Johanna Ruotsalainen
The historical colonialist approach has stigmatized the exchange of thoughts and artistic and aesthetic practices between the Central-European and the peripheral regions of Europe. In recent years, cultural operators and decision-making have identified and recognized this tradition of exotification and cultural appropriation in the Arctic. A discussion on the definition of Arctic art is needed to differentiate the concept from, for example, Northern art, which only refers to context to orientation or location. Arctic art as a term should illustrate the methods and the goals of art and art-related practices specific to Arctic areas, the actions aimed at increasing well-being and competitiveness in Arctic areas, and the international character of practices defining it across national borders, to connect the phenomenon with Arctic discourse in other fields. This article examines the possible frameworks for Arctic art by reviewing the scientific discourse around the theme. The research exposed six most significant discourses on the concept of Arctic art in the peer-reviewed articles from the past two decades. They were further analyzed around ten arguments, that embody various meanings and are partly interlinked and overlapping. This article aims to stimulate the discussion on whether art should be reviewed more in relation to the context where it was created, when for example assessed in cultural politics or for curatorial and art critical processes. The concept of Arctic art does not have an established and unambiguous meaning, and various cultural communities and interest groups define the term differently. In geographical, political, and environmental discourse, some of the terms are well enough defined, but when transferred into cultural or ecosocial discourse without further research, terms reveal an overlap of definitions that both intersect themselves with and distinguish themselves from each other and are sometimes used without discernment.
