Imagine lending out your favorite shirt to a friend and not being able to get it back. That’s the situation that four Crimean museum, Tavrida Central Museum, the Kerch Historical and Cultural Preserve, the Bakhchisaray History and Culture State Preserve of the Republic of Crimea, and the National Preserve of Tauric Chersonesos, found themselves in. Except it’s much more complicated than that.
The Allard Pierson Museum
In 2013, the four museums loaned their artifacts for a traveling exhibition. It went first to the Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Bonn, Germany. Then it was sent to the Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam in February 2013, which was expected to display there until August 31, 2014.
However in March 2013, Crimea was invaded by Russia and was separated from Ukraine. This is where the problem began.
After the exhibition ended at the Allard Pierson Museum, the 565 rare artifacts are packed in boxes 
in a storage facility until court decision determines where they should be sent towards. “Should the collection be returned to Crimea, which would essentially deliver it into Russian hands? Or should it go to Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, which owned the collection at the time of the display?” as questioned in the article “Artifacts from Crimean Museums Are Held Hostage by Politics” by Nina Siegal.
Ukraine claimed the arts are part of the public state museum fund, their state property, and should be returned to the government instead of the museums in Crimea. Also there has been fear that Russia, with its claim over Crimea, would move the treasures to its cities, St. Petersburg or Moscow, permanently.
On the other hand, the four Crimean museums are “extremely frustrated at missing these culturally important aspects from their collections.” They argued that the only parties in the loan contracts are they themselves and the Allard Pierson Museum so neither the Russian government or Ukrainian government has a role in this court case.
The Russian Ministry of Culture also supported returning the artifacts to the museums in Crimea. The statement said, “In the almost 18 months after the Crimea joined Russia, the Crimean museums have not lost a single item.”
It is unfortunate that due to the political tension in the area, the treasures are hidden in boxes in storage. The collection of artifacts reveals the different influences and culture in the Black Sea region throughout its history. There are influences “from the Greek, Roman and early medieval periods.” Also since this area is part of the crossroad, there are Chinese goods there from the Silk Road trade. It is a tragedy that these unique pieces are being buried in a storage facility. Regardless of where the court decides to send these treasures to, they should be in display showcasing the vast history of the area instead of burying them in a storage facility.
It is such a shame that artwork should be boxed away in a storage room. But based on the political history, I can understand why it is so difficult to come to a decision of which museum should get the artwork. No matter what the court decides, there will be someone who is unsatisfied with it and it could easy become a bit of a political mess. I wonder what the verdict of the court case will be…
The whole point of this debate is where these pieces of art belong. I am confused, though, as to how Crimea does not automatically have rights and ownership over the work if they were the ones who lent it out. Was there a contract for that? Is it believable also that Russia will not take advantage of the art as their own? Now that this case has gone public maybe the country would actually, as they said, leave it for Crimea. I hope, either way, it gets back into the proper hands and is displayed as the valuable art that it is.
I never imagined that the Ukraine and Crimean political situation would impact art in this way. It’s really disappointing that these important historical artifacts that help us understand the past are packed away where nobody can see them or interpret their use. I hope Crimea gets to display these artifacts, as I believe that it is them who have the initial right to the artifacts.
Personally, I wouldn’t usually consider art as being influential to politics. Typically, I associate politics with subject matter concerning the economy, society, or governmental authority. However, I realize that the influence of art and culture within a nation is relevant enough to be argued through politics. Because art does not only affect the art-ethusiast or the painter, but the culture behind such art influences every member of said culture. It’s a shame to think that such valuable artifacts are being locked up due to ambiguity in ownership. They belong to a culture that, I feel, has a reserved right to experience it with non-circumstantial freedom. However, claim of land is not that simple, let alone claim on culture and art. Hopefully, one day, these artifacts will be returned to a rightful home where they can be enjoyed for what they’re truly worth.
I think you gave a really good summary of the article and gave the readers a good overview of what has happened to the artifacts of the Crimean museums. However, I would like to hear more about your personal view of where you think the artifacts should be relocated. There are so many factors in play that I don’t think this court case will be an easy one to decide, thus it is really up to personal judgement where the artifacts should go. Personally, I do not think it is important if the artifacts are returned to the Crimean museums or displayed in Moscow. What I think is a priority in this case is that whomever get the artifacts will take care of them and ensure their preservation. I state this because many artifacts from countries like Greece or China are not in display in their native countries but rather in Britain or the U.S.. Yet you do not see Greece or China suing Britain or the U.S. for them to return the artifacts.
Sadly often times politics get in the way of art. Throughout history, governments have censored artists whom they felt threatened the stability of the country. The first example that has come to mind is the blacklisting of numerous artists in the soviet union. For an artist who wants his work to be seen such a fate is worse than death. Today in Ukraine the censorship isn’t caused from blacklisting but rather from conflict between museums resulting in works being hidden away in storage. While a country can claim that a certain work belongs to them, clearly it is better for that work to be on display in another country than hidden away completely. At least then the artists message can be appreciated by people rather than contained by the darkness of a box. Museums have a right to feel possessive over artworks, but until the argument over who owns a work is resolved diplomatically, that work should remain on display where it is, otherwise both sides are disrespecting the artist and don’t deserve to claim his work at all.
I was not aware of this problem and it is indeed very interesting. I liked your analogy of letting your friend borrow your shirt and never get it back, it fit quite well with the situation. I think that the museums who lent the art out before the invasion have the right to have their work returned. I recently visited the Mueseum of Modern Art and I had the privelage of seeing Starry Night. It was an experience like I never had before because although I have seen the painting numerous times in school on computers, seeing it in person was breathtaking. The art deserves to go back to whoever rightfully owns it.
It’s so unfair that first Russia invaded Ukraine and not it’s denying the artifacts to their rightful owners. Russian politics is solely based on military rather than negotiation. They have no right to invade whenever they feel like it. Now, the only right thing to do in this situation would be to return the art to the Ukrainian government since the artifacts belong Ukraine.
Art is supposed to start intellectual discussions and civil debates about what the piece truly means. However, it’s a shame the only intellectual conversations about these unique pieces will take place inside a court room. It’s a shame that politics has to get in the way of everything today, including something so beautiful as art. In my opinion, I don’t think Russia deserves to keep any of the art considering their invasion should not constitute them receiving pieces to put in their museums. A picture is worth a thousand words, but unfortunately, a lot more than that are going to be spoken in a court room.
Art is supposed to start intellectual discussions and civil debates about what the piece truly means. However, it’s a shame the only intellectual conversations about these unique pieces will take place inside a court room. It’s a shame that politics has to get in the way of everything today, including something so beautiful as art. In my opinion, I don’t think Russia deserves to keep any of the art considering their invasion should not constitute them receiving pieces to put in their museums. A picture is worth a thousand words, but unfortunately, a lot more than that are going to be spoken in a court room.
You used a great analogy to show us what this situation for the musuems would be like for us. This was such a good post to read. I felt, personally, that it is unfair for such important pieces of artwork to be put away due to political tensions. These works of art, as you say, “reveals different cultures and influences” and should be displayed gor the people. It’s also very unfair for the musuems who loaned these artifacts to have their artworks taken away. Like I previously states, your analogy was very good and this brought the situation to me in a personal point of view and I imagined what I would be like if it was me. This made me angry and sad to see the musuems who had leant it may not get their artworks back and its now packed away in storage rather than displayed for the public.