 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 13 - 19 May 1999 Issue No. 429 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 13 - 19 May 1999 Issue No. 429
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Features Books Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Plain talk
By Mursi Saad El-Din
An interesting debate is going on in the British media these days, reminiscent of a related, though far from identical, on-going debate in Egypt. In both cases the arguments revolve around whether or not national treasures, whatever form they take, should travel abroad.
In Egypt a number of so-called patriots oppose sending objects of cultural significance abroad, claiming that to do so endangers the condition of the objects, and leaves them vulnerable to the threat of theft. The fact that such artefacts are heavily insured and extremely well-protected, and that their exhibition provides the kind of publicity for Egypt, and for its tourist industry, that money could never hope to buy, does not convince the sceptics. And, largely because they command a platform in the press, these "non-loaners" of national treasures have been successful in swaying a chunk of public opinion.
Thankfully, yet others have raised their voices in support of exhibiting the great triumphs of Egypt's genius in friendly nations. During my term of office as under-secretary of state for foreign cultural relations I was happy to be involved with the arrangements to show the treasures of Tutankhamun in Japan and Britain. And the Tutankhamun exhibition was perhaps the first example of that recent phenomenon, the block-busting exhibition, as crowds queued overnight to gain admittance.
In Britain what is being argued over is less a matter of allowing items already in public collections to be exhibited abroad -- this is, in any case, common practice among major Western holders of art treasures -- but whether or not important items, as they reach the salesrooms, should be open to overseas buyers.
The question has arisen with regard to a Gainsborough painting bequeathed to Marlborough College in 1942. The governors of the school have now decided to sell the painting in order to raise funds for development, a decision that has seen the issue of whether or not foreign institutions or individuals should be allowed to export art treasures hit the headlines. There have been several attacks against Marlborough College. A few days ago The Daily Telegraph published a letter by a former student of Marlborough which read as follows: "As boys we rarely set eyes on the painting but, even so, thinking about our Gainsborough was good." The curator of the museum, located in Gainsborough's house, went a little further, describing the sale as "despicable". The argument has been fuelled by the fact that when Christie's failed to find a British buyer, they decided to look for overseas collectors.
Certainly, American and Japanese companies have been investing heavily in both modern paintings and old-masters, inflating prices that are already sky-high. The art critic of the Independent, who is all for the export of British art, has few doubts that the Gainsborough's new owner will be from overseas -- most probably, he predicts, from the United States.
What is equally certain is the response of the art heritage lobby, should this be the case. They will be outraged, and once again decry the terrible impoverishment of the national heritage occasioned by the sale of the painting. The Gainsborough, they will insist, is merely the latest in an ever increasing number of British works of art to go abroad.
