19 The Challenge of Installation Art Glenn Wharton and Harvey Molotch Introduction The rise of installation art challenges principles developed for conserving tradi- tional media. The conventional canon to honor the ‘ authentic ’ object, already under some stress, becomes especially problematic when dealing with art whose meaning and materiality cannot be fixed. 1 In this chapter we outline the chal- lenges that arise in conserving such ephemeral and contingent works. We suggest changes – some already underway – through which conservators may respond. Contemporary installation art draws inspiration from earlier projects not meant for collecting institutions at all. Along with the closely related genre of performance art, installations of the 1960s were anti-establishment in general, and anti-museum in particular. Their temporary quality was often part of their point. Included in these immediate precedents were Happenings created by Allan Kaprow, Fluxus projects, and other Dada-inspired events. When such works yielded artifacts at all, they were more akin to happenstance props than objects to be conserved. Performances were one-offs, mounted in public spaces for public interaction – activist interventions absurdist in spirit or aimed against establish- ment politics and on behalf of counter-cultural ideals. As gallery owners, collectors, and museum curators took note, they initiated means to display, celebrate and eventually ‘ own ’ such projects or at least those they inspired. In so doing, they pressed these works into the standard modes of operation, not only of display but also of registration, storage, and conserva- tion. Some artists responded by shaping their works to better operate within the boundaries of the art world, while the institutions stretched to respond to the art- works ’ exigencies. The process continues along a two-way street of adjustment. Although sometimes retaining an oppositional frisson, installation art now ranges to the benignly serene. In physical content, some works utilize simple mate- rials like a roomful of dirt (Walter de Maria, The New York Earth Room ), while others involve performance and computer-generated displays. Joan Jonas combines performance with video and related artifacts in her installations such as Revolted by the Thought of Known Places , 1994 ( Figure 19.1 ). Whatever else it may be, 210 225_H8201_Ch19.indd5_H8201_Ch19.indd 221010 77/27/2009/27/2009 77:05:53:05:53 PPMM The Challenge of Installation Art re-presenting such work cannot mean finding out how to replicate the exact nature of an authentic original. In a real sense, there is no hallowed original, the first show- ing having been a result – in varying degrees – of happenstance, imposed limits, or events of a historic moment that have passed into oblivion. Instead, the capacity to perpetuate the art, in some way or another, depends on capacities and conditions in the present moment and not just on those in the past. The conservator works with others, and a series of physical, institutional and technical contingencies – as we now discuss – to arrive at decisions about how the artwork can continue. Figure 19.1 Joan Jonas, Revolted by the Thought of Known Places . Sweeney Astray , 1994. Performance view. Westergasfabriek, Amsterdam. © Joan Jonas. Reproduced with permission from the artist and Yvon Lambert New York, Paris. I . Physical context Physical context always helps define a work of art, but this becomes more radi- cally the case with installations that use environment to structure viewer experi- ence.2 Room dimensions, windows, doors, and interior boundaries can be intrinsic to aesthetic goals, along with sight, sound, and aroma. Dan Flavin’s arrangements of fluorescent fixtures exist as sculptural components within a larger expression of color and light intensity. In how large of a room can a Flavin be exhibited while retaining the desired luminance? Installations often lack clear boundaries. The term for a sub-genre of instal- lation art, ‘ Scatter Art, ’ signals the problem. Certainly at the time of reinstallation, 211 225_H8201_Ch19.indd5_H8201_Ch19.indd 221111 77/27/2009/27/2009 77:05:53:05:53 PPMM Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths staff may lack knowledge of edges of the work or just how patrons are meant to walk around or within them. They place stanchions, platforms, and floor lines to guide viewers and define what’s ‘ in ’ and what’s ‘ out ’ – an aesthetically and func- tionally delicate maneuver. Any reinstallation needs to somehow be appropriate to the relationship between the work itself and the other elements of the room, including bodies of visitors. Knowing the artist’s tolerance for variation, or main- taining the same boundaries are aspects of conserving the work. Replicating spatial characteristics of earlier installation environments raises dilemmas. 