THE VALUE OF CONTEMPORANEITY

Isis Baldini Elias

“How and why is a work of art sustained, maintained or neglected? Who defines what should be saved – and on what basis?” (Corzo,1999, p. XVIII). Although the answers to these questions raised by Miguel Angel Corzo at the end of the 20th century appear simple at first, when they are analysed in the light of the rigid organizational structure of traditional artistic institutions or the deeply rooted dogmas to which conservation and restoration is subject, they begin to reveal how abstruse and complex the answers are when the questions concern certain contemporary works.

When the question, "on what basis?" is directed not at the macro-system of art but at the field of conserving conventionally constructed artworks, it can be considered that it has already been widely answered by theorists in the field and supported by existing codes of ethics. However, these remain unable to give a convincing answer for the underlying basis of conservation decisions regarding the treatment of an increasingly significant group of works of art. The answer, crucial if the goal is to make the artistic records of our time comprehensible to future generations, has always bothered and intrigued me.

Based on this discomfort and analysing the Postal Art collection of the São Paulo Cultural Centre (CCSP), originating from the 16th São Paulo International Biennia (1981), I began to consider the hypothesis that the treatment given to unconventional works did not follow the logic of traditionally executed ones because they were structured differently or had undergone significant modifications in their structure. These works required other theoretical and methodological frameworks if the intention of intervention was to respect them in their multiple aspects.

Aiming to resolve this lack of references, Althöfer studied the issue at the end of the last century and concluded that there were three situations where works would require specific treatment. In the case of works considered “traditional” and treated as such, the restorer would apply the approved, conventional techniques to materials for which there was an established body of knowledge. Secondly, for those works which offered new technical challenges, where the conservation solution required the use of new materials and procedures, the restorer needed to have extensive experience of the treatment of modern and contemporary works. Finally, where the issues involved in the restoration of a work included ideological issues, he concluded that the restorer should consult the artist first (Althöfer, 2006, p. 75). Althöfer thus implied that certain works have values that are intrinsic to them and not necessarily visible, and this may impact on how an intervention is carried out.

In 2010, when working on my doctoral thesis¹, I was encouraged to consider the hypothesis that when planning the conservation of a conceptual work it might have a value that served as a basis for its critical assessment and to examine not only the need for but also the defence of a specific value which I called “the value of contemporaneity”. This article summarizes the last chapter of that thesis. I hope that by condensing the content and removing the examples and citations that support the proof of the hypothesis, the reader’s understanding is not severely affected.

The Value of Contemporaneity

How should the photocopies of Paulo Bruscky, Friederike Pezold, Jachen Gerz, Bill Vazan and Hudinilson Junior be treated and conserved when required? What about Frans Krajcberg’s paper reliefs? The works in paper used to line Tunga’s carburettor? Nuno Ramos’s works – almost always unconventional? Karin Lambrecht’s works in blood on paper? Dieter Roth’s works made of chocolate and cheese? What about Rimma and Valeriy Gerlovin’s sperm art? The enormous paper lacework of Hilal Sami Hilal? Anna Banana’s rubber stamps? Clemente Padin’s marker pen mixed with pencil and gouache? Or Klaus Groh’s small objects in acrylic boxes and plastic bags? Shirley Paes Leme’s frozen smoke on paper? And what about Dudi Maia Rosa’s pigmented polyester resin and glass fibre?

Although these works were made by artists working over the same period of time, not all of them can follow the same technical guidelines in resolving their conservation problems without risking conceptual errors. This evidence suggested that if such a value exists – and if it were unique – it should be dynamic and fluctuating.

First, it would be necessary to structure the works based on the conservator-restorer’s perspective, regardless of the complexity of their constituent materials or their poetics. In this regard, It is interesting at this point to reflect on the concept of associative and paradigmatic relations, as first set out by the Genevan linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, which was later renamed by the structural linguist Roman Jakobson as metaphor and metonymy, who considered these to be the fundamental axes through which language is oriented. For what interests us here, the use of metaphorical and metonymic processes allows us to take a considered approach to the works in our care and to understand more clearly the influence of the temporal dimension on them.

The theorists in the field of conservation and restoration are all unanimous in their opinion (and this is proven by practice) that a multidisciplinary approach is required to succeed with an intervention. This general consensus within the profession explains and legitimises the hypothesis that the artwork, regardless of its position within the structure of time, is composed of various fields of information, knowledge, that interrelate, but do not negate each other, providing distinct values to it.

