As part of the provenance research project, the origin of the painting Diskussion (Discussion) by Franz Wilhelm Seiwert could be fully traced back. The statements of the lawyer Markus Stötzel made a significant contribution to clarifying the provenance of the work. Markus Stötzel contacted the Kunstmuseum on behalf of the heirs of the doctor Walter Blank and confirmed that Seiwert's painting had been in Blank's private collection until 1936. Although the collection had been expropriated during the Second World War, the ownership of the painting can still be considered unproblematic today.

The Jewish doctor and art collector Dr. Walter Blank probably received the artwork from the artist himself, whose doctor he was. Blank and his family emigrated to Belgium in 1936. The Nazis auctioned off the art collection – including works by Otto Dix, Max Pechstein and Marc Chagall – and his house to the city of Cologne. Alderman Dr. Werner Heringhaus eventually rented the house, but left Cologne again after the war ended.

Meanwhile, Walter Blank died in exile in Spain in 1938; his two sons Hans Walter and Peter Max Blank survived imprisonment in the Gurs concentration camp and returned to Germany in 1945. At the beginning of the 1950s, the Cologne villa and its inventory were restituted to the sons. A significant part of the Blank art collection had already been lost by this time and is still missing today. The painting Diskussion, however, was still in the Blank villa. Therefore, it was returned to its rightful owners, Walter Blank’s sons, just a few years after the end of the war.

Hans Walter and Peter Max Blank eventually sold the work to the conservator and art collector Wolfgang Hahn, who in turn sold it to the Kunstmuseum Bonn via the Gallery Zwirner Cologne in 1966.

In 1921, the art historian and collector Dr. Hermann Wurz purchased the sculpture Weiblicher Torso (Female Torso) by Wilhelm Lehmbruck from the Schaller Gallery in Stuttgart. At the beginning of the 1930s, however, Wurz got into financial trouble after the collapse of his bank and was forced to sell parts of his art collection. Various correspondence shows that several attempts to sell the torso failed.

Furthermore, after the National Socialists seized power, Wurz belonged to the democratic freedom movement. He was a member of the “Stuttgart Group” of the National Committee “Free Germany” and was thus one of the active opponents of the Nazi regime. Due to his membership, he was arrested by the Gestapo in 1944 and shot a year later in the Flossenbürg concentration camp.

It is unclear where Wilhelm Lehmbruck’s sculpture was during this time and until it entered the Kunstmuseum’s collection. Had Wurz been able to sell it before his arrest? Had he given it to the sculptor Alfred Lörcher? In a letter of confirmation from 1951, Alfred Lörcher testifies that the work originally belonged to Hermann Wurz – meaning that Lörcher was obviously acquainted with Wurz and knew that the torso had been in his possession.

The Kunstmuseum Bonn bought the sculpture from the Ferdinand Möller Gallery in 1952. There are, however, also indications that the same gallery supported Wurz in his attempt to sell the torso back in the 1930s – was it perhaps in the gallery’s possession all along?

Unfortunately, the provenance research project was unable to clarify these questions. Nonetheless, due to the biography of Dr. Hermann Wurz, his activities for the freedom movement and his subsequent execution, it cannot be ruled out that the loss of the work was related to the persecution by the National Socialists.

The painting Leuchtturm mit rotierenden Strahlen (Lighthouse with rotating Beams) by Paul Adolf Seehaus had been in the possession of the Jewish art collector and gallery owner Alfred Flechtheim since 1919. In 1933, he fled from the Nazis and left his entire art collection in Germany. His long-time employee and business partner Alexander Vömel took over the art collection when Flechtheim left the country. Vömel eventually opened a gallery under his own name in the premises of the Flechtheim Gallery in Düsseldorf. However, the circumstances under which the takeover of Flechtheim's collection took place are still unclear: had Flechtheim given him the collection for safekeeping, or had Vömel wrongfully retained it?

The Kunstmuseum acquired the work in 1949 at an auction by the Ketterer Kunstkabinett in Stuttgart. Since then, it had been an integral part of the collection. In September 2009, Alfred Flechtheim's heirs approached the museum with a request to examine the work and, if necessary, return it. Provenance researcher Dr. Axel Drecoll then investigated the history of the work. The central question of whether Flechtheim's art collection had been “aryanized” – i.e. forcibly transferred from Jewish to non-Jewish ownership during the National Socialist regime – could not be answered due to a lack of information.