3 Adjacent spaces leading into the work may not be the same. The orig- inal room or building may no longer exist. Even if there is sufficient money to reproduce the old room within the walls of a newer space, this may lack the right ‘ feel. ’ A part of the original idea may have involved using the building’s found qualities as an aspect of the work. II. Artifact status The amalgams that can make up a single installation – toys, food, commercial pro- jectors, and so forth – force conservators to make different judgments about the value of the components. Although some prioritizing occurs in general conserva- tion practice, installations force the issue of deciding where the effort should go. Elements within a given work thus take on varying status . Just as individuals differ in social standing, each element of an installation has a particular standing vis- à -vis every other element. At one end of the continuum, an element may be crucial; without it, the work loses all meaning. Daniel Buren created a kind of kaleidoscope spectacle by fitting the Guggenheim’s famous spiral atrium with mir- rored panels (Daniel Buren, Around the Corner, 2000 – 2005). Substituting plain glass (or non-reflective panels of some sort) in a subsequent installation would obviously be ridiculous. Mirror has high status. At the other end of the spectrum might be a rag whose fabric, shape, or soiling is incidental. The shape and finish of a common screw may be insignificant in one project but critical in another. If judged as low status – simply a way to hold two elements together, for example – one could pull a replacement with similar thread count from the supply cabinet. Or find a different way of holding things together, with a hinge perhaps. With higher status placed on the original, conservation may require re-threading the existing screw or replacing dislodged metal with fill material – a time-consuming process. Low-status artifacts can also include behind the scenes projectors, media playback equipment, and replaceable parts such as light bulbs and projector filters. Artists may create their own replacement components or owners may purchase or fabricate them, sometimes tossing them after the exhibition closes. Artifact status can also change. What was first considered low status might become high status, and vice versa. A single element can also have mixed status, high 212 225_H8201_Ch19.indd5_H8201_Ch19.indd 221212 77/27/2009/27/2009 77:05:59:05:59 PPMM The Challenge of Installation Art in one regard, but low in another. An example of mixed status is the candy used in Untitled (USA Today) 1990, a typical Felix Gonzalez-Torres ‘ spill ’ ( Figure 19.2 ). The candy is low status in that people consume it and it is therefore disposable. Indeed, although the artist indicated a certain ‘ ideal ’ for his candy (in terms of weight) for example, he did not require that it be of a specific type. But it is crucial that there be candy, and conservation includes understanding which candy it should be. Figure 19.2 Felix Gonzalez-Torres, “ Untitled ” (USA Today) 1990. Museum of Modern Art. Gift of the Dannheisser Foundation. © The Felix Gonzalez-Torres Foundation. Reproduced courtesy of Andrea Rosen Gallery, New York. Error can occur. Without understanding the meaning assigned by the artist, subsequent caretakers can omit something considered important or pay too much attention to something that isn’t. Such was the case when, somewhere along the line, somebody removed a two-inch thick layer of debris from an excised building segment intended for gallery display as part of a Gordon Matta-Clark ‘ anarchi- tecture ’ exhibit (Gordon Matta-Clark, Splitting: Four Corners , 1974). Ordinarily low status, dust and debris in this instance served as a sort of patina testifying to the building’s destruction by the artist. It survived at least the first two exhi- bitions, but was erroneously cleaned before a subsequent display after the artist died. 4 Another status difference among artifacts, particularly relevant for media installations, is whether the display equipment is dedicated or non-dedicated . Just 213 225_H8201_Ch19.indd5_H8201_Ch19.indd 221313 77/27/2009/27/2009 77:05:59:05:59 PPMM Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths what is the status of monitors, projectors, platforms, viewing screens, lights, sound equipment and hard disc drives? An institution may dedicate equipment for exclu- sive use of a particular work. Alternatively, the institution can pull equipment from the general appliance pool for a media exhibition, or for a public lecture for that matter. With non-dedicated equipment, media installations visually transform as available