The art of stealing(nrc.nl)
nrc.nl
The art of stealing
https://www.nrc.nl/kunsthal-en/
67 comments
Tricky business doing security in an art museum. Often the art pieces are worth millions, yet easily accessible to the general public. Yes, there are alarms and a security guard at the door but even a few petty thieves can with a little planning get the opportunity to steal. Should art be better protected? It would, however, mean less access for the general public. Difficult to strike the right balance. Maybe there is more security that I'm not aware of...
Sadly one thing most art thieves don't understand is that even if a painting is worth millions to a gallery or collector on the legitimate market, it's black-market resale value is basically zero. (Turns out, not many people want to buy famous paintings for enormous sums of money that they'll never be able to show off.)
And even if there were some Bond villain waiting to get his hands on a Picasso for his mountain lair, the smash-and-grab art thieves suddenly realize they don't have the connections to find such people.
It would probably help if there were less insane hype about art prices in the culture generally, but at this point the ever-increasing valuations of these works is what keeps certain segments of the secondary market alive (and on significantly thinner margins than most people imagine).
And even if there were some Bond villain waiting to get his hands on a Picasso for his mountain lair, the smash-and-grab art thieves suddenly realize they don't have the connections to find such people.
It would probably help if there were less insane hype about art prices in the culture generally, but at this point the ever-increasing valuations of these works is what keeps certain segments of the secondary market alive (and on significantly thinner margins than most people imagine).
In the article, it talks about one way for art thieves to get liquid with stolen art is to contact the insurance company and get paid ransom money. Insurer would rather pay 1/8th ransom than insured value.
I think it's still not exactly easy to call up basically admitting you've stolen the pieces, and end up with the money and not in jail.
Even though I suppose there's more anonymous preserving ways to transfer money now than ever, so it should help.
Even though I suppose there's more anonymous preserving ways to transfer money now than ever, so it should help.
whats wrong with sending anonymous email along with a bitcoin address? at least they could have saved the paintings.
I highly doubt an insurance company would give any money prior to recovering the art and without a solid reason to think they'll recover them, but that's just a gut feeling.
It would probably help if there were less insane hype about art prices in the culture generally, but at this point the ever-increasing valuations of these works is what keeps certain segments of the secondary market alive (and on significantly thinner margins than most people imagine).
Seems sorta like blaming the victims. "If only art wern't so valuable, ppl wouldn't be so tempted to steal it"
Seems sorta like blaming the victims. "If only art wern't so valuable, ppl wouldn't be so tempted to steal it"
Hmmm, that's kind of a stretch. You can hypothesise about motivating factors in people's behaviour without endorsing bad behaviour.
I sort of took it as read that people who break into museums and steal the collective cultural heritage of society are doing bad stuff and I disapprove of them.
I also wanted to make the point the crazy-high valuations aren't really a good, or useful, or socially valuable aspect of the (especially secondary) art market, and they create a false sense of the transferability of that value. That was mainly as a response to the idea of the tradeoffs between security and accessibility that the parent comment was highlighting.
It would be sad if a bunch of "security" was added to art museums, and as a culture we could let go of the idea that for something to be important it has to also have a millions-of-currency pricetag attached to it.
None of that alters the fact that if you tell people something is worth a life-changing amount of money, and put it within their reach, you have to accept that somebody is gonna try to make off with it every once in a while, especially in a society that closes off lots of more reasonable paths out of poverty or hardship.
I sort of took it as read that people who break into museums and steal the collective cultural heritage of society are doing bad stuff and I disapprove of them.
I also wanted to make the point the crazy-high valuations aren't really a good, or useful, or socially valuable aspect of the (especially secondary) art market, and they create a false sense of the transferability of that value. That was mainly as a response to the idea of the tradeoffs between security and accessibility that the parent comment was highlighting.
It would be sad if a bunch of "security" was added to art museums, and as a culture we could let go of the idea that for something to be important it has to also have a millions-of-currency pricetag attached to it.
None of that alters the fact that if you tell people something is worth a life-changing amount of money, and put it within their reach, you have to accept that somebody is gonna try to make off with it every once in a while, especially in a society that closes off lots of more reasonable paths out of poverty or hardship.
