Otto Mäkilä

Today I've been to the Taidemuseo with one of my friends. The exhibition of what is apparently some of the best pieces from their collection wasn't particularly enjoyable. A few things stood out, but not many. I think part of the problem was that it was heavily landscape-based, and I don't find landscapes particularly interesting. The works were all examples of brilliant technical skill, but nothing really grabbed me, which was a shame. Finnish artists, particularly from the 19th century, seemed very into painting the countryside. I'm sure that if that kind of art caters to your tastes it would be an excellent exhibition to see, but unfortunately it was not for me.

After that we saw the Otto Mäkilä exhibition, and thankfully I enjoyed that so much more. The collection as quite extensive, and showed a really good body of work. Some pieces reminded me of Marc Chagall, others seemed to be influenced by Cubism and Futurism. It was really worth seeing. I also really liked that Mäkilä's sketchbook pages were included in the show; I always like being able to see the thought process behind an artist's work. Too often we are just presented with the final "masterpiece", and for art students it can be a bit discouraging to think that the artist was magically able to produce something so brilliant just like that whilst we cannot. Most of the time you don't get to see the initial planning, or the 10 attempts that went wrong before the final piece, so it's good to be reminded that these famous people weren't any different to us.

Once again, I end up wondering why no Finnish artists seem to be well known in my country. Do they not want to be known outside of Finland or Scandinavia? Is the market in Britain oversaturated with native artists, making it difficult for foreign artists to break through? Artists from other Western European countries and America seem to make a name for themselves, so why not Northern European artists? Using Otto Mäkilä as an example, there is no reason why his work shouldn't be as famous in England as it is in Finland. It's not offensive, it doesn't contain cultural references that people outside of Finland couldn't understand, and it's not actually so different to work that has been successful in that country. I'm starting to wonder if the artists choose not to make themselves known outside of Finland, and if that's the case, why? It's quite frustrating, because I think the work is brilliant and that people in other countries should be aware of it. When I go back to university I will have to write a dissertation, and I'm starting to think that this could be worthy subject matter - I'd really like to find out why it is this way. I'd like to find a Finnish artist or curator and ask their opinion on this. Artists from other countries are known in England, and some Finnish artists are extremely well known and respected here, so why does that not translate to somewhere else? There seems to be a good enough artistic history and tradition.

The only exception seems to be Tom of Finland, and I think his notoriety stems from the controversy surrounding his work. He does apparently have a gallery representing his work in London, and has had exhibitions in France and USA. Even so, I still had never heard of him before coming here. There's an exhibition of his work on at the moment as part of the Capital of Culture programme, which I'd be interested to see.

I'm glad I have the opportunity to learn about Finnish art, even if other people are still missing out on it. It makes me wonder how much quality art we're missing out on, and I think it's a great shame.