Stolen and illegally acquired art and artifacts continue to generate debate on what should be done to them. However, the UNIDROIT Convention 1995 recommends investigating and restocking stolen art and artifacts (Basedow 129). In addition, the Cultural Property and Antiquities (CPAA) under the US Immigration, Custom, and Enforcement (ICE) requires investigation, repatriation, and restitution of stolen cultural items (ICE 1). The case of the Beautiful Museum in California, displaying in a blockbuster exhibition 19th-century artifacts believed to have been appropriated by Nazis from a Jewish patron, should be referred to CPAA and ICE for investigation and possible restitution to Germany and the art patron or the creator. In this essay, I argue from the perspective of a contemporary artist interested in Social Justice and Political Issues that the beautiful museum should refer the case to CPAA and ICE for investigation and restitution and that the museum was legally and ethically correct to display the piece because it is in its mandate to showcase all good artwork. It will also illustrate that failing to showcase the art because of the dark part of Nazis influencing its movement amounts to unnecessary censorship, and also that its creator should be credited with the work and not only the patron.
As a contemporary artist interested in Social Justice and Political Issues, I would advise the Beautiful Museum to write to the federal government agencies, including CPAA and ICE, requesting them to investigate if the artifact was illegally acquired and, if so, begin the process of restituting it to the original owner. Conversely, I would acclaim the museum’s action to showcase the piece. I would be happy if the piece were showcased and reviewed by an artist interested in social justice. My concern would be whether adequate context information was provided so audiences can understand its context. The most crucial goal for art is to be seen by the targeted audience. No artist can make a great piece and wish it to remain concealed under any circumstances. While it is illegal and unethical for the people who illegally acquired art to benefit from it, the beautiful museum is not among those who contributed to appropriating it. The museum only performs its duty of curating and exhibiting good art pieces from the past and present. In addition, it is justifiable that audiences can view and interact with all good art pieces from the past, and only law enforcement, in this case, CPAA, should determine if ICE should repatriate the piece.
Another notable justification that the Beautiful Museum was suitable for exhibiting the 19th-century painting is that it has elicited a public reaction, notably by the journalist who published the article that raises concerns about the origin of the piece and castigates the museum for exhibiting a piece with a dark past (Campbell 49). If not, the public may never have seen it, and its whereabouts would have remained unknown. Therefore, museums and other institutions should make all efforts to display all art objects that are likely to make an impact regardless of their past. Afterward, law enforcement and other departments related to cultural heritage can investigate these cases and restitute pieces to their rightful owners.
Another notable aspect that makes the views of the journalists who criticized the museum wrong for displaying a piece with a “dark past” is that this view promotes censorship. Censorship can never be allowed in many aspects of progressive societies, including art (Gabriel 655). In addition, the journalist’s explanation is erroneous as the piece does not showcase the savage atrocities that the Nazis committed. Instead, it was painted long before Nazism and does not in any way promote the Nazi ideology; since its content is unrelated to the dark history, its exhibition by the Beautiful Museum cannot be blamed on that account (Campbell 49). In addition, the dark history of the piece should be curated and displayed alongside, which would help audiences to develop adequate context of the piece. Taking the political dimension of the issue, the journalist should note that many legal processes, including tribunals, were run to address Nazi crimes making the part of history to be legally closed. As a result, it is unfair and repetitive to censor art on account of Europe’s Nazi challenge (Vella 34).
As a contemporary artist interested in social justice, I am concerned if the art displayed by the Beautiful Museum belonged to the Jewish patron or if he also appropriated it from a painter. Art patrons could easily take credit for others’ creations. As a result, the journalist in the case under review should take additional steps to investigate the actual creator of the piece in question beyond the Jewish patron, and the credit for the piece should also go to the creator (Gabriel 655). One should note that pieces from great artists, including Michelangelo, Van Gogh, and Picasso, are primarily credited to creators, not their patrons. Likewise, the artist who created the piece under review should be identified to receive credit for this piece. In contrast, the patron should receive minimal recognition for the same piece.
In summary, the essay recommends that the Beautiful Museum refer the case to CPAA for investigation and ICE for possible restitution to the original owner or patron. In addition, the museum was legally and ethically proper in displaying the piece because it is beyond it to investigate stolen artifacts. Still, it is its mandate to showcase all good artworks. Showcasing the piece was also crucial in drawing public interest, including from the journalist, which is desirable and can pave the way for restitution. Noteworthy, failing to showcase the art because of the involvement of Nazis in its movement amounts to unnecessary censorship as the piece does not convey or promote this ideology. This context information should be availed to the audience, and the actual creator should be sought to be credited with this work.
Works Cited
ICE. “Cultural property and antiquities (CPAA) investigation” (April 14, 2923). ice.gov/ factsheet.
Basedow, Jurgen. “Uniform Law Conventions and the UNIDROIT Principles of InternationalCommercial Contracts.” Unif. L. Rev. ns 5 2000: 129.
Gabriel, Henry Deeb. “Advantages of Soft Law in International Commercial Law: The Role of UNIDROIT, UNCITRAL, and the Hague Conference.” Brook. J. Int’l L. 34 2008: 655.
Campbell, Elizabeth. “An Art Restitution Zeitgeist? Museum Ethics and the Law in the Early Twenty-First Century.” The Journal of the Western Society for French History 49 2024.
Vella, Theresa. “Politics and art in Baroque Malta: A case study in the expression of magnificence and its relevance to the present day.” The Different Faces of Politics in the Visual and Performative Arts. Routledge India, 2024. 25–41.
write