Assessing Authenticity:

An Overview of Spectatorship in Contemporary Conservation Strategies

Veronica Ventura
i6298459
v.ventura@student.maastrichuniversity.nl
22 October 2021
Entering the Field - AHE4040
Academic Paper - Group 1
Tutor: J.J. de Jong

Introduction

Born from the dissolution of formal boundaries, from the process of seeking new
materials, new aesthetics, and new contexts, the work of art in the era of its technical
reproducibility could not be considered anymore as something eternal in its uniqueness, but
its authenticity demanded to be linked to more intangible, situational, and receptive aspects
(Van Saaze, 2013, p. 49). In fact, the traditional attribution of “authenticity” as an objective
judgement on the physical object revealed to be inadequate to address the ephemeral and
dynamic characteristics of contemporary artworks, where the artistic message surpasses its
possible realisations (Shadler-Saub, 2010, p. 64). In this context, it was the link between the
work and its creator’s intention that became essential in assessing correct conservation
practices. Therefore, a new vocabulary of interpretative criteria emerged within conservation
theory that opened the discipline to a much needed interdisciplinary dialogue based on
rigorous documentation (Van Saaze, 2013, p. 54). However, way too often the role of the
public as an active interlocutor in this dialogue has been underestimated. In this sense, it is in
Nam June Paik’s participatory artworks that we can challenge the very presupposition of
passive conditions of reception and reflect on the reciprocal relationship with the viewer.
In this paper, I will address the questions to what amounts the role of the spectator’s
experience in shaping the meaning, value, and authenticity of an artwork. First, I will briefly
summarise the shifting focus of conservation practices that led to the recognition of the limits
of traditional conservation theory and to the “imperative for documentation” in order to align
conservation practices as much as possible to the artist’s intention (Shadler-Saub, 2010, p.
69). Responding to the challenges posited by installation art in general, and time-based media
installations in particular, the second section will present Nam June Paik’s Random Access as
a fruitful case study for the analysis of possible decision-making processes over
representation and conservation of transient artworks. To conclude, I will argue that the
interactive installation created by Nam June Paik reveals a participative aspect underneath its
own authentication that should be taken into consideration when deciding on conservation and
representation strategies in that it critically addresses the importance of a two-way
communication often forgotten when considering the spectator as a mere contemplator rather
than an actor.

1. Developments of authenticity in conservation theory

Despite its practices could be traced back in time in the handwork of artists and
craftsmen, conservation theory is rather recent as a field of study. In particular, it was not until
the late 18th century, with the advent of currents of thought such as nationalism, historicism,
and romanticism, that approaches on the past and its testimony demanded a scientific basis
(Van Saaze, 2013, p. 38). In this context, two opposing views on the authenticity of artworks
emerged from debates around conservation procedures. On the one hand, emphasis was put
on preserving the status quo and in valorising physical evidence of age and temporal changes,
authenticity resulting from an artwork’s historical trajectory. On the other hand was the idea
that conservators should preserve an artwork’s authenticity by re-establishing its original
features and conditions (Van Saaze, 2013, p. 39). Within these debates, one of the most
influential and critical voices appeared with the publication of Teoria del Restauro (1963) by
Cesare Brandi, who introduced the recognition of aesthetic value as an important factor for
decision-making in the conservation and restoration field (Van Saaze, 2013, pp. 40, 41).
Following Dewey’s philosophy, Brandi believed that the value of an art object is dependent
on the viewer’s recognition of it as such and on the continued possibility of this recognition
over time:

A work of art, no matter how old and classic, is actually not just potentially, a work of
art when it lives in some individualised experience. As a piece of parchment, of
marble, of canvas, it remains (subject to the ravages of time) self-identical throughout
the ages. But as a work of art, it is recreated every time it is aesthetically experienced.
(Dewey in Brandi, 2005, p. 48)

In other words, it is only by instantiating an aesthetic experience that an object can realise its
potential to be a work of art. Although faithful to a definition that throws light on the
importance of an audience in contributing to meaning in art, Brandi understood authenticity
mainly in relation to the finished work directly created by the artist who conceived it, thus
rejecting the possibility of its reception as being part of the creative process as it is for avant-
garde art (Shadler-Saub, 2010, p. 64). In fact, according to Brandi, “restoration consists of the

methodological moment in which a work of art is recognised in its physical being and in its
dual aesthetic and historical nature with regard to passing it down to the future” (Brandi,
2005, p. 48). This means that restoration for Brandi is a critical activity taking into
consideration two instances (the aesthetic and the historical one) that are conveyed in the
materiality of the work and through which an artwork is recognised as such. From this point
of view, it is the material dimension of the work that must be preserved, since it represents the
vehicle that allows the recognition of the artistic identity of an object.

