Impossible Liberties: Contemporary Artists on the Life of Their Work over Time
Author(s): Kimberly Davenport
Source: Art Journal, Vol. 54, No. 2, Conservation and Art History (Summer, 1995), pp. 4052
Published by: College Art Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/777461
Accessed: 27-10-2016 18:03 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd., College Art Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Art Journal
This content downloaded from 38.125.15.118 on Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:03:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Impossible Liberties
Contemporary Artists on the Life of Their Work over Time
Kimberly DIawenport
Intervene in the normal aging process? In my case? There is
other works by the same artist, thus acknowledging th
not much holy about a ball of yarn. Throw it out. Get a new
authority rests in the overall body of work. However, the wid
one. I get a lot of resistance when I display this attitude.
boundary of "art" within which the work exists necessita
-Fred Sandback
reflective concern for the authority of the artist's intent. T
object can reveal this intent if, paradoxically, the intent h
40
been understood
and acted upon. This action is a totality
he consideration of contemporary artists' intents
for
their work and the effect of time on those intents is a
including installation and conservation. How one would wo
part of daily experience within a museum environ-with this location of authority in the artist's intent can be s
ment. The post-1945 period has seen not only an explosivein the following examples.
growth in the development of new art materials and the
Duane Hanson's Sunbather, 1971, a polyester sculptu
adaptive use of non-art materials, but also radical changes inpainted with oil paint and dressed in real clothing, depic
the idea of what art can be. Though many works from 1945 toan obese woman sleeping in a flimsy-looking lounge chair
Shoes kicked off, snacks and magazines beside her, s
the present pose new conservation questions, the problem of
determining artists' intents for works not even fifty years oldappears to be baking in the sun. Sunbather is a characteriz
may not seem too difficult. When the artists are living, it is stereotype that embodies both the particular and the univer
sal: the oblivious individual and the bloated embodiment of a
common sense just to ask them. If they have died there may
be others still living who worked with them or who are wellmindless consumer culture. During Sunbather's almost
acquainted with the artists' intents. There are factors, how-twenty years in a museum collection, some subtle and not-soever, that may conflict with or outweigh this direct approachsubtle "interpretive" changes have occurred: various acces-
regarding intent. Commodification is a reality; a purchasesories deteriorated or were stolen and replaced; being on view
may seem bad judgment, for instance, if a piece is intendedunder light had aged parts of the piece; and to create a
to disintegrate in a short time. Value is also affected by greater visual boundary, Sunbather was moved from its posihaving the work represented in important exhibitions, andtion directly on the floor and placed on a pedestal (fig. 1).
there are also the practical issues involved with loans and
Despite the pedestal, Sunbather was touched fre-
with moving fragile works of art back and forth across thequently by a public fascinated by its realism. A broken strap
planet. The object's worth as an educational resource may of Sunbather's bathing suit was the catalyst to assess the
lend weight to preservation of the work within an art historical overall conservation needs of the piece. The figure was dirty.
framework, that is, keeping the signs of the object's history,The suit was disintegrating: the top part was sagging, reveal-
rather than attempting to preserve its original condition.ing unfinished areas of the body; it was faded and graying, far
Then there may be the sheer difficulty of carrying out thefrom the original navy blue and red polka-dotted fabric colors
artist's intent.
that could still be seen in areas not exposed to light. The
Central to the issue of intent is where to turn for
snack bags looked more like litter than enticing junk food.
Sunbather's object file contains an undated document
authority. Once this is acknowledged, the underlying con-
titledthe
"Polyester and Resin Sculptures by Duane Hanson:
structs become apparent, not all of which would regard
Technical
artist's intent as fundamental. Key to this issue of authority
is Information for Maintenance and Restoration Pur-
which gives Hanson's descriptions of how the works of
the question of how one defines art or understands poses,"
it to be
constituted. The modernist view, for instance, considers
theperiods were made and his instructions for their
various
maintenance.
About the clothing Hanson says to "fluff up the
object in isolation, so the authority rests with the viewer.
The
garments
art historical view seeks to keep the object always located
in and adjust trousers, blouses, etc., to drape natuSmooth out unwanted wrinkles, but some wrinkles in
the particular moment of its conception, comparing rally.
it with
SUMMER 1995
This content downloaded from 38.125.15.118 on Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:03:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
clothing look good. In addition, the pieces MUST be kept out
Look, and these were faded from age. The possibility of
of bright sunlight to prevent fading of clothes and painted
obtaining snacks with "original" packaging had been ex-
surface." Sunbather spent many years of its early life in a
plored. Frito-Lay, for instance, said that to silkscreen bags
private collection where Hanson's recommendations were un-
like those from the 1970s would cost an exorbitant amount.
known or unheeded. Soon after the piece entered the mu-
There had been much concern about a Tab soda can that had
seum in 1978, questions arose about its care, indicated by
accompanied the piece at one time; though original installa-
Hanson's reply to a staff member's letter:
I just received your letter. Those bathing caps seem to disintegrate within six months and must be replaced. I've neverfound
any that will last very long-so you can take care of that
yourself. The bathing suit has faded too-apparently the
collector had the sculpture too near a window. I considered
replacing it while it was on view at the Whitney but decided I
like the fading color. It looks more used that way. If it gets too
bad-you can replace it. I don't object to any other adjustments if it benefits the sculpture by contributing to a better-
fresher-illusionism-so that paper & magazines should be
replaced periodically. If any old non-faded papers & magazines from 1971 can be obtained that would be ideal.
