The Emil G. Bührle Foundation has removed its commitment to Zurich from its statutes, raising questions about whether the valuable art collection will remain permanently at the Kunsthaus Zurich. The foundation changed its purpose clause approximately two weeks ago, now only requiring that the art collection remain accessible to the public, without specifying a location.
The statutory change was approved by the Canton of Zurich's pension and foundation supervisory authority (BVS), which has published documents on its website explaining the reasoning behind the approval. The authority stated that the change aligns with the founder's will, as the main purpose of the foundation is to make the collection accessible to the public.
Documents reveal that the Bührle Foundation has grown frustrated with ongoing controversies and attacks in Zurich. In a letter from the foundation's lawyer to the cantonal supervisory authority, the foundation cited "enormous negative financial, personnel, and reputational impacts" on both the foundation and the Zurich Art Museum. The letter questioned whether continued presentation of the collection in Zurich remains "possible, appropriate, and justifiable" under current circumstances.
The foundation criticized what it called an "unprecedented media and political controversy" surrounding the art collection. The Bührle Collection has been displayed as a permanent loan in the Chipperfield building of the Kunsthaus Zurich since 2021. The collection remains controversial because weapons manufacturer Emil Bührle (1890-1956) built it using profits from arms deals, including transactions with the Nazi regime. Critics suspect the collection still contains artworks that were taken from Jewish collectors through forced sales.
According to the foundation's petition, despite extensive efforts, cooperation from all affected parties, and years of scientific research into the provenance of all collection works, the foundation and art museum have faced "massive accusations of alleged ethical-moral misconduct, uncritical handling of so-called historically contaminated artworks, and even accusations of antisemitism." The foundation stated that the collection has been discredited with blanket claims that it is "ultimately the result of the Holocaust, acquired with proceeds from weapons deliveries to the Nazis."
The foundation also criticized governmental interference, noting that the Zurich City Council, under pressure from the municipal council, imposed specific obligations on the Zurich Art Society regarding the handling of Bührle Collection works through the subsidy contract. The foundation's lawyer characterized this "governmental interference in the discretionary and operational freedom of a private cultural institution" as "unprecedented in Switzerland's previously liberal museum environment."
The foundation expressed concern about plans to conduct another comprehensive investigation of the Bührle Collection, as previous provenance research was deemed insufficient. The letter questioned whether Zurich authorities and the Kunsthaus Zurich are "prepared and able to withstand continued pressure and undertake further significant expenditures for the Bührle Collection." If not, the foundation indicated it would need to examine new options.
The first option would be an amicable dissolution of the permanent loan contract, resulting in the artworks returning to the foundation. Should this occur, "further presentation of the works in Zurich will no longer be possible, at least in the medium term." If no suitable location can be found in Zurich to display the collection, the foundation's main purpose of public accessibility would be threatened.
Dominique Jakob, a foundation law expert from the University of Zurich commissioned by the supervisory authority as an evaluator, supported the Bührle Foundation's arguments. Jakob deemed the purpose change legally permissible under foundation law, noting that the foundation's main purpose is making the collection publicly accessible, while the how and where remain at the foundation board's discretion. Jakob also observed that the environment in Zurich has changed significantly, and the foundation's main purpose "appears massively threatened when limiting the field of activity to Zurich, given the accusations raised against the foundation and resulting uncertainties."
The foundation board of the Emil G. Bührle Collection emphasized in a statement that the purpose change does not represent a decision about the collection's future but merely clarifies available options. The change has no impact on the existing loan contract with the Zurich Art Society, under which the collection will continue to remain and be displayed at the Kunsthaus Zurich.
However, the contract between the Kunsthaus and the Bührle Foundation expires at the end of 2034. Without the obligation to display works in Zurich, the foundation could theoretically leave the city after that date.
The city is not prepared to simply accept a potential departure of the prominent collection. Lukas Wigger, spokesperson for Mayor Corine Mauch, stated that "the city is currently examining how the foundation's purpose change affects its interests and those of Zurich's population." Based on this assessment, the city will decide whether municipal action is warranted, including potentially filing a complaint with the administrative court.
