{"id":774,"date":"2019-04-04T19:04:41","date_gmt":"2019-04-04T23:04:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/?page_id=774"},"modified":"2019-04-14T19:25:42","modified_gmt":"2019-04-14T23:25:42","slug":"magnin","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/volume-4-2015-2016\/magnin\/","title":{"rendered":"Defining an Ethical Framework for Preserving Cory Arcangel\u2019s Super Mario Clouds"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Emilie Magnin
The Electronic Media Review, Volume Four: 2015-2016<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ABSTRACT <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The conservation issues raised by complex time-based media installations\nare many and related not only to the inherent obsolescence of equipment and technologies,\nbut also to the conceptual and aesthetic implications of change, including\nchange resulting from conservation intervention. Therefore, defining an ethical\nframework in which conservators can operate becomes imperative for sustaining\nthe collection life of such artworks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This paper, which is based on a Master thesis presented at the\nUniversity of the Arts in Bern (Switzerland), uses Cory Arcangel\u2019s video\ngame-based installation Super Mario Clouds <\/em>(2003) as a case study to\nexplore the systematic development of a conservation strategy against the\nbackground of current ethical considerations in the emerging field of\ntime-based media conservation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The research discusses several conservation approaches such as replacing equipment, digitization and emulation, and investigates how they can be applied to Super Mario Clouds<\/em> over the short to long-term. These approaches are evaluated and compared with established conservation ethics on the one hand, and the artist-proposed strategies on the other. Additionally, it exposes the results of a number of practical tests that have been conducted to assess the feasibility of the different strategies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDY<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Super Mario Clouds <\/em>(2003) is a video game-based\ninstallation by the American artist Cory Arcangel (b. 1978). It consists of the\nfamous 1980s Nintendo game Super Mario Bros.<\/em> (1985),which the\nartist has modified. By rewriting the game\u2019s proprietary code, the artist\nerased every element of the game, leaving only the white clouds passing through\na blue-sky background. The new code is written on an EPROM chip (Electrically\nProgrammable Read-Only Memory chip) that is soldered inside the Nintendo game\ncartridge in place of the original program chip.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the artwork is exhibited, the modified game cartridge is played back with a Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) console and then projected on the walls and displayed on a monitor via the console\u2019s composite video output. The equipment and cables must remain visible on the floor of the exhibition space. Depending on the size of the room, the number of projections and monitors can vary, but most iterations use two to three projections and one monitor, all placed on the floor (fig. 1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Fig.
Fig. 1 Cory Arcangel, Super Mario Clouds v2k3, 2003, dimensions variable. Edition no. 2\/5, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York. Installation view, Synthetic, Whitney Museum of American Art, 2009. \u00a9 Cory Arcangel. Courtesy of the artist and Team Gallery, New York. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

MULTIPLE VERSIONS<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Super Mario Clouds<\/em> exists in multiple\nmanifestations. Arcangel first released the work as an Internet piece in 2002,\nwhen he put his modified code and a tutorial on his personal website (Arcangel\n2013a), explaining to the online audience\u2014which at the time of release was\nmostly composed of hackers and gamers\u2014how to hack their own cartridge. He also\nprovided a gif animation to illustrate the work, later replaced by a video (Rinehart 2010). The artist-modified code, the\nmodification instructions, and the gif constitute the 2002 \u201cInternet version\u201d\nof the work. The artist\u2019s website also provides a downloadable version of the\npiece, or ROM file,1<\/sup> that can be run\nlive on an emulator.  Whether this\nemulated version was already released in 2002 could not be established with\ncertainty, but the artist mentioned it as early as 2005 in an interview for\nElectronic Arts Intermix (Arcangel 2005).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The better-known installation, or \u201cgallery version\u201d of the artwork, on\nwhich this paper focuses, was created in 2003 for an exhibition at the Team\nGallery in New York. On this occasion, the artist decided to use several\nprojectors and create a multi-projection installation that the gallery later\nsold as an editioned work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, both versions continue to exist in parallel, in different\ncontexts and economies: one version is distributed freely online, while the\nother has entered the art market in an edition of five, as an installed artwork\ncoming with specific installation instructions. The history of the work\u2019s\ncreation as two parallel versions\u2014the Internet version and the gallery version\u2014impacts\nthe way the work is perceived and must be considered when discussing the\nnotions of authenticity and variability for Super Mario Clouds.