant. We decided to work with architects instead of artists, and to ask them specifically not to try to illustrate or represent the horror. So Lysning is not a representation of bereavement, but more like a structure to frame it, a screen onto which it can be projected. It is a space, empty but intimate and protected, built by the bereaved and the survivors themselves (Norwegian tradition of ‘dugnad’, impossible to translate), where this nameless emotion can be projected and shared. It is a space for the image of what is no longer there, and that image, we felt, was best taken care of by respecting its very absence, its very incommunicability. It is not supposed to help heal the national, more abstract and distant pain, for that there would be the national memorials, but to offer an intimate, private and protected space for those directly affected. It is their place.

OWNERSHIP

So this memorial, Lysning, is Utøya’s own, decided upon and built by its users, placed where the attack happened, accessible to everyone but built on private land on the island. It is a- political in order to accommodate mourners also of different political views than the one under attack. The attack was politically motivated, but losing a child, a friend or a loved one is not a political issue, it is an intimate, personal one. The way I see it, the process that led to the final result of the memorial is far more important than its physical, beautiful but still quite modest and pragmatic, result. Lysning is not intended to be an artwork. It is a much used and

much loved memorial thanks to a good design concept, but maybe even more thanks to the enormous emotional and personal investment from both the bereaved, the survivors, AUF and many others who are sympathetic to Utøya and the project and who took part both in the development of the concept and the building of the memorial. They own it, and they are proud of it. Huge amounts of time and effort were put into the communication with future users during the process, with several platforms for contact. More than 600 e-mails with questions and inputs were read, discussed and answered by the committee, and we travelled all over the country to talk about it and discuss various models, solutions, needs and wishes with local groups (the victims came from all over the nation). We invited people to vote on specific questions regarding the form of the memorial, such as the inclusion or not of the names of the victims and the choice of the site. Here the director of Utøya, who also served as secretary for the committee did a formidable job. The feedback collected served as our main tool in informing the architects before the competition and in finally selecting a winner. And we also thought it was, in itself, a way to process what had happened and develop a set of tools, or notions, some kind of vocabulary to reach beyond the vocabulary normally at our disposal and in this situation so cruelly insufficient. So even though we could not accommodate every individual wish or request, we made sure every voice was heard and every question answered in the process. The conversations, presentations, discussions and (sometimes) conflicts were important in themselves. Anchoring the memorial with its future users was our main concern.

KORO

AUF’s budget, based on their savings and on private donations, was 500 000,- all included. A very small budget considering the size of the project, the nature of the process and the quality required from the final result. We knew it would barely cover materials and travel costs for the memorial committee. We all agreed to work for free, but we decided to apply to KORO for 200 000,- to cover the honorarium for the four teams of young architects participating in the competition. Everything else, including the construction work, would be done for free. I submitted the application to KORO after thoroughly discussing it with KORO’s own advisors.

What followed was a curious exchange of opinions that went on for four months, and which I still find hard to understand. It is a bit intricate, so in order for you to be able to follow, I have invited actor Ole Skjelbred to read it with me.

On the 15th of April I receive a phone call from KORO.

KORO:

I give her the happy news that our artistic committee has reviewed and unanimously approved of the application she sent in for AUF. Our committee has recommended that KORO go all in and grant AUF the full amount of 200 000,- that they asked for, and I tell her we find the project important. Marianne says thank you, this is great news.

I tell her, however, that for strategic reasons KORO will hold back the decision, since it might disturb the process of the State’s national memorial at Sørbråten nearby, for which KORO is responsible. So this is all kind of off the record, even though the normal bureaucratic processing is finalised and a decision has been made. I say it is only a matter of time, and that of course KORO is entirely positive and sympathetic to AUF’s project, so she can pass the good news on to AUF and the bereaved. But I ask her to not go public with it since the situation concerning the national memorial is such a delicate matter at the moment. After all this is a very uncommon project, luckily not something we treat every day. She understands and happily accepts our conditions. Of course.

ME:

Eight weeks later I have not heard anything more, so I send this e-mail: Dear KORO,

Both AUF and I would very much like to know how things are going with our application for the memorial at Utøya, so maybe you could e-mail me a short update on the status of the process? As I said on the phone, neither AUF nor I are interested in any public controversy over this, so we will treat any information confidentially. But the memorial is almost completed now, so it would be nice with some clarity around the economy...

Thank you!

Sincerely, Marianne

KORO:

Hi Marianne.

We are actually in the same situation. We are also waiting for a clarification. The State’s processing of the plan for the national memorial has been postponed. This means we don’t know when there will be a decision regarding the startup of the construction works for the memorial on Sørbråten. Therefore we also don’t know whether the neighbours will actually be sueing the State, as they say they will. I am only speculating, but my guess is there will be quite some time before we reach a solution. All KORO applications have to be treated in complete transparency. The most realistic option now would be that we conclude the process and reject your application so AUF can look for alternative financial solutions.

