Jul 18
2011
Conservation of minimalist artist Donald Judd's (1928-1994) Untitled, 1971, the site specific sculpture at the Glass House, begins this week. Glass House Conversations will serve as a public forum to delve into philosophical and technical questions about the conservation of the sculpture, modern preservation and the legacy of Donald Judd.
Flavin Judd, Donald Judd's son and one of the founding board members of Judd Foundation, hosts the dialogue. Amanda Trienens, lead conservator on this Glass House Preservation project, will participate by answering your questions related to Untitled, 1971.
Conservation of minimalist artist Donald Judd's site-specific sculpture Untitled, 1971 begins this week at the Glass House: what philosophical and technical questions arise about the preservation of the work and the legacy of Donald Judd?
Amelia gave the final word
What I find most fascinating about this effort to preserve Untitled, 1971 is that it is not just (simply or not simply) the preservation of Donald Judd’s artistic intent with the piece itself but simultaneously the preservation of Johnson and Whitney’s intent as collectors/commissioners on the work. Like the effect the elements have had on the exposed surface of the CIP, the location on a national historic site has played an integral role in how the work is experienced and should therefore be included in the consideration of how the piece is or is not preserved.
But how do you pinpoint a singular moment or experience to preserve?…
Wednesday, July 20 at 11:39am
Senior Conservator, Integrated Conservation Resources / Integrated Conservation Contracting
Until quite recently, the idea of preserving and restoring concrete
with the materials and methods of fine arts conservation would have
seemed strange. Judd’s artistic use in the 1970′s of a construction material created a bridge between sculpture and architecture, and the increasing recognition of concrete structures as a part of our cultural heritage has challenged the conservation community.
Questions about aesthetics in concrete repair have also only recently been raised. Our work on Judd boxes has focused on the use of custom-formulated repair materials, rather than commercial products that are intended to be painted.
In a more project-specific sense, one of the cleaners that we are utilizing is an updated version of industrial de-greasers that were available in Judd’s lifetime, modified to suit the needs of sculpture conservators working on smooth surfaces. The other is designed specifically to remove biological soiling outdoors; this field is quite new, and reflects significant improvements in the effectiveness of surfactants since the 1990′s.
Friday, July 22 at 2:02pm
One of the most beautiful aspects of cast-in-place concrete is how it weathers in the elements- potentially adding depth and texture to the finish, and imparting often subtle qualities that connect it to the place in which it is located. I am curious if Judd was conscious of the weathering that would happen to the concrete over time (particularly given the local climate which is much more harsh than Marfa, for example, where his freestanding works in concrete are located). Is there any documentation regarding his desired appearance of the concrete, to guide in the restoration? Or perhaps his attitude more generally toward material expression might offer some insights?
Monday, July 18 at 3:26pm
Don was aware of weathering of course and actually liked it. This is contrast to damage or marks made by negligent people which he hated. In all outdoor Judd works there has to be a consideration of natural weathering while also keeping in mind that the works have to look like what he wanted.
I had a discussion with one museum that wanted to essentially paint or glaze over their Judd piece because they claimed the surface was too damaged by weather. I had to explain that a layer of paint would do more to damage the surface of the piece than anything nature could do short of an earthquake.
It’s a balance: keep the works in good shape but don’t alter them in an attempt to keep them looking new.
Monday, July 18 at 5:28pm
Is there a distinction to be drawn between the conservation of outdoor and indoor works, or naturally occurring patinas caused by weather or age and negligent damage? How important is the original material (in this case the concrete) and are unexpected changes to the material acceptable?
As an example, I remember hearing about discolorations or blooms that can show up on metal works because the oil that was used to lubricate the mill rollers would finally work it’s way out of or somehow react with the metal many years later. In such a case is that patina of age acceptable?
