Repatriation of works of art refers to the return of works of art or cultural objects to their country of origin or to their former owners. These items were forcibly taken from their original owners or creators in their home countries as a result of war, colonialism, or imperialism. Repatriation is a hotly debated topic that is ongoing and its fire has little hope of being completely extinguished. Giants and staunch academics and people in authority such as art curators, art critics, art historians, art professors, politicians and other well-meaning personalities have expressed their views on this controversial issue of returning creative products to their places. originally.

The theme of the repatriation of art and the conflicts in which it is involved is deep and extensive. Some argue in favor of the repatriation of works of art to their former owners, while others strongly oppose it due to equally valid opinions. This essay seeks to discuss the issue of the repatriation of works of art and the efforts made by global agencies and associations for the repatriation of works of art and the challenges that have been presented. It will then further investigate the discussion from both sides of whether to repatriate these African art and cultural artifacts that currently grace Western museums and European upper-class manor houses to their countries of origin.

The various world bodies and agencies in charge of human welfare and international peace have made various efforts to repatriate objects that were illegally acquired by their current owners. Various conventions and declarations have been established to ensure that the restitution of these cultural assets is returned safely to their places of origin. These efforts have had some subtle successes, while the challenges are herculean and daunting.

The first effort to repatriate works was the institution of the Lieber code (General Order #100) in 1843, designed by Francis Lieber, to whom the president of the US and property, therefore, cultural objects. It is sad that the code allowed for the destruction of cultural property out of military necessity, which resulted in the abolition of this code.

In 1954, the Hague document was drawn up after the great devastation of World War II and the great looting of art and cultural objects. This document also features several criticisms because it favored ‘market nations’, thus rich countries, over ‘source nations’ which are mostly poor.

Another repatriation effort was undertaken by the UNESCO Convention against Illicit Export and the Intergovernmental Committee to Promote the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation on November 14, 1970. Like Like its predecessors, the terms in the convention were widely rejected because they were too broad and unspecific. In addition, he promoted businesses on the black market for the sale of these cultural objects.

Recently, most countries are embracing repatriation problem solving with ‘Mutually Beneficial Repatriation Agreements (MBRAs). This document requires disputing parties to resolve disagreements flexibly in a way that is mutually beneficial. This mode of arbitration between item-owning countries and item-possessing countries will certainly have its drawbacks.

Some of these obstacles are:

1. Poor legislative approaches developed among the signatory states.

2. Failure to establish a system to resolve property and compensation issues.

3. Some works of art and cultural objects do not have clear information about the history that helps to determine their place of origin.

4. Sometimes there are various speculations about the origin of the artwork, which makes it difficult to know the original owners.

5. The legal battle for the repatriation of works of art is long and expensive.

The question is why are some countries campaigning vigorously for the repatriation of the arts to their countries of origin? Many reasons are often cited. Item reviews requested by their home countries are generally famous and valuable works that are central to the historical and cultural documentation of those countries. These cultural objects are a symbol of cultural heritage and identity, and the return of such historic works of art is a hallmark of each country’s pride and therefore must be repatriated. The return of such works requires a special welcoming ceremony, as if a member of society who has been imprisoned for a long time and is now at large is returning home.

In addition, defenders of the repatriation of works of art to their places of origin argue that encyclopedic museums such as the British Museum, the Louvre Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which are the main depositories of the prestigious artistic creations of various countries they house them. out of sight and reach of the cultures that own them. It is also very worrying that the encyclopedic museums that house most of the world’s works of art and artifacts are located in Western cities and are the privilege of European academics, professionals and citizens. This is quite unfair because the guardians are protecting the works of their owners, which is neither appropriate nor civilized in a free democratic world that we find ourselves in.

Once again, some ethnic societies and nations dare to need some repatriated works in order to reconstruct their national history, which is a springboard for any country’s survival and hope of livelihood in the future. This has been the case with the Benin court ritual objects that Nigerians need to write the stories of their ancestors. Wouldn’t it be illegal and even a crime to deny the return of works of such importance to their rightful owners?

