REVIEWERS

Prof. dr hab. Elżbieta Basiul

Prof. dr hab. Grażyna Korpal

COVER AND TITLE PAGES DESIGN Przemysław Spiechowski

GRAPHIC DESIGN Katarzyna Trzeszczkowska

PROJECT COORDINATOR Izabela Jaźwińska

ENGLISH TRANSLATION Agnieszka Adamczyk-Karwowska

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDITOR Magdalena Kizeweter

EDITORIAL COORDINATOR Monika Dąbrowska

E-BOOK Michał Latusek

The publication was subsidised by the Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw

Copyright © Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN SA, Warszawa 2020

ISBN 978-83-01-21599-6

This book has been prepared on paper edition from 2020 (First edition)

Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN SA

02-460 Warszawa, ul. Gottlieba Daimlera 2

tel. 22 69 54 321, fax 22 69 54 288

helpline 801 33 33 88

e-mail: pwn@pwn.pl

www.pwn.pl

ILLUSTRATIONS: Agencja Dreamstime: Danflcreativo 10, Gianni Pacciani 13, 66, Piccaya 145, Thomas Vieth 39; Agencja Pixabay: jjoeblack564 28, Mac_Paverick 15; Archiwum WKiRDS ASP w Warszawie: 70, 71, 72, 84, 118, 119, 120, 121, 132, 134, 137; Biblioteka Kongresu USA: 78; Muzeum Pałacu Jana III w Wilanowie: 27, 116, 117; Wikimedia Commons: 44, 46, 62, 65, 90, 125, 143, 152, Aurbina/11, Google Art Project 20, 27, Pilecka 77, Tony Webster 100, wikiart 163; Iwona Szmelter: 36, 40, 96, 98, 103, 129, 137, 141, 147, 149, 159

Sample

Introduction

Chapter One. Visual arts and heritage

1. Contemporary discourses on visual arts and heritage

2. Understanding heritage

3. Philosophy in search of ‘the truth of art’

Chapter Two. Art: an idea that shaped our world

1. On valuing the heritage of visual arts

2. Understanding the value of heritage according to various criteria

3. Proposal of a comprehensive assessment of values

4. Institutional criteria and framework for valuation/evaluation

5. Assessment of values and conservation as a process

6. Brainstorming’ the heritage of culture

Chapter Three. Meanders in the preservation of visual arts

1. Professional awareness of artists and conservators

2. Significance of personality in the development of conservator knowledge

3. What we preserve

4. Diverse understanding of authenticity

5. Memento

6. The theory of object/heritage preservation in the 20th and the 21st century

7. The return of fundamental questions about art

8. On ethics, responsibility and communication

Chapter Four. Contemporary changes in the ethics and preservation of visual arts

1. New instruments and methodologies

2. Moral casuistry and bespoke codes of ethics

3. Proposals for bespoke codes of ethics in institutions

4. Pros and cons of communication with artists

5. Impasse of visual arts? Preventing their impermanence?

6. ‘Everything’ may be the matter of art

7. Discoveries in the interpretation of visual arts

8. Consequences of changes in visual arts

9. Differences in the approach to old art associated with traditional disciplines and to new phenomena in contemporary art

10. Communication in visual arts research

11. Communication in education

Chapter Five. New elements in the theory and practice of preservation

1. Re-orientation of the aims of preservation

2. The comprehensive preservation of the works of Alina Szapocznikow

3. Difficulties in preserving the conceptual legacy of a ‘total artist’: the case of Tadeusz Kantor

4. Artist, curator and conservator cooperation. Handling ephemeral artistic mega-productions

5. Actor-network theory in the preservation of heritage

Chapter Six. Summary expanding the theory of the preservation of visual arts

1. Deontology of the preservation of visual arts

2. New conceptual framework for the preservation of visual arts

3. Holism as a comprehensive approach to the preservation of heritage

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Bibliography

About Author

Footnotes

When I pronounce the word Future,

the first syllable already belongs to the past

Wisława Szymborska

INTRODUCTION

THE PHENOMENON OF VISUAL ARTS, constantly present since the dawn of human civilisation, is one of the greatest mysteries of humanity. This legacy, still studied in many fields of heritage science, is aesthetically attractive and thus arouses social interest. Importantly, it embodies the constant creativity of man, exists despite the decline of cultures and civilisations, against many pitfalls and dramatic events in history. The mysterious phenomenon is renewed in each generation but, although it is eternal, its works erode over time. The motto of this volume, taken from the poetry of Wisława Szymborska,[1] clearly denotes the phenomenon of passing.

The description of visual arts is hampered by the necessity to translate all the visible and felt experiences into text and language. Thus, visual arts (Latin videre ‘to see’) will be presented in an outline, from the oldest forms to the present day, according to the current terminology. Updating becomes necessary here, as well as the broader understanding of the heritage of culture presented in this book.

Visual arts have been and are an everyday inspiration and source of fascination, as well as a valuable element of the heritage of culture,[2] both tangible and intangible as well as digital. The role of the heritage of culture, including visual arts, against the logic of survival characteristic of the human species, diminished in the Anthropocene, the epoch of man and the industrialisation of the Earth lasting for about 200 years, which has rapidly been changing and destroying our planet.[3] The heritage of culture was not fully appreciated due to the dominance of industry and the natural sciences. As a result, also its values were not sufficiently protected, and there emerged the risk of ‘white spots’ and gaps in the endurance of human achievement. Numerous communities have taken steps to reverse these sinister trends. The arguments for the continuity of human civilisation, which generally needs to be appreciated, understood and protected, are now taken into account.[4]

Thousands of human hands used as stencils, surrounded by coloured earthen clay paint are present in Palaeolithic rock painting on all continents; here, in the Cueva de Manos (Cave of the Hands) in the province of Santa Cruz, Patagonia, Argentina

Visual arts have existed ‘since always’, from the very beginning of mankind, and they continuously accompany humanity. Decoration of the body fostered the birth of the consciousness of the Palaeolithic man and the images of hands in grottos around the world had a similar significance. This kind of prehistoric ‘self-portraits’ of unknown character emphasises the importance of hands as a human natural evolutionary tool to contemporary recipients, whereas among the prehistoric creators of paintings, engravings, and sculptures it enhanced the understanding of the nature of the world.

Visual arts have accompanied man for nearly one hundred thousand years, although in the Palaeolithic version of art, in the Altamira grotto, paintings were discovered only a little over a hundred years ago, in 1868 (!) and only many years later did they become recognised as one of the most valuable evidences of civilisation. It is believed that Palaeolithic art conveys messages that may be naturalistic or allegorical in nature, both of which are of concern to contemporary researchers.[5] Prehistoric art turned out to not only mimetically depict the world but also to define it and discover its complexity, which had been forgotten for millennia. It also amazes with the thematic breadth and the search for a reflection of movement, which researchers interpret as a forerunner of cinematography, where animal movement can be considered the earliest attempts to pre-sent an animation that ended with the invention of the cinema camera.[6]

Visual arts are ‘everywhere’. Only thanks to many new discoveries in the 21st century it is known that the prehistoric man created similar forms of art in grottos and on rocks on all continents. Till today, their location, origin and forms remain sometimes an unresolved mystery, as in the case of the monumental statues on Easter Island. Thanks to the Internet, television, and radio the knowledge about art forms reaches an audience wider than ever before. It may be argued that the access to visual arts, initiated in collections and museums in the 18th century, is now democratised thanks to the mass media. Art, once contemporary for the generations of its creators, after a long time becomes a valuable heritage of culture for its recipients. Such a message, experienced at different levels of reception, can keep the visual arts phenomena in a state of natural timeless connection. Hence the suggestion that the changes in access to visual arts that favour the popularisation of their perception in a quantitative sense are followed by the potential possibility of understanding and empathising with them, which consequently leads to qualitative changes, such as the pleasure of communing with art and participating in the protection of its heritage.

