Collections Ethics
The conclusion of World War II in Europe is widely recognized as occurring on May 8, 1945. For many, that was only the end of hostilities, but the agony of war continued well after VE Day. Bringing the perpetrators of severe atrocities committed during the war to justice at the Nuremburg Trials provided some element of closure for some. For others, the impact of the war continues to the current day. Personal possessions and livelihoods were lost, families were shattered, and entire cultures were nearly destroyed. The seventy-five years since the end of the Nazi regime has only demonstrated the lingering effects of such atrocities. The looting of art and subsequent dilemmas created by the Nazis epitomize the ongoing struggle to find an end to World War II. In the contemporary world, museums and galleries are thrust to the forefront of this issue based upon their possession of works suspected of acquisition through dubious means.
Thus, the instances of claimants petitioning museums and other repositories of art for the return of stolen items has been continual, if not regular. The sheer quantity of works looted, coupled with their monetary, sentimental, and cultural value underscore the magnitude of the ethical quandaries faced by institutions. These works, unlike other items simply stolen, were often accompanied by the murder or forced displacement of their rightful owners and their entire families. In addition, the document trails frequently used to establish ownership in contemporary courts was decimated through intentional acts and as collateral damage in a total war. As a result, the claims for rightful ownership often can appear arbitrary and unable to be proven. In most circumstances, this would be the end of the claim. However, that should not end the claim in situations pertaining to Nazi-looted art as the voids in the provenance trail are well beyond the control of the claimants and the defending institutions.
According to experts in the field, “Ethics are messy…and the problem with ethical decisions is we always have to make them when we are under pressure.“[1] Indeed, the cases involving art stolen by the Nazis are muddy and under the extreme pressure of public scrutiny. In any scenario concerning the ethical treatment of art stolen by the Nazis, the problems are extremely complex for a host of reasons outside the control of the claimant, the defending organization, and the individual museum professional. Beyond property legalities within the organization’s host country, the issues are further complicated by the involvement of international governments and ongoing diplomacy.[2] What governments could not resolve in the last sixty years, museums are not going to solve any time in the near future, unless the museum community moves to resolve within, but not limited to, legal constraints. They must further delve into the realm of ethical virtue.
The museums can control their response. That response must be timely and give proper dignity to any and all claims. A museum’s contribution to the ethical dilemma lies in answering the questions before the problems arise and when the pressure is not at its maximum.[3] It is imperative for an organization, especially one that collects art, to have a solid ethics plan for resolving similar situations before they are on the doorstep. This is the guiding light for conflict resolution and will prove invaluable in saving its reputation and preserving public trust.
Public trust is due extreme consideration, but also raises another issue in these contentious proceedings. Since the monetary and cultural value of the items in question are often quite significant, the parties must agree to civil discourse. Trying the case in the court of public opinion and weaponizing the public trust against the museum is likely not going to resolve the case to anyone’s satisfaction. Unfortunately, there are unethical people all over the world. There have been/ are/ will be fraudulent claims that the museum must protect its interests against. Both parties must commit to an amicable review process that abides by legal doctrine and pursues a course of ethical treatment for the situation. Emotions are removed, unnecessary gamesmanship subdued, and a unified quest for what is “right” has to be the focus. That doesn’t mean one party has to lose. It has been proven that both parties can come to an amicable, if not beneficial, relationship to one another, the item in question, and the public at large.
If the public trust of the museum is to be preserved, the museum must be proactive in strengthening its resolve towards ethical treatment of its collections. To achieve sound ethical operation, museums must require more of themselves than simply being consistent with existing laws.[4] Museums cannot hide behind the strength of laws governing related matters. They must follow through when “right” supercedes “legal.”[5] This may not please the staff, the board, or the surrounding community, but history provides myriad instances where “right” is the more difficult decision. Legalities are intended to only provide a means that ultimately arrive at a decision based on collective value-based acknowledgement of what is “right.” They are slow to evolve. They are enforced by courts who have the very distinct purpose, to be decisive for conflicting parties. But what is right in the case of stolen and recovered pieces of art is muddy, very, very muddy. If nothing else was learned from the Nazi regime, we only need look at the Nazi Nuremberg Laws enacted in 1935 to realize that legalities and popularity do not always equate to righteousness. In many cases, ethics and public opinion evolve faster than laws.[6] Due to the difficult complexities involved over the last eighty-plus years since the Nazis first plundered art works, there is no easy answer or any right argument. What is right is a case-by-case definition. For both the claimant and the defending organization, respect for one another, the item, the cultural legacy, and the contemporary public are paramount.
[1] Sally Yerkovich, “Ethical Issues in Collections Management,” webinar, Foundations for Advancement in Conservation, access on June 27, 2020 at https://www.connectingtocollections.org/ethical-issues-collections-management: 15:08.
[2] Lina M. Monten, “Soviet World War II Trophy Art in Present Day Russia: The Events, the Law, and the Current Controversies,” DePaul Journal of Art, Technology, and Intellectual Law, Vol 15, no. 4 (2004):2.
[3] Sally Yerkovich, “Ethical Issues in Collections Management,” webinar, Foundations for Advancement in Conservation, access on June 27, 2020 at https://www.connectingtocollections.org/ethical-issues-collections-management: 15:20.
[4] Rebecca A. Buck and Jean Allman Gilmore, Eds., Museum Registration Methods, 5th Edition, (Washington, D.C.: The AAM Press, 2010):399.
[5] Catherine Hickey, “She Tracked Nazi-Looted Art. She Quit When No One Returned It,” New York Times. Updated March 18,2020. Accessed June 27, 2020 at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/arts/design/georg-schafer-museum-nazi-looted-art.html.
[6] Rebecca A. Buck and Jean Allman Gilmore, Eds., Museum Registration Methods, 5th Edition, (Washington, D.C.: The AAM Press, 2010):399.