Provenance Research And The Many Chasms:

The interview was conducted in November 2019 via email

To what extent has the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media been involved in the Gurlitt Case? Was the provenance research independently driven?

Information on the provenance of the works from the Gurlitt Collection are published in the form of the so-called “Object Record Excerpts (ORE)”. These were created as a uniform form of presentation for provenance research and the results of the Taskforce, which have set a standard.

After the Gurlitt discovery became known in 2013, the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media initiated the taskforce, Schwabinger Kunstfund, in order to process the inventory quickly and transparently. The taskforce worked independently under the sponsorship of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation and from 2015, the German Lost Art Foundation. The taskforce and the following projects were financed by the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media. The Gurlitt project comes to a close at the end of 2019

What can you tell me about the remaining works of the Gurlitt Collection in Germany? Will they remain in Germany or be given to the Kunstmuseum Bern?

According to the agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany, the Free State of Bavaria and the Kunstmuseum Bern, which was agreed upon in 2014, the researched works were handed over to the Kunstmuseum if, with a high degree of probability, the works were not Nazi-looted art. Works that have been confiscated from the Nazi persecution with a high probability have already been restored. By the Federal government or have ongoing restitution proceedings currently. The Kunstmuseum has the right to choose whether the works are transferred to the Federal government or whether they remain in the possession of the Kunstmuseum

To what extent is the German government entitled to works of the Gurlitt Collection?

The Federal Government, the Federal Republic of Germany, has no claim to the works.

Has, and if yes, how has the Gurlitt Case changed or adapted the way that Germany proceeds with such cases? What foundations exist in Germany for restitution claims?

The Gurlitt discovery has significantly increased the sensitivity to the subject and the awareness of the importance and necessity of provenance research, particularly among the public and also experts

The interview was conducted in August 2019 on the phone

What do you feel has been miss-communicated/ been left-out of the press that you believe deserves more attention and clarification regarding the case?

It is problematic that the art is in Bern

Countries look at art differently than they look at anything else

I have tried to help create a museum standard that states that one has to restitute art and what exactly means stolen?

Art stolen by the Nazi’s sometimes had three or four owners since the Holocaust who might have bought it in good faith

In the past, these claims could only go to court if the work was of high financial value

Most art was not restituted since the war

Nobody really searches for the owners

There is also this whole area of concentration camp art and prison art, done by Jews during the Holocaust. Some of them live and some of them have children. That’s a whole different category

There are conflicts with justice when countries hang on to art for their countries

Could you explain Project Heart, how it began, how it proceeded and where it stands today?

The Gurlitt Case is a case of dirty dealings that stretched from Hitler’s time until today

I did not trust the Germans to deal with the works properly so I called the minister of culture and media in Germany. I asked if we can have an Israeli member on this committee in charge for provenance research. The response was that I could submit a name. I asked for two instead

One woman who dealt with Holocaust art at the Israel Museum of Art

One woman who dealt with Holocaust art at Yad Vashem

I didn’t think the German government officials would necessarily represent the Jewish people properly

A lot of decisions were made outside of the provenance committee that was formed

I kept Israel government people involved and informed

Project Heart helped map and list databases, spoke to eastern governments, put pressure from the state of Israel on them to get back Jewish property, mostly personal property to try and regain whatever could be regained. The project at the end ran out of funds, but I was proud of the progress it made

In Western Europe – a process of return had been established somewhat since the war

In Eastern Europe – no process had been established somewhat since the war

How has your direct/ indirect experience been working with the Schwabinger Taskforce?

They railroaded the decisions that were being made, outside of the committee meetings in fact

How will museums in the future interact and be responsible for restitution requests globally? And in Israel specifically? Has it always been a point of focus?

