This may be the Murder of Regilla. Bared breasts = woman with child.
4
The Met, as well as many other museums and purchasers of questionably obtained (read stolen) art, will not have much to fear if they hold out just a little longer while heirs of the rightful owners die off thus ending legal standing in any claims.
21
Excellent article. But I have a question. It appears from the article that “Mr. Aram had purchased the painting in London in the mid-1920s,” but I see nothing about the provenance of painting at the time of his purchase. Perhaps I missed it. If so, mea culpa. But if not, some information regarding the provenance at that time would be interesting...
46
Sounds like the Met should be wary of its Koch/Trumpism aka Fascism gifts from pigs at the trough today, like Wilbur Ross, Koch Family, but oddly there are no gifts from the Trump family who by the way act like they are the sponsors of the Met Gala for each year I saw them in that hallowed institution greeting guests at a gallery doorway to another as if they thru the party of the year.
38
@Mrs. America, Trump and his various family members have been attending many different galas for decades - always barging in and acting as if they were major donors and honorees - without giving a dime or lifting a finger to any of the organizations.
All the other attendees would have to have tickets costing hundreds each and/or be on an invitation list - but somehow the Trumps were allowed free entry.
I recall one Catholic Charities gala in the '90s when he showed up briefly with then-wife Marla and proceeded to upstage the honoree, who individually and via his company had sponsored the gala for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Unlike some Catholic clergy today - who support Trump due to his alleged "pro-life" stance (which anyone in NY knows to be totally false), the clergy at that event were definitely NOT pleased to have him there with wife #2.
Neither of course, were the honoree and his guests and colleagues. Nor the development staff, who knew full well he had never donated a penny and who had worked hard for over a year to organize the event and cultivate the honoree, just to have this grandstanding con man barge in where he didn't belong.
Just one more example of how Trump feels that rules and even laws don't apply to him - and feels entitled to take credit for others' accomplishments.
98
In interviews, Mr. Sommer’s daughters denied their father might have done anything to exploit the vulnerabilities of Jews.
Of course. The victims of persecution bear the blame for their situations.
The perpetrators of evil are never responsible.
and we continue to see it today with trump. His medal of freedom award to the racist and bigot limbaugh is a setup for his next step.
201
If you do NOT actually mean this, please do not say it! " The victims of persecution bear the blame for their situations. The perpetrators of evil are never responsible."Nonsense should be identified as such.
7
@Darkler I believe it was ironic - as in 'of course' this pattern of victim blaming is a problem...
40
@Darkler
Dear Darkler, please look up the words "irony," "sarcasm," and their cognates. Thank you.
42
The title of and scene depicted in the painting say it all.
If the painting was acquired by the “gentleman” noted by Christies by any means other than a fair and non-exploitative purchase or genuine gift from the Jewish art dealer in question (assuming he had it lawfully) or from someone else who had acquired it thusly, then the man proffering it for auction was no gentleman. Nor were the auctioneers.
Instead, they were repeating and embodying the scene depicted: through violence and/or coercion taking something treasured and irreplaceable from someone whose basic humanity and dignity they deny, and causing intergenerational harm as a result. In other words, another form of rape (of a Jew/s), though in this case more like a gang rape, given the multiple people whose actions or inaction allowed it to happen and who have in some manner gained something they value from it.
And, in behavior typical of perpetrators of trauma and many who learn of it later, there’s an effort and a pull to deny or minimize the wrong-doing, to discredit the victims/survivors and those who acknowledge, describe or call out the wrong-doing and the trauma it caused.
But the Met shouldn’t have to pay $$ restitution (unless/until they sell it, if not returned to family of original owner); the heirs of those who already profited from its theft/loss should, or the German people who elected and enabled the Nazis in the first place.
8
I find it hard to accept the article's glib dismissal of the art market's innocence a mere 25 years after the end of World War II when it came to property stolen from Jews and other enemies of the Reich:“By the ’70s, ’80s, few people thought about those things anymore,” said Lynn H. Nicholas, an historian and expert on Nazi-looted art. “Unless somebody made a noise, it would not have even occurred to a dealer to go back and check.”
When, as was the case with this painting, the provenance goes dark before it appeared at Christie's in 1983, there was every reason to be suspicious. But the money was too good, and consciences too flexible to let what had to have been obvious to all concerned.
Better late than never to recognize that.
40
If there were an heir, next of kin or family representative, this kind of dispute could be mediated or even arbitrated (as done in "The Woman in Gold"). Mediation is a non-binding process which helps the parties explore their real underlying interests, to look for some common ground to settle the dispute. In this case, why would each party really want this painting? To display? To sell? Family pride?Prestige? Arbitration is a binding private legal process (see "Woman in Gold") for example. There are institutions which help parties arrange mediation and/or arbitration for disputes like this in the art and cultural property area, such as the Court of Arbitration for Art of the Netherlands Art Institute (nai-nl.org/en/cafa or the Florence International Mediation Chamber (www.fimcmediation.com)
10
One of the sad things in this story is the continued use of the phrase “Nazi robbers,” as if it was not Germans who did these horrible deeds. We don’t say “Tojoists.” We say Japanese. We put the blame where it belongs. It was not the “Nazis” who did this, but the majority of Germans. Put the blame where it belongs. In some future years the horrible things our government is doing will be blamed on “Trumpists,” but the real blame belongs to Americans.
23
What about non-Jews who have had art stolen or sold it at a low price at some historical point? Do they get it back too?
8
The painting should go to Israel and the government of Germany should pay the Met for it. That is justice.
14
All of these museums knew that the pieces that they collected were looted from private individuals and that they belonged to the Jewish people. To say that they didn't know now is just a nice way of saying they didn't care.
None of these museums are run by ignorant people, the people in charge are very smart. the boards are stacked with well educated rich people They were hoping that the original owners would die and that would be the nd of the story. which has been the case.
The Eyptian art work in the British Museums, in NYC, were taken from their countries and the museum people knew. and if they didn't know they should of researched and learned
We the people are not stupid, the original owners were betrayed by the system as well as the Nazi who we would expect nothing from them but s murderous thug behavior and scams
14
It is peoples' nonsense ideologies that like a cancer create genocides. It is ironic that a depiction based on a nonsense ideology is a victim of a nonsense ideology ad infinitum. Ugly begets ugly. I would give it back and buy something that celebrates life devoid of human ego.
3
Curious to know the identity of the three dealers who purchased the painting in 1983.
11
And Greece would very much like to have the Elgin Marbles returned to them from the British Museum where they have been held hostage since Lord Elgin stole them in the 1920s. We see that it’s far more than turning a blind eye to provenance; sometimes it’s outright theft.
23
If it is Amnon and Tamar, then the artist should have read the biblical account (2 Samuel 13:1-22) more carefully.
As Mr. Peter points out, the knife is absent from the biblical story and does not fit.
