New York's Met Museum Faces Lawsuit Over Reportedly Nazi-Looted Van Gogh Artwork
The heirs of a Jewish spouses have brought a case against The Met, asserting that a Vincent van Gogh art piece was looted by the Nazis.
Historical Background
As stated in the lawsuit, Frederick and Hedwig Stern acquired the painting, titled Olive Picking, in the year 1935. A year after, they were compelled to leave their residence in Munich on the eve of World War II.
The complaint states that the institution, which acquired the painting in 1956 for a significant sum, must have realized it was likely looted property. The heirs are now requesting the restitution of the painting along with damages.
Since the end of World War II, this Nazi-looted painting has been frequently and covertly traded, purchased and sold in and through New York, alleges the court document.
Family's Flight
The Stern family departed from their Munich home to America in the late 1930s with their large family due to the oppressive Nazi regime. However, they were prevented from taking the Van Gogh piece, which was created by the celebrated artist in the late 19th century.
Before they left, Nazi authorities declared the artwork as property of the state and forbade the couple from bringing it with them. After obtaining permission from a Third Reich agent, a trustee appointed by the authorities auctioned the painting on the family's behalf. Yet, the proceeds from the transaction were held in a blocked account, which the authorities later confiscated.
Later Transactions
By 1948, or shortly after, the painting entered New York and was purchased by a prominent figure, one of America's wealthiest people. Subsequently, it was sold through a gallery to the institution, which then sold it to Greek shipping magnate the magnate and his wife, Elise Goulandris, in the early 1970s.
The Greek couple founded the BEG in the late 1970s, which runs a institution in the Greek capital where the artwork is currently shown.
Court Allegations
BEG and a living relative of Basil Goulandris are named as defendants. The lawsuit claims that the Goulandris family and its related entities have covered up the artwork's provenance and whereabouts from the family.
Currently, the defendants continue to obscure how and when the institution came into control of the artwork; the family's possession of the Painting from 1935 to 1938; and the truth that the regime stole the canvas from the family, pressured the couple into parting with it via a trustee, and seized the proceeds of the sale.
Previous Legal Action
The descendants initiated a comparable case in CA in 2022, but it was rejected in 2024. An appeal was also denied in recently.
Institution's Statement
The complaint states that the institution's buying of the artwork was approved by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the museum's curator of European art and a leading authority on Nazi-era looted art. The curator and the museum must have known that the Painting had probably been looted by Nazis.
The institution said in a statement that it takes seriously its ongoing pledge to handle claims from the Nazi period.
A spokesperson remarked: Not once during the institution's custody of the piece was there any record that it had once belonged to the Stern family – actually, that data did not become accessible until several decades after the painting left the institution's holdings.
The institution's deaccessioning of the Van Gogh met the museum's strict criteria for removal from collection – namely, it was recorded that the work was deemed to be of lower caliber than other works of the same type in the collection. Even though The Met maintains its view that this artwork entered the collection and was sold legally and well within all rules and regulations, the institution welcomes and will consider any new information that is discovered.
Foundation's Defense
William Charron on behalf of the foundation stated: The Goulandris Foundation is a highly prestigious organization in the Greek capital. The attempt to sue and smear the institution and the Goulandris family in the US upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was earlier rejected, multiple times. We are convinced it will be once more.
