Historical continuities: Art dealers in Paris

by Marc Masurovsky

While rummaging through the papers of the Perls Galleries located at the Archives of American Art in Washington, DC, I stumbled on a June 1967 listing of members of the Paris-based “Comité professionel des galeries d’art” [equivalent of the Art dealers association in New York] 24 years after the liberation of Paris in late August 1944.

If you take a close look at it, names of victims and recyclers of their confiscated works and objects co-exist in a surreal club of art dealers and gallerists who, like in a Peyton Place-like farce, know of each other’s dirty laundry but continue to do business, because, you know, business first, ethics later, justice? What’s that?

Out of 140 gallerists members of the local dealers' association in June 1967, 34 had been active during the period of German occupation. And here they are still doing business in groovy mid-1960s Paris. Why should that worry us? It all depends on the way you look at the transition from a wartime art market to a postwar art market. On the one hand, it must be somewhat galling to be conducting business amongst individuals who shrugged their shoulders when art works belonging to their Jewish acquaintances or colleagues were offered to them for sale and they did not blink at the opportunity to do so. On the other hand, the cynical ones will tell you that it’s always been like this and you need to suck it up and make your peace with it. Otherwise you won’t last and you might as well pick another occupation. And don’t count on the government to sort out the ethics of this amoral mess. 

The past two decades since the Washington Conference on Holocaust-era Assets of December 1998 have been littered with vain attempts to create change in the way that the art world conducts its business. Although the changes are hard to discern, one thing is sure: the word “provenance” is unavoidable and unmistakable and so is its evil twin, “due diligence.” That’s progress!

Source: Perls Galleries Records, Archives of American Art, Box 8, Folder “Comité professionnel des galeries d’art”

The “heirless” game update.

by Marc Masurovsky

One would have thought that this matter of who owns what object stolen during the Nazi era would have been settled by now. After all, either one can identify the owner or not.

Simple? Not quite.

The identification process of the rightful owner of an art object which was looted between January 30, 1933 and May 9, 1945, requires research. That effort is tedious and laborious in personnel days stretching into months and in other ancillary costs—travel, lodging, and other related indirect expenses associated with the collection of information located in remote sites far away from the site of discovery of the looted object.

When there are umpteen thousand objects whose owners are not readily identifiable, the problem becomes compounded and requires a political solution at the international level.

During the worst humanitarian tragedy of the 20th century, namely the Holocaust and the genocidal campaign against the Jews of Europe, every Jewish household on the European continent which lay in the path of the Nazis and their local henchmen was subjected to plunder, seizure, and, oftentimes, destruction. Where did the contents of these Jewish households go? Everywhere.

When the Second World War ended, Jewish-owned property was strewn all across Europe. The more appealing items, those with acknowledged value, could be found in commercial outlets everywhere. Those with appreciable value because of their authorship and aesthetic quality entered private and public collections, crossed international borders, and became fully incorporated into the cultural heritage of numerous nations (read State-owned museums) and a host of private and public collections.

On 3 December 1998, at the Washington Conference on Holocaust-era assets, a set of 11 non-binding principles were put forth, largely inspired by the American museum community, to guide nations and their cultural sector in the treatment of objects shown to having been displaced during the Nazi era.

Principle #9 addressed the unidentifiable ownership issue:

“If the pre-War owners of art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis, or their heirs, cannot be identified, steps should be taken expeditiously to achieve a just and fair solution.” I referred to this as “diplomatic hogwash.”

We are now nearing the end of 2019 and, still, there is no comprehensive approach to the disposition of art objects deemed “heirless.”

First, let’s go back to the wording. An object is “heirless” if there is no one around today to claim it as his/her rightful property by descent. To determine that the object is “heirless”, one has to conduct extensive research into its pre-Holocaust ownership. No research, no “heirless” verdict. The object remains in limbo land. After all, you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a person of Jewish faith owned the object. How can you tell if an object was owned by someone Jewish? Does it exude some mysterious aura which is reminiscent of something “Jewish”? That is preposterous. We saw this egregious behavior with the Gurlitt scandal. And yet, intelligent people walk into German museums and proclaim that all objects in their collections with uncertain ownership which were accessioned after 1933 are, most likely, the property of Jewish owners. To that, I say categorically: “No!”.

What to do?

Back in June 26-30, 2009, I attended the official follow-up conference to the Washington Conference on Holocaust-era Assets. There, I spoke and suggested that the international community should establish “an international entity responsible for the return of such objects to their rightful owners and to dispose of so-called heirless objects in a manner that is of ultimate benefit to the families of victims, and which underwrites and promotes further research into the fate of such objects.”

Much ink has been spilled since June 2009. Looking back, it is clear that a proper resolution of the “heirless” problem is to conduct systematic provenance research in public and private collections worldwide. The likelihood of art objects with uncertain provenance which might have been the property of a Jewish owner is high in European, Israeli, and American collections. That’s where the research focus should be placed. To conduct such research, funds are required. A timeline should be established to research these objects and determine, once and for all, whether or not they are heirless. Once that decision is made, all concerned groups and governments should hammer out an acceptable solution to the final disposition of these objects.

I am clearly opposed to the following:

1/ wholesale liquidation through auction sales;
2/ wholesale transfer of these objects to Israeli institutions.

Point 2 is not feasible simply because it places an unacceptable burden on Israeli cultural institutions to welcome a potential tens of thousands of objects affected by this process. No institution can absorb them. And what good does it do to place these objects in warehouses? And, in any event, they do not belong to Israel. To apply the language of international pronunciamentos on cultural rights, they belong to “humankind.”

The solution that I favor is to ask museums which host these objects, most likely to tell their story as accurately as possible in order to educate the public. Their mission is in part to educate and share knowledge with their visitors, rather than cherry pick which objects should be discussed, at the expense of those objects with tortured histories. This reasoning also applies to looted antiquities, indigenous objects, ritual and sacred artifacts plundered from communities worldwide.

There are many other ways by which to honor “heirless” objects and their unknown owners. But the first step is to stop the political posturing and to come up with a scientific, rational approach to clear up the ownership issue. For that to happen, it requires a substantial investment, but it is an investment that all concerned nations need to share.

Washington Principle #11: A Critique

by Marc Masurovsky

[Editor's note: Due to the momentous nature of the upcoming international conference 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 #11
Nations are encouraged to develop national processes to implement these principles, particularly as they relate to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving ownership issues.

This principle, to put it mildly, translated into a big zero plus one. It escaped absolute zero because of Austria’s decision to pass an actual Art Restitution Act. However imperfect it may be, it’s a law, it’s been effectual, and it still exists.

The same cannot be said for the four other nations hosting a restitution committee of sorts focused on cultural claims—France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany never followed in the footsteps of the Austrians. Apparently, the stakes were sufficiently high for the Austrians to pass their law, prompted by the physical seizure of works of art by an iconic “national treasure” named Egon Schiele, while on display at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Seizure, sequestration, were the tools that provoked mayhem among Austrian lawmakers, politicians, and museum administrators to “act”. Does the same scenario have to unfold for other countries to pass a restitution law? The answer may unfortunately be yes.

The failure of Principle #11 underscores the overall failure of the legacy of the Washington Conference on Holocaust-era assets of December 1998. Not one of the signatories to the Washington Principles saw fit, once he/she returned to their respective homeland, to set in motion a national debate on the notion of restitution of art objects looted during the Nazi era, which would lead to comprehensive legislation and/or decrees establishing some form of mechanism with which to address those claims. Not one.