The philosophic extension is that when the work is fabricated from the artist’s own original plans and to his or her own specifications, how much is the pristine condition considered part of the artist’s vision? Couldn’t the work just as easily be re-fabricated? Since the light cleaning as prescribed could substantially alter the appearance of the work, is it so different to simply remake the work? It would seem that this is would be a (admittedly radical) conservation option not only for the artists labeled as “minimalists”, but any of succeeding generations who have had their work fabricated and whose individual manipulation of the material is not in evidence.
Tuesday, July 19 at 7:30am
There is not a distinction between outdoor works and indoor but there are many distinctions to be made from individual works, based on context and condition. In other words it depends not so much on categories but more to the piece itself.
In both works for exterior and interior there is acceptance of change (copper turns brown from shiny orange, concrete changes color) but not an insistence on it. It’s up to the owner of the specific work whether they want to keep a copper piece polished and shiny or let it turn brown. Don was fine with either choice. As mentioned earlier, careless handling doesn’t fall into this category. There is a distinction between natural aging and careless humans.
Don’s way of dealing with damaged works was as different as his fabrication methods. There is no particular attachment to the “original” materials and in fact Don did re-fabricate works that were damaged beyond repair during his lifetime. Since his death the Judd Foundation has had to be more conservative and we follow both his intentions while at the same time supporting established conservation methods that make allowance for the Don’s manner of working.
As an example if there were a piece that had a damaged panel it might be (all cases are different) preferable to replace a damaged piece of aluminum with a new piece of aluminum rather than paint over the old aluminum to hide the damage. This is because the way the work looks, its relation to the artists’ intention, is more important than the age or origin of the materials comprising it. A painted panel would not be clearly aluminum and would therefor be less preferable to a new panel of plain aluminum.
In all cases one has to follow the artists’ ideas and intentions as much as possible, even if this is not always a simple thing.
Tuesday, July 19 at 1:36pm
It really is all about the artists’ ideas and intentions. I think an artist’s dealer could play an important role by discussing in great detail with the artist and documenting preferences regarding future scenarios. No one likes to contemplate their own death, but it’s great when there is evidence for future generations to guide the handling of art works.
Tuesday, July 19 at 3:33pm
In this regard I think far too few artists actually have any sort of plan for how their work should be received and cared for in the future, and by extension what the acceptable limits of conservation. To a certain degree the wide acceptance of new art materials and media that have unknown or possibly unintended aging characteristics makes it more difficult for the artist to anticipate and allow for what they would ultimately prefer for their works.
Since most artists do not write at all, it is probably completely unrealistic to expect a treatise on their preferences for intervention, and so it falls to people they have had discussions with (family and friends, other artists, collectors of their work, curators, dealers, and conservators who may have worked with artist on previous treatments) to help shape the understanding of the artist’s intent. Most artists do not leave behind comprehensive foundations or a strong written record as Judd did, and are then at the whims of a piecemeal approach of the broader art industry.
Thursday, July 21 at 8:07am
I think the question of what we choose to create, conserve, preserve, elevate, consecrate, make visible or sustain, over/with/as-it-is-indivisible-from what is destroyed, shunned, erased, excluded, overlooked, or left to rot and decay, is both a deeply philosophical and political concern. Tied into this are also ethical issues relating to care, neglect, responsibility, respect, hubris, and humility.
At the present moment there are ecologies of various kinds (technical, biological, visual) being destroyed and created in order to produce resources, jobs, energy, and food for the purpose of sustaining contemporary ways of living. The dominant political commitment to conserving such lifestyles and the broader technologies and economies that sustain them are delivered with disregard to what is needed to sustain long term futures and at the expense of groups of people who are being displaced, uprooted, removed, or indefinitely interned. The role of design and ways of thinking that drive such making and unmaking is fundamental to delivering and sustaining this condition.
Given we exist at a time in which what is both created and destroyed holds so much significance there is perhaps no more important question to ask than who is sustaining what, why, and to what effect?