With the widespread concept of “open work” and art as an ongoing process often
involving the public’s interaction, the direct relationship with the artist (if still alive) became
essential in order to collect information on the creation and history of the art object, identify
the value and meaning attributed to the materials used, and prefigure the methods of
intervention, conservation and re-presentation of the work over time. Thus, many of the
underlying assumptions in Brandi’s theory, such as its emphasis on materiality and the ideal
of creation as a fixed point in time, resulted to be inadequate when addressing contemporary
conservation challenges such as the replacement of elements that have degraded and led to the
loss of the work’s original message (Shadler-Saub, 2010, p. 65). As a response to these
challenges, recent developments in conservation strategies have shifted their focus from
material aspects of the work to the intangible ones, implementing the concept of
“authenticity” with the artist’s intention as an irreplaceable point of reference. As we will see,
when confronted with works such as Nam June Paik’s Random Access, where indeterminacy
and variability represent pivotal concepts of the artwork’s identity, authenticity and intent
cannot be simply understood as fixed values, but they are interpreted through documentation
and “become tangible” with each instantiation of the work (Van Saaze, 2013, p. 59).

2. The constructed identity of installation art

Installation art is a complex genre lying “somewhere between performance and

sculpture” (Laurenson, 2006). As a traditional art object or sculpture, it is spatial and
simultaneous, but also temporal and ephemeral like music and performance. This inherent
duality derives from its open nature. In fact, each time a work is installed, it is at the every

time concluded and re-opened to revisitation and revaluation. Since the artworks is inevitably
transformed with every instantiation, the development of an appropriate approach is always
case-specific and dependent on the interpretation of the significance of each element of the
installation (Laurenson, 2006). This interpretative character, however, does not lead to a loss
of the artwork’s unity and identity, but rather to its conceptualisation as a “field of meaning”
whose continuity can be only witnessed by and through the archive (Holling, 2017, p. 9).

2.1. Authenticity in Paik’s Random Access installations

Random Access is an interactive installation created by Nam June Paik in 1963 for his
first solo exhibition, titled Exposition of Music – Electronic Television, at Galerie Parnass in
Wuppertal, Germany. Here, Random Access invited visitors to drag a movable magnetic
playback head across an assembly of audiotape strips glued to the gallery’s wall. Depending
on the speed and direction chosen, the audience had access to the recorded contents in various
distortions. Today, the only physical traces we have left are some audiotape remains and a
fragment that is part of the “Random Access ensemble” in Dieter Daniels’ private collection
(Phillips, 2012, p. 143). However, Paik recreated further versions of Random Access in 1975
and in 1976 for an exhibition at the Städtische Kunsthalle Düsseldorf and a solo show at
Kölnischer Kunstverein, and in 1999 he installed one last version for the Guggenheim
Museum, signing it with the inscription “PAIK 63/99”. In terms of conservation, we are
confronted here with multiple scenarios with regards to the re-valuation of the different
elements at play in each variation and iteration. The 1976 version never entered a collection
and, therefore, its multiple installations are not tied to specific equipment; instead, their value
resides in the conceptual and interactive aspect of the ensemble which is made possible every
time by different available equipment.1 In contrast, the 1975 version now displayed in
Daniels’ collection, despite being fully functioning, has been withdrawn from interaction with
the public to preserve the original cassette player from obsolescence and to maintain the
historical integrity of the installation. As a matter of fact, Guggenheim’s decision to keep the
interactivity of the piece came to terms with dysfunctions that disrupted the sound output of

1“Even today, Saueracker [Paik’s former assistant] assembles the piece from scratch for each presentation, with
different open-reel audio decks sourced from the second-hand market, and modified for interactive display
(Phillips, 2012, p. 144).

