from The New York Times
Preserve Performance Art? Can You Preserve the Wind?
go to article
Towards the end of the article, the writer attempts - in a throw-away manner - to link "conservatism" to efforts in the conservation of contemporary art - such as performance, conceptual, and ephemeral art - which are created specifically to negate the notion of direct material significance and preservation (in a museum). Even if we allow for that comment - which must be said to be uncritical and unsubstantiated - it should still give us, who are in the field of art and heritage conservation, pause for thought. Perhaps, such throw-away remarks arise because we have missed opportunities in articulating what is it that drives our work - not some broad empty label of "conservatism" or even "preservation", but a more nuanced and considered understanding of materials, significance and interventions. There is surely a need to enter into an introspection of what is it that we assume that we do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Shadowfearing graphite @ 12:14AM | May 3rd 2004|
ReplyDeleteIsn't a object preserved because of its significance? And who determines its significance? The maker who gives idea and form to it? The institution who owns it and who may value it in just one aspect? ( It is undeniable that an object encompass different types of information and that the collector or the institutiion who acquires it values it a certain way which may not cover the object's value in its entirety.) Or the public who perceive it?
I have asked the above questions because of the conflict between the artists' intention for their performance, conceptual and ephemeral art and the collection and preservation of such art. It is disturbing that the message of the artwork is being contradicted by its being collected and conserved (despite that the artist needs to eat...).
I do agree that we should not attribute the conservation of such art to just "conservatism". So, what is the role of the conservator in this whole context of contemporary art and art collection practices? A conservator needs to understand the significance of why the collector or the institution collects the art because his/ her subsequent interventions will be based on that understanding but he/she cannot define the significance of the object independently, whatever his/ her private knowledge and interest about that particular object. Perhaps in the context of ephemeral art, the role of conservation is undefined as yet or as you suggest, even unarticulated but isn't this state of things tied to the stance of whoever collects/ values the object?
Lawrence @ 9:54PM | May 5th 2004|
ReplyDeleteI agree that an object is preserved because of the significance that it has. However, I would also add that significance is determined within a larger *context* – rather than being inherent solely within the actual materials. As for who determines that significance, perhaps it would be more useful to examine the *process* of arriving at meaning – and who are included or excluded in that process; and what does that say about our larger society as a whole as we construct our cultural meanings?
What role, then, does conservation play in such a schema? Perhaps, it would be to provide a perspective on how materials can change – due to the reactions with the environment or with other materials – and, more importantly, to begin to initiate a dialogue on how those changes can impact on the significance / meaning of objects.
I do feel that for the conservation field to advance in a progressive manner (as opposed to being conservative), a greater engagement with the articulation of cultural meanings must ensue. Interventions carried out in the name of conservation (be they in the form of preventive measures or actual conservation treatments) are essentially *subjective* endeavours. Scientific analysis and technical studies are only one set of tools, amongst others, for arriving at a decision – which in the final reckoning, can never be wholly objective, as cultural meanings are not. The greater the willingness to recognise this, the more useful the contribution of a conservator will be.
Meo @ 6:27PM | May 11th 2004|
ReplyDeleteI feel that objects not just art objects are collected due to certain significant they have. Our stores here are a large memory bank of our society's past where each artefact has a story to tell on its own. There are many different fields in regards to heritage and arts which we may not know in depth or aware of, hence as conservators we should not question why the objects should exist in our stores. However in order to conserve them we need to know and understand their backgrounds.
The actual value of an artefact is not determined by its monetary value alone. Some categories of objects like stamps, currency notes, paintings,etc. were of high monetary value due to speculations by the private collectors and marketing powers of galleries, auction or antique houses. The increment of value of such objects does not correspond to its historical or artistic values or inflation rate where it is possible that the price swells by thousands of dollars in just a few years time.
Another category of artefacts are the ephemeral and historical materials which are low price and artistic values. Unlike private collectors, ephemerals and historical artefacts are valuable to public institutions. These materials are direct evidences of our social and political histories. From such daily used items and documents of the past, we can tell the progress and modernisation of our society, the effects of public policies of the government, and the shifts in languages use by the people, etc.
One approach in preservation of these artefacts is microfilming or digitalisation which is widely practised in archives and libraries. I feel that reproduction methods should be a mean to minimise handling by researchers and not for actual preservation. Many old paper materials outlive microfilm, CDs and technology involved. If the originals are no longer around, the quality of the images will deteriorate in the future.
Secondly it is hard to judge the authenticity of the materials in microfilm and digital format without the originals where materials can be forged using a computer, printed (or cut and paste and photocopied), microfilmed and 'reproduce-microfilmed'. In Singapore, our government is very honest but not so in some countries. For instance in Japan, some researchers of WWII histories face difficulties in supporting their research without originals due to the microfilming policy of some institutions where evidences from countries like Korea and China proof otherwise. Sometimes the authenticity of some materials is questionable.
Unlike works of art, conservation of ephemerals and historical materials are generally stabilisation of the support to prevent further damages and preventive methods like proper storage and mass-deacidification. Cosmetic means like bleaching or touching up a scratch are rare, and the most interventive treatment may be washing which seldom remove the stains totally except the acids built up from paper support. With the advances in forenics science, trace analysis of stains and other materials are not impossible. Chemical alterations with bleaching or other chemical methods may cause the loss of information.