Note: In this post, I talk about Dr. Curt Glaser, a prominent Jewish art historian, museum director, art critic, and art collector, who until recently lost his place in the history of art and was almost completely forgotten following the Nazi seizure of power. He is a distant relative by marriage. I discuss the ongoing and challenging efforts by his heirs to obtain a fair and just settlement for the large and outstanding art collection Glaser was forced to sell in 1933, a collection that wound up scattered around the world.
Related Posts:
POST 97: PROVING TO MY URUGUAYAN COUSIN THE EXISTENCE OF HIS GREAT-AUNT AND -UNCLE’S DAUGHTER
POST 105: FEDOR LÖWENSTEIN’S NAZI-CONFISCATED ART: RESTITUTION DENIED
With this post, I embark on a series of articles that may be of broader interest to readers. While the upcoming posts are inspired by circumstances that impacted members of my family, near and distant, they touch on historical events and people that followers may have some familiarity with. That’s to say, some of the topics transcend and relate to affairs and happenings that affected more than just my family.
In Post 97, I introduced readers to Dr. Curt Glaser (1879-1943), a relative by marriage. For context, Dr. Glaser’s second wife was Maria Milch (1901-1981) (Figure 1), my third cousin once removed, so by no means a close relative. Curt and Maria were married on the 30th of May 1933 in Berlin, following the death of Curt’s first wife, Elsa Glaser née Kolker (1878-1932) (Figure 2) at the age of just 54 from a serious illness. In Post 97, I related the sad fate of Curt and Maria’s only child, Eva Renate Glaser (1935-1943), who died of Trisomy-21, the most common form of Down Syndrome.
This post is focused instead on the extensive art collection that Curt amassed with his first wife, its fate following the Nazi ascension to power in 1933, and the ongoing efforts by Dr. Glaser’s heirs to receive just compensation for the forced sale of Curt and Elsa’s accumulation of exceptional artworks.
Curt was born on May 29, 1879, in Leipzig, Germany, the son of the businessman Simon Glaser (1841-1904) and his wife Emma Glaser née Haase (1854-1927). Curt’s parents moved to Berlin shortly after his birth. Curt Glaser received his doctorate in medicine in Munich in 1902, then immediately began a second degree in art history, a topic that had always interested him. He first studied in Freiburg and Munich, then in Berlin where he worked with Heinrich Wölfflin. He wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on Hans Holbein the Elder and received his doctorate in 1907. Glaser, born Jewish, converted to the Protestant faith in around 1911.
In 1903, Curt married his first wife Elsa Kolker from Breslau [today: Wrocław, Poland], the daughter of the industrialist and art collector Hugo Kolker. (Figure 3) Starting around 1910, with the support and in part at the bidding of Glaser’s father-in-law, Curt and Elsa began to build a significant art collection that encompassed, among others, the works of Edvard Munch, Vincent van Gogh, Henri Matisse, Pablo Picasso, and Hans Purmann. To give readers an idea of the extent of the art collection Curt and Elsa amassed, according to a footnote in Wikipedia on Curt Glaser, “The German Lost Art Foundation lists 1806 objects that belonged to Glaser and his wife in its database.” It’s not clear, however, from this footnote whether this constitutes an itemized inventory.
Beginning in around 1902, Glaser began to be active as an art critic and became one of the most important critics and commentators in Berlin over the next thirty years. Yet, as a central figure in Berlin’s art scene, he has largely been forgotten in the years since his death.
Glaser started working in 1909 at the Königliches Kupferstichkabinett where, by 1912, he began significantly expanding their collection of modern and contemporary art and promoting it through numerous exhibitions. Curt’s tenure at the Kupferstichkabinett corresponded with the publication of some of his most important scholarly works, including monographs on Lucas Cranach the Elder (1921) and Hans Holbein the Younger (1924).
In 1924, Glaser became the director of Berlin’s Kunstbibliothek (State Art Library), where he was tasked with redefining it “as an art historical research library.” By 1925, Curt and Elsa had moved into a civil service apartment unattached to Curt’s position as director of the Berlin Art Library in which the Glaser’s art collection could be suitably exhibited. Curt’s lofty position and the Glasers’ luxurious apartment where they could host important art salons meant they now belonged to Berlin’s intellectual elite. (Figures 4-7) The Glaser home on Prinz-Albrecht-Straße [today: Niederkirchnerstraße] became a meeting point for art intellectuals.
