The legal complexities of the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, triumph in retaining a Nazi-seized Bellotto painting reveal the historical and ethical implications of art restitution.
BY KAZEEM ADELEKE, ARTCENTRON
HOUSTON, TEXAS- The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston (MFAH), has triumphed in a significant legal battle to retain the Bernardo Bellotto painting, Marketplace at Pirna (c. 1764), seized by the Nazis during World War II. The U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld MFAH’s ownership, concluding a complex saga rooted in a clerical error from 1945 when the Monuments Men retrieved the painting.
This victory is a cause for celebration and a vindication of MFAH’s ownership of the painting. This latest ruling by the appeals court panel is the third to reject the claim made by the heirs of Max Emden.
In 2021, the heirs of Max Emden initiated a lawsuit, challenging MFAH’s ownership of Marketplace at Pirna. They claimed that Emden sold the painting under duress. Marketplace at Pirna, dating back to around 1764, has been part of the MFAH’s permanent collection since 1961.
Historical Journey of the Painting
The painting’s journey began around 1927 when Max Emden, a Jewish art collector and department store magnate, moved to a private island in Switzerland, but retained significant assets in Germany. The Nazis froze and liquidated his German assets. Emden hired Jewish dealer Anna Caspari, who the Nazis later killed, to sell three works, including Marketplace at Pirna, to Karl Haberstock, a German art dealer, in 1938, to avoid a total loss. Haberstock eventually the works to the Reichskanzlei for the planned Führermuseum. Although Haberstock paid Emden’s full asking price of 60,000 Swiss Francs, Emden’s heirs argued otherwise. They contend that the works sold below market value.
After the war, the three works were separated due to a clerical error. Two pieces were returned to Emden’s family in 2019. This was after a German Advisory Commission ruling found the sale was due to economic hardship. The third painting, held by MFAH, was mistakenly tagged to go to the Netherlands instead of a copy owned by another Jewish collector, Hugo Moser. This copy was bought by Maria Almas-Dietrich, one of Hitler’s key art suppliers, for the Führermuseum.
After the war, the Monuments Men recovered Emden’s three paintings from an Austrian salt mine and Moser’s copy from another storage facility. Both versions were sent to the Munich Central Collecting Point (MCCP). Later, the Dutch Art Property Foundation mistakenly shipped Emden’s Bellotto to Amsterdam’s Goudstikker Gallery due to a claim for the “after Bellotto” copy.
Legal and Ethical Implications of Art Restitution
Despite recognizing the error in 1949, the Monuments Men could not reverse the Dutch Art Property Foundation’s action. Moser sold the Bellotto to American businessman and collector Samuel Kress in 1952. Kress loaned the painting to MFAH in 1953 and subsequently gifted it to the museum.
To establish the painting’s provenance, MFAH noted that it conducted an independent international provenance investigation. The result of the investigation, according to the museum, revealed that claims of a forced sale or sale at less than fair market value were not valid. Additionally, the museum notes that no additional evidence has surfaced to disprove the result of its investigation. Despite this, the case was resolved based on a clerical mix-up post-war and not ownership.
MFA Houston Art Restitution Victory
The appeals court’s decision marks the third time that Emden’s restitution case has been dismissed. Initially, a federal district court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, allowing the heirs to refile.
The district court applied the act-of-state doctrine, determining that acts done by a foreign nation in its own territory cannot be challenged in American courts. The heirs refiled, shifting blame to the Netherlands Art Property Foundation (SNK), but the district court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. The appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision, emphasizing the act-of-state doctrine.
A panel of three judges from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a claim made by some of Emden’s heirs. This legal battle arose from a misidentification by a Dutch government-established foundation, which mistakenly sent the Bellotto painting to a Nazi loot claimant post-World War II. In 2021, three of Emden’s heirs filed a lawsuit due to this error.
In 2022, a judge from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that the Dutch restitution was a “sovereign act.” Consequently, the district court could not assess the “invalidity” of “proceedings” related to a “foreign nation.” This decision did not resolve the rightful ownership of the painting. The Fifth Circuit judges ruled that the mistake made by the Dutch government was beyond their jurisdiction. Therefore, MFAH retains the painting.
Complexities and Ethical Considerations
This decision underscores the complexity of art restitution cases involving multiple nations and historical events. The ruling highlights the complexities involved in reclaiming artworks lost during the Nazi era. It underscores the challenges heirs face in proving ownership and the legal hurdles they must overcome.
The decision also has broader implications for museums and their acquisition practices. Institutions may need to re-evaluate their collections and acquisition processes to ensure compliance with ethical standards and legal requirements. This ruling may prompt museums to adopt more stringent due diligence practices when acquiring artworks with complex provenance histories.
The case raises important questions about the intersection of legal rights and ethical responsibilities. While the court ruled in favor of the MFAH based on legal grounds, the ethical debate surrounding the restitution of looted art continues. Museums, collectors, and legal experts must navigate these challenging waters, balancing legal precedents with moral imperatives.
Bernardo Bellotto’s Artistic Legacy
Bernardo Bellotto, a prominent 18th-century Venetian painter, was famous for his intricate cityscapes. Marketplace at Pirna is a quintessential example of Bellotto’s work. It captures the architectural splendor and vibrant life of the marketplace in Pirna, Germany. This painting holds immense historical and cultural value. In addition to its artistic merit, it also documents the era’s urban landscape. Bellotto’s ability to render architectural precision with artistic flair makes his work invaluable to art historians and enthusiasts alike.
Responding to the new judgement, the MFAH expressed that handling of the Bellotto case reflects its commitment to ethical practices in art acquisition and ownership. The museum notes that it consistently adhered to rigorous standards in provenance research and has actively participated in the global effort to address art restitution claims. By successfully defending its ownership of Marketplace at Pirna, the MFAH stated it has reaffirmed its dedication to maintaining a collection that is both legally and ethically sound. Above all, the museum notes that this victory not only secures an important artwork for public display but also reinforces the museum’s reputation as a responsible steward of cultural heritage.
Dialogue About Art Restitution
The U.S. Appeals Court’s decision to allow the MFAH to retain the contested Bernardo Bellotto painting marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing dialogue about art restitution. This case exemplifies the intricate blend of legal, historical, and ethical considerations that define the landscape of art ownership disputes. As we move forward, it is essential to continue examining these issues, ensuring that justice and ethical standards guide the stewardship of cultural heritage.
