11. The Examination and Conservation of Thirteen Artworks by Jean Tinguely in the Collection of the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam

Tinguely and the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam

The Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam holds thirteen three-dimensional kinetic works by Jean Tinguely (1925–1991). Created between 1954 and 1971, they provide a clear view of Tinguely’s development as an artist. The earliest work in the collection is Elément détaché III (1954), a very fragile “thread relief,” and the latest is the heavy machine Méta II (1971).

Former Stedelijk director Willem Sandberg and former curator Ad Petersen befriended Tinguely in the 1960s, and they started collecting his work for the museum after the Stedelijk’s exhibitions Bewogen Beweging (Moving movement) (1961) and Dylaby (1962) (Schavemaker, Til, and Wismer 2016:155–61). Director Eduard de Wilde completed the current collection in 1974 with the purchase of Méta-Malevich (1954), Gismo (1960), Baluba bleu (1962), Spirale IV (1969), and Méta II.

Bewogen Beweging brought together works by artists including Daniel Spoerri, Marcel Duchamp, and Alexander Calder. It was a revolutionary exhibition, loved by the public but not well received by the art critics, who thought it too much of a “carnival” (Citation: Jobse and Schreuder 2014:61–65 [Jobse, Jonneke, and Catrien Schreuder. 2014. What’s Happening? De neo-avant-garde en de Nederlandse kunstkritiek 1958–1975. Rotterdam: Nai010.]). The Stedelijk purchased Méta-Matic No. 10 (1959) and Elément détaché III directly from the artist after this exhibition, and received Fontaine (1960), one of Tinguely’s first fountains, as a gift.

In 1962, Dylaby shook the museum world. Tinguely was the project leader of and a participant in this legendary and controversial exhibition, which also showed works by Spoerri, Niki de Saint Phalle, Per Olov Ultvedt, Martial Raysse, and Robert Rauschenberg. The artists built the exhibition from scratch using all kinds of materials, mostly “found,” and the public had to move its way through rooms designed by the artists, wandering between the objects and experiencing art in a completely different, nontraditional way. After the exhibition closed, almost all of it was literally thrown away as it was intended to be an ephemeral show. One of the few remaining artworks is Tinguely’s Radio Dylaby (1962), making it an object of special interest. It was purchased immediately after the exhibition, and Petersen’s archives include pictures of Tinguely working on Radio Dylaby in the basement of the museum (fig. 11.1).

Gismo (1960) is also of special interest because it was part of “Le Transport” in 1960, in which Tinguely drove his artworks through the streets of Paris (quartier Montparnasse) to the exhibition L’art fonctionnel in Galerie des Quatre Saisons (Citation: Schavemaker, Til, and Wismer 2016:60 [Schavemaker, Margriet, Barbara Til, and Beat Wismer, eds. 2016. Tinguely. Cologne: Buchhandlung Walter König.]).

The Tinguely Conservation Project

While in the collection of the Stedelijk, the thirteen artworks were occasionally restored, primarily to keep them operational. Tinguely’s works present complex conservation issues due to their construction, materials, and the original intention to show them in movement. This last aspect is one of the project’s main concerns: can the works still function (move) and, if not, can they be returned to a functioning state? The machines are constructed in a way that can subject them to great force and stress when in movement, causing welds to break or parts to deform. The moving parts and motors can suffer from wear, and materials sometimes loosen, fall off, and get lost. Can materials be replaced and, if so, is it ethical to replace them?

Many of the materials Tinguely used were scrap and, from a conservation point of view, already in poor condition when the works were created. Consequently, conservators are confronted with practical and ethical issues related to the discrepancy between the meaning and intended appearance of the works and their current condition. It had long been a cherished wish of the conservation department to conduct an intensive analysis of the condition of these complex artworks and develop possible conservation and treatment options (Citation: Beerkens, Hummelen, and Sillé 1999:23–31 [Beerkens, Lydia, IJsbrand Hummelen, and Dionne Sillé. 1999. “Jean Tinguely’s Gismo: Reconstruction of a Moving Life.” In Hummelen and Sillé 1999.]). That wish became a reality after the museum’s recent renovation and the construction of a new storage building. A new, large, multifunctional workshop, as well as upcoming Tinguely exhibitions, prompted the formation of the Tinguely Conservation Project (2015–16).¹

Structure and Goals of the Project

The project, consisting of two phases, aims to document, preserve, and, where necessary, restore the thirteen three-dimensional works by Tinguely in the Stedelijk collection. Phase I includes research on the artworks and a condition assessment to formulate solutions to complex conservation issues. A special form (template) was developed to systematically gather and document information concerning the works’ preservation, based on previous Stedelijk conservation projects such as Joan Jonas’s Vertical Roll and Edward Kienholz’s Beanery.

The form covers seven subjects. Both the current condition and the “original” condition (defined here as the point of entering the collection) are documented, as are any discrepancies between the two. Existing documentation, information on media, exhibitions, and literature, recommended conservation and restoration strategies, and any unanswered research questions are also included.

Extensive comparative research in the archives of the Museum Tinguely in Basel, among other places, provided valuable information about the history of the condition of the works and offered insight into changes in their appearance over time. Since the artist, conservators, and museum technicians have altered most of the works at some point, this type of research is important to determine the works’ complete history and establish a point of reference for conservation purposes.

An expert committee helped formulate conservation options and strategies using a multidisciplinary approach. The committee members are specialists with specific knowledge, background, and experience in the conservation of Tinguely’s works or are from other relevant disciplines. The decision-making model developed by the Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art served as a useful tool in discussions (Citation: Beerkens, Hummelen, and Sillé 1999:164–72 [Beerkens, Lydia, IJsbrand Hummelen, and Dionne Sillé. 1999. “Jean Tinguely’s Gismo: Reconstruction of a Moving Life.” In Hummelen and Sillé 1999.]; Citation: Beerkens 1999 [Beerkens, Lydia. 1999. “The Decision-Making Model for the Conservation and Restoration of Modern and Contemporary Art.” In Hummelen and Sillé 1999.]).

Phase II involves the treatment of the works. The aim is to bring them to a stable state, coming as close as possible to the intention of the artist and their original appearance and function. Again, a multidisciplinary approach was indispensable in finding solutions for the many technical, practical, and ethical issues (fig. 11.2).²

The presentation of the artworks also receives special attention, including the possibility of showing them in an operational state or evoking this by other means (for instance, on video). All artworks in the project are documented photographically, on video, and/or on sound recordings. Phase II is still underway as of the writing of this paper.

Dilemmas and Issues Arising in the Tinguely Conservation Project

Tinguely’s artworks present complex conservation issues due to their construction and materials, as well as the original intention to show them in movement. If a work is too fragile to function any longer (thus removing “movement” from the artwork’s possibilities), we ask ourselves whether it is still truly a “Tinguely.” What are we preserving? And how can we show the public the artwork in its present state and still convey the original expressiveness? If we want to stay or come as close to the intention of the artist and the original appearance as possible, movement is an important part of these kinetic artworks and should, ideally, be present.

During the project, various dilemmas and issues presented themselves, often relating to aspects of motion. After the works were visually inspected to see if motion would be possible without causing damage, they were plugged in to assess the functioning of the motor. In some cases, the motor was still functional but other factors hindered the intended motion, making operation inadvisable.

An additional challenge to conserving these objects is that most of the issues related to movement are not isolated but intertwined. Severe wear and tear can damage the work, influencing, for instance, the sounds produced. Historical functional additions and alterations can prevent wear and tear but sometimes alter the overall appearance. Water as an element of the artwork can cause severe damage to the base materials through corrosion, for example. As previously mentioned, many of the materials Tinguely used were scrap and already in poor condition when the works were made. Briefly discussed below are examples of issues encountered and how they were dealt with.

