The reproduction of photographic artworks as a conservation strategy

326 Pages·2017·27.34 MB·English

Monica Marchesi

F
O
R
E
V
Photographs, because of their chemical make up, are inherently E
R
unstable. The process of degradation is relatively fast and cannot be

turned around. This puts both artists and conservators in a difficult Y FOREVER
position. The idea of reproducing old photographs in order to be able O
to present them ‘the way they were meant when first created’
U
is attractive to many contemporary artists as well to museums.
N
However, the concept of the reproduction of photographic artworks G
YOUNG
as a fountain of eternal youth that protracts a flawless condition is not

without problems. Eternal youth comes at a price. That price varies

with each individual work of art.

Forever Young examines the reproduction of four photographic

artworks as a conservation strategy from the vantage point of a

conservator working in a museum of contemporary art.

This book explores a vast issue in modern and contemporary art. M
The reproduction of
It is a first attempt in its field, and will undoubtedly be the start for o
n
many future research and scholarly discussion.
i
c photographic artworks as
a

M
a conservation strategy
a
r
c
h
e
s
i
Monica Marchesi
FOREVER
YOUNG

The reproduction of
photographic artworks as
a conservation strategy
Cover illustration: Detail from John Baldessari, Virtues and Vices (for Giotto), 1981,
Van Abbemuseum.
Photo: Rik Klein Gotink
ISBN: 978-94-6233-801-2
Author: Monica Marchesi
Cover design & Lay-out: Esther Beekman (www.estherontwerpt.nl)
Printing: Gildeprint, Enschede
© 2017 Monica Marchesi
All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any
means, without permission in writing of the copyright owner. The copyright of the articles that
have been published has been transferred to the respective journals.
Forever Young
The Reproduction of Photographic Artworks
as a Conservation Strategy
PROEFSCHRIFT
ter verkrijging van
de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden,
op gezag van Rector Magnificus prof. mr. C.J.J.M. Stolker
volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties
te verdedigen op 30 november 2017
klokke 15:00 uur
door
Monica Marchesi
Florence (Italië)
1971
Promotores
Prof. Dr. Kitty Zijlmans, Universiteit Leiden
Prof. Dr. Pip Laurenson, Tate London/Universiteit Maastricht
Co-promotor
Dr. Helen Westgeest, Universiteit Leiden
Promotiecommissie
Prof. Dr. Robert Zwijnenberg, Universiteit Leiden
Prof. Dr. Renée van de Vall, Universiteit Maastricht
Dr. Eric de Bruyn, Universiteit Leiden
Dr. Margriet Schavemaker, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam
Table of contents
Acknowledgements 8
Introduction 11
The beginning of research 13
Reproduction as an act of substitution and replacement 16
Outline of the research and theoretical frame of reference 19
Chapter 1: Defining the field 25
The material perspective of a conservator 26
The materiality of objects in conservation 31
The crisis of materiality in conservation 34
‘Function’ and ‘artist intent’ and their problematic use in conservation 38
Context in conservation 43
Disunity of ‘epistemic cultures’ in conservation 45
Reproduction to counteract damage 51
Chapter 2: Reproduction as an act of reduction 55
2.1 The convention of reduction 59
Autographic and allographic arts 59
Multiple autographic artworks 61
Reproduction as subtractive and additive process 66
2.2 The conservator’s eye 68
Paradigma indiziario and the ‘conservator’s eye’. 69
Attentive visual examination: Sight and mapping 73
2.3 The plural work 76
Plural immanence 77
Plural immanence: Theoretical difficulties 79
Some consequences of plural immanence 82
Chapter 3: The reproduction of Comet Sea 3°–60° 87
3.1 Comet Sea 3°–60° material narrative 90
Comet Sea 3°–60° in the context of Jan Dibbets’ early works 90
(1969–73)
Comet Sea 3°−60° and its conservation history 95
Constituent and contingent features of the three versions 98
Coexistence of features 109
3.2 Points of discomfort 112
Patina 113
Authorized narratives 118
Signature as an indicator of discomfort 122
Identification label: The case of Comet Sea 3°−60° 125
Hidden messages 131
Chapter 4: The Reproduction of Virtues and Vices (for Giotto) 137
4.1. Virtues and Vices (for Giotto) material narrative 139
The role of photography in John Baldessari’s conceptual works 140
Virtues and Vices (for Giotto) 146
The ‘taking moments’ of Virtues and Vices (for Giotto) 152
The conservation history of Virtues and Vices (for Giotto) shifting value 156
judgements
The anachronistic use of material and techniques 165
4.2 The frames of Virtues and Vices (for Giotto) 167
Frames in the context of John Baldessari’s photographic works 168
The unframed condition of Virtues and Vices (for Giotto) 178
