What Is “Scandinavian Design,” Really? Unpacking a Loaded Concept
"Scandinavian Design" is a phrase that sounds deceptively simple. For many, it instantly evokes images of clean lines, light woods, and minimal elegance. But what does the term actually mean? And who gets to decide?
Design historian Kjetil Fallan makes an important distinction between two ways of understanding the term:
-
Scandinavian Design (with a capital D) refers to, what he calls, the "actor's category" — the way designers, curators, and promoters have historically used the term in specific contexts, especially in mid-20th century for international exhibitions.
This is, more often than not, the "general understanding" of Scandinavian Design as a visual identity or style. It is highly curated and was shaped by a few elite individuals in the early 1900. The philosophy behind the concept that took such a hold of design history narratives is quite interesting and I will be writing more about this in a later post!
-
Scandinavian design (lowercase d) can instead be used according to Fallan as an analytical category, allowing scholars and artists to critically explore and define what Nordic design might mean—across time, mediums, and intentions.
This would be the more "scientific term" when discussing design from the nordic countries, liberated from the presumption of a set style or aesthetic.
So, why does this distinction matter?
Because, when we confuse these two meanings, we risk reducing a complex and diverse design culture into the "master-narrative" that Fallan mentions — one that was deliberately crafted to appeal to foreign markets in the 1950s to sell the Scandinavian ideal and conceptual way of life. The idea of "Scandinavian Design" as we know it today was never neutral nor representative. It was shaped by a few selected actors', for the benefit of those few selected actors. Fallan notes that this myth has "a strong but severely distorted image" of what Scandinavian design is. It often excludes everyday objects, decorative arts, anonymous designs, minority voices, and non-modernist or non-functional expressions. In short: it erases the full richness, the fun and contradiction of Nordic visual culture.
Also, let's rant...
Even the term "Scandinavian" is quite fuzzy. Scandinavia is sometimes used as a synonym for Nordic countries. However, strictly speaking, the Scandinavian peninsula only houses Norway, and Sweden. Denmark is often included under the umbrella term "Scandinavian" due to its linguistic and cultural ties to the other two. Yet most accounts of "Scandinavian Design" also include Finland — but not Iceland. Why? As Fallan explains, this was a strategic decision made by those who promoted the concept abroad. Finland had strong design institutions and production infrastructure at the time, like Denmark — Iceland didn't. Again, the story of "Scandinavian Design", in the current common understanding of it, is as much about politics and promotion as it is about form or function.
So Where Do We Go From Here?
The question isn't whether the term "Scandinavian Design" is valid or not. The question is: How can we use the term critically? How can we understand it and reframe it?
This blog is one small attempt at doing just that.
Rather than enforcing a single, polished definition of what Scandinavian design is, I'm more interested in what it was and what it could be — what it includes, excludes, suggests, hides, and reveals. I want to hold space for contradictions and counter-narratives. Scandinavian design (lowercase d) existed before the 1950's and Nordic visual culture stretches further back in time as well as reaches far into the contemporary space and includes many ways of expression, far more exiting than beige wood.
In that spirit, let's treat the term "Scandinavian Design" critically and open it up for questioning. A question that needs many voices, many answers — and many stories.
Thank you for reading!
Love,
t.KJL
References:
Fallan, K. (Ed.). (2012). Scandinavian Design: Alternative Histories. London: Bloomsbury Academic.