June 23, 2009
Greece’s tactics on the Elgin Marbles
Whilst many have praised the New Acropolis Museum, others feel that Greece is making the wrong approach with their attempts to secure the return of the Parthenon Sculptures from the British Museum.
I have to say that I don’ particularly agree with the basis of this article – the author suggests that the British Museum has moved on the issue whereas Greece hasn’t, but all indications that I have seen have suggested the opposite. Greece has built the New Acropolis Museum, removing one of the old arguments, whilst under the previous PASOK government, statements were made regarding what the Greek offer would be to the British Museum in exchange for the Marbles. Throughout this process, the British Museum has remained resolutely silent on the issue, refusing to engage in proper debate, instead only raising their head from the sand for long enough to state that despite these new initiatives their position on the Marbles remains unchanged. Furthermore, it has to be acknowledged that the whole universal museum argument is a sham. It was never mentioned anywhere until the start of this decade – coincidentally this tied in with dropping any arguments about the Greeks having no museum in which to put the marbles if they were returned – quite possibly this only appeared because they had to have a new argument for their position to remain remotely tenable once the New Acropolis Museum was built.
From:
Bloomberg News
Greeks Should Stop Wasting Energy Moaning About Elgin Marbles
Commentary by Martin GayfordJune 23 (Bloomberg) — Far be it from me to advise Greek ministers. Nevertheless, they are getting their tactics wrong over the interminable saga of the Elgin Marbles.
The question of the sculptures, around 50 percent of which were removed from the Parthenon in the early 19th century by Lord Elgin and are now in the British Museum, has been revived by the opening of the new Acropolis Museum in Athens last weekend. Once more the Greeks are calling for the carvings to be returned.
Such demands have been made before, interminably. They haven’t been heeded in the past, and are unlikely to be fulfilled in the future either.The only real change in decades is that the British Museum has opened up a negotiating position on the issue. Two years ago, in an interview I conducted for Bloomberg News, the museum’s director, Neil MacGregor, said that in principle any work in the collection might be loaned to another institution, for example, for an exhibition.
He also said, though, that the British Museum could hardly lend anything to a party that refused to acknowledge that the London gallery owned the item in the first place. It’s a neat legal point — a reminder that before he became an art historian, MacGregor practiced law.
Opening Move
It’s also, obviously, an opening offer, one that was repeated recently by a British Museum spokeswoman, Hannah Boulton: Admit that the museum has legal title to the marbles, and then reciprocal loans can be considered.
The Greek response was obdurate.
“The government, as any other Greek government would have done in its place, is obliged to turn down the offer,” Culture Minister Antonis Samaras was quoted as saying by the British Broadcasting Corp. “This is because accepting it would legalize the snatching of the marbles and the monument’s carving-up 207 years ago.”
Well, yes it would. That’s the point. In any dispute such as this something is going to have to give before a resolution can emerge. No argument goes on for this long — it has been simmering for around 200 years now — without both sides having a certain amount of justice in their cause. Let’s grant the Greeks that.
The weak point of their case, though, is that it’s based on old-fashioned nationalism. It implies that the marbles only truly make sense in a Greek context, and fails to acknowledge the role of a world museum, such as the British Museum (or the Metropolitan, the Hermitage and the Louvre).
Global Showcase
Such places aren’t just repositories of colonial loot — though they are that, we may as well admit — they are an opportunity to see human culture on a global basis. At the British Museum, Greek sculpture can be compared and contrasted with Egyptian, Aztec, African and Middle Eastern art in a way it never could in Athens.
That’s why the British Museum is never going to start dismantling its collection and sending it back whence it came. On the other hand, it’s exactly because it sees itself as having such a global role that the museum under MacGregor is open to sharing what it has with other institutions in other places.
If the Greeks were shrewd, they’d make a counteroffer: “OK, we’ll accept that you have title to these things. In exchange, we’d like the frieze for, say, the next five years and we’ll lend something to you in return.” That would put the British Museum on the spot, and real discussions could begin. It’s the only way this ancient archaeological feud will ever be settled. Otherwise, the Greeks are wasting their breath.
