Sophie Lei

Contemporary artworks differ from traditional art forms such as painting and sculpture. They are not stable and durable, but rather transitory and constantly changing. It is necessary to take into account the specificities of the context in order for installations and performances to remain alive. Reinstalling or repeating them requires a certain degree of flexibility to allow them to evolve according to the context. The problem arises when these works are incorporated into a museum collection. Museums are institutions that must guarantee the integrity of the tangible cultural heritage they hold, in order to preserve its authenticity and pass it on to future generations. This implies maintaining the original relationship between the work and its creator. Given the evolving nature of contemporary artworks, I introduce the central issue of this thesis in the first chapter: is it possible for a museum to preserve the identity of a contemporary artwork without fixing it, while allowing it to transform and develop? If so, how is this possible?

Chapter Two consists of three sections. The first is a literature review on the issue of conserving contemporary artworks, also in relation to the concept of creativity. To begin with, I highlight what distinguishes contemporary artworks from traditional ones by referring to several contributions that explain how contemporary art differs from classical and modern art. I emphasise that the specificity of contemporary works lies in their non-fixed and temporary nature, which transcends the object, as noted by sociologist Nathalie Heinich (2014). Next, I examine how the field of conservation has adapted its methods to this inherent diversity of contemporary artworks, and how the notion of creativity is addressed in this field. I cite the example of conservators who share their methods for ensuring the continuity of contemporary artworks. Although they do not refer to their practices as creative, I maintain that what they do can be perceived in this way. This raises the question of the origin of the taboo surrounding creativity in conservation. I maintain that there is a taboo surrounding creativity in conservation that revolves around two dimensions: philosophical and historical. These dimensions influence not only practices, but also the way in which curators have structured their profession around a certain history of it. Finally, I develop another ontological perspective in which the work of art can be seen as a multiple and evolving creation, without this calling into question its authenticity. In other words, ontology that allows for creativity and ensures that a work retains its authenticity while evolving. I seek this in a redefinition of the work based on a combination of instructions and the history of the work’s production, similar to architecture, which can have various versions, according to the theory of philosopher Nelson Goodman (1968) and the theory of plural works of theorist Gérard Genette (1994).

In Chapter Three, I examine the historical dimension of this taboo. I begin by highlighting the origins of this taboo, which is linked to the scientific paradigm of conservation that emerged in the late 19th century and has grown in prominence over the last fifty years. I clarify what this scientific paradigm entails. Then, using testimonies from several conservators, I illustrate that this paradigm did not arise out of nowhere, but is instilled in conservators as part of their professional training. This involves learning to use scientific instruments to preserve the integrity of works while respecting the principles of reversibility and minimal intervention, as well as the ethical codes that promote these principles. I emphasise that this learning method is very effective, but that applying the scientific paradigm to contemporary artworks is complicated. Finally, I stress that proponents of the scientific paradigm encourage an interpretation of the history of professional conservation as having only emerged in the 19th century with the advent of scientific instruments. They also claim that the treatments used by people in the past lacked respect for the historical integrity of the works, as they were not equipped with scientific tools to assess their deterioration and did not have codes of ethics. Drawing on the work of Orietta Rossi Pinelli (1986) and Françoise Choay (2007), I propose an alternative view. I point out that the history of this profession dates back to the Renaissance, when conservators integrated ancient statues by drawing inspiration from rediscovered mythological texts and collaborating with scholars. I emphasise that what they were doing was not disrespectful to the past, but represented another way of restoring the history of these works. Although their practices no longer meet our contemporary criteria, they had their own logic. I would emphasise that the conservators of yesteryear demonstrated a creativity that was not anachronistic, but rather interpretative, as they integrated the statues based on the ancient texts they had to master in order to be recognised as professionals. This raises the question of how to develop this concept of creativity.

In Chapter Four, I develop a new concept of creativity that bridges the work of the artist and that of the conservator, and encompasses the work of all those who reinstall contemporary works in museums several years after they were first exhibited. But first, I return to the origin of the term creativity and how the concept of creativity developed during the 19th century. At that time, creativity was mainly associated with the work of the artist alone, who could transpose his mental idea into material that then conformed to his desires. I should point out that this notion has declined over time. This leads me to explore sociologist Howard Becker’s (1982) concept of art worlds, which considers artistic creation to be a collective process involving several contributors who collaborate with the artist to produce their work. According to Becker, there is a support staff that assists the artist and can have an impact on the form of the work. He recognises that these people collaborate on the basis of conventions they have learned through a previous formal learning process, but also directly in the field. This means that conventions are likely to evolve. I suggest considering the role of material in this process. This leads me to develop anthropologist Tim Ingold’s ecological model of creativity (2009, 2011) with the concepts of formativity by sociologists Silvia Gherardi and Manuela Perrotta (2013, 2014b), agencement (Gherardi, 2015) and induction (Gherardi and Perrotta, 2014a). This highlights that artists are not alone when they produce their works, but that the creative process is guided by matter, which directs a collective learning process within a temporary epistemic community of practice. This makes the distinction between what the artist does and what other museum professionals do more fluid. It is also possible to recognise the existence of several nuances of creativity. I use this theoretical framework as a framework for analysis for my case studies.

