The Museum of Fine Arts (MSK) in Ghent has declined to restitute Gaspar de Craye’s Nazi-looted Portrait of Bishop Triest, saying that the painting’s original owner and heirs were previously compensated. Jewish groups in Belgium, however, continue to demand further compensation, fueling controversy.
According to the Dutch-language press, Ghent appointed an independent commission a year ago to investigate the origins of the Portrait of Bishop Triest. The commission ultimately concluded that the work had been sold by the Antwerp art dealer Samuel Hartveld under duress following the German occupation of Belgium in 1940. Two years later, the Germans reportedly sold it to an Antwerp restorer, who then sold it to the city in 1948, shortly after the end of World War II. Crucially, researchers discovered that Ghent later provided financial compensation to Hartveld and his family for their losses. That fact underpins MSK’s present position that the painting should stay in its collection.
MSK did not reply to ARTnews’s request for comment.
Hartveld’s heirs, supported by local Jewish advocacy groups, are contesting the decision, pointing to a statement in the provenance committee’s findings that, “it is highly doubtful whether Hartveld actually received the total purchase price (of 200,000 francs, ed.),” as first reported by De Standaard. The article added that the committee’s belief that Hartveld had been compensated rose from its view that he and the restorer, René Van de Broek, likely held paintings in “joint management.” This, the committee stated, created “the factual presumption” that Hartveld “must have believed that he had been sufficiently compensated,” according to the report.
While the committee recommended against compensating Hartveld’s heirs, it did call for “moral redress” by acknowledging “the unacceptable act of spoliation” in any publication and exhibitions involving the painting.
The two Jewish groups, EJA and JID, argued in their appeal for restitution that “International standards (the Washington Principles and the Terezin Declaration) are clear: when spoliation is established, restitution must follow, regardless of any alleged later payments.”
In practice, however, establishing spoliation does not automatically dictate restitution under Belgian law or the broader international framework governing Nazi-looted art. The Washington Principles and the Terezin Declaration, while widely followed, are non-binding and urge for “just and fair solutions” when Nazi spoliation is determined—an umbrella term that spans both financial settlements and alternatives like restitution.
Hartveld’s heirs had previously filed a claim with Tate Britain in London over the artwork Aeneas Fleeing Burning Troy with His Family by Henry Gibbs, which also belonged to the collection seized by the Germans in Antwerp in 1940. The Tate later agreed to return the painting.
