If a museum have a work of art that has no value then the museum donates to another museum, then years later it is a valued painting then should the museum have to return it. When a painting is donated then oneself can not get it back because it is of value. Say someone donates 20 dollars to a children care program then if if you need the money you can’t just take it back. In the articles(s) it is said that if a museum loans a painting or gives a painting then later they want it back then the museum with the painting doesn’t want to return it then they could work it out threw long term purchase or long term loan. When a painting is give up or loan , sold then years later oneself can not ask for the painting back. In the article it says “ Even if one wanted to return dispersed works of art where would one do so?” Also in the article it says “ Which of the many countries,cities, museums in possession of parts of a work of art . . . should be the designated “home” of the reunited work. So if people where to return painting ( works of art ) then it would just cause more problems down the road. Also if people returned the painting then people would have to travel around the world to learn about just one subject ; so if …show more content…
In the reading in passage one it says “ When these works are removed from their original cultural setting they lose their context and cultures lose a part of their history.” This mean that people need their painting for there culturales backgrounds and they want to learn more about their history and such of their nation. Also in passage 1 it says “ A country return of an art piece usually has a strong legal bacic so they can return it with no problem. This means that in returning off the a work of art that there is rather large legal problem. Some if someone wants her painting back for cultural reason then how is that far to the other