Showing posts with label USHMM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USHMM. Show all posts

20 September 2020

Research and sanity during a pandemic

by Marc Masurovsky

 

Together with millions of men, women and children around the world, we have found ourselves trapped in a reality that we did not invite or want. 200,000 American citizens have lost their lives to a rampant virus which has not spared anyone that it comes into contact with. Failed public policies, reprehensible personal lifestyle choices and political callousness have only exacerbated what experts say was a highly preventable health crisis. 

 

The pandemic has taken a horrendous toll--emotional, physical and economic—on entire communities across the US and around the world. Although wearing a mask has turned out to be a no-brainer cheap way to stem the viral onslaught, for many, it’s an affront. An aspect of human behavior which I cannot fathom.

 

On a personal note….

 

My bedroom/study has become my operational epicenter, a small desk on which all of my tools are assembled—laptop, external drives, headset, printer, pens, post-its, lamp, the requisite pile of books, small teapot, tea cup and phone.  I do my best to keep the tea from spilling on the electronics.

 

My interactions with the outside world are even more filtered and skewed than before, relying almost exclusively on the technology of available bandwidth and uplinks to gain access to the internet, cable television, and Netflix. Staying sane is priority number one, tied with staving off COVID-19. The two have become unhappy bedfellows. Wanting to be hugged and held tight as a sign of human contact and love appear to be far off into the future.

 

On a professional note….

 

How can one make a project move forward that is anchored almost exclusively in on-site archival research? The National Archives are closed, as are the Archives of American Art (AAA) and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM.  The same with museums, universities and libraries.  Fold3.com (a digital container which contains a comprehensive sample of critical records pertaining to plunder during the Nazi years) and other research-focused websites have proven to be (relatively) lifesaving (not by much, though), making it possible to retrieve relevant documents. However, those digital resources have now been exhausted. 

 

The shuttering of archives on both sides of the Atlantic has put on hold, delayed and canceled entire research projects, many of which rely on cohorts of researchers and analysts plowing through archives in Paris, Munich, Koblenz, the Hague, Amsterdam, and London, to name a few. Furloughs and layoffs of research personnel across borders and oceans have been the inevitable consequence, sadly so, especially in the precarious freelance and independent research community but also in research facilities, small and large museums alike, and other cultural institutions. The long-term damage of these surgical operations against human capital is incalculable.

 

Can research projects survive in such a restrictive environment once on-site research and consultation of documents are no longer possible?  Is the Internet really cracked up to serve as a digital surrogate of real life? In the case of deep archival research, the short answer is no.  Data aggregators compiling information about works and objects of art sold at auction for the past three decades provide some limited solace which only fuels more anxiety and apprehension at the thought of conducting in-depth research.

 

Worst case scenario: the research stops, I/we hoist the white flag out of resignation and surrender in the face of a hopelessly vain quest to gain access to and obtain research materials.  

 

On a happier note…

 

The pandemic has put to the test long-established and newly emerging networks of affection and affiliation that bring together researchers, museum professionals, historians, cultural officials, archivists and librarians in many different countries and disciplines.  I can report with great relief that, so far as I have experienced and witnessed them, the ties that bind have so far have seemingly withstood the test of fractured physical encounters as evidenced by the amount of virtual assistance provided by archivists and specialists (so far) in the United States, France, the Netherlands and Germany. They have generously shared thousands of images of archival documents in unexpected expressions of collegiality and international cooperation.  Zoom conferences can only do so much but are a pale substitute for face-to-face organic encounters in enclosed spaces.

 

On a more personal note, the years-long hoarding of print and digital copies of archival documents has proven to be extremely useful. Under non-pandemic circumstances, this behavior might be viewed as suspect and an outward symptom of a serious psychological disorder.  Still, these virtual and physical mountains of documents have proven to be a lifesaver as they contain much relevant information, in most cases with the appropriate archival citation.

 

The continuing bad news is that the global health crisis shows no weakness, travel restrictions remain in place especially between the United States-major culprit in sustaining the pandemic—and a host of countries around the world. The better news is that archives are reopening in Western Europe under less than favorable circumstances for sustained research. The same goes for libraries and museums. Access—albeit limited--is resuming under restrictive conditions.

 

The next few years are going to be extremely challenging. In our narrow niche we explore the devastations wrought against culture, cultural rights and cultural goods, and the complexities of locating and recovering these displaced objects wherever they are.  Access to documents and know-how is essential to unravel the interlacing networks that favor and shape the displacement and dispersal of these objects over time and space. Without access to primary sources and other research efforts, it is difficult and oftentimes nigh impossible to understand the what, where, when, why and by whom of the problem. In order to mitigate our inability to gain access to documents, it is imperative that we shed whatever reluctance and reservation we may have about opening and sharing the knowledge that we have amassed over the years. We need to make it available to those who need it—personal company included--, so that all of our efforts, individual and combined, are not lost and wasted and they can be sustained, strengthened and disseminated so that we may all profit for our own good and for the common good.

