The Bührle Foundation has made a surprising move by amending its founding purpose, removing the requirement to keep its invaluable art collection in Zurich. This unexpected decision comes after sustained criticism regarding the origins of artworks in the collection, particularly questions about whether Jewish previous owners were forced to sell these pieces to weapons manufacturer Emil Bührle during the Nazi regime.
The foundation quietly changed its statutes, with the commercial registry entry being updated overnight on Thursday. While the collection must still be made accessible to the public as a whole, it no longer needs to remain specifically in Zurich. This means that when the contract between the Kunsthaus and the Bührle Foundation expires at the end of 2034, masterpieces like Cézanne's "Boy in a Red Vest," van Gogh's "The Sower," and other renowned works could potentially leave the city.
The threat of departure had been voiced before, but many didn't take it seriously. SVP politician Rochus Burtscher had warned in May that foundation officials might eventually grow tired of the hostile climate in Zurich and take their priceless art collection elsewhere. His comments came after a left-wing majority in the Zurich cantonal parliament, with support from the GLP and EVP parties, decided that the origins of paintings displayed in the Kunsthaus's 200-million-franc extension building must be investigated once more – this time comprehensively.
The parliamentary majority determined that the Bührle Foundation, together with the Kunsthaus, should bear the costs of this investigation. Depending on the results, the paintings might be removed from display. At the time, SP spokesperson Sibylle Marti dismissed concerns about the foundation's potential departure, questioning what they would do with the paintings if they weren't hanging in the Zurich Kunsthaus: "Let them rot somewhere in a basement or somehow sell them to China or Qatar?"
Now it appears the foundation indeed has ideas about alternative arrangements. In a brief communiqué, the foundation stated that no definitive decision about the collection's future has been made with the statute amendments. The changes merely serve to clarify options for action – something that has been discussed for a long time, according to the foundation.
The city government was caught off guard by the foundation's decision, learning about it only on Tuesday despite the foundation having made the change months earlier. Modifying a foundation's purpose isn't straightforward under Swiss law. Such changes are only permitted when the original purpose has taken on a completely different meaning or effect, making the foundation apparently estranged from the founder's will. The relevant authority in Zurich canton, the Foundation Supervision BVS, must approve such changes.
In the Bührle case, the supervisory authority has approved the amendment, though it provided no explanation for its reasoning. The deciding factor likely wasn't the dismissive tone in political disputes – though foundation representatives certainly didn't appreciate it – but rather the uncertain political climate in Zurich that makes it unclear whether the collection can continue to be displayed as the founders intended: as a complete ensemble.
This uncertainty became evident last year when five works were removed and stored away. The Kunsthaus stated these were works that might need to be returned to their former owners. The action followed new recommendations on handling Nazi-looted art published by the U.S. State Department. While this intervention wasn't mandatory, it responded to political demands from the city, to which the Kunsthaus had also committed itself as part of its new approach to artworks sold under pressure during the Nazi era.
Currently, the Bührle collection isn't even visible at the Kunsthaus. It was closed at the end of September for a major exhibition renovation – yet again. The collection isn't scheduled to reopen until 2027, with an uncurated display of paintings serving as an interim solution. This pattern has continued for years with no end in sight.
The exhibition is now undergoing its third major revision. Just two years after opening in autumn 2021, the presentation was thoroughly reworked for the first time. Information about the paintings' origins, previously relegated to a side room, now prominently occupied the main galleries. Large panels educated visitors about the Jewish collectors who sold their paintings to Bührle and about his weapons dealings with the Nazis. Additionally, both critics and defenders of the collection appeared on video screens.
The presentation was adjusted again after historian Raphael Gross published a report in summer 2024 examining the origins of the paintings. Commissioned by the city and canton of Zurich and the Kunsthaus's parent organization, Gross had investigated the Bührle Foundation's previous provenance research. His findings were unflattering for the foundation, concluding that in many cases, the origins weren't researched or weren't sufficiently investigated, and classifications were often incorrect. In some cases, he found strong doubts about the provenance's legitimacy, recommending further research, particularly regarding Jewish previous owners.
The Kunsthaus is currently planning a five-year research project covering all works, to be reviewed by independent experts. The Zurich city government plans to provide financial support for this effort. If research reveals that paintings hanging in the Kunsthaus were sold by previous owners due to Nazi persecution, the foundation should find solutions with their heirs.
After five paintings were removed in summer 2024, the foundation announced it would seek fair and just solutions. It has since reached settlements in two cases – details remain confidential – allowing those works to be displayed again. Compensation payments are one possibility, but it could also lead to selling paintings. The Kunsthaus itself set a precedent last year by announcing it would sell a Monet from its collection that it acquired in 1939 due to the Jewish previous owners' financial distress.
This reflects the new zero-tolerance strategy for handling flight goods, which also applies to the Bührle collection. After the 2027 reopening, the collection might not only be reduced by several paintings but also feature even stronger emphasis on the works' origins and the fate of their former owners than before.
The foundation's timing in changing its purpose during this crucial phase – when groundwork is being laid for renewed investigation – cannot be coincidental. The implicit suggestion of potentially leaving Zurich comes at a decisive moment in the collection's future.
This wouldn't mark the first time Zurich lost a significant art collection due to fierce controversy over Nazi-era shadows. A similar situation occurred in 2001 when German collector Friedrich Christian Flick announced plans to build a museum in Zurich-West designed by star architect Rem Koolhaas. He intended to display works by major modern artists including Marcel Duchamp, Alberto Giacometti, Gerhard Richter, Jeff Wall, and contemporary Swiss artists like Fischli/Weiss, Pipilotti Rist, and Roman Signer.
However, opposition arose because the Flick family fortune was built on armaments production for the Nazis. Critics accused the family of not participating in the reparations fund for Nazi forced laborers. Theater director Christoph Marthaler was particularly pointed in his criticism, noting that the museum would be built near the Schiffbau: "We cannot suppress the thought that this collection's exhibits were paid for with war criminal money and expropriated, Aryanized Jewish assets."
Interestingly, among those publicly defending Flick was artist Roman Signer, who called the outrage hypocritical, pointing out that the Bührle Hall in the Kunsthaus was also financed with weapons money. Reports from Flick's circle indicated the harsh criticism personally hurt him. The damage was irreparable – even intervention by Mayor Elmar Ledergerber, who wanted to bring the collection to Zurich, couldn't change the outcome. Flick eventually took his artworks to Berlin instead.
