Museums and Restitution – Closing Conference Session & Discussion

Led by Maurice Davies (Museums Association)

Here Maurice Davies sums up the main issues which have been discussed over the past 2 days, and raises questions that perhaps could do with further discussion.

The important role of institutional policy, and often personal individual stances, were highlighted for their affects on restitution. Some museum see restitution as an opportunity – they view source communities as partners, enabling them to build new relationships. However, complex issues can occur in which it is difficult to progress. The burden of proof weighs heavily on some claimant groups where there is no dialogue to negotiate returns. Ultimately, the call for returns system can be viewed as proof of bad relations between museums and their communities. What we need is a level playing field, but this does not come without its difficulties: Should you initiate returns with communities who do not seem interested?; what should a museum do in the face of competing claimants?; is it really what a community wants? what is a community? how will communities cope if the items we return to them are in need of ongoing work?

A few words and phrases were found particularly memorable from the past two days: ‘Inheritors of dispossession’…’communities of identities’…although restitution and repatriation were often used, there was little or no reference to reparation – perhaps we could have spoken about this?

The concept of Universalism was also high on the agenda, however it was not universally liked.

Digital restitution was also a major theme of the conference, with ideas of digital exhibitions allowing communities access to their objects and a chance to interpret them for themselves. Important questions still need to be asked here, for instance how do you make this system genuinely useful to the community, rather than it being just another manifestation of the museums values and intentions? Also, what affect does the museum keeping the original artifact have on power relations?

Regarding decision making, perhaps the problem with restitution is that the museum is setting the criteria on its own values and prejudices? Instead of the museum assessing the fate of the object, could they look instead at the consequences of it’s actual return or retention? It is a significant point that many museum could probably not meet their own criteria. Perhaps the problem is that the bureaucratic decision making process most museums prescribe to stands in the way of what museums are really about – there is no need to shy away from the feelings and stories of dispossessed objects. The right to administer ones heritage is a right to ones past. The main purpose of museums is to create relationships, which means changes will need to be made. Despite this, there is a lot to gain from turning away from arguments of ownership, which can bring benefits to both communities and audiences.

The audience was asked to discuss amongst themselves what they felt the conference had done for them, and whether they still had any questions or issues. The floor was then open for general discussion. The first point was raised by David Glasser, concerning the long term effects of the conference – everyone attending had learnt a great deal, but it’s effects would be largely limited to those within the conference room. It was suggested that perhaps for future conferences a resolution could be agreed upon at the end of each segment and then circulated via a journal or email. Even if other museums did not agree with the resolution, it would act as a means of sparking wider debate. Tristram Besterman added that one element this conference missed was a dissenting voice to challenge the consensual discourse. Andrew Dismore argued that more needs to be done to open up the debate to the public, particularly regarding the Parthenon Marbles, as until you win the audience you will not win over the institutions. To do this we need to try and devise a community strategy that goes beyond the ivory towers of the museum world and engage the public. It was then highlighted that the British situation differed from much of the restitution work carried out in places like Canada and Australia due to the vast distances between the UK and many of the artefacts originating communities.

So what will we take away from the conference? The emphasis on relationships was appreciated, especially when re-evaluating the role of the museum after the collapse of the ideas built up by New Labour in the past few months.  It was said that this could be a very good opportunity for museums to try out a new model, the ‘white man’s’ ideals upon which western society is based has to be challenged, but how? The old model needs to be demolished – no one is sure what will take it’s place but this is for the public to decide. However, it was then suggested from the audience that some restrictions are necessary when dealing with the huge responsibility museums have for caring for the cultural objects in their care.

Lastly, Louise Tythacott gave her thanks to everyone involved with the conference.

Museums and Restitution – Discussion on museum responses to the protocols of Washington, Prague and latest legislation

David Glasser from the Ben Uri Gallery opened the Q&A session, introducing the three participants.