Germans took advantage of (German) Jews having to flee or worse and acquired their possessions for bargain basement prices which were often a joke. Such I am told was the case of my father-in-laws factory in Frankfurt.
17
The met ( lower m intended ) knowingly bought a stolen painting 🖼. No need for sugar coating.
9
This work “reads” more like Lucretia, combining details from her first and second meetings with Tarquinius. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/livy-rape.asp As in their first meeting, she is not dressed for bed (has sandals on) and has been spinning - the red object at left is a distaff. In both stories, Tarquinius is received hospitably - hence the cup. The servant in the painting is described by some as a boy but either way, it’s chiefly a compositional element. The main factor is the weapon. In their second meeting, Tarquinius threatens her with a sword, later she kills herself with a knife; the weapons could be conflated. There is no weapon In the story of Tamar.
5
Artifacts taken by force or theft should be returned to the rightful owner's decedents.
9
Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham are hiding Democrats in their basements to save them from trump, should they a get a free pass when people come to their senses vote trump and his henchmen out? What will happen to the state of the national parks and clean air and water after the clown and his circus are ousted? Haha just kidding but the Met should just return the painting to its rightful heirs
8
I question that the painting depicts any biblical Tamar at all. Perhaps we should leave the name of the painting as is.
1
It's peculiar to read comments solely based on the meaning of the painting. I find this subject to be less important than the provenance and the circumstances under which Mr. Aram was forced to sell off his property. I find this response similar to the response given by some visitors of slave plantations; where they focus on the architecture, the food, but not the suffering of the enslaved. Mr. Aram suffered and his suffering needs to be acknowledged properly . The Sommers need to come to terms with what their patriarch did and not make excuses for him. The Met needs to return the painting to Mr. Aram's relatives. I think the meaning of the painting only becomes important after Mr. Aram's suffering is acknowledged and the painting returned.
35
A war doesn’t end with the armistice; it lingers through generations. Perhaps it never really ends; the injustice and heartbreak are simply renewed by the next war.
I am not hopeful that we will ever see the last war.
18
Could this be "Tarquin's ravishing strides"? And what is the purpose of the vessel held by the perpetrator. The intention of the act can be seen in every muscle of his body while the woman looks positively languid in self defense.
Surely the most recent part of the provenance of this painting renders ownership highly questionable. Sincere thanks Mr Bowley for researching and writing this article. And kudos to the NYT for publishing it.
14
I’d rather have the painting displayed at the Met, which is one of the most visited art museums in the world. The right place of masterpieces is in museums. But a summary of the history of this painting should be on display.
15
"I’d rather have the painting displayed at the Met, which is one of the most visited art museums in the world." Easy for you to say since the painting was not stolen from your family or you. If it was my relative's I'd want the artwork back. It's easy to give other people's money away! The real owner had this wonderful work of art stolen from him and it needs to be returned. The Met bought stolen property. By law, that's their problem. The painting needs to be returned to the family of the Jewish art dealer from whom it was plundered, non of this, "The Met is a better place for it because it is more prestigious than the family of the true owner from whom it was stolen.
43
@Sam Th The NC Museum of Art discovered it had one of these stolen painting from a Jewish family in Austria. They returned the painting to surviving family members and then negotiated to buy the painting. It is now once again hanging in our museum. It's up to the MET how much they will pay family members to retain the painting.
22
In an irreality, and world, of constraining “either/or” options, this may be considered to be reasonable.
In ongoing realities of ranges of options, museums, and other havens-of- culture, exhibits, permanent or temporary, warehoused collections, while “ saving” ART i facts, which might have been/ surely would have been UNexisted, now own what is not really THEIRs, can return some or all.
As well as help the “ returned-to” with necessary information, technologies and even help to create local sites for exhibits. Temporary as well as more permanent ones.
Raped, ravished and violated cultural Identities can BE, should BE, resurrected. Revitalized. Renewed.
Met officials at the time of purchase concluded that the painting “has no known provenance prior to its appearance at auction at Christie’s, London, 2 December 1983.” Unfortunately, it was too easy and convenient for the Met and other art dealers to simply not think about the obvious potential complications and issues. Not even 40 years after the end of World War II, Christies and the Met could easily turn a blind eye to the implications of purchasing a large lot of artwork from a German family who had acquired it under Nazi Germany.
46
I am particularly struck by the iconological ambiguity attached to this painting. I think it depicts the rape of Tamar, despite the addition of an extra-textual dagger in Amnon's hand. It is less egregious and more natural for Amnon to carry a dagger in this depiction than it would be for the gender reversal of the servant fleeing Tarquin's rape of Lucretia. Surely Le Sueur would have known the Tarquin legend well enough to understand that the fleeing servant had to be male, given Tarquin's threat to kill both the servant and Lucretia and place them in bed together to sully her reputation. A dagger was a common male accoutrement in ancient times (not to say phallic extension), but a fleeing female servant obviates the additional moral threat that Lucretia faces if she does not give in to Tarquin's force. This painting is surely a depiction of Amnon's rape of Tamar.
11
The painting should be placed in a museum in Israel, where it will serve as a poignant reminder of Mr, Aram's long struggles as a Jew and the Jewish's people's still incomplete efforts to regain a fraction of their stolen possessions.
40
@A. Stanton
What is your reasoning for NOT returning the artwork to rightful heirs?
If the heirs wished to place the art "in a museum in Israel...", I find no fault with that.
However, to ignore an obviously rational owner's claim (the time frame the artwork was gained by Sommer, and lost to Aram); that is a 'crime' after the fact, not mitigated by another museum getting the piece.
7
@A. Stanton
It should be placed in a house in the West Bank, confiscated by the Israelis from Arab Palestinians. There are many struggles to remember.
4
So I buy a car from someone who desperately needs money & has no better offer . Am I the perpetrator? Or am I their savior?
Call Carmax up & let them know.
In desperate times , a painting is less valuable than a life.
We cannot change the past, whether it was Maccabees , Pharisees, Persians , Greeks , Genghis Khan , Turks , Napoleon , Hitler or even what Trump proposes to do in the Middle East by confiscating oil. We are only protected by laws that we abide by. One of the best things to come out of World War II was. “ Never forget”. It is definitely a time for Solomon.
10
@H E Pettit
As an Irish nationalist, I do not subscribe to the notion that we cannot change the current state determined by the past. If I was a Cherokee, I would see it that way as well.
34
H E Pettit, Mr. Aram didn‘t sell the painting for little money in desperate times. He didn‘t sell it at all. It was stolen by the man who bought his house. The contract explicitly stated that the painting was not part of the sale and will be picked up by the owner at a later point. Apart from that, „desperate times“ doesn‘t exactly describe the circumstances. It was not a free market. If you sell something for a ridiculous price at gunpoint, it is robbery.
45
@H E Pettit
My understanding of the article is that the painting was stolen by the purchaser of the house. Stolen, not sold.
32
In addition to the provenance of the art, the article also shows how the Sommer family profited financially from the persecution of the Aram family. On top of acquiring possessions sold under duress, the family appears to have invented a tale of helping Jews, if one can call buying possessions for pennies on the dollar helping. At the very least, the Met needs to advise patrons of the provenance of the art.
61
And how much art from China, Greece, Rome, Egypt is "stolen"
Probably most. Restitution? Unlikely.
The art, rare book, rare musical instrument world is full of deceit and illegal transactions. Provenance is mostly a feeble attempt ot justify originality.
Fools go where angels fear to tread.
11
I’m not doubting the story, but it’s amazing to me that art dealers didn’t ask about looted art from a major world conflict just 30-40 years before.
36
As someone who worked on a Holocaust lawsuit involving banks in the early 2000s, I can tell how difficult it is to establish ownership of things dating back to the Second World War. The conundrum is that to demonstrate ownership, you have to show some type of documentation, but invariably any such documentation no longer exists. It’s a difficult situation.
16
@Mike But the paperwork in this case, does exist
11
The article is a thoughtful piece; however, if you've ever visited the London Museum, the Louvre, the Art Institute of Chicago, etc., they all showcase stolen pieces of art and antiquity, at the least, belonging to the countries of origin, from whence the loot originated. Museums in Britain, France, and Germany all hold such works, and yet the chances of their ever being repatriated are slim. While it may sound funny, it's not - the plundering of ancient Egyptian or Native American graves seems to be OK for some, but don't dare try to dig up Anglo Saxon ancestors for public display. In no way do I mean this to suggest forgiveness for the Nazi's unspeakable crimes and theft, but I do mean to suggest that art theft has been going on for centuries under a variety of regimes, most responding with self-dealing excuses.
22
The Sommers daughters owe the descendants of Mr Aram the money from their sale. Sorry, it is exceedingly hard to believe their little story that their father sheltered Jews -- as so many falsely claimed. A successful businessman, Sommers must have absolutely known the circumstances of the Aram forced sale, pressed his advantage on the price of the home, and stole the painting for good measure. Because he could. A man escaping the Nazis is not going to return to Germany to respond to a court suit as Sommers must have known. The painting was not owned by the daughters. They owe.
86
@Anon9 sWell, if the family “sheltered Jews” then let those “sheltered Jews” come forward, like so many other grateful ones did, and bring it to the attention of Yad v’ Shem. I’m sure they must have documentation and will be eager to praise the Sommer family. Not.
9
"Now, in response to questions from The New York Times, the Met is reviewing the painting’s history of ownership ..." Does that mean that before Mr. Peters got the newspaper involved, the Met was ignoring his queries?
38
It’s always an intriguing story to find out who’s the thief.
7
“The Rape of Tamar” -- depicting the rape of Tamar from the Old Testament -- belongs in Israel where Mr. Amar's long struggles as a Jew would be recalled as a part of Jewish struggles under the Nazis.
The Met should give the painting to some suitable museum in Israel, or if that's too much, sell the painting -- at the price it paid for it -- to an art collector willing to put it on permanent display there.
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/tamar-bible
13
Wilits J. Hole was a major American art collector as well as developer of Los Angeles real estate. If Hole wanted to buy the painting in the 1930s, one might assume that the painting was 'known enough' in international art circles even then...
How, then, did the Met - even in the 'no one was thinking about it' 1980s - not do any basic research? Or, why not? 'Don't ask, don't tell?'
This is 'blood art.' And it is alarming to think how many other works with this sort of history we may be viewing today in museums around the world.
37
Museums, dealers, auction houses, and buyers all purchase in a rushed manner when they find something they want.
When the object is deemed to be fake or perhaps the history of ownership is incomplete or missing, the denials begin. Why? Because expert egos would be severely dashed and reputations publicly sullied. Can’t have someone make a mistake - impacting the value of the piece and sullying the image of the art world.
3
And if it has been found that the Met is the thief, well then the thief has to be put in jail.
And how do you put a museum in jail?
You build iron bars all around it, so narrow that no one can go through. These bars stay up as long as the thief’s jail time lasts.
Deprived of visitors and cash the museum will show signs of regret, and in the hopes that its jail time gets reduced, it will start handing stolen goods through the iron bars to their rightful owners waiting outside.
This process might take a long time, and in the end the museum might have been emptied of all its treasures, all its loot. Perhaps some pieces will be left. The iron bars will eventually be removed and the visitors will return to see the true museum. They will see their true selves.
2
If no heirs are found, perhaps the Met should consider donating this painting to the Conference on Material Claims against Germany, which was set up specifically for this purpose. That money can go for, among other things, supporting elderly Holocaust survivors today.
52
@Sarah
Wait. What was the provenance in the mid 1920’s when Mr. Aram purchased the painting? It’s origin was sometime around 1640, over 275 years earlier. Is there no information about its ownership history predating Mr. Abrams purchase?
32
“has no known provenance prior to its appearance at auction at Christie’s, London, 2 December 1983.”
Therein lies the fault of the Met. WHO would ever take that as factual? I would certainly hope not an institution such as the Met. Maybe their policies should be changed such that buying anything have a really iron-clad paper trail?
25
@Matthew The article says they already have changed their policies: "Today, for works likely to have been in German-occupied Europe between 1933 and 1945, the Met’s policy requires that “where information is incomplete for a gift, bequest or purchase, curatorial staff should undertake additional research prudent or necessary to resolve the Nazi-era provenance of the work.”
7
I don’t think this is the first example of the buying blood artwork. I think the New York Times had a story a short while ago of the Met keeping another such a piece of art on the technicality that the family did not bring their lawsuit soon enough to recover the lost art work.
5
Such a sad and painful story. But the nefarious looting of a family’s artwork is only one aspect of this. Decades of systematic and deliberate attempts to obscure the provenance of this artwork speak to dark aspects of humanity. The Sommer’s daughters can believe what they will about their family. But the threatening letter from their father to Aram’s family belies their hollow claim. And a reputable auction house stating of the provenance of the artwork that it was “the property of a gentleman,” that’s simply a transparent attempt to obscure the true ownership. This looting is followed by a house of lies built on lies. So here’s what the Met can do....THE RIGHT THING. Find the rightful heirs and return the artwork to them. And exhaust every avenue to do so. The piece is looted/stolen. This isn’t that morally complicated or cloudy folks.
71
So, "The museum’s officials concluded at the time that the painting “has no known provenance prior to its appearance at auction at Christie’s, London, 2 December 1983.” They then shell out a half million for it.
Nobody does this. Provenance is the only way to establish authenticity. Otherwise you just have opinion. What really went on?
