|
C P R I
Dedicated to the Community of Individuals and Institutions
Concerned with the Preservation of Mankind’s Heritage
| |
First CPRI Study Released, AAR V. 2 November 2009 Interview from The American Antiquities Review, v. 2 AAR: Briefly, what is this “Orphans Study” about? CPRI: It’s the first project we decided to take on, a careful review of the likely volume of material owned by private Americans that by self-rule of the Association of Art Museum Directors should not be accessioned by their member museums, or even accepted on loan. Objects in this category now cannot have the benefit of museum exhibition, publication, or conservation, and have no permanent parentage or protection – and are termed “orphans” as a result. AAR: And what is the scope of this study? This particular study involves the relatively narrow field of Greek, Roman and associated cultures of the Mediterranean and Near East, and covers objects that have a lower threshold value of $1000. AAR: But the estimates are surprising. You claim there are between 67,500 and almost 112,000 such objects in US hands? Can there really be that many? CPRI: These aren’t our estimates. They are the result of very careful judgments made by individuals who are exceptionally qualified to know what’s in US collections and on the market. And they are conservative. The actual number of such objects above the $1000 level is likely to be larger, category for category. And if one considers all material, including objects below that value threshold, the number would certainly be vastly greater, perhaps by as much as an order of magnitude.
AAR: All legal?
CPRI: The study does not address questions of
legality, nor do the AAMD guidelines.
But we start with the assumption that we’re talking about objects that
are legally in US private collections and dealer inventories. We have no reason to believe otherwise.
AAR: But isn’t this going to be awkward for AAM member museums? That there are that many objects that can no longer be accessioned, or exhibited – or perhaps even published? CPRI: We can’t speak for the museums – that’s their business. We wanted only to make the data available to them and to other interested groups and individuals. AAR: And the archaeologists? CPRI: We can’t speak for them either, of course. Several of those we have been in touch with have voiced unease that so much material will not be accessible for study – or for conservation. They have expressed concern that serious damage – even destruction – may occur over time, to objects that cannot be protected or preserved by professional museum attention. It’s not clear that that view is broadly shared by the archaeological community, however. AAR: But shouldn’t we all be concerned with the preservation of cultural property? CPRI: One would think so. We are. AAR: Do you really expect the estimates to be accepted? CPRI: They are what they are, and they’ve been developed with help from some of the most knowledgeable sources in the area. If some individual or group wishes to challenge them, that’s fine, and we will look forward to knowing from them what their data may be, and how it was developed. AAR: And you make no policy recommendations? CPRI: No. That’s not what we do. We simply want to make visible the facts as they are, and let others concerned with policy then decide what should be done. AAR: And where do you go from here? Other areas? Which? CPRI: We hope to cover all cultural areas that involve objects now denied to US museums by their own self-rule. Our next study will probably involve Egypt, or the Near Eastern. Probably also with a lower value exclusion limit. We would like to keep these studies focused on major material of probable interest to American museums. AAR: Have you any idea what the universe of objects may be that fall under the AAMD guidelines? CPRI: No. But if you include the enormous volume of material from East Asia and the Americas, it will have to be very, very large. AAR: This sounds like a huge task. Good luck! CPRI: We’re fortunate in being able to call on wonderful talent.
New U.S. Cultural Policy Organization on the Horizon, AAR V. 1 June 2009
Interview from The American Antiquities Review, v. 1
AAR:
So, what is the need for your new organization? Aren’t there enough
not-for-profits that deal with cultural property issues?CPRI:
There are quite a number, but most support a particular viewpoint and
none really are given to open discussion of matters that don’t conform
to their special interest. We intend to do exactly that – by
identifying and discussing issues that in our view are important but
underexposed, and inviting comment from individuals with differing
views. CPRI will be a neutral forum for those interested in different
aspects of the continuing debate on how best to preserve our material
heritage.
AAR: Doesn’t that put you at odds with the archaeological community? CPRI:
Not at all. We strongly support the protection of archaeological sites
in source countries and the preservation, conservation and publication
of ancient objects wherever they may be. Those are shared goals.
AAR: You differ from the former American Council for Cultural Policy, then?CPRI:
We do. The ACCP did important work. It served as an advocacy
organization where there was no countervailing voice to the strongly
held, at times quite extreme views of certain individuals and
organizations that, for example, called for an end to the collecting of
ancient objects and, in some cases, the return of material to the
presumed country of origin. CPRI will not advocate a view but, through
meticulous research, will expose important issues that underlie the
discussion of the proper disposition of antiquities in the United
States, as well as US and international policies that affect source
country and international markets. CPRI will not seek to change
policy but will explore policy alternatives.
AAR: Won’t that expose you to criticism, though?CPRI: Of course. We welcome that. We look forward to being challenged on the issues we select for analysis.
AAR: And your funding – who’s paying you?CPRI:
A number of supporters have helped us start up, and we are very
appreciative of their assistance. Others have asked how they can help
in the future. We’re very encouraged by the response.
AAR: Can you talk about your budget – what are you spending and for what?CPRI:
Of course, in general terms. Most of our expenses to date have gone
for startup costs, some for our website, and some for necessary
travel. We are likely to commission some research. We have no paid
officers or staff.
AAR: Who are you, then? Scholars, lawyers, collectors, museum people – what? CPRI:
We believe we have one of the most remarkably diverse memberships in
the field of cultural policy analysis. If you look at the biographies
of our directors on our website, you’ll find they include individuals
with public service, museum, archaeological, legal, business and
academic backgrounds. Our advisory council includes professional
scholars and others with long association with archaeology and deep
interest in the preservation of mankind’s cultural heritage. Several
served on the President’s Cultural Property Advisory Commission.
AAR: Collectors?CPRI:
Of course. One of our directors has a magnificent small collection of
coins of Marcus Aurelius – one of the small number of Roman emperors
who dedicated themselves to public duty and service. There are almost
certainly others, but like our colleague archaeological organizations,
do not consider collecting to be a defining issue.
AAR: Do you see yourselves expanding?CPRI:
Not yet. We want to build our support base carefully, remain clearly
focused on a limited number of important issues, and stay lean.
AAR: And the issues you plan to take on? CPRI:
We’ve given these on our website. They are quite limited, including
the question of “orphan objects” – those that cannot, by self-rule, be
acquired by American museums; different models for object registries;
how to make US laws governing ownership more uniform; and the study of
selected source country policies that affect the destruction of ancient
sites.
AAR: And these are not discussed elsewhere?CPRI: Incompletely, or not at all.
AAR: Why is that?CPRI:
Some issues, frankly, are a bit awkward for many to raise. The reasons
are complex – it’s not necessary to go into these – but we are not
shackled to a particular individual or institutional viewpoint.
AAR: As a last question, what are your measures for success?CPRI: Solid research. Useful products. Growing support.
AAR: Good luck!CPRI: Thanks. We believe we have a bright future. |
|
