The Cleveland Museum of Art announced today that it would be returning 14 items to Italy. Many of the items were from Apulia, Campania, Sicily, Etruria and Sardinia. One of the more important pieces was an Apulian volute-krater attributed to the Darius painter.
Image
MiBAC.
Sphere: Related Content
Posts
3 comments:
I read in this article [http://tinyurl.com/6zgdly] that the Italian museums don't preserve the artifacts as well as American ones. I was wondering what you think about that...who should have the artwork?
This is not really a matter of who has the prettiest, airiest galleries to display “artworks”. Let us be sure that we are addressing the process (looting) rather than the products (loot). http://safecorner.savingantiquities.org/2008/11/loot-versus-looting-time-to-address.html.
The Cleveland Museum’s cosy press release skips over the question of why they finally agreed these objects did not belong in a museum which they say has a “commitment to build and maintain a collection of art from around the world and across time that is acquired in good faith using the highest ethical standards and after rigorous provenance research”. The Italian authorities showed convincing evidence that these items had come from recent looting (and thus wanton destruction of) of ancient archaeological sites. These objects should never hae been bought by a "due diligence" use of the money of the good citizens of Cleveland Ohio. They were let down badly by their museum.
Whether US museums, individually or generally, are nicer than Italian ones is immaterial here. The “our museums are better than theirs” is just a version of the “only giving them a good home” argument discussed by Colin Renfrew in his book “Loot, legitimacy and ownership” (2000). Basically its like somebody clandestinely taking an otherwise unthreatened sculpted angel from a monument in a nineteenth century graveyard and putting it in their hallway, saying it looks nicer there and is “better looked after” than standing on the top of a pedestal in the open among the others. It is still stealing, it is still destruction of the heritage.
I agree with Paul. The problem that we (Westerners) have is that we are making these arguments from an imperialist stance. Most people in the West still see 'source' countries as backward and incapable of providing what 'Westerners' think are the appropriate preservation techniques. That is one argument we must fight against making. Additionally, if 'we' did not purchase looted objects in the first place, perhaps the funds used for fighting the black market trade could be put to better use (i.e. preservation and protection of sites and conservation of objects). It is a terribly circular argument, so we must counter previous claims that 'Westerners' know better. If we can somehow make amends for past wrongs, perhaps we could move into the future to collaboratively protect and preserve for everyone.
Post a Comment