In regards to the work under discussion I would consider it a good example of a way of relating to material things that should be destroyed. Philosophically the work presents as both Platonic universal form and Cartesian separation of mind and matter. Combined they negate the possibility of understanding ourselves as historically contingent beings who are ontologically indivisible from what we use and create. The form is over there to be looked at. It is not with me and withdrawn, ready-to-hand, changing my sense of self, comfort and possibility (as things like hammers, pens, rifles, tables, laptops, and shoes do). Socio-politically it represents affluence, privilege, conservatism, and the arrogance of the ‘genius’ myth.
In this sense the ‘vision’ of someone like Judd calls not for preservation but deconstruction. As does the whole project of preservation. I wonder about how many art and design artefacts are produced each year to add to the collection of things to be preserved for their symbolic value. How many storage spaces, air conditioners, humidifiers etc will be wasted on this project in the coming years? Is there a half life to artworks equivalent to nuclear waste? Or, can we design a way to let artworks die a respectable death? Perhaps Judd’s work could even be recoded as a gravestone for a dead way of thinking.
Tuesday, July 19 at 2:30am
Don’s work was formed in his attitude of anti-Platonic and anti-Cartesian thought so I doubt he would agree with your train of logic. It could be argued that his work more closely follows Aristotle’s later conception and reversal of Plato’s forms in which the physical is what is known, what is here: “universals” come out of the physical, not the other way around.
Don thought Descartes’ division between thought and feeling was false and he tried to make work that one had to deal with within space: bringing together thought, feeling, experience and the physical.
What it might mean to you (arrogance, conservatism, possibly a gravestone for a dead way of thinking) demonstrates that while the work existed in one way for Don it is, of course, very open to interpretation, to various symbolic values and codes. The code for the work is not set for anybody except the artist (if for her/him in fact).
This would demonstrate that the meaning and experience is not fixed or determined which would be necessary for it to match a universal Platonic ideal.
I don’t think preservation is a zero-sum game so I see no down side to preserving artworks. More damage is done to various ecologies by the production of computers than the preservation of artworks and artifacts which is a pretty small endeavor of love in much larger picture of production and profit.
Tuesday, July 19 at 2:33pm
Thank you for the reply Flavin. I agree that the impacts of preservation would appear minimal compared to other productive and consumption practices. However, it is also important not to misrecognise the economic and social foundations of the arts industries which are largely funded and consumed by/for the most affluent and most powerful, and in such a way that contributes to their symbolic domination over other people (they are not simply rich, they are philanthropists, social benefactors, the preservers of culture, progressiveness and civility).
Furthermore it is important not to deny the symbolic impact of artworks generally, as artefactual kinds. Ideas are a material force and the will to preserve ‘universal’ forms in perpetuity is symptomatic of a damaging conception of objects, buildings, clothes, and art. It is an attitude that produces objects without a sense of temporality or relationally. There is little to no responsibility for the life and death of things because it is assumed that they will (and should) last forever. Hence we have landfills full of things that were only ever useful amidst a particular ensemble of people, ideas, and other things, but are now found to be obsolete, as well as artworks which must apparently live on indefinitely.
Turning to the comments on Plato, Aristotle and Descartes, my critique was about the concern with universal form itself (whether that is theoretically prefigured or materially emergent) and not simply a separation of thought and feeling, but of people and things. The alternative that I was alluding to was Heidegger, whose conception of the relation between the being/time of things and the being/time of people (not as a special kind of artistic experience but rather as an unnoticed habitual everydayness) showed just how misguided and destructive the project of modern art and technology is.
Finally, without denying it absolutely, I think it is a conceit to reduce the interpretation of art to subjective experience. As Bourdieu showed in his study of the field of cultural production the meaning and value of things is a social matter with social consequences. This is because artists and their audiences act within real (objective) social spaces. This is what gives art its real social relation to privilege and conservatism. On this point it seems you are describing a classically liberal disposition: happy to accept a plurality of interpretations within a delimited space of free choice. Is it fair to say that the option to deconstruct the work itself (and its social basis), and reconstruct something different in its place is not really an acceptable option?
