Présentation auteur.e.s

[[Wielocha, Aga*]]

Résumé

Ce document de thèse explore les défis posés par l’art contemporain aux pratiques muséales traditionnelles en matière de collecte, de documentation et de conservation. L’auteur se concentre sur la relation triangulaire entre l’artiste, le musée et l’œuvre d’art contemporaine en tant qu’objet de collection. La thèse examine comment les musées adoptent de nouvelles méthodes développées dans le domaine de la conservation de l’art contemporain, en mettant un accent particulier sur l’entretien avec l’artiste. L’objectif principal est d’identifier les facteurs qui favorisent ou entravent l’efficacité de ces nouvelles approches et de proposer un modèle théorique capable de combler le fossé entre la nature changeante de l’art contemporain et les structures muséales établies.

Idées principales

Le texte explore les enjeux liés à la conservation et à la documentation de l’art contemporain dans les musées, en mettant en évidence les défis que posent des œuvres souvent éphémères, conceptuelles, processuelles et variables aux pratiques muséales traditionnelles, historiquement conçues pour des objets matériels et stables.

Dans ce contexte, la documentation est présentée comme un outil fondamental de conservation, jouant un rôle clé dans la préservation de l’identité des œuvres et dans l’orientation des décisions futures. Elle englobe notamment des informations sur les modalités de présentation, le contexte de création, l’état matériel de l’œuvre ainsi que les collaborations ayant contribué à sa réalisation.

L’entretien avec l’artiste (artist interview) est identifié comme une méthode centrale dans la documentation à visée conservatoire. Il permet de recueillir des données précieuses sur les intentions, la signification et les dimensions matérielles des œuvres, et constitue un outil essentiel pour éviter des erreurs d’interprétation ou de conservation.

Le texte interroge également le rôle de l’entretien dans l’ensemble documentaire constitué autour d’une œuvre : au-delà d’un simple recueil de faits, l’entretien est envisagé comme un assemblage de récits nécessitant une interprétation. Il contribue à construire une mémoire vivante de l’œuvre, où subjectivité et multiplicité des points de vue ont leur place.

Cette approche rejoint l’idée de l’œuvre d’art comme archive — ou (an)archive — suggérant une relation intrinsèque entre œuvre et documentation. Dans ce modèle, l’archive ne se limite pas à un dépôt physique, mais devient un système dynamique de mémoire et de savoirs, qui valorise la pluralité des récits et accepte l’incomplétude comme constitutive.

Le texte met en lumière les tensions existantes entre l’évolution des théories de la conservation de l’art contemporain et des pratiques institutionnelles parfois rigides. Ces frictions peuvent découler des systèmes de classification muséale, des structures administratives ou encore de la nature des relations entre artistes et institutions.

L’étude appelle ainsi à une approche plus holistique et intégrée, prenant en compte l’œuvre dans sa globalité, à la fois physique et narrative. Elle plaide pour la collecte et la préservation active des récits des artistes et des parties prenantes, au même titre que les objets eux-mêmes.

À travers l’analyse de cas concrets — notamment des œuvres de Mirosław Bałka et le Chandeliers Project de Danh Vo — le texte illustre les diverses stratégies adoptées par les institutions pour documenter, conserver et collaborer avec les artistes, tout en soulignant les défis rencontrés sur le terrain.

Enfin, le texte propose un modèle théorique visant à combler le fossé entre la nature évolutive de l’art contemporain et les structures muséales traditionnelles, en accordant une place centrale aux récits et à la subjectivité dans les pratiques documentaires et conservatoires. Le rôle de l’archive institutionnelle y est également analysé, en tant qu’élément structurant de l’identité des œuvres et révélateur des dynamiques internes propres à chaque institution.

Lien avec la thèse

La documentation comme outil de conservation : La documentation est considérée comme un outil fondamental pour la conservation, en particulier pour l’art contemporain. p.31 Étant donné que l’art contemporain peut être éphémère, processuel ou variable dans ses supports, la documentation devient un moyen de préserver son identité et de permettre sa continuation. p.15

La documentation d’une exposition enregistre la manière dont une œuvre a été présentée, y compris son installation, l’espace d’exposition et le contexte de sa monstration. p.90 Ces informations sont cruciales pour les décisions de conservation futures, car elles peuvent éclairer les intentions de l’artiste concernant la présentation et aider à maintenir l’intégrité de l’œuvre lors de futures expositions ou conservations. p.15

La documentation réalisée lors d’une exposition (photographies d’installation, rapports de condition avant et après l’exposition) permet de suivre l’état de l’œuvre et d’identifier d’éventuels changements ou dommages survenus pendant la période d’exposition. p.90 Cela est essentiel pour la conservation préventive et curative. p.67

La documentation peut également enregistrer les collaborations entre l’artiste, les conservateurs et les commissaires d’exposition lors de la préparation et du montage d’une œuvre pour une exposition. p.3 Ces échanges et les décisions prises concernant l’œuvre (par exemple, les instructions d’installation, les choix de matériaux) constituent des informations précieuses pour la conservation à long terme. p.132

Intégration de la documentation dans la “constituante de l’œuvre” : Certains théoriciens proposent de considérer la documentation non pas comme un élément secondaire à l’œuvre, mais comme une partie intégrante de sa “constituante” ou de son “(an)archive”. p.15 Dans cette perspective, la documentation d’une exposition contribue à la définition et à la pérennisation de l’œuvre au même titre que l’objet physique. p.280

Malgré cette importance, les sources soulignent que la documentation liée aux expositions est parfois dispersée dans différents services du musée (conservation, archives, service des expositions) et n’est pas toujours considérée comme une priorité au même titre que la conservation de l’objet lui-même. p.212 Il existe un plaidoyer pour une meilleure intégration et accessibilité de cette documentation. p.15

%% begin annotations %%

%% end annotations %%

Bibliographie

%% Import Date: 2025-04-25T18:05:37.921-04:00 %%

Aben, K. H. 1995. “Conservation of Modern Sculpture at the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam.” In From Marble to Chocolate: The Conservation of Modern Sculpture, edited by J. Heuman, 107. London: Archetype Publications.

Abiteboul, S. 2018. “The Digital Shoebox.” In Memory, edited by P. Tortell, M. Turin, and M. Young, 225–232. Vancouver, BC: Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies.

Abrams, L. 2010. Oral History Theory. London: Routledge.

Adler, N., and S. Leydesdorff. 2013. “Introduction: On the Evidence Value of Personal Testimony.” In Tapestry of Memory: Evidence and Testimony in Lifestory Narratives, edited by N. Adler and S. Leydesdorff, ix–xxix. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Adorno, T. 1967. “Valéry Proust Museum.” In Prisms, 175–185. London: Neville Spearman.

Aikens, N., T. Lange, J. Seijdel, and S. ten Thije. 2016. “Editor’s Introduction.” In What’s the Use?, edited by N. Aikens, T. Lange, J. Seijdel, and S. ten Thije, 9–11. Amsterdam: Valiz.

Aitken, D. n.d. The Source. http://dougaitkenthesource.com/.

Alberro, A. 2001. “At the Threshold of Art as Information.” In Recording Conceptual Art: Early Interviews with Barry, Huebler, Kaltenbach, LeWitt, Morris, Oppenheim, Siegelaub, Smithson, Weiner by Patricia Norvell, edited by A. Alberro and P. Norvell, 1–15. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Alberro, A. 2003. Conceptual Art and the Politics of Publicity. Cambridge, MA, and London, UK: The MIT Press.

