Author: Derek Fincham

"Statue of a Victorious Youth"

·Ea Earlier this week I had the great pleasure in giving a presentation to the University of Aberdeen Legal research Society. I discussed the very public dispute between Italy and the Getty museum regarding the “Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth”. The discussion which ensued was furthered greatly by the presence of Neil Curtis, of the Marischal Museum, as well as a couple of Italian colleagues. We had a very interesting discussion, and much of the credit for that goes to them. I would like to outline here my general comments on the dispute. I have posted on many of these ideas before, but if nothing else the dispute over the Bronze allows a timely and interesting introduciton to cultural policy and repatriation in general.

To As the LA Times put it last fall, “To whom does a statue made in ancient Greece, stolen by Romans and found in the Adriatic by Italian fishermen 2,000 years later, rightfully belong?”

· · First, what is the Getty trust, and why has it gotten itself into trouble in recent decades? J. Paul Getty was an American Industrialist, and the founder of the Getty Oil company. He started the Getty Trust in 1953. Today, the Trust may be the richest art institution in the world, boasting assets of close to $9 billion dollars. In the 1980’s Italy pursued a very aggressive antiquities-buying campaign.

· Italy has a large amount of discovered and undiscovered antiquities. It is also an industrialized nation. Many of the nations which are considered source nations (i.e. those that export more cultural objects than they import) are underdeveloped. So Italy is in a unique position. Historically, Italian antiquities have been exported to the rest of Europe, and other parts of the world. Increasingly, Italy has sought to prevent the loss of these cultural objects. The last 18 months has seen the Italian Culture Ministry lead a very aggressive repatriation campaign with three components 1. Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions, 2. Raised repatriation claims with Museums and Private collectors, 3. An Increasingly Vitriolic Public Relations Campaign.

· Also, There have been a number of high-profile repatriations by American museums in recent months. The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, and the Metropolitan Museum (Euphronios Krater) in New York have both agreed to return antiquities.

· A former curator at the Getty, Marion True is on trial in Rome for conspiring to deal in Italian antiquities. This has had a very unpleasant public relations consequences for the Getty

· Italy has demanded the return of 52 Antiquities from the Getty. The two parties have been negotiating a return of many of the objects for many months. However this fall, Italy abruptly broke of talks with the Getty, and said no deal could be done unless the Getty returned the Bronze statue. If the Getty did not agree to these terms, the Italians threatened the Getty with a “cultural embargo”.

· Also last year, the California State Attorney General investigated possible misconduct at the Getty.

· Francesco Rutelli, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Culture and Heritage

· On Jan. 17, 2007 Rutelli sent an Op-Ed to the Wall Street Journal.

· Italy has been trying for over six months to conclude an agreement with Los Angeles’s Getty Museum on 46 ancient works of art that were illicitly removed from our country. I still hope to succeed. But on one point, I am unable to understand the museum’s position. How can they think that the Italian government will accept an agreement that contemplates renouncing possession of those works of art?

· The 46 works that we are waiting for include the Venus illicitly removed from Morgantina in Sicily , and the bronze Athlete that was hauled up in a fishing net from the waters of the Adriatic sea and later secretly smuggled out of Italy in total violation of its laws.

· The Bronze Statue of a Victorious Youth is an almost life-size figure of an athlete wearing a victory wreath. The Statue was created in Greece, possibly by Alexander the Great’s Court Sculptor Lysippos, but it may have been sculpted by another. It was created sometime between the 4th and 2nd Century B.C.

· Factual Background

· Recovery in the Adriatic

· In June, 1964 the Statue was recovered in modern times, by complete accident, off the northern Adriatic coast by fisherman from the Italian city of Fano.

· They pulled up a heavy object covered in barnacles. The most likely explanation for the find in the Adriatic is that it was taken from Greece in Roman times, and the vessel was lost at sea. A number of Greek objects were taken by invading Roman armies, the most noteworthy instance was during the fall of Syracuse

· Subsequent Sale

· When the fisherman returned to Fano, they decided to sell the statue.

· The statue changed hands a number of times. The best record of these transactions came in 1965 when the Italian police (Carabinieri) investigated the statue.

· Giacomo Barbetti purchased the statue from the fisherman. For a time, Barbetti and his two brothers stored the statue at the home of Father Giovanni Nagni. Barbetti then sold the statue to another man for 4,000,000 lire, the equivalent of about 2,000 pounds.

