I certainly agree with most of Cheryl Maslin's comments on the gallery
director's remarks, which were stupid, fatuous, arrogant, and insensitive in
the extreme.  Although I would give him every chance to retract his idiotic
statements, my immediate reaction is that anyone who would articulate such
nonsense is not qualified to be a director of a "prestigious" museum or
gallery.  To suggest that the Nazis thoughtfully removed works of art from
harm's way so they would not be destroyed by the very violence they were
creating is absurd.  They clearly were motivated far more by greed than by
any consideration of saving art for the ages.  Perhaps this character should
publish a paper to expand upon his views: "Looting as Conservation"?

While one always hopes that private owners of great works of art ultimately
will find ways to share them with others and not hoard them solely out of
personal greed, it's their business if they choose to retain them for private
enjoyment, investment, or as part of a family heritage.  Many private owners
generously share their wealth by lending their collections for public
exhibition, while retaining ownership and control.  That's their decision to
make.  The director's attitude seems to be one of commending the Nazis for
making that decision for the owners.  In any event, it certainly didn't seem
to be the Nazis' intention to place art in public institutions.  The last
thing they would have wanted to do was to "liberate" private property for
public ownership: they were totally opposed,.after all, to such "communist"
concepts.  If anything, the fact that much of the stolen art ended up in
museums is rather an ironic joke on the looters.  But I get very tired of
hearing arrogant museum people sniffing that great art or important historic
artifacts rightfully "belong" in museums.  That's just another variety of
greed, in my book.

Moreover, the director seems to be trying to justify vicious Nazi thefts on
the grounds that everything came out all right in the end.  He's totally
wrong, of course.  It didn't come out all right.  And whether or not stolen
works of art constituted "Judaica" is the worst kind of non sequitur.
Property is property, whether it has personal, ethnic, or religious
significance to the victims of loss.

However, I find the remarks about the second paragraph, concerning neglected
art by women and minorities, not relevant--very much a non sequitur--and I
think they weaken the argument.  That the Nazis may not have been equal
opportunity looters, or that they may have missed good stuff by artists they
didn't consider important--or that the gallery director neglects minority
artists in his personal canon of great art--is rather beside the point.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
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).