The Vatican Museum's decision to return artwork from the Parthenon to Athens unfortunately has not provided any incentive for the British Museum to follow suit.
I remember when I was a student in an art history class way back in the mid-80s, the professor stated one of the primary reasons for the existence museums is to preserve and protect art and artifacts from around the world. The idea was that all of the works of one artist or monument or culture should not be contained in one location, but should be distributed to museums and collections around the world in order to insure their survival. To have all of the works of Monet, for example, in one location made the likelihood of their destruction, by man or natural disaster, possible. This statement does carry some truth, BUT the artifact itself should not be hacked up to be dispersed like pieces of cake.
Catherine Titi argues in her latest article that "to divide is to destroy":
The division of the Parthenon marbles between two museums can only be compared to the fragmentation of a monument. Can we imagine the Sistine Chapel split in two? Michelangelo’s famous fresco The Creation of Adam divided, God’s outstretched hand separated from that of Adam to whom it gives life?
Do read the article and give some thought to the matter. The Parthenon deserves to be made as whole as possible and preserved, not scattered around the museums of the world.
