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.

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.