MACCH Conference 2019: Bridging the Gap. Theory and Practice in the Conservation of Contemporary Art
\n24 \u2013 27 March 2019
\nJan van Eyck Academie, Maastricht, The Netherlands<\/b><\/p>\n
Introduction<\/a> <\/a>For several decades already, the conservation of contemporary art constitutes a dynamic field of research and reflection. At first, this research was primarily instigated by conservation professionals working in or with museums and other heritage organisations, but increasingly academic researchers and universities have been involved as well. This is visible for instance in the growing number of PhD dissertations devoted to challenges in the conservation of contemporary art and of research collaborations between academic and professional institutions. Although such research is often conducted by researchers with a conservation background, it still remains to be seen whether and how their findings and insights are translated into the daily work practices of conservators in the field \u2013 or, vice versa, whether and how the problems and dilemmas encountered in conservation practice find their way into broader research questions and projects.<\/p>\n Convened towards the end of The European Fine Art Fair in Maastricht, this symposium aims to strengthen the exchange between theory and practice in the conservation of contemporary art by exploring promising practices (and failures) and by critically questioning its conditions and drawbacks. It is a collaboration between the EU funded Marie Sklodowska-Curie Innovative Training Network New Approaches in the Conservation of Contemporary Art (NACCA)<\/a>, the Maastricht Centre for Arts and Culture, Conservation and Heritage (MACCH)<\/a> and the Bonnefantenmuseum Maastricht<\/a>. Next to the presentation of the 15 NACCA PhD projects, it will host several keynote lectures, panels and round tables.<\/p>\n <\/a>Preliminary programme<\/b><\/p>\n Sunday, 24 March<\/u><\/p>\n 13.30 14.00 15.00 15.30 \u2013 17.30 17.30 Monday, 25 March<\/u><\/p>\n 09.00 10.00 10.30 \u2013 12.30 12.30 \u2013 13.30 13.30 \u2013 15.30 15.30 \u2013 16.00 16.00 \u2013 18.00 Tuesday, 26 March<\/u><\/p>\n 9.00 10.00 10.30 \u2013 12.30 12.30 13.00 14.00 \u2013 15.00 15.00 \u2013 16.00 16.00 \u2013 17.00 17.00 \u2013 18.00 18.00 Wednesday, 27 March<\/u><\/p>\n 09.00 10.00 10.30 \u2013 12.30 12.30 \u2013 13.30 13.30 \u2013 15.15 15.15 \u2013 15.45 15.45 \u2013 17.00 17.00 <\/a>Registration<\/b> <\/a>Location<\/b> <\/a>Contact<\/b> For practical information: Yleen Simonis<\/a> <\/a>Funding<\/b> Conference website on MACCH<\/a><\/p>\n <\/a>View archived conference call<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" MACCH Conference 2019: Bridging the Gap. Theory and Practice in the Conservation of Contemporary Art 24 \u2013 27 March 2019 Jan van Eyck Academie, Maastricht, The Netherlands Introduction Programme Registration Location Contact Funding View archived conference call For several decades already, the conservation of contemporary art constitutes a dynamic field of research and reflection. At … Continue reading “Conference 2019”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":4,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nacca.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/475"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nacca.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nacca.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nacca.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nacca.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=475"}],"version-history":[{"count":21,"href":"https:\/\/nacca.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/475\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":515,"href":"https:\/\/nacca.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/475\/revisions\/515"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nacca.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=475"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nProgramme<\/a>
\nRegistration<\/a>
\nLocation<\/a>
\nContact<\/a>
\nFunding<\/a>
\nView archived conference call<\/a><\/p>\n
\nOpening<\/p>\n
\nOpening lecture Prof. Theodore Schatzki<\/b>: Artworks in Museums<\/a> + discussion<\/p>\n
\nBreak<\/p>\n
\nPanel 1: Theoretical attempts to rethink the artwork and artist intent and their implications for conservation ethics and decision-making<\/b>
\nThe problems of contemporary art conservation have generated various attempts to develop alternative notions of the identity and authenticity of the work of art and of the intentions of the artist. What characterizes these notions and what do they imply for conservation ethics and decision-making? How do they work in conservation practice \u2013 to what extent are they helpful and what are their limits?
