Universal Museum
The Universal Museum – a valid model for the 21st century?
Introduction In October 2002, the International Group of Organisers of Largescale Exhibitions, also known as the Bizot Group — a forum comprising directors of 40 of the world's major museums and galleries — gathered in Munich for their annual informal discussion.1 The meeting was convened specifically to address the problem of how to confront the growing number of requests for repatriation of objects from ‘universal’ museums and in particular the increasingly political nature of the international movement to reunite the Parthenon Marbles. The outcome of the Group’s deliberations was the publication of a united ‘declaration’ promoting the “importance and value of universal museums.” Significantly, although the British Museum was not among the original signatories, the declaration was circulated through the British Museum press office and the British Museum has subsequently become its most vocal proponent.2 Despite the declaration’s claims to principles of ‘universality’ and its insistence that “museums serve not just the citizens of one nation but the people of every nation”, not a single museum outside North America or mainland Europe was included as a signatory. The declaration condemned the illegal traffic in archaeological, artistic, and ethnic objects, but insisted that, “objects acquired in earlier times must be viewed in the light of different sensitivities and values, reflective of that earlier era.” The declaration went on to outline what its signatories perceived to be “the threat to the integrity of universal collections posed by demands for the restitution of objects to their countries of origin.” Since the declaration was issued, the question of the ‘universal museum’ has been subjected to renewed scrutiny, widely debated at industry conferences and in the media.3 As far as can be
The Bizot Group — named after Irène Bizot, the former head of the Réunion des Musées Nationaux, who founded the
Introduction In October 2002, the International Group of Organisers of Largescale Exhibitions, also known as the Bizot Group — a forum comprising directors of 40 of the world's major museums and galleries — gathered in Munich for their annual informal discussion.1 The meeting was convened specifically to address the problem of how to confront the growing number of requests for repatriation of objects from ‘universal’ museums and in particular the increasingly political nature of the international movement to reunite the Parthenon Marbles. The outcome of the Group’s deliberations was the publication of a united ‘declaration’ promoting the “importance and value of universal museums.” Significantly, although the British Museum was not among the original signatories, the declaration was circulated through the British Museum press office and the British Museum has subsequently become its most vocal proponent.2 Despite the declaration’s claims to principles of ‘universality’ and its insistence that “museums serve not just the citizens of one nation but the people of every nation”, not a single museum outside North America or mainland Europe was included as a signatory. The declaration condemned the illegal traffic in archaeological, artistic, and ethnic objects, but insisted that, “objects acquired in earlier times must be viewed in the light of different sensitivities and values, reflective of that earlier era.” The declaration went on to outline what its signatories perceived to be “the threat to the integrity of universal collections posed by demands for the restitution of objects to their countries of origin.” Since the declaration was issued, the question of the ‘universal museum’ has been subjected to renewed scrutiny, widely debated at industry conferences and in the media.3 As far as can be
The Bizot Group — named after Irène Bizot, the former head of the Réunion des Musées Nationaux, who founded the