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apart from its context of creation, another important aspect that aides in grasping the work’s identity is its exhibition history. The installed version from 2003 has been exhibited more than 17 times since its creation and presents many variations between iterations, depending on the exhibition space or on specific artistic or curatorial choices. Comparing the different iterations is a precious tool for conservators to see the evolution of the work, and to comprehend its variability. What makes this case study particularly interesting is that Arcangel has often been involved when reinstalling his work, and abundantly commented on the iterations that he considered successful or unsuccessful through several interviews (Arcangel 2005, 2013b, 2014; The Variable Media Questionnaire 2008). A comparison of these sources\u2014which almost cover the twelve years that have passed since the creation of the piece\u2014shows that the artist has always been concerned with the way his work was exhibited, and always wanted to be involved in decisions about its re-installation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE FOR SUPER MARIO CLOUDS\u2019<\/em> CONSTITUENTS<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The history\nof the work\u2019s creation, as well as the comparison between the many iterations,\nallows for better comprehension of the variability of the work and to\ninvestigate what comprises its authenticity. These elements also help to\nestablish the significance of the different constituents of the artwork,\nleading to the development of a case-specific preservation plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Establishing the work-defining parameters of an artwork is a process that helps in understanding what defines the authenticity of the work, and how it is allowed to change. Laurenson (2008, 7) recommends thoroughly documenting the \u201cwork-defining properties\u201d of an artwork as means of defining a work\u2019s identity. These are \u201cplans and specifications demarcating the parameters of possible change, display equipment, acoustic and aural properties, light levels, the way the public encounters the work and the means by which the time-based media element is played back\u201d (Laurenson 2008, 7). Such information can be provided by the artist in more or less detailed installation instructions. Alternatively, it is collected and completed by conservators, preferably while acquiring and installing the piece.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several\nsources provide valuable information to assess Super Mario Clouds<\/em>\u2019\ndefining properties. These include the installation instructions put together\nby the Migros Museum in Zurich (Schori 2006), the author’s personal research on\nthe technique and history of the piece, the author’s interview of the artist\n(Arcangel 2014), as well as information collected from his aforementioned\nearlier interviews.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since an installation is a complex object where many elements interact, the work can be fully experienced only if all its components are interacting in the way they were meant to. Therefore, all these elements are important in order to define the work\u2019s authenticity and their individual significance must be established to better comprehend the artwork as a whole. Particularly significant components of Super Mario Clouds<\/em> comprise the artist code, the Nintendo hardware, the display equipment and the image characteristics that are typical for early video games.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ARTIST-WRITTEN CODE<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The first\nsignificant element is the artist-written code, which Arcangel himself\nconsiders as the \u201coriginal element\u201d of his work (Arcangel 2005). Multiple\nvalues can be attributed to the code: its functional and conceptual value makes\nit a core element of the piece, considered as the most original component by\nthe artist himself; while being an invisible element in itself, the code also determines\nthe aesthetic properties of the visual content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally,\nthe research potential offered by the artist-written code is also essential for\nthe comprehension of the work, both on aesthetic and conceptual levels.\nStudying an artist’s code gives conservators an insight into the process of\ncreation and informs specific decisions regarding design or functionality (Engel and Wharton 2014).\nSpecific operations decided by the artist as well as his comments next\nto the code lines can be considered as an equivalent of the artist\u2019s\nhandwriting, where his individual style and creative process are revealed. The\nfact that the artist also published his code in text form enhances its value,\nwhile facilitating and encouraging research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The code defines how the work looks and behaves, making it the core element of the piece. But in order to be functional, the code needs to be interpreted and performed by appropriate elements of software and hardware.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NINTENDO ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM HARDWARE <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The values attributed to the Nintendo hardware by conservators are also manifold. It is functional because the cartridge works as the image carrier and the game console as the playback device, transmitting the video signal to the monitor and projectors. Second, the fact that the equipment remains visible, placed in the middle of the room gives it an aesthetic value. Furthermore, the deliberate choice of using a NES video game, a technology that was already obsolete at the time of creation, attributes a conceptual value to the hardware. In this sense, the NES console acts not only as a playback source, but also as an indicator for the audience to recognize that the work is indeed a video game that you cannot play, and not a simple video projection. Additionally, the game cartridge is hand-modified by the artist and therefore has a unique character, making it less replaceable than the game console (fig. 2). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Fig.
