The museum sector: a wave of restitution

How is this a wave?

In recent years, museums in the Western world have begun applying various restitution policies concerning the return of artworks to their countries of origin, causing a global shake-up about what constitutes a legitimate art collection. For instance, museums in France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Belgium have repatriated numerous artworks from around the world that have long been part of their permanent collections.

To cite just a few cases: in France, the Quai Branly Museum returned 26 royal objects, plundered in 1892 by French forces from the palace of Abomey, back to the Republic of Benin. In the United Kingdom, the Victoria and Albert Museum repatriated an ancient Anatolian gold ewer, dating back more than four thousand years, to Turkey. The Humboldt Forum Museum in Germany returned some 20 ancient objects to the Republic of Namibia. Belgium has sent an inventory of art objects with Congolese provenance from the Africa Museum in Tervuren to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

What is a restitution policy? 

Museums worldwide are grappling with this since many of their artworks originated outside their countries. According to the Museum Association, the oldest international organization of museums, “All museums should have a repatriation policy or procedure in place that sets out how any proposal for repatriation will be managed.” 

The act of (re)transferring art objects also represents an important marker of cultural cooperation between the countries that hold them and those requesting their return to their country of origin.

For many reasons, restoring heritage objects to the communities that created them is vitally important. For example, it allows those countries to promote their valuable cultural achievements within their own borders and to develop pride in these artifacts that can be bequeathed to future generations. 

Restitution and repatriation of artwork are also processes that aim to account for history and thus offer the groundwork for a particular form of repair in the wake of colonialism. 

Navigating the challenges 

The current fervor of restitution policies being implemented worldwide has led to unprecedented decisions on the part of many museums to return artwork, an experience many seem to have taken in stride. 

Restitution is now a matter of course. The need for countries to access their own memories and reconnect with their own archives of identity is universally accepted. Interestingly, the values associated with this sea change are analogous to the fundamental principles of the insurance industry: repairing the damages, restoring the property to its original state, and avoiding unjust enrichment. 

We naturally integrate these ideals within the scope of our coverages. The desire to repair harm is simple, but the way forward and the scale of restitution are more complex. 

In Europe, the debate on how to proceed is situated at the crossroads of several topics, in a whirlwind of questioning. 

Museum professionals lack agency 

The people working within the museum ecosystem include professionals who document the artworks, other specialists who assess their condition, and those who protect and transport these valuable objects. Their overall feeling is that they have been minimally included in the decisions and choices about art objects to be returned. 

Discussions about the restitution of art have focused primarily on political issues. In contrast, the people in charge of the relevant collections, those who daily oversee the artworks and know them well, have often been excluded. In response, some have gone so far as to express a thesis of instrumentalization of museums by governmental authorities. 

Others wonder why some property is now systematically returned to states, passing from the hands of one government to another, whereas looted artwork is more likely to be returned to the families who formerly owned it. 

Objects: cultural, commercial, artistic or ceremonial? 

Focusing on material goods gives rise to more debate and questions. For example, the epithet attached to an object depends on the perspective of those looking at it. 

Many of the art objects being returned were first collected for ethnographic studies intended to enhance understanding of various cultures; the objects were not initially valued for their artistic dimension. 

Could they become characterized as artworks as a result of being viewed through a European lens? Were their formal qualities as art only defined by their valuation in certain art markets? Or conversely, was it the discovery of these objects that revolutionized Western aesthetics? 

Then again, some collectors valued them as commercial objects from the start, which raises nuanced questions about the difference between legitimately versus wrongly acquired art, e.g., good faith purchases versus illegitimate or domineering acquisitions. 

Another point of view notes that these objects often have cultic pasts that were interrupted. Will such ritual objects be reinstated in their original roles when returned home? The world and its mores are rapidly changing. Do the ceremonies and rituals associated with returned objects align with the ethics of the museums returning them? 

In any case, each artifact has its own story, and each artwork involves a multi-episode narrative. When items are moved from one culture to another, the meanings attached to them are often left behind.

Re-reading their collections for the public

First, museums need to strike a balance between their founding principles and how best to serve their audiences — both local and international — by listening to the wishes of all the people involved.

Second, museums must give priority to the circumstances of how art objects were and are acquired and practice restitution where warranted.

Finally, over time, perhaps through more acknowledgment of historical events and the resulting displacement of objects, museums can endeavor to provide a re-reading of their collections for the public.

Various overlapping resources are being consulted to document these artworks precisely to valorize them in response to each restitution request. For example, Germany has set aside a budget of EUR 1.9 million dedicated to researching the provenance of objects. Being the object of a serious study would legitimize the subsequent action of restitution.

Developing a framework of procedures in which various stakeholders — for example, historians, jurists, and art experts — contribute perspectives on returning artwork on a case-by-case basis would be a sound potential approach, as opposed to museums or governments taking general positions on restitution.

A dialogue between museums is also probably key to developing mutual practices and understanding, as well as between museums and the communities involved. History is best told by choirs of voices, not soloists.

What are the next challenges?

Considering the web of issues and interests at play here, it is clear that numerous challenges await. 

Novel actions of restitution are inventing the path forward even as the procedure is being conceived. Bringing back community heritage by putting art objects back into the cultures from which they were removed is a process of integration. What form should this take? Some suggest teaching about the process as a way forward, making the countries that recover the goods responsible for this local educational effort. Others point out that this posture again borders on imperialism.

In the same vein, those who advocate for a partnership based solely on the expertise of European museums are getting into troubled waters. Genuine restitution is still a question of placing the cursor correctly between the influence of museum know-how and the local capacity to create structural advancements through the training of curators and museographers.

Moreover, in the future, we will inevitably question the universalist conception of our museums. Presenting objects in the manner of a universal museum tends to imbue them with a certain solemnity with which they weren’t necessarily created and that they probably wouldn’t have back home. We are moving away from the fixed or sanctuary idea of museums into an age that appreciates various perspectives about art and history within shared knowledge spaces.

As insurers, the most critical challenge regarding restitution may be getting out of our tutelage and weaving diverse professional relationships, creating real exchanges between competent people in each country concerned. Our goal is to develop standard practices enhancing artworks’ durability, protection, and circulation by employing best practices within the insurance industry.