Uneasy Provenances: Exhibiting, Collecting, and Dealing in the Nazi Era

by

Meghan Smiley

A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts

Approved April 2019 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee:

Betsy Fahlman, Chair Julie Codell Angélica Afanador-Pujol

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

May 2019 ABSTRACT

During the Nazi era, which is historically regarded as lasting from 1933-1945, the

National Socialists both looted and made “legal” confiscations of art and artifacts they deemed “degenerate” from museums throughout occupied Europe. The art they seized was sold abroad in exchange for foreign currency that not only funded their war efforts, but also allowed for purchases of art for Hitler’s un-realized Führermuseum in Linz,

Austria. The rapid transfer of objects flooded the art market, making this period one of the most prosperous times for collectors and dealers. However, due to the overall hasty nature of the displacements, the ownership history, or provenance, of the works became extremely convoluted. Institutions in the United States, as well as individual collectors, began to buy pieces, unaware of their provenance. Without this knowledge as a good- faith purchaser, many institutions never delved deeper into the background of the objects and the works remained in their collections until the present day. In this thesis, I argue that provenance research can shape a museum’s history through changing the relationship it has with its permanent collection. Insight into the ownership history of the collection must be made a priority in order for museums to remain transparent with their visitors, thus allowing for perceived notions of exclusivity, or distrust, to be eliminated. I researched two institutions, the Kunstmuseum Bern and the Krannert Art Museum, which recently examined their own holdings for incomplete attributions, with one establishment conducting a study after it became enmeshed in public scrutiny generated by a controversial bequest. Lastly, I employ both art historical scholarship and legal resources to investigate how provenance can be more widely used as a valuable asset in an increasingly globalized society.

i DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my brother, Conner. Your growth and experiences throughout my time in graduate school has shown me that you can start your life at any time, and that there is no perfect way to do anything, just your own way.

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Betsy Fahlman, for her guidance, feedback, and patience. Her advice has been extremely helpful and invaluable. Thank you to my committee members, Julie Codell and Angélica Afanador-Pujol, for their continued support and assistance throughout my graduate school experience. I would also like to thank my family, friends, and boyfriend, Nickolas Smith, for their unwavering encouragement throughout my entire time in graduate school. Their kind words, love, and humor has kept me going through this process. Thank you to Joanna Grabski, the ASU

School of Art Director, for her thoughtful support and assistance in completing my

Master’s. Thank you to Nikola Doll, the Head of Provenance Research at the

Kunstmuseum Bern, Maureen Warren, Curator of European and American Art at the

Krannert Art Museum, and Nancy Karrels, Doctoral Candidate at the University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Meeting with them and discussing pertinent issues greatly influenced the outcome of my thesis. Finally, I would like to thank the entire staff at the

ASU Art Museum. My time as the Windgate Curatorial Intern there has opened my eyes to the exciting future of museums, and I have gained significant experience towards my professional endeavors.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES ...... v

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Provenance Research: Its Effects and Future ...... 6

2 LOOTING OF CULTURAL PROPERTY DURING THE NAZI ERA ...... 9

“Degenerate” Art ...... 12

A Brief Note on the Nuanced Nature of Nazi-looted art ...... 14

Nazi Networks ...... 15

Hildebrand Gurlitt: A Web of Complex Motives ...... 21

3 CASE STUDIES ...... 35

The Challenges of Statues of Limitations...... 35

Kunstmuseum Bern: A Dedication to Restitution ...... 37

Krannert Art Museum: A Commitment to Provenance ...... 49

4 CONCLUSION: MUSEUMS AS A SITE OF MORAL TRUST ...... 54

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 62

INTERVIEWS ...... 74

iv LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. The Lion Tamer ...... 57

2. Two Riders on the Beach ...... 58

3. Femme Assise dans un fauteuil (Woman sitting in an armchair) ...... 59

4. Portrait of a Seated Young Woman ...... 60

5. Portrait of an Unidentified Man ...... 61

v CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

During the Nazi era, which is historically regarded as lasting from 1933-1945, the

National Socialists both looted and made “legal” confiscations of art and artifacts they deemed “degenerate” from museums throughout occupied Europe. The art they seized was sold abroad in exchange for foreign currency that not only funded their war efforts, but also allowed for purchases of art for Hitler’s un-realized Führermuseum in Linz,

Austria. The rapid transfer of objects flooded the art market, making this period one of the most prosperous times for collectors and dealers. However, due to the overall hasty nature of the displacements, the ownership history, or provenance, of the works became extremely convoluted. Institutions in the United States, as well as individual collectors, began to buy pieces, unaware of their provenance. Without this knowledge as a good- faith purchaser, many institutions never delved deeper into the background of the objects and the works remained in their collections until the present day. In this thesis, I argue that provenance research can shape a museum’s history through changing the relationship it has with its permanent collection. Insight into the ownership history of the collection must be made a priority in order for museums to remain transparent with their visitors, thus allowing for perceived notions of exclusivity, or distrust, to be eliminated.

Following the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, access to previously restricted archives and documentation lead to the realization that the amount of looted or confiscated art from the Nazi era far exceeded what had been previously thought.

Additionally, it became clear that many of these artworks had made their way into museums in the United States and European countries, particularly the United Kingdom

1 and France. The discovery gave way to a convening of 44 countries in 1998, that created the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art and are committed to researching the collections of their own museums for evidence of possession of Nazi- looted or confiscated art acquired during the period of 1933-1945.1 The Washington

Principles are guidelines as to how to approach the restitution of Nazi-looted art adopted by the countries that attended the conference in 1998. Recognition of the Principles sparked the importance of restitution to the rightful heirs and remains the foundation for continued efforts today. The difficulty of returning looted artworks to legal beneficiaries lies in not only the varying expiration dates of statutes of limitations, but also due to the fact that 1938 Degenerate Art Law enacted by Adolf Ziegler and Adolf Hitler “has never been repealed and still constitutes a lawful act of state.”2 The convoluted litigation that surrounds the return of artwork can be made more simple by the input of completed provenance research into the origins of the piece.

In my thesis, I consider the collections of two institutions as important case studies—one in Europe (the Kunstmuseum Bern, in Bern, Switzerland), and one in the

United States (the Krannert Art Museum, at the University of Illinois, Champaign-

Urbana, in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois)—whose approaches to the issue of compiling correct provenance records for works in their collection, with particular attention paid to those that were acquired during the Nazi Era, have been challenging, yet necessary. Some of the works at the Kunstmuseum Bern were taken from the rightful owners who were forced to sell them in an art market aided by ethically compromised dealers and collectors, who created dubious legal paperwork to justify their actions. The

Kunstmuseum Bern was bequeathed a large collection by the son of a Nazi art dealer and

2 has committed itself to investigating the provenances of nearly 1,500 works, with the goal of returning proven stolen pieces to the descendants of the families that once owned them. The Krannert explored its own historical collections, seeking clues to the ownership history of works whose provenance had been previously unquestioned. That both museums have undertaken provenance research projects within the last five years permits a timely consideration of an issue facing many museums.

Insight into ownership history must be made a priority for museums committed to an ethical transparency with regard to their collecting history. The fact that museums are perceived as holding great cultural authority, due in part to the hierarchical standard of knowledge to which they adhere, can make them appear fundamentally exclusive, untrustworthy, or perhaps even intimidating. Nonetheless, they have an obligation to be more transparent overall, especially with respect to Nazi art provenance, to critically educate the public about this period in our cultural history, actions taken by members of the Nazi art community, and their implications for contemporary museum practice. Both the Krannert and the Kunstmuseum Bern have dealt straightforwardly with the realization that their collections contain art with unclear ownership histories. The two museums created exhibitions aimed at presenting their provenance research and maintaining transparency by sharing the research with museum visitors.

If a museum is forthcoming about the ownership histories of the art it chooses to display, while acknowledging its important role as a historical repository, then many of the problematic aspects of displaying art lacking thorough provenance records are remedied. Nazi era works are certainly not the only artworks with questionable provenance records; however, acknowledgement of the need for research into a

3 museum’s collection promotes honest conversation about prior institutional practices in collecting and displaying art. Open conversations about the challenges associated with determining an object’s former owner also fosters an environment more conducive to proper provenance research. In sum, institutions must acknowledge their previous neglect of provenance research and demonstrate a renewed commitment to the field.

According to Maureen Warren, Curator of European and American Art at the

Krannert Art Museum at the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana in Champaign-

Urbana, Illinois, complete provenance “is the exception, not the rule,” 3 making it difficult for qualified scholars and professionals—despite their best efforts—to accurately establish an object’s background, prior to a museum’s acquiring it. Organizations are not to blame for lack of acceptable provenance, many records were destroyed during WWII.

Further, acceptable research and standards were not finalized prior to the fall of the

Berlin Wall, and current practices were only recently developed. The anguish that is associated with the events of WWII and the Holocaust causes museums, which are public entities, to be seen in a negative light for their possession of looted or confiscated work, even if they acquired the art in good faith. Moving forward, recognition of the importance of restitution allows for establishments to be places of equality and opportunity, while taking account of their past. The issue of Nazi-looted art is far from over and will continue to be an ongoing dispute. However, the way in which parties on both sides—the original owner and the current possessor—handle restitution and provenance research will change the outcome of these cases.

In a globalized society, is it difficult for a museum to avoid public scrutiny when it is discovered that it holds art which either lacks an exhaustive origin record or is

4 proven to have been looted, particularly during the Nazi era. Collections comprised of art or artifacts that were forcefully taken during colonization—i.e., Native American or

African artifacts that were never intended for public view—can be problematic to display if it is proven such work was stolen, sold under coercion, or confiscated. Even if a museum did not purchase the artwork from an individual or group associated with the

Nazis, the fact that a work has remained in the storage vaults of the institution for an extended period of time, without insight into the object’s former ownership, can cause uncertainty about the establishment’s involvement in questionable practices. Doubts are magnified when visitors are not equipped with the knowledge of how difficult conducting provenance research can be.

The Nazis operated intricate networks of museum professionals, dealers, critics, and art historians to transfer substantial amounts of looted and confiscated art before, during, and after WWII. Many families and institutions lost precious art that had been in their possession for decades—or even centuries. Current popular media stories—like that of the Gurlitt case discussed below and examined in the Kunstmuseum Bern’s multiple exhibitions—have opened up a dialogue in the community about stolen art and the importance of provenance research. With a growing interest in Nazi-looted art during

World War II by the general public, museums now have the ability to conduct a conversation with visitors about art without clear ownership records and explain to visitors why these networks were of such importance to Nazi leaders. Moreover, organizations can clarify how art without accurate attribution ended up in their permanent collection.

5 Provenance Research: Its Effects and Future

According to the Krannert Art Museum’s webpage on provenance research, provenance is the “history of ownership of an object from moment of its creation to its present whereabouts.”4 The origins of an object can tell a story of its life, where it has been and to whom it has belonged. Researching the background of an artwork, especially that of one created prior to 1946 and sold during the Nazi era (1933-1945), can clear up legal disputes over the restitution of the piece. However, determining provenance is not that simple and there is rarely a clear and complete ownership history. Documentation of the work changing hands is often lost or does not comply with today’s standards at all.

Another issue with this type of research, according to the authors of The AAM Guide to

Provenance Research, is that it has “been mostly neglected in both art-historical literature and academic programs.”5 Although the Washington Principles were enacted in 1998 and the American Alliance of Museums with the Association of Art Museum Directors created useful guidelines for conducting research, there are still not enough adequate resources—including funding, qualified researchers, and technology—available for organizations to complete proper research of their permanent collections.

Despite difficulties in making inquiries into an artwork’s background, many organizations in the United States have begun to focus on their own collections, slowly compiling information about acquisitions made during the Nazi era, or about donated works. The Getty Museum, located in Los Angeles, is well-known for its efforts in furthering provenance research, holding archives of the files of German Sales Catalogs from 1930-1945 and creating a database of collectors and inventories related to the Nazi period housed at The Getty Research Institute. The Institute has made the tools they have

6 compiled available through their website, with extensive lists of possible complicit individuals, as well as information on how to navigate their databases. The Nelson-Atkins

Museum of Art, in Kansas City, Missouri, has also made strides in this field. The museum employs a provenance specialist who researches the Nelson-Atkins’ collection for questionable ownership. According to the Nelson-Atkins webpage on provenance,

concerted effort to research Nazi-era provenance for the paintings, sculptures, decorative arts, Judaica and works on paper in its collection to determine past ownership, and, if necessary, to make proper restitution to the owners or the heirs.6

Although some museums are committed to the return of looted artwork in their collection, institutions in the United States have been accused of owning confiscated artwork. Due to legal ramifications, they do not return the artwork to the interested heirs.

An example of this is a 2013 case brought upon the Museum of Modern Art in New

York, who sustained allegations by the heirs of the German artist George Grosz. Claims were made that the museum was in the possession of three works by Grosz—two oil paintings and a watercolor—that were “stolen from the artist who fled the Nazis in

1933.”7 The Grosz works at MoMA ended up at the museum in the 1940s and 1950s from purchases and a donation, after the artist had left the works in the possession of his art dealer before he fled Germany.8 MoMA stands by the fact that the works were acquired legally and that the statute of limitations has run out, leaving the museum in possession of the works after a court ruled that the heirs had taken too long to file a claim, ruling in favor of the New York institution.

In the issue of litigation surrounding restitution of Nazi-era artworks, MoMA’s case is not unique. There has been a lack of agreement on what to do regarding legal

7 aspects of claims made by rightful heirs. Many beneficiaries have been required to go through extensive court appearances and to possess proof of documentation to even have a chance at their artwork being returned. If the contested museum claims the piece was acquired legally and the statute of limitations has expired, there is very little chance that the property will be returned to an heir claiming ownership.

Although museums appear to have the upper hand in remaining in possession of questionable artworks, many organizations are becoming increasingly committed to the return of Nazi-looted objects, even if that means parting with a piece that has been part of their permanent collection for over fifty years. According to Nancy Karrels, establishments must “implement and apply appropriate policies” in order to “ensure that provenance research is conducted as a matter of course in all museums with covered objects.”9 The expansion of investigation along with renewed efforts sustained by the

Washington Principles, with the twentieth anniversary of the conference in 2018, many

American organizations have become more open to the idea of exploring their own assets. Transparency between the museum and its visitors has become a greater priority, with the hope that open discussion of how museums function will lead to a richer engagement with the permanent collection by visitors. The discovery of the Gurlitt trove, discussed in “Hildebrand Gurlitt: A Web of Complex Motives,” was an international media sensation that reopened the conversation on the extent of Nazi plunder and displayed how far-reaching the many transfers were during WWII.

8 CHAPTER 2

LOOTING OF CULTURAL PROPERTY DURING THE NAZI ERA

One of the largest international transfers of looted and confiscated art occurred during the Nazi era. Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) and the National Socialist party used the looting and selling of art and artifacts to implement their heinous propaganda. Hitler was obsessed with purifying the German race, which he saw as superior to all others, and he sought to destroy anything that did not comply with his Aryan vision. His limited talent resulted in a lack of success as an artist and Hitler attempted to become successful at a time when modern art dominated schools and the market. Seen as a juxtaposition to the

Impressionism of the late nineteenth century, art like German Expressionism offered an experimental change at the turn of the century and reached its height during the 1920s.

Hitler’s stylistic preferences were antithetical to modernism and the paintings he made were rejected from the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna. When Hitler gained political power, he sought to eradicate contemporary art from the world’s top museums and private collections. He also intended to create an institution that would only display the finest examples of pure historical and contemporary Aryan art, at a museum designed to rival the Louvre—the never-realized Führermuseum, which Hitler planned to establish in his adoptive birthplace of Linz, Austria. The way in which he amassed his collection became one of history’s most unprecedented removals of works from private and public collections. His aim was to exhibit at the Führermuseum the highest examples of Aryan art. In doing so, the National Socialists intended to profit from selling confiscated

“degenerate” art.

