Do we have to return the works of art to their country of origin? Why?

Rare nonsense.Art belongs to the owner. If at least it has come to a fair conclusion.

Two for figurines:

  • As a country, the Netherlands has acquired a lot of art in the time of the visual art scheme, the B.K.R. tax money was spent to enable artists to make art and to deliver as a counterperformance than a number of works. The Netherlands, among others, has done its utmost to get rid of all this art by means of artificial lending.

We were overjoyed if anyone wanted to pay and bring such a cloth or sheet of paper. Wherever you are.

  • Picasso made a work of art for Amsterdam.
  • It is located in the Vondelpark.

    • Where should it be back?

    To Spain, where the work has never been, but where Picasso came from, or to France, where he chose to live after 1904 until his death in 1973? So also in 1965 when he donated his image Figure D茅coup茅e to the municipality of Amsterdam, celebrating 100 years of Vondelpark. Under the express condition that it would remain permanent there. And actually, that image has never been anywhere else than in Amsterdam, because Picasso has designed it and made a three-dimensional design, but not carried out in the concrete that is in the Vondelpark.

    OK, then once something completely different.The Elgin Marbles, now in the British Museum in London.

    Elgin Marbles-Wikipedia

    Well, legal was the acquisition and export of the views of that time.The then Turkish government officials were only too happy to pay to have pieces from the Athenian Acropolis shipped to London. But the question is whether that Turkish government can be considered the rightful owner afterwards. I don’t think so. It was art in-and also meant for-a very specific place in public space. That Caryatid belongs in Athens and nowhere else. And I am convinced that it is back in Greece within ten years.

    But it’s not that easy in all cases.

    As long as proven or at least plausible it can be made that these can legally have come into the possession of someone I would not know why.

    When it comes to robbery at the time of war or colonialism, I think it is a good idea to do so.

    Then the Monets and Durers would also have to be returned to France and Germany (to make it even more complicated the Durers would attack the Free State of Bavaria).And what about the many of the Goghs painted in France and the Breugels because they now come from Belgium, which country then did not even exist, or belonged to the Netherlands.

    The problem is the art that has been robbed in the context of the colonial occupations. The problem is not the art that has been acquired through a purchase contract. You can ask yourself if these deals were misused by the weakness of the selling party.According to Dutch law, this is not a barrier to legal acquisition, for example according to German or Austrian law, that provisions of usurious prohibition or misuse of the weakness of the other Contracting Party knows. Then you get the curious situation, that German museums have to give back and Dutch do not. The discussion cannot therefore be conducted internationally.

    That is tricky.From one side I would say so, but how do you check what art qualifies for it? Under what circumstances has the art ended up where it is?

    I think it is best to look at it from case to case, as it is now.

    What Onnasch says.

    Art is not from museums or individuals, art is from the viewer.The artist has made something that should be seen, not something that must be taken into possession. This will capitalized the artist.

    Art may even travel from me.Music also does that, which can be carried out everywhere and is not claimed as country ownership; Poetry can be read everywhere. Let the night watch but exhibit in Tokyo, Sydney; The Mona Lisa in Buenos Airos, Cape Town.

    By the way: the Amsterdam artist who sells something to a German.An Italian architect who designs a Rotterdam building; Fashion designers 鈧?娄 a movie?,…

    No so, although I also recognise the problem of predatory art.

    If those artworks were removed from their country of origin by means of theft, it is normally normal if they are returned to their country of origin.However, that is often very difficult to figure out. Many works of art have often been owned by foreign collections for centuries, and it is usually not really known in what way those artworks have come into the hands of collectors or museums (purchase?, robbery?). Furthermore, you have to ask yourself what happens to the works of art when you return them to their country of origin. Are they kept in museums? Or are they in the hands of merchants throwing them at auctions? Or they may be deliberately destroyed (see, for example, what is happening in Iraq and Syria). So the matter is not so simple, and it is important to inform you of the situation in the country of origin before proceeding to rendering works of art.

    Leave a Reply