Now here's my tangent. . .if you were a museum collections manager, curator, or director, and were approached by a family/country that wanted its artwork back (I say country because of all of the works stolen from national collections in WWII), and the provenance (history of the work's location) proved it to be truly from this family/country, what are some reasons you would NOT give it back? We're playing Devil's Advocate here. And note, there are plenty of works in American museums that have been stolen from other countries, but possibly unknowingly to the museum.
Image from the blog "Stolen Vermeer"
http://stolenvermeer.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html
Hmm, I'm not sure. It seems like the really difficult part would be actually validating the claim.
ReplyDeleteBut assuming that the claim is valid, the only reason I can think of is if the artwork could be argued as belonging to a country as a whole. (aka Betsy Ross' flag really belongs to the American people). I am not even sure what the legalities of that are, though.
(I'm playing Devil's Advocate on this one)
ReplyDeleteSo, what if Betsy Ross created the flag in another country?
What if a cultural ambassador from, say, France came to you and said they wanted all of _____'s paintings back because _______ was a citizen of France for most of his/her life. But, ______ is a portrait painter and painted a number of portraits of famous Americans. . .whose art is it?
I'm bringing this up, and the article in general, because this is a very common issue in the museum world as to where a painting belongs. It's tricky, because even though we have a 'national collection' thanks to James Smithson, much of the art is not American and could asked to be taken back by another country.
This is problematic. Culturally a work may belong one place, historically another, and meanwhile the artist hail from a completely different location. When theft is in the history it seems especially unkind to to deny a country original work, but the pieces we are talking about, worth millions of dollars, are more than simple paintings, they are cultural vehicles. The idea of ownership is different when one is spending 15,000 on a painting by a local artist than when holding on to another country's culture because it draws a lot of foot traffic to your city.. Ultimately I'm biased and believe the art belongs with an institution that can afford to best care for it, display it, and lend it in order to ensure all the world has an opportunity for viewing.
ReplyDeleteSo, over the summer I read a book called "Priceless" by a retired FBI agent whose sole mission for the FBI was to retrieve stolen works of art both nationally and internationally. It was a non-fictional account of his actual job with the Art Crime Division. Pretty interesting stuff and it speaks directly to some of these ideas. Pretty much, it was his opinion that the art crime laws are not strict enough nor are they clear enough. This is probably the root of this problem. These cases get big media coverage and are exciting/dramatic but the consequences for the criminals are not harsh enough or sometimes even enforced at all. I also don't think there are any laws that dictate owndership.
ReplyDeleteWho the art belongs to is so tricky because it is for the good of everyone, really. It is culturally enriching, etc. I feel like there has to be an idea that it belongs to everyone. Similar laws are in place for literature and songs. Those works are so old that they really don't belong to everyone. The copywrite has worn off, essentially.
If I were a museum curator and were approached with solid evidence that a piece of art belonged to someone else, I think my biggest concern would be that the piece of art, if returned, would just sit in that person's attic and not be used for the better of the community. If it were possible, I think I would return it under the condition that it be maintained in the same way it is now in the sense that it be treated as a cultural vehicle(as Neena so nicely coins it) instead of just another family heirloom.
ReplyDeleteAlthough from the perspective of the family that owns it, I can see how they would feel like they had the right to use the piece of art in whatever they pleased... but maybe they can be convinced that the art's cultural significance exceeds its significance within their family.
Thank you for posting the article, fascinating topic indeed. I wonder how many of these cases go "frozen" and forgotten, and how many of the cases that got mainstream media attention would lead to success? I personally think if a piece is stolen, especially during wartime, then the country has the right to claim. I do believe there should be some international agreement about that because this is a huge problem in China too (e.g. most of the Chinese collection in the British museum and many others worldwide) but there just isn't enough spotlight. It just hadn't been a priority for lawmakers or politicians - a lot of times they just don't want to use lost art as a chess piece to the match on the diplomatic level. I do think this would be done best on the diplomatic level, instead of a family suing a foreign country/ national museum, because it would probably lead to important conversations for future returns/ claims.
ReplyDeleteOn another hand - is this some of the things we might learn from the art and the law course? I think this is very interesting and I wonder what policies auction houses might have about that? I know they generally don't sell anything unless the seller is proven to be the rightful owner. However, if the "rightful owner" has been that for decades, and a dispute come up during evaluation/ auction, what would happen?
p.s. Thank you Nick - I have heard about the book from a friend (who loved it) a while ago but I forgot about it. I will definitely read it now!
