Loot
By Sharon Waxman
9780805086539 367p
Well, based on the subtitle ("The Battle over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World"), we already know what the author has decided. That's handy!
Different rules. Can we put our own values onto something that happened 200 years ago? Example, not perfect- X store was giving out something for free. Now they've stopped, but want all the people who got the free stuff to either return it or pay. Is that fair?
I think some of the works are only famous because of where they are. I've seen little known pieces of art that are just as or more beautiful than their more famous counterparts. It depends on many factors, obviously. But maybe who sees it, who has access to study and write about it, makes a big difference. We study certain works because we are told they're famous. Why are they famous?
Send works back to where they were found? So, back to the cave/tomb/etc? No, they'll be in yet another museum (though one with less visitors apparently). How is that more "authentic"?
Land changes hands. People on a land aren't necessarily the descendants of that culture. Can we in the USA say the Native American art is our culture and that it belongs to us? No, it was made by a culture (Mayan, Incan, etc) that may no longer be around. We can't claim it. Modern Egyptians claim theirs just because... it's famous? Worth something? Hagia Sophia is now a mosque, with its beautiful Christian mosaics covered by white-washed walls (can't have people on the walls, only symbols). Who does that spot belong to? Well, it's now a mosque and I don't know of any Christian group trying to take it back.
Bottom line, the artwork will eventually go back, despite my thoughts on the matter. But they definitely shouldn't go back to a hole-in-the-wall museum that doesn't know how to protect what they have and doesn't know how to promote the works. If no one shows up to see them, why shouldn't they just have copies? Why banish the originals?
9/10
Labels: 09/10, 2011
