The Portrait of Wally

The Portrait of Wally

By Ben Hall

     Background

Painted in 1912 by Austrian painter Egon Schiele, The Portrait of Wally perfectly exemplifies the controversial struggles of nations attempting to regain a piece of their heritage. Initially it was sold pre-World War II to art collector Lea Bondi, who did not know at the time that this piece of artwork would set off a chain of events as controversial as it was. The portrait was passed around several times after leaving Bondi's hands and ultimately ended up in the Leopold Meusum of modern art in Austria.

Picture outside of the Leopold

Controversy

The Leopold then, in 1997, had loaned its Schiele collection to the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. Soon after being alerted by an art dealer, a reporter for The New York Times reported the painting as being stolen Nazi loot. After the article was published, the heirs of Bondi demanded that the painting would not return to the Leopold and be returned to the Bondi family.

 Resolution

A little over ten years later, the Bondis and the Leopold had reached an agreement; the Leopold would give the Bondi family a $19 million dollar settlement in July of 2010 for their “stolen nazi loot”.

The entire story behind the portrait has even inspired a documentary which tells the entire struggle. Link to the Trailer:

Works Cited:

"The Art Newspaper." What Makes the Portrait of Wally Case so Significant? -. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. <http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/What-makes-the-Portrait-of-Wally-case-so-significant/26309>.

"Telling the Story of Portrait of Wally." Telling the Story of Portrait of Wally. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Oct. 2012. <http://artbusinessnews.com/2012/05/portrait-of-wally-egon-schiele-andrew-shea/>.

The Elgin Marbles, or the Parthenon Marbles? Britain's Arguement

                Recently in our class, The Ancient World in Contemporary Imagination, we discussed the situation of Greek’s Parthenon marbles.  To help our understanding, we read an article by Morag Kersel called article “The Politics of Playing Fair, Who’s Losing Their Marbles?” To understand the issue, we have to see how the marbles ended up in the British Museum. After defeating the Persians in 479 B.C, the Athenians wanted to rebuild their city of Athens to make it an important cultural, political, and artistic center. They created the Parthenon and the temple of the Maiden, where the marbles came from, between 447 and 438 B.C. (Kersel 42-43). The Parthenon did however suffer throughout wars and earthquakes, becoming less significant as time went on. Fast forwarding to the 17^th and 18th centuries, Europe was experiencing an era of Classicism. Europe became very interesting in classical monuments from ancient Greece and Rome. In 1795, Lord Elgin, who was a diplomat posted to Constantinople in the Ottoman Empire, went on a search for classical inspiration. Inspired by an architect, Elgin went to the marbles of the Acroplolis. He asked permission from Sultan Selim III, and said he wanted to just sketch and look at the architectural elements. It is not known whether the firman gave him full permission, but Elgin went home with the marbles. With some hesitation due to the illegal nature of how Elgin obtained the marbles, the British government bought the marbles for a cheap price. They were put in the British museum, where they now reside (Kersel 46).

           Greece, for centuries, never said they wanted the marbles back until recently.  Greece had been under Ottoman control during the time of the obtaining of the marbles, but had gained independence in 1828. Why did they not ask for the marbles then? Britain believes that Greece wanted the marbles to bring tourism to their country, and turn it into a sort of “theme park” Would Greece take any better care of the marbles then Britain already does? Britain feels as if it would make no sense to move an item from one museum to the other, and Kersel says that Greece has no plans to restore the marbles to the Parthenon.  People who support Britain’s argument believe that the marbles will simply waste away ( Kersel 50). In Kersel’s article, he provided four points as to why Britain should keep the marbles. They are the following;

1. “First, the Marbles were removed legitimately on the basis of a legal document-the Sultan's firman.”
2. “Second, returning the Marbles to Greece would constitute a precedent for the universal removal of major acquisitions of the world's museums, thus limiting the role of the museum in the education of the populace (Trade Environmental Database 2002).”
3. “Third, the removals were necessary on conservation grounds, and they have proved highly beneficial in preserving the sculptures from 150 years of high levels of pollution in Athens.”
4. “Fourth, the Marbles have become an integral part of the British cultural heritage (Reppas

1999, 917)” (Kersel 48).

Britain feels as though they have the marbles for the better of the people; to educate them about Greece for free. They feel the removal of the marbles was justified and that Elgin did have permission. They also feel that the marbles are not threatened and they do a great job of looking after the marbles. The fact that the marbles are in the British Museum has made the marbles more significant than they would have been if they were not placed there. Kersel wrote that their place in the museum “contributed to the worldwide recognition of the greatness Greece in the age before globalization” (Kersel 53). It shows that Greece’s influence can be found more than just in Greece, and that their great art is something worth sharing.

