|
The New York Times, a liberally minded newspaper, has been having a hard time deciding whose side to favor in the recent dispute between the Art Institute of Chicago and the Brooklyn DA, Matthew Bogdanos, the scourge of looted (allegedly) artworks. Bogdanos has made a name for himself by going into museums, galleries and private homes to seize and then repatriate what is thought to be looted art--from any time period. The most recent case is of an artwork from the Art Institute of Chicago, a drawing by Egon Schiele, an artist whose star has grown dramatically in the last forty years. I remember seeing a Schiele drawing in 1971 in a little gallery on Jermyn St. in London selling for seven hundred pounds, at the time just under $2,000. I remember it because I knew someone who loved Schiele's work which was somewhat controversial in 1971 as Schiele loved drawing the vagina--again and again--to the point where Schiele's work was considered more than a little scandalous. The vagina is less controversial these days, I guess.
As the art market has exploded in value in the last forty years, certain artists have emerged as great favorites and Schiele is definitely one of those artists. The drawing that Chicago had--it has been seized--is of a Russian soldier. I am not a Schiele aficionado, but I would guess that it is probably not the most important Schiele drawing around, but then I may be wrong. That isn't the point, really. The point is whether or not the drawing was looted during the Nazi era, which is what Bogdanos is claiming. The story is far from clear, however, as the dealer who sold the painting to the Chicago Art Institute allegedly purchased it from the sister of the original owner who died in a concentration camp. The murkiness of the situation has Chicago now fighting the seizure, something that the Cleveland Museum is also doing regarding an antiquity from Turkey that was similarly seized from their museum. Part of the defense rationale is that Bogdanos doesn't have jurisdiction in either Cleveland or Chicago. The other part has to do ascertaining whether the items were looted.
It is how the NY Times portrays the story which is of interest to me. The title of the article is, "The Role of New York's Lauded Looted Art Unit is Challenged in Court". Along with the last sentence, a quote from Bogdanos that sums up the article for me--"They don't like being on the receiving end of justice.", you cold be forgiven for thinking that this lauded warrior is meting out justice--the article leads us to believe this. I don't buy it. I don't know Bogdanos or his cronies, but I certainly know their reputation. The seizure of items is done without the benefit of a civil trial--the items are just taken--that doesn't sound like justice to me. The two museums, Cleveland and Chicago, as well as a private collector, are fighting the seizures, which I believe they should. How many museums have simply acquiesced to having items seized and who is getting them once they are "returned"? There are many more questions that could be asked, but as far as I can tell, this bears no resemblance to justice. Burnishing the Bogdanos image should also not be part of the NY Times' remit.
|