To make matters worse and, perversely, ironic, those nations which are so anxious to recover their State cultural losses—Italy, Belgium, Poland, are standouts—refuse outright to return to the rightful owners art objects in their public collections which clearly have been proven to be looted, no questions asked, historical evidence on hand to support those claims. The double standard is brazen but real and continues to function unabated, despite international calls for these nations to honor restitution claims. To paraphrase government officials from those nations, they are happy to restitute the objects as long as the claimants don’t mind coming to their country to “visit” with the object while it is still on display in a museum collection.

The most important hurdle that these nations face when confronted with a restitution claim is how to de-accession these objects from State-run collections. Few of those nations have on their books a comprehensive de-accession law that extends to the return of objects claimed by individuals, as opposed to nations.

Principle #11 could be rewritten as follows:

Nations shall enact directives, laws and decrees as appropriate to implement these principles, particularly as they relate to the resolution of ownership issues. These directives or laws should include comprehensive de-accession procedures that apply to art objects looted or displaced during the Nazi era which are the subject of a restitution claim.

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.

Washington Principle #7: A Critique

by Marc Masurovsky

[Editor's note: Due to the momentous nature of the upcoming international conference in Berlin, Germany, 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 #7
Pre-War owners and their heirs should be encouraged to come forward and make known their claims to art that was confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted.

In June 2011, we noted the following:

“There is nothing good to be said about Principle VII except for the fact that there are no solid mechanisms put into place to allow all owners to come forward and make their claims known regardless of socio-economic background. It is one thing to make their claims known, but the purpose of publicizing a claim is to obtain justice. Principle VII is uninformed and useless until effective national and international public policies are enacted to systematize the processes inherent to this principle and protective of the rights of claimants to seek redress without penalties.”

Seven years later, there has not been substantial progress in establishing mechanisms for “pre-war owners and their heirs to come forward.” Those who are directly related to the victims of plunder are now the grandchildren and great-grandchildren. In other words, they are three to four times removed from the crime and the loss suffered during the Third Reich. What little memory of the events stayed with the victims proper has all but vanished and few of those evidentiary strands have been transmitted to the next generation so that it can sue for redress.

The more likely path is from the outside—researchers, genealogists, aggressive lawyers, historians and the like—are those more likely to stumble on the evidence of the crime and the losses suffered by individuals. These external players are more likely than not to contact the heirs of the pre-war owners with the evidence of their losses. For a fee, unfortunately. In this regard, governments have created little monsters on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, by not rising above the fray and taking on the mantle of justice for the victims of plunder. Leaving the field wide open for entrepreneurs and private sector players to set the rules for how research is conducted and, more importantly, how claims are to be handled and prosecuted.

Seven years after our initial assessment of the effectiveness of Principle #7, it is time to call it for what it is—a total failure and an open invitation for profiteering at the expense of the claimants, of history and of justice.

Principle #7 could be rewritten and expanded as follows:

The parties signatory to the Washington Principles of December 3, 1998, must ensure that all efforts will be made to disseminate information to as wide public as possible regarding the mechanisms by which pre-war owners and their heirs can make their claims known. Also, pre-1933 owners and their heirs must be encouraged to submit their claims for 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.

Washington Principle #6: A Critique

by Marc Masurovsky

[Editor's note: Due to the momentous nature of the upcoming international conference in Berlin, Germany, 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 #6
VI. Efforts should be made to establish a central registry of such information.

“a central registry”:

The best way to kill an idea is to promote it and then abandon it. Ever since the “art restitution” movement kicked up some dust, there was talk of creating a central database of all art losses suffered by Jewish owners between 1933 and 1945. As the saying goes, talk is cheap while money talks. In the heady days of the late 1990s, much like the frightening realities which have set in worldwide as of 2016, it was easy to discuss the creation of a central database—a digital registry—of all cultural losses because no one had done it and, to accomplish this minor feat, one needed access to documents and lots of them (Principle #2), as well as a heap of resources and personnel (Principle #3). Since neither were forthcoming, then and now, twenty years later, the proposal put forth by the framers of the Principles is somewhat disingenuous.

After all, do they understand what effort it takes to undertake a central registry of all art
“confiscated” and displaced by the Nazis and their allies? It is a massive undertaking, which requires international cooperation, international partners, staff at multiple sites, a rugged online database, even more rugged servers, and teams of data extractors and data entry specialists. In 2018 dollars, a multi-million dollar affair. In 1998 dollars, it would have been much cheaper to accomplish.

The arguments around a central registry are legendary and date back to the aftermath of WWII when some of the Allied cultural advisers working in Munich, Germany, were bemoaning the fact that there was no central card index of art losses available for them to use as a reference source.

That discussion of a central registry died miserably especially when it became obvious that large postwar NGOs like the recently-established UNESCO did not succeed in taking over from the Allied powers the mantle of documenting and researching art losses suffered by victims of Nazism and Fascism.

In the 1990s, the idea has been repeatedly pooh-poohed as too expensive, impossible to undertake, and so forth. Meanwhile, as the arguments linger on from year to year, nothing gets done, which seems to be the point, no? So, proposing a central registry of art losses is tantamount to crying: The King is dead! Long live the King!—Substitute queen for king if that is your preference. In other words, it will not get done by the signatories of the Washington Principles because they have no interest in such a project. Why did they agree to it? Why sign off? Because it was easier to sign off than to challenge the idea, a hint that the intention to transform the principles into “hard law” never existed.

In June 2011, we noted that, based on the evidence, “Principle #6 is hereby decreed to be an unadulterated sham.” We still believe it today.

Principle #6 could be rewritten and broadened as follows:

Efforts shall be made to establish a central, fully searchable and interactive digital repository 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 their Fascist allies across Europe between 1933 and 1945.

Washington Principle #5: A Critique

by Marc Masurovsky

[Editor's note: Due to the momentous nature of the upcoming international conference in Berlin, Germany, 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 #5:
V. Every effort should be made to publicize art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted in order to locate its pre-War owners or their heirs.
“Every effort should be made to publicize”:

Whose job is it in the first place to do so?

It’s a nice idea but effort takes …. effort on the part of those who are expected to make such an effort.

Historically, governments, their ministries and agencies, have taken on the mantle of outreach in order to inform targeted populations and communities about the possibility for them to claim looted objects which may belong to their relatives, close or distant, so that they could consider a claim for restitution.

Decades after the crime of plunder has stripped millions of people of their belongings, it’s not so clear who or what is responsible for displaying such an effort.

Individual museums built web pages that contained images and descriptions of objects which they had selected as falling within the broad category of having “unavoidable gaps” for the period 1933-1945. Then the American Alliance (ex-Association) of Museums (AAM) built a website called the Nazi-era Provenance Internet Portal (NEPIP) whose aim is to bring together all of the objects identified by American museums as displaying a provenance gap for the relevant period (1933-1945)

Auction houses have no reporting responsibility. Galleries have no reporting responsibilities and, therefore, are not required to make an effort in identifying these kinds of objects which they buy and sell.

Are Jewish organizations responsible for this publicity effort? The Christian world always expects Jews to take care of their own issues as displayed fervently after the end of WWII when the US Army wanted to extricate itself of the business of caring for objects looted from Jewish victims and in 1946 when the international community designated two organizations—which happened to be Jewish—to oversee the looted asset question as it applied to Jewish victims, of course.

With such lack of specificity, it is difficult to understand what the framers of the Principles had in mind when they called for “every effort”.

Even if the co-authors of the Washington Principles thought that Jewish organizations would handle the publicity effort around objects that could be claimed, they still had to be coaxed into it, considering that no single Jewish organization was even remotely interested in assisting Jews with their restitution claims for looted art.

