Return to MA Projects

  

The People of the State of New York
Versus  

The Museum of Modern Art


A Case Study with Recommendations   

By Laurie Brook Zimmerman
Masters Degree Candidate in Commercial Diplomacy

To be presented on April 19, 2000

This paper was researched and written to fulfill the M.A. project requirement for completing the Monterey Institute of International Studies’ Master of Arts in Commercial Diplomacy. It was not commissioned by any government or other organization. The views and analysis presented are those of the student alone.

For more information about the Commercial Diplomacy program and the M.A. project requirement, please visit www.commercialdiplomacy.org.


Table of Contents

I.             Introduction
II.            Background
III.           Analysis
           
      Stakeholder Analysis
                 
Legal Analysis
           
      Commercial Analysis
IV.          Recommendations
V.           Strategy


Introduction 

In the past, few questions have been asked about the provenance of works of art, except to ensure their authenticity. Today, however, as art seized by the Nazis is exhibited or goes up for sale, Holocaust victims and their descendants are coming forward to seek restitution. This, in conjunction with the recent rise in international art theft and looting, has forced those who purchase art to pay closer attention to the background of a potential acquisition (i.e. who owned it, where it came from, how the current owner acquired the piece, and if there is a clear succession of unquestionable ownership). Databases like the Art Loss Register have been created to enable museums, galleries, auction houses and individual buyers to find out if a piece has been recorded missing or stolen. However during WWII and its aftermath, art seized by the Nazi’s was scattered across the European continent; many pieces even made their way, often innocently enough, to the United States. As a result, many good-faith collectors and museums unwittingly hold artwork of questionable provenance.  

The question of how to determine the rightful owner of a piece of artwork is extremely complicated, as well as emotional. Constance Lowenthal, the director of the World Jewish Congress' Commission for Art Recovery, explains: "When people seek restitution for art 50 or 60 years later, they have to expect that their claim will be against good faith purchasers. So you have two different kinds of victims, and it becomes very difficult to find an equitable solution."[1]  

With the goal of shedding light on this problem and providing a recommendation for how the international art community should handle claims of art ownership, this project examines the widely covered battle over two paintings between New York City’s Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) and the State of New York. In 1997, two families made claims that they were the rightful owners of two of paintings that were on temporary loan to the MoMA (each family claimed a one painting), and at the families’ behest, the District Attorney of New York effectively seized the paintings. When, nearly two years later, the New York Court of Appeals made a final decision in favor of the museum, the Federal Magistrate and the U.S. Customs Service then stepped in and again seized one of the paintings, the fate of which has yet to be decided. 

For this project, I fictitiously assume the role of a consultant hired by the International Council of Museums (ICOM), an international non-governmental organization made up of representatives from museums around the world. In this capacity, I have been tasked with analyzing the problem of stolen art restitution (with special emphasis on Holocaust-era loot) and providing ICOM with recommendations for action. 

The project is divided into three main sections: background, analysis, and recommendations/strategies. The analysis is further divided into four sections: stakeholder, legal, political, and commercial analysis.  

The case of MoMA v. The People of New York rocked the international art world, tarnishing its public image and forcing a fundamental reevaluation of how it does business. The case also served to shine a spotlight on the myriad issues involved in sorting out stolen art claims. To ensure that museums can clean up their image, they will need to take proactive steps to ensure that the MoMA fiasco is not repeated.



Background 

Within the past fifteen to twenty years, museums, foundations, and collectors have become increasingly wary of sending their art collections out on temporary exhibition for fear that all or part will not return safely. In addition to longstanding concerns that pieces could be damaged while in transit or storage, concerns about theft have risen dramatically.[2] Now, fears of seizure by another country's government have been added to the list. In January 1998, the State of New York and subsequently the U.S. government demonstrated their willingness to seize artwork based on unsubstantiated provenance claims.  

 

Overview:  MoMA v. the State of New York  

In 1994, the Leopold Foundation[3] sent 150 of its Egon Schiele works to be exhibited in museums around the world. In October 1997, the pieces arrived at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City for a three-month exhibit, after which they were to travel to Spain. On December 31, 1997, five days before the exhibition was scheduled to close, the Museum received letters from two families, each of which claimed to be the rightful owner of one of the exhibit paintings.  

·        Henri Bondi claimed that the painting "Portrait of Wally" had belonged to his aunt, Lea Bondi, a Jewish art dealer who, fearing Nazi persecution, fled Vienna in 1938. Bondi asserted that his aunt was forced to sell her art at greatly undervalued prices and that the money she did make was then seized when she left for England.[4]   

·        The Reif family claimed that "Dead City III" was looted from a relative, Fritz Gruenbaum, a well known Austrian cabaret singer who had amassed an extensive art collection, and who is recorded to have died at Dachau in 1941.  

Both families indicated in their letters a willingness to discuss various options for resolving their claims, but only if they could be assured, in writing, that the paintings would not be moved from the museum.  

The World Jewish Congress, through their newly formed Commission for Art Recovery, offered to mediate a solution through an international panel. But according to Constance Lowenthal, a specialist in stolen art works and the Director of the WJC Commission, the two families appeared uninterested in such mediation.[5]  

The museum responded by sending two letters to each party. The first set, dated December 31, 1997, stated that, while the museum was sympathetic to the claims and was eager to see these claims resolved, it had a contractual obligation to return the entire Leopold collection to the Leopold Foundation at the close of the exhibition. The letters further stated that:  

"Art museums depend on art loans from foreign institutions to organize exhibitions that make it possible for the public to see and appreciate art from all over the world. It is important for US museums to offer foreign institutions the security of knowing that loan agreements will be honored and, indeed, New York has a statute which specifically provides that works of art brought to New York for exhibition may not be seized or made subject to attachment [emph. added]."[6]  

In the second set of letters to the families (dated January 4, 1998), the museum reiterated its position with regard to its contractual obligations and concluded by stating that:  

"The exhibition is scheduled to be returned to the Leopold Foundation shortly after closing on Sunday, January 4. I am advising you, therefore, that the Museum intends to ship the painting to the lender on January 8 or shortly thereafter. The intervening period should afford you ample time to take such action as you deem appropriate to protect your interests."[7]  

On January 7, 1998, the office New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau served the museum with a grand jury subpoena duces tecum, which obligated the museum to appear in court with the paintings and was thereby tantamount to seizure. The museum moved to quash the subpoena on January 22, 1998, on the grounds that it was invalid pursuant to section 12.03 of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law, the statute to which the MoMA referred in its first letter to the families (see above). The statute reads:  

No process of attachment, execution, sequestration, replevin, distress or any kind of seizure shall be served or levied upon any work of fine art while the same is enroute to or from, or while on exhibition or deposited by a nonresident exhibitor at any exhibition held under the auspices or supervision of any museum, college, university, or other nonprofit art gallery, institution or organization within any city or county of this state for any cultural, educational, charitable, or other purpose not conducted for profit to the exhibitor, nor shall such work of fine art be subject to attachment,  seizure, levy or sale, for any cause whatever in the hands of the authorities of such exhibition or otherwise.[8]  

It was agreed that the museum would maintain custody of the paintings until litigation over the subpoena was resolved. Over the next 21 months, the case was heard three courts: the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court's Appellate Division, and the Court of Appeals. 

