Is contemporary society prepared for art works to change in “real time”? Our readings this week suggest, alternatively that current society is either too skittish, too scared of changing the past to make any definitive, oeuvre-changing restorations to venerated art works OR, that society has always been this way, but that changes are inevitable for works of art to function as cultural, religious and artistic objects. But how do these works actually function? Do they have to be seen within a complete architectural and cultural framework in order to be truly understood? Carrier and Phillipot suggest, then, that we have lost the meaning of most art works in our care in museums. I remain intrigued by Carrier’s attempt to categorize art works as artifacts, organisms or artificial beings, and as much as I think that this categorization is ultimately futile, I wish that art works had that internal self-preservation mechanism of organisms, i.e, the ability to self-regulate, regenerate and come alive again. But as they cannot, the work of the conservator (and art historian, archaeologist, cultural or religious descendant, and so many other stakeholders) is to carefully consider how these works can live (if only briefly) again.
Photographs from the exhibition "Gods in Color". What do we want to see--the degraded white marble or imaginations of what the past might have looked like?
Carambelas: In order to answer the question posed—-is contemporary society prepared for art works to change in “real time”—-let’s look at the first aspect: our society in regard to the “declining confidence in the present” as Watson says. We are not lacking in confidence, nor are we skittish: we are conscious and more so than ever before. Any decision today is framed in a global context forcing us to consider the impact of our actions on all people and cultures. Along with technological advances that allow for minimally invasive and almost reversible conservation procedures, this context can (hopefully) eliminate decisions that will yield adverse affects. I personally see our society being in the best position thus far to make decisions about the conservation of artifacts.
ReplyDeleteSpiegel: I agree that changes to works of art are inevitable over time and it would be inauthentic to try to restore something to its original state. Rather, as Podany argues, the emphasis should be on maintaining the historical and artistic significance. Sometimes this would mean leaving it untouched and preserved, or leaving an earlier restoration in place. Nonetheless, I think it would be a disservice to try to return the piece to its original appearance (as in "Gods in color") because it masks the centuries of wear that should be expected of an ancient statue. I think that we should try to preserve the state that people have seen and enjoyed for centuries.
ReplyDeleteWatson makes a very valid point that art conservation decisions are so difficult because the general public inherently worships artwork for its age, while wishing to see it in its original condition. It is important to acknowledge a piece of art's passage through time,both the changes made by its environment and people acting directly upon it, as Carrier suggests with the "organism" concept. These changes should be valued rather than trying to re-create the original. As Carrier explains, we cannot know what the artist intended us to see in the future (for example the Rothko paintings' fading), and it is ignorant to think we can wash off the effects of age. For example, the additions made to many Greek and Roman sculptures by valued Renaissance artists are just as remarkable examples of long-lasting talent as the original sculptures and should not be disassembled because they do not belong to the "original."
ReplyDeleteNovik: Although I agree with Max's use of the Podany ideas concerning the historical significance of an artifact, I believe that it is then contradictory to disregard the original state of the 'God's in Color' pieces. The pediment at Olympia from which these pieces were taken would have appeared VERY different in its original state than the clean marble that the we envision today. Although I will concede that repainting the objects would not convey the genuine image, I believe that it is very important to represent the authentic work in some manner. The vibrant colors and lively animation of these sculptures paint a very different picture of the ancient Greeks than a clean, stark, sculpture does. Whether it be the Parthenon frieze or a Roman replica, it is important to acknowledge the true vivacious nature of their artwork and of their culture. Only then can one truly acknowledge the historical significance of the 'organism'.
ReplyDeleteCummings: Leaving works of art in situ is ideal, but rarely the case. I do agree that experiencing the work of art in its original context and perhaps its original appearance leads observers to a truer understanding of the piece. However, I don’t think that removing a work from its origins diminishes its credibility as a work of art. Carrier and Phillipot’s suggestion that the loss of the original meanings of most of the objects in our museums may be true, but I think that these objects still succeed as works of art despite their new context. To an unknowledgeable museum visitor, items behind glass only gain significance when their story is exposed. I really appreciated Carrier’s wish to see works of art as organisms, and though they cannot regenerate themselves I see it as the job of the conservator, the historian, the archaeologist, and the cultural descendents to revive the piece in a way that embraces its wear and tear, but also allows its original context and story to be heard and seen. In short, I would rather see the degraded white marble on display but also be given the opportunity to imagine it as it originally was.
ReplyDeleteEven an institution like Columbia University who has maintained much of its original physical attributes and founding principles has been altered, it is no wonder that art, particularly religious and tribal artifacts removed from their intentioned context, change over the years. From scientific measures to the traditional craftsmen in New Delhi, the readings make it clear that there is no way to ever fully restore works. This is especially clear in the example of the Nordlingen Alter. Our twenty first understanding cannot undue the effects of the Reformation just as the placement of Manet's paintings would make little difference to a culture used to nudes and totally unfamiliar with the old location. It nearly impossible to know the artists' intentions that extend little longer than their own lifetimes. Certain objects such as building should be adapted unlike other creative efforts which most argue should remain in tact. So often society wants to put a glass box around what it considers culturally important, a religious icon, or aesthetically pleasing. Art speaks of human emotions, history, and ideas taking on an active role in shaping the world view, but it is essential to remember that art was created and attributed a value to by people. In many of the articles, there are the resounding themes of conservation ethics and the inherent rights of a work, such as the Mona Lisa. These concepts pose difficult questions. While it is easy to see all the scars that past initiatives have has inflicted on objects, it is also dangerous to leave monuments frozen, threatening their authenticity such as the case of Colonial Williamsburg or Independence Hall. Philloppot emphasizes "What make history is the meaning of the event, the meaning we recognize in the beginning of the context." Thus, he stresses that it is people who interpret and assign value. From the importance of aesthetics to the idea of preserving the pieces' integrity, each age must find the balance between orginality and presentability. "Truth' is as relative as conservators' judgements. The works are pieces of clay, paper, canvas, or stone. Lifeless, without people and therefore must change with the times.
ReplyDeleteWhile conservators are guided by history and must plan for events that are yet to occur, an artifact or work of art up for treatment has always existed in the present. The history of conservation, no matter what century, has followed contemporary trends. As Watson claims in "Altered States," to trace the history of conservation is to trace "the history of public awareness of its own cultural heritage." Now in the 21st century, I agree that we are functioning at a heightened state of awareness and for this reason, conservators are beginning to participate in a much more open and transparent decision making process.
ReplyDeleteThe Gods in Color exhibition is a great example of what technological advancements can bring to the disciplines of art conservation and art history. I actually love seeing the painted marble, but to apply that to all ancient works would create a pastiche and effectively erase history and reverse the passage of time. Better to use copies to bring these works back to "life" in the imaginations of modern viewers.
Martinek:
ReplyDeleteConsidering art is used to understand history and how it has developed, I agree that seeing an object as it was originally created and intended to be seen is just as important as how the artifact appears presently after historical accumulation.
In my opinion, Carrier’s categorizations of art as an artifact, organism or artificial being weren’t wrong but rather not quite complete – instead of trying to separate objects into one category, I think it is better to view each piece of art as a fluid model of all three; art as it was first created reflects the original intent of the artist, providing us with a more emotional view of the object and a better sense of the “internal structure” which Carrier claims defines an organism. As time has progressed and a piece of art leaves the period of history in which it was created, it becomes an artificial being separate from its maker. Even further along in time, the art starts to gather more historical significance and changes physically, making it an artifact. I think that only by understanding each of these aspects of a piece of art can conservators make a truly educated decision about how to approach restoration.