These same questions are
now being asked in the art world. The Whitney Museum
of Art seems to be the only one with a replication committee to decide issues
of this kind. If a work can no longer be repaired then, when, how and should it
be replicated? Ben Lerner in his
article The Custodians in the New
Yorker, Jan 11, queries if we should look at older art aesthetically or as an
artifact. The first means you want to experience the work as closely to the
original view as possible. The later means that the toll time take on an object
becomes part of the object’s integrity. The
current solution seems to be to make sure you know the artists wishes, which
might mean that the artists needs to be interviewed or leave specific
instructions.
I am thinking about this
because I now make work from materials that will not last long. I have used
cellophane and glue gun glue in the last few years. I simply stopped promoting
these works for sale as the longevity is so questionable. The maintenance or
repair of these works would be costly, time consuming and inaccurate. But they
give me very immediate results. No
delayed gratification for me!.
In the future, these types
of works might be scanned and replicated by 3-d printing. I might even be able
to control the number of replications and the length of time they are allowed
to last. I could put in future technological changes, like making them move or
making them edible…or they could even record reactions of viewers to them. Who
knows what the future might be for art.
How will this affect the monetary value? Right now that is determined
(in simplistic terms) by how many people with how much money want the works.
But who knows what exchange credits we might be using in the future. Maybe
these works will be money itself.
