
‘Monumental' NYC ruling on Nazi-looted art tied to inspiration for Joel Grey character in ‘Cabaret'
The school's legal challenge to halt Manhattan prosecutors' pursuit of the swiped art backfired last month, when a judge effectively ruled the district attorney's office could hunt down such looted treasures if they ever pass through New York City — regardless of their current location.
8 This drawing, 'Russian War Prisoner' by Egon Schiele, was part of an art collection looted by the Nazis.
Manhattan District Attorney's Office
8 Jewish Viennese cabaret performer and onetime owner Fritz Grünbaum was murdered in the Holocaust.
New York Post
Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Althea Drysdale's scathing decision against the art Institute came as the establishment has been fighting to keep a drawing by expressionist Egon Schiele titled 'Russian War Prisoner' — likely spending well more in the legal battle than the work's value.
Her decision found that Nazi officials stole the work from the Viennese Jewish cabaret performer and art collector Fritz Grünbaum years before he was murdered in the Holocaust.
Grünbaum served as an inspiration for Joel Grey's character in Hollywood's Oscar-winning classic 'Cabaret.'
The institute did not do its due diligence in determining the work's history of ownership, the judge said.
'This Court cannot conclude that Respondent's inquiries into the provenance of Russian War Prisoner were reasonable,' Drysdale wrote in her decision.
But critically, the ruling also found that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg has jurisdiction to recover the art from Chicago because the work was purchased and displayed by a Manhattan gallery in 1956.
The DA's office has not traditionally had to go this far in the courts to retrieve such a work.
Raymond Dowd, a lawyer and stolen-art expert who is working to return the stolen Grünbaum collection to the collector's descendants, called the judge's decision 'extraordinary.
'[Drysdale's] decision is monumental for the world because it says if it passes through New York City, the court will retain jurisdiction, no matter where it goes,' Dowd told The Post.
8 The Art Institute of Chicago sought to curtail the reach of Manhattan prosecutors, likely spending far more in legal fees than the value of the work itself, experts told The Post.
Bumble Dee – stock.adobe.com
'There's billions [of dollars] in Nazi-looted art hidden away,' Dowd said. 'All those people sitting on that stuff are not going to be sleeping as well since Drysdale's decision.'
While most institutions holding Nazi-looted work — including 12 other Schiele pieces once owned by Grünbaum — have willingly returned the art, the Chicago museum brought the biggest legal challenge yet to Manhattan prosecutors' art hunt.
Experts say the Windy City art house easily blew more than the value of the Schiele drawing, estimated by the DA's office to be $1.25 million, in its challenge.
'The Art Institute fought tooth and nail for well over two years,' Dowd said. 'That's a massive thing to do, an enormous financial investment. They wanted to cut off their jurisdiction. They wanted the DA to stick to New York.'
8 Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has returned 12 Schiele paintings so far to the Grünbaum family, in addition to hunting down numerous other looted artworks.
LP Media
The work is being seized in place as the museum appeals the decision, the DA's office said, adding it is 'pleased' with the ruling.
Drysdale's decision is already 'the talk of the town,' said art lawyer and former prosecutor Georges Lederman to The Post.
In addition to expanding the DA's jurisdiction, the court ruled that ownership questions, typically a civil matter, can be brought in criminal court when 'there is evidence of theft,' Lederman said.
8 Grünbaum descendant Judge Timothy Reif (second left) and family members pose at a news conference with the Manhattan DA's Office announcing the return of another Schiele work from Grünbaum's collection.
Steven Hirsch
'I think this is a warning to museums and to collectors to dig deeper,' said lawyer Leila Amineddoleh, who also teaches art law.
But even in cases where 'the ethics could not be more clear,' Amineddoleh said she worries about the practicalities of such rulings.
8 While imprisoned at the Nazi's Dachau death camp, 'fellow detainees remember Grünbaum employing his trademark wit and defiance to mock his captors and the conditions that he and other prisoners were subjected to,' Judge Drysdale wrote in her decision.
