Actress Elizabeth Taylor in Nazi art row

The Australian ^ | 5/26/04 | The Australian

[freedom44]

US screen legend Elizabeth Taylor has sued the family of a victim of Nazi rule in Germany as part of a legal battle to hold on to a precious Van Gogh painting that she claims is rightfully hers.

The violet-eyed movie goddess filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles against the South African and Canadian descendants of a Jewish woman who fled the Nazis who say the painting was looted from their relative and have demanded its return or a share of its sale proceeds, court documents showed today.

Double Oscar-winner Taylor, 72, says she bought Dutch artist Vincent Van Gogh's 1889 work, View of the Asylum and Chapel at Saint-Remy at a Sotheby's auction in London in 1963, at the height of her fame.

According to the suit that names South African Mark Orkin and Canadian residents Sarah-Rose Josepha Adler and Andrew Orkin as defendants, Taylor now keeps the work in her Los Angeles mansion.

The trio contacted Taylor's business manager claiming to be heirs of Margarete Mauthner, a former owner of the painting who fled Germany after Hitler rose to power before World War II.

They have alleged the painting was looted by the Nazis, who built up a huge stockpile of valuable art works seized from Jews, a practice that has in recent years sparked waves of litigation over the ownership of art pieces.

But Cleopatra star Taylor claims the family has failed to show that the artwork was ever illegally seized from Mauthner.

"Defendants have provided not a shred of evidence that the painting ever fell into Nazi hands or any specific information concerning how or when Mauthner 'lost possession' of it," the suit states.

Taylor maintains that the catalogue from the 1963 auction at which she bought the piece stated that the painting had once belonged to Mauthner, but that it passed to two reputable galleries before it was sold to a German Jew, Alfred Wolf, who himself fled the Nazis in 1933 for Buenos Aires.

[SJackson]

Elizabeth Taylor has clear title--a bill of sale from a reputable company which has given its provenance...Therefore the plaintiffs have to show some evidence that the provenance was incorrect. If they can show that the work was wrongfully taken, then it would become a matter for the court to decide proper ownership.

Her title isn't clear any more. The early 30's transactions, which seem murky to me, are the issue. Liz likely acted in good faith, if she loses I'm sure Sothebys will give her a refund, coupons on future purchases or something like that.

When you walk through a museum, all the stories those artifacts have to tell.

[SJackson]

You're right, it's great for the lawyers.

It will be interesting to see if this story unfolds publicaly, because the original sales seem odd. The laws of 33 are significant, it's the year Jews lost most of their rights, including the right to deal in art. Don't know about 32, the year Hitler came to power, but 29 would have been a different issue, as would Amsterdam pre invasion. And catalogs (primary source material in these cases) list Mauthner as the owner in 1928-1939 and 1970. When Liz bought the painting, looted art was a wink and nod issue in the art world, like collecting on an insurance policy without a death certificate from Auschwitz.

Clearly Liz wants a clear title, to sell it or pass it on.

[Prodigal Daughter]

Quite a few Jews emmigrated to Argentina, I think it's 4 or 5th on the list, after the US, England and Palestine. The issue was who would let you in, and most nations quotas were filled.

Exactamente!, and they, in fact, were a second wave of Jewish immigrants to Argentina. There were many Jews who had already immigrated to Argentina at the end of the 19th Century to escape the Russian pogroms and they became Jewish gauchos (cowboys)! Yiddishe Gauchos documentary

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"The Yidishe Gauchos"

Thanks. That looks like a fascinating documentary.

What a double bill -- "The Yidishe Gauchos" and "Boys From Brazil."

[beckett]

It is significant that the Mauthner family's own lawyers do not state the year in which the painting changed hands. They talk vaguely about some scholar who listed the painting in a catalog. Why can't the Mauthner family simply tell the story of how the painting was sold (or stolen)? Don't they know? Or do they know and not want the story to be told? The latter seems far more likely.

If Wolf left for Argentina in 1933 did he have the painting with him? When did he buy it? From whom? These questions have answers. The Mauthners seem less than enthusiastic about answering them.

[SJackson]

If Wolf left for Argentina in 1933 did he have the painting with him? When did he buy it? From whom? These questions have answers. The Mauthners seem less than enthusiastic about answering them.

I'm sure we'll hear answers, remember Taylor brought the suit making it public. The Mauthner sale is the issue though, not Wolf nor the galleries it passed through. Another article.