Maximilian Goldstein had the greatest collection of Judaic art in Europe

When the Nazi’s came he made an agreement with a local museum, to hold his stuff and give it back when time came

His two sons live in Israel and had a copy of his inventory and his agreement and when they wanted the collection back, they were not allowed

The Israel Museum reached an agreement with them to exhibit certain works

The brothers went to court to ask for the works back and stay in Israel (1975) where the court then ruled that the items could go back

In 1990 Yad Vashem sent someone just to see the collection and they were not permitted

Even when there is no owner, if it was taken by the Nazis then it should be given back to Israel and exhibit at the museum

Could you expand on how Israel conducts itself towards restitutions, provenance research and making resources available for future inquires?

The upcoming exhibition at the Israel Museum easies the conscience of Germany, which I think is sad. I do not think justice was done. I think every piece of art was stolen art. It is an easy way for Germany to seek justice

Anything stolen from a victim of the Holocaust must be returned to the person or the family, the Gurlitt case did not have this as their focus. Assets of restitutions could have been used to benefit Holocaust survivors

Hildebrand Gurlitt was not innocent, he was a war criminal

Cornelius Gurlitt lived a life of hiding, he was aware of his father’s past and his art collection was unknown to anyone until he was caught

This is not the last case of looted art by the Nazi’s, which has been the biggest robbery of world history

The interview was conducted in August 2019 in Bonn Germany

What has been your involvement in the Gurlitt case?

The Bundeskunsthalle created an inventory and restoration analysis in 2015

The Bundeskunsthalle did not know if they could get information about the works until the court in Munich, 2017, gave their verdict. We could only work s little on the collection prior

How much has the Bundeskunsthalle been working with the ‘Bundesregierung für Kultur und Medien’?

The basis of control of the Bundeskunsthalle was settled at the Gropius Bau exhibition in Berlin

The Federal government had the financial money for provenance research, Bern did not

It was a right of the German public to see these works

The Bundeskunsthalle was a neutral choice because we do not have a permanent collection

The Bundeskunsthalle did not look into the works, we chose which works to exhibit based on which ones Bern absolutely did not want to show which were those put in the ‘red category.’ To be honest the best quality works went to Bern

Has the Bundeskunsthalle been involved in the cases of works which have been restituted? If so, to what extent? Such as the ‘Portrait of a young woman’ by Thomas Couture?

The Bundeskunsthalle did not have access to all documents

With the restitutions themselves the Bundeskunsthalle had nothing to do with it

During the berlin exhibition, the painting by Thomas Couture was discovered to be given back and restituted. It was insisted that the work had to remain in the show to still be seen, and the heirs agreed

The works by Menzel were taken out from the Berlin exhibition

What do you feel has been miss-communicated/ been left-out of the press that you believe deserves more attention and clarification regarding the case?

Bureaucratic and communication problems, such as trying to hide the Gurlitt Collection for too long

The ‘Focus’ article which was just super exaggerated

The difficulty of conducting provenance research on graphic works

So much was exaggerated along the way, like proportions, size of works, financial etc.

The focus was on Hildebrand Gurlitt, Cornelius Gurlitt was more of a tragic figure

A lot was written on Cornelius Gurlitt which is questionable as to how they got the information. A lot of pretense of personal connections became apparent through this case

How has Germany conducted itself in this case in your eyes?

I do not think that a provenience team should be here at the Bundeskunsthalle. We let all works go through lostart before they get exhibited like during a previous Liebermann exhibition, where works went through lostart and one work was found not to be ‘green’ so it was taken out of the exhibition

The German Lost Art Foundation has the heart in the right place, but it needs more money, this does not only include NS works but also post-colonialism

The Bundeskunsthalle wanted to emphasis the story of Gurlitt, unlike Bern who did not want to do this. We wanted people to have a personal interaction with the story, put faces to names

The interview was conducted in August 2019 in Munich Germany

What are the key takeaways you feel should be taken from this case?

Why Hildebrand Gurlitt

Why Cornelius Gurlitt

The fact that the German state wants to distract from their problems

Customs knew nothing about art, they missed works during the raid due to ignorance

To what extent do you believe the story has been misguided in the news?

