Conceptual art leads to discussion. It has been happening for more than half a century. And the last sermon sermon takes place from the beginning of April to Ravenna Where, about the work of the American artist Sol Lewitt Stay at the local and civic level art museum Hot nerves. But let’s go in order. After 30 years of oblivion, the March (short for Ravenna Museum of Art) presents a New layout Who is the pinnacle of excellence Wall Drawing #570Lewis’s work. He has spent the past three decades in deposit Because the author himself did not want to display it. But the museum decided to go ahead because of the director Maurizio Tarantino He claimed that he obtained the consent of the heirs. There though: A few days ago, Sophia lewittThe artist’s daughter wrote Email to Mar In which she clearly indicated that I job boards In the question they had to be destroyed Once the exhibition is over. Obviously the sea has the opposite opinion and at this point they start to appear Many other “contributions” As for history: A former councilman claimed that LeWitt thought Ravenna’s work was so Already destroyedwhile the Romania courier reveals that I Wall Drawing #570 There are two types: in addition to the Ravena (first installed in 1988), there is another one that is owned by a collector in San Francisco. Unfortunately, this is the last to be indexed among official business of the artist, as evidenced by Sophia Lewitt in the form that he sent to the curator of the Mar Gallery, and the fact that Lewitt considered a copy Wall Drawing #570 2005, then Revision as well In 2010 (but not by the artist, considering that he died three years ago) to return it to heroriginal appearance Which he had in 1988. In short, for Mar it would be a real case to stay with match in hand.
Shortly before Easter the matter reached the city council and only a few days ago the local press announced message relationship Between Mar and Sofia LeWitt where the latter, as written, reveals the will of Ravenna’s version of the work must be destroyed. However, Mar’s leaders seem to be thinking in the opposite direction. This happens even though some are prepared to swear that Sol Levite after the end of the 1988 exhibition (I travel to Italy, was collective) expressed the desire to destroy the work, even if in the absence of written testimony for this, everything becomes complicated. Then the manager March Bruno Bandini He didn’t feel like destroying the work, as well as Sol LeWitt’s expected return to Italy in 1992 – also to cover it once and for all with a layer of white lead. Wall Drawing #570 – did not happen. Today the work is being inventoried, and successive museum directors have always been Obligation to preserve – as conservatives by law – but the first time one tried to display it again, a ruckus broke out.
Now how do you get out? There is already someone asking about Tarantino’s chief director and curator of the show, Georgia Salernowho have chosen at the moment the way of silence. But outside the Romanian capital, how do you comment on the story? Christina acidinepresident of the Academy of Painting Arts in Florence and former supervisor of Polo Museale Fiorentino, has no doubt: “In my opinion will be destroyed. For if the artist expresses this will and is accepted at that time, there is no doubt. Conservatives are, but they are works made by agreeable artists. Because if the artistic gesture is completed by destroying the work, it must be destroyed.”
Onofrio KutayaThe Director General of Contemporary Creativity at the Ministry of Culture prefers not to make judgments “because I do not know the documents related to the subject, and after that because the sea does not fall within the ministerial jurisdiction,” while the art critic Vittorio my little boy It is believed that it is “a relic, because the artist died. So it is Exhibition It must be treated as such. It also cannot be displayed, but it must be considered an artifact. Destroying it would be against nature And no one can choose an artist who no longer exists. Everything can change only if there is a contract. Failing that, work must be maintained.”
In the end Laura LombardiNabil’s signature Art magazine and teacherBrera Academyhas clear thoughts: “The will of the artist must always be respected, without condition or reservations. However, if the artist had left clearly written what this will is, it would have been easier for everyone to get to the gist of this story. And if there was no document or written testimony, As for me, the girl has the right to demand that the work be destroyed.”