Royal Academy Exhibition : From Russia : By Gillian Hammerton

From ancient times victors in war would appropriate movable artefacts and cultural symbol of conquest and trophies of war as well as for purposes of enrichment. Such spoils of war with destruction and acquisition of monuments and cultural property from conquered territory, has extended through antiquity including from the ravaging and destruction of Carthage at the end of 3rd Punic War in 146 B.C. to the looting by of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 and beyond.

The Destruction of Carthage: 146 BC.

The concept that cultural property should be awarded special protection first generated in Europe in the eighteenth century when Vattel’s The Law of Nations (1758:395) holds, “For whatever cause a country is ravaged, we ought to spare those edifices which do honour to human society, and do not contribute to increase the enemy’s strength-such as temples, tombs, public buildings, and all works of remarkable beauty. It is declaring oneself an enemy to mankind, thus wantonly to deprive them of these monuments of art.”

Throughout history with the passage of time there have gradually emerged general provisions and principles stressing proportionality in the conduct of war restricting the targets of war to military imperatives. Particular respect been given for places of worship, establishments of learning, schools, observatories, universities, and museums of fine arts and of science. This also included classical works of art, scientific collections and libraries (U.S. Army 1863: Leiber Code: Articles 34 and 35). Article 36 states that if works of art, libraries, and scientific collections are seized, ownership issues are settled during the peace treaties and negotiations and that under no circumstances should they be destroyed injured or privately appropriated .

The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 on the Laws and Customs of War was the first codification by international treaty to enshrine principles of conduct towards cultural property and objects of artistic value and heritage, and prohibiting the destruction of buildings and monuments. However, during the First World War, 1914-1918, cultural property was subject to bombardment and acquisition and both private and state sponsored looting and, despite the Conventional provisions being implemented in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, this failure was to be reproduced on a larger scale during the Second World War. Though in 1939 President Franklin D. Roosevelt negotiated terms of agreement between France, Poland, Great Britain and Germany to protect cultural property and heritage, there was nevertheless a proliferation of both state and private organised looting, requisitioning and plunder during the Second World War. The 1954 Hague Convention was an achievement of great significance. Article 1 sought to define cultural property including works of art, manuscripts, objects of artistic interests and scientific collections and centres containing such cultural properties with Article 2 protecting such property with Article 4 prohibiting the theft and misappropriation of such property. The Hague Convention provided the framework of compensation in cases of violation and breaches and also became the basis for reparation of cultural property the breaches against which occurred after the war. Remedies for the theft and the loss of cultural property includes not only the return of looted property but also reparation for lost or destroyed objects, The International Criminal Court 1988 Article 8 holds that pillaging and plundering a town, including the direct assault on buildings of education, art, religion and science not focus on military objectives, to be a war crime .

The concern for the issue of reparations is complicated and concerns morality, ethics, law, both international and national, culture and education. Works of art are not simply objects of private inheritance and ownership, not simply objects, part of the constituents of museum exhibits and collections. Great works of art are not merely objects to be collected in museums, arranged, looked after, and exhibited. They are our inheritance from the Masters and their history is part of the history of mankind.Because of the problems of reparation there was an increasing reluctance of countries to accede to requests for loans of their artistic work for international exhibitions in galleries and museums, exhibitions which introduce important knowledge of culture and civilisation within frameworks of movements and specific artists, the works of which might otherwise remained scattered across the globe (Guardian 10/1/ 2008).

Lord Howarth Newport (2006) states that the “difficulties in organising exhibitions are multiplying and the number of refusals of loans are multiplying.” Indeed anti-seizure legislation has been enacted in several countries such as France, Germany and the United States, hence such protection is becoming established as an international norm.

From Russia Royal Academy Exhibition

This particular issue arose specifically in relation to the Royal Academy’s From Russia exhibition .The exhibition was due to exhibit French and Russian paintings from 1870 to 1925 from St Petersburg and Moscow and included a hundred and twenty Impressionists and Modernists masterpieces by Picasso, Van Gogh, Cézanne and Renoir.

