How I wish I wasn’t swamped at the moment, but there’s a call for articles on Saving Antiquities on Everyone for the ICOMOS series.
“[Heritage@Risk is] looking for contributions that discuss the impact of the illicit artifact trade on archaeological sites and other heritage places. These can be short reports from the field, alerts, etc. (as opposed to academic articles). If interested in contributing, please send a title and brief abstract or description, along with authors’ names, to Brian Egloff (Brian.Egloff@canberra.edu.au).”
For the original post, please refer to Heritage@Risk seeks articles.
Screenshot from SAFECorner poll.
You’ll notice on the sidebar they have a poll which has really been bugging me recently, asking, “Should museums inform the public whether their collections are acquired according to commonly accepted ethical standards?” It’s such a loaded question! If “commonly accepted ethical standards” were so straightforward, we wouldn’t have entire scholarly journals and publications and blogs and a profession devoted to the discussion of looting, imperialism, and other acquisition issues.
“Ethical standards” are across the board on this, and the issue of what is ethical behavior in the context of museum acquisitions has most certainly not been settled. I totally give SAFE the benefit of the doubt on this one that it was unintentional, but I see why some might get the impression the organization is biased (see this post’s comment string).
I have to admit, I was one of the three people that voted “No” to the question, only because I found it so annoying. Do I feel that museums should make public the provenance (or lack thereof) of every item in their collection? Yes, I do. I also feel that public museums should be legally required to do so. Do I think that private museums should forthwith give up and conform to near-fundamentalist definitions of ethical behavior? Well, perhaps I should put loaded poll in the sidebar and see what you think.
Subscribe in a reader
What do you think? Click the comment button below. Guest comments welcome.
December 3, 2008 at 10:18 am
„Ethics in polling”? Hmm. I rather think the polls are on SAFECorner more to prompt the reader into thinking about something and interacting rather than to gather information as such. I do not think there is anything necessarily “unethical” in posing a simple question.
Is the notion of “commonly accepted ethical standards” for museum acquisitions particularly confusing? If it is, then perhaps this is precisely the reason why museums should tell all those coming in what their views are on this as part of their mission to inform the public about the aspects and contexts of the items they display. I voted “yes”.
I really do not see why ethical standards should apply any differently to what you call “private museums” – do you mean the private collections of individuals by this? A piece of looted and smuggled artwork in a private collection is as much looted and smuggled there as in a public collection and the damage done to the cultural heritage at the source end of the passage of the object onto the market is exactly the same.
Actually, I think you also got wrong who is seeking what…
December 3, 2008 at 10:47 am
I would support an initiative requiring provenance disclosure on the part of all museums that receive public funding. I believe that to legally require the same from private museums, as of this point, would be excessive regulation. I should disclose that I am fairly libertarian in my politically views, however.
December 4, 2008 at 9:03 am
but the question was not “provenance” but acquisition.
I am still not clear what you mean by “private museums”, I do not see why private collectors should lag behind the others in these all important matters of ethics. The collection and sale of Native American human remains in the US (an ethical issue embodied now in law) is regulated whether or not you are a private collector or public institution. Is that not how it should be, or do you think society should accept that there should be different standards for private collectors?
December 4, 2008 at 11:16 pm
[...] Recent Comments Kimberly Alderman on A Small Step Toward Synergy: F…Paul Barford on A Small Step Toward Synergy: F…Paul Barford on SAFE Seeks Articles and a Ques… [...]
December 4, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Paul,
I’ve addressed your question in a new blog post. Thanks for giving me something to think about.
Kimberly
December 7, 2008 at 10:27 am
Dear Ms. Alderman:
Given SAFE’s mission to raise public awareness, we appreciate your attention to our activities. However, I need to point out a few issues regarding:
1. Our post entitled “Heritage@Risk seeks articles”
Our post reads:
“The ICOMOS international committee on archaeological heritage management is seeking short articles for an upcoming issue of ICOMOS’s “Heritage at Risk” series. They are looking for contributions that discuss the impact of the illicit artifact trade on archaeological sites and other heritage places. These can be short reports from the field, alerts, etc. (as opposed to academic articles). If interested in contributing, please send a title and brief abstract or description, along with authors’ names, to Brian Egloff (Brian.Egloff@canberra.edu.au). More information about the Heritage at Risk series can be found here.”
