MoMA Report on Grosz Paintings
-
Upload
lee-rosenbaum-culturegrrl -
Category
Documents
-
view
77 -
download
0
description
Transcript of MoMA Report on Grosz Paintings
REPORT TO THE TRUSTEES OF
THE MUSEUM OF MODERN ART
WITH RESPECT TO TWO PAINTINGS
BY GEORGE GROSZ
This Report discusses the provenance of two paintings by George Grosz in
the collection of the Museum and the claims of Ralph Jentsch on behalf of the
Grosz estate to their ownership. The paintings are: Portrait of the Poet Max
Hermann-Neisse (1927) and Self-Portrait with Model (1928).
Background
While George Grosz was not a Jew and left Germany for the United States
shortly before the Nazis gained formal power, he was considered “an enemy of the
state” under the Third Reich for his political views. By the beginning of the
1930's, surrounded by the economic problems of Germany and the rigors of the
Great Depression, the market for his fine art declined and became virtually non-
existent. In the summer of 1932 he came to the United States to teach at the Art
Student’s League, and in 1933, after a brief return to Germany, he emigrated to this
country where he remained until shortly before his death, painting and teaching at
the League.
One of Grosz’s dealers was Alfred Flechtheim, a prominent Jewish dealer in
contemporary art with galleries in Berlin and Düsseldorf. Their relationship dates
from 1923, when Grosz broke off somewhat bitterly with his prior dealer, Hans
Goltz. Flechtheim saw Grosz off to America in 1933 and very shortly thereafter,
with the Nazi assumption of power, fled Germany himself. He was able to take
some of the works in his possession with him to London and tried, without much
success, to establish himself as a dealer there. His wife remained in Germany until
her suicide in 1941.
There are a number of Grosz’s logs and notebooks (although some crucial
ones, including a Section F, which may have referred to Flechtheim, are missing)
as well as some correspondence between Grosz and Flechtheim which have
survived. Despite a flare-up in 1931 when Flechtheim, suffering the problems of
the Depression and financial difficulties, apparently cancelled his contract with
Grosz whose paintings were in any event not selling the two continued in an
amiable relationship. No copy, however, of the cancelled contract or any
subsequent contract exists. Flechtheim continued in possession of a number of
Grosz paintings, writing Grosz that he had been able to get Grosz paintings out of
Germany, along with other art from his Berlin Gallery, when he escaped in 1933.
Subsequently he writes of efforts to sell the paintings through the Galerie Pierre in
Paris, and tells Grosz of the financial arrangements he has negotiated for such
sales.
From shortly after the cancellation of the contract at the end of 1931 there is
correspondence from Flechtheim, his assistant Curt Valentin, and the person who
remained in charge of his Berlin gallery after the Nazis had taken over, Alfred
Schulte, with respect to a sizeable debt (RM16,525) which Flechtheim claimed
Grosz owed the Berlin Gallery. The basis for the claim is unknown; it could be
reconciliation of sales and advances or repayment of loans made. It is repeated a
number of times in correspondence which proposes ways of repayment through
cash and drawings. The debt is never explicitly acknowledged nor, for that matter,
disputed by Grosz or any repayment arrangements ever agreed. There is no
evidence that any repayments were ever in fact made. In the arrangements with the
Paris Galerie Pierre Flechtheim says Grosz will receive 50% of the proceeds and he
will receive 25% “until your account with me is covered”.
In another letter Flechtheim tells of the liquidation of his German galleries
where only with great effort by his assistant Schulte was it possible to avoid full
bankruptcy and repay creditors 20%. He goes on to say “Your watercolors, which
you delivered to me as security, are in London unsold. Business is also bad in
London.... Even more difficult than with the watercolors is it with the oil paintings
which you likewise transferred as security to me....” referring to the paintings in
Paris at the Galerie Pierre, which, he writes, are unsold and now deposited at
Billiet in Paris.