In simpler terms, it can be said that these fields of information are divided into two blocks of different natures: The objective block is directly related to the exact or natural sciences, while the subjective block pertains to the humanities and social sciences.

The objective block encompasses concrete information, which is related to the constituent materials of the artwork, its physical consistency, and where traditional artworks manifest images while conceptual artworks manifest ideas or images, or both. The subjective block includes all other fields that give significance to the artwork, that support it as a work of art, such as aesthetic, philosophical, historical, and symbolic aspects, among others. These two blocks, while different, coexist, in that the changes which occur in one normally modify, or completely change, our understanding of the other.

The success of an intervention, therefore, is intrinsically linked to the knowledge emanating from both the human and the exact sciences, or the “soft” and “hard” science. Even if the changes the work suffers over time have been driven by changes to the physical material, which almost always occurs, what determines (or should determine) the limits of the intervention are the subjective elements, as it is there that the essence of the work of art resides.

Although each field has a defined role in supporting decisions about a restoration and both are of equal importance in the material and immaterial construction of the work, those related to the humanities and social sciences, being subjective, do not support the categorisation of the restoration as scientific to the same extent as those related to the exact sciences. This is because, according to Berger (1976), objectivity exerts such a great aura of reliability that it ultimately overshadows everything that surrounds it. Moreover, as Viñas (2004) observed, the theories of restoration that pursue “truth” as the objective of the interventions consider the value of the knowledge emanating from scientific means essential to the process, since these make it possible to return the work to an illusory “original” state.

These fields are organized in a process of metonymic understanding, one sequential to the other, in a constant interrelation. The time factor changes the relative importance of each field, reorganizing each field internally continuously by overlaying each of the systemized layers in a metaphorical manner. Here it is worth adding that the time considered here is not extra-temporal, that internal to works of art, but temporal – historical time.

Thus, each historical present inserted into the process brings with it a whole sociocultural charge, in superimposed and interfering layers, establishing a diachronic relationship while altering the relative importance of the fields and continuously reorganizing them internally in overlapping layers. Taking this further, it can be said that the metaphorical process covers the work with explanatory and interpretive layers of accumulated meaning that do not cancel each other out, each layer creating and modifying meanings, strengthening (or weakening) some fields or the autonomy of what is significant in relation to meaning, because it is intrinsically linked to the historical and cultural trajectory of the work. Therefore, the insertion of new layers of meaning is relative and they are not fixed – they do not impact in the same way and at the same time on not impacting on all works produced during a given period.

Appropriating Flusser's statement that “all humans, because they are humans, live surrounded by mist, whether they want to or not”² (Flusser, 1979, p.8) – in a metaphorical reference to mist as covering a real landscape with layers which make it impossible to see that which is distant – we can say that all works of art, precisely because they are works of art, possess fields of information continually overlayed over time, whether the artist intends it or not, that, like mist, make it difficult to see beyond the last layers. This is why it can be said that a work is always contemporary to the observer’s present history at the time of viewing – in an eternal present, a constant synchrony, because the observers always recognizes themselves in the last layer accumulated since the work was made.

According to Flusser, the explanatory layers are progressive, that is, the most recent better explain the oldest, mainly through a process of dialectical synthesis. The covering layers are therefore “projections of my mind, which in turn is a system programmed by the history of my culture” (ibid, p. 113). We can say that the metaphorical process produces a relatively narrow visual field, with several overlapping layers which are difficult to interpret.

In this sense, a restoration only happens when the sociocultural context of a given society, increasingly less local and more global, is not recognized in the layers laid down on the work over time and the restorer aims to bring to light a layer in which such recognition can be established. A restoration undertaken under other conditions can lead to significant problems in identification between the work and the public. This lack of recognition is not an essential condition for the treatment to be carried out. An intervention should only be carried out after a thorough analysis of various factors and values, along with an accurate interpretation of the importance of each fields to the legibility of the work.

The covering layers may be diverse in nature, but always linked to natural phenomena in relation to the objective fields, and historical, and cultural phenomena in relation to the subjective ones. In addition, the concrete field of the work, the only field that is truly objective, has a specific problem that inexorably reappears at every alteration it suffers.

If all works, both contemporary and old, are formed of objective and subjective fields, independently of their material composition, that is equally important for the work to exist to its fullest extent, where lies the difference between them for the conservator-restorer?

