This seemed a bit more CEPy than MLy. I get that not all of the art was looted, but if you're the SON of Adolph Hitler's ART DEALER, Ima gonna presume that your inherited art collection, even if not looted per se, was probably obtained under shady circumstances. Also, look at that dude's face.
Anyway, conflicting emotions I love museums (omg, and Matisse. Why did all of the Nazis love Matisse? It creeps me out) but am highly suspect of many pieces' (piece's? I'm having a grammar moment) origins.
Switzerland's Bern Art Museum has agreed to accept hundreds of artworks bequeathed by German Nazi-era art hoarder Cornelius Gurlitt.
Many of the works are expected to remain in Germany until their rightful owners can be identified.
Mr Gurlitt, the son of Adolf Hitler's art dealer, amassed a priceless collection of works, including pieces by Picasso and Monet.
He died in May aged 81 with the Bern museum named his "sole heir".
The Bavarian authorities seized some 1,280 artworks from his Munich flat as part of a tax evasion probe in February 2012.
The find, which was not made public until November last year, has triggered legal disputes surrounding works taken illegally by the Nazis.
The Bern museum's president, Christoph Schaeublin, told a news conference in Berlin on Monday that the museum would accept the bequest.
But "no work suspected of being looted" would enter the museum, he said.
The museum pledged to work with German authorities to ensure that "all looted art in the collection is returned" to its rightful owners.
The family of Jewish art dealer Paul Rosenberg had been searching for Henri Matisse's Femme Assise [Seated Woman] until it turned up in Cornelius Gurlitt's flat in 2012. A German task force has now said the Matisse should be returned to the Rosenbergs.
New Yorker David Toren has taken legal action against Germany over the return of Max Liebermann's Two Riders on the Beach, which he says belonged to his great-uncle David Friedmann
The heirs of Jewish collector Ismar Littman are said to be claiming two works by Otto Dix
The descendants of of Fritz Salo Glaser, a Jewish lawyer from Dresden, are also reportedly demanding the restitution of multiple artworks from the hoard
List item 2
List item 3
"The foundation council's decision was anything but easy and there certainly weren't emotions of triumph," said Mr Schaeublin.
"These would be entirely inappropriate considering the historic burden weighing heavily on this art collection."
Mr Gurlitt's father, Hildebrand Gurlitt, was ordered to deal in works that had been seized from Jews, or which the Nazis had considered "degenerate" and removed from German museums.
Among the collection were works by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Pablo Picasso, Marc Chagall, Emil Nolde and Max Liebermann.
German task force is investigating the art amid claims from descendants of the original owners, including the family of art dealer Paul Rosenberg.
Cornelius Gurlitt initially refused to give up the paintings but then changed his position, agreeing to co-operate with the German authorities on establishing the paintings' provenance, and then return them if they were shown to be stolen.
But one of his cousins, 86-year-old Uta Werner, said on Friday she was contesting his fitness of mind when he wrote the will naming the Bern museum as his sole heir.
I saw a piece on the BBC about this this morning. The art museum will not exhibit any pieces until their origin is proved and they will be returning art that is proven to be looted as soon as they determine the rightful owner.
I saw a piece on the BBC about this this morning. The art museum will not exhibit any pieces until their origin is proved and they will be returning art that is proven to be looted as soon as they determine the rightful owner.
Listen, I'm sure the museum will do all it can because HELLO SPOTLIGHT AND CONTROVERSY. I'm just saying that even if something wasn't LOOTED that doesn't mean it wasn't purchased, ya know, dirt cheap. In circumstances constituting duress.
I saw a piece on the BBC about this this morning. The art museum will not exhibit any pieces until their origin is proved and they will be returning art that is proven to be looted as soon as they determine the rightful owner.
Listen, I'm sure the museum will do all it can because HELLO SPOTLIGHT AND CONTROVERSY. I'm just saying that even if something wasn't LOOTED that doesn't mean it wasn't purchased, ya know, dirt cheap. In circumstances constituting duress.
The government go Austria didn't bother returning the Rothschild collection until 1999. I wouldn't overestimate the shame (or really, complete lack thereof) that attaches to possessing a painting that was stolen by people who later murdered the original owner.
I saw a piece on the BBC about this this morning. The art museum will not exhibit any pieces until their origin is proved and they will be returning art that is proven to be looted as soon as they determine the rightful owner.
Listen, I'm sure the museum will do all it can because HELLO SPOTLIGHT AND CONTROVERSY. I'm just saying that even if something wasn't LOOTED that doesn't mean it wasn't purchased, ya know, dirt cheap. In circumstances constituting duress.
THE BOLDED IS KEY.
I have plenty of side eye left for the Bern Art Museum. Oh yes, they will do ALL they can to further research the (often destroyed/damaged/falsified, nearly always murky) provenance of these works. In the meantime, they'll profit not at all by the publicity windfall surrounding this. NOT AT ALL. Exhibited or not.
