Many of the readings this week dealt with the ethical dilemmas museums are faced with in the 21st century. These authors encourage museums to rethink most every aspect of their being. According to the authors, existing laws have not sufficiently caught up with the times and museums must, of their own volition, strive to do the ethically sound thing when it comes to acquiring, deaccessioning, repatriating, displaying, and documenting artifacts. The authors argue that museum leaders should feel compelled to act in an ethical manner in order to fulfill their goal to create “a society that respects and celebrates cultural pluralism.” Many problems exist in the authors’ generalizations, particularly since ethics can be seen as a personal issue that individuals must contend with on a case by case basis.
As for repatriation, what happens if numerous Native American tribes lay claim to the same religious objects? As for the museums, why should they be forced to give up valuable artifacts they have preserved for years? How can museums continue to educate the public about the diversity that exists in this country if the only Native American artifacts that remain are seemingly insignificant (assuming, like the author, that tribes will only ask for items of utmost importance)? If the point of having artifacts in museums is to increase knowledge and showcase the artifacts to the most amount of people possible, how does repatriation serve those needs? The most ridiculous NAGPRA provision discussed in this article exists in the fact that objects, including human remains, can be retained “if a scientific study of national importance is being conducted” until the tests are finished! How ethical…
The article discussing deaccessioning further delved into the differences between law and ethics in regards to museum artifacts. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that “over 90 percent of the objects in United States museums have been donated.” With this in mind, I see no reason why a museum should feel compelled to keep artifacts, storage space is only so large and museums can only showcase so many artifacts at once. Rather than muddying the waters with further legislative and bureaucratic hoops to jump through, I feel that museum curators and collectors should have the right to dispose of whatever artifacts they so choose. Museums cannot be expected to keep every artifact donated to them just because they have possession of said artifact. If museums discard important cultural artifacts, they risk losing clientele and much needed funding. How can true diversity abound if museums are tied down to numerous laws and ethical codes disallowing them the cultural freedom necessary to educate the public in order to fulfill their missions? These sentiments can be ascribed to documentation as well as displaying of artifacts within museums.
As for the article on acquiring artifacts, the author clearly feels that “there are gaps in the law” that must be accounted for by ethical decisions. I understand that there are problems with museums actively seeking to pay for illegally obtained artifacts; however, if 90 percent of artifacts in museums are donated, I feel that museums should be able to accept artifacts, free of charge, without incessant research into how the previous owner obtained the artifact in question. As for items museums already have, I see no reason to return each and every artifact to its “original owner.” The older an artifact is, the more claimants there will be for ownership based upon prior ownership, ancestral ownership, national precedence… Particularly in regards to artifacts a specific nation might have “prior ownership” of, who is to say that that entity was even a nation when the artifact was created? Who is to say that the artifact was not legally sold or bartered to a different national group or merchant? Who is to say that this nation will be able to preserve it well? (This is not meant to be Ethnocentric, but merely a historical realization; many documented cases of political regimes particularly in the Middle East and and Soviet Europe have purposefully ruined religious and cultural artifacts that can never be replaced). Who is to say that the museum currently in possession, possession is 9/10 of the law, is not using the artifact in its best manner, educating the public about global history?
The most insightful article this week was the article on “Mining the Museum.” At first I felt that I should copy this article and drop it off at the Idaho State History Museum, but then I realized that “only with the perspective and creative resources of an outsider could…[any museum] undertake as self-critical and creative a project as Mining the Museum.” Having experienced the museum this past week, I realize that the Idaho State History Museum clearly falls outside of this realm. I almost feel as if the Idaho State History Museum should be kept in its current state in order to continue to show future generations what museums used to look like. In any case, anyone looking to transform this museum better contact Fred Wilson and a few more influential individuals if they hope to have any success.