The Art Newspaper

JENNIFER UNRUH, NEW YORK

I have to disagree with the writer's arguement for statute of limitations. Such a limitation would serve to encourage thieves and others who have misappropriated both antiquities and other art objects. The circumstances that surround each object at issue must be considered individually, in consideration of the facts and the laws of the country of origin.

DR RIEMER KNOOP, AMSTERDAM

I am speechless by the misinformation suggested in the illustration to Mr. Rosenthal's article. P. Watson and C. Todeschini convincingly argued in their "The Medici Conspiracy" (2006) that the Euphronios Krater, sold by G. Medici to the New York Metropolitan Museum though Robert Hecht for 1 M USD, was looted, in 1971, from an Etrucan tomb. Both were in due course convicted for criminal organization, while the Met and the Italian government in 2006 signed an agreement for restitution of this and other pieces. The question, therefore, is not whether "Italy really need[s] more kraters like this?", but rather "How to fight organized art crime?". I find it unforgiveable that a distinguished scholar as Mr. Rosenthal so sloppily confuses the issue of art crime with that of limiting restitution claims to unlawfully appropriated art during the Nazi period. It reminds me of Dr. Goebbels's propaganda campaigns presenting portraits of half-wits, accompanied by ominous questions like "Do Untermenschen like these deserve to live among us?".

ANDREW, LONDON

I find it particularly distasteful that museums in England and the US have been required to return works of art. After all Britain and the US were not involved in these terrible crimes and we lost hundreds of thousands of people defeatring the perpatrators.

SIMON LEMIEUX, PORTSMOUTH HANTS

Thank you Mr Rosenthal for what you have said. It is something that many of us have thought for some while but few dare to articulate publicly. I think the crucial matters here are public accessibility and the lapse of time. Why should museums today pay the price for the crimes of the past; the current curators and museum directors are not gulity of colluding with the Nazi booty hunters and nor are the vast majority (all?)of visitors. The real winners in all this are the lawyers and auction houses. Why not require them to donate all their fees and commissions to those museums who have lost artefacts, then at least we could be sure no one profited from the crimes of the past. It would also reveal the pure altruism that obviously drives though who are involved in this business. It is purely driven by altruism and a sense of justice right?

DR.KWAMEOPOKU, VIENNA.

I find the argumentation of Norman Rosenthal so shocking that,for once,I am lost for words. What kind of mind is this that will deprive peoples of rights they have from their predecessors simply because others whose predecessors suffered the same atrocious fate under the evil Nazis did not have art works? That history is history cannot mean that we must accept the nefarious acts of groups such as the Nazis. That claims arising from Nazi atrocities have still not been settled is surely a sad commentary on the commitment of certain governments to uprooting such evils but clearly we cannot blame the great-grand children of Nazi victims from pursuing their claims. It would be terrible if future generations would simply cease to pursue their legal rights because of the time it takes to go through legal systems which have always been on the side of the mighty. Kwame Opoku.

KA, SAN FRANCISCO

I could not agree with this piece more. Thank you for articulating this issue with timely precision. By allowing restitution to carry on in this fashion you are quite right, we are perpetuating a public cultural impoverishment, but perhaps more importantly we are preserving the concept that it is better to avenge than to accept and forgive. Art is made to inspire and to tell stories. Art loses those abilities when it is held hostage, be it from the public or from fulfilling its deeper purpose. Art stolen in the throws of violence and war has gained an additional layer to its narrative, one that can be made most accessible and inspirational, by being available to as many people as possible. Museums and governments would be quite wise to revise their epistemologies of material ownership, and embrace a more trancsendant management ethos. In doing so, they inspire us, the viewing the public to do the same....

CHAD, SAN DIEGO

I have to agree with this. If we continue to give restitution, generations after the fact, when does it end? We all have ancestors that were wronged in some way. Some more than others, and if so, don't we all deserve some form of restitution? Nothing at this point will ever make up for what has gone on in the past. I have to wonder how much of this is driven by trying make things right and how much is driven by greed. If restitution was giving only for what the objects were worth at the time, instead of the values today, how many of these cases would we hear about?

J.C., ATHENS, GREECE

The writer says "To the best of my knowledge, this vase is not even on public view at the moment". Actually, the Euphronios vase is currently on public view at the new Acropolis Museum of Athens as part of the "Nostoi" exhibition.

ARTIST SCULPTOR, CHICAGO

Restitution at this late stage should be halted. How long are we going to live on the horrors of WWII? And why isn't restitution being sought for all the horros of the past - Stalin killed more people than Hitler, but very little is said about Stalin being a monster! What about all the others who have been ensalved or slaughtered in the past, are we to revisit this part of history constantly and forever? NO, we are to remember and learn from these historiacal facts so as to, hopefully, prevent them from reoccuring and move on with our lives.

BEN MORALES-CORREA, SAN JUAN

I can't possibly agree with what this man is saying here. If works of art or whatever other type of private property is taken from individuals or families by acts or war or other illegal means, neither time nor patrimonial value can be used as an excuse for avoiding restitution.

A TAYLOR, JOHANNESBURG

While restitution should be made in the case of recent theft or looting should Russian museums give up their treasures to the descendents of aristocrats robbed during the revolution. Or should all African works collected by travellers be returned to countries of origin to rot in under-resourced museums rather than disseminated to inspire and inform throughout the world.

A. WALTON, NEW YORK

And equally, for this idea to work, countries should not hold their patrimony and exhibition policy hostage to the idea of restitution as Italy seemingly and publicly did with respect to the Metropolitan Museum