Alberro, A., and S. Buchmann, eds. 2006. Art After Conceptual Art. Cambridge, MA, and London, UK: MIT Press.

Alliaga, J. V. 1997. “History, Death and Other Bitter Fruit: An Interpretation of the Work of Miroslaw Balka.” In Miroslaw Balka. Revision 1986–1997, 132–144. Valencia: IVAM Institut Valencià d’Art Modern.

Altshuler, B., ed. 2005. Collecting the New. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Antonelli, P., and L. Hoptman. 2000. “Matter.” MoMA 3 (8): 10–13.

Arriola, M. 2016. “Moi, Petit Éphémère (Or How to Narrate One’s Historical Present).” In Danh Vo [Wād al-ḥayāra], edited by M. Arriola, 184–190. Ecatepec: Fundación Jumex Arte Contemporáneo.

Arya, R. 2009. “Painting the Pope: An Analysis of Francis Bacon’s ‘Study after Velázquez’s Portrait of Innocent X.’” Literature & Theology 23 (1): 33–50.

Ascott, R., S. Diamond, G. Lovink, and P. van Mourik Broekman. 2000. “Harvesting Time on the Server Farm (Reaping the Net’s Body Politic).” Mute. http://www.metamute.org/editorial/Articles/harvest-Time-server-farm-reaping-nets-body-politic.

Ashley-Smith, J. 2009. “The Basis of Conservation Ethics.” In Conservation Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, edited by A. Richmond and A. L. Bracker, 6–24. London: Butterworth-Heinemann in association with the V&A Museum.

Avrami, E., R. Mason, and M. de la Torre, eds. 2000. Values and Heritage Conservation. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.

Barker, R., and A. Bracker. 2005. “Beuys is Dead: Long Live Beuys! Characterising Volition, Longevity, and Decision-making in the Work of Joseph Beuys.” Tate Papers 4. http://www.tate.org.uk/Research/tateResearch/tatepapers/05autumn/barker.htm.

Barok, D., J. Noordegraaf, and A. P. de Vries. 2019. “[[*From Collection Management to Content Management in Art Documentation - The Conservator as an Editor]]” Studies in Conservation 64 (8): 1–18.

Barok, D., J. B. Thorez, A. Dekker, D. Gauthier, J. B. Thorez, D. Gauthier, … A. Dekker. 2019. “Archiving Complex Digital Artworks.” Journal of the Institute of Conservation 42 (2): 94–113.

Barthes, R. 1967. “The Death of the Author.” Aspen (5–6).

Bauman, Z., M. Bałka, and K. Bojarska. 2013. Bauman / Bałka. Edited by K. Bojarska. Warsaw: Narodowe Centrum Kultury.

Beardsley, M. C., and W. K. Wimsatt Jr. 1946. “The Intentional Fallacy.” The Sewanee Review 54 (3): 468–488.

Bechtler, C., and D. Imhof, eds. 2014. The Museum of the Future. Zurich: JRP/Ringier.

Becker, H. S. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Beerkens, L. 2016. “Side by Side: Old and New Standards in the Conservation of Modern Art. A Comparative Study on 20 Years of Modern Art Conservation Practice.” Studies in Conservation: Saving the Now, Preprints of the International Committee of Conservation (IIC) 2016 Los Angeles Congress 61 (Supp2): 12–16.

Beerkens, Leontine, Yvonne Hummelen, Patricia ’t Hoen, Vivian van Saaze, Tatja Scholte, and Sanneke Stigter. 2012. The Artist Interview: For Conservation and Presentation of Contemporary Art. Guidelines and Practice. Heyningen: Jap Sam Books.

Benezra, Neal. 1993. “Mirosław Bałka: A Privacy Which Can Be Called Public.” Distemper, 22–29.

Benjamin, Walter. 1968. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” In Illuminations, edited by Hannah Arendt. London: Jonathan Cape.

Bishop, Claire. 2012. Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. London and New York: Verso.

———. 2013. Radical Museology or, What’s “Contemporary” in Museums of Contemporary Art? London: Koenig Books.

Bismarck, Beatrice von, Heike Munder, and Peter J. Schneemann, eds. 2017. Now-Tomorrow-Flux: An Anthology on the Museum of Contemporary Art. Zürich: JRP Ringier.

Blazwick, Iwona. 2007. “An Anatomy of the Interview.” In Talking Art: Interviews with Artists Since 1976, edited by Patricia Bickers and Andrew Wilson, 25–27. London: Art Monthly and Ridinghouse.

Blazwick, Iwona, and Barbara Kruger. 2014. “Barbara Kruger: In Conversation with Iwona Blazwick, from Modern Art Oxford.” This Is Tomorrow. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO_4frg7efQ.

Blazwick, Iwona, James Lingwood, and Andrea Schlieker. 1990. Possible Worlds: Sculpture from Europe. London: Institute of Contemporary Arts; Serpentine Gallery.

Bloemheuvel, Marente, and Tessel van Kooten, eds. 2007. Sculpture Garden Kröller-Müller Museum. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.

Borja-Villel, Manuel. 2009. “The Museum Questioned.” In Relational Objects: MACBA Collection 2002–07, edited by Manuel Borja-Villel, Karen Mary Cabañas, and Jorge Ribalta, 19–39. Barcelona: MACBA.

Borja-Villel, Manuel, and Charles Esche. 2016. “Use, Knowledge, Art, and History. A Conversation Between Charles Esche.” In What’s the Use? Constellations of Art, History and Knowledge, edited by Nick Aikens, Thomas Lange, Jorinde Seijdel, and Steven ten Thije. Amsterdam: Valiz.

Borja-Villel, Manuel, and Frances Morris. 2013. “To Have and to Hold.” The Exhibitionist, no. 8: 6–17.

Boyd, Nan Alamilla, and Horacio N. Roque Ramírez. 2012. “Introduction: Close Encounters. The Body and Knowledge in Queer Oral History.” In Bodies of Evidence: The Practice of Queer Oral History, edited by Nan Alamilla Boyd and Horacio N. Roque Ramírez. New York: Oxford University Press.

Briet, Suzanne. 2006. What Is Documentation? Edited by Ronald E. Day, Laurent Martinet, and Hermina G. B. Anghelescu. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Brinson, Katherine. 2018. Danh Vo: Take My Breath Away. New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications.

Broeckmann, Andreas. 2005. “ImAge, Process, Performance, Machine. Aspects of a Machinic Aesthetics.” Refresh! Conference on the Histories of Media Art, Science and Technology, Banff. http://pl02.donau-uni.ac.at/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10002/345/Andreas_Broeckmann_refresh.pdf?sequence=1.

Brunskill, Charlotte, and Sarah R. Demb. 2012. Records Management for Museums and Galleries: An Introduction. Oxford, Cambridge, New Delhi: Chandos Publishing.

Bryson, Anna, and Seán McConville. 2014. “Analysis.” In The Routledge Guide to Interviewing: Oral History, Social Enquiry and Investigation, 135–44. London: Routledge.

Buckland, Michael K. 1997. “What Is a ‘Document’?” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48 (9): 804–809.

Bunzl, Matti. 2014. In Search of a Lost Avant-garde: An Anthropologist Investigates the Contemporary Art Museum. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Busch, Kathrin. 2009. “Artistic Research and the Poetics of Knowledge.” Art and Research 2 (2): 1–7. http://www.ArtandResearch.org.uk/v2n2/busch.html.