New York Post
'We are putting today's standards on prior acquisitions,' Amineddoleh said. 'These involve really complicated factual inquiries for scenarios that took place decades ago with very little paper [record].'
But Lederman said, 'If I were an institution, a museum, I'd be very concerned at this point in time.'
Bragg's office has recovered 12 out of the 76 Schiele artworks once owned by Grünbaum, an outspoken and unafraid critic of Adolf Hitler.
Drysdale's ruling traces the history of 'Russian War Prisoner' from when Grünbaum lent the drawing for exhibits in 1925 and 1928 to his arrest and the seizure of his collection by Nazis in 1938.
8 Bragg's office has made the pursuit of stolen art a major focus, with a massive team of experts devoted to researching suspected looted works.
LP Media
Grünbaum was then sent to Dachau Concentration Camp, where he was murdered three years later.
While the dealer who sold the work to the Institute in the 1960s claimed that Grünbaum's sister-in-law sold the Schiele drawing after the war, Drysdale states in her ruling that no record supports that claim.
That dealer, who also claimed Nazi's never seized Grünbaum's collection, was later revealed to be a 'prominent dealer in Nazi-looted art,' Drysdale wrote.
8 Another Schiele work, 'Girl with Black Hair,' was recovered from the Allen Museum of Art at Oberlin College and valued at approximately $1.5 million.
LP Media
'Despite these vibrant red flags, it appears as though the Art Institute of Chicago did nothing further to corroborate the account of a man whose credibility had directly been called into question on this very issue,' the judge said in her decision.
The art institute told The Post it is 'disappointed with the ruling.'
'There is significant evidence that demonstrates this work was not looted, and previous courts have found that evidence to be credible,' a rep said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Explained: Why is Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle fashion ad being called ‘tone-deaf' and ‘Nazi'?
A new ad campaign featuring Euphoria and White Lotus star Sydney Sweeney has sparked fierce backlash over racial undertones, leading some to label it as 'tone-deaf' and even 'Nazi'. Another case of Godwin's law – which states that any online discussion that goes on for long enough will increase the probability of a comparison involving Nazis? Or is this ad so poorly fashioned that critics have a point? Let's start - as logic dictates - at the beginning. The popular American actress appears in a campaign for American Eagle, designed to celebrate American style. In it, the 27-year-old sports a pair of jeans, flaunts her curves and tells viewers: "I'm not here to tell you to buy American Eagle jeans... And I definitely won't say they're the most comfortable jeans I've ever worn, or that they make your butt look amazing." Then, the slogan "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans" pops up on the screen. Fair enough, as they do look comfy. However, the actress then says: 'See what I did there, right?' - highlighting the 'jeans' / 'genes' double entendre. This was taken a step further in a follow-up video posted to American Eagle's Instagram, which shows Sweeney approaching a billboard with the phrase 'great genes' and striking out the word 'genes' and replacing it with 'jeans.' In another spot, Sweeney says: "Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair colour, personality, and even eye colour... My jeans are blue.' This is followed by a voiceover that states: "Sydney Sweeney has great Jeans." Clever wordplay for some; significantly more problematic for others. Indeed, critics have accused the ad of peddling 'Nazi' propaganda, pointing out that the play on words with 'great genes' has racist connotations and veers towards white supremacist ideals. Many have also highlighted that considering Sweeney is blue-eyed and blonde-haired, it echoes eugenic messaging. Cue: a heated and viral culture debate between those who think the controversy is overblown by the 'woke brigade" and those who believe that this is not only a reminder of the fashion world's long history of celebrating white privilege, but an unintentional mirroring of fascist ideas. Then there are also those who are convinced that the phrasing of the ad was by design, and that American Eagle was looking to kick the hornet's nest when it comes to issues of race and nationalism. Check out some of the reactions below: 'I didn't know what everyone was freaking out about with that Sydney Sweeney ad but then I realised I should watch it with the sound on and OH MY GOD. Yeah that's some f*cked Aryan eugenics shit.' 'So Sydney (& American Eagle) somehow expect audiences to not interpret this visual as a euphemism for eugenics and white supremacy?' 'Maybe I'm too f*cking woke,' another added. 