33
How does the Met justify purchasing a painting that was potentially a century old in 1983 without any provenance? Did their legal department think it fell from heaven? Any good probate attorney can locate Mr Abrams next of kin. Then it’s up to the Met to restore the painting to them if they want it or buy it from them at current market value. Anything else is theft.
41
@M E R How does Christie's get away with receiving stolen goods?
15
The provenance of the art is very interesting, but the Real story (tragedy) for me is Mr. Abram’s.
18
For all of the talk of advances in digital provenance and improved record-keeping by the major museums and large auction houses, there seems to have been a lot of willful ignorance by nearly everyone in the American art business.
There is no reason to deny justice to the family of Siegfried Aram any longer. The excuses wore thin years ago.
54
It's amazing how a little truth can just dissolve decades of dishonest and unchallenged assumptions about how a specific work of art is now understood to have dirtied all the hands that trafficked it. Of course, something like this could never happen in the US where the government would never scapegoat and persecute any group, no matter how big or small. The new pillagers will hire more sophisticated lawyers to hide their tracks. I'm sure a number of their lawyers have already begun reassuring their wealthy clients that there is nothing to fear as long as 'finders keepers' is the law of the powerful. I'm very please with this report and I hope there will be follow ups.
31
I wanted to follow up on the TIMES article and my previous early response... I DID jump uptown to find the painting, and yes it’s something to gaze at as the story takes on karma of its own... there were several people standing in the corner looking at the painting, and indeed it does make one wonder how many more families and their descendants are still pursuing art that belongs to their families before the horror of war tore them apart. As a photographer myself, I am particularly moved by a single citizen’s research, as In my own family my father who moved several times and managed to leave the horror behind him, the first thing he always packed well and traveled with were 7 photo albums telling our Jewish family’s story back to WORMS ON THE RHINE over 100 years...
54
This is great detective work. There is still a significant portion of stolen artwork from the Nazi Era missing, and some of it will never see the light of day. The American Alliance of Museums has a database of known stolen artworks from this period at their website. The problem with auction houses like Christie's and Sotheby's, however, is just because they have provenance papers for objects doesn't mean those papers are necessarily accurate or legitimate as proven in the recent scandal of stolen antiquities from Italy. As indicated by this article, the search needs to go deeper, if possible, to follow all and any leads.
23
A big Thank You to Mr. Bowley for such an informative, well-written article about an always relevant look at our not too distant past, particularly pre-World War II Europe. And an even larger congratulations to our researcher, Mr. Peters for a job well done. Meticulous research like this adds to our history, and sometimes rights a few wrongs along the way, even if only metaphorically.
Just another reason why I can still say, as Will Rogers once did, "All I know is what I read in the papers." Thank God that in these times, I can still say that.
36
Gorgeous painting. Would love to see it in person :)
8
@janellem8
"Would love to see it in person."
Your location is listed as New York City. Why don't you go to see it, then? There are some free entry-times at the museum.
4
Beautiful painting, but it does not look like the rape of anyone. It looks like an intended murder, which I still consider more serious than a rape, although, off hand, I can't think of any historical or mythological women who were murdered, although I will try to look that up. There are a couple of incongruous elements in the story (such as, for example, department store ownership over several generations, when department stores were a fairly recent innovation in the 1930's [somewhat like Amazon today] , and mostly owned. by Jews.) I guess I'm bothered by a certain vagueness in the story, including the unquestione hiding of Jews, which is beginning to look like a sub genre of World War II stories.
3
@Alex Levy
Department stores were not a development of the 1930s but the later 19th century. Just peruse the "Ladies' Mile" of elegant cast-iron facades on Lower Broadway in Manhattan. Likewise in Europe major cities all had department stores. It is not clear to me that historically department stores in North America and Europe were "mostly owned by Jews." It would be helpful if you could cite a serious reference.
68
The Holocaust was, and continues to be, a stain on humanity. I laud the US government and its various non-governmental bodies who want to right as many wrong as they can with regards to the Holocaust.
Having said that, why don't we see similar zeal in righting the wrongs done to US citizens of Japanese descent during the same timeframe? And why are we not looking for descendants of Tulsa race riots and restoring their property to them?
65
@Neel Kumar
Because we don't have the right leadership to advocate for those causes. Because those people are not white and in America white is right
11
Put to the test on a larger scale, almost no prestigious museum in the world would be exempt from opening the process of deaccessioning part of their collection. Pandemonium expected to come next.
Nazi lootings during WW2, Napoleon's campaigns... have considerably depleted both countries and deprived rightful private owners of cultural treasures before turning up today in public collections.
A hard look into the purchase history underpinning every artwork soon would reveal unsavory truths and bring out to the public's attention countless skeletons in the closet. It would, by and large, discredit the institutions, not necessarily guilty of anything.
For as long as museums uphold the standard of providing a haven for an aggregate of significant artworks preserved for the ages while meant to regal a broader audience.
That rather than gathering dust in an obscure vault or getting flipped for a quick profit in auction houses. All considered, the Met for a Le Sueur isn't such a bad turn.
10
The MET has a lot of stolen goods, bronze temple staures stolen from south India. And they display it proudly stating they statues were once part of the processional deities in temples. These statutes continue to be used in temple festivals. The temples in South India are living cultural and religious places and everytime I see the Hanuman figure at the MET, I think about the rest of the set Sri Rama, Lakshmana and Sita who are always presented together. The MET is greedy and has no conscience.
18
This is a horror story of theft and persecution which is as frightful as the painting. (Personally, I think it's kitsch.) The Met should return it to the family. Now wasn't there a Bronzino on loan that was sold? A much better painting and a bigger loss, but the family wanted it back so they could sell it. There are other paintings I remember seeing at the Met that have disappeared. I'm sure I saw Gerard ter Borch's portrait of Moses ter Borch there, because my friend and I, not recognizing it as a memorial painting, were moved to such hilarity by that painting (a snake was going to bite the brother) that we fell on the floor laughing and were nearly thrown out of the museum. I miss that painting, now it's in the Rijksmuseum, unless the Met version was a copy? Last time I went looking for it, dying for some comic relief, I couldn't find it.
3
"Now, in response to questions from The New York Times, the Met is reviewing the painting’s history of ownership ..." Does that mean that before Mr. Peters got the newspaper involved, the Met was ignoring his queries and the possible problems with the provenance of this painting?
69
Excellent piece.
I'm reminded of the belated attention paid in the 1990s to the story of the Goudstikker family of Amsterdam. A huge number of the Rijksmuseum's best Old Masters belonged to Jacques Goudstikker who was forced to sell them to a Nazi art dealer for a pittance to escape the Netherlands, and ended up in the possession of Herman Goering. The story sparked a new look, not only at how Jews were treated during the war but at the reception the few survivors experienced when they straggled back, poor and traumatized, to the Netherlands. Property theft, insurance fraud, you name it.
Without the stern rule of law there is no defense. That's why we still have to worry about the injustices done to long-dead art dealers.
