Is Stealing Art Good or Bad?
Berbelang, Fuentes, and Yellow Jack are all involved in an elaborate scheme to take art pieces from different museums and return them to the cultures they were stolen from. To them, the “art” is actually important relics in religious rituals, and their end goal is to reawaken lost spirits and deities. So, it is wrong of them to be taking these pieces?
From one point of view, yes, taking these art pieces is wrong. Museums are meant to spread information to the general public and introduce them to different civilizations in the world. By taking certain art pieces away, people are not exposed to as many different artistic styles and have a narrower sense of what art is. Less well-known cultures become even more obscure than before. Museums also rely on the art pieces to bring people in and fund their employees. Removing the art suddenly reduces the revenue, and could cause a small museum to close down. In addition, it is stealing. Even if the museum may have stolen the art from other places, stealing it back doesn’t right the wrong. Stealing during the night, only increases the chances that other artwork gets damaged, as Berbelang has realized. Without Yellow Jack, it is likely Don Manuel Osorio de Zúñiga by Goya would have been forever ruined.
However, stealing art pieces can also be considered the right thing to do. For one, the art pieces are more than just decoration: they are parts of religious services and cultures. They serve a practical purpose, and once it is taken away from the specific group, either it is irreplaceable (if it is an important and specific relic), or it takes time to make again. Returning the “artwork” back allows cultures to continue to thrive. The importance of the relic is different for the museum and the culture. To the museum, it is simply another exhibit. However, it means much more to the specific civilization than it is to the artwork prison. Even when the artwork is being displayed, in this specific time period and book, it is being mocked as “primitive”. In this case, it is hard to say that it is introducing people to different artforms as it is just a place for individuals to laugh and ridicule different cultures. A museum in this book is no longer as pristine and ethical as it seems at the surface.
Throughout this novel, Reed talks a lot of about art, through Jes Grew, dancing with loas, and the Text. Clearly, art is very meaningful to this book, and Reed wants the reader to reflect on art as well. Feel free to leave any of your reflections in the comments down below. Thank you for reading!
I would argue that the Mu'tafikah are in the right. While I agree that cultural exchange is a good thing, meaningful cultural exchange cannot happen without the willing participation of both parties. The Western audience that consumes this art in the museum does not have the cultural context to properly interpret and enjoy these stolen artifacts, and I highly doubt that the people who initially stole them asked their rightful owners for a quick run-down of what artistic decisions they made and why.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of whether taking the art was "right" or "wrong," I think that Reed's descriptions help us think about museums in today's world through a different light. Right now museums in Western countries continue to display relics from other colonized cultures. I believe that, ideally, the responsibility of identifying and returning stolen objects falls upon the museum (and the government), not on activist groups. However, if the museums refuse to collaborate, the Mu'tafikah absolutely have the right to come in and steal stuff back.
ReplyDeleteI think that stealing art to return it to its original owners who were stolen from is okay, and the right thing to do. If a museum is stealing art, I feel like it deserves to lose revenue and employees. Paying for the art is obviously the right thing to do, but at least both sides win some and lose some, instead of the original country only losing something and the museum only gaining something. The museum also could've borrowed the art, which would probably only lose them money due to shipping costs. In both cases, the original owners could provide context and inspirations to the artworks, which would further benefit the museum and those visiting it.
ReplyDeleteI think the art should be returned but definitely not destroyed. The purpose that museums now serve of educating the public was a accidental benefit of disastrous wars and conquests into less developed nations. These museums were made to show off the trophies of their wars. And in the age of technology, the access that the average person has to this art is the same here or in their origins. People deserve to have their cultural heritage.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! In this context there is a famous quote that goes 'good artists copy, great artists steal'. Using this word of intelligence it seems that stealing art makes you a great artist.
ReplyDeleteHello Sophia, I enjoyed reading your post. After reading Mumbo Jumbo my outlook on museums has completely changed. I had never really questioned their existence before, but now its very easy to see how they are just the products of wrong doing. Returning art and artifacts to their original culture or geographical location makes much more sense than not, the cultural artifacts deserve to be a part of the something bigger than an exhibit. Great post!
ReplyDeleteI think you hit on a lot of good points. I think the art definitely belongs to its original cultures, but stealing it back might not necessarily be the right thing to do. After all, two wrong don't make a right. I certainly can't blame Berbelang, Fuentes, and Yellow Jack, but I wonder if there is a different way to return the pieces to their rightful owners, but still educate the larger public of their existence (maybe through loans to museums or other compromises). Great post!
ReplyDeleteHi Sophia! I loved your post and thought it was very thought-provoking. I think that in the case of the novel, the characters were doing the right thing when they stole the art. Although people often say "two wrongs don't make a right", I'm not sure if the Mu'tafikah are in the wrong by stealing the art. The art was originally stolen from a culture that did not give America permission to take part of their heritage. By "stealing" the artwork, the Mu'tafikah are just taking back what was once theirs, not stealing something new. Although this hurts museum employees, I believe that it is still alright to steal it in that case, as the museum should have been more careful about how it acquired its artifacts. Nice job!
ReplyDelete