MovieChat Forums > Woman in Gold (2015) Discussion > This is a story about unadulterated gree...

This is a story about unadulterated greed

posted 10 years ago by xystophoros
72 replies | jump to latest

According to the trailer, Maria Altmann's story is about right vs wrong, about the sentimental value of a family painting, and about a triumph of small people against the big bag Austrian government and the Nazis.

In truth, it's about strong-arming the legal system in order to remove paintings from a public museum -- where they were supposed to go, by the owner's will -- into the private collection of an aristocrat, where they were promptly sold for hundreds of millions of dollars, ensuring Altmann's children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will continue to live like aristocrats well into the future, with estates and servants and private jets and yachts.

You'd think, after recovering these long-lost artworks that were "priceless" to her family, that Altmann's Gustav Klimts would be hanging in a family home, where her family could look up at them and remember their relatives. Instead, Altmann won the case, then turned around almost immediately sold the paintings -- for a price between $30 million and $135 million for each individual painting.

And they make a movie to celebrate that? Will the movie be honest about what Altmann did with the paintings and how quickly she sold them? Will the movie admit that several prominent Jewish voices condemned Altmann's crusade because it reinforced the worst Jewish stereotypes? And will the movie show be honest with the audience about how the original owner's will dictated that the paintings be put in a museum, NOT in the private collection of a woman so she could sell them?

To be clear, none of this is to excuse the horrific things the Nazis did, but let's have some perspective here -- millions of people lost parents, siblings, children and friends to the Nazis, and Altmann's family lost a few valuables. Maybe the message should have been gratitude for escaping the Holocaust with her life, instead of this life-long crusade to sell paintings so she could continue living above everyone else as an aristocrat.

[–] cooler56 10 years ago

I agree. The people who like this movie and do not see the reality of things are simply dumb as rocks. She took ultimately what was a piece of AUSTRIAN heritage and cashed out. Of course they won't put that in the movie.

It's like the myriad of other Hollywood Biopics that make ignoble people look like saints.

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 10 years ago

Doesn't sound like you saw the movie. They made these things clear in the movie. Even someone in Austria who was on her side her told her that the Woman In Gold was Austria's Mona Lisa -- to make it clear what an uphill battle they had. And yes, she made money on it. But it was stolen from her family. They put that in the movie too. That's the part you don't want to deal with.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

[–] berniegfletcher 10 years ago

Hey cooler56, do you have any valuables in your home? Some thugs would like to liberate your possessions, maybe change the license plate on your car and fake the ownership. I am sure you wouldn't mind, why would you since you don't believe in returning stolen goods to their rightful owners. Why don't you give some examples of "Hollywood Biopics that make ignoble people look like saints."

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] velcronewsletter 10 years ago

^ this

[–] cooler56 10 years ago

She was well off after WWII, which is more than other victims of Nazi persecution can say.

To be fair, she never owned the painting herself. It belonged to her uncle. And in fact, her aunt, who originally owned the painting, ultimately wanted it to end up in a museum:

"In her will, Adele, who died in 1925, well before the rise of the Nazis, had asked her husband to leave the Klimts to the Austrian State Gallery upon his own death; a much-debated point in more recent years has been whether this request should or should not be considered legally binding upon her husband, who was himself the owner of the paintings."

This is why the case became more complicated than it appears on the surface. Shouldn't Adele Bloch-Bauer's wish be fulfilled? The painting was originally hers.

Her fight for these paintings is a very skewed definition of "justice." Victims of the Nazis lost far more than some paintings. Yes, Maria Altmann lost her family and home. But she recovered, and quite well in comparison.

It's funny that one of you quote Gandhi, when it was Gandhi who said "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." This quote applies here.

She fought tooth and nail to get the paintings back into her possession, and sold the paintings to her family friend Ronald Lauder. For MILLIONS. What good causes has she done with these millions? All I can find is that she divided the money up to her already RICH family. Is that justice?

The fact remains is that the paintings were DISTINCTLY part of Austrian heritage, and went against her Aunt's very own wishes. And she ripped that heritage out of her own people, or I guess she didn't see herself as Austrian anymore.

The honorable thing to do would have been to DONATE those paintings instead of selling them. Yes, the public can view these paintings, but they are in a privately-owned gallery in the USA.

As for biopics about questionable people, there are already quite a few under the Weinstein name. The Iron Lady, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, Lovelace are just a few examples of biopics where whitewashing the historical figures has occurred.

Again, if this movie showed the WHOLE story instead of a selective part, it would have been more honest.

[–] berniegfletcher 10 years ago

Once again cooler56's litany of half-truths and outright lies makes one wonder if he has seen the movie or read the book The Lady in Gold by journalist Anne-Marie O'Connor. Cooler has no answer for how he would feel if someone stole his possessions. This is an excellent film which is honest to the true story.
"She was well off after WW2" Her opera singer husband Fritz (he became a number Z207 not a human being)had been sent to Dachau concentration camp for the "crime" of being Jewish in an Austria that decided that Jews were not Austrian. The Nazi thugs were stealing everything of value from Jewish people (including "degenerate art") and would soon be committing Genocide against millions of innocent people. Maria and Fritz escaped their guard and got out of Austria with the clothes on their backs. Fritz worked in a factory and Maria owned a little dress shop. To her death Maria lived in a bungalow and had old clothes and a beat-up Ford. How does having family and friends murdered and their possessions stolen make Maria "better-off"?
"To be fair she never owned the painting herself..." Yes, she DID. The owner of the painting left it to her in his will before he died in 1945.
"her aunt originally owned the painting" This is quite simply a LIE. Ferdinand commissioned and paid for the painting. He was wealthy and a Klimt was expensive even in those days (one-quarter of the value of a country villa). Adele died in 1925. The husband outlived her by 20 years.
Maria spent none of the millions on herself. Much of it went to legal fees caused by the Austrian government refusing to make a deal. Some money went toward helping other families regain stolen art. The rest went to family and charity.
"The fact remains that the paintings were distinctly part of Austrian heritage..." You mean the Austria that welcomed the Nazis and tried to exterminate all traces of the Jewish people in Austria, that Austria? The Austria that tried to hide the origins of the painting, changing the name (from a Jewish surname)and pretending it wasn't stolen, that Austria? The Austria that fought tooth and nail against admitting Maria's ownership which would have allowed the painting to stay in the Belvedere? The painting is now in a museum for public display as Maria demanded.
Your comment about Mandela and Thatcher being "questionable people" tells a lot about your character. As well, "Mandela" and "The Iron Lady" are UK/France and UK/South Africa productions so hardly examples of Hollywood biopics. So "Lovelace" is what you came up with??? Real DEEP! A movie nobody went to see about an obscure actress. This is your evidence against Hollywood, not that it churns out hundreds of mindless blockbusters about NOTHING!

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 10 years ago

It's very clear that you haven't seen the movie, or know much about the facts of this case at all.

You are not even addressing the points brought up in this thread: that the paintings were not the aunt's, they were the uncle's, who willed them to Maria. The aunt expressed her wishes for the paintings but that was not a will. AND as noted in the movie, nobody believes that she would have wanted Austria to have the paintings if she had lived to see what was done to her family.

Unbelievable that you quote Gandhi regarding an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. So getting back something stolen from you is extracting an eye for an eye? Wow, if you're serious that is really sad.
Eye for an eye would be to take all the possessions from the people who took everything from her, and make them flee the country in fear of their lives. That's not what she was after.

It's also interesting that you bring up that she was well off. So well-off people have less moral right to get back something stolen from them? Even if it has great sentimental value because it is a portrait of a beloved aunt? It certainly is edifying, reading your posts.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

