Artist Rights Violation At Auschwitz

[Edward Cherniga]

Dina Babbitt was an animator for Disney, but before that she was face to face with the Angel of Death
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5TZS8RTwRbw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5TZS8RTwRbw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
She was forced to use her talents, to save both her life and her mother’s life.
The museum at Auschwitz refuses to return her paintings.
We have the right to choose to use our talents to liberate her work.

This is an open call to creators to stand by our own, to use art to create a revolution and gain the return of seven pieces of paper to their rightful owner. This thread is for those who wish to be involved in Dina's cause.
ARTISTS FOR DINA (http://artfordina.wordpress.com/)
What would happen if the world witnessed creators from all aspects of the arts coming together to stand by and protect the rights of one artist?
It is wrong to discriminate against a person because they were a victim of a historical event.
The goal is to create a mass of art defending and supporting Dina’s rights and to give voice to the public demand for the return of Dina’s paintings. We intend to create a media spotlight revealing the museum’s long history of denying the return our colleague’s property. When the museum returns Dina’s work, we will record that event as well.
We find the negation of this artist’s human and creative rights to be an insulting and dangerous threat to the rights of artist’s and people everywhere. We do not intend to let this stand.
All proceeds will go toward Dina’s legal expenses to acquire the return of her work and more importantly, our outcry may influence the museum’s to return her work.
 We do not recognize the Musuem as the rightful owner of these paintings and simply want to see them return to the hands which created them. We are certain that many of you also wish to see this happen. 

What can you do?
*Link this blog (http://artfordina.wordpress.com/), Dina’s site (http://www.dinababbitt.com/) or the petition (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/freedinababbitt/) with your site
*Create art for the show or submit existing work
*Artists can choose to donate the sale of their work to Dina’s fund.
* Artists may submit any form of art, pro or am
Send a PM to me, communicating your interest and include a link to your work.
*Reach out and involve your colleagues
* Help spread the word
*Your ideas, Please use this thread and post them here.
We also need you to
Sign the petition (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/freedinababbitt/)

All we need is enough art.

Thank you and Go!

[paran0id]

The history of millions of slaves, forced to work for nothing, preserved in a museum, representing oppression and death. Her wanting it for her personal use where millions! died like flies.
The notion of demanding the exhibits by some pr gig with fellow artists is beyond selfish and arrogant.

[aesir]

The history of millions of slaves, forced to work for nothing, preserved in a museum, representing oppression and death. Her wanting it for her personal use where millions! died like flies.
The notion of demanding the exhibits by some pr gig with fellow artists is beyond selfish and arrogant.

Yea!!! And everyone who has money should immediately give everything they have to the starving children in africa. The fact that everyone wants to use it for personal reasons while millions are dying from a simple lack of clean water is beyond arrogance!

[Edward Cherniga]

Wow, how very sad I am for you both. You clearly do not get it. That is cool but you are off topic. I asked for ideas, not flames. Move along, nothing to see here.

[paran0id]

I am very sad for you, that you run on the forefront of some lowly pr gig. My idea is not to support that woman.

aesir
Nobody is obliged to give everything they own to starving children. But it is a moral standard to give something if you have a lot.

[Edward Cherniga]

I have worked hard to get her paintings back. You are grossly uninformed. This thread is asking for help, not your opinions or flames. move along...

[Edward Cherniga]

Yeah, not here to fight. Only doing what I believe in.

[aesir]

aesir
Nobody is obliged to give everything they own to starving children. But it is a moral standard to give something if you have a lot.

well, the point i was trying to make in a horrific-ly sarcastic way, was that neither of you are right, in that people have a right to their possessions but also that often times the right thing to do is to give them up for a greater cause.

(as far as moral standards of whether we have a right to what we own while others suffer, I think that would make for an interesting discussion. It's pretty much impossible to starve to death in america, so I could quite easily give up all I own to people who need it... Does morality require me to? Possibly. Certainly a follower of jesus' teachings would argue for it.)


[thread derailment, COMPLETE]

[Edward Cherniga]

Sigh. I am sure derailment was intended. Try reading the entirety of the thread intent next time before posting, Please? Maybe do some research into her specific case, you know? Come on, this thread is asking for help, not your philosophical disagreements.
If you disagree, what are you doing here?

[Edward Cherniga]

United Nations Declaration Of Human Rights
Article 17
1. Everyone has the right to own property, alone as well as in association with others.
2. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property

3@Kiera- I do not assume everyone agrees on this issue, I am simply doing what I believe in with the hope that others who do agree will help. The thread asks for aid. If you disagree, start your own thread.
-edit- I have edited my comments for accuracy because I realize we had a misunderstanding via translation issues.

[Rist]

I'm on the fence with this one. On the one hand those are objects to her past and a piece of memory for her family. On the other those paintings are an international relic as a reminder of the things which went on in those camps.

I hate to say it but I think they should stay with the museum. They have many more resources to protect those paintings for many hundreds of years.

[Edward Cherniga]

@Kiera, Thank you for the feedback, you actually brought up some important points there. The site has links which provide answers to them. We have been working so hard on the show, that we have had little time to devote to the website. I will consider your points further, re: the emotions contained there. I apologize, I began to do the exact same thing I felt you were doing.
@Rist, I respect your view and more importantly the civilized manner with which they are presented. I have considered them as well. If I may respond, these works were created by a war crime. If a family had had their Dali stolen by the SS and had proof it was theirs we might all have a different take on this. The woman simply wants her property back so she can decide which museum gets it. It is really a matter of principle for her. For the record, I had no interest in creating a debate, I just wanted the aid of those who agree with this issue. I am not here to force my views, nor am I here to convert anyone.

[Rist]

The issue is such a debatable subject, so there is no avoidance, especially in The Lounge.

I think the problem arises when the fact is that those were created while she was in captivity. This is so much different than the Germans simply stealing the works in the war period. This fact and the fact that it was a war crime makes it especially important to keep those paintings in the museum. They are as important as the photos taken when the camps were liberated. The museum will keep open for many more hundreds of years if we survive Global Warming, and because of this they can preserve these pieces.

I think I will leave it at this. Sorry you are not getting the support you thought you would gain. People just have their own thoughts on this.

[Edward Cherniga]

I regret that and I respect what you are saying. It is my hope that you can accept my apology and let bygone be bygone. :} I also hope you will entertain the notion that most of what I said to you was not intended as an insult. Although I can clearly see how it "sounds"that way. No, it was not the icon, man. Yet for sure, I am willing to accept it when you say you meant no insult. Fair enough? I am still kind of new to this "Standing up in Public for what I believe in" thing. I really did not expect to find this level of disagreement on this issue here of all places.

[the_jos]

There is a personal and a legal point of view for this 'problem'.
On the personal level I would say it would hurt none to return the paintings since the museum exhibits copies anyway and they acknowledge Dina as creator. One of the sites claims ownership to Dina, though I'm not sure of that to be honest.
From a legal point of view things get very blurry. Does acknowledging someone as creator mean that you have to return things to them on request?
This ain't the regular 'stolen art' type of case. She created the paintings, but to put it in blunt words, it was commissioned work. You draw this for me and I give you something in return. You can't create replica's from a work of art without permission of the creator, even if it was commissioned. So that's the reason for the paperwork, not her ownership.
Viewed from a legal point of view the museum is probably the rightful owner.

I see no reason not to return the originals to Dina, but only on personal and not on legal grounds. And even then I feel biased about it.

[Edward Cherniga]

@jos, Let’s look at your points-
“Does acknowledging someone as creator mean that you have to return things to them on request?”
No. Does the owner have a right to own property? Since it was a war crime to force this artist to create in the first place, if anyone has a legal claim of ownership, it is Dina. We are still holding war criminals accountable for their crimes, I understand.
“She created the paintings, but to put it in blunt words, it was commissioned work. You draw this for me and I give you something in return.”
A commissioned work is done so under legal conditions. This work was not “commissioned” it was created under a forceful condition, the threat of murder. That Condition is a war crime. The legal conditions of the “commission” never existed and the conditions of their forced creation are illegal since said conditions are a war crime.
“You can't create replica's from a work of art without permission of the creator, even if it was commissioned.”
Then the museum is breaking the law since it has been producing prints of her work for years, without her consent?
“Viewed from a legal point of view the museum is probably the rightful owner.”
Really? The Museum at Auschwitz did not exist when the paintings were created, therefore it is impossible for the museum to have commissioned anything.

[Baron Impossible]

It sounds like the museum is keeping the works illegally, so for that reason I hope she gets them back. Beyond that, however, I can't see how this case is different to any other examples where artists' work is being used illegally. Sorry, I don't buy into all this spiritual stuff about putting the past to rest and whatever, it's just a bunch of paintings being in one place when they should be in another.

[Jason Manley]

They are her works. She should have them. Period. The museum can make archival quality prints and hang them if they want. Anyone arguing against is in the way of artist rights and on the wrong side. Individual artist rights are the only thing that keeps us all from being slaves in the system. Wake up.

[Edward Cherniga]

@Jason,
Thank you for that. Via my communication with Dina, I know for a fact she does not feel "special" nor that her suffering proves to be any more unique than the others victimized by this hideous Holocaust. The Museum only hangs prints of her work anyway. They have the originals elsewhere. I wonder why?
She has never asked me for anything other than to "take it easy" :]
This issue is an affront to humanity and to artists in specific. If we turn our back on her, who will be there for us?

[TASmith]

I agree with Jason, and I think she's got a strong legal claim to them. This is one of those weird situations where the museum as a moral obligation to give the work back, yet the moral thing for the artist to do is give them away (and what better place than Auschwitz where they were made?). What I don't get is, why does she want them? She says they're the only link to her past, but what it really is, was she made a deal with the devil, reinforcing racism against gypsies, as a favor to the diabolical Mengele. She saved her mom, but otherwise, she should be ashamed to be linked to this, unless she somehow secretly protested the program by making these gypsies seem more noble or what have you (they look pretty noble in the images). I'd like alot more information on this.

[Edward Cherniga]

@TAS, perhaps some research would be good for you before making such broad and inaccurate statements. A convenient position for one to have from the safety of one's own safe little world. She actually said she would committ suicide rather than do this, Mengele said he would spare her mom.

[kev ferrara]

I signed the petition. It may be "history" but Dina isn't. If the Klimt's were returned her work should be returned.

On style: I hardly think of the Aushwitz museum as "the man." It is the very opposite. And the emotionalism of "help free dina from auschwitz" is really fucking insulting and hysterical.

I did not donate any money.

[Edward Cherniga]

Thank you Kev,
FYI, we offer no way for you to donate money. :}
We have a community here and I believe most of us attempt to help each other.
I am simply doing what I believe in. I sincerely want to help. All of us are volunteering. I get nothing from this but headaches.
Perhaps I need to curb my emotional involvement.
Thank you for your feedback. We could use help with content any time you wish to offer it.
One thing is certain, I have never claimed to be a brilliant writer. :}
Glad I could provide some chuckles for you.

[Flake]

It sounds like the museum is keeping the works illegally, so for that reason I hope she gets them back

That's about it really isn't it?

It's her stuff, give them back.

(Also, not wanting to sidetrack too much from the issues at hand, the comic panels on the link Edward posted are from the final issue of Magneto:Testament which is a very good comic and I believe features covers by some Marko guy.. )

[paran0id]

I received an infraction, lol, unjust I might add.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,618400,00.html

It was not until a 1998 conference in Washington that 44 countries committed themselves to finding "fair solutions." Under the Washington agreement, statutes of limitations were lifted, at least for art in public hands. But the treaty was not legally binding.

Austria, at any rate, enacted its own law and, after 1998, returned about 13,000 works to their rightful owners. But since 2006, when Jewish art collector Ronald Lauder paid $135 million (€102 million) for Gustav Klimt's famous portrait "Adele Bloch-Bauer I," which had already been returned to its owners by a museum in Vienna, the public's fascination with such record sums and the glitz of large amounts of money have overshadowed any gestures of fairness.

[Edward Cherniga]

All right guys, I am finished with arguments. Make up your own minds. If anyone wants to help or has a question connected with helping to secure the return of Dina’s work, please PM me.
Even if we have disagreed with one another, I will respond with whatever you need in cooperation with the return of Dina’s art. It is going to take much work.
I will still respond to valid questions concerning the return of this artist’s work.
Best to all of you.

[the_jos]

“You can't create replica's from a work of art without permission of the creator, even if it was commissioned.”
Then the museum is breaking the law since it has been producing prints of her work for years, without her consent?

From Dina's website (http://www.dinababbitt.com/):

"Dina is legally credited by the Museum as being the rightful owner of her artwork and must sign paperwork for the Museum each time it wants to reproduce her work. She has always accommodated the Museum and has never taken any monetary compensation, to which she is entitled, for the reproduction of her work."

I'm not sure why the website claims Dina is credited ownership.
If Dina has legal ownership there is no law, even in Poland, under which the museum could keep the paintings. So there is probable more to this story then just the claims on the websites (yes, I've read both the one you posted and Dina's, I think that's normal to form a opinion on something you don't know a lot about). I said that the legal side gets very blurry for a reason.
Why? It's a couple of lines below: "However, to date, the Museum claims that because it purchased the paintings from other people, the Museum does not have to return Dina’s gypsy portraits to her."
There is a ownership dispute. What the museum most likely claims is that they paid and because of that they are the owner of the paintings.

But as you see, there has been consent in the past so the museum was not breaking the law in reproducing.

Am I at the wrong side for arguing this way? Perhaps. But even artists have to remember that besides their rights others may also have rights.
Even if those rights are based on an immoral foundation or a highly controversial event in history.

@paran0id,
This specific case has nothing to do with the situation described in the spiegel article. That's a completely different situation.

[Ashtonw]

yet the moral thing for the artist to do is give them away

1) Why is it the moral thing to give them away and

2) Why should she be ashamed? She was a victim too, you know.

[Tim Thibeault]

well, the point i was trying to make in a horrific-ly sarcastic way, was that neither of you are right, in that people have a right to their possessions but also that often times the right thing to do is to give them up for a greater cause....."

The problem here appears to be clearer than our first reactions are allowing it to be.

Ed Cherniga is arguing (in 100% concurrence with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights) that what happens to Dina Babbitt's art, who owns it, and where it is displayed, is HER right to choose.

What the museum staff, the Polish Government of Lech Kaczinsky, Josef Mengele, and others posting here earlier, are saying is that someone other than the artist has the more powerful right to determine what happens to an artist's work, (and who owns it), as long as they are doing so for the good of society, or for "a greater cause". Their greater right is protected and enforced by the fact that "millions stand behind" them.

But that was why Josef Mengele had Dina make the portraits of Gypsies in the first place. He wanted to demonstrate in living colour, why the Gypsies (and the Jew he was forcing to paint them) had no rights at all to live in his society. His greater cause was a society that could be improved by the practice of eugenics.

The paintings were originally used to demonstrate physical inferiorities of some people to actual Aryan humans. Their current use is to demonstrate the moral inferiority of the Nazi ideology to the ideology of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum of Poland as it is in effect today. Ironically, both parties are using the same logic, which is, "I have the power therefore I determine that my cause is more noble and worthy than any person's human rights." Power trumps morality.

If a person supports the idea that any "greater cause", as defined by an arbitrary decision of one person or policy, outweighs Dina Babbitt's Human Rights, then he is acknowledging that his own Human Rights are also subject to someone else's arbitrary decision as to his worthiness to enjoy them.

The facts here show that a force outside of Dina Babbitt caused her to make the works in question over 60 years ago. Today, and for the last 34 years, decision makers at the same camp where the paintings were made, are supporting Josef Mengele and his decision to take work from Dina Babbitt and use it to achieve that camp's ends.

The camp has changed ownership in the ensuing years, as have its alleged goals, but it has not changed this facet of its policy: That the administrators of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Death Camp are better qualified through both education and social standing, than the artist herself, to decide what should happen with her work and to what ends, morally and ethically, it can be used.

If you agree with Adolf Hitler, Josef Mengele, and the current Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum Administrators, then your work is done for you and it is ongoing.

If you disagree with the notion that someone other than yourself is a better arbiter of the fate of your artistic efforts and what they should or may be used for, then you are on Ed Cherniga's side in this discussion.

If you would care to defend your own human rights, then you may want to support this cause.

If it is the exchange of money that is troubling you, you can still work for your own human rights (and those of all other artists) without sullying your hands with filthy lucre, simply by writing to the museum, or signing the online petition. Neither costs a penny and both represent a refusal to accept the status quo that someone else has a greater right than you to decide what art you may or may not make, when you may make it, and where and to what ends it will be used. As the artist, your rights and ownership of your work, end the moment you lay down your pencil.

************
DISCLOSURE: I am on Ed Cherniga's side in this endeavour. My blog is at
http://FreeDinasArt.wordpress.com and I HAVE signed the petition at
http://ipetitions.com/petition/FreeDinaBabbitt

I sincerely urge every self-respecting artist to at least read up on, and learn about this case before taking a stand on either side. Then, take the side that reflects your personal stance and do something to support it.

[TASmith]

"What the museum staff, the Polish Government of Lech Kaczinsky, Josef Mengele, and others posting here earlier, are saying... "

Just to clarify, Josef Mengele is dead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele

[the_jos]

Late at night yesterday I remembered that there has been a case on artist rights vs. ownership.
As far as I recall Dali did a commissioned work for a department store and because they altered it and refused to remove his name (which he demanded since he did not make that) he destroyed it. And the window of the store broke doing that.
He had to pay the window, but according to the judge Dalí had the right to defend his work of art.

