Repatriation of works of art refers to the return of works of art or cultural objects to their country of origin or to their former owners. These items were forcibly taken from their original owners or creators in their countries of origin as a result of war, colonialism, or imperialism. Repatriation is a hotly debated issue that is ongoing and its fire has little hope of being completely extinguished. Giants and staunch academics and people in authority such as art curators, art critics, art historians, art professors, politicians and other well-intentioned personalities have expressed their views on this controversial issue of the return of creative products to their places. originally.
The theme of the repatriation of art and the conflicts in which it is involved is deep and extensive. Some argue in favor of the repatriation of works of art to their former owners, while others strongly oppose due to equally valid opinions. This essay seeks to discuss the issue of repatriation of works of art and the efforts made by global agencies and associations for the repatriation of works of art and the challenges that have arisen. It will then further investigate the discussion from both sides about whether to repatriate these African cultural and art artifacts that currently adorn Western museums and the stately homes of the European upper class to their countries of origin.
The various world organizations and agencies in charge of human welfare and international peace have made various efforts to repatriate objects that were illegally acquired by their current owners. Various conventions and declarations have been established to ensure that the restitution of these cultural objects is returned safely to their places of origin. These efforts have had some subtle successes, while the challenges are herculean and daunting.
The first effort to repatriate works was the institution of the Lieber code (General Order #100) in 1843, designed by Francis Lieber, to whom the president of the USA and goods, therefore, cultural objects. It is sad that the code allowed the destruction of cultural property for military necessity, which resulted in the abolition of this code.
In 1954, the Hague document was produced after the great devastation of the Second World War and the great looting of cultural and art objects. This document also draws several criticisms because it favored ‘market nations’, thus rich countries over ‘source nations’ which are mostly poor.
Another repatriation effort was launched by the UNESCO Convention against Illicit Export and the Intergovernmental Committee to Promote the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation on November 14, 1970. Like its predecessors, the terms in the convention were widely rejected because they were too broad and unspecific. In addition, he promoted businesses on the black market for the sale of these cultural objects.
Recently, most countries are adopting repatriation problem resolution with ‘Mutual Benefit Repatriation Arrangements’ (MBRA’s). This document requires the opposing parties to resolve disagreements flexibly in a way that is mutually beneficial. This mode of arbitration between owning countries and item-owning countries will certainly have its drawbacks.
Some of these obstacles are:
1. Poor legislative approaches developed among the signatory states.
2. Failure to establish a system to resolve property and compensation issues.
3. Some works of art and cultural objects do not have clear information about their history to help determine their place of origin.
4. Sometimes there are various speculations about the origin of the artwork, which makes it difficult to know the original owners.
5. The legal battle for the repatriation of works of art is long and costly.
The question is why are some countries vigorously campaigning for the repatriation of the arts to their countries of origin? Numerous reasons are often cited. The analyzes of articles requested by their countries of origin are generally famous and valuable works that are essential for the historical and cultural documentation of those countries. These cultural objects are a symbol of cultural heritage and identity, and the return of such historical works of art is a hallmark of each country’s pride and therefore must be repatriated. The return of such works requires a special welcoming ceremony, as if a member of society who has been imprisoned for a long time and is now free is returning home.
Furthermore, advocates of the repatriation of works of art to their places of origin argue that encyclopedic museums such as the British Museum, the Louvre Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which are the main repositories of prestigious artistic creations from various countries , they house them. out of sight and reach of the cultures that possess them. It is also very worrying that the encyclopedic museums that house most of the world’s works of art and artifacts are located in Western cities and are the privilege of European academics, professionals and citizens. This is quite unfair because the guardians are protecting the works of their owners, which is not appropriate or civilized in a free democratic world that we find ourselves in.
Once again, some ethnic societies and nations dare to need some repatriated works in order to reconstruct their national history, which is a springboard for the survival of any country and the hope of sustenance in the future. This has been the case for Benin court ritual objects that Nigerians need to write down the stories of their ancestors. Wouldn’t it be illegal and even a crime to deny the return of works of such importance to their rightful owners?
