Who Owns It?

Max Pechstein's 1912 Nus Dans un Paysage was recently returned to its rightful heirs after 80 years of hanging on the walls of the Musee national d'art moderne in Paris, France. Hugo Simon, a powerful Jewish banker and collector fled Berlin for Paris with the piece in the early 1930s, later exhibiting the painting in a London gallery exhibition in 1938.

While both the French government and the heirs to the piece - more specifically Rafael Cardoso - are unsure of the exact date of when the piece was looted by the Nazi's, it was determined that the piece was left in Simon's French apartment when he was forced to flee again, this time to Brazil. ¹

While the piece was restituted back to Simon's heirs in July 2021, the piece remained open to the public in a special exhibition at the Pompidou in Paris honoring Hugo Simon and his influence on German culture. ²

With the help of the French government, Cardoso and the rest of the heirs, were one of the lucky families that received their art with little push back. This repatriation case is a good example of France's new initiative to return to or rightfully acknowledge the rightful owners of all suspected stolen works of art. ³

This Edgar Degas monotype titled Landscape with Smokestacks was the center of a court case that was never meant to be. Originally owned by the Gutmann family before World War Two, the monotype has lived in a private collection since the end of the war, unseen by the eyes of the Gutmann family - now the Goodman's - for over fifty years. The initial claim for repatriation was met with backlash from the private owner of the piece, a pharmaceutical company heir. Claiming that the piece was sold prior to the war in Switzerland and that it was not a part of the Gutmann Collection seized by the Nazis, the heir declined the claim for repatriation. ⁴

While the Goodman family prepared to take the private collector to court for not having outstanding physical evidence for the sale of the painting prior to the war, the private collector continued to fight back. Eventually, due to both parties not wanting to cause more harm and media attention, it was proposed that the piece be sold/donated to a museum of both parties choice and the compensation would go to the Goodman family. While this was not what the family wanted, it was chosen as the best and least harmful option. The Art Institute of Chicago eventually bought the painting and that is where it stays today. ⁵

This piece may never have had its day in court or its proper repatriation to the rightful heirs, but it does show that for many families seeking restitution, compromise is the only answer to avoid a court case. Having been the first Nazi-Era repatriation case settled on United States soil, this case set the ground for other's in the U.S to start the fight for their works of art. ⁶ To bring awareness to the issue of compromise and how families are often taken advantage of in the repatriation process, this piece remains unframed. Finally, it is important to note that the entirety of the Gutmann Collection itself shows that while things may have been sold before the war there is often outstanding evidence that these sales were forced and the owners blackmailed into selling for way below the expected price just to stay alive.

The Ghent Altarpiece was the first piece of art to be successfully repatriated back to its original country through the Munich Central Collecting Point after World War Two. The piece was successfully given back to St. Bavo's Cathedral after a tour around Belgium. While the repatriation of the altarpiece has been used as a token example of how the United States and the Monument Men helped art restitution after the end of the war in 1945, it also highlights how art was used as propaganda to distract from the United States own plundering of art works after the war. ⁷

The United States - while creating both the Munich Central Collecting Point and the Monument Men division of the U.S Army - was not an innocent party in the plundering of precious pieces of art from Europe. Many pieces not immediately restituted after the war were sent back to Washington D.C or museums around the country, where they still remain today. Other pieces, such as The Ghent Altarpiece, were used as "token restitutions" that provided a good backdrop for a photograph of military generals or could be shown off in the first few weeks after the war. ⁸  Even today, the altarpiece has been used as U.S propaganda with its starring role in the 2015 film Monument's Men.

Despite its use as propaganda, The Ghent Altarpiece has also proved to be a learning piece for art conservators. Many objects stolen by the Nazi's were heavily damaged either by their handlers or through secondary sources such as smoke and humidity. The altarpiece and many other pieces have been carefully restored over the years by many art conservators eager to learn how detrimental the looting and subsequent hiding of objects plays a role in conservation. ⁹ While the altarpiece has travelled around the world as both an object of learning and as a piece of propaganda, it still remains one of the most successful art repatriation cases to this day.

The repatriation case of the Rue Saint-Honore in the Afternoon, Effect of Rain is one with an unfortunate ending. Taking place over fifteen years, the descendants of Fritz and Lilly Cassirer have fought a hard battle against Thyssen-Bornemisza Museo Nacional (Spain) where the Pissarro painting still resides. The Museo Nacional prides themselves as the museum for everyone, however they have continued to deny that they knew the painting had a suspect provenance. ¹² With the trial taking place in San Diego, California, the Museo Nacional was able to use 'good faith' intent to make the claim that because they did not suspect an unclear provenance they did not buy the piece knowing it was stolen. This coincides with Spanish law that states a buyer or collector can keep the artwork it purchased if they bought it without knowing its stolen history. ¹³

The Cassirer heirs were rightfully upset with the courts, however no action on the part of the museum has been taken to rightfully name the original owner of the painting and no information has been placed on their website stating anything about the trial or its Nazi-Era history. ¹⁴This is an unfortunate case of a museum and government not wanting to take action for stolen objects and return them or work out a deal with the rightful owners.

Figure 18: Jan van der Heyden, View of a Dutch Square, 17th Century, Heirs of Gottlieb and Mathilde Kraus.