Plunderer: Life & Times of a Nazi Art Thief

The documentary Plunderer: The Life and Times of a Nazi Art Thief (2024) focused on Bruno Lohse, a Nazi art dealer who shared in systematic looting of art from Jewish families. In 1936, Lohse earned a doctorate in art history and took his first steps into the art market. He ran the business from his father’s apartment, buying and selling artworks. The film investigated how Lohse profited in the post-war art market and explored the ongoing efforts of Jewish families to reclaim their cultural heritage. It examined historic crimes, illicit art markets and the struggle for restitution. It expertly confronted the art market’s frequent disregard for provenance and confronted the enduring human cost of these crimes.

The film has featured in various Jewish film festivals eg the Jewish International Film Festival/JIFF in Australia and the UK Jewish Film Festival. Directed by Hugo Macgregor in English, French and German, it was produced by John Friedman, National Centre for Jewish Film, Brandeis.

Plunderer analysed the dark part of the international art world, largely built on wartime tragedy. Using important masterpieces and personal letters, this documentary investigated the theft of thousands of artworks from Jewish families by Nazis in WW2. As noted, a key player in these war crimes was Bruno Lohse, an SS officer who became the art agent in Paris for Hermann Göring, a powerful Nazi figure in WW2. So this feature-length film focuses on the Nazis’ clearinghouse for confiscated pictorial art in France.

Bruno Lohse (second right) and Hermann Göring (cent) on a tour of stolen artworks,

at the Jeu de Paume museum in Paris.

NY Times

Meet historian Jonathan Petropoulos, author of Göring's Man in Paris: Story of a Nazi Art Plunderer. He first met Lohse in 1998, interviewing him often before his death in 2007 about his role in Nazi looting operations. Petropoulos told of the unkind game he played with Lohse, leading to horrible discoveries of collusion with galleries and auction houses, and paintings stashed in European bank vaults. Lohse had risen to prominence in Göring’s inner circle, personally organising art thefts for Hitler’s right-hand man; Lohse’s role in stealing masterpieces from desperate European Jews was spelled out. Petropoulos clarified the web of postwar complicity that shielded Lohse from proper justice, exposing the formal art market’s disregard for provenance.

Having been captured and grilled by the Monuments Men post-war, Lohse served a brief prison sentence. But once released, he again dealt in stolen art for 60 years, successfully selling to collectors, galleries and big museums. No other film has closely analysed the ex-Nazi art dealers who operated their own postwar Odessa network i.e the unregulated art market. See stories of Holocaust survivors working to reclaim their families’ lost artworks and see the continuity between the post-war era and the contemporary, sometimes secretive art world.

Museums everywhere have to consider implications of retaining items many argue were taken from their owners under persecution or duress. And while many of the rows over restitution pertain to old pieces, the recovery of which is complicated by the sweeping eras that have passed since their removal, a new documentary shows how the fight to recover more modern artwork can be just as problematic.

Jewish art dealer Max Stern owned the popular Galerie Stern in Düsseldorf in 1930s, but he had to sell all his art at auction for bargain prices, while his accounts and assets were frozen and seized. He fled Germany for the UK, where he was held for 2 years then sent to Canada. In Montreal, he become one of Canada’s greatest art dealers, representing Rodin and Henry Moore, and Emily Carr. See a problem at an exhibition honouring Max Stern at Düsseldorf City Museum which was due to open in 2018. But it was delayed for years due to debates over the restitution of artworks looted by the Nazis. See how loaded in political and cultural issues in restitution were.

Göring and Lohse studying a book on Rembrandt. 

Archives des Musées Nationaux/

 

Stern died childless in 1987 and left most of his estate to Montreal’s McGill & Concordia universities & Jerusalem’s Hebrew University. In 2002 his estate started to reclaim his lost art. The Max Stern Art Restitution Project has restored 25 paintings, making it a successful project. But hundreds of Stern claims are still waiting. The film focused on the project’s attempts to restore two paintings by Wilhelm von Schadow in the last decade: Self-portrait (1805) and Artist’s Children from the City of Düsseldorf (1830).

Under the Allied Restitution Principles, an estate making a claim had to prove that the assets changed hands under duress. It then became a pedantic argument about what constituted “duress” and when did duress actually begin for German Jews eg in 1933 versus 1935?

Stern’s heirs are now seeking to restore a painting in the Tate Britain works, Jan Griffier the Elder’s View of Hampton Court Palace, bought by the gallery in 1961. The Stern project says newly found documents show the painting was in the Stern collection when he was forced to sell his assets. They also believed that other Stern paintings might be held by the National Trust; Joachim Patinir’s Temptation of Christ at Upton House, is also eligible for restitution as it was “sold” by Stern under Nazi threats.

