In a series of widely cited articles exploring cultural nationalism and cultural internationalism, John Henry Merryman consistently championed approaches that favor a cosmopolitan ideal of circulating works of art. Among his most influential works was the seminal 1986 article, “Two Ways of Thinking about Cultural Property,” which has been a point of reference for nearly all subsequent discussions. In “Thinking about the Elgin Marbles” (2009) and “Thinking about the Sevso Treasure” (2008), he addressed questions surrounding the rightful ownership of art, the advantages of a licit market for antiquities, and restitution—positions that aimed to balance competing demands on cultural heritage by favoring the widest possible distribution.Footnote 1 For Merryman, it is the conflict between the “two ways”—the nationalist and internationalist—that is most interesting. Yet he also acknowledged that both have a legitimate role to play, especially when national and international interests reinforce one another’s values. Those, he wrote, were the easy cases.Footnote 2 One early instance of such approach, crafted with Merryman’s advice, involved a joint custody strategy for a group of pre-Columbian murals from the site of Teotihuacán, which was negotiated over six years between the De Young Museum in San Francisco and the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia in Mexico City.Footnote 3 In the period since that precedent-setting 1984 “negotiated restitution,” which led to a division of the wall paintings and mutual responsibilities for their conservation, the ideal of sharing by one means or another has become a key goal of museum ethics and practice, especially among institutions with collections of antiquities.
Although the laws of national ownership and the principals of universal circulation are usually seen as mutually exclusive, a middle path can achieve many of the cosmopolitan goals called for in Merryman’s “Thinking” articles, which emphasized the preservation and integrity of a world heritage that is a birthright to be enjoyed by all. Long-term cultural agreements have been developed by a number of U.S. museums in concert with ministries of culture in countries rich in ancient art and archaeological sites. This article, offered to recognize the impact of a dialogue that John Merryman instigated nearly three decades ago, considers the spate of memoranda of understanding that have been drawn up over the past seven years, focusing just on the realm of ancient art in Italy, Greece, and Turkey, and then in particular, on recent experiences at the J. Paul Getty Museum. What has the ideal of sharing accomplished in practice, and what benefits or drawbacks come through this form of cultural diplomacy? Answers to these questions are mainly anecdotal, since most of the arrangements are just now gaining traction, but an informal survey of curatorial colleagues who have been responsible for the initial results suggests that agreements can work, but not without costs.
Since calls for the return of antiquities and ethnographic objects have become more frequent, cultural agreements have been adopted both to define the terms of a reciprocal exchange and to lay the groundwork for a mutually beneficial relationship.Footnote 4 Following the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s landmark 2006 memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Italy, museums in Boston, Cleveland, San Francisco, Dallas, and Los Angeles, as well as the museums at Princeton University and the University of Pennsylvania, have entered into international agreements. Though they may differ in the details, these documents share the goals of support for exhibitions, long-term loans, and research. The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s 40-year agreement with Italy concerned restitution of five ancient Greek vases (including the Euphronios krater) and a set of 15 Hellenistic silver symposion vessels and votive objects, believed to have been discovered in a residential quarter at the ancient site of Morgantina (Sicily). The intention was to share the hoard by transferring the objects between New York and the Museo Archeologico of Aidone every four years. At the Cleveland Museum of Art, which signed a 25-year renewable agreement in 2008, loans—discretely installed amidst the permanent collection—were made in return for the transfer of 14 objects to Italy. Similarly, the Boston Museum of Fine Arts’ agreement grew out of a transfer of objects, and additionally stipulates that Rome’s Ministry of Culture review all proposed acquisitions of classical antiquities in advance. Though this approval adds a cumbersome extra step to regular acquisition procedures, and may discourage purchases at auction when there is little lead time, the system apparently goes forward with reasonable efficiency. Managed by the Deputy Director for Collections, the new relationship has brought a sizeable number of important works to Boston, including the iconic sculpture of a Sleeping Hermaphrodite from Palazzo Massimo in Rome—the centerpiece of the 2011 Aphrodite and the Gods of Love exhibition—as well as works by Piero della Francesca and Michelangelo.
