If Works of Art Be Repatriated to Their Places of Origin?


Posted January 4, 2020 by Kevin990

Art repatriation refers to the yield of works of cultural or art items to their state of origin or former owners.

 
Art repatriation refers to the yield of works of cultural or art items to their state of origin or former owners. These products were taken away from their owners or founders in their homelands as a result of war, colonialism or imperialism. Repatriation is a hotly debated topic that's continuing and its own fire has small hopes of entirely dying out. Staunch leaders and giants and people in authority such as art curators, art critics, art historians, art teachers, politicians and other well significance characters have expressed their own views on this contentious topic of restitution of innovative products to their areas of origin.

The issue of artwork repatriation and the conflicts it is engulfed in is deep and vast. Many argue in favor of their repatriation of artworks for their owners while some strongly object due to equally sound high money opinions. This essay seeks to explore the field about the repatriation of functions of art and the efforts set up by international agencies and associations for the repatriation of functions of art and the challenges which have ensued. It is going to then probe the conversation farther from both angles on whether to repatriate these African art and cultural artifacts currently adorning the Western temples and stately house of the upper European class into their countries of origin.

Several attempts have been set up from the many worldwide bodies and agencies accountable for individual welfare and inter-national peace to repatriate objects which were illegally acquired by their current owners. Numerous conventions and declarations are laid to make sure the restitution of those cultural artefacts is returned to their areas of origin. These attempts have met a few subtle successes whether the challenges are both herculean and heinous.

The first effort to repatriate functions was the institution of the Lieber code (General Order Number 100) from 1843 designed by Francis Lieber who was tasked by the US president Abraham Lincoln to propound a set of rules for governing the confederate of prisoners, noncombatants, spies and land consequently cultural objects. It's sad that the code permitted the destruction of cultural property under military requirement causing the abolishment of this code.

In 1954the Hague record was developed following the great devastation of the World War II as well as the wonderful looting of cultural objects and artwork. This document also met various criticisms since it favoured'market nations' thus wealthy countries over the'source nations' who are largely poor.

Another effort of repatriation has been undertaken from the UNESCO Convention against Illicit Export along with the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of illegal Appropriation in November 14, 1970. Just like its predecessors, the terms from the conference proved highly rejected because it was too wide and not specific. In addition, it motivated black economy deals on the selling of those cultural objects.

Lately, most countries are embracing the payoff of repatriation problems together with all the'Mutually Beneficial Repatriation Agreements (MBRAs). This document calls for the settlement of disagreements by opposing parties flexibly in a manner that is beneficial to both sides. This mode of arbitration between owner countries and keeper countries of items will certainly have its downsides.

Some of these obstacles are:

1. Poor legislative approaches developed among signatory states.

2. Failure to establish a system to resolve issues of ownership and compensation.

3. Some works of art and cultural objects do not have clear information on the history to help in ascertaining its place of origin.

4. Sometimes there are several speculations regarding the origin of the work of art making it difficult in knowing the original owners.

5. Legal battle for repatriation of works of art is lengthy and costly.

The question is why are some countries campaigning vigorously for the repatriation of the arts to their homelands? Numerous reasons are often cited. Analyses of items that are called for by their countries of origin are generally famous and valuable works that are paramount to the historical and cultural documentations of those countries. These cultural objects are a symbol of cultural heritage and identity and the return of such historical artworks is a hallmark of the pride of every country and thus must be repatriated. A return of such works calls for a special welcoming ceremony as if a long standing member of the society who has been imprisoned and is now freed is returning home.

Furthermore, advocates for the repatriation of works of art to their places of origin argue that the encyclopedic museums such as the British Museum, Musee du Louvre and the Metropolitan Museum of Art who are the main keepers of the prestigious artistic creations of various countries house them out of the view and reach of the cultures that owns them. It is also very distressing that the encyclopedic museums that house most of the world's artworks and artifacts are located in Western cities and are the privilege of European scholars, professionals and people. This is quite unfair because the keepers are shielding the works from their owners which is not appropriate and civilized in a free democratic world in which we find ourselves.

Again, some ethnic societies and nations dare need some repatriated works to be able to reconstruct their national history which is a stepping stone for any country's survival and hope of sustenance in the future. This has been the case of the Benin court ritual objects which the Nigerians need to write the histories of their forebears. Wouldn't it be illegal and even a crime to deny the return of works of such great significance to their rightful owners?

