A tale of two Schieles

We have quite regularly discussed different cases of art stolen from Jewish families by the Germans during World War II on this blog. The one point they all have in common is that it is always difficult to predict the outcome. There is never a straightforward answer to whether the art will be returned.

A recent case illustrates the incongruent approaches to the cases. 

Two paintings by Austrian artist Egon Schiele are being auctioned next month. One by Christie’s and one by Sotheby’s.

Schiele's "Seated Woman with Bent Left Leg"

Schiele's "Town on the Blue River"

The result of the sales will, however, be very different for the family of Fritz Grünbaum, who once owned both pieces.

As reported by The New York Times:

Christie’s is selling Schiele’s 1910 watercolor “Town on the Blue River,” on Nov. 5 in conjunction with a restitution agreement that treats the work as looted art and provides compensation to Grünbaum’s heirs. 

Sotheby’s is selling a 1917 gouache and crayon work, “Seated Woman With Bent Left Leg,” on Nov. 4 under an arrangement that will not compensate the family. The auction house is relying on rulings by United States federal courts that found the family waited too long to file its claim and that there was insufficient evidence to conclude “Seated Woman” had been stolen.

The different approaches apparently stems from the fact that it all comes down to the word of a Swiss art dealer who says he bought dozens of Schieles from Grünbaum’s sister-in-law.

Grünbaum had accumulated a substantial art collection prior to 1938 when he was sent to Dachau and all his art was seized. His collection included 81 Schieles, however, it is not clear whether these two paintings were part of it.

After the collection was seized, it was moved to a storage depot in Vienna. Grünbaum died in 1941, and his wife, Elisabeth, died in 1942, in a concentration camp.

 The New York Times continues:

The next time any of the works from Grünbaum’s collection surfaced on the art market was in the 1950s, when the Swiss dealer, Eberhard Kornfeld, sold some. Mr. Kornfeld later said he had purchased them from Elisabeth Grünbaum’s sister, Mathilde Lukacs-Herzl, who died in 1979. Mr. Kornfeld produced correspondence with Ms. Lukacs-Herzl, tax stamps and other documentation to support his account. 

Jonathan Petropoulos, the former art research director for the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States, has called Mr. Kornfeld’s story suspicious, in part because the documents carry varied spellings of the name “Mathilde” in penciled signatures and because he did not identify her as the source of the works until decades after her death. In any case, Mr. Petropoulos, who was hired by the Grünbaum family legal team, argues that Ms. Lukacs-Herzl did not have title to the art because she was never declared Grünbaum’s heir by an Austrian court, as required.  

So, on the one side Sotheby’s is taking Kornfeld's word that he acquired the paintings lawfully. On the other, Christies's acknowledge that the position is complicated and therefore will treat the painting as looted art and compensate Grünbaum’s heirs.

While the lack of consistency is not surprising, it is nevertheless disappointing particularly since it is very likely that the paintings came from the same collection. And while there are several organisations that are still working to right wrongs that took place over 70 years ago, as those events become ever more distant it becomes even more likely that the disparities will only increase.


Source: The New York Times, 24 October 2014

Time Warner in copyright dispute over photographs

Legendary photographer Alfred Eisenstaedt (1898 – 1995) captured many iconic images during his long and distinguished career - a large proportion of which he spent working for Life magazine.

Eisenstaedt was also, reportedly, very generous - regularly giving copies of his prints to his friends, family and the subjects of his photographs.

Some of these photographs are now the subject of a legal dispute between Time Warner, the owners of Life magazine, and the family of Eisenstaedt's sister-in-law and friend, Lucille Kaye.

DNAinfo New York reports:

The dispute began in April 2013 when Kaye's family planned to auction off some of the work through Sotheby's.  

Time Warner interceded, claiming that under contracts it signed with Eisenstaedt before his death, it has rights to all the photographs and negatives he took between Jan. 1, 1929 and July 26, 1994. The media titan said that under the terms of the agreement, that includes the disputed photographs.  

But [John] Catterson, who represents Kaye's family, said Eisenstaedt had given the photos — which include the Hitler-Mussolini meet-up — to her.  

"The actual photographs we're talking about were photographs in Miss Kaye's apartment at the time she died in 2012," Catterson said.  

"They had been gifted to her well before [Eisenstaedt] died," he added..."