[–] stevie-loulou 10 years ago

"The case" only becomes "more complicated than it appears on the surface" when you refuse to accept the FACTS that are on the surface:
1. The painting was commissioned and paid for by Adele's husband, not Adele. He was the owner, not Adele, and as his property, he could use or dispose of it any way he wished. He willed it to his nieces.
2. Even if Adele had been the owner of the painting when she died, the statement in her will is not a bequest (i.e., "I here by bequeath [give] the painting to the Austrian museum") but a request to her husband, to whom all her property was bequeathed. Adele indisputably knew he would become the owner of the painting upon her death, and that he could do whatever he wanted with it, including ignoring her request. His determination to do so, and to leave it to his nieces, was both legal, and obviously morally correct, given what was going on in Austria at the time he died.
3. The painting was NEVER a part of "Austrian heritage." It was a portrait of a private citizen commissioned by a private citizen for personal use. There was no governmental involvement in its creation, nor does it show any historical Austrian event or even an Austrian landscape. It only became part of the museum collection when it was stolen by the Nazi's, who, not incidentally, allowed the real owner to die of disease because he was Jewish and therefore was not allowed to visit a doctor.
FYI, the paintings were put on exhibit in Los Angeles, too, before being transferred to the gallery in New York, where they can be seen by anybody interested in them.

[–] bkerber 10 years ago

You can say whatever you want about her being greedy. The fact of the matter is that those paintings were stolen from her family. Her family lost EVERYTHING - including several people's lives. I'm not all that sympathetic with rich people and their possessions, but honestly the nazis destroyed their lives. They stole everything they had and forced them to abandon everything and flee to the USA. I think she is completely within her rights to want those paintings back. I read that that Klimt portrait would have cost her uncle the modern day equivalent of several hundreds of thousands of dollars to have done. Why should the gallery have it without the family's permission?

Now I don't know if what is portrayed in the movie is correct. But in the movie, Maria asks the rep from the museum to give her some compensation (she doesn't name a price) and make a public admission that the paintings were stolen and where they came from. She says she will allow them to stay there if that is done. He refuses.

I think the money was important but more important was the acknowledgement that the paintings were stolen. I can't imagine how painful it would be, after having gone through all that and lost your family and your home and everything in it, to see pictures of that painting everywhere with the title 'woman in gold'. For her, it was not 'woman in gold', it was a portrait of her beloved aunt. I would want that acknowledged too.

[–] mingusal 10 years ago

First of all, you clearly did not see the movie because it deals directly with everything you cite here. Secondly, she did offer to leave the painting in the Belvedere in Vienna in perpetuity, if only the Austrian government admitted how the painting had been acquired and acknowledged her family's ownership of it.

But thirdly, no, she clearly did not consider herself Austrian anymore. And why is that? Because the Austrians themselves didn't consider her or her family Austrian anymore, stole everything they owned, exterminated all of her family and friends they could get their hands on, and would eventually have had her killed had she stayed in Austria.

Why the hell should she consider herself Austrian, or believe that she owes Austria a goddamned thing after that experience? Why would you expect anyone to have loyalty to those people?

The Austrians collaborate with the Nazis, including participating quite willingly in their extermination campaign, and then spend decades trying to cover up their complicity in theft and death. And you have the audacity to talk about "heritage" and "justice" and invoke the names of Gandhi and King to support your morally bankrupt position. Because an old lady made some money off of something that was stolen from her family by a criminal regime and should have been hers all along? How disgusting and ridiculous.

Ms. Altmann's "heritage" is that she came here to the U.S. with nothing, where she lived unmolested and not in fear or in danger, and able to enjoy the fruits of her labors, for many many years. Oh and in case you missed it, the lawyer who helped her was the grandson of another creator of Austria's "cultural heritage" they chose to reject because of his Jewishness. And he also found a home in the U.S.

So, you want to see that painting? Well, it's right here friend, with the complete story of its history posted right next to it for all to see. That's "justice" enough for me.

[–] mingusal 10 years ago

No, she took back, from the people who stole it, what was a piece of HER heritage. And did what she damn well saw fit with it, because it belonged to HER. And what she did was "cash out" as you put it by selling the painting to someone who put it on public display, as she wished.

She then spent that money on defraying the costs of fighting a long legal battle with the Austrian government over what was rightfully hers, on funding her lawyer's firm so they could continue to fight to recover property stolen by the Nazis and their collaborators, on supporting cultural institutions that she loved in her adopted home (like the Los Angeles Opera), and on helping her family's future. What she didn't do, as testified to by all who knew her, is change her lifestyle or live extravagantly in any way. Who among us would do that?

Oh, and the painting can be seen by Austrians, or anyone else, at the Neue Galerie museum in New York City. Here in the country that gave Maria Altmann and her husband a home, didn't dispossess her, discriminate against, threaten, or kill her family members, or claim that goods stolen at the point of a gun were part of their "heritage" and therefore couldn't be returned to the family they were stolen from.

