Strong Criticism Emerges Against Financing Model for Swedish Cultural Canon

The proposal for financing and managing the Swedish cultural canon has drawn significant criticism from major Swedish institutions and authorities. Central to the controversy is the plan to establish a new foundation to manage the cultural canon, endowed with 150 million kronor sourced from the Allmänna arvsfonden (General Heritage Fund), as recommended by Lars Trägårdhs committee. This proposal faces opposition from several key bodies, including the Ekonomistyrningsverket (ESV), Statskontoret, the Royal Library, the Artists' Council, and the Swedish Library Association, all expressing concern over the consequences of diverting funds from the General Heritage Fund and the risk of contravening the principle of political 'arms-length' distance from culture.

Critics argue that reallocating resources from the Allmänna arvsfonden threatens ongoing support for vulnerable groups such as children, youth, elderly, and individuals with disabilities, as well as nearly 70 cultural projects receiving funding over the last five years. The Kammarkollegiet highlights that demand for the fund's grants is at an all-time high, urging thorough impact analysis before any changes. Uppsala University additionally opposes the proposal, describing it as promoting nationalistic views that misrepresent Sweden's educational history. Similarly, the Swedish Association of Professional Writers (DIK) contends that regional projects based on the canon undermine political independence from culture.

While the National Museum supports both the foundation and funding model, others exhibit reservations. The National Heritage Board underscores safeguarding existing cultural heritage initiatives, particularly those engaged with children and disadvantaged groups. Concerns also extend to proposed dissemination methods, such as a suggested permanent canon exhibition at the Nordic Museum, which has been criticized by institutions like the Natural History Museum and Swedish Historical Museums for potentially breaching 'arms-length' principles by imposing exhibition decisions onto museums.

The suggestion to create a new multi-dimensional digital portal for the canon has met opposition for duplicating existing platforms; recommendations include enhancing current portals instead. Furthermore, some question the usefulness of employing the canon for artificial intelligence training.

In contrast, Visit Sweden views the cultural canon as a strategic tool to promote tourism and exports, aiming to publish 100 works digitally and in book form every ten years, targeting integration with educational reforms and folk high schools.

Sveriges kristna råd also provided nuanced feedback, appreciating the cultural canon's aim of presenting a pedagogical overview of Swedish cultural phenomena but criticizing the elitist connotation of the term "cultural canon" and suggesting "Bildningskompassen" as a more inclusive alternative. They stress the importance of incorporating theological expertise in canon management while hoping the canon will improve cultural accessibility and benefit regional development and integration.

The government office is now set to review these extensive and varied responses. The debate underscores the complexity of balancing cultural heritage promotion with ethical funding practices and institutional independence in Sweden’s cultural policy landscape.