The Anniversary Berlin Conference, David D'arcy, IFAR

Home , Looted art

International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR®) www.ifar.org. This article from the IFAR® Journal, Vol. 19, No. 3, 2018, is posted by the Commission for Art Recovery with the permission of IFAR and may not be published or printed elsewhere without the express permission of IFAR.

WASHINGTON PRINCIPLES – “A GLASS MORE THAN HALF-FULL” THE ANNIVERSARY BERLIN CONFERENCE DAVID D’ARCY* THE BERLIN CONFERENCE BERLIN THE

In 1998, 44 countries met in the U.S. capital and adopted guidelines called the Washington Principles for resolving disputes over Nazi-looted art. Twenty years later, the framers of those guidelines gave a forceful but qualified endorsement of the principles in Berlin at a three-day conference, “20 Years Washing- ton Principles: Roadmap for the Future.”

Approximately one thousand participants assessed the field of Nazi-Era art restitution at the Haus der Kulturen der Welt, a late 1950’s futurist Cold War monument on John-Foster-Dulles-Allee, now bordered by the glass and steel towers of the new Berlin.

“The U.S. and Germany issued a joint declaration (the only such official document promulgated at the conference) reaffirming their commitment to the Washington Principles.”

The Cold War setting was more than coincidence. The United States initiated the meeting in 1998 and provided a venue. As with the Marshall Plan, Ger- many was the crucial European partner this year as it was 20 years ago.

The anniversary conference was organized by the Ger- man Lost Art Foundation. Despite the international range of participants, the focus was weighted toward Germany, and the U.S. and Germany issued a joint declaration (the only such official document promulgated at the conference) reaffirming their com- *David D’Arcy is a journalist who writes frequently about art mitment to the Washington Principles. restitution.

22 IFAR® JOURNAL VOL. 19, No. 3 © 2018 THE BERLIN CONFERENCE 23 8 V 3©201 No. OL. 19, IFAR® JOURNAL IFAR® Somehow the auction house, house, the auction Somehow figure owns those who 2,000 out year, but France cannot but figureyear, out 2,000 pieces in 20 years,” Lauder noted. Lauder years,” 20 in pieces 2,000 “For 20 years, France has not been able to to 20 years, been able France has not “For Christie’s, can every pieces review 100,000 Christie’s, works in theirworks museums, which is interesting. “In France, after the 60,000 war, artworks came those, Of unclaimed. went 15,000 which of back, museums its to works best the of 2,000 gave France and sold all the he said. rest,” figure to able been not has France years, 20 “For who ownsout those 2,000 works in their museums, which is interesting. the Somehow auction house, Christie’s, can review 100,000 pieces every but year, years,” 20 in pieces 2,000 out figure cannot France he noted. oth- (and Lauder by faulted also Netherlands, The ers throughout the down conference), had the gone wrong path, Lauder said, failing by to recognize sales during wartime as coerced and introducing by an that approach balanced the interests museums of that held lootedart against the interests families of from the whom objects had been The stolen. balance interestsof would be a flashpoint two over days. Lauder also took aim Spain, at a country nor- that’s mally the at conversations Nazi- not center of about searching in deficient was it that saying art, looted its museum collections pillaged for works. And Switzerland, works where seized in Germany were sold before and II, had failed during War World to trace works that seized were from Jews, Lauder said. After praising his host, Monika Grütters, the Ger- man Minister Culture for and the Media, as “some- described Lauder intentions,” of best the with one Germany as a maze federalist of bureaucracies where local governments create roadblocks and to regard without please they as do houses auction provenance. there“If in is work each just stolen museum, one which is quite possible, plus all the other institutions throughout the country, are we talking about Lauder moved quickly to identify countries that he thought had fallen short. almost “In every country in Europe, there are different reasons that this has happened, in but the all it end, comes down to one issue—justice denied—and has been because of away. go that II the won’t War ghosts old World of In a keynote address that had its stern moments, Lauder reminded his the audience of con- need for sistency, compassion and efficiency in addressing claims theft by victims and their heirs and reaching “just and fair “The solutions.” Washington Prin- tell countriesciples the don’t out to work legal how details return of because every country has a differ- legalent system. Instead, the Principles encourage countries to find Jewish art in their museums, their institutions, and private collections that was stolen theby Nazis,” he said. Ronald Lauder, theRonald former ambassador Lauder, and art collector who was the the of of one conveners 1998 conference, said: made have giant “We strides toward achieving the goals identifying, of publiciz- the of some for compensating and restituting, ing, so in and books, and objects, cultural art, looted doing, providing some small measure belated of justice to some victims the of Holocaust their or could relevant foreseenheirs. have how not this We issue would still be 20 years later.” No one said one No that the Ifthere job was was over. a consensus, was it that the Washington Principles, like the field restitution, of was in a work progress, a conclusion reached an by independent observer – Elinor Landmann, a Swiss journalist designated by the conference – who reported to assembled participants after two days meetings. of Institutional leaders cited the progress that had been made in the original mission to reach “just and fair Claimants solutions.” and their lawyers bemoaned the pace recovery slow of pillaged of Provenanceproperty. researchers, practicing a craft advanced the by search Nazi for loot, talked scant of resources to address enormous tasks. Central to the wasevent an inventory countries, of with a report prin- 1998 the to up measured they how on card ciples. Critics suggested that the real might problem be the framework itself. many thousands of pieces that are still hidden,” mation about the provenance of the art in which he said. they are dealing,” Eizenstat noted.