The documentary shows the fight to recover paintings that a Jewish art dealer had been forced to sell by the Nazis. In all the disputes, there was a familiar pattern: politicians and museum officials, having ignored the claim as long as possible, finally making noises about doing the right thing. But inevitably things got stuck in endless legal, scholarly or scientific wranglings.

Documentary Plunderer is based on Göring's Man in Paris: Story of a Nazi Art Plunderer and His World, 

written by Jonathan Petropoulos.

Question the failures of postwar justice and the continuing complicity of governments and the art trade in unpunished crimes. The film’s issues are very broad and resonate with larger questions facing the art world right now, the Director said. Recently restitution has been endlessly loaded with political and cultural issues, relating to antiquities, colonial plunder or paintings. From the Benin bronzes to the Parthenon marbles, debates over the restitution of cultural artefacts happen across the international art world that is forced to reckon with the treasures’ controversial histories. Thus the film should be shown at Film Festivals everywhere, and not just Jewish Festivals.

Many thanks to TheArtNewspaper.

before and during Federation in Australia

Federation of Australia arrived after deliberation, debate,  consultation & referenda, as this report by The Federation of Australia - Parliamentary Education Office examined.

For millennia Aboriginals & Torres Strait Islanders lived & practiced traditional cultures and languages. Then from the late 1700s, British colonies started. By late 1800s, 6 colonies had their own parliaments but were still subject to the British Parliament’s law-making. The colonies were separate, each with its own government and laws, separate defence force and separate tariffs collections on goods crossing borders. A belief grew that a National Government had to deal with defence, immigration & trade.

NSW Premier Sir Henry Parkes 1889, Father of Federation

Trip Advisor

Tariffs provided colonial governments with revenue, but increasing the cost of goods made it hard for manufacturers outside a colony to compete with locals. Travelling between colonies was difficult. The Melb-Sydney train was delayed at the border in Albury while customs officials searched passengers' luggage. Free traders argued that ending tariffs & having a single market would improve each colony.

The Australian colonies built their railways independently, choosing different track gauges. When trains reached a colonial border, passengers disembarked in mid-journey, carried luggage and boarded other trains. Worse still, cargo & livestock were unloaded from one train and reloaded to another, causing severe delays and high labour costs. [In Oct 1921 a royal commission recommended uniform gauges.]

Members of Australasian Federation Conference, 1890, 

Nat Library of Australia

Pre-Federation, colonies had little defence. Each one had a militia with a small permanent force, but they all relied on the British navy to patrol the coastline. People feared being attacked from other nations with larger military forces, so one big defence force might protect Australia better.

In late C19th, colonists opposed non British immigrants. They feared cheap non-white labour would compete with colonists for jobs, lower wages & living standards. The fears stemmed from anti-Chinese sentiment in the 1850s goldfields & resentment to Pacific Islanders in Qld's sugar industry. A national government could control immigration better than colonies. Colonists shared a common language, culture and heritage, and increasingly began to identify as Australian, not British. By the 1890s, 3/4 of civilians were Australian-born so sporting teams represented Australia; contemporary songs celebrated national pride

Convinced the colonies would be stronger if they united, NSW Premier Sir Henry Parkes made rousing speeches in 1889, calling for 1 national government! His call lobbied his fellow premiers to back Federation. In Feb 1890 delegates from each colonial parliament AND New Zealand Parliament met at the Australasian Federation Conference in Melbourne. The conference agreed that the Australian colonies could have an early union under the crown, and a national convention could draft a Commonwealth Constitution. The 1st National Australasian Convention in Sydney in early 1891 had delegates from each colony & from New Zealand. During the 5 week convention Edmund Barton, Australia’s 1st Prime Minister, co-planned a draft constitution.

Qld Premier Sir S Griffith drafted the final constitution, partially inspired by the U.S federal model which was also bringing together self-governing colonies as a nation. Under our draft constitution the colonies would unite as separate states in the Common-wealth, with power shared between a National Parliament and State Parliaments.

Key features of the draft constitution: 

1.Federal Parliament would comprise the monarch via Gov-Gen, Senate and House of Representatives. 

2.Federal Parliament would be responsible for areas affecting the nation eg trade, defence, immigration, telegraph/post & marriage/divorce. 

3.Power to make and manage federal law was divided between Parliament (make laws), Executive (implement them) and Judiciary (interpret them).