With all of this in mind, is Principle V a diplomatic expression of wishful thinking on the part of its framers? Did they give this issue much thought before they sat down and vaguely announced that “every effort should be made”? It’s good to remember that, without Principle I—identification--, Principle II—access to archives—Principle III-resources and personnel--, Principle V has no reason to exist.

By all accounts, Principle V does not rise to the standard of a self-governing principle. It requires crutches and other aids so that the average reader can understand it.

In June 2011, we noted that “Principle V is a double-edged sword and the dull edge of the sword is on full display.”

Principle #5 could be rewritten and broadened as follows:

In order to facilitate the location of pre-1933 owners and/or their heirs, every effort shall be made to draw up and disseminate to as wide a public as possible all information regarding 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.

Washington Principle #4: A Critique

by Marc Masurovsky

[Editor's note: Due to the momentous nature of the upcoming international conference in Berlin, Germany, 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 #4
IV. In establishing that a work of art had been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted, consideration should be given to unavoidable gaps or ambiguities in the provenance in light of the passage of time and the circumstances of the Holocaust era.

In view of the number of legally-trained individuals who are involved in international diplomatic negotiations and the drafting of complex documents for submission to representatives of many foreign nations, one would think that better care would be paid to vocabulary.

“work of art”:

The definitions vary for this word grouping. For some, “work of art” is interchangeable with “art piece” or “artwork” or “objet d’art”. For others, it has a narrower and more elitist meaning: “an object made with great skill, especially a painting, a drawing, or a statue.”  One way or another, high quality is synonymous with those words. And those words exclude all other “objets d’art” which, ironically, serve as synonym for “works of art.”

“consideration”:

Another way of saying “Careful thought” or “deliberation.”

“unavoidable gaps” in provenance:

As there are no uniform standards that define what an “unavoidable gap” is in the history of ownership (provenance) of a cultural, artistic or ritual object, let’s give this our “consideration.”

It is a well-established fact that we will never know everything about the history of an object. The older it is, the less likely it is that we can reconstruct a detailed path of ownership for the object in question. However, the obverse is equally true. The more we search for information about the history of an object, the more likely we are to develop a clearer history of that object, notwithstanding the “unavoidable” gaps. But one important function of research is to narrow these “unavoidable gaps.” If Principle III is properly put into effect, chances are that researchers can fill these gaps. But to what extent can they? It all depends on access to materials (Principle II) in public and private archives that can shed light on their owners and the objects they owned.

If we follow the dicta of global museums such as the British Museum, the provenance will contain only “relevant” and “important” information. Another layer of complexity, another filter of information added to the task of “filling the unavoidable gap.”

Quite clearly, this principle was written with a Museum association in mind which rails constantly against those who demand that their provenances be impeccable and gap-free. No one has and will ever make such a request from a museum or gallery or auction house.

Gap-filling (not like at the dentist’s) pertains mostly to the 1933-1945 period. It would be good practice on the part of museums, and the rest of the art world, to exercise enough diligence so as to include as much “relevant” information as possible in the provenance of an object under their care and ownership.

Gaps are unavoidable because no one has paid enough attention to them and considered them to be “normal.” If the art world changes its behavior towards the writing of a provenance, the gap issue might wither away naturally. But, being the optimist that I am, it will take at least twenty years for such behavior to change on a systematic, industry-wide scale across continents.

“Ambiguities”:

That word can only be addressed through careful research. The structure of the provenance itself allows its author or anyone else for that matter to use footnotes in order to address the “ambiguities” inherent in the provenance. That strategy has been in force for quite some time and appears to work very well.

“passage of time”:

Time is elusive and so are record-keeping and people’s memories. Passage of time is a non-issue and should not even be included. In fact, when one reads that expression, one can only see a veiled threat by a museum invoking “latches” and flinging it at the claimant for not having “done enough” to research the fate of his/her object.

“circumstances of the Holocaust era”:

A lovely historical misnomer which reduces the relevant domain of inquiry to the period 1940-1945. In other words, it is a misreading of history and is inconsistent with the phrasing “Nazi era” which lasted from 1933 to 1945.

In June 2011, we noted that “Principle IV is the kiss of death for claimants. No one follows this Principle because provenance is everything. If there is a gap in the provenance, it is because the information is not available. If the information is not available, it is because access is being denied to the relevant information.” Hence, Principle IV is wishful thinking at best and utter diplomatic cynicism at worst. It can only be salvaged if action is taken to enforce Principles II and III.

Principle #4 could be rewritten and expanded as follows:

In establishing that a cultural, artistic and/or ritual object has been confiscated, misappropriated, been subject to a forced sale and/or other acts of illicit dispossession by the Nazis, their supporters, profiteers and Fascist allies across Europe between 1933 and 1945 and not subsequently restituted, every diligent effort shall be made to produce as complete a provenance as possible by filling gaps and resolving ambiguities produced within and/or facilitated by a context of racial persecution, warfare, and genocide during the entire period of the Third Reich, the Holocaust, and the Second World War, across Axis-controlled Europe between 1933 and 1945.

Washington Principle #3: A Critique

by Marc Masurovsky

[Editor's note: Due to the momentous nature of the upcoming international conference in Berlin, Germany, 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 #3

III. Resources and personnel should be made available to facilitate the identification of all art that had been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted.

“Resources and personnel”:

The only way to ensure that a principle is enacted properly is to allocate resources and personnel which are dedicated to ensuring its viability. In the case of “identification of all art”, the “art” in question is located in a myriad places, both public and private, accessible and inaccessible. Even if archives are open, someone has to do the research and be paid for it. If museums grant access to their records, someone has to be able to consult them and be paid for that task. If we ask art institutions to cover those costs, little will be done, that’s for certain. Hence, external sources of funding have to be made available in the form of grants, fellowships, project funds, to allow institutions to recruit the personnel needed to conduct relevant searches into relevant records so as to “identify all art”. The only country that has done so, and to a limited extent truth be told, is Germany. After Germany, we have Austria. And that’s about the extent of it, with scattered efforts to work on discrete projects with no immediate consequence on the ability to “identify all art that had been confiscated” and displaced by other means. The United States, case in point, has turned out to be a miserable failure in this department, its government providing neither resources nor personnel to make good on its own dicta stemming from the Washington Conference on Holocaust Assets of December 1998.

But in order to “identify all art”, one must know what one is searching for. The widespread lack of understanding of the crime of plunder is staggering and impedes any large-scale at identifying the relevant objects that may fall under the category of “confiscated,” “dispossessed”, “sold under duress,” “looted”, “plundered,” etc.

In June 2011, we noted an inconsistency in language between Principles I and III: “Principle III embraces the notion that “all art” confiscated by the Nazis should be identified, as opposed to Principle I which just discusses “art.” Did the diplomats of the Washington Conference intend to maintain this inconsistency for any particular reason? Principle III is a massive failure.”

On a more positive note, we note that the Gurlitt exercise (since 2013) has forced the German government to reassess its provenance research funding priorities with a view to increasing funds allocated to German museums. A side effect of the Gurlitt exercise has been to compel the Swiss government to acknowledge that there has never been any systematic effort in Swiss museums to conduct research into their holdings. The Gurlitt collection’s presence at the Kunstmuseum of Bern is changing this dynamic as basic funds are being allocated for a limited study of Swiss institutions to survey their collections for any item falling under the rubric of “confiscated” or “displaced” during the 1933-1945 period. Of course, these objects would have been misappropriated in another country and then brought into Switzerland.

Likewise, an international conference recently convened in Jerusalem on October 4 renewed a call from Jewish groups worldwide to focus on provenance research as a way of identifying so-called “heirless” property.

And the regional provenance research project, TransCultAA, recently funded by the European Union, has shown the way to create historical research projects addressing the “translocation” of Jewish-owned cultural assets at the regional level, in this case the area flanked by Austria, Italy, and the Western Balkans.

For research to take place, it requires capital and people. It won’t happen without them. We’ve been twenty years for Principle #3 to be implemented on a systematic scale and it has not happened to date. The failure lies with the signatory governments to the Washington Conference of December 1998 who essentially made a deceitful commitment to provide such resources and personnel. Hence, Principle #3 is a failure.

Principle #3 should be rewritten and expanded as follows:

Resources and personnel “grants, fellowships, project funds and other financial allocation mechanism, shall be made available to facilitate the identification of all 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.

Washington Principle #2: A Critique

by Marc Masurovsky

[Editor's note: Due to the momentous nature of the upcoming international conference in Berlin, Germany, 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 #2

II. Relevant records and archives should be open and accessible to researchers, in accordance with the guidelines of the International Council on Archives.

“Relevant”:

Archival collections abound worldwide. Most of them consist of documents, reports, correspondence, photographs, transcripts, memoranda, lists, etc., compiled by municipal, regional and national agencies, both civilian and military. “Relevance” addresses the extent to which these archives shed light on the fate of cultural objects owned by Jewish individuals, their families, friends, businesses, and the like. Hence, these documents can be found in financial, cultural, economic, administrative, police, political, and other archival collections. They name objects, names of people, and locations where objects were located, extracted, transferred, bought and sold, traded, exchanged, ferried, crated, and deposited.

Access to archival records produced since the 1930s has grown exponentially from North America to Western and Central Europe. However, there has also been a reaction to such open access under various disguises: privacy concerns, national security concerns, legal concerns.

Where access to “relevant” documents is granted, the right to publish the documents is suppressed, especially in their digital form. The right to publish and reproduce documents extracted from public and private records will remain a source of friction for some time until privacy concerns are eased for documents that are now more than 80 years old.

In June 2011, we noted the following:

“The main hitch that impedes exhaustive research into Nazi/Fascist looting is the difficulty experienced by all researchers in gaining access to private archives and especially those developed by art dealers, art collectors, private and State-owned museums, and other cultural institutions. As noted in recent court cases in the United States, American museums have been loath to release all records that would shed a full historical light on transactions involving works being claimed for restitution. There, Principle II continues to be completely ineffectual.”

Since 1998, there has been very little progress registered in gaining access to private gallery and museum records. Art trade practitioners continue to hide behind shields of trade secrecy, confidentiality, protection of clients’ and consigners’ identities, amid general suspicion that the desire for access to their records rests on dark motives. All that one wants to know is how objects travel from one point to the next. Art market professionals should feel bold enough to share such information without sacrificing confidential and sensitive client information. But to gain this level of trust requires a lot of handholding and one-on-one communication that could take a lifetime to achieve with meager results. Hence, new strategies should be explored in order to gain access to such records. Otherwise the full truth shall never be known as to the fate of thousands of objects from the time of their forced removal from Jewish ownership to their present whereabouts.

Principle #2 could be rewritten and expanded as follows:

All records and archives must be declassified, open and accessible to researchers, in accordance with the guidelines of the International Council on Archives, EU directives and other relevant legal and diplomatic instrumentalities. In consultation with art trade representatives, mechanisms shall be developed and implemented to ensure that proper access to relevant documents is ensured for all those who request it under conditions that are mutually agreed to between the parties.

Washington Principle #1: A critique

by Marc Masurovsky

[Editor's note: Due to the momentous nature of the upcoming international conference in Berlin, Germany, 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.]


Washington Principle #1

I. Art that had been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted should be identified.
“Art”:

In conventional terms, we think of “art” as paintings, works on paper, and sculpture, especially of the highest quality, museum-worthy pieces. This definition would be consistent with the overall approach applied by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and other countries in the immediate postwar years as their agencies searched for looted “art.” But in reality, “art” covers many disciplines and media, many forms of expression and purposes whose quality varies greatly in content, style and esthetics. Most of the “art” that had been “confiscated” by the Nazis did not consist solely of paintings, works on paper, and sculpture. It included furniture, accessories, other kinds of decorative objects, any object that, although functional, and even ritualistic presents esthetic values which would earn it the label of “art.” The ERR database, for instance, is clear proof of this broad expanse known as “art.”

“confiscated by the Nazis”: 

the word connotes an order from on high to seize someone’s property. Hence, we are to understand that the Nazi government or authorities order the “confiscation” of “art” from their designated victims. This narrow definition of how “art” changed hands illicitly begs for clarification as it is historically reductionist and therefore conveys a skewed vision of the historical reality. The word “confiscated” excludes other forms of dispossession brought about as a consequence of the Nazi seizure of power in January 1933 and does not reflect the myriad ways in which property owned by Jews could be forced out of their hands.

“not subsequently restituted”: 

what does “restituted” really mean in this context? Physically returned to the aggrieved individual or entity whose “art” was “confiscated”? Does it mean “returned” to the country of origin? The lack of clarity fills this word with ambiguity.

“should be identified”: 

it’s not an obligation, mind you. But just in case the thought crossed your mind, would you be so kind and identify “art” confiscated” by the Nazis which sits in your midst? And to whom is this Principle addressed? To museums—public and private? To art galleries and auction houses? To individual private owners? To institutional owners? To religious entities? It’s hard to know. And how does “identified” work? Is it simply a question of spotting the item in a collection, taking notes of its presence, and leaving for lunch? The mission inherent in Principle #1 is narrow in scope. What do you do once the object is identified? And how is it identified? Using what methods, exactly?

In June 2011, we wrote that “the process of identification, in and of itself, is known as a Catch-22—it contains its own paradox. In order to identify looted art, one must understand the concept of looting. Looting, per se, can be as simple as forced removal of property at the point of a gun and/or with the assistance of local law enforcement and judicial authorities working in tandem with the occupation authority. It can also be the result of so-called forced sales or duress sales. There, too, we run into problems because not every country that attended the Washington Conference even acknowledges that such sales occurred on its territory during those fateful dark years.” And so it goes. After 20 years or so, “there are no firm standards by which to move forward on identification…Moreover, this Principle does not make it explicit that such efforts should be exhaustive and definitive. Hence, each country can produce an ‘ad minima’ effort and feel that it has abided by Principle I. How diplomatic!” 

Principle #1 could be rewritten and expanded as follows:

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 to their rightful owners shall be identified using the highest standards of scientific and empirical research and analysis.

Twenty years of Washington Principles: yet another conference

by Marc Masurovsky

On November 26-28, 2018, almost exactly twenty years after the start of the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets, the German Lost Art Foundation will host an international “specialist” conference entitled: “20 Years of Wash­ing­ton Prin­ci­ples: Chal­lenges for the Fu­ture”. The aims of the conference are as follows:

“Be­gin­ning with a look back at the Wash­ing­ton Con­fer­ence of 1998, the con­fer­ence aims to dis­cuss the de­vel­op­ments that have tak­en place in the in­di­vid­u­al coun­tries since then, in or­der to ad­dress a num­ber of ques­tions for the fu­ture: What spec­trum is there for fair and just so­lu­tions? How can open gaps in prove­nance be dealt with? What does prove­nance re­search need in or­der to be able to work ef­fec­tive­ly? How can its meth­ods be used ad­e­quate­ly in ed­u­ca­tion and train­ing, in ex­hi­bi­tions and in mu­se­um com­mu­ni­ca­tion? And above all: What con­tri­bu­tion to a cul­ture of re­mem­brance can prove­nance re­search achieve?"

Twenty years ago, eleven Washington Principles were defined and issued as non-binding recommendations for national governments, cultural institutions and the proverbial art market to follow and abide by as a “soft” means of raising awareness about the racially- and politically-motivated displacements of Jewish-held property, cultural and other, between 1933 and 1945, which provoked illegal transfers of title and ownership from Jewish to non-Jewish possessors. Since then, there have been countless lawsuits and judicial proceedings filed by Holocaust claimants and their families in different legal settings on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean to try and recover what they argued was rightfully theirs. At the same time, museums and auction houses were placed under closer scrutiny, not by regulatory overseers, but by lawmakers, Jewish officials, lawyers, historians, researchers, journalists and NGO’s, in how they presented the contents of their collections, especially those items that were transacted between 1933 and 1945. In the case of the two largest auction houses, Christie’s and Sotheby’s, their sales and consignment practices fell under the magnifying glass to screen the provenance of items offered for sale and ensure that they did not indicate possible mishandling during the Nazi years, which could lead to a possible claim to block the sale of the item in order to facilitate a restitution to an aggrieved owner.

How can open gaps in prove­nance be dealt with?

Way too much ink has been spilled since the late 1990s on the subject of “provenance research.” Art historians and museum professionals had never encountered such pressure to explicitly describe and, many times, justify their recourse to “provenance research” in their daily practice as a means by which to ensure that the institution which they served was freed of any possible accusation of holding items which had been illegally displaced during the Nazi years and never returned to their rightful owners. One of the key issues motivating such research was “how to fill gaps” in the known ownership history of objects under their care or being offered for sale through auction houses or in other market venues. Filling a provenance gap has become a regular feature of provenance research, discussed at a plethora of conferences, symposia, and colloquia, organized both inside and outside academic circles in North America, Europe and even Asia. Researchers of all stripes and convictions have built part time or full time careers (as long as they work for defense lawyers and governments!) delving into the sinews of ownership trails to try and find crucial details that might fill up the spatio-temporal abyss known as “the gap.”

Here we are, in 2018, contemplating yet another international conference to reminisce over the Washington Principles. At that conclave, participants will be asked to contemplate “how to deal with open gaps in provenances.” What exactly has happened since 1998, if it is not putting into place complex strategies on how to address those “gaps.” It is hard to imagine how this question is pertinent unless the organizers of the conference have not been keeping tabs with the evolution of the provenance research field, however quixotic it has been.

What spec­trum is there for fair and just so­lu­tions?

Washington Principle #8 states: 

“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.” As stated in previous articles published on the plundered-art blog, the idea of “a just and fair solution” was not the brainchild of a Holocaust claimant seeking the physical return—restitution—of his/her lost property from the possessing institution, be it public or private.

The real question should be: have current possessors been fair and just to Holocaust claimants? Please explain your response, whether positive or negative.

What does prove­nance re­search need in or­der to be able to work ef­fec­tive­ly?

The framers of the November Berlin conference on Washington Principles should make up their minds about the focus of their gathering. Is it about the future of the Washington Principles or is it about provenance research? Is it about assessing the merits and limitations of the Principles or is it about provenance research? Are they suggesting that provenance research lies at the root of restitution proceedings and “fair and just solutions”? If so, they should state this idea openly. In other words, they seem mighty confused about what they are trying to achieve in November 2018, as if twenty years have come and gone without them witnessing too much. One can grow impatient with such “innocent” questions raised almost in rhetorical fashion to stimulate a discussion which might not actually happen. If one wishes to delve deep into the vagaries and limitations imposed on provenance research by institutions subsidizing and acquiring such research, the discussion might soon become contentious. But contention is not a desired outcome, much as it unfolded at the Franco-German Bonn Conference of November 2017 on the wartime art market in France, where the fault lines on the financing of research in Germany by the Lost Art Foundation were exposed in a rather blunt manner. Do we want such a recurrence to take place in Berlin? I doubt it. If that is the case, the line of questioning should be altered and focused on the crucial issues facing provenance research—lack of funding, lack of focus, too much political meddling in the direction of the research.

How can [the] meth­ods [of provenance research] be used ad­e­quate­ly in ed­u­ca­tion and train­ing, in ex­hi­bi­tions and in mu­se­um com­mu­ni­ca­tion?

That’s a rather funny question because most museums—public and private—in Europe and North America oppose almost religiously any discussion of National Socialism, the Holocaust, the Second World War, Nazi expansionism, collaboration with the Nazis, as integral parts of the narrative to explain how these movements, trends, and events would have shaped the fate of objects in their collections. So instead of asking “innocently” how these methods can be used “in ed­u­ca­tion and train­ing, in ex­hi­bi­tions and in mu­se­um com­mu­ni­ca­tion”, perhaps the framers of the Berlin conference should provide a sober assessment to the participants as a starting point:

There is no education, there is very little provenance training, if any, there is no talk of the larger historical context in the presentation of ownership histories in exhibitions and in “museum communication”. Ask why that is, instead of pretending that there is training and education.

What con­tri­bu­tion to a cul­ture of re­mem­brance can prove­nance re­search achieve?

This question is astounding in and of itself. It might subsume that restitutions and “fair and just solutions” combined will become obsolete and a thing of the past. Instead of focusing on justice, why not use the history of objects to engage in “remembrance” of lost lives, lost art, the Holocaust and all of its ugliness. Isn’t it better that way? Remembrance is the ticket out for many people to clear their conscience and feel that they are being morally and ethically correct in how they treat objects with dubious histories. Perhaps, we should just set aside the ugliness of the past and focus instead on the loss of human life, as perceived or hinted at through the history of objects with Holocaust-laden stories and interruptions.

It’s hard to fathom how, after twenty years, adult men and women who are supposed to be experts and who are respected for their wisdom and insights, who occupy positions of leadership in institutions that steer and foster research and education on the most complex, most heinous crime—genocide and its corollary, plunder—perpetrated by men and women against other men, women, and children, only because of what they were—Jews--, can propose a framework of discussion which suggests that not much has happened in the twenty years that elapsed since the Washington Conference on Holocaust Assets.

I am tongue-tied.

In the mean time, the best advice that I can give is to hold a parallel conference that discusses the following themes:

-Throw out the Washington Principles, rewrite them and adapt them to the realities of the 21st century;

-Forget about “fair and just solutions”: they constitute a corporate welfare program for claimants, or how to buy out the claim without losing title to looted works in one’s collection.

-Fund provenance research at much higher levels than they are currently,

-Establish provenance research training programs on both sides of the Atlantic in order to train new generations of researchers, art historians into the finer aspects of contextual research that actually weaves the larger history into the history of displaced objects and inculcates critical thinking into their methodologies.

-Learn how to tell stories that are meaningful and truthful, not spun and woven tales designed to make museums feel better about themselves.

Provenance research can be challenging

by Marc Masurovsky

In the two decades since the now-infamous Washington Conference on Holocaust-era Assets of December 1998 which produced the "Washington Principles." many American museums were placed quite naturally on the defensive since they became the focal point of attention of lawmakers, Jewish organizations, an emerging motley group of art restitution experts, including attorneys, researchers, claimants and assorted historians and NGOs.

In the years following the issuance of the above-mentioned Principles, declarations of faith made by American museum associations--the then-American Association of Museums (AAM) and the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) to the effect that they had the "Nazi-era" provenance problem under control were rarely taken seriously, if at all. The specialized public associated either directly or indirectly with questions of art restitution and Holocaust-related thefts of Jewish-owned property, believed--rightly or wrongly--that a vast majority of museum professionals, including their curators, directors and trustees, held the view that whatever entered their collections was there to stay.  Moreover the threshold of evidence needed to consider returning an object was so high that no one on earth could rightfully claim to meet that standard. Hence, all was good in their minds; restitution would remain a dead letter. So they thought.

Since the late 1990s, Holocaust victims and their heirs have challenged American cultural institutions by asking their representatives for the restitution of their families'  objects which they believed had been spoliated, plundered, misappropriated during the commission of an act of genocide. In response to those claims, museum professionals and their legal representatives have tried to show publicly their "good faith" in meeting these historic claims on a solid footing of historical and forensic inquiry leading to some kind of reasonable outcome even if it meant, in the extreme cases, that they would have to part ways with the claimed objects in their collections.

In that spirit, a number of American museums have gone out of their way to convince the public that the research is challenging. The act of documenting the historical path of these claimed objects for the purpose of unearthing misdeeds which would call into question the museum's ownership of these objects poses challenges.  Here are three examples:

Art Institute of Chicago

Provenance research can prove challenging as records may have been lost or destroyed in the upheaval of war. In addition, the passage of time and world events often make important information difficult to locate. Gaps in the provenance of a particular work may be attributable to different causes, from an owner's desire for anonymity to the unavailability of records of purchase and sale. Thus, incomplete provenance information does not necessarily mean that a work has been tainted by the events of the Nazi era. In addition, in some cases, a work may have been seized by the Nazis but later restituted to its original owners and subsequently donated or sold by them.

Stanford University

This research can be very complex and challenging due to a number of factors, including changes in the attribution and title; physical alteration of a work; the absence, loss, or destruction of transfer documents and other records; ambiguities in family histories; an owner’s desire for anonymity; societal and political upheaval; natural disasters; and poor record-keeping over time. Consequently, gaps in provenance are common and do not necessarily mean the object has a problematic past.

Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, MD

Provenance research is conducted by museum staff, fellows, and interns, and information generated by this work is continually added to individual object records. Although the museum seeks to verify and expand the provenance information associated with individual works of art in its collection, establishing a complete history of ownership can often prove challenging. The museum therefore encourages the sharing of information that might help to clarify the provenance of objects in its collection.

Live and learn...

Why all the fuss about provenance research?

by Marc Masurovsky

Up until the mid-to late 1990s, provenance research remained within the province of trained art historians working in cultural institutions where art objects are cared for and displayed for the benefit of the public. The research aims to enhance the understanding of the object—its author, its physical attributes, the period in which it was produced, the reasons for its existence, and how it evolved over time and space.

This kind of research is an academic/intellectual exercise that helps ascertain the authenticity of an object and its place in the history of art, writ large.

It is not a requirement incumbent upon its practitioner. Provenance research is one of many duties that “come with the job.” If it does not get done, no one gets fired. More often than not, the information that is collected about the object does not enter the “public record” insofar as it is communicated to the general public. If it is communicated, that is left up to the discretion of the institution where the research is conducted.

Then, the 1990s came and went, and, all of a sudden, “provenance research” became something else entirely.

If I had been working in a museum in the wake of the scandal surrounding the misuse of Swiss bank accounts owned by persons of Jewish descent who may or may not have perished during the Holocaust, I would have been rather oblivious to any debate about loot in general. Once the debate about the mishandling of “Jewish bank accounts” (I hate that expression!) transferred into the (mis)handling of art objects nestled in the permanent collections of countless museums both in North America and Europe, provenance research entered the spotlight front and center.

If I had been working in a museum at the time that the “Portrait of Wally” by Egon Schiele had been seized at the Museum of Modern Art of New York in early January 1998, I probably would have wondered: what is that all about? And I would have naturally sided with the then owners of the painting, the Leopold Foundation of Vienna, and the exhibitors, the Museum of Modern Art, wondering what Robert Morgenthau, then district attorney of Manhattan, had had for coffee on the day that he decided to order the New York Police Department to seize the painting.

I would have done so because my training would have precluded me from even wondering if I should even worry about whether or not the institution that I served had actual title to the objects under my care and examination. Why should I have worried about title since I simply assumed that my institution was the rightful owner?

The right thing to do is to acknowledge that the beast that has become “provenance research” has been transformed from an innocuous art-historical practice into a tendentious, litigation-laced, means to an end: does the research into the origins of an object lead to the maintenance of that object in the collection that I help steward or does it lead to the de-accessioning of the object because of some historical wrong that broke the chain of ownership of the object, thus changing its status to “restitutable”?

Since the seizure of “Portrait of Wally” in early January 1998, provenance research lost its innocence. Battle lines have been drawn between defendants upholding their rights to keep art objects under fire for being “looted”, on one side, and plaintiffs demanding the return of those art objects arguing that they were the rightful owners whose families had been despoiled for racial, ethnic, religious and other reasons at some point between 1933 and 1945 during the twelve year reign of the Nazi Party and as a result of the expansionist war decreed by Adolf Hitler and his minions against Europe’s “undesirables”-Jews, Slavs, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, emotionally and physically challenged individuals, and anyone else who was caught in the crosshairs of a continental-wide fit of man-made madness, verging on an apocalyptic nightmare worthy of any painting signed by Hieronymous Bosch.

There had been a glimmer of hope at the time of the so-called Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets of November 30-December 3, 1998. Art was not supposed to be on the calendar of the conference. The seizure of the Schiele paintings (actually, two paintings had been seized at MoMA in early January 1998) changed the configuration of the planning for the Washington Conference. American policymakers were not pleased about the seizure because they argued that it had besmirched the bilateral relations of the United States with Austria. In so stating, the US government had sided against the claimants and had upheld Austria’s argument at the time that the entire flap over “Wally” was a private matter to be resolved between the claimants—heirs of Ruth Bondi-Jarai—and the Leopold Foundation, then owner of the seized paintings. Still, and this is for another installment, Morgenthau’s muscled intervention at MoMA triggered an existential debate inside Austrian political and cultural circles which forced Austria to reexamine its entire relationship with its past as it affected the illegal seizures of Jewish cultural property. The end result: the only restitution law in the world which mandates “provenance research” in all Federal public cultural institutions of the Republic of Austria.

Begrudgingly, the US government and its many allies at the planning table for the Washington Conference inserted art as one of the many different types of looted assets whose fate needed to be deliberated on by the attending nations and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO). The Washington Conference produced the so-called non-binding “Washington Principles”—11 recommendations that have become de facto “policy” for lack of a better word in many nations that want to remove that cultural monkey off their backs.

For some, the Washington Conference was a success. For others, it was a dismal failure. For those who deemed it a success, the Conference provided a unique forum to get a sense of where the world stood as far as justice to Holocaust survivors was concerned. The principles notwithstanding, everyone went home thinking they had done God’s work for three days. Those who saw in the Conference a dismal failure balked at the so-called Principles as yet another diplomatic way out of taking full responsibility for not having done anything concrete to render justice to the victims of plunder while throwing a sop at museums, auction houses, and other privateers of the art market by reassuring them that, although provenance research was highly recommended to fill “unavoidable gaps” in the history of ownership of art objects under their care and stewardship, “fair and just solutions” ought to be sought in order to ensure a measure of justice for all. In the end, for the naysayers, the Washington Conference led to a massive failure of international public policy, thus creating a vacuum of power and decision-making over the fate of countless art objects whose newfound status in legal limbo—plundered or not? Restitutable or not?—had to be resolved not with legislation but through, oftentimes, vicious legal battles pitting museums’ hired guns against plaintiffs’ hired guns.

The search for justice over a massive crime of plunder tied to genocide has turned into an international legal slugfest. Instead of chasing airplane crash victims, it has become more profitable to seek out victims of plunder.

Beyond ethnic minority rights

by Marc Masurovsky

[The following presentation was delivered at the annual conference of the Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation (LCCHP), which took place in Washington, DC, on April 13, 2018. This presentation was part of a panel on ethnic minority rights to recover their looted cultural property and how States oftentimes interfere with those rights.]

I would like to thank the Lawyers Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation for having invited me to speak today. I am grateful for their support and I thank this panel’s members for letting me sit among them.

I am neither a lawyer nor an art dealer. Neither do I collect indigenous or archaeological objects. Although I am identified as a co-founder of the Holocaust Art Restitution Project, the views that I hold today are my own.

I have been a lifelong student of the economics of genocide and more particularly of cultural plunder and the trauma that it has engendered and continues to inflict on its victims.

My first professional encounter with these crimes against humanity occurred while working for the Office of Special Investigations of the US Department of Justice. Three years in those trenches brought me into intimate face to face contact with Nazi collaborators living quiet lives in the United States. They owed their freedom to a cynical calculation by Western politicians, military strategists and intelligence agents that it was better for them to recruit Axis war criminals to be deployed in the event of an impending global conflict against the Soviet Union than handing them over to face justice in the countries where they had plundered, tortured and murdered untold numbers of Jews and local enemies of Nazism and fascism, real or imagined. A number of those whom I met were personally responsible for the forced dispossession of thousands of Jews in far-flung corners of Eastern Europe and the Aryanization of their holdings.

I have spent the greater part of my adult life, with mixed results, advocating for the restitution of looted art objects to their rightful Jewish owners. I have always viewed restitution, as part of an overall healing process, a salve on a trans-generational traumatic scar. I had thought that restitution or the physical return of a stolen object to its rightful owner would be as simple as removing the claimed object from a wall, a cupboard, a safe, a table, a library shelf, and handing it over to its rightful owner. As it turns out, I was quite naïve; I fell off that horse long ago as restitution is the most complicated and twisted process that I have ever encountered.

The reasons for this are manifold. They are ensconced in legal concepts and value systems that, in my view, place the private property rights of current possessors outside the realm of question. Those who possess the claimed item invoke good faith as a defense as if it was an accepted religious dogma. In most nations, good faith is accepted on faith in cult-like fashion and is upheld by State officials, museum personnel, their lawyers and those businessmen who currently own those objects. Good faith is an extremely difficult shield to pierce. Ethical and moral arguments alone cannot even dent its armor. A recent illustration of this problem comes from Switzerland where it took nearly two decades for a single Frenchman of Jewish descent with lots of pro bono help, creativity and chutzpah, to force a Swiss museum to return to him a painting which his family had lost in 1943, the first such restitution to a non-Swiss Jewish claimant since 1949.

In a world which hides behind good faith and heralds private property rights as sacred, even in the face of horrors committed against entire populations, one has to wonder: is justice an empty word?

It is partly in this context that I can discuss how ethnic minorities can recover their looted cultural assets. Their rights have been routinely trampled in the nations where they have dwelt for generations. To put it bluntly, human beings have been socialized for millennia to display very low levels of tolerance towards the “others”, those who do not think, look, and believe in the same way as those who belong to the dominant group wielding local, regional or State power. Too often, dominant groups will solve these differences through marginalization, dehumanization, persecution, incarceration, deportation, and outright extermination. Every corner of the globe is tainted with the blood of the “others”. And every corner of the globe is host to the displaced possessions of the “others.”

There is a system of international laws, charters, covenants, and conventions, which has been in place for decades that seeks to address these egregious acts of persecution and dispossession. International organizations tend to recognize those rights, countries around the world have signed international conventions recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples, the United Nations boasts of charters that uphold those rights. One cannot even count how many NGOs exist which are there to protect and safeguard the rights of ethnic minorities. And yet…

In practical terms, we need to address how dispossessed objects which are located in foreign markets or displayed in museums or galleries, far away from the scene of the crime, can be restituted to their rightful owners, be they cultural groups, religious minorities, ethnic communities whose members are scattered across many continents.

As indicated earlier, the physical return of these objects to rightful owners is the most difficult and yet, in my view, the clearest expression of how to counter a State-sponsored theft: by transferring title to the aggrieved party. The more likely scenario to unfold involves some form of compromise on the part of the victim or the victim’s heirs and representatives. Either the victims are compensated financially or some other arrangement is reached which upholds the rights of the current possessor while providing some form of relief to the claimant. Is that fair and just? In 1998, the Washington Conference on Holocaust assets produced a list of 11 non-binding principles which were designed to guide nations and institutions where looted objects were identified on how to either return them or seek some form of “just and fair solution.” Victims of plunder did not initiate the idea of just and fair; the current possessors, in most cases State-owned museums and institutions, pressed for that idea, one that diplomats embraced as an acceptable resolution of the treatment of objects looted during the Third Reich in the context of a genocidal enterprise.

If we apply the logic of the Washington Principles to the treatment of objects forcibly removed from ethnic minority groups around the world, the outcome would be nothing short of catastrophic since it would imply that no one could recover their lost property. Why return objects when the current possessors are given the opportunity to seek a compromise arrangement with the aggrieved parties? In the case of antiquities, source nations would never abide by these Principles because they would prevent the repatriation of their cultural heritage. A just and fair solution rarely entails the actual return of the object, unless the source nations accept that these objects be loaned to them without actually recovering them in the same way that the Victoria and Albert Museum has agreed to loan objects to Ethiopia on a long term basis.

When cultural objects are considered to be a nation’s cultural property, and are viewed as part of that nation’s patrimony, the questions of ownership become even more complex and require political solutions. Nations repatriate to other nations, not to individuals or local groups. Much like after the Second World War, Allied cultural advisers repatriated looted art to the nations where the thefts had taken place, leaving it to those governments to restitute the items to individuals and to aggrieved communities. All nations indulge in this duplicitous approach to culture, some are worse than others. Governments can and will impose their inalienable right to ownership of repatriated objects at the expense of victimized groups and individuals if they are allowed to do so.

Those who deal, collect, exhibit, trade, lend, donate cultural objects across borders bear a unique responsibility in the treatment of objects illicitly acquired and recirculated through private and public channels across borders. Although looting is an unacceptable crime, it is also universal, as is the acquisition and trade of looted cultural and artistic objects. Many of these looted objects come from nations governed by autocrats, where democracy is a dirty word. Many nations today have fallen prey to nationalist parties and movements which believe strongly in the cult of the nation as an incarnation of a certain ideal of citizenry. Culture is treated accordingly. In a peculiar way, those nations are anxious to recover their looted cultural property but they are not eager to return those objects to their citizens especially when they are members of ethnic minorities. While the nationalist wave is gaining ground across Europe and even in the United States, it has been a reality for decades in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia.