Liz Taylor scorns SA family's Nazi claim

Sunday Times, South Africa

Actress goes to court to stop Orkins demanding her Van Gogh on the grounds it was taken from their great-grandmother by Hitler

NASHIRA DAVIDS

THE Academy Award-winning actress Elizabeth Taylor has accused the South African family trying to claim her multimillion-dollar Van Gogh painting of trying to "bluff" her out of a "treasured possession".

In papers filed at the Los Angeles District Court on Monday, Taylor said the Orkin family's demand for the 115-year-old View of the Asylum and Chapel at Saint-Rémy oil painting is "factually baseless" and an "attempt to bluff [her] into parting with a treasured possession she acquired in good faith".

The Orkins, who are Jewish, claim the painting belonged to their great-grandmother and that she lost it to the Nazis during World War Two.

Taylor's father, Francis Taylor, bought the painting for her at a Sotheby's auction in 1963 for £92 000.

Taylor claims the Orkins' great-grandmother, Margarete Mauthner, sold the painting for "financial reasons" before the Nazis came to power in 1933.

The actress wants the judge to rule that she is the legal, bona fide owner of the painting and to prevent the Orkins from launching a legal action of their own, as they have threatened to do.

But Mauthner's great-grandchildren, Andrew Orkin, a lawyer in Canada, Mark Orkin, head of the Human Sciences Research Council in South Africa, and Sarah-Rose Josepha Adler said Mauthner had no choice but to sell at a time when Jews were being persecuted.

"We have never claimed that Nazis took the painting off Mrs Mauthner's wall at gunpoint. But we do not need to make any such showing in order to recover the painting under the 1998 federal Holocaust Victims Redress Act.

"European Jews sold property during the Holocaust era under acute political pressure and economic duress and it must be returned to them regardless of whether the buyers were Jews or not," said their Washington lawyer, Thomas Hamilton.

But Taylor, star of National Velvet and Butterfield 8, said the family sent her letters claiming the artwork was "wrongfully expropriated" as a result of confiscatory Nazi policies.

She also claims that the Orkins waited 40 years before "attempting to dispossess an innocent, good-faith purchaser".

But the painting, which is now valued at more than $8-million, was not the only Van Gogh owned by Mauthner.

Court papers allege that her last Van Gogh, View of the Sea at St Maries, was sold in 1933.

In a letter dated October 21 1933, one of the employees of the gallery to which Mauthner sold the painting wrote: "[Mauthner] would certainly not have decided upon this course of action were it not for her nephew's moving away to seek a new life in another country [South Africa], and this provides a use of the money for a purpose that is dearer to her heart than owning the painting."

Taylor said Mauthner bought the disputed painting in 1907 from Paul Cassirer and later sold the painting back to him.

It was then acquired by a Berlin art dealer, Marcel Goldschmidt, and later by Alfred Wolf.

In 1963, Wolf's heirs decided to sell his collection of Impressionist and Post-Impressionist paintings through Sotheby's, where Taylor became the painting's owner.

In 2002 the Orkins first indicated that they were investigating Taylor's painting because they "had reason to believe they were entitled to the painting".

In December last year, Taylor said the Orkins demanded the immediate return of the painting or "a share of the proceeds of its sale".

This is not the first time the Orkin family has applied for restitution for their loss during Hitler's reign.

In June 1954, the German government compensated them for the forced sale of their home in Berlin in August 1938 and for the loss of pension funds seized by the Nazis.

Hamilton, the Orkins' attorney, who described Taylor's court application "entirely non-meritorious" said the family would be filing papers in the next 20 days to oppose the action.

Taylor, meanwhile, says she has "sympathy" with the Orkins but "even the most sympathetic claimants have an obligation to document their claims and pursue them honestly and diligently".

The painting at the centre of the battle was painted in 1889 by Vincent van Gogh while he was in an asylum in France.

Van Gogh had admitted himself to the psychiatric hospital after cutting off part of his left ear.

During this period, critics believe, he produced some of his greatest work including the disputed View of the Asylum and Chapel at Saint-Rémy.

Mauthner fled Germany for South Africa in 1939.

[beckett]

Clearly from the article you just posted, if Mauthner sold her last Van Gogh (not Taylor's painting) in 1933, then Taylor's painting was sold before the Nazis came to power. I reiterate the Mauthner family is being suspiciously cagey about the date.

Are we now to hold that the "holocaust era," as a member of the family calls it, extends to a period even before the Nazis came to power?