Buskirk, Martha. 2003. The Contingent Object of Contemporary Art. Cambridge, Mass. and London, UK: The MIT Press.

———. 2012a. “Certifiable.” In In Deed: Certificates of Authenticity in Art, edited by Susan Hapgood and Cornelia Lauf, 98–102. Amsterdam: Roma Publications.

———. 2012b. Creative Enterprise: Contemporary Art Between Museum and Marketplace. London: Continuum.

Caianiello, Tiziana, and Ralf Buschmann, eds. 2013. Media Art Installations Preservation and Presentation: Materializing the Ephemeral. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Cameron, Fiona, and Sarah Kenderdine, eds. 2007. Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. Cambridge, Mass. and London, UK: MIT Press.

Cangia, Flavia. 2013. “The Interview as an Instrument.” In Ephemeral Monuments: History and Conservation of Installation Art, edited by Barbara Ferriani and Marina Pugliese, 162–168. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute.

Chaillou, Thibaut. 2013. “Interview with Danh Vo.” Flash Art Online, September. http://www.flashArtonline.com/2013/09/danh-vo-24-09-2013-Interview/.

Chametzky, Peter. 2010. Objects as History in Twentieth-Century German Art: Beckmann to Beuys. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Chiantore, Oscar, and Antonio Rava. 2013. Conserving Contemporary Art: Issues, Methods, Materials, and Research. Los Angeles: Getty Publications.

Chirban, John T. 1996. Interviewing in Depth: The Interactive-Relational Approach. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Clark, Rachel, and Michelle Barger. 2016. “The Artist Initiative at San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.” Studies in Conservation 61 (sup2): 24–28.

Clark, Rachel, Martina Haidvogl, Rudolf Frieling, and Jill Sterrett. 2017. SFMOMA: Artist Initiative Responds to ‘Predictive Engineering’. San Francisco. https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/sfmomaMedia/Media/uploads/files/Transcript_Predictive_Engineering_Colloquium_Artist_Initiative_Response_09_16_2017.pdf.

Clarke, Adele, and Kathy Charmaz. 2007. “Grounded Theory: Critiques, Debates, and Situational Analysis.” In Social Science Methodology, 423–442. London: Sage Publications.

Clavir, Miriam. 2002. Preserving What is Valued. Toronto: UBC Press.

Coelewij, Leontine, and Sara Martinetti, eds. 2016. Siegelaub: Beyond Conceptual Art. Köln: Walther König.

Colomina, Beatriz, and Mark Wigley. 2014. “Spaces, Phrases, Pictures, and Places: A Conversation with Barbara Kruger.” In Barbara Kruger. Believe + Doubt, 123–147. Bregenz: Kunsthaus Bregenz.

Concept Scenario: Artists’ Interviews. 1999. Amsterdam: Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage / Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art. http://www.sbmk.nl/uploads/concept-scenario.pdf.

Tate. n.d. “Conservation Interviews.” Accessed March 15, 2016. http://www.tate.org.uk/about/Projects/Interviews-Artists/Conservation-Interviews.

Cooke, Lynne. 2011. “Resetear.” In Miroslaw Balka: Ctrl, 11–27. Madrid: Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía.

Corzo, Miguel Ángel, ed. 1999. Mortality Immortality?: The Legacy of 20th-Century Art. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute.

Cotte, Sabine, Nathan Tse, and Amanda Inglis. 2017. “Artists’ Interviews and Their Use in Conservation: Reflections on Issues and Practices.” AICCM Bulletin 37 (2): 107–118.

Craver, Alexandria. 2013. “Picture This: Barbara Kruger’s Imperfect Utopia.” Virginia Commonwealth University. http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?Article=4290&context=etd.

Crimp, Douglas. 1987. “The End of Art and the Origin of the Museum.” Art Journal 46 (4): 261–266.

Czakon, Dorota. 2016. “Is the Hermeneutic Interpretation of Art Erotic? A Reader of Gadamer Responds to Sontag’s Challenge.” Estetyka i Krytyka 43 (4): 45–64.

Czubak, Bogna. 1998. “Każdy Chłopiec Boi Się Inaczej.” Magazyn Sztuki (19). http://magazynsztuki.eu/old/archiwum/nr_19/archiwum_nr19_tekst_1.htm.

Danto, Arthur. 1964. “The Artworld.” The Journal of Philosophy 61 (19): 571–584. http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/visualArts/Danto-Artworld.pdf.

Danto, Arthur. 1995. After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Danto, Arthur. 2013. What Art Is. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Davies, Louise, and Jennifer Heuman. 2004. “Meaning Matters: Collaborating with Contemporary Artists.” Studies in Conservation 49 (Supplement-2): 30–33.

Dávila Freire, María. 2011. “¿Es una Obra, o es un Documento? El Centro de Estudios y Documentación del MACBA.” In Gloria Picazo (ed.), IMPASSE 10, 300–308. Lleida: Ajuntament de Lleida, Centre d’Art La Panera.

Dávila Freire, María. 2012. “Process vs. Product: New Paths for Archiving in Contemporary Art.” In Luca Basso Peressut and Chiara Pozzi (eds.), Museums in an Age of Migrations: Questions, Challenges, Perspectives, 193–207. Milan: Politecnico di Milano.

De Mallac, Guy. 1971. “The Poetics of the Open Form (Umberto Eco’s Notion of ‘Opera Aperta’).” Books Abroad 45 (1): 31–36.

De Tilly, Anne Naomi. 2011. “Scripting Artworks: Studying the Socialization of Editioned Video and Film Installations.” PhD diss., University of Amsterdam.

Deiana, Michela. 2017. “Handle with Care: The Influence of New Institutionalism on Collection Displays in Italian Contemporary Art Museums.” Stedelijk Studies (5). https://www.stedelijkstudies.com/journal/handle-Care-influence-Newinstitutionalism-Collection-displays-italian-Contemporary-Art-Museums/.

Gale, M., Lake, S., Learner, T., Levin, J., & Sterrett, J. 2009. “Competing Commitments: A Discussion about Ethical Dilemmas in the Conservation of Modern and Contemporary Art.” Conservation Perspectives, The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter 24 (2). Retrieved from http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/newsletters/24_2/dialogue.html.

Gangsei, E. 2015. “A New Approach to Artist Videos.” Retrieved March 2, 2018, from https://www.sfmoma.org/read/a-New-Approach-Artist-videos/.

Ganzert-Castrillo, E. 2005. “The Frankfurt Museum für Moderne Kunst and Private Archiv: Registration Systems for Contemporary Art.” In Y. Hummelen & D. Sillé, eds., Modern Art: Who Cares? An Interdisciplinary Research Project and an International Symposium on the Conservation of Modern and Contemporary Art (Second ed., pp. 284–289). London: Archetype Publications.

García Morales, L. 2010. Conservación y Restauración de Arte Digital. Universidad Europea de Madrid. Retrieved from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=92067.

Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Giannachi, G. 2016. Archive Everything: Mapping the Everyday. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

Giannachi, G. 2018. “The Intention of the Artist and the Point of View of the Audience: Performance Documentation Revisited.” In J. Westerman & G. Giannachi, eds., Histories of Performance Documentation (pp. 182–197). New York: Routledge.

