Discussion between Claire Decomps and Ben Jack Nash
The following is an excerpt from a conversation between Claire Decomps and the artist Ben Jack Nash which took place in his studio in Strasbourg in April 2018 about the artistic project "Left over from the Void".
Claire Decomps is based at the MAHJ museum in Paris. She is senior curator and analyst for Jewish culture and heritage in France (national service specifically created under André Malraux) and worked for several years for the Eastern region of France (Le Grand Est). She is officially the only person in France to have this specific expertise. Her interest spans both architectural and object-based heritage, in public and private spheres spanning all historical periods. In particular, they discuss how objects, artifacts and architecture, although central to their work, are seen and used by them from two very distinct perspectives.
A full illustrated version is available in the exhibition catalogue.
Claire Decomps: The notion of “heritage” is one that has developed a lot over the years, even since I worked in this department. For example, when I started my job, we were already interested in architecture and heritage in rural areas but only until 1850. Today our research covers everything until today. We have also introduced new areas such as industrial and material heritage. My field has evolved considerably and continues to do so. Ben Jack Nash: It's not just a building that forms part of the heritage but also the objects that we find in them. For me, one informs the other - space and the objects are physically connected on the one hand and symbolically on the other hand but also through their link with memory. How, in your work, distinguish between what is defined as architecture and what is defined as an object? CD: The object/architecture distinction is not always obvious. In a synagogue for example, an ark of the alliance made of stone is integrated into the architecture. Are the foundations architectural or object? This distinction is not fundamental in what I do. It is important from a legal point of view - for the conservation purpose. In general, it is considered that if it is attached to a building/edifice, it is then part of it of architecture. But for a study, this is not fundamental. When we carry out a study of [site], we do not distinguish architecture and objects like in other countries but we study objects according to their context. For example Is a sukkah an object, or is it an architecture? It is a temporary shelter for the feast of tabernacles, what is important is the roof, the idea that is needed to be able to see the stars and not be protected from the rain. In theory it is really a construction but which has a lot of modifications. There are examples of lofts which have been modified and branches set up of the roof itself for the festival period. In this case, its semi-permanent and it is an architectural solution. What is important about the sukkah is that people must build the shelter themselves, very temporary shelter, and you appreciate the difficulty of living without protection BJN: The 19th century was the century of museums golden age and symbol of state power. Many sites specific works of art have been removed from their destination place and put in museums. None of these works were designed for the museum space and often the artist knew the destination of his work before making This. We see this in particular with religious paintings. As such, these art museums can be considered artifice. Nowadays it is much more common to find commissioned artwork for the museum space. Often we remember the space in which we saw a work as well as the work itself. In 'The Residues of the Void', we see the opposite. Instead to change our impression of the work by putting it in an alternative space, it changes our impression of space through the work. If you take it elsewhere it loses its meaning. It is an architectural intervention which means that the work of art/art object has a very direct or even inseparable relationship from its environment. For the synagogue, it is a more authentic product whose authenticity lies in its uncertainties. It is more natural to think about object and space not as two separate entities nor as one entity but as a spectrum of entities as with color. It's more of a series of overlaps. And this spectrum contains everything which influences our perception of the building from architecture to sunlight to objects. These exchanges and influences in space are not limited to architectural boundaries.