In October 2013, the Dallas Museum of Art placed on view a fifth-century tomb group from Spina that was loaned for four years by the Museo Archeologico in Ferrara, an exchange that also came about after a return of half a dozen objects linked to the antiquities dealer Edoardo Almagià. Under the auspices of a program dubbed DMX (Dallas Museum of Art Exchange) announced in December 2012 by director Maxwell Anderson, the spirit of collaboration represents “a new model of cultural exchange designed to foster international collaboration and communication… [and] share expertise in conservation, exhibitions, education and new media in exchange for loaned works of art from other museums and cultural agencies worldwide.”Footnote 5 Anderson began a proactive provenance review of the Dallas Museum of Art (DMA)’s collection, and when photographic evidence proved that the museum’s Roman mosaic with Orpheus had been removed from the site of Şanliurfa (Turkey), it was deaccessioned and returned in 2012. An MOU with Turkey was signed immediately afterward and launched the DMX initiative, which is expected to generate a series of one-year loans from leading Turkish museums as well as a future exhibition. DMA anticipates similar agreements with African nations, India, China, and Russia.
At the center of a dispute between the University of Pennsylvania and the Republic of Turkey, a group of 24 pieces of Early Bronze Age jewelry known as the Trojan Gold became the focal point of a second U.S. accord with the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Dating to circa 2400 bce, the group had been acquired in good faith in 1966, well before the 1970 UNESCO Convention benchmark on which museums rely, but long after the 1906 Ottoman law that Turkish officials are increasingly disposed to apply. Several proposals for a long-term loan of the gold artifacts to Ankara were made in order to retain the university’s ownership, but terms for anything less than a full transfer of title were initially rejected. Because the gold’s likely archaeological find spot could not be pinpointed more precisely than the northeast Aegean, curator Brian Rose participated in discussions with both the Turkish General Director of Antiquities and the Greek Director General of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage. Turkey subsequently acceded to an indefinite loan (a transfer that will effectively be permanent). Officials pledged support for the university’s 62-year excavation at Gordion, a traveling exhibition of tomb objects from the site’s Midas Mound scheduled for February 2016, as well as selections from the so-called Lydian Treasure, repatriated by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in the 1990s.Footnote 6 This case has been cited as a win–win, but with the authorization of Penn’s long-standing excavation permit hanging in the balance, skeptics criticized the element of duress that surrounded the settlement, much as in the case of another well-publicized Turkish repatriation claim for the Boğazköy Sphinx held by the Pergamon Museum in Berlin.Footnote 7
As in New York and Boston, following a return of objects, Princeton University received four significant loans from Italy, which art museum staff selected from a list drawn up by the Ministry. Not all MOUs hinge on a quid pro quo for repatriated objects. Princeton’s recent cooperative agreement with the Benaki Museum in Athens formalized a long-standing relationship with the university’s Center for Hellenic Studies by developing “an international network that advances each institution’s mission through the common goals and collective resources…encompassing six primary areas of potential collaboration: exchange of exhibitions; long-term loans of works of art; exchange of artists in residence; exchange visits by curators; summer internships and other student/young scholar exchanges; and information exchange and mutual promotion.” Planning for a 2017 exhibition on Cairo in the Fatimid period is underway and promises to fulfill many of these goals.Footnote 8
At the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, an MOU with the Capitoline Superintendency of Rome emerged from a project known as the Dream of Rome, a public-private partnership that funded a U.S. tour of art masterpieces from the Musei Capitolini between 2011 and 2013, thanks to private support from the Knights of Columbus. Because the Capitoline is one of the civic museums of the city and belongs to a separate administrative structure from the national Ministry of Culture, director Claudio Parisi Presicce has been able to negotiate agreements more flexibly than is par for the course. The Dream of Rome financed extraordinary loans: Bernini’s Medusa went to San Francisco; Boston featured the bronze portrait bust of Lucius Junius Brutus, historic founder of the Roman Republic; the monumental Lion Attacking a Horse was shown at the Getty; and the Capitoline Venus was sent to Washington, DC, where a second great treasure of the Musei Capitolini, the Dying Gaul, was installed late in 2013. In exchange, the National Gallery sent an Impressionist exhibition to the Ara Pacis gallery in Rome. Debuting with a special loan of the Fauno Rosso, a striking red marble sculpture of a satyr commissioned by the emperor Hadrian for his villa at Tivoli, the relationship with the Nelson-Atkins Museum led to an unusual form of collaboration with university colleagues. With new funding from Enel Green Power, unpublished artifacts from the vast storerooms of the Antiquarium Comunale will be made available for study by the students and faculty of the University of Missouri, Columbia. Having access to excavated objects for extended periods has long been a goal, especially considering the backlog of underpublished archaeological artifacts that languish in storage, but recently it has taken wing under the Hidden Treasures of Rome project. This ambitious program will reach out to various U.S. universities, creating packages of objects and research themes tailored to the strengths of each institution.