Giebeler, J., Sartorius, A., & Heydenreich, G. 2019. The Decision-making Model for Contemporary Art Conservation and Presentation (No. Version: 1.0 / April 2019). Cologne. Retrieved from https://www.th-koeln.de/mam/downloads/deutsch/hochschule/fakultaeten/kulturwissenschaften/f02_cics_gsm_fp__dmmcrmac_190407a.pdf.

Gielen, P., & Maermans, R. 2007. “The Archive of the Digital An-archive.” Image & Narrative (17): 1–13.

Gioni, M. 2013. “The Encyclopedic Palace.” Introduction by Massimiliano Gioni. Retrieved April 11, 2018, from http://www.labiennale.org/en/Art/2013/introduction-massimiliano-gioni.

Godfrey, M. 2016. “Dirty Dancing.” In M. Arriola, ed., Danh Vo [ Wād al-haŷara ] (pp. 194–200). Ecatepec: Fundación Jumex Arte Contemporáneo.

Goldstein, A., Deutsche, R., Dieckmann, K., Heller, S., Indiana, G., Squiers, C., & Tillman, L. 1999. Barbara Kruger: Thinking of You. Cambridge, Mass. and London, UK: The Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles and MIT Press.

Gordon, R. 2011. “Rethinking Material Significance and Authenticity in Contemporary Art.” University of Glasgow. Retrieved from http://theses.gla.ac.uk/3041/.

Gordon, R. 2015. “Documenting Performance and Performing Documentation: On the Interplay of Documentation and Authenticity.” Revista de História Da Arte 4. Retrieved from http://revistahArte.fcsh.unl.pt/rhaw4/RHAw4.pdf.

Kromholz, S. 2016. “The Artwork is not Present: An Investigation into the Durational Engagement with Temporary Artworks.” University of Glasgow. Retrieved from http://theses.gla.ac.uk/7716/.

Kruger, B., & Dahan, A. 2014. “On New Forms of Activism.” Purple Magazine (22). Retrieved from http://purple.fr/magazine/fw-2014-issue-22/barbara-kruger/.

Kunst, B. 2014. The Project at Work. Gießen. Retrieved from http://WorksatWork.dk/wpcontent/uploads/2014/11/The-Project-At-Work-Kunst.pdf?fa4924.

Kwastek, K. 2018. “Documenting Interaction.” In J. Westerman & G. Giannachi, eds., Histories of Performance Documentation (pp. 132–148). New York: Routledge.

Kwon, M. 2002. One Place After Another. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 37. Cambridge, Mass. and London, UK: MIT Press.

L’Internationale. n.d. Retrieved from http://www.internationaleonline.org/confederation.

La Rosa, M. 2013. “To Collect or not to Collect, That is the Question: The In-terms Contradiction of Contemporary Art Museums.” Reinwardt Academy.

Laineste, L., & Brzozowska, D. 2014. “End of the World Narratives in Poland and Estonia: Images, Texts and Underlying Attitudes.” In A. Baran, L. Laineste, & P. Voolaid, eds., Scala Naturae. Festschrift in Honour of Arvo Krikmann for his 75th birthday (pp. 357–389). Tartu: ELM Scholarly Press.

Latour, B., & Lowe, A. 2010. “The Migration of the Aura or How to Explore the Original through its Facsimiles.” In T. Bartscherer, ed., Switching Codes (pp. 275–297). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/108-ADAM-FACSIMILES-GB.pdf.

Laurenson, P. 2004. “Developing Strategies for the Conservation of Installations Incorporating Time-based Media: Gary Hill’s Between Cinema and a Hard Place.” Tate Papers, Spring (1): 1–9. Retrieved from https://www.tate.org.uk/Research/publications/tate-papers/01/developing-Strategies-for-the-Conservation-of-Installations-incorporating-Time-based-Media-gary-hills-between-cinema-and-a-hard-place.

Laurenson, P. 2006. “Authenticity, Change and Loss in the Conservation of Time-based Media Installations.” Tate Papers (6). Retrieved from http://www.tate.org.uk/Research/publications/tatepapers/06/AuthenticitychangeandlossConservationofTimebasedMediaInstallations.

Laurenson, P. 2013. “Emerging Institutional Models and Notions of Expertise for the Conservation of Time-based Media Works of Art.” Technè 37: 36–42.

Laurenson, P. 2014. “Communities of Practice.” AV Insider 5 (July): 14–21.

Laurenson, P. (2014). Old Media, New Media? Significant Difference and the Conservation of Software-based Art. New Collecting: Exhibiting and Audiences after New Media Art, (September 2008), 73–96.

Laurenson, P., & van Saaze, V. (2014). Collecting Performance-based Art: New Challenges and Shifting Perspectives. In O. Remes, L. MacCulloch, & M. Leino (Eds.), Performativity in the Gallery: Staging Interactive Encounters (pp. 27–41). Bern: Peter Lang.

Lebovici, E. (2015). The Slip of the Tongue. In J. Ault, C. Bourgeois, H. P. Knes, S. A. Pedersen, & D. Vo (Eds.), The Slip of the Tongue. Venice: Marsilio.

Lepecki, A. (2010). The Body as Archive: Will to Re-enact and the Afterlives of Dances. Dance Research Journal, 42(2), 28–48.

Lerm Hayes, M.-C. (2015). Writing Art and Creating Back: What can we do with Art (History)? (Inaugural Lecture No. 537). Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.487246.

Lewis, K. (2015). Beyond the Interview: Working with Artists in Time-based Media Conservation. Retrieved from http://resources.Conservation-us.org/osg-postprints/postprints/v22/lewis/

Lewis, K. (2017). Beyond the Interview: Working with Artists in Time-based Media Conservation (MAPS / Media Art Preservation Conference). Budapest. Retrieved from http://maps2017.ludwigMuseum.hu/en/speakers/kate-lewis/

Lichtin, C. (2016). How Are You, Mr Duchamp? The History and Analysis of the Artistic Interview. In S. Omlin & D. Imhof (Eds.), Interviews: Oral History in Contemporary Art (pp. 95–125). Lausanne: Art&fiction.

Lippard, L. (1973). Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Lorente, P. J. (2011). The Museums of Contemporary Art: Notion and Development. Surrey and Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.

Lowenthal, D. (1985). The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ludwiński, J. (2007). Notes From The Future of Art: Selected Writings by Jerzy Ludwiński (M. Ziółkowska, Ed.). Eindhoven: Van Abbemuseum.

Lundemo, T., Røssaak, E., & Blom, I. (2016). Memory in Motion: Archives, Technology, and the Social. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Lynch, M. (2011, May). The Personal and Political in the Art of Danh Vo. Inside/Out: A MoMA / MoMA PS1 Blog. Retrieved from https://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2011/05/12/the-personal-and-political-in-the-art-of-danh-vo/

Macdonald, C. (2009). Scoring the Work: Documenting Practice and Performance in Variable Media Art. Leonardo, 42(1), 59–63.

Macdonald, S. (2001a). Behind the Scenes at the Science Museum: KNOWING, MAKING AND USING. In Academic Anthropology and the Museum: Back to the Future (1st ed., pp. 117–140). Berghahn Books.

Macdonald, S. (2001b). Ethnography in the Science Museum, London. In D. N. Gellner & E. Hirsch (Eds.), Inside Organizations: Anthropologists at Work (pp. 115–137). Oxford: Berg.