9 Hitler’s popularity originated at a time when Germans were experiencing increased feelings of “bitter resentment of German defeat”10 following World War I and the ramifications of the 1915 Treaty of Versailles. The economy was severely reduced, and people searched for jobs and ways to rebuild after the immense physical and emotional destruction of the war, a problem that made many Germans angry with their government. According to Kim Su Rasmussen, Hitler and other citizens began to rely heavily on a “biopolitical government”11 that developed during the late nineteenth century known as Pan-Germanism. This form of administration placed great importance on the advancement of society and politics. Kim Su Rasmussen states that, Pan-

Germanism was “one of the immediate forerunners of Nazism,”12 and rooted its ideology in the success of an administration by the unification of a strong, singular race. Prior to

World War I and Hitler’s ascendency in 1933, Pan-Germanism developed from the objective “to support all members of the German Volk [people].”13 Due to the collective desire for unification of all Germanic persons across the European continent, an aversion towards those who did not fall under the category of the “white race”14 increased and

Rasmussen states that, “race, seemingly rooted in biological fact, became the predominant definition of the population of the future Pan-German state.”15

Hitler used the growing ideological discourse as part of his campaign and incorporated the racist ideology into his goal of refining the cultural interests of

Germany, a task he embarked on via the display of art and artifacts that represented a purified Aryan race. He was determined to make Linz the new cultural capital of the world and the catalyst of definitive high art. Hitler did not experience an upper-class upbringing. He was rejected from the Academy twice and he used his resultant anger to

10 rally Germans who felt overcome by the events of World War I. He capitalized on the country’s collective anxieties and longing for an immediate change to the current realities of a decimated economy and mass disillusionment. Hitler and his followers, including high-ranking Nazi officials, were neither sophisticated, nor experienced in the arts. Yet, his campaign created a new network of individuals eager to appear cultured in this new generation of German society. Hitler’s extreme obsession with purification ended in horrific events and the murder of millions of innocent people. This unprecedented loss of life on an industrial scale was complemented by Hitler’s attempt to usurp the art historical canon and declare his definition of art as the impetus of Pan-German culture.

During World War II, it is estimated that over 650,000 works of art or monuments were either looted or confiscated from museums, galleries, and private collections.

Distributed across Europe and the United States, their sale helped fund the Nazi war effort.16 Many of these looted pieces either remain missing or have been destroyed. The restitution efforts that began immediately after the war continue today; however, the art which remains missing far exceeds that which has been returned to rightful owners or heirs. Misplaced works are sometimes regarded as the “last prisoners of war,” and restitution attempts to “symbolize the battle for remembering and reconstructing stolen lives of individuals and communities.”17

Since the end of the war, numerous examples of stolen artwork have been discovered in the permanent collections of institutions and galleries around the world, often unsuspected by the organization who possess them. Although museums can be

“arenas in which truth telling, memory, and histories are tested and contested,”18 when

Nazi-looted art is discovered to be part of their collection, the media and the general

11 public are quick to assume questionable involvement with the Nazis. Art belonging to victims of the Holocaust was dispersed around the world, sold below general market prices, and donated to museums by collectors. As a result, many museums either accepted a gift or made purchases in good faith, not knowing the complete ownership history.

“Degenerate” Art

Confiscated art from German museums came to be known as “degenerate” art.

The Degenerate Art Exhibition of 1937, or Entartete Kunst, held in Munich, was organized by Adolf Ziegler (1892-1959) and displayed 740 confiscated artworks, essentially thrown onto the walls in a disorganized fashion, as Hitler and Ziegler hoped to further solidify the belittlement of the art on view. The show traveled to other major

German cities, including Hamburg and Berlin. Ziegler, Hitler’s preferred painter, coordinated the show which would come to be seen as the antithesis to art favored by the

Nazis. The exhibition was organized to show the German people the specific art that was threatening their success in becoming a more stable and powerful country.

The ideals that “degenerate” art portrayed would only diminish the intended progress that Hitler promised would occur under his power. The presentation was used as a contrast to the Great German Art Exhibition, “designed to show works that Hitler approved of—depicting statuesque blonde nudes and idealized soldiers and landscapes.”19 When scholars and historians discuss the art that was confiscated during the Nazi period, the term “degenerate” is now accompanied by quotation marks. The

Nazis used the term as yet another way to demean groups of people they saw as a risk to their political ideologies, as this art was mocked by racist undertones.

12 The deliberate use of punctuation is a way to counter the intense bigotry of the

National Socialists. Hitler and Ziegler promoted this term as a “pejorative debasement of the subsequent non ‘art’”20 as a way to encourage negativity towards the confiscated art found in the installation. The 1937 exhibition featured Expressionist artists such as Emil

Nolde, Wassily Kandinsky, Oskar Kokoschka, and Max Beckmann—many of whom were found in the Gurlitt trove.21 These artists, in the eyes of Hitler and his followers, were considered a “deviation from a norm” and were weighed as less significant than the art shown in the real German art installation.22

The exhibition intended to set the value of these artists and their work as low as possible, in order to amplify depictions that matched their racist philosophies. Although the presentation’s organizers and Hitler himself insisted that the work found in the show were all made by “Jews or Bolsheviks,” out of 112 artists exhibited, only six were actually Jewish.23 The works in the installation were in turn either destroyed or sold abroad for much-needed foreign currency which aided the Nazi’s war efforts. Sold for low prices, many of these works ended up in England and the United States. Ironically,

Nazi disapproval of Expressionism and their advertisement of the art as “degenerate” led many foreign buyers to become more aware of these artists, increasing their popularity.

However, they did not enjoy the benefits of their growing international recognition unless they were able to emigrate abroad. The Germans confiscated their works from the country’s museums, selling them through specialized dealers like Hildebrand Gurlitt

(1895-1956), while forging documentation in order to make the removals appear legal.

13 A Brief Note on the Nuanced Nature of Nazi-Looted Art

The rapid transfer of art with incomplete provenance makes locating looted art extremely difficult. The most notable case to date is the 2004 litigation, Maria Altmann v. the Republic of Austria. As the subject of a major film, books, and documentaries, the case is seen as one of the most high-profile legal proceedings involving an heir to artwork stolen by the Nazis and a museum staff who, to their knowledge, acquired the piece—

Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer, by Gustav Klimt (1903-1907, Neue Galerie, New

York)—in good faith. While the media does not popularize most legal proceedings to the same extent as it did the Altmann litigation, the globalization of media stories has allowed for a greater interest in restitution cases. Litigation which has garnered similar attention to the Altmann case is that of the discovery of the Gurlitt cache in Munich in

2012.

Interest in Nazi-looted art and the reasoning behind why Hitler used art as a demonstration of power in his political agenda has grown. Books that have later become films, such as The Monuments Men (2014), Woman in Gold (2015), and The Rape of

Europa (1994) by Lynn Nicholas, have left the general public fascinated by the dramatic efforts which occasionally accompany the restitution of tangible assets left behind by or stolen from victims of the Holocaust. Considerable work and research need to be done to track down missing art and artifacts lost during the Nazi era. The lengths to which Hitler and the Nazis went to conceal the looted art has left many promising trails at a dead end with no answer in sight.

14 Nazi Networks

To fully comprehend the scale of transfers of art between individuals across country lines before, during, and after World War II by those promoting Nazi ideology, it is important to consider the phenomenon of Actor Network Theory (ANT). The networks of people associated with these relocations is complicated because not all those involved were incriminated by the war crimes trials which came after WWII ended. Even today, the sheer number of individuals involved in transporting art or other cultural property is not fully known by researchers and the extent to which those linked may never be fully revealed. The alarming volume of people willing to turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by their employers in order to maintain professionalism and keep their jobs during WWII is cause for researchers to analyze how in-depth the complex networks of individuals—whether it be art dealers, art historians, professors, or museum officials— were during the Nazi era. ANT is a psychological theory that has been largely advanced by the philosopher, anthropologist, and sociologist Bruno Latour. He describes ANT as:

a narrative or a description or a preposition where all actors do something and don’t just sit there. Instead of simply transporting effects without transforming them, each of the points in the text may become a bifurcation, an event, or the origin of a new translation.24

The arguments that Latour makes are meant to be thought of as the networks that connect individuals, and these entities are acting on the systems through their own will. They are all linked by various events—or other individuals—which are in turn affected by each other’s actions.

15 Latour suggests that the complexes associated with ANT are not what is commonly thought of when one thinks of interacting, such as the concept of a highway or train system. Instead:

network is an expression to check how much energy, movement, and specificity our own reports are able to capture. Network is a concept, not a thing out there. It is a tool to help describe something, not what is being described.25

The idea that the association in question forms because of common actions and not an actual, agreed upon, understood physical organization can help explain how so many museum professionals, art historians, and dealers became entangled in Nazi war efforts.

Even before the outbreak of WWII, the displacement of art through these rapidly forming systems laid the groundwork for individuals to come into contact with one another.

Perhaps they did not entirely agree with Nazi ideologies but maintaining a professional career during the war lead to a web of unsavory connections, which Nazi officials used to their advantage. The involvement with the National Socialists art transfers manifested in sustained employment after the war and relatively easy de-Nazification investigations, which consisted of investigation and questioning in order to assure the Allies that they were not ideologically involved with heinous Nazi crimes.

The ever-changing nature of the networks is one way to explain how the list of who exactly was involved in the transfer of art is so convoluted, specifically as to determine who was involved and how Nazi officials created positions within the hierarchy. The National Socialists made buying and selling art part of their war efforts and, as a result of the hasty relocations (as well as bombing and theft), thousands of artworks are still missing today. Nazi officials legitimized looting and confiscating by

16 creating laws within their regime and by buying and selling art to institutions outside of

Germany, which further cemented networks. The Degenerate Art Law, enacted on May

31, 1938, by Hitler after meeting with the art dealer Karl Haberstock (1878-1956)—who would later offer works to both Hitler and Hermann Göring (1893-1946)—made the selling of “degenerate art from German state collections” 26 legal under the Nazi regime.

The law also aided in “new owners having good title today,”27 which adds to the growing list of factors as to why locating looted art from the Nazi era is difficult. Hitler was interested in creating a legal way to make eradicating institutions, as well as private owners, of unacceptable art more useful to the Nazi war efforts, and this law was designed with “highly anti-Semitic formulations and cut from the same cloth as the

Degenerate Art exhibition.”28 With the new law, many dealers began to discern the loopholes created for Hitler and the Nazis to benefit on all accounts from the

“liquidating”29 of art.

In what has to be described as an “ethically questionable manner,”30 museum directors in the United States inadvertently assisted with Nazi war efforts by buying the

“degenerate” art that German art dealers were beginning to sell in the early 1930s. Other wealthy Americans, such as the publisher Joseph Pulitzer, Jr. (1913-1993), made trips abroad in order to purchase condemned artworks from galleries in Switzerland.31 There are records of Alfred Barr (1902-1981), the director of the Museum of Modern Art

(MoMA) from 1929-1943, buying the art from the “Nazi purges,” sending “desperately needed foreign currency to the Nazi state.”32 By purchasing the art that was removed both from German private collections and public institutions, along with art looted from individuals under duress, museum officials in the United States were assisting in the

17 growth and strength of art dealer networks under the Nazi regime. Jonathan Petropoulos, a professor of art history and well-known expert on Nazi-looted art, puts the complexity of the networks into perspective:

Barr and other American museum directors provided critical financial support to the Nazi regime in the late 1930s. The chain of this foreign currency went from Barr and MoMA to the émigré art dealer Curt Valentin, who had established a gallery in Manhattan selling the purged “degenerate” works; to Valentin’s partner in Berlin, Karl Buchholz, who had a thriving business in modern art; to the Reich Propaganda Ministry, which oversaw the liquidation program; to the Reichsbank. Barr and Valentin became especially close, with the MoMA director writing to the FBI during the war, vouching for the dealer.33

Clear and intricate levels of connections are found between the purchaser and the final location of the funds used to buy the “degenerate” art. The Barr MoMA example is only one of many associations that were formed with art institutions and private collectors outside of Germany during the Nazi era, with the networks perhaps becoming even stronger in the years following WWII.

To further establish the intricate alliances found in ANT, Latour calls on the phenomenon of representatives, stating, “to delineate a group, no matter if it has to be created from scratch or simply refreshed, you have to have spokespersons which ‘speak for’ the group existence.”34 The individuals involved in the transfer of art and artifacts from other institutions or private collections perhaps hid behind these spokespersons—art dealers such as Haberstock, Bruno Lohse (1911-2007), and Hildebrand Gurlitt—so that they would not be apprehended while larger names faced long incarceration. Following prosecution, Lohse spent only two years in a French prison for his complicity with the

18 Nazi regime and was able to restart his career after his release, working as an art

“adviser.”35

Gurlitt relied on his Jewish ancestry while going through the de-Nazification process, something that he tried to diminish while working for the Nazis. He also tried to make his position less advantageous than it appeared while he was on house arrest, telling the Americans that he was never involved in art transfers from Paris. This, of course, would have been impossible since Gurlitt was tasked with getting art from the “ERR

(Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg) art plundering headquarters in Paris.”36 The

Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg was also known as the Special Task Force and was led by Alfred Rosenberg (no relation to the noted French art dealer, Paul Rosenberg.) The

ERR was one of the largest repositories of looted art from Nazi-occupied territories in

Europe. Gurlitt misled the denazification officials, saying that he had “only met Lohse once” and that “he was never in the ERR facility.”37 For Gurlitt, his testimony went over well with the Monuments Men; however, others involved—such as Lohse—were not as lucky, his trial ending in imprisonment for being “deeply implicated in the Nazis’ art- plundering program.”38

However, a growing question remains—one that has been extensively covered by

Jonathan Petropoulos: how these networks of men and women working for the Nazis were formed and why did they become involved with a radical political ideology? Each person’s story of involvement has the common ground of sympathizing with the National

Socialists, whether it was actually felt or fabricated for protection. Hildebrand Gurlitt's story was catapulted into popular media once the apartment of his son, Cornelius, was discovered. While Gurlitt’s name was known through its presence on red flag lists, prior

19 to 2012 he was not generally suspected, at least in circles outside of exclusive art dealers.

When news broke of the apartment, both father and son, as well as the entire Gurlitt family were painted as criminals and Nazi sympathizers who maliciously hid art for over fifty years.

Hildebrand Gurlitt was indeed in possession of looted artworks, yet he also made purchases of art that were legal at the time, even if he paid far below the accepted market price. Gurlitt became wealthy from his endeavors and forged documents in order to speed up business transactions towards the end of the war. Although his involvement with the

Nazis cannot be forgotten, he arguably “saved” thousands of “degenerate” artworks from destruction. The “sensationalist and speculative story” that “dominated even serious

German media for months on end”39 shaped the way the public viewed the Gurlitt family, particularly Hildebrand, though it was later revealed that he was most likely initially involved to protect himself and his family.

Gurlitt’s knowledge and his connections as a former museum director and, later, art dealer made him highly valuable and easily assimilated into the Nazi art confiscating networks. The National Socialists came to power when Germany was vulnerable, making their ideologies insignificant against the promise of governmental wealth and stability.

Hildebrand was searching for success, affluence, status, and influence, which, as an official art dealer for the Third Reich, left him open to employment by the growing regime. The Nazi party used the promise of Volksgemeinschaft, which was the assurance that the government would provide “the working classes with the opportunity to climb the social ladder and to bring an equal society within reach.”40 However, this masked the true intentions of creating an entirely new Aryan race and committing atrocious crimes

20 against millions of innocent human beings. The networks that art transfers created in order to fund the Nazi war efforts became an entangled web. Those involved, like Gurlitt, did not have any opportunity to leave, lest they risk their lives or ruin their reputations and livelihoods. Hildebrand “had experienced protection by the Reich” for his association and he “fell into a dependency, since there were no guarantees of safety for him and his family.”41 The reliance that Gurlitt felt could be one explanation for the extensive nature of the Nazi networks, and the reason that those associated felt as though there were no other outlets for their professionalism during World War II.

Hildebrand Gurlitt: A Web of Complex Motives

The 2012 discovery of over 1,500 artworks found hidden in file cabinets, hung on the walls, and stuffed in drawers of both the Munich apartment and the Salzburg, Austria, residence of the reclusive art collector, Cornelius Gurlitt (1932-2014), became one of the greatest media stories involving suspected Nazi-looted art in recent years.42 The uncovering of what is now known as the Gurlitt trove was thrust into the public eye after a small German periodical, Focus, reported on the story in 2013. The magazine published an article after learning about Cornelius’ arrest for suspicion of tax evasion, a full year after the initial discovery by German authorities. The artworks were assembled by

Cornelius’ father, Hildebrand. The art that was discovered in the residence was originally valued as a collection worth billions of dollars but given that many of the works found are works on paper and not major pieces, that is not the case. Those in Munich art circles, especially insiders like the Swiss art dealer Eberhard Kornfeld (b. 1923), knew of the

Gurlitt family’s assets for many years before the public discovery, noting that there were earlier inklings of the art having a questionable background. Kornfeld stated that trove

21 was “not a collection but the ‘stock-in trade of the art dealer and art historian Hildebrand

Gurlitt.”43

Acting as one of four official Nazi art dealers, along with Karl Buchholz (1901-

1992), Ferdinand Möller (1882-1956), and Bernhard Böhmer (1892-1945), Gurlitt became involved in a tight-knit web of art professionals and Nazi officials working to achieve Hitler’s agenda while also hoping to retain their professional status in the art world and make a profit during World War II. How did Gurlitt become involved with

Hitler and the Nazis and how was he able to acquire artwork for his own collection?

While buying and selling confiscated art that funded the Nazi war efforts, Gurlitt, as well as the other art dealers, was able to purchase art for his own collection. Following the

1938, “Law on the Expropriation of Products of Degenerate Art” which funded the

“extensive art purchasing done by Hitler, Göring, and other Nazi officials,” Gurlitt found obtaining the despised art extremely easy.44 Secretly preferring “degenerate” art, he acquired this art for himself under the guise of selling it to other collectors or museums outside of Germany.

The art found is a testament to Gurlitt’s taste and his upbringing in the Dresden art scene, which was especially active in the modern art of the early 20th century. The research associates Johannes Gramlich at the Bavarian State Painting Collections and

Meike Hopp at the Central Institute for Art History in Munich reviewed Hildebrand

Gurlitt’s life as an art dealer in the exhibition catalogue for the Kunstmuseum Bern and

Bundeskunsthalle Bonn installations of Gurlitt Status Report. Gramlich and Hopp were able to deduce how deeply enmeshed the Gurlitt family was in German society and the arts:

22 The tradition of the Gurlitt family as a significant part of the educated upper middle class can be traced back to the 18th century. From that time on they regularly produced individuals influential in culture and the arts who were known beyond the region in which they were active. As a result, the family amassed substantial cultural and social capital over the generations. The name ‘Gurlitt’ grew in prominence and esteem, which made it increasingly easy for subsequent generations to become established, and to celebrate success, in culture, the arts, and academia.45

Hildebrand Gurlitt’s aspirations and career motives were perfectly molded by his family’s long history, which has roots in the arts dating back to the early nineteenth century. His grandfather, Heinrich Louis Theodor Gurlitt (1812-1897), professionally known as Louis Gurlitt, was a landscape painter who worked in a style later preferred by

Hitler. His great uncle, Cornelius Gurlitt (1820-1901), was a well-known German composer. His father, Cornelius Gurlitt, Sr. (1850-1938), was an art historian and taught at the Technical University. Ernst Ludwig Kirchner was one of his students.46

Hildebrand’s cousin, Wolfgang Gurlitt (1888-1965), was an art dealer who also was associated with the Nazi art networks. Hildebrand’s uncle, Fritz Gurlitt (1854-1893), was a gallery owner and art dealer in Berlin. Fritz represented the artists Max Liebermann

(1847-1935), whose work was found in Cornelius Gurlitt’s apartment, Wilhelm Liebel

(1844-1900), and Franz Skarbina (1849-1910). Cornelia Gurlitt (1890-1919),

Hildebrand’s sister, was an artist working in the Expressionist style. Although not professionally involved in the arts, Hildebrand’s mother, Marie (1859-1949) favored modernist artist movements, including Die Brücke.

The arts were part of Gurlitt’s ancestry, and he continued the legacy of his father as a successful art historian and, eventually, a respected museum director. Gurlitt intended to be involved exclusively in academia, wanting to become a professor more

23 than a dealer because “he had already spent many years publishing his writings on art and gave lectures throughout Germany on art and the art business.”47 Gurlitt was also invested in keeping the arts at the forefront of German culture. While he was a student, he contemplated “the socio-political relevance of art”48 and was interested in how art could be used in more aspects of everyday life, making it more accessible to broader groups of the German public. He believed modern art, particularly Expressionism, would allow for the German people to reinvent themselves after the embarrassing defeat during World

War I.

Gurlitt wanted to use art as a way for Germans to “identify with the nation.”49 He used his status to advocate, “for change in cultural values under the influence of Friedrich

Nietzsche’s philosophy,”50 which implies that creativity is a result of taking responsibility for one’s actions, with balance between the head and the heart.51 Additionally, he

“actively sought to help reanimate Germany as a lead cultural nation” following the end of World War I.52 While Gurlitt was the director of first the King Albert Museum in

Zwickau, Germany (1925-1930), and later the Kunstverein in Hamburg (1930-1933), he had hopes of leading institutions in either Berlin or Munich. As an administrator, he wanted his museum to represent the inclusive nature of modern art, with “its motto as the connection between art and the people.”53 In both of his directorships in Zwickau and

Hamburg, he advocated for local artists. He also made many acquisitions to both organizations in order to grow their respective modern art collections. However, his aspirations were never realized as he was eventually ousted for continuing to display prevailing German art.54 Gurlitt wanted to champion the German artists who were involved in modernist movements like Die Brücke, such as the artist Max Pechstein

24 (1881-1955), who was from Zwickau and barely known there prior to Gurlitt’s tenure as museum director.55

Gurlitt “first offered his services to the Nazi regime”56 in 1938, after learning of the opportunity to sell confiscated “degenerate” art from German museums to buyers abroad in exchange for foreign currency. Gurlitt saw this as an opportunity to remain involved with his preferred art, profit from the Nazi war agenda, and remain safe from persecution. Gurlitt was already being watched for his directorial actions against the

National Socialist political principles, like his refusal to fly the Nazi swastika flag while he was still in charge at the Kunstverein Hamburg, due to the fact that the art Gurlitt wished to display went against Nazi ideologies. His father and brother were already removed from their academic positions, leaving Gurlitt fearful that he would lose hold of his professional accomplishments entirely.

Another factor that left Gurlitt vulnerable was his Jewish ancestry (his maternal grandmother was Jewish). Fearful of the growing hostility displayed by the National

Socialist party against the Jews, he hoped to evade discrimination and persecution for a part of his identity that was “forced upon him.”57 Gurlitt was “classed as a second-degree

Mischling,”58 a term used to delineate individuals who had Jewish familial lineage. A

“first-degree Mischling” was known as a “half-Jew according to the Nuremberg Racial

Laws of 1935.”59Although he had Jewish heritage, he did not feel attached to this part of his background. His father’s family had fully assimilated into society through their positions in the arts, whether in academia or though practice, and left behind their religious affiliations in order to become part of the “urban bourgeoisie of their time.”60Although Gurlitt believed in the ideals that were specific to Pan-Germanism and

25 hoped for unity after years of political and societal unrest, he was not anti-Semitic. Prior to his removal from his academic position because of his Jewish genealogy, Gurlitt’s father, Cornelius Sr., did not prefer to be associated with his background and even advised his family to vote for Hitler in 1933, saying that his bureaucratic standards were right for Germany.61

Gurlitt’s family struggled with this involuntary association after years of not practicing the Jewish religion. Yet, following the end of WWII and during his denazification trials, Gurlitt reconnected with his previously denounced Jewish heritage in order to convince the American Monuments Men, specifically his first interrogator,

Dwight McKay, that he was forced into conspiring with the Nazis because of his background in art history and museums.62 The American Monuments Men were a group of art professionals with backgrounds in various disciplines who were tasked with protecting the cultural heritage of European countries during World War II. Gurlitt knew full well that appearing as a victim instead of a contributor would ease his punishment and allow for the return of his art collection that he had meticulously compiled. His carefully thought out responses while he was being interviewed, “shed light on his conflicted identity as a German citizen while maintaining a degree of ‘Otherness’ because he was also a son of the Jewish race.”63

According to Gurlitt, had he not collaborated with the Nazis, he would have faced loss of employment and imprisonment in a concentration camp. Gurlitt misled the Allies into believing that the art they seized was rightfully his, and that he and his family were merely the victims of the Nazi’s heinous war crimes. He even convinced his interrogators that the paperwork proving his ownership of the art was destroyed in the firebombing of

26 Dresden. This was all a lie, of course, as Gurlitt was able to safely remove his family, his possessions, and any other important documents to a nearby farmland before the allied air raid took place.

While Gurlitt was at risk of being sent to forced labor camps, he was able to escape that grim fate by petitioning the National Socialists to work for their “degenerate” art sales force in 1938.64 Gurlitt was both a victim and a willing accomplice. The knowledge he had as an art historian with a Ph.D. and his time spent as a museum director of two institutions, all while opening his own gallery, made Gurlitt a valuable asset. In order to secure his status as an accredited member of the German bourgeoise,

Gurlitt befriended important people such as Hans Posse (1879-1942), an art historian, initial candidate for director of the Fürhermuseum, and Hitler’s appointee for establishing the Sonderauftrag Linz, or the Special Order Linz, which was an organization set up to consolidate works for the Führermuseum; Hermann Voss (1884-1969), an art historian and Posse’s successor; and Kurt Kirchbach (1891-1967), a German industrialist who manufactured brakes for every automotive company in Germany during the 1920s. These relationships assisted Gurlitt in avoiding persecution for his Jewish background. Shortly after he began as director at Zwickau, Kirchbach helped him climb ranks as an art dealer, hiring him to compile an extensive photography collection, which included work by Man

Ray, El Lissitzky, Edward Weston, László Maholy-Nagy, Umbo, and Albert Renger-

Patzsch.65 The two men spent two months in 1933, “traveling in Denmark, Germany,

Italy, Sweden, and the United States”66 acquiring artwork for Kirchbach. Their friendship cemented Gurlitt’s position as an art dealer for the Third Reich, especially since

Kirchbach was undoubtedly seen as an important asset to German war vehicles.

27 Careful to never publicly reveal his involvement with the National Socialist party,

Gurlitt secretly denounced Hitler to close friends and family while signing documents with “Heil, Hitler!” 67 to appear compliant with the ideology of his contemporaries.

Perhaps he knew the implications of becoming involved with an over-zealous political regime, and how that might affect his connections abroad.68 Some of Gurlitt’s actions may appear as survival strategies, but he still collaborated with guilty parties. He also took necessary steps to protect his family and his business from being shut down. He named his wife, Helene (1895-1968), as the owner of his gallery, or “Kunstkabinett,” because she was seen as Aryan.69 During the course of the war, “art dealers who were

‘partly Jewish’ could continue in their positions only if they could ensure foreign currency income to the government.”70

Gurlitt’s overseas contacts that were made through his travels with Kirchbach, along with his associates in the Nazi art dealing networks, made acquiring foreign currency through the sale of confiscated “degenerate” art a simple task. The art that was being sold for exchange—which was technically confiscated by the current government from their own state museums—made the transactions legal because they were “selling off mainly its own assets, and not property it had stolen from those it was persecuting.”71

Over time, Gurlitt became the most successful art dealer for the Third Reich, attaining

3,879 works which “far exceeded the deals in ‘degenerate art’ made by his fellow dealers

Möller (848 works), Buchholz (883 works), and Böhmer (1,187 works).”72

Between 1939 and 1945, Gurlitt bought and sold nineteenth-century German art to leading Nazi officials, including Albert Speer (1905-1981) and Göring, while secretly taking the “degenerate” art that was removed from institutions for himself. Gurlitt

28 attained sufficient business power within the ranks of Nazi bureaucracy such that he was able to “write his own travel authorization and use the railways to ship artwork” 73 from the ERR Special Task Force in Paris to anywhere in Germany. Although his main area of work was in France, following its surrender to Germany in 1940, he became “a sort of

Chief Buyer on the French market.”74 There, he was tasked with removing corrupt art from French museums, sending back examples of Aryan art, and, later, buying art directly for Hitler and Linz. The art he purchased in France was sent to German museums to “fill gaps” that were “left by the elimination of modern art.”75

Pieces by Kirchner, Matisse, and Kollwitz were selling for steeply discounted prices. Gurlitt was able to acquire these pieces at a low cost and ship them back to his home in Dresden. His success in “degenerate” art sales allowed Gurlitt to ship his own purchases across border “alongside the crates for the ‘Special Commission.’”76 Gurlitt knew the true reason behind why this art was suddenly available and why it was so inexpensive, yet he was able to “reason away any moral dilemmas that may have troubled him.”77 He viewed his position as an opportunity to grow his own collection, consolidate his status as an art dealer, and repair his family’s name after it had been tarnished by his

Jewish heritage.

Gurlitt had a history of saving art as a German Monuments Man during World

War I.78 After he was dismissed from active duty in 1917 following two injuries, Gurlitt spent time in Lithuania in the “public relations department of ‘Ober Ost’ (the Supreme

Command of German Forces in the East)”79 where he eventually supervised the division of art. Here his passion for the arts grew enormously as he was tasked with preparing the occupied territories for future settlement, with his primary focus being to educate local

29 citizens on German culture and propaganda.80 His time working abroad, coupled with his father’s advocacy for an integrated country and inconspicuous anti-Semitism, shaped

Gurlitt’s efforts in promoting “the Expressionist movement, as a stylistic development borne out of the allegedly passionate nature of the Germans.”81 Although Gurlitt knew that the art he was dealing in and purchasing often came from private collections of Jews deported to concentration camps, he was also a firm supporter of Pan-Germanism, which clouded his moral compass.82 Gurlitt’s support of the unity of the German people were

“linked to a dangerous nationalism” which intended to “disassociate art from intellectual debate and reconnect it to a character inherent to a nationality.”83 He was first and foremost a German bringing this art back to his country while covertly supporting his own goals and grooming his ego.84

Gurlitt continued to deal art until he died in a car accident in 1956 at the age of

61. Prior to his death, Gurlitt organized an exhibition of Max Beckmann paintings after they were returned to him by the American Monuments Men in 1950. He also was a

“major lender” to the exhibition German Watercolors, Drawings and Prints 1905-1955,

A Mid-Century Review that traveled throughout the United States, contributing “twenty- two works from his ‘personal collection.”85 One of the works he lent ended up in the possession of the Kunstmuseum Bern, a Max Beckmann titled, The Lion Tamer (Figure

1).86 Following Hildebrand’s death, his wife Helene periodically sold paintings from his collection. There are also speculations that Gurlitt had secret bank accounts in

Switzerland, as well as other businesses registered under his spouse’s name, which would have allowed her complete access to his holdings after his death.87

30 Such occasional transactions, some of which were facilitated by Eberhard

Kornfeld, meant that dealers throughout Germany and other parts of Europe were aware of the Gurlitt trove prior to the 2012 revelation. Cornelius and his sister Renate Gurlitt,

(1935-2012) followed in their mother’s footsteps after her death, periodically selling pieces when they needed the money. Maintaining a secretive lifestyle, Cornelius Gurlitt never opened a German bank account.88 News outlets who covered the story, in particular one magazine, Der Spiegel, who interviewed Cornelius during the height of the revealing news stories, described him as a quiet, private man. He believed the art in his father’s collection belonged to him and his family.89 Cornelius had lived his life with the knowledge of this collection, yet his father was adamant that it belonged to him lawfully because at the time, Hildebrand’s dealings were legal according to laws enacted by the

National Socialists.

According to an interview done with Cornelius by the German reporter Özlem

Gezer, the responsibility to protect this art overwhelmed him, especially after his mother died. Cornelius understood the atrocities that were committed during World War II by the

Nazis, which he stated in the same interview with Gezer, but he certainly did not see his father as associated with them. His inability to acknowledge his father’s involvement with a hateful regime, whether that be intentional or not, made Cornelius appear guilty by association. It is difficult to imagine he did not comprehend the gravity of his father’s decisions, even if he did manage to virtually remove himself from modern society by living off the sales of the family’s artworks.

Cornelius and Renate remained close siblings, a fact supported by a recent discovery of a 1964 letter between the two, in which Renate states, “I sometimes think,

31 his most personal and most valuable legacy has turned into the darkest burden.”90

Renate’s involvement in hiding her father’s collection was revealed in 2018, as fourteen works in total were found in an inventory of her possessions, with four returned to the rightful heirs. The artworks Renate owned were all works on paper by the artists Charles-

Dominique-Joseph Eisen, Augustin de Saint-Aubin, and Anne Vallayer-Coster, and originally belonged to the French industrialist, Henri Deutsch de la Meurthe.91 After an

“unnamed collector voluntarily offered up the four works” 92 for analysis, the German

Lost Art Foundation was able to restitute the looted works to the heirs of Deutsch de la

Meurthe.

Cornelius’ decision to gift the Kunstmuseum Bern the entirety of the family’s holdings, months before his death in 2014, was surprising, considering his strict stance that the works belonged to him legally. Prior to more insight into the Gurlitt’s relationship with Switzerland and Bern in particular, many believed the donation was completely random. After the exposure, Gurlitt family relatives spoke publicly about the art, claiming objects rightfully belonged to them. They also attested to Cornelius’ reclusive behavior, stating that he was not in the mental state to deal with the legal affairs of organizing the art. Eberhard Kornfeld suggested that perhaps the will changed last minute as a way to spite Germany, as he—and Cornelius while he was still alive—felt as though German officials and media tarnished the Gurlitt name. After being arrested for suspicion of tax evasion, the addition of deceptive theft was enough for Cornelius to become disillusioned with his home country.

In her book, Hitler’s Art Thief: Hildebrand Gurlitt, the Nazis, and the Looting of

Europe’s Treasures, Susan Ronald indicates that Hildebrand had an undeclared bank

32 account in Bern and that Cornelius had sold art at the Kornfeld auction house located there as well. 93 The combination of this unexpected gift of art and personal correspondence overwhelmed the Kunstmuseum Bern, which took six months to announce publicly that they would formally receive the controversial gift. However, after the acceptance, Kunstmuseum Bern director, Matthias Frehner, made it clear that the museum would actively try to address provenance gaps in many of the artwork’s documentation: “The Gurlitt collection is very large and many of the works are undocumented, we will work together with the German task force and help contribute to the research of the collection’s history."94 The art is in their possession, but the museum immediately stated that they would be working with research teams of art historians, lawyers, and provenance experts to return the art to the rightful heirs. The museum disclosed “that it would accept the Gurlitt gift, but not any of the 451 remaining artworks suspected of having been looted.”95

Cornelius Gurlitt is not guilty of conspiring with the Nazis in order to profit and advance career potential like his father, however it is understood that Cornelius was aware of his father’s Nazi connections. Yet, the fact that he inherited the collection from his mother forced him to appear responsible for past actions. His decision to gift the

Kunstmuseum Bern everything in the trove, pending restitution efforts, allowed thousands of previously hidden artworks to be available for the public to view. These pieces are important not only from an art historical standpoint, but also for keeping the conversation going about the relevance of restitution and provenance research. In 2012, more than sixty years after the end of the war, the reminder of the unsolved cases of missing art and artifacts from Nazi confiscation was once again ignited. The discovery

33 also allowed for the Kunstmuseum Bern to take part in long overdue investigations into the provenance of each painting in the Gurlitt trove. Cornelius’ choice of the

Kunstmuseum Bern, “in which he consented to the scientific investigation of his artworks,”96 granted the museum the ability to return an artwork to the rightful owner if it was found that a work had been looted or confiscated under duress. In making the arrangement with the Kunstmuseum Bern, Cornelius, according to Stefan Koldehoff, “as a private individual went further than some public museums in Germany have been prepared to go even to this day.”97

Hildebrand Gurlitt’s work before, during, and after WWII allowed him to create a lifestyle that continued to benefit him later in life. As Meike Hoffman states in her essay in the 2017 New German Critique:

The networks that he had established in these times proved reliable later: they read like traces of the trade routes of confiscated and seized artworks during the Nazi period and mark the fine line between merit and crime that Gurlitt negotiated after 1933.98

Hildebrand’s connections and status did not earn him the same reputation as other well- known individuals involved in Nazi dealings, such as Lohse and Haberstock, yet the number of networks with which he was involved were cognizant of his collection and aware of what Hildebrand did in order to acquire works: “In Munich art-dealing circles, one knew that the Gurlitt family had an extensive collection of art.”99

Gurlitt’s actions during the Nazi era make him a complicit dealer in their efforts, yet he justified his actions by believing he was saving modern art from being destroyed.

Gurlitt was committed to maintaining his status as a successful art dealer during the war with ambitions of returning to a directorship. This hope became a reality for Gurlitt in

34 1949, when he became the director of the Kunstverein für die Rheinlande und Westfalen in Düssedorf. His pledge to himself and the modern art movements that were developing in Germany in the 1920s became indispensable to Nazi administrators, who used his connections as “trade routes for looted and seized art.”100 Cornelius’ run in with law enforcement from suspicion of tax evasion allowed for the art in Gurlitt’s collection to be found and returned to the public eye; however, Gurlitt’s participation in Nazi efforts shrouds his accomplishments beneath the horrific events of the Holocaust.

CHAPTER 3

CASE STUDIES

In this section I will further discuss current issues of provenance research by examining two museums, both of which have mounted exhibitions that study the urgent nature of clear ownership, as well as providing models for how institutions can explore the restitution of Nazi-looted art. What these museums have accomplished is a work in progress and may not be relevant for all cultural organizations. Their work has led to thought-provoking conversations about confiscated or stolen art, and the importance of carefully delineating the background of an object. Their efforts can be used as a model for how to conduct inquiry into public and private collections. Both museum’s endeavors remind us that issues connected with the atrocities committed during the Holocaust remain relevant.

The Challenges of Statues of Limitations

Many variables make restitution cases difficult, but there are often four constants when looking at a handful of claims. First, the statute of limitations has most likely passed on the artwork, which makes bringing successful legal action challenging. The

35 timeline of statutes of limitations varies between different countries, but generally the period begins from the moment the property was stolen. Second, provenance research is nearly impossible without proper documentation. Little paperwork accompanies looted or confiscated artwork, and there are gaps in ownership history or prior locations. Third, legal procedures regarding stolen property vary greatly between different countries, and even from state to state in the United States. For example, New York has laws conflicting with the rest of the country. Since the state often deals with cultural property due to the recognition as “an art mecca” with “many museum plaintiffs,”101 restitution claims are brought forward much more frequently.

In New York, the “original owner may seek to reclaim stolen property until three years after he makes a demand for its return and the good faith purchasers refuse.”102

Switzerland law allows five years and “all purchasers of property, stolen or not, are presumed to act in good faith.”103 However, in Germany, the statute of limitations is set at thirty years from the time property is burglarized. The gap in cohesive laws regularly causes litigation to be seen on a case-by-case basis. Judges will sometimes rely on the laws of the last known location of the artwork, which can make the result of the case lean in favor of the good-faith purchaser and not the rightful heir. Lastly, many of the works that beneficiaries are looking for may have actually been looted from occupied territories or private individuals under duress and are now in German museums. These works may have ended up in these institutions' permanent collections as part of the campaign to return representations of pure German, or “Aryan” art to the homeland.

36 Kunstmuseum Bern: A Dedication to Restitution

The Kunstmuseum Bern, located in the Swiss capital, opened in 1849, making it the oldest art museum in Switzerland. The institution has an extensive collection of

51,000 works, ranging from paintings, drawings, and photography to sculptures and films.104 The core of the Kunstmuseum Bern were “formed by the Bern state paintings” assemblage “and the collection of the Bernische Kunstgesellschaft (BKG).”105 Donations from private collectors, acquisitions, and permanent loans further expanded its holdings.

The museum possesses art “from the early Middle Ages,” 106 along with a well- represented Modernist collection, including the largest selection of works by Wassily

Kandinsky in Switzerland. Other prominent artists shown at the Kunstmuseum Bern include Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, Paul Klee, and Ernst Ludwig Kirchner.107

Prior to Cornelius Gurlitt’s gift, the Bern museum was relatively disassociated with Nazi-looted art. In fact, before 2014, the museum had not engaged in any provenance research of their permanent collection.108 The gift of the Gurlitt trove ignited an investigation into the Kunstmuseum Bern’s holdings, especially since it was becoming increasingly obvious through public inquiries and media stories that Switzerland as a country was relatively behind the rest of Europe, including that of Germany, in their efforts to research museum’s collections for instances of incomplete ownership documentation. Part of this is due to the fact that Switzerland’s institutions are mainly

“operated by the cantons, municipalities, or private organizations” with only a small few of the country’s museums falling under government ownership.109 In a 2010 survey of establishments located in Switzerland, the “Swiss Federal Office of Culture discovered

37 that there is an urgent need for action with regard to provenance research and a transparent handling of the results.”110

Investigations into attributions at the Kunstmuseum Bern had been lacking prior to the bequest. Many were quick to assume that Switzerland had “remained a safe haven for ‘flight assets’ of dubious provenance to this day.”111 It was also inferred that the country as a whole had profited from the Nazi war efforts through various bank accounts and storage vaults opened by individuals tied to the Third Reich, regardless of official or hierarchical position. After the Kunstmuseum Bern announced that it would accept the bequest, museum officials made it clear that every artwork in the collection would undergo intense analysis and research of its ownership history, with the condition that the art suspected of being looted would remain in Germany where separate research on those pieces was conducted.112 If examination could not find the rightful heirs, or if conclusions revealed the art to be acquired legally, then the Kunstmuseum Bern would accept the art.

The Kunstmuseum Bern was immediately cooperative in their acceptance of the large and controversial gift. Museum officials were aware of the burden that taking on this collection would cause the museum to bear. By being open and public with their plans for the art—research, collaboration with German and Swiss authorities, and exhibitions—they avoided public condemnation for accepting works that did not have clear provenance records. Initial reports indicated that the Gurlitt trove contained over

1,400 artworks in total, found in two locations owned by the family—the Munich apartment and the Salzburg, Austria, home. Specifically, “121 paintings and 1,285 drawings, watercolors, and prints”113 were discovered in both locations, as well as sculptures by Edgar Degas and August Rodin.114

38 The eclectic collection included works by the following: Max Beckmann, Marc

Chagall, Gustave Courbet, Honoré Daumier, Otto Dix, Albrecht Dürer, Ernst Ludwig

Kirchner, Paul Klee, Oskar Kokoscha, Max Liebermann, Karl Schmidt-Rotluff, Emil

Nolde, Pablo Picasso, Pierre August Renoir, August Macke, Franz Marc, Henri Matisse,

Claude Monet, Edvard Munch, Carl Spitzweig, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Christoph

Voll, Ernst Barlach, Conrad Felixmüller, Otto Griebel, George Grosz, and Wassily

Kandinsky. Of the total works, 278 are by Gurlitt family members.115

Gurlitt’s sister, Cornelia, was involved in artist groups such as Der Blaue Reiter, which was “predominantly male.”116 The art critic, Paul Fechter, saw Cornelia as one of the most promising artists of the German Expressionists.117 She was influenced by Marc

Chagall and her prints from her time as a nurse in Lithuania during World War I depict a

“highly personal vision of Jewish life” in Vilinus, where she was stationed, showing “a world that most Germans would not have been familiar with.”118 Sadly, Cornelia committed suicide in 1919 after losing hope in her country’s politics.

Following extensive research by the Gurlitt Task Force and the Gurlitt

Provenance Research project, Provenienzrecherche Gurlitt, the bequest to the

Kunstmuseum Bern was officially 1,566 works.119 It includes the original grouping of art found in the Munich apartment, expanded to take account of “a box containing 33 works, including the marble sculpture Crouching Woman by Auguste Rodin,” as well as four works found in the estate of Cornelius’ sister Renate and an additional 239 works found in his Salzburg residence.120 The Kunstmuseum Bern’s gift contains mainly drawings, with some paintings and sculptures. The primary medium of the discovered art— drawings—makes the search for complete provenance records more difficult than that of

39 paintings. Nikola Doll is the Head of Provenance Research at the Kunstmuseum Bern and she, along with other museum staff, including the director, Nina Zimmer, immediately spearheaded research efforts once the museum formally accepted the Gurlitt trove into their collection in November 2014.

The museum also began to research their permanent collection for incomplete attributions, especially those works that were either acquired during the period from

1933-1945. The Gurlitt trove is not the first time the Kunstmuseum Bern has become associated with Nazi-looted art. Following the end of World War II, the museum was an

Allied storage point, particularly for Douglas Cooper, a British Monuments Man, who

“played a central role in Swiss postwar restitution” and used the Kunstmuseum Bern to store “77 wrongfully acquired works” that had made their way into Switzerland via

Germany.121 Although different from the circumstances of receiving the Gurlitt trove, their early involvement with returning looted artworks did not continue beyond the encounter with Cooper, and the museum did not complete a personal inventory of its own collection.

This changed in 2014, when the museum started research for an exhibition that highlighted works in their collection that the National Socialists would have condemned.

The installation, Modern Masters: “Degenerate” Art at the Kunstmuseum Bern, aimed at acknowledging Switzerland’s role in Nazi connections during WWII and specifically, the

Kunstmuseum Bern’s lapse in researching the art that was acquired during the Nazi era and into the 1950s. Throughout the war and after, art that was understood as “degenerate” created an influx of opportunities on the art market to purchase works that had been taken from private collections and individuals under duress. Many art collectors abroad were

40 overwhelmed with inexpensive prices; in fact, this is precisely how Hildebrand Gurlitt was able to acquire so much art. These pieces then fell into the hands of collectors who purchased works with troubled ownership histories.

The Kunstmuseum Bern also took advantage of lower prices and frequent auctions, some of which were held in Switzerland, such as the Galerie Fischer in Lucerne in 1939. In completing a thorough analysis of their own collection, the museum found that they are “in possession of 525 works that the Nazis removed from German museums.”122 Of these 525, 188 have no provenance gaps; however, the remaining 337 are in need of extensive investigation. The museum found the results of this research

“sobering” and discovered that the reason for incomplete attribution was due to past deals that were “generally made by a gentleman’s agreement.”123 If the person or institution had no prior indications of being an untrustworthy business partner, museum officials saw transactions as completely justified, without completing insight into ownership history of the artwork up for acquisition. Acknowledging their role in holding art with unclear provenance demonstrates the Kunstmuseum Bern’s dedication to honest conversations about the role their organization may have played in past dubious transactions. The notion that a purchaser of art acquired an artwork in good faith is

“rooted in Swiss law.”124 Yet, the Kunstmuseum Bern knew that the acquisition of the

Gurlitt trove would continue to shine a spotlight on them as well as on Switzerland as a whole.

The majority of the works were likely confiscated from German museums as part of the National Socialists initiative to remove “degenerate” art from their state institutions, after the passing of the 1938 Degenerate Art Law. Gurlitt’s connections were

41 in these particular works, which also happened to be his favorite genre of art (i.e.,

Expressionism). When the initial news story broke about the discovery in Cornelius

Gurlitt’s apartment, the fact that his father was an official Nazi art dealer allowed the media to paint the entire Gurlitt family as thieves, even though the works were obtained legally according to Nazi law. German magazines featured headlines about the story with photos of Hitler posing with looted art, all furthering the notion that Hildebrand was a

Nazi and that his family were culpable by association, especially since they hid the supposedly stolen art for over sixty years. However, what is being misconstrued about the art that is now in the Kunstmuseum Bern’s permanent collection, is that it was not looted but confiscated, which was a permissible action under National Socialist law. Hildebrand may not have done the actual confiscating from German museums, but when looking at the provenance, it is clear that Hildebrand acquired these works from different Nazi repositories, like the ERR in Paris, which he frequented for art that he could sell in exchange for works that would fill the Führermuseum in Linz.

Presently, only six of the over 1,500 works have been restituted to heirs after the completion of provenance research. These works include: Two Riders on the Beach

(1901), by Max Liebermann, which originally belonged to David Friedman, “a Jewish industrialist from Breslau”125 and was returned to his heirs in 2015 (Figure 2). A Henri

Matisse, Femme Assise dans un fauteuil (Woman sitting in an armchair) (1921), was returned to the heirs of the French art dealer Paul Rosenberg, also in 2015 (Figure 3). The heirs of Max Helibronn, a French-Jewish businessman, were returned their Camille

Pissarro, La Seine vue du Pont-Neuf, au fond le Louvre (1902), in 2017.126 A “drawing of the interior of a Gothic church”127 (Kirche in Hofgastein), (1874), by Adolph von Menzel

42 was also returned in 2017 to the heirs of Elsa Helen Cohen who “sold the piece to finance her escape to the United States in 1938”128 to Hildebrand Gurlitt. Carl Spitzweig’s

Playing the Piano (Das Klavierspiel) was restituted to the heirs of Henri Hinrichsen on the recommendation of the Task Force after further investigation in 2014.129 Lastly, and most recently, Portrait of a Young Woman (1850-1855), (Figure 4) by Thomas Couture, which was stolen from the apartment of George Mandel who was executed by the Nazis in 1944, was determined in 2017 to have been looted by conservators who identified a hole in the canvas. Mandel’s partner mentioned the blemish in 1954, and “restorers detected this hole, thereby identifying it as the aforementioned painting.”130

Many of the works in the collection are works on paper and may have been studies for paintings. Determining the provenance of drawings and prints is challenging because multiple editions were made, making narrowing down previous owners near impossible. Drawings do not hold the same value as a painting, even when they belonged to original heirs, who may have not displayed the works as prominently. They also tend to not be as well catalogued as paintings. Inheritors of the works, who are much older today, either do not remember the prints, or were not even aware of their existence, and their subsequent inheritance. Such was the case with David Toren, who was the recipient of his great uncle, David Friedman’s Max Liebermann painting, after his entire family was killed in the Holocaust. Toren last remembered seeing the painting hanging in his uncle’s Breslau mansion, while “his great uncle signed the legal papers”131 to hand over his estate and everything in it to the Nazis in 1938.

Due to the general ambiguity that surrounds the majority of the works in the

Gurlitt trove, officials at the Kunstmuseum Bern knew they had to spearhead the research

43 project wholeheartedly. Permanent provenance study positions were created at the museum in order to assist with completing investigations into the artwork. Initially, two exhibitions were planned in order to showcase the art from the trove that had remained in private for over 50 years. Nikola Doll, Head of Provenance Research at the

Kunstmuseum Bern, is also responsible for organizing the two concurrent installations.

After postponing the shows following legal claims brought forward by Cornelius

Gurlitt’s extended family, which ruled in favor of the museum, the Kunstmuseum Bern and the Bundeskunsthalle in Bonn opened coinciding presentations in 2017. The

Kunstmuseum Bern’s portion was titled Gurlitt Status Report: ‘Degenerate Art’ –

Confiscated and Sold and ran from November 2, 2017 to March 4, 2018. It focused on the works that the Nazis confiscated from German museums after 1938. Art in Bern’s display is the art that Hildebrand Gurlitt subsequently sold in order to raise funds for the

Nazi’s war efforts, as well as to purchase artwork that better exemplified the Third

Reich’s idea of pure, “Aryan” art.

The show at Bundeskunsthalle Bonn was titled Gurlitt Status Report: Nazi Art

Theft and its Consequences and was exhibited from November 3, 2017 until March 11,

2018. The Bundeskunsthalle examined “the aspect of art looting by the Nazis and its far- reaching consequences not least Hildebrand Gurlitt’s business practices.”132

Concentrating on the specific works whose provenance remains unclear, the exhibition focused on objects that were most likely looted due to their subject matter. These works were victims of the “persecution campaigns”133 suspected of being looted, as their original owners were probably Jewish. Most works displayed were paintings and sculptures, with various works on paper. The simultaneous presentations in Bern and

44 Bonn were the first time that the public was able to view the works that had been the subject of international debate for the previous five years.

The success of the two shows, along with further research, paved the way for a second exhibition at the Kunstmuseum Bern, a continuation of the Nazi Art Theft and its

Consequences Part 2, that opened on April 19, 2018 and ran until July 15, 2018. It showed “around 120 paintings, sculptures, prints and drawings whose origins have so far not been conclusively proven, and some of which are therefore suspected of being looted art.”134 Some of the works on view included Claude Monet, François Boucher, Eugène

Boudin, Jean-Baptiste Camille Corot, Gustave Courbet, Lucas Cranach the Younger,

Edgar Degas, Jean Baptiste Greuze, Èdouard Manet, Pierre-August Renoir, and Auguste

Rodin. These artists would have been sought after for display in Hitler’s Führermuseum for their style and significance as major artists. Other works presented in the exhibition show how Hildebrand Gurlitt’s position allowed him to amass an inventory that would rival his contemporaries. Some of these particular artists shown were: Jukôdô Yoshikuni,

Utagawa Toyokuni I, Max Beckmann, Otto Dix, Erich Heckel, Ernst Ludwig Kirchner,

Max Liebermann, Franz Marc, Edvard Munch, and Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. These artists were preferred by Hildebrand and he personally obtained them while he was searching for works for the Führermuseum. His almost unrestricted access to Nazi art repositories, where artworks looted from private Jewish collections were held, would have made acquiring these works easy.

The second part of Nazi Art Theft and its Consequences not only exhibited works that had not been seen publicly for quite some time, but also included the latest findings into the research of the works on view. Wall labels and interactive media allowed visitors

45 to get an in-depth look into the progress that has been made into the ownership history of the objects. An entire section of the exhibition was dedicated to the importance of correct background history, with insight into how inquiries are conducted. Restoration processes were also discussed, as a number of works needed conservation due to poor storage conditions for over sixty years. When the initial discovery was made in 2012, personal correspondence from Hildebrand Gurlitt, along with official paperwork, some of which included Nazi stamps and letterhead, was also found. Such documentation proved invaluable to determining the provenance of the works in the trove, and the

Kunstmuseum Bern’s decision to share that with the public showed not only how much time and effort goes into conducting research, but also solidified the museum’s commitment to transparency. The Kunstmuseum Bern only accepted the bequest under the conditions that if an artwork was found to have been looted, it would be immediately returned once the rightful heirs were determined. Knowing that, the art on display could easily have been discovered by someone who either was the legal beneficiary or knew of the correct family or individual who was. The goal is to reunite the work with the true owner in order to assist in the recovery of Nazi-looted art.

Doll also curated the second part of the exhibition and made sure that provenance research was at the center of the show. Doll’s position at the Kunstmuseum Bern is her first job that specifically focuses on attribution, but she has previously been involved in the field. She wrote her 2003 dissertation on Hermann Göring and has worked at the

Bundeskunsthalle Bonn where she researched looting in France and museum collections.

She also had a fellowship in Washington, D.C., working on provenance research. Based in Berlin, her focus as a curator has concentrated on art and power, political iconography

46 and the history of signs. Doll was brought on to work at the Kunstmuseum Bern following the acceptance of the bequest in 2014 and her work was closely involved with the first two exhibitions. Both shows were well-received by the press and visitors; the first show at the Kunstmuseum Bern had 89,000 visitors—a record for the museum. The exhibition sparked a conversation in Germany about the Gurlitt trove and the continued relevance of research of Nazi-looted art, sixty years after the end of World War II.

Students from the University of Bern and members of the Ministry of Culture, located in Bern, visited the exhibition and held discussions on the subject matter of the shows. The museum’s investment in research will assist Doll and other provenance researchers, along with the Task Force, in continuing their work. Students were especially intrigued with the efforts being made to restitute cultural heritage and property in general, as well as art looting in a broader sense. In a personal interview with Doll, she mentioned that she even received phone calls from several older women who possess works that were purchased in either the 1940s or 1950s. They were worried that the provenance was either not clear or perhaps fabricated when they were purchased.

The three exhibitions allowed for a conversation to be started about a significant issue for both Germany and Switzerland. Discussed in the same interview, Doll maintained that it is a museum’s duty to be direct with their visitors, stating that “yes, we have a responsibility to be aware of our collections and origins of the work, we have to be honest to ourselves and to our visitors.”135 She feels that museums should not be afraid to have difficult discussions regarding their permanent collections and past acquisitions that were made at a time when the current standards were not in place. Doll applauds the

Kunstmuseum Bern’s decision to return artworks to heirs, acknowledging that the current

47 situation the museum has been tasked with is a “historical subject, but history can pop up in the present and cause action.”136

The final installment of the Gurlitt Status Report exhibitions was in Berlin at the

Martin-Gropius-Bau. Titled, Gurlitt Status Report: An Art Dealer in Nazi Germany, it opened on September 14, 2018 and ended on January 7, 2019. The third part covered the research that had been done so far, any new findings, and how the collection is understood as an art dealer’s inventory, more so than a carefully curated assemblage. The

Gropius-Bau presentation is “full of text and is as much an educational exercise as one centered on the appreciation of art.”137 Case studies and additional inquiries into original owners were posted adjacent to paintings, allowing visitors to understand the complexities in determining the origins of the art. The focus of the exhibition was to illustrate to explain how provenance can “make clear the entanglement of art and

Nazism.”138

The Kunstmuseum Bern is far from finishing the examination of the Gurlitt bequest, and following the closing of the exhibition in Berlin, the works went back in storage where investigation continued. Doll projects at least three more years of research, if funding permits. There are 480 works in the Kunstmuseum Bern’s possession remaining to be investigated. International research programs about Gurlitt, the art market in Germany, France and Switzerland are also planned. There is the possibility of other hidden Gurlitt troves, whose discovery would add to the daunting task. Doll plans to have a book summarizing her conclusions completed by 2022.

The efforts of the Kunstmuseum Bern have been creditable and they have received praise for their work and their commitment to restitution. The entirety of the

48 Gurlitt saga has placed a spotlight on the value of provenance research and examination of permanent collections. Switzerland has been plagued by accusations of a lack of commitment to researching their institutions, making them all the more complicit with the actions of the Third Reich. Allegations emerged that Swiss “museums in particular conducted provenance research only very reluctantly, refused to enter a dialogue with heirs, and made restitutions only under public pressure.”139 However, the Kunstmuseum

Bern’s continued efforts to examine not only the Gurlitt trove, but their own permanent collections have allowed for a more informative conversation between the museum and its visitors. Since 2010, the Swiss Federal Office of Culture has made public the need for

Switzerland’s establishments to conduct research into their holdings and to recognize their involvement with the Nazis, whether it was legal or not. The Federal Office of

Culture is economically committed to this project, has made “two million Swiss Francs

[2,009,646 U.S. dollars] available for the first time for the financial support of provenance research for the period of 2016-2020.”140

Krannert Art Museum: A Commitment to Provenance

The Krannert Art Museum opened in 1961 and is the university art museum for the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana. The second largest art museum in Illinois, it holds 10,000 objects ranging from the fourth century BCE to the present. Since 2007, the Krannert Art Museum has been committed to researching their own collection, specifically works donated by Merle J. Trees and Emily Nichols Trees during the 1930s-

1950s, who gifted the university 41 artworks by artists like Frans Hals, John Singleton

Copley, and Camille Pissarro.141 The museum created a “gap list” of objects in their collection that currently have an incomplete or questionable provenance record, “for the

49 crucial years of 1933-1945.”142 In an effort to remain straightforward, the museum will eventually publish the list on their website in order to allow visitors to be updated with ongoing provenance research.

The museum also organized an exhibition to showcase what the staff has learned thus far. Titled Provenance: A Forensic History of Art, it was on view from May 13,

2017 to December 8, 2018. The focus of the installation was to display research into the museum’s collection that specifically holds art acquired during the Nazi-era, with more in-depth analysis into six of the “longest-held paintings.”143 The presentation acted as an educational experience for visitors, displaying the artworks with in-depth wall labels that examined each work as a case study. The show’s curator, Nancy Karrels, is a doctoral candidate in Art History at the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana, and her curatorial work is based on research compiled by Dr. Maureen Warren, Curator of

European and American Art at the Krannert Art Museum. Karrels’ aim was to provide visitors with a thorough look at the work that has been done, to explain how provenance research is lengthy, to show how this time-consuming process often ends up at a dead- end, and to demonstrate the multiple routes one can take in terms of finding reputable sources for ownership history.

The installation displayed six works, with one work exhibited verso, or from behind, in order to allow visitors to view the revealing stamps on the support frame of the canvas. The artworks shown were: Moretto da Brescia (attributed), Portrait of an

Unidentified Man (Figure 5), (ca. 1525-1550); Camille Pissarro, Statue d’Henri IV, matin, soleil d’hiver, (1900); Ambrosius Holbein (attributed), Portrait of a Girl, (ca.

1518); Théodule Ribot, Kitchen Still Life, (19th century); Master of the Legend of Saint

50 Ursula, The Virgin and Child with Saints Augustine, John the Baptist, Monica, and

Nicolas of Tolentino, (ca. 1480); and Bartolomé Estebán Murillo, Christ after the

Flagellation, (ca. 1670). Each work in the exhibition underwent intensive research into its provenance and each work was donated by the Trees family. Employing “themes such as genealogy, documentation, attribution, and the perplexing problem of identifying unfamiliar collectors’ marks,” Karrels explored a research technique that is typically reserved for “crime scene investigation.”144 Insight is offered into common problems that provenance researchers face such as untraceable timelines, name changes to either the artist or the title, or changes to the meaning of the painting based on the owner’s preferences. Karrels took an archival approach, enabling a visitor to receive inside information on an artwork’s ownership history. This opened up contemplation of unanswered questions, as the museum continues to examine these and other works in order to gather as much documentation as possible.

Moretto da Brescia’s oil painting made in the sixteenth century was displayed in a glass class that allowed visitors to see both the front of the canvas, as well as the back of the canvas and the stretchers that hold the painting together. The unique display clarifies that, “artworks, and especially their physical supports, can be rich sources of provenance information.”145 What is curious about the painting in particular are the “assortment of handwritten numbers, a paper label, and a round stamp” that are located on the supports of the frame.146 These indicators allow for a starting point for research into the object’s ownership history. The identity of the sitter is uncertain as there is no concrete evidence to show that the artist, Brescia, would have known the alleged sitter, a man named Marco

Foscari di Venezia who was an ambassador to Florence. There is also not enough

51 evidence to support that Brescia was even the true artist, hence the “attributed” added to the label.

Another aspect of the tangible evidence located on the verso of the painting is the round stamp that bears “the Austrian two-headed eagle” that was used by officials during

1934 to 1938 to “designate cultural property approved for export.”147 What is suspect about this stamp is that after the German occupation of Austria began in 1938, this same stamp was used when exporting art that had been looted from Austrian Jews' collections.

However, the two-headed eagle was eventually replaced by the symbol of the Nazi swastika. Karrels’ further research into the stamp and mentions of the painting in the

Austrian customs archives yielded no concrete evidence, but the indication of the stamp is enough to assert that the work may have left Austria at some point; whether it left legally is still unclear. By exhibiting this painting in a way that shows the reverse of the painting, visitors are able to understand how key elements into a work’s past are determined. Although the stamp is promising, “physical clues on artworks are precisely that: clues, not answers, which require further investigation, and which may prove inconclusive.”148

The Krannert’s exhibition approached a topic that is not widely understood by the average museum attendee. Visitors were able to learn what it takes to determine an artwork’s ownership history, while appreciating the transparency to which the institution is committed. Maureen Warren assisted Karrels by sharing her own research, which

Karrels used to narrow down the exhibition into the six particular pieces. Warren stated that the interest in investigating the provenance of its permanent collection was sparked by the Trees collection, which was the museum’s founding gift. The works they acquired

52 from the family, who were alumni of the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana, were donated to the university art collection over the period of twenty years, from 1930 to

1950, which is the same time period as the Nazi era of 1933-1945. When the Krannert

Art Museum opened in 1961, possession of the collection transferred from the university to the new institution. Already, the time period of the gift was questionable, and the artists included were typical of those looted by the Nazis for their campaign of acquiring purified, “Aryan” art. Warren also mentioned that the museum believed their members would be interested in the exhibition, as the public’s interest in Nazi art-looting operations has grown in recent years.

Warren, who does not have an extensive background in provenance research, was surprised to learn about some of the intricate details. The name-change issue of the

Master of the Legend of Saint Ursula, which “no one had tracked down before,”149 was not something Warren expected to come out of the research. Warren was also impressed by the methodology used by Karrels in order to track down information on the pieces.

One such process was searching the New York Society pages for the last known owner before the Trees family or using a paid genealogical website, attempts that are out of the ordinary for typical research practices. The reactions of museum visitors were extremely positive, and many wished that the installation was larger with a bigger catalogue. In an interview with Warren, she mentioned that the overall consensus among the museum staff was that people wanted more information regarding the methodology behind the findings, but there were also frustrations that the research was limited to only European art and specifically World War II. The exhibition has sparked interest in examining the provenance of other items in the museum’s collections, particularly indigenous objects.

53 Provenance research is becoming more standard in the museum world, but

Warren observed that there are always obstacles involved with this line of work:

“Hurdles with development, time and money, plus the inner circle of provenance researchers” makes the urgency difficult to implement into a wide variety of museums.150

Warren is considering future exhibitions focused on provenance research and wants to add dealer names associated with the work. Museums, in Warren’s opinion, have a responsibility to be honest with their patrons, but in terms of readily admitting incomplete provenance records on every single object, “many objects just never will”151 have comprehensive accounts. Being forthcoming about ownership history does not “suggest that something is wrong when that’s just normal”152 to not have a full record of an object’s past.

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION: MUSEUMS AS A SITE OF MORAL TRUST

The history of Nazi-looted art is a convoluted web of networks, untraceable paper trails, and difficult legal proceedings. The National Socialist’s campaign to rid Germany of “degenerate” art allowed for an unprecedented transfer of art across international borders making tracking down original owners, whether private individual or public institution, very challenging. Hitler and the Nazis used the public shaming of

“degenerate” art to associate their prejudiced ideals with tangible, physical objects in order to further their ideologies of a purified race. The association of society and culture with racism allowed for an entire genre of art, along with the people who made, owned and sold it, to be villainized. Yet, this art also experienced one of the most successful periods on the international art market during World War II, as it rapidly left the German

54 museums from which it was seized, making its way into museums and private collections abroad. With how quickly this art was transferred, documentation of ownership swiftly declined or was destroyed by the Nazis in order to avoid future implications.

The work of individuals like Hildebrand Gurlitt creates questions about how to approach his extremely complex association with the Nazis. He was complicit in working with other dealers to transfer confiscated art, selling it abroad for foreign currency.

However, he was also acting under completely legal standards of the time, which were used to legitimize looting. The discovery of his cache in his son Cornelius’ apartment shows that he was also pocketing work for himself, in hopes of expanding his own collection of Expressionist art, art that was seen as “degenerate” in order to solidify some semblance of professionalism for himself after the end of the war. There is evidence of

Gurlitt forging paperwork in order to expedite purchases, as well as his deceitful answers to the American Monuments Men regarding the location of his holdings. Gurlitt may have saved numerous modernist works from being destroyed, as some people believe, but he also refused to recognize the actions of his employers for his own personal gain, helping inflict terrible loss on the persecuted. His actions left thousands of works out of the public eye for over sixty years and he also misrepresented the true origins of the works in his family’s possession.

Provenance research is essential for transparency in museums, though it is still not common practice. The cost of examination, materials needed, and the small circle of qualified individuals often necessarily diminishes its priority within tight institutional budgets. The legal aspects that surround restitution, with the main issue being the expiration of the statute of limitations and differing laws, cause analysis into artworks'

55 origins to be delayed or unable to be completed at all. Efforts like the Washington

Principles have set forth standards by which to abide by, but once an object has been in the possession of someone or an institution for over fifty years, that validity of past ownership diminishes. The future of museums and the idea of an ethical place relies on the recognition that their holdings may not be free of questionable practices. There are gray zones in accessibility with museum visitors that can be remedied by the exploration of provenance research, but there are still large strides needed to be taken in order to reach a common ground. The groundwork is laid for integrity within institutions, and the initiative to resolve the remaining tangible aspects of the horrors committed by the Nazis during World War II lies within the strong provenance research practices.

56

Figure 1: Max Beckmann, The Lion Tamer, 1930, Gouache and pastel on paper, 38 by 25 in., Private collection. http://www.the-athenaeum.org/art/detail.php?ID=237376

57

Figure 2: Max Liebermann, Two Riders on the Beach, 1901 Oil on canvas, 25 1/2 by 32 in., Private collection, German Lost Art Foundation Database managed by Deutsches Zentrum Kulturgutverluste. http://www.lostart.de/Webs/EN/Datenbank/Gurlitt/Einzelobjekt.html?cms_param=EOBJ _ID%3D478482%26_page%3D7%26_sort%3D%26_anchor%3Did76094

58

Figure 3: Henri Matisse, Femme Assise dans un fauteuil (Woman sitting in an armchair), 1921 Oil on canvas, 21 by 18 in., Restituted to the heirs of Paul Rosenberg, German Lost Art Foundation Database managed by Deutsches Zentrum Kulturgutverluste. http://www.lostart.de/Webs/EN/Datenbank/EinzelobjektSucheSimpel.html?cms_param= EOBJ_ID%3D477894%26SUCHE_ID%3D21703700%26_page%3D0%26_sort%3D%2 6_anchor%3Did67734

59

Figure 4: Thomas Couture, Portrait of a Seated Young Woman, 1850-1855 Oil on canvas, 28 by 23 in., Restituted to the heirs of Georges Mandel, German Lost Art Foundation Database managed by Deutsches Zentrum Kulturgutverluste. http://www.lostart.de/Webs/EN/Datenbank/EinzelobjektFund.html?cms_param=EOBJ_I D%3D478471

60

Figure 5: Moretto da Brescia (attributed), Portrait of an Unidentified Man, ca. 1525-

1550, Krannert Art Museum, personal photo taken by the author

61 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

“1 September 2015: Provenance Research in Switzerland: Recent Developments,” LootedArt.com, September 1, 2015. https://www.lootedart.com/RLA3PS298761

Adam, Peter. Art of the Third Reich. New York: H.N. Abrams, 1995.

Alberge, Dalya. “Reunion with Looted Painting is ‘Second Victory Against the Nazis,’” The Guardian, May 27, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/27/looted-painting-victory-nazis- two-riders-beach-max-liebermann

Alford, Fred C. “Whistle-Blower Narratives: The Experience of Choiceless Choice.” Social Research 74 (Spring 2007): 223-248.

Amore, Anthony M. The Art of the Con: The Most Notorious Fakes, Frauds, and Forgeries in the Art World. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2015.

Anheir, Helmit. “Movement Development and Organizational Networks: The Role of ‘Single Members’ in the German Nazi Party, 1925-30.” Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action, edited by Mario Diani and Doug McAdam, 49-74. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Barron, Stephanie, and Peter W. Guenther. Degenerate art: The Fate of the Avant-garde in Nazi Germany. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art; New York: H.N. Abrams, 1991.

Barasel-Brand, Andrea. “The Challenge of Researching the Provenance of Gurlitt’s Holdings.” In Gurlitt Status Report, edited by Kunstmuseum Bern and Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland GmbH, 94-103. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 2017.

Bazyler, Michael J. “The Gray Zones of Holocaust Restitution: American Justice and Holocaust Morality.” In Gray Zones: Ambiguity and Compromise in the Holocaust and its Aftermath, edited by Jonathan Petropoulos and John K. Roth, 339-359. New York: Berghahn Books, 2005.

Benson, Timothy O. “The Importance of Provenance.” LACMA Unframed, February 5, 2014. https://unframed.lacma.org/2014/02/05/the-importance-of-provenance/

Bibas, Steven A. “The Case Against Statutes of Limitations for Stolen Art.” Yale Law Journal 103 (June 1994): 2437-2469.

Bindenagel, J.D., and Owen Pell. "How to Handle That Nazi-Era Art Trove." Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2013.

62

Burns, Lucy. “Degenerate Art: Why Hitler Hated Modernism” BBC News, November 6, 2013. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24819441

Cascone, Sarah. “Tainted Nazi Era Collector’s Aunt Was Forgotten Artist Cornelia Gurlitt.” Artnet News, August 25, 2014. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/tainted- nazi-era-collectors-aunt-was-forgotten-artist-cornelia-gurlitt-12111

______. “Dutch Museums Discover Hundreds of Artworks Stolen by the Nazis—and They’re Already Starting to Return Them” Artnet News, October 11, 2018. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/dutch-museums-nazi-loot-1369363

Cummins, Alissandra. “The Role of the Museum in Developing Heritage Policy.” In Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy and Practice, edited by Barbara T. Hoffman, 47-51. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Cuno, James. Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle Over Our Ancient Heritage. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Diani, Mario. “Introduction” Social Movements, Contentious Actions, and Social Networks: ‘From Metaphor to Substance?” In Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action, edited by Mario Diani and Doug McAdam, 1-18. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Dege, Stefan, “Gurlitt Collection Goes to Bern—But Then What?” Deutsche Welle, November 28, 2014. http://www.dw.com/en/gurlitt-collection-goes-to-bern-but- then-what/a-18092618

Eddy, Melissa. "Matisse from Gurlitt Collection Is Returned to Jewish Art Dealer's Heirs." The New York Times, May 15, 2015.

______. “Hidden Treasures of Nazis’ Art Dealer Finally Go on Display.” The New York Times, November 1, 2017.

______. “Sculptures Found in Disputed Art Trove.” The New York Times, July 24, 2014.

Edgers, Geoff. "Why Two American Museums Are Fighting to Keep Art Stolen by the Nazis." The Washington Post, June 30, 2015.

Edsel, Robert M. The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves, and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History. New York: Center Street, 2009.

______. Saving Italy: The Race to Rescue a Nation’s Treasures from the Nazis. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2013.

63

Elie, Samantha. "Why Wait So Long: The Cornelius Gurlitt Collection and the Need for Clear ADR Mechanisms in the Restitution of Looted Art." Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 18 (Winter 2017): 363-489.

Feliciano, Hector. The Lost Museum: The Nazi Conspiracy to Steal the World's Greatest Works of Art. New York: Basic Books, 1997.

Feliciano, Hector, Owen Pell, and Nick Goodman. "Nazi-Stolen Art." Whittier Law Review 20, (Fall 1998): 67-987.

Francini, Esther Tisa, Anja Heuss, and Georg Kreis. Fluchtgut, Raubgut: Der Transfer Von Kulturgütern in Und über Die Schweiz 1933-1945 Und Die Frage Der Restitution. Zürich: Chronos-Verlag, 2001.

Frehner, Matthias, “Foreword and Acknowledgements.” In Modern Masters: “Degenerate” Art at the Kunstmuseum Bern, edited by Matthias Frehner and Daniel Spanke, 9-11. Munich: Prestel Verlag, 2016.

______. “From the Rütli of Swiss Art to International Openness: the Kunstmuseum Bern 1933-1945.” In Modern Masters: “Degenerate” Art at the Kunstmuseum Bern, edited by Matthias Frehner and Daniel Spanke, 69-87. Munich: Prestel Verlag, 2016.

______. “Must the Art History of the 20th Century be Rewritten? A First Art-Historical Analysis of the Gurlitt Holdings.” In Gurlitt Status Report, edited by Kunstmuseum Bern and Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland GmbH, 76-85. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 2017.

Genn, Adina. "Attorney to Speak on Retrieving Art Stolen from Holocaust Victims." Long Island Business News, February 23, 2017.

Gezer, Özlem. "Interview with a Phantom: Cornelius Gurlitt Shares His Secrets." Der Spiegel, November 17, 2013.

Gilbert, Sophie. "The Persistent Crime of Nazi-Looted Art." The Atlantic, March 11, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/03/cornelius- gurlitt-nazi-looted-art/554936/

Givens, Seth A. “Liberating the Germans: The US Army and Looting in Germany during the Second World War.” War in History 21 (January 2014): 33-54.

Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2007.

64 Goldsleger, Emily Winetz. “Contemplating Contradiction: A Comparison of Art Restitution Policies.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 35 (Summer 2005): 109-120.

Graham, Jason-Louise. “Art Exchange? How the International Art Market Lacks a Clear Regulatory Framework.” In Art, Cultural Heritage and the Market, edited by Valentina Vadi and Hildegard E.G.S. Schneider, 319-340. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2014.

Gramlich, Johannes and Meike Hopp. “’Occasionally spirit is turned into money’— Hildebrand Gurlitt as an Art Dealer during the Nazi Period.” In Gurlitt Status Report, edited by Kunstmuseum Bern and Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland GmbH, 32-47. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 2017.

Grimes, Jessica. "Forgotten Prisoners of War: Returning Nazi-Looted Art by Relaxing the National Stolen Property Act." Roger Williams University Law Review 15 (Summer 2010): 1-18.

“Gurlitt, Hildebrand: 1895-1956,” German Lost Art Database, Deutsches Zentrum Kulturgutverluste, 2018. https://www.kulturgutverluste.de/Webs/EN/ProjectGurlitt/Background/Index.html

Hellewege, Philip. "Precluding the Statute of Limitations? How to Deal with Nazi-Looted Art after Cornelius Gurlitt." Southwestern Journal of International Law 22 (Fall 2015): 105-161.

Herman, Alexander. "Hildebrand Gurlitt, The Monuments Men and the Discovery of the Munich Art Trove." Art, Antiquity & Law 19 (April 2014): 25-41.

Heuß, Anja. “Provenance Research in Germany and Switzerland.” In Gurlitt Status Report, edited by Kunstmuseum Bern and Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland GmbH, 86-93. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 2017.

Hickley, Catherine. The Munich Art Hoard: Hitler's Dealer and His Secret Legacy. London: Thames & Hudson, 2015.

______. “Gurlitt Bequest Spurs Provenance Research in Switzerland.” The Art Newspaper, July 23, 2017.

______. “Gurlitt’s Swiss Dealer Breaks Silence on his Client.” SwissInfo.ch, October 12, 2017. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/-degenerate-art--_gurlitt-s- swiss-dealer-breaks-silence-on-his-client/43590572

______. “Washington Principles: The Restitution of Nazi-Looted Art is Still a Work in Progress, 20 Years On.” The Art Newspaper, November 26, 2018.

65 Hinz, Berthold. Art in the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon Books, 1979.

Hoffman, Barbara T. “Introduction: Exploring and Establishing Links for a Balanced Art and Cultural Heritage Policy.” In Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy and Practice, edited by Barbara T. Hoffman, 1-18. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

______. “International Art Transactions and the Resolution of Art and Cultural Property Disputes: A United States Perspective.” In Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy and Practice, edited by Barbara T. Hoffman, 158-177. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Hoffman, Meike. "Hildebrand Gurlitt and His Dealings with German Museums during the Third Reich." New German Critique 130 (February 2017): 35-56.

______. “Outlawed: The Fate of “Degenerate Art” after Confiscation from German Museums During the Nazi Regime.” In Modern Masters: “Degenerate” Art at the Kunstmuseum Bern, edited by Matthias Frehner and Daniel Spanke, 103-115. Munich: Prestel Verlag, 2016.

————. “The Long Shadows of the Past—A Critical Appraisal of Hildebrand Gurlitt’s Life.” In Gurlitt Status Report, edited by Kunstmuseum Bern and Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland GmbH, 16-27. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 2017.

Hoffman, Meike, and Nicola Kuhn. Hitler's Kunsthändler: Hildebrand Gurlitt 1895- 1956. Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck, 2016.

Holz, Keith. “The Exiled Artists from Nazi Germany and their Art.” In Art, Culture, and Media Under the Third Reich, edited by Richard A. Etlin, 343-367. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Huener, Jonathan, and Francis R. Nicosia. “Introduction: The Arts in Nazi Germany: Continuity, Conformity, Change.” In The Arts in Nazi Germany: Continuity, Conformity, Change, edited by Jonathan Huener and Francis R. Nicosia, 1-13. New York: Berghahn Books, 2006.

Huyssen, Andreas, Anson Rabinbach, and Avinoam Shalem. "Nazi-Looted Art and Its Legacies: Introduction." New German Critique 130 (February 2017): 1-8.

Karrels, Nancy. “Renewing Nazi-era Provenance Research Efforts: Case Studies and Recommendations.” Museum Management and Curatorship 29 (July 2014): 297- 310.

66 Karrels, Nancy and Maureen Warren, eds. Provenance: A Forensic History of Art, Edited by Nancy Karrels and Maureen Warren. Champaign: Krannert Art Museum and Kinkead Pavillion, 2017.

Katz, Brigit. "The Louvre Puts Nazi-Looted Art in Public Eye in Effort to Find Rightful Heirs.” Smithsonian, February 13, 2018. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart- news/louvre-launches-new-galleries-nazi-looted-art-180968130/

Katz, Fred Emil. Ordinary People and Extraordinary Evil: A Report on the Beguiling’s of Evil. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.

Kaye, Lawrence M. "The Restitution of Nazi-Looted Art and Other Cultural Property: Have We Gone Too Far or Not Far Enough?" New German Critique 130 (February 2017): 109-24.

Keim, Rebecca. "Filling the Gap between Morality and Jurisprudence: The Use of Binding Arbitration to Resolve Claims of Restitution regarding Nazi-Stolen Art." Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 3 (Winter 2003): 1-24.

Kimmelman, Michael. “The Void at the Heart of ‘Gurlitt: Status Report.” New York Times, November 19, 2017.

Kreder, Jennifer Anglim. "The Choice between Civil and Criminal Remedies in Stolen Art Litigation." Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 38 (October 2005): 1199-1254.

Koldenhoff, Stefan. “Excuses, Ignorance, and Lack of Empathy—The Treatment of Victims of National Socialism after 1945 and the ‘Gurlitt Affair.’” In Gurlitt Status Report, edited by Kunstmuseum Bern and Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland GmbH, 68-75. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 2017.

Krannert Art Museum, “WWII-Era Provenance Research at Krannert Art Museum,” December 20, 2018, https://kam.illinois.edu/resource/wwii-era-provenance- research-krannert-art-museum

Kromholz, Sophie. “Collectible: The Social and Ethical Implications Surrounding the Collected Object.” In Art, Cultural Heritage and the Market, edited by Valentina Vadi and Hildegard E.G.S. Schneider, 259-272. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2014.

Kurtz, Michael J. America and the Return of Nazi Contraband: The Recovery of Europe’s Cultural Treasures. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Laird, Michèle. “The Hidden Truths of the Gurlitt Collection.” Swissinfo.ch, November 28, 2014. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/culture/art-list_the-hidden-truths-of-the- gurlitt-collection/41140660

67

______. “The Gurlitt Art Collection No One—and Everyone—Wants.” Swissinfo.ch, November 20, 2014. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/culture/museum-bequest_the- gurlitt-art-collection-no-one---and-everyone---wants/41115252

Lane, Mary. "Two Nazi-Looted Paintings Set for Return to Heirs of Original Owners; Artworks by Matisse and Liebermann among 1,200 Works Amassed by Hitler's Art Dealer Hildebrand Gurlitt." Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2015.

————. "World News: Seized Matisse Serves as Test for Restitution." Wall Street Journal, November 16, 2013.

Lane, Mary, and Harriet Torry. "Trove of Art Snatched by Nazis Surfaces." Wall Street Journal, November 5, 2013.

Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Lerner, Ralph E. "The Nazi Art Theft Problem and the Role of the Museum: A Proposed Solution to Disputes over Title." New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 15 (Fall 1998): 15-41.

Lindsey, Ivan. The History of Loot and Stolen Art from Antiquity until the Present Day. Luton: Andrews UK, 2014.

“Living Life as an Artist: Nietzsche on Creativity,” The Conversation, February 4, 2015. http://theconversation.com/living-life-as-an-artist-nietzsche-on-creativity-36257

Lulińska, Agnieszka. “’Gurlitt: Status Report’—Topics and texts.” In Gurlitt Status Report, edited by Kunstmuseum Bern and Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland GmbH, 11-13. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 2017.

MacDonald, Ryan. "For the Sake of Restitution: An Analysis of Cornelius Gurlitt's Will, Its Court Challenge, and Why Public Policy Should Drive the Court's Decision." Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion 16 (Spring 2015): 443-630.

Mansky, Jackie. “Why It’s So Hard to Find the Original Owners of Nazi-Looted Art.” Smithsonian, May 31, 2017. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why- its-so-hard-find-real-owners-nazi-looted-art-180963513/

McNulty, Tom. Art Market Research: A Guide to Methods and Sources. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2006.

Meier, Olivia, Michael Feller, and Stefanie Christ. Der Gurlitt-Komplex: Bern und die Raubkunst. Zürich: Chronos-Verlag, 2017.

68

Merryman, John Henry, Albert E. Elsen, and Stephen K. Urice. Law, Ethics, and the Visual Arts. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Klumer Law International, 2007.

Miles, Margaret M. Art as Plunder: The Ancient Origins of Debate about Cultural Property. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

______. “War and Passion: Who Keeps the Art?” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 49 (Spring 2017): 5-21.

Moyer, Bruce. "New Law Aids in Recovery of Nazi-Looted Art." Federal Bar Association, March 7, 2017.

Müller, Melissa, and Monika Tatzkow. Lost Lives, Lost Art: Jewish Collectors, Nazi Art Theft, and the Quest for Justice. London: Frontline Books, 2010.

Nazif, Perwana, “Two More Works From Gurlitt Hoard Returned to Legal Heirs,” Artnet News, February 22, 2017. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/pissarro-menzel- gurlitt-hoard-restitution-868433

Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, “Provenance: Ongoing Research on the Artwork in Our Collection,” December 20, 2018, https://nelson-atkins.org/provenance/.

Neuendorf, Henri. “Kunstmuseum Bern Director Questions Expectation Surrounding Gurlitt Trove.” Artnet News, January 21, 2016. https://news.artnet.com/art- world/kunstmuseum-bern-gurlitt-trove-411269

Nicholas, Lynn H. The Rape of Europa: The Fate of Europe's Treasures in the Third Reich and the Second World War. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.

O'Connor, Anne-Marie. The Lady in Gold: The Extraordinary Tale of Gustav Klimt’s Masterpiece, Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer. New York: Vintage Books, 2012.

O’Donnell, Nicholas M. A Tragic Fate: Law and Ethics in the Battle Over Nazi-Looted Art. Chicago: Ankerwycke, 2017.

O’Dwyer, Rebecca. “How Should We Look at Cornelius Gurlitt’s Trove of Nazi-Looted Art?” Hyperallergic, November 14, 2018. https://hyperallergic.com/463728/gurlitt-status-report-an-art-dealer-in-nazi- germany/

Paterson, Robert K. “The Art of the Sale: Museums and Deaccessioning.” In Art, Cultural Heritage and the Market, edited by Valentina Vadi and Hildegard E.G.S. Schneider, 273-295. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2014.

69

Partington, Earle A., and Yves-Louis Sage. "The American Response to the Recovery of Stolen and Illegally Exported Art: Should American Courts Look to the Civil Law." Columbia – VLA Journal of Law & the Arts 12 (Winter 1988): 395-421.

Passy, Florence. “Social Networks Matter: But How?” In Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action, edited by Mario Diani and Doug McAdam, 21-48. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Perlson, Hili. "Hildebrand Gurlitt Built a Brilliant Trove of Art under the Nazis. Two New Exhibitions Show His Taste, and His Duplicity." Artnet News, November 3, 2017. https://news.artnet.com/exhibitions/gurlitt-trove-bern-bonn-shows-1137587

______. “The Work of Cornelia Gurlitt, Forgotten in Her Brother’s Tainted Trove, Finally Goes on View.” Artnet News, November 13, 2017. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/cornelia-gurlitt-forgotten-in-her-brothers- tainted-trove-1141346

Petropoulos, Jonathan. Art as Politics in the Third Reich. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996.

______. The Faustian Bargain: The Art World in Nazi Germany. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

______. "Five Uncomfortable and Difficult Topics Relating to the Restitution of Nazi-Looted Art." New German Critique 130 (February 2017): 125-42.

______. Artists Under Hitler: Collaboration and Survival in Nazi Germany. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014.

______. Interview by Audie Cornish, Nazi-Era Art Cache Brings Provenance Issues to Swiss Museum, NPR News, November 24, 2014.

______. “Not a Case of ‘Art for Art’s Sake’: The Collecting Practices of the Nazi Elite.” German Politics and Society 32 (Summer 1994): 107-124.

______. “Art Dealer Networks in the Third Reich and in the Postwar Period.” Journal of Contemporary History 52 (July 2017): 546-565.

______. “The Polycratic Nature of Art Looting: The Dynamic Balance of the Third Reich.” In Networks of Nazi Persecution: Bureaucracy, Business and the Organization of the Holocaust, edited by Gerald D. Feldman and Wolfgang Seibel, 103-117. New York: Berghahn Books: 2005.

70 ______. “The Art World in Nazi Germany: Choices, Rationalization, and Justice.” In The Arts in Nazi Germany: Continuity, Conformity, Change, edited by Jonathan Huener and Francis R. Nicosia, 135-163. New York: Berghahn Books, 2006.

______. “Postwar Justice and the Treatment of Nazi Assets.” In Gray Zones: Ambiguity and Compromise in the Holocaust and its Aftermath, edited by Jonathan Petropoulos and John K. Roth, 325-338. New York: Berghahn Books, 2005.

Raab, Jörg. “More than Just a Metaphor: The Network Concept and Its Potential in Holocaust Research.” In Networks of Nazi Persecution: Bureaucracy, Business and the Organization of the Holocaust, edited by Gerald D. Feldman and Wolfgang Seibel, 321-339. New York: Berghahn Books: 2005.

Rasmussen, Kim Su. “Foucault’s Genealogy of Racism.” Theory, Culture, & Society 28 (September 2011): 34-51.

Rea, Naomi. “It Turns Out Cornelius Gurlitt’s Sister Hid Nazi-Looted Art, Too, As Four Drawings Are Returned to Jewish Heirs.” Artnet News, September 11, 2018.

Rebholz, Michael. "Recovery of Nazi-Related Art: Legal Aspects under German and U.S. Law Exemplified by the Gurlitt Case." Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 37 (Summer 2015): 305-334.

Ricke, Chloe. "The Time Is Now: Why the United States Should Follow the United Kingdom's Lead and Implement a Federal Nazi-Looted Art Spoliation Advisory Panel." Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 44 (Summer 2016): 665-692.

Ronald, Susan. Hitler's Art Thief: Hildebrand Gurlitt, the Nazis, and the Looting of Europe’s Treasures. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2015.

______. “Hildebrand Gurlitt and the Nazis Looting of Europe’s Treasures.” The History Reader: Dispatches in History from St. Martin’s Press, September 15, 2015. http://www.thehistoryreader.com/modern-history/hildebrand-gurlitt/

Schubert, Jessica. “Prisoners of War: Nazi-Era Looted Art and the Need for Reform in the United States.” Touro Law Review 30 (2014): 675-695.

Schwartz, Madeleine. “Face to Face with the Gurlitt Hoard.” Apollo, January 31, 2018. https://www.apollo-magazine.com/face-to-face-with-the-gurlitt-hoard/

Schwarz, Birgit. “Hildebrand Gurlitt and the ‘Special Commission Linz’” In Gurlitt Status Report, edited by Kunstmuseum Bern and Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland GmbH, 48-55. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 2017.

71

Schoenbaum, David. Hitler’s Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany 1933- 1939. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966.

Shuster, Simon. "Why the Man Who Hoarded Nazi-Looted Art May Get to Keep It All." Time, November 19, 2013.

Singal, Jesse. “Critics Say U.S. Museums Holding Onto Nazi Looted Art.” USA Today, December 21, 2013.

Skinner, Katharine. “Restituting Nazi-Looted Art: Domestic, Legislative, and Binding Intervention to Balance the Interests of Victims and Museums.” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 15 (Spring 2013): 673-712.

Solly, Meilan. “Cornelius Wasn’t the Only Gurlitt Sibling to Inherit Nazi-Looted Art.” Smithsonian. September 13, 2018. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart- news/cornelius-wasnt-only-gurlitt-sibling-inherit-nazi-looted-art-180970270/

Spanke, Daniel with Claudia Blank. “Modern Masters—“Degenerate” Art: Basic Principles and Terms.” In Modern Masters: “Degenerate” Art at the Kunstmuseum Bern, edited by Matthias Frehner and Daniel Spanke, 15-66. Munich: Prestel Verlag, 2016.

Spotts, Frederic. Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 2004.

