3-D Printing of the Old and New

What comes to mind when you think comfort? Space age technology? Your skin forming jagged waves of the “brain”? In the ArtNEWS article “Brancusi & Brain Waves: 3-D Printing goes to the Museum” and written by Stephanie Strasnick, Lucas Maassen and Dries Verbruggen from the Belgian design team Unfold created their collaborative 2010 creation Brain Wave Sofa which will make its debut at the Museum of Arts and Design in New York, curated by Ron Labaco. Using an electroencephalogram (EEG) to monitor his brain waves while he closed his eyes and thought of the word “comfort,” Maassen’s brain wave data was then translated into a three-dimensional image programmed to a computerized milling machine called the CNC mill to carve out a foam replica of that image and is one of more than 100 pieces featured in “Out of Hand: Materializing the Postdigital.” 

Maassen and Verbruggen, Brain Wave Sofa, 2010

The exhibition, which will open on October 16 at MAD will showcase works of art, fashion, furniture, etc. that has been constructed using the technological devices of EEG, etc.What many might find even more fascinating is the encouragement of public engagement with how these technologies work. Francois Brument’s Vase #44 (2009), for example, allows visitors to speak into a microphone that uses a special algorithm to translate a voice into an image of a vase, determined by the speaker’s volume and duration of speech.

The elitist individuals that lead the museum of today and of the past have long prevented the museum from taking the course it needs to take. The implementation of education, therefore, is the progressive element that we have sought as part of the museum experience to allow for a greater connection and engagement with the general public. Popular education, as Theodore Lowe states, embraces all aspects of human activity, of increasing the knowledge, happiness and experience of the individual. But unlike formal education, Lowe seeks an education that is a voluntary act of the individual. It is commendable, therefore, to see a prominent institution like MAD reaching beyond the conformist approach to the museum experience for an experience engaging, and voluntarily promoting thought, action and experience. This exhibit incorporated a wide variety of engaging works of art that teach visitors that technology and visitor engagement is critical to the development and exploration of further innovative and provocative modes of art.

Hornby's I never wanted to weight more heavily on a man than a bird (Coco Chanel), 2010

And in an age of technological advancement, in which the visitor and public might generally associate technology as contemporary, what is striking about this exhibit is its incorporation of high-tech artworks that derive from 19^th and 20^th century art history. In Nick Hornby’s 2010 I never wanted to weight more heavily on a man than a bird (Coco Chanel), the visitor is introduced to computer-controlled hotwire that combines Brancusi’s Bird in Space and Rodin’s The Walking Man  into one sculptural piece.

http://www.artnews.com/2013/10/07/3-d-printing-at-mad/

Theodore Lowe's "What is a Museum"

Art Lending to the Public

Can I Check Out That Taryn Simon Painting?

Ever wanted to peruse the aisles of a library filled with art? And to be able to check a work of art out? Did you ever think such notions would become a reality? In an article from The Art Newspaper, Julia Halperin introduces readers to a new trend in the art world, that of borrowing art. A Pennsylvania art collective called Transformazium has created a programme to lend art to locals through a library in the suburban town of Braddock. The donated works of contemporary artists including Taryn Simon, Vincent Fecteau and Wade Guyton have provided the Braddock Carnegie Library with over 100 prints, paintings, photographs and sculptures that members of the library can check out on loan for up to six weeks at a time. 

Surprisingly, this is not the first to take on such a project. There have been several institutions in the past decade that have established art-lending collections to provide the public with access to art that would have otherwise been reserved for the wealthy. Interestingly, in the past, such institutions have nevertheless established such programs of art-lending in affluent areas, a stark contrast to Braddock’s program, the library of which serves the some 3,000 residents of Braddock, 40% of whom live below the poverty line. This new endeavor would surely put a smile on John Dana Cotton’s face. Dana had long called for a change to the museum world, for greater attention towards the art that connects the audience to the everyday and ordinary, to their lives, and one that called for greater access of art to the public.

In “The Gloom of the Museum,” Dana yearned for a time when museums would more actively participate and encourage the loaning of objects to other institutions, to libraries and museums, and to universities and colleges. Why not take the museum to the public, to the young and old, to the rich and poor, to those who are not able to access the collections, who find themselves in the far off reaches of a suburb or less access friendly/finance friendly museum. Public branches, Dana argues, can serve all. “The collections, groups, single objects, and photographs and other pictures can easily be placed in school houses, and surely soon will be.” He would be delighted in knowing then that not only has this become normative, but has reached far beyond the imagined. Art has become, though in the very early stages, attainable in every sense of the word. It is only in branching this out to communities across the country will this truly find its affect and impression on the public at large.  