Have fun, Duane'
tion photographs showed no can, a few 1970s Tab cans were
located. Reluctance about taking the work off the pedestal
due to safety concerns for the piece was addressed.
When Sunbather was reinstalled, the replaced bathing
suit, cap, sunglasses, and snacks (carefully chosen for their
retro-look packaging) all worked together. But the shabby
magazines and the Tab can struck a distinctly discordant
note. Taking Hanson at his word, the Look and Life were
replaced with current issues of soap opera magazines (fig. 2).
The antique Tab became a Diet Coke. Instantly, the piece
was again a plausible and enticing visual whole (fig. 3). Kirk
Varnadoe has observed:
It is the dialogue between the body and the surrounding
41
elements that really makes a Hanson sculpture, and he is
The bathing suit was now in such poor condition that it
needed to be replaced, and Hanson was consulted. He was
interested in the conservation of the work and reiterated his
view that an exact replication of its original look was not
essential, saying that the suit could be "anything that's kind
of foolish looking."2
Locating fabric that would reflect the period in which
Sunbather was made was challenging, and a subsequent
decision to replicate it exactly proved even more so. Seemingly standard dotted Swiss fabric has changed more dramat-
ically over the past twenty years than one might think, in
color and size and in the configuration of dots. A match was
finally achieved by using fabric from a vintage dress.
almost exaggeratedly attentive to those relationships. Thus, a
seemingly mundane matter such as the kind of beer or soda to
be held by afigure is considered in relation to several different
concerns: on the one hand, compatibility with an imagined
life narrative (what would such a person drink in such a
situation?): and on the other, visual aspects as obvious as the
color graphics on a particular label and as subtle as the
rapport between the proportions of the bottle or can and
the body type and posture involved. Even in the smallest
details, Hanson seeks to effect a total coherence betweenformal
decisions and the requirements of a kind of "chromatic's" of
meaningful style-signs.3
Hanson's intention for Sunbather is, in a sense, much "larger"
While the figure was being cleaned, a pattern and new
than the specific materials of the original form. He made
bathing suit were made. The search for appropriate
circa-1971 snack bags, flip-flops, sunglasses, and maga-
the piece in a specific time and used elements of that
time. Hanson's valuation of the work's dynamic function as
zines began, along with recurring thoughts about Hanson's
art, whatever "benefits the sculpture by contributing to a
stress on the freshest possible illusion, and his disinterest in
better-fresher-illusionism," exists alongside the reality
reproducing the object's original state. Hanson's intention for
of the object undergoing the effects of time.
Sunbather clearly was not bound to a particular bathing suit
or to specific accessories. What was unalterable was that a
This example demonstrates the problem of defining
"good" intent. In this case, arguments could be made for
certain type of clothing and accessories be used to convey
keeping the piece exactly as it had been, even though the
someone in a certain social position. The underlying notion
artist said to do otherwise. Since the artist is alive and was
that there will always be this type of person was not bound by
participating in the process, his ideas were given precedence
a need to replicate the original clothing or even to keep the
over concerns for the strict historical accuracy of the object.
work fully fixed in the original period. The intention was for
A similar issue arose with the possibility of a venue for
all elements to work together to create a particular social
Hanson's 1994 retrospective (organized by the Museum of
commentary.
Fine Arts, Montreal). Admired for his realism, Hanson has
The new bathing suit closely resembled the "original"
nonetheless asserted throughout his career that the trompe
one before it had drastically faded from overexposure to light.
l'oeil effect of his works is meant to jar his audience into
New bathing caps were imported from Florida, and sunglasses from the early 1970s were donated. An extensive
install the sculptures in larger narrative situations that would
magazine search yielded only some 1971 issues of Life and
emphasize their illusionistic aspects in the museum, for
greater self-awareness. The museum in question hoped to
ART JOURNAL
This content downloaded from 38.125.15.118 on Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:03:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
.... ili! ! !!i!iiiii i!!Atii
14
42
FIG. 1 Duane Hanson, Sunbather, 1971, polyester and fiberglass polychromed in oil,
Endowment for the Arts Museum Purchase Program with matching funds bequeath
Rene Gabrielle Gray.
instance,
photograp
this
sche
that
A
he
t
second
work
(fig.
and
by
4).
T
paint
term
loan
several
.........
absence
lation
pro
would
........
first
art,
Eu
of
con
venu
LeWit
work
of
a
musi
like
originated
are
imper
true
of
al
overgener
ated
and
the
still
c
b
Standing
resolved
theless
you
FIG.
2
We
Duane
repai
may
Hanson,
SUMMER 1995
This content downloaded from 38.125.15.118 on Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:03:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
t
di
S
...( ....... ..
i iiiii ...................................
