Amandus wants to paint one side of the Beckmans (E) container

Amandus, our dear artist at Gerlesborgsskolan, wants to paint a side of the Beckmans container. He is a great artist, as well as a very important contact at the school, and is very helpful with setting up meetings with them and such. I will write a longer update on this in the Gerlesborg topic, when I have more info and some things have been cleared out.

He wants to paint a large bug in his own style of depictive spray-paint pointilism, sort of a naivist take on early Damien Hirst. Do we want a large colorful bug covering one of the broad sides of the Beckmans container? (of course we do.)

Here’s two examples, the first of the technique and the second of the motif:


You’ve answered the question, and my advice is to go for it! :slight_smile: A no-brainer from my point of view.


Also, let’s invite Amandus to the forum @jakobskote!


Great! It’s a GO from me! Looking forward to se that happen! Would feel good to inform Jonas to make sure he and the Beckmans gang are involved in the changes thought! :slight_smile:


To clarify. I don’t think we need to ask for permission, it’s just a polite gesture to tell them before we repaint their wall.

1 Like

Exhited to se the artpieces progress and it would be gest of the piec is nog througt it Will be the fromface for the collage. Is it going to be permanent or a fortsatt föränderlig Wall?
Love bugs :four_leaf_clover: Hell YES !


Great we have a forum then, so we can tag @jonasjohansson :slight_smile:

Thanks for the consideration @Simon. I don’t fully see the reasoning behind repainting this particular container (aren’t there others that lack art?). Is there a reason why Amandus wants to, in particular, paint a side of this container?

@jakobskote does painting a side meaning that he would paint his design on top of the existing, or would he create a new blank canvas, which he would then paint?

I also find it weird that this is a “no-brainer” @hugi , perhaps I’ve missed something. Is this our attitude towards everyones work, ie. the other containers having new artwork are also “no-brainers”?

Just to clarify, I am not sensitive about repainting the work we did, that’s all good. I am however reacting to the way it’s being discussed, as something that is obvious. Imagine if Simon didn’t include me at this stage, and I would arrive and it’s all just gone. That would have been such a strange thing to do.


No, I’m sorry it came out like this.
I mean to say that it’s a no-brainer that we want him to paint a container. Not that this particular container should be repainted. I mistakenly assumed that it had already been discussed with you.

And now we realise that it has not been, which is exactly why we run our decisions through an open process like this. It would indeed have been shitty if it would just have been done without consultation.

As it hasn’t been discussed, I still think this is an open question. This is an important decision because it will in some ways be guiding towards how we see the art pieces people create on the containers and what “right” others have to cover them.


Thank you for clarifying, I reacted a bit negatively to that choice of word, and understand now where it comes from!

I am very much open to the work done by the students evolving into something new, that’s fantastic, and shows that we are part of a larger iterative process, where one leads to the next. I’d be interested in understanding HOW this will happen, with some more detail.


Completely understandable, I would have reacted in the same way.

1 Like

This is a very important discussion as it will also affect the threshold/barrier to create new art at the square. If for example there is a culture established that finished art is without exception or distinction deemed “sacred” and/or permanent that would make at least me significantly more hesitant when it comes to supporting new initiatives without due process.

One clear example of this is how the spontaneous painting of the BL container by Mike and the girlfriend of Manju (Amelia?) during the September event build happened. They were allowed to do this (from my point of view) based on an assumed underlying principle of “easy come, easy go”.
As there wasn’t any clear process to it nor any preparatory work or other such kind of efforts.

“By all means go wild, we can always paint over it”

To me this differs fundamentally from the other side of the same container where the artist Johan was specifically and individually invited to do a planned piece. Then some expectation of longevity can certainly be allowed for IMO.

To be clear I personally regard the Beckman’s communal painting experiment a great thing as a creative process and I’m really happy that we can enable such things to happen with the square. I’m grateful to Jonas for making it a reality. In terms of actual aesthetical outcome though that’s a different discussion altogether. And to be perfectly honest me and my subjectivity find it pretty ugly… :slight_smile:

But that’s also to be expected from a collective painting experiment involving many people without previous experience of spraycans, foregoing the use of masking tape on a corrugated surface etc. And I would like us to be able to continue taking risks and allowing for playfulness. By all means go wild…

Ideally I would like to see some kind of evolutionary process happening with FT, where things (from containers to colors and what not) gradually fall into their optimal spaces and some kind of “look” is established by iterative trial and error.

I agree that the visual outcome of this particular container is in direct relation to its prerequisites. No need to tip-toe around that.

However, if subjective opinions (even when shared collectively) of what is “ugly” or not, is what inspires decisions such as “painting over”, then I’d say the curatorial foundation requires work. I write “inspires” as I theorize that such opinions would not go unnoticed, we’re a small community and an opinionated and outspoken one (and I think we should remain as such). I write “requires work” as the art made would then to some extent aim to please. Failing to do so means they are next in line to be “improved”. This could lead to us being less risk-taking and adventurous, preventing an experiment because the result may not be satisfactory.

I use harsher words there than may be needed (and I blow it out of proportion as I try to look beyond this instance), but I also want to reflect my feelings.

As this container “kicked off” the Frihamnstorget container painting project (and so there was nothing to loose by “trying”), it is natural to me that it also provides the basis for discussions like this (as we didn’t have much to base ourselves on before) and it is also natural that this container will undergo change (as they wall will). It was made to be a first coating, like the first layer of wallpaper in an old mansion. You have my blessings :slight_smile:


Hi all, sorry to have missed this very important conversation. @jonasjohansson I’m so sorry I didn’t mention/contact you directly about this, it is totally my fault as I just assumed this had already been cleared with you. It was an important conversation to have nonetheless, and I’m happy it turned out as it did.

I have now informed Amandus that the coast is clear and that he can paints whenever he wants. He has some new ideas so it might not be exactly a bug, I hope you’re all fine with that. He wants to paint this wednesday (6th). Everyone OK with this?


Amandus is coming tomorrow to paint. I won’t be at Blivande tomorrow, could someone meet him?

Make it a mugwump from “Naked Lunch” if possible. “Blade runner: A movie” by Burroughs has nothing to do with “Blade runner” the book or movie. But hey, go 4 it. :smiley:

1 Like