Jewish American Heritage Month

Posted By richards on July 16, 2013

George Grosz, The Poet Max Herrmann-Neisse, 1927, Museum of Modern Art

In articles on two successive days at the beginning of this month, the NY Times reported on cultural-property controversies regarding the restitution of artworks with sketchy Nazi-era ownership histories, and the repatriation of antiquities thought to have been illicitly exported from their countries of origin. In both articles, writers Patricia Cohen and Tom Mashberg, respectively, omitted crucial facts bolstering museums cases for retention of two hot-button objectsthe Mummy Mask of the Lady Ka-nefer-nefer. Egyptian, Dynasty 19, (click its image) at the St. Louis Art Museum, and George Groszs Poet Max Herrmann-Neisse at the Museum of Modern Art. (There are now late-breaking legal developments in the Mummy case, to be discussed below.)

Mummy Mask of the Lady Ka-nefer-nefer, Egyptian, Dynasty 19 (1295-1186 BC), St. Louis Art Museum Photo by Lee Rosenbaum

A responsible, thorough report on those two controversies, giving fair weight to easily ascertainable information supporting the museums cases for retention, would have given readers a better understanding of the complex issues in these thorny disputes.

Proponents of repatriation and restitution often see such gray-area controversies in black-and-white. The reflexive response of advocates for the return of objects long held by American museums is that requests by nations or individuals for objects that they believe to have been looted, stolen or misappropriated should, in most (if not all) cases, be honored.

Its not that simple.

I strongly support repatriations and restitutions when convincing evidence warrants them. But it takes time and scholarship to research the histories of such objects. A museums decision on whether or not to relinquish them is often a tough judgment call, depending on the available facts and how they are weighed.

In the case of Ka-Nefer-Nefer (which is now appears to be heading to the U.S. Court of Appeals), reporter Tom Mashberg mentioned in his NY Times article that the U.S. government has sued the [St. Louis Art] museum to secure the objects return. But he inexplicably failed to mention the fact that a U.S. District Court judgelast year threw out the governments lawsuit in a nine-page opinion (which I reported on in this CultureGrrl post).

Judge Henry Autry them wrote that the government had misse[d] a number of factual and logical steps, namely: (1) an assertion that the Mask was actually stolen; (2) factual circumstances relating to when the Government believes the Mask was stolen and why; (3) facts relating to the location from which the Mask was stolen; (4) facts regarding who the Government believes stole the Mask; and (5) a statement or identification of the law which the Government believes applies under which the Mask would be considered stolen and/or illegally exported.

The government has now resurrected its undead Mummy case, submitting an appellate brief on June 24 to the U.S. Court of Appeals (as reported by Rick St. Hilaire on his Cultural Heritage Lawyer blog). The government argued that Judge Autrys court orders constituted a clear abuse of discretion. Matthew Hathaway, the museums press officer, told me that the deadline to file our reply is July 25, and we expect to meet that deadline.

Read the original here:
Repatriation and Restitution: Crimes of Omission in NY Times’ Cultural-Property Coverage

Category: Jewish American Heritage Month
Tags: