Art: Who does it belong to?

[Erythritol]

Okay, I'm a total art nerd, so I care about this stuff. I'm not sure many other people do, but if so, reply to this topic!

There was an article in Time Magazine this week discussing this topic, and it's something that I think is rather important. There are a lot of precious works of art (ruins, statues, paintings, etc) that are in museums far from their home countries. A majority of these pieces of art have questionable recent histories. Many are from old excavations and were taken without the permission of the country in which they were found.

Examples of this include many of the Egyptian artifacts/mummies and Greecian ruins/statues in the British Museum. Both countries have requested that the artifacts be returned.

What do you think? Who should have claim to these pieces of art? Do they belong in the museums of the home countries, or should people around the world have the chance to see them?

 

[Rockman X]

Hmm...this is a tough one. Certainly their proper place is back in their respective countries, but they also deserve to be seen. I think though, that it'd be acceptable if said items were found on legitimate digs. Of course, they could also work out some sort of deal with the items' respective countries where they'd give them back ownership if they let the items go on tours to museums every once in a while. Not the most moral stance, I know, but the world at large can benefit more from the items being on display than their countries hoarding them.

 

[Donald Trump]

Greecian ruins/statues in the British Museum

the Elgin marbles, which inspired keats, so, i think art should belong to the people, so everyone can see it, not just to museums or countries, but to everyone who wants to see it, to experience art's power.

 

[Bambi]

Hmm...this is a tough one. Certainly their proper place is back in their respective countries, but they also deserve to be seen. I think though, that it'd be acceptable if said items were found on legitimate digs. Of course, they could also work out some sort of deal with the items' respective countries where they'd give them back ownership if they let the items go on tours to museums every once in a while. Not the most moral stance, I know, but the world at large can benefit more from the items being on display than their countries hoarding them.

I agree with VR, although I think the country of origin should have them back I also think people should be able to see the artifacts and whatnot, I know I won't be able to travel to Egypt, probably at all lol and ancient Egypt is something that facinates me so I would love to be able to see some of this stuff.

So, exhibits going on tour seems like a great idea

After all, if they were never uncovered on digs and shizz, would they have ever even been found?

Compromise is the way forward me thinks

 

[Mitsuki]

Hmm. This is interesting. I've never actually thought about this before, but it is a tough subject.

Well, if the countries requested that the artifacts be returned to them, then by the values of tradition they should be given that right, especially if the other country took said artifacts without permission.

However, it becomes more complicated if someone from Greece found an artifact or what have you, in an inhabited area, hence the item solely belongs to him. Now, let's say he sells this item to make a fortune, and he happens to sell it to a British person. Now, the item would rightfully belong to the British guy, correct? And so, if he decides to have it displayed in a museum, then I believe that is a valid and legal action. The origin of the item would still be valued, I'm sure, but Greece shouldn't be able to reclaim the item by a mere request, unless there is a price at stake. Sure, the item may not be part of their history, but the possession would rightfully be theirs. (British).

Anyway, I do believe that people should be given a chance to see them in museums because the item screams, "HISTORY" and we all know how humans can be so fascinated with the subject. These artifacts holds sentimental values to the country that it originally belonged to, yes, so I also do understand if the country would like those items returned. However, I do think that it is much, much more valuable and sentimental if the items were to be displayed in a museum of the country it originated from. Like I said, traditional values. I don't know, just the idea gives off that much more "meaningful" touch to the whole case.

 

[Erythritol]

However, it becomes more complicated if someone from Greece found an artifact or what have you, in an inhabited area, hence the item solely belongs to him. Now, let's say he sells this item to make a fortune, and he happens to sell it to a British person. Now, the item would rightfully belong to the British guy, correct? And so, if he decides to have it displayed in a museum, then I believe that is a valid and legal action. The origin of the item would still be valued, I'm sure, but Greece shouldn't be able to reclaim the item by a mere request, unless there is a price at stake. Sure, the item may not be part of their history, but the possession would rightfully be theirs. (British).

Actually, this sort of thing has been happening to some museums. Some artifacts they purchased and thought were legal have been uncovered as stolen goods. As a result, the museums have to return them to the country of origin. Museums are now being much, much more careful about what artifacts they purchase, and are looking for, as the article says, "a documented ownership trail longer than an Old Testament genealogy and much more credible." It really sucks for the museum, but the country of origin is also a victim.

the Elgin marbles, which inspired keats, so, i think art should belong to the people, so everyone can see it, not just to museums or countries, but to everyone who wants to see it, to experience art's power

Yes, those are in the long list of things that Greece would like returned. However, since they were taken so long ago, modern law does not apply, and Britain is not legally bound to return them. I remember visiting Greece, and one of the tour guides made a rather unamused comment about how a good deal of ruins were located in Britain. I agree that art really should belong to everyone, but the Elgin ruins (along with other pieces of art) cannot be in two places at once. So ultimately, the question must be asked: do they belong in the British Museum or in Greece?

