Re: CONFERENCE ON NAZI GOLD AND TREATMENT OF HOLOCAUST

How the Republic of Austria forced the Rothschilds to donate art.

The Rothschild-brothers Louis and Alphonse, who had lived in Vienna until 1938, after the war donated eleven oil-paintings and approximately 34 other pieces of art to the art-historical museum.. Why they did so until now was concealed. A research about greed and remorselessness. By Thomas Trenkler In the jubilee-book about the 100 years of history of the Art History Museum ('Kunsthistorisches Museum'), which was published by the archivist of the house Herbert Haupt in 1991 one topic is only excursively mentioned: "The Baronesse Clarisse de Rothschild in 1947/48 dedicated to the museum a number of eminent paintings in commemoration of her deceased husband Alphonse." Why she did so only becomes clear if one knows the documents. These only were made public at instigation of the STANDARD - and against the will of general director Wilfried Seipel, who wanted to hold back an explosive document, because it proofs, how the museum enlarged itself with the help of the Government's Department for preservation of historical monuments. (Bundesdenkmalamt): That art historian, who urged out for the Historical Museum of Art a whole lot of paintings of the confiscated collections of the Rothschild-family during Nationalsolizialism, did the same afterwards, unembarrassed - and successfully - and even legally.
The central depot
On 13 March 1938 Hitler marched into Vienna, two days later Fritz Dworschak, Kustos of the Muenzkabinetts, took over as a leader of the The Art Historical Museum. The first request was, like Haupt describes in "Years of endangerment. The art-historical museum 1938 - 1945", the " sicherstellung " - to take possession of all art articles, whose placing was to be foreseen abroad. On 27 March on request by Dworschak " everything substantial" was therefore removed from the collection of the industrialist Oskar Bondy to the KHM, which created a 'central depot' in the 'Neuen Burg' (new castle) for the seized works of art. Many further collections should follow, also those of the Rothschilds. Already on March 14, one day after the arrest of Louis Nathaniel Rothschild at the airport in Aspern (he got free after paying an enormous ransom) and his brother's Alphonse (who was killed by the Nazis 1942 in Paris) the Gestapo had sealed their palace at Prinz -Eugen - Straße: In there was the - next to the Liechtenstein-collection - most important private collection of the 'Deutsches Reich'.
The transportation
The curators of the KHM, Dworschak and Ludwig von Baldass as well (we'll report about him lateron) knew them well, because every Wednesday they have been guests at the house of both patrons who supported the museum. But now they could not wait to confiscate their treasures. The evacuation by the Gestapo took weeks, the KHM helped energetically and required cost back-up for the work - and charged for to was the banking house Rothschild. In autumn 1939 the central depot (without coins and medals) covered scarcely 10,000 works of art of all kind. The majority the Rothschilds had been allowed to contribute: according to inventory lists the collection of Louis covered 919 entries, those from Alphonse 3444. But the KHM had, like the other museums, at first no access to the artifacts. First allowed to select was Hans Posse, boss of the planned 'Führermuseum' - leader museum - in Linz, what he considered worthy and worthwhile to take for the museum. Afterwards, writes Haupt, " a real competition set in around the booty property. All wanted to have a share, nobody resisted the temptation. " Also the KHM not. >From the stocks of Louis one required according to a commentated list quite particularly three Frans Hals portraits, a Hans Holbein painting, Isaack Ruisdael (landscape with river) and Aelbert Cuyp (landscape with shepherd and herd). This signed Ludwig von Baldass, who had been appointed 1938 as one of the first consequences of the personnel " modifications " the director of the picture gallery (Gemäldegalerie) (and this until December 1939 remained). But then the war threw its bombs on Vienna, and the works of art were brought in security: To Kremsmuenster and later into the salt mines of the Ausseer Land. When peace again prevailed, August von Loehr, director of the Muenzkabinetts (and former superior of Dworschak) who was forced to retire during the NAZI occupation, became the new KHM - director. But his former coworker, who had actually acquired power, did not become dismissed: Dvorschak remained curator 1.th class until he retired.
Now the time of the restituting began. Since the Rothschilds, meanwhile New York residents, felt no demand to return to Austria they checked with the office for federal monuments to get an export license for the art-treasures. This was first refused to them: They told Louis as well as Clarice de Rothschild, the widow of Alphonse, quite unmistakably that one intends to approve such only if they in response would explain themselves ready to donate some works of art to the KHM.
The main works
The documents obtain a picture of the greed: Instead of striving for a gesture of reconciliation, one struck capital from the crimes of the Nazis. Baldass, again destined as the director/conductor of the picture gallery, was confronted with a list of those works of art Louis wanted to export, according to a letter dated 20 August 1946. And answers two days later: " It contains as well as all main works of the collection, among them " some, " which should be kept within the Austrian art possession ". He adds a list of paintings "which are of such high quality that all effort has to be made to keep these within the art possession of Vienna and assimilate it into a public collection. Who would be surprised that this list almost is the same as the one which Baldass wrote during the Nazi period: in the first place it, like once, lines the male and the female portrait up of Frans Hals. Then the same Cuyp, a Hobbema (landscape with rider and girl) follows, Van Dyck and the same Ruisdael. Already one day later the office for monuments records that no objection was raised against export, " if Mr. Louis de Rothschild transfers the following paintings to the Austrian state": the two Portraits of Frans Hals, the Cuyp and the Hobbema. At the latest in July 1948 the Deal had run; the four pictures are since that time in the KHM. Still harder the negotiations with Clarice must have run, which found their termination only in December 1949. Because on 5 September 1946 Baldass set a memory log, which uses a clear language of the extortion in the diction. Again it created a list: 1.Frans Hals: Portrait of a Kavaliers ... and so on. It reports also of the counter proposals of the Baroness , which appeared " unacceptable ". Clarice wanted to donate only two pictures (the gallery or duke of the Leopold William of Abraham Teniers and the portrait count Sinzendorf von Hyacinthe Rigaud) to the gallery and five further she would let them just borrow, three of them off Baldass list, but without " absolute desiderat " . "We would attach importance to the fact , that the things transfer into our possession", he insisted." If this does not occur, " my list would have to be substantially increased ", that is " very clearly " said. In the consequence Baldass assigned a colleague to list all those pictures " from the price range of approximately 10,000 gold Schilling upward ". Only one year later they obtained an agreement - in favor of the KHM: The Baroness donated altogether seven paintings. Those two, which she had offered it herself, and beyond that, apart from the Tiepolo, the ones she was asked for. But that was not all. To allow Clarice to take the rest of the collection out of the country she had to 'donate' 34 more pieces of the collection: valuable weapons and a lot of other artifacts. Probably the Baroness should have waited, even if she had to wait for a long time: Because only the second cultural resolving law which came into force in December 1985 allows the export of restituted goods, even if they are of historical, artistic or other cultural meaning.

