Should Art Galleries or Museums or Heritage Sites Avoid Controversy or Not - Essay Example

 Abstract Museums display artifacts of different civilizations and cultures (Hein, 2012). Some groups or individuals criticise the items displayed in the museums. Controversies may unexpectedly rear its head from any group or individual. The British Museum refuses to grant Egypt’s request to return the Egypt artifacts. The Our Lady controversy resulted to threats on the artist’s life, rallies to close the exhibit and terminating the museum management officers. Controversies can be avoided by implementing several strategies. The strategies include discussing the art pieces to the visitors. Museums should steer clear of controversies. Controversies contribute to unnecessarily unfavorable images of the museum. Introduction The museums display artifacts representing different civilizations and cultures. Some quarters criticise the items displayed in the museum’s shelves. Controversies may unexpectedly appear (Howells, 2012). Individuals have different interpretations of the works of art. For a priest, nude painting is not an acceptable art alternative (Smith, 1996). The nude painting creates a vivid picture that the artist used a naked female model to finish the art work (Clarke, 2011). Museums should avoid controversies. Controversies trigger an unfavorable museum image. Museum Controversy The word controversy equates to conflict. A conflict occurs when different sides have opposing views. Conflicts may lead to court cases. In other situations, a conflict creates animosity between the disagreeing parties. The news reports of controversies will not be good on the image of the affected museums (McElroy, 2010) British Museum Controversy Refusal to return the Egypt Artifacts to Egypt The above Rosetta Stone artifact is one example of a museum controversy (Budge, 2012). The controversy creates an unfavorable image that Our British Museum stole the Egyptian artifacts. In the controversy between the British Museum and Egypt, Egypt demands that the British Museum should return the Egypt artifacts. Egypt claims that Egypt is the owner of the artifacts displayed in the British Museum. This claim creates an impression on the public that the British Museum holds stolen property. Consequently, Egypt bombards the news outlets with statements that damage the reputation of the British Museum. (McElroy, 2010) Picture 1 Rosetta Stone Further, the controversy states Egypt wants the Rosetta Stone returned to Egypt (Budge, 2012). However, our British Museum refuses to comply with Egypt’s demand (McElroy, 2010). Similarly, Egypt insists that the Neues Museum should return Nefertiti’s Bust. The Neues Museum is located in Berlin, Germany. Egypt’s Supreme Antiquities Council’s head, Zahi Hawass, persistently wants the Egyptian artifacts are returned to the Egypt government (McElroy, 2010). The Museum controversy is understandable. There is currently no international law that requires the museums to return their art and artifact collections to the customers. In response, the museums, especially our British Museum, implemented effective strategies to come out of the controversy to protect the museums’ honor and reputation. The British Museum implemented it s right. The right is to keep the art pieces. The museum firmly opposes the Egypt Ministry of Antiquities’ demand because it would violate the right of the Museum. As legal owner of the art pieces, the British Museum insists that the Egyptian agency has no right to get something that is not the property of the Egyptian agency, Ministry of Antiquities (McElroy, 2010). Further, the British Museum knows that Egypt rightfully admits that it has no legal basis to force our British Museum to return the Egyptian artifacts. This admittance clearly shows that Egypt will be wasting its time if it decides to file a case in court to retrieve the Egyptian Artifacts. If the British Museum continues to hold on to the controversial Egyptian artifacts, the British Museum has every right to do so (Mobile Reference, 2010). Refusal to return the Parthenon Artifacts and Elgin Marbles to Greece Furthermore, the British Museum ignored requests to return the Parthenon Sculptures to Greece. Greece insisted that the sculpture were taken from the Greece Parthenon structures (Marstine, 2008). Since the structures are of Greek origin, Greece feels that the Parthenon Sculptures should be displayed in the museum of Greece. Greece feels that the controversial sculpture ownership should result to the British Museum returning the sculptures to Greece. However, the British Museum strategy was to refuse the persistent requests of the Greece government to return the Parthenon sculptures and Marbles (Makas, 2011). The British Museum claims that the sculptures were legally obtained by the museum management. Specifically, the Parthenon Sculptures were legally excavated and “saved” by English Archaeologist Lord Elgin. The Elgin discovery, recovery, and delivery to the British Museum occurred more than 200 years ago. The museum insists that the Elgin team was able prevent the Parthenon sculptures from being robbed by the invading Ottoman army (Marstine, 2008). Picture 2 Parthenon Structure Further, the British Museum strategically applied logic to resolve the controversy between the Greece government and the museum. The British museum affirmed that the Ottoman invaders would have stolen the questioned sculptures and taken them to an undisclosed location. Consequently, there is a high probability that the Greece government will not be able to find the sculptures. There is even a strong probability the Ottoman attackers could have destroyed the sculptures. If this happened, then the Greece government will not have any sculptures to present within any Greece museum’s display galleries. The logical ending would be that the current Greece government will be in possession of the sculptures. This is one of the British Museum’s strategic reasons for not returning the controversial sculptures to Greece (Marstine, 2008). Further, the British museum’s strategy is understandable. The museum has more than50 percent of the total Parthenon structure within its gallery areas. The other half of the entire Parthenon structure pieces are scattered in museum facilities in seven other countries. The British collection of the Parthenon structure includes the very important portions of the Frieze part of the Parthenon structure. The structures include more than 12 metopes and an estimated 17 pediment figures. The Parthenon structures were retrieved by Thomas Bruce. Bruce is the 7th Earl of Elgin. The Bruce excavation team retrieved the Parthenon structures and Elgin Marbles between 1801 and 1810. The Bruce archaeological team sent the retrieved Parthenon Structures and Elgin Marbles on a ship towards the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom government bought the Parthenon structures and Elgin Marbles from the Bruce archaeological team. After the purchase, the United Kingdom government delivered the controversial Parthenon structure remnants and Elgin Marbles to the British Museum. The delivery was received by the British Museum in 1816 (Makas, 2011). Consequently, the controversy between Greece and United Kingdom over the return of the Parthenon Sculptures and Elgin Marbles reached more than 100 years. The experts from Greece claimed the Bruce excavation team used crude tools to retrieve the Parthenon structure pieces and Elgin Marbles. By doing so, the excavation team had literally damaged the Parthenon structures and Elgin Marbles. Greece continues to seek global support to force the United Kingdom to return the Parthenon Marbles and Elgin Marbles (Makas, 2011). The British Museum feels its strategy to refuse Greece’s insistence to return the Parthenon structure and Elgin Marbles is legally correct (Makas, 2011). By paying for the Parthenon structures and Elgin Marbles, the British Museum complies with global heritage rights. British art historian Mary Beard insists that the Elgin motive for retrieving the Parthenon structures and marbles is to preserve the Parthenon structure for everyone in the world to personally see, admire, and remember our world’s rich historic past, including the rich historic architectural grandeur of Greece’s Parthenon Structure era. Brooklyn Museum’s Controversial Display In another museum controversy, the Brooklyn Museum advertised one of its art masterpieces in the newspaper, the advertisement was meant to persuade the newspaper readers to visit the Brooklyn Museum (Howells, 2012). Advertisement appeared in the September 22, 1999 issue of the New York Daily New front page. The ad was entitled “Rudy’s Art War”. The advertisement of the art masterpiece contained the caption “What’s Wrong with this Picture”. Picture 3 Brooklyn Museum Controversy Further, the above newspaper ad shows the oil painting of a woman. In response, New York Mayor R. Agiuliani raised one controversy. The controversy centered on the Ofili paintings’ attacking the Roman Catholic faith. The mayor ordered the city officials to stop funding the museum’s activities. The mayor rallied for the banning of the oil paintings to the museum visitors. The mayor interpreted the oil painting, especially the oil painting shown on the above newspaper ad, as very offensive. The mayor commented to his city line and staff employees that it is not worth funding a museum that has such offensive art pieces. The Mayor described one of the Ofili oil paintings as showing some individuals throwing elephant dung on the Roman Catholic faith’s Virgin Mary. The mayor felt the image