I note that over 2,000 objects from North American museums, private collections, and galleries have been returned to Italy. Yet I am aware of a number of single and group items that can be identified from the Becchina, Medici and Symes archives that have yet to be returned. This includes objects in museums that have so far not returned anything.
It would be helpful if museums were to be more transparent over their repatriated material. Should there be consistency in providing information about previous owners? How do they flag up what has been returned? Are digital records amended when items have been returned? Some museums have been extremely co-operative and have responded to queries, while others ignore requests for information. (And I know from colleagues that I am not alone in not receiving a response.)
Those who have been following my recent publications will know that I have looking at examples of "The Fragment Scheme" relating to Attic and South Italian pottery. These fragments include single items among the returns, the giving and selling of joining fragments, and batches of material. In December I came across yet another large batch of material derived from Italian contexts and split between two nominal "collectors" (but probably those who paid for the acquisition).
2025 was a year in which I returned to the theme of Cycladic figures with a review article on the Stern collection as well as an analysis (with Christos Tsirogiannis) of the material that forms the loan at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. In addition three of us published an extended essay on the corrupt corpus of Cycladic figures. We await with interest the outcomes from the Cycladic conference at the MMA that will no doubt seek to address issues relating to authenticity, context, and attributions. The conference organisers will no doubt have put together a balanced panel of speakers who will be able to highlight the intellectual value of the Stern collection of Cycladicising objects.
No comments:
Post a Comment