Changing Methodology and Theoretical Issues in Conserving Ephemeral Contemporary Artworks

202 Pages·2017·3.24 MB·English

by  Lizzie Frasco

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPeennnnssyyllvvaanniiaa
SScchhoollaarrllyyCCoommmmoonnss
Undergraduate Humanities Forum 2008-09: Penn Humanities Forum Undergraduate
Change Research Fellows
4-2009
TThhee CCoonnttiinnggeennccyy ooff CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn:: CChhaannggiinngg MMeetthhooddoollooggyy aanndd
TThheeoorreettiiccaall IIssssuueess iinn CCoonnsseerrvviinngg EEpphheemmeerraall CCoonntteemmppoorraarryy
AArrttwwoorrkkss wwiitthh SSppeecciiaall RReeffeerreennccee ttoo IInnssttaallllaattiioonn AArrtt
Lizzie Frasco
University of Pennsylvania, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/uhf_2009
Frasco, Lizzie, "The Contingency of Conservation: Changing Methodology and Theoretical Issues in
Conserving Ephemeral Contemporary Artworks with Special Reference to Installation Art" (2009).
Undergraduate Humanities Forum 2008-09: Change. 12.
https://repository.upenn.edu/uhf_2009/12
2008-2009 Penn Humanities Forum on Change
Undergraduate Mellon Research Fellows
http://humanities.sas.upenn.edu/08-09/fellows_uhf.shtml
This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/uhf_2009/12
For more information, please contact [email protected].
TThhee CCoonnttiinnggeennccyy ooff CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn:: CChhaannggiinngg MMeetthhooddoollooggyy aanndd TThheeoorreettiiccaall IIssssuueess
iinn CCoonnsseerrvviinngg EEpphheemmeerraall CCoonntteemmppoorraarryy AArrttwwoorrkkss wwiitthh SSppeecciiaall RReeffeerreennccee ttoo
IInnssttaallllaattiioonn AArrtt
AAbbssttrraacctt
Lizzie Frasco, College '09, Art History, Visual Studies
Non-Traditional Methods for Non-Traditional Art: Conserving Art in the 20th Century
Art conservation as a practice of preventing change in a useful way has recently begun to change with the
more ephemeral nature of the material that increasingly characterizes late 20th-century art. Today’s neon
lights, foil, newspaper, synthetic paints, soil, glue, and Magic Marker have not been tested for durability or
chemical stability. Their uneven and unpredictable rate of degradation further complicates their analysis
and evaluation during conservation. What are the current technical, historical, and ethical challenges in
contemporary art conservation, and what do they tell us about the chances for the long-term survival of
this art?
CCoommmmeennttss
2008-2009 Penn Humanities Forum on Change
Undergraduate Mellon Research Fellows
http://humanities.sas.upenn.edu/08-09/fellows_uhf.shtml
This presentation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/uhf_2009/12
The Contingency of Conservation:
Changing Methodology and Theoretical Issues in Conserving Ephemeral Contemporary
Artworks with Special Reference to Installation Art

Lizzie Frasco
Visual Studies Thesis 2009
Visual Studies Department, University of Pennsylvania
Thesis Program, 2009

Advisors:
Dr. Renata Holod
Colette Copeland

Dr. Gwendolyn Shaw

Funded by the Vagelos Undergraduate Research Program and the Penn Humanities Forum .

I would like to briefly thank everyone who was involved with and
supported this project: my advisors, the Visual Studies thesis seminar, Frank Matero,
Alberto de Tagle, my parents, Andrew Dalzell and all my interviewees, especially :
Jim Coddington, Richard Leventhal, Andrew Lins, Carol Mancus-iUngaro,
Jen Mergel, Jenelle Porter, Ingrid Schaffner, Senneke Stigter and Tatja Scholte .
Index

Introduction.……………………………………………………………………………………….1

Chapter 1: The Inherent Problem of Installation Art…………………………………………….6

Chapter 2: Defining the Tenets of Conservation……………………………………………….19

Chapter 3: Theoretical Issues in Conserving Installation Art ………………………………….29

Chapter 4: Changing Methodology……………………………………………………………..51

Chapter 5: Analysis of Current Methods…………………………………………………...….60

Chapter 6: Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..…....86

Appendix A…………………………………………………………………………………….….i
Interview with Jim Coddington.…………………………………………………………………...i
Interview with Richard Leventhal………………………………………………………………..ix
Interview with Andrew Lins….…………………………………………………………………xix
Interview with Carol Mancusi-Ungaro………………………………………………………...xxix
Interview with Jen Mergel……………………………………………………………………….xli
Interview with Glenn Wharton………………………………………………………………..….lii

Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Chapter 1 | The Inherent Problem of Installation Art

Defining Installation Art

The conundrum of conserving contemporary art stems from some of the genre’s
greatest achievements: the freedom of materials, invention in format, cutting edge
technology, site-specificity, and deliberate ephemerality. A large percentage of
contemporary artworks, which include installations, performances, conceptual and time-
based media works, are time and context related. Not all contemporary artworks are
intended as transient, but many of them will not last as long as their more traditional
counterparts in paint and marble. The problem with their preservation lies with the use of
nontraditional materials combined with the difficulty of reinstalling works that are often
dependent on geographic and temporal context for meaning. While many artists delight in
the freedom of creating ephemeral art, as conceptually oriented art has made “the
material identify of an art work…entirely of secondary importance,”1 the artwork
produced is daunting for those attempting to preserve it. The materials utilized are often
unstable and unpredictable in their rate of change, and thus necessitate more hasty and
invasive treatment than is needed for traditional objects. As meaning is sometimes
derived from these characteristics of newer materials, conservation professionals are
forced to question and reconsider many of the accepted tenets of their discipline. Older
models simply cannot address this kind of unpredictability in a standardized and
comprehensive way, and the need for new methods is readily apparent. Contemporary art
challenges the values of conservation theoretically, technically and institutionally, as the
profession is in its definition dedicated to prolonging the exhibition of and physical life of
artworks by preventing and reversing changes in the authentic and original art object.
The non-traditional character of many late twentieth and early twenty first century
stems from the post-modern deconstruction of the traditional art object and the flood of
new possibilities it engendered. While curator Ann Temkin from MoMA is correct in
saying “the counterpoint of mortality versus immortality has always provided an essential
theme for works of art,”2 the main departure point of contemporary works is that they
address the transience of life in both content and form. This significant change originates
in the critique in the 1970s and 60s of the traditional and privileged art object, where
artists attempted to undermine the artwork as a relic or commodity by merging art with
life. From this came a rejection of the passive and detached optical contemplation of the
viewer in favor of a more immersive, activated viewing.3 The dichotomies that were
present then and now are defined by Martha Buskirk as “original/copy, performance/
document, object/context, high/low, representative/abstraction, or permanence/transience,
with each subject to subtle combinations and overlays as well as a continuing process of

1 D.H. Van Wegen, "Between Fetish and Score: The Position of the Curator of Contemporary Art " in
Modern Art: Who Cares?, ed. Ijsbrand Hummelen and Dionne Sillé (Amsterdam: Instituut Collectie
Netherlands and The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art, 1999), 204.
2 Ann Temkin, "Strange Fruit," in Mortality Immortality? : The Legacy of 20th-Century Art, ed. Miguel
Angel Corzo (Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 1999), 45.
3 Claire Bishop, Installation Art : A Critical History (New York: Routledge, 2005), 11.
Chapter 1 | The Inherent Problem of Installation Art