Moai Rano Raraku, a fragment of a group of mysterious statues on Easter Island

The design of this book is based on the assumption that the presented considerations are intended to shed new light on the understanding of the condition of and research into visual arts, as well as to discuss their preservation and conservation in the spirit of heritage science, a field of study involving humanities, science and natural sciences.[7]

The subsequent chapters of this study address the issues concerning the phenomenon of visual arts and their preservation. The first chapter presents the concepts and definitions as well as an outline of visual arts. Reflections on philosophy in search of ‘the truth of art’ as well as on what constitutes preservation in the future sense play an important role. The sense of preserving the heritage of visual arts and its elements inextricably linked with history, humanities and natural sciences is being revised in accordance with the transdisciplinary modern theory of conservation-restoration-reconstruction. In the second chapter, in line with the axiom that art is one of the greatest ideas that have shaped the world, the theme of the imaginary of art interacts with the recognition of works that must precede the preservation of heritage and its multifaceted valuation analysis. The third chapter presents the complexity of preservation and the changes in the ethical approach to the preservation of visual arts until the present day. The need to popularise the idea of responsibility for the legacy of the past and its implementation is given special attention. The fourth chapter presents the contemporary preservation of visual arts, the differences in treating it in contrast to traditional art, and the growing role of communication in science and education. In the fifth chapter, the author proposes to introduce new elements in the theory and practice of preserving visual arts, presents examples of comprehensive preservation of the atypical legacy of Alina Szapocznikow, Tadeusz Kantor and others, as well as the re-orientation of preservation objectives, and the role of the actor-network theory (ANT) in heritage preservation. The summary presents an open-ended framework for issues concerning visual arts and their preservation, in contrast to the rigid conservator doctrines and dogmas. The conclusion concerns the phenomenon of visual arts always socially active, attractive to artists and audiences, playing a significant role in the economy and heritage science of a transdisciplinary nature, and satisfying the recipients.

The study summarises the results of the author’s long-standing research conducted in many international and national projects. It is based on deontological foundations and on the analysis of many hundreds of case studies during four decades of conservation practice, restoration, and sometimes reconstruction carried out by the author in the interest of preserving the integrity of the works. The publication has an open character, aimed to encourage the readers to continuously update the knowledge and literature on the subject.

CHAPTER ONE

VISUAL ARTS AND HERITAGE

Fragment of Raphael Santi’s Self-portrait, 1506, oil on board. The Uffizi Gallery, Florence, Italy

The phenomenon of visual arts has an open character. Its beginning is a mystery of prehistory and its duration is continuous; interestingly, thanks to the successive hundreds of thousands of generations of people. The result of Dutton’s evolutionary study defines ‘the art instinct’ as a constant predisposition of the human species.[8] Thus, the impact of this occurrence on its recipients may also be called a phenomenon. To make these considerations more precise, the term visual arts combines various fields of creativity which are perceived visually, from the oldest to the modern ones. Hence their name: the term visual means perceptible, received with the sense of sight (from the Latin verb videre ‘to see’).

Visual art in the present understanding is therefore a term that covers all the forms of art perceived visually: architecture, painting, sculpture. They are not only ‘pictorial’, however, as different forms of perception are in place thanks to the engagement of other senses, the use of conceptual turns, time-based media, performance with elements of music, etc. Visual art can also be a hybrid or a synthesis of the arts which are tied with their common expression despite the variety of utilised materials and forms.

Nowadays, the term is used to refer to all the fields of visual arts, covering forms from the oldest to the newest ones, and has replaced the traditional terms: fine arts and plastic arts. The latter terms are still present, but for the last hundred years have become less relevant in the context of modern and contemporary art, such as conceptual art, dadaism, environment, performance or installation.[9] Frequently, correction is necessary when the term visual art is routinely incorrectly used only to refer to the newest means of artistic expression, e.g. video art, various forms of time-based media, etc.

The modern science of art explores the functions that art has performed in history. Currently, the full expression of works is often delivered not only through one discipline, and this fact inspires numerous contemporary debates about new interpretations of art,[10] starting with Palaeolithic art, whose name was unjustly limited to ‘rock painting’, while its cultural importance, universalism and total art (German Gesamtkunstwerk, French correspondance des arts) freedom have unjustifiably been forgotten. The phenomenon of art, from its oldest to the newest versions, helps constantly revise and enrich our knowledge of the world.

View of the Acropolis of Athens. In 1987 the Athens hill was added to the UNESCO World Heritage List. The artefacts discovered at Acropolis are exhibited in the Acropolis Museum adjacent to the hill. Sculptures from the Acropolis, the so-called Elgin Marbles (dismantled in 1801) are on display in the British Museum in London

Art is universal, as it expresses human consciousness and shaping, our understanding of the nature of mankind as well as our defining of the natural environment. Significantly, it is an inherent element of human existence: civilisations have collapsed and systems of power have changed, but the need to practice art has kept renewing. The symbols of human heritage are therefore of universal significance, for example world widely recognizable works of Leonardo da Vinci, famous works by other artists, or symbols of bygone cultures, such as the Acropolis of Athens.

It is impossible to unequivocally determine to what extent man hindered the survival of visual arts and their context. This publication considers the various aspects of the preservation of visual arts and attempts to revise the approach to these issues.

Formulating interpretations and protecting values pose many problems as these notions have sometimes been understood in utterly different ways over the millennia. Currently, it is obvious to treat many aspects of the evaluation of visual, material and non-material arts in a similar way. It should be added that this heritage used to be treated too arbitrarily and too dogmatically, according to the current presentism-loaded opinions. However, there is no other way to preserve human achievements than balanced and tolerant views, even less so are fashion and passing tendencies. The supplement to the current dominant of material culture is the increasing importance of its non-material aspects and the democratisation of access to art thanks to new communication channels. This knowledge, despite the declaration of openness to the current image of the world, is still ignored in traditional institutions, unfortunately also in such academic teaching that is mainly rooted in the post-Enlightenment model of artistic mono-disciplines, although it aims at educating future staff of cultural institutions. This materialisation of art is intensified by its world market interested in commercialising art resources, as well as by the strong tourism industry which treats art as a product subordinated to increasing the profits. Nevertheless, whether willingly or unwillingly, all these interpretations influence the assessment of the importance of visual arts.

Thus, debates require answers to basic question that generally relate to the goals of heritage preservation and the need for multi-faceted valuation: WHAT deserves to be preserved?, which should be supplemented with: WHY? and FOR WHOM do we preserve the heritage?

Regardless of the possible answers, until the turn of the 21st century, the meaning of material heritage, as well as its consistent accumulation in the form of material goods was the dominant idea. It was only after the revision of the term of ‘authenticity in all its richness’ in the 1994 Nara Document, which will be dealt with later, that some kind of crack occurred and flaws became visible in the former conservation dogmas and doctrines. For people professionally dealing with arts, it is obvious that each kind of heritage should be treated individually, as well as its philosophy, the context of its origin, and also each particular object. In the case of mobile works, the main goal of preservation has changed from the preservation of material relics to the very making of the work present. The important features are the recipients’ place of living and their expectations, as well as respect for the preservation of the expression of their local cultures. The access to arts is a factor enriching the recipients, according to the maxim of Marcel Proust:

Thanks to art, instead of seeing one world only, our own, we see that world multiply itself and we have at our disposal as many worlds as there are original artists (...) centuries after the extinction of the fire from which their light first emanated, whether it is called Rembrandt or Vermeer, send us still each one its special radiance.[11]

In order to ensure that such radiance affects the recipients who may have different preferences, this study assumes a broad perspective of the assessment of values of visual arts and the basics of their preservation. The oldest and most numerous studies concern the heritage of architecture and immobile monuments. Over the past two centuries, the theoretical principles for their preservation have been analysed by many authors and researchers and have influenced all kinds of heritage. On the other hand, the interest in the preservation of ‘mobile’ heritage, comprising various types of art, such as painting, sculpture, etc., was lower until the mid-twentieth century, when these issues freed themselves from the dominance of architectural matters.

1
CONTEMPORARY DISCOURSES ON VISUAL ARTS AND HERITAGE

The present study puts emphasis on those changes in the contemporary world which require noticing and interpreting novelties as well as taking appropriate preservation measures. It also takes into account historical breakthroughs and the sources and roots of cultural interpretation. The image of the power that was attached to the knowledge of art is clearly revealed in the order given by the Queen of Britain to Johann Zoffany for paintings depicting the most valuable works of art of the 18th century.

