Aboriginal Art Collection: Highlights from Australia's Public Museums and Galleries

Contents: Introduction SUSAN COCHRANE National Gallery of Australia, Canberra WALLY CARUANA National Museum of Australia, Canberra DAVID KAUS Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, Darwin MARGIE WEST Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney HETTI PERKINS AND KEN WATSON Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney BERNICE MURPHY Queensland Art Gallery, Brisbane MARCO NEALE Queensland Museum, Brisbane RICHARD ROBINS National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne JUDITH RYAN Museum Victoria, Melbourne GAYE SCULTHORPE Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart KIM AKERMAN AND DAVID HANSEN Art Gallery of Western Australia, Perth MICHAEL O'FERRALL AND BRENDA L. CROFT Western Australian Museum, Perth ROSS CHADWICK AND MANCE LOFGREN Art Gallery of South Australia, Adelaide JANE HYLTON South Australian Museum, Adelaide PHILIP A. CLARKE List of Plates Bibliography Editor's Acknowledgments Contributors Index

The politics and ethics of relocated art

At the end of Word War II, Soviet occupation forces removed countless art objects from German soil. Some of them were returned during the 1950s, but most either disappeared for good or were stored away secretly in cellars of Soviet museums. The Cold War then covered the issue with silence. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, museums in St Petersburg and Moscow started to exhibit some of the relocated art for the first time in half a century. The unusual quality of the paintings-mostly impressionist masterpieces-not only attracted the attention of the international art community, but also triggered a diplomatic row between Russia and Germany. Both governments advanced moral and legal claims to ownership. To make things even more complicated, many of the paintings once belonged to private collectors, some of whom were Jews. Their descendants also entered the dispute. The basic premise of this article is that the political and ethical dimensions of relocated art can be understood most adequately by eschewing a single authorial standpoint. Various positions, sometimes incommensurable ones, are thus explored in an attempt to outline possibilities for an ethics of representation and a dialogical solution to the international problem that relocated art has become.

'You can criticise because you care': How attributions affect responses to ingroup and outgroup critics

There are times when people feel compelled to stand up and articulate their group's shortcomings, an act that carries with it enormous social risks. Indeed, a mechanistic reading of social identity theory might lead one to believe that ingroup critics are doomed to face hostility because they are attacking a fundamental part of people's self-concept. But often ingroup critics are doing more than attacking their group — they are trying to incite positive change. Criticism is the cornerstone of protest, and it is difficult to imagine how a group can be reinvigorated, reinvented, or reformed without some process of critical self-reflection. Thus, although the ingroup critic might create tension within the group, it is possible that internal criticism could be seen by other group members as beneficial in terms of promoting positive change and stimulating innovation, creativity, and flexibility in decision making. In this talk I examine the 'identity rules' that ingroup critics need to follow to avoid defensiveness, and look at empirical evidence of how factors such as language, the intergroup context, and choice of audience shape people's attributions regarding criticism and their subsequent evaluations of critics.