 

The Supreme Court, headed by Justice Laura Drager, decided in favor of the museum and quashed the subpoena, maintaining that section 12.03 exempted the paintings from grand jury process. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court decision, stating that the statute applied only to civil processes and therefore did not limit a grand jury's subpoena powers in this case.[9] In a 6-1 decision rendered on September 21, 1999, however, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest judicial body, decided in favor of the museum and allow the paintings to be returned to Austria.[10]  

 

Austria’s Past Restitution Efforts 

During World War II, the two largest repositories of Nazi loot held in Austria were located at the Alt Aussee salt mine and the Lauffen min in Bad Ischl. Together, they contained approximately 7,000 paintings and drawings, as well as 3,000 other items that had been taken from all areas of Nazi occupied Europe. All the items were intended to become part of Hitler's Fuehrermuseum in Linz.[11]  

On May 8, 1945, US troops took control of these repositories and subsequently turned over to the Austrian government all of the loot in the Alt Aussee salt mine that was of "Austrian" origin.[12] Austria’s Finanzlandesdirektionen, which was in charge of legal matters, and the Bundesdenkmalamt or Federal Office for Monuments Preservation, which acted as the overall art custodian, were tasked with returning the looted items to their rightful owners.  

The restitution process was, however, less than satisfactory for many families who wished to recover their possessions. For Jews who had fled the country, the process was particularly burdensome, if not fruitless, because of Austria's 1918 Export Control Law or Ausfuhrverbotsgesetz, which allowed the Bundesdenkmalamt to decide which works of art were allowed to leave the country and which were not. The law required that art claimants first had to prove citizenship, of which those who fled Austria had been deprived, and then had to prove ownership, which under the circumstances of exile, imprisonment, and World War II, was extraordinarily difficult. Even the Rothschilds, whose collection was well documented, had to cede part of its collection in the face of the power of the Bundesdenkmalamt. In a "restitution compromise" the lawyer of Clarice de Rothschild agreed that 14 of 16 art objects would be restituted with export licenses. The other two would be "donated," one to the Albertina Museum and one to the Ferdinandeum.[13]  

Overall, of the 18,500 art objects that had been seized or had voluntarily been given up to air-raid shelters, 13,000 of those objects were returned by January 1, 1949. The restitution of the remaining objects was spread out over the subsequent 47 years.[14] Objects considered to be ownerless were held at a monastery in Mauerbach.  

The Austrian government has since acknowledged that its actions in the Rothschild case were unjustifiable, even by the law of the time period, which exempted art and cultural from the Export Control Law.[15] Moreover, in 1995, under pressure from the United States and France, the Austrian government amended a 1986 law pertaining to the settlement of claims regarding art and cultural heritage in order to allow the items held at Mauerbach to be auctioned. Most recently, on January 14, 1998 (one week after the two Schiele paintings had been seized by the New York District Attorney), the Austrian Minister of Education, Elisabeth Gehrer initiated a process of provenance research for all transactions by Austrian Museums between 1938-1945. This research will undoubtedly answer more provenance questions surrounding Holocaust-era loot than can similar research carried out in far away countries such as the United States. To back up the research with action, the National Council of the Austrian Parliament has since passed a law to restitute looted art from the Nazi period.[16]


 

How Nazi Loot Ended Up in Respected Museums  

During WWII art changed hands at an alarming rate. The Nazi's confiscated entire collections from Jews and others in Germany, Austria, France, the Netherlands and Eastern Europe. Many of the finest pieces were snatched up by Hitler, Goering, Rosenberg, and other well-known Nazi leaders for the Linz Museum or their private collections. Other pieces, especially modern pieces that were considered "degenerate," found their way to Switzerland, England, the United States, and South America through unscrupulous art dealers in Switzerland, France, Austria and Germany. No one seemed to take the time to ask why there was a sudden surge in high quality art on the market. Although it seems incomprehensible now, many of the final purchasers, especially those in the United States, were "good faith" purchasers, generally unaware that their purchases had been stolen during the Holocaust. Many of the pieces have changed hands at least once since the war, which further complicates provenance claims. 

Today, most museums and private collectors that hold looted artwork are simply unaware of the questionable past of these pieces. When a Museum sends a collection abroad for a temporary exhibition, it does not do so with the knowledge that pieces in its collection might be stolen art. Indeed, although the art world’s general “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy may have helped perpetuate the problem, art institutions do not keep their collections secret for fear that some of their pieces might have been stolen. On the contrary, new acquisitions, including temporary exhibitions, are displayed prominently, written about in illustrated catalogues, and flaunted in the press. 

