The art of the Swiss Bührle Foundation must be examined closely

The focus of the collection of the industrialist and arms supplier Emil Bührle is the painting of French Impressionism and Post-Impressionism, as well as representatives of the French avant-garde after 1900. The EG Bührle Collection Foundation has permanently loaned 205 works of art from its important collection to the Kunsthaus Zürich. They have been on display there since 2021 in the specially constructed Chipperfield Wing.

Following severe criticism of their exhibition practices, the city and canton of Zurich and the association of the Kunsthaus Zurich commissioned an independent scientific examination of the works on loan from the Bührle collection. Raphael Gross, President of the German Historical Museum, was appointed as the expert and worked with a team of six researchers. Five masterpieces, including paintings by Monet, Gauguin and Van Gogh, were intensively examined in terms of their acquisition history.

Problematic origin of the images

The analysis, initiated on May 12, 2023, has now shown that the provenance research carried out to date by the EG Bührle Collection Foundation is insufficient because it does not meet the standards of a public institution such as the Kunsthaus Zürich. In his final report, Gross makes three recommendations on how to proceed. The city and canton published these in a media release on Friday, including a download link to the report.

On the one hand, “further provenance research must be undertaken, focusing on clarifying the Jewish previous ownership and the persecution-related confiscation of the works from the “Emil Bührle Collection”. A considerable proportion of the works of art in the collection therefore come from Jewish previous owners. The foundation has already carried out provenance research in the past, it continues. However, there is a “high number of Jewish previous owners” who “either do not appear at all in previous research or play no role in the published results,” according to Raphael Gross’s analysis.

Further clarification is needed

“Without the Jewish collectors, the Bührle collection would be different. Or to put it another way: without persecution, the Bührle collection would never have come into being. The Bührle collection is therefore part of both Swiss and Jewish history due to its history,” Gross is quoted as saying in a statement from the Bührle collection, also published on Friday. The Bührle Foundation has long been negative about demands from descendants to return the works, believing that it was the rightful owner of the works.

Gross’s second recommendation is that the Kunsthaus Zürich should set up a committee to develop an assessment scheme for confiscations due to Nazi persecution. The committee “should be staffed with a variety of professional and biographical perspectives.” Gross also suggests that the Kunsthaus Zürich should publicly address the term “Emil Bührle Collection.” The museum is ennobling the industrialist’s name.

Emil Bührle, who made millions by supplying weapons to the Nazis, had amassed a collection of 633 works between 1936 and 1956. In the 1930s and 1940s, Bührle is said to have unscrupulously purchased works at low prices from Jewish collectors who had been forced to sell their art during the war years because of flight and persecution. It is a toxic legacy that the Kunsthaus Zürich has to deal with.