Author: Derek Fincham

On Art Crime

Last week Noah Charney had a very good article in ARTINFO on the four main types of art crime, including art theft, forgery/deception, vandalism, and antiquities looting. He argues art crime is increasing:

For centuries, art crime was relatively harmless, at least from the perspective of the global economy and international crime. Forgers fooled the occasional buyer, tomb raiders dug up what archaeologists didn’t have time to reach, and the occasional nonviolent thief would steal for reasons more often ideological than fiscal. Even vandalism was dismissed as part and parcel of the ravages of war.

But since the Second World War, art crime has evolved into the third-highest–grossing annual criminal trade worldwide, behind only the drug and arms trades. Most art crime is now perpetrated either by or on behalf of organized crime syndicates, who have brought violence into art theft and turned what was once a crime of passion (think of Vincenzo Peruggia‘s stealing the Mona Lisa in order to repatriate it to Italy, or Kempton Bunton‘s stealing Goya’s Portrait of the Duke of Wellington as a protest against taxes on television sets) into a cold business. Art crime now funds, and is funded by, organized crime’s other enterprises, from the drug and arms trades to terrorism. It is no longer merely the art that is at stake, and it is no longer a crime to be admired for its elegance.

I think he’s right on for the most part. I think we can apply some pressure to one of his assertions, that is often mentioned in the press. I don’t think there’s any way to state with confidence that art theft is the third-largest grossing criminal activity, as I’ve argued before. Something like automobile theft surely cracks the top 3 in terms of mere monetary value. But I do think if we incorporate the intangible or cultural value of works, then perhaps art theft (including antiquities looting) may in fact be near the third-largest.

(Hat tip: Art Law Blog)

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

No Cosmopolitanism in Iowa?


There has been a surprising amount of uproar over the University of Iowa considering deacessioning this work, Jackson Pollock’s Mural. Tyler Green and Lee Rosenbaum have both weighed in, both fairly critical of the potential sale. I can see their point, these works develop a presence in a way, and people have a relationship with a work of art that continues to bring them back to an art museum. However, circumstances change, and there are some very good reasons for considering the sale or partial transfer of a work of art. I tend to agree with Donn Zaretsky on this when he says:

I know I seem to lack the deaccessioning-outrage gene, but my first reaction to hearing about a possible deal with the DMAC is, “What’s so bad about that?” If $100 million or so could go to the University to help it deal with its flood-related problems, with the Pollock moving a mere 115 miles down the road (plus a promise to “allow UIMA to show the painting occasionally”), how exactly does that amount to a catastrophe?

Indeed, there may not be anything wrong with such a decision, and we can’t know what artists or benefactors would have wanted these museums to do with these works when confronted with serious financial pressures. However I find it very interesting that many of the calls for anti-deaccessioning are very contrary to the kind of art cosmopolitanism and sharing of art and culture that many have advocated, notably James Cuno.

In theory the idea of sharing art and culture is a very good idea, but there are always complications, and in the end local communities, arts patrons, and even large nations want to keep their art. People don’t like to see beautiful works leave, especially under bad circumstances — like they may not be protected from looters adequately, or people are breaking the law, or a catastrophic flood has forced them to.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Federal Art Theft Prosecution

The trial of Robert Mardirosian has begun. For much more on the initial arrest of the former attorney, see my earlier summary here, and more from Donn Zaretsky.

Assistant US Attorney Jonathan Mitchell argued the defendant was “caught red-handed”, while the defense attorney argued his client only wanted to collect a finder’s fee for the works.
He’s accused of theft under the National Stolen Property Act for concealing and possessing stolen works, including this work by Cezanne, Pitcher and Fruits. This and six other works were stolen from Michael Bakwin in 1978, but had been entrusted to Mardirosian by the thief. The works had been shifted all over the world from Massachusetts to Switzerland to London to Monaco. I’ll have more on the trial when the jury reaches a decision.
Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Career Update

Apologies for the light posting in recent days. I’m in the process of moving from Aberdeen in Scotland to New Orleans, where I’ll be taking up a teaching fellowship for two years at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. I’ll be continuing my cultural heritage research, and this blog as well, but I’ll also be working on a soon-to-be launched resource coordinated by some very good people at the London School of Economics, which I’ll be talking about as we get closer to launching the site.

