8 internautes sur 9 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
- Publié sur Amazon.com
(A version of this review first appeared in the August/September 2008 issue of First Things.)
"Hey hey, ho ho. Western culture's got to go!" So went the chants on the campus of Stanford University in 1988, criticizing the classical canon. Well, it's going -- literally. Antiquities of questionable provenance held by many museums are being "repatriated" to their source nations, sometimes as the result of a mere threat. When a claim is made, should museums comply? "The world is divided on this question," explains James Cuno, with "museums, private collectors and art dealers" on one side, and "archaeologists, academics, and source nation cultural ministers" on the other. Cuno defends the museum side of the issue, and he is well suited to make the case. Cuno, once director of the Harvard University Art Museum, is currently director of the Art Institute of Chicago.
The hero of Cuno's book is the Enlightenment-inspired "encyclopedic museum," such as the Louvre or the British Museum. The villain is nationalism, which is fortified by recent laws that keep archaeological discoveries within national borders or demand their return. These laws, says Cuno, are an unenforceable "bouillabaisse of good intentions and bureaucratic ambitions," and their "trajectory of retention is tightening, from protection to prevention to return." Cuno's alternative is the legal scholar John Merryman's triad of knowledge, preservation, and access. Museums that best meet such benchmarks should get the goods.
The book is packed with informative tangents but will do little to mollify those who suspect Western museums of purchasing or retaining illegally exported antiquities. Because UNESCO resolutions have not prevented looting, Cuno calls them a "failed regime." We could say the same of "Thou shalt not steal." Cuno laments violent, divided humanity, and he promises that museums "serve as a force for understanding, tolerance, and the dissolution of ignorance and superstition about the world." Museums are indeed wonderful, but while there are no easy answers to the antiquities question, there may be more compelling explanations for human imperfection than the fact that not enough people spend afternoons at the Met.
27 internautes sur 37 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
- Publié sur Amazon.com
Anyone who has ever been enthralled visiting one of the world's great archeological museums would benefit from James Cuno's book. So would archaeologists, museum directors, curators, antiquities dealers...and journalists who have signed on to the out-of-control drumbeat demonizing museums and collectors. Source country bureaucrats and power-wielders should read it as well, but they probably will not. Cuno's is a refreshing, insightful and intelligent counterpoint to mainstream misinformed denigration of the world's great archaeological museums. It convincingly argues that nationalistic retention laws for antiquities neither preserve sites nor objects, nor do they benefit the larger interests of civilization and mankind. There is probably more here than the non-specialist is interested in, but the beginning and end of the book are more than enlightening, and the reader can go back to middle chapters for background and revealing histories of the modern nations of Turkey, China and Italy. This book is an eloquent plea to save the inspiring fragments of mankind's long history which belong to us all. Cuno believes using them for nationalistic agendas is not the way.
3 internautes sur 4 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
A Certain Bibliophile
- Publié sur Amazon.com
While still conspicuously ignorant of the subjects, museum acquisitions, museology in general, and the debates concerning (re)appropriation of "culturally significant objects" all fascinate me. James Cuno manages to cover all these bases in this book whose major question is: Do modern states have the right to demand the return of objects that may be deemed to have cultural, aesthetic, or national value? And if they do, what reasons validate this demand?
Cuno's short answer is that states don't have this right at all. Instead, he sees the rise of these cultural reappropriation laws as a way of shoring up nationalist pretentions. His argument seems strong. Two of his chapters, "The Turkish Question" and "The Chinese Question," examine this assertion in detail. For example, when the Ba'athists took control in Iraq in 1968, they adopted strict laws of cultural appropriation in concert with their virulently nationalist rhetoric. "Their intention was to create a `national-territorial consciousness resting upon the particular history of Iraq and, equally significantly, of what the regime, or a powerful circle within it, presented as the history of the Iraqi people.' Central to this effort was an official drive to foster archaeology as a way of making people aware and proud of `their ancient past,' including that of the pre-Islamic era. At the same time, the Party encouraged local folklore for the purpose of inspiring communities with a sense of internal Iraqi unity, and emphasizing Iraq's uniqueness among the nations of the world at large" (p. 58-59). In other words, at least on the level of political propaganda, the purpose of these new laws was not to maintain and preserve ancient artifacts, but rather a proxy for a relatively new country to build a sense of cultural and national identity.