redefinition.”4 The abandonment of the traditional artwork led to the non-traditional art
forms currently showcased, as contemporary artists gained the ability to create any kind
of art within a wider range of possibilities than ever before.5 While this freedom and the
challenging avant-garde works it produces is hard-won, the continual search for what art
historian Robert Storr calls ‘freshness’ has led to a “profusion of artworks that are
doomed by their very immediacy or search for immediacy.”6 The kinds of materials that
contemporary artists use and experiment with have led to a canon of works that must be
considered differently from traditional works in both theory and practice.
The nature of installation art both embodies and exacerbates the issues identified
in preserving contemporary, non-traditional artworks. While it is conceded that
contemporary art generally “represents a special challenge, provides extreme experiences
and causes restorers to revise supposedly secure positions,”7 installation artworks present
problems in all areas – format, conception and material. The desire on the part of the
artists to ‘decenter’ the art object, by removing and rupturing the front and centered
viewing of works of art as embodied by the construction of perspective, have led to
works that are conceptually and physically contingent on the arrangement and
relationship of many parts.8 In addition to their material ephemerality, installation works
also become logistical nightmares when exhibited. Since installation art has many sub-
categories and manifestations, this paper will focus on installation artworks intentionally
comprised of ephemeral materials but which are meant to be reinstalled (by the artist or
the institution). These works are marked by their full or partial makeup of non-traditional
materials and their complexity of meaning, whether physical, material or conceptual.9
These ‘material-oriented’ works are exemplars of the conservation issues facing
contemporary art, as they combine the crucial intangible elements of conceptual art with
multi-media, physical parts that require care. They represent the primary challenges
facing institutions that store and re-install installation art, while also requiring the kind of
documentation associated with performance and conceptual art. Material-oriented
installations thus present a cross-section of the main issues in preserving installation art.
Other forms of art that could fall under the umbrella of ‘installation art’ include
site-specific works, performance works, temporary installations (that can have built in
mechanisms for degradation) and time-based media works. Because the term ‘installation
art’ lacks a fixed definition, this paper will also include certain sculptural works that have
an ‘installed’ disposition but could be seen as contained objects. Claire Bishop, at
Warwick University, makes the distinction between an ‘installation of art’ and
‘installation art’ in that the “an installation of art is secondary in importance to the works

4 Martha Buskirk, The Contingent Object of Contemporary Art (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003), 12.
5 Ibid., 10.
6 Robert Storr describes this phenomenon: “The problem we now face, however, concerns the great
profusion of artworks that are doomed by their very immediacy or search for immediacy. Freshness of
ideas or procedural attitudes often results in the premature physical deterioration of the object that
embodies those ideas and attitudes. The creative misuse of traditional materials is an inescapable necessity
for many artists, as is the experimentation with novel or untested materials.” Robert Storr, "Immortalité
Provisoire," in Mortality Immortality? : The Legacy of 20th-Century Art, ed. Miguel Angel Corzo (Los
Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 1999), 35.
7 Cornelia Weyer, "Restoration Theory Applied to Installation Art," VDR Beiträge 41, no. 2 (2006). 40
8 Bishop, Installation Art : A Critical History, 11.
9 Louise Cone, "Developing a Methodology for the Conservation of Contemporary Art" (Royal Danish
Academy of Fine Arts, 2002), 19.
7
it contains, while in a work of installation art, the space, and the ensemble of elements
within it, are regarded in their entirety as a singular entity.”10 While both deal with how
the viewer experiences objects positioned or placed in a space, the latter is considered an
art form unto itself; certain sculptural objects discussed exist in between the categories,
and will be included because they represent many of the same issues discussed in this
paper. Many of the conservation issues discussed relate generally to contemporary art,
though issues relating to specifically to installation art will also be addressed. Regardless
of their exact definition, the works presented in this paper are non-traditional objects that
present challenges through their material existence and in their continued presentation.
Though installation art encompasses a broad range of works, for the purposes of
this paper it will be defined as any work that combines relational parts into a whole.
Relationships are formed between the individual parts and between the parts and the
whole, as well as the whole and the setting. In the sense that it incorporates painting,
sculpture, found-objects and architecture, installation can be conceived of as a hybrid art
form, where a total or mini environment is created into which the viewer is enters. The
multiplicity of objects, however, is not a comprehensive definition; the conservator
Cornelia Weyer writes that installation art “is at least one part, and often a number of
parts, in every complex spatial and temporal context.”11 In her seminal work Installation
Art: A Critical History, Claire Bishop describes how ‘installation art’ is often described
as ‘theatrical,’ ‘immersive’ or ‘experiential.’12 She goes on to say:

“Installation art…differs from traditional media (sculpture, painting,
photography, video) in that it addresses the viewer directly as a literal presence in
the space. Rather than imagining the viewer as a pair of disembodied eyes that
survey the work from a distance, installation art presupposes an embodied viewer
whose sense of touch, smell and sound are as heightened as their sense of vision.
This insistence on the literal presence of the viewer is arguably the key
characteristic of installation art.”13

The work produced under the term is diverse; some works concentrate on making the
viewer aware of his or her senses, producing smells and visual stimulation, while others
encourage or discourage contemplative interaction with the work.14 Regardless of the
form, installation works are not self-contained objects and exert effort to decenter the
viewer’s relationship to the work of art.15 The space or location of the work is a large

