What makes the Portrait of Wally case so significant?
It was the initiative taken by the US government that made all the
difference [in the Portrait of Wally case], signalling that it would expend
national resources to seek justice
By Judith H. Dobrzynski. Web only
Published online: 24 April 2012
If true art aims to change the world, perhaps no picture
has proven as successful lately as Egon Schiele’s 1912 tender, traditional
portrait of his mistress, Wally Neuzil. Far less graphic and edgy than the
works that made Schiele’s reputation, the painting is nevertheless destined for
iconhood because of its history as Nazi loot and the 13-year legal battle waged
for it, which was finally resolved in a 2010 settlement between the estate of
Lea Bondi Jaray, the US government and the Leopold Museum in Vienna. Now the
subject of a documentary called “Portrait of Wally,” which is due to premiere
at the Tribeca Film Festival in New
York on 28 April, the case and the painting are
headed for more attention.
There have been plenty of restitution claims, before and
after, involving better works and more money. But early on in “Portrait of
Wally”, Willi Korte, an independent researcher who co-founded the Holocaust Art
Restitution Project, rightly says, “I can’t think of any other case that had
this effect, this significance. It is the case, out of all art restitution
cases that I can think of, that really shaped the discussion for the following
years.”
Why?
I was present at the start, at the Museum
of Modern Art (MoMA) on 8 October
1997, for the opening of “Egon Schiele: The Leopold Collection, Vienna ,” which included
Wally. There, Jane Kallir, the director of Galerie St Etienne, who knew the
painting’s story, whispered the words “Nazi connection” in my ear, and as she
says in the film, “That was the beginning of events that I think none of us in
our wildest dreams could have anticipated at that moment.” I went on to report
and write about Rudolf Leopold, and his many questionable collecting and
conservation tactics, in a catalytic article published in The New York Times on
24 December 1997.
Before long, Bondi’s heirs had petitioned MoMA, to no
avail, and gone to the government for help. When a subpoena from the Manhattan
District Attorney to keep the painting in the US
failed in New York State court, the US Customs Service seized Wally as
stolen property that had been imported in violation of federal law, and the US
government filed an action to retrieve the painting permanently on behalf of
the heirs.
The revelations about Leopold and Wally caused an uproar in
Austria ,
and by the fall of 1998, the Austrian government had passed a new restitution
law, admitting that it was prompted because of Wally. But it was the initiative
taken by the US
government that made all the difference, signalling that it would expend
national resources to seek justice in such cases.
A few additional elements made the case possible. For one,
the government could never have acted if the painting had not already been in America —and
that has simply not been true in other restitution claims. For another, the
case quickly became a cause celebre for the media, with interest moving beyond
the Times to radio, television and the print press in the US and—this is key—in
Austria. Yes, some media outlets in Austria took Leopold’s side, but
others subjected him to tough scrutiny. Meanwhile, MoMA, which actively opposed
the government’s actions on behalf of the Bondis, was joined by a raft of American
museums that placed their ability to borrow art from abroad above finding out
who actually owned Wally.
In my original 1997 article—“The Zealous Collector: A
Singular Passion For Amassing Art, One Way or Another”—Glenn D. Lowry, the
director of MoMA, warned, “one must be very careful about applying the
standards of today to things that happened in the past.” Fair enough,
sometimes. But not, now, when it comes to Nazi-looted art.
Portrait
of Wally is screening during the Tribeca Film Festival on Saturday 28 April
at the SVA Theater and on Sunday 29 April at AMC Loews Village 7
No comments:
Post a Comment