NORTH ADAMS, Mass.—On September 21, the much-publicized, bitter dispute between the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art and Swiss artist Christoph Buchel came to an end—at least for now—when a federal judge ruled that the museum could display Buchel’s monumental Training Ground for Democracy installation, which had been left unfinished after Buchel and the museum grappled over the project's budget, logistics, and ownership earlier this year [see ARTINFO's earlier story on the situation, “Site-Specific Impasse”]. In court, Buchel claimed that for Mass MoCA to show the incomplete work would violate the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, but Judge Michael A. Ponsor of the Federal District Court in Springfield, Mass., ruled that the museum could display the installation as long as it made clear it was unfinished. However, Mass MoCA announced on Sept. 26 that it will dismantle the work instead.

ARTINFO spoke with Mass MoCA director Joe Thompson about that decision and how the case will affect the museum’s future.

Joe, I want to talk about Mass MoCA’s decision to dismantle Christoph Buchel’s installation, but first, how did you feel about the federal court’s ruling?

We were obviously pleased. We were all anxious for a sense of finality and for some objective person to help us make a decision and sort out our rights. The court affirmed that artists have rights, and that museums have rights. If we both have rights, we also share responsibility.

You’ve been blasted by critics, most recently in a scathing New York Times article by Roberta Smith, which said “the museum has broken faith with the artist, the public, and art itself.” What is your response?

There are several. First of all, Roberta based her article on one really gross factual error. She wrote that we opened Training Ground for Democracy, and we most certainly did not. We locked the front door of the gallery, which prevented access to a third or more of the space. We turned off the lights and etched out a small passageway, using corridors built of tarps, to a set of galleries holding the materials gathered for Training Ground. Visitors had physical access to perhaps seven percent of the entire floor area, and visual access to virtually none of the materials. Her claim that the museum cavalierly opened the show was patently false.

Also, the article made it appear as if Roberta had spoken with me, which was misleading at best. She did not speak to me, despite the fact that she quoted me. It’s not just a journalistic issue; had she taken the time to chat I could have cleared up some of the factual errors.

Roberta also seems to say that museums need to simply endure the occasional artist diva. She equates their willfulness and occasional irresponsibility to passion, and says that’s just something museums have to put up with. I don’t think that’s right. This notion simply does not apply to complex collaborations in which tens and sometimes even hundreds of people are applying their goodwill, energy, and resources. My experience tells me that artists are acutely sensitive to deadlines and material practicalities. To promulgate an image of artists who are immune to agreements and timelines and budgets is damaging and insulting to other artists and does a deep disservice to the field and practice of art today.

Have you had supporters as well?

We’ve gotten hundreds of emails over the past couple of days. There have been many, many artists, curators, museum directors—people who know that the ecology of making this type of art is very fragile, and that it’s already risky enough. If a person or museum helping an artist can be sued for actions taken while the work is in progress—which Buchel’s lawyers argued should be possible—that would have an immensely chilling effect on the few remaining institutions who take on these works.

What factors most influenced your decision to dismantle the unfinished installation?

We took all kinds of considerations, some of them purely logistical. But to tell you the truth, we’re just sick of it and wanted to move on. It’s a matter of looking forward instead of backward.