69
Aren’t you offended by the author’s description of the stolen work as “displaced works”? There is no “politically correct “ way of describing what happened, and a proper description would not have offended any group. These were not “displaced works.” They were looted.
55
"Now, in response to questions from The New York Times, the Met is reviewing the painting’s history of ownership ..." Does that mean that before Mr. Peters got the newspaper involved, the Met was ignoring his queries and the possible problems with the provenance of this painting?
14
A German family brings a painting to auction in London in 1983 and no one suspects it might have been looted from Jews?
Hard to believe.
Also the German family most likely had the correspondence between Aram and the father, so they didn't know? No names of who the father supposedly hid.
Hard to believe.
91
@Susan That is a very biased comment to make. Not all members of any group or nationality are responsible for the acts of their leadership. Are you responsible for Trump?
And no one said "no one suspected" what they said was that the databases did not exist, nor was this a "hot topic" in the art world in the 1980's. And, to this day, in spite of all this researcher's work -- no one from the family has stepped forward to make a claim!!! Should we just burn paintings without pedigree? I'm grateful to see this masterwork on display for the public.
Not sure what you are accusing Germans or the Metropolitan of but it sounds like *conspiracy theory* you know, like the right-wing indulges in?
If the Met needs a slapping down, they will get it once the whole story is told. No need to rush to judgement without any basis or even being on the jury.
6
The Sommer’s say their family is blameless. Please, disgusting. Met: do the right thing.
31
The two big auction houses got caught conspiring a few years ago to agree to fix the prices of all art which came their way. They could do this because they were the on;y two players left standing in what had once been a competitive post war industry. Widdled down to an oligopoly of two they decided to form a monopoly.
They had their hands slapped for it.
Clearly they are the culprits in this caper too.
The term we're looking for is a "fence".
They have no problem doing that.
They have become even more powerful in the last decade because of this monopoly and no one dares to say a bad word about them. They have killed off all the previous clout in gallery / museum system, making even NYC a place where selling art is not a living.
But no one in the art world will be the first to shout "Crooks!" Though they all know it, they would be laughed at at best with a "So what?" Or simply destroyed in a classic "You'll never work in this town again."
Too many crooked traders can cause the market to slide (1987) This market is now money laundering at best. The illegal sale of a painting has to be linked to something as wretched as the Nazi's to get attention, but the Art World really has evolved to the point that it's just a smoothly functioning criminal enterprise designed to service the needs of the unethical uber rich. The rightful owners nor the Art and certainly not the artists mean nothing to it at all.
27
I wonder why the Met's experts decided to retitle the painting to the rape of Tamar. It seems clear to me that it depicts the rape of Lucretia. A quick look at Titian's or Tarquin and Lucretia Artemisia Gentileschi's painting of the same subject should make it clear: the posture, the scenery, the dagger - it's all there. Further more, it is written specifically that the rapist, Amnon, ordered everyone out of the room before he raped Tamar: "And Amnon said, Have out all men from me. And they went out every man from him" (2 Samuel 13:9), so one shouldn't expect any servant at all, regardless of his or hers gender. And, as is written, no dagger is mentioned in the biblical narrative.
20
@Matan Another possibility is the encounter of Odysseus with Circe. She tried to administer a potion to turn him into a pig, but he was saved by an herb provided by Hermes, who also advised him to attack her with a sword. The bathtub in the background also figures in Homer's tale.
11
What a marvelously intriguing story, NYT!
It is utterly tragic that Mr. Aram was unable to retrieve his valuable painting from Oskar Sommer during his lifetime. As if the trauma of fleeing his homeland and relinquishing his beloved home to a stranger FOR A SONG was not enough.
It is also tragic that his family continues to deny the egregious behavior and actions of their less than forthcoming ancestor, i.e. the ways in which Mr. Sommer swindled both the home and painting from Mr. Aram!
Wishing The Met the best in their efforts to find a just resolution to this crime, and thanking Mr. Peter for his outstanding detective work, BRAVO!
58
It would be interesting to find out the full provenance - the article glosses over the fact that it was bought in London... from whom? Under what circumstances does a French painting of this magnitude end up in a house in the German countryside?
I agree let’s go to the very bottom of the story and see if maybe a French aristocratic family might have been swindled and robbed of the painting after the revolution or the Napoleonic wars of the 19th century, under duress by an unscrupulous buyer?
I have a feeling there are several injured parties here not just this poor dealer. Sadly Italy and France are also the victims here look at the museums around the globe, mostly Italian and French art...
23
This story struck me when reading this was Mr Aram emotional connection to the painting. That he fought so hard for this painting not because of its value but because of his love for the image. The power of art to elevate the spirit is truly worth fighting for. Its beyond unfortunate that this wrong was not made right during Mr. Aram's life. And how about Mr. Sommer?What a despicable creature. Seems that the plaque celebrating him should be updated to tell a more complete story of his character.
21
Does Le Sueur really care anymore? Sounds like the grandkids just want more of grandpa’s money.
7
This article brings to mind the theft of homes and property from American Blacks through multiple schemes including planned excessive taxation to force them off their farms. These were akin to the artwork thefts and should also be addressed.
28
And it's still going on as we speak - deed thefts are rampant, and are aimed against minorities, as were predatory loans. While predatory loans were more common earlier in this century, they are still going on. My bank offered me a bridge loan, so I could downsize and sell my house, and they said they would put a lien on my house and also raise the rates of the loan...that was a predatory loan. I told them what they could do with it. Now the only way I can sell is by contingency, which is limiting. But at least the bank won't steal my house, which is what they wanted to do.
19
@Stephan ,please don't neglect Africa from your narrative....... Whites being forced to sell properties under duress.
4
Can NYT go ahead and write an obituary for the Statute of Limitations? The concept no longer seems to exist.
I have mixed feelings about it— I can think of few more deserving recipients of repatriated art (which seems to be the logical next step in this story) than the victims of the Nazis— but given the contemporary discourse, I would hate to own anything of cultural value.
The risks of property ownership seem greater than ever today when someone out there is investigating the chain of title seventy five plus years ago... Or post-colonial muckrakers are demanding the return of alleged cultural property that has been owned by museums for over a century...
I worry about the incentives this gives to private collectors. If you paid millions for a work with a sketchy provenance, would you let the world know you owned it? Would you lend it to museums? I don’t think you would. And that’s a loss for public access.
16
If no descendants of Mr. Aram are to be found, I think the right thing for the Met to do is donate the painting to either Yad Ashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem or The Tel Aviv Fine Art Museum. This seems to be a fitting way to return stolen goods to what are institutions created from the ashes of the holocaust.
36
Or the proceeds to the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany (Claims Conference) which was set up specifically for cases such as this. That money could go to support elderly Holocaust survivors today.