 

Where Are the Paintings Now?  

On September 23, 1999, the United States Attorney, at the urging of the Bondi family and the US Customs Service, issued a seizure warrant for "Portrait of Wally" and began a civil forfeiture proceeding. Because federal law supersedes state law, the MoMA had no avenue of recourse. 

Now, several months after this seizure, evidence has been uncovered that seems to indicate that neither the Reifs nor the Bondis had legitimate claims. In the instance of "Dead City III," the painting was claimed by the widow of a son of the pre-war owner's cousin. However the cousin was not an heir to the painting. In the case of "Portrait of Wally," the situation is even more convoluted. Henry Bondi, the claimant for his deceased aunt, Lea Bondi Jaray, wrote about his vivid recollections of having seen the painting in his aunt's house in Vienna before the war. But, according to the pre-war owner's grandson, the claimant never saw the painting, never set foot in the house in Vienna, and the claimant recently conceded in a British newspaper interview that he is not even an heir. The US Justice Department is nonetheless still involved in a civil forfeiture proceeding for this claimant.[17]


 

Stakeholder Analysis 

The core issue raised by this case is the question of whether or not the District Attorney has and should have the authority, based on little or no evidence of illegitimate ownership, to seize works of art that are on temporary loan to New York's arts establishments. Allowing the DA such authority would set a precedent that could be very damaging to the future of temporary exhibitions and to museums everywhere. At the same time, however, the issue of the restitution of assets seized during the Holocaust is not only legitimate but also very emotional. Holocaust restitution is an issue that New York’s museums cannot ignore because a substantial portion of their donor base is either Jewish or sympathetic to Holocaust issues.

 

The Museum of Modern Art 

MoMA's interests in this case can be summarized as follows:  

  • It wanted to make sure that the museum maintains its position as a major destination point for temporary exhibitions;

  • It wanted to fulfill its contractual obligation to the Leopold Foundation; and

  • It wanted to avoid appearing unfeeling or unresponsive to the families’ claims because such an appearance could damage its private donor base.

Museums everywhere depend upon temporary exhibitions in order to stage fundraising events, bring in new donors, and maintain their donor bases. If they lose these opportunities, they also lose a major source of revenue. Such a loss is particularly damaging to American museums because they receive relatively little support from the government; the government cannot be relied upon to make up for private support. 

In this light, MoMA’s response to the Bondi and Reif claims is not so surprising. The museum was not willing to risk the ramifications of holding back paintings that it was contractually obliged to return, particularly based only on unsubstantiated claims and particularly because it believed that section 12.03 of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law precluded seizure by law enforcement officials. 

Nonetheless, the MoMA ran a risk by not accommodating the families’ request to hold the paintings in the United States. The museum’s actions could be interpreted as unfeeling and even anti-semitic, and such a perception could be very damaging to the museum's ability to raise funds and acquire new donors. Jewish families have historically been avid supporters of the arts, one of the many reasons why collections from Jewish families were targeted during the Holocaust. It is safe to assume that Jewish families are well represented on the MoMA’s donor list, as well as on the donor lists of most other arts institutions in New York. If this population were to begin to believe that New York’s museums are not sympathetic to Holocaust issues, it is possible that a large number of individuals might pull their funding. It is also possible that other, non-Jewish, supporters might react in a similar manner. 

The museum also has an interest in making sure that Holocaust restitution claims are handled more smoothly in the future. In order to avoid negative press and the expense of a legal battle, the museum has an interest in 1) clarifying when and how Section 12.03 of the NY Arts and Cultural Affairs Law will protect it, and 2) developing Museum policies that dictate how such claims should be handled, including mediation procedures.   

