art of benin

The ongoing dispute about the ownership and location of Benin art remains a controversy over whether it should be returned to its place of origin. It is vital to observe the “encounter” between (Woods, 2008, ‘THE ART OF BENIN’, p.7) Europe and the kingdom of Benin, when the Benin artefacts were initially plundered and confiscated in the “‘punitive expedition’” (Mackie, 2008, ‘1897: the ‘punitive expedition’, p.23). The British opinion of the Benin people as a “savage and brutal” (Loftus, 2008, The British Museum and the Benin ‘antiquities’, p.52), race led them to question how an “entirely barbarous” (Read and Dalton, 1898, ‘Antiquities from the City of Benin...’, in Reading 2.6: ‘Works of art from Benin City’, Loftus and Wood, ‘The Art of Benin...’, p.84) civilisation could produce such “sophisticated works of art” (Loftus, 2008, The British Museum and the Benin ‘antiquities’, p.52). The British also questioned whether these Benin bronzes were “‘relics’ of a lost African civilisation” (Coombes, 1994a, ‘Reinventing Africa...’, in Loftus, 2008, p.52) that has subsequently reverted back to a more primitive society. The present location of these artefacts is the result of the biased British perception of Benin society. The British intention was to be “benevolent educators” (Coombes, 1994a, ‘Reinventing Africa...’, in Loftus, 2008, p. 53) on the Benin bronzes, controversially claiming altruistic motives of becoming “the civilised keepers” (Coombes, 1994a, in Loftus, 2008, p. 53) of the artefacts, defending their aforementioned “benevolent” ownership despite their pecuniary interests.

Seized out of Benin, the artefacts were considered “war booty” (Mackie, 2008, Looting the art of Benin, p.30) and their ownership remains controversial because they were considered “‘the only things of value’” (Mackie, 2008, p.30) that could be taken back to Britain to be sold. They therefore translated into their “‘aesthetic’ value”, closely linked to their “mere economic”