Warning: Use of undefined constant add_shortcode - assumed 'add_shortcode' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/mat8iou/public_html/elginism/wp-content/plugins/stray-quotes/stray_quotes.php on line 615
James Cuno, preservation versus access & cultural identity

February 1, 2008

James Cuno, preservation versus access & cultural identity

Posted at 1:52 pm in Similar cases

James Cuno, director of the Art Institute of Chicago, talks about some of the issues facing museums today, in particular, those of restitution issues & cultural identity.

From:
Time Magazine Blogs

January 27, 2008 1:47
A Talk With: James Cuno
Posted by Richard Lacayo

James Cuno, director of the Art Institute of Chicago, was in New York last week. He arrived with the architect Renzo Piano for a press luncheon about the new wing for modern art that Piano has designed for the Institute. Before lunch I sat down with him to talk about a different topic, antiquities.

The Art Institute is not a big collector in that area and it hasn’t been among the collections targeted by Francesco Rutelli, the Italian culture minister who’s been demanding, and getting, so many things back from American museums. But Jim is a well respected spokesman for the concerns of the museum world generally. (And yeah, yeah, he’s on everybody’s short list of possible candidates to succeed Philippe de Montebello as director of the Met in New York.) In May he’ll also be publishing a new book, Who Owns Antiquity?, which I’ve been reading lately with interest.

As I usually do I’ll post this in parts over several days.

LACAYO: Museums that collect antiquities from anywhere in the world — the Mediterranean, the Middle East, Asia, Africa — are finding it harder to do that now because of the cultural property laws adopted by so many source nations. You’d like to see some changes in that area.

CUNO: The goal that we all have is twofold: preservation and access. It’s clear to me that the current regime of retentionist cultural property laws — those that seek to retain antiquities within the jurisdiction of a modern state in which they are found, or are alleged to have been found — isn’t working. Over the last 60 years there has been an ever increasing number of nations legislating and executing these laws. And over the course of time there has been exponential increase in the looting of archeological sites.

So if the intention is to protect archeological sites and the knowledge they contain, the laws have failed. What they are doing is driving this material underground into black markets, to foreign countries that don’t respect the laws of the source nation. So clearly we have to re-examine those laws.

But the intention of those laws isn’t to protect archeological sites. Their intention is to claim those properties as critical to the identify of the modern nation, on the one hand, and also to preserve those materials for the cultural tourism they attract. They are also a way to establish stature, a credibility in the world when one can’t do it in other ways, by means of economic power or military authority or whatever.

LACAYO: So in your view what needs to be done?

CUNO: In the first half of the 20th century, before most of these laws were put into place, we had a different regime, the system of partage. Foreign archeologists excavated — scientifically — and shared the finds with the local authorities and the host institutions. The archeological museums of the great universities of the world — in the U.S. that would be the University of Chicago, Pennsylvania, Yale and Harvard — all were built through this system of partage. As were the local museums in Baghdad, Kabul and Cairo. Objects were excavated, preserved and shared.

Now we have a system by which it’s virtually impossible to share archeological finds. Things have to be retained locally. Clearly that doesn’t make any sense. If you were an insurer you wouldn’t concentrate risk, you’d distribute risk. We know what happened in Baghdad, in Kabul. We know what happened in Berlin in the Second World War. We don’t want all of these cultural assets that are clearly humanity’s common legacy, not the legacy of a modern nation state, all in one place.

Anthony Appiah said something wonderful in his book Cosmopolitanism. He says, Look we don’t know who made these Nok sculptures, these ancient sculptures that are found today in Nigeria. We don’t know if they were made for royalty or for one’s ancestors or on speculation. But what we know for sure is that they weren’t made for Nigeria. Because at the time there was no Nigeria.

LACAYO: But what would be the incentive for source nations to go back to partage? After the success that Rutelli has enjoyed, there’s no political advantage for the officials of some country to say: “Hey, let’s give half of our stuff to foreign museums.”

CUNO: If these things are important to the cultural identity of Italians, well, Italians don’t only live in Italy. Italians live in New York City They live all around the world. If they’re important to Italians in Italy they’re important to Italians everywhere.

Secondly, if [these objects] are indeed crucial to the identity of Italy, then as cultural diplomacy you would want that material everywhere. You would want Italy to be represented everywhere as an important modern nation by virtue of its claimed legacy from ancient Rome. You would want that appreciated in Beijing, in Shanghai, in Mexico City.