the installation and altered its aesthetic integrity. Eventually, the museum assessed the
possibility to repair the equipment and decided not to replace it. However, the concept behind
Random Access became over time more reliant on the endangered analog nature of its
medium (Phillips, 2012, p. 146).
Despite its definitional participatory nature, the artwork here considered has been
constantly denied from its function of being accessed not just by the public’s interaction, but
by its very judgement, the same judgement that Paik wanted to provoke. It is through the
activation of a two-way communication that Paik challenged indoctrination and invited its
audience to contribute in giving meaning, or various meanings, to his artworks (Holling,
2017, p. 83). From the moment that every decision-making process inevitably involves a
certain “degree of loss”,2 and this loss does not only affect the work’s inner structure and
presentation, but also the conditions for its reception, the role of conservators and institutions
— and also that of the artist — should not be that of a “beholder” of the work’s identity, but
rather of a mediator in a debate that could contribute to add additional value to an artworks in
its present context. Ultimately, the use of the archive in this sense is essential for justifying
what has been done in the past and for directing what could be done in the future inasmuch as
it is not treated as a “black box”, but rather as a “Pandora’s box” from which everyone can
draw and contribute to the conditions of an artworks’ authentic representation.

Conclusions

The aim of this paper was to shed light on the importance of the spectator’s experience
in orienting decision-making processes over the authentic identity, or identities, of an artwork.
As seen in the first section of the paper, this importance was, to some extent, already
acknowledged in traditional conservation theories. In fact, Brandi believed that it is only
through the conscious recognition of an individual that the work of art can be properly
defined as such. However, it was only within the developments of contemporary art that the
notion of authenticity was eventually freed from its physical stillness and connected to its
intangible and inter-subjective aspects. At last, with the presentation of the polarity within
installations art and the challenges that this poses to different decision-making process,

2Laurenson speaks of an inevitable degree of loss when a strong link is made between authenticity and specific
display equipment, in that display equipment is certain to become obsolete (2005).

carried on the basis of either material or conceptual authenticity, this paper wanted to show
the limits of contemporary conservation practices in addressing what is most important when
deciding how an artwork should be displayed, i.e. the viewer. Concepts underlying Nam June
Paik’s Random Access have helped to challenge the condition of the public as a passive
observer and prefigure a direct engagement with its cognitive and sensory activity within the
museum’s reality. As Koepnick puts it, Paik’s interest on the aesthetic experience showed in
his experiments “the productive tensions between a work’s own duration and the way in
which viewers in the broad daylight of the gallery setting engaged with it over unpredictable
stretches of time” (Koepnick, 2013, p. 111).

References

Brandi, C. (2005). Theory of restoration, trans. Cynthia Rockwell, Nardini Editore/Istituto

Centrale per il Restauro, Firenze.

Hölling, H. B. (2017). Paik’s Virtual Archive. Time, change and Materiality in Media Art.
Oakland: University of California Press.

Laurenson, P (2005). “The Management of Display Equipment in Time-based Media

Installations”. Tate Papers, 3. https://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/03/
the-management-of-display-equipment-in-time-based-media-installations.

Laurenson, P. (2006). “Authenticity, Change and Loss in the Conservation of Time-Based

Media Installations”. Tate Papers, 6. https://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-
papers/06/authenticity-change-and-loss-conservation-of-time-based-media-installations.

Morera, C., & Meurs, V.M. (2019). “Cesare Brandi and contemporary art: theory, aesthetic
and restoration. A tempestuous dialectic”. Conversaciones con., 7. pp. 249–266. https://
revistas.inah.gob.mx/index.php/conversaciones/article/view/14829.

Phillips, J. (2012). “Shifting Equipment Significance in Time Based Media Artworks,” in:
EMG Review, Vol. 1, AIC Publications, Washington D.C., pp. 139 154. Retrieved from http://
resources.culturalheritage.org/emg-review/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2016/07/
Vol-1_2010_Ch-6_Phillips.pdf

Schädler-Saub, U. & Weyer, A. (2010). Theory and practice in the conservation of modern
and contemporary art. Reflections on the roots and the perspectives. Proceedings of the
International Symposium held 13-14 January 2009 at the University of Applied Sciences and
Arts, Faculty Preservation of Cultural Heritage, Hildesheim, Archetype, London.

Scholte, T., & Wharton, G. (2011). Inside installations: theory and practice in the care of
complex artworks (Ser. Rce publications). Amsterdam University Press.

Van Saaze, V. (2013). Installation Art and the Museum. Presentation and Conservation of
Changing Artworks. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Univ. Press.

-­
-­

Koepnick, L. (2013). “Experimental Television @50: Paik and Screen-Based Installation Art
Today”, NJP Reader, 4. Nam June Paik Art Center, pp. 110-120. Retrieved from https://njp.g-
gcf.kr/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/4_4_Lutz-Koepnick.pdf