 

The Bondi and Reif Families 

The claimant families' immediate interest was that of keeping the paintings in the United States. This is an understandable concern considering the general neglect with which the Austrian Government has addressed restitution issues. However, in waiting to announce their claims until five days before the exhibition was scheduled to close and the paintings were to be sent on to Spain, the families apparently hoped to force the museum to act in their favor. It almost seems that the families wanted a legal battle. They must have realized that the Museum would not readily forsake its contractual obligation, and although the Commission for Art Recovery offered to create an international panel to mediate between the families and the Austrian Government, the families declined such assistance.  

The families’ chosen course of action had the benefit of side-stepping any significant dealings with the Austrian government. Indeed, Bondi asserted that his aunt had made attempts to retrieve the painting, "Portrait of Wally" several years earlier and had been rebuffed by the Austrian government. However the families’ actions were not without risk. They delayed any steps toward resolving the crucial question of whether the paintings were in fact rightfully theirs, and they angered the Austrian government, probably making any future negotiations that much more difficult. In fact Leopold Foundation Director Klaus A. Schroeder responded to the grand jury action calling it "insulting" and "illegal." He also accused the Jewish claimants of having a "warlike mentality" and resorting to "coercive and underhanded methods."[18] 

 

New York Museums and Galleries 

New York’s museums and galleries were quick to realize that the MoMA case could have serious consequences for all of them. Accordingly, several museums and galleries together submitted an amici curia brief during the Supreme Court proceeding. The brief expressed concern over the likely ramifications of a decision in favor of the District Attorney and the People of New York. A decision that allowed the DA to seize works based solely on the unsubstantiated claim of an individual would set a precedent whereby works of art on temporary loan from a foreign institution would never be considered wholly secure. 

The case has also forced New York’s museums to make the issue of Holocaust-era art loot a priority. Before the case hit the front pages, museums and art dealers could afford to ignore the issue. Now, however, New York museums have pledged to research the provenance of their permanent collections to ensure that they do not contain pieces that may rightfully belong to Jewish families. Additionally, Philippe De Montebello, the Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the US Association of Art Museum Directors Task Force, has called on art museums to respond promptly to any and all claims by owners or heirs of allegedly confiscated art. Such matters, he asserted in a special report, should be resolved "in an equitable, appropriate, and mutually agreeable manner." He has also noted that mediation should be employed to facilitate this process of sorting out stolen art claims.[19] The report’s recommendations are likely to be heeded because museums and galleries have an interest in ensuring that Holocaust-ear art claims are dealt with swiftly, before they appear in newspaper headlines. 

In short, the museums and galleries of New York have an interest in taking a proactive stance toward the claims of Holocaust victims and their descendants, particularly now that the issue has received significant international attention. If museums fail to act, they risk damaging their combined image, and therefore potential donor prospects. Toward this end, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has begun the arduous process of reviewing the provenance of all works of art the Museum acquired after the war. The research entails "the systematic examination of indices, acquisition records, and entry cards, some of them written generations ago in now-fading ink," of over two million works of art.[20] 

New York’s museums and galleries also have an interest in taking the next step of seeking out those descendants of Holocaust victims who may not realize that they are heirs to Holocaust loot. 

 

Robert S. Morgenthau - District Attorney 

Robert S. Morgenthau’s interest in this case was primarily a political one. By winning the case, he would have set a precedent that would empower him and future New York District Attorneys to seize works of art with the goal of returning them to Holocaust victims or their descendants. Morgenthau’s willingness to take on this battle certainly gained him favor within Jewish populations in New York and beyond. 

Nonetheless, it is not clear that such power would actually work to the ultimate advantage of Holocaust survivors and descendants. If the Leopold Foundation had not sent its collection of Schiele's works out on temporary exhibition, it is unlikely that the Reif family would have seen “Dead City III,” recognized it, and put forward a claim. If museums decrease the number of temporary collections that they send to New York out of fear of seizure, not only will the museums lose out, but potential claimants would lose an opportunity to learn the whereabouts of a work of art that may have hung on their parlor wall at one time.  