The third thing is, there needs to be some high road recognition that these things are not only the property of Italians. They’re really the shared legacy of humanity. These things that were made within the Roman Empire were made in a region far greater than modern day Italy but in a region a polity that was in contact with the rest of the known world at the time. Culture is this dynamic activity of making things out of contact with strange things and new things. There’s no culture of consequence that was made in isolation.

LACAYO: Those might all be good arguments in favor of partage, but not incentives for source nations to adopt the practice. Are there concrete penalties or inducements to bring leverage on source nations to return to partage?

CUNO: One way has to do with archeological digs. Especially in Iraq and Egypt and parts of Afghanistan and Central Asia — those digs are done mostly by European and North American archeologists. Those nations depend on the scientific expertise and the financial resources of North American and European archeologists and sponsoring institutions, the universities and museums. If those archeologists were to say we’re going to withdraw our expertise until you say you will reestablish partage — it seems to me they would respond to that. We could use our expertise and resources to force the issue.

From:
Time Magazine Blogs

January 28, 2008 11:02
More Talk: With James Cuno
Posted by Richard Lacayo

Let’s wrap up that conversation with Jim Cuno, the director of the Art Institute of Chicago, who’s forthcoming book is Who Owns Antiquities? In the part I posted yesterday Cuno explained that he’d like to see a return to the system of partage, which was once the rule for archeological digs. Under that system, source nations — meaning nations where the digs occur, which could be Turkey, Egypt, Mexico, etc. — compensate the universities and museums that finance and provide most of the archeologists — and these are typically North American and European institutions — by sharing with those institutions what’s found at the digs. Presently the source nations usually keep everything.

LACAYO: The governments of source countries have been very aggressive lately in pursuing their claims to antiquities. Italy is the obvious example but it’s just one. Is there more that the U.S. government could be doing to advance the interests of U.S. museums, for instance by encouraging source nations to consider a return to partage? The feeling among a lot of museum people is that because the State Department wants the cooperation of source nations on high priority concerns like drug trafficking, terrorism, copyright protection, etc, it routinely grants their requests for the U.S. to impose import bans on antiquities from their territories.

CUNO: We know that these decisions are politically driven. The response of the U.S. to requests from Italy is actually made at the level of the White House, not at the level of the cultural bureaucracy but the level of the State Department. Our relationship with Italy has been important going back to the Second World War, with access to the Mediterranean, to the Middle East. They were even more precious during the Cold War and the current war with Iraq under Berlusconi. Of course we’re going to respond to all this.

But I can imagine the government saying: “Look, it’s in the interests of the citizens of the United States and it’s our job as the government of the United States to protect the rights [of American museums and universties] to have access to that material. So we’re not going to renew your request for [an import ban] for the third time [Lacayo: Italy has such a request pending] unless you make these materials available. And not just to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston or the Getty museum where you have a quid pro quo. [Lacayo: What Cuno means is that as part of their agreement to return disputed antiquities, Italy promised these particular museums the long term loan of other objects.] But also to the Nelson-Atkins Museum in Kansas City, the Johnson in Omaha Nebraska, the Seattle Art Museum, to Detroit — all throughout this nation. The government holds that card, which is the authority they have to agree to the requests to impose import bans.

LACAYO: Could the universities that sponsor the digs do more?

CUNO: What if the University of Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania said [to source countries] we are not going to assist with excavations unless you restore this system, by which we both benefited, of partage. The irony is that many of the curators at these university museums are among the most vocal in their support of these cultural property laws. But they could not now teach at, say, the University of Chicago, if there had not once been a system of partage, because they are teaching with materials that were excavated and brought over when there was partage.

LACAYO: What about the free market in antiquities? Many archeologists argue that any market in antiquities encourages looting, because the looters can sell their stolen goods to unscrupulous middle men, and the middle men know they can re-sell them to dealers and museums. Can there be a market in antiquities? Should there be one?

CUNO: More is lost to national disaster, economic development and war than is lost to the art market. Museums are a small part of this problem. if it’s going to be stopped it can’t be stopped by museums not acquiring.

Looting is a not a casual past time. It’s desperate people in desperate circumstances who loot. They risk their lives. Museums recognize that there is a relationship between the marketplace and looting, and we want to distance ourselves from it as much as we can and still preserve these things that will otherwise be lost. How do you behave responsibly in this realm? There has to be a package of responses. One part of the package is partage. And another part has to do with allowing museums to reasonably acquire.