Charles A. Goldstein began the session. He spoke of his experience as Counsel for the Commission for Art Recovery and as a lawyer  in the area of Art Law for New York Law Firm Herrick Feinstein LLP.

Andrew Dismore then spoke of the implementation of The Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Bill, which he put forward as a Private Members Bill. He discussed the negotiations that took place between him and government, highlighting his belief that the ‘Sunset Clause’ should be set at 20 years, the government’s insistence that it should be no longer than 5 years, resulting in their compromise of 10 years.

Freda Matassa, Expert Advisor to the Minister of Culture on Immunity from Seizure applications, then took the floor. She discussed the seizure of objects from collections and temporary exhibitions, and measures which have been introduced as a result of instances such as The Royal Academy’s “From Russia” Exhibition.

A number of questions and points arose:

Q – More a note than a question, this is not a one time matter but progressive. There is a need for greater co-operation in provenance research, or means for greater academic exchange – perhaps a journal. Provenance research is increasing due to Holocaust research. This is an issue of the major countries, mainly in Eastern Europe, but it is also an ongoing concern to the rest of the world. The ‘Sunset Clause’ in English law is understandable but not desirable. We still do not know where everything is, as the research continues more items will be found.

Q – David Glasser addresses the audience – In terms of providence research do you feel there is enough to support you in providence research? Museums in Germany receive some money for this work, as we are moving into a period of austerity do you think this would be beneficial?

A – In the Netherlands museums are willing to do it, but have to fund it and do the research themselves, there are only 20 expert researchers in the area. Some are reluctant to do it.

Q – Charles to Freda – with the UKs position towards transparency, if an item was found to have a dubious background during provenance research, would a museum notify the rightful owner?

A – Freda – If researchers doing provenance research found something regarding an object, they would notify the lender or owner and leave it at that. It is a question of the moral extent of the museum when drafting policy.

Q – My understanding of the UK position is that it is passive. We research providence and publish findings but we are passive, we are not actively pursuing. The Lost Art Register and other initiatives are welcome, but non-national museums feel that they do not have the support or resources – the guidance is not sufficient.

A – David Glasser – There is no guidance from DCMS stating that action towards items with dubious provenance should be taken further than just publishing findings. However, there is nothing to say that the museum cannot take it further – it is a grey area. But if one is taking an ethical stance then this is something we should be driving towards. In the museum accreditation scheme that we all have to go through, not one section concerns provenance research.

Charles – It’s an issue of morals and ethics – the anti-seizure law is an immoral and unethical act, museums should fulfill their duty as a moral and ethical educator. The Royal Academy’s “From Russia” exhibition was not a question of provenance, so why did Russia insist on it? Relationships between Russia and England were strained at the time – that is the context in which the Director of the Hermitage would not allow Britain the objects unless they adapted their law. It was a political act. The subsequent Act was passed by British government in such haste that experts say that anyone who tries it will face legal action.

Q – Some Jewish property which entered non-Jewish institutions then entered the hands of Jewish institutions after the war. There is one case of a Jewish museum in Jerusalem which will not return an item to the owners, could there be a case in this situation?

A – Charles – Yes, Jewish museums are not exempt from the laws. It has been particularly difficult in Israel – During the ‘Looking for Owners’ exhibition, which toured areas with large Jewish populations and displayed known stolen items with the purpose of finding their owners, Israel simply disenfranchise Holocaust victims during the exhibition preventing them from making a claim. This is the only time since 1935 Jews have been disenfranchised from going to court. This is against EU law.

With time up David Glasser thanked everyone for participating, and suggested that the MLA would hopefully note this matter within their accreditation scheme.

Museums and Restitution – India and Africa

Frederick Asher (University of Minnesota): ‘Where Laws and Ethics Don’t Always Meet: Restitution of Indian Art’

Frederick Asher’s paper is begun with a stark reminder of the illicit trading of art, in this case Indian art. Two case studies of stolen Indian art provide illustrative examples of the complex issues surrounding their retrieval and fights for their restitution.

