Museums

Both the Basu and Catalani articles speak to the ways in which the transnational movement of diasporic objects has been beneficial. In a counter argument against the common outlook that objects removed from their countries of origins should be returned (especially when acquired by colonial rule). These articles then, are set to address issues of rightful ownership and belonging. While the Catalani articles places greater emphasis on the affects of these objects on the diasporic communities, the Basu article takes greater focus on the cost-benefits of having objects abroad as apposed to “home”. While I don’t necessarily agree that you can assess the “value” of an objects placement, I did find the readings commendable for tackling the “other side of the coin”. Their stances ask us to excuse the past, and are very much asking to turn our eyes towards the present (or future).

By making cases for various collections of objects from Sierra Leone, it seems that Basu uses the historical routes of object diasporas to justify their present situations. We are presented with the driving forces that lead to these collections, and I found this to be a tool targeted at my compassion and own sense of discovery. However, I think that it more so highlighted the lack of foresight that was taken in acquiring these objects (more so on behalf of Aldridge), and for me, this really derailed the idea of these objects having an educational legacy. I guess this has much to do with intentionality, but it still left a bad taste in my mouth.

On the plus side, I did like the ways in which Basu asked us to rethink status, value and the potential of these collections. In this way, his approach can be seen as making the best out of what has come to pass. Especially with regards to highlighting the history of relations between Sierra Leone and their diasporic communities, I think a good case was made for how these objects are more than what they represent as objects. By keeping these relationships alive, we are able to think about the returned benefits (ie. the reactivation of money and interest by the reanimation of these collections).

Catalani argues for the benefits of diasporic objects as a means to restoring or forming cultural identities. He sees museums as institutions that provide a space for cultural awareness, and both history and memory. Collaborative efforts are cited as the ideal means to obtaining knowledge that is both socially and academically astute. While this appears to be an equitable approach, it really minimizes the dissonance that may exists between these outlooks, or between the academics and the “source communities” that Catalani call upon. This becomes a matter of associated knowledge’s; something I think is not flushed out enough in this article.

Questions:

http://www.googleartproject.com/

I have just recently heard about the google art project, which allows you into many international art galleries. It reminded me of these articles in that you do not need to leave your home to have access to these pieces. As technology and globalization allow for a greater degree of access, do you think issues surrounding object diasporas will be minimize? And perhaps will prevailing repatriation prove to be more beneficial in this climate?

And then in keeping with my first question…

Do you think that this is more so an issue of access or ownership?