Bavarian Culture Minister Markus Blume has concluded that most allegations against the Bavarian State Painting Collections regarding their handling of Nazi looted art restitution are groundless, following a comprehensive investigation that lasted several months. Speaking to the Science and Arts Committee of the Bavarian Parliament on Wednesday, Blume presented a preliminary final report stating that despite experiencing "wild months," the majority of accusations against the institution proved to be unfounded.
The minister explained that he engaged in extensive dialogue with various stakeholders, including representatives from the Jewish Claims Conference, to gain a complete understanding of the situation. A state prosecutor conducted an internal investigation of the State Painting Collections' organization and found no criminally relevant violations. However, this conclusion stands in stark contrast to events from earlier this year when the institution's General Director, Bernhard Maaz, was forced to leave his position in April.
Maaz was replaced by Anton Biebl, the former Munich Cultural Affairs Director who had been brought into the ministry as a change manager for the museum initiative. According to Blume, Biebl's task is to "get the ship floating again" and enable a fresh start for the institution after a period of disruption. The minister has also brought in extensive external expertise to assist with the reorganization efforts.
Two major reform initiatives are now underway to address the institutional challenges. A reform commission for the structural realignment of Bavaria's state museums has begun work under the leadership of Rolf Nonnenmacher and Markus Michalke. Additionally, Andreas Wirsching, the former director of the Institute for Contemporary History, has taken over the leadership of a round table discussion group. Both committees are expected to present their findings by mid-2026 at the earliest.
The federal level is also taking action with the establishment of the Nazi Looted Art Arbitration Court, which will begin operations on December 1st as the successor to the Advisory Commission. Minister Blume has enthusiastically welcomed this development as an important step forward in addressing restitution issues.
During his parliamentary testimony, Blume maintained the same position he outlined in his July interim report, stating that blanket press accusations had not been confirmed and there was no fundamental failure within the institution. However, he did acknowledge that allegations of sexual harassment of female visitors by security personnel were unfortunately accurate, noting that the external company responsible had been terminated.
The minister firmly rejected other serious accusations, including claims that artworks were improperly stored or stolen, allegations of illegal employment practices, and concerns about lax security protocols. However, he did admit that regular inventory checks had been neglected, representing a significant operational oversight.
Art historian Meike Hopp, who serves as executive board member of the German Lost Art Foundation, led a commission that examined the State Painting Collections' restitution practices. Her assessment found that Munich's provenance research was scientifically sound, but noted that established routines had led to inconsistent procedures, similar to issues at other German institutions. Hopp recommended implementing binding guidelines, transparent procedures, a standardized traffic light system, and more respectful communication practices.
Hopp's recommendations include establishing a scientific advisory board, which could potentially allow Bavaria to take a pioneering role in restitution practices. Her suggestions aim to create a more systematic and transparent approach to handling potentially problematic artworks in the collection.
The current status of the collection reveals the scope of the challenge ahead. There are currently 82 artworks marked in red and 446 marked in orange within the collection inventory, with red indicating the highest level of suspicion that an item represents looted art. Additionally, approximately 3,000 works that came to the institution after 1945 have only received cursory initial assessments to date.
To address these substantial challenges, five new positions will be created to accelerate restitution procedures, and the previously approved special funding of one million euros will be supplemented with an additional four million euros. This significant financial commitment demonstrates the state's recognition of the extensive work required to properly address provenance issues.
The broader museum initiative, through which Blume aims to transform eighteen state museums from bureaucratic institutions into modern enterprises, continues to make progress. Biebl reported on the transformation into a modernly managed organization, complete with a code of conduct and sensitivity training for staff members. The institution is also preparing for various emergency scenarios, including active shooter situations and evacuation procedures.
The ultimate goal is to create a new umbrella brand for Bavaria's state museums, with Biebl planning to announce concrete results in 2026. This comprehensive reform effort represents a significant shift in how these cultural institutions will operate and interact with the public.
The subsequent parliamentary debate proceeded along moderate lines, with consensus emerging that this issue will not disappear quickly from public attention. However, several questions remain unanswered that may concern taxpayers and observers. Many are wondering about the cost of the numerous external experts and commissions that have been established to address these issues.
Perhaps most significantly, if the situation was not as serious as initially believed, questions persist about why the General Director was transferred to the Central Institute for Art History while maintaining the same salary level. Notably, during the entire two-hour parliamentary session, Bernhard Maaz's name was not mentioned even once, highlighting the apparent effort to distance the current leadership from the previous administration's handling of these sensitive restitution matters.
