Variants of Concern: Authenticity, Conservation, and the Type-Token Distinction

References

• Benjamin, W. [1993] 2003. “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technical Reproducibility.” In Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, vol. 1, edited by H. Eiland and M. W. Jennings, 1913–1926. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benjamin, W. 2002. The Arcades Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Castriota, B. 2016. “Mediating Meanings: Conservation of the Staffordshire Hoard.” Postmedieval: A Journal of Medieval Cultural Studies 7 (3), 369–377. doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/s41280-016-0003-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castriota, B. 2021a. “Object Trouble: Constructing and Performing Artwork Identity in the Museum.” ArtMatters International Journal for Technical Art History (Special Issue 1): 12–22.
   Google Scholar
• Castriota, B. 2021b. “Instantiation, Actualization, and Absence: The Continuation and Safeguarding of Katie Paterson’s ‘Future Library’ (2014–2114).” Journal of the American Institute of Conservation. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01971360.2021.1977058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Currie, G. 1989. An Ontology of Art. Houndmills: Macmillan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, S. 2001. Musical Works and Performances: A Philosophical Exploration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, D. 2004. Art as Performance. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, D. 2010. “Multiple Instances and Multiple ‘Instances’.” The British Journal of Aesthetics 50 (4): 411–426. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayq030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, D. 2013. “What Type of ‘Type’ is a Film?” In Art and Abstract Objects, edited by C. Mag Uidhir, 263–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Daylight, R. 2011. What If Derrida Was Wrong About de Saussure? Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748641970.001.0001.
   Google Scholar
• de Saussure, F., and R. Harris. 2013. Course in General Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Derrida, J. [1968] 2001. “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” In Writing and Difference, translated by Alan Bass, 351–370. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dodd, J. 2015. “Performing Works of Music Authentically.” European Journal of Philosophy 23 (3): 485–508. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0378.2012.00546.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eco, U. [1962] 1989. The Open Work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eco, U. 1976. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eco, U. 1984. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ewenstein, B., and J. Whyte. 2009. “Knowledge Practices in Design: The Role of Visual Representations as ‘Epistemic Objects’.” Organization Studies 30: 07–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman, N. 1968. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman, N. 1984. Of Mind and Other Matters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, R. 2011. Rethinking Material Significance and Authenticity in Contemporary Art. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, R. 2014. “Identifying and Pursuing Authenticity in Contemporary Art.” In Authenticity and Replication: The ‘Real Thing’ in Art and Conservation, edited by R. Gordon, E. Hermens, and F. Lennard, 95–107. London: Archetype Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Hölling, H. B. 2013. “Re: Paik. On Time, Changeability and Identity in the Conservation of Nam June Paik’s Multimedia Installations.” Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Hölling, H. B. 2015. Revisions: Zen for Film. New York: Bard Graduate Center.
   Google Scholar
• Hölling, H. B. 2016. “The Aesthetics of Change: On the Relative Durations of the Impermanent and Critical Thinking in Conservation.” In Authenticity in Transition: Changing Practices in Art Making and Conservation, edited by E. Hermens and F. Robertson, 13–24. London: Archetype Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Hölling, H. B. 2017. Paik’s Virtual Archive: Time, Change, and Materiality in Media Art. Oakland: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Innocenti. 2013. “Keeping the Bits Alive: Authenticity and Longevity for Digital Art.” In Preservation of Digital Art: Theory and Practice, edited by B. Serexhe, 217–30. Vienna: Ambra V.
   Google Scholar
• Irvin, S. 2005. “The Artist’s Sanction in Contemporary Art.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 63 (4): 315–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irvin, S. 2013. “Installation Art and Performance: A Shared Ontology.” In Art and Abstract Objects, edited by C. Mag Uidhir, 242–262. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• ISO. 2012. Space Data and Information Transfer Systems — Open Archival Information System – Reference Model. No. 14721:2012. International Standards Organisation. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14721:ed-2:v1:en.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, A. 1997. “‘Presence’ in Absentia: Experiencing Performance as Documentation.” Art Journal 56 (4): 11–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knorr Cetina, K. 2001. “Objectual Practice.” In The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, edited by T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, and E. von Savigny, 175–188. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Laurenson, P. 2004. “The Management of Display Equipment in Time-Based Media Installations.” In Modern Art, New Museums, edited by A. Roy and P. Smith, 49–53. London: IIC.
   Google Scholar
• Laurenson, P. 2006. “Authenticity, Change and Loss in the Conservation of Time-based Media Installations: A Conceptual Framework for Traditional Fine Art Conservation.” Tate Papers 6. http://www.tate.org.uk/download/file/fid/7401.
