Zurich Spotlight: Can the Art be Separated from … the Owner? How the Kunsthaus Museum is Addressing its Controversial Affiliations with National Socialism

August 18, 2025

By Vivika Gerogianni

On July 11, 2023, visitors to the Kunsthaus in Zurich encountered an unexpected cyber hacking incident. The act was orchestrated by a group calling itself the Komitee Kunstraub Konfiskation Kommunikation (KKKK).^[1] Usually, artworks in the museum’s Bührle Collection are accompanied by a QR code which directs the visitor to the provenance information of each specific painting. The KKKK replaced the QR code, so that, when scanned, it redirected to the KKKK’s website, which read “Emil Georg Bührle was a Nazi sympathiser, an authoritarian militarist, at best a war profiteer – but probably a war criminal.”^[2] In a time when transparency and accountability are both expected and essential, an association between a museum’s collection and a war criminal is still jarring and can be catastrophic.

Currently, the Kunsthaus houses over 203 Impressionist paintings (the “Bührle Collection”) on permanent loan from the Emil G. Bührle Foundation, as decided in 2021.^[3] The relationship between the Museum and Bührle dates back to the 1940s, when Bührle had become part of the Kunsthaus’ board of trustees.^[4] Bührle’s contributions to the Zurich Museum have always been regarded with honour, and the relationship persists to this day. The Museum had in the past received waves of criticism about exhibiting works of contested ownership due to Nazi affiliation, to which it responded by rejecting the approach that artworks are to be stigmatised due to their owners’ history.^[5] In an effort to avoid stigmatising the art pieces, while also acknowledging that they may be tainted cultural property, the Kunsthaus Museum is actively strengthening provenance research and inviting open and public discussion about the controversy surrounding its own exhibits.

The Collector as Part of the Collection

The Emil G. Buhrle collection consists of masterpieces by Pablo Picasso, Claude Monet, Paul Cezane, and Eugene Delacroix, making the museum one of Zurich’s greatest tourist attractions.^[6] The collection is impressive, but not solely because of the painters’ iconic artistry. If one looks closely enough, the paintings’ meaning is two-fold: the one created by the artist, and a second meaning generated by the paintings’ history crafted by their owners. On one hand, a viewer can appreciate the painting for how it looks on the surface, and on another hand, an art historian can appreciate the painting for the backstory it carries. ‘Context’ adds, alters and reshapes narrative, and it is ‘context’ that spotlights the paintings’ double meaning in the Bührle Exhibition.

If beauty in art is in the eye of the beholder, then those who have once appreciated and acquired these art pieces give them further meaning. When looking at Monet’s Poppy Field Near Vétheuil,^[7] Juan Carlos Emden saw the painting as a reminder of what his family had lost due to Nazi persecution.^[8] Juan Carlos, claimed that the painting belonged to his grandfather Max Emden whose assets were seized as a result of Nazi looting^[9] and this painting was purchased by Bührle for the low price of $37.000 shortly after.^[10] In raising a claim against the Foundation, Emden argued that the sale was made under duress,^[11] hence nullifying the transaction since it defeated the notion of good faith and legitimate consent. Emden was unsuccessful, and the painting has been housed in the Bührle Foundation’s Collection ever since.^[12] This case, one of hundreds included in the Center’s ongoing research project on Nazi-era looted art cases, is not only an example of the legal struggles faced by the claimants in clarifying the looted character of “flight goods”, but also highlights the ethical dilemmas vested in the Collection’s history.

Claude Monet’s “Poppy Field Near Vetheuil,” 1880^[13]

Emil G. Buhrle funded his Collection with profits gathered from arms sales to Nazi Germany and women’s slave labor.^[14] The armaments industrialist built a collection with funding obtained through unethical and oppressive means. Bührle bought art initially owned by Jewish families that was then looted by the Nazis. In parallel with becoming Switzerland’s richest man at the time of the war,^[15] Bührle had invested 40 million francs in acquiring art – art which was only “for sale” because of the oppressive policies of the regime at the time. Bührle’s art purchases were powered by money raised through child labour and arms sales. The criminal nature of these transactions, such as the fact that this art only reached the market because of the dispossession of Jewish people, is vested in the paintings’ history and shall not be disregarded.

