This has been brewing for some time:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/arts/04muse.html
In essence, the Met bought a Krater (a vessel for mixing wine and water) that is probably the finast of it's type. The Italians suspected that it was stolen from a site in Italy and now, the Met has agreed to return it.
Sort of interesting on the face of it but I think that there is more.
The idea of a major museum actually returning something and by that return admitting that the acquisition is shadey is pretty novel. For the Met to return a major work of art is unprecidented.
Personally, I believe that the Met paid off the Italians. Since the Met is in the US whose history extends back a few hundred years, there is no way that many schools of art could be represented there without the objects coming from somewhere else. I state the obvious but the implication of that statement is that virtually every piece of art, unless it's ownership can be faithfully demonstrated over the years could be suspect. If you read the little card jobbies next to the various works, you see things like "From the Abbey Church of St. Denis. ca. 1012". Who could have legally sold the thing? I know, pretty much for a fact, that it is illeagal to sell things from COE churches and has been since the 16th c. So, any object from a religious or secular institution has to have been "removed" from that place under circumstances that might charitably be called "questionable".
I suspect that the Met folded because they got a pass on all future claims from Italy. Hush money. Of course, they were guilty as sin (if you read Tom Hoving on the subject, it was clearly theft) and that makes contrition a bit easier.
I think that we should look for more episodes of this type. Another one occured a couple of years ago between Dresden and Philadelphia.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/arts/04muse.html
In essence, the Met bought a Krater (a vessel for mixing wine and water) that is probably the finast of it's type. The Italians suspected that it was stolen from a site in Italy and now, the Met has agreed to return it.
Sort of interesting on the face of it but I think that there is more.
The idea of a major museum actually returning something and by that return admitting that the acquisition is shadey is pretty novel. For the Met to return a major work of art is unprecidented.
Personally, I believe that the Met paid off the Italians. Since the Met is in the US whose history extends back a few hundred years, there is no way that many schools of art could be represented there without the objects coming from somewhere else. I state the obvious but the implication of that statement is that virtually every piece of art, unless it's ownership can be faithfully demonstrated over the years could be suspect. If you read the little card jobbies next to the various works, you see things like "From the Abbey Church of St. Denis. ca. 1012". Who could have legally sold the thing? I know, pretty much for a fact, that it is illeagal to sell things from COE churches and has been since the 16th c. So, any object from a religious or secular institution has to have been "removed" from that place under circumstances that might charitably be called "questionable".
I suspect that the Met folded because they got a pass on all future claims from Italy. Hush money. Of course, they were guilty as sin (if you read Tom Hoving on the subject, it was clearly theft) and that makes contrition a bit easier.
I think that we should look for more episodes of this type. Another one occured a couple of years ago between Dresden and Philadelphia.