Now this case is somewhat different and the law in the US is different from the law in Poland, but it indicates that artists have strong rights indeed.
So I'm going to rethink my point of view in this matter.


As a reaction to Tim:
People have the right of protection against unemployment and the right to work.
How about all those people fired because of the current economic situation? Are we also going to defend their rights? Or the rights of people like Johan (a 63 year old guy) who wants to work but can't find a job no matter how hard he tried (no, he's not told he's too old, but that's the reason. That's a double right denied, of art 2 and art 23).

Others make decisions on our human rights all the time. The moment you get on a terrorist watchlist you have no rights anymore. And your e-mail and internet traffic is already monitored and traffic data is stored for months. Power has always been greater than our individual rights.

I'm cynical on this subject, I know. Most people only care about rights when it affects them. Who cares that people from Morocco cannot give up their nationality even if they want to? Who cares that people labled as potential terrorists have no right to privacy when we are protected from attacks? And chemical castration of child abusers and rapists? I think most people will agree to that, it prevents future harm, doesn't it?
It's mainly about 'me and my rights' and not about 'our rights as human being in a demoncratic society'.

[TASmith]

"People have the right of protection against unemployment and the right to work."

????????????? What???????????? No. There are certain circumstances where one can sue for prejudice or racism, such as a job applicant who's more qualified than another who gets the job, or a qualified worker who never gets promoted. That's why many large businesses have quotas of one sort or another. However, there is no law anywhere that entitles everyone to employment. The very nature of capitalism requires a certain amount of unemployment to function.

Right now there's a big debate of rights vs. security, and it seems, at least in the US, that we're swaying to the side of greater individual rights. The case presented here is far, far different from a child molestor choosing castration or a terrorist being investigated. The debate may be in the same field, but Dina definately has the law on her side in this case, and it's ridiculous and insulting to compare her to these others. It's not very clear from your post, but I hope this is the point you were trying to make.

[zaorr]

I think it's a case of national treasure.

The problem is, instead of having descovered some Van Gog in an old chest somewhere and hooking it as National treasure the artist is still alive.

This is a difficult situation. I'd say she needs at least some form of compensation or they need to be returned.

[the_jos]

"People have the right of protection against unemployment and the right to work."

????????????? What???????????? No.

????????????? What???????????? Yes.
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/).

And that's the document Tim Thibeault was talking about.

That's much broader than any nation's law and I doubt any country holds them all.
Still, those are your rights as human beign.

Edit: and it's those rights I'm referring to in the case of sex offenders. It's no compare of Dina to them.
Society may think different (and in some cases I agree) but people have fundamental rights according to the Universal Declaration.

[TASmith]

A UN Declaration is not a law, to the best of my knowledge, and there's a huge difference between unemployment protection i.e. social welfare, versus requiring private businesses to give jobs, which is what your wording implies. I can't just go to any company and demand a job, and I can't sue if they say no, unless I can claim unfair discrimination. Private companies have, and should have the right to hire and fire employees whenever, and for whatever reason, so long as those reasons are fair and agreed upon in contracts. Anyone should be able to choose their field of interest, and town of residence, but actually getting a job must be based on free competition.

Rights are determined by nations, not the UN. Every nation ought to give certain rights, but it's always up to the people of each nation to demand them.

I have the feeling we have very similar beliefs both on the question of Dina and rights, and this all seems a debate over wording. Possibly Engllish isn't your first language. In light of this, I have no interest in continuing a debate over wording.

[Baron Impossible]

It's very clear. The only way the museum would be entitled to retain the works is if an agreement was signed by Babbitt, not under duress, laying out licensing conditions and stating she was signing over rights of her artwork to a third party. No such agreement exists. Therefore, she holds full control of the licensing and usage of her artwork and if she wants them back then, under law, she is entitled. It's not a point that can be reasonably countered.

[janni]

To put Mengele, Hitler, and the memorial museum in auschwitz-birkenau in the same sentence (to link them ideologically or state they're somehow mistreating the artist in a even slightly comparable way) - like some people seem to do here - is probably the most fucked up and perverted thing i have read hear since these boards exist.

also to phrase it "free dina from auschwitz" wasn't the most sensible idea...

[Tim Thibeault]

...
Just to clarify, Josef Mengele is dead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele

I've heard that rumour too.

Vincent van Gogh is dead. His work lives on, and that is good.
Michaelangelo is dead. His work lives on, and that is good.
Josef Mengele is dead. His work lives on. Can you see where this is going?

For someone who considers himself an artist, your sweepingly dismissive comment reveals more, perhaps, than was intended.

[Tim Thibeault]

....As a reaction to Tim:

People have the right of protection against unemployment and the right to work.

....snip.....

It's mainly about 'me and my rights' and not about 'our rights as human being in a demoncratic society'.

Each of us has a right to espouse any cause we choose. We can even start a thread about it in CA Forums to seek support.

Ed Cherniga's goal here appears to have been to invite like-minded artists to support Dina Babbitt's rights as a human being and as an artist. His battle is for group recognition of individual Human Rights. When he wins, YOUR rights will be protected in part by HIS efforts.

If you're going to get on board Ed's train, you can shovel coal or you can drag your feet. I'm here to shovel coal and keep the train rolling (AWAY from Auschwitz, not toward it).

[TASmith]

Tim, I didn't intend to offend, nor was I dismissing anything. It's just that your sentence implied you thought Mengele was still alive and posting in this forum thread (reread it). The present continuous verb tense is only used for living persons. It's not my intention to pick at grammar, but after reading your post, I assumed you really did believe he was still alive, and I clarified that for you and anyone else reading.

I also signed the petition. We're on the same side here.

[Tim Thibeault]

To put Mengele, Hitler, and the memorial museum in auschwitz-birkenau in the same sentence (to link them ideologically or state they're somehow mistreating the artist in a even slightly comparable way) - like some people seem to do here - is probably the most fucked up and perverted thing i have read hear since these boards exist.

also to phrase it "free dina from auschwitz" wasn't the most sensible idea...

It was Mengele who, for a time, controlled Dina Babbitt's art and her enjoyment of life. He forced her to make the paintings and he decided arbitrarily, as an Auschwitz administrator, what the fate of her art would be.

Subsequent Auschwitz administrators, Dr. M. A. Cywinski being only the most recent, have also taken it upon themselves to decide arbitrarily what the purpose and fate of Dina's art will be. "Some people" have not said that, Janni, I have. And I stand behind it.

The apparent inadequacy of your vocabulary serves only to underscore that this topic is not completely accessible to you.

Good luck with that.

[Tim Thibeault]

Tim, I didn't intend to offend, nor was I dismissing anything. It's just that your sentence implied you thought Mengele was still alive and posting in this forum thread (reread it). The present continuous verb tense is only used for living persons. It's not my intention to pick at grammar, but after reading your post, I assumed you really did believe he was still alive, and I clarified that for you and anyone else reading.

I also signed the petition. We're on the same side here.

Thanks TA. I am being a tad defensive here, perhaps because my sense of righteous indignation has been piqued by what appears to be a distinct, and sometimes strident, lack of empathy on the part of people who would call themselves artists.

It seems obvious to me (but perhaps only to me) that our rights as Human Beings and as artists are inextricably bound together. If we do not protect one, we may soon find ourselves lacking both.

For these reasons I support Ed Cherniga's goal and urge anyone, artist or not, who values his Human Rights, to speak out in defense of them for everyone.

Finally, I thank you TA, for remaining calm and thoughtful. Your attitude reminds me, when I am on the brink of getting all yelly and sweary, that rational thought doesn't need exclamation points or curses, just clarity.


"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for enough good people to do nothing." ~Edmund Burke

[Naomi Ningishzidda]

It's the right thing to give them back to her.

Contrary to absurd, often self-serving viewpoints, morals are not as simple and black and white as "turning the other cheek". Proper ethics, on the other hand, take into account a greater variety of battles where grey areas are the norm and recognized as such. The rights of the artist, rather than the rights of the museum are foremost here, since we would all suffer more deeply for the loss of art than we would the loss of museums - where would museums (even history museums!) be without art? And art without artists? This is the sort of abuse that prevents people from becoming artists....who wants to be part of an industry where your bread and butter can be stolen from you any time society says so?

Leaving the paintings there perpetuates similar abuses against artists and will remain a black mark on the museum and the country housing that museum for as long as they keep the paintings.

fucking godamned commies!!!

[the_jos]

I have the feeling we have very similar beliefs both on the question of Dina and rights, and this all seems a debate over wording. Possibly Engllish isn't your first language. In light of this, I have no interest in continuing a debate over wording.

Indeed English isn´t my primary language but I think I know it well enough to express my opinion in it and to understand most stuff. The few things I do struggle with are mainly old English literature or very specific pieces.

We share believes on Dina and rights, only based on different points of view.