At the time, journeys round Europe to visit places connected to Egyptian, Greek and Roman cultures played a similar role in building the model of art-related knowledge and education. The travellers gained not only the knowledge but, as count Stanisław Kostka Potocki during his Grand Tour, searched for the most valuables pieces of art for their collections.[12]

Currently, as mentioned above, learning about art has a democratic character. The novelties concern the theoretical reflections on the rules of preservation and the wide scope of heritage science, as well as the dynamic development of research, utilising the latest instrumental analytics. Implementing changes is slowed down by various institutional procedures but, on the other hand, accelerated by the cooperation between different fields of heritage sciences and by arrangements in international councils, such as the International Council of Museums (ICOM), or the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). For many institutions and collections, those new challenges mean a revolution related to post-colonial consequences, including the return of works to the communities whom they have been looted from. The relations between the looted items and the ideas attributed to them, and their true meaning and the context of their origins, reborn after the collapse of the colonial image of the world, are also revised. Modern rules prevent the erasure of the identity of local cultures worthy of restoration.[13]

The currently proposed revision of the approach to the heritage of visual arts adopts a modern research perspective of the 20th/21st century, from the so far dominant base of post-Enlightenment thoughts to contemporary heritage sciences. It is known, contrary to common beliefs about the otherwise existing value of experience, that the worst motivation that can be followed when identifying works is routine, because artistic works are not obvious in their nature, hence treating them alike may lead to mistakes. Nowadays, the importance of doctrines, dogmas and typology is diminishing due to the diversity of interpretations of both old visual art and modern and contemporary art. Due to the dynamics of changes, the traditional museum procedures have become partially useless and narrowly specialised conservation practices are not sufficient either. Hence, the current norms are open-ended, they result from dialogue with contemporary concepts by many authors, including the opinions of artists. The collected research and experience from the last century lead directly to the re-orientation of traditional conservation attitudes. At the same time, they are not a denial but a continuation and extension of the legacy of ideas since the beginning of the 20th century and the modern theory of Alois Riegl (1903) to the conventional ‘today’, which will be discussed later in the publication. In the current times of the civilisation breakthrough, the changes concern a new understanding of heritage and cause a revision of opinions from both the global and the local point of view, and thus they affect the preservation of the value of visual arts. The renewed interest in the ecosphere and in the human heritage is taking place on all continents. The pandemic of 2020 has caused a slowdown in the pace of life and a focus on protecting (isolating) people from the virus infection. At the same time, it drew attention to the priorities of life and caused the turn towards reflection on humanity and towards critical thinking about the paths of life development on our planet. The now often postulated revision of the current lifestyle on a global scale, the critical approach towards consumerism at the expense of nature, the eco-system and the natural environment create a chance to re-activate human interest in existential values, as well as in culture and its heritage. The remedies include putting the hierarchy of values in order and discovering the needs and aspirations of people, which is presented in the appeal expressed by a group of decision-makers and politicians:

COVID-19 has made us realise that we need new ideas to overcome the current challenges and adapt to the global, digital, and highly mobile world we live in today.[14]

The Tribuna of the Uffizi, Johann Zoffany, 1772-1777, oil on canvas,123.5 cm x 155 cm. The interior of the famous red octagonal hall, designed in 1584, was ‘portrayed’ at the request of the English Queen Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. The painting is still in the Royal Collection. Most of the works shown in the painting have survived in the present Tribuna of the Uffizi and the digital interactive information about the results of research on the works is also available

Regarding universalism and the encyclopaedic definition of culture, it is worth mentioning the role of meaning according to Rein Raud’s integral theory of culture.[15] If we accept Raud’s assumption that culture is the sum of our efforts to understand the world, from the most individual to the most universal level, then ‘meaning’ is, in fact, the common denominator for all cultural phenomena. Thus, it requires considering the role of the roots of visual arts and their place in the timeline, and leads to questions about both their form up to the present day and a purposeful concern for heritage as an anticipation of the future. This means that people should recall and appreciate the common wisdom revealed in preserving the heritage by the UNESCO Cultural Conventions,[16] the wisdom so obvious that it is overlooked and underestimated in everyday life. The lack of willingness to act concerned the implementation of successive UNESCO conventions in the field of culture, beginning with the UNESCO Convention of 1972 on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, which was the result of many years of work on legal solutions for the protection of the world heritage. Advocating the significance of and protecting and preserving heritage have become activities of great importance. The conventions that followed, such as the Intangible Heritage 2003, the Faro Convention, etc., were also ratified by most countries of the world. However, the fact that the monuments of culture and art, and the natural environment are dealt with by separate state structures generally causes the paradox consisting in, on the one hand, the recognition of the UNESCO Convention but, on the other, its incomplete application.

The challenge of modernity is to combine the measures to preserve the cultural heritage with the measures to protect the environment as part of integrated protection and a holistic vision of the human environment. Separation of those two aspects leads to an obvious reduction of the value of culture: uncoordinated activities often led to disturbing spatial order and destroying harmony resulting from the historical development of the landscape.[17] Updating the understanding of the heritage of culture to shape it into a more open and flexible theory results from the changes in perceiving the meaning of the directions of the development of civilisation and culture. Inadequate and out-of-date regulations and constant discussions about how old a valuable heritage should be to deserve protection disturb the way to preserving art in urban spaces and bypass art valuation and its importance for the community. Therefore, many diverse but convergent factors generate motivation to update the principles of preserving the heritage of culture and nature, i.e. cities, natural landscapes, local traditions, mobile works, galleries and museums, even our streets, where murals flourish, elevated to the rank of art, pieces of street art and, more generally, so-called urban art – all of those become places of public, and thus broader, experience.

The risk of loss, which is our dramatic experience, encourages us to care for the heritage of all epochs, including the most recent one, which is especially marked by impermanence. In modern and contemporary art, interpretation difficulties arise due to the short time distance; nonetheless, one cannot wait idly for the approaching crash in the form of abandonment and disappearance of many forms of art. Such a situation is presented in the field of ethics by Renée van de Vall, who for over twenty years has been observing international debates on the protection and conservation of contemporary art and has proposed to adapt moral casuistry in difficult decision-making situations.[18] The strategy is based on practice, which is closer to reality and is often ahead of theory due to the dynamism of civilisation changes, and on learning the principles of argumentation in decision making processes concerning protection and preservation. When utilising the heuristic analysis of visual arts, trends and fashions should not be an obstacle, even though they disturb the conceptualisation of contemporary cultural phenomena, similarly to references to the so-called art world and art promoted by individual institutions. The contemporary theory of the preservation of the heritage of culture has been modified since the beginning of the 21st century, attempting to meet the needs of sustainable development,[19] but also taking into account the continuity of its own message.[20] At the beginning of the third decade of the 21st century, the author anticipates a departure from the dominance of the Eurocentric vision of art. It concerns the respect for sources of inspiration in different cultures, which is gradually becoming more and more noticeable both in everyday life and in the practice of conservation. The authors of a project completed at Heidelberg University conclude:

If culture in general can be differentiated into social, mental and material aspects, the concept of cultural heritage participates in all of these three levels: At the social level it encompasses all variations of (regional, national, global) identity constructions, institution building, social practices – and the vision of cultural heritage plays a strong role in it: the identification, selection, protection, presentation and administration of which is always regulated by institutionalised authorities and scholarship. [21]

What becomes the basis for organisational transformations in culture is dialogue, which, by proposing openness, brings positive effects in the approach to the preservation of cultural heritage.

2
UNDERSTANDING HERITAGE

Visual arts and the accompanying preservation of the created heritage are phenomena not easily amenable to research and challenging to define.

The term heritage comprises nature and culture, as widely explained in the 1972 UNESCO Convention and adopted all over the world. It is obvious that the full scope of heritage cannot be exhaustively described due to the enormity and diversity of the heritage of both culture and nature, which are protected and subjected to conservation or preservation, to use a broader term. According to the idea of historical fidelity, the practice of protection, incorporating preservation and restoration, should give a rundown on a certain past state of a now damaged ecosystem, including the coexisting nature and culture.[22] Due to the broad scope of terms, it is proposed to define the terms and methods which can be precise instruments to identify heritage.