Personally, I think many of the items in question should be returned to the countries of origin. I remember going to the British Museum and asking myself multiple times, "But what here is actually British?" It seemed as though everything in the museum was from a different country. I think it's wrong that a lot of those items were taken from a foreign country without permission. I was revolted by the mummies especially. I know the Egyptians have a deep respect for the dead, and here were several mummies out in glass cases, some of them in various states of unwrap. Additionally, people were posing with them as if they were some sort of sideshow attraction. The British Museum isn't the only one guilty of this; I saw it in the Louvre too. It seemed extremely disrespectful of both the dead and the culture they are from. I'm not sure if times have changed (they may have, correct me if I'm wrong), but in the Egyptian museums, they don't display mummies out in the open like that. Additionally, many of these "archaeological digs" were nothing more than simple plundering. Take a look at King Tut's treasure. Lord Carnarvon and Howard Carter just went right in, seemingly without too much regard for the welfare of the pyramid, took the loot, and went on their merry way with it. That's wonderful, but it wasn't theirs to take. In fact, it was extremely disrespectful of them to break into a tomb in the first place. Never mind the fact that they took all of the treasure out of the country. So yes, I think the countries of origin have perfectly legitimate claims to these artifacts. I think that the artifacts should be shipped back to their countries of origin and then loaned to other countries for periods of time or traded/sold at the discretion of the museum/country. It's only fair.

 

[Donald Trump]

but it makes more sense to have art at places where its more likely to be seen, perhaps the british museum could return some of the art and other things and keep some of the others, but pay x% of the profit to the country where the art comes from, that would keep everybody happy, hopefully.
i assumed that more people visit the british museum then visit museums in greece. therefore it would make sense to keep it in Britain.

artifact or what have you, in an inhabited area, hence the item solely belongs to him. Now, let's say he sells this item to make a fortune, and he happens to sell it to a British person. Now, the item would rightfully belong to the British guy, correct?

but say a corupt government official sells it, against the will of the people, by right it belongs to the buyer, but did the seller have any right to sell it?

Also there is the whole question of who actually owns anything found.
ie say an american funds an expedition to try find tombs in egypt and they find some very valuable stuff, does that stuff belong to the american or to Egypt?

i think the whole issue is a matter of opinion, which means any decision would have to be impartial

 

[Mitsuki]

but say a corupt government official sells it, against the will of the people, by right it belongs to the buyer, but did the seller have any right to sell it?

Well no, the seller didn't have any right to sell it if that is the case.

Also there is the whole question of who actually owns anything found.
ie say an american funds an expedition to try find tombs in egypt and they find some very valuable stuff, does that stuff belong to the american or to Egypt?

Yes, there is that too. Like I said, there are various complications when it comes to the question of "who is the rightful owner?" And just as you stated, it is probably a case of people's opinions more than anything, and yet there are also some cases where the answer is quite obvious. As for the answer, gosh I don't know. Me personally, I think it doesn't belong to anybody - it belongs to the rest of the world, as part of world's history.

Anyway, I know a few others already suggested "exhibits" and I think that is the best solution. Have a few items (the not-so-sacred ones, but still valuable anyway) go back and forth throughout various museums in the world...that way many people can see them. As for those really important artifacts that is very sacred to its country's origin, perhaps it should permanently stay where it originated from - assuming that there are no strings attached.

 

[Dionysos]

(I'm necro-posting because Mits posted this link somewhere, and I found it interesting / was not around during the original conversation).

Interesting, but hotly debated. We have to think about whether the artefacts would get the same quality of treatment in their country of origin. There will, of course, be lots of experts and history or art enthusiasts in Greece, Egypt and the Near East, but generally speaking the people who visit these things are tourists. They are preserved partly for preserving heritage etc, academic interest and curiosity, but also because they want them preserved for tourism.

Would we really want to return all of the Near Eastern artefacts, obelisks, gate bands and striding winged bull-sphinxes back to war zones? Aren’t the lion-hunt reliefs of Ashurbanipal from Nineveh much better placed in a room of their own, well lit, well loved and respected, and also accessible to people from all around the world?

The same applies with Egypt, and this is even before the current troubles we see now. There have been extremists in Egypt that are very violently against tourism and ancient culture (because of it being a major source for the economy, etc, and also probably because it isn’t Islamic). In 1997 a group of terrorists shot at / sliced at with machetes / etc and massacred 58 tourists at the Mortuary Temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri (well the site as a whole really, but Hatshepsut is always the famous one)– bullet damage can still be seen at the temple. Tourists have needed armed guards to stand at the entrance to historic sites, and to travel across the desert you tend to need an armed convoy. Now with the riots, the overthrow of the government, and the newer troubles that have happened since, I can imagine that there is a lot of destruction. The Cairo Museum had been looted and a few things stolen (and valuable artefacts smashed) during the initial rioting earlier in the year, and soon after the government was overthrown I heard that various tombs which had been great finds in recent years were now destroyed, and people were looting and such. If that was true (it’s hard to know what is true at this time), then that really angered me. I’m for political freedom, I just hope that everything sorts out with minimal destruction of the ancient sites. If they aren’t going to be respected, then perhaps, rather than give Egyptian artefacts back to Egypt, perhaps we should instead be concerned with rescuing artefacts from Egypt during troubled times.