How much confiscated NAZI art is in Austrian Museums?

The Schiele-debate in America is pursued with interest also by descendants of Austrian NAZI victims, whose art possession in the 'Dritten Reich' was seized,. The lady is friendly, but careful. Whether if there is a collection of the requirements of NAZI victims, whose art possession was seized during the 'Drittes Reich' in Vienna, she asks. Finally she indicates that she is the daughter of Clarisse Rothschild. The confiscating of the Viennese Rothschild collection was probably the largest robbery of Jewish art possession after the invasion of the national socialists in Austria. After the war the collection was returned, except of a donation, which Clarisse Rothschild left to the Republic of Austria: Paintings of Frans Hals, Teniers, Rigaud, also different exhibits, which are today still in the art-historical museum; furniture and carpets were left to the museum for applied art, the Albertina drawings and passes. How and why this donation was made is not quite clear, there are different statements. The most probable: Clarisse Rothschild had to leave the exhibits in Austria, in order to receive General manager Seipel of art-historical museum ordered to create a report about the origin of those art objects, which came 1938-1945 into the museum. Possibly one counts on a recent debate over art seizing by Nationalsocialists in Vienna and which consequences it could have for the museums? The 'Israelitische Kultusgemeinde' has founded an an office where information will be collected. Kultusgemeinde president Paul Grosz told " Die Presse " on request, that in the course of the " Mauerbach" auction 1996: " sensitivity grew. So far 50 to 60 persons announced their claims . Values at height of several millions Schilling are concerned. Legally there is however nobase, on which we could be. The periods ran out. " Progress one can obtain only with the help of international organizations, which argue technically qualified with the topic, means Grosz. BP
Copyright "Die Presse", Wien

Will there be a new US art acquisition law after the Schiele case?

