UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Insite | Outsite The perpetuation of site-specific installation artworks in museums Scholte, T.I. Publication date 2020 Document Version Final published version License Other Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Scholte, T. I. (2020). Insite | Outsite: The perpetuation of site-specific installation artworks in museums. 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:26 Sep 2021 Insite Outsite The Perpetuation of Site-Specific Installation Artworks in Museums ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. dr. Ir. K.I.J.Maex ten overstaan van een door College van Promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteit op donderdag 13 februari 2020, te 15.00 uur door Tatjana Irene Scholte geboren te Amsterdam Promotiecommissie Promotor: prof. dr. J.J. Noordegraaf Universiteit van Amsterdam Copromotores: prof. dr. D.A. Cherry University of the Arts London prof. dr. G. Wharton University of California Los Angeles Overige leden: prof. dr. M. Buskirk Montserrat College of Art prof. dr. P. Laurenson Maastricht University prof. dr. E. Hendriks Universiteit van Amsterdam prof. dr. H.H.M. Hermens Universiteit van Amsterdam prof. dr. M. Schavemaker Universiteit van Amsterdam Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen Het hier beschreven onderzoek voor dit proefschrift werd mede mogelijk gemaakt door genereuze steun van de Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. Table of contents Abstract 1 Acknowledgements 2 1 The problem of the perpetuation of site-specific installation art 5 Introduction 5 1.1 Research question 7 1.2 Olafur Eliasson’s Notion Motion 12 1.3 Biographical approach 15 1.4 Typologies and site-specific installations as dynamic networks 16 1.5 Outline of the research project 19 2 Site-specific installation art from an historical perspective 23 2.1 The rise of site-specific installation art: criticism towards the established art world 23 2.2 Unmoveable or movable? The case of Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc 29 2.3 The extended life of Richard Serra’s Splashing 32 2.4 Site-specificity and the viewer’s position in the gallery space 37 2.5 Robert Morris’s Amsterdam Project 39 2.6 The site of production and the site of reception 42 2.7 Phil Collins’s they shoot horses 44 2.8 Conclusion of the chapter 46 3 A conceptual model for the analysis of site-specific installations 49 Conceptual model Part 1: Triadic model for analysing site-specificity 3.1 Introducing Henri Lefebvre’s Theory on Space 49 3.2 Lefebvre’s Triad of Spatiality applied to site-specific installations 55 3.3 Analysing cultural phenomena ‘as performance’ 62 Conceptual model part 2: Analysing successive iterations of site-specific installation artworks 3.4 Looking through the lens of conservation: performativity of site-specific installation artworks 63 3.5 Site-specific installations as networks ‘in action’ 69 3.6 Using the script as an analytical tool 70 3.7 A short analysis of two site-specific installations of Richard Serra 75 3.8 Conclusion of the chapter 79 4 Ernesto Neto’s Célula Nave: extending the lifespan of a temporary, site-specific installation in a museum 81 4.1 The spatial design and materiality of Célula Nave 85 4.2 The functions of ‘social space’ and ‘representational space’ of Célula Nave 86 4.3 The fabrication of Célula Nave and ‘spaces of production’ 88 4.4 Reinstallation of Célula Nave without the presence of the artist 90 4.5 Shifts in the spatial network of Célula Nave and refinement of the conceptual model 92 4.6 We Fishing the Time: the relocation of a site-specific Installation to the permanent collection of Tate Modern 99 4.7 Option 1: restoration of the original artwork 102 4.8 Option 2: remake by a textile factory in Brazil and the artist’s studio 103 4.9 Option 3: remake by another fabricator aiming at a more Durable version 108 4.10 Conclusion of the case study 110 5 Jason Rhoades’s SLOTO: reactivating site-specificity and the social space of perpetuation and care 113 5.1 The spatial design of The Secret Life of the Onion 118 5.2 Representational site-specificity of The Secret Life of the Onion 121 5.3 Social production spaces of The Secret Life of the Onion 122 5.4 Summarizing the spatial network of the first staging 124 5.5 A curatorial intervention with SLOTO’s second staging 127 5.6 Comparison with Jason Rhoades’s P.I.G. (Piece in Ghent) 132 5.7 The spatial network ‘in flux’ 134 5.8 Conclusion