For American art lovers, the last two years have seen an unparalleled influx of remarkable works on public display around the country. Generous loans that came about under specific agreements with Rome multiplied during the 2013 “Year of Italian Culture in the United States.” Sponsored by the Foreign Ministry, nation-wide celebrations involved an array of exhibitions, conferences, and performances.Footnote 9 From the compelling bronze figure of a weary boxer that was shown at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, to drawings by Michelangelo on view in Williamsburg, paintings by Giotto at the Getty, Piero della Francesca’s Senigallia Madonna in Boston, and Piranesi etchings in San Diego, the calendar was filled with star attractions. Ironically, Italy’s national ambition to showcase the best of its artistic heritage did not always override the reluctance of some regions to part with their masterpieces, many of which are felt to be the “family jewels” of local museums. Sicily’s Assessorato dei Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana, for example, withdrew promised loans of several paintings by Caravaggio, and despite explicit prior understandings, hesitated to extend an exhibition on ancient Sicily to Cleveland after its display in Los Angeles. Press worldwide covered the ensuing controversy, which appeared to cast doubt on the reliability of formal cultural agreements. As a semiautonomous region wielding wide latitude when it comes of cultural heritage policy, Sicily was not swayed by the national imperative, and intervention by Foreign Affairs officials in Rome proved futile. I will return to that particular situation later, but it underscores one obvious conclusion: Cultural diplomacy is neither easy nor predictable when the agendas of national and regional officials, and foreign and cultural ministries are not in tune.
International Cultural Agreements
Cultural MOUs are by no means a novelty. In the international sphere, cooperative relationships between countries and their cultural ministries have been formed with great regularity, especially in the period after World War II. In essence, the main goals have been cosmopolitan ones: to promote culture outside the nation’s borders, and to cultivate within an interest in the artistic and intellectual achievements of others. Such agreements have been the norm among countries in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and parts of Africa. Public diplomacy in the United States, by contrast, has historically subordinated cultural agreements and instead promoted the American values of education and economic development overseas. Museum and artistic exchanges were less of a priority and had to depend more on private sources than on governmental initiatives.Footnote 10
A dramatic shift, however, came in the wake of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. In an effort to preserve endangered cultural heritage, the U.S. included in the 1983 Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) a mechanism for creating bilateral agreements under carefully defined circumstances. Sixteen such agreements have been signed to date. In entering into MOUs with requesting nations, the Cultural Property Advisory Committee must determine that the cultural patrimony is in jeopardy from archaeological pillaging; steps have been taken by the requesting nation to protect cultural patrimony; U.S. import restrictions would assist substantially in deterring pillage; and such restrictions would promote the interchange of cultural objects for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes. Loans and traveling exhibitions help to fulfill the expectation of interchange, insuring that the American public derives tangible benefits from limiting importation on certain categories of archaeological and ethnological objects.
