22. Future in Motion: Conservation Issues of Seven Kinetic Artworks by Dutch Artist Ray Staakman

Dutch artist Ray Staakman (b. 1941) was a pioneer in kinetic art in the Netherlands during the 1960s and 1970s, and the movement in his artworks creates intriguing optical effects by the displacement of shapes. Unfortunately, several of his works began to malfunction after repeated use and could no longer be displayed. In 2012 the University of Amsterdam (UvA), in collaboration with the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (RCE; the Cultural Heritage Agency, Netherlands), began a major conservation project of seven of Staakman’s early kinetic artworks in the collection of the RCE. The objects, which Staakman made between 1965 and 1969, are composed of various materials, including anodized aluminum or tin plate in combination with polystyrene sheets, painted chipboard, painted metal, and metal springs (fig. 22.1). They all contain one or two electric motors, which activate the kinetic mechanisms.¹ The malfunctions were mainly caused by broken electric motors and deformation of the moving parts due to repeated use or to damage that occurred during exhibition and storage. In some cases, components were not resilient enough to withstand stress generated during movement.

Extensive research resulted in restoring both the materiality and the kinetic functions of the artworks; however, the conservators found themselves constantly questioning the practical possibilities and ethical boundaries of conserving and restoring the artworks. Following conservation ethics, is it permissible to improve or replace kinetic mechanisms? For a broader perspective on these dilemmas, we asked the opinions of three pioneers in the conservation of kinetic art: Lydia Beerkens, senior conservator, contemporary art, Stichting Restauratie Atelier Limburg (SRAL), Netherlands; Reinhard Bek, partner, Bek & Frohnert, New York City; and Ulrich Lang, senior conservator, LangSündermanRestauratoren, Germany.

Kinetic artworks can be divided into two categories: “sculptural” works, which still have high aesthetic value without movement; and works that are “dead” without movement. Staakman’s can be placed in the second category, as he stated: “Without movement my work is dead. The materials I used are simply a means to create optical effects through movement.”² Bek emphasized the importance of movement in Staakman’s work and stated that “under certain circumstances the reversible replacement of functional parts, e.g., motors, especially when invisible to the audience, can therefore be considered acceptable.”³ Although Beerkens understood that Staakman’s work doesn’t have an explicit sculptural value without its movement, she expressed doubts: “improving the artwork with retroactive effect changes the artworks into more sophisticated contemporary pieces.”⁴ Lang said that “instead of improving a kinetic artwork by later technology, I would rather think about exhibition copies, 3-D models, or films. A faded color would never be repainted, so why would we be allowed to ‘update’ kinetic art?”⁵

The aim of the Staakman conservation project was to achieve at least temporary exhibition of the artworks through minimal intervention; however, the treatments seem to have been insufficient because some of the malfunctions are inherent to the quality of the kinetic components. More drastic measures are needed to allow a prolonged exhibition in the future. The choice between respecting the artist’s intent, which would require improving the artworks, or respecting the material’s authenticity will be made in continuing conservation treatments.

Notes