On the basis that the classical perception of restoration does not contemplate the treatment of certain segment of new artistic production, as evidenced by countless publications and academic texts, we can conclude that for such works, a link in the chain of their understanding has broken, unbalancing its progressive developmentalist historical narrative, making it impossible to narrate in the conventionally established form (Danto, 2006)

The possibility should also be considered that the problem is not in the multiple materials used in some works, nor in the ephemeral and transitory nature of those materials, because in some cases the solution of the conservation problems of these works did not necessarily resolve the issue, but resulted in complex issues that extend beyond the artistic into the ethical and moral sphere. Analysing those situations in which the solution became to be seen as disastrous, it was realised that the attached field was directly related to the symbolic network that potentiated the work in its immaterial existence and poetic experience. Disregarding this field in decision-making would risk introducing noise into its interpretation that could be fatal for its comprehension in the form originally proposed by the artist.

Thus, it became noticeable that there is an intrinsic value linked to the immaterial existence of the work – a dynamic, flexible value decisive for the original understanding of it. A value that, if properly identified, can impact on the importance of the various fields of information involved and impact on the approach of those involved in its conservation.

We can, then, consider that the difference between the manner in which ‘conventional’ and ‘conceptual’ works are lies in the inclusion of new fields in their structure, or the potentialization caused by the temporal factor of fields that existed only in an amorphous or embryonic form.

It should be understood that each work is subject to different logics and the treatment applied should give priority to analysing each field on the basis of a wide and synchronic reading. The value of contemporaneity is not that the work is contemporary in itself, but that the philosophical and conceptual field of the work assume a significance that is greater than the other field, independently of whether or not the work is constructed of physically stable and concrete elements and whether or not the information that the work generates is or is not covered by metaphorical layers.

In the light of the above, we can define current artistic production in three ways: First, those works that, although produced during contemporary time and space, have a structure similar to that of conventional works, that is, the aesthetic field is relevant, and the concrete field is stable as the result of the use of long-lasting materials of good quality. Secondly, there are those works where the difference is to be found only in the instability of the concrete field, which is a result of the use of experimental materials or those manufactured for other functions. Finally, there are those where the philosophical field – previously non-existent or embryonic in the structures used to form the work – assume significant importance in relation to others, regardless of whether the concrete field of the work is stable or not. Here you can clearly see Heinz Althöfer's three restoration situations.

According to this reasoning, those moments considered by philosophers and art critics to establish a rupture with the progressive, development-driven narrative of the history of art are understood here as moments when new informational, philosophical and ideological field are inserted into the work, resetting the significance of its values.

The value of contemporaneity in a work is, therefore, proportional to the importance of those new fields inserted have in the understanding of its poetics. While the work may have been produced during the present historical time, or close to it, there is a complexity to its understanding. Decoding it is dependent on specific social and cultural relationships and an effective understanding of the aesthetics and artistic aspects surrounding it.

Works of this nature require from the conservator-restorer to possess much more than a knowledge of the materials used for the success of an intervention because, in order to preserve the essence of the artist's underlying proposal, it is necessary to maintain the balance between the concrete field of the work and the newly inserted fields, as intended by the artist. Thus, since the observer's perception of the work is necessarily based on the interpretation of its, concrete field, any intervention, however minimal, can prove to be mistaken if its result signifies the disruption of this balance.

This balance is very relative and extremely tenuous, making its maintenance more complex when the concrete field of the work are unstable, as the rapid decline in the accuracy of the materials influences the correlation with the other fields, becoming more pronounced in those works in which the philosophical filed is not sustained or emphasized by aspect related to degradation, ruin or temporary immortality.

The removal or rearrangement of the layers in some works follows a different and often singular logic. It is the contemporaneity value of a work that justifies, for example, the replacement of a specific material that is part of the aesthetic reading of the work of art for another material; the total or partial reconstruction of the work; the repainting of a sculpture; or opting to leave the work to follow the natural course of its degradation over time. This is because the intention is not to maintain, at any cost, the materials used by the artist, but to ensure that its symbolism survives – its philosophical and immaterial existence.

It is precisely due to the expansion of interventional possibilities that these artworks allow and also because the correct perception of the present historical time is not possible - which only occurs when it has become the past - that the interpretation of these fields should be based on a joint and complementary vision.

