The Norton Simon’s legal victory underscores the ways in which the law can favor current possessors, even when both sides recognize that artworks in question were plundered by the Nazis, with a known prewar owner and living heirs. The case wound its way from district court to the Ninth Circuit-three times-and the U.S. For her part, Von Saher challenged the transfer of title by arguing that the Soviets had seized the paintings from a church in Ukraine, not the Stroganoff family. courts from questioning that decision and, subsequently, conveyance of title to Stroganoff-Scherbatoff. Lawyers for the museum argued that the act of state doctrine prevented U.S. courts could contest the decision of the Dutch government to sell the pieces to Stroganoff-Scherbatoff. A key issue in this case was whether U.S. Her twelve-year legal battle with the Norton Simon, however, appears to have ended with the Ninth Circuit confirmation of the museum’s clear title. The family sold most of the pieces, but as Von Saher told the New York Times in 2008, her claim “was never about the money.” It was about belated justice. In February 2006, the Dutch government agreed to return more than two hundred Old Master paintings, including works by Jan van Goyen, Salomon van Ruysdael, Jan van der Heyden, and Gerard ter Borch. In the late 1990s, Goudstikker heir Marei von Saher-Edward’s widow-relaunched the family’s effort to recover plundered assets. Though not convinced the works had truly belonged to the Russian family, Dutch authorities were willing to sell the pieces to Stroganoff-Scherbatoff, who then sold them to museum founder Norton Simon in 1971. The Dutch government held the paintings in trusteeship until 1966, when it sold them to a member of the Russian aristocracy, George Stroganoff-Scherbatoff, who claimed the works had been plundered from his family by the Bolsheviks. After the war, Desiree negotiated the restitution of some recovered assets, but the Cranach paintings were among those she did not claim, due to recovery fees imposed by Dutch authorities for assets sold to the enemy. managed to pay for the upkeep of the property by selling grandstand seats for Pasadena's Tournament of Roses Parade.Back in Nazi-occupied Amsterdam, the Cranach paintings were among several hundred works sold by the dealership employees to Hermann Göring and German dealer Aloïs Miedl. It leased the property to the Institute without cost for 20 years, under the condition that a permanent museum be constructed on the site. Subsequently, the Institute reached an agreement with the City of Pasadena. A provision of the endowment called for an adequate parcel to be retained for the Pasadena Art Institute. Throughout the Great Depression, the staff and trusteesIn 1941, the City of Pasadena received Carmelita Park as a gift. While the Pasadena Art Institute hoped to provide a future site for a new building, it focused on the important business of saving Carmelita as a public park. Initially, the Institute exhibited 19th century American and European art and hosted annual shows of California artists and works from other cultures. After incorporation, the Institute secured 9.5 acres of land and a 22-room Victorian house (the Reed mansion) in Carmelita Park at the corner of Orange Grove and Colorado boulevard in Pasadena. Originally comprised of local citizens, the primary goals of the Institution were to establish and maintain a museum and library of art as well as encourage the study of fine arts. The Institute was founded in 1922 and incorporated two years later on Augas a privately endowed, nonprofit institution. The history of the Norton Simon Museum begins with the Pasadena Art Institute. Free Admission Friday at Natural History Museum - see INFO below.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |