If you would like to contribute thoughts or comments on this subject, please contact Sarah Turner, s_turner@craftscouncil.org.uk

Chain and Red Chain by Christoph Zellweger, 1994. Photo: John Hammond, 2009

In this section James Beighton, Cordelia Rogerson and Christoph Zellweger debate the future of Chain and Red Chain in conversation with Claire West, Director of Programmes, Crafts Council.

Chain is owned by the Crafts Council while Red Chain forms part of mima’s collection of contemporary jewellery. Both items have degraded to such an extent that there are question marks over the practicalities and ethics of conserving them. Can a solution be agreed upon by artist, curators and conservators alike that will save them from complete destruction and allow them to be exhibited to the public once again? And how could this have an impact on how museums treat and document other craft objects made with ephemeral materials from now on?

Red Chain by Christoph Zellweger, 1994. Photo: John Hammond, 2009

The debate

James: I’m interested to see what approach we should take to this work and other work in the future, looking at it from the different perspectives of conservation practice, artistic practice and curatorial practice. I’m also interested to find out if there is any difference to be discerned between the genre we’re working in – craft and jewellery – and that of the fine art genre when it comes to dealing with this kind of work. The art world already has a ready-made set of solutions to these problems.

Cordelia: I wouldn’t say there were ready-made solutions but I think there are precedents. The problem is that we’ve never addressed this issue within the jewellery and crafts discipline before.

Claire: The value of such a partnership exercise as this is that such issues are raised and openly queried. It is important for the crafts sector to consider other models of acquisition and collection care – such as the visual arts sector, to update and develop its professional practice.

James: This discussion puts the debate on record, which is important.

Cordelia: One of the key points is that communication is absolutely key. The situation we’re in now has generated a discussion but a discussion like this should occur before a piece is either created or bought.

Solutions and possibilities for Chain and Red Chain

James: To recap, Red Chain (which we at mima own) and Chain were withdrawn from an exhibition some years ago as it was believed they were too damaged (degraded) to exhibit. But I am not willing to accept that they should now sit in boxes in the stores for all eternity. I think we should find a set of options to enable them to continue to have a life within the museums.

Christoph: The decision to remove them from the exhibition was exactly contrary to my intention. I wanted these pieces to be on display in whatever state they were in because that’s how nature goes – things decay.

James: Which comes back to the issue of communication. And because there are two works – one at mima and one at the Crafts Council – it seems like a good opportunity for the two organisations to come together to develop this debate.

Claire: I think there are effective ways of presenting and documenting work that we know will eventually disappear. As we have discussed, this is an issue that contemporary art has dealt with and there are therefore models of practice already in existence. The Crafts Council ensures through its own Collection Management plan that there is an effective conservation programme and these works by Christoph form part of this programme, but ultimately the latex parts of the chains will disintegrate. There is, therefore, a need to further consider how to formalise the documentation of works that are purchased with the understanding that they will perish.

Christoph: When I made the piece I thought okay, if I keep it it’ll fall apart. If it’s never sold it’ll fall apart. If it is sold to a private collector it will also, at some point, fall apart, but if it’s bought by an institution, then there will be some big questions. When the Crafts Council bought the piece I was aware that it could cause problems and I mentioned this immediately. The Crafts Council stated that they expected this decay to occur at some point and I thought that acknowledgement was great.

Claire: The Crafts Council Collection’s criteria for acquisition states that the work should demonstrate excellence in the skills of making, handling of materials and innovation of ideas; work that marks an important stage in the development of an individual, or demonstrates new areas of activity in a particular craft. But, if applicable, ethical issues of restoration, conservation and intervention must be agreed with the maker and documented at the point of purchase.

James: Our remit is to buy work that is an expression of the ideas and the concept of the artist and the Chain pieces, as with so much of your work, are about inevitable decay; the relationship with the human body and the fact that it will simply disintegrate. Now that’s a very attractive concept for you (Christoph) but it’s something that some museums still find it hard to understand.

Cordelia: The problem is that work such as this challenges a museum’s traditional remit.

James: It unsettles curatorial practice in a very positive way because on the one hand, as a curator, I’m here to acknowledge and support the ideas of the artist but as a collections curator I have a responsibility to preserve a piece.

