‘Flea market’ Renoir ordered back to Baltimore Museum of Art by federal judge - SO AFRICAN STOLEN ART SHOULD BE RETURNED
By , E-mail the writer
The saga of an Impressionist painting stolen from the Baltimore Museum of Art decades ago and allegedly purchased for $7 at a West Virginia flea market came to an end Friday in federal court in Alexandria when a judge rendered her verdict: Renoir Girl is losing her Renoir.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema awarded the painting to the BMA at the expense of the woman who dubbed herself “Renoir Girl,” ending a bizarre art drama that generated coverage from the Los Angeles Times to “Good Morning America.” The decision wiped out a potential six-figure windfall for Loudoun County driving instructor Martha Fuqua, who claimed that in 2009 she found “On the Shore of the Seine” in a box containing a plastic cow and a Paul Bunyan doll.
The saga of an Impressionist painting stolen from the Baltimore Museum of Art decades ago and allegedly purchased for $7 at a West Virginia flea market came to an end Friday in federal court in Alexandria when a judge rendered her verdict: Renoir Girl is losing her Renoir.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema awarded the painting to the BMA at the expense of the woman who dubbed herself “Renoir Girl,” ending a bizarre art drama that generated coverage from the Los Angeles Times to “Good Morning America.” The decision wiped out a potential six-figure windfall for Loudoun County driving instructor Martha Fuqua, who claimed that in 2009 she found “On the Shore of the Seine” in a box containing a plastic cow and a Paul Bunyan doll.
Best news photos of the week
A look at some of our favorite images of the week.
“Darn,” said Fuqua, 51, when she was contacted by phone after the ruling. Asked if she was disappointed, she said, “Of course,” before hanging up. She didn’t attend Friday’s hearing, which was filled with stolen-art rubberneckers and reporters.
Her tale initially burst into the headlines in September 2012, when Fuqua, then identified only as Renoir Girl, tried auctioning off the 51 / 2-by-9-inch landscape, which she hoped would sell for as much as $100,000. In the run-up to the auction, two things were known about the painting: The piece had been bought at a Paris art gallery in 1926 by Herbert L. May, the husband of Saidie May, a prominent BMA donor. And the painting somehow had gone missing since May’s purchase. Initially, the BMA said it had no record of the painting ever being in its possession.
But days before the sale at the Potomack Company in Alexandria, a Washington Post reporter found evidence in the BMA’s own records that the May family had donated the painting to the museum in 1937. Armed with those records, BMA officials made an unexpected discovery: a loan registration document showing that the painting was reported stolen from a November 1951 exhibition. Baltimore police unearthed a copy of the original police report.
The FBI took possession of the Renoir from the auction house, stored it in a climate-controlled room in its Northern Virginia field office in Manassas and asked the federal court to determine who should own it.
Since then, a number of people who know Fuqua have cast doubt on her flea market story, including her brother. Some family acquaintances told The Post that they remember seeing the Renoir in the 1980s and 1990s at the Fairfax County home of her mother, Marcia Fouquet, who attended art college in Baltimore at the time of the painting’s theft in 1951. (The mother passed away five months ago at the age of 85.)
During Friday’s court hearing, the BMA argued that regardless of whether Fuqua found the Renoir at a flea market, no one can have legal title to stolen artwork.
Brinkema agreed in her ruling, granting summary judgment in favor of the BMA. She said the museum had overwhelming evidence that the painting had been stolen in November 1951 and that Fuqua offered not a “scintilla” of proof to the contrary.
Brinkema’s decision cancels a trial that had been scheduled for next week and wipes out what could have been a useful windfall for Fuqua, who in 2009 filed for bankruptcy, citing debts of more than $400,000.
Fuqua’s attorney, T. Wayne Biggs, argued in court that the BMA’s evidence — the police report and other decades-old museum records — needed proper authentication to be admissable. But Brinkema said that the BMA furnished a mountain of evidence that “clearly reflected” that the item had been pilfered.
Biggs declined to comment after the hearing.
Doreen Bolger, the BMA’s director, said she was “delighted” by the judge’s decision. She likened the painting’s return to a “prodigal son who’s been lost for 60 years” and is finally coming home. “I’m just glad to have it over and to have the decision be so clear-cut.”
Marla Diaz, the BMA’s attorney, said that Fuqua can appeal the judge’s decision but doubted whether she would.
Matt Fuqua, Martha’s brother, who attended the hearing, was elated by the judge’s ruling and stood outside the courthouse before a bank of television cameras, giving interviews.
Before she died, his mother had urged Martha to return to the painting to the BMA, he said. “My mother wanted this.”
He said he suspects that the painting was given to his mother long ago as a gift, but she never revealed where it came from. The FBI declined to comment on its investigation into the circumstances surrounding the painting’s theft and alleged appearance at a flea market.
Bolger said the BMA plans to exhibit “On the Shore of the Seine” as soon as March, as part of an exhibition of works bequeathed by Saidie May. The museum is debating whether to make available for visitors printouts of news stories about the Renoir case so they can view the piece and read its back story at the same time.
Asked if the museum would be taking special care to ensure that the piece would not be stolen again, Bolger said that no one need worry. That painting, Bolger stressed, will not escape the BMA’s hands.
“It’ll be anchored to the wall,” she said.
A look at some of our favorite images of the week.
“Darn,” said Fuqua, 51, when she was contacted by phone after the ruling. Asked if she was disappointed, she said, “Of course,” before hanging up. She didn’t attend Friday’s hearing, which was filled with stolen-art rubberneckers and reporters.
