Editing Museum of Modern Art (section)

== Art repatriation ==
{{expand section|coverage of art repatriation to victims beyond the Holocaust|date=June 2023}}
The MoMA has been involved in several claims initiated by families for artworks lost in the [[The Holocaust|Holocaust]] which ended up in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Do We Need to Send 'Monuments Men' to MoMA?|url=https://www.lootedart.com/news.php?r=QHCHRR986891|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160817142322/https://www.lootedart.com/news.php?r=QHCHRR986891|archive-date=August 17, 2016|access-date=January 9, 2021|website=lootedart.com |date=February 4, 2014 |first1=William B |last1=Cohan |agency=Bloomberg }}</ref>

In 2009, the heirs of German artist [[George Grosz]] filed a lawsuit seeking restitution of three works by Grosz, and the heirs of [[:de:Paul von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy|Paul von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy]] filed a lawsuit demanding the return of the painting by [[Pablo Picasso]], entitled ''[[Boy Leading a Horse]]'' (1905–1906).<ref>{{Cite web|date=December 17, 2020|title=New evidence in Grosz Nazi loot case against MoMA {{!}} The Art Newspaper|url=https://www.theartnewspaper.com/archive/new-evidence-in-nazi-loot-case-against-moma|access-date=January 9, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201217093440/https://www.theartnewspaper.com/archive/new-evidence-in-nazi-loot-case-against-moma|archive-date=December 17, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Schoeps v. Museum of Modern Art, 594 F. Supp. 2d 461 – CourtListener.com|url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1902521/schoeps-v-museum-of-modern-art/|access-date=January 9, 2021|website=CourtListener|language=en-us}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Haunting MoMA: The Forgotten Story of 'Degenerate' Dealer Alfred Flechtheim|url=https://www.lootedart.com/news.php?r=QNVN6Q521801 |agency=GaleristNY |date=February 14, 2012 |first1=Nina |last1=Burleigh |access-date=January 9, 2021|website=lootedart.com}}</ref>

Another controversy involved Pablo Picasso's painting ''[[Boy Leading a Horse]]'' (1905–06), donated to MoMA by William S. Paley in 1964. The status of the work as being sold under duress by its German Jewish owners in the 1930s was in dispute. The descendants of the original owners sued MoMA and the [[Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum]], which has another Picasso painting, ''Le Moulin de la Galette'' (1900), once owned by the same family, for return of the works.<ref>{{cite web| url=https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/3411| title=Pablo Picasso, ''Le Moulin de la Galette'' (1900)| website=Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170423065430/https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/3411| archive-date=April 23, 2017}}</ref> In 2009, both museums reached a confidential settlement with the descendants before the case went to trial and retained their respective paintings.<ref name=Vogel/><ref>{{cite news| first=Dave| last=Itzkoff| url=http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/judge-rebukes-museums-for-secret-picasso-settlement/| title=Judge Rebukes Museums for Secret Picasso Settlement| newspaper=The New York Times| date=June 19, 2009| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709111326/https://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/judge-rebukes-museums-for-secret-picasso-settlement/|archive-date=July 9, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-picasso-museums/ny-museums-settle-in-claim-of-nazi-looted-picassos-idUSTRE50S0EA20090202| first=Christine| last=Kearney| title=NY museums settle in claim of Nazi-looted Picassos| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201043528/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-picasso-museums/ny-museums-settle-in-claim-of-nazi-looted-picassos-idUSTRE50S0EA20090202| archive-date=December 1, 2017| work=[[Reuters]]| date=February 2, 2009}}</ref> Both museums had claimed from the outset to be the proper owners of these paintings, and that the claims were illegitimate. In a joint statement, the two museums wrote: "we settled simply to avoid the costs of prolonged litigation, and to ensure the public continues to have access to these important paintings."<ref>{{cite press release| url=https://www.guggenheim.org/news/guggenheim-settles-litigation-and-shares-key-findings| title=Guggenheim Settles Litigation and Shares Key Findings| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201035916/https://www.guggenheim.org/news/guggenheim-settles-litigation-and-shares-key-findings|archive-date=December 1, 2017| publisher=Guggenheim Museum| date=March 25, 2009}}</ref>

In another case, after a decade-long court fight, in 2015 the MoMA returned a painting entitled ''Sand Hills'' by German artist [[Ernst Ludwig Kirchner]] to the Fischer family which had been left behind by Max Fischer when he fled Germany for the US in 1935.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Alexander |first=Harriet |title=New York museum returns painting stolen by Nazis after decade-long battle|url=https://www.lootedart.com/news.php?r=RJVEOL537061 |agency=Daily Telegraph |date=November 17, 2015 |access-date=January 9, 2021|website=lootedart.com}}</ref>

In February 2024 the ''New York Times'' reported that MoMa had secretly restituted Marc Chagall's ''Over Vitebsk'' to the heirs of Franz Matthiesen in 2021 and that the restitution involved a $4 million payment to the museum.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Bowley |first=Graham |date=February 12, 2024 |title=Quietly, After a $4 Million Fee, MoMA Returns a Chagall With a Nazi Taint |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/12/arts/chagall-moma-return-over-vitebsk.html |url-access=subscription |access-date=February 15, 2024 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> The painting had passed through the Nazi dealer Kurt Feldhausser and the [[Weyhe Gallery|Wehye Gallery]] and its provenance was disputed.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Villa |first=Angelica |date=February 12, 2024 |title=MoMA Returned Valuable Chagall Painting with Disputed Provenance in 2021 |url=https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/moma-returned-chagall-painting-disputed-provenance-1234696002/ |access-date=February 15, 2024 |website=ARTnews.com |language=en-US}}</ref> The museum initially stated that the acquisition was not problematic, because its provenance researcher believed that the Matthiesen transfer was a repayment for debt, and not related to Nazi persecution of the Jews.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Nazi-Era Provenance Research – Starting from Scratch {{!}} Lynn Rother |website=Stanford Humanities Center |url=https://shc.stanford.edu/stanford-humanities-center/events/nazi-era-provenance-research-starting-scratch-lynn-rother |access-date=February 15, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221127043907/https://shc.stanford.edu/stanford-humanities-center/events/nazi-era-provenance-research-starting-scratch-lynn-rother |archive-date=November 27, 2022 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Villa |first=Angelica |date=February 12, 2024 |title=MoMA Returned Valuable Chagall Painting with Disputed Provenance in 2021 |url=https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/moma-returned-chagall-painting-disputed-provenance-1234696002/ |access-date=November 7, 2024 |website=ARTnews.com |language=en-US |quote=A 2017 book by researcher Lynn Rother titled Art for Credit, about the role of art used as loan collateral during World War II, states that there is no evidence that the Chagall was seized under duress, and that it was negotiated willingly by Matthiesen’s gallery.}}</ref> However the museum later reversed its position.<ref>{{Cite web |date=August 27, 2024 |title=Holocaust-restitution firm Mondex settles legal feud with heir over fees for $24m Chagall painting |url=https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/08/27/holocaust-restitution-mondex-feud-24m-chagall |access-date=November 7, 2024 |website=The Art Newspaper - International art news and events}}</ref>