Macedo, R. (2008). Desafios da Arte Contemporânea à Conservação e Restauro, Documentar a Arte Portuguesa dos Anos 60/70. Universidade Nova de Lisboa.

Maerkle, A. (2011, March). Danh Vo: A Five-Part Dossier on How Things Live. ART IT. Retrieved from http://www.Art-it.asia/u/admin_ed_feature_e/Q6hwpXcu2W94ndfMsvLl/

Maleuvre, D. (1999). Museum Memories: History, Technology, Art. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Mancusi-Ungaro, C. (2005). Original Intent: The Artist’s Voice. In Y. Hummelen & D. Sillé (Eds.), Modern Art: Who Cares? An Interdisciplinary Research Project and an International Symposium on the Conservation of Modern and Contemporary Art (Second, pp. 392–393). London: Archetype Publications.

Mansfield, E. (Ed.). (2002). Art History and Its Institutions: Foundations of a Discipline. London and New York: Routledge.

Marçal, H. (2017). Conservation in an Era of Participation. Journal of the Institute of Conservation, 40(2), 97–104.

Marçal, H. (2018). From Intangibility to Materiality and Back Again: Preserving Portuguese Performance Artworks from the 1970s. Universidade Nuova de Lisboa.

Marçal, H., & Macedo, R. (2017). The Aim of Documentation: Micro-decisions in the Documentation of Performance-based Artworks. In ICOM-CC 18th Triennial Conference 2017 Copenhagen.

Marçal, H., Macedo, R., Nogueira, A., & Duarte, A. (2013). Whose Decision Is It? Reflections About a Decision-Making Model Based on Qualitative Methodologies. CeROArt. Retrieved from http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/docannexe/image/3597/img-1.png

Marchesi, M. (2017). Forever Young: The Reproduction of Photographic Artworks as a Conservation Strategy. Leiden University. Retrieved from https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/59473

Marontate, J. (1997). Modern Art: Who Cares? Boekmancahier, 9(34), 407–418.

Marontate, J. (2013). Strategies for Studying Multiple Meanings in Conservation Research. CeROArt, 1–14. Retrieved from http://ceroArt.revues.org/3560

Martinon, J.-P. (Ed.). (2013). The Curatorial: A Philosophy of Curating. London, New Delhi, New York, Sydney: Bloomsbury.

Martore, P. (2009). The Contemporary Artwork Between Meaning and Cultural Identity. CeROArt, (4). Retrieved from http://ceroArt.revues.org/index1287.html

McCoy, R. (2009). Concepts Around Interviewing Artists: A Discussion with Glenn Wharton. Retrieved March 20, 2016, from http://blog.Art21.org/2009/10/20/concepts-aroundInterviewing-Artists-a-discussion-with-glenn-Wharton/#.V1FwEPl95hE

McDonough, T. (2016). Dispersal- Dissemination- Monumentality. In M. Arriola (Ed.), Danh Vo [Wād al-haŷara] (pp. 214–222). Ecatepec: Fundación Jumex Arte Contemporáneo.

Meijer-Van Mensch, L., & van Mensch, P. (2010). From Disciplinary Control to Co-creation − Collecting and the Development of Museums as Praxis in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century. Encouraging Collections Mobility - A Way Forward for Museums in Europe, 33–53. Retrieved from http://www.lending-for-europe.eu/fileadmin/CM/public/handbook/Encouraging_Collections_Mobility_A4.pdf

Meyer, R. (2013). What Was Contemporary Art? Cambridge, Mass. and London, UK: MIT Press.

Miller, D. (2009). Now Let Us Interview Famous Men. Art Monthly, 3(324), 7–11.

Miller, Z., & Röck, C. (2019). Manifestation. In J. Giebeler, G. Heydenreich, & A. Sartorius (Eds.), The Decision-making Model for Contemporary Art Conservation and Presentation (p. 25). Cologne. Retrieved from https://www.th-koeln.de/mam/downloads/deutsch/hochschule/fakultaeten/kulturwissenschaften/f02_cics_gsm_fp__dmmcrmac_190407a.pdf

Mirosław Bałka: Black Pope, Black Sheep. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://ArtMuseum.pl/en/kolekcja/praca/balka-miroslaw-czarny-papiez-i-czarna-owca

Mitchell, W. J. T. (2005). What do Pictures Want? The Lives and Loves of Images. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mitchell, W., & Kruger, B. (1991). An Interview with Barbara Kruger. Critical Inquiry, 17(2), 434–448.

Muller, L. (2008). Towards an Oral History of New Media Art. Retrieved March 22, 2016, from http://www.fondation-langlois.org/

Muñoz-Viñas, S. (2005). Contemporary Theory of Conservation. Elsevier ButterworthHeinemann.

Muñoz-Viñas, S. (2009). Minimal Intervention Revisited. In A. Richmond & A. Bracker (Eds.), Conservation: principles, dilemmas and uncomfortable truths (pp. 47–59). Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann in association with the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Muñoz-Viñas, S. (2010). The Artwork that Became a Symbol of Itself: Reflections on the Conservation of Modern Art. In U. Schädler-Saub & A. Weyer (Eds.), Theory and Practice in the Conservation of Modern and Contemporary Art – Reflections on the Roots and the Perspectives (pp. 9–19). London: Archetype.

Muñoz-Viñas, S. (n.d.). The Transactional Nature of Heritage Conservation. Amsterdam: Reinwardt Academy.

Murawska-Muthesius, K., & Piotrowski, P. (2015). Introduction. From Museum Critique to the Critical Museum. In From Museum Critique to the Critical Museum (pp. 1–12). Routledge.

New Museum. (2011). New Museum to Present “Ostalgia”, a Survey Devoted to Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Republics. Retrieved from https://235bowery.s3.amazonaws.com/exhibitionlinks/29/20110216_OSTALGIA.pdf

Noordegraaf, J., Saba, C. G., Le Maître, B., & Hediger, V. (Eds.). (2013). Preserving and Exhibiting Media Art: Challenges and Perspectives. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist Research (pp. 30–61). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Osborne, P. (2010). Contemporary Art is Postconceptual Art. Como. Retrieved from http://www.fondazioneratti.org/mat/mostre/Contemporary%20Art%20is%20post-Conceptual%20Art%20/Leggi%20il%20testo%20della%20conferenza%20di%20Peter%20Osborne%20in%20PDF.pdf

Osborne, P. (2013). Anywhere or Not at All: Philosophy of Contemporary Art. London and New York: Verso.

Osborne, P. (2018). The Postconceptual Condition: Critical Essays. Brooklyn: Verso.

Perec, G. (1997). “Think/Classify.” In J. Sturrock (Ed.), Species of Spaces and other Pieces (pp. 189–205). London: Penguin Books.

Phillips, J. (2012). Shifting Equipment Significance in Time-based Media Art. Electronic Media Review, 1, 139–154.

Phillips, J. (2015). Reporting Iterations: A Documentation Model for Time-based Media Art. Revista de História Da Arte, 4, 168–179. Retrieved from [http://revistahArte.fcsh.unl.pt/](http://revistahArte.fcsh.unl.pt/rhaw4/RHAw4.pdf Portelli, A. (1989).

Portelli, A. (1989). The Peculiarities of Oral History. History Workshop, (12), 96–107.

Portelli, A. (2018). Living Voices: The Oral History Interview as Dialogue and Experience. The Oral History Review, (August), 1–10.