The state lied and did not admit their fault, we can’t blame the press

Due to the house and works found in Austria, how much has the Austrian government been involved?

Not at all, they did not want to do with it

Where does the assumption that Hildebrand Gurlitt was a Nazi come from?

I don’t think this is true

Did Cornelius Gurlitt in his attempt to work with the authorities admit that some works have questionable provenances?

I don’t think he knew, he said himself that if a work was stolen, he was ready to give it back

The interview was conducted in July 2019 via email

How does the LENTOS work with provenance research? How has this been used with works of the Wolfgang Gurlitt collection that have been restituted?

On behalf of the city of Linz and the mayor of Linz, the LENTOS museum began to build the collection very early, as early as the 1990s. In 1999, archive director Walter Schuster published a first research report on Wolfgang Gurlitt on behalf of the mayor of Linz. The first restitution was made proactively in 1999, much earlier than in other museums in Austria or Germany. In cases of ‘doubt’, restitution was also carried out in individual cases.

Has the LENTOS museum been approached in any way during the Hildebrandt/Cornelius Gurlitt Art Trove investigations since 2010?

No, I am however in constant contact with Meike Hoffmann (lead art historian in the Gurlitt Case)

What do you consider some of the most pertinent aspects of provenance research? And how do you see it developing in the future?

Collection building and thematization of terms; such as provenance research, ‘degenerate art’, restitution, Washington agreements, restitution laws in general, insight into the history of the works of art and the fate of the persecuted is an important concern for the LENTOS museum and me personally, therefore this exhibition has a critical scientific view

Provenance research is an important area of research currently as well as in the future, this does not only concern art museums. Provenance research centers should ideally be institutionalized in the form of fixed positions, but these represent an additional high personnel cost factor in a difficult budgetary period, which is why provenance research in smaller museums is often hardly affordable, provenance research based on a ‘work contract’.

What is your take on Austrian restitution law? Is it more effective than Germany’s guidelines?

In contrast to Germany or Switzerland, Austria has had a very stict and clear restitution law since 1998; Austria has long been a pioneer in restitution and provenance research

What are the main points you want to bring across in your show ‘Zauberprinz Wolfgang Gurlitt’?

The exhibition Wolfgang Gurlitt Zauberprinz is an ART EXHIBITION and the FIRST TRY attempt to critically present the historical history of the collection of the New Gallery of the City of Linz (today LENTOS):

Presentation of the museum founder based on his fascinating biography

His international artist contacts based on exemplary work of art (Pechstein, Mammen, Laserstein, Bilger, Kokoschka, Schiele, Siewert…)

His support for Jewish artists

Exemplary sales of the Gurlitt Gallery to important museums in the Interwar period

Gurlitt as a collector

Gurlitt as the founder of the museum

Kubin-Kabinett Linz, which was founded by Gurlitt

Gurlitt as one of the most important graphic publishers in Germany

First presentation of the Gurlitt purchase of the city of Linz from 1952/1953

Gurlitt as an exhibition organizer and museum director in Linz, he organized over 100 exhibitions from 1946 to 1955 as director

Gurlitt’s role in the Nazi era

Gurlitt’s activity in the special-order Linz

All restitutions from the Gurlitt Collection and the fates of the persecuted

I try to showcase the life and work of our museum founder, who supported Jewish friends and artists, who saved their lives, but who, as an art dealer during the Nazi era, also dealt with looted art from confiscated Jewish collections and museums or benefited from emergency sales by Jewish collectors, as a narrative with works of art to a wide audience. The story has many facets

The interview was conducted in August 2019 in Bern Switzerland

What has been your involvement in the Gurlitt case?

