Miró sale cancelled

In a similar situation to that Detroit (reported here and here), but on a larger scale, the Portuguese government sought to sell 85 works by Spanish surrealist Joan Miró in a bid to cut its debt.

Portugal hired Christie's (who was called in by the Detroit Institute of Arts to value its works) to sell the pieces.

The decision to sell the art drew widespread criticism, and a case was filed in Lisbon to prevent the sale. Although, the court ruled against the claimants, this week Christie's withdrew the artworks from its auctions.


Reuters explains:

The auctioneers withdrew [the artworks] from a London sale even though a Lisbon court threw out a suit by opposition lawmakers, prosecutors and the public trying to block the offer saying the government had violated the rules on classifying the artwork. 

The Miro collection, estimated at more than 35 million euros ($47 million), came into state hands in 2008 when Portugal nationalized the failed bank BPN that owned them. 

... 

"The legal uncertainties created by this ongoing dispute mean that we are not able to safely offer the works for sale," Christie's said only hours before the two-day sale was to start.  

The paintings are being offered by the state holding company Parvalorem, which is in charge of minimizing the impact of BPN's old debts and bad loans on public accounts.  

The court ruled the sale could not be stopped but noted that the state culture secretary's decision had not sought proper authorization to send the paintings to London last week.

The pieces remain at Christie's in London for now. We will have to wait and see whether they are returned to Portugal.

Source: Reuters, 4 February 2014

Looted Klimt claim

We have not had a post about looted Holocaust art for a while.

We have previously reported on the return of artworks seized by the Nazis, including paintings by Gustav Klimt.

This week comes the news that a new claim has been filed in Austria in relation to another Klimt work, the Beethoven Frieze.

A section of the Beethoven Frieze (1902)

This claim, however, relates not to the return of the work per se, but rather the effect of former Austrian law on those who reclaimed the work.

The New York Times explains:

The gold-painted frieze was owned by the Lederer family, wealthy Austrian Jews who were important patrons of Klimt’s. When the Nazis invaded Austria in 1938, the family escaped to Switzerland, but its extensive art collection was seized and its once formidable industrial empire bankrupted. Many of the family’s valuable works, including 18 Klimts, were destroyed in the final days of the war. 

The mammoth frieze survived and was formally returned to Erich Lederer, the family heir, after the war. But there was a hitch. The Austrian government would grant him export licenses for his other artworks only if he sold the “Beethoven Frieze” to the state at a cut-rate price, Mr. Lederer’s heirs say.

In a 1972 letter to Bruno Kreisky, then the Austrian chancellor, Mr. Lederer complained about what he considered government extortion, writing that officials were “trying to force me to my knees” and thinking “why won’t he finally die, this LEDERER!” 

Mr. Lederer finally agreed to sell the frieze to the government in 1973 for $750,000: half of its estimated worth at the time, according to an evaluation by Christie’s. Since 1986, it has been on view at the turn-of-the-century Secession gallery, where it was first shown at a 1902 exhibition named after Klimt’s breakthrough art movement. 

Georg Graf, a law professor and restitution expert at the University of Salzburg, who is supporting the family’s claim, said, “While the Austrian Republic did formally return the artwork after the war, it ultimately forced Erich Lederer to sell it back in old age by upholding the export ban.”

In 2009, the Austrian government amended its restitution law to apply to property that was sold at a discount because of that ban. 

It is under this law that the Lederer family filed its claim on Tuesday to the government’s Art Restitution Advisory Board. This panel will, in turn, make a recommendation about the “Beethoven Frieze” to the Austrian minister for education, the arts and culture, Claudia Schmied, who is to make the final decision. 

This looks like it is going to be one of the more significant cases brought under the new law.


Source:  The New York Times, 15 October 2013

Legislators take sides over "Sell the Pollock" Bill

A detail of the mural: should this work be sold
to fund 1,000 scholarships for arts students?

The Daily Iowan is waxing lyrical at the moment about an unusual piece of proposed legislation that would force a museum to sell a work that was donated to it. In "Legislators: Pollock bill not likely to pass" (here), Ariana Witt explains that some Iowa legislators are in agreement that a proposed law to force the University of Iowa’s Museum of Art to sell a multimillion-dollar Jackson Pollock painting is not likely to be enacted. Says the article:

“I don’t know that the public good is served by selling a painting that was donated to the university,” said Rep. Dave Jacoby, D-Coralville, who said he doesn’t think it will pass the House. ...  But Rep. Steven Lukan, R-New Vienna, said he thinks the bill will make it to the Senate, though he said he hasn’t formed an opinion on the issue of selling the $140 million piece.

Peggy Guggenheim donated Pollock’s Mural to the UI in 1951. The painting was moved from the Museum of Art because of the 2008 flood and is now housed at the Figge Art Museum in Davenport.

Rep. Scott Raecker, R-Urbandale, proposed Feb. 9 that the Museum of Art be forced to sell the painting in order to fund 1,000 scholarships for UI arts students. Sen. Jeff Danielson, D-Cedar Falls, said he believes it is a “horrible public-policy idea, likely to have a chilling effect on the university’s art relations.”

Though the bill is in the early stages with the House Appropriations Committee, nationally, those in the art world have openly opposed the possibility of it being passed.   ... 

The UI’s own policy on selling artwork says money made must go toward more art, said chief museum curator Kathleen Edwards. The collections policy also states all sales must comply with local, state, and U.S. federal laws as well as university regulations. Still, a violation of ethical guidelines, Blanton said, could lead to a loss of accreditation by the UI and dissuade potential art donors.

“Who wants to give a Van Gogh if next week it could be on the auction block?” he said.

Seeing as Jackson Pollock was expelled from art school himself, one might suspect that he would be less than enthusiastic to see his work liquidated for such educational purposes.