My primary interest is coins so its no surprise I hope others will find the ACCG and IAPN/PNG comments to CPAC worth reading.
The Asia Society walked a fine line; its submission both applauded and criticized the current MOU with the PRC.
Daniel Shapiro, a law professor and Chinese Art Collector, stated similar concerns as those expressed by others who collect or trade in ancient art.
James Lally was an important voice for the trade when the MOU was first considered and he remains so today.
The Penn Cultural Heritage Center has offered CPAC a detailed defense of the current MOU.
Of course, anyone who wrote, on any side of the issue, should be commended for taking the time to do so.
Note: Regulations.gov is currently experiencing a technical problem. Some of the comments (including those of Daniel Shapiro and IAPN/PNG) are currently not available on the website. Hopefully, the problem will be fixed soon.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Worth A Read
Posted by Cultural Property Observer at 10:24 AM
Labels: China, China MOU, Chinese artifacts, CPAC, Penn Cultural Heritage Center
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I read through the comments and my impression is that they pretty much follow the pattern we've seen with the comments on other proposed MOU renewals. Those in favor claim that the MOU has had an impact on looting, while those against claim it has not.
My gut tells me that the arguments on either side are irrelevant and that the decision in favor is a foregone conclusion--a bargaining chip in international relations. Not that I have any proof of that, but we have yet to see a single one of these decisions made in favor of collectors/museums. I don't believe those in government see much value anymore in what collectors and museums do. The tide has swung from one extreme to the other. There is always hope it may swing back the other way...eventually.
Post a Comment