Aveneu Park, Starling, Australia

I places for it to stay. A good percentage

            I feel like there is
a rightful ownership of art, and that people shouldn’t be fighting over it all
the time. A good percentage of the art that people try to steal is hundreds,
even thousands of years old. That means to me that technically no one owns it, no
individual person that is. Art belongs in a Museum for the public to view, not
in some rich person house where it won’t get admired. The reason for art is to
show everyone what the artist’s view of life was, that’s why art museums are
the best places for it to stay.

            A good percentage of art was taken from its rightful
owners, but what can we do about that? There are multiple cases of this issue
throughout history, one that really catches my eye is the art history of World
War 2. The Nazis stole everything from the Jews/and others that include the art
belonging to them, especially David Toren’s story. When he was young during the
beginning of World War 2 he had to watch a painting get taken from his uncle
the day after Kristallnacht, after many years he was reunited with it. Around
1,500 paintings worth about €1 billion total were found in Mr. Gurlitt’s Munich
flat. Some of which were suspected to have been originally stolen from their
rightful owners by Nazis. The accumulator died at age 81, has committed to returning those works
from his collection that were demonstrably lost by Jewish collectors during the
Nazi era and not refunded after the World War 2. Two Riders on a Beach was one of the first two
works to be reinstated, along with a Matisse. It was compensated to David
Friedmann’s heirs in May 2015.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

            Its
very hard to really say who owns certain pieces of art, especially before
recorded time. In the stone age most, art was done on cave walls and art signatures
weren’t really a thing, along with the fact that most pieces could have been a collective
effort. Scene names were not an important thing then and a written language had
not been developed there really is no way to tell who did what, or what people did
what. The only way we can decide what to do with that art is let museums around
it have it, like for example cave paintings. I believe that art belongs to the city
or place that it came from. British museums are the worst about this issue,
they can’t just keep art that was obtained from suspicious conditions a long
time ago. Aside from British museums, a grand example is the Acropolis museum,
this museum reveals why cultural expansionism is hopeless. What I think should
be done about problems like this is they should return the art to its rightful
place.

            Are the major nations and museums justified in
keeping disputed art on the basis that the governments of the place of origin
are unstable or poor? This question is very interesting to me and is
best answered by Jon Argles of the United Kingdom. He stated, “Why should a government claim possession of a piece of
art, anyway? Surely the only people who should be openly protesting would be
the descendants of the original artists. There is so much fuss over which
country ‘art’ belongs to that the reasons for its creation are lost. It becomes
nothing more than a childish commodity, and a tool for aggressive nationalism.”
He hits points that are very compelling, the government should even be taking part
of art history. If anything, we should stop arguing about something that was thought
to create happiness. We should let the descendants of certain art decide what should
be done with it, and compensate them for what their family went through.

            I
do not believe it is okay to justify the destruction of art because of what you
believe in or what government controls a country. No matter what type of art it
is it should be illegal to mess with it, or destroy it. Even if it was created
for a bad reason it was still there for a reason. Its no ones right but the
artist themselves to destroy art. When it comes to religion and art history, religious
people have no more authority than any others to destroy art. I like to think
about it like this, there are thousands of religions that exist that conflict
with others. if every single one of them had a problem with certain types of
art all the art could be destroyed because its “offensive”. Also about the
government it should’ve never gotten involved in art history in the first
place, unless they are intervening to protect the art.

x

Hi!
I'm Darlene!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out