British Museum Will Digitize Entire Collection At a Cost of $12.1 Million In Response To Thefts (artnews.com) 89
Karen K. Ho reports via ARTnews: British Museum has announced plans to digitize its entire collection in order to increase security and public access, as well as ward off calls for the repatriation of items. The project will require 2.4 million records to upload or upgrade and is estimated to take five years to complete. The museum's announcement on October 18 came after the news 2,000 items had been stolen from the institution by a former staff member, identified in news reports as former curator Peter Higgs. About 350 have been recovered so far, and last month the museum launched a public appeal for assistance. [...]
On the same day the British Museum announced its digitization initiative, Jones and board chairman George Osborne gave oral evidence to the UK Parliament's Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Their comments included an explanation of how the thefts occurred, policy changes made as a result, and how the museum will handle whistleblower complaints going forward. They also gave more details about the British Museum's strategy for digitizing its collection, estimated at a cost of $12.1 million. "We are not asking the taxpayer or the Government for the money; we hope to raise it privately," Osborne said.
The increased digital access to the collection would also be part of the museum's response to requests for items to be returned or repatriated. "Part of our response can be: "They are available to you. Even if you cannot visit the museum, you are able to access them digitally." That is already available -- we have a pretty good website -- but we can use this as a moment to make that a lot better and a lot more accessible," Osborne said.
On the same day the British Museum announced its digitization initiative, Jones and board chairman George Osborne gave oral evidence to the UK Parliament's Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Their comments included an explanation of how the thefts occurred, policy changes made as a result, and how the museum will handle whistleblower complaints going forward. They also gave more details about the British Museum's strategy for digitizing its collection, estimated at a cost of $12.1 million. "We are not asking the taxpayer or the Government for the money; we hope to raise it privately," Osborne said.
The increased digital access to the collection would also be part of the museum's response to requests for items to be returned or repatriated. "Part of our response can be: "They are available to you. Even if you cannot visit the museum, you are able to access them digitally." That is already available -- we have a pretty good website -- but we can use this as a moment to make that a lot better and a lot more accessible," Osborne said.
Re:Re-stolen (Score:5, Insightful)
They're stolen property in the first place.
I went to a talk in a museum once, where an indigenous leader started ranting on about how the British had stolen his cultural artefacts and put them inside their imperialist institution. If you went and actually read the information card next to the artefact he was going on about, it stated that the thing was falling into disrepair because the indigenous tribe that owned it had upgraded to using western technology, and a museum collector had asked if he could purchase it off them to preserve it.
The thing is, I totally accept that we need to ask questions about how these artefacts are presented and cared for. It might be completely appropriate to give them back to the decendents of the tribe that had once owned them. But to just go around saying everything was stolen of someone's great-grandparents is pretty naive and purposefully incendiary.
Having said that, there are a LOT of things at the British museum that were stolen and should be given back, and it's pretty obvious they just don't want to go anywhere near opening that painful can of worms, which is something you should criticise.
Re:Re-stolen (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. It's also disingenuous to cite examples of human remains and personal items as examples when the big ticket items are the Elgin Marbles and the Benin Bronzes. I'd agree the Elgin Marbles should be returned. Greece is stable and has the ability to safely conserve these artefacts. If the same can be said for Nigeria then send back the bronzes.
It shouldn't turn into a general rule that everything of foreign origin must be returned. Sending irreplaceable artefacts to tinpot dictatorships and cultural vandals would make no sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting points. In Canada, a totem which was in the Royal B.C. Museum in Victoria B.C. was returned to the native people but they are going to put it in their own Museum so it should be fine there and not go to waste. Who knows? Maybe the totem would have gone to waste if it hadn't been kept in Victoria. Totems are made of wood.
So maybe museum saved and preserved some artifacts and if they return them now if somebody else is able to take care of them then, everything is fine. But sometimes, it was reall
Re: (Score:2)
I think it depends on what the purpose of the digitization is. If it's to have a second-best kind of backup if something happens to the original this would make perfect sense.
In my country we discovered two relics from the iron age in 1639 and 1734, two golden drinking horns. Probably some of the greatest archaeological finds ever here. And they ended up stolen and melted down for the base metals, leaving only sketches and descriptions of them. A digitized version, a mostly perfect 3D digital replica, would
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but a Star Trek replicator would be the best for a real backup of a physical object I guess :)
But yeah, at least a picture of it, especially 3D would be nice I guess, your drinking horns must have had a least a few 2D pictures of them taken, haven they?
