đŸ”— Share this article The Met Confronts Lawsuit Over Allegedly Nazi-Looted Van Gogh Artwork The family members of a Jewish pair have brought a case against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, asserting that a Van Gogh oil painting was seized by the Third Reich. Case History According to the lawsuit, the Stern couple bought the artwork, titled Gathering Olives, in 1935. The following year, they were forced to flee their residence in Munich, Germany prior to World War II. The suit states that the institution, which acquired the artwork in 1956 for $125,000, must have realized it was almost certainly looted property. The descendants are now seeking the return of the canvas along with compensation. Since the end of World War II, this plundered piece has been often and discreetly exchanged, acquired and disposed of in and through NYC, alleges the legal filing. Family's Flight The Stern family escaped from the city of Munich to the United States in the late 1930s with their offspring due to the oppressive Nazi regime. Yet, they were prevented from taking the painting, which was produced by the Dutch post-impressionist in 1889. Before they left, the regime declared the artwork as German cultural property and prohibited the family from exporting it. Once approved from a Third Reich agent, a trustee designated by the authorities sold the artwork on the family's behalf. Yet, the money from the auction were placed in a restricted account, which the authorities later confiscated. Subsequent Ownership In 1948, or soon after, the artwork was brought to the United States and was acquired by Vincent Astor, among the richest individuals in the US. Later, it was exchanged through a art dealer to the institution, which then transferred it to Greek shipping magnate the magnate and his spouse, Mrs. Goulandris, in 1972. Basil and Elise set up the Goulandris Foundation in 1979, which manages a gallery in the Greek capital where the artwork is currently on display. Claims and Defenses The institution and a family member of the magnate are identified in the suit. The legal action states that the family and its related entities have covered up the artwork's provenance and location from the family. Even now, the Goulandris Defendants continue to conceal the manner and time the BEG came into possession of the Painting; the couple's ownership of the artwork from several years; and the truth that the Nazis confiscated the artwork from the family, coerced the Sterns into disposing of it via a trustee, and seized the money of the sale. Previous Legal Action The Stern heirs filed a similar complaint in CA in 2022, but it was dismissed in 2024. An further action was also denied in recently. The Met's Position The lawsuit states that the Met's purchase of the piece was sanctioned by a curator, the Met's authority of European paintings and a leading authority on art theft during the Nazi era. The institution and its expert were aware or ought to have been aware that the artwork had likely been seized by the Nazis. The institution issued a statement that it is committed to its longstanding commitment to handle issues related to WWII. A representative remarked: Never during the institution's custody of the painting was there any record that it had earlier been possessed to the family – in fact, that information did not become available until many years after the masterpiece left the Met's possession. The Met's sale of Olive Picking met the institution's rigorous standards for deaccessioning – namely, it was documented that the artwork was judged to be of lesser quality than other works of the similar kind in the inventory. While the institution upholds its view that this piece entered the inventory and was deaccessioned lawfully and well within all rules and regulations, the institution invites and will examine any new information that emerges. Foundation's Defense William Charron acting for BEG stated: The institution is a highly prestigious organization in Greece. The attempt to litigate and defame the institution and the Goulandris family in the US upon inaccurate and partial claims was previously dismissed, on two occasions. We are confident it will be a third time.