Scrutable

dccarm wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:34 pm We could just leave a card saying we tried to deliver it but no one was home.

Or leave them with a neighbour?

dccarm wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:34 pm We could just leave a card saying we tried to deliver it but no one was home.

AKA "The Hermes* Solution"

*Other poor performing carriers are available

There are a couple of things that bother me about the Elgin Marbles, Benin Bronzes, and other cultural artefacts acquired by British colonialists.

In no particular order:

1) Judging the behaviour of people in the past by the standards of today rather than the prevailing standards of the time does not appear rational to me.
2) In some cases, there is a reasonable argument to be made that the artefacts would not have survived in any condition/ in good as good a condition as they are now if they had not been removed. It is unreasonable to write off the costs involved in removal and storage/maintenance.
3) The régimes in place now in some cases have little or no connection to the régimes in place when the artefacts were removed, and do not necessarily have any cultural continuity with the culture that was in place when the artefact was created or indeed when it was relocated.

The UK is not pressing Italy for the return of tin and silver mined during the Roman occupation, and I don't think anyone is pressing for the Alhambra to be returned to Muslim care, so lines are drawn. Short-lived governments fighting over items that have lasted for longer than empires is silly - it's world heritage. I am reminded of the arguments over whether Copernicus was Polish or German.

Whilst there's some merit to the protection arguments, your examples are shite. The Italian state is in no way linked to the Roman empire of 18-19 centuries ago by anything but the slightest vagueries of geography, whereas the UK government and British Empire are contiguous entities. The extraction of resources is not analogous to the removal of cultural artifacts and the reasoning is completely different also. Nobody would argue that the resources are being extracted to some how protect them for prosperity.

The very concept of preservation is arguable in its merits, nevermind the appropriation of responsibility for objects from their lawful and moral owners.

It's not about judging the past by modern ethics, it's about today, now. If anything your explanation of the rectitude of keeping these items is some post hoc confection that was never the intention of the people who bought/stole the them in the first place.

How about we return these sorts of things to foreign museums, and the owners then promise free admission to UK passport holders to their museum for eternity. As a thank you for preserving them for centuries.

Pucksoppet wrote: Sat Feb 29, 2020 4:45 pm
2) In some cases, there is a reasonable argument to be made that the artefacts would not have survived in any condition/ in good as good a condition as they are now if they had not been removed. It is unreasonable to write off the costs involved in removal and storage/maintenance.

That doesn't work with the Marbles though. They were badly damaged in the 1930s by the Museum while cleaning them. See here. This damage has fuelled the argument on both sides - we say the Greeks would have damaged them more, they say we've damaged their heritage, give it back.

I say scan them and give them back. There are far more interesting things in the Museum anyway. I'd rather look at the Sutton Hoo horde or the Lewis chess pieces.

lpm wrote: Sat Feb 29, 2020 5:21 pm How about we return these sorts of things to foreign museums, and the owners then promise free admission to UK passport holders to their museum for eternity. As a thank you for preserving them for centuries.

That sounds good. The countries concerned can always charge high visa fees if necessary...

Tessa K wrote: Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:15 pm

Pucksoppet wrote: Sat Feb 29, 2020 4:45 pm
2) In some cases, there is a reasonable argument to be made that the artefacts would not have survived in any condition/ in good as good a condition as they are now if they had not been removed. It is unreasonable to write off the costs involved in removal and storage/maintenance.

That doesn't work with the Marbles though. They were badly damaged in the 1930s by the Museum while cleaning them. See here. This damage has fuelled the argument on both sides - we say the Greeks would have damaged them more, they say we've damaged their heritage, give it back.

I say scan them and give them back. There are far more interesting things in the Museum anyway. I'd rather look at the Sutton Hoo horde or the Lewis chess pieces.

I was aware of the 1930s 'cleaning'. On the other hand, at the time of their acquisition, the marble of fallen sculptures was being used to produce lime-mortar. We can't really say what might have happened had Lord Elgin not removed the sculptures.

Perhaps the Greeks might like to make re-joining the EU by the UK conditional on repatriation of the Marbles?

I must admit, when I visited the British Museum many years ago, I wasn't taken with the Marbles, so from a personal point of view, the Greeks can have them, but I can see that other people are considerably more passionate about the issue, on both sides.

