The painting Image with Häusern by Wassily Kandinsky may linger in the Stedelijk Museum. The City of Amsterdam, which owns the artwork, does not have to return it to Robert Lewenstein’s heirs. They argue that Lewenstein sold the painting in 1940 under pressure from the Nazis. The court concludes that an earlier decision of the Restitutions Committee has no serious flaws.
In 2018, the Restitutions Committee decided that the museum may keep the painting. The court did not repeat the investigation into whether the Kandinsky could be classified as looted art, but merely examined whether the committee had reached its conclusion correctly. The heirs themselves had agreed in advance with the municipality to accept the committee’s advice, which is binding, the court motivates the decision.
At the hearing, the heirs also argued that the committee was biased and that there was a conflict of interest. Four of the seven members of the committee are affiliated with the Stedelijk Museum in one way or another, for example because they are members of the business club or work for a sponsor of the museum. If there had really been a conflict of interest, the heirs should have raised the alarm earlier and not have to wait for a decision by the committee, the judge finds.
Marching Nazis
Lewenstein’s heirs went to the municipality of Amsterdam in 2012 to request the painting back. Together they agreed that the Restitutions Committee should consider the matter. He conducted research for four years.
The purchase in 1940 for 160 guilders was, according to the heirs, effected under duress. They pointed out to the court that Robert Lewenstein’s financial situation was so good that it was not necessary to sell the painting. “The Nazis marched past their offices on the Dam. To label the auction of art objects of the Lewenstein family as voluntary can be qualified as bizarre,” said Simon van der Sluijs’s lawyer of the heirs.
No emotional connection
The Restitutions Committee did not agree. According to them, the municipality acted “in good faith”. And the researchers concluded that Lewenstein had already run into trouble before the German invasion. The sale must “have been caused by deteriorated financial conditions,” the commission said.
The committee also ruled that the Stedelijk Museum has a greater interest in keeping the work. The committee stated that the painting “has an important art-historical value and forms an essential link in the limited overview of Kandinsky’s work within the museum’s collection”. The heirs have not been shown to have “emotional or other intense attachment” to the work, the committee found.
Basically incorrect
The judge is of the opinion that the committee has rightly taken into account those interests. But in the light of a recent evaluation of the Restitutions Committee’s work, this statement is striking.
Last week, a report was presented to Minister Van Engelshoven of Education, Culture and Science, which includes the committee. That evaluation report states that it is “fundamentally wrong” to weigh the interests of museums in the consideration of whether or not to return alleged looted art.
The evaluation committee was headed by Jacob Kohnstamm. He called the policy on the basis of which the Restitutions Committee makes decisions “extremely opaque”. “It consists of fifteen notes, letters from ministers and state secretaries. Completely unclear to anyone who wants to know whether a claim has a chance.” According to Kohnstamm, it is up to the minister whether the recommendations of the evaluation committee should also be applied to already completed matters.