.
The Financial Times has an article today which its author Peter Aspden claims is a presentation of the "repatriation debate". But I cannot share and comment on it as I would like, as the paper tells its readers: "High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article". As far as I am concerned therefore, readers can find for themselves this "high quality journalism". I did not read it, but on skimming it note that it seems to have a big chunk which looks as if it's cobbled together from Cuno's book. What are the chances that this text it goes beyond the usual object-centred arguments and the "how to protect your investment in art" advice?
The Financial Times has an article today which its author Peter Aspden claims is a presentation of the "repatriation debate". But I cannot share and comment on it as I would like, as the paper tells its readers: "High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article". As far as I am concerned therefore, readers can find for themselves this "high quality journalism". I did not read it, but on skimming it note that it seems to have a big chunk which looks as if it's cobbled together from Cuno's book. What are the chances that this text it goes beyond the usual object-centred arguments and the "how to protect your investment in art" advice?
I tried to comment on the article “Home isn’t always where art is” but gave up after various attempts since the mechanism of the Financial Times did not allow me to enter any text. The article rightly indicates that there are two views to the restitution question but then goes on to call Cuno as expert witness for one side-the retentionists. The other side, the restitutionists were not represented by any expert witness even. Is this a sense of justice that hears only one side of a dispute and ignores the other party? It is true that Abdoulaye Camara is mentioned but no argument or response to Cuno from the other side is made.
ReplyDeleteThose who want to hear from the other side may wish to consult some of our articles at
http://www.museum-security.org and in http://www. modernGhana.com especially,
“DO PRESENT-DAY EGYPTIANS EAT THE SAME FOOD AS TUTHANKHAMUN? REVIEW OF JAMES CUNO'S WHO OWNS ANTIQUITY?”
http://www.modernghana.com
The upshot is that you will look in vain for any decent reporting of cultural property issues from any of the "big" papers in the UK and US (and its generally a waste of time reading the tabloids there for any reason).
ReplyDeleteThe Financial Times does not aim to present the information for discussion, it wants you to accept what it says without question. that's why they do not want commentators to cut-and-paste quotes to dissect their texts, simply to "share" them as-written. I think the debate can do without that kind of "contribution" which is why I refused to share it. Especially as what I did read of it did not really seem to be what I would consider "quality journalism".
Let's ignore publishers who will not participate in proper debate.
jason haris has left a new comment on your post "The "Repatriation Debate" According to FT":
ReplyDeleteHi paul,
Thanks! I have just been searching for info about this topic for a while and yours is the best I have found out so far.
jason