Pucksoppet wrote: Sat Feb 29, 2020 8:32 pm
I was aware of the 1930s 'cleaning'. On the other hand, at the time of their acquisition, the marble of fallen sculptures was being used to produce lime-mortar. We can't really say what might have happened had Lord Elgin not removed the sculptures.

Perhaps the Greeks might like to make re-joining the EU by the UK conditional on repatriation of the Marbles?

I must admit, when I visited the British Museum many years ago, I wasn't taken with the Marbles, so from a personal point of view, the Greeks can have them, but I can see that other people are considerably more passionate about the issue, on both sides.

I can see that returning them would set a precedent but I agree that they're not that interesting. They're also not the busiest section of the museum. It's always Egypt that's the busiest. For me the Assyrian section not far from the Marbles is much better.

They're back in the news. Greek PM Kyriakos Mitsotakis was due to meet with current British PM Rishi Sunak on Tuesday. On Sunday he went on Laura Kuenssberg's BBC show where he spoke about the return of the Parthenon marbles. Downing Street claim that there was an agreement that Mitsotakis would not use his visit to call for their return, while Mitsotakis said there was no such agreement.

Sunak was apparently so pissed off he cancelled the appointment, offering up Deputy PM Oliver Dowden in his place. Unsurprisingly, Mitsotakis said no and returned to Greece without officially meeting with anyone from the government.

There is now concern that Sunak's behaviour will further damage our reputation in Europe (if it's possible to be damaged further).

European diplomats suggested Sunak had breached the usual diplomatic convention by cancelling talks with the Greek PM at the last minute and caused “offence” by offering him a meeting with his deputy, Oliver Dowden, instead.

One senior European official said: “If you want to be global Britain, open to the world, based on international values and diplomacy, you don’t just stop talking with friends because of an issue that has been around for 200 years. Not engaging is a problem.”
...
There was also implicit criticism of Sunak from Alicia Kearns, the Conservative chair of the foreign affairs committee. “I struggle to understand why the decision was made,” she said on Sky News.

“It does feel difficult to believe this was on the basis of the Elgin marbles … that a meeting was cancelled with a Nato ally, with whom we have an important relationship.”

William Hague, a former foreign secretary who is sometimes regarded as a mentor to Sunak, also weighed in, describing the affair as “not a great advert for diplomacy all round actually”.

The law changed last year to allow items to be deaccessioned for moral reasons and has been used to return a number of Benin Bronzes. The British Museum and V&A say they are exempt from this law change, but it shows the law can be changed. it feels like it's only a matter of time before the marbles are returned to Greece.

I remember visiting the V&A a few years ago and found myself in the Cast Courts. It took me an embarrassingly long time to realise they were copies, not originals. I think it was when I saw the statue of David that it finally twigged. If the Victorians were able to make high-quality replicas worthy of one of the most famous museums in the country, I honestly don't see why we can't make high-quality replicas of the marbles. Hell, why not make that replica a replica of the original - colour and all, rather than the broken and scrubbed-clean version currently on display?

Fishnut wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 10:45 pmHell, why not make that replica a replica of the original - colour and all, rather than the broken and scrubbed-clean version currently on display?

We went to an exhibit of colored replicas at the Met in New York last year. It was fascinating. By chance we were there on a day when some curators were there talking about the methods for reconstructing the colors and answering questions from visitors. We had quite a long chat with one of them. Apparently they can detect pigments, but not binders, and binders on marble can have a surprisingly large effect on actual color. So the color reconstruction involves a lot of guesswork about whether the colors were bright or more muted for realism, whether there was shading for facial detail or just skin color all over, and so on. IN some cases there's lots of detail detectable in the distribution of pigments, so you can make out, for example, quite complex multicolor patterns painted onto clothing.

It made me look at the regular Met collection of white marble originals in a quite different way.

bolo wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 11:10 pm

Fishnut wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 10:45 pmHell, why not make that replica a replica of the original - colour and all, rather than the broken and scrubbed-clean version currently on display?

We went to an exhibit of colored replicas at the Met in New York last year. It was fascinating. By chance we were there on a day when some curators were there talking about the methods for reconstructing the colors and answering questions from visitors. We had quite a long chat with one of them. Apparently they can detect pigments, but not binders, and binders on marble can have a surprisingly large effect on actual color. So the color reconstruction involves a lot of guesswork about whether the colors were bright or more muted for realism, whether there was shading for facial detail or just skin color all over, and so on. IN some cases there's lots of detail detectable in the distribution of pigments, so you can make out, for example, quite complex multicolor patterns painted onto clothing.