  

Austrian Government/ Leopold Foundation 

The Austrian government’s clear interest in this case was to see the two paintings, "Portrait of Wally" and "Dead City III," returned to Austria. It is can be debated whether or not the government also has an interest in addressing Holocaust restitution. While the Austrian government has made some effort to return works of art to their rightful Jewish owners, the effort has been seen by many as being purposely over-bureaucratic and difficult. In fact, the grueling restitution process has been seen by many as a way of punishing the Jews, as well as a way of keeping them from returning to Austria.[21]  

In recent years, however, the Austrian government has become more forthright in addressing restitution issues. As previously noted, on January 14, 1998 (one week after the two Schiele paintings had been seized by the New York District Attorney), the Austrian Minister of Education, Elisabeth Gehrer initiated a process of provenance research for all transactions by Austrian Museums between 1938-1945.  

Moreover, Austrian Judge Reimer Gradischnik has suggested that anyone who thinks the process slow or unjust should learn a bit about "how things work in Austria."[22] Although this response is wholly unsatisfying to those who would like to pursue restitution claims, particularly because Gradischnik was at the time of his remark the only judge for about 525 restitution cases, it is true that the Viennese are well known for their aversion to change. It is also true that the high-profile nature of the MoMA case has made it more difficult for the Austrian government to give restitution issues anything but the highest priority. As Metropolitan Museum Director De Montebello has stated, "The genie is, at last, out of the bottle, and no resistance, apathy, or silence can ever fit it back inside again."[23] 


 

Jewish Organizations 

Although many Jewish organizations had a stake in the outcome of this case, two were directly connected to it: the World Jewish Congress and the United States Holocaust Museum. Interestingly, the two took somewhat different views of the DA’s actions.

The World Jewish Congress' Commission for Art Recovery took the opinion that while the families may have legitimate claims, the Museum of Modern Art had an obligation to return the works of art to Austria. Ronald S. Lauder, former Ambassador to Austria and chairman of both the MoMA and the Commission for Art Recovery undoubtedly had a great deal to do with the development of this position. Not surprisingly, then, the Commission also decried the DA’s decision to seize the paintings—a position that was made all the more strong by the fact that the seizure effectively sidetracked the possibility of working out a mediated solution between the families and the MoMA. As previously mentioned, the Commission had offered to oversee a mediation process, which would have helped build the reputation of the newly formed Commission as the appropriate forum for addressing and mediating Holocaust-era asset claims.  

By contrast Marc Masurovsky, the director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum's Holocaust Art Restitution Project, applauded the DA’s decision to seize the paintings saying that MoMA should have said it would hold onto the works and been more receptive to the families' claims. But Ori Z. Soltes, the director of the United States Holocaust Museum, took a less clear-cut stance. As a museum director he was troubled by the DA’s action and acknowledged that the seizure “could have serious consequences if it deters art institutions that trust one another from lending their collections for exhibitions elsewhere."[24] He nonetheless expressed concern that the MoMA should have done more to honor the claims and that the DA effectively "took MoMA off the hook" when he seized the paintings.[25] In short, the Reif and Bondi claims put the US Holocaust Museum in a difficult position because it has interests both as a museum and as an organization that takes a particular interest in Holocaust issues.  

  

International Council of Museums/ American Association of Museums  

ICOM and AAM are both interested in assisting their member museums develop useful and enforceable policies. ICOM defines itself in Article 1 paragraph 1 of its statutes as "the international non-governmental organisation of museums and professional museum workers established to advance the interests of museology and other disciplines concerned with museum management and operations."[26]  

The objectives of ICOM, as defined in Article 3 paragraph 1 of its statutes, are to:  

a)      Encourage and support the establishment, development and professional management of museums of all kinds;

b)      Advance knowledge and understanding of the nature, functions and role of museums in the service of society and of its development;

c)      Organize co-operation and mutual assistance between museums and between professional museum workers in different countries;

d)      Represent, support and advance the interests of professional museum workers of all kinds; and

e)      Advance and disseminate knowledge in museology and other disciplines concerned with museum management and operations.[27]  

Of particular interest is letter b), which acknowledges that museums have a special role to play in the "service of society and its development."


