In examining the case of Nazi SS officer Friedrich Gustav Kadgien’s paintings, ARCA has been piecing together a troubling picture.  Earlier, we discussed photographs shared on social media by his daughter, Patricia Kadgien.  In this article we will take a closer look at some of the images we have been analysing, along with others we have explored as this case hit the public airwaves.

In our initial forway into the life Kadgien, ARCA grabbed a number of photos from Patricia Kadgien's Facebook page before she and other members of the family set their socials to private.  Three of them, varying in quality, captured a still life oil painting, but only partially in view, as in each photo the painting was obscured by  people in the frame.  

Despite this, key details, such as the cluster of peaches aligned perfectly with the known description, as well as the black and white photo, of the missing painting on record in the Dutch archive. 

As you can see by the date stamp in this photo, Kadgien's daughter uploaded this family portrait to her social media profile on 1 September 2011. It cannot be confirmed that this photo was actually taken in 2011, only that it was uploaded in 2011 as Facebook retains all metadata and adds more, but none of it is available to any end users who might download said image. 

Fast forward to yesterday's Argentinian news reports discussing the fact that there is a remarkably similar artwork in the collection of the Museo Nacional de Arte Decorativo in Buenos Aires.  That artwork has been attributed to a Dutch still-life painter from the northern Netherlands named Rachel Ruysch, not Mignon, who was just a teenager when the older still life painter died. 

Having said that, it is important to note that the attribution of a painting is seldom a definitive process in the absence of a signature or other reliable documentation, and may be reassessed at any stage.  The work in question might have arrived to Argentina from Europe or elsewhere, possibly identified (whether correctly or not), as a painting made by Mignon, and subsequently reattributed thorough study at the museum, or perhaps even earlier by research commissioned by its painting's previous owner.  

Combing through a series of open source websites and archives, we were able to find multiple uploaded images of the "Ruysch-named" painting in the museum's oak-cladded antecámara.  Unfortunately, the earliest instance we have of corresponding images of said work, in said placement inside the museum, date back to 2007 four years before Patricia Kadgein uploaded a still life image to her Facebook profile.

 

In the photos we found or the antecámara, posted the 2000s, the center of the room is occupied by a sculpture by Joseph Pollet. On both sides of the entrance doors are two Dutch oil paintings: the Portrait of a Gentleman by J. C. Verspronck and the Still Life by Rachel Ruysch.  The latter of which also appears in a 2003 museum publication, without a photo or provenance, stating that the Ruysch painting was donated in 1960.   

Other sources state that the painting was bequeathed in 1962 and 1964. 

What is the actual donation date?

The first time the Wayback Machine captures a description of this artwork on the  museum's own web page was saved on 8 April 2008.  On said page, the museum discusses at length, the artist and the subject of the painting, but omits any provenance details or who bequeathed the painting.  Curiously though, it lists the oil painting's dimensions as "0.68 m x 0.65 m., which is practically a square. 

Outlined in blue for comparison are the dimensions of the stolen Mignon-attributed painting registered in the Netherlands (outlined in red).  In blue we have listed the sized attributed to the Rachel Ruysch painting by the museum. As is plainly visible, there is a rather substantial proportion discrepancy in the size documented on the museum's web page.  And while the Mignon-attributed painting archived with the RCE is recorded as matching in height, the painting in Argentina is slightly wider.  If the two paintings are a match, then perhaps the stolen painting was measured previously using the dimensions inside its frame at the time. 

Using the same overlay technique, and a clearer image of the painting straight on, we can compare both the frame of the painting in the museum's antecámara and the frame of the painting from Patricia Kadgien's Facebook page. 

We can also compare other images the museum uploaded in 2020 of the entire "Ruysch-named" painting, contrasting them with the black and white photo in the archive of the painting archived with the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed in the Netherlands. 

Side by side we can see that both paintings depict the same identical subject. But proportionately could they be one and the same?  To examine the artwork further, ARCA overlayed the RCE's black and white photo with one of the museum's more recent medium resolution images.

We again repeated the process using as smaller photograph uploaded to the museum's socials which captured a close up of the painting's peaches, bird's nest, and lizard.

In our humble opinion, we suspect that this.is.clearly.the.same.painting,  

regardless of which artist the painting has been attributed to.  

Taking our hypothesis one step further, and  also looked at historic photos.  

This 1918 archive photograph of the Errázuriz Palace, (where the museum is located) doesn't show the still life painting in question in the antecámara of the residence, once owned by the Chilean ambassador to Argentina.  Matias Errazuriz, lived in the mansion with his wife Josefina de Alvear before the property was gifted to the state. 

Nor is the still life to be found in archival photos which show objects from the original Errázuriz family collection which were to become part of the founding purchase by the nation when the mansion was transferred over to the Argentina via the National Assembly of the Autonomous Communities when the museum opened in 1937.

What we did not find was any open source documentation or images that confirm that this painting was part of the museum's collection from the time of its purported donation in 1960, 1962 or 1964, until its first contemporary appearance in digital photos and on the museum's website from the 2000s.  Where are the photos over that 40 year interim? 

Unanswered questions, at least for now

Are there any photos of the Still Life by Rachel Ruysch from the time of its donation until the 2000s? 

What confirmatory paperwork does the Museo de Arte Decorativo have that concretises when their painting's donation actually occurred.

What confirmatory paperwork does the Museo de Arte Decorativo have that demonstrates the artwork's ownership history, and from whose hands it pasted from the time of its creation through to the date of the museum's aquisiton?

What details does the Museo de Arte Decorativo have on the donor of the Still Life by Rachel Ruysch painting, and what was this person's relationship to the museum, and what (if any) does this individual or their family have with problematic works of art in circulation during, or after, World War II. 

Is there a link between this painting's arrival in Argentina and the Kadgien family’s activities in Argentina before or after the war?

For now, we are left with more questions than clarity. But one thing is clear: this is not just a story about one contested painting that the Kadgien family kept, despite its reprehensible past. Nor is it even about one family. 

It is emblematic of a broader, unresolved legacy. The postwar years saw countless works of art wrenched away from their rightful owners under duress which were subsequently laundered into “respectable” collections, sometimes even into public museums and institutions. Too often, provenance was overlooked in favour of prestige.

And so, decades later, we are still asking uncomfortable questions. How many of these works remain hidden in plain sight, misattributed, or deliberately misrepresented?  How many institutions prefer to avert their eyes rather than confront their own role in housing suspect objects which might have ties to Nazi looting? 

On principle alone, the opportunity exists, even belatedly, for families and museum personnel to reckon with these histories. To ignore that is to perpetuate the sins of the past.