🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish pair have brought a case against The Met, alleging that a the Dutch artist oil painting was stolen by the Nazis.

Case History

Per the court documents, Hedwig and Frederick Stern purchased the painting, titled Gathering Olives, in the year 1935. A year after, they were forced to flee their dwelling in Munich, Germany prior to World War II.

The suit states that the museum, which purchased the artwork in the 1950s for a significant sum, must have realized it was likely looted property. The family are now requesting the return of the painting along with compensation.

Since the end of WWII, this Nazi-looted painting has been often and discreetly exchanged, bought and sold in and through NYC, alleges the legal filing.

Forced Emigration

The Stern family fled from their Munich home to America in the late 1930s with their six children due to the oppressive Nazi regime. However, they were prevented from taking the Van Gogh piece, which was painted by the celebrated artist in the late 19th century.

Before the family's emigration, Nazi authorities classified the painting as German cultural property and banned the Sterns from exporting it. Once approved from a Third Reich agent, a agent assigned by the Nazis disposed of the painting on the family's behalf. However, the funds from the transaction were deposited in a blocked account, which the regime later took.

Subsequent Ownership

In 1948, or soon after, the artwork was brought to New York and was acquired by a wealthy American, among the richest individuals in the US. Later, it was sold through a commercial outlet to the museum, which then transferred it to prominent shipowner Goulandris and his wife, Mrs. Goulandris, in 1972.

Basil and Elise founded the BEG in 1979, which runs a institution in Athens where the masterpiece is currently exhibited.

Claims and Defenses

BEG and a family member of the magnate are identified in the suit. The filing alleges that the defendants and its associated organizations have concealed and disguised the painting's ownership and current place from the heirs.

Even now, the Goulandris Defendants continue to obscure the manner and time the institution came into possession of the artwork; the couple's ownership of the masterpiece from the mid-1930s; and the truth that the Nazis confiscated the artwork from the Stern family, forced the Sterns into parting with it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and took the money of the deal.

Prior Cases

The descendants submitted a similar complaint in the state of California in recently, but it was rejected in the following years. An further action was also rejected in recently.

Museum's Response

The lawsuit contends that the museum's acquisition of the artwork was sanctioned by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the institution's specialist of European art and a renowned specialist on art theft during the Nazi era. The institution and its expert knew or should have known that the Painting had almost certainly been stolen by the regime.

The museum said in a statement that it takes seriously its ongoing pledge to handle issues related to WWII.

A spokesperson commented: At no time during The Met's ownership of the artwork was there any record that it had earlier been possessed to the heirs – indeed, that information did not become accessible until many years after the painting left the institution's holdings.

The institution's deaccessioning of the Van Gogh met the museum's strict criteria for removal from collection – in particular, it was documented that the work was deemed to be of lower caliber than other works of the similar kind in the holdings. Although the museum respectfully stands by its position that this piece entered the holdings and was sold lawfully and well within all rules and regulations, the museum invites and will examine any additional details that comes to light.

Foundation's Defense

A lawyer acting for BEG stated: The institution is a esteemed foundation in the Greek capital. The attempt to sue and smear the organization and the family in the America upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was earlier rejected, on two occasions. We are confident it will be a third time.