Art — Today/Gone-Tomorrow: Why display Ephemeral Artwork?

By: Niamh Finlay

Ephemeral art is an artistic conception that only occurs through an act of destruction, a piece of art with intrinsic mortality. Artists utilise this concept to emulate the temporality of human experience. Art usually exists to exist forever- works to be viewed and studied in museums for centuries, and even with inevitable deterioration, they are conserved and restored sporadically to keep them in their designated state. When galleries display ephemeral artwork, the works are encouraged to deteriorate, they erode with each passing viewer and will one day cease to exist.  

Felix González-Torres, “Untitled” (Perfect Lovers), 1991, Clocks Paint on Wall. ©The Felix González-Torres Foundation, Courtesy Andrea Rosen Gallery New York.

Auto-Destructivism was a term invented by artist Gustav Metzger following the Cold War. His artworks were created by performatively spraying acid on nylon sheets, as the nylon melted dynamic shapes were produced and quickly dissolved, mimicking the violent destruction of chemical weaponry feared universally during this period. Metzger’s destruction was fast, intense and unmistakeable, a performance to be seen in the moment and when finished only left a ragged negative space. Contrastingly, slow auto-destruction has a heightened capacity for emotional significance. Felix González-Torres (1957-1996) best applies this concept. His deeply personal and tragic artworks examine human mortality through ephemerality—and their slow destruction reflects the slow physical tole of AIDs on his partner Ross Laycock. Of note “Untitled” (Perfect Lovers), 1991: two identical clocks were set and left on the gallery wall to slowly run out their time. The batteries would inevitably disintegrate and one or both clocks could stop at any moment - this uncertainty stirring empathy, and the impending death of this piece held real emotional power over both viewer and creator. González-Torres himself said that: “This piece I made with the two clocks was the scariest thing I have ever done. I wanted to face it. I wanted those two clocks right in front of me, ticking.” The personified life of these clocks resonated with viewers struggling with their own mortality or that of loved ones, addressing a conscious fear. This piece’s expiry date is what makes it powerful, ephemerality itself is the art and the viewer is a part of its presence. Without an audience these clocks are simply clocks. When they are being recognised as the ticking hearts of two dying lovers, they take on an intense emotive depth. Metzger outlined three principles for Auto-Destructivism: time, self-completion and participation. These works are never intended to be private, active witnessing was integral to the conception and completion of the work. Their legacy lives on within the minds of spectators, mirroring our own memories of loved ones once their respective clocks have stopped. This internal artistic permanence is one of the most beautiful purposes for displaying ephemeral artwork.

Roelof Louw pictured with Soul City (Pyramid of Oranges) at the Henry Moore Institute Reception. 2012. © Guzelian Ltd. Photo: Lorne Stewart

While some choose to create art that destroys itself, some rely on the audience’s participation to diminish it. Roelof Louw’s Soul City (Pyramid of Oranges), 1967, was a piece of participatory artwork for the audience to literally consume. They were allowed to lift and eat an orange while taking in the surrounding works, Louw intended that this work always be placed at the entrance of an exhibition. Eating the orange was more than just a refreshing snack- by choosing to pick up one or more of the 5,800 oranges designated for the work, the individual was choosing to destroy part of the art, the pyramid gradually losing form existing as an empty wooden square on the floor. The gallery provides an active choice between narcissism or inactive self-discipline, removing pieces of the art consequently denies others the privilege of seeing it whole. Nicolas Bourriaud theorised that the audience was authorised by the artist to remove parts of an art piece, if they accepted the responsibility of contributing to the eventual death of the work. “By taking an orange, each person changes the molecular form of the stack of oranges and participates in “consuming” its presence” (Louw, 2000). Pondering on the implications of individual and collective action is an active element of this artwork, choice has consequence. Even the consumer themselves cannot hold on to the art forever, the orange will rot if not eaten, it is not a souvenir, additionally if self-discipline means that nobody removes any oranges the pyramid itself will mould and fester, losing all aesthetic value. Impermanence reminds us that nothing beautiful can last forever, Louw criticised the art market and contradicted their rules of what could be viewed as viable art. Sculpture can now be dematerialised and conceptual, this was a piece of art that rebelled against all artistic preconceptions, a work born from the rebellious Modernist movement of the 1960s. It must be displayed as testament to the audience and their true control over what is deemed art, even when it only remains as either a mouldy orange in a stack or an individual’s bittersweet aftertaste of orange.

