Dear Museum-L readers,

In Roger Smith’s latest Globalmuseum memo from January 6, is an article
regarding comments made by a gallery director in regard to the
repatriation of works plundered by the Nazis.  The comments would seem
that of an apologist and should be read very carefully.  If you are not
able to link directly to this article from Globalmuseum, it can be
located at the following website:

http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?f=/stories/20010104/425404.html

I would also encourage readers to respond online to my letter with more
recommendations to solving this problem and perhaps even to the board of
the gallery in question as the comments made by this director are
grossly improper given the circumstances involved.

The issues that are to be addressed, though not exclusively, are as
follows:


1.  The first sentence and comment by this director: “ ‘The Nazis may
have unwittingly ‘served the greater good of mankind’ by stealing art
from Jews and protecting it from the ravages of war,’ says the director
of a prestigious Canadian gallery.”

It would seem obvious by now that the Nazis instigated the bombings and
the war at the start when first Hitler directed his mobs to attack
people of Jewish heritage, both physically and economically, and then
followed with a succession of invasions and ethnic cleansings of
neighboring countries.


2.  The second paragraph: “Ian Lumsden, executive director of the
Beaverbrook Art Gallery in Fredericton, says ‘it's not the worst thing
in the world’ that some art works stolen from European Jews
have ended up in galleries and museums around the world. “ ‘I don't
really believe that people have right to ownership of a major work of
art.’ “

I have taken art history courses in the past few years that have
concentrated on white women and people of color because these
populations are systematically excluded from discussion in mainstream
text books and of university coursework.  I would have to say that what
this director considers a “major work of art” is limited to a minority
of white men proclaimed great by another minority of white men.  His
limited perspective on who makes a “great work of art” is seriously
flawed, is not unlike what Hitler deemed great in his ideal world of the
“master race”.  There is still much work to be done regardless of the
advances of studies of women and people of color otherwise, and there is
still much work yet to be done to improve the equity of tenured women
and men of color in tenured art history professorships and as directors
of major museums.  Perhaps then, “major works of art” will be far more
comprehensive.


3.  His remarks seem to be made in a response to his gallery’s lack of
funding for research.  Recently, a move has been issued to American
museums at least, that all works within certain criteria, particularly
those works made before WWII and acquired after, be made public on
websites so that others, particularly those families who have lost their
possessions and their heirs may do their own research.  It is certainly
the responsibility of the director to understand the importance of
supporting the collections managers and curators who maintain the
information of the works in their collections so that this information
is easily at hand for all members of their audiences as an aid for their
own research.  It is, afterall, the existence of the collections, that
is the root of the existence of the museum itself.

For his final comment in number 2., that people have no right to
ownership of any work of art is not only dehumanizing to individuals
that make the works and those who support the artists by purchasing the
works to make their own living spaces more enjoyable, it goes against
common sense.  The simple fact of the matter is museums cannot and
should not hold every major work.  If indeed his gallery has so little
funding to even research what is held there, they certainly have no
space or money to hold every work made, let alone care for it while in
storage.


4.  The director in question further avoids the issue at hand when he
introduces the plight of First Nations and the wrongful removal of their
personal property.  He is correct that, ideally, the property of the
ancestors of First Nations be returned to them.  But he also fails to
mention the reality of the contamination of these objects by the
original “collectors” of these objects with mercury and other poisons
that makes the handling and the return of the objects even more
dangerous to the plaintiffs, and that the cost of decontamination is
substantially more than that of the research required to located WWII
looted works.  This is just one more major problem all nations will have
to deal with and are taking the first steps to acknowledging all the
issues involved, but not at the cost of excluding others problems of
equal importance.  Theft is still theft.


5.  His comments that the works plundered are “ ‘not important pieces of
Judaica, they don’t say anything specifically about the Jewish
people...’ “, does not justify the violence committed by the Nazis, nor
does it justify the works not being returned to the rightful owners or
their heirs.

In fact, what this director does not see as part of Judaica is far more
telling than what is- that the Jewish people, who purchased and owned
works of art by Jews and non-Jews alike, especially in the early part of
this century, had a far higher level of intelligence and compassion, as
well as acceptance and understanding of different perspectives other
than their own.  Based upon the history books and any number of pending
and successful lawsuits by Jewish families of late, it would seem that
many of these works were bought directly from the artist (thus
supporting these artists so they may create more works) or were held in
families’ possesions for many generations.  Given the well-known turmoil
of European governments and recent research on great artists, such as
Vincent Van Gogh, it is not surprising to find that numerous works by
these artists were destroyed by non-Jews because of their lack of
education.   My, what we could have had if it weren’t for this
ignorance...

For that matter, if it had not been for the Nazis, many of these
families with their possesions and economy intact might very well have
given many of these works even, as as a complete collection, to museums
or have established their own museums, adding to the wealth of culture
we have already.  The provenances would have been unblemished and we
would not have had this problem in the first place.


6.  The director’s final comments seem to confirm the apoligistic
attitude and that he is not fit to lead an institution of high culture.
Since we know “what war is about”, we have a responsibility of stopping
war altogether.  At the Western Museum Association conference in
Sacramento, California, 1999, human rights activist, Dolores Huerta
spoke at one of the keynote sessions.  She said, “that without libraries
and museums, there is no civilization.”  But what should also be noted
is that no civilization can last if it is dependent upon war and its
spoils.  It taints the knowledge base and it dehumanizes us all for
future generations.  We have a tremendous responsibility to correct what
we can and prevent such occurences from happening again.


Your responses are desired and welcomed.

Cheryl Maslin

=========================================================
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).