Thursday, September 26, 2013
British Museum Exhibition - Topic 4
Exhibitions like these always raise much controversy over whether objects of such worth and delicate nature should be subject to the high risks of traveling. Was it responsible of the British Museum to organize this exhibition in London, knowing that these intensely delicate objects would have to travel from all over the world? Or would it have been more socially and culturally responsible for them to fund an exhibition within the Naples area, wherein the objects wouldn't have to travel? Argue your point with specific details!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The British Museum was right in organizing the Pompeii and Herculaneum exhibition in the British Museum. While moving these items from countries all over the world, the artifacts and artworks were well protected to ensure a safe travel for the items. By having the items from these two cities in the British Museum, the exhibition has the ability to be seen by more people - because the British Museum is one of the most famous museums in the world- and they were able to make this documentary because of all the artifacts were in the U.K. But maybe the British Museum could have been more selective in the items they choose to bring. For example, the carbonized chest that the Museum brought to the exhibition probably should not have been taken because of its fragility. Overall though, the British Museum was right in taking the artifacts from these two cities and bringing them to the U.K.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. The selection process was different though. Basically the museums offered a bunch of items and the British got to pick which ones to display. The chest was there it was just whether or not to display it. With the technology we have today i would have been greatly surprised if anything were to occur to damage any of these artifacts.
DeleteI agree with your point that more people will be able to see this exhibit. Art should be shared with the world, and this exhibit allowed for people in London to be able to see some of the most important pieces from Pompeii.
DeleteI was actually very surprised that they took the risk to move a chest fully made out of carbon. Even the man in the video said it was so difficult to move. I dont understand why the pieces cant go into an exhibit near the old grounds of the cities.
DeleteObjects have high risks when they are dug up, when they are exposed to the air and pollution for the first time in a thousand years, when they are cleaned, when they are brought to the museum, and there are at high risk to local natural disaster (Mt. Vesuvius is still right there and active). What I am trying to say is there are high risks for damage of old pieces of art all the time. The shipping is done by tedious and safe people much like the people who did not damage the piece originally. The British Museum was even good for doing this so that people from all over the world could view this art. We did not got to a movie to see a tour of the museum in Naples. Plus, this is a collection from multiple museums, so the British are able to make connections and have a better analysis on things by having more object to compare the works to.
ReplyDeleteexactly, jordan. without the British Museum, we wouldn't have had the movie in the first place, and I think it's safe to say that we all learned a significant amount about history and culture because of it. The British Museum did supply us with a great analysis and each historian that gave us insight on the artwork was entertaining, lively and well informed.
DeleteCan you imagine if the exhibit was in some museum in Italy? The British Museum was able to gain access to vast amounts of artifacts because of the prestige of the British Museum, and they were able to make the movie because the Museum is well funded. If the exhibit was in an Italian Museum I don't think we would have been able to see this movie, because it never would have been made.
DeleteI do agree that the artifacts are already damaged as it is but I still dont believe that it is necessary for the art pieces and artifacts to risk even more damage moving multiple countries. When finding a fragile artifact wouldnt you want to preserve it as much as possible?
DeleteWithout taking risks, no true progress can be gained. Excavating Pompeii and Herculaneum was a risk in itself, and look at all the information it has unearthed about Roman society! This information should be shared with the world, even at the possible risk of damage. Besides, as we saw a little bit in the movie, archaeologists were extremely careful in the transport of these fragile objects. I understand the motivation for wanting the British Museum to fund an exhibit in Naples, especially with the controversy of the Greek Parthenon marbles, but the fact remains that the British Museum did a wonderful job with the exhibit, and they made it readily available to people all over the world, which may not have happened if they had set up the exhibit in Naples. The British Museum attracts many visitors every day, and now all of them can be exposed to this rich source of Roman history.
ReplyDeleteAgreed- while the artifacts may not be really belong the British museum, it's unlikely they will ever be given back to Italy. They bring in too much money and business for them to let them go. However, they're handled by professionals and, as you said, being displayed and sharing this knowledge with more people that way.
DeleteBut Sydney the pieces are being returned back to Italy and never belonged to the British museum, only being displayed there temporarily.
DeleteWhy are are they giving the pieces back to Italy? Even if the British Museum exhibit is only temporary, why don't they find a place where the artwork will be stationary? That way there wouldn't be a problem about Italy's pollution on the art work or trying to find a suitable place for the Pompeian and Herculaneum artifacts to be displayed.
DeleteI believe that the British Art Museum was right to bring those objects to London to be exhibited. While there is risk is damaging items found at Pompeii and Herculaneum, there are greater rewards in bring the objects to London rather than leaving them in Naples. London can provide better opportunities for both art historians and views than Naples can. More people will be able to view the objects if they are in London, since London is already one of the largest and most international cities in the world. If not as many people can view the objects, and learn about the history of Pompeii and Herculaneum, then there's no point in digging up the cities in the first place. Second, since London is a international culture center, more art historians will have access to the pieces in London. With more resources in London, more care and protection can be put on these artifacts.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you on this point. These are amazing pieces that really should be shared with the rest of the world. They are more likely to be observed in London than in the Naples. More people will be able to study these artifacts near a cultural center. But we still have to think that the artifacts are already in a high fragile state and moving them will and can damage the structure of these pieces. Maybe less fragile pieces can be moved.
DeleteI believe that the British Art Museum was right to bring those objects to London to be exhibited. While there is risk is damaging items found at Pompeii and Herculaneum, there are greater rewards in bring the objects to London rather than leaving them in Naples. London can provide better opportunities for both art historians and views than Naples can. More people will be able to view the objects if they are in London, since London is already one of the largest and most international cities in the world. If not as many people can view the objects, and learn about the history of Pompeii and Herculaneum, then there's no point in digging up the cities in the first place. Second, since London is a international culture center, more art historians will have access to the pieces in London. With more resources in London, more care and protection can be put on these artifacts.
ReplyDeleteExactly! By having these pieces in London, the artifacts will be more accessible to more people. Also if the public really enjoys the art work of these two cities, maybe the British Museum will be able to make more documentaries and have more exhibits of ancient artworks.
DeleteThe British Museum was in the right when excavating and distributing the objects to London. These artifacts had a high risk in being damaged in the current outskirts of Naples, Italy. Pollution and other human made activities have caused destruction of the art pieces along with things like the erosion and weather, so excavation of Pompeii and Herculaneum in general was a risk of its own. I believe the British Museum would have done a better job in holding an exhibition than the people in Naples because of Italy's current debt crisis. I don't think they could or would be in their best interest to use their money to excavate and build an entire exhibition for the artifacts to live in. Although it is a pity to not be able to understand more of the artifacts by experiencing where they were dug up, it is better for the British Museum to have held on to it for preservation purposes.
ReplyDeleteI love your point about how the pieces could be safer in London because all of the pollution in Naples. If art is being harmed in some way, it only makes sense to move it even if the pieces are delicate, because they have a better chance of surviving somewhere else.
DeleteAlthough many would believe current Italians deserve to have and exhibit their own artifacts, I conjecture that the British Museum is the best possible place to house Pompeii's artifacts and that they took the right initiative in creating their exhibition. Not only did the curator make absolute sure that the artifacts traveled with ease, the British Museum had an elite group of conservationists and historians on deck ready to preserve and clean each piece. Vesuvius is still active and pollution runs rampant, so Naples would not be a beneficial place to keep Pompeii's artwork. The British Museum is a much more convenient place to view these artifacts, therefore making the knowledge of Pompeii's history expansive and well known.
ReplyDeleteI totally forgot that Vesuvius was still active and there is no one that can stop nature from creating more destruction. Italians and other people must understand that with the location of the city that damage of these precious artifacts is definitely high. The British muesum handled the uncovered artifacts with caution and respect. They were are able to ensure its safety, something I don't think the Italians could do.
DeleteYeah that actually is a really good point- Vesuvius is still active and causes earthquakes. I guess the people who live there aren't worried, though. However, if the artifacts were to stay in Italy, they might not be displayed in Pompeii or Herculaneum.
DeleteI didn't even think of Vesuvius. That's great though. I just think about how temptered England is, that it is best protected from human made and natural risks to the art.
DeleteThese artifacts are still going back to the highly polluted area after the exhibit is over, and the exhibit really was not done to preserve the pieces. They were assembled together to add to our understanding of the culture. The British Museum is a much more popular, famous, and more traveled to museum then any museum n Naples and this allows it to be broadcast over all of the world.
DeleteI strongly agree with your argument on the fact that the British Museum took the right initiative. The curator of the museum really wanted people of London to be able to explore Pompeii. But, even though pollution is damaging the artwork, don't you think that Naples does have the right to at least keep some of the pieces from Pompeii?
DeleteYour point makes so much sense it makes me smile! The point in going through all this trouble in bringing all the art work to London isn't for nothing! They wouldn't have spent millions of dollars in finding them to put them in high risk of getting damaged, and then not have them somewhere where so many more people can see them and gain new knowledge.