Mould and decay: utilised by ephemeral artists to highlight the life cycle of their organic works, notably in Zoe Leonard’s Strange Fruit, 1992-97. Following the deaths of many friends during the 1990s AIDs crisis, Leonard sewed together a variety of fruit and vegetable peel (295 bananas, oranges, grapefruits, lemons and avocados) displaying them in a large group. Certainty of decay centred the work around death and loss as well as Leonard’s stages of grief. At first they resembled the fruit when it was whole, her creations would slowly devolve, getting further from perfection as time went on. It was decided that the peels would be allowed to decompose naturally, only preserving twenty-five as a record of the work that could be integrated sporadically as contrast to the decay, almost as living among the dead. “The very essence of the piece is to decompose. The absurdity, irony, pain and humour of it is that we attempt to hang on to memory, but we forget” (Leonard 1997). She hoped that the work would be allowed to turn to dust – but institutions insisted on replenishing it for the sake of their exhibitions, the works becoming unloanable at a certain state. Ephemeral art can prove that art shouldn’t last forever to have significance, especially when referencing death just as in “Untitled” (Perfect Lovers), both have an intimate connection with the audience who saw both at their most vital and at their end.

Zoe Leonard, Strange Fruit, 1995-97. 295 banana, orange, grapefruit, lemon and avocado peels, thread, zippers, buttons, sinew, needles, plastic, wire, stickers, fabric, trim, wax. Size Variable. Philadelphia Museum of Art.  © Zoe Leonard. Photo: Ron Amstutz.

The fight against creating something forever tangible and profitable directly links to the works of Louw, Leonard and González-Torres, and the entire concept of ephemeral art. Art with a lifecycle like these cannot exist in an institutional vacuum, they cannot be sold or archived. They must be displayed, interacted with and eventually destroyed; their life emanating from their eventual death. Galleries that display ephemeral art demonstrate their understanding that art is more than an object, it can act as a mirror to our humanity and our own imperfect impermanence.

Notes

Bourriaurd, Nicolas. Relational Aesthetics, France: Les Presses du Réel, 2002. English Translation. http://artsites.ucsc.edu/sdaniel/230/Relational%20Aesthetics_entire.pdf

Celant, Germano. Edited by Barbara Ferriani and Marina Pugliese.  Ephemeral Monuments History and Conservation of Installation Art. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation institute, 2013.

Hoffman, Jens. In: The: Meantime Speculations on Art, Curating and Exhibitions. Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2019.

Lee, Hyun Jean and Jeong Han Kim. After Felix Gonzalez-Torres The New Active Audience in the Social Media Era. Vol. 30, Nos. 5–6, 474–489, London: Routledge, 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09528822.2017.1355149

Quabeck, Nina. ‘Intent in the making: the life of Zoe Leonard’s ‘Strange Fruit’.’ The Burlington Magazine, May 2019.  https://doi.org/10.31452/bcj1.intent.quabeck

Roelof Louw, Exhibition of Sculpture: Location, exhibition catalogue, Museum of Modern Art, Oxford 1969.

Rounthwaite, Adair. “Split Witness: Metaphorical Extensions of Life in the Art of Felix Gonzalez-Torres.” Representations 109, no. 1 (2010): 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1525/rep.2010.109.1.35.

Ward, Ossian. Ways of Looking How to Experience Contemporary Art. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd, 2014.

Wilson, Andrew. ‘Soul City (Pyramid of Oranges) Roelof Louw, 1967. Summary’ Tate https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/louw-soul-city-pyramid-of-oranges-t13881