Lauder left the conference after his address, but The art market also came to the attention of Her- Stuart Eizenstat, another former ambassador and mann Parzinger, director of the Stiftung Preus- 1998 convener, who also gave a keynote address in siche Kulturbesitz, or SPK (Berlin Museums), who Berlin, stayed for much of the first two days. He, acknowledged that some German auction houses too, echoed praise for the original framework of remained out of compliance with the Washington the Principles and voiced his doubts about whether Principles. Parzinger also said that German private

THE BERLIN CONFERENCE BERLIN THE countries were honoring its spirit. collections were difficult to monitor. The German Limbach Commission, set up to review and advise “In making a fair assessment of the success of the on claims, was faulted by a range of speakers for Washington Principles,” he said, “I believe the glass considering far too few claims on works in Ger- is slightly more than half-full, but that is not sat- man museums, although German authorities were isfactory. It is time for one last push to correct the commended for their actions, albeit belated, on flaws in implementing the Washington Principles, the Gurlitt hoard found in a Munich apartment in both in my country, the United States, and in key 2012 (and another cache later found in Salzburg). countries which still have Nazi-looted art in their Long lines at a concurrent exhibition1 at Berlin’s possession. With the assistance of advanced digital Martin Gropius Bau that was devoted to works technology, which did not exist at the time of the acquired and held by Gurlitt was evidence that the Washington Conference, there can be no excuse for subject of restitution had found its way to a general failing to have the widest distribution of informa- German public. The Museum Berggruen also orga- tion about Nazi-looted art and cultural property, nized an exhibition with the provenance of works including books.” from its collection.

Eizenstat made special mention of Russia in his “In making a fair assessment of the remarks. “Russia suffered greatly at the hands of success of the Washington the Nazis during the War. The Red Army took Principles,” [Eizenstat] said, “I believe the substantial artworks from Germany at the end of glass is slightly more than the War as partial compensation for their griev- half-full, but that is not satisfactory.” ous losses, but this included some art the Nazis had taken from German Jews. At the conclusion of “No museum, state-controlled or private; no art the Washington Conference,” Eizenstat continued, gallery or collector; no auction house; no private “the Russian government representative joined my owner, should want to hold or deal in Nazi-looted closing news conference to announce their restitu- artworks, stripped in the most violent way from tion of one such work in their collection. They also their owners during World War II,” he continued. passed a law that distinguished their trophy art “Every nation that committed to the Washington from that which belonged to Jews and would be Principles and the Terezin Declaration should treated according to the Washington Principles.” redouble its efforts to identify, publish, and restitute But any commitment, he suggested, seems to have or compensate or find other ‘just and fair solutions’ ended there. “There has been some provenance when an owner or heir has a legitimate claim.” research started at Russian cultural institutions, “More broadly, good faith implementation of the and some is recorded on an electronic database Washington Principles can help in a more general of all displaced cultural property and is also pub- way beyond Nazi-looted art, by creating a more lished in scientific publications and shown in transparent global art market, with greater assur- ance that buyers and sellers have the fullest infor- 1 “Gurlitt Status Report: An Art Dealer in Nazi Germany,” Martin Gropius Bau, 14 September 2018 – 7 January 2019.

24 IFAR® JOURNAL VOL. 19, No. 3 © 2018 THE BERLIN CONFERENCE 25 8 V 3©201 No. OL. 19, IFAR® JOURNAL IFAR® merstein, rose from his seat to tell the audience that the Dutch panel ruling restitution on always response Eizenstat’s claimants. of side the took was to commend the Netherlands its for previous, early in work provenance research, andto reject the assertion that the recent Dutch government’s balancing of approach the interests museums of holding looted art with those theft of victims Claim- was Principles. Washington the with consistent those Dutch before been casesants whose have views. Eizenstat’s echoed panels The Dutch position sign no shows changing. of After the Hammerstein conference, bal- defended ancing interests museums of and theft victims in the Dutch press. Russia and the recently elected populist governments Poland and of Hungary, were repre- No conference. the during challenged also sentatives those of governments to present were a positiverespond – not sign Jewish for claimants seeking the return property of in those countries. A delicate issue which arose was “heirless proper- i.e., works art of ty,” and other objects looted from Jews which for living no heirs could be found. Israeli speakers, such as Colette Avital, chair of the Center Organization Holocaust of Survivors in Israel, and Shlomit Steinberg, a curator the at Israel Museum in Jerusalem, suggested that art found to Israel. to sent be eventually might heirless be Reading from a declaration passed inIsrael in October, Avital that noted strongly “we believe that memory the perpetuate to us upon incumbent is it theof cultural life the of destroyed communities whichof the looted works art of and sacred objects are part.” She also called museums on “to allow in the meantime unclaimed looted art stored in museums to be temporarily loaned to and exhib- ited in museums in Israel and around the world. These works should be displayed with appropriate explanations the of circumstances their of looting.” urge countries“We and museums,” she added, “to make a firm commitment to take the appropriate steps to return the works art of that are so loaned claims when owners rightful their to exhibition for restitutionfor are filed.” and in his blog, Masur- Observer Another exchange the on floor came when the cur- chairrent the of Dutch commission, Fred Ham- Stuart Eizenstat’s response to Masurovsky was was Masurovsky to response Eizenstat’s Stuart andrapid harsh. true, Not said the American dip- public. in least at conversation, that ending lomat, ovsky maintained that national governments that that governments national that maintained ovsky were research provenance supporting be should shortchanging that because work the of unflatter- ing truths about those countries during War World revealed.) be might that II Marc Masurovsky, the a co-founder of Holocaust Art Restitution Project (HARP), which predates the Washington Principles, rose to state what he had already said in a widely-circulated article, that the Washington Principles had been a failure. (In an article in the When voices did rise from the audience, came out conflicts. the Decorum reigned most the for of two days talks of theat (the Haus third der Kulturen der Welt day was devoted primarily little where to workshops), time was provided questions. for Claimants and their lawyers among the not were invited speakers, except a handful for heirs of theft of victims whose claims had been successful,including heirs the of Jewish newspaper magnate Rudolf Mosse, who whichrecovered some of property, was purchased the Berlin.by of SPK No one representing one No Russia any or Russian institutions was there to respond to Eizenstat the at Ber- lin there were participants conference. Now from Hungary Poland, both or which of veered have be To years. recent in populism right-wing toward fair, although the Ambassador French to Germany, Anne-Marie Descotes, spoke the at beginning of the sessions the on second day the of conference, she left the hall questions before asked were from the floor willingness about France’s to remove looted works from its official collections. French law currently prohibits the deaccessioning art of museums. French from exhibits. there But has been restitution no any of Nazi-looted art, any nor process their for identifi- said. he claims,” of handling or cation Calling Nazi-loot heirless has been a matter of The other almost 200 netsuke in the collection debate, with many rejecting the “heirless” term have been placed on a ten-year loan to the Jewish outright. The Israeli proposal for loaning objects, Museum in Vienna. rather than selling them, addresses a problem that De Waal spoke of a third initiative, an exhibition arose in 1996. Objects presumed to be heirless at that he curated at the Kunsthistorisches Museum that time, which were looted from Jews who were in Vienna. “That is another kind of restitution. It’s presumed to have been killed, were stored in the saying that you don’t have to wait for the govern- Mauerbach Monastery in Austria. Those objects ment, for the national museum, for the provenance were auctioned by Christie’s in Vienna, with pro-

