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.

Was taking the issue to court more about principles or resolving this one, isolated incident?

This was not a broad case about artists’ rights—it was a very narrow case. We felt we had an agreement with an artist, that we had bent over backward to provide a profound level of support, and that the project had been abandoned. We didn’t sue for money—we simply wanted a declaration of our rights and obligations.

Look, we worked hard. We spent double what we promised. We tripled the installation time. We worked really hard to get the artist to re-engage with the project. When that failed, we offered him the opportunity to pick up the material and pay us back the actual costs. He refused. We were really at the end of the road. So we tarped the material to keep it out of the public view and went to court to find out what the right thing to do was.

Do you think the court’s decision will affect how museums and artists approach one another in the future?

It’s not going to affect the way that Mass MoCA approaches its artists. I don’t believe 100-page contracts that try to foresee every contingency are a helpful way to start a project. We have an experimental platform here. If you start developing production contracts, you risk losing what has made the other 120 works of art we’ve made here successful. You risk losing the magic that makes this possible.

Do you think we’ll see more cases like this one go to court?

God, I hope not.

How about artists? Do you worry that the outcome will make them apprehensive about working with Mass MoCA?

I think when artists look at what we did and not what people said we did, and look at our track record, they can make up their own minds. The artists we work with are intelligent, independent-minded people.

Have you had any contact with Buchel since the court decision was made?

No. I saw in the Boston Globe that he sent a “gift” to the museum. [Buchel sent an e-mail to the Globe Tuesday night offering to donate to Mass MoCA a “permanent installation” he could do for free—a tweak of the museum’s rooftop signage to spell out “Mass CoMA.”] That’s his only communication to us that I know of.

Some people have posited that Buchel might have masterminded this whole debacle as a publicity stunt or institutional critique. You’ve said you doubt that’s the case. Does his email to the Globe change your opinion?

Perhaps Mr. Buchel’s latest gesture would confirm that, but I would be profoundly disappointed if it were true, because that kind of thing has been done many times in many more clever ways over the last 30 years. This would be a thin conceptual stunt. The reality of his work could have been far, far more powerful.

Looking back, is there anything, from the moment you started working with Buchel, that you wish you had done differently?

Our method and approach to Mr. Buchel was the same one we have used in hundreds of other cases. I don’t see how I could have known that we needed to treat him differently, but knowing what I know now, I certainly would have.

Is there any possibility that Mass MoCA and Buchel could come to an agreement in which he would finish the installation?

I’m terminally optimistic, but even I wouldn’t go so far as to say that would be possible.