 |
Can We Learn Anything From Exhibits of Nazi-Stolen Art? |
|
| The Israel Museum has now hosted two -- count 'em, two -- exhibits about art stolen from Jews during WWII. | ||
 by Cori C, May 5, 2008 |
||
What can we learn from this painting?: The marriage portrait of Charlotte von RothschildThe Israel Museum, home of the Dead Sea Scrolls and a fantastic collection of art, has a well-deserved reputation for hosting world-renowned art exhibits. Particularly in the realm of Jewish art -- that is, art created by members of the Jewish community -- the Israel Museum most often provides a vibrant, honest experience. However, its two most recent exhibits, "Looking for Owners: Custody, Research, and Restitution of Art Stolen in France during World War II" and "Orphaned Art: Looted Art from the Holocaust," leave much to be desired.
"Looking for Owners" features pieces that the Nazis looted specifically from French Jewish communities during the Holocaust, while "Orphaned Art" features works of art looted from other European Jewish communities that were discovered in various hiding places by the Allies after the war. The art in both exhibits was collected by various organizations, professors, and graduate students who did years upon years of research in order to determine the owners of each piece and their countries of origin. An effort to return the uncovered pieces to families with legitimate ownership claims would have been an important endeavor, but instead, the entire project served as means of creating various exhibits to simply display the artwork.
Both exhibits consist of largely unrelated pieces of work that were simply owned (not created) by well-to-do Jews before the war. This alone does not establish a cultural contribution to the world of art by the Jewish community, nor do the works themselves tell us much about the lives of this portion of the Jewish community (upper-class European Jews). Instead, they merely serve as a rather mundane display of the wealth of their owners. The majority of the paintings displayed were either portraits of well-known families, such as the Rothschilds, or mediocre oil paintings of all things gold, shiny, and generally superfluous.
There are still many significant cultural contributions from pre-war Jewish communities that have yet to be salvaged from the remnants of the Holocaust. A people that, since WWII, has established a state and arguably redefined communal resilience, warrants the exhibition of more than a mere display of what was taken from them.
 |
Cori made aliyah from New York after finishing undergrad in the States. She's currently serving in the IDF Spokesperson Unit, writing, photographing and scouring the holy land for inspiration, art, reality, nice views and good times. She's a sucker More... |
He looks like a movie star, but sounds like a Torquemada
Would bombing Iran prevent a catastrophe, or cause one? On the...
Chest pelt, furry legs, fuzzy arms, butt rug…I like it like that....
Tell us who you are and we’ll tell you where to go.
Mark Ames's paltry (and sinister) explanation for school massa...
| Dev Blog | Privacy | Submissions | Contact | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | FAQ | Masthead |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
Mika
yes, but no
Being critical is important, but this piece is oversimplified. Okay---"there are still many significant cultural contributions from pre-war
Jewish communities that have yet to be salvaged from the remnants of
the Holocaust"---one can't refute that, but studying what Jews owned is not a worthless endeavor. Archaeologists spend their whole lives studying what material remains people leave behind---the non-Jewishly created paintings that victims of the Holocaust left behind tell us something about Jews in pre-war Europe...though admittedly, it's not the kind of thing we like to highlight: they were trying to assimilate. they were trying to look like Frenchmen, buy like Frenchmen and enjoy art like Frenchmen. good to know and remember.
And saying resources should be directed at restoring art to its rightful owners rather than an exhibit is a false dichotomy. Isn't the best way to find rightful owners (or much more likely, their descendants) by displaying the art in the most public (and safe) place possible? People changed their names after the Holocaust---the young state of Israel encouraged people to forget their past and their history in diaspora. most owners are likely dead or untraceable.
If you ignore the history of Jews in diaspora and especially the evidence for assimilated Jewish behavior, you're not seeing the full picture.
Cori C
no, but yes
The pieces were displayed as an art exhibit. The art exhibit was repetitive and mediocre, and had the pieces come from anywhere else, there wouldn't be many people there to see it.
Archaeologists provide new information, which is why "what people owned" is historically significant--- we already KNOW that the European elite in the pre-WWII era had a lot of money, which is why this collection, which told us absolutely nothing else, is less significant, than say, what they're digging up at the Temple Mount.
As for finding owners, it's a bit more complicated than you think. Do you have any idea how unlikely it is for someone to figure out that their family actually OWNED one of these pieces? It requires extensive research, research that most Jews wouldn't have a reason to do. It's naive to think that this exhibit will simply be a forum for people to locate art that belonged to their families a couple of generations ago.
Cori C
http://cori-c.blogspot.com
coriac@gmail.com
Mika
another look
According to the Israel Museum exhibition notes (http://www.imj.org.il/exhibitions/2008/MNR/english.html)
"...the French government continues active provenance research and restitution efforts. To help illuminate this ongoing process, the Mattéoli Commission, formed in 1997 by
then-Prime Minister Alain Juppé to study the matter of Jewish property
restitution in France, recommended an exhibition of MNR works at the
Israel Museum at the appropriate time."
In light of this statement, we may see this exhibition as more of a PR effort on behalf of France to counteract all the anti-semitic news emanating from there recently. It's in the museum of Israel as proof that France is investing time and money in trying to amend historical wrongs (even as it fails to suppress contemporary religious strife).
That teaches us something--simply dismissing an art exhibit as boring without reflecting on its cultural and political context does not.
Cori C
...
I see it as a feeble attempt on France's part, as you also semi-implied, and the expanded explanation that is actually present at the museum talks about the various struggles to find funding, etc. in order to "amend historical wrongs." In any case, despite my general skepticism, I agree that if this is indeed a result of the exhibit--- great.
I did a LOT of reflecting re: this exhibit's cultural and political context. I maintan that much of the art owned by these families in particular didn't showcase much other than wealth. It didn't speak volumes about impending doom, it didn't show any sort of artistic expression of the times (historically, politically or otherwise) other than in a very simplistic way. It is possible to analyze collections of art without fabricating themes of substance that simply aren't there.
Cori C
http://cori-c.blogspot.com
coriac@gmail.com
Post new comment