In the same train of thought, elements are better appreciated and understood in their original and cultural context. Many artifacts have special cultural value to a particular community or nation. When these works are removed from their original cultural setting, they lose their context and the culture loses a part of its history. Because of this, the objects must be repatriated to their countries of origin. This explains why there are false interpretations associated with some of the African masterpieces now finding their home in ‘foreign’ lands.
Likewise, the dispossession of creative products permanently destroys archaeological sites that could have been configured as a tourist site to generate income for the owners or countries of origin. This, in the author’s opinion, could have increased the economic strength of the country of origin, which in Africa is mostly financially pulverized.
Furthermore, the possession of the works of art taken under the sad conditions of war, looting, imperialism and colonialism is unethical and still suggests continued colonialism. To portray and ensure the full liberation and freedom of colonized states, these creative objects must be returned.
Furthermore, when objects that are in fragments are repatriated to their countries of origin, they can be consolidated with their other parts to achieve a whole so that the meanings of the works are adequately captured. This is the case with the marble sculptures from the Parthenon of the Temple of Athena which is now in the British Museum in London. The ancient Greeks, who are the proprietors, believed that sculptures bring virtual life to their subjects, and therefore completeness or wholeness is an essential characteristic of an imitative or figurative art.
There are many well-meaning academics and other educators and individuals who vehemently disapprove of and even oppose the repatriation of artifacts and other cultural objects to their countries of origin. One of his arguments is that art is part of a universal human story and that ancient products from diverse cultures promote inquiry, tolerance, and a broad understanding of cultures. For them, having works from different cultures would help to eliminate the cultural monopoly, which is the main cause of global unity. Curators and art museum directors say that when a museum has works from many cultures, it presents visitors with a wide range of art to help disfigure people’s ignorance of the world.
Artistic creations transcend national borders, as well as the cultures and peoples that created them. Therefore, a deliberate alignment or segregation of a work of art to a particular country limits the scope and understanding of the work.
Furthermore, Western art museums are believed to be engaged in the professional stewardship of the works in their care. They are believed to have the proper infrastructure to house the items. Therefore, the safety and protection of the works are guaranteed. This cannot be said of the seemingly poor African states calling for the repatriation of the arts. They lack the infrastructural structure to protect the works when they are repatriated to their homeland.
However, this is an understatement because much of the artwork transported out of colonized countries was crudely removed and damaged, and sometimes lost in transit. The issue of security and protection of works of art continues to be the subject of debate. The owners of the objects will be able to have the necessary infrastructure to preserve the repatriated works. However, judging correctly, little can be said of this due to the heap of economic burden already resting on the feeble shoulders of these ‘home nations’.
Another important issue that prevents the repatriation of creative works is with respect to the claimant of full ownership of the works of art. This problem is compounded when many countries, cities and museums are in possession of parts of a work of art. Where should the designated “home” of the collected work be? Who should be the final owner of creative masterpieces? To curb this challenge, many academics, art directors, and curators are of the opinion that it is better not to repatriate their items to their countries of origin.
It is a hard truth that it must be accepted that African works that are lavishly displayed in museums and other public views in Western lands, especially in Europe, will never see their countries of origin again. The debate on the repatriation of works of art will continue, although some nations and agencies are making some efforts to return the products that were acquired illegally to their original homeland.
The author believes that cultural objects that have historical significance and can help in the reconstruction of a country’s history should be returned. However, those who are locked up in encyclopedic museums for the population’s consumption and who are not essential to rewrite the history of a country should not be repatriated. However, their correct interpretations should be consulted with their original owners. Since revenue will be made, the original owners of the works must be compensated or remunerated so that they can share the profits with the museum that preserves the arts.
Again, there must be mutual understanding and agreement between the original owners of the works and the museum to reach a consensus that is favorable to all. It will also be prudent for the parties involved to establish measures to show the products occasionally to the citizens of the country of origin so that the visualization of the creative pieces is not only the exclusive preserve of the privileged Europeans but also of the poor owners of such wonderful creations.
A combined effort to reach an amicable consensus by the host nation and the country of origin, if well drawn, could help reduce the hunting threat of the restitution of works of art to their countries of origin.
REFERENCE
UNESCO (1970, November 14). Convention on the Means to Prohibit and Prevent the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.