|
The First Art Newspaper on the Net |
|
Established in 1996 |
|
Friday, October 11, 2024 |
|
Dutch panel for looted art claims must change course, report finds |
|
|
The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam displays many works that had been looted by the Nazis in hopes of finding the rightful owners in 1950. A review commissioned by the Dutch culture minister found that the countrys art restitution panel showed too little empathy to victims of Nazi aggression and sided too often with museums. Rijksmuseum via The New York Times.
by Nina Siegal
|
AMSTERDAM (NYT NEWS SERVICE).- For years, the Netherlands was heralded as a leader in the effort to remedy the injustice of Nazi looting during World War II. It was praised for taking action to research stolen art and return it to its rightful owners.
But that reputation has been eroding this past decade as a government panel that handles claims from victims and their heirs, the Dutch Restitutions Commission, has drawn criticism for decisions that some viewed as petty and unsympathetic.
Now, a committee convened by the minister of culture to assess the Restitutions Commissions track record has concluded in a report issued Monday that the Dutch had moved in the wrong direction.
Two of the panels seven members, including its chairman, immediately resigned.
At the center of the controversy is a policy adopted by the restitution panel in 2012 to balance the interests of claimants against those of museums.
Many Dutch institutions have housed stolen works since the war, when officials sent Nazi-looted works back to the countries they had been taken from, on the premise that the works would be returned to rightful owners once they were identified.
But after considering the balance of interests, the Dutch restitution panel in recent years has denied some claims, with the justification that the painting, sculpture or object in question had become more important to museums than to heirs.
Mondays report recommends doing away with the balance test.
If its looted art and theres an heir, the interests of the museum shouldnt be taken into account, said Jacob Kohnstamm, a lawyer who led the panel that wrote the report. Were trying to strive for justice.
The Restitutions Commissions former chairman, Alfred Hammerstein, declined to comment on the reasons for his resignation.
The remaining members of the restitution panel said in a joint statement that they welcomed the constructive recommendations in the report, and would make best efforts to adapt its working practices such that they are perceived as being less remote. This will include intensifying communication with applicants and formulating recommendations and decisions even more understandably.
© 2020 The New York Times Company
|
|
|
|
|
Museums, Exhibits, Artists, Milestones, Digital Art, Architecture, Photography, Photographers, Special Photos, Special Reports, Featured Stories, Auctions, Art Fairs, Anecdotes, Art Quiz, Education, Mythology, 3D Images, Last Week, . |
|
|
|
Royalville Communications, Inc produces:
|
|
|
Tell a Friend
Dear User, please complete the form below in order to recommend the Artdaily newsletter to someone you know.
Please complete all fields marked *.
Sending Mail
Sending Successful
|
|