Delegates took the draft constitution back to their parliaments. Faced with a monetary decline, Parliaments lost enthusiasm for Federation, esp after hero Henry Parkes retired. While the colonial parliaments put the issue of Federation backwards, groups like the Australian Federation League in NSW pushed for Federation. In 1893 a people's conference in Corowa NSW agreed to hold a citizens’ referendum to approve the draft.

Premiers' Conference 1895 in Hobart, the colonies mostly agreed to the proposal. Federation might mean losing its Pacific Islander labour force, Qld did not participate, nor did New Zealand. In 1896 Bathurst Federation League, frustrated by the colonial parliaments’ inaction, held a 2nd people's conference where 150+ delegates wanted a new convention. In 1896 elections were held in NSW, Vic, Sth Aus & Tasmania. The 2nd National Australasian Convention met 3 times during 1897-8, starting with the 1891 draft constitution.

In Mar 1898 they agreed to the draft constitution so citizens of the 6 colonies were asked to approve the constitution in referenda. In June 1898 the referenda meant Australia was the first nation to take a proposed constitution to the people for approval. Federal Leagues, clubs & societies were formed in the 1890s to advocate avidly for Federation, and press reports were well read and built popular support.

Anti-Federation groups argued Federation would weaken the colonial parliaments and interstate free trade would lead to lower wages and job loss. The referendum was passed in Victoria, Sth Australia and Tasmania. Although a majority of voters in NSW voted yes in the referendum, it did not attract the 80,000 yes-votes set by the NSW colonial parliament as the required minimum. Qld & W. Australia, concerned Federation would give NSW & Victoria an advantage over the less powerful states, did not hold referenda.

In Jan 1899 the Premiers met to find how to bring about Federation, although the W.A Premier did not attend. To win the support of NSW & Qld colonial parliaments, the Premiers made some further changes to the draft constitution. NB the decision to establish the Australian National Capital in NSW 160+ km from Sydney. In Ap-July 1899 referenda were again held in Victoria, NSW, Sth Australia & Tasmania, although W Australia still stayed away. All 4 colonies agreed to the proposed constitution. In Sept Qld agreed to the constitution by a narrow margin, 54+%. The Brisbane Courier welcomed the result and urged all Qld people to unite.

The constitution needed passing by the British Parliament before Federation could proceed. In Mar 1900 a delegation, with a delegate from each of the 6 colonies, travelled to London to present the con-stitition to Parliament. Common-wealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 passed in London in July 1900; Queen Victoria signed the Act. 3 weeks after the Australian Constitution became law in Britain, a referendum was finally held in W Aus. Knowing the other colonies were sorted, W Australian colonial parliament stopped opposing Federation & most W Australian voters wanted it.

 

Lord Hopetoun being sworn in as Australia’s Gov-Gen, 

Sydney, 1 Jan 1901, National Library Australia

The Australian Commonwealth was declared on 1st Jan 1901 in Sydney’s Centennial Park where 1st Gov-Gen Lord Hopetoun was sworn in. And Australia's 1st Prime Minister, Edmund Barton and Federal Ministers took the oath of office. 500,000 people lined the roads as the marchers travelled from to Centennial Park before c100,000 spectators. Across Australia people celebrated with parades, school pageants, fire-works, sports & lectures. Federation arches decorated the main streets. The 6 British colonies were now states.

Sth & W Australian women were enfranchised, but other women were blocked. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were totally excluded. Women in other states continued with their own Federal Leagues, trying to win the vote in the new nation. Elections for the new Federal Parliament were held in late Mar 1901, some of the newly elected parliamentarians having been in colonial parliaments.

The 1st Parliament opened in May 1901 by the Duke of Cornwall & York/later King George V. A lavish ceremony was held in Melbourne’s Exhibition Building and was attended by 12,000+ guests. Parliam-entarians were sworn in by the Gov-Gen and then went by carriage to Victoria's Parliament House. The Senate then met in the Legislative Council, and the House of Representatives met in the Legislative Assembly. Victoria’s Parliament House was the temporary home of Federal Parliament so Victorian Parliament met in Exhibition Building until 1927, when the new Federal Parliament House opened in Canberra.

Centennial Park Sydney, swearing-in ceremony of Australia's 1st government 

1/1/1901, Wiki

Celebrating the opening of the 1st Parliament, 

Exhibition Building Melbourne 9/5/1901

National Library Australia.

Did Hals & Rembrandt copy the other's art?