I was working at the Kunstmuseum Bern since May 2017 as head of provenance research

There was no provenance department beforehand

In charge of the Gurlitt Case and research of the collection at the Kunstmuseum

The Kunstmuseum is independent of the other associations involved in the Gurlitt Case

Part of the works, approximately 500 are left to clear which I have been working on since a year

The works were given to the Kunstmuseum in February of 2019 and until 2021, the final destination of the works is supposed to be settled

688 works have been researched

The Kunstmuseum now has to evaluate them

27 are categorized as no ‘Raubkunst’

4 works are identified as ‘Raubkunst’

The rest is still unknown and is still being looked at

The works are kept by the Bundesrepublic in Germany

What can you tell me about the Kunstmuseum’s reaction and actions following Cornelius Gurlitt’s will acknowledging the Kunstmuseum as the sole heir?

The Kunstmuseum was very surprised

It took half a year to decide whether to keep the works

The museum tried to look at single works during that half year to find out about their provenances, but it was too little time allotted to them

Most of the works are in Germany

Bern took about 339 works, which included the works that were done by members of the Gurlitt family, of which 217 were ranked as not suspicious and 110 were ‘proven’ as not stolen art

The Bundesrepublic is the spokesperson regarding the Gurlitt case based on the 2014 contract signed by Germany and the Kunstmuseum

The Kunstmuseum is not responsible for the legal value of the works, however if the museum sees a problem, the Kunstmuseum has some wiggle room

What does the Kunstmuseum provide in regard to educating visitors on the Gurlitt Collection?

The exhibition at the Kunstmuseum focused on the topic of Degenerate Art, looking at works on their own merit and without direct comparison to Gurlitt for the first part of the initial exhibition

The initial exhibition at the Kunstmuseum was themed on how Modern Art in Germany has been, and still is, criticized

How Hildebrandt Gurlitt fit within this context, the history, the works, and the testimonies of Gurlitt, were kept as separate. It was showcased within a white cube aesthetic as a contextual critique of Gurlitt

The second exhibition showed different works, it showed the heterogeneity of the collection, and modern 19th century works of France

The second exhibition looked at how Hildebrandt got these works and how did he work as an art dealer at the time

The Kunstmuseum built a profile of Hildebrand

The works acquired during the Linz Commission, were not worth mentioning in value by the time Hildebrand was involved

The behavior of Hildebrand after 1945 was noted

A provenance workshop was opened which showcased to visitors of the exhibition how provenance research works and what sources are being used for it

Has the Kunstmuseum been involved in the cases of works which have been restituted? If so, to what extent? Such as the ‘Portrait of a young woman’ by Thomas Couture?

The museum was not directly involved, the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media was in charge

The Kunstmuseum is informed if a claim comes, this is also based on the contract signed in 2014

The painting buy Paul Signac was initially put in the green light by Germany, but after reservations were spoke out by the Kunstmuseum, it was put on yellow and three weeks later a claim arrived. It was restituted on July 3rd.

On the topic of digital humanities I am very interest and invested in pursuing it further in provenance research

Included in what we do at the Kunstmuseum are work autopsy, digitization of characteristics such as erased numbers on frames, and working with the restoration team

A standardized and systemized way of identifying terminology. There are workshops in 2019 on this subject

So far, it has been largely working without a database

Details such as inventory numbers or museum stamp can help in identifying works. In the case of Gurlitt, just over 100 works can be identified as such. The rest of the works have partial numbers or completely erased numbers or stamps

What can you tell me about the work by Cezanne ‘La Montagne Sainte Victoire’and your interaction with the Musée Granet in France?

The work has been open to provenance holes, yet this is a good example of a case where open communication is conducted and a loan scenario such as this is found. While the work is owned by the Kunstmuseum and has been acknowledged by the Cézanne family as belonging to the Kunstmuseum, a long-term loan contract was settled for the work to be exhibited at the Musée Granet.

How has Germany conducted itself in this case in your eyes?

I would suggest that, like in this scenario with the Gurlitt Collection, not more than 60 works per year are looked at for provenance research. It is not realistic otherwise

The works coming from France, those not considered Degenerate Art, are the ones and the field with most complications

The sources made available in Germany, simply did not allow for two years to look at 600 works. The taskforce sent people who did not speak French to France for part of the provenance research