· Prosecutions

· In 1966, the 3 Barbettis and Father Nagni were charged with purchasing and concealing stolen property under Italy’s 1939 Antiquities Law. It dictates that protected antiquities, found by chance, belong to the Italian State, and one who takes possession of these objects commits theft.

· Magistrate Court of Perugia: Insufficient evidence for a conviction for 2 reasons. First, the prosecution had not established that the statue was of historic and artistic value (one of the elements for the offense). Second, the Italian prosecutors were unable to prove that the statue was found in Italian national waters.

· The Court of Appeals of Perugia reversed the lower court, holding the elements of the crime were satisfied, as the statue had been purchased in Italian territory, and the defendants had behaved as if they had something to hide.

· The Supreme Court of Cassation annulled the Court of appeals of Perugia decision, arguing it had used inadequate reasoning.

· Finally the Court of Appeals of Rome confirmed the convictions would not stand for 2 reasons (1) The prosecutors did not establish the statue came from Italian waters, and (2) there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that the statue was of “artistic and archaeological interest”. Remember, at the time the statue was sill covered in marine encrustation.

· The Provenance (chain of title) of the statue is a bit vague, and open to some speculation. Most likely it went through a series of owners, in an attempt to achieve a bona fide purchase at some point. It went from a Brazilian Monastery to England, and later to Munich.

· Purchase

· In 1977, the Getty Trust purchased the Bronze for $3.95 million. It has been publicly displayed since 1978.

· Investigations After the Purchase:

· 1977: Interpol requested the US Customs service investigate the legal status of the Bronze, and verify that the statue had entered the US with property entry documents, and determine whether the Getty had conducted the necessary due diligence before purchasing the statue. The investigation yielded no conclusive proof that the Getty had purchased the Bronze in bad faith, or that Italy had title. In 1984 Interpol informed Italy that no further investigations would be conducted without some demonstration of Italian ownership.

· The intervening years: Until 2006, Italy made no more formal requests for the Bronze, though they did ask the Getty to evaluate the possibility of returning the statue to Italy in 1989.

· Legal Analysis of the Dispute

· The Statue was found outside Italian Territorial Waters

· Even if the statue was found in Italian national waters, it’s nearly impossible to prove at this point. The criminal trials of the 3 Barbetti’s and Father Nagni loom large here. Italian prosecutors were not able to establish in 1968 that the Bronze was discovered in Italian territorial waters. To attempt to prove it nearly 40 years on is nearly impossible. Of 2006, the Italians brought forth a number of hearsay statements and other witnesses who argued the statue was found within the Italian territorial waters (6 nautical miles), 1942 Italian Navigation Code. However, all of the fishermen have argued the statue was found 30-40 miles from the Italian coast, far outside the territorial waters.

· If the statue had been found in Italian national waters, both US and Italian law would dictate that Italy owns the Bronze. The 1939 Italian Patrimony law requires that the object was declared within the territory of Italy to apply. Similarly, under US law, Peru v. Johnson require strong evidence that an object was, in fact, found in the territory of the country claiming it. To be sure, if Italy was able establish the statue had been discovered in Italian national waters they would have brought a legal action long ago in US federal court, or even had Federal prosecutors seize the statue.

· Illegal Export from Italy Does Not Dictate It should be handed over to Italy

· Logically, the Bronze came ashore in Italy after it was discovered. Italian law requires that antiquities deemed of interest by the State, even those owned by private individuals cannot be exported without a license. Articles 1, 35, 36 of the 1939 Italian Patrimony Law.

· US law does not enforce foreign export regulations. This goes back to the general rule that Public laws of another nation will not be enforced. US v. Schultz, 333 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2003), US v. McClain,545 F.2d 988 (5th Cir. 1977). Also, there are a lot of different kinds of export restrictions, and they are not always working well in limiting illicit trade. The reasons for this are beyond our present concern, but it is well settled that most nations will not enforce the export restrictions of another nation.

· International Law

· Italy has argued that international treaties dictate the Bronze should be returned. What they are referencing is the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

· This does impose on states an obligation to prevent the illicit export of cultural property. However, it contains no provisions mandating the return or permitting the seizure of objects, except those that have been stolen.

· The Convention is by its own terms, not in force unless enacted into domestic law. However, when the statue was imported into the US, neither Italy nor the US had ratified the Convention.

· Customary International law would not support the return of the Bronze either. Customary international law has “not been interpreted to render the importer or possessor of an art object subject to action solely on the ground that the object was exported in violation of another n country’s laws.” Bator, “An Essay on the International Trade in Art”.

· Ethical Analysis of the Dispute

· What are the values we should look at in evaluating cultural property controversies?