...In 2012, Kaye died at 92 without any children. She left her possessions, including the photographs worth an estimated $50,000, to her nieces and nephews in South Africa, and made Catterson the executor of her estate.  

In April 2013, Kaye's family decided to auction some of the photos through Sotheby's. They later decided to pull the items from sale, but not before Sotheby's included them in a catalog.  

Time Warner spotted the listing and contacted Sotheby's, claiming ownership.  

Subsequently, Sotheby's refused to return the photos to Kaye's family until they resolved the dispute with Time Warner.  

Catterson filed the April 9 petition in Manhattan Surrogate's Court to have a judge determine ownership and to order the return of the photographs to Kaye's family.  

[Time Warner's lawyers say that] under its agreements with Eisenstaedt, Time Warner does own the copyright to his works and pays his estate 50 percent of all revenue from the licensing of his works.  

However, Catterson [claims] that Kaye's family owns the disputed prints because Eisenstaedt gave them to her before he signed any contracts with Time Warner.  

He also notes that under one of the contracts, Time had a right to all the photographs in rooms located at the Time & Life building and in Eisenstaedt's Jackson Heights' apartment. Catterson said in the filing these photos were kept at Kaye's apartment and there is no evidence they were in Time & Life or Eisenstaedt's apartment.  

He added that Time Warner has no proof of ownership since it has not kept an inventory of Eisenstaedt's photography and cannot "articulate which, if any, of the photographs are part of the collection assigned to Time in the agreements."

Sounds like a very interesting dispute from this initial report. It would be good to get a look at Catterson's petition and any responses from Time Warner. If anyone has access, please pass them on!


Source: DNAinfo New York, 21 April 2014

Sotheby's denies forgery claims

Following allegations that a piece of Chinese calligraphy sold at auction in New York in September 2013 is a fake, Sotheby's have been compelled to issue a statement insisting that the artwork in question is genuine.

By way of background, the Wall Street Journal explained last month:

An ancient Chinese scroll, which went under the hammer for $8.2 million at an art auction in New York, has become the focus of an intense debate between the auction house that sold it, the wealthy collector who bought it, and a trio of museum experts who have denounced it as a fake.  

 

The public spat began Saturday when three art experts from the Shanghai Museum alleged that the calligraphy work, titled “Gong Fu Tie,” [pictured above] was a forgery. Purchased at a Sotheby’s auction in September by collector Liu Yiqian, the piece is attributed to the Song Dynasty poet Su Shi, who lived from 1037 to 1101 and is known by the literary name Su Dongpo.  

The three specialists scrutinized the work in the Xinmin Evening News, a state-owned newspaper based in Shanghai. They added that they plan to release a research paper giving more details about why they believe the piece to be a counterfeit. 

Last week, the three experts published their findings in the China Cultural Relics News. They maintain that the calligraphy is a forgery produced using a special technique from the late Qing Dynasty. In response, Sotheby's insisted that the piece is genuine, and have said that their experts will also provide a more detailed response within 10 days.

This very public debate over the authenticity of an artwork sold at auction to a private collector is quite unusual. It seems particularly rare for a major museum to stand up to such a big auction house. However, it remains to be seen whether the intervention will have any effect on a sale that has already taken place.


Source: Wall Street Journal, 23 December 2013, Want China Times, 4 January 2014

Dia challenge, a summary

Readers of this blog may have heard mutterings about the recent controversy surrounding the auction by Sotheby's of a number of artworks owned by the Dia Art Foundation. In brief, this is what happened.

Earlier this month, two of the founders of the Dia Art Foundation filed suit in the Manhattan state court to prevent the organisation from selling a number of artworks from its collection.

The Foundation, a nonprofit organisation, which was established in 1974 to initiate, support, present and preserve art projects, had decided to sell some of its works at Sotheby’s to raise money. Founders Heiner Friedrich and Fariha de Menil Friedrich, sought an injunction against the Foundation and Sotheby’s to prevent the sale of the artworks. At the time, it was reported:

Many of the works named in the lawsuit were donated by Mr. and Ms. Friedrich when they created the foundation with the art historian Helen Winkler. The lawsuit claims that selling the works to private collectors would remove them “from public access and viewing in direct contravention of Dia’s entire intent and purpose.” The auction would be a breach of an “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing” with the Friedrichs and the artists who made the works, the suit states.