Tuesday, July 19 at 7:15pm
I don’t think there is space here to address Heidegger (whom I find very unconvincing) or Bourdieu and their relation to art.
I would say that here we have an example of an artist making a work for his friend, an architect who designed and built his own house. I think that this is a situation to be preserved and emulated. This is a rare case of two people dispensing with the industry, commerce and nonsense of the art world and getting together to make art. Art that is still around and accessible.
Wednesday, July 20 at 1:51pm
Amelia gave the Final Word
What I find most fascinating about this effort to preserve Untitled, 1971 is that it is not just (simply or not simply) the preservation of Donald Judd’s artistic intent with the piece itself but simultaneously the preservation of Johnson and Whitney’s intent as collectors/commissioners on the work. Like the effect the elements have had on the exposed surface of the CIP, the location on a national historic site has played an integral role in how the work is experienced and should therefore be included in the consideration of how the piece is or is not preserved.
But how do you pinpoint a singular moment or experience to preserve? I agree that a state of newness is not appropriate (per Flavin Judd’s example) but is a state of decay pasted the lived experience of Johnson and Whitney any better?
Wednesday, July 20 at 11:39am
I think when you get down to the technical details you don’t always have so many choices anyway. Even if you bring the piece back to bright and shiny concrete looking like the day it was poured it will not stay that way for long. So that is an acceptable avenue, just not the only one.
One could also decide to simply repair major damage and leave the patina, that too is acceptable. The whole idea is that the art is around longer than we are, it is not ours really, we just, collectively, take care of it for future generations. In a way it’s the concrete itself which gives you a few choices and you have to listen to it, not force it to be what it can’t be.
Wednesday, July 20 at 1:57pm
In response to Amelia’s question; ‘…how do you pinpoint any singular moment …’ may I suggest that it should be now, meaning that one should aim to conserve the structure as it is found. To do anything else would be conjecture, just guessing what it may have looked like at some other time. Some repair will be essential to ensure that it remains durable and if say, a lump of broken concrete was found buried in the soil, then one might quite happily stick it back on, even if this required an adhesive. I personally find reuse of materials far preferable to storing in an archive or display cabinet. Having said that, there are no hard and fast rules about conservation; every case is different and the correct decision depends on so many factors.
Wednesday, July 20 at 4:24pm
Conservation projects are always a dialogue. There really are no “right” or “wrong” answers, per se.
Within the profession, there are many different levels conservation. The most extreme is “restoration,” whereby an object/building/artifact is brought back to its original condition on Day 1 of its existence.
Generally, this is not done, as it seems to deny the history and life of the object/building/artifact.
“Preservation,” on the other hand, is the practise of conserving an object/building/artifact to some agreed upon “period of interpretation.” At its absolute minimum, preservation and conservation is the stabilization of the object/building/artifact to ensure its safekeeping and future.
For example, at the Philip Johnson Glass House, prior to its public opening, there was an internal discussion within the National Trust Historic Sites Department about the period of interpretation: How far back would NTHP preserve the Glass House?
To answer that question required further examination and research of how did Philip Johnson used the house during his lifetime. Although Johnson always considered the Glass House to be his primary residence, for much of his professional life, it was a weekend residence. However, later in life, he lived full-time in New Canaan.
After much discussion, it was determined that the period of interpretation would be from 2000 to 2002. During this time period, Johnson was still fully coherent, practising architecture in New York, but spending more 3 days or more in New Canaan. Conservation of the buildings and landscape would be cared for as Johnson had done during this time.
I imagine, this probably calls into question another project at the Glass House: the Brick House. In the case of the Brick House, there are original materials that simply cannot be conserved and must be replaced. — So, as you can see, it is a constant dialogue.
While conservation does sometimes require scientific examination, lab work, and tests; it really is much more of an art than a science.