Many thanks to all of you who read, and are kind enough to send along articles, your work, and advice. I hope to resume regular posting this week.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Does Energy Trump Heritage in the Four Corners

Kirk Johnson of the New York Times has an excellent article about a disheartening subject: the threat energy projects pose to Native American heritage in the West. Its a familiar story: not enough funding for surveys and archaeological research, pressures from development and expanding populations, plus the problem of illegal looting.

Above is a picture from the piece, of Chimney Rock Archaeological Area. Federal land managers are forced to make difficult judgment calls, considering using portions of funds for energy development to help safeguard and protect sites.

As the piece notes, “A spokesman for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, which represents drilling companies, described helping defend historical sites as good for business, especially if financing volunteers created more contact and understanding between local residents and energy explorers.”

That seems like a big lump to swallow and a dangerous compromise of heritage values. I’m highly skeptical of this kind of give and take, though perhaps some with more understanding of specific cases might offer some kind of hope for this kind of compromise. Consider that “[t]he Forest Service, for example, using research at Chimney Rock that suggests the place was chosen by the Anasazi at least partly for its vantage point of the San Juan Mountains and river valley below, recently decided that a big natural gas drilling project just a mile or so away must not be visible from the rock.” Wow, one would have thought that would have been a no-brainer.

Also at risk is the 2,000 year-old rock art in Nine Mile Canyon (previously discussed here); in Montana, a coal-fired power plant has been proposed near “one of the last wild sections of the Lewis and Clark trail”; and in New Mexico a uranium mine has been proposed on a national forest site sacred to Native American tribes.

It’s a disheartening story, which indicates I think how much more effort and advocacy is needed. Strict criminal penalties are in place for looting of sites, and there are even nimble civil fines which can quickly punish looters. But heritage policy does not start and stop with looting, it also requires funding, and good policy solutions. Sadly many of those appear to be lacking in the American West, despite some notable heroic eforts

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

More on the Caravaggio Theft in Odessa

Takingofchrist_1There are more reports now on the theft of Taking of Christ or the Kiss of Judas attributed to Caravaggio. It was stolen from the Museum of Western and Eastern Art in Odessa, Ukraine. Reportedly, the stolen work looks very similar to this work, also called The Taking of Christ which is on display in the National Gallery of Ireland in Dublin.

There had been questions about the authenticity of the stolen work. It seems Soviet experts in the 1950s confirmed the works authenticity, and it was restored in 2006. I’m completely unaware of the Soviet art-authentication track-record, but there at least seems to be some suspicion that these authenticators may have gotten it wrong, especially given some of the Soviet practices just a few years earlier in World War II. Perhaps an art historian knows whether Caravaggio might paint the same work twice? One could be a study or earlier version perhaps.

Lyudmila Saulenko, the museum’s deputy director is quoted as saying:

“We came in here to find that the wind was blowing the blinds around through a window with no pane, … And where the painting had hung we just saw its stretcher. The painting had been removed from its frame…. Thefts, of course, do occur in great museums like the Hermitage (in St Petersburg) or the Louvre (in Paris),… But the answer is to put in a truly effective alarm system and not postpone this.”

It certainly appears as if the window was not terribly difficult to remove, and not a hard night’s work given the reported $100 million USD value placed on the work, though that’s a very speculative number, and the thieves certainly won’t get more than a fraction of that kind of money I would imagine.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Community Archaeology Conference

Via the Portable Antiquities Scheme Blog, I noticed there is an upcoming community archaeology conference in early 2009:

Community Archaeology in South West England
Free Conference held at Exeter University on the 21st of February 2009.