Curt Glaser’s fate was reflective of that of many Jews living in Germany during the 1930’s. Following the seizure of power by the National Socialists in January 1933, the “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service” was enacted in April 1933. As a result, Glaser was swiftly placed on administrative leave, then fired from his post at the Berlin State Art Library. By May 1933, he was forced from his apartment, a building which came to house the Gestapo headquarters.
May 1933 also corresponds with the period that much of the Glasers’ collection was auctioned in Berlin. The bulk of Glaser’s art collection and library, as well as his home furnishings, were auctioned at the Internationales Kunst- und Auktions-Haus on May 9, 1933, and at the Berlin Buch- und Kunst-Antiquariat Max Perl on May 18-19, 1933. These auctions in 1933 resulted in Glaser’s collection being scattered across the globe.
An auction was believed to be the option that provided the opportunity to obtain the best possible prices given the circumstances at the time. These circumstances included the world economic crisis, the National Socialists’ seizure of power, and an increasing number of auctions of entire collections belonging not only to fleeing Jews but recently impoverished owners as well. There’s no question that many museums and private collectors tried to take advantage of these conditions to make inexpensive purchases of sought-after art collections. It’s clear that Glaser largely dissolved his collection for personal reasons, but also under pressure from the National Socialists. More will be said about this below in connection with the purchase in 1933 by the Kunstmuseum in Basel of almost 200 drawings and graphics from the Glaser collection.
According to a report by the Kunstmuseum in Basel entitled “Curt Glaser Report: III. Summary of the Historical Facts,” “While proceeds from auctions by Jewish consignors were already being transferred to blocked accounts during the first years of the Nazi regime, in Glaser’s case the research assumes that he received the proceeds of the auctions. It cannot be ascertained whether and to what extent Glaser had access to his salary and bank accounts from abroad in 1933 due to the foreign currency legislation of 1931.”
This report also makes the following observation as to the final sale amounts realized at the Glaser auction in Berlin, specifically the Max Perl auction, and its impact on Glaser’s fortune: “The final sale amounts at the auction reflect the trend that important pieces attained high prices while less important works remained below expectations. The two prominent lithographs by Munch that were acquired for the Kunstmuseum Basel were bid up above the appraisal (by 29.2% and 8.3%), while the total price of all 200 works acquired for the museum amounted to 10.1% below the appraised value. Existing research, as well as the Glaser compensation proceeding of 1963, indicates that Glaser lost a considerable portion of his fortune in the auctions.”
A brief digression. Following the death of Curt Glaser’s first wife Elsa in 1932, as a tribute to her life as a wife, collector, and patron of Edvard Munch’s work, Curt donated Munch’s painting “Music on Karl Johan Street (1889)” to the Nationalgalerie in Berlin. This painting was eventually returned to Curt Glaser by the Nationalgalerie, no doubt as a part of the Nazi effort to remove from museums what they deemed as “degenerate” art. This included works of Expressionism, Dadaism, the New Objectivity, Surrealism, Cubism, and Fauvism; more than 21,000 objects were seized by the Nazis, many of which were presented in the exhibition “Degenerate Art,” which traveled throughout Germany. In any case, Glaser took Munch’s painting with him when he later left for Switzerland. No longer able to afford donating it, he sold it to the Kunsthaus Zürich in December 1940 for 12,000 Swiss Francs.
Curt Glaser was permanently dismissed from the civil service on September 27, 1933, Ironically, in January 1934, he was awarded a pension by the Nazi government, although it amounted to only three-quarters of what would have been paid to an Aryan civil servant. Apparently, Glaser’s pension was transferred abroad, although after November 1, 1936, the Reich Flight Tax introduced by the Nazis was deducted.
Following the liquidation of his art collection, Curt left Germany with his future second wife Maria Milch. In June/July of 1933 they stayed briefly in Paris, then moved temporarily to Ascona, Switzerland. Between 1936 and then again between 1938-1939, the Glasers stayed in Florence, Italy with their daughter, who was born in 1935, probably in Ascona. After WWII was declared and Italy became part of the Axis powers, the Glasers emigrated to America in 1941 via Italy and Cuba without their daughter. Curt died in New York in 1943, aged just 64, never having managed to reestablish a professional career either in Switzerland or the United States following his departure from Germany.