DeleteIf the objects are handled with care, then I see no reason not to exhibit them. While there is no way to completely guarantee the safety of these objects, they are in the hands of professionals. Everyone should have access to knowledge like this in person as opposed to only in photographs, articles, documentaries, etc. They are works of art and meant to be seen; any work of art is only done justice when seen up close in person.
ReplyDeleteArt is meant to be seen... I really love that point! To anyone who's traveled anywhere, a picture does not give the same feeling as being in that place does. While we were all impacted by the movie, I'm sure seeing the pieces in person would have just made what happened must more real. And it is easier for the art to be seen in London rather than Naples.
DeletePaige I'm curious why you think the art would be easier to see in London rather than Naples?
Deleteyes, the team of historians, excavators and conservationists working on this exhibition were HIGHLY skilled and professional, so I agree with you that the artifacts should be put on display. If this were a sketchy hodgepodge of uniformed novices, then I would feel differently. But this is the British Museum we are talking about and they handled this exhibition quite well and organized each art piece beautifully.
DeleteSydney, I agree, especially that everyone should have access to knowledge like this. And Arden, to me, what Paige meant by her comment was that London already has an internationally recognized facility for exhibits such as this, but that also houses permanent exhibits that attract more people, and thus it would be easier for the art to be seen my more people.
DeleteBut you can see these objects online and in books and get the same information from a textbook as you do a plaque. While you may not be able to grasp the emotional aspect as well, you can still derive a sense of self and see the emotion many people do.
DeleteI think the British museum should not have displayed these artifacts, only because the exhibit is temporary. As of September 29th, the British museum is no longer show casing the Pompeii and Herculaneum items. I understand that the items would handled with care and were brought together to show people what life was like back then, but I feel like it took a lot of work for an exhibit that lasted under a year. If people want to move the artifacts away from Naple's pollution, like a lot of you are saying, then it should be done in a permanent display. Items such as the carbonized trunk probably cannot take several of these trips crossing hundreds of miles, they will eventually be damaged or even ruined.
ReplyDeleteThe exhibit of Pompeii and Herculaneum should be stationary due to the artifacts major sensitivity. I'm just saying that the art pieces needed to be taken out of such a caustic environment and although it is not wise to have these pieces moved to just be moved again,I feel that the danger caused in Italy would do more harm.
DeleteJust because the exhibit doesn't last long doesn't mean it didn't have a great impact. Museum exhibits rarely stay the same for long. The high, for example, features a new exhibit every couple of months. Art does travel all over the world to be displayed, but the traveling makes it so that more people have access to the art.
DeleteYes, but the exhibit gave an opportunity for a wider array of people to see them. Sure, it is dangerous to move fragile objects, that is why they were handled with care. it lasted a shot period of time, but so man more people were able to experience them. We would not have been able to go to the movies and watch a movie on multiple museums dedicated to these artifacts, but the British museum gave us such an opportunity.
DeleteBut the pieces will be going back to Italy anyway so why move them in the first place? That is taking unnecessary risks of harming the pieces in my opinion. And preserving the art in one place will also allow more people to have access to the art because the artifacts will last for a longer time therefore allowing later generations to also enjoy the art.
DeleteThe pieces came from multiple museums and they came together to go to the British museum, sure it is unnecessary, but so was digging this stuff out of the ground where it is better preserved anyway. Putting them together outside of Italy gave more people the opportunity to see the exhibits, even if it was a small amount of time exhibits are moved all the time like that, it gives more people the opportunity to see them, and to see so many of them together. Many of the objects were never seen before together. Putting similar things together and countries working together gives us a better understanding of the pieces.
Deleteeven though this exhibit was temporary, without it we may never have gotten a look at these artifacts to the extent that we were given. the british museum invested an intense amount of time in this exhibition and supplied us with outstanding facts and images. Why not make Pompeii's history widespread and well known rather than confining it to one place for all of eternity?
DeleteI also think that part of the magic of the Pompeii exhibit was having all of the artifacts TOGETHER at one time. Even if the exhibit was held at Naples, I think some of the pieces were from other museums, so the risks incurred by traveling couldn't be avoided entirely.
DeleteThat is true, but what is the point of taking so much time and hard work in finding these pieces of art if so many people who would like to see them, cannot?
DeleteBut having the pieces in Naples also allows the viewers to see in context where all the pieces were which I think really has an impact on how you see an object. Also I don't understand why moving the artifacts to London automatically makes it available to so many more people. Yes people in London now have easy access to the artifacts, but the people in Italy do not. Those truly interested in the pieces can travel to Naples to see the artifacts they aren't restricted
DeleteI agree with you. It is very risky to have these delicate objects transferring all around the world. I makes a lot more sense to me to keep these pieces in one place.