Chapter 5: Dissimilarities in the reproduction of Lalalalalight and Xiada 185
(Girls’ dorm), Xiamen
5.1 Lalalalalight and Xiada (Girls’ dorm), Xiamen material narrative 187
Three early photographic works by Van Der Kaap 191
Lalalalalight 198
Lalalalalight and its conservation history 200
Xiada (Girls’ dorm), Xiamen 207
Xiada (Girls’ dorm), Xiamen and its conservation history 209
Differences and similarities between Lalalalalight and Xiada (Girls’ dorm), 212
Xiamen
5.2 Moral rights, intentional destruction, and disqualification 215
Moral rights 215
Underlying principles or the doctrine of moral rights 222
Intentional destruction of works of art 225
Intentional destruction of Xiada (Girls’ dorm), Xiamen first version 227
Lalalalalight in ‘limbo’ 231
Concluding remarks 239
Coda 247
Wout Berger 250
Koos Breukel 253
Rineke Dijkstra 255
Bibliography 262
Table of illustrations 288
List of diagrams 291
Photo credits 292
Samenvatting 294
Biography 298
Appendix: Conservation Stakeholders’ Identification Form 301
Stakeholders’ Identification Form 303
Glossary 310
Stakeholder approach 311
Stakeholders approach in conservation 313
Diagrams 318
Bibliography of the appendix 320
Table of diagrams 324
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude and thankfulness to the persons and
institutions below who made my research successful and assisted me at every point
of this scholarly journey:
In the first place, my academic advisors Professor Kitty Zijlmans, Professor Pip
Laurenson, and Dr. Helen Westgeest for their support, motivation, and for sharing
their knowledge with me. Their guidance and critical approach helped me
throughout the entire dissertation and enabled me to improve my thinking and
writing.
Sandra Weerdenburg for the trust, the time, and energy she has put in the research
project ‘Photographs and Preservation. How to Save Photographic Artworks for the
Future?’. Without her commitment, the entire project would never have started.
My fellow researchers Caroline von Courten and Bas Reijers for the stimulating
discussions, the other members of the research group for their feedback: Bernadette
van Beek, Dr. Lydia Beerkens, Professor Leo Jenneskens, Hripsimé Visser, Clara von
Waldthausen, Dr. Bill Wei, and all the experts and students who have participated
over the years to the plenary meetings of the project: Justa van den Bulk, Esther
Lampe, Laura van Rijs, Anne Ruygt, Sylvia van Schaik, Maria Schnyder, Dr. Sanneke
Stigter, and Johanna de Vos. A special mention goes to Dr. John Havermans, an
extraordinary person who unfortunately left us too soon.
The Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam in supporting the research and in particular to
the colleagues of the paper conservation department Soji Chou, Femke Segers, and
especially Tessa Rietveld. Thanks to their work and encouragement, I could leave
the daily work of the museum behind me knowing that the paper and photograph
collections were in very good hands. Additionally, I want to thank all the librarians
of the Stedelijk Museum’s for their friendliness, genuine interest over the years, and
willingness to purchase all the books I needed, and Hetty Wessels for finding old
photographic documentation.
8
Christiane Berndes and Aurora Loerakker of the Van Abbemuseum for their
hospitality and openness, Dr. Vivian van Saaze for her friendly suggestions, André
van Oort and Gert Hoogeveen for sharing their thoughts with me, the staff of the
Royal Netherlands Institute in Rome as well the researchers staying at the institute for
making my two stays there an inspiring and fruitful experience.
The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO/Humanities) for
supporting and funding the ‘Photographs and Preservation’ project, the Ph.D. and
Postdoc Network for Conservation of Contemporary Art Research (CoCARe) and
the New Art Trust for providing me with the opportunity to attend their respective
workshops in Lisbon and in San Francisco, the Foundation for the Conservation of
Contemporary Art (SBMK) for allowing me the consultation of artist’s interviews, the
Centre for Arts in Society at the Leiden University (LUCAS) and the Stedelijk Museum
Amsterdam for the financial contribution in printing the dissertation.
The artists John Baldessari, Wout Berger, Koos Breukel, Jan Dibbets, Rineke Dijkstra,
and Gerald Van Der Kaap for providing such fascinating case studies and for sharing
their ideas about reproduction with me. I would be remiss if I do not thank Anna
Yeadell-Moore who deserves credit for the excellent editing work.
Last but not least, my family: in particular my mother, Anka; my sister, Sarita;
my children Olivia and Arturo for their love; and Matthijs for his unyielding support
despite all the ups and downs and for being a source of inspiration in this endeavour.
9