Since 1990 when I started my art history degree, of all the paintings in the Western World, my absolute favourites have been Dutch works painted in the C17th. Instead of painting saints and monarchs, Dutch artists then preferred ordinary but dignified people: milkmaids, merchants, inn-keepers and loving families with children. Because the new Dutch Republic was a wealthy, merchant driven society rather than a Catholic monarchy, art moved out of huge cathedrals and into smaller middle-class homes. This led to detailed genres like landscapes, seascapes and cozy domestic interiors. Even the Dutch still-lives with skilled glassware & porcelain reminded viewers of the fleeting nature of life, mixing tactile precision, philosophical mood and the simple things in life in small, finely crafted paintings (See Art of the Everyday: Realism in 17th-Century Dutch Genre Painting). Idealised splendour was absent, thankfully.

Frans Hals (c1583-1666) was one of the most famous and innovative painters of the C17th. His brushstrokes and compositions made his work unique and have been widely emulated. He created c220 works, including 175 individual portraits, and other militias and regents. The Dutch C17th artist Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-69) is world-famous for his emotionally charged and dramatic paintings, characterised by his brushstrokes, harsh light & dark contrasts. He mainly painted historical scenes & portraits, but also some land-scapes and still lifes - 300 paintings incl c100 self-portraits.

Portrait of a man by Frans Hals, c1635

Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen

Frans Hals Museum, Haarlem is inviting locals and visitors to see the 2 artists in the Hals-Rembrandt Exhibition (Nov 2026-28th Feb 2027). 19 portraits are displayed in themed combinations side by side; viewers can assess how the 2 artists worked in different ways and achieved different results on canvas. This was true even though both artists were famed for their loose brush style and their life-like portraits. This show is attracting large crowds, so online reservation is highly recommended.

The exhibition was made possible thanks to a great loan of 5 paintings from Rijksmuseum. A highlight was the arrival of Rembrandt’s Syndics of the Drapers' Guild (1662), which shares similarities to Hals’ Portraits of the City Magistrates. Rembrandt’s portrait of Haesje Jacobsdr van Cleyburg (1634) hangs along-side Hals’s stately Portrait of Cornelia Voogt (1631) from Frans Hals Museum’s own collection. Rembrandt’s Johannes Wtenbogaert (1633) is hung besides Hals’ Portrait of a Man (c1635) from the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen in Rotterdam, which is being restored especially for the exhibition.

Rembrandt, Portrait of Johannes Wtenbogaert, 1633

Rijksmuseum

Also from the Boijmans Museum is Rembrandt’s Titus at a Lectern (1655), displayed alongside two paintings of Fishermen’s Children from the collections of Phoebus Foundation and Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp. The Mauritshuis in The Hague is lending Rembrandt’s The Laughing Man (c1629-30), displayed alongside Hals’ Laughing Boy with a Flute (c1630) from the German State Palaces in Schwerin. And see the painting Children Playing Music (c1628) by Hals, on display alongside Rembrandt’s The Music Party (1626). This early work is on a loan from the Rijksmuseum and on display at Museum De Lakenhal. The Six Collection is lending out Rembrandt’s The Girl in a Picture Frame from 1641.

The paintings are shown to visitors in an intimate setting, encouraging viewers to examine them at their leisure and to see more. The viewer is invited to look for the similarities and differences between the works eg in the posture, facial expressions and clothing of the subjects. They range from serious to laughing out loud, from understated to joyous. By looking at them in this way, the art-lover can discover more about the technical skill and emotional power of these masterpieces, through which Hals & Remb-randt achieved fame. The Hals Museum notes the main differences; Hals’ fast, snapshot-like, confident brushwork compares with Rembrandt’s deep, exploratory, meticulous layering.

The two artists didn’t live near each other. So from visual comparisons between paintings, Paul Crenshaw noted that Rembrandt & Hals certainly visited the Arundel collection and were most influenced by many Hans Holbein portraits in the collection. Connections are drawn to Rembrandt’s 1652 Large Self-Portrait in Vienna and to Hals’s likely pendant portraits of a woman in the Frick Collection.

Read and thanks to Frans Hals Museum presents its first exhibition bringing together Frans Hals and Rembrandt van Rijn. And thanks to Rembrandt and Hals Visit the Arundel Collection, in Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art.

German publisher Schocken; Russian architect J Berlin

Joseph Berlin (1877-1952) was born in Mogilev Russia/now Belarus. He studied at St Pet­ersburg Academy of Art graduating in 1911, winning sev­eral architectural compet­itions. Berlin then worked in St Pet­er­s­burg, designing 12+ build­ings for various local councils and banks before migrat­ing to British-ruled Palestine with his family in 1921

Once settled, he got work as Chief Architect in the Public Works Dept of the important trade union, the Histadrut. In his 3 years there, he designed a number of build­ings in Tel-Aviv including the Electric Corporation on HaHashmal St, a text­ile fact­ory and a number of private houses eg Sh­ap­ira House in Bialik St which later became a synagogue. In total Berlin designed 100+ buildings around the country, 83 in Tel Aviv, many of them land­marks which still stand today.