(Martin Gayford is chief art critic for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)
- Was an Elgin Marbles loan offer ever made? : June 12, 2009
- Will the Elgin Marbles ever make it Back to Athens? : April 18, 2007
- Could the Elgin Marbles be returned to Greece? : April 21, 2007
- Global role for the British Museum? : May 23, 2007
- British Museum officials to attend New Acropolis Museum opening : June 15, 2009
- Greece offers to set aside ownership claims on Parthenon Marbles : January 6, 2011
- Does Greece claim ownership of the Elgin Marbles? : August 13, 2003
- The Elgin Marbles Loan that never was : June 15, 2009
DR. KWAME OPOKU said,
06.29.09 at 2:29 pm
ADVICE AND PREJUDICE: ATHENS TO STOP MOANING LOSS OF PARTHENON MARBLES?
After reading the article by Martin Gayford, one may be forgiven for thinking that the New Acropolis Museum makes many people rather dizzy. In any case, it seems difficult for many to follow straightforward facts and the logic of the dispute between Great Britain and Greece regarding the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles. Gayford’s article is so misleading that one starts wondering whether the author is aware of what he is presenting.
The title and the introductory paragraph of the article indicate the biased and impertinent slant that runs through the piece:
“Greeks Should Stop Wasting Energy Moaning About Elgin Marbles.”
The Greeks have spent some 130 million dollars to build a magnificent museum to house, among others, the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles and here we have a writer saying they should stop moaning the loss of the Marbles.
Martin Gayford states that it is not his intention to advise Greek ministers but then immediately proceeds to tell them what to do and what not to do:
“Far be it from me to advise Greek ministers. Nevertheless, they are getting their tactics wrong over the interminable saga of the Elgin Marbles.
Such demands have been made before, interminably. They haven’t been heeded in the past, and are unlikely to be fulfilled in the future either.”
Is this not advice? It is at any rate an assessment of the conduct of the Greeks coupled with a pessimistic future prediction.
The writer states that the only change in decades, in what he regards as interminable debate, has been an opening by the British Museum but his own statement shows that there has been no real change in this regard:
“The only real change in decades is that the British Museum has opened up a negotiating position on the issue. Two years ago, in an interview I conducted for Bloomberg News, the museum’s director, Neil MacGregor, said that in principle any work in the collection might be loaned to another institution, for example, for an exhibition.
He also said, though, that the British Museum could hardly lend anything to a party that refused to acknowledge that the London gallery owned the item in the first place. It’s a neat legal point — a reminder that before he became an art historian, MacGregor practiced law”.
A quick reading of the above lines shows clearly that there has been no change or move in the position of the British Museum. To offer to loan to an owner what he is demanding as his own, on condition that he recognizes the legal title of the lender is, with all due respect, not a serious proposition. What have Greece and the United Kingdom been disputing about all these years if not the legal right to those parts of the Parthenon Marbles that are now in the British Museum? One does not need to be a lawyer to know that “acceptance in principle” does not constitute a move in the position of any of the contestants.
The real change which has occurred in this debate over the last decades is the completion of the magnificent New Acropolis Museum which constitutes a devastating blow to the British position; they have argued over the years that the Marbles are better located in the British Museum because of the terrible smog conditions in Athens. With the new ultra modern museum the British can no longer maintain any argument based on the location of the objects. Indeed, the argument can now be turned against the British Museum insofar as the new museum offers better conditions for the contested Marbles than the British Museum.
To suggest that the Greeks are being in someway very difficult or inflexible is the height of hypocrisy:
“The Greek response was obdurate”. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, explains “obdurate” as follows: “(usually disapproving) refusing to change your mind or your actions in any way”. Martin Gayford who denies any intention of seeking to advise the Greek ministers arrogates to himself the right to judge their conduct in a serious national matter which has preoccupied two governments for decades. The Greek Culture Minister gave the correct explanation of the Greek position as reported by Gayford:
“The government, as any other Greek government would have done in its place, is obliged to turn down the offer,” Culture Minister Antonis Samaras was quoted as saying by the British Broadcasting Corp. “This is because accepting it would legalize the snatching of the marbles and the monument’s carving-up 207 years ago.”
