Stop, Thief!

This is in response to the case of an allegedly "stolen" Van Gogh currently in Yale University holdings.

The argument comes down to the legal apparatus by which this private property was nationalized and then sold. Was that government ultimately, "objectively," truly legal?

Unlike the terms of war reparations that return artwork stolen from a targeted, localized community of Jewish individuals in Nazi-controlled territories,

1. There is no language demanding that the ex-Soviet Union make reparations to any one.
2. The "theft" or nationalization was of all things, of all possessions. (At least at face-value.)

I don't want to be a Soviet apologist, but I don't think it's right for this "purported" great-grandson of Morozov's to privatize this painting and hang it on his living room wall, where no one can see it, where, likely, the conditions of care will not be correct and the painting will fade and die.

Or for him to privatize the painting so he can turn it around and sell it to a private collector for the appraised $120-$150 million. There would be no law suit if this was a no-name painting that didn't figure into myths of art history and "beauty."

What claim does this great-grandson have to the piece? Did Morozov himself promise it to this Konowaloff before his death, before the nationalization? How else could he fight off all of the other great-grandchildren's claims to the piece?

If we are going to give back anything nationalized at the start of the Soviet Union, I will want to see everything nationalized to be given back. All things. All heritages. Which means the Yusopovs get their mansion back; which means the Romanovs get their throne back.

And if we're going to play that great-grandchildren automatically inherit from their ancestors, I will demand legal action for all those who carry the blood guilt of their ancestors' past atrocities.

Image: Isabella Gardner Museum, Boston, MA. "The Most Famous Art Theft in History"