Shubanghi Shah writes:
The process of restitution is far from straightforward. Martine Gosselink, general director of the Mauritshuis museum in The Hague, who has been involved in restitution, said it is often difficult to determine to whom an artefact should be returned. “Sometimes collections are claimed by specific groups, while restitution frameworks tend to operate at a state-to-state level,” she said.
Practical challenges also remain. In some cases, countries to which artefacts are to be returned lack the necessary infrastructure. Belgium, for instance, holds a large number of artefacts from Congo, which has limited storage facilities and cultural institutions.
The restitution debate has also reopened questions closer to home. In the Netherlands, it has revived discussions around the return of Dutch Golden Age paintings taken to France by Napoleon’s army. Of the nearly 200 paintings removed, about 130 were returned, while around 70 remain in France.
“During an exhibition two years ago, a political party argued that the remaining 70 paintings should return,” Gosselink said. “The logic was that if the Netherlands is willing to return colonial artefacts so readily, these paintings should also come back. I asked: Do we miss those 70 paintings? Do we have empty museums? Are we hurt by them being in France? It isn’t painful in any way. So why bring them back when they can serve as ambassadors of Dutch art?”
Restitution also raises questions, such as whether the climate or infrastructure of the receiving country is suitable for preserving the artefacts. “This is nothing but neo-colonialism by the Western world on how one should preserve artefacts,” said Robert van Langh, director of the Drents Museum.
The Dutch policy has shown results. “It is bringing us closer to each other,” Dewi van de Weerd, Ambassador for International Cultural Cooperation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands said.