Fig. 2 Original artist-modified cartridge. The plastic casing was cut open to accommodate the new EPROM chip. Photo: Emilie Magnin. Courtesy of the Migros Museum f\u00fcr Gegenwartskunst.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the fact that the equipment is becoming rarer due to obsolescence is adding a historic value to the hardware. Since the Nintendo Company stopped producing NES devices almost two decades ago, their presence in the exhibition space acts as a bond to a specific moment in our recent cultural history. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

DISPLAY EQUIPMENT<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Even though the artist does not require specific make and models of display devices, specific properties of the equipment are significant for the work, and their obsolescence might render the work more vulnerable. For example, cathode-ray tube (CRT) monitors have a typical cubic form, a 4:3 aspect ratio and a particular image quality, all which influence the aesthetic of the installation. Since CRT technology also calls to mind the period when early Nintendo games were in use, the value attributed to the CRT technology is simultaneously functional, aesthetical, and historical. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the constellation of equipment inside the exhibition space is also an important parameter of the work. The classical way of showing the piece usually combines one CRT monitor placed on the floor with two or three projections, all displaying the image content from the same source (one channel). But sometimes Arcangel showed the piece as projections only, or on a single monitor. Understanding what motivates his decision, what the effect is that he wants to achieve when posing the display sources in the space, or what the relation is between the number of display sources and the space is capital to re-installing the work in the future. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

IMAGE CHARACTERISTICS AND REFERENCES TO VIDEO GAME<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Factors such as color space, speed, and aspect ratio all determine the\nspecific look and feel of the work\u2019s visual content, which is representative of\n8-bit era video games. A modification of these parameters would then not only\nimpact the image quality, but also make the reference to the original game Super\nMario Bros.<\/em> less recognizable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, determined by the artist-written code, specific\ncharacteristics of the image are also highly dependent on the display device\nand the type of video connector. It is the entire system\u2014code, Nintendo cartridge and\nconsole, connector, and monitor or projector\u2014that affects the final image.\nTo preserve the original aesthetic of the work, the specific qualities of the\nimage need to be understood and documented thoroughly in their native\nenvironment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Identifying the significant elements of the work, and how they interact together led to the conclusion that since all the physical components operate together as a system, a change to one component would have consequences on the entire system. For example, the artist code needs to be executed by the hardware and displayed by the monitor and projectors in order to make the image content visible. Also, the reference to 8-bit video games stems all at once from the functionality and physical presence of the Nintendo, but also from the resulting visual characteristics of the displayed image. In the end, the interaction of these elements in the exhibition space and the way they are experienced as a whole are as important as the individual constituents of the installation. Hence, there is a need to analyze the acceptability of different changes linked to these constituents, along with the degree beyond which change would be considered loss for the piece\u2019s authenticity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IDENTIFYING THE RISKS<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As are other time-based media artworks, Super Mario\nClouds<\/em> is subject to a variety of inherent risks that can often be avoided\nor minimized, but only for a certain amount of time. Material risks such as\nequipment deterioration and increasing difficulties in finding replacement\nparts might compromise the work\u2019s functionality and visual appearance in the\nfuture. Even if the code itself\u2014the core element of the work\u2014can be preserved\nwithout too many difficulties, the work\u2019s integrity remains potentially\nthreatened by the rapid obsolescence of the hardware and software required to\naccess and execute its code, and by the changes in display technologies and\nresolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, immaterial risks linked to the variable\nnature of the piece and to the difficulties of transmitting its historical and\ncultural context for future generations might jeopardize the integrity of\nfuture iterations. As cultural references change, there is a risk of losing\ncontextual knowledge about the piece. For example, a future audience might not\nrecognize the Nintendo hardware or the game aesthetic as we still do today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These risks are inherent to the variable nature of the work, so they cannot be completely avoided and some change will have to be accepted in the long-term. But the loss can often be minimized or compensated for with appropriate conservation strategies such as replacement, digitization and emulation, and with thorough, varied documentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PROPOSAL OF CONSERVATION STRATEGIES<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This chapter will evaluate possible strategies to\npreserve Super Mario Clouds<\/em> while\nconsidering the artist\u2019s intent, the risks that the work is subjected to, and\nthe ethical framework that guides the conservation profession. In order to find\nthe best approach, it will explore not only the established time-based media\nconservation methods, but also strategies cultivated in relevant adjacent\nfields, such as software-based art conservation, video game preservation, and\ngaming communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keeping a time-based media artwork functioning and\naccessible through time is a dynamic process, change being inherent to it.