
How Do You Conserve Art Made of Bologna, or Bubble Gum, or Soap? - prismatic
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/how-do-you-conserve-art-made-of-bologna-or-bubble-gum-or-soap/529713?single_page=true
======
crucini
You call in a hazmat team to dispose of it.

The article leads off with the chocolate and soap busts, which at least show
artistic merit, unlike nailing deli meat to the wall. However the artistic
merit is unaffected by the material. IF you think these busts are notable
sculpture, preserve by making a mold and casting them in a durable resin.

That preserves the sculptural form, but not the material. This pattern is
shown in bronze statues (generally the original was sculpted from clay) and in
plastic and resin toy figures (original often sculpted from wax).

The problem is the busts probably aren't worth preserving sculpturally
(they're competent, but not evocative), and part of the perceived "art value"
is being made of a weird material.

I'll use risky terminology here: If a REAL artist wanted a "chocolate bust" \-
since the bust is purely a visual artifact - he would sculpt or mold it of a
suitable material and paint it to look like chocolate. That's what a movie or
theme park would use to convey the IDEA of a chocolate bust.

~~~
mturmon
The artist you have noted, Janine Antoni, did the famous piece _Gnaw_ (a huge
cube of gnawed chocolate) as well as the chocolate busts you mention. Here's a
summary of her intentions:

[http://www.artnews.com/2013/02/21/chocolate-self-
portraits-b...](http://www.artnews.com/2013/02/21/chocolate-self-portraits-by-
janine-antoni-and-dieter-rot/)

Smelling the chocolate, and indeed the possibility of a transgressive viewer
licking it, is definitely part of the piece. Brown paint wouldn't cut it.

On the subject of smelly rooms, I was able to experience the chocolate room by
Anya Gallacio ([http://beautifuldecay.com/2014/05/27/anya-gallaccio-
creates-...](http://beautifuldecay.com/2014/05/27/anya-gallaccio-creates-room-
made-chocolate/)), and let me say, a whole gallery room that smelled of
chocolate was highly memorable. I did not lick the wall, but it was allowed.
Delightful!

~~~
crucini
It seems to me that if the smell of chocolate is part of the desired
experience, you design and render that smell. Random link on artificial
smells: [https://foodbabe.com/2015/02/16/the-behind-the-scenes-
market...](https://foodbabe.com/2015/02/16/the-behind-the-scenes-marketing-
tricks/)

What kind of chocolate smell do we want? How sweet? How much vanilla note? How
much burnt component? How concentrated or diffused in space? We probably don't
want the smell to change over time, just like you probably don't want the
colors in a painting to change over time.

To me, making the artifact out of chocolate is a bad way of creating a
chocolate smell. The exposed surface area will offgas and oxidize, resulting
in a diminishing and changing smell. It seems lazy; it also seems like
"confusing the map with the territory".

~~~
zachrose
Yours is a consistent and reasoned approach to making art.

But a lot of what makes modern and contemporary art exciting (for me, anyways)
is an ongoing flirtation with what's authentic or made of "real" materials,
and what it means to value that, and how artworks are not fixed artifacts but
ongoing systems.

If the chocolate bust challenges collectors and scientists to discover new
things about preserving chocolate, then that discovery becomes part of the
work's story.

------
glitcher
The medium an artist chooses may be a strong indicator of their intention for
the piece's longevity.

~~~
vacri
I was thinking the same thing. For something like Fox Games, the use of bread
rather than a permanent material is incidental. But for a bust _made of_
chocolate or an art piece where _meat_ is nailed to a wall, the impermanent
material is clearly part of the piece.

I remember when a 'golden age' (modern/pop art) display from MoMA came to my
town. A lot of important pieces where there, but everything was tired and
fading with age. Most notably was an art piece that was mounted on the wall, a
metal thing with dangly bits, that the museum had put 'don't touch' around.
But in the informational blurb, the artist intended the piece to be touched
and physically spun by the viewer. I always wondered if the artist would have
preferred the piece to be worn out and destroyed through interaction with the
public, or frozen in time and put on static display forever (which seems
opposite to the original intent).

~~~
glitcher
This really reminds me of the debate over who does art belong to once it's
released out into the world?

On the one hand, it makes complete sense that the creator of the artwork
should have the final say in how it is interacted with by viewers, and whether
or not it should be preserved.

But on the other hand, when George Lucas says I'm not allowed to purchase the
original non-digitally-enhanced version of the first Star Wars movie so dear
to my childhood memories it really pisses me off!

------
mturmon
I happened to talk to one of the MOCA curators who put together Dan Flavin's
recent retrospective at MOCA in LA. The work, as described in TFA, is
(famously) made of fluorescent tubes in very simple arrangements (e.g.,
[https://www.moca.org/collection/work/monument-for-v-
tatlin](https://www.moca.org/collection/work/monument-for-v-tatlin)). Because
of the simplicity, small color changes are noticeable, and really affect your
perception of the piece. The conservation crew had to drive out to a warehouse
in Arizona which still had leftovers of the same tubes used in the original
piece. In a hypothetical future retrospective, she had no idea where the tubes
were going to come from. They bought a bunch. ;-)

Another example is Nam June Paik's early installations with massed
televisions. They are CRT televisions - he liked that form and it is integral
to the way his pieces look -- and they tend to break down over time. Here's a
nice piece on conserving an intricate piece of his:
[https://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2013/04/15/conservin...](https://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2013/04/15/conserving-
a-nam-june-paik-altered-piano/)

------
SpikeDad
Seems to me that if an artist chooses to use a fragile or organic medium for
their art they have to accept the fact that it's going to be a temporary
object.

After all cooks make artistic dishes that they know will exist only for a
short time. Sidewalk chalk artists make some of the most amazing drawings I've
ever seen and they're perfectly happy knowing they are only temporary.

I think making a cast or other physical reproduction actual reduces the
artistic quality of the item. Some things are ephemeral and they should be
looked at that way.

------
petersjt014
Well...

[http://theconversation.com/preservationists-race-to-
capture-...](http://theconversation.com/preservationists-race-to-capture-
cultural-monuments-with-3d-images-53536)

------
jacquesm
Or Peanutbutter?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pindakaasvloer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pindakaasvloer)

A short term version of this problem exists in food and flower photography.
The power output of the light and oxidization can turn a pretty dish or flower
into much or a wilted mess before the right shot is made.

There exists a whole industry to fake the products.

------
anotheryou
take a picture and let go

------
toyg
Bologna is a city. _Mortadella_ is the food.

Source: born and raised in Bologna.

~~~
abritinthebay
Then you'd think you'd know that Bologna is a US variant of Mortadella that
omits the cubes of pork fat.

It's named after your home city, and inspired by Mortadella, but it's _not_
the same thing.

~~~
toyg
I know but I still think it's wrong; a city is a city and food is food, so at
least people should have the decency of using the adjective form (like
Frankfurt _er_ ) or a made-up name like baloney, not the _capitalized_ city
name. So I'm taking it back
([https://youtu.be/dWdVwt2deY4](https://youtu.be/dWdVwt2deY4) ).

~~~
abritinthebay
Good luck with that.

------
cosinetau
shellac

