Munich Museum removes Picasso painting over ownership dispute

The issue of restitution has risen sharply in Europe and the United States

The Munich Pinakothek (Pinakothek der Modern) removed from the exhibition “Portrait of Madame Soler” (1903) by Pablo Picasso. The reason was a dispute over ownership of the painting. The heirs of the collector Paul von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy claim that the work was sold under duress during the years of the Nazi regime in Germany. The museum bought the painting in 1964 and considers itself the rightful owner. The decision to remove the painting from the exhibition was made after a statement by German Minister of Culture Claudia Roth. Why is the question of restitution emerging more and more often in Europe, how can this complex issue be reconsidered in our country?

The Bavarian state art collections, which unite a number of collections of German and world art, are owned by Bavaria and are located mainly in Munich. And Bavaria is not just one of the regions of Germany, it has its own constitution, government and independent courts. This brief explanation is important in the context of the Picasso story, because a year ago the Bavarian State Painting Collections (Munich Foundation) revealed the provenance of more than 1,000 works acquired during the Nazi era. In this connection, quite expected claims of the heirs of people who suffered from the Nazi regime arose.

At the same time, the United States also began to update the law on restitution. In August, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a new demand that museums recognize works of art stolen from Jews by the Nazis. The law expanded the definition of this type of theft to include the forced sale of works of art. And museums in New York were required to report what controversial works are in their collections. In this connection, various cases of restitution pop up in the United States every now and then.

The situation around the portrait of Madame Soler by Pablo Picasso is also controversial. The fact is that collector Paul von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy sold four works to art dealer Justin Tannhauser in the early 1930s amid growing anti-Semitism in Germany, and died of a heart attack a couple of months later. Tannhauser fled Germany, but the Picasso portrait was sold to them many years later, in November 1964.

Until the issue is resolved through the court, the picture, as they say, out of harm’s way, was removed from sight, and at the same time its image was removed from the website of the Bavarian State Painting Collections. But, apparently, this is not the last dispute that arises against the background of the revision of restitution laws in Europe and the United States.

– The Munich Museum, in my opinion, made the right decision, – lawyer Yulia Verbitskaya says to MK. – After the publication of the book of the interested person and the close attention of the media to this situation, the exclusion of the controversial work from the exposition (but not its exclusion from the storerooms) allows you to remove the public outcry and resolve the case in the manner prescribed by law. The museum’s position on the legitimacy of the acquisition and, moreover, on the expiration of the limitation period for this category of case certainly deserves attention. Evaluate the evidence presented will be the court, however, the arguments of the defendant (museum) on the voluntary sale of the work exclude the possibility of claiming it from a bona fide purchaser. Innovations in the laws of both Bavaria and the United States do not increase the statute of limitations and do not introduce a “mandatory” return procedure – they only specify the provisions on theft (secret theft of property), forcible seizure and / or seizure on extremely unfavorable conditions. It is also important to understand that claims are filed not by the persons themselves, who for one reason or another have lost the title of owner, but by their heirs, who often resort to prohibited methods (including the involvement of the media, reporting not always reliable data) in order to form public opinion and win affairs. So the courts have a serious task of establishing legal, not ethical and emotional facts.

At the same time, rather the reverse process is taking place in Russia. Even ten years ago, the heads of museums and the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation stated that the issue of so-called trophy art was out of the question. But lately there have been talks about starting to show it. For example, the Pushkin Museum has a special fund, and many things from it have not been seen by the general public. And now, when relations with the collective West, to put it mildly, are not very good, there is nothing more to be ashamed of. And, perhaps, viewers will be able to see some of the trophy masterpieces in the foreseeable future.