Showing posts with label UNESCO Convention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UNESCO Convention. Show all posts
Blame the Victim?
While some in the archaeological blogosphere dismiss questions raised about poor stewardship of cultural resources in source countries as nothing more than "blaming the victim," others take a far more thoughtful view of the subject. Arthur Houghton suggested in a comment on a recent blog post on CPO that source countries should forfeit their rights to demand repatriation when they fail to take care of their own cultural patrimony. Now, Yale educated archaeologist Sally Johnson raises the same issues on the Art World Intelligence Blog. In so doing, Johnson discusses the casual destruction of a Mayan pyramid in Belize to provide road building materials. Johnson asks, "What rules can be put in place�and enforced�to prevent such intentional destruction if the 'owner' of the 'property' chooses to destroy it?" Ironically, just this year the State Department granted Belize a MOU that supposedly will assist that country "preserve its own cultural patrimony."
Art You Will Never See
A new website has appeared in the blogosphere called "Art You Will Never See." The website highlights the "orphan artifacts" problem created by the AAMD's recently adopted 1970 Rule for acquisitions.
According to the website,
ART YOU WILL NEVER SEE seeks to advance public education and understanding of issues affecting museums with particular respect to the collecting, conserving, displaying and publication of cultural artifacts. It is the specific purpose of this website to help the public understand what the AAMD�s rule-making means, It is the hope of ART YOU WILL NEVER SEE that the objects shown on these pages will underscore the importance of the orphans issue and point the way toward change in guidelines that were enacted by an organization with little understanding of their consequences.
The objects shown here need few words. The images speak for themselves. Historically or artistically, all are of exceptional importance. If they were offered today, however, even as a donation, the AAMD says they should be rejected by the art museums of America. They are only tip of the iceberg, however: beneath them lies an extraordinary depth and breadth of material in private hands that you will, now, never see in an American museum.
According to the website,
ART YOU WILL NEVER SEE seeks to advance public education and understanding of issues affecting museums with particular respect to the collecting, conserving, displaying and publication of cultural artifacts. It is the specific purpose of this website to help the public understand what the AAMD�s rule-making means, It is the hope of ART YOU WILL NEVER SEE that the objects shown on these pages will underscore the importance of the orphans issue and point the way toward change in guidelines that were enacted by an organization with little understanding of their consequences.
The objects shown here need few words. The images speak for themselves. Historically or artistically, all are of exceptional importance. If they were offered today, however, even as a donation, the AAMD says they should be rejected by the art museums of America. They are only tip of the iceberg, however: beneath them lies an extraordinary depth and breadth of material in private hands that you will, now, never see in an American museum.
Timbuktu Library Update
It looks like early Islamic manuscripts thought to have been burned by fleeing Islamic fanatics associated with an al-Qaeda offshoot may not have been destroyed after all. If so, this is welcome news, though the situation still seems rather bleak.
This also once again raises the larger question of whether the assumptions behind the US MOU with Mali (a state capable of being a good steward for its cultural resources) are faulty. Certainly, even when renewal of Mali's MOU was being considered, there was no reason to consider Mali anything but a failed state incapable of undertaking its own obligations under the UNESCO Convention to protect its cultural patrimony.
This also once again raises the larger question of whether the assumptions behind the US MOU with Mali (a state capable of being a good steward for its cultural resources) are faulty. Certainly, even when renewal of Mali's MOU was being considered, there was no reason to consider Mali anything but a failed state incapable of undertaking its own obligations under the UNESCO Convention to protect its cultural patrimony.
More Evidence 1970 No Safe Harbor
Turkey's demand that the Met return artifacts from a collection formed as far back as the 1960's again demonstrates that 1970 is no safe harbor for museums as the AIA claimed to induce the AAMD to accept a 1970 provenance rule for new acquistions. See http://chasingaphrodite.com/2012/03/20/exclusive-turkey-seeks-the-return-of-18-objects-from-the-metropolitan-museum-of-art/
Will the AIA support the AAMD or Turkey in this dispute?