Thursday, July 21 at 12:57pm
I think this question applies to many pieces of art, including Judd’s. Whereas pieces intended for interior environments seem for the most part, intended as created, outdoor pieces natural have a particular dialogue with their environment and nature. The beauty of concrete is in its transformation and accumulation of patina over time. Since, I believe damage isn’t something most artists envision with their pieces, restoration to the extent that pieces aren’t destroyed seems warranted. I think, however, there’s a certain amount of poetry in thinking that in a millennia from now when nature has reclaimed the site of the Glass House and it becomes a disintegrating skeleton, Judd’s piece for his friend will have undergone a similar transformation of its own due to time and not our hands directly.
Wednesday, July 20 at 4:12pm
Flavin, I am absolutely thrilled to have this conversation with you. Your input is both informative and insightful, especially in regard to the sculpture’s “patina” and the consideration of entropy.
Unlike Marfa, the (sometimes extreme) seasonal changes of the Northeast subject the concrete to excessive wear and promotes biological growth, compromising the strength and integrity of the concrete.
When organizing this project, the application of a skim-coat or sealant was discussed, but decided against. To do so would seem to deny the reality of the sculpture’s environment. Moreover, during both Johnson and Judd’s lifetimes, Judd did not recommend and Johnson did not restore the sculpture’s original skin, which had eroded.
Of primary importance to the Glass House and of this project is the repair the damaged bevel edge, which is integral to understanding the work and the artist’s intent. This repair required the cleaning of the sculpture, so a correct material match could be made.
Thursday, July 21 at 1:30pm
Senior Conservator, Integrated Conservation Resources / Integrated Conservation Contracting
ICR can add some technical information to this discussion from our findings in our two days of testing this week. The primary condition we are addressing with cleaning on Judd’s piece is biological growth. As opposed to soiling from atmospheric pollution, biological growth holds moisture to the surface and encourages more growth. This threatens the integrity of the material more than dirt or soot would. Our testing has also revealed a visual component to the piece that has been concealed by this growth: it is the various colors, shapes, and textures of the aggregate and the pattern it creates at the formwork lines. If Judd knew the paste-rich layer would weather away and the aggregate would be exposed and an aspect to the aesthetic, then the choice of aggregate is part of the intent of the piece which is a consideration for the conservation of the sculpture, including removal of the biological growth.
Thursday, July 21 at 3:46pm
I understand Matthew Keim’s comments and often wonder how much of the past we can save for the future. However we can’t just lose certain ideas like religious beliefs, historical facts or scientific knowledge and there are certain objects like buildings, documents or artworks that are representative of of these ideas. When these ideas are forgotten the objects associated with them will be ignored and finally allowed to decay.
Some years ago I worked for the National Trust in the UK. Their motto used to be ‘to preserve in perpetuity for the nation’ it has since been shortened to ‘forever for everyone’. As a mission statement it seemed both conceited and vague. However, it did influence my actions on a daily basis. I would regularly ask myself how much or how little should be repaired of the buildings and what they might look like in 100 years, 500 years or even 1000. It might seem hard to imagine a millennia into the future but there are Roman structures throughout Europe that have survived longer than this despite their wilful destruction and over a thousand years of neglect. Any structure, be it a building or a sculpture, that is well maintained now, should survive for many millennia.
Because the conversation so far has been mostly about philosophical issues I would like to comment on some of the technical issues of conservation of a sculpture such as this and see what comments it generates. So, with the next millennia in mind I would suggest that any repair to Donald Judd’s sculpture must be durable, both physically and philosophically. It must have a similar thermal capacity so that there is no irregular expansion or contraction during winter and summer seasons. It should be strong enough to bond onto irregular broken surfaces so as not to need large areas of cutting out just to provide a good key. Above all it must be removable. As repair will inevitably fail before the surrounding concrete it must allow re-repair without causing further damage. This is a tall order even on a building which might be finished off with paint. Here I suggest that you must accept some visibility to the repairs.