The bigger stretch is thinking you can keep the value of art a closely-guarded secret.
Is it good for the industry that art thefts happen? After all, it validates that these things are actually valuable
Not as much as the auction price does.
But the media only reports auction prices when they're obscenely high, like in hundred million ranges. Art thefts can get widespread coverage even when they're only worth a measly 18 million
You have a point, but if the 18 million is a reference to this case, it seems the then-current value was several times greater than they were insured for. The fact that the paintings were burned also raised its profile considerably.
> It would probably help if there were less insane hype about art prices in the culture generally
One theory is that it's not just due irrational hype, but also how art can be useful for money-laundering schemes.
One theory is that it's not just due irrational hype, but also how art can be useful for money-laundering schemes.
It is clear, just from the article, that the museum, and the company it contracted its security to, could have done a number of things to improve the security in ways that would have no impact on the viewers' experience. Just to start with, there were major procedural errors that significantly delayed getting the alarm out. Then there was the inability to tell if individual items had been moved, and which ones... Raise the bar a bit, and it becomes highly unlikely that any group capable of pulling off a heist would be unaware that they could not sell the loot.
One lesson, imo, is the cost of outsourcing critical services, that are difficult to quantify, when comparing the cost of doing something in-house or not. Had the security guards been part of the team working at the museum (instead of a rotating team covering multiple clients), they would likely have absorbed knowledge and had an immediate reaction to the missing pieces.
The thieves were still moving around the streets with the paintings on a night without much traffic while the security guards were unsure whether a theft had occurred. Had the police begun canvassing the area immediately, they likely would have been caught or at least become suspects immediately. Instead of weeks later.
The thieves were still moving around the streets with the paintings on a night without much traffic while the security guards were unsure whether a theft had occurred. Had the police begun canvassing the area immediately, they likely would have been caught or at least become suspects immediately. Instead of weeks later.
On the other hand, a small museum is unlikely to have the requisite expertise, and rolling your own security is not advised unless you are an expert. I would have thought the insurance companies might be more proactive in this area, but I also note that its exposure was much less than the current value of the art.
I agree. Also, having a security guard inside the building all night long would have deterred this group. You'd think the insurers would do some oversight on the security.
Maybe there is more security that I'm not aware of...
There is.
There is.
I visited an art museum recently. There were rooms with nice oil paintings, and a couple of rooms with modern art in it.
I was convinced the guards in the modern art section were there to keep the janitors from tossing the modern art into the trash bins.
I was convinced the guards in the modern art section were there to keep the janitors from tossing the modern art into the trash bins.
For your "entertainment" here 3 links to art that got destroyed by cleaners (apologies for the German):
http://www.spiegel.de/karriere/putzfrau-zerstoert-kunstwerk-...
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/galerie-sala-murat-in-bari-re...
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/weggeschrubbte-k...
So your assumption might not be so crazy after all.
http://www.spiegel.de/karriere/putzfrau-zerstoert-kunstwerk-...
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/galerie-sala-murat-in-bari-re...
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/weggeschrubbte-k...
So your assumption might not be so crazy after all.
Last time I was at a modern art museum I was leaning against something that was pushed up against the wall. Turns out it was one of the exhibits. The security guard saw me, smiled, shook his head and walked over. It happened daily, he said.
Another place had literal garbage as part of the exhibits in a room. Refuse scattered around small partial scenes of rooms, with no physical divider between you and it, and really no set path through some of it.
Another place had literal garbage as part of the exhibits in a room. Refuse scattered around small partial scenes of rooms, with no physical divider between you and it, and really no set path through some of it.
> I was convinced the guards in the modern art section were there to keep the janitors from tossing the modern art
I saw a work of "modern art" on the television once, it was a rectangular canvas with small torn-off squares glued to it in rows and columns. Each rectangle was painted a slightly different shade of green, and each one had a (different) number on it. I thought it was crap. Then the artist explained what it meant to him:
He had been in Vietnam, and was still coping with the fact that he made it out alive when so many others, just like him and equally deserving, hadn't made it. The khaki-coloured rectangles represented the soldiers who had been killed, and the numbers highlighted the randomness of their living or being killed.