Preston, V. (2014). From Outside to Inside: Changing Strategies and Practices of Institutional Critique 1960-2014. University of London. Retrieved from http://bbktheses.da.ulcc.ac.uk/103/

Price, N. S., Talley Jr., M. Kirby, & Vaccaro, A. M. (Eds.). (1996). Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.

Principles and Best Practices for Oral History | Oral History Association. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.OralHistory.org/about/principles-and-Practices/

Prinz, S. (2017). When the Present Begins. In B. von Bismarck, H. Munder, & P. J. Schneemann (Eds.), Now-tommorow-flux. An anthology on the Museum of Contemporary Art (pp. 51–57). Zürich: JRP Ringier.

Quabeck, N. (2019). The Artist’s Intent in Contemporary Art: Matter and Process in Transition. University of Glasgow.

Quabeck, N., & Wielocha, A. (2017, June). New Approaches in the Conservation of Contemporary Art (NACCA) Project. ICOM-CC Modern Materials and Contemporary Art (MMCA) Working Group Newsletter, (3), 14. Retrieved from http://www.icom-cc.org/54/document/mmca-Newsletter-june-2017—Newsletter-3/?id=1499#.W_LVaj0mUk

Redzisz, K., & Sienkiewicz, K. (2012). Świadomość. Neue Bieriemiennost. Warsaw: Open Art Projects.

Ribalta, J. (2010). Experiments in a New Institutionality. In Relational Objects: MACBA Collection 2002-07 (pp. 225–265).

RinehArt, R., & Ippolito, J. (2014). Re-Collection: Art, New Media, and Social Memory. Cambridge, Mass. and London, UK: MIT Press.

Ritchie, D. A. (2003). Doing Oral History: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Robecchi, M. (2012, October). Living History. Art in America. Retrieved from http://www.Artinamericamagazine.com/News-features/magazine/living-History/

Robertson, F., & Hermens, E. (Eds.). (n.d.). Authenticity in Transition: Changing Practices in Art Making and Conservation. London: Archetype Publications.

Rolfe, M., & Bałka, M. (2011). Interview with Miroslaw Balka [transcript]. Discussing T13263 “After-Easter Show”. T13263 Conservation File. London.

Rottenberg, A. (1994). Miroslaw Balka - Arranged Events (a first draft). In Die Rampe, Miroslaw Balka (pp. 14–24). Łódź / Eindhoven: Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi / Vanabbe Museum, Eindhoven.

Ruppel, P. S., & Mey, G. (2017). Grounded Theory Methodology. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication.

Rutten, K., van Dienderen, A., & Soetaert, R. (2013). Revisiting the Ethnographic Turn in Contemporary Art. Critical Arts, 27(5), 459–473.

Ryan, B. (2011). Danh Vo in Conversation with Bartholomew Ryan. Walker Art Center. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tud_HSVuuWY

Ryan, B. (2012, January). Tombstone for Phùng Vo. Walker Sightlines, 1–4. Retrieved from https://walkerArt.org/magazine/tombstone-for-phung-vo

Ryan, G., & O’Banion, S. (2015). From Theory to Practice: Instituting the Hirshhorn Artist Interview Program. The American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works. Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Twenty-Two, 13–24. Retrieved from http://resources.Conservation-us.org/osg-postprints/postprints/v22/ryan/

Sainsbury, H. (2010). Reasons for Acquiring Work. T13263 Acquisition File, Tate Archive.

Sant, T. (Ed.). (2017). Documenting Performance: The Context and Processes of Digital Curation and Archiving. London and New York: Bloomsbury.

Schädler-Saub, U., & Weyer, A. (Eds.). (2010). Theory and Practice in the Conservation of Modern and Contemporary Art: Reflections on the Roots and the Perspectives. London: Archetype Publications.

Scholte, T., & Wharton, G. (Eds.). (2011). Inside Installations: Theory and Practice in the Care of Complex Artworks. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Retrieved from www.oapen.org/download?type=document&docid=467012

Scott, D. A. (2015). Conservation and Authenticity: Interactions and Enquiries. Studies in Conservation, 60(5), 291–305.

Seale, C. (1998). Qualitative Interviewing. In C. Seale (Ed.), Researching Society and Culture (pp. 202–216). SAGE.

Serexhe, B. (Ed.). (2013). Preservation of Digital Art: Theory and Practice. Wien: Ambra.

Sharmacharja, S., & Altshuler, B. (Eds.). (2009). A Manual for the 21st Century Art Institution. London: Koenig Books & Whitechapel Gallery.

Sheesley, S. (2007). Artist Interviews as Tools for Diligent Conservation Practice. American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works. Objects The Book and Paper Specialty Group Postprints, 26, 161–165.

Sielewicz, N. (2009). Mirosław Bałka: Space, Matter and Memory. Intertekst. Retrieved from http://www.intertekst.com/172_Artykul.html?jezyk=en&id_Artykul=172

Sienkiewicz, K. (2013). Z Wzajemnością. Dwutygodnik, (105). Retrieved from http://www.dwutygodnik.com/Artykul/4449-z-wzajemnoscia.html

Sienkiewicz, K. (2015). Neue Bieriemiennost’. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from http://Culture.pl/en/Artist/neue-bieriemiennost

Simonini, R. (2013, February). The Art of the Artist Interview. Hazlitt, 1–11. Retrieved from https://hazlitt.net/feature/Art-Artist-Interview

Sloggett, R. (1998). Beyond the Material: Idea, Concept, Process, and their Function in the Conservation of the Conceptual Art of Mike Parr. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 37(3), 316–333.

Slow Words. (2015, April). Danh Vo – Artist, Curator, Collector. Slow Words. Retrieved from http://www.slow-words.com/danh-vo-Artist-Curator-Collector/

Smith, R. (1991, January 11). Barbara Kruger’s Large-scale Self-expression. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nyTimes.com/1991/01/11/Arts/review-Art-barbara-krugers-large-scale-self-expression.html?mcubz=1

Smith, R. C. (2001). Analytic Strategies for Oral History Interviews. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method. SAGE Publications.

Smith, T. (2009). What is Contemporary Art. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Smith, T. (2012). Thinking Contemporary Curating. New York: Independent Curators International.

Smith, V., Brand, J., & Muynck, C. de (Eds.). (1993). Sonsbeek 93. Gent: Snoeck-Ducaju & Zoon.

Soares, B. B. (2016). Provoking Museology: The Geminal Thinking of Zbyněk Z. Stránský. Museologica Brunensia, (2), 5–17.

Sommermeyer, B. (2011). Who’s Right – the Artist or the Conservator? In T. Scholte & G. Wharton (Eds.), Inside Installations: Theory and Practice in the Care of Complex Artworks (pp. 143–151). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Soraluze Herrera, I. I., & Pacheco, R. L. (2008). When the Intellectual Universe of a Work of Art Prevails Over the Authenticity of Its. ARCHÉ, (3), 111–116.

Spieker, S. (2008). The Big Archive: Art from Bureaucracy. Cambridge, Mass. and London, UK: The MIT Press.

Squiers, C. (1995). Barbara Kruger. Aperture, (138), 58–67.

Statens Museum for Kunst. (2012). Danh Vo - Chandelier - 08:03:51, 28.05.2009. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDf6M5aCNyE&t=91s

Sterrett, J. (2009). Contemporary Museums of Contemporary Art. In A. Richmond & A. L. Bracker (Eds.), Conservation principles, dilemmas and uncomfortable truths (Vol. 2007, pp. 223–228). London: Butterworth-Heinemann / V&A Museum, London.

