BlogBacks: Readers Respond to Comments by MacGregor and Serota

Remarks by two leading British museum directors---Neil MacGregor and Nicholas Serota---during a recent public conversation (scroll to July 7) at the London School of Economics and Political Science, elicited notable comments from two CultureGrrl readers:

Alan Wallach, Professor of Art. Art History and American Studies at the College of William and Mary, reponds to Serota and MacGregor: Why They Don't Want to Direct U.S. Museums:

England has a social-democratic political culture ("socialist" according to the current U.S. right wing political lexicon) and the English public takes certain prerogatives as rights (e.g., health care, free access to cultural institutions, an effective and relatively inexpensive national system of public transportation, etc.)---prerogatives that are almost unimaginable in the U.S.

Serota and MacGregor have a point when they talk about the English public's deep involvement in museum culture. In the U.S., the public is more accustomed to a culture of competitive individualism, in which financial might usually makes right. Consequently, public service is often not high on the list of museum board priorities, especially since the press, which could promote the public interest in museums, tends to pay little attention to board decisions save for the choice of a new director or, these days, budget cuts. (Museum scandals in the US typically involve the director, almost never the board.)

Meanwhile, hyper-affluent board members, while paying lip to the needs of the museum-going public, often concentrate on advancing their own social and collecting interests. John Wilson is right to observe that "there is a powerful board in America, very often fueled by money." Consequently, the U.S. public has far less influence on programming and museum policy generally than its English counterpart.

Kwame Opoku, frequent commentator on cultural property issues, responds to MacGregor Whopper: Greek Government "Simply Continued Elgin's Practice":

One may take whichever side is deemed reasonable in this debate which has been going on for some several decades but must one insult the opposing side? MacGregor knows very well that the name of Elgin has become synonymous with vandalism following the brutal removal of the Marbles from Athens by Elgin.

That a director of the British Museum can speak in this fashion is a sad commentary on the state of affairs regarding the restitution of cultural objects. The British Museum does not have any more valid arguments against the return of the Marbles, now that the Greeks have built a first class museum, the New Acropolis Museum, responding to the main argument that there was no suitable place in Athens for the marbles. It appears the tactic now is to insult the Greeks to such an extent that any civil discussion will soon be impossible. In the meanwhile, the Marbles can remain where they are: in the British Museum.

But this is a cheap strategy which can buy the British Museum only some breathing space until the majority of the British decide that their long-term interests are not best served by museums with such an unhelpful approach.

I'll have more commentary (my own) on MacGregor's recent assertion that the marbles were legally removed by Lord Elgin, COMING SOON.

(Is there anything new to say about this?)