Figure 4: The Dance (1910) by Henri Matisse Royal Academy From Russian Exhibition

Figure 6: The Pond at Montgeron by Claude Monet. From Russian Exhibition

Thirteen of these paintings were originally owned by Morozov, a Russian tsarist era collector and twenty three originally come from the last collection of Sergey Shchukin and confiscated in 1918 by Lenin during nationalisation. In 1917 during the Russian Revolution all private property was subject to such nationalisation including works of art in order to be and put on public display for the purposes of public and culture benefit. Amongst those appropriated from the Shchukin collection which were exhibited in the Royal Academy in the From Russia exhibition were two masterpieces by Matisse, The Danc and Music, which were respectively on permanently exhibited in the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg and the Pushkin Museum in Moscow viewed by many thousands of people. Dryad by Pablo Picasso and The Muse Inspiring the Poet (1909) Henri Rousseau, both exhibited in the From Russia exhibition and were also both from the Shchukin collection Rosenthal (2008a: 49).

The Muse Inspiring the Poet (1909) Henri Rousseau

Rosenthal points out that such picture should be on permanent display in the great museums in preference to there being returned to the descendents of the original owners who would probably sell the works at auction hence taking them from public view which he holds to be their moral and right for environment. He gives as an example the Klint portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer, which had hung in the Belvedere in Vienna prior to being returned to Maria Altman, a US claimant in 2006.though the work is currently on display to the public in the Neue Gallery in New York, it is susceptible at any time to being withdrawn from the public arena.

Figure 7: Dryad (1908) by Pablo Picasso. Royal Academy From Russian Exhibition.

Rosenthal (2008a: 49) argues that the vagaries of the art market should not be allowed to control the visibility of the great artistic masterpieces of the world. He holds that “culture including visual culture should be available to everyone in this world.” He believes that the resolution of legal and jurisdictional problems between Russia and Great Britain enabled them to establish the From Russia exhibition at the Royal Academy resulting in “much happiness and pleasure …being given to so many.”

From Russia Royal Academy Exhibition

In Dusseldorf, Germany, the exhibition of these paintings had attracted in excess of 200,000 visitors (Guardian 10/1/ 2008). Russia had withdrawn permission of the granting of the loan of these paintings to the United Kingdom because of insecurity relating to the return of these artistic works if the exhibition was to proceed in the jurisdiction which possessed no antiseizure laws. The Russians feared that the descendents of the original owners might thus avail themselves of the jurisdictional opportunity to institute legal proceedings in the United Kingdom, seeking ownership and restitution. Before granting permission for the loan of the artistic masterpieces the Russians demanded the implementation of legislation which would ensure the painting immunity from seizure. Only after the British government extended “maximum possible assurances” and fast tracked new legislation protecting art from the process of seizure, did the Russian’s agree to proceed with the exhibition. The United Kingdom new anti- seizure law was enacted early in order to enable the Royal Academy’s From Russia exhibition to proceed .

Paul Gauguin, Vairaumati Tei Oa (Her Name was Vairaumati), 1892.

The Tribunals, Court and Enforcement Act 2007(Immunity from Seizure Act), received Royal Assent in July 2007. The act provides that “immunity from seizure to objects which have been lent to this country from overseas to be included in a temporary exhibition at a museum or gallery.” Part Six of this legislation holds that the descendants of the original owners of art works would be estopped from processing claims of ownership and restitution on British soil. This legislation forecloses the descendents of Morozov and Shchukin from making any claims against the art works from the “From Russia” exhibition. The purpose of the legislation was to safeguard cultural objects which are the subject of exhibitional loans from forfeiture and seizure from the hitherto indelible rights derived from ownership and inheritance to redeem through legal process looted works of art in Britain. The legislation was to combat the increasing reluctance of other countries to accede to requests for loans of their artistic works for international exhibitions in galleries and museums, exhibitions which introduce important knowledge of culture and civilisation within frameworks of movements and specific artists, the works of which might otherwise remained scattered across the globe.( Guardian 10/1/ 2008).

