51 pages • 1 hour read
Lisa BarrWoman on Fire
Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 2022A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Ownership Rights and Nazi-Looted Art
Content Warning: This section of the guide references sex trafficking.
Throughout the novel, aside from Jules and her team trying to find Woman on Fire, the question of who has the greatest, legal claim to the painting hovers over the narrative’s action. As a mystery thriller designed primarily to entertain, Woman on Fire does not attempt to answer questions or uncover heretofore unknown Nazi crimes against Jewish persons or artists. Nevertheless, the book touches upon an aspect of Nazi history that is less known than others and that continues to cause problems in the present day.
The legal right to ownership of the painting in the novel is convoluted and complex, and a court of law would have a difficult time trying to ascertain its rightful owner if multiple parties submitted a claim. While Woman on Fire is a work of fiction, there are real-life examples that are not too dissimilar. One example is the case the Dorville family brought against the Musée d'Orsay and the Musée du Louvre, as well as against France's culture ministry and four other smaller museums, demanding the restitution of 21 works from the collection of Armand Isaac Dorville, whose art collection was sold following his death.
Through Jules’s perspective, the reader is led to believe that Ellis Baum, the son of Arno Baum and Anika Lang, has the greatest claim to the painting because his mother served as the muse and model for the painting. However, Ellis’s claim is not as strong, from a legal standpoint, as appears in the novel. Legally, it is not so easy to establish a claim of a painting. In 1998, a meeting held in Washington, DC, established a codified means and goal of tracking down provenances taken by the Nazis and returning them to their rightful owners or their progeny. Most countries agree with the principles and do the utmost to uphold them, but they are only guidelines and agreements, not codified law. Each country deals with claims to looted provenance in different ways. The ending of the novel implies that the painting will remain in the possession of the Baum family, since there is no one left to claim it. However, if the novel were to continue, the rightful owner of the painting could be contested.
If there are other surviving relatives of the de Laurent family, they too would have a claim to the painting because Charles de Laurent was given the painting by Max Kruger (a fictional Nazi official working from inside in order to save degenerate art) on behalf of the artist, Ernst Engel, who had been arrested by the Nazis. Legally speaking, Charles was the painting’s first owner. Of course, the problem is that Kruger took the painting without Engel knowing about it. Engel had no say in the matter. While it is possible Engel would have been grateful to Kruger, the bill of sale given Charles de Laurent was issued by a Nazi official who had taken part in looting the painting, regardless of his reasoning.
The Dassel family also has a claim, once Lillian Dassel (née Baum) dies, because the de Laurent claim is problematic. Otto Dassel had purchased the painting and also had a bill of sale for it. The problem with his claim, of course, is that he purchased the painting from the infamous Lucerne auction, and thus, the Fischer gallery in Lucerne did not have a legal right to sell the painting. However, Otto Dassel also housed and hid the Baum family and gave the painting to Arno in his desperate situation as a gift to lighten his mood somewhat.
The claim circles back to the Baum family, but in a court of law, they would have to have some legal document or witness prove that Otto Dassel had given the painting to Arno Baum. That, with Arno Baum’s subsequent incarceration and death at the hands of the Nazis, would nullify his having kept the real copy and given it to Lillian, the sole survivor of the Baum family.
Thematically, it is significant that villainous Margaux possesses a forged copy of the painting, while the real painting resides with Lillian, a survivor of the Auschwitz concentration camp. This suggests, in some way, a justice on the part of those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis: “Righting the wrongs of history is truly a mitzvah” (398).
The Ethics and Moral Responsibilities of Investigative Journalism
Dan Mansfield’s rules around journalism serve as a guiding source of integrity throughout the investigation at the heart of the narrative. Dan’s rule about obeying his leadership is because he knows he is dealing with Jules, who lacks experience, and with Ellis and Adam, who are not journalists. Even before Jules makes the mistake of interviewing Carice Van der Pol alone and without Dan’s knowledge, Dan admonishes her about the need for safety. He naively assumed that she already understood the moral and ethical issues involved with investigative journalism since she had attended journalism school. Her mistake illustrates the difficult line journalists must walk between “getting the story” and maintaining an ethical and moral code of conduct. Dan’s rules reflect principles that exist in real life. All major news organizations have a code of conduct and strive to abide by those principles as best as possible. The Canadian Association of Journalists, for example, states that it will maintain transparency under all circumstances unless: “The information is important for the public. There is no other way to obtain the information. Any harm to individuals or organizations is outweighed by the benefits of making the information public. We are able to plan the investigation carefully” (Canadian Association of Journalists. “Statement of Principles for Investigative Journalism.” University of Alberta).
