British, American & European Practices on Artistic Treasures

Introduction: The British Mania for Collecting

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 physical relics housed 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 archaeologists seemed to regard plundering tombs in ancient Egypt and elsewhere in Mesopotamia as more of a sport than an act of respect toward the idea of learning about the past. This lack of respect has not been entirely extinguished.

British Law and the Challenge of Repatriation

What is particularly surprising — especially 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 available when 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 institution abroad, for the purposes of scholarly study (Greenfield 105). Greenfield argues that the British Museum's behavior regarding the Elgin Marbles and other structures has set an example even for nations not technically subject to such legal restrictions.

Art as Public Treasure: The British Model

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 rather than to persons in the country of origin that produced the art. This model positions the state as the custodian of cultural heritage, but does so in a way that privileges the host nation's access over that of the culture from which the artifacts were taken. The tension between public access and cultural justice sits at the heart of ongoing repatriation debates.

The American System: Private Collectors and Cultural Policy

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 as 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 preserved and classified as culturally significant art.

This dynamic has had considerable 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 more responsive to cultural policies demanding repatriation of ancient artifacts as part of a new cultural policy (NCP) (Merryman 114). At the same time, this is also problematic, because private collectors will not necessarily feel a sense of responsibility toward another culture's claim of ownership over art, and may take greater license to engage in the international trade of cultural goods — potentially in excess of what national museums with a colonial past would be willing to do.

Conclusion: Standards, Empires, and Contemporary Art

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 not significant enough to preserve financially from a government perspective may have a negative impact on contemporary art — an issue not fully addressed in either article. Both the British and American models reveal the limitations of their respective frameworks: one overly restrictive in the name of public heritage, the other insufficiently regulated in deference to private wealth. What both cases underscore is the need for internationally agreed-upon standards that place cultural justice alongside cultural access at the center of museum and collecting policy.