From an ethical and moral standpoint, the repatriation of looted objects to autocratic and dictatorial nations can be viewed as problematic. But what is the alternative? Prevent those objects from returning to their source? Under what pretense? That we are morally and culturally superior? If we follow those arguments, we are no better than 19th century colonial adventurers who viewed the “others” as inferiors and whose assets should best be handled by the Western world. We cannot allow ourselves to think that we are morally superior to anyone. Although I am not at all religious, I find that there is something to be said for the biblical adage: let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Ultimately, this discussion should go beyond the rights of ethnic minority groups to recover their looted cultural assets. It should encompass all victims of cultural plunder. The solutions are manifold and delicate. They require careful coordination at the policy level, nationally and internationally. At the core, these solutions must reconcile the interests of the art market, the interests of governments, the interests of those who possess and display, the interests of those who have been victimized by acts of expropriation and dispossession and outright thievery. Art objects are an integral part of our individual and collective memory of the past and the present. They are an extension of who and what we are. For those reasons, it is as important to transcribe faithfully and truthfully the story of these objects as it is to recover them. Every cultural object, regardless of origin, deserves a thoroughly fleshed out provenance before it is displayed or traded. Ignorance, arrogance and greed are the enemy.

One way to forestall future acts of State-sanctioned plunder is to ensure that the history of these objects and their owners is written, published, disseminated and taught to as wide a public as possible.

Provenance research 2016

by Marc Masurovsky

The “theory and practice of provenance research” seminar/workshop at the Museum of Texas Tech University in Lubbock, TX, has wrapped up its fourth season. This seminar is the outgrowth of multiple visits I made over the past decade at the invitation of the Museum at Texas Tech University in Lubbock to share information about cultural plunder, and how provenance research can serve as a tool to strengthen ethics in the management of collections and improve our knowledge of the objects contained therein. The idea has always been to foster a clearer understanding of how looted cultural and artistic material could find its way in the global art market as non-restituted property or back into the hands of their rightful owners.

Central to our discussions throughout the seminar was the following truism: 

Research into the ownership histories of artistic and cultural objects which changed hands between 1933 and 1945 under obscure and potentially illicit conditions, redefined commonly accepted notions of provenance research, thrusting this obscure discipline under the klieg lights of Holocaust justice.

Until the mid-1990s, very few people outside the sheltered world of art history, a certain art history that is, one focused on “art” produced before 1945, knew what provenance was all about including me. Yes, I admit, the word “provenance” meant nothing to me then. I might have engaged in such research without knowing it while investigating the movements of assets plundered by Nazis and their collaborators, from the scene of the crime inside occupied Europe through the “neutral” countries (Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal), before being transferred in many instances for shelter and/or reinvestment in the Americas, mostly North America. These assets included works and objects of art.  My focus then centered on the men and women who conveyed these plundered assets from point to point, in search of “safe havens.”

Fast forward to 1998.  A heady year, no doubt about it. 

An avalanche of news stories overtook an unprepared and largely ignorant international press corps which experienced great pains to explain what the hullabaloo was all about, especially six decades after crimes of plunder had been committed against Jewish owners of art collections, elevated to crimes against humanity at the International Military Tribunal of Nurnberg in 1946.

Events regarding looted art and its restitution (or lack thereof) cascaded one after another:

-the seizure of two paintings by Egon Schiele at the Museumof Modern Art of New York,

-the settlement of the Goodman vs. Searle case over a Degaspastel landscape,

-the enactment of the Holocaust Victims Redress Act,

-the establishment of a Presidential Advisory Commission onHolocaust-era Assets, 

-the Washington Conference on Holocaust-era Assets thathatched the now-infamous eleven “Washington Conference Principles onNazi-Confiscated Art”.

Almost overnight, the provenance of an object—its history and the chain of ownership that it describes—became intimately connected with an international quest for restitution to rightful owners of these looted art objects. Provenance research had become restitution research, to the quiet consternation of many museum professionals and art historians.

Eighteen years later, some of the dust has settled, although emotions still run high over how to conduct provenance research and whether objects identified as looted should be returned to their rightful owners.

Not a week goes by without a story in some corner of the world that documents illicit trafficking of antiquities, illegal sales of sacred indigenous artifacts in Western European showrooms, attempts at recovering art stolen during Hitler’s despotic and maniacal reign over Germany and three-fourths of Europe. We get regaled by stories of an unbridled art market impervious to the ethics of ownership for thousands of objects traded for hyper-inflated sums, not only in New York, but in London, Paris and showrooms at the antipodes of the earth, in free-ports, tax-free black holes where nothing is documented, nothing exists on paper, except when you traverse the force field that separates us mortals from the treasures that lurk behind protective barbed wire fences and high walls, in Geneva, Singapore, west Africa, and many other locations around the world.

Provenance research is an intellectual, multi-disciplinary methodological and analytical endeavor, characterized by a critical, empirical approach applied to the search for and examination of historical information about objects, their owners and possessors, and the paths that they borrowed from the time of creation to the present day. The approaches and methodologies implicit in provenance research vary according to those who conduct it and for whom.

Efforts to reconcile these varied approaches have been few and too far between, owing to the “vested interests” of those who request the research to be done. Indeed, many practitioners in the art world—museums, auction houses, galleries, etc.—remain skeptical if not indifferent to the idea that a provenance should make clear who the legitimate title holder is to the object whose history is described in the provenance. The lack of constructive dialogue between these traditional practitioners and non-art historians who engage in provenance research for reasons unrelated to the exercise of art history, remains an enduring obstacle to the establishment of a unified code of provenance research, which acknowledges commonalities in the varied approaches while outlining the differences and divergences produced by vested interests.

Knowledge is power and those who control the knowledge, or at least convey the illusion of control of that knowledge, exert an undeniable influence over the way the (his)tory of ownership of an object is drafted and presented to the public. Until recently, no one questioned who held title to an object or how title was transferred for an object suddenly displaced during societal disruptions, which might have included, but not limited to:

the siege of Paris in 1871, World Wars I and II, the Bolshevik Revolution, anti-Jewish pogroms in the Ukraine, natural disasters like earthquakes and floods, internecine rivalries between competing factions within a large feuding family, the enactment of discriminatory laws singling out entire groups and ethnicities leading to evictions, expropriation of property and marginalization, loss of property through duress, civil wars, mass arrests and the list goes on. 

These events, although not directly pertinent to art history, do inform and (re)shape the history of an object simply because the object evolves among people located in places which might have been subject to these disruptions which would have had a measurable or negligible impact on the legal ties binding the object to the affected owner of that object.

External factors weigh heavily in the drafting of a provenance: their apprehension and inclusion in the story of the object clarifies and enriches, sometimes complicates our understanding of the history of ownership of an object.  They matter immensely when the question surfaces: who holds title to the object in question? How did the object go from point a to point b? who was involved in the transfer?

When cultural institutions and businesses transacting in art objects sidestep deliberately the multitudinous gyrations and brusk movements that are inherent to the historical process, they obscure, skew and distort the provenance of art objects.  This misshaping of historical narrative lies at the core of the debate over provenance research.  By acting in this fashion, the institutions that promote culture and transact in art objects censure the narrative of the art object and deprive the public from reading and examining it, from learning.  Pedagogy and truth sacrificed on the altar of “vested interests”?

Should we go so far as to propose that this approach to the provenance narrative is revisionist, in the same way that any attempt to rewrite the history of the Holocaust by minimizing or relativizing its breadth, scope and impact, is viewed as revisionist, a conscious exercise in denial and rejection of history?

Although provenance research should not be held hostage by the cantankerous dyad of provenance and restitution, an ethically, rigorous quest for historical information into the ownership history of an art object may lead to a reassessment of its current ownership and may suggest that the rightful owner is not the current holder of title to the object.  For these and other reasons, cultural institutions must fully integrate provenance research into their day-to-day practices and especially the findings resulting therefrom and establish ethically sound procedures for addressing the revised ownership information of objects in their collections.

Once again, provenance research is a serious, inter-disciplinary methodology whose practice enriches our understanding of artistic and cultural objects worldwide. Its ethical and critical practice should be conducted without any prejudice or bias.