'But getting a blue eyed, blonde, white women and focusing your campaign around her having perfect genetics feels weird, especially considering the current state of America.' 'I hate the Sydney Sweeney jeans ad, it's like why are we promoting eugenics with the state of this country rn, NO I don't want your genes actually. F*ck you American Eagle.' To make matters knottier, the campaign also purports to raise awareness of domestic violence with a line designed by Sweeney called The Sydney Jean - with the full purchase price going to the Crisis Text Line, which offers mental health support. Many online have labelled this 'completely tone-deaf.' As of writing, the actress has not released a statement regarding the backlash. Neither has American Eagle. How damaging is this to both Sweeney and the company? It's up for debate. As recently evidenced by Coldplaygate, not all controversy can be hurtful to a brand... However, that was properly handled. In this case, the company's silence has rubbed people up the wrong way and intensified calls for the campaign to be pulled. Sayantani DasGupta, a professor of Narrative Medicine, has even analysed the ads in a viral TikTok post, showing how the American Eagle campaign is "imbued with eugenic messaging", which has seen the "forced sterilization and decrease of reproduction among undesirable communities" in the American South. The professor concluded the American Eagle advert is "contributing to and reinforcing this kind of anti-immigrant, anti-people of colour, pro-eugenic, political moment." So, what do you think? An innocent mistake? A fascistic campaign? Or a shameless attempt to rile people up to give the brand some publicity? If it's the latter, the viral spots worked. They propelled the company's stock by a reported 15 per cent, representing an estimated $310 million boost to its market valuation since their release. It would seem that courting controversy – no matter how crass – does wonders for your stock, financially speaking. However, when it comes to the court of public opinion and reputational risks, it's a more dangerous gamble. Solve the daily Crossword


Atlantic
7 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Internet Loves Sydney Sweeney
Sydney Sweeney is inexplicably reclining and also buttoning up her jeans. She's wearing a jacket with nothing underneath. She's attempting to sell some denim to women, and appears to be writhing while doing so. In a breathy voice, the actor recites the following ad copy as the camera pans up her body: 'Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color.' When the camera lands on her eyes, which are blue, she says, 'My jeans are blue.' The commercial is for American Eagle. The whole thing is a lot. The jeans / genes play is a garden-variety dad pun. But when uttered by Sweeney—a blond, blue-eyed actor whose buxomness and comfort in her own skin seems to drive everyone just a little bit insane—it becomes something else. Sweeney does not speak much about her politics (for interested parties, there are potential clues, such as a 2020 tweet supporting Black Lives Matter and a mention of having conservative relatives), but this hasn't stopped the right wing from framing her as one of their own. Her mere appearance in a plunging neckline on Saturday Night Live led the right-wing blogger Richard Hanania to declare that ' wokeness is dead.' Meanwhile, speaking about the American Eagle ad in a TikTok post that's been liked more than 200,000 times, one influencer said, 'It's literally giving Nazi propaganda.' For some, the ad copy about parents and offspring sounded less like a dictionary entry and more like a 4chan post—either politically obtuse or outrightly nefarious. Across platforms, people expressed their frustration that 'Sydney Sweeney is advertising eugenics.' One of the posters offered context for their alarm, arguing that 'historic fascist regimes have weaponized the feminine ideal,' ultimately linking femininity to motherhood and reproduction. Another said that, in the current political climate, a fair-skinned white woman musing about passing down her traits is 'uncreative and unfunny.'(To further complicate matters, before the controversy, American Eagle announced that a butterfly insignia on the jeans represented domestic-violence awareness and that the company would donate 100 percent of profits from 'the Sydney Jean' to a nonprofit crisis text line.) Are you tired? I'm tired! The trajectory of all this is well rehearsed at this point. Progressive posters register their genuine outrage. Reactionaries respond in kind by cataloging that outrage and using it to portray their ideological opponents as hysterical, overreactive, and out of touch. Then savvy content creators glom on to the trending discourse and surf the algorithmic waves on TikTok, X, and every other platform. Yet another faction emerges: People who agree politically with those who are outraged about Sydney Sweeney but wish they would instead channel their anger