4 Conserving Work by Ger Van
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Between concept and material. Working with conceptual art: a conservator’s testimony Stigter, S. Publication date 2016 Document Version Final published version Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Stigter, S. (2016). Between concept and material. Working with conceptual art: a conservator’s testimony. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:06 Oct 2021 Between Concept and Material Working with Conceptual Art: A Conservator’s Testimony Sanneke Stigter Between Concept and Material Working with Conceptual Art: A Conservator’s Testimony ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. dr. D.C. van den Boom ten overstaan van een door het College voor Promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteit op 29 juni 2016, te 11.00 uur door Sanneke Stigter geboren te Amsterdam A Conservator’s Testimony Promotiecommissie Promotores: prof. dr. J.J. Noordegraaf Universiteit van Amsterdam prof. dr. D.A. Cherry Universiteit van Amsterdam Co-promotores: dr. E. Hendriks Universiteit van Amsterdam dr. G. Wharton New York University Overige leden: prof. dr. ing. M.R. van Bommel Universiteit van Amsterdam prof. A.G.A van Grevenstein-Kruse Universiteit van Amsterdam prof. dr. P. Laurenson Universiteit Maastricht prof. dr. A.S. Lehmann Rijksuniversiteit Groningen prof. dr. J. Wadum Universiteit van Amsterdam Faculteit: Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen 4 Table of Contents Abstract 7 Acknowledgements 9 1 Introduction: What is the Matter? 11 1.1 Questions and Challenges 13 1.2 Method 15 1.3 Context 23 1.4 Outline 32 2 Conceptual Art: Matter of Conservation 35 2.1 On Conceptual Art 37 2.2 A Matter of Conservation 42 2.3 Market and Museums 54 2.4 Conclusion 67 3 Conservation: Principles, Practices, and Research 69 3.1 Anxiety and Concern 71 3.2 Principles and Values 77 3.3 Object-Based Research and Process-Based Analyses 88 3.4 Conclusion 104 4 Conserving Work by Ger van Elk 105 4.1 Ger van Elk: Renewal as Style 106 4.2 Preserving Material Integrity: Roquebrune 117 4.3 Preserving Historical Integrity: The Wider the Flatter 127 4.4 Conclusion 138 5 Installing Work by Joseph Kosuth 141 5.1 Joseph Kosuth: Propositions and Practices 143 5.2 Investigating Glass (One and Three) 153 5.3 Staging and Shaping: Reflecting on Practice 167 5.4 Conclusion 177 6 Co-Producing Work by Jan Dibbets 181 6.1 Jan Dibbets: From the Camera’s Perspective 184 6.2 Discovering All shadows… 191 6.3 Dynamics Around a Living Record: Interviews and Practices 197 6.4 Conclusion 210 7 Conclusion: A Conservator’s Testimony 213 7.1 Managing Manifestations 216 7.2 Case Studies in Practice 220 7.3 Autoethnography 226 7.4 Outlook: Towards Autoethnography 230 References 233 Figures 253 Cited Author’s Publications 267 Summary 271 Samenvatting 275 Abstract Conceptual art challenges the idea of traditional art conservation. Aimed at negating the unique material object in art, conceptual artworks confront the conservator with difficult dilemmas and challenging situations. How can one preserve a concept when there is material to work with? Should this be done through keeping the material, even when it no longer conveys the message? Or through working with artist interviews or artist participation, despite the challenge of potentially conflicting viewpoints? Or through documentation, and if so: how? This study explores the various approaches taken during the process of conservation of conceptual art in a museum context, by assessing conceptual art through the lens of conservation. This generates original research material, based on personal interviews, practice-led research, and participatory observation, revealing behind-the-scenes museum practice, and casting new light on iconic artworks. Three claims are made that differ from what is generally believed or accepted in traditional conservation theory and the idea of conceptual art. The first claim is that a conceptual artwork’s materiality is more meaningful than is generally thought. Although seemingly irrelevant to the artist, the physical manifestation of the artwork not only reflects the time in which it was made, but also often underpins the content of the work. This relates to a second point, because as for much contemporary art in general, conceptual art is shaped and staged each time it is put together and presented. If these practices are considered to be a form of conservation, because they guarantee a work’s continuation, this clashes with the required restrained character of the art conservator’s role. However, these