🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish pair have initiated legal proceedings against The Met, asserting that a Vincent van Gogh art piece was stolen by Nazi forces.

Case History

Per the court documents, Hedwig and Frederick Stern bought the piece, titled Olive Harvest, in the year 1935. A year after, they were compelled to leave their home in the German city of Munich just before World War II.

The complaint argues that the institution, which obtained the painting in the 1950s for a significant sum, must have realized it was almost certainly stolen property. The descendants are now seeking the return of the artwork along with damages.

In the decades since the war, this plundered piece has been often and discreetly exchanged, acquired and disposed of in and through New York, claims the court document.

Family's Flight

The Stern family departed from Munich to the United States in 1936 with their offspring due to persecution by the Nazis. However, they were unable to bring the painting, which was painted by the celebrated artist in 1889.

Before they left, Nazi authorities designated the masterpiece as a German cultural asset and forbade the Sterns from bringing it with them. Once approved from a regime representative, a trustee appointed by the authorities sold the painting on the Sterns' behalf. But, the funds from the auction were deposited in a restricted account, which the authorities later took.

Later Transactions

In 1948, or not long after, the artwork was brought to the United States and was acquired by a prominent figure, one of America's wealthiest people. Eventually, it was transferred through a art dealer to the Met, which then sold it to Greek shipping magnate Goulandris and his wife, Elise, in 1972.

The Greek couple established the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which manages a gallery in the Greek capital where the artwork is currently shown.

Court Allegations

The institution and a surviving nephew of the magnate are identified in the suit. The filing states that the Goulandris family and its associated organizations have covered up the artwork's provenance and whereabouts from the plaintiffs.

Even now, the Goulandris Defendants continue to obscure the circumstances the BEG came into control of the piece; the couple's ownership of the artwork from several years; and the facts that the Third Reich stole the artwork from the heirs, forced the couple into disposing of it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and seized the funds of the deal.

Previous Legal Action

The Stern heirs submitted a similar complaint in CA in the year 2022, but it was rejected in the following years. An further action was also dismissed in recently.

Institution's Statement

The legal action argues that the institution's buying of the artwork was approved by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the museum's curator of European paintings and a renowned specialist on Nazi-era looted art. Rousseau and the Met were aware or ought to have been aware that the artwork had probably been looted by the Nazis.

The museum said in a statement that it is committed to its longstanding commitment to address Nazi-era claims.

A spokesperson remarked: At no time during The Met's ownership of the piece was there any documentation that it had once belonged to the Stern family – in fact, that knowledge did not become known until several decades after the masterpiece left the Met's possession.

The institution's deaccessioning of Olive Picking met the Met's guidelines for deaccessioning – namely, it was noted that the work was considered to be of lesser quality than other pieces of the same type in the collection. While the museum upholds its view that this piece entered the collection and was sold legally and well within all standards and procedures, the institution invites and will examine any further evidence that comes to light.

BEG's Response

Legal counsel representing the foundation said: BEG is a highly prestigious organization in the Greek capital. The effort to sue and smear the institution and the Goulandris family in the United States upon deceptive and insufficient accusations was earlier rejected, on two occasions. We are confident it will be again.