How Do We Know An Artist's Intent? -- Ashton

Davenport’s “Impossible Liberties” brings out many of the important questions about artist’s intentions for their work in their lifetime and beyond, especially in regards to contemporary artwork in which the intent or concept is more important than the actual material object. As in the instance of Duane Hanson’s Sunbather, permission was given to replace the suit, swim cap and objects with completely different pieces. To some this may make the object entirely different, but to the artist as long as the work transmits the same message and original idea it is the same work. Such alterations, often times not even carried out by the artist, can be much more drastic, such as cutting the entire piece in half in order to fit in the space available. In the case of Hirst’s “The Physical Impossibility of Death to Someone Living,” Vogel explains how the actual shark was replaced with a new one and used a different method to preserve its appearance. Adrian Piper notes that we would be bothered if a Michelangelo foot was removed and put on a different part of the sculpture, and yet replacing entire objects, moving around pieces of the work and other alterations do not disturb the public as much. Is this because contemporary art is more concerned with original intent than the art itself? Is it because the work is done from the hands of the artist himself? Or is it because no great amount of time has elapsed since the work was created?

The issues of artist’s intent are important to establish before an artist’s passing. Joyce Hill Stoner’s article emphasizes the attention to detail that is required in order to fully present an artist’s intent for his or her works. Even in the case of Whistler, who left extensive records, as well as lifetime patterns, for how his art should be displayed, framed, restored and travelled, there are still many controversial questions about his artwork. Where do the intents and requests of an artist end and the judgment of the conservator and curator take over?

As Fred Sandback responded in Davenport’s piece, “When do you decide that the artwork is no longer carrying the ideas? I think rather that the work of art is an idea. Over time it may become a different idea.” While this can certainly refer to a painting simply “mellowing” over time as the varnish acts on the colors, it can also refer to Hirst replacing the entire shark from his work. Is there a difference between these changes?

Images:

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2009/10/DeathMindLivingG_450x300.jpg

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2006/06/16/1150446265_0645.jpg

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?

What Technical Studies Can Reveal about Original Works--Cummings

Bringing the sculpture's head and patterns on the helmet to life.

Photo from Stiftung Archaeologie

This week’s readings make us look at the connection between science and art. Podany and Scott use the “Getty” kouros to show how science and knowledge of ancient artistic techniques were essential to discovering the art’s authenticity. Sheldon mentions the importance of teaching inexperienced art historians the value of technical analysis and the ability to communicate and display their findings to the public. Will the new hybrid field of technical art history change conservation? What can we learn about a piece using current technology and how much do we really want to know? X-ray chromatography, infrared spectroscopy, and microscopic analysis can reveal everything from the origin of the piece to its original appearance.

The "real" Mona Lisa through Pascal Cotte's 240-megapixel Multi-spectral Imaging Camera.

Photo from www.lumiere-technology.com/.../Mona-5-steps.jpg

The knowledge gained from this technology is both stimulating and valuable, but is only one part of the process. How do museums display their findings? Does presenting this extra data distract from or enhance the experience of the art? Should exhibits present the technical details as irrefutable facts? Brinkmann states in both articles how hard it is to look past our prejudgments of ancient sculptures, especially from Greece and Italy, and accept their painting as its own art form. Blansdorf and Yin indicate that we know ancient Chinese sculptures were painted before and after the terracotta army, yet we still have trouble imagining them fully painted. Even without remnants of pigmentation, scientists and art historians can recreate more truthful representations of art like “Augustus of Prima Porta” and the entire terracotta army. From the readings, it is apparent how imperative cooperation between scientists and art historians is. Art conservation could not thrive without both. It will be interesting to see how future generations will accept the information we are finding today and what new technology will reveal about art.

Pigment remnants on a terracotta army warrior.

Photo from chinapictures.org

What Cleaning Art Can Reveal or Take Away—Spiegel

Cleaning works of art and artifacts can have many benefits, but this week’s readings showed that it can also have many negative consequences. Although cleaning has been and continues to be widely used by conservators, it is irreversible, unlike some of the other techniques employed by modern restorers. Kenneth Clark argued in 1938 that the primary issue is one of aesthetics: would the work look better restored or not? Many modern conservators, however, err on the side of caution and pratice “minimal intervention.” Sometimes, as Eastop and Brooks point out, dirt or patina can have great historical significance (in terms of context) and should be left in place, rather than return the object to its original appearance. Likewise, Bassett and Chase note that cleaning ancient bronzes can not only remove important pieces of evidence, but it can even damage otherwise stable areas.