THE BERLIN CONFERENCE BERLIN THE researchers – who are extraordinary – for the law- ceeds going to the Jewish Community of Vienna. yers, who sometimes are extraordinary, for all the (The sale was the beginning of a historical shift people to line up their extraordinary documents, in the auction houses’ attitude toward restitution and make something happen. You can take the of art looted during the Nazi Era.) After the 1996 issue, you can take the power of the story back to auction, people claiming to be heirs appeared and where it belongs. … You can bring back loss and questioned the decision to sell the objects. make it into something else. I can look at the Kunsthistorishes Museum in the face. I can look “If the conference had any drama onstage, at its shadows, its institutional shadows, and say, it came from the ceramicist and author “I restituted you, not you restituted me.” Edmund de Waal, a rare poetic voice in the field of restitution.” De Waal received a standing ovation, the only one of the conference.

If the conference had any drama onstage, it came Yet de Waal’s novel and generous approach to resti- from the ceramicist and author Edmund de Waal, a tution might not have satisfied claimants who were rare poetic voice in the field of restitution. De Waal still waiting to recover their families’ property, as spoke of the impending “eve of departure,” of those de Waal already had. For them, the “fair and just with a memory of life before the Holocaust. Speak- solution” was a promise still unkept, the part of the ing without notes (rather than reading a prepared glass that remained unfilled. script, as most speakers did), de Waal said, “It is Ronald Lauder put it simply in his opening remarks time to restitute our story.” Having recovered his to conference participants: “In the United States, family’s large collection of netsuke after the war, if a person is holding a stolen object, he is just as including the hare with amber eyes, which was the guilty as the thief who grabbed it in the first place. focus of his best-selling book by the same name, de Nazi-looted art in Europe should be no different.” Waal’s family recently sold 79 of those objects to benefit refugees in London, “because my father was a refugee child.” . . .

2 Attempt to Broaden Definition of “Nazi-Era Looted Art” Stymied 3 In Memoriam – David Campbell 3 “Persian Guard” Returns Home 5 CPAC Update – New Leadership, Proposed MOUs, and the Issue of Jewish Communal Property 7 Agnes Martin Update: One Case Becomes Two 8 Disputed Waiver Dooms Heir’s Suit for Nazi-Era Art 11 HEAR Act Plays Key Role in Return of Two Schiele Watercolors 15 In Brief: Sign of Hope Amidst Brazil Museum Wreckage U.S. Sides with Germany in “Guelph Treasure” Case Koons Fined for Copyright Infringement in France, Again ARS and VAGA Merge Italian High Court Rules Against the Getty

18 DID FIDEL CASTRO REALLY OWN A POLLOCK? Lisa Duffy-Zeballos

22 WASHINGTON PRINCIPLES – “A GLASS MORE THAN HALF-FULL” David D’Arcy

27 THE NINTH CIRCUIT RULING IN FAVOR OF THE NORTON SIMON – IS THIS THE END TO THE DISPUTE OVER ADAM & EVE? Thomas R. Kline and Olga Symeonoglou

35 STOLEN ART ALERT®

COVER: A Tikuna mask designed by Jean-Baptiste Debret during the French Artistic 0LVVLRQ 3DUWRIWKHFROOHFWLRQDW%UD]LO¶V1DWLRQDO0XVHXPDQGSUREDEO\ORVWWR¿UH Ph. Credit: Museu Nacional Brasil.