As I already stated, based on Dali's case I'm reconsidering my old (legal) point of view. According to (US) law the artist/creator has a lot of rights. I'm not sure how Polish law handles this subject and the European Convention on Human Rights does not deal with this kind of disagreement.
I already said that on personal level I saw no problem in returning the originals.

But when arguing based on the Universal Rights declaration, as Tim did, I'm not convinced. The declaration is much broader. And Tim's argument must be based on this declaration or rights above local law, else the 'arbitrary decision of one person or policy' would come in sight. But since those ain't laws they have no power, you noticed that right.
This makes our 'Human Rights' already subject to 'someone else's arbitrary decision', our various governments. And those seem to have little problems putting some of those rights aside when it suits them.
And people demanding those rights? I think Plato was fairly right with his 'ship of state' metaphor. And I've got little doubt I'm one of the quarrelling sailors ;)

[janni]

It was Mengele who, for a time, controlled Dina Babbitt's art and her enjoyment of life. He forced her to make the paintings and he decided arbitrarily, as an Auschwitz administrator, what the fate of her art would be.

Subsequent Auschwitz administrators, Dr. M. A. Cywinski being only the most recent, have also taken it upon themselves to decide arbitrarily what the purpose and fate of Dina's art will be. "Some people" have not said that, Janni, I have. And I stand behind it.

The apparent inadequacy of your vocabulary serves only to underscore that this topic is not completely accessible to you.

Good luck with that.

well well, please for once don't argue with the vocabulary used. if that's offending you, i am actually a bit curious now how it comes you aren't ashamed at all about the comparisions you draw here. your insult is quite worse than those oh so evil 5-letter words. if you dont realize that, just maybe it's you the topic isn't quite accessible too...? and i stand behind what i said as well, sir. if the crime comitted is not returning artwork, a comparision to mengele is realy quite perverted. and to fight "to free her work from auschwitz" is hysterical at best. and displays a lack of dignity and respect that puts your whole cause into a light it doesn't need to be in.

while (as an artist) i absolutely agree that it's dina's right to reclaim her work and it should be given back to her (unless the museum actually purchased it from the RIGHTFUL owner in the 70s), i realy don't understand why artist and museum aren't on the same side here. and as an artist i dont understand why dina isn't proud that her work is on display at auschwitz and can do good in the hands of the public and can remind people of the cruelties of the past and can prevent that what happened to her might happen to others. which is the whole point of auschwitz-birkenau as you find it today afterall.
because as an artist i ALSO understand the social responsibility artists can have and why it is important that history isn't forgotton and that artwork like hers stays in the hand of the public. the original is history. a copy is not. but what happens with originals is of course entirely up to her. if they are still legally hers - and i don't claim i have enough insight into the whole ordeal to judge that. since there seem to be a lot of different oppinions on that.

[the_jos]

as an artist i dont understand why dina isn't proud that her work is on display at auschwitz and can do good in the hands of the public and can remind people of the cruelties of the past and can prevent that what happened to her might happen to others. which is the whole point of auschwitz-birkenau as you find it today afterall.
because as an artist i ALSO understand the social responsibility artists can have and why it is important that history isn't forgotton and that artwork like hers stays in the hand of the public. the original is history. a copy is not. but what happens with originals is of course entirely up to her.

Dina is part of history where there is no fame and no glory.
Those pictures excist because something terrible happened.

Let the pictures be part of history and not of the present. Sure, replicas can exist but it's ok if the originals are gone forever. Like those events that created them should be gone forever and never return.
I think Dina seeks closure and if returning the paintings can give that closure I I don't see any social responsibility for her not to ask them back.
The replicas can be part of that social responsibility, but there is no need for the originals. There are many things we have only replicas of that are part of history, why not in this case?

[Edward Cherniga]

I interrupt this interesting and entertaining debate with an update for clarification.
I am speaking now to those who wish to do something to help support human and artists rights as we gain the return of Dina’s work.
I have secured a very large piece of real estate in the form of a famous art gallery, for the purpose of using our art to support human and artist’s rights.
Here is how it will occur-
*We are gathering a roster of artists who are willing to voice their commitment of involvement and as soon as we have a clear idea of how much space the exhibit will require, then we will be assigned a date.
*When that date is on the calendar, I will make a press release.
*We will prepare our exhibit to make a tour of galleries IF Dina’s art does not return to her hands when this show ends.
*Interested artists need only PM me, with a link to your work and you will then be greeted by information and cooperation.
* Use this thread to brainstorm and discuss ideas for actions we can take to secure the return of our colleague's art work. I understand the need for debate and hope it continues to prove to be productive.
I am willing to do what it takes to make this painless for the artists involved and we will proceed with respect and cooperation.
My determination cannot be swayed and I will not let this opportunity to defend human and artist’s rights go to waste.
This one show could do the trick, if not, we have long and far reaching plans to reach our goal. This will happen as quickly or as slowly as the determination of our community allows. We are prepared for a long fight nonetheless.
We will do this together, as a community and Dina’s art will make it back to her hands.

[DuneFishUK]

Dina is part of history where there is no fame and no glory.
Those pictures excist because something terrible happened.

Let the pictures be part of history and not of the present. Sure, replicas can exist but it's ok if the originals are gone forever. Like those events that created them should be gone forever and never return.
I think Dina seeks closure and if returning the paintings can give that closure I I don't see any social responsibility for her not to ask them back.
The replicas can be part of that social responsibility, but there is no need for the originals. There are many things we have only replicas of that are part of history, why not in this case?

Are you saying forget the Holocaust? Replicas are all well and good, but the originals represent a tangible link to a past which should never be forgotten or completely tidied away and confined to old books. Don't underestimate the power that something REAL has to educate people.

Artists should be rewarded and I dare say in this case the artist probably has a right to reclaim her work. However to see these pictures locked away in a private collection thousands of miles away would be a great loss that we should try and avoid.

[Edward Cherniga]

I want to reiterate, these original works of art are NOT on display in the museum, Prints are on display. Only the museum knows where the originals are kept. FYI

[janni]

I want to reiterate, these original works of art are NOT on display in the museum, Prints are on display. Only the museum knows where the originals are kept. FYI

now thats realy fucked up then ;)

doesn't matter who they belong to after all. if they're not even on display, the museum should give them back to the artist as a sign of good will and to redeem the crimes done to her. in this case even the conservation of the historical pieces is ruled out as an argument (although it would still be nice to know, that they won't get lost).

the museum still shouldn't be compared to mengele though...

[Tim Thibeault]

now thats realy fucked up then ;)

doesn't matter who they belong to after all. if they're not even on display, the museum should give them back to the artist as a sign of good will and to redeem the crimes done to her. in this case even the conservation of the historical pieces is ruled out as an argument (although it would still be nice to know, that they won't get lost).

the museum still shouldn't be compared to mengele though...

If the museum doesn't want to be compared to Mengele, then they must not use his logic to justify the unjustifiable. To claim that any group has moral or ethical superiority over an individual, is precisely what Mengele did. The Nazi claim that "Millions stand behind me," uses the will of a greater number of people to deny human rights to one person.

The current museum administrators' stance is that their cultural mandate morally outweighs Dina's human experience and rights. Wrong! and so they open themselves to comparison to Mengele and the Nazis by their own actions.

In that old fairytale, it wasn't the little boy who could not see the Emperor's New Clothes who was wrong. It was the evil men who convinced the Emperor that only the truly "worthy" among his subjects could see the fine and glorious fabric of his new wardrobe. No matter who is to blame, the Emperor is still naked on parade, and expecting the people to be impressed by his new clothes. Like that little boy, I am unimpressed.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is merely a glass through which we can see clearly, the nature of the fabric in which all Emperors clothe themselves.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

But I would never argue against returning the paintings to the artist from whom they were wrongly acquired. To that end, I do support Ed Cherniga's very admirable efforts, and would feel honoured to have my work included in any show he organizes to achieve those ends.

[DuneFishUK]

Hmm... That is fucked up. I'd still like to see them in a public collection though.

[Sekino]

I'm really shocked by the museum's stance on this. The pieces were extorted out of the artist (if "Paint or your mother gets killed" doesn't qualify as extortion, I don't know what does). I would think that possessing extorted goods would be akin to possession of stolen goods. And what is to be said about the person who made money off the paintings by selling them to the museum? Why is Dina Babbitt expected to give up her rightful property for some 'greater social purpose' while someone else laughed all the way to the bank with money from HER artwork? This adds insult to injury.

[alesoun]

Signed. Bad enough being exploited once. If it's part of history, we should all pay for it.

[Edward Cherniga]

The forced conditions under which this art was created is a war crime. Those are still being prosecuted right? Artist's rights are important and no one has the right to take an artist's works without compensation, regardless of cultural importance. This holds true in many civilized countries. Citizens sue for stolen commercial jingles and the courts defend their rights. This woman's rights as a human and an artist have been ignored because she is the victim of a war crime. Insane. Her rights must be defended and they must be restored. If they are not, then who will we turn to when our rights have been ignored? Thank you to everyone who is stepping up here.