So would it be a good idea to return the Egyptian artefacts from the British Museum to Egypt? Considering that Zahi Hawass (former Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs – though only recently -, and also an archaeologist and Egyptologist, etc) resigned in anger that Egyptian artefacts and sites were being disgracefully treated and looted? Another question would be whether the Egyptians would want them right now. There will obviously be some, a lot perhaps, but would there be enough interest to justify moving them, and would they be safe? The destruction may have been exaggerated by Hawass, since I do believe he was set up this year as Minister of Antiquities by Mubarak (and remained in the post for a while after Mubarak resigned), and some of his reports might have been to turn people against the protesters, etc (since after all, a stable Egypt means stable antiquities), but still… Probably not the right climate to decide to ship massive Egyptian statues back to Egypt.

With Greece, it has been claimed that the metopes of the Parthenon which became the Elgin marbles in the British Museum were sold willingly, but I’m not so sure. For a start it was the Ottomans who granted the permit. Regardless, now the marbles are wanted back, but they are also the British Museum’s most famous display (though arguably that could be the Rosetta Stone). It probably would be fairer to give them back and to have them in Athens where people can see them in context. I personally find them less interesting than a lot of the other displays in the British Museum, probably because I’ve seen them / copies of them a lot, so I don’t mind where they are located so long as they are cared for. If they can be cared for in Athens as properly as they are in London (which I have confidence that they will), then I see that it is fairer to move them to Athens. We could always keep copies in London.

In general it’s difficult though, because you end up essentially implying that Britain, Germany, the US and all other great countries with well kept museums are more advanced and careful than other countries, and that can cause offence and appear elitist. Considering the British Museum got a portion of its stuff from Britain’s colonial days, you can understand how it is a bit bigheaded of us to assume that everything would be safer under one of our roofs. The British Museum (as the example I’ve used as I’m most familiar with it) is in a very good location though, and lots of people worldwide will see lots of artefacts from worldwide which they would never get to see in their home countries, and the quality of the museum is top standard and respected. People are more likely to travel to Britain, and to London, than they are to many of the places that the artefacts or monuments came from originally. The museum is also free to enter, and therefore not extortionate (unless you want to eat, in which case eat little or starve, or you might as well eat your wallet ).

It seemed extremely disrespectful of both the dead and the culture they are from. I'm not sure if times have changed (they may have, correct me if I'm wrong), but in the Egyptian museums, they don't display mummies out in the open like that.

There are lots of mummies displayed out in the open in Egypt, in glass cases. There are several rooms devoted to Egyptian mummies at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Some big names such as Ramses II are among them. Semi-unwrapped and on display like a hideous zombie-corpse.

In addition there is much disrespect in Egypt from some of the Egyptians regarding the ancient culture, but that is to be expected in tourist destinations. For example some Egyptians wander around ancient sites randomly pestering visitors to buy fake and cheap trash and try and claim that they are genuine artifacts, and others would try and get visitors to sneak under barriers / ropes while guards are not looking to get closer to a sarcophagus, or to access a room that is not meant to be accessed, and then put out their hands and grin, wishing to get some money for encouraging someone to take a serious risk.


EDIT -
As for the idea of travelling exhibitions. There are exhibitions that do travel around the globe, spending a season / year at one museum and then moving to another. It does, however, generally take a lot of effort to pack these artifacts and transport them across seas, and it would also be very costly. It could not be done with every artifact in every museum. It would also create chaos since nobody would be able to know how to locate artifacts at a particular time. Scholars and students studying artifacts today can look up quite easily where they are located now, and if important to them would know where to find them if they happen to be in a museum nearby (or, to be more likely, students could look up a museum nearby and find out what is relevant for them within it). If everything was in a constant motion of travelling from museum to museum then it would be costly and hectic, things might get lost more easily, and it would make it very hard for the people who need to see these things to get to see them.

 

[Ohri-Jin]

lol this is exactly like what colonists did. If natives want their countries back would they get it? No.
Those archaeologists that have been funded and had permission to excavate were entitled to do so , but to actually own their findings not so sure. In that time a lot had been plundered anyway and to safely secure hidden artifacts those countries allowed to let them dig. It would attract tourists as well and they could make money out of it. Its all about the money. I do agree art should be at the place of origin wether for display or safekeeping, but thats not how the world works. What I'm trying to say is first one who finds it may keep it, but someone with more money & power will claim it and snatch it.