In displaying the Bührle Collection, it is the Museum that bears the onus of addressing the paintings’ scarred history. The Kunsthaus should be a ‘vehicle’ of facts and transparency, whilst still not incriminating the art pieces themselves. Over the past few years, the Museum has been striving to address the Collection’s problematic origins without punishing the art itself. The Museum’s director since 2021, Ann Demeester, reminds that “the art itself is not guilty.”^[16]

On Finding “Fair and Just” Solutions

The law around identifying and restituting stolen art is governed at international level by the Washington Principles, as introduced in 1998.^[17] The principles provide guidance for more than 4o signatory countries, including Switzerland, on how to research “Holocaust Assets” with the aim of finding “fair and just solutions” for the victims.^[18] The Principles are not directly binding to their signatories, hence may be interpreted independently and differently in each country. The Principles apply to questions of art restitution, yet their effect is significantly limited by its non-binding character. The Principles had previously failed to address more holistic questions of victims’ welfare of the return of immovable property. Despite offering some basic guidelines on how to create domestic legal frameworks, many victims have been systemically unable to retrieve their assets. The Terezin Declaration introduced in 2009 sought to expand the Washington Principles and placed a greater significance on the moral dimension of this matter.

In the context of the Kuhnsthaus, both Declarations have formed the backbone of Switzerland’s effort in provenance transparency, yet they are inherently limited by their soft-law nature. In 2024, the US State Department released the “Best Principles”, which underlined the need for “continuing to find a measure of justice”.^[19] The “Best Principles” refined the legal “grey zones” surrounding the topic of flight goods and sales of duress. Following its provisions, a sale of art by a persecuted person from 1933-1945 can be considered as equivalent to the “involuntary transfer of property”.^[20] Hence, even if a work was not formally looted, “just and fair solutions” ought to be provided to sellers who suffered from duress due to Nazi persecution. In response to this update, in June 2024 the Museum announced the removal of 5 paintings, including works by Monet and Van Gogh^[21] to further assess the disputed provenances of the respective artworks.^[22] This is a positive step forward, especially for a museum that had been previously criticised for its passive complicity.

Provenance Research as an Exhibition

Due to the controversies which are entangled with the Bührle Collection, the Kuhnsthaus has now centralised the concept of provenance research, making the artworks’ history a spotlight piece of its own. The Kunsthaus’ Bührle Exhibition “begins in the past and ends in the future.”^[23] Apart from cyberhacking incidents, criticism towards the Museum has arisen internally from artists themselves. In 2022, artist Miriam Cahn pulled her work from the museum due to the ‘revisionist’ handling of the Bührle presentation.^[24] After the announcement of the Collection’s long-term lease in 2021, Cahn and other activists scrutinised Kunsthaus’ passivity in addressing the truth behind the art’s acquisition. In his book “The Contaminated Museum”, Erich Keller examines how art, money and a dark history all are forces perpetuated by the museum itself.^[25] The museum’s direction had long been criticised for downplaying the crimes committed by Bührle, whilst its silence was received as a reaffirmation of the robbing of persecuted Jewish victims.

The Swiss Bergier Commission was established in 1996 by the Swiss Government with the purpose of investigating the legality of assets moved to and out of Switzerland during the Second World War. The Commission had recurrently accused the Bührle Foundation of being “untruthful” about its files and documents of sale.^[26] To combat the claims of ‘whitewashing’ and erasing history, in 2023, the Kunsthaus allocated more resources to provenance research by introducing documentation rooms and context panels. At the same time, historian Raphael Gross had been commissioned by the City of Zurich to evaluate the provenance conducted by the Bührle Foundation itself. Despite accusations of concealing illegitimate transactions, the Bührle family has often refused to publish all information surrounding the acquisition of its assets. For this reason, Gross, alongside the University of Zurich, was tasked with evaluating how the Bührle Foundation had conducted its provenance research in the first place.

Dr. Gross’s Evaluation Report was published a year later, in 2024, and carefully examines the provenance research conducted on the Bührle Collection. The Report refers to the difficulty of establishing legal foundations solely through non-binding soft-law means, such as the Washington Principles. The Report continues to outline how the Bührle Foundation conducted its research, with reference to its methodology, historical contextualization, independence, and, most importantly, accuracy.^[27] It revealed that 62 out of the 205 works in the Bührle Collection had once belonged to Jewish owners persecuted by the Nazis.^[28] The Report re-examined the manner in which the Foundation had identified and categorised the artworks, and concluded that most of the provenance background classifications were misleading. Pieces which had been categorised as some of “…No Clear Indication of Problematic Provenance”, were inaccurately classified as such, leading to 90 pieces to be researched again.^[29] Examples include Paul Cézanne’s Landscape (c.1879, no.12), which, as was discovered by Gross, belonged to Jewish collectors who had to sell it in order to escape from the Nazis, and continued to live impoverished.^[30] But for the deadly Nazi persecution, the pre-war owners would not have parted with this or other valuable paintings – information which was neglected in outlining the painting’s history.