Marc Chagall, Promenade, 1917–18.

On the ninth of January 2008, as a result of the legislation and intense negotiations, the Royal Academy received formal approval from Mikael Shvydkoi, the director of the Cultural and Cinematographic Federal Agency, that the paintings would be permitted to be exhibited at the Royal Academy from January 26^th, 2008 until April the 18th 2008.On the 11^th of January 2008 the paintings arrived at the Royal Academy, where the chief executive, Charles Saumarez Smith stated that this was the result of “close cooperation” the four Russian state museums, the federal agency ,the department for Culture, Media and Sport , the British Embassy in Moscow and the Russian Embassy in London and that the Royal Academy were “absolutely delighted” ( Guardian 10/1/ 2008),(Bailey 2008)

Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin, Bathing the Red Horse, 1912

Despite the “delight” of the Royal Academy, and of art lovers to be able to view the artistic masterpieces, there are grave concerns over the legislation which permitted the immunity. The British government have been confronted with allegations of complicity and acquisition in the retention of appropriated to property as a result of this legislation. Stephens (2008) maintains this legislation is” morally reprehensible and…in fundamental breach of the domestic and international standards.” He holds it is against cultural and civilised norm enshrined in international law and established by declaration as and treaties such as UNESCO and UNIDROIT.Stephens (2008) argues that the UNESO Convention (ratified by the United Kingdom in 2002) holds the importance for all states both nationally and internationally to be cognisant to the moral obligations towards cultural heritage and protect cultural property against illicit export and theft. The paintings in the From Russia exhibition which were subjected nationalisation in the absence of compensation were unlawful appropriated from the Shchukin and the Morozov families and their descendants ,and hence according to the principles, adhered to by the Convention, the Russian export of the paintings to Great Britain with the illicit.

Stephen (2008: 25) insists that by showing the “From Russia” Exhibition, the Royal Academy is in fact exhibiting looted art .He holds that the Cultural Secretary, James Purnell, had “bounced into law with unseemly haste” the necessary “immunity from seizure” legislation to enable the exhibition to go ahead. In fact the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007was implemented with unprecedented speed outside a period of National Emergency leading the presumption that “legislation was (wrongly) prepared in advance of concluding the consultation.” Stephen argues that the artistic works, the subject of the exhibition, were acquired through criminal malfeasance incapable of transferring good title, hence the heirs of the legitimate owners retain good title and therefore full entitlement. Stephen holds that by the British government allowing looted art into its museums and institutions it becomes complicit in the illegal activity generated from the looting.

Ilya Repin, Manifesto of October 17th, 1905. 1911.

Ilya Repin, Manifesto of October 17th, 1905. 1911.
Concerns extend beyond the exhibits temporarily on loan to the Royal Academy, and could have pernicious ramifications beyond the context of the paintings of this exhibition. Russia is host to the multitude of great and priceless art treasures which disappeared from Soviet held territory at the end of the Second World War, and that this trove has been valued at up to $15 billion is clearly a motivating variable of these “extraordinary measures” of protection. Hitler and the German Nazi Party systematically, from 1933 to 1945, through military personnel and private individuals, were responsible for the widespread state plunder and looting in war zones and occupied territory. This included not only forced sales and widespread confiscation from extensive and valuable private collections across Europe, but also the comprehensive pillage and theft and destruction of the great European museums and institutions.

Wassily Kandinsky, Composition VII, 1913.

Wassily Kandinsky, Composition VII, 1913.

Russian law prevents the proclaiming of looted art which is in possession of the government, and in

Russia

most of the cultural artefacts and property is in the government session, having been subjected to the government’s tendency for spoliation, going back since 1917 and becoming enormously prolific at the end of World War II.

