A Heart-wrenching Case of Failed Restitution

In class last week we discussed, among other things, what happens when the protection of cultural heritage fails in times of war. 

Whenever we hear of something ancient that no longer survives to us, such as the Library at Alexandria, we feel a tinge of regret that someone wasn't there to stop it. For me, this is why the modern cases of loss of cultural heritage feel more real, because we could've been the ones to stop it, to save it for posterity. But what could we really have done? Take for example the case of the Bamiyan Buddhas, destroyed in 2001 (a great way to start the new millenium...). As a people, groups united to protest this destruction, but short of somehow hijacking the operation, there was nothing that could be done. 37 letters from UNESCO did no good, offers from different countries to buy the buddhas and move them, such as Japan, were also to no avail.

This is the threat that humanity poses: when groups are determined to destruct, little can get in their way. 

So what happens, then, when protection fails? If the fail results in destruction, little can be done, perhaps reconstruction through anastylosis (restoration using the original pieces), or replication. 

If the fail results in looting, then every attempt must be made to return the artifacts to their original location or owner. 

This is the case of the plundered Nazi items, and it's a time sensitive case as the holocaust becomes farther away and people get older. If you survive through the horrors of becoming imprisoned like animals, watching your family die, and having your life threatened every single day, shouldn't you at least be able to get your things back at the end of it? Not that material gain can ever atone for this suffering, but it's a start. It might provide some form of closure.  

The case that my classmate posted on her blog about Dina Babbitt, a woman who died at age 86 before successfully gaining ownership of her own paintings, is unacceptable. In a nutshell, the woman survived Auschwitz by painting for the sadistic 'doctor' Josef Mengele. Her skill was so incredible, that they preferred her drawings to photographs. After the war, several of her paintings were discovered and sold to the Auschwitz Museum. The Museum then went as far as to ask Babbitt to return to the Auschwitz site in 1973 to identify her work, all the while informing her that she could not have her paintings back since they now belonged to the Museum. This is outrageous as SHE, the artist, never sold them, and they were clearly her work. Perhaps if the paintings had been returned, Babbitt would have donated them after her death, or even sold a few back to the Museum, we'll never know. 

To me, this case is particularly horrible because the Museum is supposed to commemorate the events at Auschwitz, giving a voice to all those who perished or endured the Holocaust. To completely disregard the wishes of one such survivor is thus unacceptable, since the paintings were legally, and perhaps more importantly, morally hers. 

My only hope is that this case will somehow help other survivors or their direct descendants acquire what should be theirs.