To what culture does the concept of "cultural
property" belong? Who owns this idea?
It has, like much material property in the last
50 years, often changed hands. And in doing so,
it has also changed meanings and grown in
importance. It now affects the development of
museums, alters the nature of international
commerce and even seems to subsume traditional notions of property.
It was brought to modern prominence in 1954 by
Unesco as a way of characterizing the special
status of monuments, houses of worship and works
of art objects that suffered "grave damagee" in
"recent armed conflicts." In its statement Unesco
asserted that such "cultural property" was part
of the "cultural heritage of all mankind" and deserved special protection.
But the framers of that doctrine with its
universalist stance would hardly recognize
cultural property in its current guise. The
concept is now being narrowly applied to assert
possession, not to affirm value. It is used to
stake claims on objects in museums, to prevent
them from being displayed and to control the
international trade of antiquities.
It is critically surveyed in an illuminating new
book, "Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle
Over Our Ancient Heritage" (Princeton) by James
Cuno, the director of the Art Institute of
Chicago and former director of the Harvard
University Art Museums. The idea is as troubling
as Mr. Cuno suggests. It has been used not just
to protect but also to restrict.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/arts/design/27conn.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin>Link
--
Posted By johannes to
<http://www.monochrom.at/english/2008/05/to-what-culture-does-concept-of.htm>monochrom
at 5/31/2008 01:18:00 PM