In the same train of thoughts, items are best appreciated and understood in their original and cultural context. Many artifacts have special cultural value for a particular community or nation. When these works are removed from their original cultural setting, they lose their context and the culture loses a part of its history. Owing to this, objects have to be repatriated back to their homelands. This accounts for why there are false interpretations associated with some of the African masterpieces that find their homes now in 'foreign' lands.

Also, the taking away of the creative products permanently destroys the archaeological sites which could have been set as a tourism site to generate income for the owners or countries of origin. This in the view of the author could have added to the economic strength of the country of origin which in Africa is mostly financially pulverized.

Moreover, the possession of the artworks taken under the sad conditions of war, looting, imperialism and colonialism is unethical and still suggests continued colonialism. To portray and ensure total liberation and freedom from colonized states, these creative objects must be returned.

In addition, when objects which are in fragments are repatriated back to their homelands, they can be consolidated with their other parts to achieve a whole for the meanings of the works to be properly gleaned. This is the case of the Parthenon's marble sculptures of the Athena Temple which is now in the British Museum in London. The ancient Greeks who are the owners believed that sculptures bring their subjects to virtual life, and therefore completeness or wholeness is an essential feature of an imitative or representational art.

There are many scholars and other well meaning educators and individuals who vehemently disapprove and even oppose the repatriation of items and other cultural objects to their countries of origin. One of their arguments is that art is a part of a universal human history and that ancient products of diverse cultures promotes inquiry, tolerance and broad knowledge about cultures. To them, having works of diverse cultures would help in erasing cultural monopoly which is a chief causative agent against global unity. Curators and directors of museums of art assert that when a museum has works of many cultures, it introduces visitors to a diverse range of art to help deface the ignorance people have about the world.

Artistic creations transcend national boundaries as well as the cultures and peoples that created them. Therefore a deliberate lineation or segregation of an artwork to a particular country limits the scope and understanding of the work.

Also, it is believed that the Western Art museums are dedicated to the professional stewardship of the works in their care. They are believed to have the proper infrastructure to house the items. Therefore, the security and protection of the works are guaranteed. This cannot be said of the seemingly poor African states who are asking for the repatriation of the arts. They lack the infrastructural structure to protect the works when they are repatriated back to their home soil.

However, this is an understatement because much of the artworks transported out of colonized countries were crudely removed and damaged and sometimes lost in transportation. The issue of security and protection of works of art is still subject to debate. Owners of the objects might have the necessary infrastructure available to keep the repatriated works. However, judging correctly little can be said of this owing to the heap of economic load already resting on the feeble shoulders of these'source nations'.

Another important issue that bars the repatriation of creative works is with respect to the claimant of the total ownership of the works of art. This issue is aggravated when many countries, cities, and museums are in the possession of parts of an artwork. Where should be the designated"home" of the reunited work? Who must be the best owner of these creative masterpieces? To curtail this challenge, many scholars, art directors and curators opines that it is best not to repatriate their things back to their homelands.

It's a hard fact that must be admitted that African works lavishly displayed from the museums as well as other people views in the Western lands especially Europe might never see their homelands again. The discussion to repatriate artworks would probably be continuing though some efforts are created by some countries and agencies to return products that were acquired illegally with their original homeland.

The author opines that cultural objects that have historical importance and could assist in the renovation of a country's history has to be returned. However, the ones that are already locked in encyclopedic museums to the ingestion of the populace that are not indispensably necessary in mimicking the history of a nation should not be repatriated. Their correct interpretations must however be inquired in their first owners. Since earnings will probably be gleaned, the original owners of these works have to be paid or remunerated so that they can share the profits with the memorial that's keeping the arts.

Again, there must be mutual understanding and agreement between the initial owners of their functions and also the museum to reach a consensus that's favourable for all of them. It is going to likewise be prudent that parties involved must lay out steps of showing the products sometimes to the citizens of the country of origin so the viewing of their inventive pieces so that they would not be the preserve of the privileged Europeans but also the poor owners of such marvelous creations.

A combined effort with the perspective of attaining amicable consensus on the part of both the host country and state of origin if mapped out nicely could help in cutting the searching menace of restitution of artworks for their nations of origin.
-- END ---
Share Facebook Twitter
Print Friendly and PDF DisclaimerReport Abuse
Contact Email [email protected]
Issued By Kevin T. Mayer
Country United States
Categories Accounting , Agriculture , Apparel
Tags egypt assistance
Last Updated January 4, 2020