Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should Culturally or Historically Significant Artwork Be Property of the State?
For culturally significant artwork that was owned by local indigenous groups, it would be perceived that the state is taking their culture away from them.
This can further agitate relations, which are often already strained, between the state and minority cultures.
This could compound on previous perceptions that the state, as a type of colonial power, is favouring the majority groups over indigenous minority groups.
When owned by the state, it could be taken away from where the local indigenous groups were previously showing it.
When the state owns this artwork, all groups in the country have access to this artwork.
This perception would be minimised by the fact that proper purchasing procedures would be upheld.
By selling significant artwork to the state, indigenous groups are able to use that money to promote their culture e.g. introduce programmes that teach traditional cultural art methods.