iDIDJ Australia Didgeridoo Cultural Hub

[ididjaustralia]

This is not strictly didjeridu-related, but is the 32nd Congress of the International Committee of the History of Art (CIHA), Website and further info here:

http://www.cihamelbourne2008.com.au/

Guan

_________________
iDIDJ Australia - Didgeridoo Cultural Hub
E-mail: info@ididj.com.au
Web: www.ididj.com.au
YouTube: www.youtube.com/ididjaustralia

[ididjaustralia]

From The Age newspaper:

Mixing of cultures is far from black and white

Guan

_________________
iDIDJ Australia - Didgeridoo Cultural Hub
E-mail: info@ididj.com.au
Web: www.ididj.com.au
YouTube: www.youtube.com/ididjaustralia

[ididjaustralia]

And another newspaper article, very interesting read:

Objects without borders

Quote:

THE movement of people across borders has been a constant of world history — a course both fruitful and fraught. Newcomers are not always readily accepted and debates rage about the relative benefits and tensions created by immigration, none more so than in our times. And yet, a markedly different attitude is frequently shown towards art objects that have moved from their place of origin to a new home. Cultural objects that have crossed borders are often hotly contested — coveted by their new owners as greatly as by their countries of origin. The most famous example is the Elgin Marbles, the ancient Athenian sculptures owned by the British Museum despite the Greek Government's persistent calls for their repatriation. So where does an art object rightfully belong? Is there a moral imperative for cultural patrimony, even when legally obtained, to be returned to its country of origin? Or can art objects that have legally moved from one part of the world to another be viewed as cultural ambassadors that promote understanding between people? Just because an object originated in Greece or Italy, is that its right and proper resting place? These were among the questions considered at the 32nd Congress of the International Committee of the History of Art, in Melbourne this week, where repatriation — returning cultural patrimony to its country of origin — was a focus. What emerged was a desire among art historians for a more open-minded, generous and complex approach to the circulation of art objects made by other people in other times and places. "We need to promote conversations across cultures now more than ever before in history," Canadian professor Ruth Phillips told a packed Melbourne Town Hall on Monday night. On that night, Michael Brand, the Canberra-born director of the prestigious J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles, which has been embroiled in repatriation claims in recent years, proposed the metaphor of art objects as "de facto migrants". He argued that while it was crucial that museums guard against illegal trafficking of art objects, it was just as important for so-called "source" countries to think carefully about restitution requests. "While we all know that migration is the agent of great inspiration and transformation, it can also fuel the politics of nationalism," Brand said. "In the museum world, this is often expressed in the form of cultural patrimony claims. All museums must play their role in curtailing the illegal trafficking of works of art and some works should be restituted. "At the same time, the simplistic argument that all works of art should be returned home is no better than one seeking to stop human migration in the name of preserving supposedly pure ethnic borders." When Brand became director of the Getty in 2006, he inherited a dreadful and well-documented mess, including the museum's former curator of antiquities, Marion True, being tried in Italy and Greece on charges of acquiring illegally excavated antiquities. Brand made it his priority to resolve outstanding repatriation claims from Italy and Greece, signing agreements with both countries last year involving restitution of some objects. But more on that later. Australian museums and galleries have not had to endure such high-profile and controversial repatriation claims as those faced by the British Museum, the Getty, or New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. But there emerged at the conference a fascinating repatriation claim that has been quietly bubbling away for six years between the Melbourne Museum and Canadian indigenous people known as the Mi'kmaq. At the centre of the claim is an exquisitely crafted chief's coat made by the Mi'kmaq. It arrived in Melbourne in the mid-19th century and was donated to the Melbourne Museum in 1879. The coat and other Mi'kmaq artefacts were brought to Australia in 1852 by an extraordinary white man who was well ahead of his time. His name was Samuel Douglass Smith Huyghue, the son of a British army officer, who was born on Prince Edward Island in Canada's Maritime region in 1861. Deeply sympathetic to the plight of Canada's indigenous people, he even argued, in the 19th century, that they be compensated for the injustices suffered at the hands of non-indigenous settlers. Professor Ruth Phillips, of Carleton University in Ottawa, began to investigate the coat's origins at the request of the Melbourne Museum following the repatriation claim. The museum's senior curator of anthropology (Oceania), Dr Ron Vanderwal, contacted Phillips, an expert on North American Indian art, asking for her help in determining the coat's cultural significance. An adventurer, writer, artist and antiquarian collector, Huyghue acquired the coat and other artefacts from the Mi'kmaq in the early 1840s, motivated by his desire to preserve records of the