[–] berniegfletcher 10 years ago

...by the Nazis. Some of Adele's jewellery ended up on the wives of Nazi leaders.

[–] cooler56 10 years ago

The theme of this film is justice, and the question we must ask, is the return of Maria Altmann's paintings really justice?

Maybe the return of the paintings is symbolically a form of justice, but that is where it ends. Those paintings will not bring back her loved ones or her old life. The fact remains that Adele Bloch-Bauer did wish for the paintings to be donated to the Austrian state gallery upon her death, even if she didn't own them. Don't tell me that Maria Altmann fulfilled her wish. And don't tell me that Adele's sentiment doesn't matter because the whole reason why Maria Altmann (claimed) to have want the paintings back is sentiment.

And the painting is, indeed, part of Austrian history. What difference does it make if it was part of private ownership or not? If it had no value or significance to culture, the Nazis would not have kept it safe from war, which they had no problems sending million s of people to die in the name of the third reich.

Plenty of national treasures sitting in museums have, at some point, been part of a private property. But that faded away through time and war. It would have been the same case here, except Maria Altmann was still alive.

And yes, Gandhi is relevant here because you seem to fail to understand the significance of Maria's successful legal battles and her selling the paintings off for an immense amount of money. This is not justice that is relevant to 99.9% of most people on earth. She was only successful because she had the money and legal expertise to get those paintings back. Who does this benefit? Herself and her family. And now people don't have to leave the continental US to see these paintings. Big whoop.

I bet you are one of those people that think the rich should be taxed more, but complain when the price of things go up. When you step back and look at the whole picture- and not the hollywood story, the appreciation for the movie's sense of "justice" lessens considerably.

That is, if you have a realistic view of things. There are stories of people who have overcome great adversity and oppression and achieved great things in life. I am talking about human rights, freedom, dignity. I cannot say Maria Altmann's story even makes a ripple in the collective struggle against prejudice and persecution. Yes, she did survive a horrible era of history. Yes, she got the paintings back. She couldn't force the Nazis to pay for what they have done to her, because Nazi Germany is long gone. But did her actions really benefit, at least, some part of humanity? I think not. It could have; she could have done so much more with her struggle. Like I said, it makes a great, emotional story, but that is where it ends.

[–] phillyboots 10 years ago

Everything you stated in this post was responded back to you above. It's seems disrespectful to ignore their responses and continue to promote your thinly disguised agenda. (or so it seems to me)

I bet you are one of those people that think the rich should be taxed more

I think they should be taxed fairly, don't you? BTW, I may be one those "rich" folks willing to do my part.

Money gained was used altruistically and there's nothing wrong with making people remember the horror that was the nazis. I can't understand your hurt.

May you receive all that Karma has to offer.

[–] berniegfletcher 10 years ago

Once again cooler56 blurs the facts and ignores the questions posed by other posters. If cooler had seen the movie, he would know that it is untrue to say "she was only successful because she had the money and the legal expertise to get the paintings back." Maria had little or no money and turned to her friend's son, a failing lawyer. She was successful because she had justice and law on her side.
Cooler is right that "those paintings will not bring back her loved ones or her old life", but should thieves be rewarded for keeping stolen art safe? The Nazis didn't want Klimt's "degenerate art" so put it in the museum where the Austrian authorities covered up the ownership and Jewish past of the paintings.
I wish that cooler's possessions be donated to charity. Is Cooler going to honour my request? (or he doesn't care about poor people...what a leap of logic!)
What on earth does taxation have to do with this story? Ridiculous.
Once again cooler refers to "the hollywood (sic) story" when he knows full well this is not a Hollywood studio movie.
Maria's new husband was taken to Dachau, his head shaved, branded with a number... and you would like her to be grateful she survived? Her sister had to sleep with a Nazi pig to save her family. The BIG LIE technique: just keep suggesting this was about greed on Maria's part even though she spent none of the money on herself. I will give the last words to Maria herself (from The Lady in Gold", p.243):
"Adele's wishes were a request, not an obligation, to share her love of the Klimts with her beloved Viennese. After she died it was up to my uncle. What love could my uncle have for Austria after they robbed him of everything? He had no intention of giving the Klimts to those people! This art was dragged out of the house by people who murdered their friends. Would Adele have wanted the things she treasured left there after that?"