Forgive me if I sound naive but I don't understand how a museum, like the Hungarian one in the article, can retain art that was confiscated during the Holocaust. I realize that the folks currently associated with the museum had nothing to do with acquiring the art, but I say tough shit. The governments of Germany and Austria have gone out of their way to make amends on these issues but sympathetic ones haven't?
ReplyDeleteBut since that wasn't the question... I guess a museum could simply argue that this art is too important to be in the possession of one man or family. As Neena points out, the museum will take proper care of it while having it on display for the masses. However, that does not mean it won't receive proper care under its new caretaker. I just don't see why both sides can't win where, perhaps, the rightful owner recognizes the importance of the art to the museum and allows them to continue to display it. Yes yes, I'm sure I'm being naive here... just saying though.
This is a really difficult issue. I believe that the art is best stationed in a place that can take proper care of it. Maybe an agreement can be worked out to have the piece "shared" by both places. For example, keeping it in one museum for 10 or more years and then sending it to the partnered museum. However, I do not know (musician here) that shipping a piece of art work around would be the best idea for keeping the work in the best condition possible.
ReplyDeleteIf I were the curator and evidence that a piece in my museum belonged to someone else, I believe that it is their right to have it, but as long as the work is properly preserved. A deal that includes the work being placed in a museum closer to the owners home might be the best solution to something like this. But again, if it can be proven to belong to someone else then how can you legally continue to keep it from them?
Since Eddie covered the "naive approach," I thought I would flesh out the "cynical approach."
ReplyDeleteDoesn't all of this really boil down to money? Aren't individuals who are looking to reclaim art that has been stolen or illegally detained actually looking to cash in on the value (financial or otherwise) of the art? Aren't museums and organizations reticent to uphold de-accession policies because of the status and financial gains they stand to lose by returning this art?
About 10 years ago, the Czech government initially followed its de-accession policy in returning some Naz-confiscated art, but then immediately "bought" it back by declaring the art a "national trasure" and paying the owner the Czech government equivalent of what the art was worth. As the Czech Republic is a relatively poor country, they paid this art owner only the merest fraction of what the art was worth. The Czech Republic's explanation was the country couldn't afford to lose the art...or pay for it, evidently. Still, it all came down to the dollar.
Now let's remove all talk of money (except for my 2 cents). Much like in the courts with custody cases, both parents have a (genetic) right to the child's custody, but the court awards guardianship to the parent who can best take care of the child. Could the same theory be explored in these de-accession cases? Just saying...
In this case, because it relates to the holocaust I have no problem saying “give the art back NOW” Germany did what so many tyrannies historically have done when they conquered other regions; seize the items of value for display and in symbolizing their victory. Yet, in this modern era with prolific documentation and footage of the devastation caused by the Nazi looters, for museums to with hold items that can be traced back to a family – even if current members are black sheep descendants, the artwork should go back. Considering what was taken, considering the life that was left to those who survived, considering what little remained of their personal photos, books and mementos – if a painting or decorative object is on display in a museum it should go back to the families who once owned the work. Yes they may sell it to the highest bidder and it may leave the region never to return – well that is one of the lesser casualties of war.
ReplyDelete-Lesley
I know I'm chiming in late on this one, but the class dicussion made me revisit the artical. Art is created as an expression by the artist with the intent of being displayed. Actaully, with the intent of creating revenue for the artist and whoever buys it can do whatever they feel like with it. Yes, I say it all boils down to money in this arguement. Otherwise, and on a serious level, museums should retain ownership. If a monetary value can be placed on a piece than rightful parties should be compensated with the stipulation that the art remain with the museum.
ReplyDeleteSo I am really late on this topic.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to imagine giving up a piece of art that, over decades, has come to be apart of the culture. But, I think it is respectful to give it back to the original owners. I am reminded of certain Native American tribes that create sand-art for spiritual reasons and immediately destroy as is custom. Certain scholars think that is ridiculous because the art is amazing and takes so long to create, but that's their custom. I think the same applies to the original owners of artwork, no matter if they are good caretakers of the work or not, they are the original owners. I can't go into my neighbors house and steal jewels because I will polish them daily and they won't. I think the same thing applies to art. The original owners should have it back.