Kongo nkisi figure, 19th century, wood, vegetable fibers, and metal
Minneapolis Institute of Arts
Ashton: In this week’s readings, we explored the ways in which some artworks are intended to continue “living” even after their artist’s death. This goal presents many challenges for conservators to weigh the importance of “original” objects to the work versus the ability for the object to “live,” the desire to preserve the actual object versus the intended use or function of an object, and the cultural context of the object versus the ethics of the museum. I was especially interested in Kaminitz’s discussion of the benefits of reciprocity between native groups and the museum – that cooperation allows the museums to obtain crucial information about the background of the objects and provides native groups the opportunity to preserve their cultural objects and practices as well as control of the interpretation of the objects. This is a more moderate approach compared to Jones-Amin’s look into the difficulty and ultimate failure of the museum to replicate cultural context while upholding conservation principles.Minneapolis Institute of Arts
Jean Tinguely at work on Homage to New York (1960)
Courtesy Museum Tinguely, Basel, and The New York Times
Courtesy Museum Tinguely, Basel, and The New York Times
Hughes: In the interview portion of “Reconstruction of a Moving Life, The Playful World of Jean Tinguely: An Interview with Ad Petersen,” Petersen, a former curator, half-laments “In a museum […] a certain fossilization occurs; you can’t do anything about this.” This idea seems to be the subtext of most of the readings this week. Art and objects taken out of context and placed in the museum setting often just sit there, no longer actively used. Mellor points out that African objects, even if they were at one time magical, sacred or powerful, lose these intangible qualities when they are removed from their cultural context. While a certain “fossilization” may be inevitable (or even desired when handling vengeful artifacts such as the Kongo nkisi figure), the viewer would prefer for objects to live as long as possible. The case of Tinguely’s Gismo, with all of its mechanical parts, was a particularly complex problem for conservators. Exhaustive art historical research led the team to conclude, “Gismo has to move, otherwise it does not ‘live.’”
Novik: The discussion of 'The Gismo' by Jean Tinguely was especially intriguing to me. Immense research on the part of the conservators was required in order to decide the extent of conservation that the artist intended. Records of the artist's words seemed to reflect that Tinguely believed in the transitive quality of objects. The artist's words were recorded before he died in which he said "Stop resisting change." In addition, based on different exhibits, it was concluded that the artist designed all of his sculptures so that they would self-destruct. However, with 'The Gismo', the conservator's discovered that the artist himself had helped to repair the machine and his 'chief concern' was to keep the sculpture functioning.
ReplyDeleteThe importance and impact of thorough historical research before any conservation efforts is strikingly apparent in the example of 'The Gismo'. The conservator's were careful and as true to their conceptions of the artist's intent as possible.
Novik: The discussion of 'The Gismo' by Jean Tinguely was especially intriguing to me. Immense research on the part of the conservators was required in order to decide the extent of conservation that the artist intended. Records of the artist's words seemed to reflect that Tinguely believed in the transitive quality of objects. The artist's words were recorded before he died in which he said "Stop resisting change." In addition, based on different exhibits, it was concluded that the artist designed all of his sculptures so that they would self-destruct. However, with 'The Gismo', the conservator's discovered that the artist himself had helped to repair the machine and his 'chief concern' was to keep the sculpture functioning.
ReplyDeleteThe importance and impact of thorough historical research before any conservation efforts is strikingly apparent in the example of 'The Gismo'. The conservator's were careful and as true to their conceptions of the artist's intent as possible.
Carambelas: I was also interested in the collaboration between museums and source communities. The Mellor article struck me because there didn't seem to be a Native voice in the article, rather it was "the African communities think X or Y." I found myself questioning some of what Mellor proposed because he came off as being too certain about his claims without having a direct connection to the communities. He certainly respected the cultures--of that there is no doubt--but can we trust a Westerner to give us the proper interpretation of such objects or intents? We struggle to identify the intent of artists who live in the same space and time as we do, so who can we really trust ourselves to do the same with ancient artifacts?
ReplyDeleteIn Mellor’s article, I thought it was very interesting that some conservators felt so uncomfortable working in the African art storage area that they would actually avoid it. This week’s articles all talked about the need to preserve the “life” of an artifact, or its spiritual value, but I’m curious as to how one can do this if they are so uncomfortable around the object as to try and avoid it? As Ashton pointed out, Kaminitz emphasizes reciprocity and cooperation between a museum and cultural group – even when primary or secondary sources are not available to consult for conservation practices, there is a basic level of understanding that the conservator can develop from spending time with the object, and while it is reasonable that one might be uncomfortable around an object with a foreign background, it is the duty of the conservator to try and overcome that discomfort as much as possible instead of ignoring it. Mellor specifically states that “conservators must remain vigilantly informed about African cultures”, and Novik pointed out the importance of research in the preservation of Tinguely’s “Gizmo”, highlighted in Hummeln’s article .
ReplyDeleteWhile I recognize that the conservators were mostly avoiding the storage areas and still did work with the artifacts, I guess I’m just surprised that they would allow their discomfort to affect them so much, and wonder how much that influenced their conservation approaches.
The Kaminitz article really brought together how important respect and trust are in this field and the need for these two things to be honestly earned and built. We learned through previous articles about the dangers of unchecked trusts, like the Rosenblum’s forgeries in the Lewis Hine scandal. Kaminitz's article shows how cooperation and collaboration between Native American tribes and conservators accomplished something for both groups. Trust was also gained by conservators working on Anish Kapoor’s sculptures. Time spent gaining respect and trust could potentially ameliorate relations between artists and conservators, scientists and conservators, and even cultural groups and museums. The problem with this, as Mellor points out, can be the vast physical separation between the museum and the culture the item came from. With museums containing so many pieces from so many cultures around the world, is it even possible or worth it to try to establish these connections? Do we tend to ignore a culture’s opinions or traditions the farther they are from the museum in which they are found?
ReplyDeleteI thought the Gismo scenario was very interesting. on one hand, the artist had a history of blowing up his own pieces and on the other hand he often would fix his works. In fact, he became more precise and professional when many people starting to ask him to repair their art. The interview also emphasized that the artist would want to see his pieces as they were when they were constructed. While these machines have a political and historical overtones, the ample evidence and lack of cultural value make them easier for museum staff to decide whether or not they should be repaired. However, It was interesting to observe how well certain museums merged conservation with heritage such as the NMAI and the instruments in Java. think that the cultural aspect adds a necessary and meaningful context to the artifacts that is compromise natives and the museum society.
ReplyDeleteSpiegel: I think that Peterson's statement about a fossilization occurring in a museum because it speaks to the way many museums display objects. There is often a distance (literally and figuratively) between a work of art and a museum visitor, such that the viewer has a hard time connecting with the object on display. Of course, besides the issues of displaying the objects, museums must decide whether an object can be allowed to "die" even thought the intentions of the museum and conservators are to try to preserve the object in perpetuity. I think that there is no way to make a standardized set of rules to determine when a work of art can be allowed to deteriorate or how it can be repaired. Rather, each museum should try to set a policy for each individual object from the moment it entered their collection. This should be done (if possible) after consultations with museum directors, conservators, the artist, and any people who otherwise may be affected (such as Indian tribes). While some objects may be allowed to die, I think that the ultimate goal should be to keep it on display with as few alterations as possible, even if that means letting it deteriorate over time.
ReplyDelete