Reframing the Notion of “The Artist’s Intent:” A Study of Caring for Thomas Hirschhorn’s Intensif-Station (2010)

References

• Boerngen, Marlen. 2014. “‘Intensif-Station’: Konservierung der Installation von Thomas Hirschhorn an der Kunstsammlung NRW in Düsseldorf.” MA thesis, Staatliche Akademie der Bildenden Künste, Stuttgart.
   Google Scholar
• Boerngen, Marlen, Nina Quabeck, Eva Hummert, and Irene Brückle. 2018. “Thomas Hirschhorn’s Collages in the Intensif-Station.” Journal of Paper Conservation 18 (3): 81–90.
   Google Scholar
• Buchloh, Benjamin. 2001. “Detritus and Decreptitude: The Sculpture of Thomas Hirschhorn.” Oxford Art Journal 24 (2): 41–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buskirk, Martha. 2017. “The Museum as Producer.” In Now-Tomorrow-Flux: An Anthology on the Museum of Contemporary Art, edited by Beatrice von Bismarck, Heike Munder, and Peter J. Schneemann, 107–116. Zurich: JPR Ringier.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, Laura, and Jackie Heuman. 2004. “Meaning Matters: Collaborating with Contemporary Artists.” In Modern Art, New Museums: Contribution to the 2004 IIC Congress Bilbao, edited by Ashok Roy and Perry Smith, 30–33. London: IIC.
   Google Scholar
• Dezeuze, Anna. 2014. Thomas Hirschhorn: Deleuze Monument. London: Afterall Books.
   Google Scholar
• Dykstra, Steven W. 1996. “The Artist’s Intentions and the Intentional Fallacy in Fine Arts Conservation.” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 35 (3): 197–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art (SBMK), and Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage (ICN). 1999. Decision-Making Model for the Conservation and Restoration of Modern and Contemporary Art. https://sbmk.nl/source/documents/decision-making-model.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, Rebecca. 2013. “Material Significance in Contemporary Art.” Art Matters: International Journal for Technical Art History 5: 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, Rebecca. 2014. “Identifying and Pursuing Authenticity in Contemporary Art.” In Authenticity and Replication: The 'Real Thing' in Art and Conservation, edited by Erma Hermens and Frances Lennard, 95–116. London: Archetype Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, Rebecca, and Erma Hermens. 2013. “The Artist’s Intent in Flux.” CeROArt. Last accessed July 2, 2020. https://ceroart.revues.org/3527.
   Google Scholar
• Grün, Maike. 2011. “‘My Work Isn’t Ephemeral, It’s Precarious’: Discussion of a ‘Conservation’ Strategy for Doppelgarage by Thomas Hirschhorn.” In Inside Installation Theory and Practice in the Care of Complex Artworks, edited by Tatja Scholte and Glenn Wharton, 221–234. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hirschhorn, Thomas. 2013. Critical Laboratory: The Writings of Thomas Hirschhorn. Edited by Lisa Lee and Hal Foster. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hirschhorn, Thomas. 2014. “Discussion of Conservation Options.” Round-table at the Museum. Personal Communication, September 29, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Irvin, Sherri. 2005. “The Artist’s Sanction in Contemporary Art.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 63 (4): 315–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurenson, Pip. 2006. “Authenticity, Change and Loss in the Conservation of Time-Based Media.” Tate Papers, 6, Autumn. Accessed July 2, 2020. https://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/06/authenticity-change-and-loss-conservation-of-time-based-media-installations.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz Viñas, Salvador. 2014. “Qualche ragione per ignorare l’intenzione dell’artista.” In Tra Memoria e Oblio, edited by Paolo Martore, 83–97. Rome: Lit Edizioni.
   Google Scholar
• Pullen, Derek. 1999. “Managing Change: The Conservation of Plastic Sculpture, Works by Naum Gabo and Tony Cragg.” In Material Matters: The Conservation of Modern Sculpture, edited by Jackie Heuman, 100–107. London: Tate Gallery.
   Google Scholar
• Quabeck, Nina. 2010. Dossier Zur Rauminstallation Intensif-Station von Thomas Hirschhorn [Dossier for the installation of Intensif-Station]. Unpublished Document. Düsseldorf: Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen.
   Google Scholar
• Quabeck, Nina, and Marlen Boerngen. 2014. “Freshened Up: On the Restoration of a Physically Accessible Work of Art.” Number 3 (online journal). Accessed March 14. https://www.number32.de/en/making-of/aufgefrischt-von-der-restaurierung-eines-begehbarenkunstwerks.html.
   Google Scholar
• Quabeck, Nina. 2015. “Vergänglichkeit Digital Begegnen?” Restauro 8: 20–23.
   Google Scholar
• Saaze, Vivian van. 2009. “From Intention to Interaction Reframing the Artist’s Interview in Conservation Research.” In Art d’aujourd’hui patrimoine de demain, edited by M. Stefanaggi and R. Hocquette, 20–28. Paris: SFIIC/Institut National du Patrimoine.
   Google Scholar
• Saaze, Vivian van. 2013. Installation Art and the Museum. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scheidemann, Christian. 2016. “Why Not Ask the Artist?” VoCA Journal 2016. http://journal.voca.network/why-not-ask-the-artist/.
   Google Scholar
• Sommermeyer, Barbara. 2011. “Who’s Right – The Artist or the Conservator?” In Inside Installations, edited by Tatja Scholte and Glenn Wharton, 143–151. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sterrett, Jill. 2009. “Contemporary Museums of Contemporary Art.” In Conservation Principles, Dilemmas, and Uncomfortable Truths, edited by Alison Richmond and Alison Bracker, 223–228. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sterrett, Jill, and Amanda Hunter Johnson, 2003. “Contemporary Art, Conservation and the Artist.” In Postprints of the Image Re-Integration Conference, September 15–17, 2003, edited by Jean Brown. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Northumbria University.
   Google Scholar
• Stigter, Sanneke. 2015. “Co-Producing Conceptual Art: A Conservator’s Testimony.” In Performing Documentation in the Conservation of Contemporary Art, edited by Lúcia Almeida Matos, Rita Macedo, and Gunnar Heydenreich, 103–114. https://revistaharte.fcsh.unl.pt/rhaw4/RHAw4.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Stigter, Sanneke. 2016. “Autoethnography as a New Approach in Conservation.” Studies in Conservation 61 (sup2): 227–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uchill, Rebecca. 2013. “Processing Transactions, Forming Intent.” Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory, and Criticism 10: 53.
   Google Scholar
• van de Vall, Renee. 2015. “Documenting Dilemmas. On the Relevance of Ethically Ambiguous Cases.” In Revista de História da Arte, 4: 7–17.
   Google Scholar
• van de Vall, Renee, H. Hölling, T. Scholte, and S. Stigter. 2011. “Reflections on a Biographical Approach to Contemporary Art Conservation.” In Proceedings of ICOM-CC 16th Triennial Conference. Lisbon, September 19–23. Preprints, edited by Janet Bridgeland, 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Wharton, Glenn. 2006. “The Challenges of Conserving Contemporary Art.” In Collecting the New: Museums and Contemporary Art, edited by Bruce Altshuler, 164–178. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wharton, Glenn. 2015. “Artist Intentions and the Conservation of Contemporary Art.” Objects Speciality Group Postprints 22: 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Wharton, Glenn. 2016. “Reconfiguring Contemporary Art in the Museum.” In Authenticity in Transition Changing Practices in Art Making and Conservation, edited by Erma Hermens and Frances Robertson, 27–36. London: Archetype.
   Google Scholar