12. The Hype about ZERO and Its Influence on the Conservation and Presentation of Early Kinetic Works

Introduction

In 1958, in search of a new artistic beginning—a Stunde Null, or “zero hour”—Otto Piene (1928–2014) and Heinz Mack (b. 1931) founded the artist magazine ZERO, which was later to give its name to an international art movement. In 1961 Günther Uecker (b. 1930) began to collaborate closely with Piene and Mack. They quickly gained considerable popularity through their light-kinetics, and they initiated numerous projects that involved other artists such as Jean Tinguely, Lucio Fontana, and Yves Klein. In 1966 Piene, Mack, and Uecker ended their collaboration and went their different ways. Inspired by a 2006 retrospective exhibition in Düsseldorf, the ZERO Foundation¹ was established in 2008 with the aim of preserving, presenting, researching, and supporting the oeuvre of the movement. Since then, numerous international solo and group exhibitions—including huge retrospectives in Paris, New York, Berlin, and Amsterdam, which ran from 2013 to 2015—reflect the new public appreciation of the ZERO movement.

But is this publicity a stroke of luck or misfortune for the preservation of the artworks? The following three case studies discuss the influence that this increased attention had on the conservation and presentation of these works, and the challenges it creates for conservators.

In the early years of ZERO and into the following decades, the artists or their assistants generally maintained the artworks, which involved occasional repainting prior to exhibitions, and conservators at the time continued this practice. The artworks’ novelty value, artistic intention, and conceptual context were all given high priority; it was previously believed that the artworks should be flawless, and they frequently exhibited a brilliant white surface to achieve the effect of perfection without potentially distracting signs of aging or usage. Today the attitude of the artists seems to vary: while Mack continues to reject any form of patina on his works,² Uecker, who in the 1960s also desired art without any signs of aging, began to accept it in his early works in the 1990s.³ In the past few years conservators have adopted the strategy of stabilizing and maintaining the works’ historic condition with traditional conservation methods such as surface cleaning and inpainting, although repainting is still practiced. Today the repair of defective technical devices is given priority over replacement.

However, a significant crossroads was reached when Piene passed away in 2014. The well-established practice of involving artists in the mounting of their exhibitions and in the decision-making process of preserving their artworks is now possible only to a limited extent.

Case Study I: The Rolandschule in Düsseldorf

In 1960 the architect Paul Schneider-Esleben, who designed and executed Rolandschule, a primary school in Düsseldorf, hired four young local artists—Piene, Mack, Uecker, and Joseph Beuys—to each create an artwork for the school. The work by Beuys was not fully appreciated at the time, and the school decided to return it to him shortly after the opening. Lichtballett by Piene, Farborgel by Mack, and Schattenspiel by Uecker were installed at the school, where they are still in situ today. Together they form a successful symbiosis of social architecture, functionality, and modern art.

In Piene’s Lichtballett, incandescent bulbs mounted behind perforated aluminum plates light up in a programmed order and create a spherical light environment (fig. 12.1). The white panels of Uecker’s Schattenspiel seem like heavenly bodies, simultaneously reflecting light and projecting shadows (fig. 12.2); the schoolchildren can move the panels and thereby influence the play of light. Mack’s Farborgel consists of large, colorfully painted wheels with rotor blades; children can set these in motion with a flywheel that changes the color combinations (fig. 12.3).

However, two days after the school opened, a girl ran into a pane of glass and injured her hand. Although the artworks were not involved in the accident, Mack’s and Uecker’s works were deemed not compliant with safety regulations and were turned off; Mack’s Farborgel was protected by a wire grid, and its flywheel was removed. Until recently, the children’s experience of the artworks was still limited: barriers prevented them from using the Farborgel as intended. Piene’s Lichtballett had been cleaned and decorated with plants; unfortunately, the control unit disappeared during renovation. Uecker’s Schattenspiel had been covered with heavy white boards and all the light elements were lost (fig. 12.4); at that time, the artist no longer considered the installation to be one of his works.

