So when the German's want their stolen art back it is treated differently to when they have stolen it
Matthew Taylor
than items that they took from other countries?
From:
http://www.rosbaltnews.com/
Paying for Victory?
According to Mariinsky Theatre Artistic Director Valery Gergiev,
Russians are currently 'the guests of Europe' and yet nobody can deny
the depth and diversity of Russian culture. Moreover, Russia is ready
and willing to share both its cultural heritage and its contemporary
culture.
However, the Germans are quite happy on their own. 'Give us back
those valuables that were taken out of the country during the Second
World War and we will support your projects in the EU,' is basically
what the Germans are saying at the moment on the issue of returning
national art. This problem of restitution is currently one of the
most controversial issues in Russian-German relations. It was only at
the end of the 1980s, during the period of glasnost and democracy,
that people began speaking about war trophies. A bilateral agreement
on cooperation in all cultural affairs was signed in 1992, whereby
Russia was supposed to give back all the German artwork it had taken
in 1945, some 250 thousand pieces of art, according to modest German
estimates, while Germany provided financial support for the Russian
government in return. In this way Germany regained possession of the
Dresden Gallery as well as 101 drawings from the Bremen Kunsthalle
collection, including pieces by Durer and Manet, and also part of the
Goethe Library, which was practically given as a gift to German
Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel. In 1997 however, the State Duma passed
a new law concerning the works of art which had been brought to the
Soviet Union during the Second World War, which essentially meant
that all such foreign artwork was now the property of Russia. Once it
had been passed, this law made it virtually impossible to return to
Germany artwork which was now the legal property of the Russian
government and it also made it very difficult for artwork held by
private owners and the church to be returned. Rudolf Blaum, a Bremen
expert on international law and also a long-time member of the joint
commission on restitution, described this law as a 'foolish decision'
and across Germany there was nationwide opposition to Russia with
many denouncing Russia as 'non-European'. While Germany had had its
own way in the restitution process until then, from then on art
restitution became a contentious issue. In Russia meanwhile, cultural
activists had divided into two camps: on one hand there were those
who called for German art to be returned to Germany and on the other
hand there were those who continually reminded the Germans of the
3,000 cities they had destroyed, the 427 museums they had robbed, the
1,670 churches they had damaged or destroyed and the 180 million
books and 564,000 pieces of Russian art they had stolen.
Those in the first camp argued thus: 'Why do we need valuables which
are not a part of Russian culture and which mean nothing to us?'
while those in the second camp stressed that many rarities had been
kept in good condition, insisting 'We are not plunderers!' Last year
Germany returned seven paintings, copies of portraits of Russian
tsars by unknown artists of the 18th century, to Pavlovsk. Russia
immediately made a return gesture by returning 111 of the stained
glass windows of the Marienkirche. This year, however, talk of
returning the so-called Baldin Collection to Germany, which includes
two original landscapes and 362 drawings by Rodin, Delacroix, Van
Dyke and others, has caused a political scandal. We can not ignore
the political importance of this restitution process, despite
Hermitage Director Mikhail Piotrovsky's insistence that we must
regard war trophies as art and not as money or politics. One must
assume that Germany is sincere about paying for its Nazi past by
offering grants to former Russian prisoners in the concentration
camps and returning copies of Russian art in return for its own
national artwork. Russia, however, which is unable to provide a
dignified pension for its war veterans, may one day have to give up
the Schliemann Gold, 259 pieces dating from 3000 BC, which were once
on display in the Berlin Museum and are currently exhibited at the
Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow. Germany claims that
there are virtually no more pieces of Russian art on German
territory, insisting that museum pieces stolen from the USSR by
German soldiers during the war were then returned by Red Army
soldiers from Soviet-occupied territory or by other allies. They
estimate that about 500,000 pieces of art were returned in this way.
Moreover, the restitution of Russian art is a private initiative,
which is not in the hands of the government. 95% of German art
located in Russia, however, is in fact in the hands of the
government, although not all in one place. There is now increasing
pressure on Russia to return German national art as German experts
begin to make more and more demands and lobby the government. It has
become a political process.
Even though the initial agreement was based on complete 'reciprocity'
it is difficult to see how this restitution process could be mutually
acceptable. An article appeared in German newspaper Die Zeit in 1991
which read 'the Russians have been robbed twice: first by fascist
Germany and then by their allies.' The Americans managed to take a
lot with them when they left Berlin in 1945 and yet, for some reason,
Germany is only interested in artwork currently located in Russia.
Russia, by recognising its obligation to return foreign art, is
basically putting itself in a position whereby the roles of the
victor and the vanquished may be reversed. Without war trophies
neither the Louvre nor the British Museum would even exist. The
problem of restitution is worldwide but European culture, which is
now united in a single political entity, is continuing to develop and
is enriched by integration and joint projects. For those who are
culturally aware, the issue of restitution is simply about working
together to display unique collections of art in different European
museums and galleries. It is of little significance for European
culture whether the armour stolen by an American soldier from the
Bavarian State Museum after the end of the war is exhibited in
Philadelphia, as it was until 1977, in the Metropolitan Museum, which
later bought the armour knowing that it was in the US, or in Bavaria,
where it was eventually returned. The most important thing is that in
all this time the armour remained a piece of art which could be seen
by the public. It is impossible though to exhibit Russian war
trophies in Europe as Russia is not a part of Europe and any joint
projects are doomed to long talks and bureaucratic delays. Moreover,
Russia can not become a part of Europe while it has this 'non-
European' policy on foreign art. It is possible that a solution will
be found to this problem, but several aspects of this restitution
process prevent us from thinking of art the way that Mr Piotrovsky
and others would have us think of it. Of course, we will always be
grateful for the USD 3.5 million German company Ruhrgas has spent on
restoring the Amber Room in Pushkin, but the fact is it will never
replace the Amber Room which disappeared in 1944 somewhere in the
vicinity of Konigsberg. Germany can also take pride in the fact that
two original fragments of the tsar's palace have been returned and
that a sponsor paid USD 250,000 for the mosaic Touch and Smell and
German magazine Spiegel paid USD 200 for a Russian commode. Both
these last pieces were delivered to Saint Petersburg immediately and
formally handed over by German Culture Minister Michael Naumann to
Russian President Vladimir Putin. Many will remember, however, how
much Russia put into these pieces: USD 8 million, 10 tonnes of amber
and more than 20 years work by Russian restorers.
Olga Osinovskaya, Rosbalt
Translated by Nick Chesters
P.S. This comment was made after the Russian-German Petersburg
Dialogue forum, which took place in Saint Petersburg on April 10-11.
Plans were made at the forum to make 2004 the Year of Germany in
Russia, just as 2003 is currently the Year of Russia in Germany. The
efforts being made by both sides suggest that European culture will
continue to spread into Russia and that Russian culture will
inevitably be assimilated into that of Europe.