{"id":12641,"date":"2015-05-28T20:17:49","date_gmt":"2015-05-29T01:17:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.conservators-converse.org\/?p=12641"},"modified":"2015-05-28T20:17:49","modified_gmt":"2015-05-29T01:17:49","slug":"43rd-annual-meeting-opening-session-may-14-the-theory-of-practice-practical-philosophy-cultures-of-conservation-and-the-aesthetics-of-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/conservators-converse\/2015\/05\/28\/43rd-annual-meeting-opening-session-may-14-the-theory-of-practice-practical-philosophy-cultures-of-conservation-and-the-aesthetics-of-change\/","title":{"rendered":"43rd Annual Meeting – Opening Session, May 14: "The Theory of Practice: Practical Philosophy, Cultures of Conservation and the Aesthetics of Change""},"content":{"rendered":"

Hanna H\u00f6llig, 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\u2019s theme of Practical Philosophy\/Making Conservation Work<\/em>, 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.
\n

\"Canopus,<\/a>
Canopus, 1990
Nam June Paik
Single-channel video sculpture ; 6 monitors, 1 laserdisc, 1 laserdisc player
Collection of the Zentrum f\u00fcr Kunst und Medientechnologie Karlsruhe (ZKM | Center for Art and Media)
http:\/\/zkm.de\/en\/artwork\/canopus<\/figcaption><\/figure>
\nHer central case study discussed the treatment of Paik\u2019s Canopus<\/em><\/a> (1990) in the Zentrum f\u00fcr Kunst und Medientechnologie Karlsruhe<\/a> (ZKM | Center for Art and Media) collection. Unfortunately, Canopus <\/em>had fallen from the wall during exhibition, severely damaging the television screens and the central hubcap. H\u00f6llig 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. H\u00f6llig 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<\/em>\u2019 history with the art object as done by Paik\u2019s making.
\nIn teasing apart the two differing responses to the same type of proposal, H\u00f6llig 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\u2013and more importantly, how\u2013do 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<\/em> these decisions appropriate? In making alterations to an original piece to \u201creturn it to the original state\u201d (or perhaps it should read \u201cacceptable state\u201d), are we approaching the essence or only the aesthetic?
\nH\u00f6llig 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\u2019t 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 \u201ctraditional\u201d methods alone, but these questions are true for any specialty, for any collection.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Hanna H\u00f6llig, 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\u2019s theme of Practical Philosophy\/Making Conservation Work, she highlighted the point that practice and experience build our theories, and … Continue reading “43rd Annual Meeting – Opening Session, May 14: "The Theory of Practice: Practical Philosophy, Cultures of Conservation and the Aesthetics of Change"”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,10],"tags":[75],"class_list":["post-12641","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-annual-meeting","category-general-sessions","tag-aics-43rd-annual-meeting"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/conservators-converse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12641","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/conservators-converse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/conservators-converse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/conservators-converse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/251"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/conservators-converse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12641"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/conservators-converse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12641\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/conservators-converse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12641"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/conservators-converse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12641"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/conservators-converse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12641"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}