43
FIG. 3 Duane Hanson, Sunbather (after restoration).
way, how could it have made such a request? In this instance,
the institution reasoned with good intent that many of
LeWitt's works are reproducible, so this work, too, probably
could be reproduced. The assumption was wrong because it
disregarded the fact that LeWitt's body of work includes
numerous genres of art, including certificate pieces, plans,
prints, sculpture multiples, and unique pieces, of which this
is one. That some of LeWitt's work is reproducible led to the
equation of conceptual art with reproducibility, which is not
always the case. Although purporting to be in keeping with
----------.. ill
the artist's intent, this approach disregarded the simple fact
that among LeWitt's oeuvre are unique pieces. If the artist
were not living and there had been an unwillingness or
failure to do a careful reading of his work over his life, the
temptation might have been, since he is so identified with
conceptual art, to presume that rebuilding could be done
with any of his works. Says LeWitt:
I think there is a misunderstanding which is understandable.
A wall drawing may be duplicated in another site while an
object (a work of art in this case) can be physically transported, and should be. In the case of the wall drawing, it may
exist in two (or more) places at the same time, and all would be
"real," but it would only constitute one work. This would only
be done rarely and for the sake of expediency.6
Other early LeWitt structures, particularly those painted
white, are now dirty or discolored. Though some would make
FIG. 4 Sol LeWitt, Standing Open Structure, Black, 1965, painted wood,
72 x 12 x 12 inches. LeWittthe
Collection, Wadsworth
Atheneum, Hartford.
a case for them to be left as is, citing
historical
value of
ART JOURNAL
This content downloaded from 38.125.15.118 on Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:03:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Nvl
FI
G.
5
Sol
8
inch
(20
installation
their
or
5. How would you prefer your work
be preserved: the
repainte
"spirit" of the work or the exact object? idea or thing?
not Are they inseparable?
app
6. When should the decision be made to intervene in the
"There
i
it
was
normal aging process? How far should m
intervention
was
carried out?
whe
that
reta
7. When do you decide
that the artwork is no longer car
work would render it inauthentic.
ing the ideas? Who is best qualified to make such
decision? What should happen to the work then?
To determine how other contemporary artists feel about
the effect of time on their work, I spoke with Mel Bochner, 8. Has your attitude about the longevity of your work
Adrian Piper, Phoebe Adams, Petah Coyne, Kiki Smith, and
changed over time? How? What do you think account
Fred Sandback. I sent them copies of my paper "Time and
for the change (or not)?
Intent in Contemporary Art," which was presented at the 9. Does the artist have any responsibility to communica
annual meeting of the College Art Association in February
information about his/her process and intention? How d
1994. In addition, I sent each of them the following questions
you think an inquiry about your intent would be be
to consider:
conducted? Is the question being phrased correctly, i.e
is it a question of original intent or present and futur
1. What does it mean to accept a work of art on its own
life?
terms?
2. Who/what do you consider to be the primary source to
look to in determining how a work should look over time?
3. If an artist makes or has made his/her wishes known,
should these be taken as unarguable facts, or merely
10. Does a work exist more as an artifact of a particular tim
or does it remain "dynamic"?
11. Is it necessary for artworks to last forever? If so, how lo
is "forever" in the context of twentieth century art?
I telephoned the artists and posed these questions. Their
remarks
were transcribed, edited, and shown to them f
4. Should a work be left alone, simply preserved as best as
preferences to be weighed against other factors?
possible? Or should it be restored to approximate the way verification. Their comments provide valuable information f
it looked when it was made?
curators, collectors, and conservators.8
SUMMER 1995
This content downloaded from 38.125.15.118 on Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:03:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
FIG. 6 Mel Bochner, Theory of
Sculpture: Cardinal vs. Ordinal
5,1993, blue glass slag,
42 x 501/2 x 3 inches. Courtesy
Sonnabend, New York.
45
Mel Bochner
In the mid 1970s a "generalized assumption" of what consti-
But there are groups of my works that can be redone at
tuted conceptual art evolved. The assumption was that anyany time, for example, the Theory of Sculpture pieces (fig. 6).
thing a conceptual artist makes is "conceptual" and therefore
There are installation drawings for those that usually say
ultimately reproducible. In other words a conceptual work has
"size determined by installation." They can expand or con-
no uniqueness, no aura, no specificity. That was obviously
tract or even change material within a certain definition of the
untrue in my case and has created tremendous problems.material. What's going to happen after I die, I don't know, and
Every work has to be seen on an individual basis. Perhaps
I probably don't want to know. I would prefer, I think, to
things have changed some for younger artists where thefreeze them at that point. If I've done a certain piece in stones
and hazelnuts, I think that should be it, unless I've left a
question of reproduction has become a subject matter. But
these issues originated in the work of the mid to late 1960s
drawing saying that it also could be done in glass, for examand then were continuously twisted around until they became
ple. There is a general class of objects that I consider acceptpretty knotted up.
able for conveying the Theory of Sculpture: roughly geomet-
This issue is something I've thought about a great deal
ric, uniform in size and appearance, having little or no
because it's tremendously complicated. I find what LeWitt
intrinsic value. So pebbles, coins, matchsticks, chunks of
has to say very interesting because in a way Sol's one of the
glass slag-can all act as signifiers of the idea. The object is
people who helped to complicate things. Sol created his Wall
not the work. That is why they can be redone or moved from
Drawings to be indefinitely reproducible by subtracting any
place to place or exist in someone's collection and be remade
notion of touch or hand. In my Wall Paintings from the 1970s,
in an exhibition. As long as whoever does it works within the
that's absolutely not the case. I was very intent on reinstating
prescribed guidelines.
the hand and making an issue of how they were painted.
