🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish spouses have filed a lawsuit against New York's Metropolitan Museum, alleging that a the Dutch artist oil painting was looted by Nazi forces.

Case History

As stated in the lawsuit, Hedwig and Frederick Stern acquired the artwork, titled Olive Harvest, in the mid-1930s. Just one year later, they were compelled to leave their residence in Munich prior to WWII.

The suit argues that the Met, which purchased the painting in the 1950s for a significant sum, must have realized it was likely looted property. The family are now requesting the return of the painting along with damages.

In the decades since WWII, this stolen artwork has been frequently and covertly traded, bought and sold in and through the city of New York, states the court document.

The Sterns' Escape

The Sterns fled from their Munich home to the United States in 1936 with their large family due to persecution by the Nazis. Yet, they were prevented from taking the Van Gogh piece, which was produced by the celebrated artist in the late 19th century.

Before the family's emigration, the Nazi government classified the painting as German cultural property and banned the Sterns from exporting it. Once approved from a Nazi official, a representative appointed by the Nazis sold the piece on the Sterns' behalf. But, the proceeds from the transaction were held in a restricted account, which the regime later confiscated.

Subsequent Ownership

Around 1948, or soon after, the painting entered NYC and was acquired by Vincent Astor, among the richest individuals in the US. Later, it was exchanged through a gallery to the Met, which then passed it on to wealthy Greek businessman the magnate and his spouse, Mrs. Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

The Greek couple founded the Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which operates a institution in Athens where the masterpiece is currently exhibited.

Court Allegations

BEG and a family member of Goulandris are listed as respondents. The filing states that the defendants and its associated organizations have concealed and disguised the masterpiece's history and whereabouts from the family.

Even now, the foundation continue to conceal the manner and time the BEG came into ownership of the Painting; the Stern family's ownership of the Painting from 1935 to 1938; and the truth that the regime looted the canvas from the family, pressured the Sterns into parting with it via a trustee, and confiscated the money of the transaction.

Earlier Lawsuits

The descendants submitted a similar complaint in California in recently, but it was rejected in the following years. An legal challenge was also denied in recently.

Institution's Statement

The complaint states that the Met's purchase of the artwork was approved by Theodore Rousseau Jr, the institution's specialist of European art and a leading authority on Nazi art looting. Rousseau and the Met knew or should have known that the masterpiece had likely been stolen by Nazis.

The institution said in a statement that it prioritizes its ongoing pledge to address issues related to WWII.

A spokesperson commented: Not once during the institution's custody of the piece was there any record that it had previously been owned to the Stern family – indeed, that information did not become accessible until many years after the masterpiece left the Museum's collection.

The Met's sale of Olive Picking met the institution's rigorous standards for removal from collection – specifically, it was noted that the artwork was considered to be of lesser quality than additional artworks of the comparable nature in the inventory. While the museum upholds its view that this artwork entered the inventory and was deaccessioned properly and well within all guidelines and policies, the institution welcomes and will consider any further evidence that emerges.

Goulandris Statement

William Charron on behalf of the foundation said: The institution is a esteemed foundation in the Greek capital. The action to sue and smear the Foundation and the Goulandris family in the America upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was earlier rejected, twice. We are confident it will be a third time.