Comments on: Caring about the Parthenon Sculptures for the right reasons http://www.elginism.com/20100220/2746/ Elgin Marbles (Parthenon Marbles or Sculptures) Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:10:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: DR.KWAME OPOKU http://www.elginism.com/20100220/2746/comment-page-1/#comment-5656 DR.KWAME OPOKU Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:43:52 +0000 http://www.elginism.com/?p=2746#comment-5656 I am a bit surprised at the reasoning behind this argument: “Yet at this stage in history the question of ownership is of peripheral importance. If it turned out that the marble used to make the sculptures had been stolen from Persian quarries, would Samaras agree that the whole thing should be shipped to Iran? To put the question of ownership first is to let nationalistic sentiment obstruct the only path that makes aesthetic sense.” How can anybody dismiss as “peripheral” a dispute between two parties that has gone on for so long? What is “peripheral” is a question of perspective. To suggest that the dispute regarding the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles is peripheral involves a value judgment which anyone may make but can we substitute our value judgment for that of the parties involved who are at least in agreement that the question of ownership is important? To suggest that the origin of the materials used in building the Parthenon Marbles would be determinative of the question of ownership is to introduce an element which will not help anyone in a dispute that one has, a priori determined to be “peripheral”. It also shows lack of familiarity with settlement of questions of ownership. The origin of materials used in creating a work of art or any object in dispute of ownership may not even be in itself the subject of contestation. We do not solve a dispute by substitution of a new issue which has not been raised by the parties. If this would work, we could solve existing disputes by declaring them “peripheral” and introducing other issues the parties may not have considered. Consider the number of objects in Europe made of materials from Africa. Could one suggest that they all belong to Africa even if the materials were acquired through legal purchase from the owners? This reminds one of MacGregor’s argument that materials used in creating the Benin Bronzes came from Europe and that this justifies the retention of the looted artefacts by the British Museum As for the idea that demands for the return of a cultural object are made for “nationalistic sentiment”, we should not be misled by the museum directors. What about the retention of the object? Is that also motivated by “nationalist sentiment? Are the British Museum and its supporters in this matter any less nationalistic than the Greeks? Many of us believe that objects are better understood in their original context and support the United Nations and UNESCO in their efforts to assist in restitution of cultural objects that have been acquired under dubious circumstances. Are we all then nationalists, along with the archaeologists and others who take this view? What does it mean to say that “What has been worryingly clear for some time is that neither side in this debate cares about the sculptures for the right reasons?” What are the “right reasons”? Are those the “aesthetic” ones? Those reasons which have been developed hundred years after the objects have been taken from their original context and the holders have had enough time to find post facto justifications that obscure or modify the history of the acquisition and concentrate on the purely contemplation of the objects? Those holding the disputed objects then argue that the context or the location is no longer relevant. MacGregor has argued recently that the location of the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles was never an issue or is an issue of the past, what mattered now, he stated, was how the British and the Greeks can enable the Africans and Chinese to view the Parthenon Marbles! Do we need to say anything more on this way of arguing? Kwame Opoku. I am a bit surprised at the reasoning behind this argument:
“Yet at this stage in history the question of ownership is of peripheral importance. If it turned out that the marble used to make the sculptures had been stolen from Persian quarries, would Samaras agree that the whole thing should be shipped to Iran? To put the question of ownership first is to let nationalistic sentiment obstruct the only path that makes aesthetic sense.”
How can anybody dismiss as “peripheral” a dispute between two parties that has gone on for so long? What is “peripheral” is a question of perspective. To suggest that the dispute regarding the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles is peripheral involves a value judgment which anyone may make but can we substitute our value judgment for that of the parties involved who are at least in agreement that the question of ownership is important?

To suggest that the origin of the materials used in building the Parthenon Marbles would be determinative of the question of ownership is to introduce an element which will not help anyone in a dispute that one has, a priori determined to be “peripheral”. It also shows lack of familiarity with settlement of questions of ownership. The origin of materials used in creating a work of art or any object in dispute of ownership may not even be in itself the subject of contestation. We do not solve a dispute by substitution of a new issue which has not been raised by the parties. If this would work, we could solve existing disputes by declaring them “peripheral” and introducing other issues the parties may not have considered.

Consider the number of objects in Europe made of materials from Africa. Could one suggest that they all belong to Africa even if the materials were acquired through legal purchase from the owners? This reminds one of MacGregor’s argument that materials used in creating the Benin Bronzes came from Europe and that this justifies the retention of the looted artefacts by the British Museum

As for the idea that demands for the return of a cultural object are made for “nationalistic sentiment”, we should not be misled by the museum directors.
What about the retention of the object? Is that also motivated by “nationalist sentiment? Are the British Museum and its supporters in this matter any less nationalistic than the Greeks? Many of us believe that objects are better understood in their original context and support the United Nations and UNESCO in their efforts to assist in restitution of cultural objects that have been acquired under dubious circumstances. Are we all then nationalists, along with the archaeologists and others who take this view?

What does it mean to say that “What has been worryingly clear for some time is that neither side in this debate cares about the sculptures for the right reasons?”
What are the “right reasons”? Are those the “aesthetic” ones? Those reasons which have been developed hundred years after the objects have been taken from their original context and the holders have had enough time to find post facto justifications that obscure or modify the history of the acquisition and concentrate on the purely contemplation of the objects? Those holding the disputed objects then argue that the context or the location is no longer relevant. MacGregor has argued recently that the location of the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles was never an issue or is an issue of the past, what mattered now, he stated, was how the British and the Greeks can enable the Africans and Chinese to view the Parthenon Marbles! Do we need to say anything more on this way of arguing?

Kwame Opoku.

]]>