Propublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates power abuse. Sign up for Dispatches. This is a newsletter that spotlights misconduct across the country, and receives your stories in your inbox every week.
The Chicago Museum of Art recently announced that it has returned to Nepal to sculptures that have been in its collection for at least a quarter of a century. It was notablely ruled out from the press release: that the sculpture was a gift from a wealthy Chicago donor.
That omission blurred the surprising controversy over whether Chicago philanthropist Marilyn Arsdorf and her husband James were dead.
The 12th century sculpture, when the museum returns to Nepal, is called “Buddha, refuged by the snake king Manshalinda,” and is about 17.5 inches tall. The Art Institute said it was stolen from Kathmandu Valley, but it is unclear when the theft occurred or how and when Arsdorf won the work.
This was one of more than 12 works identified in 2023 by Propovica and Crane’s Chicago business as claimed by other countries, including Nepal. Research has found that in the past, each work belonged to Arsdorf.
The Art Institute devotes pages online to pieces that have been removed from the collection, called the Process Museum. However, unlike other pages on the site about artwork and pieces on display, the escape item page does not contain ownership information. In this case, the list does not mention Alsdorfs.
Melissa Kellin, director of the Mud Ethics Center at Washington and Lee University in Virginia and professor of art history with specialisation in South Asian and Tibetan art and architecture, said the art lab has both ways in French repairs. She has a division of origin and seeks credit for returning the Buddha, but does not reveal the involvement of the donor in itself.
“It looks proactive. They’re removing the problematic objects,” Kellin said. “But people never know the full details of it. They are shaking their faces with Arsdorf and their relationship with all their donors. They have a lot to lose.”
Nepal wants to return a sacred necklace. However, major museums still show it.
Living in Chicago, Arsdorf influenced the city’s art world, donating more than $20 million to the Art Institute over the course of his life. James Arsdorf, the son of a Dutch diplomat and the owner of the business that produced glass coffee making equipment, served as chair of the museum’s board of directors from 1975 to 1978. He passed away in 1990.
Marilynn Alsdorf was the museum’s trustee and chairman of the Women’s Board of Directors. She exhibited her and her husband’s collection at the museum in 1997, and the Arsdorf Gallery opened in 2008. She passed away in 2019.
The discussion surrounds Arsdorf’s vast collection for decades. In the 1970s, the Thai government called for the return of stone sculptures and protested outside the museum, which was returned.
In 2002, a California man sued Marilyn Arsdorf and restored a Picasso painting called “Fam En Blanc” or “Lady in White,” which he claimed to belong to his grandmother before being plundered by the Nazis during World War II. Marilynn Alsdorf ultimately paid $6.5 million to maintain the painting. She said there was nothing wrong with getting it.
Alsdorf’s son Jeffrey is listed on the tax form as president of the Alsdorf Foundation and gave Art Institute a $40,000 educational grant or contribution in 2023. I asked about the repatriation of France. He then hung up the phone to the reporter.
Officials at the Nepal Embassy in Washington said the contract had passed and France attended a ceremony where France was handed over to Nepali officials. Several museum representatives attended the ceremony and spoke about continuing to work with Nepali officials.
A spokesman for the Art Institute said in a statement that the museum is “working on prioritizing inter-sectoral source research, including Asian art collections.” The statement continued for the past five years, and the museum has created a position dedicated primarily to the issue of origin. The museum previously stated that many of the works that Arsdorf contributed were accepted and reviewed under the standards of the time.
A spokesman said in a statement that the museum has returned two works from its permanent collection to its country of origin over the past year, and additional works that have been loaned over the past few years. The spokesman did not provide details regarding these repatriations.
According to the statement, France has been the museum’s “study priority” for several years. After obtaining new information about the sculpture, the Institute of Arts contacted the Nepal government in 2024 to begin the process of returning it to the country.
The museum appeared to draw out a distinction between the Buddha’s return and the demand for the return of Tarej’s necklace from Nepal.
A spokesman said in a statement that the museum sent a letter to the Nepal government in May 2022 asking for additional information about the necklace, but was still waiting for a reply. Nevertheless, the museum said there will be “continuous dialogue” with Nepali officials and will continue to work with them. Embassy officials did not answer Propublica’s questions regarding requests for additional information on the necklace or museum.
Adhikari, a Nepal Heritage Recovery Campaign, said the Art Institute intentionally makes the process difficult for Nepal.
“I believe it should be at the Art Institute in Chicago to prove that it belongs to them,” he said of Taliju’s necklace. “This is a violation of our cultural rights.”
Erin Thompson, a professor of art crime at John Jay University of Criminal Justice in New York, said the Arts Institute’s policy on objects it returns to (for example, France) could make it difficult for researchers to track the source of objects. You can also question other objects in your collection.
“You don’t erase history to make that history a bit embarrassing,” she said.
The Art Institute declined to request an interview, but in response to written questions, the spokesman said it had followed the museum-wide policy regarding the disclosure of the history and ownership of the escaped objects. If an object is no longer in the museum’s collection, do not include the source of the item on its website. This is a practice that some art historians criticize.
The survey by the news organization focused on a gorgeous piece called Taleju Necklace, a piece of engraved gold leaf decorated with semi-precious stones and intricate designs. A 17th century Nepal king provided a necklace to the Hindu goddess Tarej.
Nepal government officials and activists are drawing attention to necklaces they believe were stolen during periods of political upheavals around the country. Some say it’s offensive to display such sacred works in public places, but it’s been featured prominently in the Arsdorf Gallery.
Activists said that frustration with the Art Institute applies to other works as well.
“It’s not just necklaces,” said Sanjay Adhikari, lawyer and secretary for Nepal’s Heritage Restoration Campaign, who is the organisation seeking the return of many of the works taken from the country. “It’s about many other cultural characteristics. There’s a huge frustration with the Art Institute in Chicago.”