 

Stay safe… This too shall pass. But at what price?

04 November 2018

Washington Principle #8: A Critique

by Marc Masurovsky

[Editor's note: Due to the momentous nature of the upcoming international conference to be held in Berlin, Germany, on November 26-28, 2018, and entitled "20 years Washington Principles: Roadmap for the Future," it would be worthwhile to revisit these Principles and to put them through a linguistic, methodological and substantive meat grinder, and see what comes out of this critique. There will be eleven articles, each one devoted to one of the Principles enacted in a non-binding fashion in Washington, DC, on December 3, 1998.]


Principle #8

"If the pre-War owners of art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted, or their heirs, can be identified, steps should be taken expeditiously to achieve a just and fair solution, recognizing this may vary according to the facts and circumstances surrounding a specific case."

On October 5, 2000, a declaration came out of an international forum in Vilnius, Lithuania, which placed heavy emphasis on the search for fair and just solutions “to the return” of looted art and cultural property. It went a bit further than the Washington Principles but did not specify what constituted a just and fair solution to a claim for restitution. Forum participants did ask that “every reasonable effort be undertaken" to “achieve the restitution” of looted cultural assets. What constitutes reasonable effort?

On June 30, 2009, at an International Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets in Prague held under the auspices of the Czech Republic, its participants issued a declaration, called the Terezin Declaration . Among other things, the declaration reiterated the implicit value of the Washington Principles, whereby looted art and cultural property should be “returned to victims or their heirs” but added that such returns be framed “in a manner consistent with national laws and regulations to achieve a just and fair solution.” The ambiguity remains since it is not clear whether restitution is a “just and fair solution” or if “restitution” is a stretchable concept that includes the non-physical return of the claimed object in exchange of a financial settlement with the claimant.

If the return of cultural assets looted during the Nazi years should be consistent with national laws and regulations, most of the signatory countries in Washington, DC in 1998 and in Prague in 2009 have not yet passed any laws or decrees framing the process of restitution of Holocaust-era looted cultural assets. In fact, their courts and legislatures have repeatedly upheld the rights of current possessors against such claims. Moreover, those nations’ cultural policies share one thing in common: the de-accession of objects from State collections is not feasible. If it must be considered as a "just and fair solution", that decision must be brought up before the legislature and/or the competent ministries. In that context, a fair and just solution does not work in favor of a claimant but rather it upholds the sanctity of State-owned or controlled cultural property over the individual rights of claimants. Put simply, the claimants have no control over what is fair and just.

Another way of looking at the logic behind the Washington Principles is that its framers could never have reached a consensus over their issuance without gutting them from the outset, thus protecting the art market, private and public museums alike at the expense of the claimant class, perhaps viewed even in 1998, as a nuisance which already riled governments with legal assaults against the Swiss banking sector over the misuse of private Jewish assets on deposit in Swiss financial institutions.

In retrospect and in anticipation of future discussions, a Holocaust claimant seeking the physical return—restitution—of his/her lost property from the possessing institution, be it public or private, would never have agreed to the notion of ‘a just and fair solution’, if it were to be anything but restitution. On the eve of the November 26-28, 2018 Berlin Conference on the Washington Principles, it is fair to ask whether current possessors, for whom the Principles were framed, have been fair and just to Holocaust claimants? Current possessors are public and private entities

Principle #8 could be rewritten as follows:

If the pre-1933 owners of artistic, cultural and ritual objects confiscated, misappropriated, sold under duress and/or forced sales, subjected to other forms of illicit acts of dispossession by the Nazis, their supporters, profiteers and Fascist allies across Europe between 1933 and 1945 and not subsequently restituted, or their heirs, are identified, steps will be taken expeditiously to initiate restitution proceedings or any other solution deemed just and fair by all parties concerned, according to the facts and circumstances surrounding a specific case. In each and every case, the interests of the claimants will be placed on an equal footing with those of the current possessors.


Update dated 5 July 2025:


Aside from the preposterous assumption that there is a system in place in each country that allows information about the location of Nazi looted art to circulate freely to its intended audience (as of now undefined), the past 27 years have demonstrated convincingly that most governments which sent delegations to the Washington Conference on Holocaust-era assets of 30 November 1998, did nothing to facilitate communication of vital information on the location of Nazi looted art to potential claimants and their families, wherever they may be. Local organizations, agencies and interested groups as well as religious centers (synagogues and yeshivas), continue to be largely ignorant of the real scope of Nazi anti-Jewish plunder from 1933 to 1945 and its postwar consequences and are generally misinformed about restitution processes and the way that potential claimants submit claims and the expectations laid on them by governments and current possessors alike

Washington Principle #8 should be rethought. The so-called Best Practices released to great fanfare in March 2024 under the aegis of the US Department of State, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, and the World Jewish Restitution Organization to name a few, should also be revised to reflect the complex nature of any outreach and information dissemination campaign designed to sensitize Jewish claimants and their families about the existence and whereabouts of looted art objects which might have belonged to to them. The only agency capable of advising claimants is the Holocaust Claims Processing Office (HCPO) in New York City. Theory aside, who is going to pay for such an outreach and information dissemination campaign?

