|
|
The Object in Transition:
A Cross-Disciplinary Conference on the Preservation and Study of Modern and Contemporary Art Review by Christabel Blackman January 24-26, 2008, Los Angeles, California Organisers: The Getty Conservation Institute and the Getty Research Institute www.getty.edu For those who have not yet had the opportunity of visiting the Getty Center, it is a singular and enticing place that offers a unique and marvelous experience to any and all visitors. For conservators it represents an idealistic reverence for our vocation in its monumental presence and is a magnanimous attraction. Altruistically, it is what we all aspire to, the inclusion of conservation at the highest and most essential level in life. Geographically it is stoically posed upon its very own verdant mount, perched above the sprawling flatness of L.A., and in some way it is a symbolic destination for us, a proverbial Mecca. In the final days of January 2008, the "Object in Transition: A Cross-Disciplinary Conference on the Preservation and Study of Modern and Contemporary Art" was offered by the Getty Research Institute and the Getty Conservation Institute. A lunchtime course was also offered to conference participants about INCCA, International Network for the Conservation of Contemporary Art, (www.incca.org).
No conference fees were charged and about 500 people came from all corners of the planet. Optimal organization and attendance, along with a varied agenda and an exhibition of the works that were central to the conferences led to a successful encounter all round.
The participation of some of the most focused and experienced contemporary art conservators, historians and curators in the conference presentations or in the extremely lively and articulate audience who continually jostled and vied for the microphone to transmit challenging outlooks, pertinent questions or relevant anecdotes, made for a worthy and memorable experience. Although a general sense of agreement was never a conclusive issue, inquisitive doubts and continual 'door opening' to new fields of thought were incisive and in abundance. Contemporary works of art pose theoretical and technical challenges which are continually addressed by conservators, curators, historians, artists and many others. However the challenging problems which do arise may often be parallel dichotomies. The intentional use of rapidly degradable materials, turn conservation into an almost impracticable endeavour. The decisions that are taken about an object’s conservation are subjective and because of the nature of decision making, are effected by who makes what decisions about conservation and the historically cultural moment in which they are made. Conservation moves between the vulnerability of the physical object and the understanding of its meaning and thus the importance of the consequences of decision making in conservation. And that’s why Conservation matters! It is a difficult task to compress so much information into a simple review and I highly recommend readers to peruse their particular interests by logging onto the excellent video session reproductions available on the Getty website. In contemporary art, the very concept of the object controls its physical facts and parameters, but its actual physical state is beyond being merely conceptual. These physical restrictions and even the artist’s original intent often rely on people’s subjective experience and memories as documentation, because of the limitations that exist in extensively documenting the nature of these works. Jeffrey Weiss (former Director of Dia Art Foundation, N.Y.) commented on "the importance of addressing bigger questions that are also about interpretation, the choices that we are making. (…) it is important to protract greater ideas. Self criticism is important to look at, the choices we make now rather than twenty years ago, are also pertinent to this time, and in thirty years’ time we will be looked back upon." The influence and importance of "artist’s intent" was an issue that sprung up continually over both days. How important is artist’s intent, and can it always be obeyed, at all costs? There seemed to be a popular view that the artist does have the right to intervene and continue to dictate his intent over his works during his lifetime and even sometimes posthumously through his estate or decreed intentions. But what was the original intent, and can that change? Is it affected by the artist’s evolution or technological advances (i.e. "if this technique was available when I first made this work, then I would have used it", and therefore it is valid to remake the work using such-and-such technique)? Should greatly deteriorated works of art that have modified beyond recognition be remade? But is that still the artist’s work or not? Who is responsible to make the decisions about an artwork? Is it exclusively the artist? These sorts of questions lead the way to problems of authenticity. What is authenticity? Is it in the object or the concept? If an object with grave irreparable problems is simply remade by the artist, is that the original object now? What is historically significant authenticity? Objects are made in an interpretive moment and when they are to be conserved this is an qually interpretive moment as that of its creation. The 'utopian