Posted on 05/16/2021 4:17:38 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Fifteen heirs to a German collecting couple are seeking to restitute a Camille Pissarro painting. The heirs brought the lawsuit in the Federal District Court in Atlanta, claiming that a family in the Georgia city owns the work. The new was first reported by the New York Times.
The work in question is Pissarro’s 1903 harbor scene painting The Anse des Pilotes, Le Havre, painted in the final year of the artist’s life. According to the suit, the work was purchased by German collector Ludwig Kainer in 1904 from the artist’s son. It was most recently displayed at the High Museum of Art in Atlanta in 2014.
The group of heirs—who are residents of Massachusetts, Florida, Australia, Chile, the Netherlands, Germany, and Bolivia—consist of grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Kainer, as well as the descendants of cousins of his wife Margaret, who was Jewish.
Did the artist have Parkinon’s disease?
Is the article clear or does it obfuscate?
For example in this excerpt this:
“According to the suit, the work was purchased by German collector Ludwig Kainer in 1904 from the artist’s son. It was most recently displayed at the High Museum of Art in Atlanta in 2014.”
Seems to have a bit left out.
SCOTUS has ruled on this issue before, Republic of Austria v. Altmann, and found for the original owner. Assuming the plaintiffs can prove the painting was theirs to begin with this is over before it begins.
Wonder why it has taken them so long to try and get it back?
“parkinson’s”
I have one criteria to define art (whether I like it or not). That is, “if I can do it, it’s not art”. In this case I’m not fond of the painting but I can’t do that.
The artist was probably an Impressionist. I like it.
He had a reoccurring eye infection later in life.
That makes sense. I was thinking maybe my incipient cataracts were growing.
Enough of the “precedence” BS.
The solution is never loan your artwork to a museum.
It seems like there may be some greed, if there are direct descendants of the former owner and the wife’s cousin’s descendants are trying to get in on the deal.
Instant Karma
So you think 100 courtrooms in 100 different parts of the country should be able to rule differently on say, 2nd Amendment issues? Or perhaps they can make regional judgements on the rights of churchgoers to assemble during a pandemic?
Should some feminist anti-man black-robed tyrant make a “ruling” that forces men all over the country to pay exorbitant amounts of money in alimony and child support? Last I remember, that’s not in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.