Steinberg, Shlomit. “Being a ‘Mischling’: The German-Jewish Identity of Hildebrand Gurlitt.” In Gurlitt Status Report, edited by Kunstmuseum Bern and Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland GmbH, 28-31. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 2017.

Steinweis, Alan E. “Anti-Semitism and the Arts in Nazi Ideology and Policy.” In The Arts in Nazi Germany: Continuity, Conformity, Change, edited by Jonathan Huener and Francis R. Nicosia, 15-30. New York: Berghahn Books, 2006.

Stern, Courtney Juliana. “The Resurgence of Nazi-Era Art Restitution and the Art Market.” Master’s thesis, Sotheby’s Institute of Art, 2011.

Tyler, Barbara J. “The Stolen Museum: Have United States Art Museums Become Inadvertent Fences for Stolen Art Works Looted by the Nazis in World War II?” Rutgers Law Journal 30 (Winter 1999): 441-471.

Vogel, Barbara. Restitution von NS-Raubkunst: Der historisch begründete “Anspruch auf eine Rechtslage”. Essen: Klartext Verlag, 2016.

72 Voss, Julia. "Have German Restitution Policies Been Advanced since the Gurlitt Case? A Journalist's Perspective." New German Critique 130 (February 2017): 57-74.

Weiss, Leah J. “The Role of Museums in Sustaining the Illicit Trade in Cultural Property.” Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 25 (2007): 837-875.

Wiener-Bronner, Danielle. “Sixty More Works Discovered in Hidden Nazi Art Trove.” The Atlantic. February 11, 2014. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/02/more-nazi-art- loot/357951/

Wolf, Rein and Nina Zimmer, “Director’s Foreword.” In Gurlitt Status Report, edited by Kunstmuseum Bern and Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland GmbH, 8-10. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 2017.

Yeide, Nancy H., Amy Walsh, and Konstantin Akinsha. The AAM Guide to Provenance Research. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums, 2001.

Yip, Arabella. “Stolen Art: Who Owns It Often Depends on Whose Law Applies.” Spencer’s Art Law Journal 1 (Spring 2010): http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/spencer/spencers-art-law-journal7-26- 10.asp

Zagaris, Bruce. "Germany's Decision to Return Artworks to Cornelius Gurlitt Is Controversial.” International Enforcement Law Reporter 30 (July 2014): 1-3

Zeitler, Anika. "Der Fall Gurlitt und seine Folgen" [The Case of Gurlitt and its Consequences]. Deutsche Welle, October 21, 2014.

73 INTERVIEWS

Nikola Doll, Kunstmuseum Bern, Bern, Switzerland, May 23, 2018.

Maureen Warren, Krannert Art Museum & Kinkead Pavillion, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, November 10, 2018.

Nancy Karrels, email conversations from July 9, 2018-December 3, 2018.

74

1 Krannert Art Museum, “WWII-Era Provenance Research at Krannert Art Museum,” December 20, 2018, https://kam.illinois.edu/resource/wwii-era-provenance-research- krannert-art-museum 2 Ibid. 3 Maureen Warren, Curator of European and American Art at the Krannert Art Museum, interview with author, November 10, 2018. 4 Krannert Art Museum, “WWII-Era Provenance Research at Krannert Art Museum” 5 Nancy H. Yeide, Amy Walsh, and Konstantin Akinsha, The AAM Guide to Provenance Research (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums, 2001), 5. 6 Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, “Provenance: Ongoing Research on the Artwork in Our Collection,” December 20, 2018, https://nelson-atkins.org/provenance/. 7 Jesse Signal, “Critics Say U.S. Museums Holding Onto Nazi Looted Art.” USA Today, December 21, 2013. 8 Ibid. 9 Nancy Karrels, “Renewing Nazi-Era Provenance Research Efforts: Case Studies and Recommendations,” in Museum Management and Curatorship 29 (July 2014): 298. 10 Kim Su Rasmussen, “Foucault’s Genealogy of Racism” Theory, Culture & Society 28 (September 2011): 44. 11 Ibid, 41. 12 Ibid, 42. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid, 44. 15 Ibid, 42. 16 Hili Perlson, "Hildebrand Gurlitt Built a Brilliant Trove of Art under the Nazis. Two New Exhibitions Show His Taste, and His Duplicity," Artnet News, November 3, 2017. https://news.artnet.com/exhibitions/gurlitt-trove-bern-bonn-shows-1137587 17 Andreas Huyssen, Anson Rabinbach, and Avinoam Shalem, “Nazi-Looted Art and Its Legacies: Introduction,” New German Critique 130 (February 2017): 2. 18 Ibid. 19 Lucy Burns, “Degenerate Art: Why Hitler Hated Modernism,” BBC News, November 6, 2013. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24819441 20 Daniel Spanke and Claudia Blank, “Modern Masters—"Degenerate” Art: Basic Principles and Terms,” in Modern Masters: “Degenerate” Art at the Kunstmuseum Bern, 37. 21 Burns, “Degenerate Art” 22 Spanke and Blank, “Modern Masters—"Degenerate” Art,” 37. 23 Burns, “Degenerate Art” 24 Bruno Latour, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 128. 25 Ibid, 131. 26 Jonathan Petropoulos, “Art Dealer Networks in the Third Reich and in the Postwar Period,” Journal of Contemporary History 52 (July 2017): 548. 27 Petropoulos, “Five Uncomfortable and Difficult Topics,” 135. 28 Ibid, 136.

75

29 Ibid. 30 Jonathan Petropoulos, “Five Uncomfortable and Difficult Topics Relating to the Restitution of Nazi-Looted Art,” New German Critique 130 (February 2017): 137. 31 Sophie Gilbert, “The Persistent Crime of Nazi-Looted Art,” The Atlantic, March 11, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/03/cornelius-gurlitt-nazi- looted-art/554936/ 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid, 138. 34 Latour, Reassembling the Social, 31. 35 Jonathan Petropoulos, “Inside the Secret Market for Nazi-Looted Art,” ARTnews, January 29, 2014. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 Stefan Koldehoff, “Excuses, Ignorance, and a Lack of Empathy—The Treatment of Victims of National Socialism after 1945 and the ‘Gurlitt Affair,’” in Gurlitt Status Report, 68. 40 Meike Hoffman, “The Long Shadows of the Past—A Critical Appraisal of Hildebrand Gurlitt’s Life,” in Gurlitt Status Report, 26. 41 Ibid, 25. 42 Gilbert, "The Persistent Crime of Nazi-Looted Art." 43 Mattias Frehner, “Must the Art History of the 20th Century be Rewritten? A First Art Historical Analysis of the Gurlitt Holdings,” in Gurlitt Status Report, 76. 44 Hoffman, “The Long Shadows of the Past,” 21. 45 Johannes Gramlich and Meike Hopp, “’Occasionally Sprit is Turned into Money’— Hildebrand Gurlitt as an Art Dealer During the Nazi Period,” in Gurlitt Status Report, 32. 46 Michael Kimmelman, “The Void at the Heart of ‘Gurlitt: Status Report,” New York Times, November 19, 2017. 47 Gramlich and Hopp, “’Occasionally Sprit is Turned into Money,’” 33. 48 Hoffman, “The Long Shadows of the Past,” 21. 49 Ibid, 19. 50 Meike Hoffman, “Hildebrand Gurlitt and His Dealings with German Museums during the ‘Third Reich,’” in New German Critique 130 (February 2017): 35. 51 “Living Life as an Artist: Nietzsche on Creativity,” The Conversation, February 4, 2015. http://theconversation.com/living-life-as-an-artist-nietzsche-on-creativity-36257 52 Hoffman, “Gurlitt and His Dealings with German Museums during the ‘Third Reich’” 53 Hoffman, “The Long Shadows of the Past,” 19. 54 German Lost Art Database, “Gurlitt, Hildebrand: 1895-1956,” 2018. 55 Hoffman, “Hildebrand Gurlitt and His Dealings,” 39. 56 Hoffman, “The Long Shadows of the Past,” 21. 57 Shlomit Steinberg, “Being a ‘Mischling’:The German-Jewish Identity of Hildebrand Gurlitt,” in Gurlitt Status Report, 31. 58 Susan Ronald, Hitler’s Art Thief: Hildebrand Gurlitt, the Nazis, and the Looting of Europe’s Treasures (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2015), 174. 59 Steinberg, “Being a ‘Mischling,’” 30.

76

60 Ibid, 31. 61 Ibid, 30. 62 Ibid, 268. 63 Ibid, 31. 64 Ibid. 65 Ronald, Hitler’s Art Thief, 132. 66 Gramlich and Hopp, “’Occasionally Spirit is Turned into Money,” 32. 67 Ronald, Hitler’s Art Thief, 209. 68 Ibid, 271. 69 Hoffman, “Gurlitt and German Museums,” 47. 70 Ibid. 71 Gramlich and Hopp, “’Occasionally Spirit is Turned into Money,” 37. 72 Hoffman, “The Long Shadows of the Past,” 22. 73 Ibid, 12. 74 Birgit Schwarz, “Hildebrand Gurlitt and the ‘Special Commission Linz,” in Gurlitt Status Report, 52. 75 Michael Kimmelman, “The Void at the Heart of ‘Gurlitt: Status Report,” New York Times, November 19, 2017. 76 Schwarz, “Hildebrand Gurlitt and the ‘Special Commission Linz,” 53. 77 Susan Ronald, “Hildebrand Gurlitt and the Nazis Looting of Europe’s Treasures,” The History Reader: Dispatches in History from St. Martin’s Press, September 15, 2015. 78 Ronald, Hitler’s Art Thief, 57. 79 Hoffman, “The Long Shadows of the Past,” 17. 80 Ibid. 81 Ibid. 82 Ronald, Hitler’s Art Thief, 57. 83 Hoffman, “The Long Shadows of the Past,” 26. 84 Ibid. 85 Ronald, Hitler’s Art Thief, 299. 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid, 209. 88 Ronald, “Hildebrand Gurlitt and the Nazis Looting of Europe’s Treasures.” 89 Özlem Gezer, “Interview with a Phantom: Cornelius Gurlitt Shares His Secrets,” Der Spiegel, November 17, 2013. 90 Gilbert, “The Persistent Crime of Nazi-Looted Art” 91 Naomi Rea, “It Turns Out Cornelius Gurlitt’s Sister Hid Nazi-Art, Too, as Four Drawings Are Returned to Jewish Heirs,” Artnet News, September 11, 2018. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/cornelius-gurlitt-hoard-sister-drawings-1346288 92 Ibid. 93 Ronald, Hitler’s Art Thief, 318. 94 Stefan Dege, “Gurlitt Collection Goes to Bern—But Then What?” Deutsche Welle, November 28, 2014. http://www.dw.com/en/gurlitt-collection-goes-to-bern-but-then- what/a-18092618 95 Ronald, Hitler’s Art Thief, 318. 96 Koldenhoff, “Excuses, Ignorance, and a Lack of Empathy,” 72.

77

97 Ibid. 98 Hoffman, “Gurlitt and German Museums,” 43. 99 Petropoulos, “Inside the Secret Art Market for Nazi-Looted Art” 100 Hoffman, “Gurlitt and German Museums,” 35. 101 Steven A. Bibas, “The Case Against Statutes of Limitations for Stolen Art,” Yale Law Journal 103 (June 1994), 2445, footnote 49. 102 Arabella Yip, “Stolen Art: Who Owns It Often Depends on Whose Law Applies,” Spencer’s art Law Journal 1 (Spring 2010), http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/spencer/spencers-art-law-journal7-26-10.asp 103 Ibid. 104 “About us,” Kunstmuseum Bern, accessed November 16, 2018. https://www.kunstmuseumbern.ch/en/service/about-us-6.html 105 Spanke and Blank, “Modern Masters—"Degenerate” Art,” 15. 106 Ibid. 107 Ibid. 108 Nikola Doll, Head of Provenance Research at the Kunstmuseum Bern, interview with author, May 23, 2018. 109 Anja Heuß, “Provenance Research in Germany and Switzerland,” in Gurlitt Status Report, 88. 110 Ibid, 89. 111 Matthias Frehner, “Introduction,” in Modern Masters: “Degenerate” Art at the Kunstmuseum Bern, 9. 112 Alain Berset, “Preface,” in Gurlitt Status Report, 6. 113 Ibid, 315. 114 Melissa Eddy, “Sculptures Found in Disputed Art Trove,” New York Times, July 24, 2014. 115 Catherine Hickley, “Gurlitt Bequest Spurs Provenance Research in Switzerland.” The Art Newspaper, July 23, 2017. 116 Hili Perlson, “The Work of Cornelia Gurlitt, Forgotten in Her Brother’s Tainted Trove, Finally Goes on View,” Artnet News, November 13, 2017. https://news.artnet.com/art- world/cornelia-gurlitt-forgotten-in-her-brothers-tainted-trove-1141346 117 Ibid. 118 Ibid. 119 Andrea Baresel-Brand, “The Challenge of Researching the Provenance of Gurlitt’s Holdings,” in Gurlitt Status Report, 95 120 Ibid. 121 Spanke and Blank, “Modern Masters—“Degenerate” Art”, 57. 122 Frehner, “Introduction”, 10. 123 Ibid. 124 Spanke and Blank, “Modern Masters—"Degenerate” Art,” 58. 125 Melissa Eddy, "Matisse from Gurlitt Collection Is Returned to Jewish Art Dealer's Heirs," The New York Times, May 15, 2015. 126 Perwana Nazif, “Two More Works From Gurlitt Hoard Returned to Legal Heirs,” Artnet News, February 22, 2017. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/pissarro-menzel- gurlitt-hoard-restitution-868433

78

127 Ibid. 128 Ibid. 129“List of Works,” Gurlitt Status Report, 306. 130 Rebecca O’Dwyer, “How Should We Look at Cornelius Gurlitt’s Trove of Nazi- Looted Art?” Hyperallergic, November 14, 2018. https://hyperallergic.com/463728/gurlitt-status-report-an-art-dealer-in-nazi-germany/ 131 Dalya Alberge, “Reunion with Looted Painting is ‘Second Victory Against the Nazis,’” The Guardian, May 27, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/27/looted-painting-victory-nazis-two- riders-beach-max-liebermann 132 Frehner, “Must the Art History of the 20th Century Be Rewritten?”, 78. 133“Exhibition Guide,” Gurlitt Status Report Part 2: Nazi Art Theft and its Consequences. 134 Ibid. 135 Doll, Head of Provenance Research, interview with author, May 23, 2018. 136 Ibid. 137 O’Dwyer, “How Should We Look at Cornelius Gurlitt’s Trove?” 138 Ibid. 139 Heuß, “Provenance Research in Germany and Switzerland,” 86. 140 Ibid, 92. 141 Krannert Art Museum, “About Krannert Art Museum,” December 20, 2018, https://kam.illinois.edu/node/171 142 Krannert Art Museum, “WWII-Era Provenance Research at Krannert Art Museum” 143 Krannert Art Museum, “Provenance: A Forensic History of Art,” December 20, 2018, https://kam.illinois.edu/exhibition/provenance-forensic-history-art 144 Ibid. 145 Nancy Karrels, “Provenance Issues: Material Evidence,” Krannert Art Museum, December 20, 2018, https://kam.illinois.edu/resource/provenance-issues-material- evidence 146 Ibid. 147 Krannert Art Museum, “Provenance: A Forensic History of Art” 148 Provenance: A Forensic History of Art, Edited by Nancy Karrels and Maureen Warren (Champaign: Krannert Art Museum and Kinkead Pavillion, 2017), Exhibition catalogue. 149 Warren, Curator of European and American Art, interview with author, November 10, 2018. 150 Ibid. 151 Ibid. 152 Ibid.

79