Wednesday, December 05, 2012 - 
Forum d'Avignon,Georges Abungu,ICOM,Tom Flynn,Universal Museums
No comments
Forum d'Avignon,Georges Abungu,ICOM,Tom Flynn,Universal Museums
No comments
Georges Okello Abungu at Forum d'Avignon (Part I of III)
Georges Abungu, Vice President of the
International Council of Museums (ICOM) was among delegates participating at
Forum d’Avignon, the international think-tank that convenes in the southern
French city every year to discuss urgent issues in the realms of culture,
media, digital innovation, and economics. London arts journalist Tom Flynn
spoke to Dr Abungu about museums, cultural heritage disputes, underwater
archaeology, and the role culture should play in the future development of
Africa.
TF — Dr Abungu, you were one of the few
museum specialists who dared to speak out against the ‘Declaration on the
Importance and Value of Universal Museums’ issued by the directors of European
and North American Encyclopedic Museums and which continues to be a source of
controversy as repatriation requests mount. How do you see the future of the
Encyclopedic Museum as it is currently being articulated by leading museum
directors?
GA — I’m very much a believer in
museums that are relevant to communities, museums that stimulate curiosity but
which also address human needs, that involve communities in the interpretation
of their collections. The model I am describing is divorced from the old notion
of the temple, it is a museum that is much more open to the public and to
questioning; it is a place the curator is not the holder of all the answers.
Now when you talk about Universal Museums, I have no problem with museum
directors branding their museums in whatever way they wish, but I felt that the
whole concept of the Universal Museum as it was being revived was not in good
faith. One of the intentions of the Declaration seemed to be to try and do away
with the discussions on the role of these collections, the positions of these
collections, on the ownership of these collections. So the driving force behind
that [Declaration] was to do away with questions that were emerging by branding
themselves as universal and above questioning. I think the intention was not
good, and that’s why I questioned it. And what about the other museums? What
are they? I can give some examples of
equally big museums that had big collections that were probably matching these
Universal ones. Why weren’t they not also universal? Why were we trying to
grade ourselves into different pedigrees? I thought it was going to bring
divisions between museums where some are going to be more important than
others. The word universal in this context struck a very bad kind of intention
when I heard it and that was why I was against it. I think the British Museum,
the Metropolitan Museum, the Louvre, and all these big museums, they have a
real role to play. They are wonders of the world and they have collections that
apply to humanity but I think there is no need to try to grade themselves as
much more superior than others and to degrade the others as not so important or
as universal as them. So that was an important principle — it was questioning
the intention and to me it was this hidden agenda that struck me very strongly.
Museums
are places of dialogue, places of questions, and some of this dialogue can
involve furious discussion, even on origins and acquisition policies and even
on thefts, and collections that might have suspect origins and I think this is
part of the richness of museums. I’ve seen this taking place. There have been
returns, there have been museums that originally had collections that were
questioned but some of these collections had been given by the source
communities to these museums on the condition that originally they belonged to
these communities and that they are now given on permanent loans or that they
are given as gifts. To me that is the way forward rather than re-branding and
segregating.
TF — Today, the requests by smaller nations
and source communities for repatriation of objects are often criticised by some
leading museum directors as a form of nationalism, on the grounds that all
cultures are essentially hybrid and “mongrel” and that those calling for return
are failing to understand the cosmopolitan nature of culture. What is your
response to that?
GA — Well, I’ve heard that argument and
I’ve written about returns and I’m one person who doesn’t believe in mass
returns. I don’t think it makes sense, especially for collections that have
been in these museums for hundreds of years. Unless they are human remains. In
those cases I really have no short cut. I think if the source communities want
them back, they should go back. But I believe that we should not shut doors and
claim that these cultural objects are cosmopolitan. They must have origins and
if those origins can be traced they must be returned to those places. There are
materials, of course, that have origins in Britain, others that have origins in
the USA, or in Germany, or in France, and if they can prove that, why not ask
for them? I think the same applies to other parts of the world, to Asia, to the
Pacific, to Australia, Africa, South America. The most important thing is not
to hide behind terminologies...the whole concept of urbanism, metropolitanism,
and all these things. The important thing is to sit down and create dialogue
with those who are claiming, and not to take cover under the big name of
Universality and then say ‘There are no more questions, we cannot discuss’.
However, I also believe this issue of calling for mass repatriation of
materials from museums taken from one place or another many years ago is also
irresponsible. I’ve always been very categorical when it comes to the
solutions. I think we need negotiation and ICOM has set up a structure where
people can negotiate and agree. I personally believe very much in permanent
loaning but I also believe that museums that have these collections, where
there are have arguments about them, or claims behind them, they need to sit
down and negotiate without dismissing these claims as cosmopolitan, as
cross-cultural, and that they cannot be discussed. They need to engage in
dialogue so that discussion can prevail at the end of the day. But as I’ve also
said, I don’t believe in mass transfer of material from museums back to source
communities just because they can show it was theirs... unless it is human
remains. With that one it becomes very tricky. And also certain religious
paraphernalia that can be proved to be still relevant to those particular
communities.
Dr. Flynn is a lecturer at ARCA and author of The Universal Museum.
Part two of this article will be published tomorrow.
