A sculpture by Sean Matthews was damaged just ten minutes into the opening of his exhibition Recycled Play at the Susquehanna Art Museum in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Matthews’ work converts children’s toys into conceptual art —something that, sadly, did not translate on August 17 when a patron and her daughter, both of whom walked up to a sculpture in the gallery entrance, broke it.
The piece, “Fair and Square,” suspends a pair of swings in mid-air on soldered chains, balanced in defiance of gravity and appearing frozen in time. The piece, inspired by Matthews’ four daughters, required 60 hours of welding and was constructed over the course of two years. According to Penn Live, the sculpture was insured for $5,000.
The mother and daughter reportedly thought the entire museum was touch-friendly. They mistook the installation for the interactive pieces in the education gallery, dismantled the suspended chains.
Matthews’ readymades and installations explore “the altar and the object” through found items. His work tackles adult realities through objects of childhood and adolescent imagination. Another work of Matthews’ located close to the damaged sculpture — a pair of vending machines that doled out wood figurines and ceramics inside plastic baubles in exchange for quarters — invited patrons to touch. However, “Fair and Square” was marked by a sign warning visitors not to make physical contact.
The accidental vandals arrived just minutes after the museum opened at 5 pm for its free evening event, “Third in the Burg.” Typically, the museum posts two volunteers at the door, but they had not yet arrived.
“Had it been 15 minutes later, we would have been more proactive. It was a fluke moment where we didn’t have anyone standing at the door,” Alice Anne Schwab, the museum’s executive director, told Penn Live.
Matthews was unable to repair the sculpture to its intended form. One set of chains snapped in half, and the other broke into smaller chain-link pieces. He stood by the work until the museum closed, explaining to patrons what had happened. Matthews told Hyperallergic that “after removing the damaged elements and adding objects that changed the narrative,” the piece has been retitled: “And Justice for All?”
Sean Matthews, “And Justice for All?” (formerly titled “Fair and Square”) (photography by Marisa Renee Smith, courtesy of the Susquehanna Art Museum)
With the exhibition organized through November 4, Matthews had to reinstall the work — this time as a memorial. He added a steel fence, an altar stocked with a display of stuffed toys, and posted a photograph of the work in its original fashion.
Lauren Nye, the Susquehanna’s director of exhibitions, released a statement on behalf of the art museum:
The museum regrets the unfortunate occurrence regarding Sean Matthew’s Recycled Play exhibition. Instances such as this are the reason that museums and cultural institutions of all types have insurance, and we have begun the process with our insurance company to rectify this situation appropriately.
There are important reasons that institutions ask visitors not to handle artwork, the most important of which is to keep the works and the viewers safe. During the installation process, the decision was made by the artist and the staff to not provide physical barriers that would separate viewers from this work to preserve the original design of the exhibition. In response to this incident, we have engaged our staff and volunteers in rigorous discussion about visitor safety and procedures. We have also increased signage in this exhibition indicating that work should not be touched. We urge the public to be conscientious during their visits to art and historical institutions, to preserve the collections on view and insure the safety of all.
With the popularity of “Instagram museums” inviting active audience participation, this event is not entirely surprising given the playful aspects of Matthews’ sculptures.
Museum director Alice Anne Schwab told Hyperallergic the Susquehanna has never experienced something of this sort in the past. She says that the museum will not be pursuing financial repercussions against the mother and daughter, as there was no malice in their mistake. In June of 2018, two parents were ordered to pay $132,000 after their five-year-old son knocked over a statue in a community center in Kansas City.
“We have begun the process with our insurance company to address the damages. The sculpture is still on view, in a form altered by the artist according to his preference,” Schwab relayed.
Thank you for publishing my story. A minor correction would be the title change of the memorial that now stands in place of the sculpture. The sculpture was titled, “Fair and Square” but after removing the damaged elements and adding objects that changed the narrative, the new title is “And Justice For All?”
Guy I mig weld plenty. How can you claim it took you 60 hours to weld that pipe and keep a straight face?
Perhaps I should have said, “60 hours of metal work, which includes making jigs to stretch the chain and position swing hangers, removal of galvanization, welding swing hangers and 50 feet of chain on all 4 sides of each link.” But that’s a lot of information for a short interview. (and there is no welded pipe)
That sounds legit. Thanks for clarifying.
The fact that you seem fixated on the amount of hours is obviously a distraction from the real issue; that being audience and managing expectations around exhibitions that have objects the audience may find somewhat familiar. It’s irrelevant how long it takes an artist to create their work and is neither a reflection on the quality or content of their work.
I would advise against criticizing one man’s welding while you leave yourself open to comments on your own punctuation. In the address, you need a comma after “Guy”. You also need one after the word “pipe”. The one after “pipe” (known as an Oxford comma) is necessary to distinguish between keeping a straight face while actually *doing* the welding, and keeping one after the fact. This use of a comma is debatable, but the lack of such a comma resulted in the loss of a recent court case.
Overuse of commas is poor writing form. There were none needed in my previous comment; nor are any needed here.
Gee, two commas is too many. Gosh, I didn’t know that. You need to read up on punctuation. Or, perhaps, just stick to your mig welding.
(You know, it’s really dumb to repeat sophomoric platitudes like “Overuse of commas . . . ”)
You sound like a dick.
When is your exhibition opening?
Eh
Is that ‘Eh.’, ‘Eh!’, or ‘Eh?’?
