As someone who regularly admires museums around the world, I couldn't help but wondering (upon seeing places like British Museum) how on earth did this magnificent peace ended up in here. Perhaps majority of visitors don't even think about - it is easy to be fascinated and absorbed with huge quantity of art objects collected in one place - but honestly, when you visit something like museum in Berlin that has a whole Greek temple re-assembled stone by stone and proudly displayed (not to mention the bust of Nefertiti) it is simultaneously thrilling and just a little bit unsettling, because yes, it does feel like imperialistic showcase of the loot from impoverished colonies. We might be dimly aware that certain countries constantly demand the return of these artifacts but so far I had never encountered such exciting, informative and well-researched book like this one by Sharon Waxman who passionately presents the subject from different perspectives and clearly points that the matter is far from being black-and-white. In fact, while reading this book, I was constantly changing my mind about it - the more facts you know, the more angered you might be, but it goes both ways, equally towards big museums of the West and ignorant, greedy bureaucrats "at home' who demand what is officially called restitution.
There is no doubt that these ancient artifacts were stolen.
The whole idea of museums is relatively recent - they started in 18th century as big Western powers stripped naked impoverished countries they invaded and brought home ships full of art objects, in order to display their loot. France, Germany, England, you name it, they all did it. I am absolutely sure that Napoleon would bring home the whole pyramid of Giza if he only could (instead, he brought home obelisks, just like everybody else). This started the whole idea of museums being one place where art of the whole world would be displayed together as a inspiration and education for Western visitors and the whole purpose of museums is basically built on these basis. Sure, the attitude was that they are preserving priceless objects of art from ignorant locals who don't even care for them - Waxman makes a point that if archaeologists have not showed interest in them, they would probably be already long destroyed, burned and still buried deep in the ground. In Egypt, there was a whole village built on the ancient burial ground and locals were using mummies for burning the fires. The science of archaeology achieved huge explosion because French took Rosetta stone from Egypt and managed to decipher the enigmatic hieroglyphics, suddenly we were able to actually read and understand the language that disappeared some 2 000 years ago - because of political machinations, French were forced to give Rosetta stone to England, of course nobody even bothered to ask Egypt what they think about it. So yes, it was West that carefully researched all these forgotten wonders and without this curiosity ancient art would be completely forgotten, however West also kept their institution decidedly in hands of privileged few - when the science of Egyptology started, locals were absolutely forbidden to participate and they couldn't even get educated about it, so in a way who could blame them for not understand and appreciate what they had? The only thing they quickly realised is that Westerners will pay for these strange old stones and they became convenient bargaining tools. Without interest there could have been no market in the first place.
We also have to remember that museums started some 200 years ago with idea of exhibit and collecting pieces of art from all over the world in order to inspire and enlighten visitors, sort of universal property of the whole world. As such, places like British museum surely influenced countless artists and this is undeniable.
However, with the passage of time, particularly in 19. century, the world became different place and as nations started to identify themselves and cherish their own history and traditions, the idea of universal property became dubious. How can Rosetta stone be universal property if was actually found in Egypt? People in museums answer: current Egyptians have nothing in common with culture that produced Rosetta stone (and this is true, they are mostly Arabs who have absolutely no connection to either Egyptian religion or culture). The perfect example is the discovery of the shipwreck in Florida, full of gold that was bound for Spain - both Florida and Spain claim it, but it is government of Peru that says "hey, wait a moment, the gold was actually stolen from our country so we should be the ones getting it back" - and they have a point.
Sharon Waxman cleverly presents perspective from both sides.
She is passionate about the truth and truth is, yes, these sculptures, vases and objects of art were taken from archaeological sites in Middle East, Egypt, Greece and Italy. By present standards and laws, they belong to the countries where they were found. Facts are here:
- museums in the West bought these art objects for huge amounts of money (funded by private donations) and took good care of them
- marble stones taken from Parthenon and displayed in London are in much better condition than those left in Athens, that decayed and darkened because of the enormous amount of air pollution. If they actually stayed in Athens, they would also be covered with soot.
- all the artifacts displayed in world's biggest museums were seen by millions and millions of visitors. If we really put them back where they belong, they will be in deserts of North Africa and Middle East where people come very rarely. Waxman explain that when she visited one of these places in the desert, only two visitors were on the bus.
- Governments of Egypt and Turkey claim the ownership of art that was found in their territories, however these people have really no connections to ancient civilisations as they arrived here much later.
- art that has been returned to countries of their origin has often been immediately stolen and re-sold (!) not to mention that museums in (for example) Turkey have far less visitors than museums in the West. The number of visitors of museums in Turkey for the whole year amounts to number of visitors in one hour in big world's museums. If we are talking about purpose of art to be seen, it makes more sense that they are displayed in the West.
- majority of this art is famous because it is displayed in places like Louvre and British Museum.
- if we start returning art to the places of their origins, we might as well empty all the world's museums because they are collections of art from all over the world
- all the art on display in museums is out of the context anyway, majority of it was created to be displayed in either churches or temples so in today's modern world they are archaeological as well as historical artifacts
While reading this book, I was constantly swaying between two opposite decisions - to return or to keep the ancient art where it is. Contrary to what I expected, knowing more about the whole subject makes me aware how dangerous it might be to actually return them to places like Egypt or Turkey and now I started to think that perhaps they are safer in the West. But than again, if Martians take our ancient art for display elsewhere, saying "its safer with us" I could imagine what an passionate outcry that would be, so its really matter of perspective.
Talking about loot and stolen art, its just so amusing that I have actually stolen this book - just couldn't resist, I took it with me as I moved from one ship to another (with idea to eventually leave it in the next ship's library). I guess that I would be the first one to walk around with pockets full of keepsakes if they let me anywhere near archaeological sites.
No comments:
Post a Comment