The nature of this work, and indeed, the nature of contemporary art as a whole, raises two related ethical questions in my mind, which I shall attempt to answer in the next several posts: given the nature of the materials of this work, is it a responsible dissemination of either aesthetics or ideas? Given the nature of the aesthetics of the work, is it a responsible dissemination of overall aesthetics or ideas?
To try to answer the first question, look carefully at the composition of the pile of trash. The picture is a bit small, and the individual members are a bit difficult to distinguish, but there appears to be a considerable amount of plastic, paper, and metal; organics do not seem to be present in great quantities. Specific items that can be identified include a plastic bottle, a roll of toilet paper, an aluminum soda can, a sneaker type shoe, and two seagulls, whose composition cannot be determined from the photograph. The difficulty begins when the observer begins to consider how the piece should be conserved: the polymers HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) and LLDPE (Linear Low Density Polyethylene) are generally formed with the Ziegler-Natta catalyst, which may accelerate the photodecomposition of the plastic. Most paper products are subject to decay due to the degradation of cellulose fibers into various acidic compounds. Aluminum is stable enough, forming a tough oxide coating upon contact with air, but other metals, left untreated will begin to corrode. Some of the objects, such as the shoe, are rather complex, and their decay may be difficult to predict.
This all goes to say that working with piece, attempting to maintain it so future observers can enjoy it, might be a considerable challenge for those in the preservation field. Artistic materials are becoming increasingly diverse with the additions of substances like acrylic paints, and some contemporary artists, like the author of the work discussed to this point, shun classical materials to accentuate their point. Herein lies the problem: artists themselves may not understand the properties of the materials with which they work, and while they intend that their work to persist, their ignorance may only be setting up conservators for a future nightmare.
Another example of what I am attempting to get at here comes from an article from the Wall Street Journal, concerning the insuring of contemporary artwork. I do not have permission to reproduce the entire article here, so I will present the Abstract:
* * *
Perishable Art: Investing In Works That May Not Last; Collectors Struggle to Preserve, Insure Contemporary Pieces; Replacing the Dead Shark
M.P. McQueen. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: May 16, 2007. pg. D.1
Some of the priciest contemporary works -- such as Damien Hirst's dead shark in a tank and Jeff Koons's 40-foot-high topiary puppy -- are made from perishable or delicate materials whose deterioration isn't covered by insurers. Other works, including pieces by Andy Warhol and Mark Rothko, use synthetic paints that may not hold up over time and aren't easily restored; video art uses electronic and digital media that may stop working. Some installation pieces are even meant to disappear over time.
This week's auctions at Sotheby's and Christie's in New York are expected to break records set last year for postwar and contemporary art with more than $1 billion in sales. Among the items up for grabs this week is Andy Warhol's 1963 "Green Car Crash," made of synthetic polymer and acrylic on linen, which has a presale estimate of $25 million to $35 million. A Damien Hirst painting in household paint on canvas with dead butterflies on it, "Untitled (Birthday Card Suite)," from 1999, is expected to sell for about half a million dollars.
"People love Marilyn Monroe's lipstick stain or fake studio blood and bullet holes in a John Wayne costume. It makes it a lot more personal and a lot more valuable," he said. "But if you come back as a collector and say the perspiration stain on Lily Munster's dress is now a giant hole and file a claim, they will say absolutely not. They don't insure for that type of deterioration." Mr. [JamesComisar] stores his items in a special temperature, humidity and light-controlled warehouse to prevent that kind of wear and tear."
* * *
The article goes on to note that Damien Hirst's "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living", the titular fourteen foot dead shark preserved in a tank of formaldehyde, was purchased by a billionaire investor for eight million dollars in 2005. However, the shark had not been properly treated, causing it to rot from the inside out, a process that soon became visible. The shark was eventually replaced at considerable cost, this time assistance being rendered by a curator at London's Natural History Museum.
Regardless of how one evaluates the artistic appeal of a dead shark, the artist's ignorance of his materials led ultimately to the unintended destruction and trivialization of his work. Although this is a dramatic example, there are numerous instances of a work of art that is intended to last ends up being a burden to conservators: the steel outdoor sculpture that collects water after each rain and rusts, the painting with highly photosensitive paint, the white stone garden sculpture that cannot be placed in a garden without rapidly deteriorating; these examples beg the question: should the preservation of ideas rest solely on the shoulders of conservators, curators, and librarians, or should the process begin with the artist? Should ethical codes, which are strong to being almost tangible in the conservation fields, be present in the minds of artists? Are artists who don't truly understand their media truly artists?
Postmodern philosophy may be somewhat to blame here. Postmodernism seems to be a prevalent world view in artistic circles, which would make sense with its subjective and personal view of ethics. But without a central core of professional ethics, ambivalence towards anything except raw, chaotic, decadent, and ultimately indifferent artistic expression would seem to be the ultimate terminus.
I started this article by raising the concern of the decay of contemporary artwork. I will end it by raising the concern of Postmodernity as an ethical system. Although postmodernism's philosophical critiques likely hold much value, its rejection of many ethical standards may result in the loss cultural institutions to pass to our descendants. Much of our identity as modern humans stems from the knowledge of the past; and to leave future generations without a cultural heritage, good or bad, seems a crime indeed.
Just to reinforce the purpose of this blog...I really cannot substantiate any this. Some research has been performed, but this is really just a repository of half-baked ideas. If I bungled my facts, cause offense, or say something that befits a total jerk, please let me know.