- 2.3 Technological equipment Introduction
2.3 Technological Equipment
2.3 Introduction
It has become vital, in current conservation and preservation practices, to identify and develop common practices for the preservation and management of works that contain technological equipment as an integral part of the work. These practices are intended to identify the equipment most at risk of obsolescence or damage and to suggest strategies to address the fragile state of the equipment while taking into account the work’s historical positioning.
Pip Laurenson, Head of Time-based Media Conservation at the Tate in London, England, has examined this issue at length. In her article entitled “The Management of Display Equipment in Time-based Media Installations,” Laurenson proposes an approach to assigning the significance of display equipment, its relation to the work’s identity, based on conceptual, aesthetic and historical criteria, and the role the equipment plays in the work. [1]
These evaluation criteria should be considered within a contemporary art context.
“Conceptual integrity refers to the relationship of the work to the process or technology employed and the spirit in which the work was made. Aesthetic integrity relates to the look and feel of visible components and the outputs of the system (i.e. qualities of the sound and image). Historical integrity refers to links made by the visible components and discernible outputs of the system to the time the work was made.” [2]
It is not always easy to precisely establish the relationship between the equipment used and the work. Some artists are very specific about the equipment they wish to use, based on the impact different equipment might have on their installation (in the cases of Tlön and Nu•tka•, for example). Other artists are less clear about the reasons for their choice of equipment and only comment on the specifics of the original equipment once it is replaced. Still others feel uncomfortable focusing on aspects associated with the presentation of their work and its impact on the viewer for fear the work might be seen as “theatrical.” [3]
In the same article, Laurenson demonstrates the gap that may exist between the artist’s analysis grid and that of the museum and even between the opinions of two conservators:
“In summary, the differing values of the museum and the artist, and the inevitability of a shift in authority over time, present a complex array of criteria by which to judge conservation decisions – criteria which are liable to be weighted differently by different stakeholders at different time.” [4]
Laurenson proposes practical tools to manage technological display equipment (Table 1) and strategies that can be used when a component carries particular significance. The possible preservation strategies for media artworks featuring technological equipment are storage, emulation and migration.
Table 1: Basic guidelines for the management of display equipment [5]
| 1 | Assign each item of display equipment a unique reference number, linked to its serial number and model details. |
| 2 | Track its location. |
| 3 | Indicate whether the item is uniquely dedicated to a specific work of art and assess its significance. |
| 4 |
Ensure that the conditions of the warranty are understood and if possible complied with. |
| 5 |
Make an assessment of the continued availability of spare units and parts. |
| 6 |
Make an assessment of reliability based on manufacturers data, reviewed on the basis of experience. |
| 7 |
Acquire at least one spare unit. |
| 8 | Create a record for each item of equipment to: • Document details relating to the purchase of the equipment. • Hold the operation and service manuals. • Give details of the maintenance schedule. • Give details of the cost and source of spare parts and consumables. • Keep a log of where the equipment was used, for which work and for how long. • Keep a service history and a history of any repairs and faults |
Case studies
The case studies undertaken by the DOCAM Research Alliance Conservation and Preservation Committee focus on conservation problems resulting from the obsolescence of technological components in the works studied. The cathode-ray tube (CRT) and slide projector are two examples of the challenges increasingly facing curators and conservators.
[1] Pip Laurenson, "The management of display equipment in time-based media installations", in Modern art, new museums : contributions to the Bilbao congress, ed. Ashok Roy and Perry Smith, p. 49-53, London : The International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, 2004, Also available on the Internet : http://www.tate.org.uk/research/tateresearch/tatepapers/05spring/laurenson.htm.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|