[the_jos]

Are you saying forget the Holocaust? Replicas are all well and good, but the originals represent a tangible link to a past which should never be forgotten or completely tidied away and confined to old books. Don't underestimate the power that something REAL has to educate people.
As you already learned the pieces displayed ain't the real paintings but replicas. So there is no difference.

And am I saying forget the holocaust? No.
What I'm saying is that we are trying to preserve the past instead of using it to guide us to the future. The holocaust was not an isolated incident, history has many examples of the difficulty of humankind to deal with 'other people'.
The holocaust is only (a significant) part of that history.
We need the originals to preserve the past, but we don't need them to guide us to the future. Replicas will do just fine for that.
I do know the value of something real, but the museum can also tell the complete story and how Dina lived on and got her own paintings back.
Even if she decides to destroy them or lock them away forever this can be part of that story. Now the story ends with the dead, the people on the painting. When the paintings are returned the story can end with the living, the present and future.
I think that's something the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum should consider. Do they exist to preserve the past or to shape the future?

[zaorr]

If I look at patterns of history and the classic pattern of the way stuff change in the media etc... I wouldn't be surprised if the original frame of what happened there got twisted somehow to mean all kinds of things but losing its original frame of context.

That is why history keeps repeating it's self. Because everything get's censored polished or the original actuality twisted.

Without proof of the originals, I'm not to sure I buy the story anymore and without having seen the works, they most probably contain stuff that are selling some sort of idea about what happened there.

[Peter Coene]

In my oppinion its a matter of the rights of the artist to decide how their work is used. If she doesn't want her work there then it is her right to demand it back.

[freiheit]

There's been a lot of very valid arguments made already, but I'm siding on the side of "give her back her stuff"

The museum's message wouldn't be less right if it showed reproductions rather then originals.

Borrowing someone his/her own stuff is a ridiculous idea.

If the artist isn't dead as well as his/her family, they should have expected, when buying the paintings, to hear from them... They're probably hoping money will win over rights or that she'll die before it is judged that they should return her the paintings. She's on a timer and they're not.

[dwardo]

What kind of emotions are you looking for in the pieces Ed?

Are there already chosen pieces that we might take a charge/example from?
[Something to work next to and intensify the whole gallery feel]

[AeonPhoenix]

The artist should get her works back, and its not like its the only thing left of Auschwitz to remind us just how horrific the Holocaust was. People seem to worry that if the artist gets her work back that a crucial piece of information about the Holocaust would be lost. There is plenty of evidence to reinforce that it happened. She made the work, she has a right to get it back

[Edward Cherniga]

@the_jos, Dina simply wants to have the right to decide which museum she will donate the paintings to. She has made this clear.
@zaorr, The museum states that the paintings are stored on the premises.
@Peter Coene, yes, indeed.
@freiheit, As you say, she IS on a “timer” and that is the only reason I have mentioned her health, to drive that fact home. I thought people might want to know that.
@Dward, I would never be the arbiter of another artist’s creativity. Discussions with the others involved reveals the same attitude. We are intentionally making every effort to not influence the art in the show I.E.- we are keeping those artists who are involved close to the vest in the hope that doing so will have absolutely no effect on who submits and their decisions re: the work they choose to submitt. Do what comes naturally.
@AeonPhoenix, Exactly and the irony is that her artistic rights are being ignored and she is being discriminated against BECAUSE she was victimized by the Holocaust. Insane.
In other news, I have continued to fine tune the presentation of our information based on the helpful suggestions from some of you. The mission statement has been retooled, {since I enjoyed a good nights sleep} :] Double thanks and please let me know if anything else comes to mind. Cheers

[kev ferrara]

Please! There is no relationship between what Mengele did and what the museum is doing.

Let's just do what we can to get Dina's works back, without resorting to absurd hyperbole in order to find moral justification. Making lampshades out of human skin and injecting iodine into people's eyes to see if that made them Aryan hardly matches up with a small legal dispute over the ownership of some drawings and debates about "what constitutes historical artifact" versus questions of personal property.

[Edward Cherniga]

Kev, you just really helped me with this. Oh, man, I did not get it until now. I remember having the same thoughts when someone tried to say that being in prison was a form of torture. I remember thinking, the two words should not even be used in the same sentence, and here I am making the same mistake! I owe you a drink and a handshake. The museum is clearly using her status as a victim of the Holocaust to ignore her rights. This is of course not the same thing as what the Nazis did. I now see why I was viewing it as a connection. That line of thought is over and done. Wow. I am grateful for this community.
I sincerely thank you sir. Appropriate changes are being made. When I am wrong, I admit it. Cheers

[Mungus]

United Nations Declaration Of Human Rights
Article 17
1. Everyone has the right to own property, alone as well as in association with others.
2. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property


In that case the Administration should return all rightful homelands to the Native Americans. (I'm not sure that's realistic but I live in an idealistic bubble).

On topic...
I agree that the works of art should be returned and copies used at the museum. And the museum should feel happy that they've enjoyed so many years of free use of her property.

[Mungus]

sent to Mr. Piotr Cywinski, Director
Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum
Oswiecim, Poland
mailto:muzeum@auschwitz.org.pl

Hello Mr. Cywinski,

I hope to find you well.
I have recently been informed of the case of Dina Gottliebova, and her desire to have her paintings returned.

As an artist myself, I understand her feelings, and sympathise. Also, to be fair I also understand your side and the side of the museum, as the paintings were done under the terms of a contract (a very dark contract, and one I'm sure would have been impossible to reject).

Given the situation, would it not be a simple and kind gesture to return Dina's paintings back to her, and use good copies at the museum instead? I am sure the viewing public would not feel cheated.

The gesture would be profound.
These are horrible times of legal this and legal that, - surely now we all could do with a simple story of good naturedness and consideration for someones feelings.
I hope you find the heart to return Dina's works. They carry great memories of her experience, and as any artist will
testify, are of a most profound personal resonance, about as personal a work as ever an artist has had to bear.

Please be well,
Moz

[freiheit]

The museum is clearly using her status as a victim of the Holocaust to ignore her rights.

It's kinda ironic.



@Mungus: That's a nice initiative that letter of your's Mungus, I think I'll do the same.

[Peter Coene]

Rights are determined by nations, not the UN. Every nation ought to give certain rights, but it's always up to the people of each nation to demand them.

While I agreed with the rest of your post, this particular tidbit rubs me the wrong way. To express my thoughts on the subject I'm going to refer to a particular quote from the US Declaration of Independance:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Human rights are not granted by any nation nor are they granted by the United Nations. They are a part of our very being and to assume that they are some gift that is within the power of a benevolent government to give hands undue power to a governing body. We would not thank a theif for choosing not to take our belongings; thanking a government for "giving" us our rights should be seen as just as preposterous.

In case anyone didn't understand, the rights are ours to begin with. Government provides a degree of safety, not rights. In fact, the only thing government can do with rights is take them away. If we didn't have a law that provides the freedome of speech people would still be able to speak. That law is not there to give us anything, but instead to keep something from being taken away. The same applies to our rights to privacy, to bear arms, to follow the religion of our choice, own property, etc, etc.

[TASmith]

Agreed, Peter, but if you really read what I wrote there, nothing I said contradicts you. You say Govt's can't give rights, but only limit them - that's how nations determine rights. You say people should have certain rights, but in reality, these have to be demanded by the people, because they're never just given.

[Peter Coene]

Agreed, Peter, but if you really read what I wrote there, nothing I said contradicts you. You say Govt's can't give rights, but only limit them - that's how nations determine rights. You say people should have certain rights, but in reality, these have to be demanded by the people, because they're never just given.

But you still are continuing to show the mindset that I disagree with in the use of terms like "given" or "how nations determine rights."

Yes, demands must be made by the people, but what the people have to demand is not that their rights be "given to them" but that their rights not be taken away. The govenment has not place to "give rights" because they are not the government's to give.

As such they are also not the nation's to determine or define.

This is why I am wary of any politician who claims to be "giving" me something.

[squidmonk3j]

copyright laws are not granted by any nation nor are they granted by the United Nations. They are a part of our very being and to assume that they are some gift that is within the power of a benevolent government to give hands undue power to a governing body.

multifixed.

[freiheit]

I might be 100% wrong but... wasn't UN's declaration of universal rights ijust a suggestion and every country part of the UN encouraged but not forced to apply or accept them?

[Peter Coene]

multifixed.

Theres a difference between laws and rights. Copyright, in and of itself, is not a human right so to speak but instead a legal term used in determining ownership. Ownership, as in owning property, is a human right.

If you really think about it, the example of copyright law is an example where the government takes away rights, not gives them. Without copyright law anyone would have the right to use any piece of artwork in any way. However, we are willing to give up that right in exchange for protection. As stated before, government cannot give rights, but can give protection. In this case most of us can agree that the exchange was acceptable.

[Tim Thibeault]

Please! There is no relationship between what Mengele did and what the museum is doing.


I respectfully disagree. And there is no 'absurd hyperbole' here either.

For a precise description of that relationship, I refer you to the standard response letter currently being offered by the museum to those who write to express support for Dina's rights:

"...However, the Museum would like to remark that the actual situation does
not coincide with the one presented in support letters or some world
media. We would like to draw the attention to the fact that the portraits
of Gypsies made in the camp by Mrs. Dina Gottliebova-Babbitt have never
been her property. They were made on the order and for the use of the
SS-Haupsturmfuehrer dr. Joseph Mengele as materials for his
pseudo-scientific work on physical resemblance of Gypsies from various
countries. Nobody asked for permission the Gypsies who were portrayed and
their portraits were made under duress...."

You can read this letter in its entirety in the comments section of the excellent and well-detailed article on Dina's struggle, here:
http://comicimpact.com/2009/05/holocaust-survivor-denied-possession-of-her-artwork/

My point is not to emphasize the lurid aspects of Mengele's doings, but to observe on the more banal aspect of his evil - that he could disregard other human beings' rights based on his own opinion, with such calm ease. It is this disturbing attitude that continues to emanate from Auschwitz today. The Museum's 2009 administration is not ashamed to invoke the name of Mengele in defense of arbitrarily depriving Dina Babbitt of her property.

Just sayin'.

But we do agree one hundred percent that the cause is indeed a valid one and the rights of Dina Babbitt have not been shown proper respect ...yet. For this I am grateful, and I look forward to learning if you, kev, are going to participate in the endeavour that started this whole thread.

Just askin'.

Tim

[zaorr]

Studying those in context it's hard for me to believe that she was painting under any pressure or death threat.

I'm starting to see another possibility here, that the people were held as ransomed/hostage and that the instruction to kill them off came as a surprise to more than just the victims. Whatever bargaining that went on there did not for fill. The real cruelty came from higher command.

The bizarre experiments thing is baloney.

But that's politics.

The issue of rights here flew out of the window when I noticed “contract”, It doesn't make a difference if that dude was the spawn of hell or not. The lady held a position and the ideas for her projects was her employer's, after all this these would become national treasure and are tied to history.

An argument you could use is if say you were a part of some band, you made some violin pieces for the songs but then you left. Those pieces belong to the band so you don't have squat when you leave; but say the entire band then dies... What happens now, if you are the only living contributor? The fact that you are an ex member does not remove your name from the works.

The problem is that the real owner was a government employed or that is what I assume, so it will be hard to try and dislodge that.

Maybe if you draw cartoons that shows him forcing woman to have sex with animals or something. It looks like digging for gold in a boneyard to me.

I feel cruelty slices in all directions sometimes. Imagine the hoards of soldiers in service having to blindly accept cruel command and what country does not expect that from their soldiers? Does that mean that they too have to go down in shame with the rest of the batch?

[janni]

interestingly reading the article just posted, i find out that the museum is not showcasing reproductions of dina's art, but is just rotating the originals with reproductions. this is obviously common practice in most museums showing artwork worth stealing and that needs to be cared for for preservation or is used for historical research. just saying, cause it was stated before that the museum is always showing reproductions.

[janni]

For a precise description of that relationship, I refer you to the standard response letter currently being offered by the museum to those who write to express support for Dina's rights:

"...However, the Museum would like to remark that the actual situation does
not coincide with the one presented in support letters or some world
media. We would like to draw the attention to the fact that the portraits
of Gypsies made in the camp by Mrs. Dina Gottliebova-Babbitt have never
been her property. They were made on the order and for the use of the
SS-Haupsturmfuehrer dr. Joseph Mengele as materials for his
pseudo-scientific work on physical resemblance of Gypsies from various
countries. Nobody asked for permission the Gypsies who were portrayed and
their portraits were made under duress...."

You can read this letter in its entirety in the comments section of the excellent and well-detailed article on Dina's struggle, here:
http://comicimpact.com/2009/05/holocaust-survivor-denied-possession-of-her-artwork/

My point is not to emphasize the lurid aspects of Mengele's doings, but to observe on the more banal aspect of his evil - that he could disregard other human beings' rights based on his own opinion, with such calm ease. It is this disturbing attitude that continues to emanate from Auschwitz today. The Museum's 2009 administration is not ashamed to invoke the name of Mengele in defense of arbitrarily depriving Dina Babbitt of her property.


Don't you think there is a slight chance you misinterpret the argument the museum is trying to give here?

It's not their point that Mengele forced Dina to paint the portraits and therefore owned the originals. The point is that Mengele forced the people Dina portraited to sit in the first place, and violated their human rights (as well). So the museum honors the decision of the roma and sinti councils (mentioned later in the letter you quoted) which represent the people Dina portraited (which have all been executed after their portraits where done) and decided the portraits of their ancestors shall remain in a museum.

The whole situation is not even a little bit as black and white as you try to make people believe here. It's a complicated legal dispute. And although Dina has a strong moral right to not only own the copyright of the paintings (which she does) but also the originals, the museum does too. And to argue that Dina never owned the originals since the people she was forced to paint never agreed to sit for here is nothing that justifies to be compared to Mengele. Seriously.

[lilyw75]

I agree with Janni...


___________________________________
caravan holiday homes (http://www.thenewpines.co.uk/)

[Edward Cherniga]

Just some thoughts Re: the article and the letter quoted above and at no one in particular-
“Officials of the Auschwitz Museum have been quoted as claiming that Dr. Mengele is the legal owner of the paintings.
In response, 50 prominent attorneys sent a letter to the museum, calling that claim “preposterous and offensive.”
Their letter noted: “A war criminal does not deserve to enjoy the fruits of his crimes. Mrs. Babbitt was coerced, on pain of death, to paint these portraits.
She did not voluntarily enter into a business relationship with Mengele. He cannot be regarded as a patron who commissioned the art work.”
Dina Babbitt is the victim of a war crime. This is still illegal. It was a war crime that she was in Auschwitz.
It was a war crime that she was threatened with murder and offered to be spared if she created art for the racist fascists known as Nazis. It is criminal that her property is still being kept from her.
The museum states- ””In this case the opinion of the Roma organizations is univocal and to keep the watercolors in the Museum is the question of priority.” So the museum selectively honors the wishes of certain races of Holocaust survivors ?
This proposes a preferential treatment, which asks that the rights of one race to supercede the rights of the individual and other races. Is this not a racial consideration granting preference to a specific race? Is a race entitled to absolute legal rights of ownership, which trump the rights of ownership, by the individual? I’m just asking…
“In 2001, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution, sponsored by Rep. Shelly Berkley of Nevada, recognizing “the moral right of Dina Babbitt to obtain the artwork she created” and urging the President and the Secretary of State “to make all efforts necessary to retrieve” the paintings. The resolution also instructed the State Department to undertake “immediate diplomatic efforts” to secure the return of the artwork.
But the Polish government and the Auschwitz Museum have ignored the Congressional resolution and the State Department has not applied the pressure necessary to resolve the problem.”
“The museum has asserted that returning Dina’s paintings might encourage other Holocaust survivors to seek the return of their property from museums, thus depriving museums of some artifacts.”
Hmmm, what is that I smell? Oh, yes, fear and GREED. The museum fears losing what it possesses and it has a greedy desire to keep what it already has.
The definition of truth, of right and wrong are not contingent upon whatever cost it exacts.
The museum at Auschwitz is forcing Dina Babbitt to foot the bill for it’s greed, through the loss of her rights and her paintings, which are still her property.
Re: what hangs in that museum- that is an old statement from the museum, it is what the museum says it is doing with the work and it is not the only source for information. More recent reports state that the museum does not hang the originals. I am not comfortable with accepting anyone’s word for it and I cannot fathom anyone’s willingness to do so.

For the record, you have a right to your own opinion and I for one do not try to make anyone believe anything is black or white.
I honestly do not care who disagrees. I started this thread for people who agree and want to help Dina regain her property and that is exactly what we are going to do.

[janni]

sorry, but if you don't want a discussion, you shouldn't post in a discussion forum. print flyers.

i completey acknowledge that Dina has a certain moral right to claim the original paintings. and i don't say i would wanna judge this case.

but unfortunately half your arguments are invalid. you can't attack the museum for favouring the rights of one side and call them racist and then do the exact same thing yourself for the other side... that's not the way you win arguments.
you can't quote the museum out of context and argue with half truths (you posted false information about the museum ONLY showing reproductions) and not expect people (or maybe just me) to be upset about it and question the rest of your arguments. and you can't compare an institution like the memorial museum auschwitz-birkenau to Josef Mengele.

obviously those us-senators agreed to claiming those artwork back from poland. in the same way that the polish government probably likes to see the originals stay where they are. you can't call all those guys exacty unbiased can you? and for your information poland is not a state of the united states of america, so their government obviously doesn't feel obliged to follow decisions of US-senators in the US-congress, do they? :rolleyes:

And regarding what you're saying about the museum selectively honoring the wishes of certain holocaust survivors (namely the roma and sinti and not the jews)... have you ever taken a look who actually sits in that International Auschwitz Council? Guess what, a buncha jews, too. This is not about religion or races... please!

