AKENATON / DOC/K/S (F): - It depends on the installation. Some imply total annihilation, others a natural death, others still that they could be regularly set up again, for the rest a text, a photograph, a protocol, a film are the kind of surviving artefacts they need.
Miklós Zoltán BAJI / BMZ (H): - It's good, but they can be reproduced from a good description, or can be rebuilt holding a different meaning.
Tiziana BARACCHI (I): - It is not necessary to preserve the installation: it often needs the work of time, weather and people.
Vittore BARONI (I): - I've seen a few in museums, they were interesting to see though you were not allowed to touch-use them as they probably were in the author's intentions. If it does not cause ecological problems, why not. I always hated land art and those huge Christo packages, how unsensitive they are to our environment, I prefer "traditional" ad billboards to that. The world is already turning into a big theme park, I prefer small harmless installations like Ray Johnson's MOTICOS.
Lilian A. BELL (USA): - Not interested - the very nature of an installation should be that it is temporary, a fleeting glimpse, ephemeral - change is growth - one can save some of the parts to use in future projects to continue exploring related concepts. An appreciation of a temporary, fragile environment is like a taste of chocolate: one can remember by documentation our enjoyment and appreciation!
David BORAWSKI (USA): - If an installation is not left in the original setting it is not the original installation. I prefer having an opportunity to re-install a piece, recombing it with other work, which changes the framework for its interpretation.
Monty CANTSIN (CDN): - Creates lots of new jobs and rental fees.
Luisella CARRETTA (I): - I see installations more as an ephemeral creative gesture than a work which is fixed in time.
Patricia COLLINS (GB): - I like to keep documentation + catalogue / book.
H. R. FRICKER (CH): - I often include a mechanism of self-destruction. (Writing in a landscape covered with snow)
György GALÁNTAI (H): - An installation preserves itself depending on its own abilities, that is to say, it is preserved if someone has any spiritual interest in it. The installations made before and after "art" - like other products as well - will still be downloadable and present in the unimaginably far future in the form of images generated by the digital code.
István GELLÉR B. (H): - Photography, video, measurements, descriptions together could perhaps preserve somewhat, though the installation is the art of the moment.
Dobrica KAMPERELIC (SRB): - Hm, it is necessary! But, usually, I pull down my installation after the show.
Sabrina LINDEMANN (NL): - I don't think it really fits to the character of installations. For me especially the idea of limited time is very attracting.
Jacalyn LOPEZ GARCIA (USA): - I believe documentation is very important.
Luca MITI (I): - An installation must not be preserved, it just has to follow the natural course of its decay.
Emilio MORANDI (I): - This is a big problem for me - sometimes it remains in site in the gallery for the collection, sometimes I dismantle and pack it and preserve it in my studio.
Keiichi NAKAMURA (J): - We can use video systems, personal computers (or photos).
Ronald SPERLING (BR): - It depends on the installation. We have the media to preserve an installation.
Rod SUMMERS (NL): - Some elements and documentation may be preserved (perhaps even recycled by the artist), but, by & large, when the period of the installation is over the physical elements should be disseminated, but I would make no strict rules on this subject.
Patricia TAVENNER (USA): - Fine and it is important to do so. But for me an installation is experiential and documentation of that installation is not. Big difference.