In chapters Five, Six, Seven, I introduce my various case studies, which take place in two different Italian institutions, both considered nationally and internationally as benchmarks for the teaching and presentation of contemporary works in Italy. The first is the Brera Academy of Fine Arts in Milan. This is a source of inspiration for my research at the museum. I propose to analyse how contemporary art is taught to students who want to become artists, how they are trained to collaborate with others, and how they learn to use documentation to develop their works and help them evolve according to the context. In a single chapter (Chapter Five), I examine the teaching methods of three teachers who highlight the distinctive features of contemporary works: their collective character, their ephemeral nature, and how much they depend on approximate documentation. I conclude that the artist’s creativity has changed. Artists are not trained to work alone to shape the material from a mental image they have in their minds, but are trained to collaborate with others, allowing themselves to be guided by the material and using documentation in a processual way to develop their works according to the context within a community of epistemic practice. For conservators, this means that the artist’s intention is not fixed, but rather something that is constantly evolving.

My empirical research is also being conducted at a second institution where the preservation of contemporary works is of paramount importance: the National Museum of 21st Century Arts (MAXXI) in Rome. Using ethnographic observation methods, I explore the processes involved in reinstalling two contemporary works: Horn Perspective (2009) by French artist Laurent Grasso and Revenge (2007-2018) by Italian artist Nico Vascellari. These two case studies form two different chapters. There is a logical sequence. I begin with the least open work, that of Grasso, which does not require many modifications. I end with Vascellari’s work, which needs to be changed significantly depending on the context, as it is site-specific and because the artist needs to reinterpret it in order to reactivate it. In both cases, I propose to analyse how the actors collaborate, who demonstrates what kind of creativity, and how they use particular documents to stimulate their creativity.

In Chapter Six, I invite the reader to follow the actors during the process of reinstalling Horn Perspective. However, first I develop a new approach to documentation that can be used in a more artistic way. If we accept that a contemporary work can evolve while remaining the same work, and that there is a form of collective creativity involved in reinstalling it, then it is always possible to say that documentation carries a heavy responsibility. It is not just a set of instructions to be followed in order to reinstall the work in the same way, but rather an aid to seeing how the work can evolve. Thus, I rethink the notion of documentation as a kind of mediator, approximate and used in a more artistic way to change the work. I will therefore propose a new perspective on the function of documentation. I maintain that there is documentation of the what (van Saaze, 2013) and documentation of reference memory (Noordegraaf, 2015) that allow certain historical aspects of works to be documented. Furthermore, I maintain that there is a more approximate form of documentation that allows actors to mobilise their tacit knowledge about works to promote their evolution. This is documentation of the how (van Saaze, 2013) and working memory documentation (Noordegraaf, 2015). I maintain that these documents can serve as boundary objects (Kreplak, 2018) to facilitate collaboration between actors. By analysing the process of reinstalling Horn Perspective is reinstalled, I demonstrate that there is a mimeographic creativity, in the sense of Fernando Domínguez Rubio (2020), which engages many people. By analysing the use of documentation, I demonstrate that what documents and reference memory documents can serve as how documents and working memory documents, as actors interact with the material in a non-mechanical, changing way.

In Chapter Seven, I take the reader through the process of reinstalling Revenge. It is a plural work because it is site-specific. It must adapt to the context, and the artist must reinterpret it in order to reactivate it. Documentation is available, but it does not provide instructions on how to reinstall the work, as in the case of Horn Perspective. It is therefore necessary to use some creativity to reinstall it and redraw the plans. In this case, I show that there is a tertiary creativity, not just mimetic but not completely neographic, in the sense of Domínguez Rubio (2020), which engages several participants within a community of epistemic practice. The museum institution can be an agent of change, collaborating with the artist to determine the defining properties of their work and allow it to evolve while remaining authentic. By analysing the use of documentation, I highlight that a reference memory document can become a working memory document if the museum develops new plans that impact the identity of the work. I also demonstrate that documentation, including museum plans, constitutes a boundary object for actors, facilitating their collaboration through improvisation.

Chapter Eight brings together the findings of this book. Through my empirical study, I have demonstrated that many people are involved in the process of reinstalling contemporary works, and that there are several nuances of creativity depending on the moment in the biography of the works. If the artist and the museum collaborate, certain works can continue to develop. I maintain that the museum should be able to define the identity of the work in collaboration with the artist and produce documentation capable of getting to the heart of the work in order to modify it. A certain creativity exists in the museum, which lies between mimeographic creativity, which preserves existing elements, and neographic creativity, which introduces new elements. It is a collective creativity that requires dialogue between the body and the material, and also requires interpretation. This creativity is based on an epistemic community of practice, where what is important for production is also important for conservation. In this context, artists and conservators can collaborate together. I emphasise that contemporary works can be preserved if artistic practices are considered traditions that involve many people. These traditions can be taught to new people in the absence of the artist, and the museum can play a role in this process. Thus, the preservation and continuation of works come together in production in the manner of traditions that can be learned.

With regard to contemporary works, my theoretical framework shows that the conservation process, which involves handling and reinstalling works, poses challenges for both their creation and their longevity. Furthermore, documentation acts as a mediator in this process rather than as an ontological guardian of the work. This brings me to the main conclusion of my thesis. The continuity of contemporary works in museums can be promoted if they are part of a well- established community of practice, evolving within common traditions that can be shared with the artist through a network of care. I also argue that this context is not necessarily permanent and may evolve depending on the phase of the work’s biography, which also determines it.

In this chapter, I also develop a proposal by examining an aspect of the documentation of Revenge: I propose that plural works cannot always be reinstalled in change, but can be reinstalled without changing much when the artist is no longer present. I devise various strategies, including the use of video documentation – which I consider to be artistic documentation – that allows something to be said about the work when it can no longer live as the artist intended. For example, in the case of Revenge, the art video made by several artists in collaboration with Vascellari can not only serve as archival material for the museum, but also be exhibited alongside the work to shed light on its originally changing character when the artist is no longer available to present it.