All I am saying is that the museum's arguments are completely valid. It's very moral to rule that the originals may stay where they are, at the place where those poor souls portrayed on them lost their lives. In the country where still many Roma and Sinti live. And Jews. And Holocaust Survivors. And that they belong to the collective World Heritage that is Auschwitz-Birkenau.(Auschwitz-Birkenau was inscribed in the UNESCO -there they are again, the United Nations- World-Heritage List in 1979).
And in this special situations it is also not immoral to argue that Dina never owned the originals since the people she was forced to portray where under duress and afterwards shot. Dina owns the copyright of her work and is making money with that. The Museum does not and it acknowldges her copyright. where's the greed involved?

you'll have a hard time getting world heritage out of poland, but i wish you the best of luck. thanks four your reply.

and if you can, could you please post a quote where auschwitz officials claim that dr. mengele owns the originals?

[kev ferrara]

There was nothing banal about Mengele's activities.

You are conflating the banality of the "average nazi" who "obeyed orders" without thinking about them, thus resulting in mass evil, with the quite deliberate and conscious "efforts" of Mengele, (the extraordinarily vile, evil, and ambitious character of which can easily be characterized as the very opposite of banality). Thus it is obvious why Mengele's legacy, (what his name connotes), is not that of a classic bureaucrat or rigorous efficiency expert, but rather a perverse, sick fuck without a shred of human decency and one of the most severe Narcissistic Personality Disorders in history (as well as one of the most enabled).

Given an appreciation of this moral distinction, this moral understanding, it becomes plain that Mengele's legacy does not compare with a civilized rights dispute over artwork.

Furthermore, the banality of Nazi evil, all told, had highly extraordinary results. Thus the banal "results" of the banal dispute between Dina and the Museum also can not sensibly be compared to so-called Nazi banality, which really wasn't all that banal.

I believe an effort to obtain moral perspective on these questions will assist the effort to rectify the situation. Otherwise those interested in securing Dina's property will seem unhinged, and thus immenently dismissable as advocates.

[TASmith]

You can find more info on Mengele here: http://www.evilscale.com/

[the_jos]

I'd like to take this one step further.
Every claim that is made is that Dina should get 'her property' back.
And that claim is directly related to UDHR art 17 which states:
"Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

Now there are several things to be said on this subject.
First of all, property isn't just 'something' in the UDHR. It's something that can be used to discriminate, according to art 2.
So it cannot be seen as the posession of 'something'.
When we look at history we can see that one of the ways used to humiliating people is taking away what's theirs and with that their human dignity.
He or she who has nothing is nothing.

Furthermore, having certain property grants other rights. It's nice to have freedom of press but it's worthless if you don't have a piece of paper that's legally yours to write your opinion on and distribute it.
To put it in art perspective, assume that you work in art. But you have to bring your own equipment with you, the company doesn't provide it.
Well, good luck without the right of property!

When looking at the practical implementation of the article we see something else. For each governing body dealing with it, one of the most important things when allowing taking property away is a fair compensation.
So when the government wants to build a highway and need your land they might disown you as long as they give fair compensation.
There is also a close relation to the freedom of movement of people, when they move abroard governments cannot just take their property away.

Puting the right of property as pointed out in UDHR art 17 in this perspective does show it cannot be applied that easy to the case of Dina.


Second we still have the issue of ownership of which I said in one of my first postings that it's a very blurry subject.
Ownership is something that's granted by law. The law as applied in the country/jurisdiction of the property.
Not even so very long ago it was possible to own another human being and while moral very wrong (from our perspective, not the perspective at that time) it was the law at that time.
When referring to Nazi Germany we have the same situation. If the law did not grant the ownership to Dina even though this was due to a war crime or a morally very wrong law (I don't know if German law took all posessions from Jews at a certain time) this is the starting point. And then we don't even speak about the time that the pieces were 'lost' and the possible legal effects of that.
So from a pure law point of view it will be very hard to defend that Dina is the owner of the paintings.

In my opinion the problem with the arguments of both Tim and Edward is that they are a mix of moral arguments and arguments based on 'human rights' and ownerships, which are more or less legal claims. Even the mention of the Congressional resolution is a way to put legal power to their story.
I don't think this is helping them.

It's good to fight for this cause, I do believe that.
But it's fuelled with emotions and faulty legal arguments. That's not the way to go forward.
Just be honest. We have a lady called Dina who painted a couple of paintings in Auschwitz-Birkenau. She would like the originals back and we feel the museum has a moral obligation to return them to her. The moment you do that, without any legal or moral claims whatsoever (so no comparing the museum to the Nazi's) I would have no problem to sign.
But with the current arguments and claims it doesn't feel right for me.

[Edward Cherniga]

@janni- That is cool, you have a right to your opinion but honestly, you did such a complete job of twisting the content and the context of my words that this is unworthy of a response.
I am presenting no arguments, I am leaving that to you.
I consider these arguments to be "off topic" and I will not engage in them.
@kev Ferrara, I agree completely.
@the_jos, Thank you, I may not agree with some of what you said, but I respect the way you said it and your last paragraph echoes the original intent of this thread. I could not agree more. I try to avoid argument because, I find that it diverts our effort and I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. The only thing I know for certain is that Dina deserves her work back. Thank you for your feedback.

[freiheit]

.
So the museum selectively honors the wishes of certain races of Holocaust survivors like the Roma’s…
Dina is Jewish, why does the Museum at Auschwitz argue in favor of the Roma’s rights rather than the rights of the Jewish people?
.
They're not ignoring the rights of jewish people they're "ignoring" the right of A jewish PERSON. Why would they argue for the Roma's rights rather then Dina? Well for one thing, it's the Roma people vs Dina the person.

I still think the museum could just show reproductions and it wouldn't change a thing to them exept maybe hurt their ego... But I think accusing them of racism is of bad taste, even more to have talked about "jewish people"'s rights rather then Dina's... Because this isn't about jewish rights, it's about Dina's and no one else.

[Edward Cherniga]

@freiheit, Come on now, that is the exact point I was making. This is about her rights. I never accused them of anything, unless in your world an accusation ends in a question mark. When I make an accusation, you will know it, I make it very clear and there are no questions marks involved. I have not made up my mind regarding this point and was merely putting forth a question for consideration in the hopes that I might learn something from the responses. I said their following statement of rationale supported the rights of a race over the rights of an individual. - ”In this case the opinion of the Roma organizations is univocal and to keep the watercolors in the Museum is the question of priority.” Is this not placing the rights of a race over the rights of an individual? If everyone else here can speak their minds, why then can I not pose a question without it becoming an accusation?

[silver surfer]

I interrupt this interesting and entertaining debate with an update for clarification.
I am speaking now to those who wish to do something to help support human and artists rights as we gain the return of Dina’s work.
I have secured a very large piece of real estate in the form of a famous art gallery, for the purpose of using our art to support human and artist’s rights.
Here is how it will occur-
*We are gathering a roster of artists who are willing to voice their commitment of involvement and as soon as we have a clear idea of how much space the exhibit will require, then we will be assigned a date.
*When that date is on the calendar, I will make a press release.
*We will prepare our exhibit to make a tour of galleries IF Dina’s art does not return to her hands when this show ends.
*Interested artists need only PM me, with a link to your work and you will then be greeted by information and cooperation.
* Use this thread to brainstorm and discuss ideas for actions we can take to secure the return of our colleague's art work. I understand the need for debate and hope it continues to prove to be productive.
I am willing to do what it takes to make this painless for the artists involved and we will proceed with respect and cooperation.
My determination cannot be swayed and I will not let this opportunity to defend human and artist’s rights go to waste.
This one show could do the trick, if not, we have long and far reaching plans to reach our goal. This will happen as quickly or as slowly as the determination of our community allows. We are prepared for a long fight nonetheless.
We will do this together, as a community and Dina’s art will make it back to her hands.

Is that really what you want Dina? This sounds to me more like a promotion tour of some tricky lawyers.

the art*work is evidence of crime and therefore property of the competent authority and not intended for commercial use. It serves important documentary and educational functions as a part of the permanent exhibition about the murder of thousands of Gypsy/Roma victims

*"Art for social inquiry, subversion and/or anarchy. While similar to art for political change, subversive or deconstructivist art may seek to question aspects of society without any specific political goal...Certain art forms...may also be illegal when they break laws..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art#Motivated_Functions_of_Art

By the way, did you know that Dina's Ex husband Art Babbitt is the creator of Disney's Goofy(wikipedia.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Babbitt)) and that the Babbitt family is well known in the industry already(cartoonbrew.com (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/old-brew/uli-meyer-on-art-babbitt.html))?
"After she gets back her paintings, I hear that she’s going to start a campaign to recover some of her Cap’n Crunch animation drawings"(www.cartoonbrew.com (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/old-brew/art-babbitts-wife-in-the-ny-times.html))

If I was in her position I would be embarrassed and destroy the pictures as soon as I get my hands on them for the purpose of them was to discriminate against the Roma.