[–] KingKhan1389 10 years ago

Yes! I completely agree with everything you said. It would be en emotional story if she honored the wishes of her aunt and forgave the austrian people by leaving the paintings in Austria.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MatttheBruinsfan 10 years ago

If I'd been put through all that Maria Altmann had been by Austrian governments past and present (including the deaths of her parents soon after she and Fritz fled the country), I'd probably have sold the "Austrian Mona Lisa" to the Israel Museum in Jerusalem on the condition that anyone going to see it would have to pass through an exhibit about Austria's role in the Holocaust to get there.

[–] Tomatish 10 years ago

What a symbol for justice THAT would be! Because Israel is definitely not stealing another people's land and culture and making their lives miserable as hell!!

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tomatish 10 years ago

Just keep talking about what was called Palestine and what wasn't, because you know you can't defend what really happened.

How many Jews lived in the area in 1800s and how many did after the British mandate? How many migrated there in waves under British occupation?

Were the people of the land (whatever their religion) asked before this migration was undertaken?

If an occupier gives you land, that doesn't make you less of a thief, just a pathetic one who doesn't dare do the stealing himself.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cooler56 10 years ago

My point still stands. Maria Altmann claims she never wanted the paintings originally, whether that is actually true or not (in her intentions) is regardless. She basically found a lawyer clever enough to find a loophole in international law that got her those paintings. You would think that gives closure to this story, but it all is invalidated when she sell the paintings no more than a year after she gets them. That's it.

Yes, she has went through quite a struggle, but her court battle for these paintings hardly tells me that she has received "justice" for her suffering. It doesn't matter if the Nazis found the paintings "degenerate," the point is they hid them for safekeeping (they knew their cultural value, read about how the Nazis stole paintings from all over europe in an attempt to bring them to Berlin), if the paintings had been destroyed then this movie would not exist in the first place.

I disagree with the OP who says that she set out to get money from the very start, but I think that once she got the paintings, I am sure it was an enticing idea for her. I am sure she had many legal fees, but hardly amounting to $135 million. She was a very smart and resilient woman, but hardly honorable or transparent. Yes, she was not a rich woman, but not poor either. I am sure her family is doing very well from her efforts. Her quest for these paintings can be characterized as an unhealthy obsession. Don't ask me if Martin Luther King's struggle for civil rights is also an "unhealthy obsession," the two are not even comparable.

There are many people much more deserving of a Hollywood biopic, and who knows if their stories will ever see the light of day. I believe that this is a story that does not deserve this cinematic treatment.

[–] berniegfletcher 10 years ago

"My point still stands". What point? Why is cooler so offended by a movie he could simply avoid seeing? Cooler refuses to answer a simple question: Who did the paintings belong to? He brings up a lot of irrelevant points. Who said anything about Martin Luther King?
The Nazis were thugs who stole paintings and jewellery because of their value, not to "safeguard" them. They stole private family portraits off the walls of private homes. And you claim Maria, a woman in her late eighties, is not "honorable or transparent"? What does "transparent" even mean in this case? She wanted her paintings back. Why is this so difficult for cooler to comprehend? "Unhealthy" for whom?? The Belvedere was complicit in the art thefts and knew full well where they were stolen from. (At one time Ferdinand had allowed the paintings to be displayed there.) After the theft the portrait of his wife Adele went to the Belvedere with a letter signed "Heil Hitler". The Belvedere art historians knew that Adele was Jewish and changed the name of the art to "Lady in Gold" to hide the past and ownership. How "honorable" was this? The Austrian government fought Maria at every turn, refusing to come to an agreement. Should she have given up? Would that have been "honorable"? Her friend's child, Susi, was disabled. The Nazis "euthanized" her. Don't speak of honor. What colour of triangle would some of your friends wear...yellow, black, pink? "First they came for..."
How many times does it need to be explained that this is not a Hollywood movie? Please give some examples of biopics that deserve to be made, but weren't produced because of Woman in Gold? You are calling this a "biopic" when it is really a story about the Holocaust and yes, justice. Justice isn't going to come for millions, but at least one woman saw a small bit of justice in her lifetime. Why does that so offend cooler? Maybe cooler should do some soul searching to find out the real issue. Read "The Lady in Gold", read what happened to her friends and family and then come on here, and explain how Maria wasn't "honorable".