Regarding the diagonal lines that are caused by a set or cold joint. I suggest that there is little structural consequence here but it obviously allowing water penetration and may be the cause of the calcite layers shown in picture three of the slideshow. These form where penetrating water dissolves material inside the wall and redeposits it where evaporation allows crystallisation to occur. Stopping water penetration may now be impossible. I have seen capillary resin used on similar cracks in the past but but it is very difficult to do with any reliability. Normally an engineer would ask for the whole section to be cut out and recast, not an option here. The easiest solution would be to seal the top edge with a waterproof paint, as might be used on a flat concrete roof but that would be seriously disfiguring and again not a realistic option. Sometimes one has to live with the defect and carryout regular repairs to compensate.
The cleaning I find much more difficult. I frequently get asked to advise on the cleaning of buildings and it always fills me with anxiety. In fact when asked, my first bit of advice is usually, don’t do it. To try and justify to the client this negative approach I will explain the processes of soiling. It may be industrial, either current or historic or it could be natural, from moss and lichen. It could be exacerbated by the environment by being sheltered or exposed. Is the soiling a continual process or can the causes be prevented? If it is natural soiling then it may only be disfiguring in certain times, appearing quite green in the winter but almost disappearing in the summer. Even if it is obvious soiling then it may just a matter of taste, patina against disfigurement. Personally I would always rather see patina than cleanliness. If the surface is cleaned, it may then require regular cleaning so it should be a repeatable process, not too expensive and not requiring specialist skills or equipment. Finally, how much damage might occur during cleaning. Pressure washing is a bit like 100 years of weathering in a few minutes and chemical cleaners can have long term effects like gradual discolouration or degradation of the substrate.
The soiling appears to be rather black and this would suggest that it is mainly where pollen has adhered to the surface and provided the sugars necessary for fungal growth. Obviously it is very hard to be certain from a few photos but if this is the case then only light cleaning may be required. Gentle scrubbing with warm soapy water can be effective but is very slow and consequently damaging to mental health. I have found dry steam, meaning superheated steam at about 150 centigrade, to be very effective. This is not pumped and hence at low pressure. The steam will soften and dislodge any organic materials and emulsify any oily residue, it will not remove mineral deposits or chemical staining and this can help preserve patina if necessary.
I feel that I have said rather a lot and yet haven’t even touched on subjects like matching of the shuttering, is there any wood grain showing in the concrete? Is the aim to achieve invisible repairs? Whilst this a small project in itself it is non the less fascinating and must be very challenging.
Friday, July 22 at 6:30am
Jeremy mentions “the diagonal lines that are caused by a set or cold joint.”
“According to Port Draper of the Louis E. Lee Company (the contractor of many of the structures on site at the Glass House), the sculpture required two truckloads of concrete. On the day of construction, the first truck arrived on schedule and poured its contents into the wood form-work. The second truck, unfortunately, got lost en route, and its delivery was postponed until the following day. By then, the first pour had already begun to cure. Although the sculpture appears to be a monolithic whole, the two pours may not have fully bonded together. ” via http://philipjohnsonglasshouse.org/preservationatwork/artrestoration/judd/
One of the questions that often comes up in conversation at the Glass House among visitors, staff and guides is that it is unusual for a piece of art or a building to be finished in this way – why this was done, and why wasn’t it re-made?
Sunday, July 24 at 12:15pm
Clearly the fabrication of the piece was not optimal. This being the one of the first concrete pieces and using a regular construction company (not a company that had experience making art before) a hitch in the process isn’t completely a surprise.
If this piece had been made later or after he had more experience with concrete Don might have insisted on the cold joint being addressed. This piece being an early one he simply accepted the cold joint as part of the fabrication. Don accepted quite a lot of things in the process from simple line drawings to completed and placed work, he said that he never knew exactly how the works would turn out. I think he was happy with the piece because it did what he wanted and he lived with the joint lines just as he lived with the fabrication marks on some of the metal pieces.
