History Claims Her Artwork, but She Wants It Back
Dina Babbitt, a Holocaust survivor, saved her and her mother's lives by painting these pictures. Today the question is "Who owns them?"
I also have a problem with the wording of the New York Times' headline. Is it "history" claiming Mrs. Babbitt's painting or is the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum in Poland? For "history's" sake, reproductions can be used just as effectively, if not more so. The originals are "precious" and even the museum admits that they're too delicate for long-term display. So wouldn't it be more practical for them to make copies which would survive and let the elderly artist have her paintings back?
Reproductions can last forever, but Mrs. Babbitt and her paintings don't have much longer. Reuniting them would be the humanitarian thing to do. Unfortunately the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum is perpetuating the cruelty of the Nazis.
3 comments:
Thank you for posting this story. I might have missed it otherwise. I am hoping to hear that Mrs. Babbitt gets her paintings back. Yes, they are part of history, but they are part of HER history, and her wishes should be respected.
It sounds like things have been pleasantly busy for you. Keep up with your crochet! :)
thanks
The crocheting is great!!
Thanks for visiting.
Is there no end to Nazi cruelty?
The museum might kindly return them and use prints as Mrs. Babbitt is also part of history.
In fact, the museum could pay her handsomely for her work if she leaves the artwork in question to the museum in her will.
Meanwhile, she should have it.
Post a Comment