\n1. Brian Castriota (NACCA), Creating, Implementing, and Actualising Katie Paterson’s \u201cFuture Library\u201d (2014\u20132114)<\/a>
\n2. Marta Garcia Celma (NACCA), Stakeholder theory for the conservation of contemporary artworks<\/a>
\n3. Nina Quabeck (NACCA), Intent in the Making: Reconceptualising a Controversial Notion<\/a>
\n4. Dr. Nicola Foster, Towards an Ethics of Intangible Art<\/a>
\n5. Marina Valle Noronha, No Longer Artwork<\/a><\/p>\n
\nDrinks<\/p>\n
\nKeynote Prof. Dr. Ann-Sophie Lehmann<\/b>: Speak, Materials! Language, Matter, and the Historicity of Materiality Concepts<\/a> + discussion<\/p>\n
\nBreak<\/p>\n
\nPanel 2: New materials and materialities<\/b>
\nOn the one hand, new materials (plastics, organic materials, digital media) require new forms of scientific expertise to secure their conservation; on the other, materials and materiality play a different role in contemporary artworks than before. To what extent do insights from more anthropologically and philosophically oriented understandings of materiality like material culture studies and new materialism help in addressing these issues? What are the benefits and limits of these understandings seen from a practice point of view? But also, how can (the study of) conservation practices open up new research avenues?
\n1. Tomas Markevicius (NACCA), Decision-making authenticating modern and contemporary art: challenges articulating temporality, change and authenticity momentum<\/a>
\n2. Dr. Dawn Rogala, Would You Like That With or Without Mayo? How Interdisciplinary Collaboration Slows the Spread of Popular Misconceptions in Modern Art Scholarship<\/a>
\n3. Cybele Tom, Why Old Art Matters to Contemporary Art Conservation<\/a>
\n4. Dr. Joanna Kiliszek (NACCA), Future of the Past: From Material Evidence to idea of artwork. New Life of Szapocznikow’s and Kantor’s objects<\/a><\/p>\n
\nLunch<\/p>\n
\nPanel 3: New modes of production, new modes of collecting<\/b>
\nProduction processes in contemporary art have become increasingly complex. The range of materials used by artists is endless, as is the urge to experiment outside of the traditional art production processes and materials. Artist\u2019s studios have become complex hubs. Some delegate routinely and delegate to a variety of fabricators or industries while others develop highly specialized in-house skills. The re-appropriation of found materials and off-the shelves\/mass produced objects, and the use of delegation, have strong implications for the conservation of contemporary art. Modes of collecting and displaying contemporary art are also extremely diverse with many non-collecting institutions displaying art and institutions commissioning of ephemeral pieces that might get acquired later but were not meant to be permanent. How can research and theory in conservation help in mapping these complex processes?
\n1. Iona Goldie-Scot (NACCA), Barriers and facilitators: applying infrastructure theory to the conservation of complex contemporary artworks<\/a>
\n2. Louise Lawson, Dr. Helia Marcal and Dr. Acatia Finbow, The living process of conserving the Live: theory and practice in the conservation of performance-based artworks at Tate<\/a>
\n3. Siri Peyer, A public art collection buys performance art \u2013 a field test<\/a>
\n4. Caitlin Spangler-Bickell (NACCA), New modes of conserving: integrating front-of-house with backstage practice<\/a>
\n5. Patricia Falc\u00e3o, Christopher King and Melanie Rolfe, It takes a Village to raise a Puppet: Conservation practice stretched to the limit<\/a><\/p>\n
\nBreak<\/p>\n
\nRound table discussion on the future of training
\nModerator: Prof. Glenn Wharton<\/b>
\nwith Dr. Lydia Beerkens, Christine Frohnert, Prof. Gunnar Heydenreich, Prof. L\u00facia Almeida Matos, Artemis Rustau, Dr. Sanneke Stigter<\/p>\n
\nKeynote Prof. Gabriella Giannachi<\/b>: Documenting digital art: the role of the audience<\/a> + discussion<\/p>\n
\nBreak<\/p>\n
\nPanel 4: New approaches to documentation and archiving<\/b>
\nIn contemporary art, the idea that an artwork is a finished and self-sustaining end product made by the artist alone has given way to a more open-ended and dynamic conception of the work\u2019s modes of existence. This is especially true for allographic and performative artworks and puts a lot of emphasis on the gathering, documentation and archiving of information about the processes constituting these works. What are promising approaches and models to present, display, or reproduce such complex, extensive and dynamic bodies of information? What can be learnt from other disciplines in this respect?