9
Many thanks to Joachim Peter, “who has spent years studying the history of Heilbronn, the German city where Mr. Aram once lived, including the treatment of its Jews and the devastation from Allied bombing.”
37
The Jews of Europe were a very sophisticated lot. Their art collections were legendary, and their homes rivaled museums.
What a catastrophic loss to the world they were robbed and then murdered.
63
“art lost during the Nazi era” - lost? Quite euphemistic, that.
75
Rape? That's a knife in his hand. Wouldn't "murder" be more accurate?
10
Indeed. But even if (though) Tamar or other survivors of rape are not murdered in body, rape is most definitely a way to murder the soul. And soul murder is exactly what many victims of rape and other forms of abuse or neglect experience.
25
So Aram bought the painting in London in the mid-1920s and then sold the property containing the painting in 1933. Total ownership time of about 8 years.
I'd be curious to know more about the provenance of the painting in the two hundred years up to that point.
26
Uhm, such an ugly thing making it to the Met..... But really, the world is full of much more important documented spoils of war. Consider some top master pieces of Western Art like Van Eyck´s Arnolfini Portrait at National Gallery of London, stolen from Spain royal collection during the Napoleonic wars... not to mention hundreds of paintings plundered in Italy in northern European museums.
18
Not to mention the so-called Elgin marbles stolen from the Parthenon.
20
@O Paco : How did Van Eyck's Arnolfini and wife find its way to" The National" in London? That painting was part of my childhood, growing up in London and frequently visiting the gallery with my family. I can honestly say this is the first time I thought about its provenance. The Dutch were avid traders. But I'd hate to think of the painting being obtained in a more sinister way.
2
@Marion Francoz
The Flemish TV channel VRT made a few episodes on the origins of some Flemish masterpieces, one of which is on the Arnolfini Portrait.
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnu/a-z/weg-van-het-meesterwerk/1/weg-van-het-meesterwerk-s1a3/
How can a reputable art establishment sell a painting "with no providence." Everything "legal" has providence. Paintings do not just suddenly appear out of nowhere. I smell something nasty in their whole story.
7
@Susan Kuhlman The actual word is "provenance."
13
Such as a computer driven AI changing the authors typing.
2
I would guess that most early Native American art in museums is stolen. Most artifacts from European archaeological expeditions in Africa and the Mideast are probably also stolen.
3
it is hard to believe that the Met was unaware of the records that show Mr. Aram's claims of ownership as the statement that 'This is important new information...' implies.
The Met actually has a long history of disputing claims of ownership by the decendants of Jewish families forced to sell artwork under duress during the Nazis era.
Picasso’s “The Actor” one of the Met’s most valuable paintings and Auguste Renoir’s “Portrait of Tilla Durieux” are two of the more recent examples. The statement by the Met about working with claimants is disingenuous to say the least.
34
The MET must resolve this. It is disgusting that so many Jewish families are still fighting to get their stolen art back. It is disgusting that this is happening in NYC. If there is no heir to return the art to - then a donation to a Jewish cause or museum equal to the value of the art today is in order. The MET has the means to research this now and find the answers now. MR PETER: A protest on the front steps of the MET is in order if they fail to respond. I will be there.
31
The same thing has happened with indigenous Americans trying to get their art and artifacts back, probably with less success.
6
Simple greed worked to confirm what wasn’t there. The painting went with the house: disputed at the time and ended any true or fair determination so Sotheby’s could easily ignore possible questions to their gain and the greed. A rape of truth and siding with the profit side.
8
Nothing new, it is well known that museums and private folks acquired work arts stolen by nazis.
17
And, for anybody interested in the subject, do watch Aleksandr Sokurov’s 2015 “Francofonia”
4
Great, important, and interesting article. I don't want to take away from that. But to write in the 3rd paragraph that stealing a painting is "as painful as" raping a woman strikes me as problematic. The article could easily have been written without comparing - and equating - how painful those two acts are.
35
Kudos to Joachim Peter, a German photographer and researcher, who in his spare time and without pay did this amazing investigative work regarding the Nazi-era theft of a 17th century French masterwork, made by either Le Sueur or Vouet. A masterpiece by either artist is worth many millions in today's art market. The moral imperative now for the Met, in light of Mr. Peter’s investigation, might be to hire Mr. Peter who will search for a rightful heir and then the Met could pay a fair restitution. Wouldn’t that be wonderful except for the likely greed coming forward from a distant heir, other relatives, and many lawyers. It is a fascinating narrative however and could easily morph into a Netflix series and hopefully profit Mr. Peter for his exhaustive work.
24
@Fred R. Kline ? an heir is an heir....and when so many descendants were murdered in the Holocaust, aren't we glad if there are any surviving heirs..."distant" or not?!!!!!!
4
Sad story and so unfair. I suspect Americans want all stolen art returned to its rightful heirs, while withholding stolen property they "own" from the Native Americans.
With no skin in the art game, it sure is easy to pretend to be ethical persons.
17
If the museum believes it’s in its own best interests to keep the painting and keeping it makes it better for the country they should keep it because that’s what they believe.
It’s called "Trump-Dershowitz Circular Logic Reasoning."
66
Impressive research and reporting by Mr. Bowley.
13
This is a reminder that the descendants of those whose holocaust participation was in the looting and theft of Jewish property and possessions have prospered from those crimes. Many still hold those properties and possessions or have profited from their sale. How to resolve these crimes and the intergenerational results continue to this day. Restitution comes in many forms and failure to address the need for it perpetuates the original crimes. And they were crimes, no one who profited from the holocaust was ignorant of their actions in the context of the times. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous and morally corrupt, continuing to profit as a society from the original crime is as well.
Here in the United States we have our own legacy of the looting and theft of property and possessions that remain poorly or completely unaddressed. These crimes against African Americans, citizens of Japanese ancestry, indigenous peoples and others deserve restitution as well. We who have profited from the crimes of our own society have no moral high ground to stand on.
These are difficult issues to face and resolve, but forgiveness and healing doesn’t come from denial. This painting and its past are clouded in a societal denial that has tainted its provenance in ways that go beyond who “owns” it. Answering that question is more than just an issue of legality and goes to justice and humanities need for resolution.
Perhaps we need to return what was stolen, even if only symbolically.
39
This painting was offered by an art dealer in Germany to a California collector with incorrect attributions of both artist and subject. This at a time of economic hardship in Europe and the United States while the drums of war beat in the background. How many times has this story played out in just the past two hundred years.
12
@Alice1957 Sounds like pure apologist nonsense to me. Please, are you really pretending that the art dealer in Germany was ignorant of the possibility that this was stolen Jewish property, or that "any" art coming out of Germany and occupied Europe was as likely as not a part of the many things looted and stolen before and during the war. Ignorance can be and often is willful especially where wealth & gain is involved. I'm not buying the they (we) didn't know better line of rationalization, nope not at all.
