Aesthetics that choose not to be preserved

R O S A

Another way to look at this is by focusing on works of art/architecture that deliberately desire to be free from preservation. As a starting point I have decided to continue this discussion by looking at stranger examples of interactive/non-preservable 'artworks', as opposed to techy/new media - starting with Mexico's 'Underwater Museum' Cancun.

The Cancun Underwater Museum is the first of its kind, consisting of a series of underwater sculptural installations. The sculptures are all designed to become artificial reefs and are constructed from special materials which create areas for corals to exist and marine creatures to live and breed. The idea rests in the development of the sculptures aesthetic over time, becoming part of the environment they exist in as marine life colonize the structures. The work focuses on the affinity between sculpture and its selected context.  The 'conservation' of these sculptures would therefore not only be irrelevant, but would defeat the entire purpose of the installation. Instead, the motivation is to create sculptural work that can be interacted with both by the human audience, and the surrounding wildlife. The work, taken out of the water to be 're-touched'/'re-stored', would setback their aesthetic ambition. 

Whilst retaining an artworks appearance through conservation, its context and location are often subject to change. What I enjoy about this work is that it operates in the opposite way: its aesthetic will be subject to change, whilst its context remains the same. And so we are free from the danger of mis-representing, or mis-interpreting the sculptures in a different location.

In thinking about these ideas I was reminded of the architectural offerings of African tribes, mentioned in a recent lecture. Built for the appropriation of the deity Ala, old men from the village are held responsible for deciding when the building and sculptures are finished. Once this is decided, the building is not lived in, worshiped in or visited; it is left to rot, the sculptures and architecture gradually fading back into the forest and becoming part of its surroundings. In contrast with the museological idiom of the west, the intention to preserve and collect is once again absent and irrelevant. In Igbo once the building and sculptures are complete it remains in the past, as an offering instead of a preservable structure or artwork.

These examples remind us that not all art is made to be preserved. Much work is made for a specific time period alone; one could argue that in some cases this makes the work more authentic. When visiting the Underwater Museum in 50 years time, the absence of conservation will allow for the developed sculptures to expose the time-span of the their existence.

In relation to our previous posts: 'Conservation of Contemporary Art?' & 'What happens to todays work in the future?', I am going to finish by suggesting that perhaps conservation is not irrelevant, but is certainly less relevant to contemporary art than to the more traditional art aesthetic. Whilst today we face greater risk of creating less durable and conservable artwork, maybe this is appropriate to and characteristic of the fast moving technological world that contemporary art is increasingly apart of.