In reply to Simon Clark's posting:

In the case of the Nazi confiscations, wouldn't it be advisable to at
least attempt to locate the original owners' descendants (as they would be
the rightful owners of the piece or at least of the monies paid for the
piece)?

If a family did come forward with evidence of ownership, such as a
receipt from an auction house or art gallery (and this could be verified
through the records of the seller), would it be morally right to return
the piece or to ask for it to be donated to the current holder (maybe as a
memorial to the history of Nazi atrocities as well as the history of the
family)? In this way we would be acknowledging the illicit nature of the
transaction as well as attempting to convey the true history of the piece
and our global heritage.

I agree that hiding the piece from view would not be an appropriate
handling of the situation, but should restitution or at least acceptance
of the illicit nature of the transaction be acknowledged?

Also, ICOM is only a set of guidelines, not laws. As such the decision of
how to handle the situation is left to the individual gallery/museum. Each
institution will see the guidelines in a different light and will
interpret them in a different way.

Just some thoughts,

Kristina Kiper