By Yena Cho - South Korea
For the past few centuries, many artifacts have been removed from their countries of origin — often under circumstances such as colonization, which has left them scattered across places away from their cultural and historical origins. Today, these pieces are kept in museums and private collections around the world. The British Museum, the Louvre, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Chicago Institute of Art are just a few institutions with extensive collections of art acquired from different places worldwide. For years, these pieces have been celebrated for their artistic and historical value, but questions about the ethics of their acquisition have become a frequently debated topic.
Arguments for repatriation
Proponents of art repatriation argue that returning these pieces is a matter of justice. Artifacts often hold a vital cultural importance for their communities of origin. Being able to neither see nor access these artifacts in their country of origin seems ironic: if anywhere, it is the very place where the artifacts should be kept. This can also help develop national identity and increase the economic benefits of cultural tourism; a country showcasing its cultural artifacts for a large audience can establish pride and a sense of accomplishment. Following the process of decolonization, the community involved may have a weakened idea of their identity — formerly permeated by colonial beliefs. After many years, returning stolen artifacts may help mitigate the community’s lost heritage questions.
Additionally, repatriation can address historical injustices. It can be seen as a means of correcting past wrongdoing and acknowledging the harm, such as the erasure of cultural identity, caused during periods of colonialism and conflict. Although this cannot fully heal the wound of colonization, it can improve the relationship between the two countries and create a path for possible future national cooperation. This can also apply to institutions in different countries, enabling collaboration between two nations. For instance, in 2006, the Metropolitan Museum of Art signed an agreement that formalized the transfer of title to six antiquities in Italy in exchange for the Italian Culture Ministry agreeing that the Metropolitan to keep on view the 2500-year-old Attic Krater until 2008. The ministry has also agreed to provide the Metropolitan with long-term future loans, which has improved diplomatic relationships between the two institutions of different countries (The Met, 2006). Philippe de Montebello, the Director of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, comments that the Giuseppe Proietti from the Italian Ministry of Culture, Francesco Sicilia from the Culture Ministry of Sicily and himself have formed mutually beneficial relationships and that this is an appropriate solution to a complex problem readdressing past improprieties in the acquisition process through a highly equitable arrangement. The Met has also released a statement that “The Met’s annual visitors will continue to see comparably great works of ancient art on long-term loans from Italy to this institution,” showing effective collaboration between the two organizations.
Counter Arguments
Despite the ethical arguments for repatriation, significant challenges exist, such as the potential impact on global museum collections. One of the main concerns is the potential impact on global museum collections. Large museums, such as the British Museum or the Lourve, frequently argue that their collections are not merely national but of international significance. The removal of significant pieces through repatriation could, as museums argue, diminish the educational values of exhibits. Some pieces, such as the Parthenon Marbles in the British Museum, have become integral to the museum’s identity, and their absence might weaken the cultural narratives that these institutions present (Rose-Greenland). Concerns over a potential domino effect compound this issue. If one artifact is returned, more claims for repatriation may follow, resulting in the possibility of the collapse of well-known museum collections or conflicts over ownership, eroding their ability to function as universal institutions that serve a global audience.
Rather than focusing solely on repatriation, efforts might be better spent on collaborative partnerships and cultural exchange. These partnerships might include temporary loans, shared exhibitions, or joint research projects that allow artifacts to be displayed in their country of origin while still being accessible to a broader international audience.
Additionally, the repatriation process also faces challenges. One major issue is the legal and logistical complexities of returning artifacts, as it is challenging to determine rightful ownership due to multiple claims being made or incomplete records of the artifacts. The balance between returning stolen cultural material and maintaining cultural institutions around the world is a fine line. There are also concerns about the possibility of artifacts being returned to private or less accessible locations, which would deplete their educational value.
What has been done to address this issue?
The path forward in the art repatriation debate may lie in finding collaborative solutions that respect cultural heritage and global educational goals, such as establishing agreements that allow for shared ownership or long-term loans of artifacts. This could enable communities to display and honor their cultural treasures while allowing global audiences to appreciate their significance and benefit from economic profit.
International frameworks and agreements can also help to address issues like this. Organizations such as UNESCO have developed the 1970 Convention, which fights against looting and illicit trafficking. This convention paves the way for people's right to enjoy their cultural heritage by establishing shared responsibility and cultural equity. The 1995 Convention of UNIDROIT addresses problems of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects, as well as the irreparable damage frequently caused to the artifacts. (UNIDROIT, 1995) Agreements like these help manage the complexities of cultural property and repatriation, providing a foundation for resolving disputes fairly.
Conclusion
Discussing whether art pieces taken from different countries should be returned is complex. It explores historical justice, cultural heritage, and the role of global institutions in preserving art. As this discourse continues, solutions should focus on honoring the past while fostering cultural understanding and exchange in the present. The ultimate goal is to ensure that cultural artifacts are treated with the respect they deserve and contribute to the global community.
Bibliography
"Statement by the Metropolitan Museum of Art on Its Agreement with the Italian Ministry of Culture." The Met, 21 Feb. 2006.
"Idea : Cultural Diversity Before the Letter of the Law." UNESCO, 8 Oct. 2020.
"Instruments, Cultural Property: 1995 Convention." UNIDROIT, 24 Jun. 1995, www.unidroit.org/instruments/cultural-property/1995-convention/.
Rose-Greenland, Fiona. "The Parthenon Marbles and British National Identity." Open Democracy, 25 Oct. 2013, www.opendemocracy.net/en/parthenon-marbles-and-british-national-identity/. Accessed 8 Oct. 2024.
留言