Here is a topic that I have long considered blogging on. But procrastination and the lack of an immediate frame of reference kept me from writing. The always wonderful and ever resourceful Amardeep Singh recently posted a thoughtful piece on this very topic.
Those of us born in antique lands with long and continuously evolving histories spanning several centuries and millennia, will identify with the question I am about to pose. It pertains to the theft and sale of ancient artifacts that leave the countries of their origin and find new homes in the museums and private collections elsewhere in distant lands. Trafficking in art and artifacts flows exclusively in one direction - from the poorer nations to the more prosperous ones. India, China, Egypt and much of the middle and far east have seen ancient religious and cultural artifacts leave native shores and surface in Europe and America. The fact that much of the art was "taken" by occupiers and colonizers often without even an unscrupulous middleman making money from the sales, is a particularly touchy and often painful aspect of this transfer.
But the story is not as simple as it would appear on considerations of ownership alone. Many valuable objects were taken or stolen during colonial times. In the modern era after independence of the host nations, some were acquired legally while others changed hands illegally on the black market. Most countries now ban the sale or transfer of antiquities but rare and ancient artifacts continue to find their way into public and privatecollections beyond the borders. It is difficult to speculate on the possible fate of the artefacts had they been left where they originally belonged. Would the local governments and museums have had the will or the wherewithal to offer them the wide exposure and pride of place they have come to enjoy in western museums? Or would they have crumbled, gathered dust and disappeared altogether? Do poorer nations have the capability to care for their priceless ancient heritage? Given the immediate economic concerns of more pressing nature, should that even be their priority? There is even a question about how much value locals assign to ancient stone piles and crumbling edifices from a long forgotten era. Can those who are embattled by today's precarious existence, worry about yesterday's fine art? While "creating" art is the prerogative of the poor and the rich alike, is "preserving" art a luxury afforded only by the wealthy? The dilemma is indeed a wrenching one - place of origin or a centers of preservation and greater visibility? This is a bit like asking, "Are endangered species better off in their threatened and disappearing habitat or in a well kept zoo?" Should destitute and incapable parents give up their children for adoption or let them struggle and languish in a desperate family milieu? Difficult to answer.
There is another disconcerting factor to consider here other than the priority and capabilityof less prosperous nations to preserve their heritage. The political tensions that can often overrun the national psyche in developing nations can put historical treasures at risk. Changing ideologies can make monuments and artifacts belonging to opposing political or religious camps vulnerable to vindictive abuse. Think the rampage of the Khmer Rouge. Think Babri Masjid. Think the magnificent Bamiyan Buddhas.
Amardeep Singh writes about the "headless" statue of a Hindu goddess from the glorious temple site of Angkor Wat in Cambodia, which was reunited with its rightful "head" in the Musée Guimetin Paris. Amardeep offers the following thoughts:
"It's a great story, but it gives me goosebumps for a slightly different reason from the one curator Pierre Baptist experienced, as it reminds me that so many priceless ancient artifacts from from Asia are in westen museums. Indeed, the most likely place where the head of this statue could re-find its body is in one of the big 'Oriental' museums in Paris, London, or New York -- not Cambodia itself.
My own local Philadelphia Museum of Art has an entire Hindu temple (ca. 1550) from Tamil Nadu installed in a permanent exhibition (see here). It's a beautiful exhibit with amazing stone sculptures, and I'm not at all sure it would be preserved as nicely in India itself -- but it's still a little sad to visit it in this context,right next to the similarly-dislocated authentic 19th century Japanese tea-house."
I have experienced similarly conflicting emotions on seeing the spectacular Asian collection at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, California. Or when I admired the Elgin Marbles, the numerous Mesopotamian statuary from ancient Iraq and Syria and the plethora of Egyptian mummies and burial treasures in the British Musuem. While there is a sense of resentment and loss upon seeing these marvels of antiquity displayed in far away foreign lands, there is also the uncomfortable realization that they may have been lost, damaged or destroyed had they been left in their "homes". One thing is for sure. Thousands of people including me, would never have set our eyes on these exquisite treasures conveniently housed under one roof. But that pleasure too is the privilege of the well heeled because most "natives" of Asia, Africa or Latin America will never set foot in those clean, climate controlled showcases of their departed deities and ancestral memorabilia.
