Regimes and Art

I've been mildly intrigued by the question of who owns art since I visited the Elgin Marbles at the British Museum a number of years ago. Before that it never occurred to my American mind that there's something fitting about countries owning the art that was made in their country (mostly because American's wouldn't have a whole lot of art, especially old art, if that were strictly enforced).

This WSJ article, "Egypt's Antiquities Fall Victim to the Mob: A definitive answer to the question: Should the Elgin Marbles be returned to Greece?" takes a stance on what should be done with old art. Ironically, however, the article answers a different question than the one in the subtitle--it answers the question of whether the Elgin Marbles should be returned to Greece right now:

"Leaving aside the argument that recent centuries are inextricable parts of the history of these objects, the simple answer is 'no.' Unfree and unstable countries, regardless of their tourist numbers, have a long way to go before they will treat antiquities in the manner of most European countries or the U.S. Attempts to undo the recent past to assuage postcolonial guilt or appease renewed nationalist sentiments by emptying museums of legitimately acquired items is unlikely to be in the best interest of the artifacts, scholarship or the global public."

Okay, that’s a pretty easy answer (although is museum looting going to really happen in Greece?).

This article discusses, in the context of the Iraqi and now Egyptian looting of archeological treasures, the way in which this looting is connected to dissatisfaction with repressive regimes, which use those historical artifacts to justify their regime (although even those regimes sometimes pick and choose which art to save; the article discusses the Taliban’s attempt to destroy pre-Islamic Afghanistan art).

HT: Hopkins
(picture)