Ownership is a key issue both ethically and legally, and is therefore central to the stories these pieces of illicitly stolen art. Central to the argument for restitution is also the issue of control. In one of the Indian art case studies Asher sights in this paper is the level of control a large American art museum was able to exercise control a ‘chaotic’ and ‘untrustworthy’ Indian. Again, the West imposes its views on others with no real understanding of the objects it insists on keeping or, the impact its actions will have on artworks’ source communities.

Asher is keen to highlight that the illicit trading of artefacts and their subsequent calls for restitution is not only fraught with ethical difficulties, but also legal ones. In India strict laws control the exportation of Indian cultural objects, and rather than working to protect the objects themselves these laws have only fueled illicit trade on the black market. Asher argues that if transparent and ‘freer’ trading was legally established then India’s cultural heritage would be safer, and could even be of financial benefit to India.

Charlotte Joy (University of Cambridge): ‘The empty museum: contestation over world heritage in Djenné, Mali.’

Charlotte Joy’s paper gives an overview of the research she has been conducting at the UNESCO World Heritage site of Dejenné in Africa. The entire town of Dejenné is a site of world heritage, a unique status, and a status that has proven problematic to Dejenné’s inhabitants and UNESCO.

Since being declared a World Heritage site in 1988 in many ways Dejenné has been forced to live in the past. There is a housing shortage in Dejenné but UNESCO will not allow the building of new houses, and where inhabitants want to use tiles to protect their mud houses from rain UNESCO opposes them.

Recently, a new museum has been built in Dejenné, however, it currently stands empty. The new museum could be used as a safe platform through witch debates about Dejenné’s present and future could be heard. Initially it was decided that the museum would be filled with objects chosen by the local population who could bring in objects they wanted to be exhibited. This arrangement was never fulfilled as it was decided that the people of Dejenné do no possess the ‘correct’ western cultural persona the museum wanted to project to its intended tourist audience. A romanticised image of Dejenné was what was deemed fit, and the voices of Dejenné’s population were disregarded.

The people of Dejenné have found themselves in the remarkable position of having their home turned in to a living museum. How can they connect and preserve their past whilst finding a way to live in the twenty first century and benefit from Dejenné’s World Heritage status?

Johanna Zetterstrom – Sharp (University College London): ‘Reanimating cultural heritage in Sierra Leone: a search for the “source community”

The questioning of the validity and appropriateness the term ‘source communities’ provides the introduction to Johanna Zetterstrom – Sharp’s research in Sirerra Leone. Although establishing relationships and narratives with ‘source communities’ is very valid, and beneficial for both the ‘source communities’ and museums, Zetterstrom – Sharp is wary that the authoritative voice of the museum will be replaced by the authoritative voice of the ‘source community’. There is a danger that individual voices will never be heard. In the diaspora community of Sierra Leone is it ethically and morally appropriate to claim ownership of culture in this way?

There is great potential for ‘source communities’ to benefit from objects spread all over the world, especially when some museums may not be using these objects. How can these objects be put to use and made available to ‘source communities’?

Zetterstrom – Sharp’s research project is concerned with the establishing of digital museum networks across the world. Through these networks new cultural narratives can be establishes and exchanged, benefiting individuals, communities and museums across the globe. Social networking sites already used by participants have also been incorporated into the project. Users are also encouraged to upload their own photographs and create a growing mutually beneficial platform.

Culture is part of peoples everyday lives in Sierra Leone, yet there is nowhere its importance can be acknowledged, explored and celebrated.

Questions and Comments:

Each situation is different, and it is therefore impossible to think of establishing one approach that would be suitable everywhere.

Different ideas exist about what it means to preserve. This must be acknowledge and accepted.

Who benefits form restitution?

