Are you
convinced by the argument which this article puts forward that western museums
should cut their ties with China because of that government's treatment of
their Uyghur minority? Does it surprise
you that the sports world has gone further in terms of divestment than the arts
world has? How should organisations
respond when such abuses against minority groups take place or when governments
simply deny their guilt?
Thursday, January 6, 2022
Art on loan from alleged torturers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To me, this article raises some very important questions. Art is a form of communication between human beings. It is the emotion and mastery put together to represent a personal statement. To each and every one of us, masterful art conveys a unique and intimate message- an experience. In this sense, art is a luxury. Yet, how much are we ready to sacrifice for the pleasures of art? How much is *too much*?
ReplyDeleteOn one side of the picture, there is a person indulged in a stirring art-piece. On the other, there is the question of provision of that art. In the case of the article, a large amount of the Victoria & Albert Museum’s profit and business opportunities are acquired thanks to their connection to the Chinese government which was found guilty of genocide by the London tribunal. To my mind, the museum should seek to cut itself from China’s helping hand even if things such us workplaces and the luxury of art might be lost. The funding is a moral issue but one that goes against the established charters of the United Nations supporting human rights and equality because it goes directly against any equality and it promotes inequity. As such it would be in the best interest of both the Uyghurs who have been victims to atrocious offences and of the museum for the museum to avoid any social or law related issues. Fingernails being ripped off of human beings involuntarily is a price too high to be paid for a luxury such as art.
However, I don’t think the sports world going further than the art world to distance itself from China is surprising. To my mind, each of these is in one way or another a part of a market. Although classifying the market is only possible after defining and focusing on a specific attribute of a market, the fact that the the worlds are in some form economic agents is definitely true as both generate enormous revenue. Even if the stereotype of people of the art world being more emotionally driven than other people is true, the truth is that they too need to satisfy their human needs through work. I would understand if the situation in the art world, and that of the museum, would require them to hold out on cutting off its opportunities with China. It doesn’t surprise me, and I hope that whatever the problem is the art world will eventually be able to act in accordance with spreading equity.
Besides, isn’t liberating a people and giving them the beauty of experiencing a life free of fear a form of art?
The issue discussed in this article is just an instance of a much more general problem of ‘ethical consumerism’, which is the problem of when it is unethical to engage in mutually beneficial cooperation with some party (usually in a form buying their products) if said party's actions are morally questionable. This issue is present in buying meat products if the animals are mistreated by the producer, buying fast fashion, buying pretty much anything from China, etc.
ReplyDeleteThere are 3 main factors present within this issue: degree of personal benefit, extent of unethical behaviour from the other party and the extent to which you’re contributing to said behaviour by supporting that party. A simple example would be applying those 3 factors on Meat eating. The degree of personal benefit depends on how much you like it and how big of a part it plays in your diet. Extent of unethical behaviour depends on if you think animals have consciousness. And lastly you're supporting their behaviour directly by purchasing their products and keeping their business alive.
Let’s analyse these 3 factors applied to the issue in the article. Degree of personal benefit can be debated, but it’s not insignificant. In my opinion this factor is not of the highest relevance. The extent of unethical behavior is extreamly high, since doing genocide is, well… bad. However the extent to which the museums are contributing to it is on the contrary quite low, since the chinese government would conduct genocide no matter if you put chineese stuff into museums or not. Additionally, in my opinion supporting countries' culture doesn’t mean supporting countries' governments. After all Uyghur culture is still a part of chinese culture.