The Ongoing Life of Refuse in Art

Over the past hundred years artists have included materials in their work that evidence wear, damage, abuse and decay. Some of these elements were obviously scavenged from waste baskets, the streets, garbage bins and dumps. With a few notable exceptions, These artworks have entered public and private collections with little discussion of the challenges they present to traditional standards of care or conservation, or the implications that decisions about care might have on a work's value. One exception is Zoe Leonard's “Strange Fruit”. An act of mourning for the artist's friends and colleagues lost to AIDS, it consists of the empty skins of 295 bananas, oranges, grapefruit, lemons and avocados which Leonard stitched shut with thread, buttons and zippers. When the Philadelphia Museum of Art acquired “Strange Fruit” in 1998, it agreed to allow the work to decay naturally and also agreed to maintain contact with the artist, with the understanding that some day they might consider it no longer exhibit-able. But what about the many artworks for which no such agreements exist? What is appropriate care for works whose abject materials are integral to their content? Would attempts to remove signs of decay or arrest its progress be proper care, or would they compromise the artwork's intent and distort its history? We encourage contributions from artists, art historians, curators and others who have faced such questions.