I didn't think it was crap after hearing that.
I saw a work of "modern art" on the television once, it was a rectangular canvas with small torn-off squares glued to it in rows and columns. Each rectangle was painted a slightly different shade of green, and each one had a (different) number on it. I thought it was crap. Then the artist explained what it meant to him:
He had been in Vietnam, and was still coping with the fact that he made it out alive when so many others, just like him and equally deserving, hadn't made it. The khaki-coloured rectangles represented the soldiers who had been killed, and the numbers highlighted the randomness of their living or being killed.
I didn't think it was crap after hearing that.
So sad these people are down voting you.
IMNSHO if most 5 year old can do it, it's not art.
If you insist it is art, fine, it is very shitty art. Very good confidence trick though!
IMNSHO if most 5 year old can do it, it's not art.
If you insist it is art, fine, it is very shitty art. Very good confidence trick though!
I sympathize with your view (although with s/5 year old/me/). However, over the years I have come to realize that many of the things I used to think I could have done, I actually could not have...to say nothing of your 5 year old. It might look like a few apparently random splotches of paint could have been put there by you, but in many cases looks are deceiving.
You might watch a grandmaster chess game and think that you could make those moves. Or perhaps you see a solution to a traveling salesman decision problem and think "it's easy to see there exists a path that short". But in both cases you're mistaken. The moves you would have played wouldn't be as good as the grandmaster's. The path you would find wouldn't be as short. And the paint splotches you would throw on the canvas wouldn't look as compelling.
Yes, there does exist shitty "art"--things that you or your 5 year old could have done. But I suspect it's less common than you think.
You might watch a grandmaster chess game and think that you could make those moves. Or perhaps you see a solution to a traveling salesman decision problem and think "it's easy to see there exists a path that short". But in both cases you're mistaken. The moves you would have played wouldn't be as good as the grandmaster's. The path you would find wouldn't be as short. And the paint splotches you would throw on the canvas wouldn't look as compelling.
Yes, there does exist shitty "art"--things that you or your 5 year old could have done. But I suspect it's less common than you think.
I thought they'd actually done blinded studies that showed an inability to distinguish between "real" art and amateur attempts?
My definition of art is something that myself, a no-talent hack, could not do in a weekend. Art really ought to take some non-ordinary non-trivial skills to produce. Otherwise, there is simply nothing special about it.
It's just like nice furniture. I could saw up some lumber and nail it together, but nobody would ever look at it and throw money at me. Nice furniture takes years of learning to figure out how to make it.
It's just like nice furniture. I could saw up some lumber and nail it together, but nobody would ever look at it and throw money at me. Nice furniture takes years of learning to figure out how to make it.
If the intention of art is to make you feel something, there are plenty of artists that have the intention of making you feel literally that.
I mean, just look at Fountain by Duchamp. The "Skill" isn't in the production of the object involved, it's in the wit or thought of the artist.
I mean, just look at Fountain by Duchamp. The "Skill" isn't in the production of the object involved, it's in the wit or thought of the artist.
Incidentally, it probably wasn't Marcel Duchamp who came up with that artwork, but Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven¹.
1: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/06/14/famous-urinal-fountain-...
1: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/06/14/famous-urinal-fountain-...
Oh we're not going to get into a deep dive into Dada, intention, and idea genesis. That's WAY too much to try and cover when we can't even get people to understand that they're just Stuckists who don't know what Stuckists are.
This is what some people who don't understand any art history say about art.
You can often hear this with statements like, "Picasso just drew cubes! Anyone can do that!"
You can often hear this with statements like, "Picasso just drew cubes! Anyone can do that!"
I saw one in a museum where the canvas was simply painted a solid color.
Yes, anyone can do that.
There was a guard near it, too, watching me, making sure I didn't approach closer than a line taped on the floor.
I could almost hear the artist laughing at the gullibility of the modern art patrons.
Yes, anyone can do that.
There was a guard near it, too, watching me, making sure I didn't approach closer than a line taped on the floor.
