Sorry - I intended to copy this reply to the List as well.

Patrick Boylan

====================================

On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Simon wrote:

> But isn't it our obligation as conveyors of knowledge through
> material culture to show all aspects of heritage - even if they are
> obtained in a suspicious manner.
>
> For example, recently a list of 10,000 paintings that were sold by
> the nazi's in the 30's has come to light. A lot of these are assumed
> to have been stolen from - among other cultures - the Jews. One of
> these is a very famous painting called the Screaming Lady (i think
> that's its title). The Tate Gallery in London purchased that painting
> from the nazis. Now we know it is of dubious origin, but we have no
> way of knowing who the original owner was. ICOM states that this is
> illicit, and should therefore not be exhibited. Why not? If not
> shown, it will be hidden from public view. A great waste of a
> valuable and important artefact.
> I suggest that ICOM is too rigid in its application of moral ethics
> to society, and that in examples such as this, a different approach
> must be undertaken.
>
================================================

Simon:

Would that there were only 10,000 missing or dubious items from the
Third Reich and World War II period, as you suggest.  Almost 45 years
after its Liberation, Italy is still looking for over 40,000 works of art
(not just because of Nazi looting: some were almost certainly stolen
by Italian criminals and Allied troops), while in the case of the
former USSR the Ukraine alone is still looking for over 100,000
registered museum objects (never mind private collections) looted
in the War.

Much more important, with respect, neither the ICOM Code of
Professional Ethics (http://www.icom.org/ethics.html) nor the
December 1998 policy advice specifically on claims for the return of
looted or mis-appropriated World War II (including Jewish) collections
and individual works of art, say that illicit objects "should therefore
not be exhibited" - or anything remotely resembling such wording.

The Code of Ethics lays down minimum standards in relation to ACQUISITIONS,
and recommends that so far as practicable the same standards should be
applied in considering what to borrow for loan exhibitions etc.  Many
leading museums around the world have adopted such standards without
any difficulty.  Some major American museums, including The Getty, now
apply the same standards in considering offers of gifts, bequests and loans.

In Britain, the British Museum insisted that certain items of disputed
provenance should be excluded from the major Royal Academy African Art
exhibition a couple of years ago, with the threat that the Museum would
withhold all of its approx. 100 loans promised to the exhibition.

In relation to items already in a Museum's collection, ICOM's December 1998
statement calls on museums to review the evidence of legitimate
title/ownership of categories of material that might be war- or Nazi-loot,
and to make relevant evidence available, particularly to those who may be
the legal owners.  In many cases relevant data may already be in the
museum's own records.

It must surely been frankly embarrassing to everyone in the profession
internationally that using nothing more than the clear evidence in the
published permanent collection and exhibition catalogues of major
museums and archive material publicly available since the early 1950s,
researchers such as Constance Lowenthal and Hector Feliciano have been
able to identify some hundreds of items probably stolen by the Nazis
from Jewish collections, in just the first few months of their research.

(Feliciano reported in his 1997 "The Lost Museum" that one group of
major international museums even used a special code in their published
registration numbers to indicate "recovered" works of art seized from
the Nazis at the end of the War, but not returned to their owners or
their representatives.)

Recent publicity has pointed to the ready availability much relevant
material against which Museums can check their collections.  These
include the US economic intelligence reports on 300+ international art
dealers believed to be cooperating with (or acting as fronts for) the
Nazi regime between about 1938 and 1945 (summarised in the January
1999 "The Art Newspaper"), and the extremely detailed Nazi art
looting records (copies of both in the US National Archives).

If evidence does emerge casting serious doubt on the Museum's title
and identifying the likely present-day legal owner of any work of art
or object, the Museum's position is clear, at least within the
English/American common law system (which has no Statute of Limitation
on such matters).  The legitimate owner has the valid title, and
therefore the right to recover the object.  If the Museum cannot reach
an agreement then the courts will decide the matter.  (It is reported
that in some such disputes that have already been settled, prompt
action and a cooperative attitude on the part of the Museum has resulted in the donation of the disputed work to the Museum - subject to due acknowledgement of its origin or in memory of the Holocaust
victim concerned.)

The very rapid success of Holocaust survivor organisations against the
considerable might and traditional secrecy of the Swiss banks, and
their current pursuit of international life insurance companies, suggests
that museums will be a push-over in comparison.


Patrick Boylan