Using Objects So That They Live or Die

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.

Jean Tinguely at work on Homage to New York (1960)
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.’”

Limits and Dangers of Technical Studies: Fakes, Copies and Authenticity – Hughes

Is it possible to know without a doubt that an artwork or object is authentic? Is authenticity “provable” through scientific techniques and empirical evidence? What is authenticity?

Alleged Jackson Pollock from the Matter collection, one of 32 paintings discovered in a storage facility in 2002.

According to the authors of “Art Conservation and Art Fraud: Dissecting the Thin Blue Line,” science cannot provide proof of authenticity in terms of absolute truth; it can only provide evidence for experts to employ towards “developing theories of ‘best fit’” with results of technical analysis placed on an interpretive continuum (Galbally 74). Our discussion of technical studies last week led most of the class to agree that “objective scientific truth” is a practically unattainable goal. Scientific facts are still dependent upon their reading and interpretation. Working with a pre-established methodology during authentication studies should help guard conservators from unintentionally blending fact with opinion.

Powerhouse Mechanic by Lewis Hine, early 1920's

The emergence of the so-called Matter Pollocks and the Rosenblum Hines into the art market illustrates the fact that even works with seemingly impeccable provenance and authentication by respected connoisseurs can fall short of certainty. Can buyers no longer rely on the connoisseur’s legendary “eye” to judge authenticity? Whose responsibility is it to authenticate artwork? What happens to the work when the connoisseur and conservation scientist disagree? Does such controversy forever taint the work’s aesthetic value? Its historical value?