The Measurement pieces can also be redone. Because
Specific decisions are in relation to a specific wall; how they
they are made in Letraset and black masking tape, they are
are situated or scaled is not based on any conceptual or rulemeant to look anonymous. They measure any space, any-
bound system. So my wall paintings are one-shot things.where, anytime. They are about dislocation, how one's perSome of them I have done a number of times, but only I can
ception of one's self in the space can be changed. So they are
paint them. That's why I rarely do them anymore. They are
repeatable but variable. If it's a large room or a small room,
too much work, and I can't bear to see them painted out.
complicated architecture or simple architecture, it changes
Except for museums they are probably a closed body of work.
visually, but remains the same concept, which is to excavate
ART JOURNAL
This content downloaded from 38.125.15.118 on Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:03:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
When I do the work that I do, although I put it in a
the system that gave you the space, to make the architecture
surrender its transparency, which is the measurement.
These questions of conservation and authorization have
public context and hope for the best, I feel as though I'm
addressing an audience of people who, insofar as there is a
gone from being the domain of the restorer to that of the artist.
contemporary context, constitute a very small circle. Namely
I think that's good. What we are talking about here is how
people who don't get stupid when they think about racism.
things are represented and who decides how they are repre-
I've often had the sense that I need my work to be preserved
sented, and whether there is one rule that governs all repre-
carefully because in two hundred years people will have a
sentations. I would say the artist decides how his work is
much clearer perspective on these matters, and then they'll
represented. And there is no general rule. During the
Whitney's New Sculpture 1965-1970, a critic who was
be able to see what I'm up to. So issues of keeping tape heads
writing an article called me and said, "What do you think of
the other hand, it's very important to me that the work look
these artists remaking their work because clearly this and
authentic.
clean and keeping things painted up are all real issues. On
There are certain devices I've been using in my work
that piece are brand new. Don't you think it's terrible that they
are doing this?" I said, "Of course not. That was the original
since the late 1960s, this kind of grainy typewriter typeface
idea of the work. It's intended to be remade for every installa-
and altered photographs paired with texts, indexical expres-
tion." She said: "Well, you know, we aren't stupid. We know
sions that address the viewer directly. These sorts of devices
these are not the originals, so how can they say they are from
regularly get attributed to other people, so when my work
1965?" I thought, is it really this difficult?
from the 1960s or 1970s is shown, it's important that it has the
look of work that was done in the 1960s or 1970s. I recently
46
showed some of this work, and people remarked about how
authentic it looked. The paper was obviously old, and the
photographs were obviously creased, and you could see that
Adrian Piper
the typewriter typeface was very old. Those things are impor-
When Sol says the idea is more important than the realiza-
tant to me because they establish that I was where I say I was
tion, that actually can be read in two different ways. If you
when I did that work.
In terms of installations there are all sort of variables
take it to mean that the idea of a particular work is more
important than its realization, then it makes sense that it
that I can't anticipate in advance. All I can do is provide
would be fine for an object to always look brand new because
slides of previous installations and say a few general things
you know it's not the object. It's the object insofar as it
about breaking up the space, etc. You have some sense of
approximates the idea. There are those of us who take "the
what was supposed to go on, but the thing about working with
idea is more important than the object" as a license to explore
form is that it really does transcend function. I can say stuff
nonformalistic content and to put ideas and content back into
about how this or that is supposed to function, but beyond
art in a way that they weren't in the 1950s and 1960s. When
that it really is intuitively designing the space and figuring
you go at it that way, which is really the way I go at it, then
issues of communication with the audience become much
articulate that.
out how things are supposed to balance. It's so hard to
more important. It's very important as an index of the success
I did a series of installations called What It's Like, What
of my work that the work raise the level of self-awarenessItofIs. No. 1 and No.3 from this series were very minimal, and
the viewer, that one be able to understand that there are
very much about the enclosure of a certain kind of space, a
hard-edged space. No. 2 (fig. 7) was really different because
reasons why these difficult emotions are coming on, that one
I was using a lot of different kinds of imagery. No. 2, particis having all of these associations that can be scary and
ularly,
depended on the formal placement of various objects
disturbing and so forth. Those sorts of things maybe lead to
a
slightly different attitude about conservation.
in the space in a way that had to be keyed to the space. The
room was covered with wall paper, a grid behind which was a
I've only recently entered the commodity part of the art
large, repeated image of these three monkeys, the "hear no
context. For years I never sold anything or sent my slides
evil, see no evil, speak no evil" monkeys, which I've used in
around or anything like that. So the issues of conservation
several pieces. When you walk into the room you are conthat come up when something is in another person's custody
fronted
by these huge figures that are facing you, but not
just never came up for me. I came away from your essay with
a
looking at you. They are lifesize cutouts taken from a variety
sense of how important it is for me to have my intent for the
of photographic sources: some are fashion photographs of men
preservation of the work out there, but not in order to control
and
the interpretation of it so much, because I don't feel that
I women, some are photographs of individuals involved in
different racial incidents around the country, and a number of
have privileged access to the ultimate meaning of my work.
others. It was important that the cutouts be seen as cutouts
I think that is determined by social context and history and
and that they bear a certain relationship to what was on the
so forth, only because of the subject matter that I usually
wall behind them. There was also a drawing of a black man
deal with.