Justice for most families of Nazi victims of plunder and persecution remains elusive.

03 May 2011

An Interactive sneak peek at the schedule for May 6-7, 2011, World War II Provenance Research Seminar in Washington, DC

A New Era of Collaboration and Digitized Resources: 
World War II Provenance Research Seminar
May 6-7, 2011

United States National Archives
700 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20408-0002
(Please use the Special Events Entrance, 
Constitution Avenue between 7th and 9th Streets, NW)

Friday, May 6

9:30 – 10:15 REGISTRATION AND CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST

MORNING SESSION: INTERNATIONAL PORTAL FOR NAZI-ERA CULTURAL PROPERTY RECORDS

10:15 – 11:15 WELCOME

James Hastings, United States National Archives, Washington, DC
Kaywin Feldman, Association of Art Museum Directors

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Jim Leach, National Endowment for the Humanities, Washington, DC
Lynn H. Nicholas, Independent Scholar, Washington, DC

11:15 – 12:15 PRESENTATIONS

Rebecca Warlow, United States National Archives
Hans-Dieter Kreikamp, Federal Archives, Berlin
Anne Webber, Commission for Looted Art in Europe, London
Kyrylo Vyslobokov, Archival Information Systems, Kyiv

12:15 – 1:00 DISCUSSION MODERATED BY

Nancy H. Yeide, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC
Victoria Reed, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

1:00 – 2:00 LUNCH ON YOUR OWN

AFTERNOON SESSION: INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES AND COOPERATIVE PROJECTS FOR NAZI-ERA CULTURAL PROPERTY RECORDS

2:15 – 3:00 PRESENTATIONS

Patricia Kennedy Grimsted, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Cambridge
Marc Masurovsky, Independent Historian, Washington, DC
Wolfgang Schöddert, Ferdinand Möller Archive, Berlinische Galerie, Berlin

3:00 – 3:15 BREAK

3:15 – 4:00 PRESENTATIONS

Andrea Baresel-Brand, Coordination Office for Lost Cultural Assets, Magdeburg
Uwe Hartmann, Bureau for Provenance Investigation and Research, Berlin
Christian Fuhrmeister, Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte (Central Institute for Art History), Munich

4:00 – 4:30 DISCUSSION MODERATED BY

Jane Milosch, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC
Christian Fuhrmeister, Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte

6:00 – 8:00 RECEPTION: FREER GALLERY OF ART, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

Please use the Jefferson Drive entrance, located at 12th Street SW

WELCOME

Richard Kurin, Office of the Under Secretary for History, Art, and Culture, Smithsonian Institution
Julian Raby, Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution

Saturday, May 7

10:00 – 10:30 CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST

MORNING SESSION: ARCHIVAL RESOURCES FOR PROVENANCE RESEARCH, PART I

10:30 – 10:45 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Louisa Wood Ruby, The Frick Art Reference Library, New York

10:45 – 11:30 PRESENTATIONS

Jona Mooren, Nederlandse Museumvereniging (Netherlands Museums Association), Amsterdam, and Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie (Netherlands Institute for Art History), The Hague
Marisa Bourgoin, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution
Michelle Elligott, Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York

11:30 – 12:15 DISCUSSION MODERATED BY

Laurie Stein, Smithsonian Institution
Sarah Kianovsky, Harvard Art Museums, Cambridge

12:15 – 1:30 LUNCH ON YOUR OWN

AFTERNOON SESSION: ARCHIVAL RESOURCES FOR PROVENANCE RESEARCH, PART II

1:45 – 2:30 PRESENTATIONS

Christian Huemer, Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles
Megan Lewis, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC
Anneliese Schallmeiner, Commission for Provenance Research, Vienna

2:30 – 2:45 BREAK

2:45 – 3:30 NEW PROJECTS AND RESOURCES

Helen Schretlen, Nederlandse Museumvereniging
Dorota Chudzicka and David Hogge, Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery
Nancy H. Yeide, Kress Collection Provenance Research Project, National Gallery of Art

3:30 – 4:15 DISCUSSION MODERATED BY

Nancy H. Yeide, National Gallery of Art
Laurie Stein, Smithsonian Institution

4:15 – 4:30 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Lynn H. Nicholas, Independent Scholar

The seminar is sponsored by the United States National Archives, the Association of Art Museum Directors, the American Association of Museums and the Smithsonian Institution, with additional support provided by The Samuel H. Kress Foundation and James P. Hayes.