Her tale initially burst into the headlines in September 2012, when Fuqua, then identified only as Renoir Girl, tried auctioning off the 51 / 2-by-9-inch landscape, which she hoped would sell for as much as $100,000. In the run-up to the auction, two things were known about the painting: The piece had been bought at a Paris art gallery in 1926 by Herbert L. May, the husband of Saidie May, a prominent BMA donor. And the painting somehow had gone missing since May’s purchase. Initially, the BMA said it had no record of the painting ever being in its possession.
But days before the sale at the Potomack Company in Alexandria, a Washington Post reporter found evidence in the BMA’s own records that the May family had donated the painting to the museum in 1937. Armed with those records, BMA officials made an unexpected discovery: a loan registration document showing that the painting was reported stolen from a November 1951 exhibition. Baltimore police unearthed a copy of the original police report.
The FBI took possession of the Renoir from the auction house, stored it in a climate-controlled room in its Northern Virginia field office in Manassas and asked the federal court to determine who should own it.
Since then, a number of people who know Fuqua have cast doubt on her flea market story, including her brother. Some family acquaintances told The Post that they remember seeing the Renoir in the 1980s and 1990s at the Fairfax County home of her mother, Marcia Fouquet, who attended art college in Baltimore at the time of the painting’s theft in 1951. (The mother passed away five months ago at the age of 85.)
During Friday’s court hearing, the BMA argued that regardless of whether Fuqua found the Renoir at a flea market, no one can have legal title to stolen artwork.
Brinkema agreed in her ruling, granting summary judgment in favor of the BMA. She said the museum had overwhelming evidence that the painting had been stolen in November 1951 and that Fuqua offered not a “scintilla” of proof to the contrary.
Brinkema’s decision cancels a trial that had been scheduled for next week and wipes out what could have been a useful windfall for Fuqua, who in 2009 filed for bankruptcy, citing debts of more than $400,000.
Fuqua’s attorney, T. Wayne Biggs, argued in court that the BMA’s evidence — the police report and other decades-old museum records — needed proper authentication to be admissable. But Brinkema said that the BMA furnished a mountain of evidence that “clearly reflected” that the item had been pilfered.
Biggs declined to comment after the hearing.
Doreen Bolger, the BMA’s director, said she was “delighted” by the judge’s decision. She likened the painting’s return to a “prodigal son who’s been lost for 60 years” and is finally coming home. “I’m just glad to have it over and to have the decision be so clear-cut.”
Marla Diaz, the BMA’s attorney, said that Fuqua can appeal the judge’s decision but doubted whether she would.
Matt Fuqua, Martha’s brother, who attended the hearing, was elated by the judge’s ruling and stood outside the courthouse before a bank of television cameras, giving interviews.
Before she died, his mother had urged Martha to return to the painting to the BMA, he said. “My mother wanted this.”
He said he suspects that the painting was given to his mother long ago as a gift, but she never revealed where it came from. The FBI declined to comment on its investigation into the circumstances surrounding the painting’s theft and alleged appearance at a flea market.
Bolger said the BMA plans to exhibit “On the Shore of the Seine” as soon as March, as part of an exhibition of works bequeathed by Saidie May. The museum is debating whether to make available for visitors printouts of news stories about the Renoir case so they can view the piece and read its back story at the same time.
Asked if the museum would be taking special care to ensure that the piece would not be stolen again, Bolger said that no one need worry. That painting, Bolger stressed, will not escape the BMA’s hands.
“It’ll be anchored to the wall,” she said.
Judge rules Renoir bought at flea market must be returned to museum
January 11, 2014 - 12:00 AMT
PanARMENIAN.Net - A Renoir painting finished in the 1800s, loaned to a museum, reported stolen in 1951, then bought at a flea market in 2010 has to be returned to the museum, a judge ruled Friday, Jan 10, according to CNN.
The story - and the painting - date back to 1879, when impressionist Pierre-Auguste Renoir painted "Paysage Bords De Seine," or "Landscape on the Banks of the Seine," which was believed to be for his mistress.
It was later purchased by the Paris art gallery Bernheim-Jeune. Then, in 1926, Herbert L. May, a Renoir collector, bought it from the Paris gallery. In 1937, May's ex-wife, Saidie May, loaned the painting to the Baltimore Museum of Art, which reported it stolen in 1951.
Fast-forward nearly 60 years to a flea market in West Virginia, where a Virginia woman was attracted to a nondescript box holding the painting, along with items like a Paul Bunyan doll and a plastic cow. She paid $7 for the box.
The woman took the painting to the Potomack Company, an Auction House in Alexandria, Virginia, to ask about its value.
A Potomack Company specialist thought it might be an original, and further investigation by the National Gallery of Art in Washington and confirmation by a Renoir expert confirmed the hunch. The painting is valued between $75,000 and $100,000.
The whereabouts of the painting during the six decades it was missing remain unknown.
"Life has so many twists and turns. It has friendships and deaths and divorces and all kinds of chaos, moving, you know changing of occupation," Doreen Bolger, director of the Baltimore Museum of Art, told CNN in 2012. "It's very hard to speculate what of those circumstances would cause the painting to change hands."
The Virginia woman, who had requested to be anonymous, felt the painting was rightfully hers.
However, the Baltimore Museum of Art wanted the 5½-by-9-inch Renoir returned.
So the FBI took possession of the painting until the rightful owner could be determined.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema in Alexandria decided that the painting must be returned to the Baltimore Museum of Art.
http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/174783/Judge_rules_Renoir_bought_at_flea_market_must_be_returned_to_museum
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/flea-market-renoir-ordered-back-to-baltimore-museum-of-art-by-federal-judge/2014/01/10/c1fa2796-79f9-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html
No comments:
Post a Comment