Sunday, July 24 at 6:54pm
In contrast to the planar industrial materials that Judd more frequently (and I would argue more successfully) used, poured concrete raises not only technical and ethical issues of conservation but aesthetic and experiential problems. In conjunction with industrial fabrication, sheet metal and Plexiglas result in clearly articulated and often richly hued spatial structures. Concrete lacks this precision; due to its composite nature (cement, aggregate, etc.) and the ancient process of casting, the material produces a more or less lumpy bulk. No matter how smooth the surface, concrete never results in the kind of clarity, specificity, and at times even lightness and buoyancy that one experiences in the metal works.
Amanda Thomas Trienens correctly points out that Judd used the material to create “a bridge between sculpture and architecture” (keeping in mind that he did not consider his work to be “sculpture” since it was not sculpted). The bi-leveled concentric rings, which reflect the topographical slope of the land and true horizontal, are reiterated in the adobe wall surrounding The Block in Marfa, as well as several of his outdoor art works from the 70s. Perhaps, as others have suggested here, this work should be treated more like architecture than sculpture? Yet, it clearly remains in the aesthetic realm of art. Photographs reveal that it has lost whatever clarity and precision it once had to the ravages of nature.
This is the ongoing debate in Judd conservation: should the work be allowed to deteriorate to an “elegant ruin” or be returned to some semblance of its original state? In this case, I think the answer is not the former.
Friday, July 22 at 6:37pm
I talked to Jamie Dearing, Don’s former assistant about this piece and he sent me his thoughts, which I share here.
“We drove up in the VW to stake it out and determine slant direction. The curve of the driveway down and the slant of the land were different–and that gave Don some pause. We drove up again when it was finished. You, Rainer, Don and I had a picnic on the grass next to it. Don seemed happy with the work. I loved it and you guys walked around on its top surface. Falling off and kidding around. I said to Don something like–”I guess they couldn’t do that at the Guggenheim.” He chuckled and said his usual laconic “yes.”
I always thought of it as the antithesis to the Guggenheim double ring (piece). I don’t know of a causal link but this was, I think, the beginning time of Don’s falling out with Phillip. It looks great in these photos and I hope it needs very little in the way of restoration. I’ve told you, I think, what Don said about the beauty of Roman ruins.
- James Bruce Dearing, former assistant to Donald Judd in email to me.
Saturday, July 23 at 4:32pm
Want more?
The conversation continues on our blog at
http://bit.ly/JuddConservationQuestions
Sunday, July 24 at 8:00pm
Keywords
Selected list of words appearing in this and other conversations.
Amanda Thomas Trienens
Senior Conservator, Integrated Conservation Resources / Integrated Conservation Contracting
1
ICR and ICC are beginning conservation work on Donald Judd’s Untitled cast-in-place concrete sculpture made in 1971. The first phase of this design-build project will include testing materials and methods for cleaning the sculpture as well as developing a composite repair formulation based on laboratory testing of the original concrete. The sculpture presents two surfaces that may require different treatments. Cast-in-place concrete typically results in a paste-rich layer on the surface that is highly susceptible to weathering because if its lack of aggregate. After 40 years of exposure to the elements, much of this layer has weathered away leaving a more textured aggregate-rich surface. The treatments tested by ICR will have to be conducted on both surfaces to ensure a gentle and compatible way of cleaning them, without compromising one or the other, yet creating a homogenous appearance throughout.
When the testing is complete, the team of specialists put together by the Glass House will approve the mock-ups conducted in order to direct the implementation to follow soon thereafter. An engineering firm specializing in repairs for historic structures, Robert Silman Associates, will participate by assessing any steel reinforcement conditions uncovered during implementation to ensure they are treated properly.
Monday, July 18 at 2:34pm