DeleteI agree with you. It is very risky to have these delicate objects transferring all around the world. I makes a lot more sense to me to keep these pieces in one place.
DeleteWhile there was probably a good amount of debate over this, I strongly believe that it was responsible for the British Museum to bring in pieces to London. People that live in London may not be able to afford to travel to Naples, France for this was a chance for them to be able to explore this exhibition. Also, having these pieces come to London allows for art historians in Britain to give their own perspective on the pieces in the exhibit. Yes, the pieces are very fragile. But, in the movie we saw that the people working with the delicate pieces are trained to handle them and are extremely careful. Art should be able to travel so that it can be shared with people from all around the world.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your main idea, but I have an issue with part of your reasoning. You said that London citizens may not be afford to travel to Naples, but what about Naples citizens who can't afford to travel to London but want to learn more about their culture? Just a thought.
DeleteI agree with the British Museum bringing the artifacts for a wider audience then just London. Many people have a much less reasons to go to Naples than London. The artifacts being in London give opportunities for people all over the world to go to a central tourist area to see these artifacts.The people of Naples even get an opportunity to see all of the artifacts from Pompeii all in one place.
DeleteChances are, if you live in London you MIGHT go to the museum, but if you are outside of London you wouldn't. People go to Naples for vacation just as much as people go to London for vacation. The museum is a tourist attraction and tourists are in both London and Naples, I believe the British Museum decided to display them because of the publicity and public interest.
DeleteWhy should only people who live in London, along with tourist coming to London, be able to see these objects? People in Naples probably want to see their own culture too, and maybe they won't be able to afford to go all the way to London. Also, people are most likely not going to make their main point of travel all the way to England to see artifacts that were based in Pompeii. I think it makes more sense for someone to travel to Naples to learn about Pompeii, and to have it's artifacts in the same location to learn more.
DeleteI believe that the British Museum was in the right to bring all of the artifacts of Pompeii from Naples to one central location for all of the pieces to be together. This is the best way to showcase the history of Pompeii and the lives of the citizens before the explosion of the deadly volcano. Yes, the artifacts are indeed very fragile, but what is the point of taking the time and money to excavate them if no one gets to see them? Since there is so much risk in excavating these artifacts in the first place, a little more for the benefit of many people would not hurt.
ReplyDeleteBut was bringing the pieces together really what created any benefit? People can view objects from all over the world online, and you don't get to interact with object just because they are in the same building as you.
DeleteI understand your point about the reason we excavated these artifacts so people could see them. But I don't really understand why people can only see them from the British Museum. Why can't they see them in Naples? Or why can't they see them on the internet?
DeleteI wouldn't say it was necessarily irresponsible, but I think it could have been a lot easier for a lot of people had the pieces stayed in Naples. However, I understand that moving the objects to London attract a much larger crowd through tourism and population. I really appreciate the extra effort it took for them to make the video and bring in specialists to the museum, but it could have also been compiled into the same format of a documentary using the strategies sites like smART History use everyday. I believe that it would have been more appropriate to keep the objects in their locations and compromise on how they present the information.
ReplyDeleteThat's a great point Kristen. Although if the pieces were kept in Naples, their would not have been this documentary, the museums could have used a smart history video type format to spread the information about Pompeii and Herculaneum too. But I think that by moving it to the British museum, more people will learn about the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius, which is one of the major goals in creating an exhibit for the artifacts
DeleteVery old artifacts can disintegrate in the matter of hours. The man in the video talked about a walled fresco that got exposed to air attempting to move it and over night the whole piece was ruined because of the weather. I do not believe that is is necessary to travel very important expensive artifacts across multiple countries risking the pieces structure. For example, the coal chest was probably the most fragile artifact in the exhibit and was moving it really that necessary? Why couldn't it just stay in Naples? The effect of these objects might have a greater meaning staying in the place it was originally found. But I also do think that bringing pieces from different countries is cool because you can physically learn about countries and cities without having to travel very far.
ReplyDeleteI do not really understand why these objects had to travel all the way from Naples to England. These pieces are extremely fragile. Although I know the British Museum was very careful in transporting them, there was still a very big risk the British Museum was willing to take in order to put these objects in their museum. I think it is a great experience to actually travel all the way to Naples and see these artifacts around the same place where these objects originally were placed.
ReplyDelete