Haaretz Tel Aviv, built 1932

architect Joseph Berlin

So why did Joseph Berlin agree to design printing works? Haaretz News­paper was founded in 1918, sponsored by the British military govern­ment in Palest­ine, making it the longest running news­paper currently in print in Isr­ael. Haaretz is considered the most in­fluential and re­sp­ect­ed daily newspaper, Israel's newspaper of record. In 1919, it was led by a group of Russian Labour Zionists and the literary section attract­ed leading Hebrew writers of the time.   

Architect Joseph Berlin

Until 1922 the paper was printed in Jerusalem, then it re­opened in Tel Aviv early 1923 under the editorship of Moshe Glick­son. Tel Aviv Council granted the paper financial support by paying in advance for future advertisements. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, it was seen as the most sophisticated of the country's dailies.

Apart from the news, Haar­etz publishes feature articles on social and environmental issues, book reviews, investig­ative reporting and pol­it­ical commentary. Its read­ership includes Israel's intelligentsia and members of its political and economic elites. Haar­etz readership has a higher-than-average education and income and most are Ashkenazim.

Salman Schocken (1877-1959) was a publisher and co-founder of the large Kaufhaus Schocken chain of department stores in Germany. His classiest shop was in St­uttgart, designed by famous architect Erich Mendelsohn in 1926. St­raight after the Nazis took over, Schocken left Ger­many and emig­rated to Palestine in 1934; the department stores he left in Germany were quickly ary­anised.

St­uttgart branch, Kaufhaus Schocken chain of German department stores.

Schocken founded Schocken Books, publishing books in German and Hebrew. And fortunately he bought Ha­ar­etz Printing Company in Dec 1937.  

Ha­ar­etz Printing Co, Tel Aviv

renovated in the 1990s

The original Haaretz building was designed in 1932 to the archit­ect­ural designs of Joseph Berlin and his son Zeev. 56 Mazeh St Tel Aviv was com­pletely a residential street at the time when the print works were built. In fact it was surp­rising that permission was granted for a noisy industrial unit that op­erated all night, printing the next day's edition. It was demolished in the early 1990s with only part of the fac­ade pre­ser­v­ed and integ­rated into the modernist building.

Commentators have compared the former print works to the early works of Bauhaus star Walter Gropius and those of Erich Mendel­sohn who designed the de la Warr pavilion in Sussex. It made sense. Berlin was trained in Russia but by the time he was building in Tel Aviv in the 1930s, his projects incorporated many elements of the Bauhaus style i.e few decorative additions, flat roofs, ribbon windows.

Ha'aretz Newspaper left the building years ago but the current owners have kept the original facade, maintaining it excellently. It has strong features, with wide steel framed glass, rounded bal­con­ies and balustrades, and a cantilevered roof. And note the glazed corner stairwell looking into the zigzag staircase, adding drama to the des­ign. Its squared-off corner contrasts with the curves of the rest of the balconies. Look through the door to a repro­duc­ed image of the building back in the 1930's. The only significant diff­erence is that the original image still bore the newspaper name on the facade.

Haaretz is still owned by the Schocken family, now the printing house is in Schocken St Sth Tel Aviv. The glass st­air­case and balcony with rail­ings are striking. The building used to have another structure in the back, which was demolished and replaced by a higher housing building.

In the era of their partnership, Joseph and Zeev Ber­lin des­igned several build­ings in T.A, including Braun-Rabinsky House (1932) cnr Rothschild Bld & Mazeh St. This residential build­ing was designed by the father-and-son team, its design ch­aracterised by straight, unadorned lines. It was designed as a 3-storeyed house with 2 flats on each floor, on either side of a vertical stair­s; this accentuated the corner and funct­ions as the building's axis of sym­metry. See the stairwell and the vertical thermometer window. Since then the pent­house was added to the building, setback from the main façade, while another extension was added at the rear.  

Braun-Rabinsky House, Tel Aviv, 1932

by Joseph and Zeev Berlin architects

Read 1. Baruch Ravid’s book: Josef Berlin, Architect: Between Little Tel Aviv and the White City (2005) and 2. Adrian Yekkes, Josef Berlin in Tel Aviv.