16. Violins as icons and objects of speculation - the question of restitutions

[Detailed catalog text in german]

This appeal raises the question of what the acquisition strategies of the mdw* were like during the era of the Third Reich and the post-war period, what positions the actors took on this matter, and whether it is, therefore, possible to determine specifics regarding the “Aryanization” or, in this regard also the restitution of string instruments.

A review of the records ‘Teaching Materials Instruments 1938–1945’ and ‘1946–1955’ reveals that inventory was continuously maintained even during wartime. It also points to frequent offers from private parties and occasional acquisitions by the institution.

Indeed, self-interests could well have played a role. This becomes clear, for example, in a record which references a ministerial decree from 1949, in which it is stated that the mdw* “would be entrusted with the ten violins from the depot of Dorotheum under the Depot-Nr 673 for the Reich Chamber of Music in Vienna for trustee administration, subject to revocation at any time until future ownership conditions are determined”. This was upon payment of the depot fee of 425 Schillings on 2 January 1950. The attachment includes, among other things, an appraisal by Karl Richard Kaltenbrunner (1878-1957) from 17 January 1950, which provides a comprehensive list of this inventory along with price details.

Such appraisals often contained favours towards the client (in this case, the mdw*). It’s quite possible that this was also the case here, as Kaltenbrunner had frequently had business ties with the institution (as evidenced in 1939, 1942 and 1950).

How were the provenances of these instruments established, and what further actions did the mdw* undertake regarding this matter?

Apparently, these ten violins were acquired “through a monetary donation from an American woman” for musicians in distress and – as per the Vienna regional office of the Reich Chamber of Music – were “merely held in custody for, and provided on loan, to the organised Viennese musicians”, but were not considered their property.

In any case, a dispute arose concerning the ownership of these violins and the role of the mdw* in this matter, in which the mdw*, with the support of the ministry, prevailed.

What remains striking is that neither the actual provenance of the violins nor the identity and motivation of the American (?) donor were ever disclosed.