\n1. Aga Wielocha (NACCA), Bridging collection and archive, artworks and documents: radical institutional approaches to contemporary art and their impact on conservation<\/a>
\n2. Du\u0161an Barok (NACCA), Database for the Documentation of Contemporary Art<\/a>
\n3. Sophie Lei (NACCA), On the artist’s side: bridging the gap between creation and conservation<\/a>
\n4. Claudia R\u00f6ck (NACCA), Snapshots: Bridging the gap between operation and archiving of software-based artworks<\/a>
\n5. Maike Gr\u00fcn, Better without the artist? Re-Installing Thomas Hirschhorn\u2019s Doppelgarage (2002): Decision Making and Evaluation<\/a><\/p>\n
\nBreak<\/p>\n
\nPoster session: Ana Camacho, Leonie Colditz, Salom\u00e9 Garc\u00eda, Dirk van de Leemput<\/p>\n
\nLunch including poster viewing and walk to SRAL and Bonnefantenmuseum<\/p>\n
\nVisit SRAL or Bonnnefantenmuseum <\/p>\n
\nGuided tour Ine Schroeder exhibition <\/p>\n
\nReflection and discussion at Ipanema<\/p>\n
\nConference dinner at Ipanema<\/p>\n
\nKeynote Christy Maclear<\/b>: From the Field: Legacy, Museums, Markets and the forces of Technology<\/a> + discussion<\/p>\n
\nBreak<\/p>\n
\nPanel 5: Art, law and the market: artist estates & public and private collections<\/b>
\nTo what extent and in what way are conservation strategies in contemporary art influenced by legal constraints and by the art market? What happens for instance when artists pass away and their work is taken care of by other stakeholders like artist estates, gallerists or private collectors? What is the role of commercial enterprises (like insurance companies) in conservation? What kind of research and theory is needed to account for these influences?
\n1. Artemis R\u00fcstau (NACCA), Conservation according to need: Understanding conservation practices in private collections<\/a>
\n2. Zo\u00eb Miller (NACCA), Authorship and ownership: legal and non-legal considerations in contemporary art conservation<\/a>
\n3. Dr. Anke Moerland, Trust or Contracts: Relationship between artists and museums<\/a>
\n4. Anna Sch\u00e4ffler, Caring for Artistic Legacies \u2013 The Increasing Role of Artist Estates in Contemporary Art Preservation<\/a>
\n5. Christian Scheidemann, Contemporary Art without the Artist<\/a><\/p>\n
\nLunch<\/p>\n
\nPanel 6: Challenging professional and institutional roles and responsibilities; expanded networks: collaborations and controversies<\/b>
\nThere is an increasing awareness that traditional role definitions and distinctions (as between conservators and curators) are changing, that museums need to adapt their infrastructures and go outside their institutions to collaborate with stakeholders such as artists and their estates, technicians or programmers or the public, and with external experts in order to care for works of art. What does this mean in practice? What are best practices and what are bottlenecks? What is required for collaborations to be successful and what problems may arise?
\n1. Maria Theodoraki (NACCA), The quest of perpetuation of contemporary artworks as a demand for a new professional role<\/a>
\n2. Panda de Haan (NACCA), Exposure as a Strategy: The frequent exhibition model<\/a>
\n3. Prof. Pip Laurenson, Research as a Vector of Change: Designing & Delivering Collaborative Research in the Contemporary Art Museum<\/a><\/p>\n
\nBreak<\/p>\n
\nRound table discussion on the future of research
\nModerator: Jill Sterrett<\/b>
\nwith Prof. Erma Hermens, Prof. Pip Laurenson, Tatja Scholte, Caitlin Spangler-Bickell<\/p>\n
\nClosing drinks<\/p>\n
\nPlease register on the MACCH website<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nJan van Eyck Academie<\/a>
\nAcademieplein 1
\n6211 KM Maastricht<\/p>\n
\nMaastricht University, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
\nPO BOX 616
\n6200 MD Maastricht
\nThe Netherlands
\n+31-43-3882666<\/p>\n
\nFor substantive information: Vivian van Saaze<\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe conference is co-funded by the Marie Sk\u0142odowska-Curie Innovative Training Network NACCA<\/a>, funded by the European Union H2020 Programme (H2020-MSCA-ITN-2014) under Grant Agreement n\u00b0642892 and the University Fund Limburg SWOL<\/a>.<\/p>\n