Physical object or variable, flexible, ephemeral and reproducible: the management and care of contemporary art collections in 2020

References

• American Institute for Conservation (AIC) 1994, Our code of ethics, viewed 4 November 2019, <https://www.culturalheritage.org/about-conservation/code-of-ethics>.
   Google Scholar
• Art Gallery of New South Wales (AGNSW) 2018, Collection database record for What’s left behind by Brook Andrew, unpublished documentation, Art Gallery of NSW, Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Ashley-Smith, J 2017, ‘A role for bespoke codes of ethics’, in J Bridgland (ed.), ICOM-CC 18th triennial conference, Copenhagen, preprints, Copenhagen, 4–8 September 2017, International Council of Museums, Paris , viewed 7 February 2020, <https://openheritagescienceblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/1901_4_ashleysmith_icomcc_2017.pdf>.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Institute for Conservation of Cultural Material (AICCM) 2002, Code of ethics and code of practice Australian Institute for Conservation of Cultural Material, viewed 6 September 2019, <https://aiccm.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/AICCMBusinessDocs/CODE%20OF%20ETHICS%20AND%20CODE%20OF%20PRACTICE%20Australian%20Institute%20for%20Conservation%20of%20Cultural%20Material.pdf>.
   Google Scholar
• Barker, R & Smithen, P 2006, ‘Conservation in the twenty-first century’ in J Marstine (ed.), New museum theory and practice, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, pp. 85–105.
   Google Scholar
• Beerkens, L (ed) 2012, The artist interview: for conservation and presentation of contemporary art, guidelines and practice, Jap Sam Books, Heyningen.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, F & Robinson, H 2010, ‘Digital knowledgescapes: cultural, theoretical, practical, and usage issues facing museum collection databases in a digital epoch’, in F Cameron & S Kenderdine (eds.) Theorizing digital cultural heritage. A critical discourse, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 165–191.
   Google Scholar
• Clavir, M 2002, Preserving what is valued: museums, conservation and first nations, UBC Press, Vancouver.
   Google Scholar
• Clavir, M 2009, ‘Conservation and cultural significance’, in A Richmond & A Bracker (eds.), Conservation principles, dilemmas and uncomfortable truths, Elsevier in Association with the Victoria and Albert Museum London, London, pp. 139–149.
   Google Scholar
• Corzo, MA (ed) 1999, Mortality immortality? The legacy of 20th century art, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
   Google Scholar
• Cotte, S, Tse, N & Inglis, A 2016, ‘Artists’ interviews and their use in conservation: reflections on issues and practices’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 107–118. doi: 10.1080/10344233.2016.1251669
   Google Scholar
• Ferriani, B & Pugliese, M (eds) 2013, Ephemeral monuments. History and conservation of installation art, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
   Google Scholar
• Frieling, R 2014, ‘The museum as producer: processing art and performing a collection’ in B Graham (ed.), New collecting: Exhibiting and audiences after new media art, Ashgate, Farnham, pp. 135–158.
   Google Scholar
• Hölling, H 2014, ‘Seeking the authentic moment: de- and re-materialisations in Paik’s video and multimedia installations’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 34, pp. 85–92. doi: 10.1179/bac.2014.34.1.010
   Google Scholar
• Hölling, H 2017, Paik's virtual archive. Time, change, and materiality in media art, University of California Press, Oakland.
   Google Scholar
• Hummelen, I, Sille, D, Zijlmans, M, Instituut Collectie Nederland, Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art 1999, Modern art, who cares? An interdisciplinary research project and an international symposium on the conservation of modern and contemporary art, Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art, Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• International Council of Museums (ICOM) 2008, Terminology to characterize the conservation of tangible cultural heritage, viewed 17 November 2018, http://www.icom-cc.org/242/about/terminology-for-conservation/#.W–R-S1L00Q
   Google Scholar
• International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (IIC) 2019, Articles of association (as adopted by special resolution of the company passed on 28 January 2019) of The International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, viewed 26 October 2019, <https://www.iiconservation.org/system/files/core_docs/9374-iic_articles_of_association_as_agreed_at_2019_agm.pdf>.
