At the public hearings held by the legislator Chou Chuan, James Watt, the head curator of the Asian department at the Metropolitan Museum, was able to state the museum's point of view for the first time. He first explained that careful consideration had gone into selecting the 475 works that were to be shipped for the American show.
Watt said that this show was no ordinary exhibition but rather meant to provide an in-depth introduction to Chinese culture. When asked whether the absence or presence of the 27 restricted works would determine whether or not the exhibit goes ahead as planned, he did not have a direct answer, but said instead, "I don't care about 27 works of art; I care about exhibiting every work." Then he said, "Since a contract has already been signed, if there were going to be problems, they should have already been brought up."
At this time Chou Chuan asked Watt if what he was saying represented the position of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, to which he replied, "I cannot represent the Metropolitan or the three other museums."
In addition, various scholars, including Fu Shen, Shih Shou-chien and the former director of the Museum of History Ho Hao-tien all expressed support in writing for the restricted works going to America. Ho wrote, "I organized exhibitions for 31 years. A show at four major American museums is a rare opportunity. Just as when sending troops to battle, sending cultural artifacts to foreign exhibitions entails some risk. But doesn't the glory of history depend upon this?"
Lin Pao-yao, a professor at the National Institute of the Arts, came to the hearing to express support for the restricted works going abroad. "Having already signed the contract," he argued, "we shouldn't break the etiquette of international exchange between museums." Lin also said that if by going abroad we can study advanced techniques for preserving ancient paintings, wouldn't this all be for the best? He didn't say that no mention of "advanced techniques" was made in the contract whatsoever--so how would it be possible for them to be studied?
Lin Ku-fang, a musicologist, didn't agree with Lin Pao-yao's way of putting things. "People should show some humility in the face of their cultural legacy," he said. "A contract is for the moment; culture is forever. Ancient things are important for their rarity and irreplacability." He said that this incident shows that the National Palace Museum lacks openness and a sense of fairness. "Without a sense of fairness how can you engage in diplomacy?" he asked. "This is basically a case of culture at the service of politics." The National Palace Museum has been forcibly politicized, Lin said, unable to attain a cultural status above politics. He expressed his hope that future directors of the museum would be scholars and that the museum would be free from politics.
Painter Ho Huai-shou expressed skepiticism concerning Watt's argument about the exhibit's comprehensiveness. "The theme of Chinese culture is so broad and deep. How could any one exhibit do it justice?" "Of course, the American point of view is that if they're going to borrow paintings they might as well try to get the best ones. But whether we are willing to loan them depends upon how we do our duty as their guardians." Ho continued, "The American museums cannot--for the sake of a successful exhibition there--simply ignore their duty to protect cultural artifacts."
"Culture is not one person's or one party's," Ho said. "At most one can enjoy the rights of custody, not ownership." He also noted that if the Ministry of Education needs to find new experts, whom they pick is very important. "If they get people who examine the paintings and conclude that they can go, this would still be against the people's wishes."
Although the museum notified the Executive Yuan about the American show, in accordance with the Cultural Assets Preservation Law, details about works being sent to foreign exhibitions must be sent to the Ministry of Education for its review and consent before notification is given to the Executive Yuan. The National Palace Museum did not abide by this law. It wasn't until the controversy was at full boil that the problem of abiding by this provision was revealed, and it wasn't until the afternoon before last that relevant documents were submitted to the Ministry of Education. This illegality is currently the only thing standing in the way of the restricted paintings going to America.
p.126
Where the Show Will Go [Picture]
