Nazi-looted-art case against Norton Simon Museum set for 2016 trial

[Omaha Steve]

Source: LA Times

By MIKE BOEHM

It's becoming more likely that a jury will decide whether the Norton Simon Museum's "Adam" and "Eve" can stay where they are despite having been looted by the Nazis during World War II.

U.S. District Judge John Walter has tentatively set March 29, 2016, as the opening day for a trial in a case that's already gone on for eight years.

Marei Von Saher, who lives in Connecticut, sued in 2007 for the return of “Adam” and “Eve” as stolen property the invading Nazis had seized from her family in 1940.

The paired paintings, done in 1530 by Lucas Cranach the Elder, were appraised at $24 million in 2006 -- years before the post-recession boom in prices for highly coveted artworks.

FULL story at link.



"Adam" and "Eve," 1530 paintings by Lucas Cranach the Elder that were looted by the Nazis during World War II, are at the center of a legal battle involving the Norton Simon Museum. (Norton Simon Museum)

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm-adam-and-eve-nazi-looted-art-norton-simon-20150710-story.html

[stuffmatters]

1. In the 70's I was blown away Norton Simon owned this dyptich

The Cranach Adam and Eve are about as pivotal to Northern Renaissance art history as Nude Descending the Staircase is to modern European art. When I moved to LA from NY in the 70's, permanent collections in local SoCa art museums were underwhelming. Except for the Norton Simon Museum; the Cranach dyptich was just one of many painting I'd studied in art history classes and was wowed to find in this colorful Indusrialistist's collection/museum in faraway Pasadena.

There are a few outstanding industrialist /personal museums. But none then had the sweep or the depth of the Simon Museum. I remember just thinking it seemed strange that Simon's collection reflected such a vast, eclectic appreciation of art history. Unlike, for example The Frick, another industrialist jewel, Simon didn't focus on one particular period of art history. And I also wondered how in the world Simon acquired these paintings; so many were watershed works in art history that no museum would irresponsibly de-accession or any knowledgeable art collector would easily part with.

The Nazi theft charge unfortunately makes a lot of sense. I wonder how many of the Simon paintings were acquired in the same way. I hope few but sadly suspect more.

[Xithras]

2. The heir isn't actually claiming that Norton Simon bought them from the Nazi's.

The paintings were sold and resold a few times before the museum acquired them. Norton Simon simply has the bad luck of being the owner when the heirs came calling.

Here's the timeline of the paintings:

1931 - Jacques Goudsticcker buys the paintings at auction.
1940 - Germany invades the Netherlands. Goudsticcker flees, leaving his art collection behind. The Nazi's promptly claim it.
1945 - The Allies seize the collection with the fall of Germany.
1946 - The collection is repatriated to the government of the Netherlands so that it can be returned.
1966 - The government of the Netherlands sells the paintings to a private collector.
1971 - The first private collector sells the paintings to a second private collector.
1971 - The paintings are resold again to the Norton Simon Foundation.

Norton Simon's argument is that the paintings are not "looted Nazi art" because they were properly returned to the government of the Netherlands, where Goudsticcker originally had citizenship and which had proper legal authority to oversee their return. The argument is that, if the government of the Netherlands chose to sell the paintings rather than return them, then the heirs have a legal claim against the government of the Netherlands, but not on the paintings themselves (which were sold legally).

It's a complicated legal question. If your property is stolen by a foreign government, and then the property is later returned to YOUR government, and YOUR government chooses to dispose of the property rather than return it to you, who is responsible for compensating you? The foreign government, or your government? Do you still have a right to claim the property from its new owner, even though they purchased it legally? If property rights derive from the government, and the government itself transfers ownership of that property to someone else, do you actually have any legal rights to it any longer?

FWIW, I absolutely do believe that Goudsticcker's descendants should be compensated, but they should not get the paintings. Instead, the government of the Netherlands should compensate them for the fair market value of the painting that THEY sold without the family's permission.