🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish spouses have initiated legal proceedings against New York's Metropolitan Museum, claiming that a Vincent van Gogh oil painting was stolen by the Nazis.

Origins of the Dispute

Per the legal filing, the Stern couple purchased the artwork, titled Olive Picking, in 1935. Just one year later, they were obliged to escape their dwelling in Munich, Germany just before World War II.

The suit argues that the institution, which acquired the artwork in 1956 for one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars, must have realized it was likely stolen property. The heirs are now demanding the restitution of the painting along with compensation.

Since the end of the war, this Nazi-looted painting has been often and discreetly exchanged, bought and sold in and through New York, states the lawsuit.

Forced Emigration

The Sterns fled from Munich to California in 1936 with their six children due to persecution by the Nazis. Nevertheless, they were barred from transporting the Van Gogh piece, which was painted by the Dutch post-impressionist in 1889.

Before they left, Nazi authorities classified the painting as German cultural property and prohibited the Sterns from bringing it with them. After obtaining permission from a regime representative, a representative appointed by the regime sold the piece on the Sterns' behalf. However, the funds from the sale were placed in a blocked account, which the Nazis later seized.

Post-War History

Around 1948, or not long after, the canvas arrived in the United States and was purchased by a prominent figure, one of America's wealthiest people. Eventually, it was sold through a commercial outlet to the institution, which then transferred it to Greek shipping magnate Basil Goulandris and his wife, Elise, in the early 1970s.

The Greek couple established the BEG in 1979, which operates a gallery in the Greek capital where the artwork is currently shown.

Court Allegations

The institution and a family member of Goulandris are identified in the suit. The lawsuit claims that the Goulandris family and its associated organizations have covered up the masterpiece's history and current place from the family.

To this day, the Goulandris Defendants continue to hide the circumstances the BEG came into ownership of the piece; the family's possession of the masterpiece from several years; and the facts that the Third Reich looted the Painting from the Stern family, forced the Sterns into selling it via a Nazi-appointed agent, and seized the funds of the sale.

Previous Legal Action

The family filed a similar complaint in California in 2022, but it was dismissed in 2024. An appeal was also denied in recently.

Institution's Statement

The complaint contends that the Met's purchase of the piece was authorized by a curator, the Met's authority of European paintings and one of the world's foremost experts on Nazi-era looted art. The institution and its expert knew or should have known that the masterpiece had likely been stolen by Nazis.

The institution responded that it is committed to its longstanding commitment to handle claims from the Nazi period.

An official commented: At no time during the institution's custody of the piece was there any record that it had earlier been possessed to the Stern family – actually, that knowledge did not become known until several decades after the painting left the Museum's collection.

The museum's disposal of Olive Picking met the institution's rigorous standards for disposal – namely, it was recorded that the work was deemed to be of lower caliber than other works of the same type in the collection. Even though The Met upholds its view that this artwork entered the inventory and was deaccessioned lawfully and well within all rules and regulations, the institution welcomes and will consider any further evidence that emerges.

Goulandris Statement

William Charron on behalf of the Goulandris Foundation stated: BEG is a renowned institution in the Greek capital. The effort to sue and smear the institution and the family in the US upon inaccurate and partial claims was already thrown out, on two occasions. We are certain it will be once more.