Uppsatsen behandlar människors syn på samtidskonsten och då med fokus på konstverket, konstnären och konstvärlden. Analysen utgår från den respons som författaren har fått under ett två veckor långt bloggande, där textinlägg tillsammans med seriestrippar har legat till grund för studiens deltagares kommentarer. Bloggens inlägg och seriestrippar redovisas som bilaga. Syftet med studien är att undersöka uppfattningar, tankar och åsikter kring samtidskonsten. Meningen är att skapa ett diskussionsforum där olika personers syn på samtidskonsten kan bli synlig. Den metod jag valt är av experimentell karaktär, där diskussionen kring ämnet sker i en blogg. Bloggens inlägg tillsammans med seriestripparna har haft som syfte att skapa diskussion kring ämnet. Responsen/kommentarerna på dessa inlägg är det material som analysen bygger på. Analysen belyser de mönster tendenser och skillnader som går att finna i materialet. Slutsatsen jag dragit av studien är att den traditionella konstuppfattningen är alltjämt närvarande även om en hel del av den institutionella teorin har accepterats.

Denna undersökning har fokus på frågor i relation till att professionella konstnärer är verksamma skolor som en del av att infria läroplanernas övergripande kulturuppdrag. Här problematiseras vad konstnärerna genom sin praktik kan tillföra skolan. Data till undersökningen baseras på erfarenheter av arbeten där barn och ungdomar har arbetat med konstnärer. Med en diskursanalytisk ansats undersöks hur olika aktörer beskriver konstnärers arbete i skolan.Citat ur statliga och kommunala styrdokument som rör samarbeten mellan skola och konstnärer återges i undersökningen, samt något om forskning om estetik i skolan. Projektet Skapande skola är ett av exemplen som beskrivs genom data som insamlats för att se vilken kompetens konstnärer kan behöva för att verka som konstnärer i skolan.Undersökningen lyfter fram fyra diskursiva förslag på positioner som beskriver hur konstnärer kan bidra till kunskap inom skolans ram. De fyra förslagen lyder;1. Konstnären som ögonöppnare (gör att andra elever och andra saker, än vanligtvis blir synliga, och att nya tankar tar form)2. Konstnären som pausfågel (gör så att lärare och elever i skolan får ett avbrott i den vardagliga undervisningen).3. Konstnären som specialist (gör så att eleverna får tillgång till nya material och tekniker och till ett nytt yrkesområde)4. Konstnären som samhällsguide (gör så att eleverna orienterar sig ut mot samhället).Genom beskrivning av vad konstnären kan bidra med i form av estetisk kunskap genom estetiska lärprocesser, syftar undersökningen till förståelse för konstnärens yrkesidentitet i skolans sfär. Diskurspositionerna kan sägas legitimera konstnärens verksamhet som komplement till ordinarie estetisk undervisning och i det övergripande kulturuppdraget inom alla skolans ämnesområden. / This investigation focuses on issues that arise when professional artists work in schools as part of a course of study to meet national curriculum programmes of study requirements and cultural education attainment targets.This thesis examines what artists can contribute to schools through their artistic residencies.The data for this study is based on experiences from artistic work with children and young people during artist residencies in schools and colleges. A discourse analytical approach has been used to investigate how different actors describe artists’ work in schools and colleges.Quotes from national and council policy documents on topics related to programmes that involve schools and artists can be found in this study, as well as selected research on aesthetics in schools.This study highlights four discursive suggestions of positions that describe how artists can contribute to knowledge within the realm of schools and colleges.The four discursive suggestions of positions are as follows:1.The artist as a catalyst (eye-opener) for new ways of thinking.2.The artist as a “break in routine”.3.The artist as a specialist. Gives access to new techniques or professional fields.4.The artist as a guide to society.Through describing what artists can contribute in the form of aesthetic knowledge and aesthetic learning processes, the aim of the study is to understand the artists’ professional identity in the educational sphere. The discursive positions one can say legitimises artists’ activities in schools as a complement to regular aesthetic teaching and in the overarching cultural attainment targets in all subject areas. / <p></p><p></p>