In related news, The Art Newspaper has this about the big trial about to begin in Italy of 70 accused “tomb raiders”.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Possibly related articles

1 Comment »

  1. DR.KWAME OPOKU said,

    02.24.08 at 3:31 pm

    A BLANK CHEQUE TO PLUNDER NOK TERRA COTTA?

    In his interview of January 27, 2008 with Richard Lacayo, “A Talk With: James Cuno” http://www.elginism.com/20080201/976/, Cuno, Director of the Art Institute of Chicago, makes many controversial statements but I will like to comment only on a few.

    “Anthony Appiah said something wonderful in his book Cosmopolitanism. He says, Look we don’t know who made these Nok sculptures, these ancient sculptures that are found today in Nigeria. We don’t know if they were made for royalty or for one’s ancestors or on speculation. But what we know for sure is that they weren’t made for Nigeria. Because at the time there was no Nigeria.”

    Does Cuno realize the implications of such a statement if it were to be taken seriously? Is he suggesting that the modern State of Nigeria has no right to the
    archaeological findings on its own territory? Who then has rights over the Nok findings in Nigeria? Is he aware that there were Nigerians before the present State of Nigeria was born at Independence in 1960? Or does he have another date of birth in mind?
    If the date of birth of present modern States were to be related to acquisition of rights to archaeological findings, how many States would have any rights since most of these findings relate to objects created thousands of years ago?
    What will happen to control over activities in the areas where excavations take place? Who will keep order in such areas or will it be a free for all, leaving it to the strong to grab whatever they can? One can imagine easily what chaos will ensue if modern governments did not assert their authority and control over archaeological excavations. Is Cuno pleading for anarchical excavations?
    Is Cuno aware that under the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, a State such as Nigeria has the duty “ to protect the cultural property existing within its territory against the dangers of theft,clandestine excavation,and illicit export?” Moreover, Article 4 of this Covention provides that : “The States Parties to this Convention recognize that for the purpose of the Convention property which belongs to the following categories forms part of the cultural heritage of each State:
    a. Cultural property created by the individual or collective genius of nationals of the State concerned, and cultural property of importance to the State concerned created within the territory of that State by foreign nationals or stateless persons resident within such territory;
    b. cultural property found within the national territory;
    c. cultural property acquired by archaeological, ethnological or natural science missions, with the consent of the competent authorities of the country of origin of such property;
    d. cultural property which has been the subject of a freely agreed exchange;
    e. cultural property received as a gift or purchased legally with the consent of the competent authorities of the country of origin of such property.”
    In view of the provisions of Article 4 how can anybody dare to suggest that archaeological findings made in Nigeria do not belong to the modern State of Nigeria?
    Cuno states that if certain objects are crucial to the identity of Italy, then those objects should be everywhere: “… if [these objects] are indeed crucial to the identity of Italy, then as cultural diplomacy you would want that material everywhere. You would want Italy to be represented everywhere as an important modern nation by virtue of its claimed legacy from ancient Rome. You would want that appreciated in Beijing, in Shanghai, in Mexico City.”
    How does this argument square with the usual argument presented by the supporters of the so-called universal museums that we must have these cultural objects in one place, preferably in London, Paris or New York? Cuno goes so far as to say that Italians live not only in Italy but also in New York and around the world and therefore Italian cultural objects should be made available to them too. Is there no limit to these absurd arguments presented by respected museum directors? Nobody ever suggested that Britain, France or the USA should make their cultural objects available everywhere in the world where their citizens live.

    Cuno exceeds himself in his last statement in the interview with Richard Lacy: “Looting is a not a casual past time. It’s desperate people in desperate circumstances who loot. They risk their lives. Museums recognize that there is a relationship between the marketplace and looting, and we want to distance ourselves from it as much as we can and still preserve these things that will otherwise be lost. How do you behave responsibly in this realm? There has to be a package of responses. One part of the package is partage. And another part has to do with allowing museums to reasonably acquire.”
    Is this a song of praise for looters? It sounds almost like a unionist urging higher wages for workers who risk their lives in the mines. When are the western museum directors going to stop issuing such statements which do not contribute to solving the issue of restitution but only increase anger and disputes?

    Kwame Opoku.

    23 February 2008.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URL

Leave a Comment

We want to hear your views. Be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive. Remember this is for feedback and constructive discussion!
Comments may be edited or removed if they do not meet these guidelines. Repeat offenders will be blocked from posting further comments. Any comment deemed libellous by Elginism's editors will be removed.
The commenting system uses some automatic spam detection and occasionally comments do not appear instantly - please do not repost comments if they do not show up straight away