Japanese company defends Van Gogh ownership after lawsuit

Meanwhile, poor old Vincent made nothing at all out of it.

If anyone should be sued it should be the auction house for selling”Nazi-tainted artwork”

or how about ‘suicide-tainted artwork’ ?

Its all a bit ridiculous.

If it was seized by the Nazies then any ownership right after are void. Pretty simple.

In such cases yes, it is simple. But in this case it isn’t. The artwork wasn’t seized by the Nazis. Rather it was sold by its owner, who was a Jewish banker being persecuted by the Nazis, to an art dealer who later sold it on (along with several other works that have been the subject of similar litigation by the descendants).

So the case turns on whether that initial sale was legitimate or not. I’m not sure which way that decision would go, it depends on the evidence of what happened. If the Nazis coerced him into the sale against his will then I’d say it was illegitimate. On the other hand if he was just selling it because he needed cash, even if the reason he needed cash was that he feared potential persecution, I’m not so sure that itself affects the legitimacy of the sale.

When I used to date Japanese office ladies in the 1980s and 90s, it used to make my blood boil that they had to work 10 hours a day for 160,000 yen a month while their corporate bosses were using the companies' enormous surplus funds to buy famous and very expensive art pieces and other vanity objects.

Strange that the lawyers acting for the heirs of Mendelssohn-Bartholdy family should be suing for its return in the US, being as the painting is firmly staying on display in Japan. It last left it's home gallery in Tokyo 21 years ago for an exhibition in Chicago, and the Japanese lawyers and insurers were careful enough at the time to slap a non-seizure agreement on it by the authorities there.

Looks like substantial legal fees are going to accrue in the defence of Sompo Holdings retaining their seemingly-legitimate ownership of this fabulous work. I've been lucky enough to see all 5 of his Sunflowers series, just epic art.

Wonder how a banker acquired the picture at the time? People who purchase those things for large sums are all not very virtuous. Wonder where that money came from, some kind of exploitation for sure.

Discussing who is the legitimate owner is just a quarrel among thugs.

It wasn't Stolen, so if anyone wants it!! Buy It , simple as that.

Describing the former owner thus is problematic journalism to say the least. Doesn't matter that he was Jewish. Doesn't matter that he was a banker.

Good journalism provides context and colour to a story. Otherwise, it wouldn't be relevant to mention the owner was a Japanese company, or that the Nazi's were involved, or that the decendents of the family are in America. And yet, all those facts are there, to provide context and colour.

...at Christie's in London for $40 million...

We had a reproduction of it hanging in our living room, when I was growing up. I'll bet it didn't even cost $40. :-)

It was sold at auction, it stays in Japan..

It was sold by a International known Auction house. So if there is a force return This Auction House will be proven to have sold it illegally and are open to sued by the buyer. So I only see this getting thrown out in the end and stuck in a legal battle for decades. And in the mean time remaining in the Japanese owner hands until proven. Then you will have the legal battle to retain the painting will begin which will last more decades and in the mean time remaining in Japan.

How can one show what the motive was for sale? 

Yeah, that is the problem, the events occurred 90 years ago, and the guy himself died just a year later, so there really isn't much evidence to go on.

With cases involving actual seizures by the Nazis this isn't so much of an issue because the Nazis themselves kept records of it which provide pretty definitive proof. In this case the Nazis, or the German state, weren't directly involved in what was a private transaction so that kind of evidence probably doesn't exist.

A ridiculous amount of money was paid for this picture in 1987. The motive for Sompo Holdings paying for such an overpriced amount have puzzled many over the years.

The auction house merely acts as an agent of sale. They are not liable. Caveat emptor.

The many forced sales of Jewish collections are regarded as Nazi crimes by reputable courts.

Provenance is everything for art. Don't touch anything that doesn't have a clean bill of health 1935-1950. It may eventually return home leaving you out of pocket. The same goes for expensive, rare books as there have been many thefts. Due diligence is wise.

Nobody should rely on their lawyers or local legal system to save their skin. 'We love our Nazi loot' is a lousy motto for a business.

