When Cornelius Gurlitt, now 81 years old, traveled across the Swiss border by train in 2010, a routine customs check led to an incredible find. The son of a prominent Nazi was traveling with 9,000 euros, prompting a police investigation that ended with the discovery of a priceless collection of drawings and paintings allegedly taken from war-torn Germany.
Stored in his 1000-square-foot Munich apartment, Gurlitt had a collection worth an estimated $1.3 billion, including works by Matisse and Picasso. German prosecutors removed over 1,400 works of art and objects from his apartment in 2012.
Gurlitt’s father, an art dealer who sold paintings confiscated or purchased by the Nazis during World War II, is thought to have kept many of these works for himself. Yet in a fall 2013 interview with Der Spiegel magazine, Gurlitt said that all the works in his collection had been acquired legally.
In 1968, Gurlitt inherited the works from his father, Hildebrand Gurlitt. German civil code requires claims for stolen property to be filed within 30 years of a theft, meaning the statue of limitations for goods looted by the Nazis expired in 1975.
In a twist, another collection of 60 artworks was uncovered at Gurlitt’s residence in Salzburg, Austria. The works were mostly oil paintings, including pieces by Picasso, Renoir and Monet. Officials are currently cataloguing and authenticating Gurlitt’s full collection.
Although Gurlitt was not personally responsible for questionable purchases or looting, there is pressure on him to remedy past mistreatment toward Jewish art owners. Public outrage surrounding the case has exploded as more pieces were unearthed. Gurlitt has been called a “Nazi hoarder,” and his collection has been referred to as a “Nazi art stash.”
This month, Gurlitt set up German and English language website to tell his side of the story. The website states that while there is no legal grounds to compel Gurlitt to return his collection, people may contact him with claims for specific artworks. Gurlitt is also reviewing offers by museums to purchase works.
In a statement signed by the collector, he wrote that he only wants “to live with my pictures, in peace and tranquility.”
So far, previous owners have filed claims for just 3 percent of the works considered suspicious. The remaining seized objects have already been cleared of suspicion, Gurlitt’s spokesman Stephan Holzinger said.
Did Gurlitt commit a crime? While Hitler’s propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, authorized Gurlitt’s father to buy and sell confiscated art, is Gurlitt in some way complicit for never trying to determine the works’ origins? He cannot pretend he has not thought about the possibility that they were forcibly taken or looted, since the art cannot be washed of the vestiges of war.
Although a treaty at the 1907 Hague Convention, which Germany signed, barred countries from confiscating artwork if they occupied a territory during war, the Nazis specifically targeted missions to seize art in many European countries like Poland and France – an emblem of victory over their enemies. The Soviet Union used similar tactics to gain “trophy art” during World War II as well.
Los Angeles Times critic Christopher Knight wrote that it is difficult to determine the value of the collection, but “we do know the squalid history of the war.” The criminal case against Gurlitt will likely not go further than possible tax implications, but the transparent process Gurlitt and his lawyers have outlined on his website will hopefully lead to a morally commendable solution.