actions are essential to keep conceptual art alive. This leads to a third claim: conservation treatments and installation processes are important research tools and dynamic sources for technical art history, in particular for conceptual work that has no physical remnants after display. These claims are illuminated by assessing conservation treatments and in the installation processes of conceptual art from the 1960s and 1970s, with works from Ger van Elk, Joseph Kosuth, and Jan Dibbets, each representing different types of conceptual art. Central to this study is the artwork in physical transition. Not only are changes in meaning and material analysed by considering the object in a biographical context, but the conservation- based activities are carefully assessed. In this way, traditional object-based research in conservation studies, supported by materials science and art history, becomes enriched with process-based research, acknowledging the inevitability of personal input through methods imported from the social sciences. An autoethnographic approach is proposed as a new research tool in conservation, introducing a conservator’s testimony, to encourage continuous critical thinking both about the way conceptual artworks continue their lives over time, and instigate an inherent reflexive stance on the part of the conservator, which would also be of significance for the profession of conservation in general. 7 Acknowledgements This study would never have been possible without the help of many. First of all, I would like to thank my PhD supervisors: Julia Noordegraaf of the University of Amsterdam (UvA), Ella Hendriks (UvA and Van Gogh Museum), Deborah Cherry (UvA and Central St. Martins College of Arts and Design, University of the Arts London), and Glenn Wharton (New York University). I am grateful for having had such a great team of advisors reviewing my work, always in good spirits and supporting me through the process of writing this dissertation. In addition, I am thankful to the members of the Committee of Defence for honouring me with accepting the invitation to assess the result: Pip Laurenson (Maastricht University and Tate), Ann-Sophie Lehmann (University of Groningen), Maarten van Bommel (UvA), Anne van Grevenstein-Kruse (UvA and SRAL) and Jørgen Wadum (UvA, Statens Museum for Kunst and CATS). For a similar commitment I thank the members of the New Strategies in the Conservation of Contemporary Art research group (2009-2013), a joint initiative of Maastricht University (MU), the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (RCE), and the University of Amsterdam, partially funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). Our meetings have tremendously enriched my thinking on conservation and it is very precious to be able to share preliminary work with a dedicated group of peers. I warmly thank Renée van de Vall, Vivian van Saaze (both MU); IJsbrand Hummelen, Tatja Scholte (both RCE), and Deborah Cherry (UvA), fellow PhD candidate Hanna Hölling, and additional members Annet Dekker, Angela Matyssek, Panda de Haan and Paolo Martore. I also thank my colleagues at the department for Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage at the University of Amsterdam for making it possible to pursue this research, especially Suzanne Maarschalkerweerd-Dechamps, Jan de Vries, René Peschar, Maartje Stols-Witlox, and Clara von Waldthausen for their support and feedback, and Kate van Lookeren Campagne for reviewing my English. I am particularly grateful to my colleagues of the specialisation Contemporary Art for supporting our training programme with such dedication while I was writing this doctoral thesis: Ellen Jansen, Evelyne Snijders, and Anna Laganà. I am thankful for working with such a great team. I also thank our students and alumni for their inspiration and continuous engagement. Furthermore, I thank the research schools of the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Amsterdam for hosting this research: initially the Amsterdam School for Cultural Analyses (ASCA) and later the Amsterdam School for Heritage and Memory Studies (ASHMS), now Amsterdam School for Heritage, Memory, and Material Culture (AHM). Furthermore, I thank Hotze Mulder at the Dean’s Office, and Selma Leydesdorff for sharing her expertise in the field of Oral history through the Huizinga Institute and our continued collaboration in this field. Most importantly, for both the content and the fun, I want to thank the artists. Without their work, their galleries, and collectors, the content of this study would have been far less colourful, if not impossible.