World Famous Art

[domdabears Profile Website]

Hello sexy, you are not as furry as I thought you would be!^^

[E6722maj Profile]

nice. some cool pics there. this one i like a lot;

[Perry LaGuardia Profile]

I'm 30

[Edgar 2.0 Profile]

I must admit that ARTIC is one of the few art institutions which really function in accordance to Code of Ethics and unlawful appropriation of arts guidelines ( http://www.aam-us.org/museumresources/ethics/nazi_guidelines.cfm ).

Research

Museums should identify covered objects in their collections and make public currently available object and provenance information

Museums should review the covered objects in their collections to identify those whose characteristics or provenance suggest that research be conducted to determine whether they may have been unlawfully appropriated during the Nazi era without subsequent restitution.

In undertaking provenance research, museums should search their own records thoroughly and, when necessary, contact established archives, databases, art dealers, auction houses, donors, scholars and researchers who may be able to provide Nazi-era provenance information.

Museums should incorporate Nazi-era provenance research into their standard research on collections.

When seeking funds for applicable exhibition or public programs research, museums are encouraged to incorporate Nazi-era provenance research into their proposals. Depending on their particular circumstances, museums are also encouraged to pursue special funding to undertake Nazi-era provenance research.

Museums should document their research into the Nazi-era provenance of objects in their collections.

Discovery of Evidence of Unlawfully Appropriated Objects

If credible evidence of unlawful appropriation without subsequent restitution is discovered through research, the museum should take prudent and necessary steps to resolve the status of the object, in consultation with qualified legal counsel. Such steps should include making such information public and, if possible, notifying potential claimants.

In the event that conclusive evidence of unlawful appropriation without subsequent restitution is found but no valid claim of ownership is made, the museum should take prudent and necessary steps to address the situation, in consultation with qualified legal counsel. These steps may include retaining the object in the collection or otherwise disposing of it.

AAM acknowledges that retaining an unclaimed object that may have been unlawfully appropriated without subsequent restitution allows a museum to continue to care for, research, and exhibit the object for the benefit of the widest possible audience and provides the opportunity to inform the public about the object's history. If the museum retains such an object in its collection, it should acknowledge the object's history on labels and publications.

4. Claims of Ownership

It is the position of AAM that museums should address claims of ownership asserted in connection with objects in their custody openly, seriously, responsively, and with respect for the dignity of all parties involved. Each claim should be considered on its own merits.

Museums should review promptly and thoroughly a claim that an object in its collection was unlawfully appropriated during the Nazi era without subsequent restitution.

In addition to conducting their own research, museums should request evidence of ownership from the claimant in order to assist in determining the provenance of the object.

If a museum determines that an object in its collection was unlawfully appropriated during the Nazi era without subsequent restitution, the museum should seek to resolve the matter with the claimant in an equitable, appropriate, and mutually agreeable manner.

If a museum receives a claim that a borrowed object in its custody was unlawfully appropriated without subsequent restitution, it should promptly notify the lender and should comply with its legal obligations as temporary custodian of the object in consultation with qualified legal counsel

When appropriate and reasonably practical, museums should seek methods other than litigation (such as mediation) to resolve claims that an object was unlawfully appropriated during the Nazi era without subsequent restitution.

AAM acknowledges that in order to achieve an equitable and appropriate resolution of claims, museums may elect to waive certain available defenses.

The OP reminded me of a famous case of Edgar Degas' Landscape with Smokestacks ( http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/151507 )



The case was settled in rather ingenious manner, which really makes them unique in the art world:

Précis


This highly publicized ownership dispute over a monotype pastel entitled Landscape with Smokestacks by Edgar Degas, which had belonged to Friedrich and Louise Gutmann, Jewish art collectors in the Netherlands, prior to World War II, was settled in 1998 in a Solomon-like manner on the eve of trial by effectively splitting the ownership in half. Daniel Searle, the current owner who claimed to be a good faith purchaser, ceded a fifty percent (50%) ownership interest to the Art Institute of Chicago (“Art Institute”), on whose Board he sat, and a fifty percent (50%) ownership interest to the Gutmann heirs, Lili Gutmann and her nephews, Nick and Simon Goodman, in settlement of their claim to be the owners of the painting. As part of the settlement, the Art Institute purchased the Gutmann’s half interest based on the current appraised value of the work.



Facts


In 1939, Friedrich and Louise Gutmann sent Landscape with Smokestacks, along with other works, from the Netherlands to Paris, where it was put into storage just before the fall of France. After the War, the monotype could not be found and the Gutmann heirs claimed it had been confiscated by the Nazis during the occupation of Paris. Friedrich and Louise later died in concentration camps and their art collection was looted. The Degas resurfaced in Switzerland sometime during or soon after the war. In the 1960s, the Gutmann heirs received compensation from the German government for Landscape with Smokestacks and three other still missing paintings from the Gutmann collection believed to have been taken by the Nazis. In 1987, on the Art Institute's advice and with its help, Searle purchased the Degas from a New York collector, Emile Wolf, who had acquired it in Switzerland in 1951. Searle displayed the work publicly on several occasions before the Gutmann heirs sought its return in 1995. The work had also been published and exhibited before Searle's purchase, but the Gutmann heirs, although they searched for the family's lost art, had been unable to find it earlier.



Court History


After informal efforts to seek return of the work failed, the Gutmann heirs commenced suit in federal court in New York in 1996, seeking recovery of the work, declaratory relief and damages. With the agreement of the parties, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [Order dated September 24, 1996, in Goodman v. Searle 96 Civ. 5310 (S.D.N.Y.)]. Searle filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that under Illinois' discovery rule the five-year statute of limitations had long expired, as the heirs had had ample opportunity to discover the location of the painting. The Guttmann heirs also filed a motion for partial summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, saying that New York's demand and refusal rule should apply. Although the venue had been transferred to Illinois, it was not clear whether New York or Illinois law would govern. A trial date was eventually scheduled for September 9, 1998.

Crucial documentation to prove either side’s case was missing, and the Court denied Searle's motion for summary judgment. Several contested issues were likely to come up at trial, including: whether the Gutmanns had sent the Degas monotype to Paris in 1939 for safekeeping, as the heirs claimed, or for sale, as Searle contended; whether the Nazis looted it from a Paris dealer’s warehouse or the work was voluntarily sold; whether the Guttmann heirs were diligent in searching for the work or had unreasonably delayed filing their lawsuit; and whether, at the time he purchased it, Searle and the Art Institute were diligent in the acquisition process or should have been aware of the monotype’s troubled history.



Final Outcome


With the issue as to whether New York or Illinois law would apply still unresolved,
the case was settled out-of-court in August, a month before trial. The work was symbolically divided in half, with Searle donating his half to the Art Institute, and the Art Institute purchasing the Gutmanns' half interest based on a valuation of the work by two independent appraisers.

[Kaarmaa Profile]

nice. some cool pics there. this one i like a lot;

It's called "Nighthawks" by Edward Hopper, I like it too.

I like this one even more :



Anybody knows a name?

[Perry LaGuardia Profile]

I like this one even more :



Anybody knows a name?

Its called ''Monk'' by Katharina Fritsch born February 14, 1956 in Essen, Germany, a contemporary sculptor. She currently lives and works in Düsseldorf

[Kaarmaa Profile]

Thank you very much Fatdog

[Kaarmaa Profile]

Thank you very much Fatdog

I just took a look at her work on Google and I instantly became her biggest fan

[Doogle Profile]

Photo courtesy of Oldliner at http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldonliner/

How the hell did they get the guy on the right to stay up there?

[Yuya63 Profile]

Notice his knees are a lot more bent than the others. What a way to go.....yuck!