Artists’ interviews and their use in conservation: reflections on issues and practices

References

• Barthes, R 1967, The death of the author, Aspen, pp. 5–6.
   Google Scholar
• Beerkens, L, ‘t Hoen, P, Hummelen, I, Van Saaze, V, Scholte, T & Stigter, S (eds) 2012, The artist interview, for conservation and presentation of contemporary art; guidelines and practice, Jap Sam Books, Heijnigen.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K 2006, Constructing grounded theory, a practical guide through qualitative analysis, Sage Publications, London.
   Google Scholar
• Denzin, NK & Lincoln, YS 2008, ‘Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research’, in NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (eds.), The landscape of qualitative research, 3rd edn, Sage, London, pp. 1–44.
   Google Scholar
• Eastop, D 2006, ‘Conservation as material culture’, in C Tilley, W Keane, S Kuchler, M Rowlands & P Spyer (eds.), Handbook of material culture, Sage, London, pp. 516–533.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, J 2002, ‘Drug photography and harm reduction: reading John Ranard’, International Journal of Drug Policy, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 369–385. doi: 10.1016/S0955-3959(02)00120-2
   Google Scholar
• Giebeler, J, Krause, N & Heydenreich, G 2014, ‘Blind spots in contemporary art conservation. Results of an interdisciplinary workshop’, unpublished presentation in Network for the Conservation of Contemporary Art Research (NeCCAR) Conference: Authenticity in Transition: Changing Practices in Contemporary Art Making and Conservation, The Glasgow School of Art, 1–2 December 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, R & Hermens, E 2013, ‘The artist's intent in Flux’, in CeROArt, Online, viewed 25 November 2015, <http://ceroart.revues.org/3527>.
   Google Scholar
• Hirshhorn, M & Sculpture, P 2016, ‘Artists in depth’, viewed 5 September 2016, <http://hirshhorn.si.edu/collection/home/#collection=home&detail=http%3A//hirshhorn.si.edu/bio/artists-in-depth/>.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, A 1996, ‘Reliability and validity in oral history’, in D Dunaway & W Baum (eds.), Oral history, an interdisciplinary anthology, Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA, pp. 87–93.
   Google Scholar
• ICN 1999, ‘Concept scenarios. Artists interviews’, Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage/Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art, Amsterdam, viewed 27 September 2015, <www.incca.org/ resources>.
   Google Scholar
• INCCA 2002, ‘Guide to good practice artists interviews’, International Network for the Conservation of Contemporary Art, viewed 27 September 2015, <www.incca.org/files/pdf/resources/guide_to_good_practice.pdf>.
   Google Scholar
• Ingold, T 2007, ‘Materials against materiality’, Archeological Dialogues, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–16. doi: 10.1017/S1380203807002127
   Google Scholar
• Ingold, T 2012, ‘Toward an ecology of materials’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 41, pp. 427–442. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145920
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, M 2004, ‘Research design’, in C Seale (ed.), Researching society and culture, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, London, pp. 130–142.
   Google Scholar
• Larkin, G 2008, ‘Things fall apart’, Art Forum, April 2008, viewed 23 November 2015, <http://www.mutualart.com/OpenArticle/Things-Fall-Apart/E0AA31A14CBF6B35>.
   Google Scholar
• Mancusi-Ungaro, C 2005, ‘Original intent: the artist's voice’, in Y Hummelen & D Sille (eds.), Modern art: who cares? Archetype Publications, London, pp. 392–393.
   Google Scholar
• Mancusi-Ungaro, C, Epley, B & Nodler, H 2011, Discussion on the artist documentation program, 25 January 2011, viewed 6 March 2013, <http://adp.menil.org/?page_id=346>.
   Google Scholar
• Marçal, H, Macedo, R, Nogueira, A & Duarte, A 2013, Whose decision is it? Reflections about a decision-making model based on qualitative methodologies, CeROArt, Online, viewed 25 November 2015, <http://ceroart.revues.org/3597>.
   Google Scholar
• McCoy, R 2009, ‘Concepts around interviewing artists: a discussion with Glenn Wharton’, Art 21 Magazine, October 2009, viewed 14 June 2016, <http://blog.art21.org/2009/10/20/concepts-around-interviewing-artists-a-discussion-with-glenn-wharton/#.V190veZ97Uo>.
   Google Scholar
• Michalski, S 2005, ‘Conservation lessons from other types of museums and a universal database for collection preservation’, in Y Hummelen & D Sille (eds.), Modern art: who cares? Archetype, London, pp. 290–295.
   Google Scholar
• Moody, E 2015, ‘The abandonment of artist's intent’, blog post, VoCA, 24 June 2015, <http://www.voca.network/blog/2015/06/24/artist-intent/>.
   Google Scholar
• Munoz Vinas, S 2005, Contemporary theory of conservation, Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• National Museum of the American Indian 2016, < http://www.nmai.si.edu>.
   Google Scholar
• Newing, H 2011, Conducting research in conservation, a social science perspective, Routledge, London.
   Google Scholar
• O'Connell, J, Ormond-Parker, L, Spunner, S & Sloggett, R 2013, ‘Waringarri Aboriginal arts: rethinking practices in conservation documentation through assessing the needs of a community arts centre’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 75–84. doi: 10.1179/bac.2013.34.1.009
   Google Scholar
• Scott, M 2015, ‘Normal and extraordinary conservation knowledge: towards a postnormal theory of cultural materials conservation’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 3–12. doi: 10.1179/0313538115Y.0000000002
   Google Scholar
• Seaman, N 2016, ‘Rodin in process at the Peabody Essex Museum’, Hyperallergic online magazine, viewed 1 August 2016, <http://hyperallergic.com/313487/rodin-transforming-sculpture-peabody-essex-museum/>.
   Google Scholar
• Sloggett, R 2009, ‘Expanding the conservation canon: assessing cross cultural and interdisciplinary collaborations in conservation’, Studies in Conservation, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 170–183. doi: 10.1179/sic.2009.54.3.170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterrett, J 2014, ‘In the wings’, unpublished keynote presentation to the Network for the Conservation of Contemporary Art Research (NeCCAR) Conference: Authenticity in Transition: Changing Practices in Contemporary Art Making and Conservation, The Glasgow School of Art, 1–2 December 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Vardy, S & Lewincamp, S 2014, ‘Made to last: the conservation of art, a case study of the NETS Victoria touring exhibition’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 34, pp. 94–101.
   Google Scholar
• Wharton, G 2006, ‘The challenges of conserving contemporary art’, in B Altshuler (ed.), Collecting the new: museums and contemporary art, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 164–178.
   Google Scholar
• Wharton, G 2014, ‘Authorship & Intentionality’, unpublished presentation to the Network for the Conservation of Contemporary Art Research (NeCCAR) Conference: Authenticity in Transition: Changing Practices in Contemporary Art Making and Conservation, The Glasgow School of Art, 1–2 December 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Whiteley, N 2007, ‘Seeing, what, how and why: the ARTnews series 1953–58’, Journal of Visual Arts Practice, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 215–228. doi: 10.1386/jvap.6.3.215_1
   Google Scholar