As early as 1989 artist and lecturer Ulrike Scheffler-Rother supported the conservation of the works, and the Rolandschule was classified as a very important building in the city’s architectural history (Citation: Scheffler-Rother 2004:2 [Scheffler-Rother, Ulrike. 2004. Die Rolandschule in Düsseldorf. Booklet 464. Cologne: Rheinische Kunststätten.]). The building and its contents have been listed as a protected monument since 1990 (Citation: Heimeshoff 2001:217 [Heimeshoff, Jörg, ed. 2001. Denkmalgeschützte Häuser in Düsseldorf mit Garten- und Bodendenkmälern. Essen: Beleke Verlag.]).

The Conservation Project

The recent increase in public awareness in value of ZERO artworks led the ZERO Foundation to initiate a project for the preservation and mediation of the works in the Rolandschule, in collaboration with the city of Düsseldorf and the Cologne Institute of Conservation Sciences (CICS) (Citation: Heydenreich 2012:8–13 [Heydenreich, Gunnar. 2012. “Zero am Bau. Eine Studie zur Erhaltung baugebundener Kunst.” In In die Jahre gekommen?! Zum Umgang mit Kunst am Bau, 8–13. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung.]). The goal of conservation treatment was to present the artworks as authentically as possible and to make them accessible to children. Students at CICS, in collaboration with the artists and a longtime artist’s assistant, developed conservation concepts that were then executed with the assistance of external companies.

All of the planned measures had to be coordinated with and approved by the office of Artistic and Historical Heritage (Denkmalamt), and any alterations had to comply with safety regulations for public school buildings and community accident insurance. The municipal office of property management also had to agree to the suggested treatments.

For Piene’s Lichtballett, priority was given to improving its safety and to reconstructing its original programmed light sequence. For safety reasons, the electrical wiring and the lighting unit were converted from 230V to 24V. The bulb shape, the original socket, and the light output, which defines the aesthetic of the installation, were preserved. Restoring the light sequence’s programming was only possible in close collaboration with Piene, based on his recollection.

Using traditional conservation strategies such as minimal intervention and re-treatability, Uecker’s Schattenspiel and Mack’s Farborgel were cleaned, consolidated, and retouched. Both were equipped with new barriers that guarantee the artworks’ and the children’s safety and allow children to actively engage with the artworks. These new barriers (see figs. 12.2, 12.3) are not as incongruous as the old (see fig. 12.4). Because Rolandschule is a public building, the possibility of improper use of the artworks had to be taken into consideration, as well as the risk of injury from chain drives or insufficient wall anchorage—issues that are rather different from those in a museum context. Finally, fifty years after its creation, Uecker’s Schattenspiel was—for the first time—presented in accordance with the artist’s intention. However, children are only allowed to enter the space behind the barrier and play with the works when a teacher is present.

First Interim Conclusion

For the artworks in the Rolandschule, renewed appreciation for the ZERO movement has had positive consequences: a treatment was financed, and works that had been written off by the artists were brought back to life, with only minor changes, and can be appreciated once again. The conservation treatments reflect our shift in the approach toward early ZERO artworks in public settings. Interestingly, the artworks’ preservation was also due to a growing awareness and the influence of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act. Works that had been turned off shortly after their creation survived several decades, motionless and nonoperational. Turning off the artworks helped preserve them, and they are now considered to be among the most important site-specific and authentically preserved light-kinetic installations by ZERO artists. However, the lack of maintenance provides a challenge for future preservation. Although a contract for regular maintenance of the works was suggested, it has not yet been implemented.

Case Study II: Lichtraum (Hommage à Fontana)

In 1964 Piene, Uecker, and Mack assembled seven artworks to create Lichtraum (Hommage à Fontana) at documenta 3 in Kassel (fig. 12.5a). The installation included both individual and collective works, as well as a slide projector that projected a photograph of a painting by Lucio Fontana on the wall. Because they received their invitation to documenta later, all the exhibition spaces had been reserved for other artists, and Lichtraum was exhibited in the Fridericianum garret. This small, long, angled room had a low, gabled roof, and it was windowless and very dark. The concrete walls were initially untreated but were painted white before the exhibition opened.