Works of great value of contemporaneity – which are not yet part of the collective unconscious of the community, and therefore do not have it as a limiting or guiding factor for conservator´s procedures – have an intricate network of meanings where an appropriate interpretation does not depend solely on the conservator, scientist, curator, or historian and others involved, but on an interlocution with the primary source of information, the artist. For Arianne Vellosillo (2015), “one of the most interesting challenges in preserving contemporary art is the collaboration with artists to articulate and document what the priorities of their proposals are, with the objective of understanding their arguments, respect their proposals and ensure the preservation of the meaning of their work.”

In this context, the conservator should be prepared to deal with the provisional immortality of some works, respect their communicative essence – when there is one – and emphasise the importance of visual documentation to register the work for the future. This is where the most painful rupture lies for the professional, especially for those whose academic trajectory has not permitted them to set the parameters when dealing with aspects which are not directly related to maintaining the original materials, preserving the work for future generations, and the participation of the public as a positive factor for the manifestation of the artwork.

Therefore, the conservator-restorer, who traditionally works in an intimate and solitary dialog with the object they are treating, must step out of their comfort zone and begin a long conversation with their peers and with the other actors; question their certainties; take into account that the arts are governed by doubts and the volatility of truths; finally, inserting themselves in the dynamic and relative contemporaneity that characterises our historical present.

Postscript. Even having to drastically summarise the original text for it to become an article, it is important to note that the concept of contemporaneity explored in this reflection, even if conceptually different, originated in the concept of the present first elaborated by Riegl (2014) in the 19th century.

Bibliography:

ALTHÖFER, Heinz (2006). La restauración del arte moderno y contemporáneo. In: RIGHI, Lídia (Ed.). Conservar el arte contemporáneo. Donostia-San Sebastián: Editorial Nerea, p. 71-78.

BACCILIERI, Adriano. Conclusiones. In: RIGHI, Lídia (Ed.). Conservar el arte contemporâneo. Donostia-San Sebastián: Editorial Nerea, p.159-163.

BELTING, Hans (2006). O fim da História da Arte: uma revisão dez anos depois. São Paulo: Cosac Naify.

BERGER, René (1976). Arte y Comunicación. Barcelona: Gráfica Diamante

BRANDI, Cesare (2004). Teoria da restauração. Cotia: Ateliê Editorial.

CHIANTORE, Oscar; RAVA, Antonio (2005). Conservare l’arte contemporânea. Milan: Mondadori Electa.

COELHO, Teixeira (2001). Moderno pós moderno. São Paulo: Iluminuras.

COELHO, Teixeira (2001). Os artistas da morte. Revista Bravo!, no. 48, jul. 2015, p.8

CORZO, Miguel Angel (1999). Introduction. In CORZO, Miguel Angel (Ed.). Mortality, imortality? The legacy of 20^th century art. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, p. XV-XX.

DANTO, Arthur C (1999). Looking at the future looking at the present as past. In: CORZO, Miguel Angel (org.). Mortality, imortality? The legacy of 20^th century art. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, p. 3-12.

DANTO, Arthur C. (2006). Após o fim da arte. São Paulo: EDUSP.

DANTO, Arthur C. (2014). O descredenciamento filosófico da arte. São Paulo: Autêntica Editora.

ESCOBETO, Helen (1999). Work as process or work as product: a conceptual dilemma. In: CORZO, Miguel Angel (Ed.). Mortality, imortality? The legacy of 20^th century art. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, p. 53-56.

FIDELIS, Gaudêncio (2002). Dilemas da Matéria: Procedimento, Permanência e Conservação em Arte Contemporânea. Porto Alegre: Museu de Arte Contemporânea.

FLUSSER, Vilém (1979). Natural:Mente - Vários Acessos aos Significados da Natureza. São Paulo: Livraria Duas Cidades.

FREIRE, Cristina; LONGONI, Ana (2009). Conceitualismo do Sul/Sur. São Paulo: Annablume.

RIEGL, Alois (2014). O Culto Moderno dos monumentos: a sua essência e a sua origem. São Paulo: Perspectiva.

VELLOSILLO, Arianne Vanrell (2015). Projetos para desenvolver a participação do artista e entender e preservar a sua mensagem, experiência e resultados. In FREIRE, Cristina (Ed.) . Arte Contemporânea: Preservar o que? . Universidade de São Paulo, p.111-121.

VIÑAS, Salvador Muñoz (2004). Teoría Contemporánea de la Restauración. Madrid: Editorial Síntesis.

VIOLA, Bill (1999). Permanent impermanence. In: CORZO, Miguel Angel (Ed.). Mortality, imortality? The legacy of 20^th century art. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, p. 85-94.