Wear and Tear

Wear and tear can be caused or accelerated by factors such as corrosion, material degradation, or external forces. Motion, however, is a great catalyst: any artwork shown in movement is subject to extra wear and tear. The intensity of wear is different for each work in this project; sometimes it was limited, but on other occasions the movement is so violent that the artwork is self-damaging. If wear and tear are inevitable, can it be reduced to a degree that is acceptable for preservation? And can that be done in such a way that it is in proportion to its original appearance and the artist’s intention? One effective and widely used option to reduce wear and tear is to impose time limits on an artwork’s operation (Citation: Bek 2013:203 [Bek, Reinhard. 2013. “Conserving the Kinetic: Mechanical Sculptures by Jean Tinguely.” In Museum Tinguely, Basel: The Collection, edited by Reinhard Bek et al. Heidelberg: Kehrer Verlag.]). Even though all Tinguely’s artworks in the Stedelijk collection can move, they cannot responsibly be made to move all the time while on display, or even infrequently.

If an artwork can no longer be operated while on display, it can become a sort of “relic” to the public. One example in the Stedelijk collection is Elément détaché III (1954). When the work is in motion, the wires of its wheels can hook together. The motor keeps turning, however, and damage is very likely to occur, necessitating intensive and repetitive treatment. Elément détachés in other collections are also nonoperational,³ which helped us to accept the fact that, due to its construction, this work is too fragile to be set in motion. Another supporting factor for this decision is that the artwork itself is relatively easy for the public to understand even without motion. It can be displayed with an accompanying video illustrating the movement to demonstrate the intention of the work (fig. 11.3).

Another method for reducing wear is to apply reversible protection, which was used with the traffic sign hanging on Baluba bleu (1962). The painted iron sign moves up and down when Baluba bleu is in action, and the non-original iron ring had damaged the traffic sign component on which it is suspended. (This traffic sign component had also stretched and been repaired in the past.) An iron insert now protects the opening on the traffic sign against further wear and stretching.

The non-original ring was replaced with iron wire resembling Tinguely’s original attachment (figs. 11.4, 11.5a, 11.5b). The wire breaks fairly easy but is strong enough to hold the traffic sign during motion. This way, the wire wears and breaks before damage to the artwork occurs, and the original parts experience less wear. This principle was also applied to other works in the Tinguely collection.

Black Paint

Tinguely used a black matte paint on many of his works to give them a more uniform appearance and to obscure the origin of the material (see Citation: Violand-Hobi 1995 [Violand-Hobi, Heidi. 1995. Jean Tinguely: Life and Work. Munich: Prestel.]; Citation: Hulten 1975:275 [Hulten, Pontus. 1975. Jean Tinguely: “Meta.” London: Thames and Hudson.]).

Due to wear and tear or degradation, this paint is not always in optimal condition and is sometimes even partly lost. The paint will be conserved and analyzed for both conservation and identification purposes. The results can later be compared with Tinguely works in other museums to gain more knowledge about the type of paints he used and, possibly, to establish cross-links with works of a certain time period to see if there have been changes over time.

Alterations and Additions

Alterations and additions were made to the artworks in the past, primarily to keep them operational. One recurrent issue is how to deal with those changes, especially if they are still functioning. Would replacing these additions or alterations be intrusive?

The approach depends on the type of alteration. Some alterations were approved by Tinguely and were done by him or under his supervision. It is uncertain whether other additions or alterations were performed with Tinguely’s approval. It is very likely that Tinguely did not object to some alterations, such as the replacement of drive belts.⁴ If no alternative treatment is available, we can consider replacing these parts and documenting and storing the original material for future reference (Citation: Bek 2013:204 [Bek, Reinhard. 2013. “Conserving the Kinetic: Mechanical Sculptures by Jean Tinguely.” In Museum Tinguely, Basel: The Collection, edited by Reinhard Bek et al. Heidelberg: Kehrer Verlag.]).

Some additions and alterations were neither approved (but not necessarily rejected!) nor performed by Tinguely; however, these clearly had been made to allow the works to move. It can be acceptable to keep and maintain these alterations if, as a result, the work remains safely operational and its appearance is not unduly compromised. Changes made without Tinguely’s consent that compromise either safety or appearance should be considered for removal.⁵ For instance, between 1963 and 1973 the central element of Méta-Matic No. 10 (1959), a drawing machine, was replaced, but the reason for this was not documented. The original central element is visible in photos made around 1963, but films dated around 1972/73 show that, by then, the central element had been replaced. The central element still functions, although the appearance of the artwork has been altered (figs. 11.6a, 11.6b).