[Edward Cherniga]

So, people hear what they want to hear. What Dina does with her paintings is her business. No one is advocating she do anything with them. We are here to make sure that the public is aware of her quest to regain her work and to aid her to that end. Period, end of story.

[silver surfer]

So, people hear what they want to hear. What Dina does with her paintings is her business. No one is advocating she do anything with them. We are here to make sure that the public is aware of her quest to regain her work and to aid her to that end. Period, end of story.

If you say so, master...

(...and I wasn't talking about Dinah, by the way:asspat:)

[Edward Cherniga]

"After she gets back her paintings, I hear that she’s going to start a campaign to recover some of her Cap’n Crunch animation drawings"(www.cartoonbrew.com)

If you say so, master...

(...and I wasn't talking about Dinah, by the way:asspat:)
Sorry you feel that way. Thanks for sharing.
I continue to assert simply, that artist rights are important and no one has the right to take artists works if they are not compensated, regardless of cultural importance.
I suggest that people send letters to the museum asking for the museum to make archival prints on acid free paper and sending the originals to the artist where they belong.

[Black Spot]

I’ve read this thread with some interest over the last few days. The European Court of Justice doesn’t look favourably on contracts made under duress, so get a lawyer well versed in European law – a good one should see that a ‘no win no fee’ could be quite lucrative. Poland can’t afford the fines or sanctions that that court can impose.

Dina should propose that they be allowed to have reproductions to exhibit and sell (percentage to be agreed). Bending over backwards to accommodate the museum can only make her look reasonable.

Good luck.

[Edward Cherniga]

@Black Spot, Thank you for the solid insight and suggestions, that is the sort of response I had hoped for this thread to attract. I consider myself to be an expert in none of this, let alone the subject of international law. I am simply attempting to gather resources to aid Dina in recovering her art. It is my understanding that Dina has already made just the sort of concessions which you have proposed. Cheers

[the_jos]

I’ve read this thread with some interest over the last few days. The European Court of Justice doesn’t look favourably on contracts made under duress, so get a lawyer well versed in European law – a good one should see that a ‘no win no fee’ could be quite lucrative. Poland can’t afford the fines or sanctions that that court can impose.

Black Spot,

I'm not sure the European Court of Justice will have a role in this dispute (yet).
The first question that arrises is if this case is part of the community law or one of the treaties of the European Union. In that case there should be a court ruling in Poland before they can take action.
They can also be involved through preliminary ruling.
In that case the national court of Poland could ask the European Court how this situation should be interpreted under community law.

The institution you are probably looking for is the European Court of Human Rights.
But another problem arises here. A law has a day it became active and can have a day it's ended or replaced. And I'm not sure how the court will rule in such situations. There is a chance that the court will say it has no jurisdiction for the time before the european convention of human rights was passed. I know this happened in more recent cases (with new member states entering the EU) but I'm not sure about the jurisdiction they (or any legal body) has in WWII cases.

Don't just say that the law should apply in retrospective, even if it's only in this case. Courts are very carefull in doing this for good reasons.
You need to be able to know that what you do today, according to your countries laws, is criminal or not. And if what you do today is not criminal, you should not be prosecuted in the future for what you did today.
To give an example, future generations may decide that eating meat is murder. And the way we handle animals to produce meat is immoral and punishable. Do you want to be in jail at 80 because you were no vegetarian in 2009? And would this be a case of "we didn't know" or more of "we didn't want to know"?

[janni]

just to add more facts to this...
this ny times article is quite interesting. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/arts/30iht-ausch.2640927.html?_r=1

QUOTE:
"Negotiations seemed promising in the late 1990s when Baker and others tried to arrange compromises. Babbitt rejected a suggestion that the museum lend the art to her for the remainder of her life; she said she wanted ownership and the right to hang the works in an American museum.

"She wanted all or nothing," said Stuart Eizenstat, a former State Department official who mediated the talks. "I understood that, but in these kinds of claims, where you don't have clarity in terms of legal doctrine, you have to work out these kinds of compromises.""

(Rabbi Andrew Baker is a member of the International Auschwitz Council)

no comment.

[silver surfer]

Sorry you feel that way. Thanks for sharing.
I continue to assert simply, that artist rights are important and no one has the right to take artists works if they are not compensated, regardless of cultural importance.
I suggest that people send letters to the museum asking for the museum to make archival prints on acid free paper and sending the originals to the artist where they belong.

Artist rights are important but the only rights being violated in this case are Dinah's right to refuse to do the paintings and the human rights of the Roma. What really puzzles me about this is why in the world would Dinah Babbit want to have back the originals she never wanted to create in the first place? Dinah was forced by Mengele to take part in his crime and produce "artwork"* that was never meant to be done anyway. If law wasn't broken by Mengele the artwork he commissioned would not exist at all.

*correct me if I am wrong but doesn't art imply the fact that it was created out of free will and has to be a product of one's own imagination to claim the ownership?

[zaorr]

I don't see where the material as being discriminative has come into the subject.

That's distortion if you ask me, the thing that pisses me of the most in the whole wide world. For that matter you can just say that any picture of anyone who ever existed could be used as discriminative material. Jeepers.

If I where the court I would make a gesture with her and give it to her.

But trying this with the justice system... They are just not under any obligation.

But if they hand them over they will only be handing over the originals but not the copyrights to the material and its existing copies
.
Even if they wanted to they can't do that, it makes her pursuit rather silly.

These are events in history that can't be controlled or changed. The perceived facts of what happened there have been captured as historical events.

[Edward Cherniga]

Dina already allows the museum to sell and hang prints of her work. It is my understanding that she has never earned a penny. She asks that the money be donated to charity to the Gypsy and Roma people. Does the museum make these donations?
From her web site-
"Dina is legally credited by the Museum as being the rightful owner of her artwork and must sign paperwork for the Museum each time it wants to reproduce her work. She has always accommodated the Museum and has never taken any monetary compensation, to which she is entitled, for the reproduction of her work. She has always asked the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum to give any monies earned through the reproductions of her artwork to go to causes helping the Gypsy or Roma people. However, to date, the Museum claims that because it purchased the paintings from other people, the Museum does not have to return Dina’s gypsy portraits to her. International law has now established that possessing stolen artwork does not entitle the possessor to keep it. The Museum only displays copies of Dina's paintings for security reasons and could easily represent the tragedy of the gypsies as it does now, with copies of Dina's portraits."
Re: the NY Times article, again twisted and taken out of context. Here is the original text, in the order it was printed and it paints a very different picture than the one mentioned earlier... Quote- "Negotiations seemed promising in the late 1990s when Baker and others tried to arrange compromises. Babbitt rejected a suggestion that the museum lend the art to her for the remainder of her life; she said she wanted ownership and the right to hang the works in an American museum.
"She wanted all or nothing," said Stuart Eizenstat, a former State Department official who mediated the talks. "I understood that, but in these kinds of claims, where you don't have clarity in terms of legal doctrine, you have to work out these kinds of compromises."
Berkley, one of Babbitt's strongest advocates, helped get a resolution through the U.S. House in 2002 that directed the State Department to work toward securing the paintings for Babbitt.

"The Auschwitz museum has a lofty goal not to dismantle the museum," she said. "I can relate to that. The Roma people have a stake in it because it's their images. But to Dina, this is her life."-end quote-
"All or nothing" refers to ownership of the paintings themselves.
Since both the Law and the museum require Dina to sign over the rights for the museum to produce prints, does that not mean that both the Law and the museum acknowledge Dina as the owner of these paintings?-

[silver surfer]

I don't see where the material as being discriminative has come into the subject.


here you go: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/arts/design/30surv.html?_r=1



That's distortion if you ask me, the thing that pisses me of the most in the whole wide world. For that matter you can just say that any picture of anyone who ever existed could be used as discriminative material. Jeepers.


Ownership not only implies rights but responsibility, for actions regarding the property.

[Edward Cherniga]

Update-
Artists for Dina will be attending the San Diego Comic Con International and we will be making some exciting announcements at the show.
We have been searching for legal counsel for Dina and it appears we have found the right people. More on that next week.
Thank you to all of the artists who have demonstrated support and we are moving closer to regaining our colleague’s work.
We are using our talents and our art to demand that this artist’s rights are honored by the return of her original paintings. We will not stop until that goal has been achieved.
If you want to be considered for inclusion in the show and to use your talents to defend artist’s rights, simply send me a pm and I will give you the details. We ask that artists submit work loosely related to human/artist rights. For consideration, include links to your work. Please be advised that open submissions close on August 1.
This looks like a fine place to have a benefit art show-