I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "historic" art, but art in general should be rotated through reputable handlers/organizations to the extent possible so that it can be viewed by as many without the ability to travel to it as possible. In this instance a picture is not worth a thousand words. Unless you have actually seen David in the Academy in Florence it's difficult to grasp the aura scale and presence of the work itself.

The repatriation argument sounds good at first , but I think that more good is done by having more people see the art . Add in the fact that in many cases , the people currently living where the art originated are not even the descendants of those who created the art .

Unfortunately there's nothing can be done about items made of gold that were melted down.

In general; Share it with as many as possible. Never limit art to some elite few.

Art looted or removed from a country for any reason should be returned when that country asks that it be returned.

For example, "The Elgin Marbles" taken from Greece by Lord Elgin in the early 19th century and the centerpiece of the British Museum are the subject of a delicate situation between Greece and England.

Greece wants them returned.
England doesn't want to let them go.

They are part of the Parthenon in Greece.
The holes were they belong can still be seen.

If it's difficult to understand the concept, try this: If England wants to keep the Marbles, then they shold give Greece a coupla' slabs of Stonehenge. That ought to even things out!

Art, artifacts, sculptures belong in their country of origin UNLESS that country decides to trade/sell/donate them.

It should be the country's choice.

##

I agree Quippian. There needs to be a base for this type of art, so why not the country of origin. There are traveling exhibits of some art, which allows many to see it.

The US may be at a disadvantage for its pure size. The galleries and museums that exhibit shared art are located in certain places which have the facilities to handle the work. The majority of residents here can't get to for financial reasons, so they still won't see it even if it is here unless they live close to the exhibit.

It would be wonderful if these treasures were more available to everyone, but they aren't and can't be, so let the country of origin be the base, and make the choice of whether it travels or not. People who are interested will have to find a way to see what is their hearts desire.

That said, there are plenty of great artists in this country who deserve to have their art displayed and seen by the greatest number of people possible. I think the focus on "historic art", if what we have is ignored is a travesty. Art is art, and I don't believe status should dictate who sees what. You love art, or you don't. Nobody is art starved if they love art, even if it would be nice to see the "historic stuff".

Lift a local artists moral, and go view their work, if there is any in your area. Even better, buy it. You or your heirs may have a treasure in your possession. However, even if not, you can enjoy something that appeals to you in your own home.

Peacewithin writes: Lift a local artists moral, and go view their work, if there is any in your area. Even better, buy it.

True that.

And if you're near a university/college with an art school, go to the annual senior's exhibit every spring. Buy what you like and what you can. The prices are hugely affordable. If you have the "eye," you'll make the right choices for investment purposes. If you don't, at least you'll have what you like in your home. and that's still a very good thing.

I have pieces in my house now that I purchased 25 years ago at the spring exhibits of senior's works at one of the universities near where I lived. Major art school there.
I chose what I liked and I have the "eye."

Several of the pieces are now insured and in my will because the {then} young artist went on to fame and acclaim. Had I known then what I know now, I would have taken out a loan to buy every one of the works of these two young artists. I knew it when I saw the pieces that they were "it." But 25 years ago, I didn't have the money.

As for world legacy art?
It belongs home.

##

I believe that stolen property should be returned to the owner and looted art is stolen property. Accepting that art was taken in times of war by the biggest bullies does not make it right for them to keep it.

By the logical extension of the above argument , then stolen lands should be returned to their original owners . All European descendants should leave the Americas and return them to the Indians , and all Cro-Magnon descendants should leave Europe and return it to the Neanderthals , if any can be found .

I think I have run into a few Neanderthals right here on Eons, Dirck.

A lot of the antiquities that now reside in museums around the world were found by explorers in less than first world countries. Those countries did not have the resources or interest in researching or exploring their own lands.

Here in Mexico, the famous Mayan excavations were carried out by archaeologists from other countries. There are some restored ruins about 40 minutes from me which was excavated and a museum built on the site by an American university.