Laws and regulations

So where does this behavior come from? Why are the graveyards used as parks? Is there a correlation between the land of the dead and recreational spaces? There may be a logical answer to this question, looking into the legislation on graveyard plots. The outlook of these plots is not circumstantial, but carefully planned and carried out. The laws and regulation issued by the Fornyings-, administrasjons- og kirkedepartementet (FAD) clearly states that each grave needs the dimension of 1,5x3 meters and urns of 2,25 square meters. Each field consists of 8 rows and each row has 25 single graves (Klingenberg 1997: 18-21, 36). Natural pathways create accessibility so no graves are stepped on. About 50% of a regular burial plot is actually used for graves. The entire plot is placed on a slope hill, entirely covered with grass, so the rain water is naturally funneled to each single grave for the decomposing stage (Klingenberg 1997: 38-40). In addition, graveyards have built into their design buffer zones to create distance to surrounding houses, road lanes and outside disturbances. In other words, the FAD dictates a typology very similar to recreational parks. It is also a fact that graveyards are public spaces where the premises are open to the public most of the day.

Historical facts

Looking into the evolution of graveyards, historical facts reveals a much grimmer past. Graveyards became a typology out of necessity, as the church floors did not have the capacity to store the amount of deceased. The first graveyards were located outside city borders, as living among the dead often meant sickness and disease. Oslo municipality would go on to have 6 greater expansions between 1794 and 1948 (Evensberget 1979). Living amongst the dead became inevitable as the borders of the city engulfed the graveyards. The general opinion towards these sites at the time, were mostly hateful. We forget that these spaces once were regarded as unpopular parts of the city and associated with death and decay (Alsvik 1998). In light of this, the resistance towards change is actually surprising. These facts reveal the true nature of graveyards; they are in reality highly susceptible to changes in attitude.

Multipurpose

Purpose specific programs and structures has its limitations, especially in a modern society with dynamic changes and limited space. The natural response is “multipurpose”, a commonly known approach that tries to streamline given programs to fit an array of familiar programs, rather than one in particular. This is actually what is happening with graveyards. The reality of today’s condition is this: Each grave hardly gets more than one-figure visits each month and graveyards are rarely “packed”. Their easy accessibility and other advantages have led to the endangerment of graveyards as a space for mourning and contemplation, its former state and status quo. But what if we consider this situation as beneficial? In reality might not multipurpose save these sacred spaces in keeping its relevance in an ever-changing society? Perhaps the change in how graveyards are used is not negative at all, considering people actually come here for their daily routines, enjoying the site in itself. With the case of Ullern, people choose these spaces to gaze at the city. The problem might be what the familiar programs consist of; on one side recreation and joy, and on the other side graveyard and grief. Since ancient times the mutual respect between the living and the dead has been undisputed. These sites have historically created some kind of friction, whether it is health issues, spatial issues or terms of conduct, one cannot deny its rising popularity amongst the general population as an issue. We are left wondering if our old virtues are all that important. Do the dead rest any better as we quietly mourn for them? Or is the mourning only holding on to a dying culture, as their reluctance is standing in the way of change? Who should bow down the mourner visiting the graves of their loved ones, or the visitors using it solely as recreation spaces? Hausmania, Sofienberg park, St. Hanshaugen park and Stensparken used to be graveyards, but has later been transformed into fully fledged recreational spaces of its own contemporary (Alsvik 1998). On the other hand, the thought of inflating graveyards with anything else can be hard to swallow, as one does not want to desecrate the memories of the deceased. Memories do not take any shape, yet we need a physical space for contemplation. On the other hand, the exact size needed is hard to define, with almost no measurable parameters in the equation, and it is easy being cynical justifying this certain change with measurable data.

Why so serious?

The dichotomy may be false and maybe what we really need is a new kind of public space that can handle both groups at the same time. Maybe the next stage is the in-between, the hybrid condition where mourning and barbeque can exist side by side (Alsvik 1998). One can examine Eisenmann’s “A Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe” as a reference. Richard Brody of The New Yorker criticizes it for being too blunt and with no direct references to its purpose and heavy theme; one can also regard the criticism as beauty by accident (New Yorker webpage). The bluntness in the execution of its symbolic values, has allowed not only a more open behavior in the memorial, but also an acceptance towards its accidental multipurpose. Both children and adults can be seen exploring the place as if it was a maze or playground as it is situated in a frequently visited urban setting. This memorial also serves as the setting of multiple risqué profile pictures on the gay hookup app, Grindr (Jezebel webpage). How would a more literal and direct representation of the murdered Jews play out? Would it not be considered a faux pas as when deLillos performed their all too direct song in commemoration of the 22nd of July in Oslo (NRK Webpage)? A mourner does not need the constant reminder of death and sorrow; in the end is it not the happy memories that count? The mediation between reality and blurriness seems to be a necessity in a program that deals with death and the intangible. Maybe the social change in graveyards can be regarded as an extension of this mediation, a sort of political correctness towards a painful theme that takes itself too seriously.