Cleveland Apollo - Assignment Example

This rampant concern about the ethical acquisition of antiquities has been the outcome of the widespread demands being made by the varied governments for the return of antiquities acquired by museums and collectors through unethical and illegal means and procedures, and the associated high profile trials. In that context the Cleveland Museum of Art’s acquisition of the statue of Apollo attributed to Praxiteles has attracted much controversy owing to the intriguing nature of its acquisition (Litt, 2010).

Keeping in mind the existent ethics and international laws pertaining to the acquisitions of antiquities, it will certainly be apt to say that for the time the Cleveland Museum of Art must desist from displaying this statue of Apollo. The Cleveland Museum of Art acquired the controversial statue in 2004. Since then this statue has attracted much controversy. The museum is believed to have paid approximately $5 million to acquire this statue from Phoenix Ancient Art. This statute is noted to be seen on an estate in Germany in the 30s and was noted to have stayed there before it was purchased by a Dutch antique collector in 1994 (Litt, 2010).

After that the statute remained unseen for quite some time till it was traced to the Phoenix Ancient Art in 2002 (Cultural Heritage Resource, 2013). . Thereby, the much plausible premise that ensues from the statement made by the Phoenix Ancient Art is that the firm was well aware of the statute’s past ownership history till it acquired it in 2002. This brings the acquisition of the Apollo statute by the Cleveland Museum of Art in direct confrontation with the established authorities and bodies of specialty, which have promulgated well specified ethical guidelines and ethical codes pertaining to the acquisition of antiquities.

It will be academically quite insightful to delve into the guidelines published by these bodies of concern. The things is that any ethical museum or organization needs to stick to the guidelines ensuing from the UNESCO Convention aimed at prohibiting the unethical and illegal import and export of the cultural antiquities. As per the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the cultural antiquities need to be acquired in consonance with the international laws and the domestic laws imminent on the sale and purchase of such works of art (UNESCO, 2012)).

Thereby, in a legal context this Convention debars the import of any antiquity into the United States of America that did not get out of the jurisdiction of its country of origin at a time that was not prior to the date when the restrictions were imposed, or any artifact that is not accompanied by an export license issued by its country of origin (Archaeological Institute of America (a), 2013). Now when one takes the UNESCO guidelines into consideration it does need to be mentioned that as per EC Regulation 3911/92, the export of any cultural antiquity that was traced in the jurisdiction of any EU member state in 1994 needs to be accompanied by an export license (Cultural Heritage Resource, 2013).

This stands to be