Oberlin College Finally To Return Drawing Stolen By Nazis To Heirs Of Jewish Holocaust Victim, After 17-Year Refusal
The Grünbaum heirs tried in vain for 17 years to get Oberlin College to return the drawing, including multiple demands and a civil lawsuit. But it was a recent criminal seizure warrant out of the Manhattan District Attorney’s office and attendant bad publicity that appears to have swayed Oberlin College finally to give up the stolen property.
This is an update to our October 1, 2023, exclusive report, Oberlin College’s 17-Year Refusal To Return Artwork Stolen By The Nazis From A Jewish Holocaust Victim.
See that post for full details on a drawing, Girl With Black Hair, by Austrian Expressionist Egon Schiele, stolen by the Nazis from Fritz Grünbaum, a prominent Jewish art collector and cabaret artist, who was forced under duress to sign over rights to his collection as part of the Nazi confiscation of Jewish property, while interned at the Dachau concentration camp in Germany, where he died in 1941. The Grünbaum heirs tried in vain for 17 years to get Oberlin College to return the drawing, including multiple demands and a civil lawsuit. But it was a recent criminal seizure warrant out of the Manhattan District Attorney’s office and attendant bad publicity that appears to have swayed Oberlin College finally to give up the stolen property.
In our October 1 report I noted how differently Oberlin College treated the Grünbaum heirs:
Oberlin College’s fight to avoid returning this stolen art is in contrast to the college’s repatriation of an item of Native American craft returned to the Nez Perce tribe in 2002. Are items stolen from Jews during the Holocaust less worthy of return than items obtained from Native American tribes? …
Why such a long and hard fight – starting at least in 2006 – to hold onto Girl With Black Hair? It’s not like returning Girl With Black Hair would strike a serious financial blow to the college or cause a serious disruption to the Allen Museum. It’s just one drawing out of 15,000 in the museum that sits in storage and not even on display.
There is precedent for Oberlin College returning items wrongfully (but not necessarily illegally) acquired. In 2002, Oberlin College returned a twined root bag that had been taken from the Nez Perce tribe a century before, and even held a symposium celebrating the return….
Oberlin College appears to have “lawfully” possessed the twined root bag, but returned it anyway.
Oberlin College also is reviewing its inventory of artifacts and human remains for possible repatriation to Native American tribes. Whether Oberlin College “lawfully” possessed those items did not seem to be a defense raised by the college….
I also predicted the bad publicity would cause Oberlin College to relent:
I have a feeling Oberlin College will end up returning the stolen artwork, rather than fight the seizure warrant. Perhaps that already is in process, but not publicly announced. It’s not as if the college needs more bad publicity, after the Gibson’s Bakery debacle.
Yet the question remains, why fight for so long the return of an item stolen by the Nazis during the Holocaust? Why not treat it like the twined root bag returned to the Nez Perce tribe, where ethics and morality — not the law — led Oberlin College to give up its possession? Are items stolen from Jews during the Holocaust less worthy of non-legal ethical considerations than items obtained from Native American tribes?
Why wait until the legal and public pressure mounts? Why not have returned the artwork in 2006, or last year when a civil lawsuit seeking its return was filed. Will it really take a criminal seizure warrant to get back this stolen property?
It’s often said that “integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching.” No one was watching Oberlin College as relates to Girl With Black Hair for most of the 17 years Oberlin College has been fighting its return. Oberlin College had almost two decades to do the right thing as to the stolen drawing, when no one was watching. Now people are watching, so no virtue signaling is warranted if Oberlin College finally gives up possession of the drawing.
Our reporting received considerable media attention, including multiple media appearances, including on the popular Lars Larson national radio show.
.
.
It looks like Oberlin College is returning the drawing. A Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was filed in the federal court case yesterday, which normally signifies a settlement:
ArtNews is reporting that a settlement agreement was signed and the Girl With Black Hair will be returned:
The Allen Memorial Art Museum at Ohio’s Oberlin College and the Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh will voluntarily return works by Egon Schiele to the family of Fritz Grünbaum after the Manhattan District Attorney’s office issued warrants for them last month….
The two stipulations about the returned works were signed by Carnegie Museums president and CEO Steven Knapp as well as Oberlin College vice president, general counsel, and secretary Matt Lahey.
Emails to plaintiffs’ counsel and Oberlin College’s media relations about the settlement and dismissal have not been returned as of this writing.
We will update this post as more information becomes available.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Friends still don’t let friends have anything to do with Oberlin.
Well maybe reconsider in about 17 years
Isn’t that the time frame that locusts use?
Cicadas.
I’m glad they get their artwork back. Now, how about the British Museum returning all of the things Lord Elgin stole from the Parthenon and the French returning all the things they looted from Greek history too?
Then maybe Egypt can get all of their stuff back from the British too. I’m not against the British, but they took all that stuff and didn’t ask. That’s stealing by any definition.
Different issue, dude. Better be careful. Using your logic you and 300 million of your neighbors will be heading back to Europe pretty soon.
Elgin didn’t steal anything. He had legal permission to take them. They were ownerless, so morally they belonged to the first person to claim them, which was him. Practically, had he not taken them the local people would have used them for building or otherwise destroyed them so they wouldn’t even exist now.
Likewise the French. On what basis do the current inhabitants of Greece or Egypt have any claim on remains from the ancient Greeks or Egyptians? They are not their heirs; they’re not their cultural descendants, or even their genetic descendants. They’re just the people who now live where they used to live. That doesn’t give them any better claim to these remains than anyone else. It certainly doesn’t give their governments a claim to them. Especially since those governments didn’t even exist when they were taken.
A French Officer saw the Venus de Milo being dug out by a farmer. Recognizing it was significant, he got his superior officer to pay the farmer for it. It is now in the Louvre.
So he paid the “owner” to receive the property. Sounds pretty healthy to me. I feel the sorry for people who sell a $100k painting for $5 at a yard sale. I don’t think the person who bought it should give it back.
Most of the art looted by Napoleon in Italy is still at the Louvre, often in the basement warehouse. And that was certainly stolen.
Did you read that in British History books?
In addition to Milhouse’s point, those who claim ownership of antiquities have an obligation to keep them responsibly and conserve them in good condition. One of the main reasons that the Acropolis is in its current relatively dilapidated condition is due to its use as a storage facility for Greek explosives during a war. Those explosives were detonated and we can see those effects today. Lord Elgin saved the marbles from further devastation, and that entitles the British to its continued ownership. They were the responsible party and deserve the benefits just a one who salvages a sunken ship.
Shame that it took a lawsuit and the attendant negative publicity to get Oberlin’s administrators to do what they should have done from the get-go, of their own volition.
Now, can Oblerlin be sued foe 17 years worth interest for the market value over the time they held it?
Good coverage and a shrewd prediction as to how this situation would play out, Professor Jacobson — thank you.
Change of heart by necessity. Just like Biden and the Wall!
Yeah. By necessity, and/or, political/reputational self-interest.
God forbid that the vile Dumb-o-crats ever act out of pure moral imperative and courage. No; there’s always a self-serving angle to their decisionmaking.
Three jeers for Oberlin! Yep, jeers!
Will the name Oberlin become a new swear word?
“Become”? It has been for some time now.
It’s sad that it took all of this to get the artwork returned to its proper owner. Once you know that you hold something seized by the Nazi party, why would you want to keep it? Anyone with a modicum of decency would return something stolen by the nazis.
Then again, this is Oberlin. We saw how they treated the Gibsons.
“ Anyone with a modicum of decency….”
I think you answered your own question.
In order to keep from having an empty spot on the wall, I recommend they replace the drawing with some artwork by Hunter Biden.
That should not be hard to arrange, since people receiving the art were not actually buying it.
Oh, man! Good call right there…
It was all a misunderstanding. Oberlin was initially under the impression that the heirs were demanding possession of a contemporary portrait of their former VP and Dean, Meredith Raimondo, entitled Girl With Black Heart.
Is it reasonable to conclude that Oberlin College is contaminated with some unknown substance which is causing a collective psychoses? Or maybe it is just a new strain of Rabies?
Wokium.
Khomeiniism
I think it’s intersectional: they live at the corner of Self-righteous Street and Mean Avenue.
IOberlin with a slightly better moral compass than Rhhardin. Keep that in mind when he posts.
Thank you, Professor Jacobson, for shining the light on this beautiful artwork. I suspect Oberlin decided to throw in the towel once they realized LI was providing coverage.
100 upvotes
The progs. Moralizing hypocrits.
This is child’s play compared with all the stolen items that are in the Vatican Museum. Gosh, it’s literally chock-a-block full of looted art and cultural artifacts from places other than Rome.
👎
Why all the fuss over a crappy drawing?
I personally dislike Egon Schiele’s work, but your sophomoric comment added nothing to this thread. Given the caliber of the blog hosts, how about aspiring to comments that suit that level?
I suspect Oberlin’s real reason for wanting to keep this piece was that it highlighted modern art’s most essential attribute: incurable ugliness.
From a purely public relations standpoint, which agency is representing Oberlin College? Goebbels and Himmler, Inc.? I have never seen such misfires, miscues and mishaps in my life.
Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.
“Why such a long and hard fight – starting at least in 2006 – to hold onto Girl With Black Hair?”
There is very likely a long standing alumni who obtained this picture many years ago on the black market and went onto endowing Oberlin as a tax write off for a significant amount more. An alumni who stipulated that the donator stay anonymous. Given the circumstances of the ‘long and hard fight’ by Oberlin for the previous 27 years, the current legal decision to hold on to it and find themselves again in court would more than likely cause to have a forensic accounting which would find who the alumni was. Best just hand it over than to jeopardize the name of the original owner (alumni) who knew he/she donated stolen property. They would then have to eat the loss asset as they have opted to do or sue the alumni for the amount of the valued asset at todays assessed market value.
That’s a very reasonable guess, and a likely possibility. My only criticism is that the singular of “alumni” is “alumnus”.
In addition to Milhouse’s point, those who claim ownership of antiquities have an obligation to keep them responsibly and conserve them in good condition. One of the main reasons that the Acropolis is in its current relatively dilapidated condition is due to its use as a storage facility for Greek explosives during a war. Those explosives were detonated and we can see those effects today. Lord Elgin saved the marbles from further devastation, and that entitles the British to its continued ownership. They were the responsible party and deserve the benefits just a one who salvages a sunken ship.
No. Turks, not Greeks:
The Ottoman Turks conquered Greece in the 15th Century, and held it until the 19th Century Greek war of independence.
The Turks stored gunpowder in the Parthenon. Various buildings in the Acropolis were badly damaged when the gunpowder exploded during a Venetian artillery barrage in 1687.
If Oberlin College has had one piece of Nazi-stolen artwork in its collection, is it unreasonable to ask whether there might be other stolen artwork in its possession?
Like a shady pawn shop owner who is a known fence for stolen merchandise, a museum with stolen merchandise in its possession would seem a target for a legitimate inventory. Is it possible that Oberlin College returned “Girl With Black Hair” in order to stave off such an inspection?
A reasonable person would be justified in asking the questions:
(1) “How did Oberlin come to possess this piece of artwork?”
(2) “Did Oberlin obtain other pieces of art from that same source?”
(3) “Where did that source obtain the artwork?”
(4) “Does Oberlin have the provenance trail for its artwork?”
Stop making sense