5 ms·
The article says the Nazis traded him 137 looted paintings in exchange for the Vermeer, so yes, at the very least he's profiting off the original owners, who li
by rippercushions 4y ago
The article says the Nazis traded him 137 looted paintings in exchange for the Vermeer, so yes, at the very least he's profiting off the original owners, who likely died in concentration camps.
- varajelle 4y agoI don't really understand this ethical framework. What can be done with these paintings? Must they be destroyed, or anything else is "profiting off victims of Nazis"?
- rippercushions 4y agoIt's stolen property that should be returned to its owners, and we have a standard legal framework for that. Obviously it's complicated when entire generations were annihilated, and there is still litigation going on today about the provenance and fate of some works stolen in WW2.
- Dylan16807 4y agoOkay, so he and the people that bought them from him should return them. That doesn't make taking them from Nazis bad. It would be better if he took cash from them, but again he only gave the guy a painting, he didn't help the Nazis. And better he have the paintings then a major Nazi, even as stolen property. The absolute worst option would be the Nazis selling the pile of art for cash.