1992 Kunstmuseum Düsseldorf

In 1991 the Kunstmuseum Düsseldorf acquired the available artworks from Lichtraum (Hommage à Fontana), and in 1992 the artists were invited to reconstruct the installation in a museum context (fig. 12.5b). To complete Lichtraum, Mack made a replica of Weißer Dynamo. Uecker’s Lichtscheibe was initially borrowed from the Kröller-Müller Museum in Otterlo, but it was also replaced by an artist’s replica in 1993. In the new presentation, Lichtscheibe was not displayed on an easel, as it had been in 1964, but was laid horizontally on the floor (Citation: Caianiello 2005:71 [Caianiello, Tiziana. 2005. Der “Lichtraum (Hommage à Fontana)” und das “Creamcheese” im museum kunst palast: Zur Musealisierung der Düsseldorfer Kunstszene. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.]). The new room was much bigger and brighter than the Fridericianum garret and did not have a slanted ceiling. The artists tried to reconstruct the original installation, but the differences in the rooms’ floor plans meant they had to arrange the artworks facing one another along a central aisle. This new arrangement also required some adjustments to the operating sequence for the different motors and light units. In Kassel in 1964, visitors had been allowed to experience the artworks up close; in Düsseldorf in 1991, two white lines separated the visitors from the art—for the artists, a very unsatisfactory safety measure.⁴

2001 and 2005 Relocations

With the growing interest in ZERO, the Museum Kunstpalast Düsseldorf wanted to show Lichtraum (Hommage à Fontana) in a more central exhibition space, and a new room was provided in 2001. It was significantly smaller than the 1992 space, and Piene again changed the artworks’ arrangement and adjusted their operating sequences. Although Mack criticized the new iteration, he accepted it; Uecker did not participate. In 2005 the installation was again changed, this time replicating the first presentation arrangement of 1964 in Kassel (fig. 12.5c). Uecker considered this result to be highly successful.

2013–15 Exhibitions in Paris, New York, Berlin, Amsterdam

The kinetic objects composing Lichtraum are very fragile, and loan requests were rejected for decades. However, after a long discussion phase while planning the ZERO exhibitions in Paris, New York, Berlin, and Amsterdam,⁵ the Museum Kunstpalast Düsseldorf decided to lend Lichtraum on the condition that replicas be used for the original light panels from Weiße Lichtmühle and Lichtkugel. For the New York exhibition, Guggenheim Museum curators reconstructed the spatial impression of the 1964 presentation by using fabric panels to suggest the slope of the ceiling, which unfortunately did not provide an ideal surface for slide projection (fig. 12.5d). Piene had previously rejected this type of historicizing reconstruction.⁶ In Berlin, curators at Martin-Gropius-Bau arranged the artworks in a row in a comparatively large, bright exhibition space fig. 12.5e), with the size of the room predetermined by the museum floor plans. At the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, a relatively small exhibition space was chosen to present Lichtraum, and the artworks were installed in a more dense arrangement (fig. 12.5f). The strategy to adapt Lichtraum to new spatial conditions corresponds to the initial approach of the ZERO artists but caused some conflict with the artworks’ preprogrammed sequences of operation.

Second Interim Conclusion

Since its first presentation in 1964, Lichtraum (Hommage à Fontana) has been repeatedly adapted to fit different spatial conditions (Citation: Caianiello 2005:68–75 [Caianiello, Tiziana. 2005. Der “Lichtraum (Hommage à Fontana)” und das “Creamcheese” im museum kunst palast: Zur Musealisierung der Düsseldorfer Kunstszene. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.]). The work was initially displayed in the cramped, gabled-roof room of the Fridericianum because the other documenta 3 exhibition spaces were already in use; since 1984 the installation has been shown in larger rooms, which has pleased the artists. Since Lichtraum’s creation, varying exhibition conditions, financial resources, and artistic and curatorial interpretations have greatly influenced the work’s appearance. At the Guggenheim Museum in New York the specific spatial situation in the 1964 exhibition, with its sloping roof, was reconstructed for the first time. But is this an expression of a rising historicization or nostalgia, a sort of romantic idealization of the past? Does growing appreciation also bring with it a bias toward historically “accurate” presentation? The strategy of adapting Lichtraum to new exhibition spaces also raises the question of who is responsible for setting up Lichtraum and, if necessary, adapting the choreography of all the elements when the artists are gone.

