[CPProt.net] RE: Thomas Hoving: Getting it right at the Getty (reaction Ton Cremers)

[MSN CPPnet (Ton Cremers)]

Dear Mr. Hoving,

If something went wrong it may have been my interpretation of your piece. I
cannot have misreported it, for it was forwarded in full to the Cultural
Property Protection Net mailing list. I missed the humor in your text, and
leave it up to you that this was due to my stupidity. In my view however
your 'humor' really was obfuscated by the insulting suggestion that an easy
settlement could be reached with the Italians. You might be VERY wrong this
time. The Italians are not out for a settlement 'brewed' by a bunch of
American lawyers. Contrary: they want EVERY piece that is rightfully theirs
returned to Italy. Again: in your 'Making the mummies dance' you write that
the 'age of piracy' is over after the Unesco 1970 convention was drafted
(ratified by your country 1983). I was pleased to read in your book that you
acknowledge in an admirably frank way that some (many?) acquisitions that
took place before 1970 should be called acts of piracy. It is disappointing
to learn that this piracy, a.o.'s through Marion True and her dubious dealer
contacts, continued after ratification of Unesco 1970. I really pity Marion
True that she got caught in a web with criminal dealers even leading to
accepting help buying a private holiday resort in Greece. There is a
personal drama in this. 

So, according to your own words some (many?) acquisition that took place in
the pre-Unesco time AND during your reign as director of the Metropolitan
Museum in N.Y. were, if not illegal, most certainly unethical. Shouldn't all
these objects be returned to the rightful owners? This goes even more for
those acts of piracy that took place after the ratification of Unesco. I
know that a bilateral agreement between Italy and the USA was reached many
years later. Yet, this does not mean that thefts that took place before that
agreement are justified. 

I am convinced, and received reactions from Italian subscribers sustaining
this conviction, that your comment in the L.A. Times rather obstructed a
settlement than making it possible. Compared to your text in the LAT I
really prefer a quote of you that I read 7,5 years ago:

"Nobody would accept anything from Robert Hecht unless they were really
Looney. In his entire career maybe there are two or three pieces he had
that, by chance, were legitimate, that fell onto the truck. But the rest, no
way." 
Boston Globe 01/16/98. 

You knew about Hecht's lach of morals already since 1972 when Hecht sold you
a 2,500-year-old Greek vase with a very dubious origin. 

Just give me ONE reason why not all but just a few of these objects
originating from piracy should be returned to the source countries. Just
one, Mr. Hoving, and please do not try and convince me through self-centered
talk that culture in American museums belongs to our global heritage, and is
there for the whole world to enjoy. Please also do not try to convince me
that these objects are better off in your museums. I have heard all these
very poor excuses for looting and theft far too often. First of all it is
not true that these objects are better off in American museums, and
secondly: even if this were true it does not make theft, smuggling, and
illicit excavations licit.

Before you accuse me once again of stupidity. Your book, and your quote in
the Boston Globe of January 1998 make it very clear that you have learned to
take a firm position against the illicit trade in cultural goods. I
appreciate that a lot. Please be as firm in favour of the return of looted
objects.


In case you do not have the report with your quote handy:
http://www.museum-security.org/reports/00798.html, 
Harvard museum acquisitions shock scholars.

Yours,

Ton Cremers



_________________________
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: TomHoving [mailto:tomhoving at earthlink.net] 
> Sent: 04 October 2005 14:33
> To: MSN CPPnet (Ton Cremers)
> Subject: Re: Thomas Hoving: Getting it right at the Getty 
> (reaction Ton Cremers)
> 
> You misreported the piece. The board resolution is the key 
> AND the knowledge based on experience that the Italians would 
> seek much much more in the settlement and thje Getty would go along.
> 
> Didn't it occur to you that the job application was something 
> of a humorous gambit?
> How stupid can you be?
> 
> Tom Hoving
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "MSN CPPnet (Ton Cremers)" <museum-security at museum-security.org>
> To: "Thomas Hoving" <tomhoving at earthlink.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 7:14 AM
> Subject: RE: Thomas Hoving: Getting it right at the Getty 
> (reaction Ton
> Cremers)
> 
> 
> > http://te.verweg.com/pipermail/cpprot/2005-September/001756.html
> > 
>