The argument arose over the fine print. As Buchel got into specifics, the museum began to feel that his requests were overtaxing their resources. Meanwhile, the artist became more and more frustrated with what he saw as the institution's blundering execution and inefficient spending.

"There were elements that the artist wanted that we just couldn't muster," said Mass MoCA director Joseph Thompson. "We ran into the real limits of time, space, and money." The gallery floors had to be reinforced to support a cinder-block wall. A door was enlarged to allow the shipping containers to be installed. From the museum's point of view, Buchel's vision appeared to grow ever more elaborate. By the time Mass MoCA said no to including the charred fuselage of an airliner, the project had roughly doubled its initial budget of $160,000, a not insignificant amount for an institution with an $800,000 annual exhibition fund. "It put serious pressure on our other programs," said Thompson. "Despite our best efforts, we were unable to come to a solution with the artist."

According to his New York dealer Michele Maccarone, Buchel counters that the museum grossly mismanaged the execution of the work. Squandered resources, second-guessing of his expertise, and a lack of logistical creativity ultimately killed the project. "They just failed from beginning to end to manage it," she said.

Maccarone insists that Buchel gave the institution clear lists of specific objects that he required to create each space within the installation, but rather than following his instructions to the letter, the museum solicited donations of similar objects from the local community, which caused several delays when the approximate objects did not fit his needs.

Maccarone also claims that the museum failed to take advantage of opportunities to stay within budget, citing several items that were purchased at great cost but could have been procured more cheaply. Even the jet fuselage, she says, could have been acquired through the artist's contacts in the scrap metal industry and shipped to North Adams with help from public funding sources that the museum never researched. "Nobody was up to the whole challenge of problem-solving, which is ironic because the museum acts like that's what it does," said Maccarone. "Christoph started feeling really defeated because they had accepted this proposal and then started backpedaling."

Communication Breakdown
Communication between the museum and Buchel was sparse throughout the winter, though the artist did send a list of demands to Mass MoCA in January, which were reiterated in a statement to the press prior to an article on the standoff that ran in the March 28 edition of the Boston Globe. While Buchel, according to his gallerist, feels that the story tended to favor the museum's point of view, it quoted him as saying, "The museum treated the project as though it was the artist's wish list for Christmas, eliminating necessary and key elements that were always listed as part of the artwork from the beginning." Although the Globe reported that Buchel would finish the project only if there was no negotiation about its scope, on the same day the article appeared, an exasperated Thompson sent the artist a letter informing him that he could either declare the work complete within a museum-approved time frame and budget or pay for the removal of the objects from the gallery.

Anticipating that Buchel might fail to agree to either option, Thompson’s letter proposed an unusual third scenario: the museum would allow visitors to view the project in its current, unfinished state. "We will clearly articulate the fact that the work is unfinished, describing the materials and partial assemblies on view as the remnants of an unfinished installation," the letter read.

After a few unfruitful communications, in early May, Buchel officially responded to the letter's ultimatums through Donn Zaretsky [see his blog], a lawyer whom Buchel retained after receiving the letter; but by then the museum had already filed a suit in Federal District Court in Springfield against the artist, seeking a ruling that would allow the show to see the light of day.