Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:57:29 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
signoff museum-l
I want to get off of this list, someone please tell me how.
Thanks
YuhangAt 09:51 PM 1/21/99 -0000, you wrote:
>I have wondered for some time if there isn't room for another, intermediate,
>category of ownership. Given that museums exist to hold objects for ever &
>thus remove them in some ways from the material(ist) world, it ought to be
>possible for us to use anotherform of intellectual categorisation....
>
>What I imagine is something that maintains the legal ownership of an object
>in the museum but also allows for a form of intellectual/moral ownership of
>the object by representatives of the originating group - much in the way as
>you could own a painting but the artist still retain copyright over the
>image.
>
>In this way the 'home' culture could be acknowledged in any literature and
>advise on the interpretation and care of the artefacts. The object would
>then be jointly managed by the museum who wants to store it for ever and
>interpret it to the public and originating culture who may wish to see it
>treated respectfully and in accordance with their own values and practices.
>
>Obviously there might be problems if the two were in contradiction (which
>reminds me of the Japanese business man who bought some Van Gogh flowers and
>said he wanted them cremated with him.... but that's another story!) - but
>could it not be a useful principle to inform practice?
>
>
>
>> "...The question of how, when, and where the indigenous
>> objects were obtained creates a mine-field of both
>> legal and moral dimensions..."
>>
>> That was well said, and I agree completely. The matter
>> DOES require serious consideration from a variety
>> perspectives. I don't think there is a simple answer
>> applicable to all cases, except perhaps that museum
>> folk should/must afford indigenous people's claims the
>> right to serious examination and consideration in such
>> matters. My knee-jerk reaction to your original post
>> was in response to the implication that original owners
>> were always still "rightful" owners.
>>
>> Even the car analogy, presuming that you sold it to me
>> outright and with no liens or other encumbrances,
>> doesn't always work. In ND if a person under 21 years
>> of age sells something, he/she can state they didn't
>> understand the matter and re-claim the sold item (and
>> return the purchase price) until they ARE 21. We found
>> that out the hard way when we accepted an artifact
>> donation from a 16 year old. She later changed her
>> mind and the lawyers held that we had to return the
>> item even though we'd gotten the teenager's mother to
>> countersign the deed of gift. We no longer accept
>> donations from people under 21.
>>
>> Good luck.
>>
>> Chris Dill
>>
>>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>C. L. Dill, Museum Director
>>State Historical Society of North Dakota
>>612 East Boulevard
>>Bismarck ND 58505-0830 USA
>>P: (701)328-2666
>>F: (701)328-3710
>>E: [log in to unmask]
>>Visit our Web site at: http://www.state.nd.us/hist/
>>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>
>
>
|
|
|