The release last week of a Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums signed by the directors of 18 of the most prominent (read: powerful) museums in Europe and the United States came as no surprise – although it was clearly planned as a kind of preemptive strike, mostly on the Greek desire for repatriation of the Parthenon Marbles somewhere around the time of the Athens Olympics in 2004. In the event, to those following (and participating in) the ever increasing battles over the last few years in this truly world war over cultural property and heritage, and their willful and illicit misappropriation, the latest ostentatious circling of the wagons by the self-appointed stewards of “our” cultural patrimony was déjà vu all over again.
It is difficult indeed to calmly read the highfalutin rhetoric in this self-consciously self-important “declaration,” which is in truth nothing more than particularly transparent flimflammery of a kind that would have embarrassed “Professor” Harold Hill. In fact, what is most offensive about this deeply cynical rationalization – and justification – for state-sponsored looting and cultural pillage is that it treats us all like rubes from River City awestruck by its pretentious (and intellectually cheesy) “Think System.”
If you’re scratching your head at the theological (in reality, mystical) formula of the “universal museum,” you’re not alone. You won’t be enlightened by the declaration, however; the (seemingly self-evident) “importance and value” of “universal museums” is never lucidly explained in the text, although there’s a lot of self-validation. (The 18 signatory museums are past masters at prestidigitation, having had centuries of experience in making artworks vanish from the countries in which they were created and magically reappear in their own “universal” but oh-so-specific collections.) But don’t despair; we at greekworks.com think that we’ve finally figured it all out and broken the code: apparently, a “universal museum” is an enterprise headquartered in the West’s most important cultural capitals and then solicitously and selflessly spread throughout the (habitually “underdeveloped”) world – just like colonialism, imperialism, syphilis, and smallpox.
Moreover, as a public service to our readers, greekworks.com has reproduced the declaration below in toto, with our own emendation in brackets, in the hallowed tradition of classical philology:
Declaration on the importance and value of universal museums [Why we’re so important, and you’re not]
The international museum community shares the conviction that illegal traffic in archaeological, artistic, and ethnic objects must be firmly discouraged. [That is certainly wonderful news! Until a few years ago, the mention of the word, “provenance,” had every museum director going for his gun.] We should, however, recognize that objects acquired in earlier times must be viewed in the light of different sensitivities and values, reflective of that earlier era. [Trent Lott couldn’t have phrased it more masterfully. Heck, is it our fault that dime-a-dozen honorary, quasi-honorary, less-than- honorary, and downright disreputable consuls of all sorts packed up all these antiquities at a time when the white man’s burden was all the rage and just handed them to us (for some minor material consideration)?] The objects and monumental works that were installed decades and even centuries ago in museums throughout Europe and America were acquired under conditions that are not comparable with current ones. [Understatement does not begin to describe the intellectual subtlety of this historical précis. Certainly, at a time when African men, women, and children were for sale on the streets of Savannah, what’s a stolen frieze among esthetes?]
Over time, objects so acquired – whether by purchase, gift, or partage [rhymes with hostage and means, “let’s divvy up the loot”] – have become part of the museums that have cared for them, and by extension part of the heritage of the nations which house them. [We at greekworks.com are truly impressed with how, every day in every way, the Greek and Roman collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art has become such an essential part of the daily life of the average New Yorker, from the Grand Concourse to East New York to Douglaston – and, of course, to the Upper East Side. Give it up, Eminem!] Today we are especially sensitive to the subject of a work’s original context [invariably within one of our galleries], but we should not lose sight of the fact that museums too provide a valid and valuable context for objects that were long ago displaced from their original source. [We use the term, “displaced,” because it would be so vulgar of us to say “stolen,” and, besides, it’s just not proper etiquette to accuse people of all kinds of mean and nasty things – and we all know how easy it is to misplace (or “displace”) things. Doesn’t it happen all the time right in your own home? So what if it’s an Egyptian obelisk or the Winged Victory of Samothrace?]
The universal admiration for ancient civilizations would not be so deeply established today were it not for the influence exercised by the artifacts of these cultures, widely available to an international public in major museums. [Won’t you people ever get it: We’ve taken away your cultural and historical legacy for your own good. So the rest of us can admire you from afar!] Indeed, the sculpture of classical Greece, to take but one example, is an excellent illustration of this point and of the importance of public collecting. [You’ve given us your heritage – well, actually, it was “displaced” – and we give you our (eternal) thanks every day!] The centuries-long history of appreciation of Greek art began in antiquity, was renewed in Renaissance Italy, and subsequently spread through the rest of Europe and to the Americas. [We’re all Renaissance men and women now, aren’t we – just like Machiavelli?] Its accession into the collections of public museums throughout the world marked the significance of Greek sculpture for mankind as a whole and its enduring value for the contemporary world. [“Accession” is museumspeak; that’s how we talk in our world. Works of art, entire cultures, the continental histories of peoples and communities and nations are accessioned and “de-accessioned.” You should consider yourselves supremely fortunate that we have accessioned you into our master – oops, sorry, we meant “superlative” – civilization. You don’t want to run the risk of being de-accessioned now, do you?] Moreover, the distinctly Greek aesthetic of these works appears all the more strongly as the result of their being seen and studied in direct proximity to products of other great civilizations. [That’s right! Guatemala, Cambodia, Nigeria, China, Iran, Peru, as well as Egypt, Italy, Turkey: We’ve got them all. You’re in great company! Be happy, don’t worry! We’ll always be there for you, like we’ve always been.]