Punctuation is meant to help us communicate more clearly. ‘Eh’ merely does’t say very much. It doesn’t help us to know what you mean. It’s just sort of ehhh.
I’m commenting on an art piece and you decided to single out my comment over comma usage. Then you comment on my saying “eh”. Do you realize how petty that is? I’m gonna leave it at that. Aloha.
No. You have been sounding snarky, and being disrespectful, and I have been snarking you with the hopes that you would introspect a bit. Your recent comment to Sean Matthews —“That sounds legit. Thanks for clarifying.” — is in keeping with a more respectful tone than, “Guy is a crappy welder … it’s not particularly good art.” ‘Tone’ says a lot, and as difficult as it is to convey tone in a written statement, punctuation can help a lot.
I’m, I’m – transformed! Thanks to you….(?)
Thank you for responding. In fact, I only reacted to a couple of otherwise small things, but, along with a number of things, including fuzzy thinking and bold assumptions (of which you are not guilty), they are things that bother me on a regular basis in these conversations, and you just happen to be the one who got the brunt of my frustrations.
That said, I have to say that in the photograph accompanying your ‘handle’ (and I assume it *is* of you), you look like a good person who actually cares about many things, even although you, I, and probably everyone else do not always choose the best way to express our feelings.
All the best,
mai
Thank you for bringing this to our attention – the piece has been altered to reflect the new title
It is very clear this set up is awful; placing an interactive piece just next to one that is rather fragile. It is a playset with the chains frozen… It is very hard to decipher from this article, just what makes this piece of art provocative – let alone worth a 5,000$ insurance claim. Failed efforts for failed art, is it really that difficult to find more provocative content going on in the art world?
The set up actually works great in the space, with plenty of breathing room between the sculptures. If a Carl Andre floor piece that viewers are permitted to walk on is placed to a Donald Judd Stack, are viewers permitted to climb the stack since they can walk on the Andre’s squares? If a viewer can take away a piece of hard candy from a Felix Gonzalez-Torres, can they remove a painting from the wall adjacent to the mound?
Carl Andre is probably the most overrated artist of the past 50 years. And I *have* accidentally stepped on some of his crappy copper squares at a exhibition.
Carl Andre is probably the most overrated artist of the past 50 years. And I *have* accidentally stepped on some of his crappy copper squares at a exhibition.
Thats a lazy criticism of interactive art and invoking a dead minority man to make the point is cheap. You cheapen work that actual talks about serious issues with it’s ACTUALLY THOUGHTFUL use of interactive objects because you and museum where to lazy to do it yourself. And you have the cheek to invoke LGBT people like you care, yet here you toss an artist already on the fringe of canon because it suits your needs.
Guy is a crappy welder if it took him 60 hours to weld 4 pieces of pipe into a swing set. Just fix it – it’s not particularly good art.
There is no welded pipe, but I replied to your comment down below.
As this welding thing is of such concern to you, perhaps you could volunteer to be of some real help — advisory or otherwise. In any event, stick to welding, your judgement call on the quality of the artwork is entirely uncalled for, even if you have actually seen the piece live and up close. One man’s caviar is just fish eggs to another.
Am I the only one who thinks this makes the piece more interesting?
I can appreciate that. However, the original sculpture made reference to both a swing frozen in time from one point of view and the scales of justice from another point of view. It talked about consequence. For example when I push my daughters on the swing, their experience is a consequence of my actions, the same as when I have to decide who is right and who is wrong in a family dispute.
It is the job of a gallery to protect the works of artists who are exhibiting in that particular space. And if something is damaged it needs to be dealt with immediately. I saw the piece, in person, after it had been vandalized. It is certainly not the same feeling and provocation that existed in the original concept. I personally do not care what price tag is on a piece of art; all art shown in a gallery or in a museum deserves the same level of care and respect. Currently I live next door to SAM. Across the street is some art done by Daniel Kalbach, recently deceased, and Charlie Feathers. It is on the front of a building. The first time I saw it, it made me smile and I love seeing it every morning from my window. It has been the victim of graffiti by someone who thought it was just fine to “add” to the original art. Tampering with someone’s art is disrespectful and it appears as if disrespect is the new norm.
I’d have loved to see the piece before it was broken! Sorry to hear it was damaged and hopefully it won’t happen again to the artist’s pieces.
It seems to me there is a certain tension between the ready-made concept and the concept of the work of art as an object to be treasured, cherished, worshiped from afar (or at least a safe distance), mystical in power and properties. I say ‘ready-made’ here because the article does; the swing could actually have been made of the most advanced materials and the highest technology, but it looks to me like a cheesy mockup of a old-school playground swing, which I think was intended. I’m assuming here, because of ‘ready-made’, that the artist was running in Duchampian mode. There are people who make objects out of junk and detritus, and some of their work is beautiful, but they are not Duchampian; their objects are sacred. There is a reason to step back from them.
Just so, one might think there is something sacred about, say, _The Starry Night_, because of the feelings it inspires, but I don’t see anything sacred in Duchamp’s snowshovel or his urinal. In fact, you could take the snowshovel out of the museum some winter morning, clear snow off the museum steps, and put it back, and no one would be the wiser. Indeed, there would be nothing to be wiser about, because the point of the Duchamp works is precisely to expose the creation of ‘art’ in the present age, that is, art is whatever the artist says it is and causes other people to believe. There does not have to be any there there.
It seems obvious that the sacralization of the ‘ready-made’ object contains a curious contradiction.