Q no. 04.
Why contemporary art, and what kind sparks your interest the most?

Grassroots has always interested me because it challenges norms. It can be rough and unrefined, which is where I step in to help guide or refine the project. It’s a form of activism driven by people with something real to say. Independent and critical, it questions societal structures through unconventional materials.

That's also something I get a lot of enjoyment from – trying to guide some artists who don't really know what to do next. It's usually not about the visual aesthetic of the art piece. That could use some refinement. It's more about the composition, the subject matter, the narrative behind the work, and so on – because that's equally important. Sometimes it’s the narrative that makes an artwork stand out.

I want to kind of dance on the line between grassroots and the slightly more established, because that also gives legitimacy to the grassroots and makes it more accepted. But if I exhibit a big artist, then I would obviously accept it, but it still has to align with my values – otherwise, it wouldn't really make sense to me.

I think authenticity is super important when you run your own business. You need to portray something real, otherwise, people are going to see right through it – and you're not going to enjoy it as much either.

Classic art is something I respect a lot, and I'm well aware that we're standing on the shoulders of giants today. But since the early 1900’s, there's been a huge disruption in the art world where you would challenge this idea of art being purely aesthetic and into it having depth, having something more than just the visual, and for me that’s very important.

Consider conceptual art like Dadaism with Marcel Duchamp. He was one of the first ones to shape contemporary art, where he took this ready-made urinal, and he called it ‘Fountain’ – a very famous example. Today it may look simple, but he was the first to approach it in that way, which was groundbreaking for its time. All of the art pieces and artists that sprung out from that movement, really pioneered how the art world is today, and suggested a new way for art to be interesting.

Today’s contemporary art is why big museums draw so many visitors in the 21st century. It's becoming interactive, something that's not just for the few, but for everyone. When we talk in that direction of contemporary art, democratising it, then I don’t really know where I stand, because I think  gatekeeping is extremely important in a way. It's a necessary part of any creative field – if anyone can do it, it’s not interesting. That’s why it’s frustrating to hear everyone calling themselves ‘creative’. It leads people to see art as a hobby, not as a profession, and they don’t value the work of those who actually make a living from it. So, some things have to be gatekept; you want some interest, something not meant for everyone to achieve. Avant-garde art or creative practices are often misunderstood at first, because they’re not for everyone. For example, today we see trans people doing both art and fashion, and people complain that it’s not wearable or that they don't get it – but it’s not for you, it’s for a different group of people. It’s for a niche group, and as society grows and learns to appreciate that, we start to understand what it means.

In my opinion, gatekeeping is a necessary part of any infrastructure for people to fully appreciate something. Appreciation needs to grow organically. So when you see people on TikTok complaining about gatekeeping – complain all you want, but it’s never going to go away. It’s a necessary part of creativity. So when you see ultra interactive exhibitions like the popular ‘Soft Robots’ exhibition at Copenhagen Contemporary, it’s super interactive and easily digestible, filled with impressive visuals – and that’s nice, but where’s the depth?

I often talk about the balance between elitism and democratisation. I think we should land somewhere in the middle, where art still has status and remains special because it evokes feelings. But it shouldn't either be something so exclusive that it pushes people away because no one understands it. So you need to strike a balance in terms of contemporary art. 

Unfortunately, we’re moving toward extreme democratisation, where art is being dumbed down, and I don’t appreciate that – we should find a middle ground.

Contemporary art is a broad genre, but for me the art form in general is important. I don’t just want to exhibit paintings where people come to look and then forget. I want to give depth to the experience, and that’s why curatorial ideas and concepts are central in exhibitions. I want people to leave with a long lasting impression, something that gets them thinking. That’s why I do what I do – it gives me purpose. 

“Art demands a lot from you. It demands you to research. It demands you to go in depth with it and spend time with it – not just with the pieces themselves, but also in learning to decipher and decode them."

Mikkel Rohde Skovlunde, 
Composition no. 21 (Tending to a sleeping angel (2)), 2024
Wooden pallet, found pillow, dead hornet, 49 x 49 x 19 cm
Photos by Jesper Drejer

That is what’s needed to get real enjoyment from it. You need to slow down and truly wonder “what is going on with this piece?”.

But you can’t satisfy everyone. The creative industry operates along these spectrums, where you need to achieve a balance, and that's extremely challenging to do – almost impossible. Someone will always complain. And then there's another layer to it, which is that a lot of creative endeavours, and creative businesses are not necessarily viable. Society agrees we need creative products: we need art, we need music, we need all these things, but it's not always a feasible product in the market. Historically, the creative industry has gotten a lot of both public and private funding. To secure funding, you often have to appeal to the broader public, which requires compromises and adjustments toward mass entertainment.

In general, it's super hard to make a living in the art world and in the creative industry because of these structures – which is super problematic. We try to push this capital market logic onto the creative industry, but it doesn’t work like that. That's also something that I'm very passionate about, because it’s a huge issue. We live in a society where capital interest has such a big influence on what we do and therefore on creative expression, and it shouldn't, because that's going to make it dishonest, it's going to make it flat and ultimately ineffective. The creative industry doesn't work today because it pushes market logic onto an industry that's not an industry. It shouldn't be called ‘the creative industry’, it should be called ‘the creative sphere’ or something like that – completely separate from the market.

In my opinion, we should abandon all market logic and ensure equal pay for everyone. That way, people can enjoy doing what they love. Career choices wouldn’t be dictated by salary. Those who love teaching can teach, those passionate about baking can bake, and those with a burning passion for art would create art.

Right now, I don’t think it’s so much about people wanting to be artists as it is about wanting the perks that come with it. Like I mentioned before, the word ‘creative’ has become so overused that it’s almost lost its meaning – and I think the same thing is happening with the idea of being an artist. It has become an identity, something that looks appealing from the outside, rather than a practice that grows from genuine curiosity or need.

You see it online all the time – people performing creativity instead of living it. It’s not necessarily about the work itself, but about what it represents. And maybe that’s just where we are now – art and performance have become so closely tied that it’s hard to tell them apart.