   Google Scholar
• Kaldor Public Art Projects 2017, Charlotte Moorman & Nam June Paik project summary, viewed 6 September 2019, http://kaldorartprojects.org.au/projects/project-05-charlotte-moorman-and-nam-june-paik
   Google Scholar
• Lane, R & Wdowin-McGregor, J 2016, ‘This is so contemporary? Mediums of exchange and conservation’, Studies in Conservation, vol. 61, no. S2, pp. 104–108. doi: 10.1080/00393630.2016.1204528
   Google Scholar
• Laurenson, P 2006, ‘Authenticity, change and loss in the conservation of time-based media installations’, Tate Papers, no. 6, viewed 17 November 2018, <https://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/06/authenticity-change-and-loss-conservation-of-time-based-media-installations>.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson L, Finbow, A & Marcal, H 2019, ‘Developing a strategy for the conservation of performance-based artworks at Tate’, Journal of the Institute of Conservation, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 114–134. doi: 10.1080/19455224.2019.1604396
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcal, H 2017, ‘Conservation in an era of participation’, Journal of the Institute of Conservation, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 97–104. doi: 10.1080/19455224.2017.1319872
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matters in Media Art 2018, viewed 11 May 2018, <http://mattersinmediaart.org/>.
   Google Scholar
• Munoz Vinas S 2009, ‘Minimal intervention revisited’, in A Richmond & A Bracker (eds.), Conservation principles, dilemmas and uncomfortable truths, Elsevier in Association with the Victoria and Albert Museum London, London, pp. 47–59.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, C 2019a, ‘Toward a flexible future: managing time-based media artworks in collections’, Toward a flexible future: managing time-based media artworks in collections symposium, 4 June 2019, unpublished AGNSW presentation.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, C 2019b, ‘Art on paper / variable installation: Sara Hughes’ Torpedo at the Art Gallery of New South Wales’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 16–28. doi: 10.1080/10344233.2019.1680030
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, C & Treacy, A 2018, ‘Drawings you can walk on – Mike Parr and the twentieth biennale of Sydney 2016’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 76–85. doi: 10.1080/10344233.2018.1507504
   Google Scholar
• National Film and Sound Archive 2017, Deadline 2025. Collections at risk, viewed 6 September 2019, <https://www.nfsa.gov.au/corporate-information/publications/deadline-2025>.
   Google Scholar
• Pagliarino, A 2012, ‘Complex conversions: acquiring and archiving Tony Coke’s pop manifestos’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 3–11. doi: 10.1179/bac.2012.33.1.002
   Google Scholar
• Pagliarino, A 2015, ‘Life beyond legacy: George Poonhkin Khut’s distillery: waveforming’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 67–75. doi: 10.1179/0313538115Y.0000000005
   Google Scholar
• Richmond, A & Bracker, A 2009, Conservation principles, dilemmas and uncomfortable truths, Elsevier in Association with the Victoria and Albert Museum London, London.
   Google Scholar
• Schadler-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 20019 at the University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Faculty Preservation of Cultural Heritage, Hildesheim, Archetype Publications Ltd, Hildesheim.
   Google Scholar
• Scheidemann, C 2009, ‘Authenticity: how to get there?’, in Hermens, E & Fiske, T (eds.) Art, conservation and authenticities. material, concept, context. Proceedings of the international conference held at the University of Glasgow, 12–14 September 2007, Archetype Publications, London, pp. 3–11.
   Google Scholar
• Scholte, T & Wharton, G (eds) 2011, Inside installations. Theory and practice in the care of complex artworks, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Sherring, A, Murphy, C & Catt, L 2018, ‘What is the object? Identifying and describing time-based artworks’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 86–95. doi: 10.1080/10344233.2018.1544341
   Google Scholar
• Van de Vall, R 2009, ‘Towards a Theory and Ethics for the Conservation of Contemporary Art’, in M Verbeeck-Boutin (ed.), Art D’Aujourd’Hui—Patrimoine de Demain, Conservation et Restauration des Oeuvres Contemporaines, 13es journées d’études de la SFIIC, Institut National du Patrimoine, Paris, pp. 51–56.
   Google Scholar
• Van de Vall, R, Hölling, H, Scholte, T & Stigter S 2011, ‘Reflections on a biographical approach to contemporary art conservation’, in J Bridgland (ed.), ICOM Committee for conservation 16th triennial conference, Lisbon, 19–23 September 2011: preprints [CD-ROM], Criterio, Almada.
   Google Scholar
• Van Saaze, V 2013, Installation art and the museum. Presentation and conservation of changing artworks, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Van Saaze, V 2015, ‘In the absence of documentation. Remembering Tino Seghal’s constructed situations’, Revista de História da Arte, vol. 4, pp. 55–63.
   Google Scholar
• Wharton, G 2005, ‘The challenges of conserving contemporary art’, in B Altshuler (ed.), Collecting the new: museums and contemporary art, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 163–178.
   Google Scholar
• Wharton, G 2018, ‘Bespoke ethics and moral casuistry in the conservation of contemporary art’, Journal of the Institute of Conservation, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 58–70. doi: 10.1080/19455224.2017.1417141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar