Mark,
The concept of art stolen from the Nazis is not quite as farfetched as
you may think, and can generate a tempest of controversy that rivals the
magnitude of a windstorm blowing down a Deodar forest. I found this
recent story (see below) from the Los Angeles Times posted on the Museum
Security Network. It demonstrates how even a much-loved (especially by
me, having worked there for seven years), prestigious, and presumably
ethical institution such as the Huntington Library can be vulnerable to
criticism for questionably sloppy and cavalier collecting practices in
which it has indulged in the distant past, notwithstanding the evil
nature of the "victim" from whom the art was stolen.
cheers,
tcb
Gen. Patton's loot The Huntington's copies of key Nazi papers are a
historical prize whose own history needs to be officially cleaned up.
By Tony Platt, professor emeritus of social work at Cal State
Sacramento, is the author of "Bloodlines: Recovering Hitler's Nuremberg
Laws, From Patton's Trophy to Public Memorial."
April 4, 2006
THE METROPOLITAN Museum of Art in New York and the Getty Center in Los
Angeles are facing charges of complicity in the acquisition of looted
art. The objects in question are ancient artworks and artifacts, but
loot can come from any time and any place.
Here in Los Angeles, you can check out some loot that dates to 1935:
Original copies of the three Nuremberg Laws, signed by Hitler, including
the infamous Blood Law, which signaled the beginning of the end for Jews
under the Third Reich. They're on display at the Skirball Cultural
Center, courtesy of the Huntington Library.
The Huntington's claim to ownership of the documents rests on the fact
that they were a gift in 1945 from one of California's homegrown heroes,
Gen. George Patton. But, as it turns out, the documents are war loot, a
prize that Patton knew wasn't his to take or give and a piece of history
whose own history needs to be officially cleaned up.
Wars are good for the business of looting, and the Nazis were infamous
for appropriating valuables from defeated and victimized individuals.
Today, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art unveils five paintings by
Gustav Klimt that were stolen by the Germans from the family of
Austrian-born Maria Altman, an L.A. resident who fought a seven-year
legal battle to regain her family's possessions.
The Nazis weren't the only ones who took what didn't belong to them.
Collecting souvenirs, especially battlefield trophies, was common during
World War II on all sides, even informally sanctioned. Former President
Hoover had a man in Germany at the end of the war seeking documents for
his War Library archives at Stanford. Rabbi Judah Nadich, Gen. Dwight
Eisenhower's advisor on Jewish affairs, took home a couple of swords
belonging to Joseph Goebbels. But Patton acquired more than most people.
He began amassing souvenirs of war in 1916, when he sent his father the
silver-mounted saddle and sword of Julio Cardenas, an officer in Pancho
Villa's army whom he had killed in Mexico. During World War II, he sent
home German helmets, Nazi daggers, a Spanish cannon and a bronze bust of
Hitler.
The general got his hands on the Nuremberg Laws near the end of the war,
when a U.S. military intelligence team turned over to him what would
turn out to be one of two surviving original copies. By then, Patton had
been charged by Eisenhower with gathering Nazi documents for what would
become the war crimes tribunal, so he had to know that the Nuremberg
Laws were supposed to be sent to the Allies' headquarters in Paris.
Instead, he pocketed them for himself.
During a visit to California in June 1945, Patton made an unpublicized
stop at the Huntington Library, where he deposited the Nuremberg Laws.
He had grown up next door to the Huntington estate; his father and Henry
E. Huntington were in business together, and Huntington had played a key
role in getting young George into West Point in the early 1900s. Now,
Patton showed off his trophy to his hosts and, in a statement dictated
to a clerk, told them that of all his wartime souvenirs, "this is the
important one."
He also assured the Huntington that the Nuremberg Laws were his
property, recounting a story about his troops fighting through the
streets of Nuremberg to rescue the documents, then turning them over to
their general in "a great public presentation." Patton died in a car
accident later in 1945, and "his" Nuremberg Laws were never formally
accessioned by the library. For 54 years, internal records show, the
prize remained off the Huntington's books, in a bombproof vault reserved
for its most valuable holdings.
That the library held the laws - and that they had a doubtful provenance
- wasn't a secret at the Huntington. In 1991, a senior curator reminded
her supervisor in a memo that the typescript pages "seem pretty clearly
to be war loot." But officials kept that to themselves when they finally
revealed their possession on June 26, 1999, and announced the loan to
the Skirball.
