James Cuno, CEO of the J. Paul Getty Trust, argues vehemently against repatriation of cultural artifacts to source countries, claiming in part that such returns go against the essence of the encyclopedic museum and are motivated by nationalistic claims about culture put forth by the governments of nations from which these objects left legally or illegally. This article is worth rebutting line by line, paragraph by paragraph, because it smacks, frankly, of cultural neo-colonialism. The Louvre, the Tate, the Metropolitan Museum, the Getty, should all be thanked for harboring treasures of humanity, preserving them and displaying them so that we may be lifted out of our ignorance about the world around us. How did those collections come about, one might ask? Well, by the usual method, go visit the source country, hire some excavation teams, slip some money and other tender here and there, return home with ships full of Treasure. Does this sound like an exaggeration? Not really. In fact this is a mild version of how Western collections were formed decades ago. Nowadays, modern-day thugs posing as righteous religious militants are doing precisely the same thing as the thugs from the early 20th century in removing artifacts from source nations. The only difference being is that the former collected them, the latter are selling them to the collectors. One step removed from a historical continuity. We are glad that James Cuno has had an opportunity to voice his opinion in defense of the encyclopedic museum, an idea cherished by the internationalists club against the so-called nationalists (read source nations). The battle lines have been drawn for some time and pit 21st century apologists of cultural neo-colonialism against those who advocate that those goodies which were removed for the viewing pleasure of a Western public be returned to the countries whence they were taken. In all fairness, we need to aim for the middle. Yes, there are spurious claims to items in Western collections that should not even be honored. If they are, the decision to return has nothing to do with the removal but with larger strategic and economic interests that tie the two parties. Lets put this debate where it belongs--in foreign economic relations.
Posted on: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:49:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015