As mentioned briefly above, about 200 works in Curt Glaser’s collection were acquired by the Kunstmuseum Basel at the Max Perl auction. In what can only be considered another ironic development, in the summer of 1938, Glaser had applied unsuccessfully for the directorship of the Kunstmuseum in Basel that had acquired so many of his artworks.
Next, I want to contrast the differing approaches taken vis a vis Glaser’s heirs by the Kunstmuseum in Basel and the family of the Norwegian shipowner Thomas Olsen who recently auctioned a masterpiece by Edvard Munch that once belonged to Curt Glaser.
First, however, let me briefly touch on the 1998 Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets. This was a conference hosted by the Department of State and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum at the Department of State from November 30 through December 3, 1998. Forty-four countries as well as numerous international non-governmental organizations with a stake in these issues participated. The attendees adopted eleven basic rules, known as the Washington Principles, that are meant to help resolve open questions relating to Nazi-looted art. Museums are urged to review their collections, fill in gaps in the histories of the works, and identify illegal changes in ownership. As necessary, museums should initiate steps to return and restitute the works in question to the rightful owners or seek another form of “just and fair solution.”
A subsequent conference, the Holocaust Era Assets Conference, took place in Terezín, Czech Republic, the site of the Theresienstadt Ghetto, in June 2009. This resulted in the Terezin Declaration, a non-binding declaration by 47 countries agreeing on measures to right economic wrongs that accompanied the Holocaust against the Jews and other victims of Nazi persecution in Europe. It is neither a treaty nor a legally binding international agreement. As far as the current discussion is concerned, the Terezin Declaration ruled that forced sales fell under the terms of the Washington Conference on Holocaust-era Assets and were thus entitled to a “fair and just solution.” A forced sale would apply to the 1933 auctions of the Glaser collection.
According to the guidelines in the Terezin Declaration, while restitution of the property itself is preferred, the participating countries acknowledged, however, this is not always possible; alternatively, the guidelines suggest possible compensation that is “genuinely fair and adequate.” Since the declaration is not legally binding, it does not define how countries should act on its principles.
In terms of the artworks acquired by the Kunstmuseum in May 1933, the Glaser heirs initially approached the Basel government demanding restitution in 2008. This was roundly rejected by the city government who argued that under civil law the purchase had been lawful and was still legally binding. They further claimed, falsely as it turns out, that they had been unaware the acquisitions came from the Glaser collection. For readers interested in this issue, I refer them to the previously cited “Curt Glaser Report” by the Kunstmuseum.
By November 2017, when the heirs once again approached the Basel government, the political landscape had shifted. German museums had by then paid out millions in restitution, so the Basel government felt pressured to act to protect their reputation. They handed the question over to their Art Commission who sought a face-saving solution.
Applying the Washington Principles the Commission sought a “fair and just” settlement, writing in their report “because it is not primarily a question of legal issues, but of moral issues.” However, fearing being disavowed by the then left-green city government majority, the Commission made it clear that the government’s decision of 2008 was not being called into question, in other words, there was no “right of return” of the artworks. Rather, they argued Glaser had to be regarded as a victim of National Socialism and thus his heirs were entitled to a “fair and just” settlement. Having established the framework for an agreement that “an extrajudicial restitution of the drawings and graphics was excluded,” the Art Commission finessed the situation and negotiated financial compensation with Glaser’s heirs in 2020. This included organizing an exhibition on Glaser as an art collector and art historian and covering the legal fees and expenses for the heirs to travel to Switzerland to attend the exhibition. The exhibition allowed Curt Glaser to be remembered as one of the most important and influential museum directors of his time. While the Basel government eventually came to an amenable resolution, it took decades for Glaser’s heirs to attain satisfaction.
Let me move now to a discussion of a “fair and just” settlement recently reached with the Glaser heirs related to a painting by Edvard Munch that once belonged to Curt Glaser. This has been characterized by the Glaser family’s lawyer, David Rowland, as a case that was handled in an “exemplary” manner.
As a brief aside, I am in touch with Curt Glaser’s wife’s niece, Bettina Basanow née Meyer. (Figure 8) Following publication of Post 105 where I lamented my failed attempt to obtain restitution from the French Ministry of Culture for paintings confiscated by the Nazis in December 1940 from my father’s first cousin, Bettina referred me to David Rowland. David recommended a French-speaking law school classmate of his who in turn put me in touch with the French lawyer who is representing me in my restitution case.