Best regards, KORO

ME:

Hello again KORO,

thanks for your reply, although I must admit that this is surprising and sad news. You told me on the phone that the application had been reviewed with a positive result by your artistic committee, but that it was put on hold for strategic reasons. You said yourself that everyone at KORO was positive and determined to support the project, and that I could pass that message on to AUF. I had a clear understanding that it was only a matter of time.

I understand of course that there are difficulties with the national memorial, but as it looks now, it appears that KORO, a state agency, has decided to put a non-political memorial made by and for the bereaved after 22nd of July aside in favour of a national, State-owned memorial with a completely different mandate (and funding), and that this is due to strategic, not artistic, reasons. Nobody is interested in any conflict around this, least of all the bereaved and directly affected by the attack. As you can imagine, they are still trying to recover from the traumas of what they have had to go through. So I ask you to confirm that I have understood this correctly before I pass on any bad news to them.

Best regards, Marianne

KORO:

As I said in the conversation you are referring to, the processing of the application was postponed because we cannot decide to support it before we have received ‘go’ for the construction of the memorial at Sørbråten. We were expecting clarifications on this matter this Spring. Decisions on regulation and building permits are postponed, and we expect that it may take time before we reach a solution. These are processes upon which KORO has no influence. The only correct solution at this point would be that, as I explained my last message, we now conclude the process and communicate a formal refusal to AUF so that they can start looking for alternative financial support. Our formal decision will be communicated in the usual way.

It is true that our artistic committee was positive to the project and I also have great sympathy for it. I'm probably no happier with the consequences than you are. If you are interested, we are happy to talk about possible alternative sources of funding.

Best regards, KORO

ME:

Hello again KORO,

What I don’t quite understand is what all this has to do with the national memorial at Sørbråten. Our application is for the memorial at Utøya, it is both a different project and a different site!?

Best, Marianne

KORO:

Hello again,
I can explain this to you if you call me or drop by the office. KORO

ME:

Hello again,

I must say I find this procedure very strange. But as you know this is not my project, I have simply submitted an application on behalf of AUF. I think now the right thing is to hand the matter over to them, and they can decide for themselves whether they need any further clarifications regarding the connection between the memorial at Utøya and the project for Sørbråten.

Best regards and have a nice week-end. Marianne

PS I am copying the director of Utøya, who also coordinates the work on the memorial and was involved in writing the application.

KORO:

Hi,
(with copy to the director of Utøya)
My answers to your messages were intended as information for you on how things are going, in order for you to be able to pass realistic information on to AUF. The formal processing of the application will be finalised on Tuesday in the coming week and the results communicated in the usual way in the form of a letter. The director of Utøya and AUF are of course welcome to contact us for any questions they might have.

Regards, KORO

ME:

But then, out of the blue 11 days later KORO writes:

KORO:

Hi Marianne.

For your information:
We have found a solution that allows us to grant the application for funding for the memorial at Utøya. Please feel free to inform AUF about this. A letter confirming the decision will be sent tomorrow.

With best regards, KORO

ME:

THANK YOU!

Obviously a lot of things went on behind the scene here, and I am not really sure whose voice or whose interest was actually on the other end of this exchange. It ended well, and I am extremely grateful to KORO for the support they gave to the memorial at Utøya. I also have great respect for the people who work for KORO, they are highly competent, courageous, intelligent people able to organise things like this conference. So this exchange most of all show how fragile things are when under pressure, and how easy it is to tread wrong, even with the best of intentions. For a moment it actually seemed that KORO, a state agency for public art, was willing to sacrifice the interests of the bereaved in order to secure political interests. It is hard not to notice the power game played out here, and it is not pretty. The feeling of a conflict of interests between the state and the victims of 22nd of July that comes through in the mails from KORO is something I still find a bit grotesque and terribly cynical. In the middle of all the public discourses of ‘more transparency’, ‘more solidarity’, ‘more openness’ and ‘more love’ in the aftermath of the attacks, I found this process rather disturbing. There is a lot to say about it, it is a question of power and transparency and justice and decency. And about whose voices are heard and who owns the right to define history.

I sincerely hope KORO will be able to build the national memorial at Sørbråten. It would be an important place for people like me, who are lucky enough to not have been directly affected by the horrible actions of the killer. We need the national memorial. Lysning is there for those who carry the experience of the attack in their own bodies. It is not competing with the national memorial. One of the bereaved said the price for love is grief, and that she thought it was worth it even though it was a terrible price to pay. Lysning is a place of love and grief, of solidarity, dignity and of not giving up.