SUMMER 1995
This content downloaded from 38.125.15.118 on Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:03:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
.. ........
. . . .. .... ...
..
..
...
...
...
.....
...
. ... ... ....
vow
jpqiigi?p;
;::::
:::::
v
i
-
FIG.
Web
I think because my work is so much about communicabeh
tions and dialogue with the audience that if the conditions of
wal
communications are not respected, then the whole point of
wh
the work is lost. When you think about what it would mean to
wa
ent
snap off a foot from a Michelangelo sculpture and say, "Well,
this is really interesting; let's try putting this in a completely
dim
different context." No one would ever do that. It would be
seei
clear that someone was violating the integrity of the work.
it.
And yet, somehow because elements of a piece may be
peo
differentiated spatially, it doesn't occur to people that they're
exp
sions. I was not able to be there for the installation and
doing the same thing by not respecting the conditions of
placement of the cutouts or the framed drawing on the wall
presentation
or
that the artist specifies. I think it's another case
getting stupid.
even the mounting of the wallpaper. People worked of
from
photographs of the original Hirshhorn Museum installation
The perspective and insight you get on something that
and from a bird's-eye view map of the space that hadhas
been
history that you know, but that you stand in a new
given to me, which I designed. It was so inadequate because
relationship to because time has passed, is one of the deepest
in order to design the space, I needed to go back and and
forth
richest experiences there is. It's fine to say the work is
from the map to actually walking through the space,going
and Ito deteriorate over time. That it's going to look different
wasn't able to do that. I was available on the phone when
and maybe shabbier in fifty years than it does now is okay.
people had questions, but I couldn't see what actuallyWhat's
was important to me is that there be something there in
being done. There was also a lighting component. It was
very
your
space that you can stand in relationship to, that will lead
important that the room be lit in a certain way that you
highto muse on the passage of time: how you've changed, how
lighted the cutouts and also allowed the viewer to recedethe
into
work has changed, how assumptions have changed, how
the shadows. The experience of not being able to finemeaning
tune
has changed. That experience is so great. Things
this piece, which depended so much on my conception of
should
how last forever in some form or other. They don't have to be
things should be related to one another formally, was so spiffy
awful brand new. On the other hand, we're all going to burn
that I never brought myself to actually go to the spaces.
up and fall into the sun eventually.
ART JOURNAL
This content downloaded from 38.125.15.118 on Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:03:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Phoebe Adams
It's such a strange thing as we come to the end of this century;
the technology for conservation has grown, and yet art has
evolved beyond a preoccupation with things. So it's like this
inversion is happening. The dominant philosophy continues
to be about things lasting. That seems very peculiar to me
and that's where I wanted to start, with that thought.
What's interesting about the visual arts is that you sell
the object and that's it. You don't own it anymore; it's like
those who have it now own you. You can, for instance, go into
a gallery or museum and see an Eva Hesse piece that's meant
to be on the floor sitting on a little base. When I recently saw
one of my floor pieces sitting on a pedestal, I thought, "Oh,
that's wild." It just didn't have the same quality, seeing it on a
base. If it were me and I was king or queen, or both, I would
say, "Look, this Eva Hesse or this Phoebe Adams, we can't
48
see it on this base, even if it does somehow protect it from the
public's feet." I really think the most important thing is that
the work was made to be seen; it should be seen as it was
meant to be. Otherwise, what it really comes down to is the
kind of thinking that comes with protecting an investment,
like watching your stock. You don't want it to devalue. Yet on
the other hand you could say, "We own an 'xyz,' but it's in the
hold forever because it's too fragile."
I've always made things mostly in bronze, so there
wasn't as much of an issue of the works surviving. I have
wanted them to be mounted on the wall in a certain way, so
they will be seen in a particular position, so they're all
technically pretty well put together. In a little piece called
Two Heads, 1989, for instance, if the bronze gets scratched
and has to be repatinated that's not a problem. But to heat the
metal means the wood will burn, so I even "Velcroed" the
wood to the bronze to make it removable. I think it has to do
with my attitude; that sort of hyper-responsibility is, I think,
just my temperament.
But the work is changing and evolving as I use real and
live materials like felt, hair, and wood. The meaning of the
pieces is more bound up in the transformation of these
materials. My Ear and the Ear of the Other (fig. 8) is bronze
with a long hair extension. When it was at the Basel Art Fair,
somebody said, "You need to brush that hair." The hair was
getting messy and tangled. What I'm saying is that I don't
really care; I don't care if the hair is coming apart that way.
It's hair; that's what hair does. If the piece changes somewhat
over time in the way it looks, that's interesting also. I just want
to move on the ideas, and I think that a lot of that is in the
tradition of the turnaround quality of the ideas being foremost
in the late twentieth century, rather than any technique. So
that whether somebody is using mayonnaise as a medium
F I G . 8 Phoebe Adams, My Ear and the Ear of the Other, 1990, bronze with
patinas, horsehair, 86 x 19 x 17 inches. Courtesy Locks Gallery, Philadelphia.
in painting or whatever you are doing, to get at the idea is
the issue.
