So much for the context of this evening. The guests were Sophie Lillie (art historian who defends the interests of looted persons), Alfred Noll (lawyer who defends such persons), Thomas Trenkler (journalist at Der Standard who regularly attacks Leopold) and Robert Holzbauer (art historian employed at the Leopold museum to identify the origins of the paintings). I must say that I found him quite courageous to accept the invitation. It appeared that the press attaché of the museum was also in the audience, he took part in the discussion and none of them had an easy job.
- Alfred Noll started commenting on the “art restitution law” (Kunstrückgabegesetz), which was passed in December 1998, following the Schiele affair in New York. This law does not guarantee any right to the looted persons (or the inheritors). It does not even foresee a possibility for them to become a legal party. The ministries are just “empowered” to return the art objects, allowed, but do not have to.
- Thomas Trenkler, the journalist, drew on the story of the 1998 law and underlined the differences in international laws. Whereas in the UK or in the US, it is possible to sue someone who bought (even in good faith) a stolen piece of art, it is not the case in Austria. He criticized Rudolf Leopold harshly, who, as he said, has never been interested much, in knowing about the past of the paintings he was buying.
- Robert Holzbauer tried to defend the museum he is working for. He spoke about the British museum who is trying to give back to Spain an old missal but does not have the right to do so. “At least, they’re willing to give it back”, came rapidly from the audience, which caused smiles and laughs.
- Sophie Lillie, a young art historian who published monumental Was einmal war. Handbuch der enteigneten Kunstsammlungen Wiens (What once was. Handbook of stolen art collections, Vienna 2003, more than 1000 pages), insisted on the fact that the Leopold Museum was absolutely not cooperative. Moreover, she criticized the laws, which made the first restitution very difficult, since the claiming party had to be aware and know the location of the art work they were claiming. It is thanks to the fact that more and more art collections are online that it is possible to have restitution cases.
In the general discussion, the question was raised whether the majority of Austrian people were willing for restitutions to take place. If no, it would explain why the social democratic and the conservative parties are so hesitant. Only the Green party seem to have a sincere will to accomplish the needed “travail de mémoire”, which is still lacking in Austria. As often in Austrian politics, commissions have been established. One for the inquiry on the origins of the Leopold collection, and one to propose changes in the 1998 restitution law (they speak about a “Novellierung”, an amendment). It is assumed that before the summer, minor changes will be agreed, like an extension of the law on the 1933-1938 period and on Germany, since as it stands now, it only covers pieces of art, which were looted after the Anschluss only in Austria. A second law might come later, probably just to include the Leopold Foundation in the ameliorated 1998 law. The discussion could also have concerned the Jewish cemeteries, which are left abandoned (whereas Nazi graves are well preserved by the State), the recognition of gay people, deserters and other minorities, who suffered during the NS-period… There is definitely still a long way to go, 70 years after the Anschluss, for Austria to acknowledge its past and responsibilities.