· Archaeological Context

· Preservation of the Object

· Access by the Public

· International Sharing of Culture

· Preserving a National Patrimony of Works

· Italy’s position relies on the creation of some kind of nexus between Italy’s cultural heritage and the Bronze based on the time it was brought ashore by the fishermen at Fano. This is a very difficult argument for the Italians to win in my view. What’s more, the Italian authorities are ignoring the economic value of the Bronze: Maurizio Fiorilli: Italy’s Chief Antiquities Prosecutor “The economic value is of little consequence. What is important is the gain Getty will derive on the ethical plane. Moral gain is the reward. Also, the monetary value of the objects is not Italy’s problem. It is the problem of those who spend good money for objects that are without clear title and are illicitly removed from their place of cultural origin. It is up to the authorities in the USA who are responsible for controlling the Getty to investigate how the money was spent. Culture predisposes honesty and transparency.”

· The Statue is Greek in origin, and Italy has never disputed this. Ironically, the statue was on it’s way to Italy because the Roman empire was very interested in Greek art.

· None of the 5 core values come down on Italy’s side in my view. Destruction of archaeological context is a huge problem, and one of the worst aspects of the illicit trade. However, this was a chance find, the fishermen weren’t doing anything wrong. Also, the object was found at sea, and archaeological context is not nearly as important at sea as on land.

Stolen Picassos


These two works by Pablo Picasso were stolen. The two works, Portrait of Jacqueline (1938) on the left and Maya with Doll (1961) on the right, will be nearly impossible to sell. They were taken from a home in Paris’ 7th Arrondissement between Monday and Tuesday of this week. They were stolen from Diana Widmaier-Picasso, the granddaughter of the artist. Their combined value is estimated at $66 million.

Alan riding of the New York Times has an excellent story here, and there are various AP stories floating around as well.

Speculation will abound about who stole these works and why. That’s the ultimate question. Was it the mob, criminals eager to ransom the work back, or even a wealthy evil genius who had it stolen to order? If I had to guess, I would say it was probably taken by experienced thieves. They will put it in a bank vault, and attempt to work out a settlement with the owners in a few years, perhaps even brokered by the Art Loss Register.

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

Bizarre Theft in Oslo


The BBC reported yesterday that a work by Jan Christensen, Relative Value, was stolen from an Oslo gallery. The work was a collection of kroner notes, worth about $16,300.

The idea behind the work was to make a statement about “the value of art, and about capitalism, and how the art world works.” He may have also taught us about how theft comes into play as well. The work had already been sold to a buyer, for precisely the 100,000 kroner which were used to create the work.

I’m not sure you could technically classify this as an art theft as the thieves were not stealing the art, they were stealing the kroner. In any event, Christensen seemed quite happy with the publicity, “It proves my theory that I have made an artwork that has a value outside the gallery space.”

Apparently he was making a point that someday these notes would return to circulation, and it appears they have in this case. No details on what the security was like at the gallery. Christensen admits that security was considered a problem before he installed the work, but there are no details given as to the kinds of security measures put in place.

To be a bit cynical about the whole story, sometimes a theft can be an artist’s best friend. Though he lost this work, the curious nature of this theft has appeared in countless news outlets around the world, and he is getting a great deal of publicity.

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

Corruption Charges


From Lawfuel:

Hollywood Police Officers Kevin Companion, Jeffry Courtney, Thomas Simcox and Stephen Harrison were charged in a complaint unsealed today with extortion and narcotics charges, announced R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and Jonathan I. Solomon, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Miami Field Office. Specifically, the complaint charges the defendants with conspiring and attempting to commit extortion under color of official right by accepting bribes to protect and facilitate what was represented to be a wide range of criminal activities, including the sale and interstate transportation of stolen property, a crooked high stakes gambling operation, cargo theft, and the transportation of a multi-kilogram load of heroin, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951. The defendants were also charged with conspiring and attempting to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 846, for their roles in protecting a heroin shipment.

The charges against these four Hollywood Police Officers arose from a two-year undercover investigation jointly conducted by the United States Attorney’s Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. According to the complaint, Companion, a 20-year veteran of the Hollywood Police Department, Courtney, a 15-year veteran of the Department, Simcox, a 24-year veteran of the Department, and Harrison, an 8-year veteran of the Department, provided a variety of illegal services to a group of individuals who represented themselves to be part of a New York-based criminal organization which was looking to recruit police officers to protect and facilitate their illegal operations. In reality, however, these individuals were FBI undercover agents, and the purported criminal activities were all staged operations done as part of the investigation.