Photo: John Hammond, 2009

James Beighton, Curator of Craft, mima; Cordelia Rogerson, Modern Materials Specialist Conservator, British Library and Sarah Turner, Curatorial Projects Officer, Crafts Council during Chain photo shoot.

Cordelia: It’s a challenge for conservators as well because we normally work to conserve something back to its original state. The idea that we should allow something to decay raises the same challenges for us as for James.

Christoph: I did not expect there to be such a challenge. Ephemeral materials have been used in fine art before.

Cordelia: But it’s new to the craft discipline.

Christoph: Why should the way the crafts sector deals with my work be any different to how the art world deals with artwork that will decay?

Cordelia: I think it’s about perception. As you have said, “we accept decay in museums housing old artefacts but in an exhibition of new work we cannot accept it.” Is the issue here that we’re talking about jewellery and jewellery is traditionally something that embellishes the wearer?

Christoph: Most jewellery we find from the past has decayed in some way.

Cordelia: But other people might find it unsettling to see a relatively new piece that’s so degraded.

Christoph: If I make a piece that looks decayed, then this is intended. If the work I make is shiny and looks perfect then I expect it to be kept in such as state. If I want to make something that is forever I make sure that I use materials that will last forever and I create the circumstances in which they can be kept forever in a museum or by a collector.

Claire: Contemporary craft is constantly shifting and refocusing – makers are using new materials and new production methods including new technologies, to produce a broader spectrum of work and possibilities. The craft sector needs to act fast and consider how these important shifts in practice and their legacy are captured.

James: So we’ve said that there are solutions to deal with these issues in fine art and design but perhaps we should be clear about what those solutions might be. We’re working with two real possibilities here. One would be just to leave it and simply let it disintegrate…

Christoph: Leaving it also means it can be stretched out. Its natural position was hanging from the ceiling but it was kept in a box. I would be happy to see it hanging again even with just one part hanging up and the other part broken on the floor. This would be a real challenge – for the audience too because they will understand that this is the process of decay.

James: But once the rubber elements have disappeared, you’ll be left with two piles of beads. What can an audience looking at your work in a 100 years time understand about the decaying process from that?

Christoph: I think it would be a challenge for a museum curator to approach it in such a way. I think a pile of beads would communicate something close to my original intention. It would be brave of you to slip into my mindset.

Cordelia: James, do you feel that your role as a curator should absolutely follow what an artist directs because from a conservation point of view, the idea of displaying an artwork that is essentially breaking makes me very uncomfortable. Do we have to follow what the artist wants if you feel that’s not going to fulfil the remit of your collection?

James: The reason a curator would buy work like Christoph’s is not because we just like the look of it but because we find something of value in the concept and if the piece is meant to decay then it seems actually you’d be doing damage to it in trying to prevent that decay.

Christoph: For me that already happened when it was taken out of the exhibition for the first time. And the second time when it was decided to keep them in boxes.

Cordelia: Are you saying that you’re absolutely comfortable with the idea that if it’s moved to display it in a certain way it might break?

Christoph: Yes. I was amused by the footage of everyone touching it with gloves. It was not my intention that it should ever be touched with gloves. It has a life and life creates a patina.

Chain by Christoph Zellweger, 1994. Photo: John Hammond, 2009.

Close up of degrading latex

Cordelia: This is what happens to every piece that goes into a museum – it goes from being something that is worn to something that is never touched. It’s not possible to say that we’ll handle this particular piece in a certain way but handle the other 99% of the collection as we’re supposed to.

Christoph: I think that’s what one should consider.

Cordelia: In reality this might be impractical.

James: Ultimately, I have to consider the ability of an audience to appreciate and interpret the idea that Christoph has put forward, which is about the process of something degrading under natural circumstances. I have a responsibility to interpret those ideas for an audience and I don’t think the object breaking will do that justice.

Christoph: Again a situation where you have a piece here and a piece there, just loosely connected would be absolutely appropriate…

Cordelia: Would you need contextual information to accompany this?

Christoph: Well, I have repeatedly said that the fact that we have images of them in their original state is great and that’s why I’m not worried.

James: Another point to consider is Christoph’s suggestion that both institutions could commission a repair of the pieces.

Christoph: I don’t really suggest that you should commission me, but I thought it would be an interesting thought that a piece which had a wearable lifespan moves into another lifespan where it decays and a third when you can look at it again with new eyes and bring it into our time. In the applied arts in particular there is a long history of re-use, remaking and reinterpreting pieces.

