Shared Concerns Between Large Technology and Kinetic Art

Big old machines and kinetic artworks might seem to be worlds apart, but they share challenges that turn traditional conservation ethics upside-down. Traditional conservation ethics focus on making things stay the same, keeping objects from deteriorating, but also keeping them from changing. They aim to preserve the physical fabric of an object in one “authentic” state, and changing out worn components to keep an object or art work moving, or reconfiguring it for a new display or task is pretty much seen as corrupting historical evidence.

Large technology objects and kinetic artworks, however, are all about change. To be themselves they have to change through time – moving parts, displaying images, making sounds (and sometimes smells) and involving people as operators or participants. Without movement they are shadows of their former selves; indeed without their mechanical parts operating some artworks can’t even exist. Arboria, the work pictured above (designed by Alan Parkinson of Architects of Air), is an inflatable sculpture that relies on the operation of compressors and lights to create its airy, colour saturated galleries. Without operation, maintenance and replacement of worn parts it would become a lifeless heap of plastic.

To conserve these objects we need to think beyond just preserving physical fabric and ask what it is that is important about them. How can we preserve their essence and not just their material? A lot of work has been done in the field of kinetic art to sift through these issues, and the concepts developed are highly applicable to large technology conservation decision-making and practice. If you want to get the good oil, start with Hanna Hölling’s book Paik’s Virtual Archive: Time, Change and Materiality in Media Art, or the online publication Inside Installations: Theory and Practice in the Conservation of Complex Artworks, and get into a little genre-crossing.