CD: For us, one of the main interests is the study of objects. In museums, you don't necessarily know the origin of an object. We mainly study objects that have a link with the building where they are located find. How did it get there and why? In connection with Many Jewish heritage objects are extremely mobile. Its inhabitants have moved around a lot with many upheavals throughout history. Many buildings were destroyed and their objects scattered randomly. For example in Thionville the harmonium was manufactured in Vermont USA, which is somewhat unexpected. I often find [in France] objects that come from North Africa, Poland, the Hungarian Empire and of course Germany - there is something everywhere. What is interesting is how these objects ended up where they did. There is a range of analytical factors, including artistic and the more you know about an object, the more important it is it can be. BJN: I see your role as a “materializer” of objects. You conduct a study to determine their influence, their role and importance for heritage. Indeed, before your analysis, the object can only exist in the abstract as something mysterious by which its origins and functions are little known. You are there to lead them to enlighten and make them understandable in relation to science, logic or witnesses to fill in the gaps. I see that of the artist rather the opposite role. I also kind of want to do the world more visible but by reintegrating an abstract dimension of the object which creates a universe of imagination and mystery through its emptiness. Once the provenance of an object is explained, it becomes It’s hard to think of it any other way. CD: When we talk about objects, there is a very subjective approach side. My work tries to bring coherence where mystery reigns. There is very little contact with the public in my work, but when I have the opportunity to meet them, they teach me something about The object. For example, I have met people who do the bundles for the Torahs; I have a historical approach, through the standards etc… but they can tell me what meaning it has for them, knowing that this meaning may have changed. Normally these bundles are made by scribes or calligraphers but here they were made by women for their families. He was an (Ashkenazi) tradition in the Rhine region, but these women were Sephardic, where children from another culture made their. This knowledge around objects is still evolving. BJN: I have never created a work that has a practical dimension function. It's more the form, the relationship to light, limits of matter and aura that I commit to communicate. The practical function of the object has very little value to me. CD: In Jewish culture, function takes precedence over form. It is a culture of books and writing but which has little importance as to form and material. Each time, it is an adaptation depending on the conditions of the place. What will define an object as Jewish is its usage. But the same object could well be used differently in another context. We see that in the Reichshoffen synagogue - the pool which was part of a bain-marie or the candelarbre which was partly made from sewing machine bases. There the question I always ask myself is what is the object objective. For example, a cup could have a number of different functions. Fortunately, there is often a inscription or a document from the donor to understand its function. If there is nothing to do, I will try to understand how it was used. Many Jews objects, in the synagogues, were donated in the community… If I see an object out of context, I don't study it. But I've seen Christian chalices used as a kiddush cup. BJN: In contemporary art, the usual things that help defining an object as a “work of art” have become more interchangeable and more difficult to separate. Namely, the creator, his environment, the subject, the process, the material, the curator, the viewer and the exhibition space. These overlaps make the work less visible and identifiable from its time and space in relation to more traditional distinctions. The work can be the sum total of several objects. The art object then requires more context and guidance, such as those contained in your studies, so that it is defined as a work of art. I think that archaeologists more difficult in the future to identify today's works of art! CD: Objects move and it’s complicated. In the case of Reichshoffen, certain objects alone wouldn't be of much interest but that's all which makes it coherent. What really touched me, because it is very enlightening on Jewish Alsace of the 19th century, is all homemade DIY items. These recycling of objects are characteristic of the Jewish world. Here we find many objects from the De Dietrich foundry. This is the most interesting and unexpected which shows this relation to the object which is very different from what you find in a church. The object has an imposing presence you, even if it is disturbing and you do not want to find that there. The object will be much more solid than the archive documents or discussions. Often the objects we work with are undervalued or even despised. It is rarely the case in Jewish heritage that there is an emotional attachment to an object. We try to find this interest in objects for their owner. Here you could say we have an educational role.
BJN: For me the loss of certainty of a work corresponds to the loss of certainties in society and our perceptions of space and time. Their limits over the last hundred years have evolved faster than in no other period of human history. Identity loses its familiarity which gives us comfort and security. Sociologically, the same goes for people because it made for objects. We see the political consequences of this now. We are led towards more extremism to strengthen a less visible center. The uncertainty surrounding the function of this building like a synagogue is one of the things that struck me on my first visit it was if you like a confused identity. You need to pay more attention to details to avoid be fooled by its chapel like outline. He also carries a permanent presence while being discreet and fragile… CD: The synagogue is oriented towards Jerusalem and this creates a problem regarding its visibility. We see the side facade, the compass determines the location of the synagogue. It's a big synagogue with great quality. It's lucky not to have been destroyed and burned during the Second World War war. It is in good condition. The first synagogues closely looks like churches or temples. Here it is notoriously discreet. It's an Alsatian trend that you don't see in Lorraine or Champagne-Ardennes. It's still open discreet, a halfway house. BJN: It is a phenomenon which also exists in relation to objects. Either their function is not at all obvious, or they are mixed with other materials, forms or uses. It's clearly been built for a while transition for the Jewish community. The building carries a sense of permanence while its uncertainties are also very present. CD: This solidity also speaks of something else. There synagogue is too big compared to the size of the village. The period it was built was in the gold age for rural Jewish communities. They planned for a larger community, but many have actually moved in town or abroad. They foresaw a future that never happened. In 1850, it was an intermediate stage, where the Jews the community is still perceived as other along the way to be accepted. The more construction, the more the community is accepted.