Also, not sure TFA is about backups. My guess is that they want to put the originals in a vault where very few people would have controlled access.
Re: (Score:1)
Sending irreplaceable artefacts to tinpot dictatorships and cultural vandals would make no sense.
Who decides what is a tinpot dictatorship, and what is not ? Obviously the British.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no issue sending things back to dictatorships if they have a recent history of properly maintaining antiquities.
I wouldn't send anything to people like the Taliban who have a history of destroying things they don't like.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, if they are the current holders of the artefacts. The holder has an obligation to ensure artefacts go where they will be safeguarded and preserved. Who else would make the judgement as to whether a country (e.g. Afghanistan) is up to the task?
Re: Re-stolen (Score:2)
If the decision is to be made about a "return"of the artefacts, obviously it has been established that the British are not the rightful holders of said artefacts. So what gives them any right to judge the receivers?
If the decision is going in the direction that descendants of the original owners should receive, why do the British get to pass judgement on their credentials? This creates a conflict of interest. Germany ? Na, tinpot banana republic, we'll keep the goods, thank you very much. Singapore, na, too
Re: (Score:2)
It's fair to judge some of these countries. Some are backwards and useless. North Korea cones to mind.
The holder has an obligation to everybody to ensure the safety of an artefact. This benefits all humans, not least of all those who know their countrymen would destroy the artefact.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just a further example of rich people telling poor people what to do and how to act and using "unapproved" behavior as an excuse to exercise power.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember those two Buddha statues that got blown up some years ago? Do you want the people behind THAT to decide what happens to more antiquities?
Re: Re-stolen (Score:2)
1. If those Taliban are the supposed receivers of the artefacts, why not? They would have the inheritants of the British had not stolen the goods in advance.
If they had not stolen so much from those places, maybe they wouldn't have become so destitute , maybe that's one fewer reason to fall into the hands of people like Taliban. But that's OT now because the hypothetical self realisation of British had come too late.
2. Even if this decision on the morality of the receivers is to be made, why British? That c
Re: Re-stolen (Score:2)
"they would have been the inheritants if the British"
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. It's also disingenuous to cite examples of human remains and personal items as examples when the big ticket items are the Elgin Marbles and the Benin Bronzes. I'd agree the Elgin Marbles should be returned. Greece is stable and has the ability to safely conserve these artefacts. If the same can be said for Nigeria then send back the bronzes.
It shouldn't turn into a general rule that everything of foreign origin must be returned. Sending irreplaceable artefacts to tinpot dictatorships and cultural vandals would make no sense.
Doesn't really appear that Greece or Nigeria has changed much with regards to stability, so not sure how you would measure 'safely' as compared to before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Not being in a civil war might be one criterion.
Re: (Score:2)
Having said that, there are a LOT of things at the British museum that were stolen and should be given back, and it's pretty obvious they just don't want to go anywhere near opening that painful can of worms, which is something you should criticise.
Or, perhaps turning a museum into a private warehouse and offering digital copies, is a path and a means to return a lot of stolen works?
This reaction is all directly related to their crap security and an inside 'job' leading to the theft of more than 2,000 objects, so the accusation of theft is rather ironic. Was the former curator/thief stealing, or performing a public service...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you went and actually read the information card next to the artefact he was going on about, it stated that the thing was falling into disrepair because the indigenous tribe that owned it had upgraded to using western technology, and a museum collector had asked if he could purchase it off them to preserve it.
It's worse. Native tribes now actively get archeological artifacts from museums and purposefully _destroy_ them. To reunite them with the "great spirit" or whatever nonsense they say.
For example, the Kennewick Man was burned. It provided a huge amount of data for the pre-historic anthropology, but now it's gone forever.
This is nothing but pure barbarism. Destroying stuff just to "stick it to those imperialists".
Re:Re-stolen (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of the items people refer to as stolen were sold to the museum by the locals or even governments of the countries the items came from. If I sell you a sculpture my grandfather made, it would be false if my son accused you of theft because the sculpture had sentimental value.
Likewise it was often the case that the locals didn't care that items were taken. Some old half buried ruin held little value to them at the time so objections weren't raised. The museum has ensured those items have been preserved and studied instead of forgotten, ravaged by time, destroyed in wars, etc.
And some items were straight up taken. It's a mix of all the above but critics like to lump them all together and claim they were stolen. The situation is not as black and white as that.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that the British were taking advantage of a mixture of poverty (often that they created) and naivety about items true value, in order to make these "purchases". Had the locals been fully informed they probably wouldn't have sold those items. They could have loaned them out for regular income, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but ... cynically, so what?
If I come to visit your house, and I realize you have a previously unknown Picasso painting hanging in your kitchen, and then proceed to get you to sell it to me for a pittance because you have no idea what it is, then what? Sure, I'm a scumbag. I am morally and ethically in the wrong. But you still sold me something voluntarily. You don't get to come back a year (or a century) later and say, "Hey, I just found out what that painting is actually worth. Give it back."
Re: (Score:2)
That is the point, it makes you a scumbag. Britain is currently fucking itself hard with these sanctions it declared on itself (brexit), and has proven itself untrustworthy when it comes to sticking to international agreements it made (also brexit).
So right now we need to repair our image and make amends with countries that we need to trade with, having lost a lot of access to our biggest market and been shafted on deals with Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and others.
Returning some of our loot would be a go
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am morally and ethically in the wrong. But you still sold me something voluntarily. You don't get to come back a year (or a century) later and say, "Hey, I just found out what that painting is actually worth. Give it back."
Depending on your jurisdiction... the sale can be cancelled (the consent was given by an error on the of the goods) and you might also go to jail (if and only if the victim's ignorance was due to a situation of mental weakness such as due to advanced age or illness, that was visible to the other party).
Not a century after though... but in the several years.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I buy a Picasso for a few bucks at a garage sale I can be prosecuted?
In what country is it a crime to buy something for an agreed upon price?
Re: (Score:2)
So if I buy a Picasso for a few bucks at a garage sale I can be prosecuted?
Potentially yes. If you recognize it as a Picasso and immediately know its valuable and then ask about the price and the person replies "no idea, what do you think it's worth?" it will depend very much on how you answer. A clever person will probably avoid the question and answer "like everything, whatever you can sell it for" but if you lie and say "no idea" or "looks worthless to me", then potentially you are liable for fraud.
Sales people should know the difference between legal "puffery" and "lies".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but ... cynically, so what?
If I come to visit your house, and I realize you have a previously unknown Picasso painting hanging in your kitchen, and then proceed to get you to sell it to me for a pittance because you have no idea what it is, then what? Sure, I'm a scumbag. I am morally and ethically in the wrong. But you still sold me something voluntarily. You don't get to come back a year (or a century) later and say, "Hey, I just found out what that painting is actually worth. Give it back."
I think it's more like buying a painting of a then unknown Picasso, sticking it in a gallery, and helping turn Picasso into a big deal.
Not to say ancient artifacts wouldn't have become a big deal regardless, but the locals understood those were really old ruins, they just didn't have any reason to care.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is really just an argument for the artifacts being if not worthless, then at least not worth much at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you burned me out of my old house, shot half my friends, and destroyed my way of life and then offered to "buy" some of my stuff for a "fair" price, and the only way for me to survive was comply, then yes, I think it might just be a tiny bit justified for my descendants to ask for their stuff back.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually... Why not? You said yourself you're in the wrong and you certainly acted in bad faith, so why shouldn't your victim have their demand to annul the deal enforced?
Re: (Score:2)
Because that basically invalidates all of contract law if anyone can just come up later and go "Sorry, I didn't know so I can't be held accountable for what I agreed to."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Clearly the British thought those things were valuable, and hid that value from the locals to acquire those artefacts. And that's in the best case when they didn't simply loot them.
It's indefensible, and saying it was moral at the time is nonsense. Even back then, taking advantage of someone was immoral, not that morality is dependent on the era.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that the British were taking advantage of a mixture of poverty (often that they created)
Should the British have done more to alleviate poverty in their colonial possessions? Sure.
But did they create poverty, not only in those possessions but around the world? No.
and naivety about items true value, in order to make these "purchases". Had the locals been fully informed they probably wouldn't have sold those items. They could have loaned them out for regular income, for example.
What "true value"? The British were the one of the ones who created the idea that these ancient artifacts had value. The locals knew what they had and didn't really care because why would they? They were just a bunch of old rocks that might as well be used for building a house.
The only reason we care about them is because there's a nar
Re: Re-stolen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not exclusively they weren't and one of the big ones, the Elgin Marbles that certainly wasn't the case.
The Ottomans were using it as gunpowder store, got it blown up and then it was looted and scavenged for building materials over the next century. Neither the locals nor the ruling government had taken the slightest care over them. The Ottoman empire was a large, powerful empire in 1800, not a bunch of rubes ignorant of the value.
And bear in mind that the marbles in London are pretty much in the condition t
Re: (Score:2)
Actually what happened was that Elgin got agreement from the Ottomans which didn't cover the frieze. The interesting Elgin marbles were stolen.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually what happened was that Elgin got agreement from the Ottomans which didn't cover the frieze. The interesting Elgin marbles were stolen.
The original documents were never recorded. Elgin himself supplied the apparent agreement, though it was vague on whether it covered the frieze.
Either way, the Ottomans signed off on everything after the fact. There's an ethical issue about having the Ottoman's sell off part of the Greek's heritage, but the legality of the excavation itself seems fine.
Re: (Score:2)
actually it's not clear that didn't happen.
And it also avoids the point that the ones he didn't take have deteriorated considerably compared to the ones he did, implying quite a lot about how much people cared for the ones left behind.
Re: (Score:2)
...It's a mix of all the above but critics like to lump them all together and claim they were stolen. The situation is not as black and white as that.
The problem with this, is we don't really know how much is white, and how much of it is very black. That, is the situation.
Claims about 'giving' something away are likely contested when the givers living incredibly poorly and not by choice, sees how rich artifact chasers and museums can become off their generosity. Just one example of the grey area.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Commerce is literally the last resort of those who can't help themselves
And here I thought that was considered charity. I wouldn't exactly be looking to trade or barter with those who literally can't help themselves, as that wouldn't be helping as much as it would be a hindrance. Those that have little, would resort to demoralization as payment. No thanks. History has shown enough suffering.
When someone takes every advantage of a situation when obtaining an artifact from those who can barely help themselves, the proper response should be more charitable. Otherwise it's per
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we refer to the theft of these artefacts from the British Museum as re-stealing them (Can you steal something that's already stolen or is it more like receiving stolen goods?).
In many, many, MANY cases the items would have been lost if the British Museum hadn't taken them for preservation.
Some of them were even being deliberately destroyed by the locals at the time, eg. the famous Elgin Marbles.
Now they want them back? Pass me the tiny violin.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are all of your posts on this topic hypotheticals? From your posts about how the British caused the locals impoverishment so as to take their artefacts (conspiracy?), to how they would defeat the locals in war and genocide and then trade with them, to them (representatively) seizing people's homes to send to the British museum? Do you have any actual examples of any of these? Or are you perhaps buying in to hysteria of what you believe they were like?
Re: (Score:2)
The British Museum was where they kept the more exotic & remarkable spoils of their murderous campaigns.
None of this is revelation to anyone who's read anything about the actual history of the British Empire. Either you're badly misinformed or just playing dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
If digital is good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
If digital is good enough access, why don't you keep the digital version and give the real ones back?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The OP was referring to the fact the British Museum is home of the largest collection of stolen artifacts in the world.
After all, there is a growing movement to re-home these artifacts back to where they belong. Now, the effort is mostly being done among the first world countries - after all, returning artifacts back to Syria or something makes a whole lot less sense that returning them back to the Indigenous people of the US and Can
Re: (Score:2)
If digital is good enough access, why don't you keep the digital version and give the real ones back?
I find it quite arrogant of them to believe the 'digital' version doesn't exist already. As if I couldn't find a picture online anywhere of anything they already own. Including the building. Also:
"came after the news 2,000 items had been stolen from the institution by a former staff member..."
Fix your damn insider threat problem. Then maybe museums can remember why they exist, because the rest of the citizens likely have plenty of digital copies to choose from (ask Google), and certainly don't need to be subject(ed) to paying for any digital "conversation" via taxes.
"We are not asking the taxpayer or the Government for the money; we hope to raise it privately,"
Oh, you hope to? I'm certain tha
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I be upset on having my tax spent on this? It sounds like an excellent use of resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I be upset on having my tax spent on this? It sounds like an excellent use of resources.
This, from the subject who hasn't even heard the tax rate yet.
And you wonder why taxation without representation has worked SO well for Greed.
Re: (Score:2)
Been trying to work out what point you are trying to make, but I can't. Who is being taxed without representation? Is the capitalisation of "Greed" just a mistake? And what tax rate are we talking of?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is an interesting question.
If you accept that the ownership of the artifact is not yours and give it back, I think, you would not have a right to keep the digital representations of it either.
If an item is stolen from you, then no worries, you own it even if you don't have it and can keep what ever digital representations you like.
Re: (Score:2)
you would not have a right to keep the digital representations of it either.
It's public domain. So no, you'd have all the right.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not anything unique to Britain. It's a problem endemic to western museums in general.
Perhaps the real problem here, is this was certainly no secret. For decades.
In any case ... (Score:3)
British Museum Will Digitize Entire Collection
This should make their museum searches [wikipedia.org] *way* more efficient. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
British Museum Will Digitize Entire Collection
This should make their museum searches [wikipedia.org] *way* more efficient. :-)
(Or at least faster.)
What is a Museum? (Score:2)
After they shut their doors to the public and then (most likely) have to ask for taxpayer money to fund this 'digital' venture, what exactly is a "museum" again?
Is it a place that HAD one job; to preserve artifacts for the purpose of sharing and education? Or will it become yet another tax haven/loophole/corrupt pit of money for the wealthy to abuse behind closed doors? How long before we start seeing 'digital' representations of works that don't even exist physically, because someone figured out how to m
Should have been done a long time ago (Score:5, Interesting)
While I get wanting to preserve old stuff, we all know that entropy is inexorable, and that time gradually destroys everything. No matter how much care is taken, how controlled the temperature and humidity, what gloves people wear, etc, it's absolutely a given that everything present in any museum will eventually crumble into dust, get caked in hard to remove dirt, or break from accidents, careless manipulation, or things like theft and wars. Just look at what happened at museums in Ukraine.
At this point in time, with the amount of technology we have, scanning everything should be a no brainer. This gives tons of options. We can recreate objects when they get lost. We can make reproductions to show the same thing in several places at once. We can make a reproduction and let people touch it. We can make a fixed version to show people what the actual thing in its full glory looked like. We can make replacement parts when something breaks. I'd love to have 3D models available to the people.
And honestly, 12 million sounds cheap. The British Museum is huge. It has 8 million objects. The budget for the museum was £103.4m last year. It sounds like a very manageable amount of money and one that in my opinion is well worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
The British Museum is huge. It has 8 million objects.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it odd that no one ever considers filming an episode of Hoarders in one of these places.
I mean, seriously. Thats one sweet loophole of a man barn-basement-cave-garage.
Re: (Score:2)
To a new word-a-day-calendar enjoying acquaintance (Score:2)
Misapplying the word "sentimental" to someone seeking discourse (even discord) among those willing to reconsider their views is a remarkable self-own. Increasingly that level of time wasting babble requires a lot of hardware and a large language model to accomplish, yet you do it the old fashioned way.
I don't actually approve. You see, if I am sentimental, I'm not that sentimental.
Won't help one bit (Score:2)
It will just make it possible to determine WHAT was stolen, not when and by whom.
Deterrence zero.
Not at that price. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"We are not asking the taxpayer or the Government for the money; we hope to raise it privately," Osborne said.
It's somewhat sad that a museum has to make this kind of statement. Museums should be a global public effort and they should be funded way more than now. But I get it - history, culture and civilization are not hot topics among people who live by the election cycles, and the public has been conditioned to think that everything is waste except lowering taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Well apparently you don't get that people have more important things going on...like surviving day to day. It's easy to talk about "history, culture, and civilization" when one is fat and rich with leisure time by the truckload.
Re: (Score:3)
Closing up the museums doesn't help anyone to survive better, but it would create a world without a coherent collective sense of the past and the present.
I believe you're thinking that museums are there to enjoy art, but exhibitions are only one part of the total work, which includes research and conservation among others. Think about natural history for example. Whatever you might think of art, the museums themselves have an important role in societies and the world. I'd find it sad if they'd have to becom