Taylor has a rock solid case, unless she comes before an addle-brained judge, which is not out of the question given the quality of some the people on the bench these days.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

The apocryphal Bucky Goldstein is for real?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Bucky Goldstein

After wasting considerable time on the internet when I should have been outside getting some fresh air like mom advised, I take pride in my googling abilities.

But this one escapes me.

?

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

LOL. Comic Steven Wright had a joke about a guy who met a nypho on a train, who claimed she only likes Jewish cowboys. Sez he: "Pleased to meet you. I'm Bucky Goldstein." or something like that.

[SJackson]

Clearly from the article you just posted, if Mauthner sold her last Van Gogh (not Taylor's painting) in 1933, then Taylor's painting was sold before the Nazis came to power. I reiterate the Mauthner family is being suspiciously cagey about the date….Are we now to hold that the "holocaust era," as a member of the family calls it, extends to a period even before the Nazis came to power?…Taylor has a rock solid case, unless she comes before an addle-brained judge, which is not out of the question given the quality of some the people on the bench these days.

I’m not sure why you think anyone is extending “the Holocaust era”. Hitler became Reichs Chancellor in Jan of 1933 and essentially controlled the country by March, when he was granted legislative power. The formal persecution of Jews was well underway by mid to late summer.

Not knowing the details of the Mauthner sale, I can't guess at what kind of case Taylor has. But if there’s more evidence out there like the gallery’s statement that "[Mauthner] would certainly not have decided upon this course of action were it not for her nephew's moving away to seek a new life in another country [South Africa], and this provides a use of the money for a purpose that is dearer to her heart than owning the painting.", indicating the sale was motivated by German oppression, she’ll need more than an addle-brained judge to prevail.

[beckett]

The whole case hinges on the date of the sale, which the Mauthners are obviously trying to conceal. But from what we know from the chronology given in this thread the painting was sold before the Nazis came to power. Are you trying to suggest that the Mauthner's sold all their Van Goghs in 1933? The report above simply states Grandma Mauthner sold her last Van Gogh (not Taylor's) in 1933. It is highly doubtful that the Mauthners, obviously a very wealthy family, were so hard up that they had to sell all their very valuable Van Goghs in a single year. My hunch is Taylor's painting was sold in 1929, which is why that date pops up in a few places in the written and oral comments of the family's lawyers.

Nazi oppression could not have motivated Grandma Mauthner in 1929. Even your suggestion that her assistance to her nephew was motivated by "German oppression" gets into dicey legal reasoning. Are you saying that all monies spent to leave Germany -- even if it amounts to enormous proceeds from the legal and voluntary sale of an expensive painting allowing the beneficiary to live a life of luxury -- are reimbursable under the 1998 law? You might have a case if it can be proven the sale was made after Hitler became Chancellor. Not before.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"I went to a restaurant that serves 'breakfast at any time.' So I ordered French toast during the Renaissance." - S.W.

8~)

[MHT]

Wouldn't a statute of limitations apply? Also, I'm surprised that the Nazi's would not destroy Van Gogh given his mental problems and imperfect representations. In fact, he was almost an inspiration to the decadent artists they despised.

[SJackson]

Are you trying to suggest that the Mauthner's sold all their Van Goghs in 1933? The report above simply states Grandma Mauthner sold her last Van Gogh (not Taylor's) in 1933. It is highly doubtful that the Mauthners, obviously a very wealthy family, were so hard up that they had to sell all their very valuable Van Goghs in a single year. My hunch is Taylor's painting was sold in 1929, which is why that date pops up in a few places in the written and oral comments of the family's lawyers.

I haven’t the faintest idea. The information isn’t there. Taylor contends that, based on her provenance from Sothebys, the painting passed legally through three post Mauthner hands, the last in 1933, and that it was never illegally seized. What happened to it from 1933 to 1963 is unclear. The Orkin’s attorney contends that Mauthner owned the painting through the 1930’s (fled Germany in 1939) , based on catalogs of van Gogh’s work in 1928 and 1939, and was still listed as owner in 1970, obviously a mistake. I don’t know what you base a 1929 sale.

Nazi oppression could not have motivated Grandma Mauthner in 1929. Even your suggestion that her assistance to her nephew was motivated by "German oppression" gets into dicey legal reasoning. Are you saying that all monies spent to leave Germany -- even if it amounts to enormous proceeds from the legal and voluntary sale of an expensive painting allowing the beneficiary to live a life of luxury -- are reimbursable under the 1998 law? You might have a case if it can be proven the sale was made after Hitler became Chancellor. Not before.

Nazi oppression wouldn’t have forced a sale in 1929, unlike 1933 Jews could legally be art dealers then. Of course other than your speculation, there’s noting to indicate a sale in 1929. I didn’t suggest a forced sale to benefit her nephew, documentation from the German gallery did. Yes, the courts have held that sales in the 1930s, mostly post 32, were consummated under extreme duress and invalid, not legal and not voluntary. Most of the art world is OK with that assessment. As to her heirs living a life of luxury, I’ve no idea what sort of life they lived, though I’m glad they got out.

[SJackson]

Wouldn't a statute of limitations apply? Also, I'm surprised that the Nazi's would not destroy Van Gogh given his mental problems and imperfect representations. In fact, he was almost an inspiration to the decadent artists they despised.

No, not in the US. Liz should have kept the painting in another country. It's resale vaule would have been impacted, but her family could have kept it.

I'd guess the Nazis would have considered van Gogh decadent, and thus subject to confiscation post 1935(and more likely sale than destruction), but there's no mention of this. Only the Nazis could draw 2 million visitors to an expostion of "decadent art", the "Exhibit of Degenerate Art in Munich"

[beckett]

Wouldn't a statute of limitations apply?

Apparently the case is being brought (if the Mauthners litigate, which so far they have not done) under a 1998 German law.

Also, I'm surprised that the Nazi's would not destroy Van Gogh given his mental problems and imperfect representations. In fact, he was almost an inspiration to the decadent artists they despised.

The Nazis never had possession of the Mauthner/Taylor Van Gogh. Everybody seems to agree on that. The legal issue hinges on whether the Mauthners were forced to sell the painting due to Nazi oppression of the Jews, a condition which the 1998 law was written to remedy.

I doubt the Nazis would have destroyed any Van Goghs though. The value of his art was already well known before they came to power, and the Nazis were nothing if not connoisseurs of great art. In fact I read an article recently, The Nazi Seduction, that makes that point very well.

[beckett]

I don’t know what you base a 1929 sale.

I meant to say 1928. The lawyers staked out a timeframe from 1928 to 1939.

The preeminent artworld authority on van Gogh, Dr. J. Baart de la Faille, confirmed in his catalogues raisonnes of both 1928 and 1939 Margarete Mauthner was the owner of the van Gogh painting during the 1930s...

Think about it. This passage was just written by the Mauthner lawyers. There is a logical error in it. Can you spot it? How could de la Faille "confirm" in 1928 that Mauther owned the painting "during the 30s?"

When lawyers make an error like that it is usually to establish something, and my hunch is they want to establish by virtue of this silly catalog (rather than get authoritative documentation from Margarete Mauthner's own records) that the Mauthners owned the painting in the late 1920s. It's deceptive and so leads me to think they actually already know she sold the painting in the late '20s.

[SJackson]

It’ll be interesting when (if) more facts come out, but I presume they intend it to confirm she owned it continuously from 1928 to 1939, or at least till 1935 (?-might be off a year) when the Decadant Art Act was passed. The piece, if known publicly, then would likely have been confiscated and sold regardless of who owned. I’d guess the piece as well as it’s ownership went underground by the mid thirties, emerging in the 60’s, a time when wartime gaps in ownership weren’t looked at very critically.

[beckett]

... but I presume they intend it to confirm she owned it continuously from 1928 to 1939...

I cannot agree. If they could prove that they already would have done so. All they have to do is produce either Margarete Mauthner's own records, or, if they have been destroyed, a family member to testify concerning the story that's been told around the family about the disposal of the Van Goghs. There is NO WAY multiple members of the family are not perfectly aware of the manner in which their ancestors disposed of artistic masterpieces produced by one of the most famous and revered painters of all time. The lawyers instead are trying to muddy the waters and divert attention by referring to scholarly catalogs that are totally irrelevant to the case. That is a dead giveaway the family wants to conceal the story of the paintings' disposal.

I even think it is reasonable to assume that Taylor only brought this lawsuit (prudent people bring lawsuits only when they are in a strong position) because she has seen or knows about some kind of documentation which proves that the painting she presently owns was sold by the Mauthners before the Nazis came to power, probably in the late '20s, and that Alfred Wolf took the painting with him to Argentina when he fled the Nazis in 1933.