truth' of original intent and the changes that have come about over time leads us to consider our own role as conservators in the creation of what authenticity is. Is age authenticity? And for that matter what is authenticity? There was an ensuing discussion about authenticity, which included a lot of defensive audience commentaries. Indeed, ethics and the decision making process become key questions. What is it we desire when we go to see an object, is it aesthetics, history, the object itself? There are often competing narratives within the same artwork which need to be maintained, how do we achieve this? In the section about "Artist's Voice: History's Claim", big questions were posed and different viewpoints offered distinctive answers. Does history always defend the present? Pip Laurenson (Tate, London) engaged the audience and fellow speakers in some interesting lines of thought. The idea of finishing a work of art, gallery exhibition and thence the sale to a museum no longer exists. Sometimes a work is translated into another medium and an installation or performance piece may become a video. So is this the documentation or is it an evolution of the artwork? Do we have a responsibility to future accurate historical display of these works? Anne Wagner (Professor of Modern and Contemporary Art, Uni. of California) added more interesting ideas; that the death of the artist or the consequences of the museum as a recreational destination may impose changes on the artwork; as the work circulates historically it may change, and lose intention; as objects, they are unstable because often they are movable objects and can keep being reinstalled; context greatly influences the artwork. In some way there seemed to a humble observer like myself to be a 'Botox principle' occurring: that the intentionality of contemporary art was to isolate a moment in time and negate aging which is a contradictory dichotomy because ‘agelessness’ implies discarding objects due to their age. The intentional rejection of the age factor is a negation of the ephemeral physical object and part of the 21st century 'Botox' obsession about lifespan consequences. In the interesting discussion entitled "Life and Death of Objects", Yve-Alain Bois (Art History Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey) said that "if a work is going to die anyway and it’s just slower in storage, then why not at least let a generation enjoy it? Trying to find a rule, I don’t think that it is possible. Every work requires a different attitude. The ethical, aesthetic questions change with time, that’s why it’s hard to find a common denominator, because it would become so general that it would no longer mean anything." There were many comments that contemporary conservation often clashed with the established Codes of Ethics. There is a close intertwining between technical decisions and ethical questions so in the end the conservator needs to resort to common sense and prudence. David Bomford (Associate Director for Collections at the J. Paul Getty Museum) commented "We must address the fact that we are adrift, there are certain uncertainties and there are uncertain uncertainties. All our old training rules have changed because the paradigms of making art have affected the paradigms of conservation. When will the alternative discourse replace the present one?" He also went on to say "The residue of greater works of art that exist has been edited by time and history. The editing process of contemporary art has barely started. Perhaps the life and death of objects is part of the editing process that exists." If the habit of cabbage throwing still existed, David would have received a generous serving from the protesting audience’s heated response. It occurred to me that many of the present day dilemmas are due to the creation of artworks that have a limited life-span. Human beings had previously tended to create works of art that perjure time during many generations, and therefore it is now difficult to come to terms with objects that have a lifespan (or ‘life and death’) that may be witnessed within a single generation. Conservators, curators and art historians do not want to take on the responsibility of euthanasia decisions about the finality of artworks that have been intentionally made with ephemeral materials. Needless to say, this is without mentioning the economical questions that arise from the conclusive and final "death" of a work of art or the prestige and status anxiety created by its loss in the public sphere. Images from left to right: North Building, Getty Center; Coffee break and time for reflection; Getty Center East Building, housing the Getty Conservation Institute; Getty by night; The Getty Center. Christabel Blackman
contact: christabel1@terra.es
Christabel Blackman (b. 1959, Australia) holds a Masters Degree in Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Patrimony (Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain) specializing in easel painting and a Diploma in canvas and panel easel paintings (Istituto per l’Arte ed il Restauro, Italy). She lives in Valencia, Spain, where she is a free-lance senior paintings conservator.
▲TOP
To save this article or see images in maximum quality please
Permanent link to this resource: http://www.e-conservationline.com/content/view/606 |
