This essay examines the debate that arose in connection to the sale of Carl Larsson’s monumental painting Midvinterblot in 1987. My main purpose is to examine which meanings the debaters ascribed Midvinterblot and in which way the debate influenced the paintings significance as cultural heritage. I will therefore argue that the debate initiated a renegotitation of the paintings meaning as cultural heritage. In the debate the debaters emphasized the National Museum’s responsibility over cultural heritage, Midvinterblots aestethic, the paintings economic value and its national implications. The controversies concerning the painting shows that its meaning as cultural heritage was not constituted by the painting itself but by the meanings which the debaters placed upon it. The debate also sheds light on that there may be a wide variety of opinions concerning what it is that constitutes as cultural heritage. The meanings the debaters ascribed Midvinterblot related, however, in a crucial way to each other. My examination of the debate also show how cultural heritage is created to fill a specific purpose, for example, to maintain cultural values, to attract tourists or as a resource in the formation of group identities.

According to Edward Said the Orient is a European construction that has arisen out of a need to describe the Western civilisation as culturally superior. This occurrence Said gives the label "Orientalism". Art historian Linda Nochlin takes Said’s theories further in The Imaginary Orient where she conveys the thesis that the pictorial Orientalism is an expression of an imperialistic ideology. John M. Mackenzie, on the other hand is of the opinion that the pictorial Orientalism rather is an expression of the Romantic movement. To understand the Orientalist art we have to consider the social and historical context in which the work was created. By trying to justify the Orientalists choice of motive Mackenzie takes the view of those who consider art history as a positive discipline. Nochlin on the other hand means that we instead of fortifying the art historical canon we ought to politicize it, which only is possible if we contemplate art history as a critical rather than a positive discipline.