Directors of museum from the whole USA met each other before the bank committee of the house of representatives, in order to discuss their procedure in the booty art question. A new law is to take buyers into the obligation. Directors of prominent US museums stressed the theme of looted art in front of the bank committee of the house of representatives on Thursday with a Hearing to the topic to do everything in order to guarantee that purchased or issued art objects are not stolen. In addition, they referred to the difficulties, the ownership structure with works of art, which disappeared forwards or during the Second World War to clarify unique.
Glenn Lowry, director of the Museum of Modern Art, quoted in addition the case of the Schiele-paintings " dead city III " and " Wally " from the Leopold donation, which was seized by New Yorker public prosecutor Robert Morgenthau. With reference to articles in the " Die Presse", in which it was to be read that the " dead city " was sold by the sister-in-law of the original owner, Fritz green tree, and not - as the family Reif maintained - illegitimately into the possession of Leopold came, Lowry illustrated the problems. There would be no efficient way to check the origin of all 152 pictures, which came for the Schiele-exhibition of the MoMA for three months from Austria to New York. It also is not function of a museum to execute the requirement of a person on a loan.
Assistance with the search
Both Lowry and his colleagues, within Philippe de Montebello of the metropolitan museum New York and James Wood of type the institute OF Chicago, stressed however her moral obligation to ensure that no stolen pictures were exhibited. The 170 largest US museums used a commission of inquiry. Ronald Lauder, chairman of the " Commission for Art Recovery " of the World Jewish Congress, informed the congress politicians that his organization is busy with the application of a data base over booty art. He requested the politicians to help thereby since the time was an important factor for survivors of the Holocaust. It is urgently necessary, so the former US Ambassador in Vienna to get straight what is to happen with a work of art, if the origin is doubtful.
To Austrian journalists Lauder did not leave doubts that he rejects the procedure of Morgenthau in the case of the Schiele- paintings, since this the possibilities of the US museums of getting loans from the foreign country endangers. The application of an independent commission for the investigation of the requirements - as suggested by the Leopold donation - would have been the better way. With mixed feelings Willie Korte, lawyer and expert in the feedback of works of art observed, the meeting of the bank committee. In relation to the "Die Press " he meant in addition: " The interest is pleasing. I hope only that actually somewhat thereby comes out. " Violently he criticized the fact that the committee did not load anybody, which lays claims on a work of art. The efforts of the family Bondi to state here were futile. According to his opinion US museums possess more works of art, whose origin is not unique clarified, then one admits.
Charles Schumer, democratic New Yorker delegates, suggested a law, which was to guarantee financial assistance for organizations, to help the families with the search for lost works of art. Besides the Federal Government should check their own art collection. New Yorker laws, which presses buyers to worry about the origin of works of art should get country wide validity. copyright " Die Presse", Vienna

Re:COPYRIGHT; Request for pointers for an interested amateur

Regarding the request for information about copyright of works of art and rights to reproductions, this is a very complex issue and entire seminars have been devoted to the various aspects of it. In theory, the museum can restrict reproduction of the work of art that you describe, even though it is "out of copyright" by virture of its age. But this is not always the case. In the U.S., at least, some works fell into the public domain long ago and because the user was not challenged or the museum made little real effort to protect their rights, the museum would have great difficulty in arguing that they control the rights to reproduction. Example: Grant Woods' picture of a farmer and his wife (American Gothic) that has been used literally thousands of times including on corn flakes boxes when we were kids. I doubt the Art Institute of Chicago would be successful in protesting its use again. If, however, you used someone's photo of that work of art, the photo is, in all probability, copyrighted and you could be restricted from using it. And, as Ton said in his post, museums restrict the use of tripods and quality cameras and lights needed to make a good enough copy of a painting to put in a book or on a poster. If you wre to go into the Art Institute of Chicago and violate the "Camera Permit" requirement in order to photograph the Grant Wood, they could probably make a case about their rights. That's why most museums have a camera permit process and a process to control copyists who want to paint a reproduction. If a work of art is relatively unknown and in the public domain except for the museum's claim that, as owners, they control rights to reproduction, then your best bet is to negotiate with the museum for limited rights to produce a poster. Most museums have a "Rights and Reproductions Office" so give them a call. I happen to know that some museums are very greedy and will try to jack the price up for use of a work of art unrealistically. I've written articles for trade publications (for free) and needed a photo to go along with the article and have been appalled by the price of some photos even though I was not getting paid and the photo and articles promoted the museum. I've even had this problem when the museum ASKED me to write the article. So don't expect much from them. They are a revenue producing office. Smaller museums tend ot be more cooperative and realistic. You may find information in the American Association of Museums bookstore or you may be able to call a major museum's Rights and Reproductions Office and ask to be educated.
Steve Keller
Security Consultant
22 Foxfords Chase
Ormond Beach, Florida USA 32174
(904) 673-9973
IntlArtCop@aol.com

Art, museums and the 'Third Reich'

A working group, coordinated by the Office for Monuments (Denkmalamt), is to investigate the origin of the art treasures, which came during the 'Third Reich' into the museums. The instructions of the Minister for Cultural Affairs, Gehrer, to investigate and list the provenance of the cultural properties which have been taken during the 'Third Reich' into the museums shows effect now. In all houses documents are processed which are coordinated by the office for Federal Monuments,. " There will be a working group established ", explained general curator Ernst Bacher, provisional monument office president, appointed by Gehrer as a co-ordinator for the provenance research. For the time being it concerns only the federal museums, later on perhaps the national museums also will turn in, which, however, because of the different authority and the accesibility of the files might not be so easy. By the State Department a research contract is being considered, which deals with documents at courts and federal state governments all over Austria, Bacher says. But the research will last some time anyway. The restructuring of the federal museums will be discussed on Wednesday at a hearing with the directors at the cultural committee of the parliament. SP-culture speaker Cap required on Monday a total concept, a status analysis and an evaluation of all museums on this cause.
Copyright " Die Presse ", Vienna