The new central element does not bear the hand of the artist. In the original, Tinguely had soldered the connections and wrapped them with iron wire, while the current version was produced in a factory and its center wheel is made of copper instead of the original wood. Both the new and original part were painted black. Tinguely could have been aware of the replacement (the drawing machine was in exhibitions in 1973 and 1983 that he attended); however, we have no documentation that he saw the alteration or approved it.

Currently the artwork is functional. The new central element was made to keep the work operational, and replacing it would entail an intrusive treatment. Therefore, this specific alteration will be retained as long as the drawing machine is able to operate, although for limited amounts of time and only under the supervision of a conservator.

If a work is no longer operational, then the removal of these later additions and alterations may be considered. The material from which the work is constructed then becomes more important than the “immaterial” elements, such as movement, sound, and interaction, which give the work additional layers.

Because the public can only experience a nonoperational work through the material object (apart from accompanying videos), it should be as authentic as possible. Preserving damaged original parts that could not be maintained in the operational work can be an option in a nonfunctional object. Therefore, in these cases, the material, together with additional (audio-visual) documentation, must be entrusted to tell the story the artist intended.

Sound

Tinguely’s kinetic artworks produce sounds through movement: they squeak, clank, and creak. Sound as an element requiring preservation is a challenge: if the material changes due to wear, the sound changes too. Sound is a crucial element of Radio Dylaby. The artwork is a “radio” and broadcasts on AM frequency: the speaker produces a “live” sound that confuses the public because the motor arm continually changes the transmitter button, distorting the sound. Although the radio is currently functional, its tubes will no doubt be difficult to obtain in the near future because they will no longer be manufactured (as with, for instance, some types of light bulbs and photographic film).

The AM broadcast band signal is difficult to pick up, especially in the museum, and AM transmissions are disappearing (AM radio is no longer transmitted by Dutch broadcasters). However, stopping the actual radio from being used would mean that the radio tubes do not function, which influences not only the sound but also the appearance of the piece. The immediate feeling of time and place the radio emits would be lost (Citation: Bek 2011:205–15 [Bek, Reinhard. 2011. “Between Ephemeral and Material: Documentation and Preservation of Technology-Based Works of Art.” In Scholte and Wharton 2011: 205–15. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.]). When Radio Dylaby is working, the sounds produced vary by country and by broadcasting station; thus, the artwork changes as the location changes.

To preserve the sound and the local experience of Radio Dylaby, it was decided to produce a stand-alone AM transmitter that can be hidden in the pedestal.⁶ Any audio source can be connected to this transmitter; for instance, digital/FM radio or historical or contemporary recordings. The radio tubes glow when the radio operates, and the audience experiences the sound. This temporary solution can only be maintained while we have spare tubes, and it is necessary to develop a strategy for the future, when all the tubes fail and can no longer be obtained.

Water

Tinguely used water as an element in his works, and two of his fountains are in Stedelijk collection. To experience the fountains as he intended, they should spray water, but this conflicts with the artworks’ condition. So what exactly do we preserve without the water? And how do we document these fountains for future reference without good, early footage of them in operation? Can we safely make the fountains operational, if only just once, to see how they work and to obtain new footage? How else can the public and later generations understand and experience these artworks?

Documentation is a key element of this project, and documenting the sound, movement, and spraying of the water while we are still able, together with the physical work itself, does preserve the artwork. Such documentation entails a full risk assessment, taking into account possible material loss, before it is performed.

Conclusion

There are many facets to the Tinguely Conservation Project of which we have highlighted only a few, mostly related to motion issues. A multitude of issues and challenges (creation, techniques, ethics, history, transport, exhibition, etc.) addressed in the project cannot be discussed within the scope of this paper.

Motion is a major component of Tinguely’s works, and one of the most important goals of the project is restoring the movement of the artworks while on display. However, if this cannot be achieved, other means are being explored to preserve it. Fully realizing that there are no clear-cut answers or solutions to many questions, we hope to have given some insight into the Stedelijk Museum’s Tinguely Conservation Project and its ethical and practical challenges.

Notes