03282024

Imperfect Justice

The Gurlitt case highlights the
resistance to finalize restitutions

How to deal with art stolen by the Nazis? This conundrum has touched off a heated public debate in Germany. The question seems to deal with a relatively concrete problem, but it is part of a far bigger challenge: it’s about the future handling of the past. All because it recently came to light that, almost two years ago, the Bavarian authorities discovered and confiscated 1,280 valuable works of art hidden in a Munich flat. This was a secret collection that art dealer Hildebrand Gurlitt had acquired during his business dealings with the Nazi regime. After Gurlitt’s death in the mid-1950s, this trove of art treasures had passed down to his son Cornelius, who kept them hidden until their recent re-discovery. Is this his rightful property, as Gurlitt jr. asserts, or is the German government duty-bound to return the works to the heirs of the previous owners?
The art haul has touched a raw nerve in Germany. For though democracy has taken firm root on the ruins of the Third Reich, the swamp of German history still sends noxious bubbles to the surface from time to time haunting all of us.

It’s about theft and persecution

Coming to grips with this case requires patience and deliberation. Much like a fisherman whose line has become caught in underwater growth, one has to painstakingly tease out the tangles and knots. Practically the only thing beyond dispute seems to be the complexity of the situation. But not everyone sees it this way. Anne Webber, founder and Co-Chair of the Commission for Looted Art in Europe (CLAE), does not mince words: “It’s not that complex. It’s very simple, because we are talking about theft, persecution, dispossession and murder.” Based in London, the CLAE supports families, institutions, and governments worldwide in handling cases of looted art. In Webber’s opinion, too much emphasis is being placed on the rights of Cornelius Gurlitt and not nearly enough on those of the victims: “We are talking about war crimes here. 70 years after the end of the war, there are still thousands of looted artworks that have not been returned to their families. This is not just about Gurlitt anymore!”

Still waiting on facts

However, now that the spectacular Gurlitt find, which includes priceless works by Matisse, Chagall, and Max Liebermann, is public knowledge, the pressure is on. The German authorities have already had to admit that mistakes were made, and the use of the quasi-military term “taskforce”, the name of the group estabished to clear up the provenance concerning the works, is a clear sign that the matter is being treated as anything but routine. Thus, former Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle wants to bring this unpleasant affair to an end: “We have to be careful not to fritter away the trust we have built up over many decades.”
Back in 1998, the signatories to the Washington Principles publicly committed themselves to identifying art looted by the Nazis, to locating the respective heirs, and to reaching just and fair settlements. Germany, along with 43 other countries, signed off on this convention, which calls upon museums, archives, and public institutions to comb through their collections in search of stolen art. Unfortunately, the Principles are legally non-binding and do not mention private collectors.
That the Principles’ high-minded words were followed up with symbolic gestures rather than real action is made painfully obvious by the skeletons shaken loose from the art world’s closet by the Gurlitt case. While some museums have indeed opened their inventories, it turns out that many of their findings have not been made public. Michael Naumann, Germany’s former Commissioner for Culture and the Media, tells of art works that were recovered from the Allies and are now gathering dust in the halls of the Ministry of Finance – away from the prying eyes of the public.
Some legal scholars and opponents of potential restitution have been trying to argue that Cornelius Gurlitt is the rightful owner of his art collection, given that the statute of limitations for theft lapses afer thirty years. The application of this concept is highly disputed, however. Thus, Munich-based journalist and former public prosecutor Heribert Prantl points out that Hildebrand Gurlitt’s widow and heiress originally claimed the drawings and paintings had been destroyed during the war. This false statement, according to Prantl, suspends the statute of limitations. Augsburg’s Chief Public Prosecutor Reinhard Nemetz has also weighed in with a crystal-clear opinion regarding unethical transactions in which works of art were sold far below their actual value as a result of persecution, or were otherwise immorally acquired by government coercion: “Based on the basic principles of German Civil Law, such transactions are null and void right from the outset. This nullification also applies to the transfer of title. An invalid title cannot be commuted to a valid title merely by way of inheritance.”

Perhaps a solution in sight

Even the restitution process itself is fraught with questions. Anne Webber sums it up this way: “If something was stolen from you, you wouldn’t go to the thief of the item to ask for it back. You would go to an independent authority.” Her words indirectly refer to the fact that Germany does not have a one-stop independent institution empowered to resolve such matters on the basis of pre-defined rules. Thus, the families have usually had to seek a settlement with the museums themselves. This subjects the museums to a conflict of interest, however, since they would naturally prefer to keep their collections intact.
Historian Götz Aly, who has done extensive research on the Nazi’s expropriation of Jewish property, the “aryanization”, proposes that the search for illicitly acquired works of art be extended to German apartments and private homes. According to Aly, every art lover should feel obliged to ask, “Is there someone who misses this particular painting?”
No less than 593 works from the Gurlitt collection are thought to have been looted by the Nazis, while 384 could well be pieces defamed as “degenerate art”. The taskforce has already begun placing part of Gurlitt’s collection on www.lostart.de, the internet database maintained by the German Central Office for the Documentation of Lost Cultural Property. The Gurlitt case has stirred up a great deal that will take time to settle. But at least we now have the opportunity to untangle the knots – and to set things right.

Photo Credit: public domain (Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I)

What Next?

Related Articles