toward actual Nazis. All the while, media outlets survey the landscape and attempt to round up these conversations into clickable content—search Google's 'News' tab for Sydney Sweeney, and you'll get the gist. (Even this article, which presents individual posts as evidence of broader outrage, unavoidably plays into the cycle.) Although the Sweeney controversy is predictable, it also shows how the internet has completely disordered political and cultural discourse. Even that word, discourse —a shorthand for the way that a particular topic gets put through the internet's meat grinder—is a misnomer, because none of the participants is really talking to the others. Instead, every participant—be they bloggers, randos on X, or people leaving Instagram comments—are issuing statements, not unlike public figures. Each of these statements becomes fodder for somebody else's statement. People are not quite talking past one another, but clearly nobody's listening to anyone else. Our information ecosystem collects these statements, stripping them of their original context while adding on the context of everything else that is happening in the world: political anxieties, cultural frustrations, fandoms, niche beefs between different posters, current events, celebrity gossip, beauty standards, and rampant conspiracism. No post exists on an island. They are all surrounded and colored by an infinite array of other content targeted to the tastes of individual social-media users. What can start out as a legitimate grievance becomes something else altogether—an internet event, an attention spectacle. This is not a process for sense-making; it is a process for making people feel upset at scale. Unfortunately for us all, our institutions, politicians, influencers, celebrities, corporations—virtually everyone with a smartphone—operates inside this ecosystem. It has changed the way people talk to and fight with each other, as well as the way that jeans are marketed. Electoral politics, activism, getting people to click on your SoundCloud mixtape—all of it relies on attracting attention using online platforms. The Sweeney incident is useful because it allows us to see how all these competing interests overlap to create a self-perpetuating controversy. Did American Eagle know what it was doing when it made the Sweeney advertisement? The company hasn't addressed the controversy, but the ad—not unlike the famous and controversial Brooke Shields Calvin Klein campaign it appears to be playing off of—seems like it was perhaps meant to walk a line, to be just controversial enough to garner some attention. Casting Sweeney to begin with supports this theory. Although perhaps accurately, her image has been co-opted by the right, in part because of where she's from (the Mountain West) and some of her hobbies (fixing cars). Even her figure has become a cultural stand-in for the idea, pushed by conservative commentators, that Americans should be free to love boobs. (Sweeney's cultural associations with conservatism have also been helped along by an Instagram post she made in 2022 featuring photos from a 'surprise hoedown' party for her mother's 60th birthday; online sleuths found separate photos depicting guests in MAGA-style hats and 'Blue Lives Matter' gear, which led to a backlash.) A marketing executive with enough awareness of Sweeney's image and the political and cultural conversation around her might have figured that the ad featuring her in particular talking about her good jeans would draw eyeballs. This does not mean that some of the outrage isn't culturally significant. Those who have spoken out about the advertisement aren't doing so in a vacuum: Fears over eugenics creeping into mainstream culture are empirically grounded—just glance at some aspects of the very public and loud pronatalist movements, which have been supported by influential people such as Elon Musk. Proud eugenicists have found purchase in mainstream culture on platforms like X. The Trump administration is making white-supremacist-coded posts on X and enacting cruel immigration policies, complete with military-style ICE raids and imprisonment in a makeshift gulag in the Florida swamps. That's the real context that the ad was dropped into. It makes sense that, as one commentator noted, the ad might feel like it is part of 'an unbridled cultural shift toward whiteness.' But all of this reality is stripped away by opportunists across the internet. The right-wing media ecosystem is excellent at cherry-picking examples that look, to their audiences, like egregious examples of so-called snowflake behavior. MAGA influencers and Fox News prime-time segments feed off this type of content, which allows their audiences to feel morally superior. Very real concerns about the political direction of the country and the emboldening of bigots are reduced to: Democrats are triggered by cleavage. The right-wing media apparatus has every