2 ms·

Generally the consensus on art stolen by the Nazis, both legal and moral, is that it should be returned; when pieces are found, the original owners usually go t

Generally the consensus on art stolen by the Nazis, both legal and moral, is that it should be returned; when pieces are found, the original owners usually go to court and get massive public sympathy even when they don't win the case. The case of art stolen during the colonial period, e.g. the Elgin Marbles, seems to mostly be argued on pragmatic grounds, such as by saying that a mass return of all plundered art would empty out the largest museums in the world. I find this... morally unconvincing, to say the least.

slg 7y ago
I agree morally, but legally it doesn't appear as cut and dry as you imply. Earlier this month there was a NYT article [1] about artwork looted by the Nazis that is currently held in Polish musuems and The Culture Ministry of Poland responded [2] with an argument against the return. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/arts/design/poland-nazi-looted-art.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/arts/design/poland-nazi-l... [2] - https://polandin.com/46197504/polish-ministry-of-culture-rejects-nyt-accusations https://polandin.com/46197504/polish-ministry-of-culture-rej...
toyg 7y ago
There is an argument for conservation that is hard to dismiss. A lot of artefacts were found in countries that are currently unstable or otherwise struggle to care appropriately even for what they already hold. Repatriating everything would likely mean, in most cases, a reduction of publicly-available material (as more stuff is simply removed from view due to lack of funds), and at worst destruction or loss (Syria being the most famous example, but even Greece during the crisis was reportedly considering selling a lot of their artefacts). As much as I’d like the Louvre gutted of its looted contents, I am pretty sure that returning yet another Leonardo painting to Italy or yet another marble statue to Greece, will just satisfy the basest nationalist instincts (which will probably move on to some other complaint a minute later) while impoverishing the global public.

slg 7y ago

I agree morally, but legally it doesn't appear as cut and dry as you imply. Earlier this month there was a NYT article [1] about artwork looted by the Nazis that is currently held in Polish musuems and The Culture Ministry of Poland responded [2] with an argument against the return. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/arts/design/poland-nazi-looted-art.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/arts/design/poland-nazi-l... [2] - https://polandin.com/46197504/polish-ministry-of-culture-rejects-nyt-accusations https://polandin.com/46197504/polish-ministry-of-culture-rej...

toyg 7y ago

There is an argument for conservation that is hard to dismiss. A lot of artefacts were found in countries that are currently unstable or otherwise struggle to care appropriately even for what they already hold. Repatriating everything would likely mean, in most cases, a reduction of publicly-available material (as more stuff is simply removed from view due to lack of funds), and at worst destruction or loss (Syria being the most famous example, but even Greece during the crisis was reportedly considering selling a lot of their artefacts). As much as I’d like the Louvre gutted of its looted contents, I am pretty sure that returning yet another Leonardo painting to Italy or yet another marble statue to Greece, will just satisfy the basest nationalist instincts (which will probably move on to some other complaint a minute later) while impoverishing the global public.