Tinkering with "Finished" Work

Nicolai Ouroussoff asks an interesting question in today's NYTimes that picks up, to my mind, where we left off in discussing Richard Prince's decision to respond to the fact that he hadn't literally destroyed all his early work, as implied in a 1988 interview, by refusing to permit photos of what could be found from that period to be included in an exhibition catalog for a show of that work. In question in Ouroussoff's article is the decision by the Brazilian master modernist architect Oscar Niemeyer to "tinker" with his own masterpieces:

In the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s [Niemeyer, who celebrated his 100th birthday this month] established himself as one of Modernism’s greatest luminaries, infusing stark abstract forms with a beguiling tropical hedonism that reshaped Brazil’s identity in the popular imagination and mesmerized architects around the globe.

In Brasilía, a city that rose out of a jungle in the span of four years, he created at least a half dozen architectural masterpieces — a mind-boggling accomplishment by today’s standards. Today Mr. Niemeyer is held up as one of Brazil’s greatest national treasures, and he seems as spry as ever. He is at work on a cultural center in Aviles, Spain, and another in Niteroi, just south of Rio de Janeiro. He recently unveiled a new line of furniture at the Art Basel Miami fair. And last year he married his longtime secretary, Vera Lúcia Cabreira.

In recognition of the heroic scale of his accomplishments, Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, recently proposed legislation that would confer special landmark status on all of his buildings.

But the greatest threat to Mr. Niemeyer’s remarkable legacy may not be the developer’s bulldozer or insensitive city planners, but Mr. Niemeyer himself.

It is not simply that his latest buildings have a careless, tossed-off quality. It’s that some of his most revered buildings — from the Brasilía Cathedral to the grand ceremonial axis of the city itself — have been marred by the architect’s own hand. And this poses an uncomfortable dilemma: At what point do we — that is, the public that idolizes him, his government and private clients — have an obligation to intervene? Or is posing the question an act of spectacularly bad taste?

It's this last question that I want to begin with: whether it's bad taste to question the motives and/or actions of an artist who's trying to revise/improve upon their part of art history. I mean, unless otherwise agreed to, an artist retains the copyright to the work he/she creates. But does that mean he/she retains the right to alter the work indefinitely? Or is there a point at which, after presenting something as "finished" to the public, let alone selling it and accepting critique/accolades for it as such, that an artist has a societal obligation to leave it alone?

In Niemeyer's case, Ouroussoff offers the following specific complaints:

In the mid-1980s Mr. Niemeyer altered the shape of the arches that frame the main facade of his Ministry of Justice building, sacrificing the elegance of their symmetry in favor of something more whimsical. Around the same time he renovated Brasilía Cathedral, considered one of his greatest works. Designed as a series of parabolic arches that splay open at the top, its form added an exuberant touch to the ceremonial axis. Mr. Niemeyer painted its exposed concrete structure white, and he replaced its towering windows with stained-glass panels designed by Marianne Peretti: changes that detract from the raw force of the building’s upward thrust.

Perhaps most damaging, however, was the completion last year of Mr. Niemeyer’s National Museum [seen above] and National Library along the ceremonial axis. The museum’s white dome, pierced at one end by a long ramp, rests on its concrete plaza with the grace of an army bunker. The interior’s curved walls and lack of natural light — a shame in a climate like Brazil’s — make it an uncomfortable place to view art.

There's a difference between Prince and Neimeyer, in that the implication in the legendary architect's case is that no one is disrespectful enough to tell him to his face that they fear he's no longer at the top of his game. It's an awful dilemma, IMHO, actually. I recognize the fact that Niemeyer might indeed be making choices far more sophisticated than we can appreciate at the moment, that he has actually superceded his youthful genius and is making work that will only be appreciated in the future, perhaps. I also recognize that at 100 years old, he'd be a very rare case indeed if that were true.

Nicholai's other question is even tougher: "At what point do we — that is, the public that idolizes him, his government and private clients — have an obligation to intervene?" There's no way to do that that isn't hideous. A competency hearing might be the conclusion of any attempts to intervene, and a genius like Niemeyer deserves better than that. Then again, what about the public's feelings? Are they to stand by silently watching their prized buildings "tinkered" with by someone who's possibly started believing his own press? Someone whose latest work, as Ouroussoff puts it, is missing that "lightness of touch that could draw you deeper into the work"?