With all that said, there are many questions and concerns to be addressed. Issues of care, management, loss and damage prevention, etc. Will there be informative sessions on the proper care and handling of the works on loan? How will the library address concerns surrounding the damage or even loss of a work on loan? Will the borrower be charged the full price? If so, who determines the cost? Will there be a conservator on hand to process condition reports and review the works of art upon check out and return to document the condition of the work on loan? What precautions will be made to ensure the longevity of the collection? The questions go on and on and yet looking past all this, one finds justification almost in the goal of the program. Art is supposed to be placed in people’s homes, to be enjoyed.  Most anything can not be fully appreciated without use and access. In areas, especially those with little access or exposure to the art scene, and particularly those of our contemporaries, it is commendable to learn that there exists institutions like the Braddock Carnegie Library that have identified these issues and have found a way of bridging the divide. Will our local library one day do the same?

Sources:

The Art Newspaper

Dana, John Cotton. “The Gloom of the Museum.”

The Need for Transformational Leaders

The museum director, Miguel Zugaza, who has presided over the operations of the Prado Museum since 2002, has transformed what was once a stagnant mausoleum of Western art into a cultural art institution of the modern era. In an ARTnews article, “Making a More Modern Prado,” George Stolz shares the remarkable story of Zugaza as the director of the Prado. During Zugaza’s directorship, the Prado has witnessed changes in all sectors of the make-up and inner workings of the museum. In 2003, the administrative statues were rewritten, drastically changing its internal operations, and in 2007, added a Rafael Moneo designed extension to the museum space, increasing its size by 50 percent. In turn, the Prado saw new additions to its operation, including a development office, expanded press and public relations programs, a comprehensive conservation studio, education program, greater public accessibility through the extension of operating hours, etc. And to top it all off, Miguel has incorporated into what was once an institution of tradition, modern and contemporary shows.

Before Zugaza’s arrival, the Prado was stagnant in what has been a fast paced and growing museum world. With a system of bureaucratic procedures in place, little movement could be made in the advancement of the institution, its operations, and in its aim for what comes with time, the need for CHANGE. Until Zugaza, the museum was as Stolz puts it, “lost in time.” There were no public toilets until the 1960s, no air conditioning until the 1970s, no microscopes in the conservation lab until the 1980s and no temporary exhibition programs until the 1990s. It was not until 2002 that the Prado was finally freed from the constraints of direct supervision, though still funded by the federal government, and under the direction of Zugaza, was transformed into an institution revered and in line with the need for change in the museum world, and a museum to “watch.”  

Zugaza is clearly, a leader, innovator and voice for change. His innate ability or keen Emotional  Intelligence in regards to his leadership style, which Copper, Sawaf, Glynn and Pennar describe as a combination of self control, zeal, persistence, the ability to motivate oneself, a basic flair for living, the ability to read another’s innermost feelings and handle relationships smoothly seems to have worked quite well for Zugaza. Museums, McCaughy states, tend to fragment without good direction as they are volatile organizations. He, like Zugaza, feel that a successful museum depends upon the interaction of many, e.g., community, audience, staff, and that primarily it is about relationships and how they are managed. For Zugaza, the Prado and its transformation was not so much to present a “modern” institution per se, but rather, to provide a more suitable space to house the already great collection of art while formulating and building upon programs and resources to better inform the public, to engage and educate them and ultimately, to give the public a place to appreciate and connect to the treasures the Prado houses time and time again.

Zugaza’s passion for the arts and community outreach is clear, as he states “education is what will carry us into the future.”  Museums of the past were at one time “passive” institutions for scholars and the elite and it is the museum of now as Theodore Low contends, that aims to serve the total population of their respective communities. It is here that we will truly see whether Zugaza and the Prado will succeed in moving forward and serving the community while continuing to modify as needed, their internal structure, their ideas and their goals to accommodate and contribute to the ever changing world. At the rate he is going, there is much promise.

There is a clear and evident need now more than ever for transformational leaders within the museum community. In this ever changing world that we live in, coupled with the stagnation of many museums, the goal should be to put transformational leaders at the helms of these institutions to combine the old with the new and create a more vibrant, interactive and community involved experience.

http://www.artnews.com/2013/09/23/making-a-more-modern-prado/

Low, Theodore. “What Is a Museum?”

Suchy, Sherene. “Emotional Intelligence, Passion and Museum Leadership.”

Looted Art: To What Lengths Must We Go?

