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

Q2 Arts and Humanities Santander Art and Culture Law Review Pub Date : 2023-12-13 DOI:10.4467/2450050xsnr.23.023.18643
Petra Winter, Florentine Dietrich
{"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?
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
柏林国立博物馆打击文物非法贸易:收购、借用和来源研究政策
2018年3月,柏林国立博物馆(Staatliche Museen zu Berlin-Preußischer Kulturbesitz)从艺术史学家芭芭拉-戈佩尔(Barbara Göpel,1922-2017)的遗产中收到了一笔重要遗赠,其中包括马克斯-贝克曼(Max Beckmann,1884-1950)的两幅油画、46幅素描和52幅版画,以及汉斯-珀尔曼(Hans Purrmann,1880-1966)的一幅油画。这笔遗赠是对国家美术馆(Nationalgalerie)和版画和素描博物馆(Kupferstichkabinett)古典现代主义作品收藏的重要补充。1937 年,在国家社会主义时期,国家美术馆因没收 "堕落艺术品 "而损失了 505 件艺术品,其中包括贝克曼的 8 件作品,贝克曼在当时被列为 "堕落艺术家"。但是,柏林国家博物馆是从谁那里得到这笔遗赠的呢?一般来说,博物馆从谁那里得到一件艺术品很重要吗?艺术品从何而来?按照 1998 年华盛顿会议关于纳粹没收艺术品的原则,它们的来源是否 "干净"?区分收藏家/庄园人和艺术品是否合法?这些都是博物馆在接受属于积极致力于 "林茨联邦博物馆 "这样一个巨大项目的收藏家的任何文物之前必须解决的一些法律问题,同时也是道德问题。还是应该考虑拒绝接受遗赠?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Santander Art and Culture Law Review
Santander Art and Culture Law Review Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Shaping Franco-German Cooperation in the Museum Sector 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 Trade and Export of Archaeological Cultural Goods: A Conflict of Ideas Inventorying is Reckoning Combatting the Illicit Trade in Cultural Objects: Re-visiting the 2022 EU Action Plan against Trafficking in Cultural Goods
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1