The novel ultimately raises questions about the ends justifying the means when it comes to getting a story. For example, it is unclear whether Jules could have obtained information from Carice without lying about who she was and for whom she worked. Similarly, Jules misleads the director of the convalescent home where Lillian works in her quest for access. While Jules’s opacity ultimately results in Margaux’s defeat and a sense of justice for Ellis and Lillian, she also puts people—and herself—at risk.
The morality of lying is secondary to the morality of putting people in mortal danger. Jules’s interview, for instance, places Carice in danger. While Jules likely would have kept Carice’s identity a secret in any article she would have written, her lack of planning and her rogue style of spontaneous interviewing lead to Dan’s death, much like a mistake he made caused the death of a colleague.
Jules is not without guiding ethical principles of her own, however. Like Dan, she learns from experience. Her formative experience with Rick Janus following her Anonymous Girl report transpired after the story had been told, so it had no impact on the reporting. However, had she and Rick engaged one another sexually during an investigation into sex trafficking, the parallels between their situation and the story on which they were reporting could certainly damage their credibility.
Finally, the novel raises questions about what is and what is not important for the public to know. The story that would have resulted about Nazi-looted art and restitution from the personal investigation into Woman on Fire is now public due to the article that Jules writes at the end of the book. While Dan would have probably approved, whether that was important for the public to know about cannot be answered. Thus, the novel provides multiple angles through which to examine and consider the importance of morals and ethics in investigative journalism.
The Power and Influence of Art
Art, especially painting, is as old as humankind, and it can invoke the spectrum of human emotion. As the novel’s fictional German Expressionist artist Ernst Engel, the painter of Woman on Fire, says, “Art is not what you see, but how it makes you feel” (385). Engel’s quote highlights a truth about art that is central to the novel. Woman on Fire focuses far less on the aesthetics of the eponymous painting and other artworks and much more on the emotions they evoke.
Throughout the novel, Woman on Fire receives minimal description of its subject matter. Each time the painting is described, it is from the perspective of a different viewer. The impression it leaves on its viewers is indelible and goes far beyond its aesthetic qualities.
For many of its viewers and owners, the painting evokes emotion tied to memories of others. Charles de Laurent reflects on the woman’s “resplendent” golden hair and the colors that surround the flames that engulf her, but he is more concerned with what the artist felt while painting her and associates the painting with the joy it provided his dying wife. Margaux de Laurent wants the painting because it evokes memories of her grandfather, the only person she ever cared about. For Arno Baum, the painting evokes a painful and joyous memory of his German mistress, Anika Lang, who modeled for the painting and whom he was forced to leave behind in Berlin when he fled with his family. That she is gone is painful, but the image also reminds him of the passion they once had with one another, which was a light for him during a dark time. Lillian, Arno’s youngest daughter, remembers the painting, too, though for her it evokes only bad memories: She remembers her father loving the painting more than her. For Ellis Baum, whose dying wish is to see his mother’s face again, the painting represents a final opportunity to remember her.
However, Margaux also connects with the painting on a personal level. Margaux sees the symbolism inherent in the painting, namely a woman on fire: “A woman, a tempest, consumed with passion, fire, torment, sensuality—part Medusa, part Aphrodite, part Mother Nature” (36). For Margaux, the painting reflects the way she sees herself and wants others to perceive her. The symbolism carries over to Jules to in that the consuming flames represent her consuming ambition.
Similarly, art reflects how others perceive their subjects, which is reflected in the shoes Ellis designs for and names after Jules. While the shoes are practical footwear, they are also designed for their aesthetic qualities and are artworks themselves. In the same way, Adam’s paintings of Margaux, and later Jules, reflect the intimacy inherent to the relationship between an artist and their subject, which is reflected in the strong emotions each woman feels when they discover Adam has painted the other.
For Margaux and other collectors, as well as the Nazis who looted and sold art, the power of art extends beyond the aesthetic and emotional and into the financial realm. For Margaux and Griffin Freund, owning Woman on Fire promises wealth and prestige: To have the painting in their galleries will heighten their reputations as gallerists and bring in more patrons. For the Nazis, looted art was condemned as “degenerate” but nonetheless presented an opportunity to raise funds for public works and other projects.
In the end, however, Ellis’s emotional reaction to the art he can no longer see but experiences through Jules and Adam conveys the true power of art. He is able to tap into his deepest memories and view his mother not as she was depicted by Ernst Engel those many years ago, but as he wants to remember her. Thus, ultimately, the greatest power art possesses is not its financial worth.