The Report’s findings produced three core recommendations targeted to the Kuhnsthaus on how to continue their restitution practices and maintain ethical standards. In its Chapter D, the Report urges the museum to intensify its independent and transparent provenance research, since it would be the foundation for offering a solution to former collectors.^[31] Moreover, following Washington Principles’ “Best Practices, D”, Gross recommended the introduction of an interdisciplinary advisory committee which would provide an accessible and equitable forum for dispute resolution.^[32] Thirdly, the Report called on the Kunsthaus to expand its role as a public forum by openly holding the debate about the Bührle Collection.^[33] Evidently, both through activist measures and formal recommendations, the Kuhnsthaus had been asked to take up public accountability through active community engagement.

Launched by the Swiss Government in March 2025, the new Independent National Committee for Historically Burdened Cultural Heritage will act as a permanent body that issues non-binding recommendations on cases of Nazi-looted Art.^[34] Having ZK’s full support, the Committee is expected to adopt a multi-level model, including the capacity to hear cases and introduce recommendations, which however would not have a binding legal effect.^[35] This body would satisfy Gross’s recommendation for an “interdisciplinary advisory committee,” hence relieving the Kuhnsthaus from the duty of launching an independent panel of its own. The Swiss Committee will be able to hear cases if both parties agree to initiating proceedings.^[36] Nonetheless, this mutual consent is not required in matters of Nazi-looted art in publicly-funded museums, where instead action could be raised unilaterally.^[37] Despite being conferred the power to recommend the choice of restituting subjects, the Committee cannot enforce these recommendations, hence having restricted legal effects. Even though its members will be elected by the Swiss government, the Committee’s work will be independent, and members must have no relevant interests in decision-making, following Article 6 para 2 OIC.^[38]

Toward a Curatorial Shift

By June 2024, the Kunsthaus commenced implementing the Gross recommendations and the enhanced Washington Principles’ “Best Practices” through the re-examination of the 5 paintings.^[39] Additional provenance research practices will be led by the Zürcher Kunstgesellschaft (ZK), a body which is currently overseeing the museum.^[40] After structuring a detailed five-year provenance plan, research will intensify in order to comply with a higher threshold of ethical standards. The plan, founded on the pillars of the Washington Principles, the Terezin Declaration and the International Council of Museums (ICOM) Code of Ethics, will re-categorise the works on independent standards from the ones of the Foundation and ensure that adequate agreements are reached with respective claimants.^[41]

Following Dr Gross’s recommendations, the Kuhnsthaus will introduce 3 new exhibition formats, all to be presented simultaneously, after the lapse of an 18-month preparatory phase.^[42] One collection will highlight the role of Jewish collectors in promoting modern art. Secondly, the Bührle Collection will be accompanied by a new informative presentation in the Chipperfield Building, which will cover the context of Bührle’s connection to the Kunsthaus. The third track will focus on the creation of artistic objects, through a dive into art history and by placing them in an active dialogue with other Kuhnsthaus pieces. The three different exhibitions are designed to illuminate the concept of provenance research, hence making the moral debate surrounding the works an exhibit of its own.

The first part of the exhibition format, titled “A Future for the Past”, has been on display since November 2023 and is expected to close on September 28, 2025, before the Collection’s upcoming re-framing. (NB: Center for Art Law is hosting a special tour and discussion of the Bührle Collection “A Future for the Past” exhibition on September 4, 2025).

The Kunsthaus Museum evolves in parallel to Switzerland’s desire to actively question whether they have adequately confronted its past position of compliance with Nazi war crimes. As Keller highlights in his 2021 book “Das kontaminierte Museum” (The Contaminated Museum), the country’s neutral status is to be revised, and accountability ought to be confidently taken.^[43] The Kunsthaus faces the challenge of acknowledging historical and systematic wrongdoing, yet without dishonouring the paintings’ artistry. The art is indeed not guilty, but its unexamined history and display as part of a named collection is damning. The Kunsthaus has had to openly reassess its own position, as well as Switzerland’s neutrality and commemorate the victims of Nazi terror. The transparency on display at the Museum now is effective and inspiring, even if temporary. It leaves much to ponder and remember, internalise for a more meaningful encounter with art.

