Who Owns and Is Responsible for the World's Art Heritage - Essay Example

Who owns and is responsible for the world's art heritage?

Introduction

The world’s great museums are full of varieties of artifacts. They contain looted treasures, and other cultural riches acquired via shady means. A controversy, therefore, arises on who is the rightful owner of the art and who has the responsibility for the world’s art heritage. The controversy is majorly steered by the notion that the modern cultural identity of a country is tied to its ancient objects, and that those objects are physical symbols of that link the past and the present of a country. The argument is heavy with the logic of stolen identity, which makes the controversy to exceed lawful complexities and take on moral connotations. The paper, therefore, presents the points of views regarding the controversy of who owns art by discussing if there is a rightful owner of art, and the ownership that is appropriate for the art of nations that no longer exist. Moreover, the paper analyzes whether the destruction of art on religious and political beliefs is justified, and what can be done to countries that participate in illicit art trafficking.

Rightful Ownership of World Art

Over the years, the spread of international law and civil lawsuits, changing attitudes, and globalization have encouraged distressed countries to demand the return of cultural goods that were grabbed by enemy forces or foreigners decades and centuries ago, and a few of the countries that hold those loots have obeyed (Woodard 1). However, much of the stolen goods have remained with nations that looted, in spite of the collective criticism of the act. Returning stolen artifacts to their rightful owner might appear forthright, but in reality, it is extremely challenging, specifically for items acquired in the ancient times.

The rightful owner seems like a subject to an individual’s opinion. In particular, the acquirement of certain treasures took place through the process of changing hands numerous times, the original owner at times being unable to be remembered completely, sometimes due to their civilization had stopped to exist. It is thus difficult to determine the legitimate inheritor of the art even if the current holders decide to take them back.

In reality, there lack customary or legal foundations to request the return of materials looted before the 20th century. The successful achievement of the return is basically a matter of public relations, to convince those who possess the looted objects that returning them back is the morally upright thing to do. Also, the modern populations have no historical affiliations to the ancient cultures whose artifacts were seized. The case makes it difficult to determine the rightful owner of the artifacts. I, therefore, do not make sense to return the art held in collections in the United States back to their countries of origin.

Appropriate Ownership for the Art of Nations that No Longer Exist

Cultures can own particular works of art. Specific groups can become heirs to artifacts when their ownership is as a result of the wishes of those who previously owned the art. Unluckily, the wishes of previous owners of artworks are in most cases unknown or not in existence. Therefore, a particular group would lack an appropriate position to claim the inheritance of the creations when the nation of origin ceased to exist.

Furthermore, since testamentary wishes are in most cases unknown, it may appear dubious if a culture claims to inherit artworks of a nation that is no longer in existence since the presumed beneficiaries do not exist or cannot be traced. For example, Athens is no longer in existence. Some religious communions have thus been wiped out, and the lineal progenies of ancient owners are unidentified. Under such circumstances, one would think that the earlier owners would wish that associates of their culture take over their property. However, the assertion that preceding owners would in certain circumstances, intended that the affiliates of their nation become the owners of their creations is groundless.

It can be argued that some previous cultures, given the end of an institution or lineage, would wish that their possessions be passed to those in the present who can take the possessions in most appropriate manner. Similarly, ancient people might have intended that their creations become the property of those who are capable of ensuring that the creations get the broadest possible viewers. For this reason, the appropriate ownership of the artworks for nations that do not exist is the nations which can ensure that the artworks receive the largest amount of audience.

The case of the Parthenon Marbles is a good illustration of how to determine the appropriate ownership of art of a nation that is not in existence. The notion that the fifth-century Athenians would have wished that Thebans and Spartans, their vicious antagonists, but share of the culture of Greek, be the owners of the Marbles is very implausible (Young 69). It is likely that people would be equally unwilling to give their physical, cultural material goods to local enemies. Therefore, the appropriate ownership of art of a nation that no longer exists would be the group of people or nation that is completely unrelated to the original owner but which would make good use of the art.

View on Whether Religious or Political Beliefs can Justify the Destruction of Art

More often, there are reports of the destruction of artworks and objects of cultural heritage of international, national, regional or local significance due to political or religious beliefs. The topic of the destruction of artworks requires the engagement of a persuasive theme that can provoke cultural compassion, to critically scrutinize contemporary as well as historical, social problems that affect the future and the present, to examine values and attitudes, and to contemplate how the issues of power intersect with art.

The destruction of art is majorly based on secular issues. People appear to have a primitive horror of it, perhaps because art speaks to the best parts of the common humanity but is only destroyed for the immediate religious or political gains. It is invariably a mark of the vilest barbarism or ignorance. It doesn’t need to have been done by the likes of ISIS or the Nazis.

Conceivably, again, people abhor the destruction of art since art is cherished for numerous reasons, but only gets destroyed because of its most obvious symbolism. When people think of the great art purgatives, it’s for what the art represents religiously or politically that gets destroyed. Most people can see that art contains multitudes and only the hateful think it represents one clear unacceptable thing (Dresser 1). For example, about the destructions carried out by ISIS on UNESCO's World Heritage Lists such as Hatra and Palmyra, are attacks on the values that such institutions promote. Such values include secular, liberal, humanist values that promote a recognition of the shared heritage of human civilization. The values are in stark contrast to the ISIS who seek to create religious, historical and political homogeneity under the rule of a strict caliphate (Isakhan & Zarandona 1). Therefore, the destructions are not justified.

Illicit Art Trafficking

The Illicit export, import, and transferal of ownership of artworks and cultural property contribute to the destruction of the cultural heritage of the nations of origin of such artworks. The activity is connected to money laundering, organized crime, and even terrorism (European Commission 1). It is thus vital to consider the damages caused by illicit trafficking of art to cultures and their history. A country’s cultural heritage entails its identity, and a nation that is deprived of its cultural heritage as a result of theft loses its identity and other components linked to it: patriotism, national belonging, and national pride.

The illicit trafficking of art should not render exploitative sellers and collectors immune from prosecution. Organized policies should be coordinated between national and international agencies to outline legal processes for the transfer, sale, and record-keeping of antiquities. Then, the illegitimate attainment of art, by private collectors as well as museums, should be addressed with lawfully enforceable acquisitions policy and distinct requirements for due diligence. Harsh penalties should be imposed against corrupt officials and string-pullers who participate and encourage the illegal trafficking of artifacts.

Conclusion

The rightful owner of art seems to be subject to one’s point of view. Certain treasures were acquired through the process of changing hands numerous times, thus completely eliminating the original owner in the equation due to their civilization had stopped to be in existence. Therefore, returning art that was looted centuries ago is basically a matter of public relations, to convince those who possess the objects that returning them is the morally upright thing to do.

Since testamentary wishes are often unknown, it may appear dubious if a culture claims to inherit artworks of a nation that is no longer in existence since the presumptive beneficiary no longer exists. Therefore, the appropriate ownership of the artworks for nations that do not exist is the nations which can ensure that the artworks receive the largest amount of audience.

The destruction of art is majorly based on secular issues. It is invariably an act of the vilest barbarism or ignorance. Most people can see that art contains multitudes and only the hateful think it represents one unacceptable thing. The destruction of art basing on political or religious beliefs is thus not justified.

In regards to the illicit trafficking of art, harsh penalties should be imposed against corrupt officials and string-pullers who participate and encourage the illegal trafficking of artifacts.