In exchange for cash payments, the defendants were involved in the following criminal activities: Companion protected the collection of an illegal gambling debt and the fencing of stolen watches; Companion and Courtney protected a sale of $400,000 worth of stolen diamonds, and personally delivered $400,000 worth of stolen bearer bonds from Florida to New York City; Companion, Courtney, Simcox, and Harrison all participated in providing protection for a high-stakes rigged poker game staged on a yacht; Companion, Courtney, and Simcox delivered $1,000,000 worth of stolen diamonds from Florida to Atlantic City, New Jersey; Companion, Courtney, Simcox and Harrison all protected the theft of a tractor-trailer load of cigarettes; Companion and Harrison delivered a load of valuable stolen artwork from Florida to Atlantic City; and finally, Companion, Courtney, Simcox, and Harrison provided a security escort for the transportation of a multi-kilo load of heroin from Miami Beach to Hollywood, Florida, for further delivery to the criminal organization up north. The defendants would be paid in cash at the conclusion of each criminal episode in which they participated, and as a result of their criminal activities, they received the following approximate total amounts: Companion – $42,000; Courtney – $22,000; Simcox – $16,000; and Harrison – $12,000.

Continue Reading.

It’s an interesting development, and one sure to grab headlines. It sounds almost too far-fetched to be real. I found the charges of transporting artwork particularly interesting. It’s an example of mob ties to art theft. A number of claims are thrown about regarding organized crime and stolen art, but there is not a lot of hard evidence to support the claim. Here is some evidence, though it seems the far more serious violations were in regards to extortion and drug smuggling. One of the reasons given for a stronger criminal response to the illicit trade in cultural property are reports like this, which link stolen art to drugs and other more serious crimes.

You can read the press release from the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida here.

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

Deaccessioning Controversy in Buffalo


A great deal of controversy has been brewing recently over decisions by museums to sell parts of their permanent collection, or deaccessioning. First, came the decision by the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts to sell Thomas Eakins’ The Cello Player to purchase an interest in The Gross Clinic.

Now, it seems the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo NY has decided to sell a great deal of its permanent antiquities collection to allow it to purchase more contemporary works. The Buffalo News has a list of the works for auction here. Among the works are classical sculpture, Chinese porcelain, a Benin bronze, and a number of other works.

Colin Dabkowski of the Buffalo News has an article in yesterday’s Buffalo News which indicates a group of concerned citizens called the “Buffalo Art Keepers” are going to challenge the sale in court. Donn Zaretsky at the Art Law blog has more, as does Lee Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum labels the dispute a “showdown”, but that may be a bit generous for the “Art Keepers”. I agree with Zaretsky that it will be extremely difficult for them to prevent the sale. What it will do is raise the cost, both in terms of legal expenses and public opinion, in deaccessioning.

Richard Stanton, the counsel representing the “Art Keepers” says “They intend to protect the membership’s interest in the collection and see that the museum follows its own mission statement and governing rules before they sell off masterpieces of art which have been assembled over the past 140 years.” Perhaps so, and I’ll freely admit I’m not an expert in museum governance regulations, but wouldn’t there be some kind of version of the Business Judgment Rule for museums. In the corporate context, the Business judgment rule states that courts will not step in and interfere with a corporate board’s business decisions. Surely, a similar situation must be at play here.

The “Art Keepers” are arguing that the museum has collected and displayed ancient art and antiquities in the past, but has recently changed its mission to focus on contemporary art. I think the neo-classical design of the museum itself would seem to speak to an earlier intention to display older works. However, shouldn’t a museum be able to shift positions? Do we want to box an institution in and prevent it from shifting a mission in the future? What the dispute really involves is a frustration with members of the public that the Albright-Knox has shifted away from displaying antiquities, and towards contemporary art. We may argue with that decision as a matter of personal taste, but museums should be able to switch positions, and we want our cultural institutions to have some degree of flexibility.

Another dimension to this decision may be that the recent string of repatriation requests by the Italians and Greeks may encourage a museum, especially one needing funds, to sell their antiquities before a source nation makes a very public and very unpleasant request for their return. I do not know the provenance of the Benin bronze the museum has decided to sell, but many of them were taken under less-than-savory circumstances in the 19th century in the Punitive Expidition of 1897. Nigeria has a compelling ethical case to be made for their return.

Limiting museum decision-making could severely restrict our ability to have strong and viable cultural institutions. You risk a great deal by forcing an institution to repatriate objects while also preventing it from selling and managing its collection in a responsible manner.