The concept of the heritage of culture (French patrimoine), similarly to the term culture, did not come into common use until the 18th century, when it was disseminated by encyclopaedists. The phenomenon had been known for millennia; history recalls the existence of many phenomena such as art, which had been functioning perfectly since prehistory ahead of the words that defined it and before the changeable terms were created. During the Enlightenment, the terminology was limited to material culture, as it is now interpreted, because it concerned material structures, institutional complexes and, in the case of post-revolution France, the practices of secularisation, and building the nation’s identity. The system of knowledge on art in the spirit of classicism was developed by Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717-1768) in his work The History of Ancient Art (1764). Noteworthy is the book titled O sztuce u dawnych, czyli Winkelman polski (On the Art of the Ancients or the Polish Winckelmann), drawing on Winckelmann’s ideas, published in 1815 by count Stanisław Kostka Potocki (1755-1822), as well as his journals about the realities of collecting art. Kostka Potocki was a Polish erudite, art critic and historian, an outstanding statesman, and a creator of the Wilanów art collections available to the public since 1805.

In the 18th century, the concept of the heritage of culture constitutive of history, architecture and conservation, appeared in Europe as a form of contemporary modernity, which, thanks to its rationalisation of knowledge, had so far proven itself useful in the context of the traditional European heritage whereas outside Europe it became the basis for creating new identities imposed on foreign cultures. The picture of the world and the theory has changed. In fact, we cannot deal with recognising the intangible assets of civilisation, or manage sustainable development basing on the socio-economic problems of the present day. The heritage of culture required a reflection on the terminology, an interdisciplinary and at the same time a comprehensive new approach to the problems related to preservation, cultural tourism, dynamically developing digital heritage and widespread Internet communication.

A new understanding of the heritage of culture as tangible, intangible and digital was popularised thanks to the so-called Joint Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage and Global Change (JPI CH) established in 2010 by the Council of Europe.[23] It is a very important change awaiting its full institutional implementation as it covers a wide spectrum of concepts through the clearly expressed terms of the JPI CH Strategy:[24]

Equestrian portrait of Count Stanisław Kostka Potocki, Jacques Louis David, 1781, oil on canvas, 304 cm x 218 cm, Museum of King Jan III’s at Wilanów, Poland

Tangible heritage includes artefacts (objects, paintings, archaeological finds, etc.), buildings, structures, landscapes, and cities including industrial, underwater and archaeological sites. This covers their location, relation with the environment and the materials which all these works are made of, from prehistoric rocks to cutting-edge plastics and electronic products.

Intangible heritage encompasses practices, including artistic practices, representations, expressions, intangible art, memories, knowledge and skills that communities, groups and individuals construct, use and pass on from generation to generation.

Digital heritage relates to texts, databases, still and moving images, audio recordings, graphics, software and websites. Some of this digital heritage is created by scanning or converting physical objects that already exist, and some is digitally created or ‘born digitally’.

Synoptically, the heritage of culture is a process, and therefore the heritage of visual arts is also a process open in time. Thus, their preservation is even more of a process, and consequently conservation and all its forms also have the character of a process. It is, after all, a natural feature of living phenomena related to culture that the discourse on them is open. However, for these processes to take place, it is important to maintain the stability of the cultural ecosystem, which depends on combining the understanding of the value of art and its heritage, ideas and people. Hence, the conservation doctrines, monothematic theories and dogmas typical of the 19th and 20th centuries are mostly not binding recommendations, although they have not lost their validity in many cases of classical arts. In some specific situations the assumptions taken a priori work perfectly well. In the Eurocentric world, some predetermined rules about the primacy of conservation over restoration are still functioning and they are commonly accepted in museums in relation to ancient art. However, such a view is not a rigid frame for dealing with the heritage of culture of diverse origins, and making conservation decisions has ceased to be an accepted implementation of the preferences of either party. The routinised structures of heritage preservation pose an existential threat to the entire cultural ecosystem. The 20th century made it important that “each community, by means of its collective memory and the consciousness of its past, is responsible for the identification as well as the management of its heritage”.[25] According to the Charter of Krakow 2000, the elements of heritage are understood as carriers of many different values changing over time.

The Creation of Adam, Michelangelo, ca. 1511, fresco technique on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel

Unfortunately, values are affected by some strong factors, which result from ideological, religious, and political struggles. Aggression against another culture carries a powerful emotional charge, derived from the idea of belonging and shared or foreign cultural meanings, especially in the context of a political conflict. In February 2001, the whole world trembled at the devastation committed by the mullahs from a radical branch of the fundamentalist Wahhabi doctrine in Afghanistan. Two Buddha statues in Bamyan, carved out of the rock fifteen centuries ago by monks from India, were destroyed.[26] Obviously, history has witnessed many such cruel cases, but they represent a drop in the ocean of peaceful coexistence for the sake of the preservation of heritage. Mutual tolerance for the values of different cultures implies the need for education and dialogue even between extreme protagonists. It can be particularly risky for the welfare of heritage when decisions about it are made arbitrarily and without dialogue with all the interested parties since cultural output that is immediately identifiable, obviously evident and beyond any analysis is a rare phenomenon.

Each work of visual arts can have an individual character, and a typology can only be utilised in the case of those objects that are repetitive in their discipline, but even here the so-called biography of the work, its layers and the changes it has undergone over the years can leave an individual mark. The latest, contemporary heterogeneity of the heritage of visual arts also requires a diverse approach and precision in the nomenclature. The term modern art has many meanings which explore numerous novelties of expression manifested during the last two hundred years, including the avant-garde movements of the 20th century. It is worth clarifying that the term contemporary art means only its temporality, as it accompanies contemporary generations and may combine various forms, as it functions dichotomously and concerns both traditional and non-standard arts, in accordance with the free creative will of artists.

In the spirit of the changes in the 20th/21st century, new and full-fledged issues arose, such as the aforementioned cultural diversity or the effects of the IT breakthrough of civilisation. New challenges are brought by ideas of modern and contemporary art, unusual means of expression and any matter/im-matter used for creation, formerly judged by traditional critics as ‘non-artistic’, by conceptual art, as well as performative art, works of time-based media and many others. Given the current appreciation for the intangible heritage of culture, the necessity of a comprehensive approach to phenomena and objects has been confirmed. It is manifested in all kinds of activities, from real folk rituals to rituals of modern art, both so-called high and popular, to preserving matter and ideas, though not always jointly. Sometimes transferring the idea of a work to new carriers takes place, for example during the conservation processes of a film in virtual reality (‘virtual body of art’).

The stages of care leading to the preservation of works are actions that are extended in comparison to the ones existing so far: assessment of values, assessment of the state of preservation and of the discrepancies arising in the expression of works as a result of their destruction, interpretation of the ideas and intentions of the creator and the context of creating the work, proper recognition of the work and its material and technological identification, which collectively lead to an understanding of the need of the preservation and conservation of the works. These actions are of research nature and they precede the diagnosis, concept and design of the selection of the scope of conservation, restoration or reconstruction. These data are only initial guidelines in the decision-making strategy concerning the preservation of heritage.

It is necessary to make decisions carefully if we want the full continuation of the existence of works, and not only their limitation to material culture. This, unfortunately, was the case with the aforementioned manifestations of Palaeolithic art, which were ‘squeezed’ into tight frames of the discipline of wall painting and, like in a gallery, were subjected to torture of mass tourism. Fortunately, these practices were cancelled in view of the progressive destruction of rock art works. Only then the intimate nature of the oldest and still unrecognised Palaeolithic assembly places was remembered and recognised. The wiser-a-bit-too-late discoverers of other caves with art, such as the Chauvet Cave in France, the Nerja Cave in Spain, or the oldest ones discovered on Sulawesi, have changed their course of action: first they examine the caves, create appropriate conditions for the originals, and right next to them they prepare high-level copies for mass tourism along with a diligently prepared educational zone, which enhances and deepens the empathy of visitors.