<p>Anne Charlotte Leffler, Victoria Benedictsson and Frida Stéenhoff were all part of the Modern Breakthrough in Swedish literature. By utilizing Jürgen Habermas theoretical works on communicative action, and Nancy Fraser’s supplementary reading of his theory, this essay makes clear that the authors’ struggle for an understanding and a rethinking of social norms in their plays <em>Skådespelerskan </em>(1873), <em>Romeos Julia </em>(1888) and <em>Lejonets unge </em>(1896) can be read as a contribution to the public debate. Dialogue has a key function for female authors during the Modern Breakthrough. Women and mens’ possibilities to take part in conversation and argument as equals, requires the professional woman’s transgression and access to the privileges of both public (State) administration – “system”, and world of everyday life – “lifeworld”. As oppositional authors, Leffler, Benedictsson and Stéenhoff took advantage of the literary public domain, in this case the theatre. The theatre as public sphere had a more effective capacity to affect its audience than fiction. The plays were written and staged in a cultural period that, compared with the present one, in a greater sense influenced public opinion. The theatre was a powerful part of the public debate, and this debate involved parties from both on-stage and off-stage positions.</p><p>At the theatre Leffler, Benedictsson and Stéenhoff turned the private into politics. Their powerful contribution to the public debate were directed specifically towards the bourgeois audience. They carried on a controversy concerning the notion of the bourgeois family by showing scenarios that raised objection to its idealistic point of view. The bourgeois living room was exposed on stage. Conflicts related to the private sphere were brought up as a theme in a public sphere and by so means were incorporated into the public debate, which at that time was dominated by men. The plays mirrored the audience and the authors’ strategies were based upon the remodeling power inherent in conversation and argumentation. Thereby, the audience were confronted with an alternated reflection of themselves. This reflection should be read as a problematic representation of the writing of history. The alternate mirroring brought in itself forward an argument that emphasized why a new reflection was necessary.</p><p><em>Skådespelerskan</em>, <em>Romeos Julia </em>and <em>Lejonets unge</em> examine female artists in a bourgeois environment. Through the artist the structures that maintain bourgeois ideals are exposed and questioned, but first and foremost the artist show that communicative action between men and women was insufficient. The androcentric order did not acknowledge women and men as equals, in accordance with that, the possibility of conversation, in the sense of Habermas, came to nothing. Under such circumstances an understanding between men and women could not be reached. Love within the institution of marriage also suffered since it could not be founded in acknowledgement as long as the structure maintained. Saga and Adil, the main characters in <em>Lejonets unge</em>, personify, on the other hand, Stéenhoffs ideas of what is being needed to change the androcentric structure. They are citizens of the future.</p><p>My focus is on human action (in an Aristotelian sense) in the plays, the way characters stage themselves and bring the plot forward, shed light upon their possibilities and limitations in proportion to each other as men and women. My analysis thereby contrasts with the greater part of earlier research. I give prominence to the connection between psychological conflict and social position/role. In <em>Skådespelerskan</em>, <em>Romeos Julia</em> and <em>Lejonets unge</em> all of the characters’ psychological conflicts are based in gender issues, the consequences of being a man or woman in the 18th century, rather than explicit existential matters.</p>

Anne Charlotte Leffler, Victoria Benedictsson and Frida Stéenhoff were all part of the Modern Breakthrough in Swedish literature. By utilizing Jürgen Habermas theoretical works on communicative action, and Nancy Fraser’s supplementary reading of his theory, this essay makes clear that the authors’ struggle for an understanding and a rethinking of social norms in their plays Skådespelerskan (1873), Romeos Julia (1888) and Lejonets unge (1896) can be read as a contribution to the public debate. Dialogue has a key function for female authors during the Modern Breakthrough. Women and mens’ possibilities to take part in conversation and argument as equals, requires the professional woman’s transgression and access to the privileges of both public (State) administration – “system”, and world of everyday life – “lifeworld”. As oppositional authors, Leffler, Benedictsson and Stéenhoff took advantage of the literary public domain, in this case the theatre. The theatre as public sphere had a more effective capacity to affect its audience than fiction. The plays were written and staged in a cultural period that, compared with the present one, in a greater sense influenced public opinion. The theatre was a powerful part of the public debate, and this debate involved parties from both on-stage and off-stage positions. At the theatre Leffler, Benedictsson and Stéenhoff turned the private into politics. Their powerful contribution to the public debate were directed specifically towards the bourgeois audience. They carried on a controversy concerning the notion of the bourgeois family by showing scenarios that raised objection to its idealistic point of view. The bourgeois living room was exposed on stage. Conflicts related to the private sphere were brought up as a theme in a public sphere and by so means were incorporated into the public debate, which at that time was dominated by men. The plays mirrored the audience and the authors’ strategies were based upon the remodeling power inherent in conversation and argumentation. Thereby, the audience were confronted with an alternated reflection of themselves. This reflection should be read as a problematic representation of the writing of history. The alternate mirroring brought in itself forward an argument that emphasized why a new reflection was necessary. Skådespelerskan, Romeos Julia and Lejonets unge examine female artists in a bourgeois environment. Through the artist the structures that maintain bourgeois ideals are exposed and questioned, but first and foremost the artist show that communicative action between men and women was insufficient. The androcentric order did not acknowledge women and men as equals, in accordance with that, the possibility of conversation, in the sense of Habermas, came to nothing. Under such circumstances an understanding between men and women could not be reached. Love within the institution of marriage also suffered since it could not be founded in acknowledgement as long as the structure maintained. Saga and Adil, the main characters in Lejonets unge, personify, on the other hand, Stéenhoffs ideas of what is being needed to change the androcentric structure. They are citizens of the future. My focus is on human action (in an Aristotelian sense) in the plays, the way characters stage themselves and bring the plot forward, shed light upon their possibilities and limitations in proportion to each other as men and women. My analysis thereby contrasts with the greater part of earlier research. I give prominence to the connection between psychological conflict and social position/role. In Skådespelerskan, Romeos Julia and Lejonets unge all of the characters’ psychological conflicts are based in gender issues, the consequences of being a man or woman in the 18th century, rather than explicit existential matters.