An Interview with Bénédicte Savoy

Works of art, prime objects of desire at the best of times, are intimately connected to the history of wars, annexations and conquests. In this history, Bénédicte Savoy discusses the transnational history of spoliations or “patrimonial translocations”, and the long-lasting memory of such traumatic events.

The Long Term of Patrimonial Translocations

Books and Ideas: In order to discuss your main object of research, usually referred to as patrimonial “spoliation”, you have created the concept of “patrimonial translocation”. Why did you resort to this new terminology?

Bénédicte Savoy: The terms “pillage”, “spoliation”, “confiscation” or “artistic seizure” carry within them implications in terms of ideology, politics or representation, which in themselves already constitute a particular reading of events. This is particularly striking when, taking a transnational approach, we try to translate them. Take the case of the major investigation Corinne Bouchoux published in 2013, Si les tableaux pouvaient parler (“If paintings could talk”), the subtitle of which is Le traitement politique et médiatique des retours d’œuvres d’art pillées et spoliées par les Nazis (“The Political And Media Treatment of the Return of Works of Art Pillaged and Spoliated by the Nazis”). In French, the words pillées (pillaged) and spoliées (spoliated) immediately make us think of the Nazi period. However, we avoid using these terms to refer to the massive confiscations carried out by France in Europe under the Revolution and Empire, which are usually qualified, in French, as conquêtes artistiques (artistic conquests) or confiscations révolutionnaires (revolutionary confiscations). These terms, of course, carry the view and legitimising rhetoric of the people who have appropriated these objects: they are connected to the language of the victors, of the predators, and not to those of the victims.

“Pillage”, “spoliation”, “confiscation” or “artistic seizure” carry within them implications in terms of ideology, politics or representation.

Among victims, the choice of terms is generally less cautious. The Italians still speak today of spoliazioni and furti napoleonici to refer to the French policy of appropriation in the 1800s; we find the same vocabulary in Spain, in the Netherlands, in Luxemburg. As for the Germans, who at different periods in history have been both the victims and the instigators of massive patrimonial violations, they talk of Beutekunst (looted art) to refer to the confiscations of works of art carried out by the Red Army in Germany in 1945, and of Kunstraub (art theft) when they are referring to Nazi or Napoleonic spoliations. When dealing with the specific history of the 20th century, they have also invented complex formula that are used by administrative bodies and by the press, for example the almost untranslatable “NS-verfolgungsbedingt entzogene oder kriegsbedingt verlagerte Kulturgüter” (cultural goods extracted as a result of Nazi persecutions or displaced due to conflict). In Russia, people still to this day talk about “war trophies” to refer to the collections from German libraries and museums that remained on the territory of the former Soviet Union after the big wave of restitutions to the GDR in the 1950s. In short: when dealing with such sensitive issues, words are always also points of view.

This is the reason why, after having worked for about a decade on these issues from a transnational perspective, I have suggested we use the term “patrimonial translocation”. Originally, “translocation” is a term from genetic chemistry that refers to an “exchange between chromosomes provoked by breakage and repair”, an exchange that implies mutations. Of course, genetic heritage and cultural heritage are not comparable. And yet the metaphor works: applied to the issue of spoliations, “translocation” has the immediate advantage of putting the concept of place at the centre of the discussion. This issue of place (the place of origin and the place of exile of a work of art, the place where it is and the place where it is missing, the place that is judged safe or risky for it, the issue of what is deemed to be its natural environment – a church for example, a collector’s living room, the sands of Egypt – or not – a museum, a distant continent) is crucial in terms of understanding and analysing, and even identifying the emotions and discourses that have always been connected to the forced displacement of works of art, which generally garners more media attention and is more studied, but also of books and manuscripts, natural history objects, archives etc. Understood in its main sense, “translocation” then invites us to reflect on the “breakages” and “repairs” connected to displacements, the individual or collective traumatisms that they imply in the long term. Finally, the term leaves ample room for the issue of mutations, of the multiple transformations that affect displaced objects and the societies that receive (or lose) them as a result of displacement. The articulation of these three elements: place, wounds and transformation – is crucial in terms of understanding the logic of patrimonial appropriations and their effects.

continued