After a decade, Article II is starting to address this expectation more emphatically. Early agreements with several Latin American countries acknowledged in general terms the desirability of an “interchange of knowledge.” New and renewed bilateral agreements underscore this point in more forceful language, requiring that the country make best efforts regarding loans and exchanges of cultural property (e.g., Belize 2013, Bulgaria 2014, Bolivia 2006, Cambodia 2013, Colombia 2011, El Salvador 2010, Guatemala 2012, Honduras 2009, Nicaragua 2010, and Peru 2012).Footnote 11 In several cases, the language remains noticeably elliptical. Mali (2012), for example, will make “best efforts to encourage further interchange through consideration of accommodating requests for extended international loans,” while Cyprus (2012) “will promote ongoing discussion about loans of objects of archaeological interest….” The MOU with Greece (2011) does not address short-term loans for museum display, but allows for “consideration, as appropriate, of accommodating requests for extended loans beyond the five-year period to United States museums…” and “consideration, as appropriate, of broadening permissions to academicians and museum curators from abroad to photograph material in Greek museums....” While these points have practical merit, they are limited in scope and have been criticized as not meeting the higher expectations defined by the CPIA. At a minimum, pressure to expand and simplify bureaucratic loan procedures will likely be felt when these MOUs come up for renewal.
Two countries of paramount importance to the U.S. museum community—Italy and China—made the goal of sharing artistic heritage explicit. Italy (2011) agreed to develop “increased and extended loans of archaeological cultural property” and China (2009, 2014) will “promote long-term loans…of significant interest to a broad cross-section of American museums,” including recently excavated objects. Whether the exchange requirements of Article II will result in a greater circulation of Chinese art and ethnographic objects still remains to be seen. From the recent experiences with Italy and Greece, one can conclude that international bilateral agreements are creating an overarching framework and incentives for generous loans. Defining concrete objectives and then carrying them out is in the hands of museums and universities, and is beginning to show concrete results.
Cultural Agreements in Action
Turning next to the experiences of the J. Paul Getty Museum, I would like to review the four cultural agreements that have been put into place, three of them consequent to the return of antiquities to the countries of origin—what transpired, the benefits and obstacles, and what was learned. Do institutional agreements help to achieve the goals of the bilateral MOUs the United States has signed? In an era of burgeoning blockbuster exhibitions assembled by for-profit enterprises, expositions, and art fairs, are they even needed? Some question the necessity of contracting for cooperation, given the quantity and quality of art from Mediterranean countries that has been displayed in North American institutions. Yet despite ubiquitous traveling exhibitions, antiquities remain a category that has been more problematic than post-antique works. Have collaborative projects managed to breach the impasse that the museums faced over the issue of restitution?
The Getty’s antiquities collection began with J. Paul Getty’s first purchase in 1939 and expanded from 1976—the year he acquired his final work of ancient art—to the early 2000s to comprise about 45,000 objects. More than 1400 artworks are on display in a neoclassical-style building designed as a reproduction of the Villa dei Papiri in Herculaneum. As in the case of several other museums mentioned earlier, the first accord, signed in 2007 with the Ministry of Culture in Rome, included an agreement to transfer about 40 objects to Italy. The document confirmed Italy’s willingness to lend 50 objects of a quality similar to those that had been returned, to authorize new excavation permits, and to consult in advance on any future recovery proceedings. In practice, the outcomes have gone beyond a quid pro quo exchange of objects of equivalent beauty and artistic or historical significance, in the language of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s contract. Laying the groundwork for a positive relationship, the document blossomed into a collaboration with the Archaeological Museum in Florence, formalized separately in 2009 and revolving around three major exhibitions. Later that year, an exhibition featuring the Chimaera of Arezzo brought Florence’s signature work—a masterpiece of Etruscan bronze sculpture—to U.S. audiences for the first time. Scientific analysis of its manufacture and patina was conducted in Florence. In the course of its stay in Malibu, a jointly organized conference on the Chimaera, from its roots in early Greek art to its use as a political symbol of Renaissance Florence, brought together specialists in art, archaeology, and science. Publications in Italian and English traced the myth of the monster-slaying hero Bellerophon in Near Eastern, Greek, Etruscan, Roman, and Medieval Christian contexts.Footnote 12
Currently in development is a second exhibition, Monumental Bronzes of the Hellenistic World, which will premier in Florence in 2015 before traveling to Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and Athens. Centering on four great bronze sculptures from the Florentine collection, the display will feature major loans from 10 Italian and Greek museums, as well as institutions in Europe, North Africa, and the U.S. Bilingual editions of the catalog and a congress on ancient bronze sculpture will convene international experts for a unique opportunity to examine and reconsider Hellenistic sculptures in juxtaposition with one another. Part of the reciprocal exchange will involve treatment of a Roman bronze putto from the Medici collection that will be conducted in the Getty’s Antiquities Conservation studio. For the future, a third exhibition on the Etruscans is in the conceptual stage. A steady succession of ministers of culture has held office, but the 2007 agreement has weathered political changes well and has not been adversely affected by the ongoing court proceedings concerning the statue of a Victorious Youth (known as the Getty Bronze or the Athlete of Fano).Footnote 13 These initial projects, in fact, continue to spawn regular proposals for collaborative projects and two additional Italian MOUs.
