“Gurlitt Facts” Website Posted as Part of Public Relations Offensive, Arguments Strain Credulity

Cornelius Gurlitt’s legal team has posted a new website called “Gurlitt Info” in similar (but not identical) German and English versions that is so contradicted by the repeated disclosures by the German government, that it is hard to imagine its intended purpose.  As a public relations move, it is a disaster.  The tactic may explain why the Augsburg prosecutor rejected the possibility of a deal with Gurlitt: he knows what he is dealing with.  At the same time, the draft amendment to the statute of limitations, the Cultural Property Restitution Law (or “Lex Gurlitt,” as it has somewhat misleadingly become known) is now formally before the Bundesrat for consideration as to whether to introduce the draft to the full Bundestag and possible enactment as the law of Germany.  Bavarian Cultural Minister Winfried Bausbeck discusses the law here in a recent interview. 

One of the strange aspects of the initial revelations about the collection of Cornelius Gurlitt, seized on suspicion of including hundreds of artworks stolen by or purchased under duress by the Nazis, was the curious absence of Gurlitt himself.  Apart from brief appearances in the media, the facts and circumstances developed with almost no input from Gurlitt.  Even the interview with Der Spiegel seemed to confirm that he was an old man, possibly in poor health, and the story continued to unravel with no agency from Gurlitt.  The reports that he had been placed in a guardianship at the end of 2013 only seemed to confirm that whatever the resolution ended up being, he would be a passive participant at best.  In recent weeks, however Gurlitt has reasserted himself.  From a trial balloon to the media from Hannes Hartung (one of Gurlitt’s lawyers) that Gurlitt was open to discussions, to the filing of a privacy complaint related to revelations in the initial Focus article and thereafter, to the declaration that Gurlitt himself was preemptively removing the remaining collection from his home in Salzburg for research (by someone paid by him, no doubt), a strategy was taking shape that portrayed Gurlitt as sensitive to the historical implications of the case, and willing to be reasonable.

Yesterday’s posting of a “Gurlitt Facts” website by his lawyers makes it impossible to take that portrayal seriously ever again.  Most importantly, it cannot be squared with the disclosures by the Augsburg prosecutor last year, and since by the Gurlitt Task Force, about the content and provenance issues of the 1,280 objects in the custody of the Bavarian authorities.

Most shocking is this: in a series of clumsy “questions and answers” (entitled “important questions and answers on the German language primary site), Gurlitt’s legal team states that “Just about all of them [are Gurlitt’s property], with the exception of a few artworks that are suspected to be Holocaust Looted Art (3 % of the whole collection as a maximum),” and that the fact that 290 works were acquired from German museums by Hildebrand Gurlitt “means that these 290 paintings were legally acquired by his father Dr. Hildebrand Gurlitt from Reich property through purchase and trade.”  Lastly, asking (himself) how many works are Holocaust looted art, the website states “There are very, very few suspected instances. Currently we have received only four (4) claims which might be dealing with Holocaust Looted Art.”  Interestingly, as you can see below, the German version is more vague, and does not quantify these conclusions.

as opposed to:

To the extent one even wishes to take these assertions at face value, they are a study in hair-splitting.  First, the percentages.  The four claims to Holocaust Looted Art and the 3% assertion are two sides of the same coin.  Gurlitt seems therefore to be saying that because he has received claims from only four people or groups, to paintings that total 3% of the collection, that the balance of the collection which was a secret in its entirety until three months ago, and is still not fully publicly identified is somehow free from suspicion.  That is the equivalent of limiting the characterization of art stolen by the Soviet Red Army to that which it did not conceal from the world.  It is a specious argument and obliterates the credibility of the entire website.   

In any event, the Bavarian and now the federal government’s task force has been reviewing the collection, and its conclusions at www.LostArt.de are these: 970 works have “degenerate art” suspicions.  Some 380 of those may have been seized outright.  A remaining 590 are suspected further and being reviewed for having been looted. 

Second, there is simply no more direct way to say this: Hildebrand Gurlitt was a Nazi art dealer, which is not a new discovery.  Whatever his motivations, whatever unpalatable choices he faced, he was one of a small handful of dealers authorized to deal in “degenerate art” after it was legislatively made contraband.  Every single purchase and sale of “degenerate art” between 1937 and 1945 is presumptively suspect.  Not only that, but many such works were in German museums in the first instance having been looted from Jews or purchased under duress.  Hildebrand was also known to be active in Paris after the German occupation, where private collections were plundered (both cynically for resale, and for Nazi officials and/or the Führermuseum in Linz).  Anything he touched is suspect.  If Cornelius Gurlitt believes, as the website states, that it is ” his duty to preserve and maintain his father’s collection,“ then he is affirmatively adopting that illicit legacy.

As if there were any remaining doubt, the hallmark of any unpersuasive argument is to try to change the subject.  The website thus devotes considerable energy to criticizing the efforts by German museums to inspect their own collections, and criticizing Germany’s implementation of the Washington Principles.  So what?  If Gurlitt’s art is stolen, it is stolen.  What a museum, or Germany itself, has done or not done in the last twenty years is completely irrelevant.

Curiously, the website has frequently been portrayed in social media as one to “aid hunt for owners.”  It is no such thing.  Its selective chronology avoids the real historical questions entirely.  It is even subtitled “Arguments.”  The website is there to help Cornelius Gurlitt erect a defense to keep what he thinks is his art.  As a public relations tactic, it is a fiasco for anyone even marginally informed on the topic.  Gurlitt may yet get his paintings back.  But in the face of historical realities, it will be very, very hard from here on out to take seriously any claim by him that he was ignorant of any of issues with these paintings.