Poster presented at the Rollins College Student-Faculty Collaborative Scholarship presentation session on November 1st, 2019.

1. Isaac D. Gorres and Susan H. Libby, PhD
Department of Art and Art History, Rollins College
Neon, Envelope, and Faux Grass:
Problems and Solutions in Contemporary Art Conservation
Abstract
References
Case Studies
Joseph Kosuth, ‘No Number 3’ [Warm White, Large Version], 1991. Neon tubing and
transformers. Museum number: 2013.34.100. Alfond Collection of Contemporary Art, Cornell
Fine Arts Museum, Rollins College.
Yoshitomo Nara, Untitled, 2003. Mixed
media on envelope. Museum number:
2013.34.90. Alfond Collection of
Contemporary Art, Cornell Fine Arts Museum,
Rollins College.
Brian Burkhardt, Mushrooms Plug Tray
100, 2013. Carved resin, faux grass, and
reclaimed barnwood. Museum number:
2013.34.139. Alfond Collection of
Contemporary Art, Cornell Fine Arts
Museum, Rollins College.
In the early 20th century, Western artists began combining materials in novel
ways. Marcel Duchamp and Méret Oppenheim, among others, showed that art
could be made of diverse materials. Substances and technologies developed later
in the century, such as plastics and digitization, further expanded the range of
artists’ choices of materials into the 21st century. While these products of
modernization provide exciting possibilities for artistic expression, they also
present challenges to conservation practices. Artworks constructed using organic
substances such as chocolate, blood, animal carcasses, and dried plant
materials—as well as plastics and commercial, non-archival papers—require
evolving knowledge and skills to ensure their longevity.
Using their combined expertise as a professor of art history and a student
double majoring in biochemistry/molecular biology and art history, the authors
investigate problems and solutions in the conservation of contemporary art. As
case studies, they focus on works from The Alfond Collection of Contemporary Art
at the Cornell Fine Arts Museum of Rollins College. Their research spans the
history of art conservation, contemporary scientific literature, and sources on
museum theory and practices of collecting and conserving contemporary art.
Especially intriguing is the interdisciplinarity of curatorial and conservation
strategies that draw on examples set by ethnographic and natural history
collections. This research aims to aid small museums lacking in-house
conservators as well as to inform contemporary studio artists and art historians.
This project was generously funded by the Elizabeth Morse Genius Foundation, the Stewart
Lee Colling-Clint Foundation, and the Office of the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts.
Additionally, the authors would like to thank the Scholarship for High Impact Practices Grant, the
Rollins College Department of Art and Art History, the Fishback Art Scholarship, the Emily Merrill
Art Scholarship, and the Oliphant Art Scholarship for facilitating associated travel to the 58th
International Art Exhibition. Finally, the authors would like to thank the Cornell Fine Arts Museum
and its wonderful staff—specifically Dr. Ena Heller, Bruce A. Beal Director; Dr. Gisela Carbonell,
Curator; Austin Reeves, Collections and Exhibitions Manager; and Elizabeth Coulter, Dale
Montgomery Fellow—for allowing unparalleled access to selected objects during the course of
this project.
Acknowledgements
Conserving the New
Historically, art conservation has been a field divided by material
specialization; this stemmed from the tendency of traditional artists to work in one
medium at a time, generating discrete art objects that could confidently be labeled
“sculpture,” “oil painting,” or “print” without difficulty.1 However, as the art historical
canon expanded over the centuries to include a diverse range of materials,
conservators were challenged by increasingly complex artworks. Issues raised by
these artworks oftentimes surpass the abilities of in-house conservators at art
institutions, resulting in contemporary artworks that slowly and helplessly degrade
in museum collections. Art conservators specializing in contemporary art must
adapt to these ever-changing materials in order to preserve contemporary cultural
artifacts.
1. Dominguez Rubio, Fernando and Silva, Elizabeth B. “Materials in the Field: Object-
trajectories and Object-positions in the Field of Contemporary Art.” Cultural Sociology 7, no.
2 (2013): 161-178.
2. Du Preez, Amanda. “(Im)Materiality: On the Matter of Art.” Image & Text: A Journal for Design
14 (2008): 30-41.
3. Sandino, Linda. “Here Today, Gone Tomorrow: Transient Materiality in Contemporary Cultural
Artifacts.” Journal of Design History 17, no. 3 (2004): 283-293.
4. Reilly, Julie A. “Celluloid Objects: Their Chemistry and Preservation.” Journal of the American
Institute for Conservation 30, no. 2 (1991): 145-162.
5. Wharton, Glenn. “The Challenges of Conserving Contemporary Art.” In Collecting the New:
Museums and Contemporary Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.
6. Hornbeck, Stephanie E. “Intersecting Conservation Approaches to Ethnographic and
Contemporary Art: Ephemeral Art at the National Museum of African Art.” Objects Specialty
Group Postprints 20 (2013): 207-226.
Interdisciplinary Collaboration
Ephemeral Materiality
Contemporary artworks have historically pushed the boundaries of materiality,
and the artworks exhibited within the Alfond Inn are no exception. This trend, when
paired with the ease of replicating artworks through photography, has injected
contemporary art into the everyday, as the physical materials which construct the
artworks are no longer exclusive to the art world itself.2 Unfortunately, many of
these materials were simply not intended for use in art production, leading to
accelerated decay. It is now commonplace for the degradation of contemporary
artworks to eclipse that of artworks employing more traditional media.3
An intriguing example of a seemingly everlasting material succumbing to
degradation in the museum environment comes in the form of synthetic polymers
and plastics. Parkesine—antecedent to the infamously volatile celluloid plastics of
vintage film rolls—is extremely unstable in certain environments, and rapidly
deteriorates when subjected to adverse conditions.4 This, coupled with the difficulty
of stabilizing decomposing polymers, explains why plastics conservation is largely
limited to preventative conservation measures, such as the maintenance of a
stable ambient humidity and the use of gloves when handling plastic artworks.5
When a contemporary artwork has decayed to a point beyond recognition, it is
often considered effectively “dead” by conservation and museum professionals
and withheld from public display.
Scholarship exists that suggests contemporary art conservators need not
generate completely new conservation techniques when approaching art objects.6
Instead, conservators can look to ethnographic collections of African and/or
Oceanic art objects which already possess extensive conservation protocols.
Indeed, the “fugitive materials” employed by many ethnographic artists closely
mirror the short-lived, ephemeral materials commonly used by contemporary
artists.6 Brian Burkhardt’s Mushrooms Plug Tray 100 (2013), with its seemingly
dichotomous mixture of epoxy fungi and upcycled barnwood, is an excellent
example of a contemporary artwork that mirrors ethnographic artifacts in its use of
materials. Hopefully, if conservation concerns arise with Mushrooms Plug Tray
100, creative techniques will be applied to the fungal array and to other composite
contemporary artworks in the Alfond Collection of Contemporary Art in order to
preserve them for years to come.
The process and practice of art conservation is interdisciplinary by nature. It is
a museum field that sprung from the sciences, and conservators must obtain
extensive education in both art history and chemistry. Contemporary artworks, with
their multiplicitous use of materials and rejection of categorical norms, will continue
to test the abilities of art conservators as the artworks inevitably begin to degrade.