Stigter, S. (2004). Living Artist, Living Artwork? The Problem of Faded Colour Photographs in the Work of Ger van Elk. In Modern Art, New Museums, Proceedings ICC Annual Meeting, Bilbao 2004 (pp. 105–108).

Stigter, S. (2009). Between Concept and Material. Decision-making in Retrospect: Conservation Treatment of a Site-specific Conceptual Photographic Sculpture. In Art d’aujourd’hui Patrimoine de Demain: Conservation et Restauration des Oeuvres Contemporaines: 13es Journées d’Études de la SFIIC (Section Française de l’Institut International de Conservation) Paris, Institut National du Patrimoine - 24-26 juin 2009 (pp. 74–81). Champs-sur-Marne: SFIIC.

Stigter, S. (2011). How Material is Conceptual Art? From Certificate to Materialization: Installation Practices of Joseph Kosuth’s Glass [One and Three]. In T. Scholte & G. Wharton (Eds.), Inside Installations: Theory and Practice in the Care of Complex Artworks (pp. 69–80). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Stigter, S. (2012). Reflections on the Artist Interview and the Conservator’s Point of View by Example of Ger van Elk. In The Artist Interview. For Conservation and Presentation of Contemporary Art. Guidelines and Practice (pp. 102–111). Heijningen: JAP SAM Books.

Stigter, S. (2012b). The Artist Interview as a Conservation Tool for Process-based Art by Sjoerd Buisman. In L. Beerkens, P. ‘t Hoen, I.J. Hummelen, V. van Saaze, T. Scholte, & S. Stigter (Eds.), The Artist Interview: For Conservation and Presentation of Contemporary Art. Guidelines and Practice (pp. 68–77). Heijningen: JAP SAM Books.

Stigter, S. (2015). Co-producing Conceptual Art: A Conservator’s Testimony. Revista de História Da Arte, 4, 103–114.

Stigter, S. (2016). Between Concept and Material. Working with Conceptual Art: A Conservator’s Testimony. Universiteit van Amsterdam. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.535063

Sylvester, D. (2000). Looking Back at Francis Bacon. London: Thames and Hudson.

Szmelter, I. (Ed.). (2012). Innovative Approaches to the Complex Care of Contemporary Art. Warsaw and London: Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw and Archetype Publications.

Szreder, K. (2018). Institutional Experiments: Progressive Responses to the Dissolution of Autonomous Art. Widok. Teorie i Praktyki Kultury Wizualnej, 0(20), 1–13. Retrieved from http://pismowidok.org/index.php/one/Article/view/533/1134

Tapia O., R. (2017). Danh Vo Tells “Les fleurs d’intérieur.” Kadist Foundation. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/238774045

Tasos, Z. (Ed.). (2014). Artistic Practices. Social Interactions and Cultural Dynamics. New York & Oxon: Routledge.

Taylor, N. (2012, December). Vietnam in Bits and Pieces – Danh Vo and His Fragmented Biography. DiaCritics. Retrieved from http://diacritics.org/?p=14203

Taylor, N. (2015). Make History. Danh Vo in Conversation with Nora Taylor. Garage Magazine, N° 8, 82–87.

te Brake-Baldock, K. (2014). INCCA Update May 28, 2014. Retrieved May 30, 2018, from https://www.incca.org/Articles/incca-update-may-28-2014

ten Thije, S., Andrews, M., & Cánepa Luna, M. (2013). From One History to a Plurality of Histories. Sightlines: Walker Art Reader, January. Retrieved from https://walkerArt.org/magazine/steven-ten-thije-van-Abbemuseum-openCurating

Thatcher, J. (2013, December). We the People. Danh Vo Interviewed by Jennifer Thatcher. Art Monthly, (372), 1–4.

Theobalds, J. (2012). Artists in Their Own Words: The MoMA Oral History Program. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from https://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/10/10/Artists-intheir-own-words-the-moma-Oral-History-program/

Tisdall, C. (1979). Joseph Beuys. New York: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation.

Tisdall, C. (1987). Bits and Pieces. A Collection of Work by Joseph Beuys from 1957-1985. Assembled by Him for Caroline Tisdall. Edinburgh & Bristol: Richard Demarco Gallery.

Tomaszewski, A. (2002). Environmental Preventive Conservation. In ICOMOS 13th General Assembly and International Symposium “Strategies for the World’s Cultural Heritage. Preservation in a Globalised World: Principles, Practices, Perspectives” (pp. 264–266). Madrid. Retrieved from http://www.icomos.org/madrid2002/actas/index.html

Tomkins, C. (2018, January). The Artist Questioning Authorship. The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.Newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/29/the-Artist-questioningauthorship

van de Kerckhove, A. (2000). Report on Miroslaw Balka’s “211x 179x125, 190x129x73” (1993). INCCA Archive.

van de Vall, R. (2009). Towards a Theory and Ethics for the Conservation of Contemporary Art. In Art d’aujourd’hui Patrimoine de Demain: Conservation et Restauration des Oeuvres Contemporaines: 13es Journées d’Études de la SFIIC (Section Française de l’institut international de Conservation) Paris, Institut National du Patrimoine - 24-26 juin 2009 (pp. 51–56). Champs-sur-Marne: SFIIC.

van de Vall, R. (2015a). Documenting Dilemmas: On the relevance of Ethically Ambiguous Cases. Revista de História Da Arte, 4, 7–17. Retrieved from http://revistahArte.fcsh.unl.pt/rhaw4/RHAw4.pdf

van de Vall, R. (2015b). The Devil and the Details: The Ontology of Contemporary Art in Conservation Theory and Practice. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 55(3), 285–302.

van de Vall, R., Hölling, H., Scholte, T., & Stigter, S. (2011). Reflections on a Biographical Approach to Contemporary Art Conservation. In J. Bridgland (Ed.), ICOM-CC: 16th Triennial Conference, Lisbon, 19-23 September 2011: Preprints [cd-rom]. Lisbon: Almada: Critério.

van Maanen, H. (2009). How to Study Art Worlds: On the Societal Functioning of Aesthetic Values. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=339994

van Saaze, V. (2009a). Doing Artworks. A Study into the Presentation and Conservation of Installation Artworks. Maastricht University.

van Saaze, V. (2009b). Doing Artworks. An Ethnographic Account of the Acquisition and Conservation of No Ghost Just a Shell. Krisis, (1), 20–32.

van Saaze, V. (2009c). From Intention to Interaction. Reframing the Artist’s Interview in Conservation Research. In Art d’aujourd’hui Patrimoine de Demain: Conservation et Restauration des Oeuvres Contemporaines: 13es Journées d’Études de la SFIIC (Section Française de l’institut International de Conservation) Paris, Institut National du Patrimoine - 24-26 juin 2009 (pp. 20–28). Champs-sur-Marne: SFIIC.

van Saaze, V. (2013a). Case Study: No Ghost Just a Shell by Pierre Huyghe, Phillipe Parreno, and Many Others. In Preserving and Exhibiting Media Art. Challenges and Perspectives (pp. 170–175). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

van Saaze, V. (2013b). Installation Art and the Museum. Presentation and Conservation of Changing Artworks. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

van Saaze, V. (2015). In the Absence of Documentation: Remembering Tino Sehgal’s Constructed Situations. Revista de História Da Arte, 4, 55–64.

van Saaze, V., Wharton, G., & Reisman, L. (2018). Adaptive Institutional Change: Managing Digital Works at the Museum of Modern Art. Museum and Society, 16(2), 220–239.

van Wetering, E. (1979). Theoretical Considerations with Respect to the Completion of Works of Art. In Actes du Cours International pour les Restaurateurs; Veszprém, Hungary, 15-27 July 1978 (pp. 47–57). Budapest: Institute of Conservation and Methodology of Museums.

van Wetering, E. (1996). Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage. In N. S. Price, M. K. Talley Jr., & A. M. Vaccaro (Eds.), Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage (pp. 193–199). Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.

