Hi everyone!
I'm a senior art history undergraduate writing my thesis on the ethics of conservation surrounding prison art. I'm interested in art made from materials of scarcity, and what happens to their meaning once they enter institutional collections.
One central question that I'm researching is: If prison art is created under conditions of material scarcity and confinement, does conserving it with museum grade materials alter or contradict its meaning? Does museum conservation, a practice built to stabilize or make an artwork more permanent, inevitably neutralize the political meaning of pieces that were originally created under conditions of scarcity and surveillance?
Some questions I would love perspectives on:
- Does material decay create historical or political insight?
- Does conserving prison art risk erasing the conditions of incarceration that is implied through the object's materials?
- How do institutions get consent for an artwork when it is from someone inaccessible, deceased, or unknown?
- Are there artists, exhibitions, or other sources that address prison art, impermanence, or resistance to preservation?
Any sources, critiques, or additional perspectives are welcome!
Jessie Krimes show at the Met earlier this year might be worth looking into. Amazing artist.
Hey great research question! Here are two exhibitions can think of when it comes to art by those who were/are incarcerated
Something to Hold On To
Marking Time
And you should reach out to the artist Jared Owens! He was formerly incarcerated and makes works from materials he could only access in prison like instant coffee. I believe museums have acquired his work so he may have insight on that preservation. Jared Owens
I’m a card designer and I bought a deck of tarot cards that a guy created on cardboard with a ballpoint pen while in prison. When he got out he scanned and printed them and made them commercially available.
I agree with you that the original tells a unique story as it decays and smudges. The ferocity of the penwork etched into the cardboard is very powerful.
But then i would never have known about this deck if he hadn’t published it. The published version has its own brooding energy but I’m sure the original is more so.
Here’s an image of the original but I can’t find his store any longer.
https://x.com/MalevMinis/status/1790395498014339233?s=20
Cool topic, I think this is a very interesting and important area of study within art history right now. Personally I would say no, conservation would not generally neutralize the meaning of the art. If the conservation work is subtle and conservative, as it so often is today, it shouldn’t infringe significantly upon the appearance and/or content of the artpiece, and would likely not even be discernible to most audiences, thus not impacting their perception of the work’s meaning. Or, if the conservation/restoration is more aggressive, there is often a clear and intentional demarcation between the original and the reconstructed, which similarly prevents confusion re: intent and originality. Unless an artist or their culture has specified that a work be allowed to deteriorate naturally as part of the piece’s lifespan, I’m not convinced that conservation (done right) has any impact on meaning. I personally would be interested in the ethical implications of long-term institutional storage for works created in a similarly restricted environment. Or if the display environment, being so divorced from the conditions of the work’s creation, can alienate a work from the artist’s intent. Site-specificity, intentional or otherwise, might be an interesting thing to explore with this topic. You doubtless already have, but just in case you haven’t, check out Nicole Fleetwood’s book Marking Time: Art in the Age of Mass Incarceration.
Most conservators do not have a “one approach fits all” way of thinking/working. They are usually trained to consider each piece’s unique needs and adjust their care accordingly. For example, a textile conservator may clean the blood out of a shirt if a visitor with a bloody nose sneezed on it, but leave it in if the owner was shot with a bullet and their death was historic. In the first case, the blood does not contribute to the story a curator wants to tell and preserve. In the second, it is integral to the narrative.
A good conservator considers the context and complexities of values present and consults with living artists and other relevant stakeholders. If a work is meant to degrade, they will usually allow it to do so (but may suggest environmental conditions that slow the process, if that is not fundamentally against the artist’s intent). If it would take away from its value to be stored in archival housing, I’m sure it would not be stored so in most institutions.
Many artists do not work with high-end, archival materials. Many artists, both those incarcerated and those not, encounter circumstances that do not permit them to work with the best equipment/resources possible. But the art can still have value and importance and choosing to preserve it is a decision made because of its value as a piece of art, not the net value of the media. Just because an artist worked in scarcity conditions, does not mean the work must always be poorly kept to honor its intent. Using conservation-grade archival housing and investing in conservation treatments and long-term storage is a reflection of its artistic value. I think failing to consider art made by incarcerated people worthy of preservation simply because of the materials used or the incarceration status of their makers is more of a political statement.
Artist here. I respect your focus but also would like to add another thought.
Art made in prison is made by victims, outsiders and or perpetrators. The choice of material is obviously a pragmatic one. So I wouldn't say this is a conscious artistic decision.
Personally I'm rather interested in the power dynamics and the implications of the artist in prison. It is an artist outside of established society. This is similar to the position Van Gogh, or Gauguin had. Interestingly contemporary art has destroyed this artist's role in making the artist an entrepreneur which works art like a 9-5 job. Meaning he mirrors respected members of society and thus is embraced by society again.
I'm a conservative when thinking about your position. I feel the museums work is to find the interesting things and archive, document and present culture that is important. Again I think the choice of material is rather unimportant. But I believe we as society could learn a lot by looking at those outcasts. They are in the position to criticize what we accept out of routine.
Since this is for a thesis, please review Rule 7 for this sub. What sources have you found thus far in your research for this project?
Even their artwork becomes wards of some (material) state. The politics are different as one is confinement of the person & body versus conservation of a body of work.
People will create with whatever is available to them. “Materials of scarcity” implies formal training for formal consideration or recognition. It implicitly ignores the condition for imprisonment.
On its face, your subject seems interesting. When considered, it falls a bit flat.
Additionally, intellectual property of an inmate and on whose authority a work could be sold likely depends on the terms of their confinement, the state or country they are imprisoned in, and whether they have an attorney.