How familiar were we all with Bern's permanent collection prior to this? Yeah.
I saw a piece on the BBC about this this morning. The art museum will not exhibit any pieces until their origin is proved and they will be returning art that is proven to be looted as soon as they determine the rightful owner.
Listen, I'm sure the museum will do all it can because HELLO SPOTLIGHT AND CONTROVERSY. I'm just saying that even if something wasn't LOOTED that doesn't mean it wasn't purchased, ya know, dirt cheap. In circumstances constituting duress.
I'm also kind of assuming that somewhere in the past 70 or 80 years, he or his father may have traded or sold works that were originally acquired under suspect circumstances for other works, which may have been bought at auction or privately in a totally legit way. Just with blood money, basically. So where does it really end?
Listen, I'm sure the museum will do all it can because HELLO SPOTLIGHT AND CONTROVERSY. I'm just saying that even if something wasn't LOOTED that doesn't mean it wasn't purchased, ya know, dirt cheap. In circumstances constituting duress.
I'm also kind of assuming that somewhere in the past 70 or 80 years, he or his father may have traded or sold works that were originally acquired under suspect circumstances for other works, which may have been bought at auction or privately in a totally legit way. Just with blood money, basically. So where does it really end?
Yes! All of this, plus of course kapoentje's point about the publicity the museum is receiving, are why I am so conflicted here.
I love art. I love art museums because going to A place to see a bunch of art all at once is super awesome and I like that there are institutions who see themselves as charged with protecting our (collective our, the world's) cultural heritage because not everyone cares. But this isn't even by any stretch the only controversy regarding art provenance (hellooooooo Amal, lol), so it makes it difficult to balance my love and fervor with my concerns about the stripping of people's/communities' cultural (and individual) property.
I'm also kind of assuming that somewhere in the past 70 or 80 years, he or his father may have traded or sold works that were originally acquired under suspect circumstances for other works, which may have been bought at auction or privately in a totally legit way. Just with blood money, basically. So where does it really end?
Yes! All of this, plus of course kapoentje's point about the publicity the museum is receiving, are why I am so conflicted here.
I love art. I love art museums because going to A place to see a bunch of art all at once is super awesome and I like that there are institutions who see themselves as charged with protecting our (collective our, the world's) cultural heritage because not everyone cares. But this isn't even by any stretch the only controversy regarding art provenance (hellooooooo Amal, lol), so it makes it difficult to balance my love and fervor with my concerns about the stripping of people's/communities' cultural (and individual) property.
Yeah, when I went to the British Museum it was really great and impressive, but... they have such a huge collection of Greek and Egyptian art, which was basically just picked up and taken back to England by "explorers" 200+ years ago. Uhh...
I saw a piece on the BBC about this this morning. The art museum will not exhibit any pieces until their origin is proved and they will be returning art that is proven to be looted as soon as they determine the rightful owner.
Listen, I'm sure the museum will do all it can because HELLO SPOTLIGHT AND CONTROVERSY. I'm just saying that even if something wasn't LOOTED that doesn't mean it wasn't purchased, ya know, dirt cheap. In circumstances constituting duress.
YES!
Look, they need to find out where it all came from and give it all back regardless of how it was gotten. Because selling it for rock bottom prices to get the fuck out of Germany in 1934 is an equally squicky way of acquiring art as picking it up off the train platform after the cattle cars departed for Auschwitz. This museum can go fuck itself.
Post by pinkdutchtulips on Nov 24, 2014 13:36:02 GMT -5
it's going to be damn near impossible to trace who the 'rightful' owners are. its not like the Nazi looters took good records. if they saw something, they took it. they didn't write where they got it from, just that they walked off w/ someone's Renoir.
I'm sure there is an index somewhere of all the Nazi acquisitions of artwork in the 1930's and even into the 1940's as they expanded their 'empire' ... painters and work titles, but org owners - good luck.
That said, maybe the Bern museum should just auction off the questionable pieces can they can't find owners for and donate the monies to Amnesty International.
The Nazi's might not know where it came from, but the people (Jews) who had owned them might be able to prove ownership with photographs, insurance.documents, and bills of sale. Honestly, knowing this dead guy's history, I kind of feel like every single piece in his collection should be publicly posted and vetted for an appropriate chain of custody. It should start by asking the estate of the dealer to provide documentation of the paintings' provinances.
Agreed. Come up with some kind of claims submission process and let people come get their stuff.
I don't want to think about the family mess that will come with determining the painting belonged to Great Great Aunt Ethel who never made it out of Poland and who gets it now but that's not this museum's business to sort.
it's going to be damn near impossible to trace who the 'rightful' owners are. its not like the Nazi looters took good records. if they saw something, they took it. they didn't write where they got it from, just that they walked off w/ someone's Renoir.
I'm sure there is an index somewhere of all the Nazi acquisitions of artwork in the 1930's and even into the 1940's as they expanded their 'empire' ... painters and work titles, but org owners - good luck.
That said, maybe the Bern museum should just auction off the questionable pieces can they can't find owners for and donate the monies to Amnesty International.
The Nazi's might not know where it came from, but the people (Jews) who had owned them might be able to prove ownership with photographs, insurance.documents, and bills of sale. Honestly, knowing this dead guy's history, I kind of feel like every single piece in his collection should be publicly posted and vetted for an appropriate chain of custody. It should start by asking the estate of the dealer to provide documentation of the paintings' provinances.
I think it should be one big post at Sotherby's or something for ALL to take a peek at to see if anyone can claim ownership. I'm just curious how much of the proof of ownership paperwork (bills of sale, ins docs, photos, dealer logs showing who bought what) still exists if it wasn't burned or tossed as trash :/
Listen, I'm sure the museum will do all it can because HELLO SPOTLIGHT AND CONTROVERSY. I'm just saying that even if something wasn't LOOTED that doesn't mean it wasn't purchased, ya know, dirt cheap. In circumstances constituting duress.
I'm also kind of assuming that somewhere in the past 70 or 80 years, he or his father may have traded or sold works that were originally acquired under suspect circumstances for other works, which may have been bought at auction or privately in a totally legit way. Just with blood money, basically. So where does it really end?
Totally right. The Elgin Marbles (nods to Mrs. Clooney) and so much more. Especially with regards to Antiquities, the relative & outright looting occurred on such a scale and for so long so as to normalise it. "For the proper preservation & protection," right?
Still though, major collections acquiring and exhibiting Antiquities with dicey provenance is by no means limited to those acquired by 18th & 19th century collectors/opportunists. E.g.: The Getty & Marion True.
Not to oversimplify, but the Nazis were so appallingly organised and thorough with their looting. They (and their people, like Hildebrand Gurlitt) knew entirely well what they wanted and how they would get it. Large quantities of deemed "degenerate" art like this were also frequently destroyed. Small victory in this case that these were not.
Anecdotal, but I know two people well who've been on either...um...side of this. A friend whose family collection has a few works embroiled in ongoing legal disputes. And another, one of my closest friends, whose family lost a prized work by a well known modern Austrian artist (the work is now thought to have been destroyed) as they had the misfortune of being wealthy Hungarian Jews.
it's going to be damn near impossible to trace who the 'rightful' owners are. its not like the Nazi looters took good records. if they saw something, they took it. they didn't write where they got it from, just that they walked off w/ someone's Renoir.
I'm sure there is an index somewhere of all the Nazi acquisitions of artwork in the 1930's and even into the 1940's as they expanded their 'empire' ... painters and work titles, but org owners - good luck.
That said, maybe the Bern museum should just auction off the questionable pieces can they can't find owners for and donate the monies to Amnesty International.
The Nazi's might not know where it came from, but the people (Jews) who had owned them might be able to prove ownership with photographs, insurance.documents, and bills of sale. Honestly, knowing this dead guy's history, I kind of feel like every single piece in his collection should be publicly posted and vetted for an appropriate chain of custody. It should start by asking the estate of the dealer to provide documentation of the paintings' provinances.
Yes, this. EXACTLY this.
Provenance is rarely ever straightforward but can be & has been established in a number of ways, even when lacking written documentation.
To be honest, in the former eastern bloc countries, people who owned private property before the Soviets came in basically asked for it back after the fall of communism. In east Berlin, at least, the vast majority of residential properties were restored to their previous owners (though occasionally you'll see one that has not been restored and is basically abandoned because they have never been able to trace the legal owner). I have to believe something similar would be able to happen when it comes to major works of art.
Tangent: Because I know we all love the West Wing, I remember the episode "Noel" where the woman saw a painting that was stolen from her family by the French and given to the president.
In another story, C.J. is told by a reporter that a woman saw a painting on the White House Tour and began screaming. C.J. does some research and finds out with the help of Bernard Thatch, the White House's unctuous but competent Protocol Chief, that the painting was owned by a Jewish family in Europe, seized by the Nazi collaborationist French Vichy Regime, and eventually given as a gift to the White House by the French government. The woman's father owned the painting, and C.J. returns it to the grateful woman and her son.
Post by rondonalddo on Nov 24, 2014 22:47:29 GMT -5
Not that it's applicable in this specific case, but for anyone interested, the US has a Nazi-era provenance database: nepip.org. There' are also a number of lost art resources in the US and Europe. Not that any of it's perfect, but there are resources out there for reclaiming objects. It's generally much harder to see what's in a private collection than in a museum, of course.
Is there any knowledge of how many people have actually been able to prove ownership of looted art? It seems to me that, unless photographs or documentation was sent to relatives outside of Nazi-controlled areas, it would have been difficult to retain that documentation during the war.