About the Author

Vivika Gerogianni (Center for Art Law Summer Intern 2025) is an LLB Law and Social Anthropology student at the University of Edinburgh and Sciences Po Paris. She has been working on the Center’s Nazi-era looted art project as well as helping organize the special tour of the Kunsthaus Zurich in September 2025. She has a strong passion for legal research and interdisciplinary analysis, with a particular interest in the ethical issues arising in art law. She is particularly drawn to questions of cultural heritage, the impact of emerging technologies on the arts, and the protection of artists’ intellectual property in the digital age.

Select Sources:

1. Anna Schrader, An Art Collective Has ‘Hacked’ Kunsthaus Zurich’s Exhibition of Works Gifted by an Industrialist with Nazi Ties, Artnet News (July 13, 2023), https://news.artnet.com/art-world/kkkk-hacks-kunsthaus-zurich-buhrle-collection-qr-codes-2336559. ↑
2. Ibid ↑
3. Kunsthaus Zürich, „Emil Bührle,“ Sammlung Private‑Sammlungen, Kunsthaus Zürich (last visited July 2, 2025), https://www.kunsthaus.ch/en/sammlung/private-sammlungen/emil-buehrle/. ↑
4. Catherine Hickley, Kunsthaus Zurich Advisers Quit in Conflict Over New Bührle Exhibition, The Art Newspaper, Oct. 27, 2023. ↑
5. Theo Farrant & AFP, “’The Artwork Is Not Guilty’: Swiss Museum Unveils Controversial Nazi‑Era Collection,” Euronews (Nov. 13, 2023), https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/11/13/the-artwork-is-not-guilty-swiss-museum-unveils-controversial-nazi-era-collection ↑
6. Kunsthaus Zürich, Collection Emil Bührle, Kunsthaus Zürich (May 26, 2025), https://www.kunsthaus.ch/en/sammlung/private-sammlungen/emil-buehrle/ (last visited June 4, 2025). ↑
7. Claude Monet, Poppy Field Near Vétheuil (1880), oil on canvas, Kunsthaus Zürich. ↑
8. Catherine Hickley, An Affront: Researchers React to the Buhrle Collection in the Kunsthaus Zurich, Swiss Info (Nov. 12, 2021),https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/culture/an-affront-researchers-react-to-the-buehrle-collection-in-the-kunsthaus-zuerich/47100492. ↑
9. Catherine Hickley, An Affront: Researchers React to the Buhrle Collection in the Kunsthaus Zurich, Swiss Info (Nov. 12, 2021),https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/culture/an-affront-researchers-react-to-the-buehrle-collection-in-the-kunsthaus-zuerich/47100492. ↑
10. Kate Hall, Family Seeks Return of Painting by Monet, J. Antiques & Collectibles, https://journalofantiques.com/misc/kens-korner-family-seeks-return-of-painting-by-monet/. ↑
11. Ibid. ↑
12. Ibid. ↑
13. Poppy Field Near Vétheuil, WikiArt, https://www.wikiart.org/en/claude-monet/poppy-field-near-vetheuil (last visited June 3, 2025). ↑
14. Kunsthaus Zurich Launches New Strategy on Nazi‑Looted Art, Swiss Info (Dec. 8, 2021), https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/culture/kunsthaus-zurich-launches-new-strategy-on-nazi-looted-art/48358890. ↑
15. Nadja Kito, The Ugly Provenance of Kunsthaus Zurich’s Collection (Feb. 8, 2022), https://www.frieze.com/article/ugly-provenance-kunsthaus-zurichs-collection. ↑
16. “The Artwork Is Not Guilty”: Swiss Museum Unveils Controversial Nazi‑Era Collection, Euronews (Nov. 13, 2023), https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/11/13/the-artwork-is-not-guilty-swiss-museum-unveils-controversial-nazi-era-collection ↑
17. Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, U.S. Dep’t of State (Dec. 3, 1998), https://www.state.gov/washington-conference-principles-on-nazi-confiscated-art/. ↑
18. Ibid. ↑
19. The Lasting Impact of the Washington Principles and Best Practices, Looted Art (Mar. 2024), https://www.lootedart.com/WJAFWC533961 (last visited June 1, 2025). ↑