Throughout history, ancient artifacts have been both legally and illegally obtained and acquired by both private collectors and public institutions. According to a recent news article written by Vincent Noce of The Art Newspaper, the return to Cambodia of two tenth-century Khmer sandstone sculptures, which had been displayed for nearly 20 years at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, have some critics wondering to what lengths should art institutions and governments go to help preserve and curtail the illegal looting and destruction of these ancient and historic artifacts. The Met announced its decision to return the sculptures on May 3rd, which was one year after the Cambodian government had requested such. Although Cambodia's government praised the Met for its “high ethical standards”, in other parts of the world, museums, auction houses and governments don't always see eye to eye in regards to protocol and procedure pertaining to the return of questionably acquired artifacts. The case of Sotheby's vs. the US Attorney's Office shows just that.

As the Met returned its piece, the spotlight was then given to Sotheby’s who had recently withdrawn from sale of a Cambodian statue that was believed to have come from the same temple as Met's piece, beginning private negotiations instead with the Cambodian government for its return. According to a piece published this week by Helen Stoilas of The Art Newspaper, both Sotheby’s and the US Attorney’s Office filed law suits against one another after the Cambodian government pulled out of negotiations. Sotheby’s claims that an agent with the Department of Homeland Security pressured the Cambodian government to end talks with the auction house, which was trying to broker a $1m private deal to return the statue of the Hindu warrior known as Duryodhanna. Documentation shows communication from the agent stating that the US government should be the vehicle for its return, not the auction house. The US Attorney’s office in turn filed suit claiming Sotheby’s director of their worldwide legal compliance department provided “false and misleading provenance information to the government” and discouraged federal officials from obtaining documents. Clearly there is more to this than meets the eye. 

The sculpture’s current owner, Decia Ruspoli di Poggio Suasa, argued in court that even if the statue had been removed from Koh Ker, Cambodia had failed to demonstrate the legal grounds for its claim. Her complaint argued that there was no indication of when the sculpture had been removed from Prasat Chen, and asked "on what legal grounds modern-day Cambodia considered itself the heir of everything a long-defunct, tenth-century regime had made." Counsel also wrote:

 “The [US] government’s continued failure to identify a clear and unambiguous ownership law… means that the motion… should be denied. The absence of such a law also prevents the government from calling into question the good faith of either Ms. Ruspoli or Sotheby’s. Both were entitled to conclude from the absence of any clear law vesting ownership in Cambodia that the statue was not stolen when removed from Cambodia. And both were certainly entitled to conclude that it did not remain stolen at the time of import into the United States, almost two decades after the period allotted by English law for Cambodia to make a claim had expired.”

Marilyn Phelan argues that it is the obligation of public and private institutions to prohibit the direct or indirect illicit trade in cultural properties, and urges them further, to not “employ legal principles, such as burden of proof or statute of limitations defenses, to prevent the true owners the right of redress,” bringing up a difficult challenge that we as museum professionals must face. We must ask ourselves, to what extent is the museum to uphold this role against illicit trade if to uphold it could very well mean the removal of most, if not all, cultural properties in the US. I do not say this to condone the illegal trafficking in cultural property, but where is the line drawn in the laws that govern what is ultimately decided as illegal cultural properties? What should return? Who decides?

As in the case of United States v. Schultz and United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, the former of an art dealer, Schultz, found guilty of conspiring to receive stolen property and the latter, of an art collector who imported a looted Philae from Sicily, it is important to look at the ramifications of cases like these.

A group of twenty-seven individuals, including nine present or former curators, members of museum boards, and counsel for museums, submitted an Amicus curiae brief in support of Schultz, and the AAM in support of the art collector. And what could possibly justify their support? AAM stated the following:

“The decision of the district court ‘threatens the ability of U.S. museums to collect…and make available for public exhibition objects from around the world”’ that are ‘the subject of sweeping foreign cultural patrimony laws’…these cultural patrimony laws ‘are, in significant respects, antithetical to fundamental principles of U.S. law and public policy…the effect of the indiscriminate application of these laws will be to jeopardize existing museum collections and the future ability of our museum to continue to collect and exhibit cultural objects for the public.’” (415)

Although it may come to many as a surprise to see museum officials and leaders supporting the illicit trade of cultural objects, one must also take into consideration, the effect cases like this will have on the future of America’s holdings of cultural property. As the AAM states, the return of cultural property will “amount to a judicial fiat…that often will preclude responsible museums from acquiring cultural objects from other countries” and ultimately, the return of some, if not, all cultural property to their countries of origin.

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Cambodian-restitution-case-takes-surprising-twist/30438

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/The-smuggling-scandal-thats-ready-to-erupt/30304

Is Vermeer a Cheat?

