1. THE COMPLEXITY OF OWNERSHIPS
In the recognition of multiple ownerships I find tensions; I in-
tentionally show the layers in order to propose them as indica-
tors of some of the forces involved in their society.
In a bigger discourse of systematizing what is posed unvolun-
tary by exterior forces and what values/initiativs/passions derive
from the people of the region. It might be relevant to detect and
use some points of departure/socio-cultural potentials of the
settlement of these regions in a further discursion.
The pinpointed layers consist of bureaucracy, municipality and
federal ownerships and implications/influences that in a total
create their existence (cosmos).
UNIVERSAL/FEDERAL/MUNICIPALITY
INDIVIDUAL

2. FISKEVÆR; HISTORISM
Hamningberg is divided in zones deter-
mined by different levels of protection.
I spoke to house owners of an exterior -
protected house. The purpose of this type
is maintaining the facade adjacent to the
past, as a historical reference. This to
correspond with the preliminary histori-
cal illusion that brings the tourists to the
place. The cost of maintaining this image,
however, is the reduction of the dwellings
as set - ups not adapted to live in. For
example, windows of one layered glass
are prefered at the expense of two. The
estethic intentions of the municipality
(which pays fot it) override the function-
ality.

3. HUSBANKEN
After the ‘scorched earth tactics’ of
Finnmark in the WW2 ‘Husbanken’ was
established in order to cope with the
social need for housing. ‘Reconstruction
buildings’ were stricktly regulated in or-
der to get finances. An invasion of modul
based, not site - spesific, limited areal
dwellings reestablished Finnmark. After
this building boom it seems like further
construction/modernization and renova-
tion have not been prioritized. Therefore
many of the places we visited are still wit-
nesses of this political action of the 50’s.
One could say that it generated a gener-
alization of the notherners, but in the
end this housing is also embedded as a
characteristic typology in these areas.
(Photo from Gjenreisningsmuseet, Ham-
merfest)

4. MURMANSK
The manner of constructed cheap and pre
- fabricated block housing is dictated as
a strategy from the state. The municipal-
ity owns the framing block construction
whereas the flats within these are private-
ly owned by the citizens.
The municipality owned block housings
are neglected in the sense that the munici-
pality doesn’t have a proper renovation
strategy.
Restrained against changes I believe that
the Russians are swallowed by their own
bueraucratic processes, making initiatives
hard to establish.
21 20 19 18

5. Modernist comprehension of the traditional culture
within the region. I doubt this as an operational and con-
vincing path to follow. Then, how else?
Observation. The indigenous people is concious about the duality of their present
character. The Sami woman, within the same photo (folded as two - sided) is split
between a traditional appearance and a ‘modern’, stripped for cultural symbols or-
recognitions (artist in Kautokeino?)

6. SOMETHING IS ABOUT TO LEAVE
The old generation endure despite the big companies’ interest disappears in line with exhausted fields of
natural resources. I argue that the North situation is deeply infiltrated in their perception of life. From one
generation to another, in the loss of this stationary representation, the perception and belonging to the situa-
tion might/is about to change drastically.
To this generation the purpose of living in the North reaches beyond the interest of work possibilites/natural
resources. In their attachment to the surroundings they create their meaning of existence.
The cultural framing demands a certain collective understanding in order to maintain the basis of the cul-
ture, although ‘the cultures’ of Finnmark (e.g. Sami, nomadic, outdoor related) seem, at first glance, to
underline/notify the importance of the individ; maintaining each man’s sphere. This manifests itself through
a more visible individual freedom in the housing systems, through privately owned land and thereby facili-
tating a personal pragmatic handling of their existence. Ie culture not in conflict with/assosiated with hous-
ing arrangements. In reality features as the lavvo behave as a manifested symbol of the mobile and pragmatic
- oriented everyday life. But to be frank, is’t it just a mean to be able to pursue/act out the culture? And when
this mean is outdated/not in function, like the lavvo, is there a point in cultivating it as a symbol of the cul-
ture?
Symbols and ornamentation according to Heidegger: To the Greeks, what we call ornamentation was an es-
sential aspect of their understanding of cosmos (the existence). The object was both a mean of function/
technique and a dimention/representation of meaning. A jar that is ment for collecting water is shaped and
decorated in order to tell about this purpose and the water’s position in cosmos. The jar, placed is this light,
becomes a reminder of our own position in cosmos, thereby the creation of meaning. The symbols are only
understood as objects of meaning within the culture they are born, and therefore easy to neglect for example
to big oil/gas companies entering the North areas. The industrialization and the mechanical processes are
accused to dissociate the human from the craftmanship, which originally played an important role in the
everyday life and the culture. In this, he argues that we are missing out on the context/correlation related to
our existence and history. The nature of the technique makes us trapped in calculated thoughts, to compen-
sate for the human’s need to master/manage it’s surroundings, and with little sensibility and conciousness.
Although the explicit use of symbols appears to us as inefficient use of resources they might be seen as repre-
sentations of a culture’s actions, habits and implicit rules, which should be pursued in future developement, if
not too explicit.
Now dealing with both the Murmansk region and Finnmark I believe in stressing the difference of looking at
this collective cultural thinking as a straitjacket (of collective acting) or a belonging as a point of departure.
Within the latter, a modern thiking might infiltrate. Heidegger suggests ‘portions of meaning’ as a future
strategy. He appeals to the individ, realizing the impossibility of revolutionizing with a collective, general
strategy, worrying this method doesn’t convince or reach the individ. I agree in this point, and think the
creation of meaning within the existing societies; an initiative addressed within the local community, could
be an interesting approach.
Local Local
National National
International International Local embrace?