Looted Art: To
What Lengths Must We Go?
Throughout history, ancient
artifacts have been both legally and illegally obtained and acquired by both
private collectors and public institutions. According to a recent news article
written by Vincent Noce of The Art
Newspaper, the return to Cambodia of two tenth-century Khmer sandstone
sculptures, which had been displayed for nearly 20 years at the Metropolitan
Museum of Art, have some critics wondering to what lengths should art
institutions and governments go to help preserve and curtail the illegal looting
and destruction of these ancient and historic artifacts. The Met announced its
decision to return the sculptures on May 3rd, which was one year after the
Cambodian government had requested such. Although Cambodia's government praised
the Met for its “high ethical standards”, in other parts of the world, museums,
auction houses and governments don't always see eye to eye in regards to
protocol and procedure pertaining to the return of questionably acquired
artifacts. The case of Sotheby's vs. the US Attorney's Office shows just that.
As the Met returned its piece,
the spotlight was then given to Sotheby’s who had recently withdrawn from sale of a
Cambodian statue that was believed to have come from the same temple as Met's piece, beginning private negotiations instead with the Cambodian government for its return. According to a piece published
this week by Helen Stoilas of The Art
Newspaper, both Sotheby’s and the US Attorney’s Office filed law suits
against one another after the Cambodian government pulled out of negotiations. Sotheby’s claims that an agent with the Department of
Homeland Security pressured the Cambodian government to end talks with the
auction house, which was trying to broker a $1m private deal to return the
statue of the Hindu warrior known as Duryodhanna. Documentation shows communication from the agent stating that the US government should be the vehicle for its return, not the auction house. The US Attorney’s
office in turn filed suit claiming Sotheby’s director of their worldwide legal
compliance department provided “false and misleading provenance information to
the government” and discouraged federal officials from obtaining documents. Clearly there is more to this than meets the eye.
The sculpture’s current owner,
Decia Ruspoli di Poggio Suasa, argued in court that even if the statue had been
removed from Koh Ker, Cambodia had failed to demonstrate the legal grounds for
its claim. Her complaint argued that there was no indication of when the
sculpture had been removed from Prasat Chen, and asked "on what legal
grounds modern-day Cambodia considered itself the heir of everything a
long-defunct, tenth-century regime had made." Counsel also wrote:
“The [US] government’s continued failure to
identify a clear and unambiguous ownership law… means that the motion… should
be denied. The absence of such a law also prevents the government from calling
into question the good faith of either Ms. Ruspoli or Sotheby’s. Both were
entitled to conclude from the absence of any clear law vesting ownership in
Cambodia that the statue was not stolen when removed from Cambodia. And both
were certainly entitled to conclude that it did not remain stolen at the time
of import into the United States, almost two decades after the period allotted
by English law for Cambodia to make a claim had expired.”
Marilyn Phelan argues
that it is the obligation of public and private institutions to prohibit the direct or
indirect illicit trade in cultural properties, and urges them further, to not “employ
legal principles, such as burden of proof or statute of limitations defenses,
to prevent the true owners the right of redress,” bringing up a difficult
challenge that we as museum professionals must face. We must ask ourselves, to
what extent is the museum to uphold this role against illicit trade if to
uphold it could very well mean the removal of most, if not all, cultural
properties in the US. I do not say this to condone the illegal trafficking in cultural
property, but where is the line drawn in the laws that govern what is
ultimately decided as illegal cultural properties? What should return? Who
decides?
As in the case of United States v. Schultz and United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold,
the former of an art dealer, Schultz, found guilty of conspiring to receive
stolen property and the latter, of an art collector who imported a looted
Philae from Sicily, it is important to look at the ramifications of cases like
these.
A group of twenty-seven
individuals, including nine present or former curators, members of museum
boards, and counsel for museums, submitted an Amicus curiae brief in support of
Schultz, and the AAM in support of the art collector. And what could possibly
justify their support? AAM stated the following:
“The
decision of the district court ‘threatens the ability of U.S. museums to
collect…and make available for public exhibition objects from around the world”’
that are ‘the subject of sweeping foreign
cultural patrimony laws’…these cultural patrimony laws ‘are, in significant
respects, antithetical to fundamental principles of U.S. law and public policy…the
effect of the indiscriminate application of these laws will be to jeopardize
existing museum collections and the future ability of our museum to continue to
collect and exhibit cultural objects for the public.’” (415)
Although it may come to many as a
surprise to see museum officials and leaders supporting the illicit trade of
cultural objects, one must also take into consideration, the effect cases like
this will have on the future of America’s holdings of cultural property. As the
AAM states, the return of cultural property will “amount to a judicial fiat…that
often will preclude responsible museums from acquiring cultural objects from
other countries” and ultimately, the return of some, if not, all cultural property
to their countries of origin.
No comments:
Post a Comment