The problems of interesting local communities in museum collections is not limited unique to non-western countries, there are many difficulties in the U.K. also. Museums need to keep their exhibitions and interpretation relevant and interesting to contemporary society.

Is it the museums responsibility to actively seek contact with source communities? How can we encourage source communities to feel powerful enough to contact museums themselves?

Museums and Restitution – Second World War Spoliation

Reesa Greenberg (Art Historian and Museum Consultant): Restitution exhibitions and identity politics: a case study of displaying art and artifacts stolen from Jews during the Second World War.

Here Reesa Greenberg is concerned with the exhibition of repatriated artworks looted from Jews during the Second World War. With the year 2005 marking the 60^th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, this paper makes the distinction between exhibitions of artworks of this provenance 2005 and post 2005. The 2008 60^th anniversary of the founding of Israel should also be kept in mind as also having been of influence in these exhibitions.

Prior to 2005 there were very few exhibitions of stolen art, the first being held in 1999 at the centre Georges Pompidou in Paris. This exhibition was extensively documented and has since proved to be a valuable research tool.

Post 2005 there has been a vast increase in the number of restitution exhibitions of Jewish stolen art. This genre of exhibition now has an international presence.

Reesa Greenberg lists a variety of conditions that were in place prior to 2005 and created a climate for the change in exhibition activities post 2005. Two of the contributing factors listed were the new waves of holocaust museums and memorials being built and the increased public awareness and interest in restitution propagated in the media.

The pre 2005 stolen art exhibitions concentrated their attentions on the presentations of the artworks themselves presenting their aesthetic and conceptual merits. In these exhibitions the artworks were hung in a crowded salon style of single row hangs.

The post 2005 exhibitions saw a dramatic interpretive change. People’s personal stories were now given prominence on the exhibitions. Detailed accounts of spoliation were given alongside the associated legalities. Exhibition catalogues and websites were now being produced and inside some exhibitions visitors could even search live lost art databases themselves. Visitors were encouraged to assimilate past stories of spoliation with contemporary restitution practice.

It can be argued that the growth of these stolen art exhibitions has played a role in restoration of the Jewish community as welcome citizens and highlighting their contributions to the preservation and development of culture. The exhibitions can also be interpreted as functioning as public demonstrations of justice, and further cementing the historical and contemporary importance of the artworks themselves, and culture in society.

Ines Katenhusen (Leibniz Universität Hannover): A box in the basement. On the works of Kasimir Malevich loaned to the Hannover Museum.

Ines Katenhusen begins by establishing the history of Kasimir Malevich’s artworks. In the late 1927 Malevich brought approximately 100 artworks to Berlin for an exhibition, entrusting them to Hugo Haring. Upon the closing of this exhibition Hugo Haring then passed Malevich’s artworks to Alexander Dorner. Dorner protected Malevich’s art and exhibited them at the State Museum in Hannover, established 1910. Dorner understood the art historical importance of Malevich’s artworks and played a key role in their preservation. Dorner continued to exhibit Malevich’s art in Hannover positioning himself as a defender of modernism against the Nazis.  Malevich had intended to go to the State Museum in Hannover, but unfortunately died in Russia in 1935.

Dorner gave sixteen of Malevich’s artworks to Alfred Barr for display in a temporary exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art, New York. In the late 1930’s Dorner left Germany for New York taking with him two more of Malevich’s artworks. The remaining artworks were left in Germany in the care of Hugo Haring. Dorner later bequeathed these two artworks to the Harvard Museum with the provision that they would only be kept there until Malevich’s heirs requested their return.

Since the 1990’s Malevich’s relatives have been actively seeking to gain possession of his artworks. Despite the wishes of Malevich’s relatives MoMA is resisting the discussion of this matter.

Without the continued commitment to the preservation of Malevich’s work by Hugo Haring, Alexander Dorner and Alfred Barr they would have faced destruction at the hands of the Nazis.

