FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2940803> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2940803 startingPage "655" @default.
• W2940803 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION Ethics can be expensive. Consider the case of the Seattle Art Museum, which in 1997 became the first American museum to face a claim of ownership over Holocaust-era art.1 The heirs of the prominent Jewish art dealer Paul Rosenberg alleged that the two million dollar Henri Matisse painting entitled L'Odalisque, which had been hanging in the museum's gallery since its donation in 1991, had been stolen from Roscnberg by Nazi forces fifty years earlier.2 After months of researching the provenance, the museum eventually confirmed the truth of the allegations and returned the painting to the Rosenberg heirs.3 The Seattle Art Museum's director spoke of the return in moral terms, describing the resolution as drawing a clear ethical line and as doing the right thing.4 That is easy enough, at least from an ethical perspective. Aside from the debate over the proper temporal boundaries that should be drawn regarding title to Nazi-looted art,5 it is well established in common law that the true owner of property is entitled to possession.6However, a museum's return of stolen art implicates considerations beyond simple ethics. Not only did the loss of the Matisse cost the Seattle Art Museum two million dollars in art inventory, but the Museum also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in subsequent litigation against the original sellers in addition to researching the validity of the heirs' claim.7 Attenuated costs arose as well, such as the cost of replacing the piece and the increased pressure for further provenance research on other pieces in the collection. Not surprisingly then, museums have recently become resistant to subjecting pieces in their collection to Holocaust claim contention.8 The reticence is not surprising. Attempts to provide museums with guidance for resolving Holocaust claims have overlooked what the fundamental nature of the return of art is to the museum: namely, an act of deaccession. is the permanent removal or disposal of an object from the collection of the museum by virtue of its sale, exchange, donation or transfer by any means to any person.9 Inherently, deaccession is about financial and administrative flexibility. However, it is also a practice besieged by legal constraints. Directors in the United States and Great Britain wishing to deaccession a work frequently find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. Deaccessioning has become an increasingly necessary tool for maintaining solvency in the face of escalating administrative costs and decreasing governmental support. In the United States, fiduciary duties arising out of trust law, however, frequently place legal constraints on a director's ability to deaccession a work.10 Directors of Great Britain's national museums may be statutorily barred from any deaccessioning at all. Furthermore, increased public scrutiny of deaccessions in both countries has resulted in the creation of published guidelines restricting museum practices and policies. No longer are deaccession decisions an internal matter; with the advent of deaccession into the public consciousness,12 museums must now gauge the public reception that will result from the deaccessioning of a piece. This comment argues that a successful framework for Holocaust claim resolution requires an acknowledgment of the current exigencies museums face when deaccessioning a work of art. While Holocaust claims exist in many countries,13 the United States and Great Britain have been leaders in implementing mechanisms for the resolution of Holocaust disputes. The two nations provide a basis of comparison for approaches to deaccession and Holocaust claim remedies within a common law system. The comment will thus be divided into five main parts. Parts II and III will examine the nature of deaccession as it exists in the United States and Great Britain, respectively. Part IV will demonstrate how the same considerations involved in a traditional deaccession case are present as a museum contemplates the return of Nazi-looted art, and how Holocaust claims have inverted the traditional deaccession framework. …" @default.
• W2940803 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2940803 creator A5058651191 @default.
• W2940803 date "2004-07-01" @default.
• W2940803 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2940803 title "Deaccessioning and Its Costs in the Holocaust Art Context: The United States and Great Britain" @default.
• W2940803 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W2940803 type Work @default.
• W2940803 sameAs 2940803 @default.
• W2940803 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W2940803 countsByYear W29408032014 @default.
• W2940803 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2940803 hasAuthorship W2940803A5058651191 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C110361221 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C121578661 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C205783811 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C2778120072 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C2780193096 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C37531588 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C5616717 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2940803 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C110361221 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C121578661 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C124952713 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C138885662 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C142362112 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C144024400 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C166957645 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C17744445 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C199539241 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C205783811 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C2778120072 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C2779343474 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C2780193096 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C37531588 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C41895202 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C52119013 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C5616717 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C94625758 @default.
• W2940803 hasConceptScore W2940803C95457728 @default.
• W2940803 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2940803 hasLocation W29408031 @default.
• W2940803 hasOpenAccess W2940803 @default.
• W2940803 hasPrimaryLocation W29408031 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W1546775849 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W1603239862 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W1978770530 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W2049001610 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W2053277490 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W2072546540 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W2087248462 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W2123359282 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W2184624718 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W2240978744 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W2269858441 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W2321951220 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W2327389712 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W2404660533 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W288115245 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W2899365839 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W2905422228 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W313873170 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W616434229 @default.
• W2940803 hasRelatedWork W169054516 @default.
• W2940803 hasVolume "39" @default.
• W2940803 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2940803 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2940803 magId "2940803" @default.
• W2940803 workType "article" @default.