incentive to go at the Sweeney stuff, as the MAGA coalition struggles to distract its base from Donald Trump's Epstein-files debacle. But it's not only the right that cherry-picks. In their rush to publish viral news stories explaining the controversy, the media credulously grab examples of supposed outrage—regardless of whether the accounts in question have tens of thousands of followers (and actual influence) or just a handful. One BuzzFeed story quoted an Instagram comment from a user who is not a public figure, just a person with 119 followers. This kind of amplification, where nonpublic figures become stand-ins for public opinion, is a dangerous game. It distorts the conversation, sending a flood of attention to posts from small accounts, often in the form of other users who pile on and excoriate the original poster. In turn, this leads to the otherwise inconsequential post taking on the appearance of relevance, causing more outrage. What ends up happening in these scenarios is that everyone gets very mad, in a way that allows for a touch of moral superiority and that is also good for creating online content. The Sweeney ad, like any good piece of discourse, allows everyone to exploit a political and cultural moment for different ends. Some of it is well intentioned. Some of it is cynical. Almost all of it persists because there are deeper things going on that people actually want to fight about. The polarized discourse obscures the real possibility that the majority of people encountering this ad are uninvested, passive consumers. Rather than have any conviction at all about the entire affair, they're consuming this discourse the way that people consume sports content about player infighting in a locker room or the way that people read celebrity gossip. Perhaps this is why American Eagle hasn't issued a panicked statement about the ad or why its stock price, barring a small fluctuation, hasn't changed much. For some, the stakes are high; for others, this is content to be consumed in a moment of boredom. The internet loves Sweeney—not as one might love, say, a person, but as you might an object, an atomic unit of content. Her image is fawned over but also analyzed, co-opted, and monetized. She is savvy enough to get a piece of this action, too; hence selling her bathwater and these jeans. But the internet loving you, it should be said, is not often a good thing. Its desire is limitless. It ingests a person and slowly turns them into a trend, a main character, a thing that people struggle to speak normally about. Perhaps the impulse to label these predictable culture-war moments as discourse reflects a need to make all the anger and fighting mean something. Discourse suggests a process that feels productive, maybe even democratic. But there's nothing productive about the end result of our information environment. What we're consuming isn't discourse but algorithmic grist for the mills that power the platforms we've uploaded our conversations onto. The grist is made of all of our very real political and cultural anxieties, ground down until they start to feel meaningless. The only thing that matters is that the machine keeps running. The wheel keeps turning, leaving everybody feeling like they've won and lost at the same time.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Popular Julia Roberts 90s Movie Gets Sequel Update
Actor Dermot Mulroney has recently surprised fans, by giving an update on a popular 90s movie starring himself and Julia Roberts getting a potential sequel. What movie from the 1990s has a new update from Mulroney? Speaking to The Post in a recent interview, Mulroney opened up about a potential sequel to the 1997 rom-com My Best Friend's Wedding. Fans of the film have been hopeful for a potential re-visiting at some point, and Mulroney noted that there has been some positive movement on one. 'I know nothing about it. Last I heard, quote, lawyers were talking, unquote,' Mulroney said. Roberts had also previously expressed interest in a sequel as well. In 2023, the star said that, out of all the movies she's done, she'd like to see that one get a sequel. 'Because there's so many people in it, and to see what they're doing and how Kimmy and Michael's marriage is going,' said Roberts while on an episode of Watch What Happens Live. 'Well, I mean, of course, Jules. But he married Kimmy.' The original film followed the story of NYC food critic Julianne 'Jules' Potter (played by Roberts) who had previously agreed to marry her friend (Mulroney) if they were both still unmarried at 28. The movie was a massive hit, earning almost $300 million at the box office and earning an Oscar nomination (for Best Original Musical or Comedy Score) and three Golden Globe nominations. (Source: New York Post) The post Popular Julia Roberts 90s Movie Gets Sequel Update appeared first on - Movie Trailers, TV & Streaming News, and More. Solve the daily Crossword