SUMMER 1995
This content downloaded from 38.125.15.118 on Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:03:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Kiki Smith
Work is sort of a by-product of investigation, but it is also a
real thing unto itself. It exists and has its own integrity and
life separate from your investigation (fig. 9). We look at art
totally from a perspective of it being not what it was, and we
appreciate it aesthetically not for what it was originally, but
how it has aged, like the Pergamon. Some things don't deteri-
orate that much over long periods of time. Glass doesn't;
ceramics don't; metal doesn't that much. Some paper does;
some paper doesn't; it depends how it's kept. You go in
museums and you see all that Oldenburg stuff and all that
cardboard. It makes lots of employment for people paying
attention to it.
My favorite sculpture is that Degas ballerina because
the skirt ages and the other part doesn't. Or Buddhist sculp-
tures that have glass eyes and wooden bodies, and the
49
wooden bodies were painted and all the paint has fallen off;
the wood is being eaten away, but the glass remains really
fresh. I think all that stuff is really interesting.
I suppose I do think about whether or not my work
lasts; the guy at the art-supply store makes me think about it.
I just bought pencils and was asking if they're light fast or not.
Probably more, since, well, having an "art career" and hav-
ing that question be asked of me, and maybe just getting
older, you know, because you have seen enough of your work
disappear. You think, well, some of it you would like to have a
record of beyond a photograph. Having an art career makes
you think of it because if you have museums calling about
how long your work is going to last and whether they should
buy your work, and they are something that enables you to do
more work, you somehow try to consider what their considera-
tions are. I suppose it's a subtle matter that gets you to think
about it subconsciously, but I still make things that will
probably fall apart. I just do what I want to do. Before I used
to make everything out of paper, out of newspaper, because I
was twenty- or thirty-something years old, and that's the only
thing I could afford to make things out of. You do that anyway.
You just get your work done-it doesn't matter. So now I try to
use brown wrapping paper instead because Willie Birch uses
it. I look around at what other artists are working with. It's
just like that.
A museum bought a thing of mine, and they wanted a
backing on it so we made a backing. Then they got mad
because it had cat fur all over it because I made it at home on
my floor. They refused it and they sent my assistant out to buy
new paper and make a clean one. To me, maybe if I had been
a little bit older-although it was only a couple of years agoI would have told them to just fuck off! To me, that's really
rude. It's my work. If I say it's okay that there is cat fur all over
it, then it's okay if there is cat fur all over it. I think it is that
FIG. 9 Kiki Smith, Milky Way, 1993, papier-miche, wire, and white gold leaf,
Courtesy Pace Wildenstein, New York.
life-size.
thing of ownership. If people own things, they get their
ART JOURNAL
This content downloaded from 38.125.15.118 on Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:03:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
versions of how it should be, which can be different from your
Sometimes it's really interesting because you won't
version, although I like the Chinese practice of stamping
even recognize the piece at all, which I like. In the begin-
paintings to show ownership. I think artists keep a much
more flexible, live sense about what their work should be. I
ning, in one of the first shows I was in, this curator who was
putting together this big group sculpture show said, "Okay,
would say it is a flexible situation, sort of. I think artists
I'll take this piece." And I was so thrilled to be included
should be consulted and sometimes maybe it would be nice to
because it was with all my heroes. I said, "Well, I'll come see
work on a piece again, but I also don't think artists are
the space." I wanted to make sure the space was right for this
endlessly responsible for their work. If people own work, they
piece he'd chosen. He said, "No, no. There are no prima
have to take care to it. So far, nothing of mine has really fallen
donnas in this show. This is the piece, my space is there,
apart. If somebody doesn't like the way my work is, then they
we'll pick it up, and if you don't want to be in the show, that's
can hire restorers. I don't know if I see that as such a terrible
it." I said, "Oh, okay, of course," because I wanted so much
to be in the show. And he left and I felt, "God, I haven't even
conflict. Maybe it makes it more interesting. My assistants
help me do things all the time so I always get some weirdstarted out in the art world and I'm already compromising."
thing. They made some weird decision that seems totally So I went to see the space and I was horrified. Then the piece
abnormal to me, but then I think, "Oh it's great, it goes to my
was delivered, and I was so depressed because it was way too
advantage." Maybe someone is fixing my thing and they makebig for the space. So he went out to lunch, and I cut the piece
in half. He was furious, but it looked much better in that
some weird thing and it makes my work better. I really like
things being in the general world.
space halved. We threw the top half onto the street and gave
the bottom half a new number.
50
The Whitney just acquired a piece that collectors
originally bought in 1985. These were the most tolerant and
respectful collectors. They had come to the studio to choose a
piece and then when I went to their house "to check the
Petah Coyne
space" I realized the piece they had chosen was far too large.
