Untitled (Responsive W) (2016), Virginia Overton

SUMMARY
Untitled (Responsive W), a 2016 artwork by Virginia Overton, was made in response to the Whitney Museum itself. Composed of a found McDonalds “Golden Arches” sign inverted from an “M” into a “W” and lined inside with a strip of LED lights, the sculpture was titled after the Whitney’s current logo, and hung for several years in former Director Adam Weinberg’s office, before a short-circuit caused a section of the lights to fail and it was removed for conservation.

Conserving LED-based sculptures like these requires confronting the rapid obsolescence of the diodes and their tendency to fade after prolonged illumination. In correspondence with the artist, I confirmed that Overton wished to have the full LED strip replaced to ensure that there would be no brightness disparity between the new and old lights. After searching seven lighting stores in lower Manhattan, I was able to source a similar off-brand LED strip to the original Overton had purchased from Canal Lighting & Parts, and successfully replaced the lights, retaining the originals for the Conservation Department’s Material Research Collection.

During my treatment, I also noticed pieces of a yellow biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) tape inside of the sculpture covering holes in the found sign, which appeared to have faded where they had been exposed to exterior light. This tape looked familiar, as it was the same signature tape color used by the Whitney art handling department when packing artworks. These tape pieces were a testament to the history of the work, which was made by the artist on site at the Whitney for her 2016 exhibition. Overton had used the materials available to her as she needed, including the art handling department’s tape, which happened to match the yellow color of the sign perfectly. However, the color of the tape no longer matched the sign. Using a spectrophotometer, I confirmed that the tape in the sculpture had faded in comparison to newer tape in the lab, with the most significant difference being a decrease in yellowness in the area of the original tape which was exposed to light. With the artist’s blessing, I replaced the faded tape pieces with new ones sourced from the Whitney’s Art Handling Department, so that the work can go back on view, as bright and yellow as it was meant to appear.

ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
Analysis was performed with an Ci6X X-Rite Spectrophotometer using iQc Color iControl software.

Before testing, the original tapes and a piece of the same replacement tape were placed on clear mylar and labeled. A piece of white foam core was selected as a constant background.

In addition to the white foam core, three tape sites were tested. Site 1 was on the sample of replacement tape applied to the piece in December 2024. Site 2 was on a protected, single ply area of the original tape. Site 3 was on a single-ply portion of original tape which had received full light exposure. 5 tests were performed for each site and then averaged.

The plastic exterior of the W was also tested in a variety of locations for future reference, but the results are uneven, as the X-Rite does not manage 3-D objects well, and because the plastic itself is translucent and of varying thicknesses in different areas.

Readings of the plastic were taken directly on the assembled sculpture. Readings of the frame were taken with one plastic cover removed from the frame so that the X-Rite sensor could reach the painted surface. Three readings were taken in each area and averaged.

RESULTS
The ∆L* of the protected original tape is the lowest of the three tested sites, suggesting it is the darkest. As this tape was removed from the work where it was in contact with a metal plate with flaking paint, it is likely that some of the darkness recorded by the instrument is due to the presence of particulate from the plate that remains attached to the adhesive layer, especially given that all three tapes are translucent and were measured on top of a white ground.

The ∆a*, or green-to-magenta values, is minor (>2) between the protected original and replacement tape, but the exposed original tape has a ∆a* value of -6.357, 3.113 less than the replacement tape and 2.658 less than the protected original tape. This suggests that exposure has caused it to color-shift towards green.

The most significant difference in values is between b* or blue-to-yellow values, where positive values are yellower and negative values are bluer. The replacement tape has the highest b* value (86.574), meaning that it is the yellowest of the tested tapes. The exposed area of the original tape has the lowest b* value of 52.674, meaning that it is 48% less yellow than the replacement tape. The ∆b* of 33.873 between the two account for almost all of the 34.024 ∆E. However, the protected original tape is also significantly less yellow than the replacement, with a ∆b* of 17.187.

The most significant shift in the faded areas of the frame exterior has also been in the b* values, with the faded areas showing a ∆b* of 16.658 compared to the protected ones, also indicating a decrease in yellowness.

CONCLUSION
In the 8 years between the initial application of the yellow pressure-sensitive tape during the creation of this artwork in 2016 and the present day, the color of the tape has shifted noticeably, particularly where it was exposed to exterior light (rather than the LED lights within the work). The most significant difference is a decrease in yellowness in the area of the original tape which was exposed to light. A similar decrease in yellowness is present in exposed areas of the exterior painted metal frame, but this is likely a part of the historical life of the found object. Nevertheless, it suggests that the paint color is also light-sensitive and that the piece should be protected from light exposure when not on view.