Posted by 
In June, the Brazilian artist Ilê Sartuzi removed a historical coin from its display case in the British Museum in London and deposited it in a donation box in the museum’s lobby. The footage of the performance piece, called Sleight of Hand, was shown as part of his graduate MFA thesis exhibition.
The event has highlighted issues relating to heritage, access to collections, and the safety and security of museums.
Sartuzi, a student at Goldsmiths, University of London, spent a year working on his plan to “steal” the coin, developing his technique and observing the museum and its staff. He worked with a lawyer from the conception of his idea to ensure that no laws were broken. Sartuzi was assured that he was safe from a legal standpoint but, especially as the performance was designed to draw attention to the ethics of collecting, is he morally in the clear?
The role of performance art in highlighting social and cultural issues is significant, often used to draw parallels between the two sides of an issue. As it is generally staged in public, it can reach a wide range of people. Performance art may be accompanied by text, but the focus is naturally on the visual aspect. This is where Sleight of Hand becomes ambiguous – by definition, it seeks to create a false impression.
The artist is aware of this paradox. Indeed, it is the central tenet of his project – to highlight the “hidden” nature of museum collections, held in trust by self-appointed cultural stewards. There is a deliberate irony in the choice of a British coin for the substitution, given the current focus on the historic acquisition of objects from around the world, especially by European collectors. The artist says he chose an English civil war-era coin because “it is one of the few British things in the British Museum”.
The British Museum has been increasingly under scrutiny regarding the acquisition, retention and repatriation of objects from around the world. While the institution has, of late, been making attempts at reparation and holding inclusive dialogue on the ownership and care of collections, Sartuzi’s work underlines the fact that the discussio is, rightly, far from over.
Read more: The Parthenon marbles evoke particularly fierce repatriation debates – an archaeologist explains why
However, aside from the core statement behind this performance piece, there are other aspects to consider. The central focus of the project was the coin, its removal from its display and its deposition in a donation box at the museum. Sartuzi has described the practicalities of the project, which included preparing a replica of the coin to replace the original, and the focus of reporting has been on the objects. But it should not go unnoticed that people were (unknowingly) drawn into the performance.
The museum worker from whom the coin was unknowingly “stolen” during a session when the public were allowed to handle museum objects was a volunteer and, the day before, another volunteer guide stopped the previous attempt. These types of sessions are built on trust. Staff have the right to not be put in a difficult position, and the public (including artists and other professionals) have the right to continue reaping the benefits of direct engagement with artefacts.
Where does this leave that relationship if access has to be withdrawn or restricted due to extra security precautions which, for the most part, should not be necessary?
Theft from public museums is relatively rare, but the seeming ease of the coin switch implies otherwise. Various media reports on the performance used the word “stole”, despite emphasis that the coin never left the building – perhaps an indicator that despite the legality of the deed, the optics are saying otherwise.
The original coin was uncatalogued, but as part of a collection that the public is allowed to handle the guidelines for storage and use are different. Much has been made of the recent losses from the British Museum’s department of Greece and Rome, and this new “loss” has been added to the mounting pile of negative press. (Sartuzi asserts that the timing of these cases was an unfortunate coincidence.)
Nevertheless, at a time when many museums are understaffed or underfunded, and rely heavily on volunteers who generously offer their time and knowledge, such scrutiny places the heritage sector under even more pressure.
Historically, artefacts have not always been acquired or managed ethically, but contemporary museums adhere to a common code of practice, with the Museums Association producing and regularly updating a sector-wide code of ethics. Most museums deal with a large amount of retrospective documentation but have plans in progress to manage it – this is also a condition of accredited status, which is awarded for achieving the industry standard and is also subject to regular review to ensure continued accountability.
The audience for Sartuzi’s exhibition has broadly applauded his performance, hailing it as a strong statement on the acquisition and ownership of heritage. Others have been more critical, while the British Museum has expressed its “disappointment” at the deception involved.
Some have questioned the museum’s integrity and whether it has the right to feel that way, in light of its controversial history of acquisition. Sartuzi’s project seems to have been a success as this debate was part of his objective, and it is crucial that we have these conversations – but all discussions must come from a place of mutual transparency and trust.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Claire Isabella Gilmour does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
