In 1990, the Gottlieb Foundation gifted WALL to the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. At the time, this sculpture had spent most of its 20-year existence on the lawn of the Gottlieb's East Hampton home where it was subject to weathering and in need of conservation to reverse years of accumulated salt, contaminants, unfiltered sunlight, and damage from wind-blown sand.
Wall on the lawn in East Hampton, 1980
Comprehensive research commenced in late 2016 and continued through the spring of 2019, which is when the process of conserving the work actually began. Robert Price, Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in the National Gallery's Division of Conservation, spearheaded this project.
Research included dismantling Wall in order to see the extent of damage from the outdoor elements. Here it is disassembled in the sculpture conservation lab of the National Gallery before conservation:
Price made several visits to the Foundation to examine other works by Adolph Gottlieb, in addition to archival records and samples of Gottlieb's original paints and tools. By doing so, he was able to compare how paint was applied to determine the original paint surface and technique used to create WALL. His research showed that Gottlieb had this sculpture spray-painted instead of using a brush as he had employed in his smaller sculptures, and Price was able to utilize this process in conserving WALL.
Robert Price in the conservation studio
To offer a better sense of how he approached this project and what he learned in the process, we sent Price some questions about his experience. Here are his responses:
How did you go about conducting research for this project? Where did you start?
The starting point for my research was the object itself – documenting its surfaces, studying what was known about its installation history, studying its conservation history, and taking small samples from the existing paint surfaces to learn more about its fabrication. At the same time, I delved into Gottlieb’s career as a painter – studying his styles and transitions, as well as his philosophy and the aesthetic principles that guided his work. From there, I sought to gather as much information as possible about Gottlieb’s sculptures – the numerous versions of Wall, in particular – and traveled to see them for myself. The Gottlieb Foundation was an invaluable resource throughout this process. In addition to visually documenting these small scale works, I also utilized a portable spectrophotometer and gloss meter to gather numerical data on the painted surfaces. Having a data driven method for comparing one sculpture to the next in terms of color allowed for a more nuanced and objective understanding of Gottlieb’s pallet and the variations present across versions. Ultimately, this data was also critical to developing a new paint system for the large scale version of Wall.
What is the most surprising thing you discovered while restoring this work?
I was most surprised by the amount of variation present across the set of small scale versions of Wall. Not only are there minor differences in color and gloss, the individual sections also exhibit slight variations from version to version. Although they were all made using the same template, the method of tracing the shape onto the steel or aluminum, as well as the method of cutting and finishing the edges, introduced opportunities for irregularity – something that I think Gottlieb was aware of and accepted. Considering the yellow disks, one can clearly see that some versions precisely follow the contours of the template while others deviate from the template and are more rounded.
What was the biggest challenge in the conservation of this work?
The biggest challenge of this conservation treatment, aside from the decision making process regarding the method of paint application and visual characteristics of the paint itself, was working with the scale and weight of the individual elements of the sculpture and the physical challenges related to the painting process. Moving the sections of the sculpture as the treatment progressed through sanding, priming and top coating was a logistical challenge, but producing a uniform matte paint surface across such large areas was an even greater challenge. The entire process required extensive preparation and forethought. Every parameter – from the settings of the spray gun, to the paint mixture and even the distance between the spray gun and the object surface - had to be consistent in order to produce the smooth surface texture that can be seen on the sculpture today.
Photos of the installation of Wall at the National Gallery, Courtesy of the National Gallery of Art
How closely do you take into consideration "original intent" when doing conservation work? What do you decide to leave behind as part of the history of the sculpture, separate from the artist?
The original intent, or ‘artist’s intent’ is one of the most important guiding principles behind any conservation treatment, although this information is not always available. When necessary, conservators attempt to reconstruct this information using scientific research, artist statements, and examination of works from a similar time period. In the case of Wall, Gottlieb did not write extensively about his sculptures, or give any statements as to how he wanted them to appear. Fortunately, Gottlieb produced several small scale versions of Wall, the paint surfaces of which were in good condition and served as reference points for Gottlieb’s vision. At the same time, however, it could not be assumed that the small scale versions – painted by Gottlieb himself – precisely represented Gottlieb’s intentions for the large scale version. Deliberations with other conservators, curators, and with Sanford Hirsch [Executive Director of the Gottlieb Foundation] were also key to the decision making process, not only for how to repaint, but initially, if the sculpture should be repainted at all. Combining the information collected from the small scale versions with technical study of the existing paint surfaces of the large scale version, plus multiple conversations with all the various stakeholders gave us the confidence to move forward with the treatment.
What did you learn about Gottlieb as an artist from your conservation efforts on his sculpture?
Studying and conserving the large scale version of Wall deepened my understanding of Gottlieb’s commitment to what I see as a ‘hand-made’ aesthetic that welcomes irregularity and imperfection, and exists in opposition to mass production and ‘industrial’ uniformity. The small scale, hand-painted versions of Wall certainly demonstrate this concept, but it is clear to me that Gottlieb thought about how he could translate this aesthetic to a scaled up version constructed and painted by a fabrication team. Although the surfaces do not exhibit his characteristic brushwork, Gottlieb decided to alter the outer edge of the large black disk, introducing new undulations and ‘cuts’ that are not present in the small scale versions. I can only speculate, but it would seem to me that this exaggeration was possibly a reaction to a concern that the more subtle irregularities would be less perceptible with an increase in scale.
Did this experience offer you insight on the relationship between Gottlieb's paintings and sculptures?
Gottlieb has mentioned that someone once looked at his sculptures and remarked “it does not look like sculpture; it looks like your paintings in three dimensions”. After having worked with Wall for so long, and now having the pleasure of viewing it in a conserved state, I find myself coming back to this statement. Viewing Wall in the round creates an experience whereby the forms of the sculpture constantly shift and interact with each other in different ways – sometimes collapsing in on themselves and other times telescoping outwards. In this sense, Wall reveals itself to the viewer as many different compositions in one.
In another sense, I see Wall as a synthesis or culmination of all of the concepts and ideas that Gottlieb explored throughout his career as a painter – ‘the simple expression of complex thought’ through a balance of color and simple forms, as well as the spatial relationship between viewer and image. While Wall simultaneously references Gottlieb’s Imaginary Landscapes and his Burst paintings, the third dimension allowed Gottlieb to explore the concept of space in a completely new way, that not only relies on the scale of the work in relation to the viewer, but it’s position as well.
Photo of Conservator Robert Price to the right of Wall, installed in the East Wing at the National Gallery.
To read part 1, which covers the history of Wall as it was developed, constructed, and evolved, click here.