\nOften multiple strategies are ethically acceptable, yet eachof them\nresults in specific changes for the artwork, which must be rigorously\nconsidered in anticipation. Also, the most conservative approaches, such as\nreplacing equipment by the same make and model are not feasible in the long\nterm. For all these reasons, it is not a unique conservation strategy, but\nrather a number of strategies ranging from short-term to long-term efficacy\nthat must be implemented. In general, conservation suggests favoring the option\nthat introduces the least change and best respects the artist\u2019s intention, but\nsometimes alternatives have to be weighed, especially if different stakeholders\nhave different preferences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the case of Super Mario Clouds<\/em>, conservators\u2019 decision-making process can be informed by a rich exhibition history, as well as the artist\u2019s availability to share his thoughts and to be involved in the re-installation process. Since the work has often been exhibited in a relatively early stage of its life, its demonstrated flexibility is well-documented and informs future re-installations. The role of the conservator when choosing a suitable strategy is to assess when the change or loss is so disruptive that it impairs the artwork\u2019s meaning. The decision-making process must weigh the gain (recovery from loss) with the additional change induced by the treatment. As stated by Hummelen and Sill\u00e9 (2005, 405), \u201cthe solution is inevitably a compromise between meaning and condition.\u201d Hence, with variable artworks, it is important to remember when and why one decision has been taken, and to realize that this was probably not the only possibility. Transmitting the understanding of the work\u2019s flexibility and mentioning alternative conservation options should avoid the fixing of the work in a single interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MAINTAINING OR REPLACING EQUIPMENT<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

While replacing broken devices with identical ones is a fully acceptable\nstrategy for conserving time-based media artworks (Laurenson 2007), the\nexchange of devices for other makes and models or for newer technologies should\nbe approached with caution. In the case of Super Mario Clouds<\/em>, Nintendo\nconsoles can only be replaced with identical devices, since their technology is\ndedicated, and there are no existing alternative devices that can play the\nproprietary game cartridges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exchanging or updating projectors\nis less problematic, but the image displayed by new models should always be\ncompared to older, artist-approved versions in case unforeseen changes in image\nquality might occur. For instance, current projectors still support 4:3 aspect\nratio, but it is possible that at some point in the future it will no longer be\nthe case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As of today, a bigger issue is the replacement of CRT monitors. Since\nthe technology is obsolete, it will sooner or later be impossible to find\nfunctioning CRT monitors. Thus, they will have to be replaced with modern\nscreens, probably LCD. The image quality will therefore be very different, and\nthe original 4:3 aspect ratio will not be sustained. Once the change appears\ninevitable, the artist should be asked whether he considers these changes\nacceptable or too disruptive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The replacement of the game cartridge is also problematic, because it has been hand-modified by the artist and conservators tend to consider it as a unique object. But the artist encourages the replication of a hacked cartridge by conservators following his published instructions, which appears to be an ethically acceptable measure. Indeed, reconstructing the cartridge does not have any influence on the aesthetical qualities of the work, because the cartridge is only the physical support where the code is stored, or the image carrier. Since the artist-written code can be copied onto a new chip without any loss (cloned), any possible copies would be exactly identical. The recreation process can then be compared to the generation of new exhibition copies on DVD for video artworks, except for the fact that the hand-modification that the artist performed on the physical media carrier has to be repeated by the conservator. Therefore, the artist-modified cartridge must be considered as original and kept for documentation and research purposes. But since the cartridge is not visible once inserted in the game console, using a replicated cartridge during exhibition will not impact the artwork in any way. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the end, the main problem with the strategy of replacing equipment is that the required material is becoming obsolete, and it will get harder to find functioning game consoles and cartridges in the future. For this reason, the maintenance and replacement of equipment is only a short to midterm solution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

DIGITIZATION<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Since the Nintendo console outputs a video\nsignal, it can be captured to create a video file from the work. Creating a\nvideo from a game is indeed a strategy that is already used to document the\naesthetics of video games, in addition to other documentation forms, and gives\ngood results in terms of reproducing the image quality (Guttenbrunner, Becker,\nand Rauber 2010; MacDonough 2014). Typically, the video game output signal can\nbe digitized for documentation of the original look and feel (color, speed,\naspect ratio) and to have a reliable point of comparison to verify an\nemulator\u2019s accuracy. But since this approach does not maintain the interactivity specific to video games, Guttenbrunner,\nBecker, and Rauber (2010) recommend using it only as a means of documenting the\ngame\u2019s audio and image characteristics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Super Mario Clouds<\/em> on the other hand, digitization remains a viable option since the artist deleted all interactivity from the game. However, while it is technically feasible to display the work as a video, this solution would make the original code useless, which goes strongly against the conceptual intent of the artist. For this reason, it is recommended to only use digitization as a documentation strategy, but not as an exhibition format.