Will the AIA support the AAMD or Turkey in this dispute?
Cambodian Cultural Property Fracas Again Shows Appeasment Leads to Escalating Demands
Leaving aside the merits of Cambodia's claim to a valuable statue that was to be auctioned off at Sotheby's, this latest fracas in the cultural property wars again suggests appeasing the archaeological lobby does little but encourage escalating demands. For more, see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/arts/design/sothebys-caught-in-dispute-over-prized-cambodian-statue.html
If Sotheby�s thought hiring a former prosecutor who has developed strong contacts with the archaeological community would win friends and influence people within the archaeological community, it was wrong.
Also, if anyone thinks 1970 provides a safer harbor to repatriation claims, the archaeological lobby's recourse to a 1925 law to press this claim also suggests that 1970 may not be the "safe harbor" date the archaeological community initially claimed as well.
Yes, appeasement leads to little but escalating demands for more.
If Sotheby�s thought hiring a former prosecutor who has developed strong contacts with the archaeological community would win friends and influence people within the archaeological community, it was wrong.
Also, if anyone thinks 1970 provides a safer harbor to repatriation claims, the archaeological lobby's recourse to a 1925 law to press this claim also suggests that 1970 may not be the "safe harbor" date the archaeological community initially claimed as well.
Yes, appeasement leads to little but escalating demands for more.
Artificial Deadlines
The archaeological leaning blogs are taking the new Getty Museum chief, Dr. Timothy Potts, to task because he was one of the AAMD principals behind adoption of the prior 10 year rolling "provenance" date for accessions. See http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2012/02/timothy-potts-problem-hasnt-gone-away.html
and http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2012/02/culturegrrl_qa_with_incoming_g_1.html
Yet, the recently adopted 1970 date is an artificial construct solely based on the vintage of the UNESCO Convention. The only reason the AAMD adopted it was due to pressure from the archaeological lobby.
But what has the AAMD and its members received in return? Long term loans? Not without paying the substantial costs associated with them, including transportation, insurance and restoration fees.
And how does this really fit with the mission of museums to preserve artifacts for future generations if they are not able to accession many artifacts just because they lack a documentary history stretching back to 1970?
And has adoption of this rule staunched looting in source countries? As Potts suggests, of course not.
and http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2012/02/culturegrrl_qa_with_incoming_g_1.html
Yet, the recently adopted 1970 date is an artificial construct solely based on the vintage of the UNESCO Convention. The only reason the AAMD adopted it was due to pressure from the archaeological lobby.
But what has the AAMD and its members received in return? Long term loans? Not without paying the substantial costs associated with them, including transportation, insurance and restoration fees.
And how does this really fit with the mission of museums to preserve artifacts for future generations if they are not able to accession many artifacts just because they lack a documentary history stretching back to 1970?
And has adoption of this rule staunched looting in source countries? As Potts suggests, of course not.
Egypt, Libya and Tunisia: UNESCO to the Rescue?
UNESCO is belatedly celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the 1970 UNESCO Convention with a conference in the City of Lights, Paris. See http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/ And what better way to show UNESCO is still relevant than to address the crisis in the Middle East?
The cultural bureaucrats are rightly concerned about the effect of unrest in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya on those nations' cultural patrimony, but one can only hope there is more emphasis on nipping the problem at the source rather than on taking advantage of situation to further an anti-collecting agenda. "Emergency import restrictions" that effectively shift the burden of proof onto the holder virtually guarantee seizures of perfectly legitimate artifacts that don't have detailed collection histories. Good police work combined with more effective efforts to record what is missing is a better, far less controversial approach.
The cultural bureaucrats are rightly concerned about the effect of unrest in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya on those nations' cultural patrimony, but one can only hope there is more emphasis on nipping the problem at the source rather than on taking advantage of situation to further an anti-collecting agenda. "Emergency import restrictions" that effectively shift the burden of proof onto the holder virtually guarantee seizures of perfectly legitimate artifacts that don't have detailed collection histories. Good police work combined with more effective efforts to record what is missing is a better, far less controversial approach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)