Unfortunately, similar mental limitations are quite frequent as regards the understanding of the sense of art in line with its original meaning and as far as exhibiting art properly is concerned. They may arise from a misunderstanding of the idea of the works and the intentions of their authors, even if the author is Michelangelo, the giant of the Renaissance, himself, and the work – the fresco The Last Judgment (1536-1541). Many recipients appreciated this masterpiece more before its conservation, regardless of the thick layers of dirt which had changed the fresco’s original colours.

Unfortunately, departure from routine and old habits requires time, effort and education. In traditional institutions, this means educating the society and making them participate in the process, avoiding the advantage of power and its organisational norms over the dialogue with recipients, explaining the meaning of protective measures. Nowadays, Hélia Marçal presents the importance of conservation in the era of participation, when apart from arbitrary judgments by narrowly specialised experts who operate on the market, the society and the knowledge gained from multidisciplinary recognition of the preservation of heritage are allowed to voice their opinion.[27]

3
PHILOSOPHY IN SEARCH OF ‘THE TRUTH OF ART’

Parallel to the phenomenon of visual arts, there exists an ongoing search for ‘art truth’, a fluid term, often based on philosophy, which opens and dominates all discussions. In the Polish model, conservation-restoration is a fusion of science and art; it combines the objectivism of exact and natural sciences with the subjectivism of the humanities and art. Philosophical discourse is close to conservation theories and should be recalled and continued along with the new, expanded field of heritage. The relations between aesthetics and ethics are a subject of research and of professional conservation studies; conservation deontology and empiric aesthetics are also matters of a great importance.[28]

When asking the basic research question of what, in fact, a particular piece of antique art or an object of modern art is as an artistic work, one expects from researchers not only a specific sensitivity but also a wide professional knowledge.[29] Especially when one considers the ways in which the contemporary philosophy of conservation refers to history, it is clearly visible how deceptive the term truth of art may be and how much it is dependent on the ideas and values of the given epoch, and on the community of researchers. References, whether one likes it or not, depend also on ‘the eye of the observer’.

Hence, is there a ‘truth’ for various forms of art, which was once a canon of values respected by the classic authors of old conservation theories, the truth encompassing the thoughts and ideas of conservators coming from different circles? The most visible discrepancies were presented by the 19th century antagonists: Eugène Viollet-le-Duc (1814-1879) and John Ruskin (1819-1900). Although they both were convinced of ‘objective truth’, they applied radically different justifications of their theories, which led to a completely differently understood ‘truth’. The truth of a work of art according to Viollet-le-Duc, determined by historical analysis and preferred reconstruction, was entirely different from Ruskin’s views, that is, from faithfulness to the natural expression of the materials and their documentary meaning. Such approaches result in completely divergent tendencies – from a broad reconstruction involving falsification to Ruskin’s primacy of the original, and their compliance is absolutely impossible. The answer was found by Alois Riegl (1858-1905) when he introduced the term Kunstwolle: the creative will which is the aesthetic drive of each epoch, without prioritising any of them. Cesare Brandi (1906-1988), the founder of the Istituto del Restauro in Rome, and Umberto Baldini (1921-2006) from Fortezza del Basso in Florence, who were the authors of aesthetic theories of the second half of the 20th century also considered the preservation of the artistic message an important aim. Classic theorists share the belief that preservation is generally based on the pursuit of the truth about the values of heritage and its proper recognition, despite a different interpretation of restoration methods.

Cesare Brandi emphasised that restauration is always a ‘critical act’ towards an existing work. In the series of theoretic-aesthetic reflections titled Theory of Restoration (1963), Brandi states that the preservation of historic substance is the necessary condition, though insufficient to rescue a work of art. On this basis, the Italian theorist formulates the view that the ‘minimum intervention principle’ is often not sufficient, and conservation activities should be an aid to the restoration of the work. This statement, which in the light of the theoretical assumptions of the time could be perceived as shocking, becomes understandable in the field of international conservation thought, when it is complemented by Brandi’s right belief that the overriding goal of conservation-restoration is the so-called making the work of art present in the viewer’s mind. This means that it is the actual ‘creation’ that is being conserved-restored and not only its matter.[30] According to Brandi, the aesthetic impact has the primary function in a work of art, but while generally agreeing with this argument, the author shall further discuss the notion as part of the proposed assessment values later in the study. Visual arts are a phenomenon, a process, not just a work or a product, and, as previously explained, they represent the entire spectrum of the legacy of what is visible: an open set, including architecture, artefacts and others, in the interpretation of which, their other values, meanings and functions are also important. Hence typifying, classifying or reducing them to one rigid ‘canon’ is not a positive approach. Although hierarchies once seemed timeless, useful and universal, nowadays the canon has become a flexible category, which should constantly be assessed in a broader social context.

The change towards research on the social impact of visual art began several decades ago, inspired by, among others, the works of the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002), who in the book titled Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste argued that aesthetic experiences and preferences are based on marketing addressed to the recipients belonging to certain social classes rather than on the values of art.[31] On the other hand, nowadays, in the face of the reported marginalisation of female and ‘non-Western’ artists, it has become clear that the canon is strongly both socially and culturally embedded. For several decades, the myths about canons have been disenchanted, as the harmfulness of selection has been pointed out and finally the horizon of art history has been widened. People who manage art on a professional basis, such as museum directors and curators, are now facing the necessity of making choices that involve the exclusion of a group of works of art, artists, or styles. Nevertheless, the ‘canon’ has also positive connotations which relate to particular works of art, creators and styles that are considered of the key or highest importance, and serve as a point of reference. For example, canon fulfils its role in the UNESCO World Heritage List. In terms of art, it changes the image of pop culture and, no matter if one is interested in it or not, it affects the prices in the art market.

The critical social theory of the idol of the counterculture Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) showed the dehumanisation of mass culture, and provoked student protests in the 1960s. Theodore Adorno (1903-1969) and Juergen Habermas (b.1929) implemented a different but equally effective criticism of society in the field of culture: they analysed language and the importance of communication as a tool of social understanding. The social thought about order represented by sociologists and philosophers of the Frankfurt school gave roots to new idealistic movements which reached back to Hegel’s theory and departed from the Marxist theory. The turning point in the regression that took place was the emergence of neo-humanism, phenomenology and idealistic aesthetics, important especially for the trend of thought about art and cultural heritage, which will be dealt with later. The analysis of cultural heritage in the field of post-structuralism, carried out under the ideological leadership of Jacques Lacan (1901-1981) strongly influenced the new, specific perception of art.

Another ‘on-call’ issue in the debate about culture is the relationship between authenticity and truth. Two questions immediately arise: ‘what authenticity’ and ‘what truth’? In Western culture, the search for the ‘authentic state’ in relation to matter alone has long been associated with truth. This belief is related to the traditional basis of collecting ancient art, where it is entirely justified. The situation worsens when it permanently underlies the preservation of world art and contemporary art, regional art, and art of other cultures, which are often discriminated by conservators and curators educated traditionally in the 20th century. However, since the 1994 Nara Document, the interpretation of this issue cannot be limited to an assessment of the state of the preservation of the original matter. Here comes a critical point, a kind of crack in the system of conservation dogmas and doctrines, caused by the official theoretical turn towards cultural diversity. Thus, authenticity is not the state of the preservation of matter but a process, understood as a social structure whose parameters and content are variable and negotiable. In the process of conservation-restoration and possible reconstruction, authenticity has become a broader concept, a kind of system in which a work exists in conjunction based on the unity of the material structure and its meaning in the conceptual structure.

In order to know the ‘truth’ in the context of authenticity, a critical interpretation of art is therefore necessary, which is possible through the recognition and protection of its elements, its idea, matter, context and internal unity, in accordance with the artist’s intentions and the perception of the integrity of his work. In the search for the ‘truth’ of contemporary art, it is essential to cooperate with artists or to find source information about a work, which makes it possible to verify common and routine identifications.