Picasso's

Les Demoiselles d'Avignon Before (above) and After (below) Cleaning

A conservator must weigh the benefits against the risks. What is more important: minimal intervention or aesthetics? Should irreversible steps be taken to preserve an object for the long-term even if that means removing potentially valuable or historically significant dirt or corrosion? Do the rules change, so to speak, when an object or painting is unique or extremely rare? What about the question of the artist’s original intent? The “Crimes Against the Cubists” debate draws on these questions and most people seem to prefer minimal intervention to surface/appearance changing restoration. Nonetheless, many times cleaning is both necessary and beneficial.

Close-Up of Les Demoiselles d'Avignon: after the varnish is removed the painting's original texture and matte appearance become apparent. Early restorations had added the varnish to the surface in an attempt to preserve the painting.

Conservation “Mistakes” and their Consequences—Barr

From the pesticide-infested relics of the Hopi to the botched Chinese wall paintings of the Fogg Museum, it often seems that in the effort to preserve a historic object, the piece suffers further damage. As with any profession, error and trial are part of conservation. Isabelle Brajer's statement "a conservator who has not blundered in the course of his or her career is one that has not dirtied his or her hands." Mishaps range from misconceptions to logistical faults to poor aesthetic decisions. They incur shame but enlighten others who can learn from the misstep. Technical mistakes such as transferring the Chinese murals in the same manner as Italian frescos or miscalculating dimensions like Brajer are the most understandable errors. It is also easier to forgive earlier restorers who did not undergo the same training or possess the same scientific capabilities. However, Brajer also points out the difficulty in interpreting abstract works. Conservators inherently reflect the values and trends of their times that extend beyond the physical treatment of the materials to the manner they approach the art. We ask what is the role and worth of preservation mistakes. What should be regarded as error? In our society, the brazenness, reckless experimentation, and gross disrespect for the object and its context (particularly cultural) that characterized previous generations would be fundamental sins expressed through the irrevocable damage they frequently inflicted. Nevertheless, are flawed works worthless to hang in a gallery or can they teach us about the attitudes, perceptions, and technical blunders of our predecessors? What lessons can we glean from these failed initiatives, and what does it say about the institutions that hide these pieces from public viewing?

Pictures Found at:http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://ceroart.revues.org/docannexe/image/1127/img-6.jpg&imgrefurl=http://ceroart.revues.org/index1127.html&usg=__o9h2aFJ4Y0vkG5TSavrIsKP6qus=&h=423&w=430&sz=28&hl=en&start=24&sig2=nw5-ToKCTS1Qcou-im9Pxg&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=mJtnBkG6flbBcM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Disabelle%2Bbrajer%26start%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26ndsp%3D20%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=smTnS7r2KYHGlQem-fmFBA

How has Conservation Changed Through History?—Balachandran

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?

How Do Conservators Make Decisions?--Balachandran

What values—and whose values—do we preserve when we conserve artifacts and sites? Any object or site embodies a multiplicity of values—from aesthetic and historic values to spiritual, religious, cultural, emotional and use values. So how then can the conservator (and often the museum) appropriately retain all of these values and make them accessible to viewers? This week’s readings—Clavir, Brandi, Phillipot, and Taylor and Cassar—all point to the complexity of conservation practice and acknowledge that in order for some values to be preserved, others may have to be downplayed or even sacrificed. Whose values, then, do we take as paramount—the museum’s, the descendant community who claims the artifact, or the “general public” (a rather nebulous body)—to name but a few stakeholders? As a conservator, I’m torn between two desires: to keep artifacts “safe” in environmentally controlled vitrines where any member of the public who can visit the museum can see them; and to see artifacts in their original contexts, being used as objects of cultural renewal, spiritual devotion, or public engagement by the specific community to which they “belong” (again, a very contentious term). But both of these desires are motivated by my knowledge that artifacts mean something, they transmit something (to use Brandi’s words), but that something is both immediately recognizable and impossible to define. [Images show south Indian bronze idols in worship during a festival, and on view at the Government Museum, Chennai, India.]