20. Ibid. ↑
21. Exact list of paintings include: Jardin de Monet à Giverny by Claude Monet, Vincent van Gogh’s The Old Tower, La route montante by Paul Gauguin, Gustave Courbet’s Portrait of the Sculptor Louis-Joseph and Georges-Henri Manuel by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. ↑
22. Statement of the Kunsthaus Zürich on the Media Release of the Foundation E. G. Bührle Collection from 14 June 2024, Kunsthaus Zürich (June 14 , 2024), https://kunsthausrelaunch8251-live-a33132ecc05c-1c0f54b.divio-media.net/documents/Holding_Statement_Buehrle_20240614_EN.pdf ↑
23. Kunsthaus Zürich, „Emil Bührle,“ Sammlung Private‑Sammlungen, Kunsthaus Zürich (last visited July 2, 2025), https://www.kunsthaus.ch/en/sammlung/private-sammlungen/emil-buehrle/. ↑
24. Nadja Kito, The Ugly Provenance of Kunsthaus Zurich’s Collection (Feb. 8, 2022), https://www.frieze.com/article/ugly-provenance-kunsthaus-zurichs-collection. ↑
25. Erich Keller, Das kontaminierte Museum [The Contaminated Museum] (2021). ↑
26. Catherine Hickley, An Affront: Researchers React to the Bührle Collection in the Kunsthaus Zurich, Swiss Info (Nov. 12, 2021), https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/culture/an-affront-researchers-react-to-the-buehrle-collection-in-the-kunsthaus-zuerich/47100492. ↑
27. Prof. Dr. Raphael Gross, Überprüfung der Provenienzforschung der Stiftung Sammlung E. G. Bührle (26 June 2024), https://www.lootedart.com/web_images/pdf2024/bericht-ueberpruefung-provenienzforschung-buehrle.pdf. ↑
28. Ibid. ↑
29. Prof. Dr. Raphael Gross, Überprüfung der Provenienzforschung der Stiftung Sammlung E. G. Bührle (26 June 2024), https://www.lootedart.com/web_images/pdf2024/bericht-ueberpruefung-provenienzforschung-buehrle.pdf. ↑
30. Ibid. ↑
31. Ibid. ↑
32. U.S. Department of State, Best Practices for the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art (Feb. 6, 2024), https://www.ukskkg.ch/assets/Best-Practices-for-the-Washington-Conference-Principles-on-Nazi-Confiscated-Art_2024.pdf ↑
33. Ibid. ↑
34. Florian Schmidt‑Gabain, The New Swiss Committee for Cultural Heritage with a Burdened Past, Art Lawyers Ass’n Blog (Apr. 7, 2025), https://www.artlawyersassociation.com/post/the-new-swiss-committee-for-cultural-heritage-with-a-burdened-past ↑
35. Ibid. ↑
36. ArtDependence, Zürcher Kunstgesellschaft and Foundation E. G. Bührle Collection Define Next Steps (May 27, 2025), https://www.artdependence.com/articles/zuercher-kunstgesellschaft-and-foundation-e-g-buehrle-collection-define-next-steps/ ↑
37. Prof. Dr. Raphael Gross, Überprüfung der Provenienzforschung der Stiftung Sammlung E. G. Bührle (26 June 2024), https://www.lootedart.com/web_images/pdf2024/bericht-ueberpruefung-provenienzforschung-buehrle.pdf. ↑
38. Florian Schmidt‑Gabain, The New Swiss Committee for Cultural Heritage with a Burdened Past, Art Lawyers Ass’n Blog (Apr. 7, 2025), https://www.artlawyersassociation.com/post/the-new-swiss-committee-for-cultural-heritage-with-a-burdened-past ↑
39. Kunsthaus Zürich, Statement of the Kunsthaus Zürich on the Media Release of the Foundation E. G. Bührle Collection (14 June 2024), https://kunsthausrelaunch8251‑live‑a33132ecc05c‑1c0f54b.divio‑media.net/documents/Holding_Statement_Buehrle_20240614_EN.pdf ↑
40. ArtDependence, Zürcher Kunstgesellschaft and Foundation E. G. Bührle Collection Define Next Steps (May 27, 2025), https://www.artdependence.com/articles/zuercher-kunstgesellschaft-and-foundation-e-g-buehrle-collection-define-next-steps/ ↑
41. Ibid. ↑
42. Ibid. ↑
43. Erich Keller, Das kontaminierte Museum [The Contaminated Museum] (2021). ↑