                In conclusion, Britain does not want to give up the marbles. They feel that the marbles have been in their museum so long that it has become theirs. The question of heritage comes in again, and we find ourselves asking, “Do the marbles really belong to anybody?” As humans, we all share common heritage, therefore, should we all be entitled to feel as though the marbles belong to us too? For now, though, the marbles will remain in Britain, available for all to see with the help of a flight to Britain.

                                                                  British Museum
Written by Kiera Lanni

Works Cited

Kersel, M. (2004). The Politics of Playing Fair, or, Who's Losing Their Marbles? In U. B. YORKE ROWAN, MARKETING HERITAGE: Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past (p. 331). Walnut Creek, Lanham, Oxford: Altamira Press.

Our Mission and Goal

Our Mission and Goal

On our blog, we will further be talking about various trials of stolen antiquities that are directly related to repatriation. Within these cases, we will discuss the importance of heritage and answer questions such as “Do these items now belong to the new founders of them, or do they belong rightfully to the place of origin?” This question is very controversial and sparks curiosity within us, and hopefully you too. Some of the cases we will be discussing are “The Portrait of Wally”, “Peruvian Sculls”, “Egyptian Sarcophagus” and many more. So I would like to hear from you, should we go by “finders keepers, losers weepers”? Or, are the items rightfully owned by their original founders?

http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/cultural-artifacts.htm

Introduction to Repatriation and Global Heritage

Imagine this; a group of archaeologists have just discovered an amazing new artifact in a temple in Mexico. They are floored to discover such a rare piece of history, and cannot wait to bring it to their university in the United States to study and restore it. Imagine all the secrets and answers in can hold! Do these archaeologists, however, have the right to take this item as their own and study it? Or does it belong to the government of Mexico? This is the question that has hung over the field of archaeology since it began. 

 Repatriation of artifacts is a subject of much controversy. From an article, Who’s Right? Repatriation of Cultural Property by Malcolm Bell III, “The Oxford English Dictionary defines “repatriate” as “to restore (an artifact or other object) to its country or place of origin,” and recognizes repatriation as a process of restoration, of making whole again”. Organizations such as UNESCO have worked in protecting and restituting cultural property. The Global Heritage Fund works to protect endangered and important cultural sites and their treasures. These organizations and other government programs work to end the stealing of antiquities, undocumented excavating, and preserving culture. 

 Many believe that an artifact should stay in its place to protect the culture of a community. Do these artifacts, though, really belong to them? As said in the article, World Heritage Rights Versus National Cultural Property Rights: The Case of the Jikji by Sun-Young Kwak, “Is cultural property the universal common heritage of mankind or do specific communities or nations have proprietary rights to their own cultural property?” It is hard to say who really exactly owns these artifacts, which is why the other side of this issue argues that one should take these artifacts for study and show off in museums for all to see rather than being “unsafely kept” where it was found.  Again from the article, Who’s Right? Repatriation of Cultural, the author Malcolm Bell III brings up the issue of “moral” rights.  Some of the rights he stated were;

“• The right to continued existence

• The right to proper conservation.

• The right to the preservation of relevant historical or archaeological documentation.

• The right to public access.

• The right to consolidation when a work exists in fragments.”\

            These issues, and more, will be discussed on this blog. This blog will look into some trials and artifacts that are subject to controversy due to repatriation and global heritage.  Each week, we will look at each side of the argument; why the government or people of where the object was found want it, and why the people who found it or museums want it. As the weeks go on, we hope to gain a better understanding of the issues surrounding excavations, as well as truly reflecting on “who owns the past”. As a side note, this a blog for a college class and the information presented is not written by professionals, just students.

            To learn more about Unesco and The Global Heritage funds, click the links below.

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/

http://globalheritagefund.org/about_us/ghf_mission

By Kiera Lanni

Bibliography

Bergman, Eric. "Reversing the Flow of Traffic in the Market of Cultural Property." n.d. Abya Yala News Online . October 2012 <http://saiic.nativeweb.org/ayn/repat.html>.

Kwak, Sun-Young. "World Heritage Rights Versus National Cultural Property Rights: The Case of the Jikji." 22 April 2005. Carnegie Council . October 2012 <http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/archive/dialogue/2_12/online_exclusive/5153.html>.

Malcolm Bell III, James Cuno. "Who’s Right? Repatriation of Cultural Property." 2 November 2010. IIP Digital . October 2012 <http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2010/10/20101022140412aidan0.7519953.html#axzz297GmMHqL>.