Despite the alleged debt and the failure to make sales, relations between
Grosz and Flechtheim appear to have remained cordial. Flechtheim continued to
try to sell the Grosz works in his possession without any apparent success. In none
of the existing correspondence does Grosz complain, inquire about his paintings,
seek return of any of his work in Flechtheim’s possession, or discuss the alleged
debt. There is no record of any payments made to Grosz, or credits against the
debt.
Flechtheim died in London in 1937. His estate was represented by a British
solicitor firm no longer in existence and none of the papers in the estate accounting
apparently exist today. How the solicitors dealt with the alleged debt or the Grosz
paintings in Flechthiem’s possession is unknown.
Self-Portrait with Model (1928)
MoMA acquired this painting in 1954 as a gift from Mr. and Mrs. Leo
Lionni of New York. It is not known how the painting got into the Lionni
collection but it appears to both MoMA and Mr. Jentsch that in all probability it
was by inheritance from a relative who had purchased it before World War II from
a dealer in Amsterdam.
Lionni, an émigré himself and a well-known children’s book author, was
acquainted with Grosz but there is no evidence that Grosz knew his painting was in
Lionni’s collection. Before gifting it to MoMA, Lionni put the painting up for
auction in New York in 1950 but it did not meet its reserve estimate ($110) and
was bought in. While there is correspondence between Grosz and his brother-in-
law, Schmalhausen, indicating that the latter was watching sales and auction prices
of Grosz’s work, those letters do not explicitly mention Self-Portrait with Model.
This painting was consigned to the Galerie Flechtheim in Berlin by Grosz in
1929. It was exhibited that year in Amsterdam at the Neue Sachlichtkeit exhibition,
and in 1932 it was included in the Grosz exhibition at the Palais des Beaux Arts in
Brussels during April and May. In Brussels Flechtheim was the lender of record,
but he may well have loaned simply as the artist’s agent. In 1931 Flechtheim had
cancelled his contract with Grosz, but continued to represent him on a non-
exclusive basis, and in May of 1932 Flechtheim and his assistant Curt Valentin
began pressuring Grosz for repayment of his alleged debt to the Galerie Flechtheim
Flechtheim fled Germany in March of 1933 (Grosz had left for New York in
January) and in October writes Grosz in New York from Paris that “your pictures
are here at the Galerie Pierre, and that from the proceeds of sales, Grosz will still
receive 50% of the proceeds, until the debt is repaid....as your interests are mine as
well ....The pictures do not sail here under my flag: if so there would be no chance.
I am in general happy, that they are here; in Berlin they would have been exposed to
all dangers!!”
While this discussion focused on watercolors, not oils, Self-Portrait appears
to have been one of the Grosz works that Flechtheim was able to take with him
from his Berlin Gallery. He continued to try to sell Grosz art despite the difficult
market and Self-Portrait was among a group of Grosz works sent to Amsterdam for
an exhibition at the Gallery van Lier in 1936. Van Lier was a well-known dealer
known to Grosz and Grosz was aware of the 1936 exhibition; a friend had sent him
a copy of the announcement. Again, the paintings were exhibited in Flechtheim’s
name.
The exhibition was a failure and nothing was sold. The paintings were still in
van Lier’s possession when Flechtheim died on March 9, 1937. Subsequently, van
Lier consigned works from the exhibition to the Amsterdam auction house Mak van
Waay, where in February, 1938, they were publicly listed as belonging to the Estate
of Alfred Flechtheim and auctioned on that basis. The buyers were all Amsterdam
art dealers, including van Lier, who bought Self-Portrait for 16 guilder (about $10).
The dealers did not bid on many of the works and may have let them fall through.
Immediately after the auction some 14 unsold Grosz paintings were sold in lots for
about $3 each.
There is no record of who, if anyone, gave authority to van Lier to sell the
paintings at auction. Since the paintings were sold as belonging to the Estate of
Alfred Flechtheim the logical person to give permission would have been the
London solicitors, a reputable Jewish firm, handling that estate. Unfortunately its
records no longer exist, and while there is evidence from other sources of care taken
by the solicitors with respect to the work of other artists in which Flechtheim had a
partial ownership, there is nothing bearing on Grosz’s works. There is no record in
Grosz’s papers or logs of any effort by him to secure return of any of the works or
to authorize their sale. While Grosz clearly knew of the failed 1936 exhibit and the
fact that the paintings were then with van Lier in Amsterdam, there is no evidence
that he knew of the auction, although it was publicized, and no evidence that he
inquired as to the whereabouts of the paintings after the exhibition or upon
Flechtheim’s death.