Alongside numerous loans of short duration, a Roman bronze ephebe holding a candelabrum was made available for four years by the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Naples. To date, this is the only instance of a long-term loan made in return for repatriations, though 50 such objects were to be exchanged under the 2007 agreement. Most loans that fall under the long-term category are born from conservation projects paid for by the Getty, which established a separate budget line to implement the principles of the agreement. Although not an official partner in the way that Florence is, Naples formed close ties to the Getty thanks to our mutual interest in the history of the Vesuvian excavations and their preservation.Footnote 14 Here a special affinity with the Pompeian-style Getty Villa led to a program of research that unfolded around conservation and technological analysis of two major works of Roman bronze sculpture: the Apollo Saettante from Pompeii and the portrait statue of Tiberius found in Herculaneum. Long kept in storage, both sculptures underwent treatment for stability, as well as a battery of tests to clarify manufacturing techniques and earlier restorations. Research proceeded collaboratively and was presented in symposia, publications, and exhibitions that gave visitors a behind-the-scenes encounter with these singular works. Our collaboration advances under its own momentum, largely due to the close working relations between an international group of archaeologists, curators, and scientists who share common interests in bronze sculpture and the history of restoration.Footnote 15
Projects like these can represent a win-win outcome. Much new knowledge was developed on classical bronze sculpture and original data emerged that benefits the wider research community. Interesting results were shared with the public in Los Angeles, and the sculptures return to their home museums for display in stable condition. Research projects can ramify in unexpected directions, as in the instance of a project to study a group of Apulian vases found in the 19th century in Ceglie del Campo and now in the Antikensammlung in Berlin. Investigations into the history of conservation revealed the techniques used to reassemble vases, a topic that intertwined with the Apollo Saettante of Pompeii, filling in our picture of restoration practices in 18th- and 19th-century Naples. Colleagues in Germany, France, and Italy joined in and brought to bear the archival records that eventually will help piece back together the biographies of these objects. Unquestionably, one key to success is the Getty’s capacity to provide expertise in conservation and preventive care, but the reality remains that research projects require time and investment of substantial resources.
When the Cult Statue of a Goddess, now understood to represent a monumental image of Demeter, was returned to the Museo Archeologico in Aidone in 2010, it did so under a separate accord reached with the Regional Assessorato dei Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana.Footnote 16 Sicily is a semiautonomous region of Italy and in many matters lies outside the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Culture in Rome. In what was designed to be a reciprocal exchange for a sculpture determined to originate in eastern Sicily, but whose likely find spot in Morgantina could not be verified with certainty, the document confirmed that the Sicilian region would support several projects with the Getty: two exhibitions, the first to survey classical and Hellenistic Sicily, and a second on the site of Selinunte; organization of a conference in Palermo on seismic stabilization; and a project to remount the celebrated statue of a charioteer from the island of Mozia. Two objects initially came to Malibu to be equipped with seismic isolation bases, displayed for a time, and sent back with new mounts and cases—the monumental red-figure volute krater by the Niobid Painter and a marble sculpture of an Ephebe, both from the Museo Archeologico Regionale in Agrigento.Footnote 17 Planning for the first exhibition, Sicily: Art and Invention between Greece and Rome, commenced soon after and at the outset, found good support among lenders at the local level. Pivoting on the presentation of the Mozia Charioteer, newly freed from its risky external mount, the display of 150 objects, more than 60 from Sicilian museums, was intended to travel to Los Angeles and the Cleveland Museum of Art, and conclude at the Palazzo Ajutamicristo in Palermo.
Frequent elections, shifting cultural policies, nominations of new regional counselors and superintendents, and the rotation of museum directors presented serious stumbling blocks. In the three years following the 2011 signing of the agreement, five cultural commissioners held office, each with different agendas and attitudes about how international exchanges should be used to promote Sicily’s artistic heritage, its identity, and its potential as a travel destination. For U.S. museums, where exhibitions take years of advance planning, dealing with last-minute bureaucratic delays and changes of direction is not easy. For the Sicilian cultural administration, long-term plans that cannot be realized within a single term of office, or agreements that might bind the hands of incoming officials, are equally unwelcome. Elections in 2012 brought to power a government that took a tougher stance on loans outside of Sicily, in part due to pressure from local constituents after many important pieces had traveled to shows in Shanghai and London. The legislature enacted a decree establishing a list of 23 masterpieces (21 objects and two ensembles of the metopes from Selinunte and the Morgantina silver treasure) that would henceforth be “immovable” except under special circumstances, in an effort to limit extended absences, protect local museums, and attract tourism to the island.Footnote 18 Fees calculated on 0.5% of the insurance value of the works or other commensurate exchanges became a requirement for major loans. With reciprocity as the cornerstone of the new policy, the regional administration of President Rosario Crocetta revisited its prior agreements, not only those with museums but also those sought for the Italian Foreign Ministry’s celebration of 2013 as the Year of Italian Culture in the United States. Anticipated loans were cancelled in a move to keep Sicilian treasures at home.Footnote 19
In Los Angeles, the Getty’s Sicily exhibition was caught up in the shifting political terrain in two ways: Even though it had been explicit in all prior discussions, our partnership with Cleveland, formalized only after the signing of the 2011 agreement, was not recognized. Moving forward would take a new agreement and a significant reciprocal promise beyond the costly multiyear conservation of the Mozia Charioteer and half a dozen other Sicilian objects. Nine months of proposals, counterproposals, and a belated demand for several hundred thousand dollars in loan fees finally saw daylight, when Cleveland resurrected an earlier offer to lend Old Master paintings for a future show in Palermo on Caravaggio and his followers, including its most important work, the Crucifixion of Saint Andrew. Illustrating the quid pro quo, a map posted on the web site of cultural commissioner Mariarita Sgarlata set out the terms in graphic simplicity, under the banner “the show is back on”: crossing the Atlantic, the Charioteer and a gold phiale from Himera change places with nine paintings from the Cleveland Museum of Art.Footnote 20
Among the original goals of the 2010 agreement, all but one (a future exhibition on Selinunte that was not defined before the three-year agreement lapsed) were accomplished, and by most measures the exhibition was a success. Sicily opened on schedule, though determined efforts to present the exhibition in Palermo failed due to lack of funding. In the United States, more than 140,000 people took part in the celebrations of Sicilian artistic heritage, objects were safeguarded for the future, and research stimulated a reappraisal of ancient Sicily’s contributions to classical culture.Footnote 21 What shape any future renewal of the cultural agreement might assume depends to a large degree on how to address the political cycle and how to formulate rewarding approaches that function effectively for both parties.
