🔗 Share this article New York's Met Museum Faces Legal Action Over Supposedly Nazi-Stolen Van Gogh Artwork The heirs of a Jewish couple have brought a case against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, asserting that a Vincent van Gogh canvas was stolen by the Nazis. Origins of the Dispute According to the court documents, Hedwig and Frederick Stern bought the painting, titled Olive Harvest, in the year 1935. A year after, they were compelled to leave their dwelling in Munich on the eve of WWII. The suit contends that the museum, which purchased the artwork in the mid-1950s for a significant sum, ought to have been aware it was probably looted property. The heirs are now requesting the restitution of the painting along with financial restitution. Following WWII, this plundered piece has been repeatedly and secretly trafficked, bought and sold in and through New York, claims the legal filing. The Sterns' Escape Hedwig and Frederick Stern fled from their Munich home to America in 1936 with their six children due to Nazi persecution. However, they were unable to bring the painting, which was painted by the Dutch post-impressionist in 1889. Before the family's emigration, the Nazi government declared the painting as a German cultural asset and banned the couple from taking it abroad. Once approved from a regime representative, a agent designated by the Nazis auctioned the painting on the couple's behalf. But, the money from the transaction were deposited in a blocked account, which the authorities later took. Post-War History By 1948, or soon after, the painting entered the United States and was acquired by a prominent figure, a member of the Astor family. Later, it was transferred through a art dealer to the museum, which then transferred it to wealthy Greek businessman Goulandris and his spouse, Elise Goulandris, in 1972. The Goulandris pair set up the BEG in 1979, which runs a institution in Athens, Greece where the painting is currently exhibited. Legal Arguments BEG and a family member of the magnate are identified in the suit. The legal action claims that the defendants and its associated organizations have hidden and obscured the artwork's provenance and whereabouts from the family. To this day, the foundation continue to conceal the circumstances the institution came into control of the piece; the Stern family's ownership of the artwork from the mid-1930s; and the truth that the Third Reich looted the canvas from the heirs, pressured the Sterns into selling it via a trustee, and confiscated the funds of the deal. Prior Cases The family submitted a comparable case in CA in recently, but it was rejected in 2024. An legal challenge was also dismissed in recently. Museum's Response The legal action argues that the Met's purchase of the painting was authorized by a curator, the museum's curator of Old Masters and one of the world's foremost experts on Nazi art looting. The curator and the museum knew or should have known that the masterpiece had probably been looted by the Nazis. The Met issued a statement that it is committed to its ongoing pledge to resolve Nazi-era claims. A spokesperson stated: Not once during the museum's possession of the piece was there any record that it had earlier been possessed to the heirs – in fact, that data did not become accessible until a long time after the artwork left the institution's holdings. The museum's disposal of the Van Gogh met the museum's strict criteria for deaccessioning – in particular, it was documented that the piece was judged to be of lesser quality than other works of the comparable nature in the inventory. While the museum upholds its stance that this piece entered the collection and was sold lawfully and well within all guidelines and policies, the Met invites and will examine any further evidence that emerges. Foundation's Defense A lawyer acting for the Goulandris Foundation stated: The Goulandris Foundation is a highly prestigious organization in the Greek capital. The action to sue and smear the organization and the Goulandris family in the US upon inaccurate and partial claims was earlier rejected, on two occasions. We are convinced it will be a third time.