|
The New Yorker magazine published an article by Rebecca Mead about the British Museum regarding the theft of gems that were stolen by a curator at the museum and then sold on EBay. These gems, really semi-precious stones carved with intaglios or cameos, were from the Townley collection that had long been stored away and which was largely undocumented in the museum archives. The items were not of extraordinary value, some more interesting than others, but the fact is that they were from the collection and the British Museum and along with the V & A (and probably many more British museums) they are expressly forbidden to deaccession anything for any reason. Hence the BM's collection of over eight million objects is not a small consideration when one realizes that roughly twenty-five percent of the collection is not properly documented. Clearly, there is a lot of work to be done and, as the pay for curators is ridiculously low, temptation is the rule and not the exception--not to impugn the curators, but to point the finger at the Board and management for being so parsimonious.
Enter Ittai Gradel, a Danish dealer, who was the man who identified the items from the museum that were being sold on EBay. Gradel duly warned a curator at the British Museum who sloughed him off and said that nothing was missing and that he was all wrong--a very British response, I might add as the prevailing attitude at the BM is that its people are above reproach and that no one can tell them their business. Well, he was wrong and heads did roll as both that curator and the Director resigned. The articles, relatively insignificant in the history of the decorative arts, have been partially recovered and some are even now on display. This story, however, is only half of the article. The meaty part of the article is about the Parthenon Marbles, no longer referred to as the Elgin marbles, Elgin being the Lord who bought them from the occupying Turks and brought them back from Athens in the early 19th century.
What do the two stories have to do with each other? Essentially, it is about the return of the marbles to Greece and how the British Museum was inching towards some sort of compromise with Greece until the missing gems story broke. That solution, if it was a solution, has been shelved as the rule book that doesn't allow deaccession of any sort, has come roaring back as one good reason for the marbles to stay in London. There is worry that such a precedent might also cause a slew of other objects to be on the block for repatriation, also called restitution. Hence, the Parthenon Marbles are still in their own gallery at the British Museum where their display is a major attraction for the museum. I admit that I visit them and the Assyrian antiquities on a regular basis, at least once a year or so, as they are so very beautiful, dramatic, inspiring and much more.
I am also, however, the President of CINOA, the federation of international dealer organizations from around the world, and I have a very different take on cultural objects than those countries trying to get articles back. To start with, I believe that cultural goods, not unlike the concept of free trade, should be allowed, for the most part, to cross borders freely. Definitions about stolen or looted items would need to be established first and abided to by all nations. The snafu is that many articles circulating in the trade these days are from an era where there was little record keeping--one cannot just assume that all these items were either looted or stolen.. These pieces are in museums and private collections and political opportunists are using the cause of their "repatriation" to play to the nationalist instincts--the emotive side of any electorate--to, at bottom, glorify their nationalism. The issue is, of course, deeper than that--this space allows me only so much latitude in explanation.
As regards the Parthenon Marbles, I believe they would actually lose allure to be put into the new (and quite wonderful) museum at the base of the Acropolis. Why? Because they will mean next to nothing to the millions of tourists that visit that museum. Scholars could possibly enjoy seeing more of the frieze in Athens in order to study the frieze as a whole, but the audience that understands the value of this is infinitesimally small and it is definitely not the Greek nationalists. Greece wants the frieze sculptures back for the political win--perfectly understandable--but as the author and trustee of the British Museum Mary Beard says, the Hellenic experience is the basis for western culture and perhaps part of the frieze should go to New Zealand or Canada as their relevance to those countries, culturally speaking, is enormous. Alas, we don't live in a world where common sense prevails.
|
