What The Hell America!

The Art Institute of Chicago announced recently that it had returned to Nepal a sculpture that had been in its collection for at least a quarter century. Conspicuously left out of the press release: that the sculpture had been a gift from a wealthy Chicago donor.

That omission obscured a simmering controversy about whether Chicago philanthropists Marilynn Alsdorf and her husband, James, both of whom are dead, improperly built their collection of hundreds of South Asian works and why the Art Institute, which houses some of that collection in its Alsdorf Galleries, has been reluctant to return those works to countries with compelling claims for them.

The 12th-century sculpture the museum returned to Nepal is called “Buddha Sheltered by the Serpent King Muchalinda” and is about 17.5 inches tall. The Art Institute said it was stolen from the Kathmandu Valley, although it’s unclear when the theft occurred or how or when the Alsdorfs acquired the piece.

It was among more than a dozen pieces identified by ProPublica and Crain’s Chicago Business in 2023 as having claims on them by other countries, including Nepal. At one time, each piece had belonged to the Alsdorfs, the investigation found.

The Art Institute devotes a page online to works that have been removed from its collection, a process museums call deaccessioning. But unlike other pages on its site about artwork or pieces on display, pages for deaccessioned items don’t include ownership information and, in this case, the listing doesn’t mention the Alsdorfs.

Melissa Kerin, the director of the Mudd Center for Ethics at Washington and Lee University in Virginia and a professor of art history who specializes in South Asian and Tibetan art and architecture, said the Art Institute is trying to have it both ways with the Buddha’s repatriation. It is seeking credit for having a provenance division and returning the Buddha, she said, but is not disclosing the involvement of its own donors.

“It looks proactive. They’re getting rid of a problematic object,” said Kerin. “But people will never know the full details of it. They are face-saving the Alsdorfs and their relationship with them and with all donors. They have a lot to lose.”

The Alsdorfs, who lived in Chicago, were influential in the city’s art world, donating more than $20 million to the Art Institute over the course of their lives. James Alsdorf, the son of a Dutch diplomat and the owner of a business that manufactured glass coffee-making equipment, was chair of the museum’s board from 1975 to 1978. He died in 1990.

Marilynn Alsdorf was a trustee of the museum and president of its Woman’s Board. She exhibited her and her husband’s collection at the museum in 1997, and the Alsdorf Galleries opened in 2008. She died in 2019.

Controversy has surrounded the Alsdorfs’ vast collection for decades. In the 1970s, the Thai government sought the return of a stone carving, and, after a protest outside the museum, it was given back.

In 2002, a California man sued Marilynn Alsdorf to recover a Picasso painting called “Femme en Blanc,” or “Lady in White,” that he alleged had belonged to his grandmother before it was looted by the Nazis during World War II. Marilynn Alsdorf eventually paid the man $6.5 million in exchange for keeping the painting. She said she did nothing wrong in obtaining it.

Alsdorf’s son, Jeffrey, is listed in tax forms as the president of the Alsdorf Foundation, which gave the Art Institute a $40,000 educational grant or contribution as recently as 2023. Asked about the repatriation of the Buddha, he said, “I hope the deal goes through and everyone is happy with it.” Then he hung up on the reporter.

An official at the Embassy of Nepal in Washington said the deal had gone through and that she was present at a ceremony where the Buddha was handed over to Nepali officials. Several museum representatives took part in the ceremony and spoke about continuing to work with the Nepali officials.

The Art Institute spokesperson said in a statement that the museum is “committed to prioritizing provenance research across departments, which includes our Arts of Asia collection.” Over the last five years, the statement continued, the museum has created positions dedicated primarily to issues of provenance, including the role of executive director of provenance. The museum has previously said that many of the pieces the Alsdorfs donated were accepted and vetted under standards in place at the time.

The spokesperson said in the statement that the museum has returned two pieces in the past year from its permanent collection to their countries of origin and, over the past several years, has returned additional works that were on loan. The spokesperson didn’t provide details on those repatriations.

The Buddha, according to the statement, had been a “research priority” for the museum for several years. After obtaining new information about the sculpture, the Art Institute reached out to the government of Nepal in 2024 to begin the process of returning it to the country.

The museum appeared to draw a distinction between the return of the Buddha and the request from Nepal for the Taleju necklace’s return, saying: “The provenance of this object is separate from and not comparable to other objects in our collection.”

The spokesperson said in the statement that the museum had sent a letter to the government of Nepal in May 2022 asking for additional information about the necklace but that it was still waiting for a reply. Nonetheless, the museum said it has an “ongoing dialogue” with Nepali officials and will continue working with them. The embassy official did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about the necklace or the museum’s request for additional information.

Adhikari, of the Nepal Heritage Recovery Campaign, said the Art Institute was intentionally making the process difficult for Nepal.

“I believe the burden of proof should be on the Art Institute of Chicago to prove that it belongs to them,” he said of the Taleju necklace. “This is a violation of our cultural rights.”

Erin Thompson, a professor of art crime at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said the Art Institute’s policy about objects it returns — the Buddha, for example — can make it harder for researchers to track an object’s provenance. It can also cast doubt on other objects in a collection.

“You don’t erase that history to save somebody a little embarrassment,” she said.

The Art Institute declined a request for an interview, but in response to written questions, a spokesperson said that it had followed a museum-wide policy on disclosing the history and ownership of deaccessioned objects. Once an object is no longer in the museum’s collections, it does not include the item’s provenance on its website — a practice some art historians criticize.

The investigation by the news organizations focused on an ornate piece called the Taleju necklace, an inscribed gilt-copper work embellished with semiprecious stones and intricate designs. A 17th-century Nepali king offered the necklace to the Hindu goddess Taleju.

Officials with the government in Nepal as well as activists have centered much of their attention on the necklace, which they believe was stolen during a period of political upheaval in the country. It remains prominently featured in the Alsdorf Galleries even though some say it is offensive to display such a sacred work in public.

Activists said that their frustration with the Art Institute applies to other pieces as well.

“It’s not only about the necklace,” said Sanjay Adhikari, a lawyer and secretary of the Nepal Heritage Recovery Campaign, an organization that seeks the return of a number of pieces taken from the country. “It’s about many other cultural properties out there. There’s a big frustration with the Art Institute of Chicago.”