The Lady in Gold

Every stolen painting has a story. The tale behind this one is epic.

The Lady in Gold By Anne-Marie O’Connor Knopf 400 pp.

Family strife, Europe in convulsion, the art business, and what might have been an affair between a painter and his model are among the cross currents  of Anne-Marie O’Connor’s probe of "Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I," Gustav Klimt’s painting of a Viennese socialite in the first decade of the 20th century. Based on conversations with participants in the twisty saga, primarily Maria Altmann, the elderly woman who wrested the iconic Klimt portrait from the Austrian government, The Lady in Gold is dense – at times too dense – cultural history.

Subtitled “The Extraordinary Tale of Gustav Klimt’s Masterpiece, Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer,” this excavation covers the relationships between Klimt, a volcanic talent of voracious sexual appetite; Mrs. Bloch-Bauer; her families, both nuclear and extended; and the governments of Germany, Austria, and the United States. The painting, on exhibit at Ronald Lauder’s Neue Galerie in Manhattan, looks luminous; apparently, Klimt was influenced by Byzantine mosaics he had seen in Ravenna, lending the work unusual incandescence by framing the pale Adele in a sea of gold. The eye and almond shapes surrounding her deepen the ambiguity of their bond, which O’Connor never quite clarifies.

Overall, O’Connor has effectively contextualized the Bloch-Bauer portrait from its creation in 1907 to 1938, when the Anschluss put Austria under German control. Austrian society changed dramatically after World War I, when failed painter Adolf Hitler, an Austrian like Klimt but of a decidedly different nature, began his climb to power. After the Anschluss, the Nazis exterminated Jews and then seized art works like the Klimt paintings, hiding them in various places including Vienna’s mysterious Belvedere Gallery.

Although O’Connor first focuses on Viennese society of the turn of the 20th century, when wealthy Jews supported avant-garde artists like Klimt and Oskar Kokoscha, the book accelerates dramatically when she looks into the relationship between the Nazis – who stole the Adele portrait and other Klimt works – and the Austrian government. While “The Lady in Gold” is a celebration of art and persistence – its heroes are Adele’s relative, Maria Altmann, and Maria’s dogged Los Angeles attorney, Randol Schoenberg, a descendant of composer Arnold Schoenberg – it also is an inquiry into survival and assimilation (O’Connor’s look at intermarriage in early 20th century Vienna is provocative) and an indictment of Austria, which fought tooth and nail to keep works like the Klimt it inherited from the Nazis who had stolen them. Klimt, after all, was a native son. But in such an anti-Semitic society, Bloch-Bauer, a Jew, wasn’t quite a native daughter.

I wish O’Connor had published a family tree showing the relationships between members of the Bloch-Bauer clan. The book is overly heavy with interview and anecdote, making it hard to keep track of everybody. Too often, “The Lady in Gold” feels overwrought; O’Connor’s journalism outstrips her organization. Still, it is a largely successful demonstration of the way artistic provenance can tell a much larger story.

“Who could have guessed the history of Vienna would be told by its paintings?” O’Connor writes after Schoenberg won restitution of the Adele portrait following eight years of litigation.

“Adele was no longer a beautiful enigma. Vienna, too, was being stripped of mystery, as Adele and Klimt’s other stolen women changed the city’s relationship with its past. Each stolen painting had a story, and each story raised pressing moral questions. Regardless of whether one believed the Bloch-Bauer Klimts should be returned, it was impossible to look at the paintings the same way again. It had been possible to avoid history. But not the talismanic images of these blameless, insulted daughters of Vienna.”

O'Connor's book brings Klimt's exceptional portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer home, broadening the meaning of homeland at the same time.

Carlo Wolff is a freelance writer in Cleveland.

Join the Monitor's book discussion on Facebook and Twitter.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.