I have Art posts for my classmate's discussions I need to respond them. I need just about a half paragraph of each post.

1. In the history of Europe you can find many similar examples—and it is funny to me, when a country with a developed democracy should act fairly, but actually acts as a child that doesn’t want to return a toy that he took from another kid. But England is not a kid, and the real reason lies much deeper than in this example with kids and a toy. Right after I read “The Parthenon Sculptures” article on The British Museum web-site, I thought that Lord Elgin did a good thing taking half of the sculptures to England and saving them, but after I read it again and researched the situation around the artifact from Greece became so obvious that I understood, it is again—only a game that people always played to make their country and, of course, them self richer. They don’t think about making world civilization better. Let me explain… First of all, maybe Lord Elgin tried to save the sculptures from being destroyed, who knows, after all, at that time Greece was under Ottoman rule. But it is not an argument that “…Lord Elgin, the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, acting with the full knowledge and permission of the Ottoman authorities…” Those artifacts are not Turkey’s heritage and maybe at that time permission of the Ottoman authorities was important but, in these days, in my opinion, the Turkish were just occupants that treated Greece as a vassal more than 250 years. Also, in the article, the author said that half of the sculptures remain in Athens. It means that if Lord Elgin didn’t take those sculptures to England they can be in the same place as the other half - in The Acropolis Museum and belonging to Greece. But on the other hand, the situation can develop differently and the remaining half of the sculptures can be destroyed by war. The British Museum tried to convince that “the sculptures are part of everyone’s shared heritage and transcend cultural boundaries.” It is true, Greece already gave so much for the whole world. Greece made a huge cultural impact on the many of their following civilizations, but we are talking about sharing knowledge and inspiration but not the artifact. For me it doesn’t matter where I need to fly, to London or Athens, to see those sculptures of ancient Greece, but for England, it does matter. In the article, it said that “Millions of visitors admire the beauty of the sculptures each year – free of charge.” Of course, it is very good to attend the museum for free, but, it is not a secret that the more visitors a country can attract, the better its economy will be. And lets remind, that usually regular exhibitions are free but special exhibitions cost money. Then, museums with better exhibitions can offer their visitors a more stable reputation. As fairly noted in the article that “The sculptures in London […] actively studied and researched by an international community of scholars, to promote understanding both of ancient Greek culture and its role in the cultures of the world.” Millions of visitors can admire the beauty of the sculptures, and scholars can study it in the same way in Greece as in London. But probably England doesn’t want to lose an artifact of iconic civilization, even if it does not belong to the England. By my opinion, the main reason is that the money that this free exhibit brings to England, and holding sculptures that is interesting to people who admire ancient Greek culture. Again, money and power. The last argument connects with modern time. Copyright. Speaking in modern language, copyright on those sculptures belongs to Greece, I hope nobody will argue with that. Please tell me, how law usually acts if somebody breaks copyright rules? No, I changed my mind, I prefer to fly to Athens to see those statues because, I think, it can give me a better experience for imagining the atmosphere of ancient Greece. 2.First of all I want to start by saying that I don't think that specific cultural group are entitled to art and artifacts that are a part of their heritage and identity. This situation is different than the question being asked, because it is not about the Greeks thinking that just because the artifacts were created there, they think they are entitled to have them. The marble controversy is more about how the artifacts were acquired. The Greeks are arguing that they were pillaged, and for that reason, they should be returned. The question is if cultures are entitled to their artifacts, meaning that if in the past, a group of travelers from another country came to ancient Greece and purchased art legally, and brought it home, and then hundreds of years later the Greeks decided they wanted it back, and claimed that they were entitled to have it back. It is clear in this scenario, the country that legally purchased the art would be entitled to have it, but with the marble controversy, there are more issues to take into consideration. The main issue is if in the past, the marbles were fairly purchased by lord Elgin, or were they pillaged using force or bribes. If they were acquired unfairly, then they should absolutely be returned and the British should be embarrassed for keeping them for so long, and if not, they should remain where they are. Over time our ethics and concerns over maintaining the cultural heritage over time has changed dramatically. I personally belive that the Greeks are right in claiming that the art was acquired unethically. I think that lord Elgin most likely came in and pillaged and took what he wanted, and if not I would bet that he bribed public officials, and didn't pay the Greeks a fair price for them. In the past, there have been many counts of empires being overrun by opposition, and being robbed of their cultural artifacts. The looting of Cyprus was a great example of this. Turkey invaded Cyprus and looted a lot of art, it was one of the biggest art pillages ever to occur. In the past powerful art collectors could play dirty and take what they wanted for their own personal enjoyment. The Greeks are claiming that Lord Elgin came in and unfairly acquired their artifacts, which would not be uncommon. Throughout the years, we have started to respect cultural heritage a lot more in my opinion. If the British wanted to acquire a piece of Greeks cultural heritage in modern times, they would have to negotiate, and pay a fair price for that art with promise of restoring and maintaining it, along with giving due credit to those responsible. Most importantly, there would be public record of the exchange, and proof that the art was acquired fairly. I do not think that the scholarly value of the art outweighs the cultural value that it has to the Greeks. The art is a part of the countries history, and it would mean a lot more to the Greeks to have it. It would also increase tourism and profits from tourism in their country, however, the value of the art has little to do with who has claim to it. Again, to me it seems clear, that if the British purchased the art legally and fairly they should have claim to it regardless of who the art has more value to. In my opinion, it seems that Lord Elgin, used unethical practices to obtain the art, and for that reason it belongs in Greece. Throughout history art pillaging by wealthy nations was more of a norm than fair purchasing of art, and for that reason I believe that the art was acquired unfairly 3.Who is the best conservator of artifacts--museums or the descendants of the people who created them? I am not sure that I would 100% say museums or descendants would be the best conservators, but if I was forced to choose one, I would say that museums would have a better chance of being the best conservator because of the abundance of tools that museums have. I think that it is possible that a lot of the artifacts we find in museums around the world would not be able to be take care of in the hands of the descendants of the artists rather than a museum. The average citizen most likely does not have the correct tools to care for important artifacts daily. I think art is an integral component of both culture and national identity. Who owns material culture? I believe that in most cases that yes members of a specific culture group should be entitled to art and artifacts that are part of their heritage and identity. Especially in the case of the Elgin marbles, considering the art was stolen. I believe that if the art was taken from the certain culture group even thousands of years ago, they deserve to have that piece of art. If the art was legally taken or bartered for, I do not believe they deserve to have it back. In the case of the Elgin marbles, our ethics and concerns over maintaining the culture heritage of others has changed tremendously over time. Back in the time when the Elgin marbles were taken from the Pantheon, it may not have been believed that the marbles were of significance. But, as times change and the majority of works art computerized and taken over by technology, I believe the world has begun to realize just how important those marble and other art from that time period really is. I do not agree with Lord Elgin's collection methods. He maliciously stole a piece of Greek history and took it as his own to present in the way he liked. The issues of Greek cultural heritage outweigh anything because it is a piece of Greek's unique history that they are not allowed to have. I feel like we can relate this to America in the scenario that following the years the Statue of Liberty was gifted, that Russia notices that the statue has begun to tarnish it and steals the statue just because they want it. Then, they begin providing an understanding about the statue in Russia. This would make me upset as an American because the Statue of Liberty is a majority symbol of this country. I would not want another country to have the statue and be allowed to talk about it from a 3rd person perspective.