Digital Heritage Surrogates, Decolonization, and International Law: Restitution, Control, and the Creation of Value as Reparations and Emancipation
Choose format
RIS BIB ENDNOTEDigital Heritage Surrogates, Decolonization, and International Law: Restitution, Control, and the Creation of Value as Reparations and Emancipation
Publication date: 2020
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2020, 2/2020 (6), pp. 65-86
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.011.13014Authors
Digital Heritage Surrogates, Decolonization, and International Law: Restitution, Control, and the Creation of Value as Reparations and Emancipation
This article argues that digital and post-colonial engagements with heritage can be reconciled only if they happen in the terms set by the once-colonized community, and for their benefit. Further, the law can play a significant role in embedding certain ethical commitments, provided it can steer away from legal categories such as authenticity and access; categories which, despite their neutral or even cosmopolitan aspirations, function as reinforcers of a status quo that privileges colonial possession of heritage. In order to pursue this thesis, the article focuses on the ways in which the digitization of heritage was suggested – in the context of the Sarr-Savoy Report about the return of objects from French museums to certain African countries – to constitute a precondition for the return of cultural objects taken during colonialism. Drawing on that report, as well as on the responses to it, the article queries whether and how digitization can work to redress (or unfortunately, in some cases reinforce) the harms of colonialism.
Anghie A., Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2005.
Blake J., Lixinski L., Article 3(b): Relationship to Intellectual Property and Environmental Instruments, in: J. Blake, L. Lixinski (eds.), The 2003 UNESCO Intangible Heritage Convention: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2020.
Bond S., The Ethics of 3D-Printing Syria’s Cultural Heritage, “Forbes”, 22 September 2016, https://www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2016/09/22/does-nycs-new-3d-printed-palmyra-arch-celebrate-syria-or-just-engage-in-digital-colonialism/#7efa08eb77db [accessed: 20.07.2020].
Burri M., Global Cultural Law and Policy in the Age of Ubiquitous Internet, “International Journal of Cultural Property” 2014, Vol. 21.
Cameron F., Kenderdine S. (eds.), Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse, MIT Press, Cambridge 2007.
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 14 November 1970, 823 UNTS 231.
Cunha M.V.D.A. et al., Introduction, in: M.V.D.A. Cunha et al. (eds.), New Technologies and Human Rights: Challenges to Regulation, Ashgate, London 2013.
Derclaye E. (ed.), Copyright and Cultural Heritage: Preservation and Access to Works in a Digital World, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 2010.
Duval M. et al., “I Have Visited the Chauvet Cave”: The Heritage Experience of a Rock Art Replica, “International Journal of Heritage Studies” 2020, Vol. 26(2).
Fuchs C., Horak E., Africa and the Digital Divide, “Telematics and Informatics” 2008, Vol. 25(2).
Giaccardi E. (ed.), Heritage and Social Media: Understanding Heritage in a Participatory Culture, Routledge, London 2012.
Hennessy K., Cultural Heritage on the Web: Applied Digital Visual Anthropology and Local Cultural Property Rights Discourse, “International Journal of Cultural Property” 2012, Vol. 19.
Jones S. et al., 3D Heritage Visualisation and the Negotiation of Authenticity: The ACCORD Project, “International Journal of Heritage Studies” 2018, Vol. 24(4).
Lixinski L., Between Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy: The Troubled Relationships between Heritage Studies and Heritage Law, “International Journal of Heritage Studies” 2015, Vol. 21(3).
Lixinski L., International Heritage Law for Communities: Exclusion and Re-Imagination, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2019.
Mason I., Cultural Information Standards – Political Territory and Rich Rewards, in: F. Cameron, S. Kenderdine (eds.), Theorizing Digital and Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse, MIT Press, Cambridge 2007.
Pavis M., Wallace A., Response to the 2018 Sarr-Savoy Report: Statement on Intellectual Property Rights and Open Access Relevant to the Digitization and Restitution of African Cultural Heritage and Associated Materials, 5 February 2019 (manuscript on file).
Sarr F., Savoy B., The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage. Toward a New Relational Ethics, French Ministry of Culture Report No. 2018-26, November 2018.
Silberman N.A., From Cultural Property to Cultural Data: The Multiple Dimensions of “Ownership” in a Global Digital Age, “International Journal of Cultural Property” 2014, Vol. 21.
Singh S., Blake M., O’Donnell J., Digitizing Pacific Cultural Collections: The Australian Experience, “International Journal of Cultural Property” 2013, Vol. 20.
Smith L., Uses of Heritage, Routledge, London 2006.
UNESCO, Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage, 15 October 2003.
UNESCO, Recommendation Concerning the Preservation of, and Access to, Documentary Heritage Including in Digital Form, 17 November 2015.
Vrdoljak A.F., International Law, Museums, and the Return of Cultural Objects, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2006.
Wilson E., Cultural Passions: Fans, Aesthetes and Tarot Readers, IB Tauris, London 2013.
Yamada S., Who Moved My Masterpiece? Digital Reproduction, Replacement, and the Vanishing Cultural Heritage of Kyoto, “International Journal of Cultural Property” 2017, Vol. 24.
Information: Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2020, 2/2020 (6), pp. 65-86
Article type: Original article
Faculty of Law and Justice,
University of New South Wales
Sydney NSW 2052 Australia, Australia
Published at: 2020
Article status: Open
Licence: CC BY-NC-ND
Percentage share of authors:
Article corrections:
-Publication languages:
EnglishView count: 1973
Number of downloads: 1437