I have recently started reading the Smithsonian magazine cover-to-cover. Usually with magazines, I skim through the pages, looking for interesting articles and dog-earing the pages as I go along. With the Smithsonian magazine, however, it seems that more and more of their articles touch on a topic explored in one of my classes.
The November issue, which arrived in my mailbox over the weekend, has a cover story that instantly sparked my interest. "Journey of a Goddess: A Case Study" discusses how The Getty's 2,400-year-old statue of Aphrodite was returned to Italy this past March. One of the crown jewels of the Getty, this statue in many ways represents recent issues of repatriation. The statue was acquired with insufficient provenance, and after years of back-and-forth, it has now been returned to the legal and/or rightful country of ownership.
This conflit is not unique to The Getty -- in the past 5 years, The Met, The Boston MFA, the Cleveland Museum of Arts, and the Princeton University Art Museum have all been forced to return artifacts. More than 100 artifacts have been returned, in total worth almost $1 billion.
Although these artifacts have been acquired in a dubious manner, it is interesting to me that the museum often does not admit its direct fault. In addition, many countries provides substitutes, or offer an extension for the object in question. The Aphrodite statue, for instance, remained on view at the Getty until December 2010, even though they completed their agreement in August 2007. Is this just a way to soften the blow of losing an important piece of the collection?
Although it seems only right that artifacts acquired illegally be returned to their country of origin, there seems to be one major issue: at what point do you stop returning plundered goods?
And, if an artifact is receiving the conservation and security required in its current location, what happens when it is to be relocated to a facility which is unable to maintain those standards? The Aphrodite statue, for example, was housed in a museum with over 400,000 visitors annually. Now, it is in the Aidone museum which received about 10,000. Although there are plans to try and increase attendance, the museum cannot accommodate any more than 200 visitors at a time.
I think that it is only right to return these items, but it is definitely comes at a cost. Hopefully Aphrodite will attract visitors to Aidone, and receive the care it deserves.
Restitution of works of art is a tricky business. On one hand you have ICOM's code of ethics; on the other James Cuno argues that modern Egyptians cannot lay claim to artifacts from ancient Egypt. Very complicated but I liked this article which lays bare the dialogue: http://egyptology.blogspot.com/2010/08/does-history-suffer-when-cultural.html
ReplyDeleteLooks like the Getty might have to return another piece of their collection. This time, it is a medieval manuscript:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-armenian-bible-20111104,0,4956662.story