Lord Elgin strikes again!

Not the 'original' Thomas Bruce "I-have-a-noun-named-after-me" Elgin, but this time his son, James Bruce, who during the second opium war ordered the destruction of the Yuanming Yuan palace, which resulted in not only the destruction of important cultural heritage, but also the looting of what was left.

Today, the Guardian reports that Christie's is about to sell two artifacts from the palace that belonged to the French fashion designer Yves Saint-Laurent as part of the designer's collection, after China refused to buy the bronze statues privately for £18 million.

As with the Elgin marbles, the legal status of the Bronze status is disputable. China calls them "looted objects". Others disagree, because China had ceded the area on which the Summer Palace was located to the British during the time of the looting. However, as with the Elgin marbles, the fact that the position held by the British is legal, does not necessarily make it right.

Our class discussion and readings about power serve as a tool to shed light on this particular issue. As the bronze sculptures being sold by Christie were in the posession of a private owner, they hold no particular value for the British, who originally acquired them from the Chinese, nor the French, aside from the fact that they were associated with one of the icons of Frenchness. On the grounds of cultural import, there is no reason why the artifacts should go to anyone else other than the Chinese.

However, the Chinese now have to contend with the fact the bronze sculptures are now imbued not only with cultural value, but also monetary value. The origin of this financial value is not hard to trace - you need a person in physical posession of the object, willing to exchange it for money, another person willing to provide the money in exchange for the physical object and an audience who acknowledges the legitimacy of the transaction. In essence, an arbitrary power relation established in the 1800-s has been propagated through the centuries, and Christie's, by recognizing the monetary value of these artifacts is thus by extension condoning the power relations established by means that in the 21th century have been thoroughly discredited (i.e colonialism and imperialism).

So, yes, the Chinese government is correct for a change. Putting a price tag on objects, while at the same time recognizing that the source of the financial value is today illegitimate, though technically legal, constitutes moral, if not legal, robbery. This is exactly the reason why the 1970 marker is considered important by the AAMD and various other organizations. Perhaps one should start thinking about the impact this should, or could have on private collectors.