Some have spoken about reparations on similar lines as those paid to European Jews after the Holocaust. I don't know how fruitful and cost effective such an approach would be. Britain will go bankrupt many times over just paying India, the jewel in its colonial crown, a fair price for the economic exploitation of two hundred years. The current market value of the Koh-i-noor diamond (now cut into two) in the British royal jewel collection, alone will take a sizable bite out of the British exchequer. ( To those who would argue here that the European colonizers left worthwhile legacies in the form of modernizing, functional infrastructures in their erstwhile colonies and that is good enough payback, I say this: They did it for their own convenience, ease of governance and to put the stamp of European authority on the landscape. The benefit to the native people and lands were mostly incidental.)
So what is fair ? Should art be looked upon as borderless treasure - a world heritage, and those who are best able to care for and preserve them be allowed to do so without parochial considerations? Or should they be returned to their historic homes irrespective of whether they flourish in museums or languish in warehouses? Professor Singh has the following idea:
"Since restoration of the stolen relocated artifacts is impossible, I might propose a conceptual art project to draw attention to the incongruity. Careful replicas of statues like the recently fixed Bakong wife of Shiva should be made, and installed at the sites where they were found. Then a sign should be placed out front that reads as follows: "Welcome to Bakong. You are now entering a replica of the Hindu temple at Bakong. Everything of value from this site has been dismantled and relocated to Paris, London, and New York. Enjoy your visit!"
Pretty good .... and tragically apt. I have a less resigned and more practical suggestion. Museums in possession of foreign antiquities make money by way of loans to other museums, admission fees, grants and charitable contributions. Instead of spending all their endowments on local expansion, they can adopt monuments and museums in the countries of origin of their precious antiquities. Substantial long term financial support as well as "how to" assistance in art restoration and preservation should be directed towards the upkeep and promotion of local art and archaeology . India for example, is a veritable treasure trove. All major religions of the world have flourished and left their legacies in India in the form of monuments and art. Many have already been designated as World Heritage sites by the UN and there is much improvement in their upkeep and appearance since this recognition. The Japanese government gives millions to maintain the ancient Buddhist sites in India such as those at Ajanta. Institutions which continue to benefit from their acquisition of foreign art (much of it by spurious means or below market price) ought to show some gestures of appreciation - not for legal reasons but out of common decency.
One interesting observation about the general culture in poorer countries- that which is new and shiny is valued over old and decrepit. If I were to take something with an antiqued appearance as a gift to my relatives in India, they would look askance at it. Here in the West, there is a general reverence for artifacts ancient and not-so ancient- witness the popularity of shows like the Antiques Roadshow in encouraging people to bring out attic 'treasures' which have actual monetary value- one can't imagine such a thing happening in India.
Or maybe it's time to 'create' a new market for these heritage items in India, just like the other marketing campaigns for luxury goods, iPods, cell phones, etc. Then we'll see a renewed interest in maintaining the treasures of the past.
Posted by: Sujatha | May 22, 2006 at 02:22 PM
I am, of course, sensitive to those countries that have suffered cultural losses, such as Greece, whose Parthenon marbles were raided by Lord Elgin. But to look upon the Parthenon today, and to see how fast its existing friezes are deteriorating, makes me at least partially glad that the stolen marbles are protected and cared for in the British Museum--even if they have been removed from their intended context.
But my main argument is this. The Parthenon marbles and so many other transplanted artifacts are today a part of our common heritage and culture. They "belong" to us all. The Parthenon marbles, particularly, may be the supreme expression of Greek architecture, but they are, more important, symbols of Western civilization, indeed, civilization as a whole. They should no sooner be repatriated than should the Mona Lisa be sent back to Italy, or any number of Renoirs and Monets to France. (I realize that the Mona Lisa, in the example above, was not acquired in the manner of the Parthenon marbles, but any Italian might say, "This is the highlight of Italian culture. This belongs in Italy, where it was created.")
The question is: Where does it stop, this sending back of artifacts? Should American museums only display American works? What would the experience of visiting the Met be, if one could not enter its massive architectural spaces replete with Near Eastern wonders, the Temple of Dendur, for example? Yes, Egypt gains by repatriation, so do Greece, Turkey, and any number of countries. But London loses, as do Paris, New York, and Washington, D.C.
The problem is complex, but trying to remedy the wrongs of colonial raiders must not strike a blow against our common world culture today. Otherwise, we will see art become a provincial, nationalistic affair, which makes us all poorer in the end.
Posted by: Sudip Bose | May 22, 2006 at 02:33 PM