43rd Annual Meeting – Opening Session, May 14: "The Theory of Practice: Practical Philosophy, Cultures of Conservation and the Aesthetics of Change"

Hanna Höllig, the Andrew W. Mellon Visiting Professor at Bard Graduate Center, has been researching the ethical dilemmas in the preservation of contemporary art, focusing on the artwork of Nam June Paik. In tune with the conference’s theme of Practical Philosophy/Making Conservation Work, she highlighted the point that practice and experience build our theories, and through contemplating theory, we can enhance our practices. It is a co-dependent relationship that requires participation, communal self-reflection, and historical examination.

Her central case study discussed the treatment of Paik’s Canopus (1990) in the Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie Karlsruhe (ZKM | Center for Art and Media) collection. Unfortunately, Canopus had fallen from the wall during exhibition, severely damaging the television screens and the central hubcap. Höllig was responsible for designing the treatment, which served as a pointed example of the controversy surrounding material replacement in conservation. The television screens that had shattered were generically commercial components, so this substitution was considered acceptable. On the other hand, there were calligraphic inscriptions and a signature by Paik on the original hubcap. Höllig proposed to replace the hubcap with an exact substitute under the condition that the damaged original would be exhibited alongside the recreation, but this was not deemed an acceptable option by the curator. In exhibiting both the recreated piece and the original hubcap, it would have allowed visitors to experience a likeness of the original, but also the physicality of Canopus’ history with the art object as done by Paik’s making.
In teasing apart the two differing responses to the same type of proposal, Höllig is not just proposing an examination of conservation approaches to contemporary art, but this is about highlighting what artists, curators, and conservators identify as the essence of the work. What–and more importantly, how–do we assign these values? In refusing the hubcap replacement and/or the exhibition of the damaged original- precisely where is the essence violated? In any type of art or artifact, what components of replacement, refurbishment, regeneration, repair, etc. are appropriate, and what makes these decisions appropriate? In making alterations to an original piece to “return it to the original state” (or perhaps it should read “acceptable state”), are we approaching the essence or only the aesthetic?
Höllig also points to the concept of conservation as a contextual cultural practice. How do we know we are right, or rather, how conscious are we of the principles that guide us? Conservation is not simply about the physical, but also our connections with the experiences, people, and the content surrounding the things. In our work as conservators, we are in the business of addressing unwanted changes of objects. But, since changes are inevitable, what is our tolerance for it? What kind of change is palatable to our collective modern-day taste? I did not find her philosophical points to be a reprimand of what we do or don’t do as conservators but a call for an honest self-reflection on the influences connected to our treatment decisions. These questions seem to expedited and scrutinized in contemporary art because of the ephemeral and technologically-dependent nature that cannot be addressed by “traditional” methods alone, but these questions are true for any specialty, for any collection.