10 Bishop, Installation Art : A Critical History, 6. [Associate Professor of Art History]
11 Weyer, "Restoration Theory Applied to Installation Art," 41.
12 Bishop, Installation Art : A Critical History, 6.
13 Ibid., 6.
14 Ibid., 8.
15 This relationship is further elaborated by Claire Bishop: “Installation art presupposes a viewing subject
who physically enters into the work to experience it, and that it is possible to categorise [sic] works of
installation by the type of experience that they structure for the viewer. Of course, it is possible to say that
all art presumes a subject–insofar as it is made by a subject (the artist) and is received by a subject (the
viewer). The case of traditional painting and sculpture, however, each element of this three-way
communication (artist–work of art–viewer) is relatively discrete. By contrast, installation art from its
inception in the 1960s sought to break radically with this paradigm: instead of making a self–contained
object, artists began to work in specific locations, where the entire space was treated as a single situation
into which the viewer enters.” Ibid., 10.
8
Chapter 1 | The Inherent Problem of Installation Art

factor, hence the reference to environments, and is utilized as a framework for the
creation of meaning between parts. One of the major distinctions of this art form is that
instead of “representing texture, space, light and so on, installation art presents these
elements directly for us to experience,” and in doing so the viewer is activated.16 Many
early works, however, were intended to be one-time experiences and subsequently
dismantled and destroyed. This seemingly radical innovation is not, however, detached
from the history of art; Glenn Wharton points out that “artists have always created
ephemeral works for consumption at public festivals, in spiritual practice, and through
other social and personal activities.” What is new is the fact that these works are now
being collected and exchanged on the open market.17 These objects are inherently
difficult for institutions that are trained to deal with self-contained art objects to preserve
and reinstall.
The physical nature of installation artworks is as difficult to conserve as any
multi-media, contemporary artwork, and through inherent vice challenges the
preservation ethic. Unless an artwork is specifically designated as an exercise in
degradation, the relative ephemerality of most installation artworks comes from the
instability and fragility of the media selected, from poor engineering or from material
incompatibility. In some cases, such as Jana Sterback’s Vanitas: Flesh Dress for an
Albino Anorectic,18 degradation is purposeful and contributes to the meaning of the work;
in other cases, its degradation may be the “unintended result of experimentation with new
techniques or substances, in which case it often appears regrettable” [fig. 2].19 The lack of
quality and compatibility of materials for a work is called ‘inherent vice’ in the
conservation world; while actions can be taken to slow the process of degradation,
objects with inherent vice are limited temporally. The term ‘inherent vice’ is a marine
insurance term that referred to goods with hidden defects that made them risky to the
carriers. That inherent vice may or may not be intended requires museums to ask whether
the work is an intentionally decaying entity or whether the decay is a function of the
artist’s medium. 20 This question in itself undermines the preservation ethic, which is
central to the mission of most museums and is the driving force behind the preservation
of cultural property for the future. Wharton states that the “zeal to preserve conflicts with
artist who want their work to deteriorate or who assign greater value to a concept than its
material manifestation.”21 In the event that a work intended to decay was acquired by a
museum, the institution would be required ethically to let the work degrade against every
desire and established principle. Thus, installation works fundamentally challenge the

16 Ibid., 11.
17 Glenn Wharton, "The Challenges of Conserving Contemporary Art," in Collecting the New : Museums
and Contemporary Art, ed. Bruce Altshuler (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005), 171.
18 This work is owned by the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis and is explicitly ephemeral to the point that
it cannot be collected; the work is highly conceptual in that the flesh dress, which comments on the
traditional vanitas, is re-constructed with the artist’s sanction each time the work is exhibited. This type of
work, which is primarily about the concept rather than the specific material existence of the work, will not
be discussed because they do not present the same issue in their collection. See the Walker Art Center’s
website for more information.
19 Sherri Irvin, "The Artists’ Sanction in Contemporary Art," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 63,
no. 4 (2005), 315.
20 Ibid., 315.
21 Wharton, "The Challenges of Conserving Contemporary Art," 164.
9
Fig. 2

Jana Sterback, Vanitas: Flesh Dress for an Albino Anorectic, 1987, Walker Art Center.