The Mystery of the Modigliani Masterpiece - the fifth estate 

You're right, it is sad. It's also sad that, approx. three quarters of the world's visual art legacy abides in the dark vaults, not of super-rich speculators and investors, but in the hands of museums and other large cultural institutions where they may rarely, if ever, see the light of day or the appreciative gaze of an aesthetically starved and stultified, general public. This occurs, for various reasons, ranging from the logistically valid to the whimsically arbitrary tastes of a cultural elite, whom imperiously rule, both, the design features of the exhibition-space and the numerically paltry amount of actual art hanging in overpriced and vastly underused surroundings. This all, is usually funded by taxpayers and charitable foundations, to a lesser extent. If you're interested, go to the rental dept. of any large public art institution and survey the great amount of art, stored there, and which is available for a fee, then compare, by contrast, the meager number of artworks actually gracing the public viewing areas.

bjhodge8 I agree that great art should be shown in a Museum for the enjoyment of each and every person in the world. The fact is that the person who bought the painting can still be the owner of the Modigliani piece whilst at the same time showing it in a reputable safe both in terms of security and proper conditions, I.e. air temperature, security guards and alarm systems. This person is obviously a self aggrandizing selfish pr@ck.

Exactly. Christies is the biggest enabler in the high-end art market.

Agreed. VERY SUS!!!

The lawyer was right, though. The painting was owned by a company, the International Art Centre, not by David Nahmad. Who owns the International Art Centre is irrelevant to a lawsuit against Nahmad as an individual. The whole point of companies is to create and structure a legal entity separate from the owners and/or investors. For example, if you work for Microsoft and get hurt on the job, you don't sue Bill Gates. It doesn't matter whether he owns Microsoft in whole, in part, or not at all. He, as an individual, isn't liable for what happens at the company unless a court deems it prudent and appropriate to "pierce the veil".

They should be suing the International Art Centre, not Nahmad.

- - It’s relevant. Nahmad’s defense from the lawsuit was that IAC owned the painting, not by them. It turns out Nahmad is the IAC and therefore owns the painting

wrong ! as soon as a person buys a painting it s up to that person either to keep it privately or to put on display

So true, what an obnoxious man. Shameful.

He thinks if he lies with conviction it becomes the truth. What a lowly person.

Sailor Girl, that is exactly what I came here to say. His arrogance seeps out as he speaks. Righting the wrongs of the holocaust and the thefts of the second world war is very important - buy art so cheaply at that time the buyer would know it was likely stolen.

--- cool it with the anti-semitic canards -----

I’m sure an elite liberal

Richard Golub stated that his client doesn’t even own the painting. Yet, it is pointed out to him that his client own’s the company who bought the painting. Then he said, “It doesn’t matter.” How embarrassingly unprofessional and at the same time making his client look guilty. If this ever goes to court, he’d better be better prepared than he was for this interview. In addition, why would he agree to be interviewed for a news program about an ongoing lawsuit to begin with? And when given written proof, he blubbers and huffs and puffs and walks out. Actions speak louder than words, buddy.

What kind of weird logic is that? So, you are saying that if someone stole a diamond engagement ring from you, for example, and then sold it to someone else, then it belongs to that person because he/she paid the thief? Also, Stettner's grandson, as his heir is the rightful owner unless Stettner actually sold the painting during the war. That's how the law regarding inheritance works.

I think she works for the museum

Humans are materialistic. That will never change. And we need more art in the world..

and not low at all for what was historically sold at the time of the war. It is not a particularly attractive painting to begin with as well. Lots of million dollar paintings have sold for hundreds or even thousands of dollars at the time of the holocaust

What is there not to understand?

That is what make art valuable ... who painted it, when and where.