Greece became the J. Paul Getty Museum’s third international partner in 2011. Here the emphasis of a “Framework for Cultural Cooperation” is on addressing the trade in illicit artifacts and “encouraging the exchange of scientists and scholars in the fields of archaeology, art history, conservation, cultural information technology and other fields of common interest in research and training.”Footnote 22 Unlike earlier MOUs, blueprints for specific loans and traveling exhibitions were not drawn up, but the rapprochement achieved after a years-long standoff allowed the parties to begin planning for a major exhibition of Byzantine art. Heaven and Earth: Art of Byzantium from Greek Collections opened in 2013 in Washington, D.C., and traveled to Los Angeles and Chicago; financial responsibility for international shipping costs and the catalog was shouldered by Greece. Conservation projects, which have been critical in our Italian partnerships, are not so much a desideratum for the Ministry of Culture and Sports in Athens, where there is a strong tradition of object and architectural conservation. Transferring antiquities back to Greece, however, has occurred twice during the short tenure of the agreement. Two objects originally found in Attica and well known through scholarly publications were returned as a symbolic gesture of good will, in exchange for which, a three-year loan of an Athenian decree relief was arranged.Footnote 23 Though this first step was a modest one, Heaven and Earth eventually brought to the United States some 170 objects, many of them spiritual and artistic treasures of their respective museums and towns, in a conscious effort to promote an important but less familiar aspect of the national heritage. Greece’s Central Archaeological Council, however, can be reluctant to grant loan requests for exhibitions developed by foreign curators; long delays and denials show that signing a cultural agreement is no guarantee of a positive response when it comes to securing key works. The framework is still very much a work in progress, but Greece’s recent agreement to participate in the Monumental Bronzes of the Hellenistic World is a hopeful sign that it will advance us toward a regular collaboration.
As mentioned earlier, the Dream of Rome provided the impulse and needed funding toward major loans from the Capitoline Museums, and the Getty’s most recent cultural agreement with the Capitoline Superintendency was a logical outgrowth of that initiative. Separate from the agreements with the national Ministry of Culture and the regional Ministry of Cultural Assets and Sicilian Identity, the accord with the civic archaeological superintendency in Rome brought one of the great but nearly forgotten works of classical sculpture to Los Angeles for nine months. For more than a century, the Lion Attacking a Horse had languished as a fountain ornament in the Giardino Caffarelli behind the Capitoline Museum. Newly restored with a grant from the Knights of Columbus, the monumental group came into the spotlight once again in the 2012–2013 Malibu installation, which recalled its role as a symbol of the city of Rome and inspiration for Renaissance artists. Scientific analysis of its marbles and lead dowels was spearheaded by the Getty Antiquities Conservation department, and upon its return to Rome, the Lion assumed its rightful place in the rotunda gallery where the earliest donations to the Capitoline collection, including the Capitoline Wolf and the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius, are showcased.Footnote 24 The formal agreement that enabled this display, which was seen by more than 200,000 visitors, focused again on conservation collaborations. Identifying a subject that meets the needs and expectations of both institutions is our present goal. Because it was supported by the office of Mayor Giovanni Alemanno with entrepreneurial savoir faire and curatorial judgment on the part of the Capitoline leadership, forming a productive working relationship has been straightforward. Built on past positive experiences of exchanging loans between Rome and the Getty, and not hinging on restitution as a quid pro quo for cooperation, the agreement that evolved out of the Dream of Rome offers great promise for the future.
Challenges of Cultural Diplomacy
In the museum world, international and national interests are complementary when they intersect to create a cultural commons—a place to engage in the stewardship of art, collaborate on its study and preservation, and disseminate it broadly. Cultural agreements constitute the very charter for internationalism that John Merryman envisioned. Although he has long urged that many expressions of the world’s archaeological and ethnological heritage should circulate on the commercial art market, he also acknowledged that works of art could be “traded to foreign museums for works that would enrich the ability of each nation to expose its own citizens to works from other cultures…or deposited on long-term loan in foreign institutions.”Footnote 25 Debates have swirled endlessly around his firm insistence on the benefits of a licit market for antiquities, and whether private ownership confers an economic value that would in the end help to preserve important objects. Most archaeologists reject this hypothesis, which is at odds with laws, in some cases centuries old, in the countries of origin that I have focused on here.
