There are lots of posters on the Tube and other places about this exhibition of Russian-owned art at London’s Royal Academy. Henry Matisse’s “The Dancers” is shown in the adverts; I am not a massive Matisse fan, but the sheer variety and quality of the work on show is tempting.
A problem I have, however, is that these works were stolen from their original buyers back in the Russian Revolution or in the 1920s (ironically, Stalin wanted to destroy some of this stuff because he considered it to be “decadent”). I am not really comfortable in looking at something that has been stolen from a private owner; I feel slightly the same way about taking tours around ancient buildings that are no longer owned by their original owners because they have been forced to sell up due to massive death duties, now transferred to such bodies as the National Trust. One might argue, of course, that aristocrats who own massive stately piles are not worth too much sympathy since their families may have come into these lands as a result of earlier hand-outs.
Oh well, I fear my curiosity will overcome my squeamishness. It pays to book early: this exhibition looks to be a sell-out. Thanks to regular Samizdata commenter Julian Taylor for suggesting that I write about this topic.
As arbitrary as it may seem, the cutoff point is living memory. Culpability for historical wrongs committed longer ago than a mans life has always struck me as ultimately futile. 1920 strikes me as just long enough ago that questions of rightful historical ownership border on meaninglessness. Others might take a different view
Perhaps becoming old, chronologically at least, and having spent some existence in Rome and other truly old cities, reflection raises the question; can Art be possessed?
What becomes of performing Art, when the venue is ended? Is it gone, does it reside within experience?
And so the view of physical Art, even a “stolen” glimpse.
Is it not likely residence in experience means more than possession?
Art tends to have provenance which can often be very well established and can go a very long way back. So Jerome, I would say that if our Great*4 Grandpappy had a painting which was stolen and it’s possible to make restitution to you than why not.
Contrast that with the same Great*4 Grandpappy losing his farm in a rigged poker game… That’s much harder to prove, surely?
I do see a couple of problems to do with something having legitimately changed hands many times subsequently and then there’s this problem: say it was my Great*4 Grandpappy who half-inched it and it’s stayed in my family and come down to me. Should I lose my fave piccy and essentially be punished for the actions of an ancestor? Yeah, I’m coming round to the living memory idea.
Oh, and this restitution should only apply to individuals and their families. I’ll be buggered if I’m suggesting the Bubbles should get the Elgin Marbles back.
“The Original of Laura” leapt to my mind when I read the title of this post, even though I don’t suppose anything will have been stolen, exactly, if Nabokov’s expressed wishes are ultimately disregarded.
Just in writing of “expressed” wishes being “disregarded” — instead of flouted — I show how much I’d like to believe he never really meant it.
Actually, I’ve been well on my way to believing just that ever since I heard that a decision may be imminent. I’m a little more than half-hoping the manuscript’s current (rightful?) owner will allow my curiosity the chance to overcome my qualms about reading what the author forbade his inheritors to keep, much less share. But if he doesn’t, I suppose I’ll just have to sigh and consider that he did the right thing.
…Okay, but the quantity of illegitimately acquired property in this world is just staggering.
While I appreciate that teh Soviets are teh devil and this exhibition is a reminder of how lasting the legacy of their injustices are, just about anything paid for with your tax dollars is illegitimate wealth. If respecting the Russian’s control over these paintings is so painful, then I can only hope that you’re consistent and that respecting the property rights of major corporations strikes you as likewise repugnant.
JP: Your analogy has one minor flaw. While British aristocrats were forced to sell, they got paid for their goods, if unfairly.
Previous Russian owners of artefacts, however, were not. On the contrary, they had to pay, in many cases with their lives and/or liberty, for having treasures in their possession.
I think that rightful ownership should be upheld, if the rightful owners were alive at the time of the last purchase, and it can be proved that the current owner was aware of that at that time.
I remember seeing The Dancers at MOMA – thought they owned it.
Another problem is that Gordon Brown appears to be on the verge on making a truly monumental error in the question of true ownership of art treasures. At present Sergei Shchukin and Ivan Morozov could file suits against the Hermitage Museum or the Museum of Fine Arts Pushkin Museum demanding the return of the paintings by Matisse (including ‘The Dance’) that earlier belonged to these collectors forebears and were stolen by the Soviet state. James Purnell, the Culture and MSM Secretary, said he was bringing forward the implementation of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (which protects cultural objects on loan to this country from seizure or forfeiture) by a month to cover the exhibition which would provide a ‘guarantee’ to the Russians that the real owners would have no right to legal redress for the theft.
Putting the issue of a British government giving its carte blanche approval to totalitarian state theft aside for a moment, one wonders what would now happen with works of art stolen by the Nazis, let alone the potential of the Greek government to now maintain that the Elgin Marbles should be returned. As usual we are seeing knee-jerk policy from a government bereft of both guts and foresight.
Alisa,
That’s MoMA NYC? Hmm… so do I, I think there’s several versions but the Russian one is considered definitive or something.
Nick, now that you mention it, I seem to recall MoMa having more than one on display – I am too lazy (and supposed to be busy) to check now.
Stolen works robbed from Holocaust victims etc should not really be shown publicy until returned from their rightful owners. The people who derive profit (financial or otherwise) from the the works should be prohibited from displaying their works.
Agreed but why limit it to that? What about works stolen by any government?
…one wonders what would now happen with works of art stolen by the Nazis.
Julian touches on a point that really gripped my shit when the possible cancellation of the Russian exhibition was in the news.
We can probably all recall the hullabaloo a few years back surrounding the return of art looted by the evil Nazis. Yet in the case of art looted by cash-strapped Soviets this government is willing to change the law to protect the looters. And the proposed change in the law was greeted with cries of approbation by all those artsy-fartsy review programmes on the Beeb.
Why is this? Sauce, goose, gander, right? Apparently not.
So how is the looting of art by leftist governments more acceptable to a Labour governments than looting by extreme right-wing governments*? Oh wait, that’s a silly question, of course.
* Yes, yes, I know. But it is the generally accepted usage regardless of its inaccuracy.
Aristocrats who let things go to such an extent that the State loots their property don’t deserve much sympathy, because (in the UK at least) it’s not really that hard to plan around this problem.
Those who saw it coming (think of the Northumberlands and the Devonshires, to name but two) are mostly still in their properties, one way and another.
Before anyone jumps on me, this doesn’t justify the State’s crimes of course.
Since the consensus leans towrd Art as property rather than as experience, and much is made of the Soviet disregard of “property:”
Read: Property and Freedom [ISBN 0-375-404398-8] (1999) by Richard Pipes, the emminent historian of the the Russian Revolution and the Russian regimes.
The concept is for those of a Libertarian bent.
What about works stolen by any government?
There is something to be said for a chronological cutoff of some kind, much like a statute of limitations. There is a very great value to certainty and predictability when it comes to property rights.
Perhaps only the original owners, or their immediate descendants, could demand return of stolen works?
Up to a point, Lord Copper (to quote Evelyn Waugh). For starters, if it were so easy for owners of large landed estates to “plan around this problem”, then I would expect far more such owners would have done so; in truth, only a small number of especially well-connected people, usually playing to their political connections, were able to go on living in their estates which were run for the benefit of the National Trust, etc. That is not something that frankly is, or should be, acceptable to anyone who cares tuppence for property rights.
So let me get this straight: you don’t have much sympathy for people who were looted by the taxman because, in their naivete, they failed to “see it coming”. Talk about blaming the victim.
It doesn’t, but I jumped on you just the same.
If the rightful owner is alive the property should be returned to them.
Even if there is only a relative still alive (who was alive at the time of the theft) it should be returned to them.
But I am a little uncomfortable with the sort of notion of “this painting [or house, or land] belonged to my great, great, great grandfather, therefore it is mine.
The link seems to go if there has been a break of several generations.
Although, I confess, I am influenced by Roman law notions on the subject.
Paul,
This is an interesting topic with many potential pitfalls. I think, for example, of the US/Native American treaty abrogations. There are lots of potential problems. Maybe some time you can tell us what various thinkers have thought about these kinds of cases, what they saw as the relevant principles and factors.