insulted the Virgin Mary, one of the religious figures in the Roman Catholic faith. The mayor classified the art pieces displayed in the museum as sick stuff, a waste of the city’s scarce museum sponsorship. The mayor even ordered that the museum closed if it does not remove the offensive oil paintings for making vicious, biased, and horrible attacks on the religious beliefs of the Roman Catholics and other similar religions (Howells, 2012). However, the same museum’s strategy to diffuse the controversy is to defy the mayor’s order to remove the offensive Ofili art pieces. The museum insisted that it will continue with the controversial Ofili oil painting exhibits, despite the warnings and orders of the city mayor (Howells, 2012). The museum insisted that it had the freedom to display any art piece that it chooses (Howells, 2012). Glengow Museum of Calgary, Canada Controversy Marjorie Halpin, Canadian Anthropologist, presented an exhibit in the Glengow Museum of Calgary, Canada. The 1988 museum exhibit focuses on presenting a differently unpopular image of the native people of Canada. The Lubicon Lake Cree tribe of Calgary, Canada rallied for the international boycott of the Canadian museum’s art exhibition. The Cree tribe insisted that the Museum did not seek permission from the owners of the museum artifacts, the Lubicon Lake Cree Tribe, to display the currently art works during the museum’s winter Olympic exhibit. The museum exhibit coincided at the same time as the Canada Winter Olympics. Consequently, the museum was expecting a large number of museum visitors. The museum expected visitors the United States, Europe, and other countries to enter the museum’s gallery areas (Bouquet, 2001). The Cree group questioned why the museum accepted money from the Shell Canada Corporation when Shell was in current dispute with the Cree group (Bouquet, 2001). The Lubicon Lake Cree tribe was fighting for ownership of their land. The native Cree tribe protested Shell Petroleum Company’s drilling oil wells within the Cree community without seeking permission from the tribe. The Shell Corporation was searching for oil or petroleum. The oil drillings were done within the Lubicon Lake area. The Cree community protested the Calgary Canada’s granting the Shell Corporation the license to search for oil within the Lubicon Cree community’s territory. In response, the Lubicon Lake Cree community rallied for the boycott of the Canada version of the Winter Olympics (Bouquet, 2001). Further, the Lubicon Cree Indian tribe protested the museum’s use of Lubicon Cree art masterpieces without asking permission from the Lubicon Lake Cree tribe (Bouquet, 2001). The tribe protested the government’s not protecting the rights of the Lubicon Lake Cree tribe, including allowing the Shell Corporation to drill on the tribe’s land. The tribe felt that the use of the tribe’s artifacts did not generate any benefit to the tribe. The tribe felt that the White Canadian leaders, the museum management, and Shell did not include the Cree’s inputs gave any benefits to the Cree tribe for using the Cree Tribe’s mask artifacts. The tribe felt that their artifacts were used as entertainment the White Canadian government, museum management and Shell Corporation without respecting the right of the Cree community. The Lubicon Lake Cree community wanted the museum, the White Canadian government and Shell Corporation to seek the approval of the native Lubicon Lake Cree tribe before deciding to use the Lubicon Lake Cree artifacts as part of the museum exhibits and the Lubicon Lake Cree land as Shell drilling sites. In terms of strategy, the museum implemented the best course of action. The museum’s strategy was to continue exhibiting the questioned Lubicon Cree mask artifacts. The museum implemented the exhibits to achieve one of its goals. The goal was to generate much needed funds. The funds are used to pay for continuing operations of the Canadian museum. The exhibition resulted to Shell Corporation donating $ 1,000,000 donation. The museum’s strategy included refusing the Lubicon Cree’s requests to seek the tribe’s permission to exhibit the tribe’s mask artifacts (Simpson 39). Next, the museum’s next strategy was accepting the Lubicon Cree tribe’s right to voice their protests against the current museum management’s gallery exhibition policies (Bouquet, 2001). The museum did not take steps to stop the tribe from voicing their grievances against the Canadian government and Canadian museum. Clearly, the museum rightfully ignored the Lubicon Cree tribe’s protests in exchange for the $1,000,000 Shell Corporation donation. The museum management’s strategy shows that choosing the financial benefits is better than bending to the complaints of the less economically blessed Lubicon Cree tribe of Calgary, Canada (Simpson 39). Further, the museum’s strategy was to prioritize highlighting the rich artistic and cultural traditions of the Canadian People, including the Lubicon Cree Tribe. The museum has borrowed an estimated 650 museum artifact from several contributors. An estimated 89 groups or individuals lent the museum artifacts in order to advertise the richness of each group’s cultural heritage, including the art heritage (Simpson 39). Furthermore, the protest of the Lubicon Cree tribe caught worldwide attention. Several groups or individuals understood the tribe’s point of view. Consequently, many groups or individuals refused to lend their art masterpieces to the museum. These groups rallied behind the Lubicon Cree tribe’s petition to boycott the Museum exhibit. When the Lubicon Cree tribe’s protest reached global notice, Marjorie Halpin recommended that the Museum should have reached out to the Lubicon Lake Cree tribe and incorporated the feelings of tribe as part of the tribe’s museum exhibits, not leaving the tribe out of the museum exhibit equation (Simpson 39). The museum strategy was correct. The museum implemented its main mission. The mission was to display to the world the richness of Canada’s culture. To support the museum’s desire to promote the local Canadian culture, the museum prioritized displaying the art exhibits of all sectors of the Canadian society. By displaying the art exhibits of the Lubicon Lake Cree tribe without their permission, the museum prioritized teaching the world about the richness of one of Canada’s native Canadian societies, the Lubicon Lake Cree tribe (Simpson 39). The museum’s intention was honest, pure, good- intentioned, and aimed advertising the currently unknown Lubicon Lake Cree tribe to the world (Simpson 39). Our Lady Controversy One of the hotly contested controversies is the Museum of International Folk Art exhibit (Day, 2004). The exhibit was held during February 2001. The museum is located in Santa Fe, New Mexico within the borders of the United States. The controversy centred on a digital photo collage print created by Alma Lopez, a Los Angeles artist. The image mimics the Roman Catholic’s Lady of Guadalupe, Virgin Mary Image. However, the Alma Lopez image shows a muscular Hispanic female with an attitude that included one cocked knee and her hands firmly placed on her legs (Lopez, 2011). The Virgin Mary’s face is not covered and engages a confrontational look at the artwork viewer. A handful of flowers covered her breast as well as her pelvis. She has a bikini of roses. The roses symbolize the Virgin Mary. Further, the lady is patterned after a Latina lady. Lopez incorporated the Aztec Goddess, Coyolxauhqui into the picture. Lopez replaces the angel carrying the Virgin Mary with a bare breasted or nude lady. This replacement was interpreted as an intentional insult of the Roman Catholic Faith and predominantly Roman Catholic residents living near the museum (Rojas, 2009). Her clothes are inserted the image of the Aztec moon goddess Coyolxauhqi. The image creates an impression of a nude Virgin Mary (Day, 2004). Picture 4 Our Lady of Guadalupe The above picture shows why the Roman Catholics protested the Lopez artwork (de Alba, 2011). Most of the Roman Catholic viewers were offended by the artwork. They exercised their right to rally for the removal of the Alma Lopez art work. The Roman Catholic residents rightfully interpreted the artwork as insulting the Hispanic culture and the Roman Catholic faith by making a mockery of one of the faith’s revered persons, the Virgin Mary (Day, 2004). Many groups correctly sent their complaints to the museum administrators to remove the insulting artwork. The groups have the right to voice their comments to the museum administrators. . In response, the museum administrators rightfully implemented one strategy to diffuse the complaints. The museum tried to reach out to the complaints. The museum officers tried their best to explain the art benefits of the questioned Lopez artwork. The museum officers discussed the decision to display the art price by discussing the art history, Lady of Guadalupe ( also known as Virgin Mary in the Roman Catholic religion), women in general, and nudity art form benefits of the Lopez art piece (Day, 2004). Additionally, the museum did its best strategy to explain to the Our Lady of Guadalupe Parish priest that the Lopez artwork was done to comply with the democratic right of the artists and the museum management to display art pieces classified as enhancing art history, promoting the Lady of Guadalupe, women in general, and nudity art form. The museum rightfully explained to the Roman Catholic priest that the artist, Alma Lopez, who does not belong to the Roman Catholic faith, has the right to present her art masterpiece (Day, 2004). The museum was hoping that the