of the case study 139 6 Drifting Producers: the perpetuation of an installation artwork emerging from a site-specific project 143 6.1 The project and the installation of Drifting Producers 148 6.2 The spatial network of the initial exhibition at the Art Sonje Center 150 6.3 Intercultural exchange in the production and reception of Drifting Producers 152 6.4 The trajectory of Drifting Producers through the international art world 155 6.5 Site-specificity of Drifting Producers in Van Abbemuseum 156 6.6 The social production space of Drifting Producers 162 6.7 Comparative case example: Constant’s New Babylon project 168 6.8 Conclusion of the case study 173 7 Conclusion 177 7.1 General conclusion 177 7.2 Site-specificity and the ongoing dialogue between artists and custodians 179 7.3 Outcomes of the case studies 182 7.4 Museum practices and the extended performance analogy 185 List of interviews conducted by the author 190 Published interviews consulted for the case studies 191 Bibliographical references 192 Appendix Robert Morris, The Amsterdam Project. Specification for a Piece with Combustible Materials (wall text) 205 Images (separate file) Photo credits 206 Summary 209 Samenvatting 217 Diagram 1 54 Diagram 2 54 Diagram 3 61 Diagram 4 67 Diagram 5 75 Diagram 6 93 Diagram 7 94 Diagram 8 94 Diagram 9 97 Diagram 10 98 Diagram 11 125 Diagram 12 151 Diagram 13 166 Diagram 14 171 Diagram 15 189 0 Abstract The notion of ‘site-specificity’ relates to artworks that are produced for specific locations and often for temporary exhibitions. As art history has shown, since the 1990s a trend emerges to collect site-specific installation artworks for museum collections, which means they are being preserved and relocated. The extended lifespan of site-specific installations raises profound questions regarding the intended spatial configuration and its transformation over time. Drawing on a theory of space by the social-geographer Henri Lefebvre (1991 [1974), my research project develops a conceptual model for the identification of various functions establishing the artwork’s site-specific network. This model applies to three spatial dimensions –physical, social and symbolic – and allows for a comparison between different manifestations of one and the same work of art. A second line of thought starts from the premise that site-specific installations are performative, since each manifestation establishes a new connection between the artwork and the site. Because of similarities with other kinds of contemporary art (time-based media installations, performance art) the model incorporates relevant notions derived from conservation and performance studies. In particular the proposition to follow the actors and their influence on the ‘performance’ of the artwork, and the notion of the script as a tool for deciphering underlying motives in decision-making, proved to be productive. The conceptual model has been tried out on a number of case studies of site-specific installations including, among others, works from Richard Serra, Ernesto Neto, Jason Rhoades and Flying City. The analyses of those case studies bring to light the dilemma’s museums are confronted with when the artwork’s site-specificity needs to be redefined, often without the presence of the artist. Furthermore, they show a significant impact of both ‘social production spaces’ and the museum’s ‘representational space’ on modifications of the physical configuration and the way in which site-specific art is experienced. The conceptual model and the outcomes of the case studies open up a toolbox for custodians and a theoretical framework on which ground decisions can be made and well-argued scenarios can be developed for staging site-specific installation artworks in the future. 1 Acknowledgments This research project is about site-specific installation artworks and museums, places and times. Over the past ten years my supervisors, colleagues and friends granted me ample opportunity to explore exciting spaces of academic research. I was fortunate to receive inspiration and enormous support over a long period of time, making this an encouraging and pleasant journey. First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors Julia Noordegraaf (University of Amsterdam), Deborah Cherry (University of the Arts London) and Glenn Wharton (University of California Los Angeles) for sharing their broad knowledge and supporting me with their advice, encouragement and belief in a happy ending.