At the end of the Second World War the Russians looted many cultural spoils from Nazi Germany, both artworks and artefacts already subject to looting by the Nazis and also the contents of German cultural institutions and museums.

By 1945 Stalin continued Hitler’s plunder, with his immense appropriation of “trophy art” extradited from “liberated” regions and sent in vast trainloads to Stalinist Russia, regardless of their signing of the 1907 Hague Conventions on the Laws and Customs of War. This prohibits the plundering of heritage and cultural property and reiterated principles of conduct towards objects of artistic value and heritage. It also reiterated that seized works of art, libraries, and collections issues be settled during the peace treaties and negotiations and that under no circumstances should they be destroyed injured or privately appropriated. Though the Soviets returned over a million artworks to East Germany in the 1950s they have retained many more art treasures, which only surface when they are the subject of exhibition loans, and these are done under the strictest conditions of legislative protection of their art from the process of seizure from the lawful owners. Loans help at least to unprize and expose the comprehensive inventory of Russian looted art kept in its repositories. This particularly could help the Holocaust victims and others persecuted by the Nazis for reasons of ethnic identity, religion or race and their descendants in the reclamation of the property, which the Russians exclude from the determination to legalise their possession of “war trophies.” Since the end of the Second World War Russia has hidden “information about the details of the art taken from Nazi Germany and that about 200,000 pieces of this trophy art and now reportedly stored in Russian museums and private collections.

Valentin Serov, Ida Rubinstein, 1910.

Property acquired without compensation within the Russian legal system is fraught with the moral complexities, however, the extension of the estoppel of restitution in areas beyond the jurisdiction of the Russian borders is of the legal questionable premise. It is the collusion of the British government with the Royal Academy which has been seen by many as an area of dubious moral and legal propensity and having troubling possible parameters. This legislation, the Tribunals, Court and Enforcement Act 2007, fundamentally undermines the commitment of the British government and our National Institutions to right past wrongs.

However, Rosenthal former exhibition secretary of the Royal Academy, advocates an amelioration of the 1998 Washington DC agreement under which forty four countries were committed to the restitution of looted artworks to the original owners or their descendants. Rosenthal holds that “history is history” and that historical events should be subject to discardation rather than some moral resonance belonging to events gone by. He maintains that justice be utilised for the concentration and establishment of a creative present and future. He argues that great masterpieces should be available for public heritage and visual culture and available for everyone and that Descendants “distanced by two or more generations” from these great art works should not be entitled to claim an inalienable right to reclaim such heritage property. He holds that museums must be permitted to retain possession of art looted by the Nazis regime, and extraordinary clam some held because of his parents being Jewish refugees. Rosenthal (2008a: 49) states “I believe grandchildren and distant relations of people who had works of art or property taken by the Nazis do not now have an inalienable right to ownership, at the beginning of the century.” He argues that a vital variable in bringing the Russian exhibition to the Royal Academy is the “Giving pleasure and instruction to thousands of visitors from London, Great Britain and all over the world.” He exemplified the case that the Elgin Marbles remain in the British Museum and holds that “no one owns Matisse and Picasso, Botticelli or Caravaggio any more than they own Shakespeare, Chekhov, Beethoven or Shostakovich.”

Isaak Levitan, After the Rain, Plyos, 1889.

The preservation of cultural heritage for each nation is reflected in the provisions and principles of the Hague Convention, international agreements and national laws and respects the human and cultural rights of nations and individuals within their civilised and cultural contextual heritage. If an object has been acquired through illegal violation, corrupt source or neglect or destruction the wanton disregard of these principles some hold becomes the jurisprudence of moral significance and not to be discharged by the cursory “history is history.” However, against this is the compelling argument that visual culture is a universal right which should not be subject to the vagaries of the art market and the preserve of private individuals, but should be part of a cultural heritage shared by all, a unique shard of human aspiration, that can only belong us all collectively and not secluded in the confines of private ownership.