Roman Catholic priest would understand and accept the museum’s right to grant all artists the right to display their art masterpieces. Further, the same museum management’s strategy was to refuse the growing protesters’ demand to remove the nude Our Lady of Guadalupe art work of Alma Lopez. In response, more than 24,000 persons rightfully sent angry protest letters to the museum management (Day, 2004). The Archbishop of Santa Fe, the Catholic League of Religious and Civil Rights, The American Association of Museums, the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), and other groups gave their comments and petitions on the controversy. Countless angry emails, phone calls, public meetings and other protest actions prove that the museum management’s decision to display the Lopez artwork was erroneous and insensitive. In fact, some of the protesters correctly brought tires, bags of trash, dead fish and other objects and placed them within the vicinity of the museum to bring a strong message to the insensitive museum management officers. Because the museum management officers refused to agree to the community’s petition to remove the controversial art picture, the protests grew in size. Consequently, huge media outfits like CNN, BBC and the Associated Press correctly reported news same issue. Because of the museum’s strategy of refusing to implement the appeal of the growing protesters, the New Mexico governor correctly did his best to resolve the controversy. The governor affirmed that the museum had the legal right to ignore the growing protests in a democratic society (Day, 2004). Democratic leaders correctly wrote letters to the museum management to remove the controversial art piece from the public display area, threatening to stop funding the museum’s expenses. Next, the museum management advertised that meeting will be conducted. The meeting will show the artist, Alma Lopez, explaining her reasons for creating the controversial work of art. Since the protesters refused to accept the museum management’s explanations, the museum felt the artist’s explanation may diffuse the anger in the hearts of the protesters. However, Lopez feared for her life after getting many death threats. Consequently, the museum succumbed to the mounting protests. The museum’s last strategy was implemented. The strategy was to remove the controversial Lopez art work during October of 2001. The museum did its best to explain the museum had the right to display all works of art, including controversial ones for the sake of art freedom (Knutson, 2004). To diffuse the growing anger of the community, Ambassador Ortiz took a bold step. The ambassador ordered the removal of the Alma Lopez art piece. The museum was forced to comply. Consequently, the growing protesters were happy that their increasing requests to remove the controversial image were finally heard (De Alba, 2011). Conclusion The world’s museums include art masterpieces from different time periods. Some individuals and groups criticise the displayed museum items. Controversies may arise from the people’s observation of the museum masterpieces, including the British Museum art works. The Our Lady controversy included threats on the artist’s life. Evidently, the museums must shun controversies in order to prevent avoidable art show consequences, avoiding an unfavorable museum reputation. References: Budge, E., 2012. The Rosetta Stone. New York: Courier Dover Press. Bouquet, M., 2001. Academic Anthropology and the Museum. London: Berghahan Press. Clarke, D., 2011. Chinese Art and Its World Encounter. Hong kong: Hong Kong University Press. Day, M., 2004. Handbook of Research and Policy in Art Education. London: Routledge Press. De Alba, A. 2011. Our Lady of Controversy. Austin: University of Texas Press. Hein, G., 2012. Progressive Museum Practice. London: Press: Left Coast Press. Howells, R., 2012. Outrage: Art, Controversy, and Society. London: Palgrave Macmillan Press. Knutson, K., 20,04. Listening in on Museum Conversations. London: Rowman Press. Lopez, A., 2011. Our Lady of Controversy. Texas: University of Texas Press. Makas, E., 2011. Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas. London: J. Wiley & Sons. Marstine, J., 2008. New Museum Theory and Practice. London: J. Wiley & Sons Press. McElroy, D., 2010, April 7. British Museum Under Pressure to Give Up Leading Treasures. Telegraph. Mobile Reference, 2010. London Sights. London: Mobile Reference Press. Noble, T. (2010). Western Civilization. New York: Cengage Learning. Rojas, M. (2009). Women of Color and Feminism. New York: Seal Press. Simpson, M. (2012). Making Representations Museums in the Post-Colonial Era. London: Routledge Press. Smith, S., 2009. Contesting Knowledge: Museums and Indigenous Perspectives. University of Lincoln: Nebraska Press. Read More