I could almost hear the artist laughing at the gullibility of the modern art patrons.
yes, modern art is a love/hate kind of thing. However, I don't recall seeing any news about modern art being stolen recently (even though some can be worth silly money). Using your example we can conclude that art thieves could be janitors but never security guards.
Reminds me of this Roald Dahl short story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parson%27s_Pleasure_(short_sto...
This art theft reminds me of this story of a Georgian women scavenging for copper knocking Armenia off the Internet: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/06/georgian-woman...
The common thread is poor people turning euros into cents, which is to say destroying something of great value to (attempt to) produce some small gain for themselves. This is a completely rational thing to do when it seems you have no better options, which is why social mobility is so important.
The common thread is poor people turning euros into cents, which is to say destroying something of great value to (attempt to) produce some small gain for themselves. This is a completely rational thing to do when it seems you have no better options, which is why social mobility is so important.
Social mobility? No, it's about preventing people becoming that desperate.
By definition, social mobility just lets you mix up the set of which people who are desperate, no?
By definition, social mobility just lets you mix up the set of which people who are desperate, no?
Only if you assume mobility is a zero-sum game. It doesn't have to be, if we allow people to obtain wealth from their labor instead of sucking all the alpha into a black hole of wealth consolidation by the already-wealthy.
Positive-sum social mobility was supposed to be the point of economic growth, but instead that growth was captured by rent-seekers, institutional investors, and others.
Positive-sum social mobility was supposed to be the point of economic growth, but instead that growth was captured by rent-seekers, institutional investors, and others.
Quality of life has been rising and poverty has been falling at very consistent rates worldwide over the past few decades. By just about any metric you could find, it's currently the best time to be a human being in the history of humanity.
I cannot square that with a generation jobless, unable to buy their own place or even a car in many cases. If you cherry pick what 'poverty' is, I guess so, and surely even the least of us live better than 13th century peasants. But better than in 1980? No.
Ah, but what about China, and Nigeria? They're doing much better!
It's going to get worse, you know, the pushback from hollowed out rich world economies. Trump isn't the last populist, and he's not going to have been the worst. A more competent leader will learn from the fears Trump harnessed and be far more effective.
It's going to get worse, you know, the pushback from hollowed out rich world economies. Trump isn't the last populist, and he's not going to have been the worst. A more competent leader will learn from the fears Trump harnessed and be far more effective.
13th century peasants didn’t live a much better life than many people did 100 years ago.
But even if you’re only talking about the US between the 80s and now, you’re still wrong. Unemployment is half of what is was in 1980, and at the lowest rate since the 60s. Household wealth has grown an enormous amount since the 80s, the poor are less poor and the poverty rate has dropped since the 80s too. The only somewhat legitimate issue you can point too is that housing in some areas is unaffordable for most people. But if your biggest complaint is that you can’t afford to buy your own house in the most expensive cities in the world, even though there’s lots of places where you could, and even though poverty and unemployment is down, and household income is up, then maybe you’re just proving my point?
But even if you’re only talking about the US between the 80s and now, you’re still wrong. Unemployment is half of what is was in 1980, and at the lowest rate since the 60s. Household wealth has grown an enormous amount since the 80s, the poor are less poor and the poverty rate has dropped since the 80s too. The only somewhat legitimate issue you can point too is that housing in some areas is unaffordable for most people. But if your biggest complaint is that you can’t afford to buy your own house in the most expensive cities in the world, even though there’s lots of places where you could, and even though poverty and unemployment is down, and household income is up, then maybe you’re just proving my point?
Employment as a flat stat is useless. Folks with college educations are flipping burgers. A better measure might be 'employment expected value' where you take the sum of the product of job X earnings or some such.
Its been popular lately to claim that, because folks who used to have good-paying factory jobs have slid down the economic ladder to labor or service, its still good because its 'full employment'.
Its been popular lately to claim that, because folks who used to have good-paying factory jobs have slid down the economic ladder to labor or service, its still good because its 'full employment'.
All of the statistics prove you wrong, so you demand that I produce a statistic that literally doesn’t exist?
[deleted]
It's common in France with the Overhead lines on railtracks, it's not as if we needed more delay in our trains.
bkor(9)