This is possible thanks to the theoretical thought of Nelson Goodman (1906–1998), who represented nominalism and Anglo-Saxon analytical philosophy.[32] The reflections on symbols, expression and the ways of their functioning in art and science are of a special significance for the preservation of art and its heritage, and have been the basis for the formulation of the relativistic theory.[33] The distinction proposed by Nelson Goodman concerns the different ‘truth’ of art in its two kinds. New terms are proposed, including ‘autographic art’, such as painting or sculpture, which exist in a specific form, and attempts to repeat them deviate from the ‘truth’ and are copies or, in the worst form, falsifications. The aforementioned distinction explains the significance of allographic art, such as theatre, music and – currently – performance, whose meaning lies in subsequent recreations. According to professionals, many types of art are difficult to classify unequivocally, as they constitute an autographic/allographic mix, for example architecture harmonising with the surroundings and their arrangement, or performance with elements of materially existing and documented art, etc.[34]

The consideration of the existence of a work of art in the hermeneutic circle as presented by Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) plays an important role in the debate on the truth of art. The thinker combines the experience of art with the search for its sense expressed in truth. Gadamer, while considering the issue of the truth of art, referred to the ancient thought of, among others, Plato and Aristotle. He interpreted art with the triad of Platonic values, i.e. with truth, beauty and good, an idea he revised years later in the context of contemporary art. He proved that reality and art, despite their different ontological status, function in a dynamic relationship, both in terms of the existential status of a material work of art and the truth of allographic art, such as music and theatre. Hence it regards the relationship between art and the reality of such phenomena as happenings, performance, and pop art. The hermeneutic identity of the work of art defined by the philosopher includes the following features presented in an innovative manner:

1. A work of art exists when it is being presented to the recipient. An example of the difference between a work and its presentation is a theatrical performance or a conservation of an ancient art painting, carried out by a conservator when they take into consideration the possible different ways of presenting the very work of art.

2. It is important to learn how a work of art plays with the audience as regards the ways in which it creatively refers to its own situation. It is especially explicit during the encounter of the recipient with works of contemporary art.

3. The third feature of hermeneutic identity of a work of art is its occasional character and religious, moral or social truth. Each of those truths demands its existence during the consecutive presentations of a work of art. Those challenges are undertaken only by those who notice them and let them become present. In this sense each work of art is always contemporary for those who respond to its play; in other words, for those who create appropriate circumstances for its presentation.[35]

Dirty Bomb, Iza Tarasewicz, Poznań 2005, an original design of a sculptural installation made of lard, cast for exhibitions

However, there is a condition to properly understand works of art from any epoch, including modern and contemporary art: one first needs to know the ‘alphabet and language’ of the particular work of art and grasp the ideas and intentions of the artist before making a rash judgment, which is illustrated by the sculpture made of lard presented below, in which the original is the artist’s design and not the constantly replaced matter.

In the dissertation Die Aktualität des Schönen (The Relevance of the Beautiful), Hans-Georg Gadamer states:

Whoever thinks that modern art is degenerate does not really understand the great art of previous epochs. One should be convinced that first one must learn to syllable each work, next read it, and only then it begins to speak. Modern art is a good warning against the belief that if you cannot spell, if you do not learn to read, you can hear the language of bygone art.[36]

The analysis of Gadamer’s intellectual legacy reveals many cognitive threads, including those related to the idea of education, because in his opinion, education is the way to understand the truth of art! The obvious benefits are the intellectual enrichment of the recipients and satisfaction from communing with culture, from school age, to adult, to senior age. A long-term goal, the importance of which is of a socio-economic nature, is education for the welfare of society, engagement of people, which eventually leads to their participation in the reception of art. It is also ‘preservation and conservation in the era of participation’, according to the contemporary reasoning.[37]

The recent popularity of postmodernism has allowed to revise many concepts related to the modernist art and to disseminate them, which has followed conceptualism. It brought a new perspective to the social interpretation of art by Jean Baudrillard (1929-2007) in the spirit of criticism of globalisation and by Jean-François Lyotard (1924-1998), the author of the philosophical interpretation of modernism.[38] It also resulted in the canonisation of modernism in the last quarter of the 20th century, in the eclectic nostalgia and the strategies to promote various kinds of art referring to such roots.[39] According to Giżycki, postmodernity and postmodernism are

phenomena in visual art, architecture and literature which do not claim exclusivity, and coexist in a certain pluralistic symbiosis, having no ambition to ‘expand the field of art’ and to set new boundaries.[40]

The phenomenological approach as well as the Gestalt psychology favour the reception of visual arts. Both were employed by humanists associated with the protection of art heritage, such as the aforementioned Cesare Brandi (1906-1988) and the younger continuator of his though, Paul Philippot (1925-2016), as well as many contemporary interpreters. In the search for truth, the phenomena of art beyond their material embodiment constitute a kind of intellectual inspiration that resembles the spiritual experience of a work, which many people are not capable of due to the limitations of imagination, or the dominant of rational cognition.[41] The fact remains, however, that in contemporary heritage science humanities and sciences constitute one transdiscipline.

Phenomenology (from the Greek phainómenon ‘that what appears’ and logos ‘word’ or ‘science’) advocates a phenomenological reduction, i.e. ‘suspension’ of the natural belief in the existence of the real world, in order to reach the so-called pure consciousness and the essence of matter; the main task becomes the analysis and description of experiences and consciousness (‘intentional acts’).[42] The observer takes part in the reception of what is directly given. This is the key to understanding the ideas of Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), who is considered the father of phenomenology. The continuators, for example Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), created their own descriptions of the existence of a work of art using their own language code. Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961) in his essay titled “Cézanne’s Doubt” compared the impressionist theory of painting to his own concept of radical reflection, and argued that science underestimated the depth of the phenomena based on subconsciousness. Consequently, in terms of subjectivism, the thesis about the ‘primacy of perception’ is based on the belief that works can never be separated from the one who perceives them, and that in the perception of reality there is a distinction between visible and invisible features of art.[43]

Polish phenomenologist Roman Ingarden (1893-1970) distinguished the existence of the world perceived by people, to which art belongs, and analysed real perception, for example objects existing in time, processes and occurrences. For a work to exist, it is very important to ‘be concretised’ in the recipient’s consciousness, which is a sign of its being cognitively processed by the recipient. In the case of visual arts, the semantic layer is an intersubjective creation perceived by the viewer from the contemporary perspective.[44]

Radically new interpretations of art, although initially stemming from phenomenology, were presented by French philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), whose theory of deconstruction gave a new view on the importance of language and aesthetic values. In his book The Truth in Painting, Derrida conducted a philosophical argument with the views of Plato, Kant, Hegel and Heidegger concerning painting, and pointed out their inadequacy to reality despite apparent convergences.[45] In Speech and Phenomena and other Essays on Husserl’s Theory of Signs, Derrida spoke of the fundamental role of the differences in language and thought which leads to ‘truth’. The second part of the title is very meaningful in the discussion on the rules and methods of deconstruction.

According to Derrida, there is a significant difference between ‘being behind’ and ‘being in place’, which defines the psychic experience more broadly. ‘Being in place’ goes beyond absolutely perfect objectivity, and this exactly means the sought truth. Derrida’s theory of deconstruction shocked with its open form of provocation but initiated reflection on the accepted findings in many fields, and encouraged the development of thinking beyond traditional canons and the stimulation of imagination.

Derrida’s concept of otherness emphasised the fundamental role of differences in perception. He presented it in his reflections on the famous painting Shoes by Vincent van Gogh as a description of the discrepancy between official and subconscious perception. The reflections concerned the ‘differences’ in the meaning of the pictorial representation of peasant boots; firstly, their destruction and the play of associations at the sight of undone shoelaces and secondly, the juxtaposition with the perception of the deeper content of the image. He commented that

Windy sculptures widely affect the associations and imagination of a kinetic viewer. Illinois, USA

Pictures act like Van Gogh’s shoes: their laces offer to lace themselves to an hallucinatory Van Gogh yet they also unlace themselves.[46]

As a result of ‘interlacing’, the lacing passes towards the viewer but it also takes place behind the picture. Derrida’s views caused a ferment, and then a strong cognitive movement in the circles related to art and the heritage of culture. It was assumed that a work of art understood in this way is transformed into an object of cultural heritage or a musealium in a museum, in the process of musealisation.[47] Derrida presented his own interpretation of the ‘truth’ of works of art, later critically assessed as postmodern, although his views are not easy to label due to their originality.[48]

Sonic Dome: An Empire of Thought, a fragment of an art synthesis work by Zulkifle Mahmod, Jason Lim, Vincent Leow, and Da Wu Tang, a project of total art, haptic and intensely colourful sound installation acting on the senses of viewers, Singapore Pavilion at the Venice Biennale in 2007

An interesting turning point in the knowledge about the influence of art was reached thanks to neuroaesthetics and the research into the neuroperception of masterpieces, pioneered by Semir Zeki (b. 1940).[49] He demonstrated how cognitive science interprets the art-brain interaction from the point of view of recipients’ perception and emotions.

