ABSTRACT
In the case of Hannah Ryggen’s work, to imagine is to create a narrative based on a given visual representation, individual as well as objective knowledge, and experience in response to contact with the artwork. There is thus a huge gap between Picasso and Ryggen’s approaches and anti-war artworks. But they do share one element in common: lack of clear interpretation, which forces the viewer to use his or her imagination. How was it then possible that the work was still regarded as allegedly too disturbing for the audience? The reason is that Hannah Ryggen’s artistic practice incorporates a very particular case of an aesthetics of resistance—something the author describe as—a representation of lack, and a matter of imagination. Ryggen’s political, humanist, and social engagement in art against fascism, war, and support of social justice was clear: she was either criticizing or denouncing oppressive systems or praising individuals who rebelled against them.