From the absence of any such records coupled with what he regards as
extremely low prices and the fact that van Lier himself bought Self-Portrait, Mr.
Jentsch has concluded that the whole auction was a fraud set up by van Lier and the
other Amsterdam dealers to get title to the paintings at what he believes were lower
than market prices. He concludes, therefore, that title to the paintings remained in
Grosz.
Portrait of the Poet Max Herrmann-Neisse (1927)
Hermann-Neisse was purchased by MoMA in 1952 from Charlotte Weidler,
a German émigré. It was purchased through Curt Valentin, Flechtheim’s former
assistant, who had become an art dealer in New York. It is an important Grosz
painting of a close friend from his 1920 period in Berlin. Exactly when, where and
from whom Weidler acquired the painting is unknown.
The painting was sent by Grosz to Flechtheim on April 4, 1928 and thereafter
exhibited several times: at the Preussische Akademie der Kuenste
Fruhjahrsausstellung in May-June 1928; at the Galerie Flechtheim in Düsseldorf in
October 1930; in the landmark exhibition of Modern German Painting at MoMA in
April, 1931; and at the Grosz exhibition at the Palais des Beaux Arts in Brussels in
April-May 1932. At both the MoMA and Brussels exhibitions Flechtheim was the
lender of record, but again he may well have done so as agent of the artist. Valentin
was the director of the Galerie Flechtheim in 1930 when Alfred Barr visited Berlin
to arrange for the loan of the painting for the MoMA show the following year.
The provenance of the painting after the Brussels exhibition until it was sold
by Charlotte Weidler to MoMA in 1952 is uncertain. Weidler was the Berlin based
representative of Carnegie International, an art journalist and collector, and an
outspoken critic of the Nazi regime. She could have purchased the painting in
Germany from the Galerie Flechtheim during its liquidation to avoid bankruptcy in
1933, or from another person who had purchased it from the Galerie, or even
outside Germany if the painting was not returned to Berlin from Brussels in 1932 or
if Flechtheim had been able to remove it from Berlin to London or Paris.
Mr. Jentsch believes that Weidler acquired Hermann-Neisse in Berlin in the
1930's, and that along with other art including the collection of the Jewish publisher
Paul Westheim it was hidden through Weidler by her sister in Berlin, survived an
air raid, was taken to the country and finally shipped to Weidler in New York in
1948. Despite Weidler’s excellent reputation, Jentsch now believes that she
embezzled the surviving part of Westheim’s collection and sold it off without his
knowledge. He imputes similar conduct with regard to other paintings in her
collection and appears to question her long standing anti-Nazi reputation at least to
the extent she took advantage of the Third Reich’s victims.
In January 1953 Grosz wrote two letters, one to his brother-in-law Otto
Schmalhausen, the other to a friend, Herbert Fiedler, in which he referred to MoMA
having acquired a “stolen” painting. He wrote “Modern Museum exhibits a picture
that has been stolen from me (I am powerless). They bought it from someone who
has stolen it”. There is no further clarification of these remarks and Grosz never
mentioned the fact of the painting being stolen to anyone at the museum or
apparently to his close friend and benefactor, Eric Cohn. Cohn, in correspondence
with Barr, expresses his pleasure at the acquisition, compliments Barr on its repair
and cleaning, notes that it is unsigned on the front, and volunteers to bring Grosz in
to sign it.
Whatever Grosz meant by his “stolen” references he did not note the portrait
as stolen or confiscated in his postwar restitution/compensation claims with respect
to unlawful acts of the Nazis.
Analysis
There is nothing in the record – nor does Mr. Jentsch indicate any facts –
suggesting any bad faith, negligence or questionable conduct at any time by anyone
connected with MoMA. MoMA acquired both paintings in the early 1950's from
reputable persons, one by gift and the other by purchase. The purchase price
appears to have been at a fair market value for a Grosz painting at the time,
although Jentsch believes it somewhat low.
Jentsch does not explicitly seek to fault MoMA in any way although he is
critical of the low price ($10) for which Self-Portrait was sold in Amsterdam. His
case on behalf of the Grosz estate is based on the contention that title never passed
from Grosz to anyone else with respect to either painting and therefore both should
be returned to the rightful owner. In the case of Self-Portrait, his argument is based
on the contention that Grosz consigned the painting to Flechtheim, that Flechtheim
never had ownership himself, and that Grosz never received any proceeds from its
sale or otherwise ratified the sale. He rejects the debt argument with the paintings
as security and contends that neither Grosz nor Flechtheim’s estate authorized the
auction at the Mak van Waay house. He argues that in essence the auction was not
only unauthorized but took place as a result of a conspiracy by van Lier and his
dealer colleagues to “launder” title to the paintings.
Jentsch makes a similar argument with respect to the Hermann-Neisse
Portrait. Again, he believes the painting was consigned to Flechtheim with title
remaining in Grosz. He believes that after the Brussels exhibition the painting was
returned to the Berlin Galerie Flechtheim where it remained until disposed of by
sale at a distressed price or confiscated in some manner by Alfred E. Schulte who
was responsible for liquidating Flechtheim’s Berlin gallery. He believes Schulte,
who may have had Nazi sympathies although Jentsch does not believe he was a
member of the Nazi Party, played a sinister role in the liquidation of the gallery and
Flechtheim’s private collection and is responsible for the fact that after the war it
became impossible to reconstruct exactly what happened to those paintings. He sees
Weidler as a purchaser of the painting as degenerate art and Flechtheim as a victim
of the Nazis.
I do not find Jentsch’s arguments sufficiently supported by facts to be
convincing speculations. With respect to the Self-Portrait I have difficulty
believing that reputable dealers would enter into the conspiracy Jentsch speculates,
openly advertise the auction as from the Estate of Alfred Flechtheim, and sell with
no authority at all. With respect to the Hermann-Neisse, assuming it was returned
to the Berlin Galerie Flechtheim and not taken out of Germany by Flechtheim along
with other Grosz paintings, I find it difficult to accept the sinister role assigned to
Schulte in the liquidation of the Gallery. Correspondence of Flechtheim with regard
to the liquidation and the successful effort to avoid full bankruptcy praises the
efforts of Schulte in conducting the liquidation. And further there is no evidence
whatsoever, as there almost certainly would be, of any Aryanization of Galerie
Flechtheim. That the liquidation of what remained in the Galerie was related to the
Nazi ascension to power and Flechtheim being Jewish is obvious. In that sense he
was a victim. But liquidation to avoid bankruptcy is not the same thing as
confiscation. Nor can I accept Jentsch’s blanket condemnation of Charlotte Weidler
on the basis of the dispute with the heirs of Paul Westheim as one who
systematically embezzled art work of Holocaust victims. Given her anti-Nazi
reputation and the high regard in which she was held by Carnegie International it
goes too far with too little fact.
But all that being said I do not think it makes any difference from either a
legal or --in terms of my assignment, more importantly – a moral or ethical
viewpoint. So, despite my reservations about the Jentsch speculations, I am going
to assume for the purposes of this Report that they are supported by the facts.
From a legal point of view Jentsch’s claim that title never passed from
Grosz’s hands would, I believe, be defeated by three separate legal rules: It would
be barred under foreign or American law by the equitable doctrine of laches; it
would appear to be barred under the New York statute of limitations; and under
German or Dutch law the failure of Grosz to make a claim for more than thirty
years would make any claim now barred by prescription. `None of these defenses
are what one could fairly call “technical”; all have a strong element of equity and
fairness to purchasers of art in good faith.
While it is not my function to provide a legal opinion, I do not think in
coming to a judgment about these paintings the law can or should be ignored. The
Trustees of MoMA hold its collections in trust and should not from a moral or
ethical viewpoint treat the fact of good title to the paintings in a cavalier fashion.
At the same time it is important to the preservation of public trust and
confidence that the Trustees be seen by the public as acting in a fair and equitable
fashion by common standards apart from the law. That principle underlies the
special rules governing art confiscated by the Nazis from Holocaust victims or
stolen by troops in the final days of World War II. And it is that principle, not my
legal opinion, which underlies this analysis.
I start from the proposition that there is nothing that MoMA did or failed to
do with respect to the two paintings that in any way injured or took unfair
advantage of George Grosz. Alfred Barr was decades ahead of the art world in
seeing the significance of Grosz and wishing to add representative paintings to
MoMA’s collection. Everything he did in this connection was above board and
public and can withstand the most careful examination. He accepted Self-Portrait
from Lionni, a respectable collector who was acquainted with Grosz, after it failed
to meet its $110 reserve price at auction. He sought to purchase a larger version of
the Hermann-Neisse but refused an offer when its provenance suggested Nazi
confiscation from its rightful museum owner. He then purchased the smaller
version at a fair price from a reputable anti-Nazi refugee collector through a dealer
who had been Flechtheim’s assistant and whom Barr had known when he arranged
for the exhibition of the same painting twenty years before. Further, based on his
correspondence with Grosz’s close friend and sponsor, Cohn, Barr had every reason
to believe that Grosz was happy with the MoMA acquisition and exhibition of the
Hermann-Neisse.
Unfortunately, when George Grosz saw the Hermann-Neisse at the Museum
and wrote both his brother-in-law and friend that MoMA was exhibiting a painting
of his that had been stolen, neither he nor the others said a word to this effect to
anyone at MoMA. Had they done so, not only would the Museum have had the
opportunity to ascertain the facts when they were still reasonable fresh and
knowable and the reason why the artist held this view, but it would have had the
opportunity also to resolve the matter then and there at relatively little cost to it.
MoMA paid Weidler $850 ($775 plus a discount of $125 to cover the cost of repair)
for the painting and presumably Grosz would also have accepted what was then
regarded as a fair price and been delighted, as was his friend Cohn, that it was being
exhibited by the Museum. Perhaps the purchase price could have been recovered
from Weidler or Valentin. But Grosz’s silence precluded such acts to the prejudice
of MoMA since the painting is far more valuable today than it was then.
Essentially the same reasoning is true of Self-Portrait. If indeed that painting
still belonged to Grosz the facts of ownership would have been far easier to
ascertain fifty years ago than today and the ownership and potential purchase, if
appropriate, far easier and less expensive to work out. Whether or not Grosz knew
Self-Portrait was also in the possession of the Museum – and it is difficult to
believe he did not – that fact would in any event have immediately become apparent
if he had brought the alleged theft of Hermann-Neisse to the attention of MoMA
officials. Again the failure of Grosz to act created a serious, however unintentional,
prejudice to the Museum.
Jentsch suggests that Grosz found it difficult to assert rights of the kind here
involved – that he was shy or even what we might call a “wimp”. Whether true or
not, it is irrelevant to the prejudice to the Museum caused by his silence. It is one
thing to remain silent when only one’s own rights are affected. It is quite another
when that silence has the potential to adversely affect the rights of another. And the
fact that one does not anticipate or foresee that consequence does not excuse it.
Worse yet, from a moral and ethical viewpoint, would be any effort to take
advantage of that silence for one’s own benefit.
I conclude, therefore, that the “stolen” letters are fatal to the claim of the
Grosz estate since that knowledge created the legal ethical, and moral imperative to
speak out or forever remain silent and forgo any claim based on that knowledge –
knowledge which Grosz had and which MoMA could not reasonably have been
expected to discover. Accordingly, I recommend that the claim of the Grosz Estate
be rejected. In my opinion the public trust requires the Museum to preserve the
paintings in its collection and that this is the proper moral and ethical course for the
Trustees to follow.
Nicholas deB. Katzenbach