🔗 Share this article

The heirs of a Jewish couple have brought a case against New York's Metropolitan Museum, alleging that a Vincent van Gogh art piece was stolen by Nazi forces.

Historical Background

As stated in the lawsuit, Frederick and Hedwig Stern purchased the piece, titled Olive Picking, in the mid-1930s. A year after, they were obliged to escape their residence in Munich, Germany prior to WWII.

The complaint argues that the museum, which acquired the artwork in the 1950s for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, must have realized it was likely stolen property. The heirs are now demanding the return of the painting along with damages.

In the decades since WWII, this plundered piece has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, purchased and sold in and through New York, claims the legal filing.

The Sterns' Escape

The Stern family escaped from the city of Munich to the United States in the late 1930s with their offspring due to persecution by the Nazis. Nevertheless, they were prevented from taking the painting, which was painted by the celebrated artist in 1889.

Prior to their departure, the regime declared the artwork as property of the state and forbade the couple from bringing it with them. After obtaining permission from a regime representative, a representative assigned by the authorities auctioned the painting on the couple's behalf. However, the funds from the sale were deposited in a restricted account, which the authorities later took.

Subsequent Ownership

By 1948, or soon after, the painting entered New York and was purchased by Vincent Astor, among the richest individuals in the US. Eventually, it was sold through a commercial outlet to the institution, which then sold it to prominent shipowner Goulandris and his partner, Mrs. Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

The Goulandris pair founded the Goulandris Foundation in the late 1970s, which manages a institution in Athens where the artwork is currently on display.

Claims and Defenses

The foundation and a surviving nephew of the magnate are named as defendants. The legal action states that the family and its affiliates have covered up the painting's ownership and whereabouts from the plaintiffs.

Even now, the foundation continue to obscure how and when the BEG came into possession of the artwork; the Stern family's ownership of the artwork from several years; and the facts that the regime confiscated the artwork from the family, pressured the family into selling it via a regime representative, and took the proceeds of the transaction.

Previous Legal Action

The descendants initiated a comparable case in CA in 2022, but it was thrown out in 2024. An appeal was also denied in recently.

Institution's Statement

The complaint contends that the museum's acquisition of the piece was sanctioned by the museum's expert, the institution's specialist of European art and one of the world's foremost experts on Nazi art looting. The institution and its expert knew or should have known that the artwork had almost certainly been looted by the regime.

The Met responded that it prioritizes its ongoing pledge to resolve issues related to WWII.

A spokesperson stated: Not once during the institution's custody of the painting was there any documentation that it had earlier been possessed to the family – actually, that data did not become known until many years after the painting left the institution's holdings.

The institution's deaccessioning of the Van Gogh met the institution's rigorous standards for removal from collection – namely, it was recorded that the piece was deemed to be of lower caliber than other works of the comparable nature in the holdings. Even though The Met maintains its position that this artwork entered the holdings and was deaccessioned lawfully and well within all standards and procedures, the Met is open to and will review any new information that comes to light.

Foundation's Defense

Legal counsel on behalf of BEG said: The institution is a esteemed foundation in the Greek capital. The attempt to sue and smear the Foundation and the defendants in the United States upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was earlier rejected, multiple times. We are confident it will be a third time.