Like all issues of restitution this is a complex case. Whilst the removal of the artworks from their original context has ensured their survival their ownership is still contested and yet to be resolved.

Michael Franz (Koordinierungsstelle Magdeburg): The Internet database www.lostart.de as an international service mean for museums.

Michael Franz has been instrumental in the creation of the Lost Art Internet Database – http://www.lostart.de/Webs/DE/Start/Index.html

The database is a register of artworks looted under the Nazi dictatorship and during the Second World War. The website has a specific interested in artworks stolen from the Jewish community. Currently the website has 1,170 documented objects.

The database has been founded upon the recognition that heritage is essential for the construction of identity individually and nationally. The database is concerned with the long-term preservation of culture and wants to bring ‘lost’ artworks back into the public domain by providing information, documentation and transparency. Lost Art Internet Database aims to provide a knowledgeable contact point for people with concerns about trophy and looted art.

A new website providing more detailed information addressing concerns about trophy and spoliated art has recently been launched – http://www.kulturgutschutz-deutschland.de/cln_103/DE/0_Home/0_home_node.html

Questions and Comments:

For many years not much research on the history of the theft as was seen would take away from the art itself. Only in last 15 or so years that the history of theft. Role that museum directors played in theft and protection is not talked about and should be.

The contemporary issue of what how spoliation should be managed now that many survivors of the Holocaust are nearing the end of their lives. It is most likely that importance of the artefacts themselves will increase greatly as they can be preserved indefinitely.

The Lost Art database and declaration should be made more available/accessible worldwide.

Do University and Public museums have different approaches/responses to restitution?

Are there any benefits to be gained by investigating the roles past museum directors played in spoliation. Instead, is it not more productive to concentrate our energies on building the momentum of museums and their directors in the present.

Museums and Restitution – Reflections on Returns

Neil Curtis (Marischal Museum, University of Aberdeen): Repatriation and museums in Scotland: who benefits?

Neil Curtis began his paper stating that there are currently no human remains left in Scottish Museums’ collections as a result of museums’ active engagement with repatriation. The University of Edinburgh has an unusually active and open approach to restitution, encouraging open discussion and debate about restitution claims. The University of Edinburgh’s approach can be positioned as the antidote for museums who only engage with restitution in a re-active way.

In order to understand why the repatriation of human remains is such complex issue museums should be thoughtful as to what distinguishes human remains from other items in collections. Why do human remains have such a prominent universal value? Do human remains have an innate universality that is not present in other museum objects? How far are these attitudes the responsibility of museum and the discourses it projects?

Western museums are currently showing greater awareness and sensitivity to the issues surrounding restitution, however, whilst this is progress alone it is not enough. Western museums set the agenda for restitution claims, forcing claimants to operate in a system that does not recognise or understand the value systems of the claimants.

Western museums are at the forefront of restitution and a change in their attitude and approach will have great impact. Discussion, rather than the strict following of institutional procedures, should also be extended to consider what the consequences of repatriation would be – for both the museum and the claimant.

Transparent discussion between the museum and claimant will build trust, respect, and equality, positively enriching both parties. Will museums who approach restitution in this manner be viewed more favourably when themselves asking for the repatriation of objects?

Kokie Agbontaen-Eghafona (University of Benin): After restitution what next? An appraisal of public attitude towards the museum and museum objects in Benin City, Nigeria.

Kokie Agbontaen-Eghafona began with the recognition that objects from Benin can now be found all over the world, this is not necessarily a good thing.

Charting the historical development of cultural objects from Benin, it was established that artefacts are commonly made to record events, or the lives of the dead. They are not objects of purely aesthetic value, and have therefore been misunderstood and misinterpreted in the western context.

Kokie Agbontaen-Eghafona conducted a study in Benin with the aim of establishing the views held by local people about museum objects and the museums that care for them. The study revealed was that, with the exception of one person, nobody who participated in the study actually visited the museum. Despite this fact, however, most people felt that the objects from all over the world should be repatriated to a museum in Benin. Others felt that repatriated objects should be kept in palaces in Benin, whilst fewer wanted a museum to be built in Benin specifically for these repatriated objects.

