The Metropolitan Museum and its Asian collection

Illustration from NYTimes article

NYTimes article on Cambodian objects at the Met

A very interesting article appeared in the New York Times on August 18th (the link is above)  titled, "Cambodia Says it has found its Lost Artifacts: In Gallery 249 at the Met". Well yes, the Asian galleries at the Met are full of pieces from SouthEast Asia, including Cambodia. Given the attitudes of the time these pieces entered the museum, and the political chaos of the region which was then at war, we can be certain that many were were looted by todays standards. At the time, the entire antiquities market operated with little concern for the issue of cultural patrimony. Now a reappraisal is occurring, and the Asian collection at the Met is the focus here. 

The question is, this history happened, and what do we do about it now. The most common answer I read, is that stolen is stolen and to return everything. Unfortunately with ancient art, which is generally found in the ground, and has no ownership history before discovery, all of it could be considered stolen if the nations declare that all cultural property belongs to the state. Which is fine and good if you think we should atomize culture and have everything return to the nation of origin. But what an impoverished world that would be, we could only have American art here, and Western European art? Nothing from ancient cultures, not even from the Mediterranean world, let alone Africa, Asia and the the other Americas?

I wish there was more nuance to the discussion. As someone who loves encyclopedic museums, I don't want to see them disassembled but that seems to be what is happening, bit by bit. And who benefits from this, certainly not the people in New York or the United States, or the many people from around the world that come to see NYC and the Metropolitan Museum. The reason it is such an important museum is the diversity and depth of its collections. You can truly appreciate the range of human expression across time and from all over the world. My life has been dedicated to the appreciation of ancient art, and in more recent years, early Chinese Buddhist sculpture. To understand it, seeing Indian and Southeastern Asian sculpture puts it in perspective, something I could do visiting the Metropolitan Museum. The richness of the collection with the many examples available of these disparate cultures amplifies its educational quality. To strip away significant examples would diminish the museum and the experience. While I may be a rare bird, that is the whole point of an institution such as the Met, which is not catering to the lowest common denominator. 

Nowhere in the public discussion do I read about the value of encyclopedic museums, rather it is all about the provenance of the objects. Standards have changed since these collections were formed, which is something I will write about more fully in the future. But they exist now, and are in the public sector. They may not be owned by the public, but they are on public view and available to the public. In fact it is the visibility to the public that makes these museum collection an easy target for these ideologically driven investigators. 

I would like to have the value of encyclopedic museums acknowledged and balanced against the legitimate concerns about looted art. Maybe a solution could be to transfer ownership to Cambodia in this case and leave the pieces on view in the Metropolitan Museum on long term or permanent loan. In the rare case of a site specific object or one of such importance that it has no parallel in Cambodia, have them returned. The pieces in the museum can serve to promote Cambodia and inspire people to visit as well as educate people about the accomplishments of this amazing culture.