This is important because it is due to this elephant in the room: in the fall of 2024, two episodes of Deutschlandradio-Podcast “Tatort Art” appeared, which were quite broken. “The Heritage of Dankls Hanover” was a double episode, about which TAZ also reported in addition to many others. It was about the Jewish family of Levy, which since 2008 restored the still life of the flower grinder from the impressionist artist Lovis Corinant. The family, which was now based in Brazil, believes that this picture was lost in the Nazi era and would like to return it.
Almost until then, that is, 17 years old, Annette Baumann, a specially used researcher of Hanover, explores even after the winding paths on which the picture fell into the possession of the city. The fact that this possession was problematic was clear for a long time: the picture is one of 114 works of art that Hanover bought from Konrad Dubbek in 1949. He never hid the fact that he demolished several pieces of desperate Jews in the Nazi era. This arises from the received correspondence.
In the direct period, the post -wave of the then head of the state gallery Ferdinand Stutmann did not matter. – Like the director of the museum in other German cities – he sought first to close the gaps that arose as a result of the confiscation of “degenerate art” and damage to the war.
As one of the first cities Throughout the country, Osnabruk approved a new arbitration process of returning the Nazi robbery. The Council unanimously decided on July 1, said the city in advance. At the same time, she undertakes to recognize the decision of the new arbitration court, which in disputes decides on the return of city cultural assets that were stolen from Jewish or other pursued owners in the era of the Nazi era.
The regulation takes place From the “Advisory Commission of the Nazi robbery”, the recommendations of which, on the contrary, were not legally mandatory. It is intended to strengthen the rights of victims and ensure fair, fair and court decisions for return issues. The introduction of arbitration agreed with federal, state and municipal umbrella organizations in March. The German day of the city recommends that its members quickly make decisions as this happened in Znabruk.
Evaluate The new procedure should be after ten arbitration statements, but recently in three years. (EPD/TAZ)
In two other cases, the city of Hanover has already returned works from the Dubbek collection. So this is by no means the case when you fundamentally refuse restitution, as the director of the Sprengel museum, the Reinhard player, emphasized, again emphasized that evening.
Only in the case of collecting something has become strange. Deutschlandradio editor Stefan Coldechoff makes the city with two accusations of podcast: first that it does not correspond to adequate communication with Levis’s heirs and shares the results of their research. Secondly, they tried to systematically annul the evidence that the family and her lawyer brought her lawyer and to make Levis’s deficiency – although Washington’s principles on predatory art actually provide him the other way around.
The presentation of the results of the study would be a good opportunity to comment on the accusations. But it was better to expand the Baumann lecture and the subsequent panel discussion for so long that it is unlikely that it remained at any time for questions from the audience. When the question expected by many many appeared on the podcast, the director of the Museum Reinhard the player raised it with three sentences: you will have to criticize a lot about this podcast, but did not want to do it here, and under no circumstances you will refuse restitution. Dot. From.
How this criticism met, and the pain became very clear before that between the lines, for example, in Die Presse. Inexperienced handling of criticism is also a shame, because this story overshadows the work of Baumann.
The Provenance researcher has a point of view if – on the catwalk supported by her colleague Claudia Andrachka from the State Museum – she says that the pressure, in order to expect the public, often bites the conditions in the study of origin: some want to finally explain the problem before the last injured people die – you are waiting for a long time. Others are fighting with huge gaps in the tradition of various and widely absent -minded sources, constantly depend on happy coincidences, should increase the enormous tolerance of disappointment, because they run again and again in the dead ends -in the area, which is chronically underestimated and equipped. Narrow staff is usually also in time positions, which is not very well tolerated in conditions that needs such research.
Not only for experts
The book of more than 300 pages in which Baumann poured its current level of research has some treasures and conclusions – not only for experts. The biography of only Dubbeks is surprisingly interesting. The application, for example, has letters in which the director of art halls in Hamburg and Bremen is quite clearly blasphemy about this strange collector from Berlin-Vevzey. After the war ended, he tried to return with growing despair. And, in the end, he was shot at the border of the Russian sector, where he was sick and, in the visible, embarrassed – he was disagreeable with his American evasion.
“EAT – Acted” traces the current state of knowledge about the origin for 37 works of art from the Dubbek collection – some cases ultimately turn out to be trouble -free, other shots of light on the fate of the persecution, which otherwise would have knew little. The researcher of Provenance does not dare to judge the picture of the Levy Corinth family: the case should be represented by the new arbitration tribunal, which should start his work this year and replace the so -called Limbach commission.