Case Study III: Weiße Lichtmühle

Weiße Lichtmühle is a collective work by the three ZERO artists, and it represents their aim to overcome traditional painting. It consists of Piene’s former easel, which serves as a basis for a white rotor by Mack. It was partly nailed by Uecker. The rotor has white blades; Piene created perforations through which a light-ballet is projected on the museum walls. Weiße Lichtmühle was exhibited in Berlin before documenta 3, and after Kassel it traveled to an exhibition in Philadelphia.⁷ Damaged during transport, the work returned to Uecker’s studio, where he repaired the base with additional wooden planks, repainted it, and partially resprayed it. The combination of aluminum, wooden battens, and numerous paint layers promoted stress cracks and reduced adhesion, with some paint losses, making a loan request untenable.

Exhibition Copy, Partial Replica?

To show Lichtraum (Hommage à Fontana) at all exhibition venues, the Museum Kunstpalast Düsseldorf decided to produce a partial exhibition copy of Weiße Lichtmühle by creating a replica of the light panel. Mack was asked to oversee the production of this partial replica, a strategy that, to some extent, continued the approach traditionally taken to maintain Lichtraum (Citation: Köhler 2013:26 [Köhler, Sebastian. 2013. “White Monochromes by Lucio Fontana, Yves Klein and Günther Uecker: Three Case Studies Regarding Their Conservation.” Master’s thesis, CICS Cologne.]). The partial replica of Weiße Lichtmühle was intended to preserve and protect the current condition of the fragile light panel for the duration of the exhibitions. The artwork had been created about fifty years ago, and it was possible to discern the aging of its surfaces.

However, contrary to the agreement with the museum, the artist reworked the original panel. Afterward Mack stated that he had wanted to correct the last repainting done by Uecker, who had, according to Mack, used the wrong white tone. Furthermore, Mack was no longer convinced of the advantages of using an exhibition copy.⁸ Thus the original light panel was repainted for at least the fifth time, which unfortunately created a visual imbalance within the artwork: there is a considerable discrepancy between the bright white color of the repainted panel and the aged, yellowish-white paint on the easel (fig. 12.6). A conservation studio⁹ was commissioned to produce the exhibition copy of the light panel, which should integrate harmoniously, and temporarily, into the overall structure (Citation: Erhan 2015:6-16 [Erhan, Mine. 2015. Die Teilrekonstruktion der “Weißen Lichtmühle” aus dem Düsseldorfer ZERO-Lichtraum. Das Spannungsfeld zwischen Objektgeschichte, Originalität und Stabilität, 6–16. VDR-Beiträge 1. Bonn: Verband der Restauratoren e. V.]).

In this case Mack followed his artistic practice and prioritized the functionality of the work. The museum asked Mack to guide the production of the partial replica, because this corresponds to previous practice. The curatorial decision also shows that the authenticity of this artwork is still closely tied to the involvement of the artist.

Discussion and Conclusions

Early ZERO works are still regarded as contemporary art, although they are also transitioning to historical art. Contemplation of the varied treatments of these works over time provides new insight: increased appreciation of the artworks can contribute to their preservation. The ZERO installations at the Rolandschule, for example, were essentially ignored for decades; now they operate in accordance with the artists’ intentions and are considered the most important site-specific ZERO installations in Düsseldorf. Although these artworks are appreciated and promoted, continuous conservation maintenance is still lacking.

However, the increased attention to ZERO can also pose risks. The more frequent use of kinetic objects causes wear and tear, even when limited periods of operation are imposed. An escalation in the number of temporary exhibitions and associated transport create further risks for the fragile objects. The attempt to loan Weiße Lichtmühle without endangering the original by asking the artist to produce a partial replica backfired. The historical paint layer that corresponded to the paint on the easel was partly removed, and the new, white, glossy paint layer on the original light panel diverges greatly in appearance from the aged white paint on the easel. As the artworks continue to age, constant repair and updating by the artists or their assistants, on the one hand, and a growing museumization and the aspiration to preserve an almost unaltered “authentic condition” on the other hand can lead to conflicts and dissatisfying compromises.

The reconstruction of the programming of Piene’s Lichtballett in the Rolandschule can be viewed as a successful example of involving the artist to ensure the integrity and identity of the work. The example of the replica light panel in Weiße Lichtmühle shows that involving artists can produce unexpected and unintended results that curators and conservators may consider undesirable. The repainting or reworking of artworks by artists or their assistants was once accepted as a legitimate strategy. Today an approximation of traditional conservation strategies and the goals of minimal intervention and reversibility are observed. The once fundamental novelty value, or Neuheitswert (Citation: Riegl 1903:22–29 [Riegl, Alois, and K. K. Zentral-Kommision für Kunst- und historische Denkmale. 1903. Moderne Denkmalkultus: Sein Wesen und seine Entstehung. Vienna.]), of the ZERO works, which required a flawless artwork, has been replaced by an appreciation of aging, or Alterswert (Citation: Riegl 1903:46–57 [Riegl, Alois, and K. K. Zentral-Kommision für Kunst- und historische Denkmale. 1903. Moderne Denkmalkultus: Sein Wesen und seine Entstehung. Vienna.]). Signs of aging and patina are frequently accepted today—at least in the museum context—and are occasionally even considered proof of authenticity, as they communicate the history of the objects. Even Mack, Piene, and Uecker began to differ in their evaluation of those signs of aging, and Uecker’s contradictory statements demonstrate that artist interviews are of limited assistance in developing a conservation concept.¹⁰

An artwork’s value is established by individuals involved at any given moment, and the problem is to define the shift from the appreciation of the Neuheitswert to the Alterswert. This also raises the question of who is allowed to negotiate prioritized values, and under which conditions. In this context it was observed that past treatments, such as repainting or the production of replicas, are often reevaluated over time. When they were added to the installation, the two replicas created by the artists in the 1990s for Lichtraum—Mack’s Weißer Dynamo and Uecker’s Lichtscheibe—first attracted negative attention because of their brilliant white surfaces. Today, they are seen as integral parts of the installation.

The restaging of installations now also seems to have reached a crossroads of contemporary versus historical art. The established practice of adapting Lichtraum to each different exhibition stage and to adjust the light sequence is part of the installation’s identity. But there is a danger that the installation might lose authenticity when the artists are no longer available, and assistants, curators, or conservators inevitably bring in their own ideas. Should a historicized restaging with the sloping roof, or the installation from 1992 that Piene described as the new “standard,” or a future “white cube” presentation define the guidelines?

Monuments from the 1960s are increasingly being granted special preservation status. All treatments “that could cause destruction or damage to monuments” are regulated by the heritage protection law and the permission restrictions therein, as well as other legal requirements (Citation: Schmidt 2008:140 [Schmidt, Leo, ed. 2008. Einführung in die Denkmalpflege. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.]). Artworks in museums, however, are committed to guidelines set down by the International Council of Museums (ICOM),¹¹ and these allow considerable scope for decision making. Could the objectives and experience of heritage preservation, which provided clear guidelines for dealing with the artworks at the Rolandschule, also provide useful guidance for the preservation of artworks in the museum context, in particular those on the threshold between contemporary and historical art? This requires further investigation.

The experience of these three case studies suggests that the established practice of commissioning artists to perform conservation measures or update their works within the museum context should be thoughtfully reconsidered. The importance and necessity of involving the artist needs to be balanced against the risk of irreversible changes and optimizations of the artwork (of course taking legal aspects into consideration). Further, heritage preservation guidelines should be contemplated by museums to meet the demands of the diverse expressions of contemporary art and address their long-term preservation, keeping them as authentic as possible for future generations by maintaining, retiring, and/or replicating.

Notes