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EMULATION<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Emulation is a conservation strategy consisting in \u201cimitating the\noriginal look of the piece by completely different means\u201d (Depocas, Ippolito,\nand Jones 2003, 125). The use of emulation as a preservation strategy for\ntime-based media art and software-based art in particular has been discussed by\nDepocas, Ippolito, and Jones (2003) and Wijers (2011), among others. Recently,\nauthors such as Guttenbrunner, Becker, and Rauber (2010) and Romero (2012) have\nbeen exploring the possibility of emulating video games within a museum or\narchive environment. In this context, the term emulation takes the more\nspecific sense of utilizing a software emulator that has been programmed to\nemulate video games. Such an emulator is \u201ca program that virtually recreates a\nsystem that is different to the one on which it is running\u201d (Guttenbrunner,\nBecker, and Rauber 2010, 77), allowing one to play video games on a different,\nand otherwise incompatible hardware system. A great advantage of using\nemulation for video games is that since it is the hardware that is emulated,\nthe game data remains unchanged, which is especially relevant for video games\nthat have been created or modified by artists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Video Game Emulators<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are a wide variety of existing game emulators that could\npotentially be used by conservators for preserving obsolete video games or game\nart. Using already existing emulators for presentation and preservation\npurposes presents both advantages and disadvantages. The first advantage is of\ncourse that institutions will not have to undertake the costs of developing a\nnew emulation tool. Also, most of the available emulators are open-source\nsoftware, which is considered \u201cbetter suited to preservation\u201d (Wijers 2011, 87) and allows for case-specific\nimprovements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the downside, since the majority of video game emulators are\ndeveloped freely by online gaming community members, their main goal is not\npreservation or sustainability, but only the quality of the gaming experience.\nThis bears the risk of introducing unwanted features. Guttenbrunner,\nBecker, and Rauber (2010, 87) also note that since emulators are not\nproduced commercially, they \u201ctend to receive few updates and are frequently\ndiscontinued when the authors become distracted from development. Therefore,\nhardly any emulators exist in a final version that perfectly emulates all games\nfor a system.\u201d Hence, emulators need to be tested, evaluated, and sometimes\nmodified to fulfill the intent of preservation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, a major issue for using such emulators remains copyright\ninfringement. Even though emulation can be seen as a way to keep obsolete games\nalive, the Nintendo Company is strongly opposed to their use and refuses to\nrelease its old games\u2019 copyrights (Nintendo of\nAmerica Inc. 2014). Nevertheless, since Super Mario Clouds<\/em> has\nthe status of an artwork, the artist owns the copyright for his creation.\nTherefore, using a video game emulator is a valid option for displaying the\nwork in the future. The Nintendo Company could argue that the creation process\nof the piece itself constitutes a copyright infringement (in this regard,\ncopyright issues would not concern the use of an emulator, but rather the work\nitself), but the work has been very mediatized since its creation and it has not\nled to any legal confrontations so far.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using an Emulator for Super Mario Clouds<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The main advantage of using emulation is to keep the artist code unchanged and functional when the original hardware is no longer available. Criteria for choosing an emulator to play Super Mario Clouds<\/em> should be the speed and color accuracy, support of the artist-provided ROM file format, and privileging open-source and preferably widespread and regularly maintained software. Other criteria that are considered outside of the conservation field such as the gameplay experience and the sound quality are both irrelevant for this particular piece. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT PLAYBACK SOURCES<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In order to compare the potential conservation strategies described\nbefore, three different playback options have been tested: (1) artist-provided\nNintendo cartridge and console, (2) digitized video file and media player, and\n(3) artist-provided ROM file (downloaded from his website) and emulator. The\naim of these tests was to compare how image characteristics such as color,\naspect ratio, speed, and overall image quality behave when played back from\ndifferent types of sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Test Protocol<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The three setups were tested using a Panasonic PTAX200E 3 LCD projector\nas display device because this is the make and model that the Migros Museum in\nZurich is currently using to display it. The original\nNintendo system was hooked up to the projector using the composite video\noutput.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The signal was digitized from the artist-provided Nintendo console and\ncartridge with an A\/D converter deck using the composite video output of the\nNintendo console. It was captured in Final Cut Pro as an NTSC 10-bit 4:2:2\nuncompressed QuickTime movie and then converted to MPEG4 for testing in\nexhibition conditions. It was played on a WD media player connected to the\nprojector via composite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The video game emulator chosen was the v1.4.1 version of Nestopia2<\/sup>\nfor Mac OS X. This emulator is often reviewed as the best emulator for NES,\nwith good speed accuracy. It was running on a MacBook Pro and connected to the\nprojector via Thunderbolt to VGA3<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Test Results<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The video file showed few differences with the original Nintendo setup except for a smoother, flatter pixel structure (especially noticeable around the clouds) and a more tightened line structure in the border area. But the overall image quality seemed representative enough of the original effect to be used as documentation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The comparison between the original Nintendo setup and the emulated version showed more prominent discrepancies. When using the default settings of the Nestopia v1.4.1 emulator, the image resolution is 256 x 240, which is squarer than a normal 4:3 aspect ratio. To obtain a regular 4:3 aspect ratio with the emulator, it is necessary to enable the aspect ratio correction setting under the Preferences menu. However, the emulated clouds still appear slightly flattened. Besides, the overall appearance of the image looks different: the original Nintendo version shows a visible pixel structure in the blue background, and the movement of the clouds is stuttery (fig. 3). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Fig.