Claire: But we know that you made the work with the understanding that they would disintegrate. It would therefore seem inappropriate to consider either their repair or re-commission.

-5 Part II by Jeff Luke, 1995. mima Collection, Middlesbrough. © Courtesy Jeff Luke Estate

Cordelia: Christoph, are you suggesting remaking the latex tubing or the entire thing?

Christoph: No, the steel elements are forever. It’s only the latex that has decayed. I’m not really suggesting a repair but an update.

Cordelia: So you would reflect on the piece as it is now and create something new in response to that? I really like that idea.

James: I think it’s a beautiful idea and had the work been under the public gaze and displayed as originally intended I would have been very happy with it. But the fact is that it’s been sitting in a box for many years and the public haven’t had access to it or had a chance to understand the process of decay. How can you create a piece in reaction to something that has happened in a very controlled environment removed from your original intention?

Christoph: But in theory this is an interesting concept. You would have three stages, which the audience can reflect on: from the images of the piece in its original condition, to how it is now, to a new response.

Cordelia: I like that solution.

Christoph: In fine art this has already happened, when you think about pieces which have been displaced and have been moved from one place to another and been repaired again by conservators and then maybe again corrected by another if they were not happy with the conservation.

James: I’d like to go back to solutions that would be outside of conservation practice to see if they would be appropriate. For example, a piece by Jeff Luke which comprises of rubber bands comes with a printed of set of instructions which says that when these rubber bands decay we can get replacements. So as long as rubber bands continue to exist you can preserve the aesthetic intention of the work.

Cordelia: But does Jeff Luke realise that the piece will change considerably over time? Is he trying to retain it exactly how it was or does he just want it replenished and does he accept that it will have a new interpretation inevitably?

James: The important issue for him was the idea of making an object wrapped in elastic bands which disguise the form of the object.

Cordelia: Then his intention was diametrically opposed to that of Christoph who was happy for the decay to occur.

James: Unless you can say that they’re both interested in the process of decay? Albeit outside of conservation practice, would it be possible to leave instructions that says the latex needs to look this way and that colour, so that once the decaying process has finished it can start again? Another piece that is perhaps comparable to Christoph’s intent, is Clare Twomey’s Consciousness Conscience made up of a series of low-fired ceramic tiles that break every time an audience walks on them. They are remade for each exhibition and broken again as the sound of the tiles breaking is important to the work. This suggests to me that the thing to do with your work could be to remake the latex and allow the decaying process to start all over again.

Consciousness/Conscience by Claire Twomey, 2003. Photo: Andy Paradise, 2003.

Christoph: I would definitely reject this idea of remaking the latex. I cannot see the point.

James: Because then the process would start over again

Cordelia: But the process has already happened. Are you feeling uncomfortable because the process hasn’t been documented? I don’t think artists can revisit their work unless they originally intended to revisit it…

Claire: There is certainly a need to further consider how to formalise the documentation of works that are purchased with the understanding that they will perish and how such documentation retains the status of an acquired object for a major Collection.

James: I’m not only talking about Christoph here. I’m looking for a repeatable set of solutions that can be applied to other works.

Christoph: Going forward is the only thing I know, I like the idea of embracing the piece like an old friend and seeing what we can do next. Imagine someone visiting mima in 300 years time, finding the Chain, putting some string through the metal elements to make it come to life again. This to me would be as valid as the piece I originally made. It is brought back to life and creates a new meaning. I love this idea.

James: I think that I could be persuaded by this idea but I’m still interested in the idea of remaking.

Cordelia: But surely this idea can only be valid if it was originally the intention of the artist to remake a piece time and time again?

Claire: No solution is totally unacceptable but the Crafts Council’s Collection policy is only to commission work in extraordinary circumstances, so the commissioning of a repair or update would be unusual.

Christoph: I think for me I would like to ask what is the story now for both pieces? What could they be? This is a challenge and this I find exciting. But it has nothing to do with the work of the collector nor the conservator. It’s purely artistic and driven by the idea of focussing on the next and the new – finding the truth of the object in the moment.

If you would like to contribute thoughts or comments on this subject, please contact Sarah Turner, s_turner@craftscouncil.org.uk