For abstract submissions and registration please see their website or contact Faye Simpson at fs216@exeter.ac.uk.

The South West of England has a plethora of innovative community archaeology projects working within the region to provide archaeological outreach to local communities. These archaeological outreach and education projects are varied in both there approaches and organisation. They range from ‘grass roots’ projects initiated and organised by interested amateurs, individuals and local societies, to ‘top down approaches’ by commercial archaeology firms and universities. Furthermore, they include a range of hands on activities such as standing building surveys, historical research, field-walking, oral history projects, excavations and finds processing, to name just a few.

As hosts, the Heritage Lottery Fund and University of Exeter’s Exploring Archaeology Project (XArch), provides the means in which the conference can act as a forum to discuss the variety of community initiatives in the South West of England, and assess how they work in practice. It will also open up communication between these different individuals, groups and organisations as to where the future lies for community archaeology in this region, and investigate the possibility of partnerships between these groups and projects.

Abstracts for papers should be no longer the 200 words in length and should be received by the 30.09.08.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Estate Recovers Three Works Stolen 30 years Ago (UPDATE)

The Worcester Telegram and Gazette reported yesterday that three works stolen more than 30 years ago will be returned to the original owner’s estate according to a Federal District Court ruling in Rhode Island. Recovered were The Shore of Lake Geneva by French painter Gustave Courbet, Lady as Shepherdess by William Hamilton and In the Sun by American impressionist Childe Hassam:
The paintings were stolen by three armed, masked men the night of July 1 into early July 2, 1976, from the home of Mae Persky, 520 Grafton St. The three men cut the telephone wires to the home, bound Ms. Persky, her nurse companion and caretaker and ransacked the home. They stole the paintings, furs and other valuables. The roughly two-hour robbery ended with one of the robbers stating, “Give us an hour to get away or we’ll come back and burn the …. place to the ground,” according to the police report. The paintings had been purchased in 1945 by Mrs. Persky’s husband, Abraham Persky. The insurance company for the Persky estate paid $45,000 on the policy for the three paintings. OneBeacon Insurance Co. is the “successor-in-interest” to the insurance company at the time of the robbery, Commercial Union Assurance. Mrs. Persky, whose husband was the former president of the Worcester Knitting Co., left the paintings to Ms. Yoffie and her husband, William Yoffie, in her will. he died Aug. 21, 1979. She was 86 at the time of the robbery, according to news reports. Mr. Yoffie was president of Worcester Knitting Co. and a trustee of the Abraham S. Persky Charitable Trust. He left the interest in the paintings to his wife when he died April 2007. For years, the paintings remained missing. They resurfaced last year when Patrick Conley went to have them authenticated by a Newport, R.I., art dealer. Mr. Conley had received the three paintings from his brother William Conley as collateral for $22,000 in loans in 1998 and 1999. Because William Conley never repaid his brother, Patrick Conley kept the paintings as part of their written loan agreement. It is unclear how antiques dealer William Conley obtained the paintings. When the paintings were determined to be stolen, the FBI took custody of them and the legal battle began. In previous interviews, Patrick Conley said he had no idea the paintings were stolen.

I haven’t been able to track down the judgment yet, so I can’t comment on the legal issues involved. I can say with some certainty that this is a classic stolen art dispute between an original owner (or her successor in interest) and a subsequent purchaser or acquirer who purports to be in good faith. This is a dispute between two relatively innocent parties, and jurisdictions have very different handling of this kind of situation — not so much in the US or the UK, but in civilian systems like Iitaly or Switzerland purchasers can acquire good title to these stolen works.

UPDATE:

Donn Zaretsky notes that this was seemingly not a judgment but rather the court signed off on a settlement agreement among the parties, ending the dispute, which has not been made public. He wants to know “what did the insurance company get in return?”

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com