In a message dated 01-03-03 11:04:45 EST, Cheryl Maslin wrote:

<< As much as the Met wants to save these very important sculptures from
 destruction, there are two problems that have not been acknowledged-
 that this action might turn into a string of "hostages"- a Gilbert
 Stuart painting of George Washington is already in that situation for
 $20 million or it will be sold on the auction block.  How many more
 sites will be ransomed? >>

As someone who sees the Washington painting every day, but definitely NOT
authorized to speak on behalf of my institution, I think it's unfair to
characterize this as a hostage situation.  The painting was graciously loaned
in good faith to the Smithsonian many years ago by its British owners.  (The
recent comments about long-term and "permanent" loans are very apropos.)  Now
the current owner wants to sell it.  He has every legal, ethical, and moral
right to sell it, and he's probably right that he could get more than the 20
million dollars requested on the open market.  It would be very nice if he
were to donate it, and it would also be very nice if he were to give the
Smithsonian more time to raise the requested funds.  Call me a capitalist,
but I can't fault anyone for wanting to sell one's own possession for a
bundle.

A letter in Sunday's Washington Post implies that the United States has some
kind of right to own the painting because it has become an American icon and
that the owner is being greedy and selfish not to donate it.  I call that
arrogance.  It's hard to  contemplate parting with something we've had the
pleasure of displaying and viewing for so many years, but that's the trouble
with long-term loans (of anything)--the borrower gets attached to them and
doesn't want to give them up!  I hope we get to keep it in the long run, but
the fact that the owner is British suggests to me that it's a bit silly to
expect some sort of public spirit to overwhelm him to donate it to an
American museum.  I don't care if he's already rich--even the wealthiest
among us can use an extra 20 million in change.  To their credit, Smithsonian
administrators don't seem to be whining about not getting a direct donation.
What we need is a public-spirited U.S. citizen or company to provide the
funds.

In any event, this situation isn't comparable to that of the endangered (or
already destroyed) sculptures.  The owner of the Washington painting isn't
threatening to destroy it if he doesn't get his ransom.  Your point is well
taken about ransom, however, when thieves or marauders threaten to destroy
cultural artifacts: paying them off to prevent loss or destruction would
probably encourage copycat crimes.  However, begging barbarians to hold off
while you pay the cost of protecting or moving threatened artifacts isn't
ransom either.

In the long run, I don't think there's much that can be done to reason with
fanatics like the Taliban.  But it's certainly true that international
agencies need to designate important irreplaceable art and architecture as
cultural treasures to facilitate the prosecution of deliberate vandals.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).