Calls to repatriate objects that have belonged to museum collections for many years have become an important issue for museums. [We will do anything we have to do to keep every single, solitary scrap, fragment, and chip in our collections.] Although each case has to be judged individually, we should acknowledge that museums serve not just the citizens of one nation but the people of every nation. [We are the world; we run the world. Who do you think you are to tell us what we can and cannot do – or keep?] Museums are agents in the development of culture, whose mission is to foster knowledge by a continuous process of reinterpretation. [Get your cotton-pickin’ mitts off our stuff if you know what’s good for you.] Each object contributes to that process. [Don’t even think about it!]To narrow the focus of museums whose collections are diverse and multifaceted would therefore be a disservice to all visitors. [And as for all those archeologists and anthropologists and art historians and jurists and even human-rights lawyers who are calling for a new international legal regime in cultural preservation and restitution and, even, reparations – well, you know where they can all go!]
Signed by the Directors of: The Art Institute of Chicago; Bavarian State Museum (Alte Pinakothek, Neue Pinakothek); State Museums, Berlin; Cleveland Museum of Art; J. Paul Getty Museum; Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum; Los Angeles County Museum of Art; Louvre Museum; The Metropolitan Museum of Art; The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; The Museum of Modern Art, New York; Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence; Philadelphia Museum of Art; Prado Museum; Rijksmuseum; State Hermitage Museum; Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum; Whitney Museum of American Art [The Usual Group of Suspects]
If only our little parody were not so true. To get serious again, however, the world’s major museums have grown exceedingly anxious about the future of the “contestable” cultural artifacts that constitute a large and very important part of their collections for very good reason: their continuing possession is in fact highly “contestable” – which means legally dubious and increasingly problematic. Although Neil MacGregor, the British Museum’s director, did not sign the declaration, its wording leaves no doubt that it was constructed as a response to the ongoing dispute between the museum and Greece regarding the repatriation of the Parthenon Marbles. It was hardly coincidental, therefore, that Mr. MacGregor praised the announcement as “an unprecedented statement of common value and purpose…by the directors of some of the world’s leading museums and galleries.” In taking a very clear position in favor of the British Museum, the 18 museums are attempting to influence a debate with enormous repercussions for their own future.
If the declaration came as no surprise, however, the response of the Greek minister of culture was pitiable (and dismal), to say the least. As reported by The New York Times on December 13, Greece conceded museums’ rights to keep artifacts obtained in earlier times, with the Parthenon Marbles simply considered to be “exceptional”: According to the minister:
We do not intend to claim other fragments of friezes on display in other museums and which are not linked with programs like the one we have for the Acropolis Museum and the Parthenon....The Parthenon Marbles are part of a standing monument.
The minister thus compromised the campaign to repatriate the Marbles on the grounds of illicit “displacement,” to use the declaration’s own self-justificatory term, and jeopardized and trivialized the efforts of many people around the world, Greek and non-Greek alike, who for years have been painstakingly crafting the case for the Marbles’ return based on overarching legal – and moral – grounds. The argument that the Parthenon Marbles should be restored because they constitute part of a standing monument is irrelevant, since they are going to be placed in a museum, not back on the original monument. Furthermore, to assert that the Marbles should be returned because there is a new museum awaiting them is hardly worthy of response. By the same token, the British Museum should not even consider this issue since the Marbles constitute the centerpiece of its Greek collection and the anchor of much of its educational and cultural programming.
In addition, to accept the museums’ declaration is a slap in the face of – and a cowardly, detestable retreat from international cooperation with – all those countries (Italy, Turkey, Cambodia, Nigeria, Guatemala) trying to repatriate their respective cultural patrimony. This sudden shift of approach looks pathetically like an act of desperation. It is as if the minister (and former professor of constitutional law) is saying, Keep everything you’ve stolen from us over long periods – and, who knows?, maybe you can even take some more – but return the Marbles because we’re building a museum for them! We suspect Mr. MacGregor got a good laugh from the Greek government’s newly “flexible” position.
Perhaps this development should not have surprised anyone in the end. After all, the Greek government has for years legitimized the illicit trade in antiquities by outrageously participating in and raising the prices of cultural artifacts of dubious provenance in auctions of ancient art. (There was a Greek consul-general in New York a few years back who was actually proud of doing so.) The ministry’s recent statement falls within the mindless framework of such an approach.
The issue of the Parthenon Marbles’ repatriation, as well as that of any cultural artifact acquired before patrimony laws were implemented by many countries and virtually all major international cultural and educational organizations, is an issue – and can only be argued in terms – of cultural appropriation. The 18 museums’ bogus declaration of universal ownership of the world’s cultural heritage – because that’s what it amounts to – betrays their ever-increasing fear for the future of their collections, as countries (and communities and societies) become braver, and undaunted, in defending their cultural rights.
There is, of course, an easy – and civilized – answer to this vexing issue: Museums should offer to return any object in their collections under dubious provenance and let individual nations decide which artifacts they actually want. Countries rich in archeological culture recognize the importance of all museums, and not just the 18 that signed their ex cathedra proclamation, in promoting it. Museums will be shocked ultimately to discover how few items will actually have to be given back once a decent effort is made to prove to the rest of the world that the notion of a “universal museum” is not actually identical with that of a looter’s cache.