Fig. 3 Photograph of the projected image as played out from NES. The blue background shows a light structure, the black contour is thicker. Photo: Emilie Magnin. Courtesy of the Migros Museum f\u00fcr Gegenwartskunst.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The image quality of 8-bit video games is recognizable in these details. The emulated image is flatter, smoother, the pixel structure is not visible and the stuttering less noticeable. It gives a much more \u2018digital\u2019 impression (fig. 4). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Fig.
Fig. 4 Photograph of the projected image from Nestopia emulator. The blue background is perfectly smooth, the black contour is thinner, and the cloud appears flatter. Photo: Emilie Magnin. Courtesy of the Migros Museum f\u00fcr Gegenwartskunst.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Some emulators, like Nestopia, offer additional filters that are supposed to imitate the original Nintendo artifacts. Enabling the \u201cbilinear filtering\u201d or the \u201csimulate NTSC artifacts\u201d options of the Nestopia emulator does make the image less sharp and digital looking, but still different from the original. In theory, if emulation were to be chosen as a strategy such filters could potentially be improved by programmers to reproduce particular image characteristics. Additionally, one major difference remains: on the image displayed by the original Nintendo system the clouds end at the blue bar before the edge (fig. 5), while with emulation the clouds go all the way to the edge of the image (fig. 6). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Fig.
Fig. 5 Photograph of the projected image as played out from NES. There are blue bars on both sides of the image. Photo: Emilie Magnin. Courtesy of the Migros Museum f\u00fcr Gegenwartskunst.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"Fig.
Fig. 6 Photograph of the projected image from Nestopia emulator. The clouds go all the way to the edges of the image. Photo: Emilie Magnin. Courtesy of the Migros Museum f\u00fcr Gegenwartskunst.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

FURTHER TESTS WITH EMULATORS<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In August 2015 as the work was exhibited in the Migros Museum in Zurich, further tests were conducted in order to compare the proposed strategies in exhibition conditions, and especially to test different emulators on the same equipment. The emulators tested comprised Nestopia and OpenEmu played on a Mac Mini, and the emulation system RetroPie installed on a Raspberry Pi 2, all connected to the projector via HDMI. These tests showed that different emulators produce different images, with discrepancies observed in color, aspect ratio and speed (fig. 7).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Fig.
Fig. 7 Comparison of the projected image as played out from NES and from RetroPie, Nestopia and OpenEmu emulators showing discrepancies in color, aspect ratio and shape of the clouds. Photo: Emilie Magnin. Editing: Agathe Jarczyk.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

These practical investigations allowed the author to assess the feasibility of the different strategies and to compare their outcomes in exhibition-like conditions. First, the tests showed that the digitization process is not as straightforward as it was assumed. It appeared that digitizing only functioned when using an older generation of A\/D converters (such as AJA Io). Tests made with a more recent device (Blackmagic Decklink capture card) showed that the video signal was not detected as a standard NTSC signal, and required using a standard converter. This circumstance might compromise digitization in the future. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, comparing the image quality of the various playback sources highlighted the discrepancies between the different playback options that had been envisioned as potential conservation strategies and stressed the importance of documenting the original image characteristics while the Nintendo equipment still is functioning. It especially revealed that emulation induces quite an important change in the image quality and can differ from emulator to emulator. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

COMPARISON WITH ARTIST-PROPOSED STRATEGIES<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Regardless of the strategy chosen, many\naspects of the re-installation process still need to be addressed in order to\nproduce installations that will respect the work’s integrity and that will also\nconvey the artist\u2019s intention to future audiences. Since such decisions have a big impact on the\nwork\u2019s appearance, having the artist involved in the decision-making process is\nan advantage for conservators. Next to expressing his views on re-installing\nhis work through different interviews, Arcangel is also experimenting with\ndifferent ways of displaying his old works in other forms and formats, or by\nincorporating them into newer works as part of his own artistic practice. The strategies that have been envisaged by\nthe artist for future displays of Super Mario Clouds<\/em> are coherent with\ncurrent practices in time-based media conservation, but they might differ in\ntheir degree of application, as conservators often have different duties and\nagendas than the artist. It is in the artist\u2019s best interest to update his\nearlier work, in