The case was, however, dropped. The New York Times reported:

The founders, Heiner Friedrich and Fariha de Menil Friedrich, said in a written statement through their lawyers on Tuesday morning that while they consider the sale “utterly wrong” and “against Dia’s mission,” the foundation is “our precious child, and we do not wish to continue to oppose it through legal action.”

Accordingly, the sale of the works went ahead. It appears, from Sotheby's catalogue that the foundation raised a significant amount of money. Indeed Cy Twombly's Poems to the Sea (below) raised almost $22 million alone. Let's hope the foundation puts the money to good use.

Source:   The New York Times, 7 November 2013 & 12 November 2013

Sotheby's battles US Government over Cambodian statue

Another update, this time to the Cambodian art dispute reported here.

By way of reminder, in August 2011, the US government intervened in a claim by the Cambodian government in respect of an ancient sandstone statue that was listed for auction by Sotheby's. Sotheby's then withdrew the statue from sale.

In a latest development, both sides to the dispute have filed motions with the US District Court in Manhattan accusing the other of unethical behaviour.

On it's side, Sotheby’s is accusing the US government of intervening in their negotiations to sell the statue in a private deal which would have allowed for the return of the statue to Cambodia. Their claim is that the government blocked the deal as it wanted all the credit for the statue's return.

Meanwhile, the prosecutors have accused one of their former colleagues,  Jane A. Levine, who now works for Sotheby's, of providing them with “false and misleading information” in relation to the statue.

Sotheby's, additionally, filed further evidence disputing the ability of the US government to bring the case, and asked the judge to defer the further exchange of discovery until the court has ruled on on its motion to dismiss the case.

The court has set the next hearing for 14 October.

Source: The New York Times, 13 September 2013

Sotheby's sells stolen art

It appears that Sotheby's London sold a piece of art at auction at the end of June for over £180,000, despite having been informed by the Art Loss Register (ALR) that it was stolen.

The piece by Jan Schoonhoven, R69-32 (1969), was originally stolen from the Bommel van Dam museum in March this year (along with two other Schoonhoven works and a piece by Tomas Rajlich). The work was reportedly simply turned 90 degrees, and its name was slightly altered. This was apparently all that was needed to fool everyone...

Upon discovering that the piece was up for auction, the ALR, who had been alerted when the work was stolen, contacted Sotheby's and told them that it corresponded to a Schoonhoven relief in their database. Sotheby's response was that as the title of the work did not correspond to the title in the ALR database. Therefore, they proceeded to sell the piece at auction on 27 June to two art galleries who bought it together - the Mayor Gallery in London and the Borzo in Amsterdam.

It is reported that it was only when Paul van Rosmalen from the Borzo, who had been away when the work was purchased, became aware of the acquisition made in his absence that questions were raised. An expert on Schoonhoven, he found it strange that the work had been put up for sale and asked for more details from his London colleagues. Van Rosmalen said that, on review of the photos they sent him, it was very clear that the title of the work had been modified (from R69-32 to R69-39). The sale was then immediately annulled and an enquiry opened.

The whole affair, however, only became public last week, when it was reported that a man entered a police station in Amsterdam in possession of the two other Schoonhoven reliefs stolen at the same time. On questioning, he claimed to have bought the three works in good faith...for €100...and admitted selling one through Sotheby's.

But all is well that ends well...almost. The two works which were turned into the Dutch police have been returned to the Bommel van Dam museum, although the auctioned work is apparently still in London. Unfortunately the piece by Tomas Rajlich is still missing.

Source: Le Quotidien, 23 August 2013

Cambodian art dispute

Last week saw the latest step in an art dispute between Cambodia and Sotheby's.

The dispute concerns a 10th century sandstone statue. Sotheby's listed the statue for auction on 24 March 2011.

The press release noted that the auction of Indian & Southeast Asian Works would "be led by a spectacular 10th century Khmer Koh Ker period Athlete from a European private collection (est. $2/3 million). Acquired by the original owner over 40 years ago, the figure is mate to the Koh Ker athlete at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena that is almost identical in posture and physical appearance." Indeed, it is reported that in 2007, archaeologists were able to match the statue to its pedestal at a temple site in Koh Ker, a temple complex 60 miles northeast of the more well-known Angkor Wat.

At the last minute, however, the statue was removed from the auction following a claim from the Cambodian government that it had been illegally removed from Cambodia during the reign of the Khmer Rouge and should be returned to the country. Subsequently, following a request from Cambodia, US federal prosecutors filed a forfeiture claim on Cambodia's behalf. Then, in June of this year, Sotheby’s filed an unsuccessful motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds that there was no evidence that the statue had been stolen from Cambodia.

Most recently, on 21 August 2012, evidence was filed that accused Sotheby’s of knowing that the sculpture had been stolen from Cambodia when it put the work up for auction in March 2011. In this respect, the New York Times reports that:

"In their new filing, the prosecutors included statements from two heritage law experts who said that, under Cambodian and British law, the statue should be treated as stolen property.

One expert, Matthew Rendall, said the statue is covered under Cambodian statutes, royal orders and decrees dating to the early 1900s that declare such items to be the “exclusive” and “immovable” property of the government. Mr. Rendall noted five occasions between 1985 and 1997 when Sotheby’s returned sculptures to Cambodia after claims they had been looted sometime after 1970.

Sotheby’s says the sculpture could have been spirited away any time during its thousand-year history and was bought in good faith by the husband of its current owner in 1975 from a London dealer.

Experts cited by the United States and Cambodian governments insist the statue was removed more recently. The say it was too remotely located and too heavy – more than 600 pounds — to have been carried off until adequate roads were built into the region sometime after 1960."

Disputes over ownership of looted artworks are not new. However, the decisions do go either way. It remains to be seen whether the statue will be returned to Cambodia. If it can be shown that Sotheby's knew that the statue was stolen, there is a good chance that the US attorney's claim will be successful. But, it is unlikely to be very easy to prove Sotheby's knowledge. Perhaps a better standard, in any case, is whether Sotheby's ought to have known. As one of the world's largest art auctioneers, it is difficult to believe that Sotheby's did not question the origin of the statue when it was offered to them for sale.

Source: The New York Times, 21 August 2012

UK bars export of Francesco Guardi's View of the Rialto Bridge

The UK's rules on exporting works of art (also discussed in Art and Artifice last year) stormed into action recently when Francesco Guardi's magnificent eighteenth century painting Venice, a View of the Rialto Bridge, Looking North, from the Fondamenta del Carbon went on sale at Sotheby's in London.

Going nowhere: View of the Rialto Bridge

The huge work, originally purchased in 1768 by an English Grand Tourist and sold into the Guinness family in 1891, has now been bought by an anonymous bidder for almost £26.7m. But the painting is currently going nowhere; it has been temporarily barred from export by the arts minister, Ed Vaizey.

Owners wishing to export a work of art out of the UK must have a licence to do so where that work is over a certain age and value. An oil painting to be exported from the UK to another EU member state, for example, must have an export licence if it is over 50 years of age and valued at over £180,000.

Applications for such licences go to the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, who may refer them on to expert advisers. These experts will consider whether the work fulfills any of the three 'Waverley Criteria' (is the work so closely connected to the country's history that its removal would be a misfortune? Is the work of outstanding aesthetic significance? And lastly, is it of outstanding significance for the study of some branch of art, learning or history?). If any of the criteria apply, the adviser may object to the work's export and a licence can be delayed, typically by two to six months.

The purpose of the delay is to allow time for a UK buyer to step in, find funds and retain the work for the nation. This system has allowed UK collections to retain many art objects which would otherwise have left the country. Perhaps most famously, Raphael's Madonna of the Pinks was bought by the National Gallery in 2004 following a long campaign to raise its £22m price tag, preventing its departure to the Getty in Los Angeles.

But not everybody is in favour of the process. It has been suggested that it could damage the London art market, leaving buyers frustrated when their purchases are prevented from leaving the UK. For sellers it can also be frustrating: if they refuse an offer from a UK buyer because they could get more from an overseas purchaser, an export licence may be refused entirely. Is it fair that the rightful owner is not free to sell where he can get the best price?

And what about instances where an object has little connection with the UK? It is easy to see a case for retaining works such as the collection of Thomas Hardy papers, recently saved from export and now in Dorset County Museum, Hardy's own county. But is there any reason that a painting of eighteenth century Venice should be in the UK rather than, say, the USA? And is it better that a work should remain in a private collection in the UK than go to a public collection in another country?

Amongst those who disapprove of the bars must surely be numbered the buyer of View of the Rialto, gazing sadly at his Guardi-less walls. We look forward to seeing whether the painting's new home will eventually be here in the UK.

Read more at the Guardian here.