Jump to content

Talk:Gurlitt Collection

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cornelius Gurlitt

[edit]

After Gurlitt's death, the redirect Cornelius Gurlitt (art dealer) was created. However, there is already an older redirect Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector), which used to be a stand-alone article but was turned into a redirect per WP:BLP1E. Does this policy still apply? Should the article be restored? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this individual is notable for anything outside of this event, so I see no obvious reason to restore/recreate a biography for him. No harm in having possible redirects coming here instead. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With the passage of 5 years since the comment above, I would like to suggest reopening the case for a page on Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector) as distinct from this page. His life story is interesting, he is a notable person by many criteria (newspaper articles etc.) and while he was alive, made efforts to solicit and address claims for restitution of potential stolen items, a course of action which was not required under German law as I understand. He subsequently bequeathed his collection - variously valued at up to 2 billion euros - to the Museum of Fine Arts Bern, which is currently (or has recently) shown the collection in a major exhibition. So I believe he does deserve his own page, following the initial media frenzy following the existence of his collection becoming known to the outside world in 2013, along with the suggestions that much or all of it represented Nazi loot (which appears to be at least an oversimplification - the Bern Museum is undertaking a thorough investigation and has agreed to keep only works acquired legitimately). Thoughts, anyone, and if you agree, what is required to be done? Tony 1212 (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the last version of the page before it was deleted (merged with 2012 Munich artworks discovery) is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cornelius_Gurlitt_(art_collector)&oldid=795425688, dated 14 August 2017. The previous discussion RE merging is available here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cornelius_Gurlitt_(art_collector). It looks like the page was initially deleted unilaterally, then contested, then discussed with a majority (4 for, 1 against) voting informally for merging, with the last comment on 28 September 2015.
Some recent information here: https://news.artnet.com/exhibitions/gurlitt-trove-bern-bonn-shows-1137587 Tony 1212 (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony 1212: You have to options here: (a) to prove that the person has become notable during the last 3 years, or (b) to prove that the original consensus for merging was wrong and that the person was notable in the first place. For this later option, you have WP:Deletion review, and for the former, you should provide reliable sources that show increase in the notability during the last 3 years. You should also notice that German Wikipedia has different standards, and so is not relevant for this discussion. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Florian Blaschke:@Lugnuts:@Smartse:@Lx 121:@Courcelles:@Lutzv:@New Media Theorist:@Carrite:Thanks @Vanjagenije: for the suggestion of how to proceed. I will concentrate, then, on increase of notability of the person concerned over an extended period (since 17 November 2013) since that is when the article Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector) was initially proposed to be Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event. I tend to agree that at that time, the person was indeed "notable only for one event", the event in question being the subject of this page, initially entitled "2012 Nazi loot discovery", title later changed to the current one "2012 Munich artworks discovery", which had been reported only 2 weeks earlier on 3 November 2013. (The actual nomination for deletion was made on 23 September 2015 without consideration of additional evidence as presented below).

However, since 2013 I believe there is ample support from external sources for the restoration of the article on Cornelius Gurlitt (junior) as notable in his own right, separate from the article on the "2012 Munich artworks discovery" as a standalone event (which was rightly reported widely and made headlines around the world, hence the present page).

1. A fair bit of new information has surfaced, and been reported upon in reliable sources (hence, "notable"), about Gurlitt's life, of which the "2012 artworks discovery" is just one event. Specifically:

2. Gurlitt held additional works in Salzburg, which are of course related to, but not technically within scope of the heading "2012 Munich artworks discovery": DW.com (2014): "New trove of Gurlitt artwork found in Austria" https://www.dw.com/en/new-trove-of-gurlitt-artwork-found-in-austria/a-17424786

3. Gurlitt interacted further with the outside world, indicating that he was willing to consider restitution claims:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140302035207/http://www.gurlitt.info/en/index.html - includes sheet to register a claim: https://web.archive.org/web/20140226163104/http://www.gurlitt.info/en/claim-sheet.html

4. Gurlitt's death was widely reported, bringing to an end potential prosecutions etc. against him:

5. Gurlitt bequeathed his collection to the Bern museum:

6. There was an unsuccessful challenge to will:

7. Selections from his collection have been the subject of exhibitions in Germany and Switzerland (2017):

Separate from the above arguments for restoring the article on C. Gurlitt the person, I believe a separate article on (e.g.) "The Gurlitt Collection" should be created, giving details of the collection's content, its history, status/known provenance, present custodian, etc. etc. The existence of such a page would then dovetail neatly with existing articles on the collection's compiler, its inheritor, the Bern Museum, and the present page, with relevant content distributed as appropriate.

What do people think, in the light of the above? Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony 1212, that's quite an impressive list of sources. I think a separate article might well be justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123:Of course, the list above is indicative, not exhaustive; I have simply picked one or two reliable sources to illustrate each point, it is very simple to find more if anyone desires (Google is your friend...) . Also RE my other suggestion, I note X201 created a page Gurlitt Hoard in 2018, but only as a redirect. My suggestion would be to move (rename) that page to a new name/article e.g. "Gurlitt Collection" or "The Gurlitt Collection" (since there is evidence out there that at least part of it was legitimately acquired; "Gurlitt Art Trove" is another term that has been used for the collection), and use that as the main page for information on the collection itself. In fact, most of the information on this present page could probably be ported straight there since it deals with the collection itself, not the 2012 discovery per se. A bit like, it is important to distinguish an article about "America" from one about the "1492 Discovery of America" - they are linked, but separate subjects - in both cases, the subject in question certainly existed before any particular "discovery event", even though it is the latter that catches the press (or historians') initial attention. Regards - Tony.
BTW I of course have no connection with any of this; my interest was merely piqued by watching the episode of BBC "Fake or Fortune" discussing the genuineness and provenance of a work by Henry Moore from the collection, judged to be both a genuine work by Moore and also legitimately acquired, see https://www.henry-moore.org/press-office/press-release/2018/08/26/fake-or-fortune-a-henry-moore-in-the-gurlitt-hoard .Tony 1212 (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, I have thought further about the possible best way to proceed and would like to propose the following:
(1) Restore the page Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector) as proposed above, turned into a redirect in 2017 following an earlier (2015) discussion which I now believe to be outdated on the basis of additional sources of notability being available - many linked from the present article and/or noted above.
(2) Create a new page entitled either "Gurlitt Collection" or "Gurlitt Art Trove" to describe the collection from its start to its present (Bern) location. (The definite article seems generally to be omitted in similar WP page titles, see e.g. entries in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_private_collections). There would appear to me to be then 2 options to do this:
(2a) Create the new page (Collection/Trove) by porting much of the present material from the present page "2012 Munich artworks discovery" to the proposed new page, leave the present page to deal with the 2012 discovery only
(2b) Create the new page (Collection/Trove) by moving all of the present page to the suggested new name/location, leaving "2012 Munich artworks discovery" as a redirect only.
Choice between these last 2 options, 2a or 2b, will depend on the perceived value of maintaining a separate page "2012 Munich artworks discovery" as opposed to folding that information into a more general "Collection" page. Either is fine with me; one advantage of (2b) is that all the edit history and talk (some of it quite long winded) will end up in the new location, which to a degree is neater for those who would like to be able to find it easily.
So if I am permitted to have a voting "hat" at this point, I would say to my own proposals:
Proposal 1: Support
Proposal 2: Support and happy with either option 2a or 2b, although a slight preference for 2b at this time.
I welcome other comments and indications of views on the above, if you have them. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have also just ordered the 272 page book "The Munich Art Hoard: Hitler's Dealer and His Secret Legacy" (Catherine Hickley, November 2015) see https://www.amazon.com/Munich-Art-Hoard-Hitlers-Dealer/dp/0500252157 , not yet arrived, which I am hoping should provide additional material on the background to the collection, for use on the proposed new page.Tony 1212 (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as per the discussion above, to which I have received no objections, I have today restored (undeleted) the page Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector) and will edit/update it further with new information as available. I shall also work on creating a new page "Gurlitt Collection" and have decided to go with option 2a above (not 2b), i.e. retain the present page since the "discovery" as reported is a notable event, but port much of its content to the planned new page "Gurlitt Collection" in a little while. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK again, the new page Gurlitt Collection has been created as of now, most material formerly here now ported to that page, with additional info as available. The present page "2012 Munich artworks discovery" has been retained as a small page about the discovery per se, with a link to "Gurlitt Collection" as the new "main page". I trust readers and past contributors to this page will agree that this is a good solution for the future, bearing in mind the somewhat contorted previous history of the present page. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note, following more discussion as below, the remaining page "2012 Munich artworks discovery" was considered to be too insubstantial and was subsequently deprecated by User:TAnthony on 14 Feb, any useful residual content content merged into this page ("Gurlitt Collection"). Tony 1212 (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lost art internet database

[edit]

It seems that the list of the artworks has been released : http://www.lostart.de/Webs/EN/Datenbank/KunstfundMuenchen.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.24.254.102 (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The URL has been moved to http://www.lostart.de/Webs/EN/Datenbank/Index.html Thincat (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of this page

[edit]