There has been much debate as to whether Johannes Vermeer enlisted optical aid in the creation of his paintings. And surprisingly, this has become accepted by most scholars since the issue was first presented and published in the 1960s.

In a new film directed by Teller, “Tim’s Vermeer”, Tim Jenison, who is untrained as a painter, creates a near perfect replica of Vermeer’s The Music Lesson. How is it that an untrained painter is able to create something as magnificent and precise as a Vermeer? Camera Obscura. Using his own version of a camera obscura in his studio in Texas, Tim is able to trace a precise replica of Vermeer’s painting. Jenison’s experiment has bolstered the view that Vermeer used the technology of lenses to enhance what can be seen by the naked eye.

Camera obscura refers to a darkened room (“camera”) into which a small opening of light projects an inverted, often unfocused image in color onto a wall or screen. These pinholes, in the mid-16^th century, were substituted with glass lenses, giving clearer projections. As one can guess, the thought that a revered artist like Vermeer could have actually traced or even copied an image is of concern. If this is in fact true, does this make Vermeer a cheat? And does the use of such technology diminish his achievements as an artist? Will the public’s opinion remain in awe of his talent in knowing this?

I personally don’t find the idea of Vermeer using lenses as cheating or a diminishment of his achievements as a painter. Rather, I find that his use of the lens to be clever if in fact, he did use them. Much of art today is not created by the hands of the artist, but by others like production teams who have the needed skills to produce what the artist has imagined in his or her mind. And some of the greatest artists of our time use technology to assist them in producing a work of art.

As John Walker of the National Gallery of Art stated in Roberts’ “Changing Practices of Interpretation”, “a work of art is not a specimen, not primarily an historical document, but a source of pleasure, analogous to, say, a musical composition,…to communicate to the spectator.” Regardless of whether or not he used optical aids in producing his paintings, art is at its core, a means for its viewer to connect to, identify and be inspired by it and Vermeer's paintings, I believe, will forever remain loved and appreciated by the public.

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Vermeers-visual-magic-is-tested-in-new-film/30412

De Chirico Authentication Board

A recent launch by an independent organization challenging the De Chirico authentication board brings much attention and question regarding the issue of authentication of an artist’s work. Two former friends and De Chirico foundation board members, current President Paolo Picozza of the De Chirico foundation and Paolo Baldacci, former board member of the De Chirico foundation and now Vice President of the independent organization challenging the De Chirico authentication board, are at a standoff about several works of art by De Chirico.

Giorgio de Chirico received much praise for his metaphysical paintings. However, De Chirico’s style changed significantly in the 1930's, moving away from the metaphysical to a newly adopted style heavily influenced by Rubens that did not receive the same praise his metaphysical art did. In response to the lack of recognition of the maturity of his art, and an evident resentment towards the public, De Chirico began producing back-dated paintings of his earlier style to benefit from his earlier success and followed this with denouncements of many of his paintings as forgeries, creating further spectacle and controversy regarding the authenticity of his art.  

As the Art Newspaper states, “Baldacci believes the artist made “around 140” of these backdated paintings, but Picozza estimates that there are only “around 40”. Baldacci says that he and Roos are now working on the second edition of a monograph on De Chirico’s metaphysical period, to include all works from 1909 to 1942 with “ascertained dates.” The debate between these men is something to consider when looking at the issue of authentication. Are there limitations to the authority of a foundation and its determination of authorship and authenticity? What constituents define and ultimately determine who has the final say-so in matters of authenticity?

This new publication is Baldacci’s final attempt to set right what he believes the foundation had done wrong. A few years after Baldacci resigned from the De Chirico board, the foundation sued Baldacci for “knowingly attempting to sell fake paintings by De Chirico.” The case, which went to trial in 2009 in Milan, found Baldacci guilty and sentenced him to 20 months in jail, charges of which Baldacci vehemently denies. Baldacci is now considering taking his case to the Supreme Court.

This brings to mind the concern among experts and foundations in the U.S. who have grown increasingly silent for fear of legal repercussions. In 2011, the Andy Warhol authentication board, for example, dissolved after several costly lawsuits including the battle over the authenticity of Joe Simon’s 1864-65 Red Self-Portrait that cost nearly $7 million in legal fees, according to ARTnews. With lawsuits against experts and foundations growing and the risks and potential costs in determining authenticity so high, it should be asked, would I be willing to risk financial prosecution or even imprisonment if my testimony as an expert was challenged and over ruled? And what, if any, safeguards could be established in the future so that authentication boards and even those of us entering into the museum art field might be protected from these types of occurrences?

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Challenge-to-De-Chirico-authentication-board/30326