Vanrell Vellosillo, A. (2015). Nuevas Estrategias para la Conservación de Colecciones de Arte con Elementos Tecnológicos: Propuestas Metodológicas de Humanidades Digitales. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Retrieved from https://eprints.ucm.es/33204/

Verschooren, K. A. (2007). Situating Internet Art in the Traditional Institution for Contemporary Art. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved from https://cmsw.mit.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/146381115-Karen-Verschooren-Art-Situating-InternetArt-in-the-Traditional-Institution-for-Contemporary-Art.pdf

Vo, D., & Ault, J. (2009). Hic Sunt Leones. (A. Szymczyk, Ed.). Basel: Kunsthalle Basel.

Vo, D., & Ault, J. (2010). Danh Vo in Conversation with Julie Ault. New York: MoMA, NY. Retrieved from http://www.moma.org/explore/Multimedia/audios/248/2219

Wagner, H. (2006). Desire Exists where Pleasure is Absent. In Barbara Kruger: Desire exists where pleasure is absent (pp. 13–30). Hannover: Kestner-Gesellschaft.

Walsh, V. (2016). Redistributing Knowledge and Practice in the Art Museum. Stedelijk Studies, Spring(4), 1–16. Retrieved from http://www.stedelijkstudies.com/beheer/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Stedelijk-Studies_Redistributing-Knowledge-and-Practice-in-the-ArtMuseum_Walsh.pdf

Weizman, E., & Keenan, T. (2012). Mengele’s Skull: The Advent of a Forensic Aesthetics, 84.

Westerman, J., & Giannachi, G. (Eds.). (2018). Histories of Performance Documentation. New York: Routledge.

Weyer, C., & Heydenreich, G. (2005). From Questionnaires to a Checklist for Dialogues. In Y. Hummelen & D. Sillé (Eds.), Modern Art: Who Cares? An Interdisciplinary Research Project and an International Symposium on the Conservation of Modern and Contemporary Art (Second, pp. 385–388). London: Archetype Publications.

Wharton, G. (2008). Dynamics of Participatory Conservation: The Kamehameha I Sculpture Project. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 47(3), 159–173.

Wharton, G. (2009). INCCA: A Model for Conserving Contemporary Art. The Getty Conservation Institute’s Newsletter, 24(2), 16–17.

Wharton, G. (2015a). Artist Intention and the Conservation of Contemporary Art. AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, 22.

Wharton, G. (2015b). Public Access in the Age of Documented Art. Revista de História Da Arte, 4, 180–191. Retrieved from http://revistahArte.fcsh.unl.pt/rhaw4/RHAw4.pdf

Wharton, G. (2016). Reconfiguring Contemporary Art in the Museum. In E. Hermens & F. Robertson (Eds.), Authenticity in Transition: Changing Practices in Art Making and Conservation (pp. 27–36). London: Archetype Publications.

Wharton, G., & Molotch, H. (2009). The Challenge of Installation Art. In A. Richmond & A. L. Bracker (Eds.), Conservation principles, dilemmas and uncomfortable truths (pp. 210–222). Amsterdam: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.

Wielocha, A. (2016). Between Curator and the Artist: a Problem of Authority. In E. Hermens & F. Robertson (Eds.), Authenticity in Transition: Changing Practices in Art Making and Conservation (pp. 54–61). London: Archetype Publications.

Wielocha, A. (2017). El registro de los Vínculos entre el Museo y el Artista y su Impacto en el Ámbito de la Conservación y Restauración. In Conservación de Arte Contemporáneo. 18a Jornada (pp. 95–104). Madrid: Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía.

Wielocha, A. (2017). Tracing Meanings: The Artist Interview as an Interpretative Tool for the Artwork as an Open-ended Archive. In NACCA poster session at Tate Modern. London.

Wielocha, A. (2018). A Museum Collection in a Public Space. In S. M. Sunara & A. Thorn (Eds.), Conservation of Sculpture Parks (pp. 32–43). London: Archetype.

Wielocha, A. (2018). The Artist Interview as a Platform for Negotiating an Artwork’s Possible Futures. Art and Documentation, (17), 31–45. Retrieved from http://www.journal.doc.Art.pl/pdf17/Art_and_Documentation_17_wielocha.pdf

Wijers, G., Van Saaze, V., & Dekker, A. (2012). What Visual Arts Preservation can learn from Dance Reconstruction: An Introduction to the Current State of Research within IMK. Rtrsrch, 2(2), 15–17. Retrieved from http://insidemovementknowledge.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/RTRSRCH_Notation_CoverSpread.pdf

Williams, G., & Scheidemann, C. (2001). Conserving Latex and Liverwurst: An Interview with Christian Scheidemann. Cabinet, Spring(2). Retrieved from http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/Issues/2/latexandliverwurst.php

Winkworth, K. (2009). Object Files: Getting Started on Significance Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.centralnswMuseums.orangeMuseum.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Object-Files.pdf

Wolinski, M. (n.d.). I Could Live in Africa. Retrieved April 11, 2018, from http://www.piktogram.org/14-IcouldliveinAfrica.html

Wright, S. (2013). Toward a Lexicon of Usership. In N. Aikens & S. Wright (Eds.), Eindhoven: Van Abbemuseum.

Wynne, S. C. (2009). Cataloging Oral Histories: Creating MARC Records for Individual Oral History Interviews. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 47(6), 561–582.

Wythe, D. (Ed.). (2004). Museum Archives: An Introduction. Chicago: Society of American Archivists.

Yaneva, A. (2003a). Chalk Steps on the Museum floor: The “Pulses” of Objects in an Art Installation. Journal of Material Culture, 8(2), 169–188.

Yaneva, A. (2003b). When a Bus Met a Museum: Following Artists, Curators and Workers in Art Installation. Museum and Society, 1(3), 116–131.

Zhilyaev, A. (2016). Arseny Zhilyaev in conversation with Boris Groys: “Contemporary art is the theology of the museum.” E-Flux Conversations, (June). Retrieved from https://conversations.e-flux.com/t/arseny-zhilyaev-in-conversation-with-boris-groyscontemporary-art-is-the-theology-of-the-museum/3839

Zielinski, S. (2015). AnArcheology for AnArchives: Why do we need—especially for the arts—a complementary concept to the archive? Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, 2(1), 116–125.

Zielinski, S., Giannetti, C., & Fürlus, E. (Eds.). (2014). AnArchive(s): A Minimal Encyclopaedia on Archaeology and Variantology of the Arts and Media. Oldenburg: Edith Russ Haus für Medienkunst.

Zolberg, V. L. (1992). Art Museums and Living Artists: Contentious Communities. In I. Karp, C. Mullen Kreamer, & S. D. Lavine (Eds.), Museums and Communities (pp. 105–163). Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.

online local pdfpdf