[candiodari]

Firstly, note that art is considered stolen if it's outside of it's place of origin, regardless of whether it was paid for or not.

So:

https://www.si.edu/collections

"The Smithsonian's collections represent our nation's rich heritage, art from across the globe, and the immense diversity of the natural and cultural world."

In other words, the Smithsonian has plenty of stolen art.

But what about real "other" cultures ?

http://en.chnmuseum.cn/tabid/520/Default.aspx?ExhibitionLang...

Yep, China does it too.

https://independent-travellers.com/malaysia/kuala_lumpur/nat...

So does Malaysia ... plenty of Chinese and even Western objects.

Can't easily find too many others, but of course in the middle east the collections also contain much stolen art.

[EliRivers]

I bought some embroidery in a shop in Korea a few years ago. If someone classes that as stolen art, then the word has become pretty meaningless.

When Van Gogh sold a painting, at what point did it become stolen? Was it stolen from him as he willingly accepted money for it, or was the act of theft committed later when the purchaser moved house?

[stvswn]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. Are you literally saying that art must remain geographically located at its origin forever? That seems insane.

[candiodari]

Wouldn't you say that's the general consensus if the work is considered important ?

The British museum paid for most of their artworks. Granted, probably not what they were worth, but certainly a price the sellers were willing to accept.

[jfk13]

Who's to say "what they were worth" at that time and in that place? Pretty much the only indication we have is whatever price the buyer was willing to pay and the seller was willing to accept.

We might consider them "priceless" objects in a museum now, but that doesn't tell us anything about what they were worth at the time of acquisition. The "value" of an artwork is almost entirely a cultural construct, not something inherent in the object, and may vary drastically across both time and space.

[che_shirecat]

It's interesting how whataboutism is called out in every thread about China but its somehow okay when the topic of interest is the Brits/French. Your two examples don't even hold water, the first one is a temporary exhibition of donated artwork, the second is filled with replicas or illustratory material, not original works. You even say yourself that you can't easily find too many others, while the examples you've found are like apples to oranges compared to the art unabashedly displayed in european museums that were looted from their places of origin in very near history.

[dnomad]

The mental gymnastics at work here are to be expected. There's really a total lack of integrity when it comes to Europeans admitting the extraordinary crimes of the past and providing redress. This is why absolutely nobody takes seriously the empty words about human rights. And note it is not a matter of "ancient history"; it is widely recognized that American soldiers looted art from Iraq and Afghanistan worth millions [1] but there is very rarely investigations and prosecutions for this.

[1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-iraq-war-...

[sgift]

> This is why absolutely nobody takes seriously the empty words about human rights.

Yeah, sure, because art taken hundred years ago is somehow comparable to breaking human rights.

[qiqing]

It sounds like you are claiming that no lives were lost during colonization (of Asia, the Americas, Africa, Australia...) or slaves traded. Would you like to clarify your statement?