In the same train of thought, items are best appreciated and understood in their original and cultural context. Many artifacts have special cultural value to a particular community or nation. When these works are removed from their original cultural setting, they lose their context and the culture loses a part of its history. Due to this, the objects must be repatriated to their countries of origin. This explains why there are false interpretations associated with some of the African masterpieces now finding their home in ‘foreign’ lands.

Likewise, the dispossession of creative products permanently destroys archaeological sites that could have been configured as a tourist site to generate income for the owners or countries of origin. This, in the author’s opinion, could have increased the economic strength of the country of origin, which in Africa is largely financially pulverized.

Furthermore, the possession of works of art taken under the sad conditions of war, looting, imperialism and colonialism is unethical and still suggests continued colonialism. In order to portray and ensure full liberation and freedom from the colonized states, these creative objects must be returned.

In addition, when the objects that are in fragments are repatriated to their countries of origin, they can be consolidated with their other parts to achieve a whole so that the meanings of the works are adequately collected. This is the case with the marble sculptures of the Parthenon of the Temple of Athena which is now in the British Museum in London. The ancient Greeks, who are the owners, believed that sculptures bring virtual life to their subjects, and therefore completeness or totality is an essential characteristic of an imitative or figurative art.

There are many well meaning academics and other educators and individuals who vehemently disapprove and even oppose the repatriation of cultural items and other objects to their countries of origin. One of his arguments is that art is part of a universal human history and that ancient products from various cultures promote inquiry, tolerance and a broad understanding of cultures. For them, having works from different cultures would help to eliminate the cultural monopoly, which is the main agent that causes global unity. Art museum curators and directors say that when a museum has works from many cultures, it presents visitors with a wide range of art to help disfigure people’s ignorance of the world.

Artistic creations transcend national borders, as well as the cultures and peoples that created them. Therefore, a deliberate alignment or segregation of a work of art to a particular country limits the scope and understanding of the work.

In addition, Western art museums are believed to be engaged in the professional management of the works in their care. They are believed to have the proper infrastructure to house the items. Therefore, the safety and protection of the works are guaranteed. This cannot be said of the apparently poor African states that call for the repatriation of the arts. They lack the infrastructure structure to protect the works when they are repatriated to their homeland.

However, this is an understatement because much of the artwork transported out of colonized countries was crudely removed and damaged, and sometimes lost in transit. The issue of security and protection of works of art is still the subject of debate. The owners of the objects may have the necessary infrastructure to preserve the repatriated works. However, to judge correctly, little can be said about this because of the heap of economic burden already resting on the feeble shoulders of these ‘home nations’.

Another important issue that prevents the repatriation of creative works is with respect to the claimant of full ownership of the works of art. This problem is compounded when many countries, cities and museums are in possession of parts of a work of art. Where should the designated “home” of the gathered work be? Who should be the final owner of creative masterpieces? To curb this challenge, many scholars, art directors, and curators feel it is best not to repatriate their items to their countries of origin.

It is a harsh truth that must be accepted that African works that are lavishly displayed in museums and other public vantage points in the western lands, especially Europe, will never see their home countries again. The debate over the repatriation of works of art will continue, although some nations and agencies are making some efforts to return items that were illegally acquired to their original homeland.

The author is of the opinion that cultural objects that have historical significance and can help in the reconstruction of a country’s history should be returned. However, those who are locked up in encyclopedic museums for consumption by the population and who are not essential to rewrite the history of a country should not be repatriated. However, their correct interpretations should be checked with their original owners. Since revenue will be earned, the original owners of the works must be compensated or paid so that they can share the profits with the museum preserving the arts.

Again, there must be mutual understanding and agreement between the original owners of the works and the museum in order to reach a consensus that is favorable to all. It will also be prudent for the parties involved to establish measures to occasionally show the products to the citizens of the country of origin so that the visualization of the creative pieces is not only an exclusive preserve of the privileged Europeans but also of the poor owners of such wonderful creations.

A combined effort with the goal of reaching an amicable consensus on the part of the host nation and the country of origin, if well charted, could help reduce the threat of poaching for the restitution of works of art to their countries of origin.

REFERENCE

UNESCO (1970, November 14). Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.