Are Museums Failing In Nazi Looted Art Restitution

The NY Times has an interesting article on claims against museum held property that may have been looted by the Nazis during WWII and its leadup.

The NY Times article states that some claimants feel musuems are not living up to their moral obligation and the legal obligation from the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, signed off on by 44 nations.  It seems museums are using late filings to block claims, long and drawn out research procedures as well as other techniques to dealy or decline claims.  To be fair, the  museums are cliaming this is not the case, and are only trying to protect the public trust to ensure art is not returned where there is legal title.

The NY Times reports

In recent years judges have dismissed several cases after museums argued that recovery claims had been filed too late. California legislators were so disturbed by one blocked claim there that they passed a law in 2010 to help Nazi-era (and other) claimants avoid tripping over legal deadlines.

In some of the cases, museums like the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Toledo Museum of Art in Ohio, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum have tried to deter claimants from filing suit by beating them to the courthouse and asking judges to declare the museums the rightful owners.

Critics also charge that museums have not followed their own guidelines, which urge them to be forthcoming with provenance information that could help people trace the history of a contested work of art.

“The response of museums has really been lamentable,” said Jonathan Petropoulos, the former research director for art and cultural property for the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets, who has been hired by claimants to do research. “It is now so daunting for an heir to go forward.”

The question of whether museums are deciding claims on the merits has recently been pushed to center stage again by a series of law journal articles, legal forums and rulings in the United States and abroad. At stake in this emotional debate are the fate of valuable works of art, the reputations of elite cultural institutions and the legal issue of whether the American judicial system is capable of addressing restitution claims.

Both the Association of Art Museum Directors and the American Alliance of Museums insist that their members consistently follow ethical guidelines requiring them to respond “quickly and scrupulously” to restitution requests.

Christine Anagnos, executive director of the museum directors association, said its members were committed “to resolving questions about the status of objects in their custody.” Most cases, she said, are resolved through negotiation before claimants feel compelled to file suit.

Museum officials also say they turn to procedural tactics like invoking time limits only after they have carefully researched a claim and concluded that it is unfounded.

Source: NY Times