Instead, stewardship as a form of “sharing” with added benefits has been advanced as an alternative to ownership, above all in the case of antiquities. For museums where acquisitions may be limited and ancient art is not a strength, loans can bring objects to audiences that might not otherwise enjoy access to them. Where there are regular acquisitions, short- and long-term loans can enhance the depth of the permanent collection, allowing visitors to experience works of art from fresh perspectives. Both lender and borrower profit, and the different exchange arrangements are in step with evolving mission of museums. In an era of global movements of art, new paradigms are expanding the core goals of collecting, display, and education. They involve networks of cooperating institutions, a strong emphasis on preservation, and a commitment to diversifying public access. Dialogue and transparency help redefine an ethic of sharing that takes objects as a point of departure, but which is fundamentally about collaboration between institutions and colleagues.
Cultural cooperation between institutions has been fruitful. Yet following a long period of tension over pillaged art and “who owns the past,” parity is now a pivotal element of negotiations. With four signed agreements, the foundations are in place for cementing a special affinity with two countries that are essential for the Getty Villa, the only public museum outside Europe devoted to the arts of ancient Greece, Rome, and Etruria. Since 2007, about 193 loans from 76 Italian lenders and more than 170 objects from Greece have come to Los Angeles. Countless benefits to scholarship, preservation, and visitors’ enjoyment are the result. Despite appointments of six ministers of culture under five successive governments in Rome, backing for exhibitions and conservation collaborations has been steady, in part thanks to the support of two general directors (Stefano De Caro and Luigi Malnati) whose tenures endured the political cycles. Agreements with the Capitoline Superintendency and the Hellenic Republic Ministry of Culture have started to accomplish what they set out to do, and next steps are in progress. Sicily’s Ministry of Cultural Assets and Sicilian Identity, conversely, revolves its political appointees and personnel frequently, changing directions and making planning a tough challenge. While nearly all the expectations of the 2010 agreement with the Getty were met, the unexpected imposition of loan fees or other forms of reciprocity is an insurmountable barrier for many museums. Challenges to the idea of MOUs still remain. Early in 2014, Sicilian officials reneged on the original 2006 agreement with the Metropolitan Museum of Art to share the Morgantina silver hoard every four years. Because the set of 15 silver vessels had come to be listed among the immovable works of Sicilian artistic heritage in the recent legislation, a “rebalanced” exchange is being sought that does not result in an extended absence of a treasure of the local museum in Aidone.Footnote 26
This turn of events is a reminder that although cultural agreements can lay the groundwork for a partnership, they offer no absolute guarantees beyond a willingness to consider joint ventures in a spirit of cooperation. As several of the situations described above make plain, there are drawbacks that need to be taken into account, including:
• Meshing administrative procedures and scheduling between the different bureaucracies that govern private museums and state ministries.
• Coping with cross-cultural communication, a time-consuming endeavor that calls for manageable goals, and a better equilibrium of interests and contributions.
• Maintaining continuity across election cycles and political appointments. Relationships cultivated with one group of officials, who do not remain in office long enough to implement an agreement, may have to be rebuilt with their successors. Memoranda of understanding and restitutions notwithstanding, arrangements may be suddenly redefined if new policies and legislation on cultural patrimony are introduced.
• Negotiating claims. In the aftermath of repatriations, cultural agreements aimed to put relationships with museums on a new footing. Agencies outside of cultural ministries, however, can still pursue restitutions, which may affect projects that are under way.
• Allocating funding and resources. International loans and exhibitions are expensive even under normal circumstances, and additional costs of conservation, loan fees, training, and other aspects of collaborative projects are substantial. Time, staffing, and institutional will on both sides are prerequisites.
Cultural agreements may not work equally for every museum, especially smaller ones, but their usefulness can be extended by creating consortia of cooperating museums to share resources. As the recent cases have shown, they can help to lay the groundwork for improved relationships, which in turn opens opportunities beyond the fine print of formal documents. Partnerships engendered by object-oriented agreements go a long way toward realizing several principles of cultural cosmopolitanism that John Merryman called for—preservation, knowledge, and access—and bridge the gaps between local and cosmopolitan, and national and international perspectives.
