from BBC News
Tate boss questions 'saving' art
go to article
refer to BBC News
Government bans painting export
go to article
refer to BBC News
Saving art for the nation explained
go to article
In the UK, to export any 'cultural goods' of fifty years' age and above to another country would require a special licence. This requirement was born out of a need to keep works of significance and value in the country. Ever since this rule was enforced, a number of works of art have been 'saved' by funds raised through public appeals to acquire them. The director of London's Tate gallery, Nicholas Serota, challenged this existing mentality by asking for an objective assessment of the motives of such a practice.
"The belief that a work is always better seen in a british public collection than in a foreign public collection needs to be tested by reasoned argument rather than simple appeals to national or social chauvinism."
He also suggested that resources could be spent on 20th century and contemporary art.
To me, this chain of events and comments is interesting because it questions the relevance of a certain allocation of limited resources. Of course, what is 'relevant' depends very much on the priority focus set by the country's cultural institutions and authorities. A country who is long and rich in its past heritage has to balance its needs of preserving the past while continue building on the present. Also, the idea of social chauvinism, really, how far are we accepting of the idea that stewardship and preservation of a country's cultural and heritage resources can be both within and out of the country?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Lawrence @ 9:05AM | May 9th 2004|
ReplyDeleteIf we probe a little deeper into Serota's plead for a more enlightened policy of art acquisition – one which attempts to avoid "national or social chauvinism" – It might turn out to be *not* as progressive or politically-correct as it first appeared to be.
Today's highly globalised and inter-linked economic and political world allows for a ease of transit of commodities across countries. Artworks are no exception, being very much part of this globalised circuit. Hence, it does not matter where actual cultural artefacts are, as they can be moved – given sufficient resources.
This ease of transit also echoes an earlier epoch - that of the Enlightenment. It was a time when grand visions of a *universal* social, political and cultural order were dominant and were acted upon. It was also a time when highly civilised European thinking and values were considered to be far superior and hence have a natural right to prevail over other "lesser" tribes (which we know as colonialism). Within this larger context, it did not matter where cultural artefacts were, as they were all part of an integrated (European) world order.
This grandoise thinking could well be the motivation for bringing the Parthenon marbles into the British Museum's collection. It could also be the (unsaid) basis for the strong resistance to calls for the "return" of these artefacts to Greece, where they originated – even right up to today. But other more noble reasons are usually given, instead.
Serota’s (earlier) criticisms of the export ban – and the flurry of fund-raising activities expected to follow – may be an attempt to try and focus more attention (and resources) on the acquisition of contemporary art. However, in arguing against "national or social chauvinism", it brings to mind unfortunate resonances.