The effects of Globalization on Museums

Think of the best and most well-known museums in the world and you’ll probably think of examples like the Louvre in Paris, the British Museum in London, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. We tend to overlook, however, that some of the world’s most precious and valuable works of art are not in these museums at all but in much smaller galleries in countries that are often overlooked when it comes to their contribution to the art world. Countries like Bangladesh, Thailand, and much of sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America are the birthplaces of some of the most spectacular art in history. A great deal of this art, however, is exhibited not in its home country but in another country in museums like the ones mentioned above. If you think about it, these countries are getting the short end of the stick in more ways than one. These smaller countries were all at one point owned by the great superpowers of the world and had much of their historical artistic legacy stripped. The quintessential example of this practice is the abundance of Egyptian art to be found in London. Great Britain, of course, could not be farther from Egypt in terms of culture and heritage, and even though Britain did once talk about Egypt as a colony or “protectorate,” those days are long over and yet Britain still houses the collection of Egyptian art that it unceremoniously confiscated and branded as its own.

Last year, a museum in Bangladesh generously loaned 180 pieces of art to the Musée Guimet in France. I would assume that Bangladesh thought it would benefit from this showing in a region of the world much more recognized as an artistic and cultural center as a sort of advertising; seeing what Bangladesh has to offer may spur Western tourists to that country itself. Keep in mind that Bangladesh is a developing country which needs all the money and attention it can get. It turns out that the Guimet had vastly under-insured the precious artifacts, some of which were crafted more than 1700 years ago. The museum had then planned to “lose” the works of art, pay the small insurance fee, and sell the works to other museums for much larger sums of money. Luckily this plot was discovered by the right people at the right time and prevented. But the smaller museums may not always be so lucky. As a developing country, a sense of shared culture and history is crucial to nation building and art from a bygone era is an important part of that project.

Personally, I think the way that smaller museums from smaller countries are being taken advantage of is an abomination to the purpose of art museums in the first place. Countries like Bangladesh are being screwed over in enough ways. Why does the art world have to get involved?

(information from ArtNewspaper)