Maybe it should go to his family. His brother Theo van Gogh had a son, who founded the museum, and his descendants are alive today. Just kidding leave it where it is.

Lol. If the owner merely wishes for it to return to their hands i might sympathize, but to demand hundred of millions because they are getting greedy is the worse. They ain't getting it back.

@rainyday

How can one show what the motive was for sale? The parties involved are likely no longer living, so there is no witness testimony, and it'd be only documents and historical reference, of which likely would be open to interpretation.

'He needed the money' is not proof. 'He was coerced' is not either, without said parties actually testifying. Even written statements would be subjective...I was coerced or I sold because I needed the money...how is that not arguable in court if it isn't legally documented?

Seems like a can of worms with no way to determine what actually happened.

"in reckless disregard of its provenance, including Mendelssohn-Bartholdy's forced sale of the painting in Nazi Germany in 1934".

Strange article. It's like something is missing from the story here.

Do the right thing.

Van Gogh's sunflower paintings are all different.

https://medium.com/national-gallery-of-australia/the-seven-sunflowers-7784b0f364fe

If they felt the need for such measures shows they were well aware of the inadequacy of their title to the piece.

Not necessarily, all art of a certain age comes with possible problems more often related to family disputes.

A purchase of 2 Salvador Dali sketches ended up in court battle 10 years after purchase at an auction in New York.

I purchased them for a Canadian client in New York.

10 years later a family member of the seller claimed ownership trying to say the sketches belong to her.

This is why most Auction houses do not guarantee or take any responsibility for authenticity or the origin of acquisition.

Yes they do check if the items are on stolen property listings from the local police but they do not do an international search or research any family or international disputes.

Christie's Auction House honors 25 years of Nazi-confiscated art restitution efforts

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-728793

Restitution: how these Old Master works confiscated by the Gestapo were returned more than six decades later

https://www.christies.com/features/Reunited-three-Old-Masters-from-the-Priester-Collection-11985-1.aspx

Van Gogh suffered from psychotic episodes and delusions and he worried about his mental stability, he often neglected his physical health, did not eat properly, and drank heavily. He was commercially unsuccessful during his lifetime, and he was considered a madman and a failure, and he only became famous after his suicide. He shot himself in the chest.

Produces immortal artwork then trust fund jugglers of capital East and West come in and buy his work and flip it for immense profits and buy another house or three, or yacht.

The Circle of Life.

What's the fuss? My question, if there was 5 originals, who's to say this is, or is not one of the 5 paintings. It could well be one of the other 4 paintings. We need more information for positive identification rights!

**The artwork -- one of five original versions of the famous still life** -- was purchased by the predecessor of insurance firm Sompo Holdings at Christie's in London for $40 million, making it briefly the world's most expensive painting.

Paintings like this one are only sold when the provenance is checked. Proven stolen Nazi art is returned to the original owners.

The owners produced photos of the painting hanging in their apartment.

"According to the complaint, Nazi laws that targeted Jewish banks crippled Mendelssohn-Bartholdy financially, forcing him to sell some works in his art collection — which included pieces by Pablo Picasso, Vincent van Gogh, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, and Georges Braque."

"The complaint is only the latest in an ongoing saga as Mendelssohn-Bartholdy’s heirs seek restitution of his collection. Thus far, they have filed lawsuits against the Museum of Modern Art, the Guggenheim Museum, the Andrew Lloyd Webber Foundation, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., and the German state of Bavaria for the restitution of five paintings by Pablo Picasso."

"Settlements were reached on three of the cases while one — against the National Gallery of Art — resulted in the return of Picasso’s “Head of a Woman” to the family."

The filing refers to the sale as a “paradigmatic forced transfer,”

More than 30,000 pieces of art are still missing. Thousands of items have been returned.

This insurance company can afford to make the right action.

If the family can show the sale was forced by the Nazi regime as part of their persecution of the Jewish Germans then no valid title was passed and thus none can be passed to subsequent purchasers.

It last left it's home gallery in Tokyo 21 years ago for an exhibition in Chicago, and the Japanese lawyers and insurers were careful enough at the time to slap a non-seizure agreement on it by the authorities there.

If they felt the need for such measures shows they were well aware of the inadequacy of their title to the piece.

TokyoLiving, sale at auction is irrelevant, it can convey no better title than the seller has.

Yeh honestly, the right thing for them to do is return it. Though the original owner's family also asking for a hundred million dollars in addition is really trying to milk the whole WW2 Era Guilt angle a bit excessively, I think. Which might work on self-hating Caucasians, but won't on the Japanese. So these demands won't go anywhere.

Realistically, the family will probably be able to buy the painting back at some point, and then they can sell it to another bidder for even more money. Which let's be honest, is all this is about anyway.

Why demand for its return only now?

Why not at any time after 1934?

Or even just before it's sale in 1987

Equally puzzling is that the owner once threatened to destroy the painting.

Did they wait until all of the tainted artworks were all sold first before demanding the returns?

They say Sompo's predecessor, Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance, acquired the painting "in reckless disregard of its provenance, including Mendelssohn-Bartholdy's forced sale of the painting in Nazi Germany in 1934".

Much of the artworld has become the playground of oligarchical dark money, while artists are not benefitiing.

I imagine much of Japan Inc. pines for the day when they were gobbling up premium real state and treasures abroad.

Now they have to just be content with squeezing Japanese workers and consumers for all they are worth with the help of their LDP partners.

Stolen by Nazis and the demand of Jewish, who are experts in playing victim card, ask for billions of compensation from last century, for a piece of paper with some splurges of paint.

how about compensation for Palestinians? The shocking crimes are happening right now, this minute. House demolition, murdering children is more important than a painting.

(BTW I have seen those paintings in person, so I’m not anti-art)

A Jewish banker and the Nazis, you couldn't make this stuff up, or could you?

Then compensation is the responsibility of the German government.

No doubt, if the Japanese don’t, it’ll be the Germans who will ultimately pay. An obscene amount too, far dwarfing the trivial in comparison sum which Japan’s neighbors over the ditch are asking for in the way of compensation for high crimes committed against them back in the day.

Cricky

Today 07:48 am JST

If it was seized by the Nazies then any ownership right after are void. Pretty simple.

Then compensation is the responsibility of the German government.

This was not "stolen" in the criminal code sense, but in a government seizure or expropriation way.

So all the owners after that have the reasonable expectation that the purchase is legal.

So the Only guilty party and only one responsible is Germany!

If the artwork was purchased through Christie’s, then it’s a legitimate transaction, isn’t it?

Also, isn’t Christie’s more responsible as the seller?

@Septim really sad to hear that. Globalism really is a pest

Globalism really is a pest

I know a lot of people use globalist and globalism as dog whistles in regards to Antisemitism, is that how you are using it? If not, what do you mean by globalism?

Now they have to just be content with squeezing Japanese workers and consumers for all they are worth with the help of their LDP partners.

Yep, it's the life cycle of serfdom in a neo-feudal Japan that has been continuing uninterrupted.

I imagine much of Japan Inc. pines for the day when they were gobbling up premium real state and treasures abroad.

Ironically, these Japanese elites now become servants to the Chinese, Southeast Asian, and Western dark money. I have a real estate agent in Kyoto and Osaka telling me how the Chinese gobbled up everything but no one in the Japanese population knows because of a secretive network of "avatars" holding those assets. Many old-aged companies are now owned by the Chinese.

Japan has ironically become a paradise for foreign vultures and elite dark money.

Jewish banker Paul von Mendelsohn-Bartholdy

Describing the former owner thus is problematic journalism to say the least. Doesn't matter that he was Jewish. Doesn't matter that he was a banker.

If it was seized by the Nazies then any ownership right after are void. Pretty simple.

The right thing to do is to give it back since it was a stolen piece of property and sold on the black market under the guise of an auction. However, doing the right thing is not always favored by the ones who obtain the piece of art by illegal means. Always act on the right thing to do is the motto of winners.