6
   

ART TROVE IN MUNICH WORTH 1.5 BILLION EUROS

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2021 04:04 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Thanks for keping up with this. may Iask, that, it seems to me that no really important works had been returned yet. The "Klavierspiehlen" sounds nice but its mor like a Eric Sloan work, regionally treasured but not a world treasure
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2021 10:39 pm
@farmerman,
Really important works - that's kind of personal look at it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jan, 2021 06:46 am
Over nearly a decade, Jonathan Petropoulos met dozens of times with a man who helped the Nazis loot Jewish art collections, a complicated relationship he explores in "Göring’s Man in Paris".

Book review in the NYT: How a Historian Got Close, Maybe Too Close, to a Nazi Thief

A very interest report @ youtube, by the author, Professor Jonathan Petropoulos, John V. Croul Professor of European History

Bruno Lohse (1911–2007) was one of the most notorious art plunderers in history. He supervised the systematic theft and distribution of over 30,000 artworks, largely from French Jews, and assisted in amassing an enormous private art collection. By the 1950s, Lohse was officially denazified but back in the art dealing world, offering masterpieces of dubious origin to American museums. After his death, dozens of paintings by Renoir, Monet, and Pissarro, among others, were found in his Zurich bank vault and personal residence. Join Professor Petropoulos as he discusses how he spent nearly a decade interviewing Lohse and continues to serve as an expert witness for Holocaust restitution cases.

Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2021 02:12 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Supreme Court Rules for Germany in Case on Nazi-Era Art
Quote:
In a unanimous ruling, the court said a federal law bars suits against foreign governments accused of expropriating their own citizens’ property.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled against the heirs of Jewish art dealers in Nazi-era Frankfurt who sought to sue Germany in American courts over artifacts they say the dealers were forced to sell for a third of their value.

The case, Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, No. 19-351, concerned the Guelph Treasure, a trove of medieval religious art that is now estimated to be worth $250 million. A consortium of three firms owned by Jews bought the collection in the waning days of the Weimar Republic and went on to sell about half of it to individual buyers and museums, including the Cleveland Museum of Art.

As the Nazi government took power, the collection caught the interest of Hermann Goering, Hitler’s second in command and the prime minister of Prussia. According to the heirs, he threatened the dealers with political persecution and physical harm to coerce them to sell the remaining artifacts in 1935 for much less than they were worth.

The pieces are now in the Museum of Decorative Arts in Berlin. In 2014, a German commission determined that the museum had acquired the collection legitimately. The commission said the 1935 sale to Prussia was voluntary and came after a yearlong negotiation that resulted in a price about halfway between the two sides’ opening positions.

The heirs sued in federal court, and a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against Germany, saying the case could proceed.

The question for the justices was whether the suit was barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally forbids suits against foreign states. The law has some exceptions, including one for the expropriation of property.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the court, said that exception did not apply when a foreign government was accused of taking its own citizens’ property.

The appeals court had ruled that the heirs could invoke the exception because the artifacts had been taken as part of an act of genocide, relying on a provision of the law saying that sovereign immunity does not apply in cases “in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue.”

Chief Justice Roberts said the appeals court had read that phrase too broadly.

“We need not decide whether the sale of the consortium’s property was an act of genocide, because the expropriation exception is best read as referencing the international law of expropriation rather than of human rights,” he wrote. “We do not look to the law of genocide to determine if we have jurisdiction over the heirs’ common law property claims. We look to the law of property.”

The heirs sued in federal court, and a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against Germany, saying the case could proceed.

The question for the justices was whether the suit was barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally forbids suits against foreign states. The law has some exceptions, including one for the expropriation of property.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the court, said that exception did not apply when a foreign government was accused of taking its own citizens’ property.

The appeals court had ruled that the heirs could invoke the exception because the artifacts had been taken as part of an act of genocide, relying on a provision of the law saying that sovereign immunity does not apply in cases “in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue.”

Chief Justice Roberts said the appeals court had read that phrase too broadly.

“We need not decide whether the sale of the consortium’s property was an act of genocide, because the expropriation exception is best read as referencing the international law of expropriation rather than of human rights,” he wrote. “We do not look to the law of genocide to determine if we have jurisdiction over the heirs’ common law property claims. We look to the law of property.”
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2021 02:17 am
This is actually not a paintin acquired by Gurlitt, but a piece of art, which will be given back to the heirs of the original Jewish owner shortly.
And a really good development regarding Jewish ownership of art.

https://i.imgur.com/1dVedNw.jpg
Franz Marc: The Foxes (Kunsthalle Düsseldorf, Google Arts and Culture

The Düsseldorf City Council voted unanimously in a closed session on Thursday for the restitution of the expressionist painting, which was created in 1913. This was announced by the city in the evening. The council thus followed the recommendation of the Advisory Commission for Looted Art Cases. The committee had voted by a two-thirds majority in favour of restitution to the descendants of the Jewish entrepreneur Kurt Grawi (1887-1944). The Cubist painting, estimated at at least 14 million Euros, is one of the top works in the Museum Kunstpalast in Düsseldorf.

Grawi was subjected to considerable repression in Germany after 1933. In 1939 he was able to emigrate to Chile. In 1940 he sold the painting in New York. In 1962 it was donated to the Städtisches Kunstmuseum Düsseldorf.

In the opinion of the Advisory Commission, "The Foxes" must be restituted, even if the sale was concluded outside the Nazi sphere of power. The sale in 1940 in New York was the direct consequence of Grawi's imprisonment in a concentration camp and his subsequent escape.

The sale had been so closely connected with the persecution by the National Socialists that the place of the trade was secondary. Grawi would not have sold the painting if he had not been persecuted by the Nazis. He had stressed that for him and his family the result of the sale meant "the basis for our emigration". The city of Düsseldorf, on the other hand, had argued that the painting had been outside the Nazi sphere of influence since May 1939. The family had been in South America at the time of the sale in 1940. After the war, Grawi's wife had claimed restitution for the losses suffered, but had not cited the work by Franz Marc. According to the Washington Principles, also signed by Germany, "just and fair" solutions are to be found for cultural assets seized as a result of Nazi persecution.

Looted art experts fear that the commission's latest recommendation in the Grawi case could shift the previous standards of restitution. The "foxes" could become a precedent, so that in the future cultural objects sold abroad would also be eligible for restitution.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/29/2021 at 12:07:24