The space is different, the time is different, the lights are different, the context is different, and the artist is dead

Mark Cameron Boyd has a must-read epistemic critique of Zwirner & Wirth's recreation of Dan Flavin's epic 1964 Green Gallery exhibit—the first in which he showed nothing but fluorescent-light "propositions". One detail that Boyd has not gotten quite right: The lights that the Flavin estate uses today are indistinguishable from those he used nearly 50 years ago. As Greg Allen wrote in his NYT piece that everyone else wishes they'd thought to write, the bulbs Flavin used have taken on an artifact quality that he never intended while, at the same time, disappeared from manufacturers' everyday production. Allen mentioned last month, though, that despite the change in GE's fluorescent formula, the Flavin estate still had original bulbs as recently as 2004 and has "documented the chemical formulation of the coating of each color of light bulb, and when it needs more, it has them fabricated in small batches." In a broad epistemic sense, these special-order lights aren't the same as the ones anyone could acquire through the 1980s, but the color and light are precisely the same.

The press for Zwirner & Wirth's redux show has been, shall we say, glowing. ("The freshest, most challenging and uplifting exhibition in town," says R.C. Baker.) I'm inclined to cross my arms and harumph on the sidelines with Boyd: As a show that recreates the original and revolutionary 1964 experience, it's thorny for all the reasons Boyd mentions—basically, it's site-specific installation set in a whole new situation. But as a show that strives instead to offer a historical experience, it comes quick on the heels of a similar effort that visited New York, Fort Worth, and the District. Needless to say, it's a testament to the artist's lasting vision that mounting his work invariably brings up difficult issues.