COLONIAL COPYRIGHT?: OPENING DOORS AND CREATING BARRIERS

Breaking the Glass Case | Alexandra Forand 

_________________________________________________________________________________

Earlier this semester, I wrote an article about the Sarr/Savoy report called “What Does it Look Like to Decolonize Cultural Heritage.” In this article, I discuss the Sarr/Savory report and its three components. The component I would like to discuss further in this article, is the digital aspect of the report.

The Sarr/Savoy report requests that museums with African material culture (in France) complete a full inventory of the items they hold, send the lists to relevant African countries to claim their heritage, and publish these inventories online by Spring 2019. Essentially, the Sarr/Savoy report is calling for these museums to digitize their collection on mass and very quickly. At first glance, this proposal is exciting and revolutionary ! To think, not only are the objects going back to their rightful community, but the general public is able to have free, unfettered access to these treasures!

Wait, wait, wait, I caution you to not fall into this line of thinking.

Last year at this time Selin Kahramanoglu wrote an article entitled “Digitization to the Rescue,” where she outlines the limitations of the digital approach to conservation, but I would like to touch on the colonial implications of digitization.

Creating a digital object. Source. 

We have to remember that these object, including culturally sensitive objects, were removed from their communities and brought to colonial institutions that proliferated a narrative of dominance for the means of control. Culturally sensitive objects were stripped of their original meaning and forced on display to be gawked at by a foreign audience. When a museum moves to digitize a culturally sensitive object, either by taking a photograph or a 3D scan, they are creating a digital object, which is inherently tricky. In many cases, culturally sensitive objects do not lend themselves to digitization. It is easy to take a picture of a culturally sensitive object, but an image cannot convey the personhood or the intangible nature of that object.

Furthermore, the museum now owns that digital object that was created because of copyright, and they can exclude people from using it, charge people to access it, decide how to use, edit, and curate the image. Inherently, copyright is a tool and a product of colonialism.

The “Open by Default” Journey of Auckland Museum’s Collections Online -https://t.co/7Ux4kCNvDM

Making Room for Native American Voices - https://t.co/sExfShSTiC

— Museopunks (@Museopunks) December 19, 2019

Now, I hear what you are about to say: “Why don’t these museums make these digital objects open access?” and in the words of Ed Rodley of the podcast Museopunks “How can it possibly be anything other than good to have more access? More access is more gooder, right?”

It is true, open access can open doors and many museums are transitioning to an open access model, but it can also be a barrier for certain audiences who are digitally remote. Secondly, open access can be seen as an over correction, because these culturally sensitive objects are now available to the people they were taken from… and everyone else. Once again, culturally sensitive objects have a personhood and protocol associated with their being. In some case, not all, culturally sensitive objects should be handled by certain groups of people or at certain times of the year, and these protocols do not dissipate because the object is digitized. 

While these Arctic objects are owned by the Smithsonian Institute, they are pictured at the new Smithsonian Arctic Studied Centre in the Anchorage Museum. Source 

While, I do not have a quick fix for this problem I want to finish this article by suggesting an approach to digitization. Firstly, if you choose to digitize culturally sensitive objects consult the community the object came from on how they would like the copyright managed. Even better if you are able to turn the copyright over to the community. Also, if you are a part of an institution that is beginning to digitize I would encourage you to ask why. Why are you digitizing this object? What audiences are you trying to reach by digitizing? Are you the best person to tell this communities story through the object? Lastly, know that the process of digitization should not be fast and that there is an argument for slow digitization. Digitization may be the future, but it doesn’t have to be.

What are your thoughts on digitization? I want to know! Please leave me a comment below or via twitter, my handle is @ally_but_online.

WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE TO DECOLONIZE CULTURAL HERITAGE?

Breaking the Glass Case | Alexandra Forand 

_________________________________________________________________________________

In 2017 Emanuel Macron, the prime minister of France, toured Africa and declared that France would begin to “decolonize cultural heritage.” At the time, this comment was thought of as political politeness and an attempt at forgetting France’s colonial past. Despite the doubt, it only took a couple months to enlist academics and researchers, Bénédicte Savoy and Felwine Sarr, to pen what would become the Sarr/Savoy report, also known as Rapport sur la restitution du patrimoine culturel africain (the report on the Restitution of African Cultural Heritage).

Le musée du quai Branley-Jacque Chirac (Source).

Dear readers, I have become interested (if not, down-right obsessed) with this report. The Sarr/Savoy report is made up of three parts. The first part outlines the reasons why and how these African artifacts were forcefully removed from their communities and brought to France. In the report, the acts of colonization are presented as acts of violence and domination. The report uses language that is forceful and honest. In regards to the return of these stolen items, Sarr and Savoy do not frame it as a debate, but rather a command.

At one time, France occupied almost every continent, and the subsequent collecting practises can still be viewed in French museums today. (Source). 

The second part of the report requests museums with African heritage (in France) to complete a full inventory of the items they hold, send the lists to relevant African countries to claim their heritage, and publish these inventories online by Spring 2019 (Stay tuned, we are going to discuss this aspect of the report more in depth in a future article)!

The third aspect of of the report states that starting November 2022, France will be returning all claimed artifacts. 

While the Benin Bronzes residing in France have been at the centre of restitution talks, the one pictured above is actually a little closer to home... The National Museum of Natural History, Washington DC. (Source).

You don’t have to tell me that this is a tall order to fill. The thought of a huge institution undertaking an inventory which would be completed in a year is down-right preposterous. The report puts an undo onus on museums, that quite frankly aren’t up to the task. This is clear example of optimistic academia avoiding the bleak reality museums face. Beyond the report's do ability there is a huge legal component to this restitution of property, namely: is it even legal?

I’m sad to say, it is not.

According to French law, public museum collections are deemed ‘inalienable’ by law, meaning that no single item can be permanently removed without changes in legislature. This is not to say this has not been done before. For instance, in 2002 Saartjie Baartman’s remains were returned to South Africa and in 2010 sixteen Maori heads were returned to New Zealand.

So, if the Sarr/Savoy report is so unattainable, why am I even writing about it? Well dear reader, this report is special. Firstly, it gives an unflinching account of French colonialism in parts of Africa, accounts that should be known and considered in the 21st century. Canada has yet to create an account such as this in any legal document when considering our own colonial history.

Secondly, the Sarr/Savoy report establishes a comprehensive universal framework for the return of artifacts to cultural groups. I’m not saying this framework is perfect, but it is one of the first of its kind and should be thought of as best practises for musuem collections. Returning artifacts to their homeland is never easy or simple and requires trust, cooperation, and should be built on a foundation of relationships and knowledge exchange that does not begin or end with restitution of artifacts. With that being said, this report is ground breaking and is an important document to consult when discussing restitution in any colonial state.

What are your thoughts? I really want to know! Leave a comment or if Twitter and Instagram are more your speed my handle on both is @Ally_but_online.