Miroua Week 3: The Controversy Behind a Pestle
One thing about me is that I’m really bad at art. Naturally, I chose AP Art History for my art elective. As soon as I saw an option that didn’t require me to make art, I took it.
AP Art History covers 250 artworks from different civilizations spanning over 30,000 years. It’s a lot.
One piece that I like is the Ambum Stone. It’s from Papua New Guinea, made of hard lava rock, and was created circa 1500 BCE. It’s a pestle that was used for rituals that presumably aided fertility because it has a large, round belly.
Photo of the Ambum Stone from Wikipedia
While the piece appears smooth, peaceful, and comfortable, the recent history behind it is the opposite.
As I said, this piece is from Papua New Guinea; it reflects beliefs and styles of people from Papua New Guinea. Therefore, if you wanted to see the Ambum Stone, you would go to Australia.
The Ambum Stone is in the National Gallery of Australia. It was found by 2 European boys in Papua New Guinea, who then sold it for 20 shillings. It passed hands through various art dealers and finally made its way to Philip Goldman, who wanted the National Gallery of Australia to buy it because it was a great example of “primitive” art.
This is a recurring theme throughout history: Europeans coming to non-Western nations and taking their art, among other things.
So, should art that was obtained questionably be returned to the developing or third-world countries that created them?
On one hand, those nations, such as Papua New Guinea, are the rightful owners. The piece is a part of their history. Keeping it in a foreign museum takes away an opportunity for those people to connect with their culture.
On the other hand, people (including the museums themselves) claim that developing and third-world nations cannot properly maintain the art; it’ll be destroyed because of the lack of stability in the country. Funnily enough, the National Gallery of Australia lent the Ambum Stone to the Louvre, the handlers there dropped it, and it broke. (Clearly, Papua New Guinea is the problem.) Also, keeping it in a first-world nation makes it more accessible to the global population.
Personally, I’m undecided. I believe that keeping a piece in a foreign country robs the descendants of the artists of a part of their identity. The Ambum Stone is particularly important because it is a rare connection to the original society that made it, since there isn’t any written history about them. And, if the originating country asks for the piece (which Papua New Guinea has), they should have it.
But it’s also a question of whether art is more important to the people that made it, or humanity as a whole. This is a piece of global prehistory.
It’s interesting to learn the history behind an artwork: what it reflects from the past and what it means today. I suppose I have another 249 works to consider. What about you? What do you think?
Hi Miroua. I also thought about taking AP Art History, but eventually, I decided against it. After reading your blog, I wish I had thought more about it. Your sense of humor throughout your blog is really nice and does a great job of keeping me hooked.
ReplyDeleteYour use of irony is also amazing. When you spoke about how the artwork was destroyed on its way to Melbourne, Australia, I couldn’t help but laugh when you said that it was not safe in its home country.
I agree with you on the statement that the art belongs in Papua New Guinea, because I believe that the artwork should reside where its history is. However, I also liked how you acknowledged why people with differing views may be correct.
Overall, your blog is an amazing representation of AP Art History as a subject, as it answers all the questions somebody may ask about the artwork mentioned. Amazing blog, Miroua!
Hello Miroua! Before I say anything about the piece… yikes. You have to memorize 250 different pieces of global art from over 30,000 years? That most definitely is a lot. At the same time, though, it’s extremely interesting to me how each piece has its own special and unique background. Reading and learning about each of those sounds really cool!
ReplyDeleteNow regarding the elephant in the room, I personally do not believe that foreign nations should return a piece of art to the original owners for free.
The Ambum Stone is a good example of why. I’m personally a strong believer in the idea that finders are keepers and losers are weepers. Although Europeans may have originally stolen the piece, it has made its way through various transactions and eventually ended up in the hands of the National Gallery of Australia. It would be unfair for Papua New Guinea to demand the piece back without making any form of payment.
I also think that it is a good idea to have pieces of art from one nation in other nations across the world. It exposes people to the culture and background of other countries around the world, which can open their eyes to various perspectives and help them to understand the way in which societies and artworks have changed over time.
Now, of course, I can understand why many people would feel the opposite way. I am sure that you also would be quite angry if someone were to have stolen your piece of work and for it to have been passed around, but it does not make sense for you to magically have the authority to bring it back into your possession. Life unfortunately (well, fortunately for others) does not work like that.
Hey Miroua, I took AP Art in my sophomore year. However, I could never imagine that you need to learn 250 pieces for AP Art History. It is so impressive that you will be able to understand the history behind 250 pieces. The sculpture that you showed is really quite a unique piece; the history behind it makes it that much more valuable. To answer your question, I think that these pieces should be returned to their place of origin. I think that it’s a crime to take away someone else’s work and exhibit it as if you own it. If the piece was rightfully bought or traded then I guess holding it somewhere else would be alright. However, the stolen artifacts and treasures from past wars should not justify the present claim to that artifact or treasure. Regarding issues of whether third-world nations could properly maintain the art, I believe that it is the responsibility of that nation to protect its national treasures and history so that it can preserve its culture. I think this has to do a lot with cultural appropriation; presenting and claiming another culture's history seems quite immoral. However, my opinion revolves heavily around the ethical side of this debate. If preserving an art piece is the top priority, then it would make more logical sense that a more-developed nation should hold that art piece.
ReplyDelete