8
@John Chastain Please re-read the article. The German art dealer and original owner of the painting in question was Jewish. The larger context is: Who owned the painting prior to this ownership, how much did they sell it the German art dealer for, and with what attribution - what is the prior history of the painting?
I would strongly suggest one reads "The Medici Conspiracy, The Illicit Journey of Looted Antiques" to get a small window into the so-called "good faith" of the art world including the Met and Getty.
14
I am frankly astounded by the comments below suggesting that buyers of stolen property should simply shrug and keep it. Is this a new reflection of the public morality overtaking us-- anything's okay if rich and powerful people and institutions say it is?
54
The Germans are steadfast in their resolve to return looted works. There is no other country on this planet that has done more to right past evils than modern day Germany.
10
@Tony from Truro
Perhaps not so much in Adenauer's case.
5
Thank you for being a detective and tracing the history of this work of art. This is something that the auction house should have done as well as the MMA. Shame on all of you.
As for ALL the other art the belonged to Jewish families hanging in museums or private collections please sir keep up the GOOD fight and return it to its rightful owners.
12
Sad intertwining of sexual violence, racism, and greed as well as corrupt practices in the resale of artwork. These are stories that need to be told. I hope that this painting will be curated in an exhibit about sexual violence.
6
I appreciate these articles because as the generation that lived through (or was murdered during) the Holocaust dies off, we will lose our memory of all the injustices perpetrated against the Jewish citizens of Europe. As Jews become "white," it is imperative that we are reminded that we are only "white" as long as we are permitted to be, and that we can fall victim to persecution all too easily once again. We Jews are far from being the world's only victims of racial hatred but we are indeed perpetual victims of racial hatred. Art is perhaps too elevated a plane for this discussion, but tracing the provenance of European works of art through the Nazi terror serves to educate us, again, of the dangers of racism and fascism (two dangerously strong forces in our nation today).
65
@Ellen Tabor We hear about art work but how about all of the homes once owned by Jews that were taken over by Germans? Were they ever compensated for this property? No, they were not. People I talked to said that after the war they just wanted to find safety and peace, but after many years found the courage to look for their property. Did surviving Jews ever get retribution from the German government? Their heirs deserve it.
22
@Susan Kuhlman I received a share of a property of my great grandparents in East Germany in the 2000's. But it took a lot of legal action by a lawyer in Israel until we got it... I think my grandparents got restitution for property in Western Germany much earlier. And Germany also paid restitution to the State of Israel.
6
In the excerpt of the letter to Mr. Aram, Mr. Sommer mentions "points 1-4" as reasons for keeping the artwork.
What were those reasons?
The sales contract mentions a debt of 100,000 Goldmark against the estate (the part with a line drawn next to it), of which 25,000 GM are to be transferred to the buyer, Mr. Sommer, and the other 75,000 GM is to be settled immediatly by the sellers, Mr. Aram and Mr. Grünwald (both owning 1/2 of the estate).
Was the debt settled by the sellers as the contract states?
I don't want to be dismissive of the rights of jewish art collectors who were robbed of their possessions by the Nazis, but to me, this story looks more like a dispute over a contract than discrimination - at least with the sparse information provided.
7
@Nicolas Agreed - reading the full contract could shed further light (perhaps) on the contract. Property sales, and lawyers, can turn litiginous. Herr Sommer would certainly have been within his rights to argue he would not pay for a house that was falsely advertised (as the article suggests Herr Sommer claimed). Without a real investigation of the house and the terms of the offer, it's not possible to know who was in the right (although the significantly higher resale price a few years later is suspicious).
For me, it's the timing that is also suspicious: Were these were lawyers and a client who took advantage of the anti-semitic air? What I wonder about is why, specifically, Herr Sommer/his lawyers wanted the painting to, so to speak, help 'settle the contract'. (Also questions not likely to be known.)
2
@Mary
You can read the full sales contract, it's attached at the end of the article (just click on the green page).
But there are important pieces of information missing here in this article:
- The full letter Mr. Sommer wrote to Mr. Aram to justify that he kept the artwork.
- The reason why Mr. Arams suit against the former German Reich was rejected in 1963 (only the cover of court file is provided, not the usual reasoning given by the court, explaining it's decission)
- The article states that there has already been a setlement concerning the sale of the property, information wheter or not the artwork was mentioned in this settlement is also not provided.
All in all, it seems that every bit of "evidence" presented here in this article benefits the claims of Mr. Aram and his family, while the information that could contradict their claims is withheld.
3
@Nicolaus Thank you for this response. You've raised many important points for all readers. Agreed that more information is needed (and may never be found). The Sommer family deserves space and room to present their side. However, the article raises both only an individual but a larger matter about how museums such as the Met acquire their works and what their responsibilities should of have been and are in acquiring and presenting works. Surely it can be accepted that there is a taint over this entire matter. The specific situation and setting over this painting does not favor a fast dismissal that anti-semitism was not a factor.
3
Does this mean if you are forced to sell your property at distressed prices, you can reclaim it in 70 years? I guess we should return the entire North American continent to the indigenous peoples and return to our ancestors lands.
9
@Michael Green
He did not agree to sell the painting to Sommer.
14
You're right, we should. I'd be happy to go back where I came from, I'm not particularly impressed with how the descendents of European illegal aliens have run this country-into the ground.
2
God save us from vacuous, simplistic false equivalencies.
5
There's the artist and the work. Everything else doesn't matter.
@David Henry
"Everything else" does matter.
14
@David Henry
You suggest that theft and the holocaust that enabled it don't matter as long as it's great art that's stolen and the victim is dead. Really?
6
@Brian Only if you like gossip and publicity.
this a tangled web, each side has a different story.
the met should keep the painting so many others can enjoy it.
@Judy Weller
The Met does not yet have a story. It is investigating.
5
Such an interesting story. I expect that the Met will give Mr. Aram the respect that he has always been due. This reminds me of Maria Altmann's pursuit of her family painting by Gustave Klimt. We should never stop working to try and fix injustice.
100
Time change. Let's hope the Met and other museums will keep up with the change and be more diligent about the source of the art they purchase.
16
Our country and our homes all pretty much sit on stolen property. Why is artwork different?
51
@Hooey
How is the argument from conquest different than "might makes right"? It is not a correct ethical principle, neither now nor in the distant past, although it's the modus operandi of government. This is why government and justice are incompatible, creating intractable problems for society.
The argument that the American tribes had no conception of property rights is unsound even if the your assertion were true. Consider a baby who inherits royalties of author parents. Whether the baby has any conception of property rights is irrelevant. That Native Americans moved on their land does not justify the theft.
The obstacle to returning the stolen land and making restitution is government.
14
@Art Boone
Stolen property from the Nazi era is traceable. There are explicit records. Victims or their children are still alive. Artwork is especially returnable because it is portable.
14
@Art Boone
So we should just forget the concept of justice? That certainly will sit well with one individual in Washington, DC.
