Combating Illicit Trade in Cultural Objects in the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (State Museums in Berlin): Policies in Acquisitions and Loans and Research of Provenance
{"title":"Combating Illicit Trade in Cultural Objects in the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (State Museums in Berlin): Policies in Acquisitions and Loans and Research of Provenance","authors":"Petra Winter, Florentine Dietrich","doi":"10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.023.18643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In March 2018 the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin-Preußischer Kulturbesitz (State Museums in Berlin) received a significant bequest from the estate of art historian Barbara Göpel (1922-2017), consisting of two paintings, 46 drawings, and 52 prints by Max Beckmann (1884-1950) and one painting by Hans Purrmann (1880-1966). This bequest represents an important addition to the collection of classical modernist works in the Nationalgalerie (National Gallery) and the Kupferstichkabinett (Museum of Prints and Drawings). In 1937 – during the time of National Socialism – the Nationalgalerie lost 505 artefacts as a result of the confiscation of “degenerate art”, among them eight works of Beckmann, who was in those times classified as a “degenerate artist”. But from whom did the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin receive this bequest? And is it generally important to ask from whom a museum receives an artefact? Where did the artworks come from? Is their provenance “clean” in the sense of the 1998 Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art? Is it legitimate to make a distinction between the person of the collector/estate and the works of art? These are some of the – legal but also moral – questions a museum must address before accepting any cultural object that belonged to a collector who was actively working for a gigantic project like the “Führermuseum Linz”. Or should rejection of the bequest be considered?","PeriodicalId":36554,"journal":{"name":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Santander Art and Culture Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.023.18643","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In March 2018 the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin-Preußischer Kulturbesitz (State Museums in Berlin) received a significant bequest from the estate of art historian Barbara Göpel (1922-2017), consisting of two paintings, 46 drawings, and 52 prints by Max Beckmann (1884-1950) and one painting by Hans Purrmann (1880-1966). This bequest represents an important addition to the collection of classical modernist works in the Nationalgalerie (National Gallery) and the Kupferstichkabinett (Museum of Prints and Drawings). In 1937 – during the time of National Socialism – the Nationalgalerie lost 505 artefacts as a result of the confiscation of “degenerate art”, among them eight works of Beckmann, who was in those times classified as a “degenerate artist”. But from whom did the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin receive this bequest? And is it generally important to ask from whom a museum receives an artefact? Where did the artworks come from? Is their provenance “clean” in the sense of the 1998 Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art? Is it legitimate to make a distinction between the person of the collector/estate and the works of art? These are some of the – legal but also moral – questions a museum must address before accepting any cultural object that belonged to a collector who was actively working for a gigantic project like the “Führermuseum Linz”. Or should rejection of the bequest be considered?