order to make it look more contemporary and corresponding to\nhis evolving ideas on how the work should look (Sommermeyer 2011). On the other\nhand, a museum\u2019s task involves \u201ccontextualizing an artwork within an artist\u2019s\ncareer\u201d and within its specific time and conditions of creation (Phillips 2012,\n141). Museums will then tend to present the work with respect for its\nhistorical context, while the artist might wish to offer a more contemporary\ndisplay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, in order to keep a media artwork functioning, updating it to new technologies can be a necessary part of the conservation strategy when maintenance and repair is no longer possible. In such cases, the artist\u2019s desire to keep his work current is not incompatible with conservation\u2019s goals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSION<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Several important points emerged from this\nresearch. First, it became clear that the Nintendo technology has a capital\nvalue for Cory Arcangel\u2019s Super Mario Clouds<\/em>, not only on a functional\nbut also on an aesthetic and a conceptual level. For this reason, this\ntechnology should be maintained in use for as long as possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What also became clear was the fact that the\nartist considers his code to be the original core element of the work. It is\ncrucial that the integrity and functionality of this code should be preserved.\nKeeping the code functional (and along with it, the artwork\u2019s reference to\nvideo games) should then be the prevailing priority when choosing a\nconservation strategy. In this sense, emulation appears as a better strategy than\ndigitization since it imitates the old gaming system and thereby keeps the\noriginal artist\u2019s code functioning. It is also the strategy that the artist\nprefers. Digitization, however, proved to be well suited for archival purposes,\nfor it can document the image content, and may be used as an element of\ncomparison for assessing the image quality produced by different emulators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the research showed that in order to maintain Super Mario Clouds<\/em> fully functioning on the long-term, any adopted strategy would have to be reviewed regularly. For this purpose, practical tests and image characteristic comparisons can be used as guidelines to help the decision-making process when a new strategy needs to be adopted. Additionally, conservators can benefit from the artist\u2019s personal experimentations to see how the work reacts against newer technologies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the end, let’s not forget that each strategy will induce some new change to the work, and that all conservation decisions will reflect some subjectivity. The appreciation of what can change and to which extent is a key question to decide which strategy is best suited for Super Mario Clouds<\/em> at every stage of its lifetime, and such decisions should always be taken in cooperation with all involved parties. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Many thanks to conservators Agathe Jarczyk (University of the Arts, Bern) and Joanna Phillips (Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York) for their long-lasting support and commitment throughout my Master thesis and after.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ENDNOTES<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

1. A ROM (Read Only Memory) file contains an exact copy of the game that\nwas contained on an original gaming cartridge (though in this case, the\noriginal game content was modified by the artist) and can be played with a\nvideo game emulator, allowing to play the game directly on a computer, without\nthe original game system or game cartridge itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Nestopia is an open-source NES emulator written in C++. The Nestopia v1.4.1 version for Mac OS X was downloaded from: www.bannister.org\/software\/nestopia.htm<\/a> (accessed 08\/20\/2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. This last setup was not optimal, as it does not reflect current exhibition practices. Further tests were conducted in August 2015 using Nestopia v1.4.1 running on a Mac Mini and wired to the same projector via HDMI. They showed comparable results in terms of image quality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REFERENCES<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Arcangel, C. 2005. Interview with Lori Zippay. Electronic Arts Intermix (EAI). August 18. www.eai.org\/supportingDocumentView.htm?id=674&from=sr<\/a> (accessed 08\/20\/2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arcangel, C. 2013a. Cory Arcangel’s Official Portfolio Website and Portal. www.coryarcangel.com\/things-i-made\/supermarioclouds<\/a> (accessed 08\/20\/2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arcangel, C. 2013b. Interview with Crystal Sanchez and Claire Eckert. Smithsonian Institution Time-Based and Digital Art Working Group. July 7. www.si.edu\/content\/tbma\/documents\/transcripts\/CoryArcangel_130707.pdf <\/a>(accessed 08\/20\/2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arcangel, C. 2014. Interview by author. Transcript. Artist’s Studio,\nBrooklyn, NY, February 06.