Why can the author not reflect a little on the statement from the Greek Minister?
I do not know what experience Gayford has in the resolution of conflicts.
However as someone who seems to have been following international conflicts, he should know that in disputes that have lasted decades, it is not likely that the party that considers itself as the victim will make any major concession before the actual process of dispute settlement starts: “Well, yes it would. That’s the point. In any dispute such as this something is going to have to give before a resolution can emerge.”
Gayford surely knows that the United Nations, UNESCO, and several international conferences, including one in Athens last year have all urged United Kingdom to return the Parthenon Marbles to Athens. Winston Churchill had at one point proposed to return the Marbles to the Greeks. British public opinion polls have always been overwhelmingly in favour of such a return. In view of all this, how can Gayford or the British Museum expect the Greeks to admit before serious negotiations that the British Museum has a legal right to the Marbles?
I do not understand the following statement from Gayford:
“No argument goes on for this long — it has been simmering for around 200 years now — without both sides having a certain amount of justice in their cause. Let’s grant the Greeks that.”
Is he suggesting that the Greek point of view has some credit only because it has been repeated for so long or that both sides deserve some consideration because they have been arguing for so long? He seems to be sitting in judgement over the conduct of only the Greeks even though there are two sides to the dispute.
Gayford sees weakness in the case for the Greeks because, according to him, their claim is based on what he calls “old fashioned nationalism”.
“The weak point of their case, though, is that it’s based on old-fashioned
nationalism”.
What about the case for the British, is it based on new fashion nationalism or what? This tendency of some American and European writes to see only the nationalism of others but not their own has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. (Kwame Opoku, “Can Nationalism be sold as Internationalism via the British Museum? Sanctification of British Spoliations and Loot”, http://www.elginism.com )
Gayford refers to the so-called “universal museum”:”It implies that the marbles only truly make sense in a Greek context, and fails to acknowledge the role of a world museum, such as the British Museum (or the Metropolitan, the Hermitage and the Louvre)”. I do not intend to spend any energy on this discredited concept whose demise has been hastened by the weak arguments of Cuno, Philippe de Montebello and Ian MacGregor (See K. Opoku, “Whose “Universal Museum”? Comments on Cuno’s Whose Culture?” http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org)
In support of his argument based on the so-called universdal museum, Gayford adds:
“Such places aren’t just repositories of colonial loot — though they are that, we may as well admit — they are an opportunity to see human culture on a global basis. At the British Museum, Greek sculpture can be compared and contrasted with Egyptian, Aztec, African and Middle Eastern art in a way it never could in Athens.”
Does Gayford expect anybody to be convinced by this dubious argument which has been made mainly to legitimize colonial plunder and other acquisitions of dubious nature? The looting of cultural objects which has been supported by the so-called universal museums has shown their real nature: insatiable structures for looting and hoarding cultural objects of others. It is time that the world called-off the bluff of MacGregor, Cuno and others in trying to give their museums a veneer of comparative science by arguing that it is only in London, Chicago, Berlin and Paris where many looted/stolen cultural artefacts are found, that one can study the true role of the various cultures in the concert of civilizations. Are the Greeks, Nigerians, Egyptians and Ethiopians who are seeking the return of their looted objects expected to be impressed by this argument? How many of the visitors to these museums are capable of making a comparative study of Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Nigerian sculptures? Can the average visitor, awed by the splendour of Greece, understand at the same time the intricacies of African sculpture and the magnificence of Egyptian art? Even if the average visitor could do in a short visit what scholars spend years in studying that would be no justification for plunder and loot.
Gayford’s conclusion is as week as his introduction:
“If the Greeks were shrewd, they’d make a counteroffer: “OK, we’ll accept that you have title to these things. In exchange, we’d like the frieze for, say, the next five years and we’ll lend something to you in return.” That would put the British Museum on the spot, and real discussions could begin. It’s the only way this ancient archaeological feud will ever be settled. Otherwise, the Greeks are wasting their breath”.
Gayford who did not want to be seen as seeking to advise the Greek Ministers, wonders at the end whether they are shrewd.
Kwame Opoku.