Beyond criticism of high-end collectors for tainting
the aesthetic integrity of modern and contemporary art, an art fair in Bangladesh,
international sales of contemporary artworks from Syria, and recognition of
emerging artists in Africa each reflect the potential of the political economy of cultural property. On the other hand, deliberate destruction of
shrines in northern Mali and destruction of historic sites throughout Syria reflect
a decade of targeting in political violence since the demolition of the giant statues of Buddha
in the Bamiyan Valley of Afghanistan.
In the balance, cultural security did OK, but what’s missing in the perceived value of cultural
property?
On the surface, expansion of the art market develops
the political economy of art, but what are the long-term effects on cultural property? In
China, for example, a focus on the art market as an aspect of economic development attracts capital and investment in infrastructure to the
benefit of cultural heritage. How the resources are applied, however, has
ramifications for the treatment of cultural property. Interest in art as an asset class risks casting
cultural property as a commodity. As a result, perceptions of the value of
historic buildings and sections of cities may factor the economic, versus the
cultural, significance more into decisions on conservation.
What might restore balance
to the short-term pragmatic and the long-term aesthetic considerations of
cultural property?
Learn about the framework for Cultural Intelligence.
No comments:
Post a Comment