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Depocas, A., J. Ippolito, and C. Jones, eds. 2003. Permanence Through Change, The Variable Media Approach. <\/em>New York: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation and Montreal: The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science and Technology. Available at www.variablemedia.net\/pdf\/Permanence.pdf<\/a> (accessed 08\/20\/2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Engel, D. and Wharton, G. 2014. Reading Between the\nLines: Source Code Documentation as a Conservation Strategy for Software-based\nArt. Studies in Conservation<\/em> 59(6): 404\u2013415.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guttenbrunner, M., C. Becker, and A. Rauber. 2010.\nKeeping the Game Alive: Evaluating Strategies for the Preservation of Console\nVideo Games. The International Journal of Digital Curation<\/em> 1(5): 64\u201390.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hummelen, I. and D. Sill\u00e9, eds. 2005. Modern Art –\nWho Cares? : An interdisciplinary research project and an international\nsymposium on the conservation of modern and contemporary art. <\/em>London:\nArchetype.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Laurenson, P. 2007. Research on preservation strategies, part 1: Risk Assessment. www.inside-installations.org\/research\/ detail.php?r_id=83&ct=preservation<\/a> (accessed 07\/15\/2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Laurenson, P. 2008. Authenticity, Change and Loss in the Conservation of Time-based Media Installations. In (Im) permanence: cultures in\/out of time, <\/em>eds. J. Schachter and S. Brockmann, Pittsburgh: Center for the Arts in Society, Carnegie Mellon University. 150\u2013164. Available at www.tate.org.uk\/research\/tateresearch\/ tatepapers\/06autumn\/laurenson.htm<\/a> (accessed 08\/20\/2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MacDonough, K. 2014. Conserving Portal: Defining and Documenting the Object. History of Games International Conference Proceedings<\/em>. Montreal, Canada. www.kinephanos.ca\/2014\/portal\/<\/a> (accessed 08\/20\/2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nintendo of America Inc. 2014. Legal Information (Copyrights, Emulators, ROMs, etc.), Redmond. www.nintendo.com\/corp\/legal.jsp<\/a> (accessed 08\/20\/2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Phillips, J. 2012. Shifting Equipment Significance in Time-\nBased Media Art. The Electronic\nMedia Review<\/em> 1: 139\u2013154.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rinehart, R. 2010. In Defense of Blue Sky Art. <\/em>www.coyoteyip.com\/rinehart\/papers_files\/ defense_blue_sky.pdf <\/a>(accessed 08\/20\/2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Romero, C. 2012. Long March Restart: the Acquisition,\nDisplay and Conservation of Video Games. Unpublished Master Thesis, Graduate\nSchool of Arts and Science, New York University.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schori, M. 2006. Technisches Manual f\u00fcr Cory Arcangel\nSuper Landscape 1. Unpublished manual, Sammlung Migros Museum f\u00fcr\nGegenwartskunst, Z\u00fcrich.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sommermeyer, B. 2011. Who\u2019s Right\n\u2013 the Artist or the Conservator? In Inside\nInstallations \u2013 Theory and Practice in the Care of Complex Artwork<\/em>s, eds T.\nScholte and G. Wharton, Amsterdam : University Press. 143\u2013151.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Variable Media Questionnaire. 2008. Super Mario Clouds, 2002. http:\/\/variablemediaquestionnaire.net\/demo\/#a=20<\/a> (login required, accessed 08\/20\/2015). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wijers, G. 2011. To Emulate or Not \u2013 Conservation Case Studies from the Netherlands. In Inside Installations \u2013 Theory and Practice in the Care of Complex Artworks<\/em>, eds. T. Scholte and G. Wharton, Amsterdam: University Press. 81\u201389. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

FURTHER READING<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

AIC. 1994. Code of Ethics. www.conservation-us.org\/about-us\/core- documents\/code-of-ethics#<\/a>. (accessed 08\/20\/2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Emilie Magnin
Contemporary Art conservator MA
Conservation and Restoration of Contemporary Art
Postfach
3001 Bern, Switzerland
emilie@conservation.ch <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Emilie MagninThe Electronic Media Review, Volume Four: 2015-2016\u00a0 ABSTRACT The conservation issues raised by complex time-based media installations are many and related not only to the inherent obsolescence of equipment and technologies, but also to the conceptual and aesthetic implications of change, including change resulting from conservation intervention. Therefore, defining an ethical framework in which … Continue reading “Defining an Ethical Framework for Preserving Cory Arcangel\u2019s Super Mario Clouds”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":46,"featured_media":0,"parent":616,"menu_order":9,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-774","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/774","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/46"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=774"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/774\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/616"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=774"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}