Author: Rebecca Rushfield

In a profile of the artist Sarah Sze (“A million little pieces. The sculptural maelstroms of Sarah Sze”, The New Yorker, May 14, 2012), Andrea K. Scott describes being with Sze when one of her new constructions intended for an upcoming art fair collapses. “Sze wasn’t particularly fazed. ‘What does the Gutai manifesto say?’, she said, referring to a Japanese art movement from the nineteen-fifties. ‘Decay is just the material’s revenge for being extracted from the earth.'” While an artist may have such a relaxed perspective or guiding principle, could a conservator?

“Ghost of Summer” by Eric Savitz (ForbesLife, Summer 2012), an article about the collection of more than 300 pieces of baseball memorabilia (including more than 100 pre-1950s jerseys) owned by Dan Scheinman, notes the important role that AIC Associate member Elise Rousseau has played since 2001 in guiding and maintaining the collection.

When the Nasher Sculpture Center opened in downtown Dallas in 2003, it was hoped that its presence would be a spur to neighborhood development. According to The New York Times (“Dallas Museum Simmers in a Neighbor’s Glare”, by Robin Pogrebin, May 2, 2012), that development has come– but at the museum’s expense. Among the new structures going up near the Nasher is a 42-story building with a glass skin that reflects so much light that artworks within the museum’s galleries are threatened, plants in the museum’s garden are being destroyed, and museum visitors are blinded by the glare. The Nasher and the building’s developers are in a heated battle over who should do what to rectify the situation. As arts institutions are more and more being used by cities as “engines of economic development”, will other museums’ collections be threatened by new construction?

In a writeup of his trip to Mali (“Tribute to Islam, Earthern Yet Uplifting”, The New York Times, April 19, 2012), Holland Cotter speaks of the Great Mosque at Djenne, a mud brick building that was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The building now standing does not date to the 13th century, but is rather a “new original” built in 1907. Because in the climate of Mali cracks and leaks form in mud-brick structures, each year the citizens of Djenne replastered the mosque in a ceremony called the “Crepissage de la Grand Mosquee”. Decades of replastering altered the contours of the structure, rounding and softening them and weakened the structure by adding too much weight to its walls. Since 2006, when the Aga Khan Trust for Culture took on the responsibility for the mosque’s well-being, the replastering has ceased. This deprived Djenne of a civic holiday and its citizens of the spiritual benefits of repairing their house of worship. It also raised the very difficult question of which need should have greater priority– that of the building or that of its occupants.

According to The New York Times (“Sculpture vs. Food Stands at J.F.K. in Court Battle”, by James Barron, April 24, 2012), “Star Stifter”, Alice Aycock’s site specific sculpture in Terminal 1 of Kennedy International Airport (New York City) is to be dismantled because the terminal management wants to use the space for food stands. Aycock’s contract stated that the sculpture could be removed only “if required or necessary”. Would the destruction of this sculpture be required or necessary if revenues from the food stands which will replace it were not involved?

In his essay, “In Praise of Impermanence” (Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2012), Eric Felten makes a plea for the construction of temporary buildings, noting that buildings which are not expected to last for the ages are more likely to be experimental and ultimately architecturally influential. He argues that the Eiffel Tower which was planned as a temporary structure but quickly became an integral part of Paris would probably not have been approved if it had been proposed as a permanent structure. Innovation is wonderful, but what will be the conservation consequences if many other temporary structures end up as permanent ones?

According to RTE News (http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0418/italy-art-protest.html), Antonio Manfredi, the Director of the Casoria Contemporary Art Museum (near Naples) plans to burn three contemporary art works from the museum’s collection each week in protest of government budget cuts that have left Italian museums without the funds to care for the works in their possession. The first burning was done with the approval of the artist. It is desperate times for the cultural institutions of Italy, but is this measure too drastic?

The New York Times recently devoted almost a full page in its news section to an article about the examination and analysis of a contemporary copy of the Mona Lisa in the Prado’s collection and the work of Ana Gonzalez Mozo, the researcher in the museum’s technical doccumentation department who studied the painting (“Beneath That Beguiling Smile, Seeing What Leonardo Saw”, by Suzanne Daley, April 14, 2012). Could this article be an indication of a growing interest in technical studies of works of art? Or is it merely a testament to the enduring fascination of the Mona Lisa?

The Museums supplement to the March 15, 2012 issue of The New York Times contains an article (“Teaching Children the Value of Pre-Web Pages”, by Karen Jones) about a program run by the Morgan Library and Museum that gives New York City public school children in grades 3 – 7 a first-hand understanding of the materials and techniques of medieval illuminated manuscripts. The children construct their own manuscripts using authentic materials including cochineal, fish glue, gum arabic, saffron thread and gold. It will be interesting to see if any of these children will be inspired to study technical art history or art conservation when they are older.

In the March 2, 2012 “Inside Art” column of The New York Times (“Cracking the Curious Case of Picasso’s Ghost Subject”), Carol Vogel notes that one of the projects which has been awarded a Bank of America Art Conservation Project Grant is the Guggenheim Museum’s analysis and treatment of Picasso’s “Woman Ironing”, 1904. While it has long been known that another image lies beneath the suface of the painting, until now the Guggenheim has not had the resources to do more than x-ray the work.