   Google Scholar
• Laurenson, P. 2016. “Practice as Research: Unfolding the Objects of Contemporary Art Conservation”. Inaugural Lecture Delivered at Maastricht University, 18 March 2016. Accessed https://youtu.be/rEZzsg3OzJg.
   Google Scholar
• Laurenson, P., and V. van Saaze. 2014. “Collecting Performance-based Art: New Challenges and Shifting Perspectives.” In Performativity in the Gallery: Staging Interactive Encounters, edited by O. Remes, L. MacCulloch, and M. Leino, 27–41. Oxford: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, L., A. Finbow, and H. Marçal. 2019. “Developing a Strategy for the Conservation of Performance-based Artworks at Tate.” Journal of the Institute of Conservation 42 (2): 114–134. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19455224.2019.1604396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, E. S. 2011. “The Epistemology of the Question of Authenticity, in Place of Strategic Essentialism.” Hypatia 26 (2): 258–279. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01165.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson, J. 1980. “What a Musical Work Is.” The Journal of Philosophy 77 (1): 5–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. 1953. “Art and Imagination.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 53: 205–226.
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, C. 2009. “Scoring the Work: Documenting Practice and Performance in Variable Media Art.” Leonardo 42 (1): 59–63. doi:https://doi.org/10.1162/leon.2009.42.1.59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacNeil, H., and B. Mak. 2007. “Constructions of Authenticity.” Library Trends 56 (1): 26–52. doi:https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2007.0054.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mag Uidhir, C. 2013. Art and Abstract Objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marçal, H. 2019. “Public Engagement Towards Sustainable Heritage Preservation.” Protection of Cultural Heritage 8: 185–210. doi:https://doi.org/10.35784/odk.1084.
   Google Scholar
• Marçal, H. 2021. “Situated Knowledges and Materiality in the Conservation of Performance Art.” ArtMatters International Journal for Technical Art History (1): 55–62.
   Google Scholar
• Margolis, J. 1959. “IV. – The Identity of a Work of Art.” Mind; A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy LXVIII (269): 34–50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2251162.
   Google Scholar
• Margolis, J. 1977. “The Ontological Peculiarity of Works of Art.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 36 (1): 45–50. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/430748
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muñoz Viñas, S. 2005. Contemporary Theory of Conservation. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Noël de Tilly, A. 2011. Scripting Artworks: Studying the Socialization of Editioned Video and Film Installations. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Peirce, C. S. [1906] 1933. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, J. 2015. “Reporting Iterations: A Documentation Model for Time-based Media Art.” Revisita de História Da Arte 4: 168–179. http://revistaharte.fcsh.unl.pt/rhaw4/RHAw4.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Rinehart, R. 2004. “A System of Formal Notation for Scoring Works of Digital and Variable Media Art.” In: Proceedings of the American Institute of Conservation Digital Media Group, 1–25. Portland: AIC.
   Google Scholar
• Real, W. A. 2001. “Toward Guidelines for Practice in the Preservation and Documentation of Technology-Based Installation Art.” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 40 (3): 211–31.
   Google Scholar
• Ross, S. 2006. “Approaching Digital Preservation Holistically.” In Record Keeping in a Hybrid Environment: Managing the Creation, Use, Preservation and Disposal of Unpublished Information Objects in Context, edited by A. Tough and M. S. Moss, 115–153. Oxford: Chandos Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-142-0.50006-2.
   Google Scholar
• Rudner, R. 1950. “The Ontological Status of the Esthetic Object.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 10 (3): 380–388.
   Google Scholar
• Sharpe, R. A. 1976. “Type, Token, Interpretation and Performance.” Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy 88 (351): 437–440.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson, C. L. 1957. “On ‘What is a Poem’?.” The Philosophical Review 66 (3): 329–322.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strawson, P. F. 1959. Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• van de Vall, R. 2015. “The Devil and the Details: The Ontology of Contemporary Art in Conservation Theory and Practice.” The British Journal of Aesthetics 55 (3): 285–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Wegen, D. H. 1999. “Between Fetish and Score: The Position of the Curator of Contemporary Art.” In Modern Art: Who Cares?, edited by I. J. Hummelen and D. Sillé, 201–209. Amsterdam: The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage.
   Google Scholar
• Viola, B. 1999. “Permanent Impermanence.” In Mortality Immortality?: The Legacy of 20th-Century Art, edited by M. A. Corzo, 85–94. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Wetzel, L. 2009. Types and Tokens: On Abstract Objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wollheim, R. 1968. Art and Its Objects: An Introduction to Aesthetics. New York: Harper and Row.
   Google Scholar
• Wolterstorff, N. 1980. Works and Worlds of Art. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar