Prego 1 At memorys edge, Whose Art is it?

and Loot are three books that develop around a common topic: art. The three of them take art as the central axis of their narration. Despite is not explicitly written in any of the books, all of them inherently coincide that art is an aesthetic manifestation that expresses ideals. Nonetheless, the point of divergence from one another is based on the way they analyze and treat art, and treat be understood the manner in which art is used. This is to say that even though the books resemble one another in art being their common focus of analysis they differ in the way they approach art. The three books deal with very precise issues regarding the dilemma over art. For instance, At memorys edge develops around the polemic issue of artistically commemorating the mass Jews murder in 1930-1945s Nazi Germany by artists who were present in those times. Secondly, Whose art is it? opens the political and social discourse of whether a white artist should represent black people through art. Finally, the everlasting dispute between Museums and source countries regarding the ownership of ancient treasuresor ancient artis embodied in Loot. As noticed, each book interprets art based on different perspectives on different circumstances and different approaches. The purpose of this essay is to identify and analyze peculiar characteristics of each book; specifically, the strengths and weaknesses. It will answer questions such as: What are the advantages of studying Loots introspective view of todays battle over stolen treasures and looted art? Why the commemoration of the Holocaust by vicarious artists is a drawback in At memorys edge? Why the debate of the exhibition of bad stereotypical images of black people triggers interesting political questions in Whose art is it? and what is the importance of this?

Prego 2 Loot Comprising the never-ending dispute of museums and source countries over treasures of the ancient world, Loot provides a precise and well-developed narrative regarding this issue. Waxman, in her book, raises the fundamental question of whether the legitimate owner of the ancient treasures ought to be part of the museums that purchase looted art, or to the source countries where excavators illicitly retrieve the artifacts from their mother land in order to be sold clandestinely. In the conclusion, Waxman takes a neutral position respecting the ownership and asserts that both sides have both solid and weak arguments. In favor of the Museums she explains that the safety and preservation of the artifacts is a priorityobjective that source countries have failed to attain. (Waxman 371) Moreover, she expands this idea by adding that: The artifacts themselves are at risk in countries where the local population is not educated about the importance of cultural patrimony and where the government is not equipped to protect it. (Waxman 371) With this statement the author is emphatically addressing the importance of keeping these antiquities in countries where economic and technological advantage is superior to those countries that do not provide suitable conditions for preservation. She is also suggesting that museums are more conscious of the cultural importance of the relics and their meaning to humanity; whereas, people in source countries give less importance to these artifacts. On the other side of the equation, Waxman advocates for the rights of source countries to possess the antiquities since these represent part of the national and historical sentiment of the source country. For example, in the case of Greece the author shows her pro-restitution inclination when she says that the Acropolis is: an icon of antiquity and symbol of democracyis unique in the world. Later in her book she also explains that the artifacts embody Greeces cultural

Prego 3 heritage and that the usurpation of these is an attempt against the idiosyncrasy of the country. (Waxman 238) As described above, Waxman is accountable to both sides by remaining neutral and presenting appealing arguments from both the museums and source countries on either retaining or relinquishing the pieces. However, while this neutral position may be seen as an advantage for some readers it is also considered a setback for others. The thorough investigation, the abundance of information and the authors ambivalence from one position to an opposite position are the cornerstones and strengths of this book, yet this same characteristics help to shape its weaknesses. For the same reason that Waxman remains impartial in her point of view is also why she misses on answering the books main question: Should the treasures of the ancient world be retained or given away to the where they belong? The author provides extensive information and enough reasons from both sides of why they should own the relics yet ,at the end, she doesnt take a side. In other words, is like if she made an inquiry on two clashing ideas for the reader to discover the real answer. It is true that she provided tentative solutions to the problem when she commented that Museums should display the real origin of the artifact and not to omit it or change it. (Waxman 373); however, she failed to give a strong and compelling solution. Another question she failed to answer was regarding the market of looted art. In her book Waxman addresses greatlyif not perfectthe causes and consequences of looted art, but once again her neutrality deprives her from finding a solution that would answer the question. It is possible to see her inability to give a solution when she says that: Without an active effort in a new direction, the patterns will continue. Demand will find its supply, licit or not. (Waxman 375) This idea is suggesting that there is no solution and that looted art is inevitable.

Prego 4 Whose art is it? Whose art is it? is a book that spins around political discourse. It deals with the appropriateness of a white artist to create statutes of African-American communities. Any dialog concerning the stereotyping of one race by another race is mere a political one since it is embedded on the portrayal of a social community and its political implications. As Kramer explains in her book, there was much controversy on the statues that where lifted by Ahearn; not only because they were made by a white artist but because of what they also represented. She even uses the expression political correctness to refer to the level of righteousness of Ahearns statues. Kramer often asks the question if Ahearns representation of Corey, Raymond and Daleesha are politically correct. Many of the persons she cited regarding their comments and emotions towards the statues are:, racist and subjective, nave, feeling of inappropriateness here, negative elements, and above all politically incorrect. Yet Kramer also includes more sympathetic opinions of the statues such as: Wow, finally, this is really us!, an accurate portrayal, terrific and correct With these expressions and emotions Kramer is opening the political dialog which is a strength of this book. It is important to understand that people do not like to be represented in negative ways; rather they like to be depicted as something that would make them feel proud of themselves. Ahearns statues lack any element that would make people from the black community proud and happy since they portray the reality as it is, and not always people are sympathetic with the reality. Nonetheless, Ahearn was being correct by creating images of black communities that represented the reality as he knows it. As an artist he was trying the expose the world as it is and not how is not or should be because reality of imperfections is what makes art beautiful. Moreover, Kramer also points out the artistic freedom

Prego 5 that Ahearn possesses. She explains that the fact that Ahearn created the statues as he wanted disregarding if they were political correct or appropriate to the public is a fundamental principle of Ahearns artistic liberty and creative freedom. Kramers reference to the artists First Amendment right of freedom of speech is essential in understanding the political debate in this book. It may be true that the statues caused negative emotions to some people and that they were regarded as politically incorrect since they portrayed bad stereotypes, but it is also politically incorrectand even legally incorrectto deprive Ahearn from creating art as he pleases and how he wants. The authorities by taking down the statues were substantially undermining Ahearns rights of freedom of speech. Ahearn did not have any bad intentions or even racial prejudices when creating those statues; rather, he was just exposing the community where he lived as real as possible. At memorys edge How is Post-Holocaust generation of artists supposed to remember events they never experienced directly? These are At memorys edge first words; and indeed very intriguing ones. If we deepen more into the question we may answer ourselves that it is hard for someone to actually remember precisely something that he never lived for himself. In fact, it would be much harder to aesthetically represent something that someone, besides what he has heard or read, never experienced. Yet, the commemoration of the Holocaust by artists who have only heard and read about the actual memories of the people who lived during this period have proven this premise wrong.

Prego 6 What At memorys edges mainly argues is that it is possible to commemorate the massacre of the Jews by vicarious artist who have done their work merely based on memories and history records. As Young points out: For these artist, it is the memory-work itself, the difficult attempt to know, to imagine vicariously, and to make meaning out of the experiences they never knew directly that constitutes the object of memory. (Young 9) For the artist it is a very difficult task to make art out of something they did not experience because a work of art should be the product of the artists subjectivity and understanding of life; therefore, the attempt to commemorate the Holocaust by vicarious artist who did not live during those times is a risk. As argued above, the artist should be conscious of what he is remembering, to know if he is correctly portraying the same memories and emotions of the survivors; or, if he is imagining the same way the witness did. To imagine and remember vicariously is totally different from imagining and remembering directly, for the latter is the actual and concrete remembering of the events and the latter is the transition of the events and feelings from the witnesss memory to another person. In other words, analyzed within the context of the artists of the Holocaust, these artists have rendered their work based on mere interpretation from what has been bestowed to them, and this is what Young warn the reader time and time and again in his book. Conclusion All of the three book present very strong and convincing arguments regarding their respective field of analysis. Nonetheless, there are a few reasons why some books have better argumentation than others. Although Loot is a very interesting book filled with great information it lacks critical analysis. It is hard to hear much from the authors opinion regarding the topic and her insights. Once again, it explains very thoroughly the problem and addresses tremendously the

Prego 7 causes and consequences of looted art but Waxman greatly missed the part of answering the books main question. Whose art is it?, I consider makes a stronger argument by explaining Ahearns dilemma. For one part it is true that stereotyping images of black people creates discomfort for many people, especially African Americans, who would instead prefer to see statues of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, and not a street kid or a junkie. On the other hand, and very importantly, it is also indispensable to take into account Ahearns freedom as an artist in a book where political discourse is in first plane. There could be many arguments supporting Ahearn and the statues he exposed; nonetheless, the author did not dedicate much of her narrative to this issueexcept she limited herself by only mentioning artistic freedom and creative freedom. In my opinion I consider it would have been pertinent to expand in the issue of the artists rights. Last but not least, At memorys edges is the book which I consider made the strongest argument. It is absolutely valid to think that the commemoration of the Holocaust by the people that directly experienced the event would be totally different from that of a vicarious artist. From a general point of view, a person that has not experienced something would not know the real meaning and real feelings of what meant to live in those times and those circumstances. A vicarious artist may grasp an idea of what is being transmitted but he would never know the vivid experience of a real witness; and, essentially, this is what makes the important distinction between the representations of an indirect observer from a direct one. The latter would be able to express his/her lively emotions through art, while the former will only be limited by the interpretations of these emotions. Simone Veil was on the right track when he coined the phrase: The past belongs to those who know how to remember.

May 3rd, 2011

Essay
At memorys edge, Whose Art is it?, Loot

Jose Adan Prego Poli 4100 Dr. Mulcahy LSU