Ben Uri, the London Jewish Museum of Art, adopted Holocaust-era spoliation issues as a core focus in 2001, and earlier this year it organised a conference at the Museum of Modern Art in New York on the importance of effective provenance research.
I opened the conference by explaining that its objectives were to demystify the process and provide clarity and understanding to the many questions involved.
Ten years ago, 44 countries, including the UK, endorsed the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art. Since then, the turning of these principles into practice has varied greatly.
Next month sees the second reading of the Holocaust (Stolen Art) Restitution bill, a private members' bill introduced by MP Andrew Dismore. The bill aims "to provide for the transfer from public museum and gallery collections of art, artefacts and other objects stolen between 1933 and 1945 by or on behalf of the Nazi regime; to provide for the return of such artefacts and objects to the lawful owners, their heirs and successors".
However, this bill does not address the essential first stages of the process, which are the publication of full collection inventories and effective provenance research of the period 1933-45.
If such a provision were made law by the international community, it would prove to be dormant in many countries, as the first stages of inventory and provenance research are not being effectively addressed. In some countries, almost no progress has been achieved and the signatory to the principles has proved, at best, cosmetic.
The main reasons given by museums and galleries in countries that are generally supportive of the Washington protocols as to why provenance research lags behind revolve around the lack of funding to employ experienced practitioners and an anxiety of "what then?" if tainted works are discovered and the legal and collection implications of such discoveries.
But museums have an obligation to occupy the high moral ground; Jewish museums, above others, have a duty to set an example and demonstrate leadership.
Museums should recognise that the opportunity to address provenance research lies in the hands of their management. For most medium and large museums, lack of funds is little more than a convenient explanation. Even if directors don't set their annual budget, they do have control over the departmental allocation of it.
If directors choose, money can be found and made available from selective tightening of other departments to address the issue of effective provenance research and incorporate it as a core activity. Ben Uri has agreed to produce a starter guide to effective provenance research.
Suzanne Lewis is the director of operations at the Ben Uri Gallery in London
I opened the conference by explaining that its objectives were to demystify the process and provide clarity and understanding to the many questions involved.
Ten years ago, 44 countries, including the UK, endorsed the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art. Since then, the turning of these principles into practice has varied greatly.
Next month sees the second reading of the Holocaust (Stolen Art) Restitution bill, a private members' bill introduced by MP Andrew Dismore. The bill aims "to provide for the transfer from public museum and gallery collections of art, artefacts and other objects stolen between 1933 and 1945 by or on behalf of the Nazi regime; to provide for the return of such artefacts and objects to the lawful owners, their heirs and successors".
However, this bill does not address the essential first stages of the process, which are the publication of full collection inventories and effective provenance research of the period 1933-45.
If such a provision were made law by the international community, it would prove to be dormant in many countries, as the first stages of inventory and provenance research are not being effectively addressed. In some countries, almost no progress has been achieved and the signatory to the principles has proved, at best, cosmetic.
The main reasons given by museums and galleries in countries that are generally supportive of the Washington protocols as to why provenance research lags behind revolve around the lack of funding to employ experienced practitioners and an anxiety of "what then?" if tainted works are discovered and the legal and collection implications of such discoveries.
But museums have an obligation to occupy the high moral ground; Jewish museums, above others, have a duty to set an example and demonstrate leadership.
Museums should recognise that the opportunity to address provenance research lies in the hands of their management. For most medium and large museums, lack of funds is little more than a convenient explanation. Even if directors don't set their annual budget, they do have control over the departmental allocation of it.
If directors choose, money can be found and made available from selective tightening of other departments to address the issue of effective provenance research and incorporate it as a core activity. Ben Uri has agreed to produce a starter guide to effective provenance research.
Suzanne Lewis is the director of operations at the Ben Uri Gallery in London