[–] berniegfletcher 10 years ago

Some other facts that cooler and others do not understand or choose to ignore:
1) Maria's uncle had donated a Klimt painting "Schloss Kammer" to the Belvedere in perpetuity. The museum SOLD it to a Nazi official. By 1944 the Belvedere museum was closed and occupied with the administration of stolen art.
2) After being looted of all valuables, Ferdinand's home became the Vienna HQ of the German railway that sent men, women and children to death camps to "cleanse" Vienna.
3) The Lederer collection, the single most important collection of Klimt's work, was destroyed by the SS intentionally burning down Schlooss Immendorf (a castle) in 1945.
Up to 14 Klimt's were destroyed forever. So much for the Nazis safeguarding art. Hitler ordered all the stolen art blown up and explosives were placed in the caves, but this was prevented.
4)Retreating German Army troops burned down the Secession building, Klimt's beautiful "temple to art".
5)In exile Ferdinand drew up his will as the war was ending, twenty years after Adele had died and after the Holocaust. Everything had been stolen from him. Adele's family and friends had been insulted, murdered and driven to suicide. Cooler writes of REALITY...who in their right mind would think that Maria's uncle would leave his precious Adele paintings, the only memories of his beloved wife with the Vienna that bragged of cleansing the streets of Jews?
These facts are from the book Lady in Gold. Has cooler or the OP presented any facts to back up their offensive remarks?

[–] BB7827 10 years ago

Thank you, berniegfletcher for being a voice of reason. If Austria had given Mrs. Altman the Klimt landscape she originally asked for, they could have saved themselves a lot of grief. Most people describe her as being kind, generous and comment on her delightful sense of humor. If you really want to know what this woman was about fill out a FOIA request for the transcript of the Supreme Court hearing. Her true colors came shining through.

"I'm with the Government and I'm here to help you." Me, every d@mn day of my life one

[–] cooler56 10 years ago

You are still ignoring my point. Yes, the Nazis destroyed some works, but plenty of them survived the war, not by sheer coincidence, these Klimts included. Adele still never owned the paintings herself to begin with, though she fought hard to prove that she deserved it because her relatives owned it. There are plenty of priceless artworks in museums that will never be returned to their families because the war broke up these families and many people have died. Forget artworks even, there are people who have lost their COUNTRIES because of war.

Like I said again, she only was able to get those paintings back because of a loophole in international law. I know that she was unsuccessful when she went to Austria. I don't think she originally set out to acquire those paintings for their monetary value. However, she was already an old woman when she started her legal battle. She already had survived through most of her life without it. By then, the paintings were enjoyed by generations of people celebrating a piece of Austrian heritage. Yes, it is shameful the Nazis covered up the Jewish origin of these paintings, but somehow countries like Austria and Germany were able to apologize for their own shameful past.

Yes, she got paintings of her beloved Aunt back (into her family's possession) but that will not bring her own family back. No one has a basic human right to paintings. Lives are still more important than material possessions. Even when she got the painting back, I can agree that it provides some closure to the struggle in her life.

Except that she sells those paintings, for a lot of money. It shows that she did not have that much appreciation for the paintings to begin with, the paintings that she fought so hard for, or she realized that there were more important things than paintings. Yes, the money was of little use to her since she was already so old. But I am sure it greatly benefited her family. I am sure they have donated some portion of it, though I have not heard any charity regarding the Altmann family donating over $100 million dollars in the past 5 years.

And that is where you fail to see the whole picture. You try to superimpose the sentimental value of the painting to Maria Altmann's personal struggle. When she finally gets the painting, and subsequently sells it, it is easy to see that the whole journey somehow seemed shallow. Yes, it was her paintings to do with as she pleased, but at some point they were not in her possession. I won't go through the nuances of who owns what, because you have your heart set on idealism rather than the reality of things. I won't judge her for why she needed to sell the paintings, though I am sure she could have handled that better. But everyone has bills to pay. But then, that tells me that the paintings may not have meant to her to begin with. And thus, the topic of this thread. And thus, the point that the defenders of Maria Altmann refuse to concede.