Mi'kmaq way of life. In the late 1840s, Huyghue moved to London, trying to further his literary career, but his lack of financial success led him to migrate to Australia in 1852 to work as a government clerk in the Ballarat gold mines, bringing his Mi'kmaq collection with him. It is somewhat ironic that Huyghue's legacy has returned to the spotlight as a result of the repatriation claim — his collection of Mi'kmaq artefacts and scholarly papers is kept in storage by the Melbourne Museum. Contemporary Mi'kmaq only learnt of the coat's existence when it returned to Canada for a temporary exhibition during the winter Olympics in 1988, and through Museum Victoria's online catalogue. "Since then, several Mikmaq people have travelled to Melbourne to see it, leaving ritual offerings of tobacco, which the museum keeps carefully in place," Phillips said. There is no suggestion that Huyghue obtained the coat illegally. "He almost certainly acquired the pieces in his collection as gifts or purchased them in the lively curiosity trade developed by Aboriginal people as a key strategy of economic survival," Phillips said. "The request is thus not based on any accusation of illegal ownership but, rather, on the value the outfit has for contemporary Mikmaq, who lack access to ancestral materials of this quality." There is only one other coat of such consummate quality in existence, Phillips said. Interestingly, she used the case of the Mi'kmaq coat not to argue forcefully for its immediate return, but, rather for the need to "complicate the terms in which we commonly think about repatriation". "So here is the dilemma," she said, "indigenous groups have urgent and legitimate needs for access to ancestral heritage that was transported around the world through colonial collecting projects. Yet if all such collections were to be returned, how would our renewed interest in world art history be viable?" Discussions between the Melbourne Museum and the Mi'kmaq are continuing, aided by Phillips' investigations, but more research is needed before a decision on repatriation. Six objects are the focus of the Mi'kmaq's claim, which was launched in 2002; the chief's coat, a tobacco pipe, a man's moccasins, legging and leather pouch, and a brooch. "We do need to be very careful about making decisions (to repatriate), because they are irreversible," said Melbourne Museum's Mike Green, head of indigenous cultures. Nevertheless, it is museum policy, as it is for Sydney's Australian Museum, to repatriate significant indigenous cultural property — human remains or secret and sacred objects — to its traditional owners, if claims are found to be valid. Whenever a claim is made, museums must undertake intensive research to determine an object's precise history, and art historians have an important role to play in this process. Which brings us back to the Getty. In August last year, the Getty and the Italian Government reached an agreement to return 40 objects to Italy, including, most famously, the Cult Statue of a Goddess, often referred to as Aphrodite. The Getty was becoming concerned about the provenance provided by the dealer from whom it acquired the work. Intensive research, including a workshop of experts at the Getty Villa, concluded that while there was no evidence linking the sculpture to the Sicilian archaeological site of Morgantina, the most likely source for the limestone and sculpture itself was indeed Sicily. The Italian Government will allow the Getty to display the sculpture at the Getty Villa until 2010, and then will lend masterpieces of equivalent scale, aesthetic quality and art historical importance on a four-year rotation. "Fortunately for us, the so-called Getty Bronze will be staying at the Getty," said director Michael Brand. The sculpture of a naked and ripple-torsoed young athlete was found by chance in 1964 in international waters between Italy and Croatia, and bought by the Getty in 1977. Late last year, a third Italian trial concluded that Italy had no claim on the sculpture. "Ironically, it was most likely on its way to Italy from Greece as Roman loot when it was lost at sea," Brand said. "As a local aside, the National Gallery in Canberra had actually been poised to purchase this bronze in 1976, just after it purchased Blue Poles. However, this was stopped by the then prime minister and minister for culture, Malcolm Fraser." In arguing for a more considered approach to repatriation, Brand also raised the example of an Etruscan bronze chariot, owned by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. The chariot was unearthed in 1902 by a farmer near the Umbrian village of Monteleone and bought by the Met in 1903. Because the chariot was acquired six years before Italy instigated strict laws on the movement of cultural property, the country's authorities have refused to support the village of Monteleone's attempts to have the work returned. Brand relayed the amusing war of words that has ensued. The Met has said that of the villagers' request: "It is like asking France to return the Mona Lisa." The villagers fired back: "Displaying an Etruscan chariot among New York skyscrapers is the equivalent of us exhibiting artefacts of American Indian tribes in Monteleone." But Brand was adamant that those are precisely the kinds of cross-cultural exchanges that should be happening. American Indian art being shown in an Umbrian village? Bring it on. Gabriella Coslovich is senior arts writer.

Guan

_________________
iDIDJ Australia - Didgeridoo Cultural Hub
E-mail: info@ididj.com.au
Web: www.ididj.com.au
YouTube: www.youtube.com/ididjaustralia