Regardless of the unanswered questions, the museum acknowledged Alfred Flechtheim’s fate of persecution as the reason for his descendants' claim to the work: As a Jew and an advocate of “degenerate” art, he was a victim of the Nazi regime and forced to emigrate and abandon his possessions. It can therefore not be ruled out that the loss of the artwork was connected to the persecution by the National Socialists. As a result, an amicable agreement was reached between the Kunstmuseum and Flechtheim’s descendants: with the support of the Verein der Freunde of the Kunstmuseum, the heirs were paid half of the estimated market value and the painting remained the property of the museum.

The provenance of the painting Herbstwald (Fall Forest) by Heinrich Nauen has not yet been fully clarified. The Kunstmuseum Bonn acquired the painting in 1963 from the Cologne Gallery Aenne Abels, which sold it on behalf of an unknown family. This family had acquired it in 1939 on the art market from an equally unknown private collection. No further information on the provenance had been available to date. In addition to missing sources, other works by Heinrich Nauen with similar titles are mentioned in various documents and exhibition catalogs; furthermore, a forgery of the painting by Wolfgang Beltracchi has been identified. These circumstances make it difficult to clearly trace the original.

However, Vanessa Voigt's research suggests that the Jewish journalist Dr. Heinz Simon was the original owner of the work. In an exhibition at the Flechtheim Gallery in Düsseldorf in 1914, Simon was named as the lender of the painting Herbst (Fall) by Heinrich Nauen.

Dr. Heinz Simon was a journalist, publisher and Chairman of the Management Board of the Frankfurter Zeitung. He was also an important patron and collector of modern art. Due to his Jewish origins and anti-Nazi attitude, he was the victim of several antisemitic attacks starting in 1931. He emigrated with his wife Irma in 1934, first to Paris and then to the USA. He was assassinated in Washington in 1941. His art collection is still considered lost today.

Whether the painting from Simon’s collection was the Herbstwald shown here, however, cannot be clearly determined. Nevertheless, due to the unresolved questions, the provenance must be considered problematic. In particular, the statement by Galerie Anne Aebels that the painting was purchased from an art dealer in 1939 means that it cannot be ruled out that the sale was linked to a forced expropriation by the National Socialists.

“The painting Stillleben mit Apfelschale und japanischem Fächer by August Macke has been preserved and cared for by the conservator at the Kunstmuseum for over 20 years.

We have repeatedly taken measures to consolidate* it, as there were some detached paint layers that we stabilised. However, we also thought of preventative solutions: For example, we modified the frame and installed a special protective glass. This glass panel is anti-reflective and can absorb over 90 percent of UV radiation. In addition, because it is a laminated glass panel, a thin foil protects the painting from splinters in the event of mechanical damage.

For many years, we have accompanied the painting as couriers to different exhibitions. It was loaned very often and travelled to Berlin, Münster, Tübingen and Moscow. All these exhibitions contributed to making the work more famous and ultimately more valuable.

When we received a loan request from Japan, which is a completely different climate region, we also built a climate showcase for the painting. This creates a microclimate around the painting, which can help to buffer climatic changes. For a climatic showcase, all hygroscopic parts of the frame, especially the wooden parts, are tightly covered with self-adhesive aluminium foil. A non-absorbent backing is also applied – in this case made from a Macrolon panel – and all screw connections are secured with small rubber seals. In this way, you can ensure that a painting experiences the climatic changes very slowly, even if it travels to a completely different region – and the slower, the gentler it is for the painting.

In 2007, we were upset when we heard that the painting was to be sold, but we had to accept it. We didn’t see the painting for a long time afterwards and were very surprised when Jürgen Hall bought it at an auction in London and even donated it to us. That was really touching.

Of course, when the painting came back, we were curious to see what it looked like – and it had indeed changed. The first thing we noticed was that the glass panel was missing. The climate showcase had been cut open and the back side protection was removed. This is not unusual at first, since the works in auction houses are usually presented as authentic and pure as possible. However, in this case, the frame was also damaged: All four mitre joints – the corners of the frame where the wooden strips are glued together – were open. The frame had cuts, abrasions and dented areas. The painting also had suffered corrasion on the edges.

We re-glued the frame, fitted a new glass panel and provided a new protection on the back. We took good care of the painting so that it can now be admired again here in the museum.”

_____

*consolidate = stabilize, secure in its existence

hygroscopic = substances that attract and absorb water from their environment

*Macrolon sheets = The product name “Macrolon” is based on the so-called “polycarbonate”. This material is considered a highly complex synthetic consisting of solid carbons