British Art Treasures and Colonialism

British, American, and Other European Practices Regarding Artistic Treasures

As noted by Jenette Greenfield in her chapter “British and Other European Practice,” Britons have often been noted for their mania for collecting, a mania paralleled in the actual physical relics encompassed in the British Museum. The diversity of the British Museum’s collection is, of course, impressive, but it is the result of colonialism and the unprecedented access Britons had to treasures all over the globe. The UK continues to be in dispute over many relics even with its European colleagues, as is the case with the Elgin Marbles. Many British archeologists seemed to regard plundering tombs in ancient Egypt and elsewhere in Mesopotamia as more of a sport than an actual act of respect to idea of learning about the past. This lack of respect had not entirely been extinguished.

What I found so surprising and interesting in light of recent questioning over the rights of colonial nations to own the artifacts of colonized societies is that British law still makes it very difficult even for willing British museums to divest themselves of antiquities. The main method of disposal or release is offered if the museums deem the relics unsuitable for their collections, which is a very broad phrase (Greenfield 104). A more feasible vehicle of return is a British museum extending artifacts on permanent loan to another abroad, for the purposes of scholarly study (Greenfield 105). Greenfield argues that the British Museum’s behavior in regards to the Elgin Marbles and other structures, however, has set an example even for nations not technically harboring such legal restrictions.

In Britain, art functions as a public treasure, albeit in a very parochial fashion, given that British treasures and artifacts are primarily accessible to residents and tourists, versus persons in the country of origin that produced the art. As noted by John Henry Merryman, in “Art Systems and Cultural Policy,” American museums are unique because of the influence of private collectors and wealthy philanthropists. In America, the artist is viewed a private person, supported by private patronage, and this construct likewise extends to collecting. “Private dealers and auctioneers sell and collectors acquire, enjoy and dispose of works of art, including major works of great cultural importance, without governmental supervision or assent” (Merryman 100). In contrast to Britain, there is no major public support for the arts, thus the wealthy effectively shape, based upon their own generosity and value structures, what will be warehoused and classified as art.

This has obviously had a great deal of negative impact, in terms of the undue influence of affluent individuals over poorly funded nonprofit museums. On the other hand, it has also made American institutions responsive to cultural policies demanding repatriation of ancient artifacts as part of a new cultural policy (NCP) (Merryman 114). On the other hand, this is also problematic, because private collectors will not necessarily feel a sense of responsibility to and a sense of being beholden to another culture’s ownership of art, and may take freer license to engage in the international trade of cultural goods even in excess in which national museums with a colonial past may be willing to engage.

Merryman acknowledges the importance of private U.S. collectors in assembling collections of cultural importance both in positive and negative ways. There is a need for some sort of standard about what is and what is not appropriate to collect and exhibit beyond the personal whims of collectors, although, as in the case of the British Museum, sometimes official standards can be more limiting than facilitating an ethical inventory of the reason certain collections exist. America may lack the same history of empire and coherent sense of what constitutes a national treasure. On the other hand, this view of art as something which is not significant to preserve financially from a government perspective may have a negative impact on contemporary art, an issue not fully addressed in either article.