Włodzisław Duch states:

Art also serves the search for truth beyond appearances. The information that comes to the eye is constantly changing due to alterations in distance, the angle of looking and lighting, yet we see a stable world made up of objects of a certain category (e.g. faces). The visual system extracts from the signal that reaches the eye only the essential, just like an artist who tries to reflect his way of seeing.[50]

It is not a secret that a few decades ago the image of art analysed by philosophers, physicists and neuroaesthetists was radically extended by digital technology, the synthesis of the arts and the return to sensual perception.

Its physical realisation has been transformed and perceived sensually and emotionally, which is obviously of an ephemeral nature, changing the sought truth into its virtual realisation.[51]

Bill Viola already in the 1990s argued “Persistence/impermanence... nothing better describes the paradox of the human being”,[52] and thus legitimised the then short life of video art and electronic media. In 1999 the artist contributed to the world debate on the legacy of art and its ‘mortality/immortality’ not only as the author of the impressive saying, but also as the one who expressed the awareness of the threats to the survival of his art, especially in view of the unpreparedness of the heritage preservation system for new challenges concerning the preservation of video art and new media.

Currently, the multigenerational range of virtual art without any geographical limitations has become a fact. Hence, the emergence of techno-aesthetics and optoelectronics in academic research and in human involvement on the web is obvious. The ‘truth’ in visual arts is related to ontological openness. It is emphasised both from the point of view of artists and their creativity, as well as in the interactivity and creative perception of recipients, in their mutual emotions, thoughts and actions. Ostrowicki states:

The distinction between the philosophical and the technological layer seems to result from the fact that philosophy is not so closely related to engineering and technology, but rather refers to them or assimilates them as a symptom of reality, and does not treat them as a basis for its own research. The technological layer to some extent includes, for example, the media context, and we are mainly interested in the impact of the device, not in its type.[53]

The very concept of virtual realis as an alternative to reality can be presented from several perspectives, e.g. ontological, epistemological, axiological. Virtual realis is even reflected in the conservation methodology:

The simulation of reality can be so suggestive that it influences human perception, i.e. their attitude to electronic reality and treating it as an area for the implementation of activities or goals similar to those in reality. Enriching virtual content with elements additional to reality may, in turn, result in secondary differentiation from reality, arising from the mutual valuation of both environments, which may affect the choice of the environment: the reality of the real or of the virtual world.[54]

Frank Popper investigates the development of new media from the historical beginnings of art to its digital, computer, cyber, multimedia and Internet versions.[55] Artists practising virtual art may be distinguished from traditional artists by their combined commitment to art, science, and technology. Their ambitions include also the ‘non-artistic’, social and philosophical goals concerning human needs.[56] Virtual art has quickly raised mass interest, and thus has found its place in social life. Critical interpretations of the newest art are presented in the open theory of Umberto Eco and other researchers: aesthetes, anthropologists, art historians and art conservators.

What is innovative in media art is the belief in its versatility, when the pulsating multi-sensory nature, the philosophical study of existential reality account for both the already known and new issues such as the critique of the Anthropocene but using new means of expression. Indeed, since virtual art combines art in each of its previous versions with new technologies, it can contain all the existing forms of art as its subsets. In the pioneering doctoral dissertation titled Wirtualne ciało sztuki. Ochrona i udostępnianie dzieł audiowizualnych (The Virtual Body of Art: The Preservation and Access of Audiovisual Art), Elżbieta Wysocka described the approach towards virtual art as the opposite of the approach towards the artefacts of the material culture. A work of virtual art is apparently an instance of impermanence itself and it undergoes rapid technological changes. The strategy of preserving the essence of such a work is an intellectual rather than manual effort, because the crucial issue is to maintain the integrity of the original during its transformation into a new medium. Wysocka in her publication postulates:

mediation between the traditional paradigm of conservation as a celebration of permanence and immutability, and the creative approach of a virtuoso: the user and interpreter of works of time-based media, which are thoroughly performative objects.[57]

Given the attitude of the archivist, which conservators take when examining the work, it can be concluded that a faithful ‘rewriting’ onto a new medium serves the preservation of identity. As a consequence, it is the ‘impact’ of a virtual work and not its material and technical components that becomes its truth. Although it sounds shocking for the dogmatic theory of art in traditional art disciplines (and consequently, for the theory of their preservation), it can be considered an opening to a new stage of human civilisation.

Therefore, the chosen range of reflection and search for ‘truth in visual art’ makes it possible only to come closer to the proper recognition and identification of various ‘truths of works of art’. The knowledge of the philosophy of art as well as an analysis of conservator case studies (casuistic ethics) allow to tackle the necessity of implementing the elements of a new theory of preservation. And here we finish the philosophical analysis of ‘truth in art’ although it is a fascinating issue.

Footnotes

[1] Wisława Szymborska, “The Three Oddest Words” in: Wisława Szymborska. Poems, New and Collected, 1957-1997. transl. Clare Cavanagh and Stanisław Barańczak. New York: Harcourt Brace 1998, p. 261.

[2] I use the term heritage of culture (dziedzictwo kultury) instead of cultural heritage (dziedzictwo kulturowe) after Aleksander Gieysztor, see: Danuta Gawin et al. (ed.) Aleksander Gieysztor o dziedzictwie kultury. Warszawa: Towarzystwo Opieki and Zabytkami 2000.

[3] Heather Davis and Etienne Turpin (ed.) Art in the Anthropocene: Encounters Among Aesthetics, Politics, Environments and Epistemologies. Open Humanities Press 2015. library.oapen.org

[4] Andrzej Rottermund (ed.) Dlaczego i jak chronić dziedzictwo kulturowe. Warszawa: Polski Komitet ds. UNESCO 2014.

[5] Maxime Aubert et al. “Earliest Hunting Scene in Prehistoric Art” Nature 576. 2019, pp. 442–445. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1806-y

[6] Marc Azéma and Florent Rivère “Animation in Palaeolithic Art: A Pre-echo of Cinema” Antiquity 86. 2012, pp. 316, 323.

[7] See: https://www.iccrom.org/section/heritage-science

[8] Denis Dutton The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006.

[9] See: https://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/haslo/sztuki-wizualne;3983522.html, https://www.britannica.com/art/visual-arts, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_arts

[10] Georges Didi-Huberman Confronting Images: Questioning the Ends of a Certain History of Art. Penn State University Press 2004.

[11] Marcel Proust, The Maxims of Marcel Proust. transl. Justin O’Brien. Literary Licensing LLC 2011. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9514031-maxims-of-marcel-proust

[12] Grand Tour. Narodziny kolekcji Stanisława Kostki Potockiego. Warszawa: Muzeum Pałac w Wilanowie 2006.

[13] Ronald Kolb and Dorothee Richter (ed.) De-colonizing Art Institutions. Oncurating 35. www.on-curating.org/issue-35.html

[14] “For the Europe of Tomorrow”, an open letter of 23rd April 2020 by members of the European Parliament, under the direction of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the former President of France and the European Convention, and the founder of “Re-Imagine Europa”. https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/opinion/for-the-europe-of-tomorrow-an-open-letter/

[15] Rein Raud, Meaning in Action: Outline of an Integral Theory of Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press 2016.

[16] Wojciech Kowalski et al., Konwencje UNESCO w dziedzinie kultury. Komentarz. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer 2014.

[17] Andrzej Tomaszewski, “Enviromental Preventive Conservation” in: Weronika Kobylińska-Bunsch et al. (ed.) Preventive Conservation of the Human Environment. Architecture as an Element of the Landscape. Archaeologica Hereditas 10. Warszawa: Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego 2017, pp. 7–11.