It made me look at the regular Met collection of white marble originals in a quite different way.

I'd love to see one of those polychrome exhibits, they sound amazing. I didn't know that about the binders, that's really interesting!

I find it quite surreal that so much of what we think of as 'classical art' is completely wrong. Not only our understanding of the ancient world but what much of the western world views as aesthetically pleasing is based on this idea that Greece and Rome were filled with white marble statues when in fact they were a riot of colour.

David Allen Green points out that the Elgin Marbles may not actually have been legally acquired.

https://davidallengreen.com/2021/11/wha ... dium=email

Fishnut wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 10:45 pm I honestly don't see why we can't make high-quality replicas of the marbles. Hell, why not make that replica a replica of the original - colour and all, rather than the broken and scrubbed-clean version currently on display?

They have a replica of the whole temple in Nashville. The reliefs aren't coloured in, but the statue of Athena is. She is big and shiny.

They had some pretty good looking casts of the marbles that you could see close up too, but they weren't painted.

bjn wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 11:28 pm David Allen Green points out that the Elgin Marbles may not actually have been legally acquired.

https://davidallengreen.com/2021/11/wha ... dium=email

We had a broader discussion about returning dubiously acquired items in another thread and that was shared there, but it's well worth reiterating.

This feels significant. Tristram Hunt has called for the national museums to have more autonomy in terms of its collections and how they manage them.

Hunt told the BBC: “I’m a strong believer that trustees of museum collections should have autonomy over those collections, and be able to make the case whether they should retain them within the UK or loan them to other museums around the world – or indeed begin a conversation around restitution and repatriation.”
...
“But we have a situation whereby the British Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum, some other national museums, are hidebound by [parliamentary] acts dating back to 1963 and 1983. [These] mean the trustees cannot make the argument that either these wonderful objects should be in conversation with other objects within their collection, or they think … they should be returned to countries of origin. We’re almost infantilised by this legislation because we hide behind it.”
...
He added: “We’re out of kilter with colleagues in France, Germany, the Netherlands, and I think it’s almost affecting Britain’s reputation in the world.”

The national museums have, in the past, fallen back on the old 'oh we'd love to return things but our hands are tied, sorry!' excuse, so the fact they are saying their hands are tied as a bad thing is an interesting change.

I think it’s mildly interesting that George Osborne has stirred up this issue seemingly to cause embarrassment to Sunak. He may be a Tory but he hates those who came after him and Cameron.

We don't seem to have posted this yet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x73PkUvArJY

cvb wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:08 am

Grumble wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:00 am

cvb wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:37 pm Give them back you thieving f.ckers, and the rest of artefacts stolen during the empire.

You obviously won't but you should.

f.ck all to do with the British Empire. We bought them off the Ottoman Empire. Whether they were entitled to sell them is the question but we didn’t steal them.

Nothing dodgy there then.

Buying stolen goods

Stranger Mouse wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 9:45 pm

cvb wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:08 am

Grumble wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:00 am

f.ck all to do with the British Empire. We bought them off the Ottoman Empire. Whether they were entitled to sell them is the question but we didn’t steal them.

Nothing dodgy there then.

Buying stolen goods

It wasn’t the British Empire buying them, not unless Lord Elgin used government money

Trajan's column in the V&A is a plaster cast and it is now more legible than the original owing to acid rain dissolving the one in Rome.

Take casts off the Marbles and give the f.ckers back.

There is an added element when looking at an object knowing it is ancient but sometimes ethics should take priority. A high quality copy can be indistinguishable.

Now I'm wondering how big a 3D printer would be needed for the Marbles.

As an aside - if people are interested in old stuff, the World Museum in Liverpool has an excellent exhibition called "Return of the Gods" at the moment. Based on the collection of statues formerly owned by Henry Blundell, who travelled on the Grand Tour and subsequently bought several collections of Roman era sculptures from Italy.
Not only are the sculptures quite outstanding, the exhibition explains how they are related (ahem!), and something of the history of the Roman Emperors

https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/wha ... exhibition
Until 25th Feb.

I'm not a fan of the Monarchy but this is quite amusing.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... on-marbles

Charles Windsor can wear any tie he wants. While he keeps up his ludicrous pretence of being a king he has to shut the f.ck up.