Why hadn't the laws been displayed? Because "we were focused on other
areas of interest," officials told the L.A. Times. As for ownership, the
article explained: "After the war, soldiers commonly took possession of
historical and material goods from liberated territories."
My co-researcher, Cecilia O'Leary, and I happened to be visiting fellows
at the Huntington during this momentous event. Responding to information
from a colleague at the National Archives, we tracked down
then-83-year-old Martin Dannenberg, the officer in charge of the unit
that had retrieved the Nuremberg Laws at the end of the war. According
to Dannenberg and to records left by his interpreter, Frank Perls, the
L.A. art dealer, they were found in a vault in Eichstatt, a town near
Nuremberg, in late April 1945, not early March, as Patton told the
Huntington in his statement. Moreover, the soldiers were acting on a
tip, not during the heat of battle, as in Patton's bogus story. No
record of the public presentation he alleged took place "about the 27th
of May" in 1945 has ever been located.
So what should be done about this particular case of looting? In the
absence of claims of ownership - which might come from the U.S. or
German governments - the Huntington's possession of the Nuremberg Laws
prevails for the moment. And the documents' display at the Skirball,
which is a center of Jewish cultural life, carries a certain symbolic
justice.
As Dannenberg says, it's good that "the documents are now in a place
where they will be seen by an understanding public." Yet the Huntington,
which rarely loans its materials, should also consider his diplomatic
recommendation: "I am sure other museums will want to borrow them in the
future, and I hope, because of their importance and what they represent,
that they can be temporarily loaned to other responsible institutions."
As important, the Huntington should come clean publicly about the full
story of the Nuremberg Laws' provenance. After all, the ownership of
iconic objects, who possesses them, how they got them and why provides
crucial context that is a mainstay of scholarship and public history.
Seeing the laws today is a powerful reminder of the evil governments can
do. And in the case of this long-hidden artifact, we also learn
something else: the way a trusted institution can cover up a war hero's
transgressions.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-platt4apr04,1,236
0804
tcb
-----Original Message-----
From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Mark Janzen
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 3:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MUSEUM-L] Stolen Nazi Art
Hi Bill,
First, on the serious note, there are a couple recent books on this
subject
available through the AAM bookstore, which you should check out. There
are
also a variety in the general history field, which I am sure you have
found
in your searches. I have not had to deal with such an issue yet, so I do
not have any specific examples.
Per my personal opinion, I would think the primary pro would be
international goodwill and inter-institution relationships. The cons,
including deaccession procedures, requests for financial renumeration
for
decades of care, potential legal issues, interpretive and care concerns,
and concerns for the ultimate disposition of the piece(s), could be
legion.
Of course, refusing such a request/demand could produce negative
feelings
and press, but why return something to an individual who is then going
to
sell it into the market? That would and already has generated much the
same
problem. I would think less critically of returning something to an
institution in the original country of origin that maintains proper care
and management procedures. Returning to an individual would be something
I
would have deep reservations about.
On the lighter side, and since it is Friday, I would personally suggest
you
use the phrase "art stolen by the Nazis" or perhaps "Nazi loot" in your
subject line. Although I am sure we all know what you meant, and your
explanation of what you were seeking was very good, I could not help but
giggle just a little at the thought of art stolen from the Nazis.
Good luck.
Mark Janzen
Registrar/Collections Manager
Edwin A. Ulrich Museum of Art
Martin H. Bush Outdoor Sculpture Collection
Wichita State University
(316)978-5850
Bill Jeffers
<[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: Museum
To
discussion list [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]
cc
SE.LSOFT.COM>
Subject
Stolen Nazi Art
04/07/2006 03:30
PM
Please respond to
Museum discussion
list
<[log in to unmask]
SE.LSOFT.COM>
Hello,
My name is Bill Jeffers and I am a graduate student researching
stolen
Nazi art. Basically I see only two choices when it comes to this. They
are 1. Give the piece of art back to the rightful heirs or 2. Fight the
accusation. I was wondering if anyone out there had any experiences or
information that can help me weigh the pros and cons of each choice. I
do
feel that if it can be proven that a piece of art and/or an object in a
collection was indeed acquired by the Nazis and therefore stolen, it
should
be returned to the heir as soon as that fact can be established. Even
if
the piece is the "crown jewel" of your collection. Keeping it
regardless
will have serious consequenses down the road (public perception,
declining
attendance, donations [both monetary and object], etc). Thank you for
your
time in this matter.
Sincerely,
Bill Jeffers
[log in to unmask]
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail
message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should
read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message
to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read
"Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail
message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should
read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read
"Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