10
Although I have a chip on my shoulder re the Met since they began charging out-of-town artists like me full admission, I don't think that they should forfeit the painting in this case. There should instead be some amicable restitution paid to Aram's descendants. The entire prospect of sorting out a flawless provenance for such works (changing ownership under existential duress) is fraught and cloudy at best.
13
@Allen
So how about I storm into your house and remove your most favorite possession. And if you protest, I’ll offer you some sort of ‘amicable restitution’.
11
@Allen It is indeed cloudy, and Mr. Sommer brought the weather.
8
The museums are full of paintings and other pieces of art no one will ever claim because the legal owners did not survive.
89
The met should do the right thing no matter how painful it is and return the piece to the right owner or his inheritor. All Europe and American museums are full with pieces with dubious at best purchase history. not to mention the high art market used to laundering vast amounts of money and tax evasion.
51
@Zahari the article states that no potential heirs have come forward to claim it, so there's legally no one to return it to.
17
@Cathy the onus is on them to find a rightful heir.
4
These stories always fascinate, both historically and as I a window into people’s character.
One has to wonder how many pieces of art, with questionable provenance, are tucked away.
We’re led to believe that the ‘art world’ is a high brow community with sophistication and high standards. Turns out, not so much?
118
Much of the history of the art world is basically just looting and stealing from other countries. That goes back many, many centuries, at the very least, to ancient Rome. I think there was a Roman shipwreck of art taken from the Greeks, wasn't there? On the arch of Titus, the Roman troops are carring a menorah they looted from the Temple in Jerusalem - NY Times published an article about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/arts/design/menorah-on-arch-of-titus-in-roman-forum-was-rich-yellow.html
4
@Stephanie Wood And? What do you try to say in 2020 about this situation. And your affirmation is just untrue.
This is an excellent article about an important subject. Thank you Mr. Bowley and the NYT! Readers may also be interested in the documentary “Gurlitt and the Secret of the Nazi Treasure”. Story of the infamous Cornelius Gurlitt. An incredible and chilling story that helps us understand this subject. I think the film is available for rent on Vimeo.
39
And what of buyers (not just individuals, but also museums) who, since the war, have purchased art in good faith. They trust the auction houses and galleries to provide them with accurate information. Should they be stripped of art they purchased in good faith simply because it was stolen some 70 years ago and they reasonably relied on information provided at the time of purchase? Many records have been lost or destroyed over the years, and many time documentation has never existed. Will it become caveat emptor for all art purchases?
9
Any gracious inheritor of a work of art would say something such as, “Yes, this piece belongs to me. It is stolen goods. You may keep it on permanent loan as long as docents and brochures explain its history.”
30
@MS " Should they be stripped of art they purchased in good faith simply because it was stolen some 70 years ago and they reasonably relied on information provided at the time of purchase?"
The answer is Yes. Title doesn't transfer with stolen goods. The appropriate way to settle this issue, as in any case of fraud, is for those people who in good faith bought stolen goods to sue for restitution from the sellers. Yes, many people are harmed by the theft: the original owner and many subsequent ones.
209
@MS
Any collector of art or antiquities takes that risk when buying, no matter what. It's a common hazard of the business that items have been stolen, smuggled, looted, faked or forged.
Possessors --even unwitting ones -- of any kind of stolen property don't get to keep it. Their remedy is to sue the seller for fraud, not withhold the item from its legal owner.
There's an excellent non-fiction book, "The Map Thief" by Michael Blanding, in which many unsuspecting people and libraries were defrauded by a highly respected dealer who had gone to the dark side. Everything traceable had to be returned.
113
Excellent article! Another reason I subscribe to the NYT
72
Thanx to theTimes for following meticulously the story of Mr Aran and family the original owners of the painting. I hope to visit the painting at the Met museum sap, as it is part of my own history. How great that Mr. Peters took the subject of one of Germany’s prominent Jewish citizens as a research project. I wonder what propelled him. I find all the documents assembled for readers fascinating, and Mr Aran’s family saga having to sell and depart their hometown sad and disturbing. Hopefully there will be more to read here as the details emerge. I am confident that the greatest museum will continue to show us the painting and in time follow up on its resolution. As an 8th grader in Israel back in 53’ Amnon and Tamar were vividly alive in my Literary Hebrew class and remain an intriguing subject for Biblical Scholars and artists to this day.
72
@Ruth Breil-If this remarkable painting stays at the Met, I hope they also feature the story and Mr. Aram and Mr. Peters. This would be a fitting tribute and bring this story the attention it deserves.
3
New evidence does not simply "suggest" that the painting was once owned by Mr. Aram.
Mr. Peter's research, based on Mr. Aram's persistent and well-documented efforts clearly proves the painting's pre-war origins.
Stating the obvious, what happened to the Aram family was nothing short of a crime.
And, in the early 1980s, Christie's and the Met participated in an act of "don't ask, don't tell" with respect to provenance. There was no way dealers at that level were unaware of the potential complications of artworks with no clear history of ownership.
Tell it like it is, don't simply "suggest" it. Mr. Aram and his family deserve that moral support after all these years.
394
@MTe,
Excuse me for saying something heretical, but exactly why does his family deserve the support? For being born into that family? Enough! The Met and Christie’s did (and do) awful things in the name of art. So did, perhaps, Mr. Aram and the dealer who sold him the painting. The brutal commercialization of art continues to this day.
13
@David Morris And if this story becomes a slightly fictionalized movie, hopefully your point will be raised, and argued for and against.
4
What is more to the point is that such crimes do not go unpunished even several generations later. it’s not only about the victims and their families but about the perpetrators and those colluding with the perpetrators.
60
Impressive reporting and research from Joachim Peters.I appreciate the persistence of all involved and also how NYT includes primary docs for us to read as well. Thank you for this work!
256
@M Yin
Mr. Peter is a hero.
11
Fascinating and important read. You’ve helped, on so many levels, to point out the complexity of humanity (and implicitly, inhumanity). Thank you again, NYT, for reminding me why I subscribe!
131
After reading this article and watching shows like Fake or Fortune, I am amazed how sketchy the records are on so much art work. Provenance is as much guessing as it is hard facts. "my grandfather bought it someplace" or "its been in the family for year" is often all people know about what's hanging on their walls.
23
@sjs
Actually provenance is facts, all else is assumption or supposition.
2
One is grateful for the efforts of those who brought the truth to light. Since WWII ended so many years ago all we have from those dark times are the artifacts, as those who lived through the barbarous episodes vanish. Provenance questions are something I deal with in my own job in Federal law enforcement and are not usually determined with ease. Yet upon their resolution depends ownership and the adjudication of penalties, if applicable, in the case of fraud or theft. Most important is to remember that we cannot encompass all the evil that the perpetrators were so proud of in that time, but may only learn of it in fragments such as this...
156