Exhibiting Art Conservation as an Ethical Mandate

In recent years, there has been a shift in the relationship between the museum visitor and the behind-the-scenes workaday efforts of the museum professionals whose labors, though essential for the success of every aspect of the museum, go mainly unnoticed by the public. One example of this newfound exposure is the proliferation of visible storage facilities. In New York alone, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the New-York Historical Society and the Brooklyn Museum all incorporate dedicated museum spaces which allow visitors to experience expansive collections which were previously stored out-of-sight. The result is an increased awareness of the diversity and range of the museums’ collections. Additionally, connoisseurship questions surface about how (and why) museums determine which objects to feature in their exhibits. As a result of the interest generated by these visible storage facilities, a related museum phenomenon, the visible conservation lab, has been incorporated into some recent museum renovation projects (The Lunder Conservation Center, shared by the Smithsonian American Art Museum and the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C., provides an excellent example.)[1]
 
Part of the mission of the Institute of Museum Ethics is to promote such transparency in museums. Ethical issues are at the core of conservation work, so when the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York recently inaugurated an exhibit focusing on experimental art conservation techniques, museum transparency was truly manifested. “IMAGELESS: The Scientific Study and Experimental Treatment of an Ad Reinhardt Black Painting” invites the visitor to witness first-hand the results of new laser technologies being implemented for the conservation of modern and contemporary art. Through a didactic display of video footage, explanatory wall texts, laboratory photos and the actual Reinhardt canvas which served as the impetus for the whole project, the Guggenheim has taken a step not only to disclose that such intervention is being carried out on the artwork, but to actually focus on it as an exhibit in and of itself.
 
In the particular case of Reinhardt’s Black Painting (1960-1966), standard painting conservation techniques such as in-painting areas of loss were not a viable option for the conservators. An integral and definitive aspect of Black Painting is the homogeneity of the surface. Reinhardt distilled the oil binders from the paint in order to achieve the matte surface he desired, which adds a further layer of difficulty to any attempts at infilling scratches or other abrasions. Though Reinhardt did retouch his paintings himself, whenever others have tried to recreate his materials and unique techniques, their attempts have been unsuccessful and distracting. The painting used for the investigation at the Guggenheim was determined to have been completely recoated in an undocumented previous intervention. The result is a surface which no longer reflects the original intentions of the artist. In fact, the painting was deemed so irreparably damaged that the company which insured the work (AXA Art Insurance) donated it to the Guggenheim specifically for research purposes.
 
Though conservators have been experimenting for years on the best techniques to employ in the conservation of monochromatic paintings, the Reinhardt work presented its own set of unique challenges. Key among them was how to effectively remove an ill-conceived and invasive recoating of paint while allowing the artist’s original surface to remain unharmed. This concern led the conservators and scientists charged with this project to look to new advances utilizing lasers. The exhibit’s focus is a step-by-step account of the challenges which emerged when attempting to adapt the technology to accommodate the requirements of fine art conservation. The results are not conclusive and Chief Guggenheim Conservator Carol Stringari emphasizes that there is still much to learn about using lasers for art conservation.
 
The final wall text of the exhibit, entitled “The Continuing Dialogue,” sums up the implications this ongoing investigation, and the presentation of exhibits like this one, will have on our understanding of the future of art conservation:
 
Not surprisingly, a study of this innovative nature has raised as many questions as it has answered. With all available techniques, how close can we arrive to the artist’s original intent, and at what point are we willing to make or accept compromise? Is there a consensus on when the quality of a painting’s surface is deemed acceptable, or conversely, when it has become too compromised to reflect the artist’s wishes? Should we retire a painting that we deem irreparable, or wait for the refinement of technology that may offer new methods to achieve a satisfactory surface?[2]
 
Personally, I appreciated the frank discussion that the Guggenheim presented in this exhibit. I always find it helpful when a museum grants information to the public about the conservation interventions carried out on the work displayed in its galleries. For me, it’s not only a question of communicating a deeper level of information about the integrity of the artwork, but it’s also an issue of ethics. However, the argument to keep support text/images on museum walls to a minimum usually prevails. Still, disclosure of the conservation interventions undertaken on works of art should be available to the public if for no other reason than to foster a deeper sense of transparency. Museum professionals are well aware of the extent and necessity of conservation, but failing to disclose such information to the public could lead some to misinterpret the omission as an attempt to mislead visitors. Some institutions have decided that their websites are better suited to this type of information than their gallery walls. One such example is the extensively detailed account of the relatively recent conservation of Pablo Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon at the Museum of Modern Art.[3] A happy medium may be achieved by acknowledging conservation work in the wall label and directing the curious to more detailed information available on the museum’s website.
 
If there is any glaring deficiency in this exhibit at the Guggenheim, it is only in its unfortunate location within the museum. “Imageless” is shown in the very last gallery at the top of the winding ramps of the museum. Concurrently on view with the conservation exhibit is the superlative retrospective of Louise Bourgeois. I know from personal experience that after concentrating on the deeply provocative work on display in that exhibit, it does indeed require a force of will to fully appreciate the Reinhardt experiments. Still, the exhibit is engaging. During my visit on a busy Saturday morning, there were many people peering inquisitively at the mockups and totally engulfed by the scientific explanations. Some may argue that the exhibit is too text heavy, but it is easy enough to glean the paramount concepts thanks to the graphic design and layout of the wall panels. For more visual and aural learners, the addition of a video showing alongside the text panels presents the overarching themes and challenges of this project.

The exhibit ends with a small gallery displaying four pristine examples from Reinhardt’s Black Painting series. After the insight derived from the conservation exhibit, you appreciate these canvases in a whole new light; they are more approachable for the visitor and, in fact, demonstrate the power exhibits like “Imageless” can have on conveying a sense of institutional transparency to the visiting public. All in all, this exhibit is an encouraging exploration of just how a museum can further utilize different types of exhibitions not only for educational ends, but as a means to fulfill their ethical mandate.
 
 
Exhibition: “IMAGELESS: The Scientific Study and Experimental Treatment of an Ad Reinhardt Black Painting”
Venue: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, 1071 Fifth Avenue, New York City
Dates: July 11 – September 14, 2008
Web: http://www.guggenheim.org
Symposium: Saturday, September 13, 2008 at the museum
http://www.guggenheim.org/education/tours_lectures.shtml
 
 
 
Exhibit reviewed by Mark B. Schlemmer, July 2008

[1] See http://americanart.si.edu/lunder/index.cfm

[2] Wall text, “IMAGELESS: The Scientific Study and Experimental Treatment of an Ad Reinhardt Black Painting,” Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, NY

[3] See http://www.moma.org/collection/conservation/demoiselles/index.html