I am sure she could have done more with the money she got (which we know little about due to lack of transparency). But I digress. She spent a considerable portion of her life fighting for the paintings, because it meant so much to her, only to sell them shortly afterwards? It is a slap in the face to Austria, Klimt, art history, and especially her "beloved" aunt and uncle, who she seemed to have fought so hard to honor their memory.

[–] berniegfletcher 10 years ago

Cooler continues to ignore the FACTS: REALITY check:
1) An AUSTRIAN arbitration panel ruled that these private family portraits rightfully belonged to Maria and her family! (How is this some international "loop-hole"???) It is called restitution of stolen art.
2) Maria inherited the paintings in 1945 when her uncle died. His WILL dictated OWNERSHIP of the paintings. POSSESSING stolen art does not give ownership. If I steal coolor's car, change the plates and put it in my garage, does it become my car? The fact that I didn't destroy this car, but destroyed others, (and murdered millions but did not murder Miria only because she narrowly escaped with the clothes on her back) does not confer brownie points. Maria owned the paintings in 1945. What part of this doesn't cooler understand?
3) Cooler seriously wants to give the Nazis brownie points for not getting the chance to destroy all the art works as Hitler ordered??? Safeguarding stolen property is somehow noble? The Klimts were looted in 1938 before there was any war going on. The Belvedere was knee-deep in the business of stolen art. So they should be rewarded for deception?
4) The Klimts could have stayed in the Belvedere. The Austrian government chose to fight tooth and nail rather than negotiate (hoping an 88 year-old would die soon???).
5. How does cooler know what the family does with their money? Why should it be anyone's business?
6. Nothing can bring back the murdered, but a little bit of justice is important. The alternative is a world of thugs and anarchy.
7. You want an old woman to keep Klimts in her bungalow? Hey, what could possibly go wrong with that? Maria wanted the paintings to be on public view: "I would not want any private person to buy those paintings, it's very meaningful to me that they are seen by anybody who wants to see them, because that would have been the wish of my aunt." And don't even suggest that in 1945 her uncle would think of giving the paintings to the very people who raped his daughter Luise and murdered his family and friends and stole all his possessions, using women and children in the street for target practice. Austrian heritage. Oh, but Austria says "sorry".
8. "No one has a basic human right to paintings." Ah, so you are a communist who doesn't believe in private property. That's okay, you just won't be invited over to see my art collection (prints, ha, ha, in case there are thieves around who want to "liberate" my art!)

[–] berniegfletcher 10 years ago

"a slap in the face to Austria, Klimt.." Wow, cooler knows better than even Klimt's own Austrian grandson, Gustav Zimmerman:
"It was painful for Austria to lose those paintings, but it was just. I think Adele's will was finally interpreted in the right way. Because it was clear that Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer bought the paintings of his wife. He paid for them, and it was clear they were his. If Adele had lived longer, she would have changed her will a thousand times, had she known what was to come."
A slap in the face to Austria? You mean the Vienna of Klimt and Freud whose 4 sisters died in concentration camps? That Freud? Or the Steinhof Hospital pediatric clinic where they euthanized children to study their brains (finally buried in 2002). "One of the women painted by Klimt was sent at gunpoint to a place where families burned in ovens." (Lady in Gold, p. 194)
But I guess I "fail to see the whole picture". Does cooler know that Maria wanted to donate the second Adele to the Neue Gallery to be with the first, but all the heirs couldn't come to an agreement? Does cooler know that Maria first offered to let the Belvedere keep the art? That Austria first demanded $1.8 million just to look at the case?
Restitution of stolen art is part of Austria's coming to terms with the past. A new generation wanted more honesty about their history. I love Austria. The people of today are not responsible for the crimes of the past, but they should know their history.

[–] Vulcans_Rule 10 years ago

That's a cynical view.

The ruling was that they were rightfully hers. You don't like the ruling, and your opinion is noted.

 Live long and prosper.

[–] Stratego 10 years ago

The OP is absolutely right.