Most of the initial content for this page has been ported from the pre-existing page 2012 Munich artworks discovery, version as at 14 February 2019, with minor ajustments; for discussion of the rationale for this, see Talk:2012_Munich_artworks_discovery#Cornelius_Gurlitt, since it belongs with a discussion of the collection as a whole rather than with that one event. Please see that article's "history" and "talk" pages for relevant history and comments prior to February 2019. Tony 1212 (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, then, that now 2012 Munich artworks discovery should just be merged into this article and redirected. It now consists of two paragraphs, and there seem to only be a couple more sentences than what is in the related section of this article. Perhaps it should have just been moved and revamped into this current form.— TAnthonyTalk 03:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TAnthony, I am 100% happy with that suggestion if others are - maybe give it the northern hemisphere daytime for any other views to emerge, and if none, I or you can simply change 2012 Munich artworks discovery to redirect to Gurlitt Collection (also will need to change 2011 Nazi loot discovery 2012 Nazi loot discovery, 2012 Nazi loot and 2012 Nazi loot since the original title of this page changed several times over its history). As mentioned on the page Talk:2012_Munich_artworks_discovery#Cornelius_Gurlitt, this is essentially my proposal (2b) rather than (2a), which I initially favoured anyway, before deciding that there might be some folk who considered that the "discovery" was a notable event in its own right separate from the "collection" and wanting to keep such persons happy, should they exist. However, I am perfectly happy with option (2b), which is to deprecate that page as it is indeed essentially covered here (with the proviso that the new page will no longer have a record of discussions pertinent to the old one without a separate link).
So unless I/we hear an opposing view, I or you can make the suggested change tomorrow, and hopefully all concerned will still be happy. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My biggest issue is really that the edit history of 2012 Munich artworks discovery hasn't followed all the content. But I can resolve that.— TAnthonyTalk 15:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who feels really strongly that the discovery warrants its own article can split it out if they can find more sourced information than what's here. I think the article was fine when the discovery was made, but the topic has evolved far beyond that original scope.— TAnthonyTalk 15:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have migrated the edit history of 2012 Munich artworks discovery to this article, and restored the great overhaul that Tony1212 did with the material on February 14, 2019. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 16:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And obviously, I checked that nothing in the stub 2012 Munich artworks discovery was missing from this article, and redirected it (and several other existing redirects) here.— TAnthonyTalk 16:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TAnthony, that's a good (and non-trivial) job, probably a neater fix than I would have done. I spent a fair bit of time yesterday working on this and related pages (Hildebrand Gurlitt, Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector)) but there is more to do, especially on this page, which still reads a bit like it was written by a committee - and probably was, in effect. Today I have to do other things in the real world, but will come back and do a bit more of an overhaul as I get time and/or enthusiasm. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the problem with how the new article was created is that you moved the bulk of the old one to a new name (not just a portion), so it looks like a cut and paste move, which is bad, even though you obviously revamped it. I look forward to your future edits on this article.— TAnthonyTalk 20:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article general cleaning and ongoing improvement following move to new name, Feb 2019

[edit]

Hi all, as discussed above, this is now intended to be a "new, improved" version of the article that was previously entitled "2012 Munich artworks discovery", with more context and history added, plus new information that has come to light over the intervening 6 years since the discovery was first reported, and (hopefully) a considered, non-sensationalist tone based on available facts and published opinions that I can find. I am trying to gradually review and update individual sections so I trust readers will agree that my efforts represent an improvement (not all completed as yet, others are welcome to contribute as well). Meanwhile, if anyone would like to add more to, or possibly restructure, the section "Contents", be my guest, since so far as I can see the full lists of artworks are now available on the web, and have been for several years. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contents

[edit]

I have upgraded the "Contents" section, previously a very partial and unordered listing based on early released information to the public in 2013, to a more comprehensive and hopefully generally representative subset of the more than 1,500 now known works in the collection as now available in the cited sources. Since this is just a first pass made without detailed knowledge of all of the artists and works concerned, others may wish to extend the list and/or change or delete items - I do not have a problem with this so long as the more "significant" items remain. Regards - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finished another round of upgrades to the "Contents" section - several hundred works now tabulated, all sorted by artist surname (other columns also sortable as desired) with links to descriptions and images, most via http://www.lostart.de. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that all links are broken. 198.90.81.190 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see below Tony 1212 (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selected contents listing

[edit]

Many (all?) of the image links under this heading are broken. 24.64.102.233 (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have started restoring them via the internet archive, more to do... Tony 1212 (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


On contents listings, the links and images no longer function: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurlitt_Collection#Selected_contents_listing 2603:8081:7001:26DB:E035:60BF:398E:AC34 (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

see above Tony 1212 (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have changed my mind, too many links to update... I am thinking now to just delete this section of the article (kinda nice if the links are working, but maybe overkill - would we list even selected contents of comparable collections?) - If no objections, will remove this section (that was my creation in the first place, several years back) in around 7 days. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that section now deleted, persons interested in the contents can use the links to online catalogues instead. (It was too much of a headache to maintain since most of the linked databases are no longer at their original locations and/or have been taken off line)... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gurlitt_Collection&oldid=1243933464"