  


[1] Walter V. Robinson, "New York DA bars return of Austrian art," The Boston Globe, Jan. 9, 1998. P. A1

[2] Art theft has become the second or third leading form of international crime. It is surpassed by trade in illicit drugs but vies for position with illicit arms trade.

[3] The Leopold Foundation, or Leopold-Privatstiftung, is a government-financed collection of 250 paintings that the Austrian government purchased from Dr. Rudolf Leopold in 1994. The Foundation is located in Vienna, and it is dedicated to the life and works of Egon Schiele.

[4] Phil Hirschkorn and Reuters. "Museum wins dispute over art allegedly stolen by Nazis." CNN News Online. http://cgi.cnn.com/US/9909/21/looted.art/ September 21, 1999. P. 1 of 4.

[5] Robinson.

[6] Letter from MoMA to Reif and Bondi families. December 31, 1998.

[7] The New York Court of Appeals. Final decision in the case of the Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, &C., The People &C. Respondent, v. The Museum of Modern Art, Appellant. 99 N.Y. Int. 0126. Decided Sept. 21, 1999. Sec. I., p.2.

[8] Brief for the Respondent. The People of the State of New York, Respondent - against - Museum of Modern Art, Defendant-Appellant. In re-application to quash grand jury subpoena duces tecum served on the Museum of Modern Art. Argued by Mark Dwyer, Assistant District Attorney, August 6, 1997(?). p. 2.

[9] The New York Court of Appeals. Final decision in the case of the Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, &C., The People &C. Respondent, v. The Museum of Modern Art, Appellant. 99 N.Y. Int. 0126. Decided Sept. 21, 1999. Sec. I., p.2.

[10] Phil Hirschkorn and Reuters. "Museum wins dispute over art allegedly stolen by Nazis." CNN News Online. http://cgi.cnn.com/US/9909/21/looted.art/ September 21, 1999. P. 1 of 4.

[11] Oliver Rathkolb, From 'Legacy of Shame' to the Auction of 'Heirless' Art in Vienna: Coming to Terms 'Austrian Style' with Nazi Artistic War Booty, presentation based on a paper, presented at the German Studies Association Conference, Washington D.C., September 26, 1997. P. 3.

[12] The Alt Aussee stash included approximately 700 paintings that belonged to the Rothschild family, which had been forced out of Austria in 1938, and 500 paintings from other Jewish families.

[13] Rathkolb. p. 4.

[14] Austria, Delegation Statement at the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets, Nov. 30-Dec. 3, 1998.

[15] Austrian Delegation, Austrian Restitution of Works of Art, Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets, Nov. 30-Dec. 3, 1998, p.166.

[16] The law passed unanimously in November 1998.

[17] Prepared Statement by Glenn D. Lowry, Director of the Museum of Modern Art, New York, Before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, February 10, 2000, p. 3 of 5.

[18] Robinson.

[19] Philippe de Montebello, Statement given during Break-out Session on Nazi-Confiscated Art Issues: Principles to Address Nazi-Confiscated Art. Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets, Nov. 30-Dec. 3, 1998.

[20] De Montebello, p.556.

[21] Rathkolb. p. 6.

[22] Andrew Decker, "How Things Work in Austria," ARTnews 92 (Summer 1993): 198.

[23] De Montebello, p. 556.

[24] Robinson.

[25] Ibid

[26] ICOM Code of Professional Ethics, Section 1.1. http://www.icom.org/ethics.html. p. 1 of 16.

[27] Ibid, Section 1.2. p. 2 of 16.

 

top

Continue to Next Page