[18] Renée van de Vall, “Towards a Theory and Ethics for the Conservation of Contemporary Art” in: Art D’Aujourd’Hui—moine de Demain, Conservation et Restauration des Oeuvres Contemporaines, 13es journées d’études de la SFIIC. Paris: Institut National du Patrimoine 2009, pp. 51–56.

[19] Salvador Muñoz-Viñas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation, Routledge: London 2005.

[20] Iwona Szmelter, “Współczesna teoria konserwacji i restauracji dóbr kultury: zarys zagadnień” Ochrona Zabytków 2.2. 2006. 5–39, open access. http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.1d7f9b82-c930-3ef6-95ad-cf1f14b3bded

[21] Heritage as Transcultural Concept http://www.asia-europe.uni-heidelberg.de/en/research/d-historicities-heritage/d12/research-outline.html

[22] Kristal Buckley et al., “Crossing Boundaries: Exploring Biocultural Concepts and Practices in the World Heritage System” in: Heritage Landscape as Human Values. Firenze: ICOMOS 2014, pp. 604–609.

[23] The author represented Poland in the years 2010–2014.

[24] See: http://jpi-ch.eu “Objectives of the Joint Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage (JPI CH). The main objective of JPI CH is to promote the safeguarding of cultural heritage in its broader meaning including tangible, intangible and digital assets”.

[25] Fragment of the Charter of Krakow 2000 in: Dziedzictwo kulturowe fundamentem historii. Conference materials. IHKZ, Kraków, 23–26 October 2000, p. 189. http://smartheritage.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/KRAKOV-CHARTER-2000

[26] Monika Ostaszewska, “Zniszczenie posągów Buddy w Bamjan – zbrodnia przeciw kulturze” Cenne, bezcenne, utracone 26.2. 2001, pp. 3–5.

[27] Hélia Pereira Marçal, “Conservation in an Era of Participation” Journal of the Institute of Conservation 40.2. 2017, pp. 97–104.

[28] 28 Weronika Liszewska, “Wpływ współczesnej estetyki na konserwację i restaurację dzieł sztuki” in: Dzieło sztuki a konserwacja. Conference materials from LII Ogólnopolska Sesja Stowarzyszenia Historyków Sztuki (52nd session of Art Historians Association). Kraków: Wydawnictwo SHS 2004, pp. 55–64.

[29] Władysław Tatarkiewicz, “O pojęciu wartości, co historyk filozofii ma do zakomunikowania historykowi sztuki” in: O wartości dzieła sztuki. Conference materials from II seminarium metodologiczne Stowarzyszenia Historyków Sztuki (2nd methodological seminar of Art Historians Association), Radziejowice 19–21 May 1966. Warszawa: DESA – Arkady 1968, p.14.

[30] See: Cesare Brandi, Theory of Restoration. transl. Cynthia Rockwell. Firenze: Istituto Centrale per il Restauro 2005.

[31] Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge 1979. pdf: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249027121_Pierre_Bourdieu_Distinction_a_social_critique_of_the_judgement_of_taste

[32] Tomasz Kubalica, “Ernst Cassirer i Nelson Goodman wobec problemu natury poznania” Diametros 30. 2011, pp. 13–28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297922920_Ernst_Cassirer_i_Nelson_Goodman_wobec_problemu_natury_poznania

[33] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goodman-aesthetics/

[34] Nelson Goodman, Languages of Arts. An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company 1976. on architecture as an example of mix: Remei Capdevilla-Werning, “Nelson Goodman’s Autographic-Allographic Distinction in Architecture: The Case of Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion” in: Gerhard Ernst et al. (ed.) From Logic to Art: Themes from Nelson Goodman. Berlin: De Gruyter 2009, pp. 269–292. https://www.degruyter.com/view/book/9783110327199/10.1515/9783110327199.269.xml

[35] After: Hans-Georg Gadamer, Prawda i metoda. Zarys hermeneutyki filozoficznej. transl. Bogdan Baran. (1st German edition: Wahrheit und Methode 1960) Kraków: Inter Esse 1993, p. 181.

[36] Hans-Georg Gadamer, Aktualność piękna: sztuka jako gra, symbol i święto. transl. Krystyna Krzemieniowa. (1st German edition: Die Aktualität des Schönen. Kunst als Spiel, Symbol und Fest 1989) Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa 1993, p. 180.

[37] Hélia Pereira Marçal, “Conservation in an Era of Participation” Journal of the Institute of Conservation 40.2. 2017, pp. 97–104.

[38] Simon Morley, “A Difference” Art & Design 4. 1988, pp. 26–32.

[39] Tessel M. Bauduin and Gregor Langfeld. “Introduction: The Canonisation of Modernism: Exhibition Strategies in the Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries” in: Gregor Langfeld (ed.) The Canonisation of Modernism. Journal of Art Historiography 19. 2018: 1–4. https://arthistoriography.wordpress.com

[40] Marcin Giżycki, Koniec i co dalej? Szkice o postmodernizmie, sztuce współczesnej i końcu wieku. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo: słowo/obraz/terytoria 2001, passim.

[41] Salvador Muñoz Viñas, “ “Who is Afraid of Cesare Brandi?” Personal reflections on the Teoria del restauro” CeROArt http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/4653

[42] See: https://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/haslo/fenomenologia;3900384.html

[43] Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Visible and the Invisible (Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy). transl. Alphonso Lingis. Evanston: Northwestern University Press 1968. https://monoskop.org/images/8/80/Merleau_Ponty_Maurice_The_Visible_and_the_Invisible_1968.pdf

[44] Roman Ingarden, Wybór pism estetycznych. ed. Andrzej Tyszczyk. Kraków: Universitas 2005; Maria Gołaszewska, ”Roman Ingarden o artystycznej twórczości” in: Władysław Stróżewski and Adam Węgrzecki (ed.) W kręgu filozofii Romana Ingardena Warszawa-Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN 1995, pp. 239–247.

[45] Jacques Derrida, The Truth in Painting. transl. Geoffrey Bennington and Ian McLeod. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1987, passim.

[46] David Worrall, review http://bq.blakearchive.org/23.2.worrall

[47] Jacques Derrida, “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” in: Writing and Difference. London-New York: Routledge 2001, pp. 351–370.

[48] Geoff Bennington, “Deconstruction is Not What You Think” Art & Design 4.3-4. 1988, pp. 6-7. https://readdownloadbooks.com/4/?a=2&clickid=5eb8065b0a5df40001c92428&pubid=97530&q=Deconstruction_Is_Not_What_You_Think_By_Geoffrey_Bennington.pdf

[49] Semir Zeki, “Statement on Neuroesthetics” http://www.neuroesthetics.org/statement-on-neuroesthetics.php

[50] Włodzisław Duch, “Neuroestetyka i ewolucyjne podstawy przeżyć estetycznych” http://www.fizyka.umk.pl/publications/kmk/07-Neuroestetyka.pdf

[51] Charlie Gere, Art, Time and Technology: Histories of the Disappearing Body. Oxfrod: Berg 2005, passim.

[52] Viola Bill, “Permanent Impermanence” in: Mortality Immortality?: the Legacy of the 20th-Century Art. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute 1999, p. 95.

[53] Michał Ostrowicki, Wirtualne „realis”. Estetyka w epoce elektroniki. Kraków: Universitas 2006 http://www.publio.pl/files/samples/06/f9/e9/48941/Wirtualne_realis_ostrowicki_demo.pdf, acces2.04.2020; Sidey Myoo (Michał Ostrowicki), Ontoelektronika. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 2013.

[54] Michał Ostrowicki, Wirtualne „realis”… op. cit., p. 24.

[55] Frank Popper, From Technological to Virtual Art. Cambridge MA: MIT Press 2007.

[56] Oliver Grau, Virtual Art: From Illusion to Immersion. Cambridge MA: MIT Press 2003.

[57] Elżbieta Wysocka, Wirtualne ciało sztuki. Ochrona i udostępnianie dzieł audiowizualnych. Warszawa: Narodowe Centrum Kultury 2013, p. 428.