One painting Curt Glaser was forced to sell under duress after the Nazis came to power was “an expressionist masterpiece” by Edvard Munch entitled “Dance on the Beach.” It was part of a pioneering 12-panel work, referred to as “The Reinhardt Frieze.” The work was originally commissioned in the early 20th century by Max Reinhardt, the famed Jewish financier of plays, operas, and concerts, for his avant-garde theater in Berlin. As Southeby’s explained in media materials, this 12-panel work was designed as an “immersive installation” before audience members stepped into the Berlin theater’s upper level. Eventually in 1912 when the theater was being refurbished, the frieze was split into its component parts, and Glaser, who was a friend of Munch, acquired the piece.
After Glaser was forced to sell “Dance on the Beach,” the Norwegian shipowner Thomas Olsen acquired the painting at a sale in Oslo in 1934. Like Glaser, Olsen was a friend and patron of Munch, and after the Nazis invaded Norway in 1940, he hid the painting in a barn. It stayed hidden until the end of the war, and since 1945 had remained in the hands of the Olsen family, the only part of the original Reinhardt-commissioned frieze still in private hands. On March 1st of this year, the painting was auctioned by the Olsen heirs, and sold for $20 million. Prior to its sale, Petter Olsen, the scion of the Olsen family, reached a “fair and just” settlement with the Glaser heirs that avoided litigation.
I’m not privy to the terms of the settlement, although Bettina Basanow, Maria Milch’s niece, tells me there are four groups of Glaser heirs involved in ongoing litigation. A 2021 New York Times noted that “Since 2007, 13 private collectors or institutions — including the Dutch Restitutions Committee, the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation in Berlin, the Museum Ludwig in Cologne and the city of Basel — have concluded that Glaser sold his collection in May 1933 as a result of Nazi persecution, and agreed to either return or pay some compensation to his heirs for art he sold that wound up in their collections.”
The New York Times article goes on to say, however, that “. . .the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston have repeatedly rejected the heirs’ claims for paintings that were sold at the same auctions. They argue there is not enough evidence that Glaser sold under duress.” Similarly, David Rowland is critical of the United Kingdom’s Spoilation Advisory Panel conclusion in 2009 that while “Nazi oppression” was a “predominant reason” for Glaser’s sale of eight drawings in 1933 to the Courtauld Institute of Art, London, the “moral claim was insufficiently strong to warrant the transfer of the drawings” to Glaser’s heirs.
Suffice it to say, it is reasonable to assume that time-consuming and expensive litigation will continue with these and other institutions and individuals until some “fair and just” settlement is reached with Glaser’s heirs on his behalf.
REFERENCES
“Curt Glaser.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Glaser
“Glaser, Curt.” Dictionary of Art Historians, https://arthistorians.info/glaserc
Hickley, Catherine. “Did the Nazis Force an Art Sale? The Question Lingers 88 Years Later.” New York Times, 6 Jul. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/06/arts/design/nazis-art-forced-sales.html
Kunstmuseum Basel. Curt Glaser Report: III. Summary of the Historical Facts. https://www.bing.com/search?q=curt+glaser+report%3A+III.+Summary+of+the+historical+facts&form=ANNTH1&refig=4bbfef8a88ec40c29ae32f9547d03369
Mensch, Christian. “Curt Glaser Case: The squaring of the cultural circle: in the case of Glaser, an agreement has been reached.” BZ Basel, 27 Mar. 2020, https://www.bzbasel.ch/basel/basel-stadt/die-quadratur-des-kulturzirkels-im-fall-glaser-wurde-eine-vereinbarung-getroffen-ld.1414834
Parzinger, Hermann. “Remembrances of Curt Glaser: A cosmopolitan, forced into exile.” Commemorative plaque unveiling: May 9, 10:30 a.m. in the foyer of the Cultural Forum of the Kunstbibliothek. https://rowlandlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Parzinger-Essay-ENG.pdf
Philpot, Robert. “Heirs of Nazi-persecuted collector hail justice in auction of Edvard Munch painting.” Times of Israel, 24 February 2023, https://www.timesofisrael.com/heirs-of-nazi-persecuted-collector-hail-justice-in-auction-of-edvard-munch-painting/
“Terezin Declaration.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terezin_Declaration
The Collector Curt Glaser: From Champion of Modernism to Refugee. 22 Oct. 2022-12 Feb. 2023, Kunstmuseum, Basel.