The study proved to be successful in uncovering some of the why people in Benin did not engage with their museums. It was felt by many that the objects held in museums were viewed by society as being detached form the culture of Benin where many contemporary versions of these objects are still produced. It is these contemporary objects that are embedded with their culture. The British cultural decimation of Benin in 1897 was also found to be an explanation for the people of Benin’s almost nonexistent museum attendance. The historical loss of a vast section of cultural development, and therefore the decontextualisation of the objects, and loss of their ‘true’ meanings has left a gap so vast that no amount of museum objects can fill it.

Do the findings of this study mean that in the non-western society of Benin a conceptually western museum is not capable of fulfilling the needs of its community? Should museums in Benin therefore be re-imagined on their own terms?

Questions and Comments:

What happens when something given to people who don’t want it/value it?

We have deeply entrenched ideas about who deserves and who does not deserve – these need readdressing.

Does the recipient always want repatriation? What happens if repatriation goes wrong and how should this be dealt with?

Reproduction can be a signifier of the original and evoke it but, a reproduction can never replace the original – especially when the events leading to it’s making are unique. In certain cases the production of a replica would be offensive to the context and belief systems in which it was made. A reproduction can be similar but it will not be the same.

Repatriation and restitution are not just about the object, but the control of information.

Talking about issues of repatriation has become more common in teaching – museum studies, archaeology, anthropology and so on. This is a powerful way of intellectually engaging people in depth with museums.

Museums and Restitution – Culture, Equality and the Sustainable Museum

Culture, Equality and the Sustainable Museum by Tristram Besterman

‘Fair is foul, and foul is fair’ – William Shakespeare, Macbeth

Besterman speech was inspirational and powerful, addressing some of the issues which the papers given throughout this conference. Clearly indicated his stance on the ethics and morals of restitution urging museums, in particular Universal Museums, Besterman urges museums to think sustainably about the provenance of items in their collections.

Besterman continues to make us aware that some museums are still blind to the fact that they are not only responsible for the physical well-being of the tangible objects in their collections, but that they also have a moral and ethical responsibility to nurture and promote the importance of the personal narratives the objects hold. Besterman uses the term ‘cultural equity’ to describe this moral and ethical approach to objects. Context is all important, and not just applicable to the present.

Keenly highlighting the need for sustainability in museums, Besterman continues to say that self-interest is unsustainable in museums. Museums need to open their doors wider and giving individuals and communities opportunities and encouragement to work with museums to provide a ‘true’ interpretation of their objects histories, meanings and uses.

Besterman highlights the need for governments to amend the way they manage claims for repatriation. He proposes that rather than the claimant having to make a case for the return of their requested object(s), instead, the onus should be on the museum to make the case as to why the object(s) should not be repatriated.

Questions at the end of this keynote speech uncovered Bestermans belief that museums need to be consistent in their approach to restitution and the interpretation of their collections. Besterman stated that he believed leading individuals in institutions were essential if approaches to repatriation were t become moral, ethical and sustainable.

Museums and Restitution Conference – Welcome to Manchester

Welcome All,

Firstly, it is important to introduce ourselves as we will be blogging about the conference proceedings over the coming days. Our names are Cordelia Mackay and Dan Feeney. We are both full time students on the University of Manchester’s Art Gallery and Museum Studies MA programme. As well as blogging about the conference we will also be on hand, along with other student helpers, to answer any more practical questions or to simply have a chat, so please do approach us.

Here at the University preparations for the conference have been underway for sometime now, and as a result we are all looking forward to the conference with great anticipation and excitement. We expect many interesting papers to be given and discussions to be had.

Please feel free to continue debates from the conference on the blog and comment on our posts. All contributions are welcome.