The media reporting on the removal of orientalising and sexualising 19thC decorative arts outside an international 5 * hotel in Dublin has been disappointing. There have been many opinions on this issue on twitter and the nuances of many of those discussions are being lost.
The daily deluge of articles claiming emerging ‘expertise’ and ‘trench warfare’ on twitter misrepresents some of the interesting, measured and at times heartfelt opinions being shared as one note and polarizing. They have not always been. irishtimes.com/culture/herita…
There have been some reductive points made in some of the media reporting that has not reflected the discussions I’ve seen - the idea that these statues represent the Transatlantic Slave Trade (many of us having pointed out this was not the only form of european colonialism).
Also the use of ‘the expert’ to has had a fair airing over this matter. It has become extremely clear that ‘expertise’ come with disciplinary, period and standpoint perspectives that mean they can have very different perspectives on what those objects were then and are now.
One expert can declare the statues as ‘neutral’ 19th century French decorative arts, while another can highlight the role of the arts at that time in extending the colonial gaze and, what Said called, Orientalism in order to other and justify european intervention.
To some degree they are both correct, what I find interesting is how few historical perspectives engage with the changes of meaning of these statues over time. How sexualized, female bodies may have been low level art c1860 and how that meaning has changed to present day.
Anthropology, contemporary archaeology and heritage add different disciplinary insights - they tend to focus on the material, and how its meaning has evolved to present day - a connection between them and now that is often lost in these debates.
Lastly, I’d suggest that those who stress the illegality of these removals - with reference to the bypassing of planning laws - could also learn more from archaeologists. They’d hear how poorly those very laws are at preventing far more problematic destructions and removals.
A postscript: this article has more nuance on the debates about these statues but it is interesting that it is still framed in terms of what they were and their aesthetics rather than the materials and their changing meaning in society today independent.ie/irish-news/con…
It is also interesting the framing focuses on the valuation of an auction house, a profession (in general) that has had ongoing issues with ethics due to the trade in so-called ‘illicit antiquities’ and questions about their reducing of heritage to monetary value and market.
As anyone working in heritage would point out ‘value’ is never just about money or aesthetics, objects considered broadly meaningful usually has more intangible values such as educational, existence, religious / spiritual. The debate should not be reduced to speculation on cost.
As noted by my colleague @VoxHib: the statues are not abstract concepts w/ meaning solely a debating point relating to what they were intended to be. They are material culture that was in a prominent public location. Their meaning is contexualized and informed by wider society.
The most poignant question is not what was their intended meanings then but how fitting are statues sexualising and exoticizing Black, female bodies in a prominent public place in Dublin now? Do they reflect a multicultural city, in a post-colonial country, in the time of #BLM
