Nathalie Daniel-Risacher
No. 102 - winter 2012

Daniel Buren, Les deux plateaux. A Controversial Restoration

Daniel Buren’s Les deux plateaux is a work that is squarely at the core of the controversies of its era. Contested at the time it was installed in 1985, it continued to be so in 2007 when the artist addressed the question of its maintenance and conservation directly to the State in an ultimatum: restore it or destroy it. Faced with the deterioration of the columns, the breakdown of the hydraulic and electrical systems, Buren said that he felt “ashamed” before the thousands of yearly visitors who make a detour through the Palais Royal courtyard, during tourist visits and on other occasions.

This controversy has a benefit: that of questioning the status of the work itself, of re-evaluating the rights and duties of the artists and owners (legal field), and of highlighting the problematic link between power and artistic creation.

Eventful Beginnings

Doesn’t a great work always spark a controversy? In 1981, when Francois Mitterrand appointed Jack Lang at the head of the then renascent Ministry of Culture, the latter was intend on promoting a “left wing” culture, which would move art out of its elitist terrain and make it accessible to the general public. The confinement of art in galleries and museums is a relatively recent phenomenon in the Western world. Up until the avant-gardes at the turn of the 19th century, artists were present in Salons, works were on display in churches, in the streets or as public monuments (equestrian statues, Carpeaux’s La Dance on the Palais Garnier opera house facade, for example). Modernity introduced a rupture by professionalizing and privatizing the art world and thus completely fabricating the myth of the independent artist (who became maudit by the same token): henceforth artists became inaccessible to a wider public. Represented and protected by art dealers, their works were only to be found in galleries, museums and performance venues that only an informed audience frequents, while everyone finances them via their taxes.

Jack Lang was driven by a project and defended a credo: access to art is a right for all. To inaugurate this program, he chose a site-specific program for the Palais Royal courtyard. This ensemble of classical architecture had been housing the offices of the Ministry of Culture since 1959, and was defaced with the installation of a parking lot. The project was about developing a space that would be available to everyday pedestrians, while conserving the place’s cultural heritage. After a heated selection, the Ministry chose Daniel Buren, an artist who already had intervened actively in public space: since the 60s he had covered billboards and posters with his well known 8,3 cm-wide stripes. His installation on the 3000 m2 convex courtyard sought to counter the plateau’s incline through the alignment of 260 polygons of various heights anchored in a second underground plateau, which is irrigated and lit up. Through his urban actions, Buren already was aware of the problematic question, regarding the work’s use and natural dissolution.

An Irresolvable Paradox

In The Human Condition, Hannah Arendt makes a distinction between the product of work and the artwork. While the former provides consumable objects, which are subject to wearing out and disappearing, the artwork is characterized by the fact that it does not disintegrate—either theoretically, or practically—in its usefulness. Its durability verges on immortality: artworks are contemplated, not put to use. They are nevertheless affected by natural wear: stone erodes, colour fades, paper crumbles. But the effect of time is slow and can be further slowed down through conservation efforts. This observation holds for museum art; and it still applies in the case of public statuary when it carries an aura—as defined by Benjamin in “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”—that partially protects it from vandalism. But what about site-specific work, which by its very definition belongs to an environment and is intended for public visits, and may even serve a civil purpose (the space and the work are put at users’ disposal as a place of encounter and play)? It is therefore inevitable that it become damaged whether subject to wear, or to vandalism, and to uses other than intended. In his Manifesto: Public Sculpture in the Context of American Democracy, the Iranian Siah Armajani explains that in expanding its field to social experience, sculpture occupied a new space in the 20th century. Paradoxically, sculpture can now be used—having by the same token lost its sacred character—and is subject to the same fate as any manufactured object. This fate is worrisome in so far as it is in contradiction with the essence of the work. The polygons Daniel Buren placed inside the Palais Royal courtyard are subject to intensive use: climbed upon, handled, tagged, stained. They thus suffer the fate of street furniture, all the while being distinguished from it due to their art status. In reinventing contemporary sculpture, one must confront the problem of its battered durability.

One Work Leads to Another

In 2007, Daniel Buren denounced the owner (the Ministry of Culture, i.e. the State) for abandoning the work, a cultural heritage. More broadly, it is the conservation problem of works placed in public space (such as 1% works) that fuels the controversy: as a sponsor and acquirer of the works, the State ensures their installation, while the maintenance obligation is entrusted to the discretion of public authorities (it is “recommended,” JORD no 227 September 30, 2006 page 14553 text no 37). In the specific case of Les deux plateaux, Daniel Buren announced through the press that he was outraged to see his work defaced and demanded that the State make both a financial and moral commitment. In the inaugural speech for the renovated Les deux plateaux, the then-Minister of Culture, Fréderic Mitterrand, stated that the question of the work’s ownership must be understood in terms of what it is, namely “a source of pleasure both on an aesthetic and civic level.” The artist retains the moral responsibility of the work even if he or she has sold it, and demands of the State and citizens to guarantee its present and future survival. This recognition marks the beginning of a revival for Buren’s work.

The restoration project that was decided upon led to a new controversy regarding costs: these were five times higher than that of the initial project and gave many the opportunity to once again question the work’s legitimacy. Christine Albanel nevertheless went ahead with the decision and the restoration work took about two years. This period, during which the asphalt, fountains, electrical circuits and gratings were repaired and the columns cleaned, Buren turned into a participatory event. The artist used red boards equipped with coloured windows framed by white and black stripes to allow passersby to not only follow the construction progress, but also to see the work and its context from multiple viewpoints, thus revealing the subterranean component from which the installation’s title derives its meaning.

As always, Daniel Buren tries to defend his work from the “wear of the gaze” which tends to render long-term public works invisible to pedestrians. The renovation thus gave Les deux plateaux a dual visibility by placing the work at the core of the controversy and by giving the columns—so well integrated into the cityscape—a brand new profile.

Translated by Bernard Schütze

 

Nathalie Daniel-Risacher is a professor of philosophy and art history. After studies in philosophy (specializing in aesthetics), she worked for some years with a contemporary art gallery and at the Centre Georges Pompidou documentation centre (Bibliothèque Kandinsky). She currently teaches at a lycée in Bretagne and brings artists and students together through visits and workshops. These projects sometimes lead to noteworthy productions in the fields of photography, lithography and contemporary dance. Along with her educational commitments, she is a volunteer in a community organized film club though which she and her fellow film aficionados organize public philosophy/film evenings.