You must realize that both your title “SAFE Seeks Articles and a Question of Ethics in Polling” and your post that follows are simply wrong. Your post reads:
“[SAFE is] looking for contributions that discuss the impact of the illicit artifact trade on archaeological sites and other heritage places. These can be short reports from the field, alerts, etc. (as opposed to academic articles). If interested in contributing, please send a title and brief abstract or description, along with authors’ names, to Brian Egloff (Brian.Egloff@canberra.edu.au).”
SAFE is not soliciting or inviting contributions, as your blog posting indicates. The SAFECORNER announcement to which you refer clearly says that the ICOMOS international committee on archaeological heritage management is looking for contributions. SAFE and ICOMOS are not affiliated and are not working together on any project at the present time. Therefore, out of respect to ICOMOS, I ask you to post a clarification on your blog as soon as possible.
2. Polling questions on SAFECORNER:
The informal polls we conduct on our blog serve to engage our readers. Therefore, when someone writes a full blog post (as you have, even though you are “swamped”) about a SAFECORNER poll question, thereby sparking off a series of comments, we have succeeded in our ultimate goal: stimulating conversation. Thank you for “Regulating Disclosure of Private v. Public Museums,” which you apparently wrote as a result of our question. In your post, you indicate that you “took a little time to think about it and did find some clarity in [your] position.” This is welcome news to us.
Thank you for your attention and participation.
Cindy Ho
President,
SAFE/Saving Antiquities for Everyone
December 7, 2008 at 10:46 am
Cindy,
My apologies for the error. It has been corrected.
You say –
In your post, you indicate that you “took a little time to think about it and did find some clarity in [your] position.” This is welcome news to us.
I believe that you are saying you believe my position to be unclear. It would have been admirable had you been kinder about saying so, but if you have any questions you can manage to articulate, I’d be happy to try and answer them.
Thank you for your continued interest in my blog.
Kimberly
December 7, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I believe it was me who first asked you if you could clarify what you had said. I admit I am still not much the wiser as to what it is you were trying to say about private museums (again, I was talking about acquisition as much as provenance), but since you apparently get annoyed when I try to “articulate” specific “questions”, I’ll not persist and just say thanks for trying.
You ignored me when I said above that the post itself has a mistake in it, and then get touchy when Cindy Ho does.
I do not see anything “unkind” in her concluding remarks about your subsequent expansion of the points made here taken in the context of the second point she made. In any case, let us note that you started off by naming your post “….a Question of Ethics in Polling”. That type of phrasing could, you must admit, be construed as a direct attack on SAFE.
Paul Barford
December 7, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Paul,
I see that you have since read my post on point with your question, so I’ll assume your questions have been answered. If they have not, I’d be opening to answering any you’d care to articulate.
I apologize I did not notice that you said anything about the mistake in the original post. I still don’t see that you said anything about that. Perhaps there was a miscommunication along the way. In any event, it has been corrected.
I didn’t realize that SAFE was the sort of private club that would resort to snarky blog comments in response to honest opinions. I won’t make the same mistake again, I can assure you.
Kimberly
December 8, 2008 at 4:08 am
Well, what I wrote as a comment to your post entitled “X seeks Y” was “Actually, I think you also got wrong who is seeking what…” – I was suggesting it might be an idea to go back to the original message.
I don’t think SAFE is so much a “private club” as a group of people who have similar views on certain topics and desire to raise awareness and provoke discussion on them, despite the obstacles thrown in the way of such discussion by those interested in maintaining the damaging status quo. That includes attacking SAFE etc. at every opportunity.
I personally regard the phrase “a question of ethics in polling” as snarky, so (I am sorry to say), as far as I am concerned, this blog was not snark-free concerning SAFE.
December 8, 2008 at 10:20 am
Paul,
Ah, I see now. I did wonder what you were talking about with that. Now we know. Maybe next time you should beat me over the head with it!
I got mixed up because it said it was posted to SAFE’s Facebook.
The poll is flawed. It is not worded so as to gain information or synthesize opinions so much as it is to support a proposition. I have always thought loaded polls are unethical.
Kimberly