My work originally started out as very, very site specific. I
I promised them I would bring them a piece that would be
didn't believe that the pieces could be separated from what-
perfect for their space. Luckily they understood the concerns
ever space they were made for. In fact, I was so adamant
involved. Then a couple of times during the next few years I
about this that I had contracts on all my early pieces, from
went and subtly changed the piece for them, just because I
1985 to 1989. If a collector who bought the piece moved it, or
wanted to add things that I had found, or something of this
was going to show it, I requested always that they consult me
nature. There's a period when I'm connected with a piece, at
and that I go, or else that I have the floor plan, because the
least for four or five years. Then at a certain point you become
height and the space were imperative to the making or
almost in awe of it, and you don't know how you could get back
breaking of the vision of the piece. If I owned the work, I
into that flow. Now the Whitney has this piece. We're going to
would often completely redo the piece. In one case when I
have a special crane made where the hoist will come down
borrowed a piece from a collector, and it went to a much
and hook the piece so that no one will ever need to touch it. It
bigger space, I just made it much bigger. In the end, I gave
slides into a slot in the crate that holds the piece in position.
them a new piece because they did not like the changes I
All these pieces have to hang; none can ever lie down
made in the original one.
Now I rarely borrow work, but I still go and change my
because they often crush under their own weight. We can
move work and do what we call "fluffing," not changing the
pieces for the spaces. I'll continue to do that and photograph
piece, just touching up the surface. The sculptures change
them everywhere. That's why we have such big numbers for
less dramatically now. The materials are much tougher (to
my pieces, because every time they're moved they get a new
withstand the intensive traveling) and much more labor inten-
number, which is kind of like a new name for it. The piece at
sive (to make any major changes to size and structure).
the Whitney has four numbers that start in the early 200s,
I want my work to have the spirit exactly as I built it. If
and when we finally finish it'll probably be up in the 600s. So
it starts to age and look old-I'm not sure I would want that.
every time I go to install anything I add a number. It can be
When I look at Eva Hesse's work, I'm horrified. Originally, I
an installation number or it can be a piece number. Say
had only seen photographs and read articles and Lucy Lip-
there's one with the piece Number 10 and then two years later
pard's book. When I finally saw it, I was so bitterly disap-
I show it and it's Number 200; it's listed in my catalogue as
pointed. There was one at a museum that had all this dirt and
Untitled 200 and in parenthesis below Number 10. It also
dust on it, and I thought, "Oh my god, someone should clean
lists where it's been shown. I have photographs of each
it." But I guess it's just embedded in the surface. This is not
installation, so how it has changed at each phase is docu-
what I want for my work. Although I don't know Eva Hesse's
mented. The pieces change each time we move them; that's
intent, I never met her, I could only imagine that if she saw
why I rarely borrow works.
how it looked today, she would not be pleased. Yet I would
SUMMER 1995
This content downloaded from 38.125.15.118 on Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:03:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Fred Sandback
A work of art-one of mine-is on its one side, a reflection
of, or a locus for, my various needs and desires to see things
one way or the other. It must hold these things in focus (fig.
11). On its other side, it does the same thing for someone
else-the viewer, or participant. It is animated by one or
both of us. In the main it is our terms, as maker and user,
which are significant, and the terms of the work of art "on its
own" may be less important. Maybe you can even throw it
away. I do often enough. When an exhibition is over, as often
as not in recent years, its physical remains go into the
wastebasket, to be supplanted by fresh materials at a later
date perhaps.
In my case what are the terms of this interface, the
work of art? Are they the instructions that I leave behind with
it? Not for me. If I am called upon to re-create or reinstall a
piece, I do regard this as a re-creating process and would
certainly not let myself be hung up on something I wrote
down about it last week or last year. I would take whatever
liberties I could get away with-I say that because at some
point a curator is liable to say, "But that's not our piece at
all." Things change, but there are limits. So I guess I would
expect a curator acting in my place to exercise the same
FIG. 10 Petah Coyne, Untitled 752,1992-93, mixed media, 56 x 51 x 37
inches. Courtesy Jack Shainman Gallery, New York.
freedom. There are all these microtonal or atmospheric aspects of a piece that are what make it vital for me at a certain moment, but that defy qualification. So the curator is
rather see her work as it is, than nothing at all. But, you know,
stuck with her/his role as interpreter. She has to add the
originally the work seemed (at least from the photos) very
grace notes.
fluid and elastic. Now it's dry and parched.
It's a real problem because my issues are so much
An aside to this-maybe I'm wrong and maybe this is
a hopeless romanticism of significance. I don't think so.
about materials. This problem of presentation has thrown me
Interpret you must. That is what keeps something alive.
into working with a tremendous amount of technical people. If
Playing period music on period instruments contributes to
I used regular wax for the wax pieces, they would never stand
keeping period music dead (not always).
the test of time (fig. 10). I had a chemist make up a special
In these comments, I've been thinking about them as
formula. It was very expensive to do. It's half plastic and half
referring to the part of my work that is more actively bound to
wax, but it looks like it's all wax, and it can go up to 180
the environment. Other things I've made are much more like a
degrees or down to 20 below. Its limitations are that it can't
painting-hang it on a nail and there you are.
drop more than 40 degrees in one hour; otherwise it could
Who should be the primary source in determining how
possibly crack. In an effort to keep my work fresh, I con-
a work should look over time? Well, sure, I should be. This is
sciously change to new materials every five years or there-
my game and I want it played my way. But the question
abouts. So few of the dead-fish pieces I made at the begin-
becomes interesting as I begin to fade out of the picture.
