I have such conflicted feelings about museums, I fully support and agree that all stolen artifacts and works of art such be return if requested by people and country of origin. They also had that whole Chinese translation fuckery so fuck that, there is so much much corruption and it just fuels the worst aspects of academia and privilege, like all these institutions.
But I also am passionate about the importance of preservation and archival work for research done by museums.
If the countries that own the artifacts displayed and researched them, that would be better (although I'm sure governments would paint things in a flattering light to them, but having The British loot countries isn't better)
This is why I recommend everyone see The Temple of Dendur at the Met. While I’m sure there are LOADS of stolen artifacts there, the temple is one we can say was not stolen!
I fully agree! Though i'm thinking of all the things that aren't on display and are kept in the basements and storage, from painting to documents that aren't digitized. For the larger institutions such as The British Museum, only a small fraction less than 1%, of their permanent collection is on display for public viewing. If I remember correctly the Tate has around 20% out for display, with is considered high when you compare it to the Louvre or MOMA.
I agree, I think the Art Institute only has something like 15% of their collection out at any given time, and the Field Museum has returned sacred items to the groups they were originally taken from, and if it was something from their perm exhibitions they wleave that section empty with a placcard explaining that it was returned, and why.
That's great to hear! I was in Chicago last August and didn't have the chance to visit on my short trip, but I love getting notifications like this in my google alerts lol.
Objects are one thing (not saying it's ok either) but refusing to return the human remains of First Nations people from all over the world like a lot of museums are still doing is beyond abhorrent
And for objects that were stolen through the violence of colonisation, I would have thought that how they are preserved or otherwise should be decided by the people they were stolen from. Doesn't anything else just continue to contribute to the perpetuation of colonisation today?
I just read an article the other day about the Smithsonian's collection of human brains of people of various races throughout the world, collected solely because some anthropologist felt like you could see a difference of race in the brain (you can't of course) and so he collected brains from every country in the world. fucking ghastly, tbh.
Yes and then still try to justify not returning them with 'science'. Saying these people's bodies have some scientific 'value' that the museums are yet to gain after having over a century to study them? And they think that value is more important than someone's personal, cultural, historical, spiritual significance to their families or any rights they should have as human beings (living or not)? Nah
You're right, that on me I should have been more clear in the objects I was expressing concern over (It's been a long day and my brain is fried). I agree, especially when so many are doing the bare minimum and putting up a plaque with land acknowledgment of First Nations people. It makes me happy when I see empty cases and notes of items being returned
( ... )
Sorry, I didn't think you were supporting any refusal to return human remains, I guess I made the connection because I often see people debating artefacts and who they belong to as if it's separate to the human aspect when these museums have so much to be held accountable for.
I can see why as someone working in this area you would feel conflicted and it seems we agree that people should decide what happens to what was taken from them. That could even include choosing to continue to have certain artefacts preserved in museums. But some things were never made to be preserved by the people who made them. Who decided certain things should be preserved and for whose benefit are they being preserved? I just don't think museums should get to claim something's preservation is more important than its meaning to the people it came from.
For context, I'm a white Australian so my thoughts on this are influenced by that perspective, and I'm fully aware I am part of the problem occupying a position of privilege in this country
I appreciate your comments and this interaction as well. It's always good to hear other perspectives and keep questioning my own and you've given me plenty more to think about, thank you. I'll definitely read up on MOVE as well, there's a lot I need to learn (and always plenty I need to unlearn).
I'm glad there are people like you involved in these fields seeking out those academics pushing the limited boundaries of what educational institutions define as 'reliable sources'. I hope your studies aren't too stressful, relatively ofc I know study is always stressful 🥲
It's great to hear your thoughts, I hope we'll get to have more conversations in future
I agree with you, plus I'd like to add that war does a doozy on museums/art in general. There's already items that were formerly in Ukrainian museums already on the Black market, and people are buying. The same thing happened during the Iraq War; all the museums got raided and so much was lost. :(
But I also am passionate about the importance of preservation and archival work for research done by museums.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
And for objects that were stolen through the violence of colonisation, I would have thought that how they are preserved or otherwise should be decided by the people they were stolen from. Doesn't anything else just continue to contribute to the perpetuation of colonisation today?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I can see why as someone working in this area you would feel conflicted and it seems we agree that people should decide what happens to what was taken from them. That could even include choosing to continue to have certain artefacts preserved in museums. But some things were never made to be preserved by the people who made them. Who decided certain things should be preserved and for whose benefit are they being preserved? I just don't think museums should get to claim something's preservation is more important than its meaning to the people it came from.
For context, I'm a white Australian so my thoughts on this are influenced by that perspective, and I'm fully aware I am part of the problem occupying a position of privilege in this country
Reply
Reply
I'm glad there are people like you involved in these fields seeking out those academics pushing the limited boundaries of what educational institutions define as 'reliable sources'. I hope your studies aren't too stressful, relatively ofc I know study is always stressful 🥲
It's great to hear your thoughts, I hope we'll get to have more conversations in future
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment