This case study is concerned with the effect of preservation and restoration upon the value of contemporary ephemeral artworks, and in particular ones made from chocolate. In Western culture, art is required to be both physically durable and collectible. This requirement derives from the economic demands of the art market, as well as a need felt by collectors and art museums to own an object and to be able to “get their money’s worth” from this object, which is determined by how long the artwork will last in their collection.
However, when an artist uses ephemeral materials, in most cases, they do not intend for the artwork to last for a long period of time, which is due to the very nature of the materials used. This conflicts with the commercial aims of the art market, in which the artwork’s longevity is required. Perhaps this is because often it is the pristine appearance of a contemporary artwork, in which a higher value is associated with. In this case, the artwork’s level of “newness” is often valued above all else. (However, there are of course, many exceptions to this.) This can explain why there is an assumption with contemporary artworks to preserve them, unless the artist explicitly tells them not to. The respect of the intentions of the artist should be the primary goal with ephemeral contemporary artworks, especially considering that some works are only meant to exist in a particular place and time. However, often it is the economic reality, which gets in the way of respecting the temporal nature of the artwork, or a perceived obligation to the future to preserve these artworks, as examples of ephemeral art of the Twentieth and Twenty- First century.
The economic value of an ephemeral artwork, in direct opposition to its artistic integrity, is exemplified by artworks made of chocolate. Artists that have chosen this non- traditional art material, which does not provide an art museums’ need for longevity, have taken many different approaches when faced with preservation and restoration issues. They can choose to allow the audience to consume their artwork in the gallery’s space, within the span of one exhibition, such as in Sonja Alhäuser’s artworks. They can allow the buyer of their artwork to preserve or restore the artwork however they wish, or remake the art object when it begins to deteriorate from a cast make from the original art object. Or, like artists such as Dieter Roth, they can refuse for any steps of preservation to be taken, which would slow down or prevent decay. This is because the chocolate’s decay reflects Roth’s expression of impermanence.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/maryoneillwebsite/docs/Pittsburgh.htm
O' Neill, Mary ‘Ephemeral Art: Memory and Loss: Im/Permanence: Cultures in and out of Time,’ Center for the Arts in Society
This site discusses the desire for permanent art works and its link to economics, as well as the strong link between loss and mourning in ephemeral, impermanent artworks.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/maryoneillwebsite/docs/Cork.htm
O' Neill, Mary, ‘Art and Money: Experience, Destruction, and Exposure’
Looks at the hidden relationship between commerce and art.
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/friezeartfair/story/0,,1320343,00.html
Benedictus, Leo, ‘Here today, gone tomorrow?’ The Guardian October 9, 2004
Discusses the appeal of perishable art, its problems, and issues of insuring this art. "A lot of contemporary art is ephemeral. It has a potential end of value, like a lease. It may go up at the moment, but it will go down, which gives you valuation problems that must be sorted out."
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/newsletters/13_2/feature1.html
Constantine, Mildred, ‘Preserving the legacy of 20th-Century art,’ The Getty
How the art of the 20th century has changed due to the ephemeral nature of much of it. “What are the possibilities, limits, and importance of preserving art composed of ephemeral materials? Is contemporary art only for the present? If not, who has the responsibility for its future?” Discusses the conference entitled "Mortality Immortality? The Legacy of 20th-Century Art," which was organized by the Getty Conservation Institute. It also discusses the political nature of preservation of these works. "The law fails where the nature of a given work is its change, and/or where the artist objects to the work being preserved in its original form," Thomas Dreier.
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/newsletters/13_2/news1_1.html
‘The Conservation of 20th-century art: Two case Studies,’ The Getty
This discusses one case study that is not intended to be perishable, whereas the other is clearly intended to be perishable. Ann Temkin’s Strange Fruit, uses decaying fruit as a metaphor for mourning, impermanence and death. The decay of the fruit is therefore vital to the work.
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/01027.html
Dupree, Catherine, “Impermanent Art,” Harvard Magazine
This website discusses "art is supposed to change over time, and stalling this process may contradict an artist's intentions. Determining those intentions has become a priority for conservators, who must balance them against the long-term interests of museums that have paid millions of dollars for single works. To avoid misinterpretation--and perhaps seek a compromise between preservation and decay--conservators now address artists directly." It also looks at Harvard University Art Museums' new Center for the Technical Study of Modern Art, and its Artist Documentation Project, looked after by Carol Mancusi-Ungaro.