ning are left. When you are young, you're not thinking about
Behind me I leave a de facto canon of how I have done things
"historical" or anything like that. But as you put so much of
over time. But this will never be enough to run things. A
your life and energy into these pieces; you can't just think
curator will re-create a piece because she wants to, and it is
that all that's going to survive is a photograph.
this will that drives the re-creation, finally, not the remnants
Sometimes when I go into museums to see my work, my
of my will. Of course her will to re-create may run the gamut
hands just gravitate to it. It's like a magnet; I'm just drawn
from attempts at historical correctness to taking impossible
across the room. The guards are always telling me to keep my
liberties. I like the latter end of the spectrum better, lately.
hands off. Then I show them my ID and say look, that's mine.
Should my wishes regarding re-creation and continuity
Although they do not like me touching the pieces, they often
be taken as unarguable facts? Of course, but that will never
confess that they too have touched them. Different artists
be enough to drive the machine. Particularly since I am more
have different relationships, but mine is so hands on, and
interested in the now of things than the then. When a piece is
every now and again I have to go and touch them and somehow
done, I am inclined to move on and disregard it. This shifts
it comforts me.
more of the responsibility to the curator. Should her interest
ART JOURNAL
This content downloaded from 38.125.15.118 on Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:03:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
51
Conclusion
We must construct a methodology for conservation of contem-
porary art that can take this need for an individual approach
into account, yet at the same time offer some guidelines. Such
guidelines would apply to everyone involved with this sort o
work, although I write primarily with museums in mind. The
importance of the artist's intent, or the requirements to
accurately convey the scope of the idea for a particular work
must be kept in the foreground. Such questions as thos
raised here can be addressed when an object enters a museum collection, with notations made as to how the work is
meant to look and exist. Take installation, for example. On or
off a pedestal? How much space around it? What level of
lighting? What should be the proximity of labels? What
nature and extent of interpretation should be given on the
labels? How should the piece continue through time? How is
it to be maintained? Hanson, for instance, gave specific
instructions about dusting. Mechanical pieces may demand a
regular schedule of maintenance. Or if a piece is damaged,
can it be repaired, replaced with a new piece, or simply
"retired"? Or should it be left alone, since the nature of the
work is "impermanence"? In the broad category of conceptual
art, what is the strong preference of the artist or his/her sense
of the ideal way the piece may continue to exist and still carry
its ideas? Does a work sometimes "demand" renewal? Who
can reinstall an installation piece? When a piece is show
FIG. 11elastic
Fred Sandback,
1968 (shown
in Annemarie
the artist'sVerno.
studio, New York),
orange
cord, 108 xUntitled,
80 x 24 inches.
Courtesy
whose appearance is known to be far from its original sta
should it be an ethical requirement to note this in the do
mentation and to state it on the label? An ongoing schedule
documentation can be instituted, starting with video int
be concentric with mine as defined? Unavoidably, yes and
views with the artist about his/her work in general and abo
no. My center of interest will never be adequate.
the specific pieces in a collection. A greater emphasis sho
For better or worse, my wishes for a piece are so bound
be placed on cooperative efforts among artists, curators,
to my being there with it at the moment of its coming into
conservators. Finally, we must accept that art, especiall
being that I can only imagine the curator becoming embroi-
some contemporary art, may be something that will last on
led in a similar sort of situation in her re-creation of the
a
short
time.
piece. In that area her wishes then have priority. It is that sort
of dynamic that I think I would like to see. My model, I think,
is the musical score, though I admit that the idea of a
"brilliant rendition of an early Sandback" sounds prettyNotes
1.
looney. To the extent, though, that my script involves taking
Duane
Hanson
2.
Duane
Hanson,
into account things beyond the simple physical limits of the
3.
sculpture, I suppose that the curator's may have to as well.
4.
Kirk
Alicia
York:
Intervene in the normal aging process? In my case? There is
not much holy about a ball of yarn. Throw it out. Get a
5.
new
6.
7.
one. I get a lot of resistance when I display this attitude.
8.
Sol
Sol
Sol
I
to
Varnedoe,
Legg,
ed.,
Museum
Richard
conversatio
of
Duane
Sol
Ha
Lewitt
Modern
A
Lewitt, telephone conve
LeWitt, interview with
LeWitt
would
like
to
the
to
author,
express
my
When do you decide that the artwork is no longer carrying the
Anderton, my colleague at t
ideas? I think rather that the work of art is an idea. Over timetranscribing and editing, an
College,
it may become a different idea. Is it my responsibilityintent.
to
for
her
help
in
sortin
communicate information about my process and intention?
This is hard. This work is my process and intention. Only
KIMBERLY DAVENPORT is director of the Rice University Art
Gallery in Houston. Formerly, she was the associate curator of
viewed from the future is it an artifact. Whether that artifact
will be animated by another's process and intention depends
contemporary art and the LeWitt Collection at the Wadsworth
on them, not me.
Atheneum, Hartford.
SUMMER 1995
This content downloaded from 38.125.15.118 on Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:03:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms