There’s something funny about art. It’s often commissioned and paid for by private individuals, but somehow is thought of as a public good.
The recent film ‘Woman in Gold’ (2015) highlights that dichotomy, but stays firmly on one side of the coin.
Portrait of Adele Bloch Bauer II, left and I, right
Based on a true story, the movie tells the heart-rending tale of a Holocaust refugee, Maria Altmann, who is on a seemingly losing mission to get her family’s Nazi-looted art back. One of the pieces: The self-styled ‘Mona Lisa of Austria,’ formally ‘Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I’ by Austrian secessionist artist Gustav Klimt. Adele was Altmann’s beloved aunt. In Altmann’s way is the belief of the state-run gallery where the art resides that the art belongs to Austria, is a national treasure.
The film is undeniably powerful, especially the flashback scenes that poignantly illustrate how the lives of German and Austrian Jews turned on a dime once Hitler came to power. The Bloch-Bauer family, previously a cornerstone of Viennese society, were quickly stripped of their assets, art, dignity, and ultimately, lives.
The film is criticized by some as being simplistic, not showing the complexity of the case, portraying the modern day Austrians as Nazi-like cartoon villains. And that is true; the Austrian art world is portrayed as intransigent and unrepentant. Yet a documentary about a different Austrian art restitution case, ‘Portrait of Wally’ by Egon Schiele, depicts very similar characteristics.
What the Schiele documentary achieves that Woman in Gold does not, is an exploration into the psyche of art collectors, and why the art, above all, is paramount, not provenance or even ethics.
‘Woman in Gold’ only touches on the questions of who owns art, and whether it is a private or public good. Instead it makes the case that Austria lost its right to the art because of its behavior during and role in Nazism. Whereas the Bloch-Bauers once could never have imagined the art leaving Austria, Altmann can no longer the art remaining in the place she once called home, but is now only represents what was taken from her.
Ultimately, Altmann decided to sell the paintings. Should she have allowed the paintings to remain in Austria — their home, as some would argue? Should she have donated them to public institutions? Luckily the film’s namesake portrait is on display at New York’s Neue Gallerie and the second portrait of Bloch-Bauer is on loan to the MoMA by the private collector who bought it at auction. These are questions the film prefers not to answer — but we’d be curious to hear yours. Was Altmann right to sell the paintings? Post a comment!
‘Woman in Gold’ is still playing in Denver area cinemas; make sure to catch it while it’s still out.
The move made a point of Maria saying that if her aunt knew what her country had done or had become she would not have wanted them to stay in Austria. Also I think after the Austrians had been so stubborn Maria had just had enough — rightly so.
Great that the “Woman in Gold” DVD will include a trailer to the fabulous “Stealing Klimt” (www.stealingklimt.com) documentary that inspired “Woman in Gold”. Both “Woman in Gold” and “Stealing Klimt” last about 90 minutes and, together, you get to understand the full Maria Altmann story. “Stealing Klimt” (www.stealingklimt.com) includes some amazing historical facts that don’t make it into “Woman in Gold”, like the fact that Maria’s husband Fritz was imprisoned in Dachau until his brother handed over the family cashmere factory to Austrian Nazis, how Maria’s brother’s escaped thanks to a step-nephew of Adolf Hitler whose life Maria’s brother had save in an avalanche in the early 30s, the heroic role of Hubertus Czernin in helping Maria Altmann and how he died a few months after she got the Klimts back, and the fact that Maria offered the Austrians the paintings after she had recovered them and they refused because public opinion would not have wanted Austria to pay $300M to a Jewish lady, an amazing story of bravery and terror.
Okay, “Stealing Klimt” is definitely going on the list. Sounds fascinating. I think the fact that Maria was at first willing to allow the paintings to stay in Austria, but they were unwilling to negotiate, is the true measure against those who accuse her of greed.
Saying she wasn’t greedy because she offered the paintings to Austria is simply wrong. She didn’t offered anything, she wanted to *sell* them.
After receiving the paintings there was a lot of “oh I want them to be public, yada yada” but most of them end up being sold to private collectors. Money Money Money…
Why should she give away what was hers? Should she give her house away? Or her jewelry? Why is it wrong for her to sell them instead of giving them away? Why does that make her greedy? They were hers to do with as she wanted, and she wanted to sell them. Good for her!