Talk:Maria Altmann

message: After reading the article on Maria Altmann and a little bit of the history on the paintings involved in the case vs. Austria, it seems that the Austrian government took advantage of the fact that the pictures were aquired in a devious way. Glorifying  that it  is  okay  to  own something  you  know  was  stolen. You  may  have  not  been  the  one  to  commit  the  act  but  you  are supporting  it  by  not returning it to it's righful owner. To claim  ownership over  property  that  was  stolen  during  such  a  horrible  period  is  ludacris. In  the  will  of Ferdinand  Bloch  all  the items  in  his  estate  were  expressed  to  one  Maria Altmann  including  the  paintings . My  question  is  How  can  someone,  government  or  other  claim  property  as  their  own?  Family  heirlooms  do  not classify  as  a  national symbol.  The  artist  however  should  be  glorified  for  such  a  beautiful  piece. With  all  do  respect  to  Gustav  Klimt  and  his  Austrian  heritage  it  is  understandable  that such  beautiful  works  would  be  hard  to  let  go  of.  However  the  paintings  were  never  really  obtained  honestly.  Furthermore,  the  "Golden  Rule"  may  not  apply  to  everyone and  everything,  that  being  Would  you  question  the  validity  of  ownership  of  a  family  heirloom? In this case it should. Also  if  the  "heirloom"  was  considered  a  "wealthy"  object  would  you object  to  the  government  or  persons  who  falsely  claim  it  to  get  a  piece  of  the  wealth  even  though  it  was  aquired  by  false  means?  In  closing  if  Maria  Altmann didn't  battle  for  these  works  it  would  be   dis-respectful  to  her  uncle.  This  was  a  legacy  he  left  to  his  family , who  have  the  right  to  decide  the  fate  of  there  property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.133.183 (talk • contribs) 21 June 2006
What I fail to understand is why Maria Altmann was so keen to have the paintings taken out of the Belvedere in the first place. She says: "It was always the wish of my uncle and aunt to make their collection available to the public." But they were already available to the public, in Vienna.  She then gave them to a museum in Los Angeles, saying: "In gratitude to the city and county of Los Angeles, which provided me a home when I fled the Nazis, and whose courts enabled me to recover my family's paintings at long last, I am very pleased that these wonderful paintings will be seen [in LA]." But that gratitude evidently didn't last long because she has now sold "Adele Bloch-Bauer I" to a museum in New York.  I'm not disputing Altmann's legal right to own the paintings. But she should have left them where they belong, in Vienna. --Richardrj 08:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She initially wanted the paintings to remain in Vienna, however the government should have given her the compensation which was her right. She offered a settlement to the government, even wrote a letter to the minister, which was never answered. The government simply ignored her offer for years, waiting instead for her to go through court and basically hoping that she would simply die with her 90 years. and so in that way the "problem" would have solved itself "naturally". Well too bad for the government for being so stupid and ignoring her reasonable offer. They rode this thing all the way and didn't want to give her anything, and basically lost everything, this serves Austria right. After she won her case, the government all of a sudden wanted to reach a settlement with her to buy some of the paintings back. At that point she said she was done talking to the government after trying for years to come to a settlement. I think it only right that the lady took the paintings out of the country since the Austrian government was too stupid and dumb to have come to an agreement with her earlier. The government was heavily criticised by the opposition for failing to have secured an agreement earlier. Gryffindor 07:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Klimt paintings

message: The article says "Altmann and Austria entered non-binding arbitration. On 16 January 2006, the arbitration court ruled that Austria is legally required to return the art to Altmann. Because both sides agreed to abide by the ruling of the arbitrator, Austria has returned the works."
If both sides agreed to abide by the ruling, then surely it IS binding? Or am I missing something? DavidFarmbrough 16:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  binding or non-binding?