Much the same thing happened to the young Turkey while trying to survive the birth pangs of early Ataturkism and subsequent westernization. "The emergence and the development of archaeology in Turkey took place under constraints that are deeply rooted in history. Confrontation between the traditional Islamic framework and the Western model, the endeavor to survive as a non-Arabic nation in the Middle East while the empire was disintegrating, the hostile and occasionally humiliating attitude of Europeans, and growing nationalism have all been consequential in this development ... The pace that archaeology took in Turkey is much more related to the ideology of the modern Republic than to the existing archaeological potential of the country" (p. 83, a direct quote from Mehmet Ozdogan's article "Ideology and Archaeology in Turkey"). In a similar way, the Elgin Marbles served as political symbols critical to the identity and "national spirit" of the modern nation-state of Greece, not just as archaeological artifacts.
The claim to national identity is also a common one, and one that Cuno rejects with equal fervor. We are so used to the argument that this object or that belongs here or there because of the important part it plays in making a people who they are. However, these objects are often so removed in historical time that the number of things these artists shared with the supporters of cultural appropriation shared is vanishingly small. Look at contemporary Egyptians. They share neither a common language, a body of customs, a religion, or law with ancient Egyptians, yet we are still urged to believe that one is an integral part of the identity of the other - presumably because of geographical proximity. That dynamic thing we call culture has worked over dozens of centuries to produce these widely divergent changes. The claims of contemporary Egyptians on the cultural artifacts of ancient Egypt seem tenuous at best. The ever-presence of boundary-crossing and the impermanence of cartography both speak to the capriciousness that is "cultural identity."
Cuno argues for what he calls "partage," the provision of archaeological and historical expertise in return for the partitioning of important discovered objects. One of the only other alternatives would be to potentially let these objects onto the black market, where they would certainly lack the curatorial and historical expertise they would be afforded in a museum.
While Cuno effectively cottons on to an important lesson of the last few centuries - that the modern nation-state will stop at nothing to traduce any obstacle that gets in the way of imparting its influence - he does go out of his way to paint many of these states as heterogeneous and uniform in their power, which is misleading at best. Not all nascent nations practiced nationalism, either on an ideological or pragmatic level, with equal vim and vigor.
As convincing as Cuno's arguments were, I often found myself reversing the cultural tables and asking myself what I would do if, for whatever counterfactual historical reason, an original copy of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution had found its way into the halls of the Kremlin or the Forbidden City. Could Americans who argue against cultural reappropriation laws have the intellectual courage to say, with a straight face, that it doesn't matter that these objects are not permanently housed in the United States? Then again, we're much closer in historical time - in language, heritage, culture, and mores - to the people that created this country than the contemporary Chinese are to Shang-era potters or the contemporary Greeks are to those brilliant artisans who created the Elgin Marbles, which may further complicate an already intricate argument.
Whatever your opinion on the issues, provided you had one prior to exposure to this book, it will make you re-think how art, identity, cultural appropriation, and museum-building are all intimately connected. It does a wonderful job at raising intelligent questions about how these concepts are linked.
2 internautes sur 3 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
- Publié sur Amazon.com
Should an imperial Roman artifact made and recovered in Libya belong to the government of Italy? Should a Muslim Uighur antiquity originating in Urumqi before Chinese rule belong to the government of China? The director of Chicago's Art Institute argues antiquities should belong not to states, as current laws and statutes have it, but rather to the people of the world.
The growth of nationalism since World War II has been accompanied by a proliferation of "nationalist, retentionist cultural property laws," ostensibly to curb looting and theft of archaeological artworks but actually to support state ideologies. Gone are the days of partage, when governments shared archeological discoveries with foreign museums and universities that found them.
Many countries demand the return of antiquities that originated within their borders. Many simultaneously restrict exports of ancient artworks. These policies do not in fact reduce looting or the sale of undocumented artifacts, Cuno maintains; instead they make it very difficult for museums around the world to acquire the kinds of artworks they traditionally sought.
He makes an impassioned defense of "encyclopedic museums" - like the British Museum, the Louvre and the Met. The best museums, he says, should compare and contrast many different cultures, to give visitors a sense of what our world is really like and how peoples have developed, interacted and benefited each other. To support retentionist policies encourages isolation of nations and peoples, and may even foster conflict. Cuno studies Turkey, once heart of the Ottoman Empire and the earlier Byzantine Greek Empire, among its many incarnations.
He notes the Kurds of Turkey have no legal claim to their own antiquities, because ancient art there is the property of the state. He examines China, whose borders have changed many times throughout history, and whose antiquity claims span millennia and dozens of indigenous cultures. He criticizes western archeologists who side with retentionist governments to obtain access to sites.
Cuno is honest about his views, but he presents both sides of each issue with respect and admirable balance.
[A version of this review appeared in Saudi Aramco World, Sep/Oct 2009.]
- Publié sur Amazon.com
This is a favorite topic of mine. We'll see if I learn anything new.