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

Massive Restitution Auction


Carl Vogel of the New York Times discusses the planned 3-stage auction of a portion of a group of 170 old master paintings recently returned to the heirs of Jacques Goudstikker. Over at the ArtLaw blog, Donn Zaretsky has more.

Goudstikker was a prominent art dealer who quickly fled Amsterdam in 1940. His successors, Mrs. von Saher and her two daughters, all currently Connecticut residents, are planning an international exhibition of many of the works, including some which will not be part of the auction. Last year’s settlement with the Dutch government marked the culmination of an 8-year legal battle. The three auctions will be in April in New York, in July in London, and finally in November in Amsterdam. One work which could fetch between $3-5 million is this painting, Ferry Boat With Cattle on the River Vecht Near Nijenrode by Salomon van Ruysdael.

One of the heirs, Charlene von Saher said the traveling exhibition would reveal to the world “a historical injustice put right.” Certainly, Goudstikker lost his collection of art, and the restitution may be correcting a historical wrong. Make no mistake though, the 3 heirs of Goudstikker, their legal counsel, and Christie’s all stand to make a great deal of money. Money is at the heart of restitution, not righting historical wrongs. Consider the recent decision of a Dutch court to award Roelof van Holthe tot Echteen, a lawyer for the 3 heirs, a $10.4 million bank guarantee for his services in working for the restitution.

I notice that in the US, Lawrence Kaye represents von Saher and her two daughters in the dispute. Kaye, along with Howard Spiegler operate a prominent art restitution practice in New York. The two have become celebrities of sorts. I was contacted a couple of weeks ago by Kelly Crow of the Wall Street Journal regarding the reputation of the two in the legal and scholarly community. I’m afraid I was not able to offer her too much for her story. The two have published quite a bit, and have been part of some of the most important art and antiquities cases in recent years. If you want to initiate a restitution action, they are the lawyers to call.

However, I don’t really think that the law looks at individuals as champions of a cause. They are partisan representatives for their client. Their duty is to advocate zealously for their client. Sometimes this might put them on the right side, others it may put them in more objectionable territory. Perhaps it is just my view on this, but I do not consider them “heroes” as such. That said, I would jump at the chance to join their restitution practice after I complete my thesis.

I am of two minds about restitution litigation. On the one hand, I think we should certainly endorse a practice which remedies past historical injustices, and Nazi spoliation is certainly a grave injustice. However, restitution is not always a positive development. I discussed the Schiele litigation earlier this week, which is a very sad situation. Also, these works were displayed at museums in Amsterdam accessible to the public. Is there not a value in having the works displayed there? Also, what is the rationale for returning works from WWII, but not earlier conflicts. Why should the Louvre not be emptied of all the works looted by Napoleon?

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

How to be a tomb raider?

Slate’s regular Explainer feature covers Tomb Raiding 101 this week. It is generally well-researched and informative. Christopher Beam does a good job of giving an enjoyable overview, but gets a few things wrong.

For example, Beam writes

“Tomb raider” is really just a glamorous way of describing an unlicensed archaeologist. Anyone who wants to dig in Egypt must first go through the arduous process of getting official permission. The authorities demand an explicit description of any project, proof that the diggers are with a university or museum, and a list of everyone who will be working on the site. The license request goes to the Supreme Council of Antiquities, a government agency that oversees all excavation projects. If you try to dig without the council’s permission, you’re breaking the law—so “tomb raiders” might be opportunists looking to sell their findings, or they might be serious excavators who simply can’t get permission for a dig.

That is correct for Egypt, but looting takes place all over the world. In Latin America for example, a number of unlicensed digs take place, but many of the excavations in that country are not conducted by the stereotypical tomb raider, or simple villager. In many cases, illicit excavation is done by “subsistence diggers”. David Matsuda has done some good work on this subject. This is a controversial aspect of the illicit trade, because it means that the reasons for allowing the illicit trade to continue may be as compelling as the claims of archaeologists and other advocates who argue for an end to the trade in antiquities. When you are digging in tombs for your own survival, the ethical rationale for your illegal activity increases dramatically in my view. However, just how many “subsistence diggers” there are, and if the availability of other means of survival is open to debate. At the very least, though many media reports talk about the criminal “tomb raider”, this stereotype may be inaccurate.

Beam also references the criminal conviction of Jonathan Tokeley-Parry in England, and his counterpart Frederick Schultz in the US in recent years. These two were hardly tomb raiders. They never unearthed an object. Rather, Parry dealt with Egyptians who found or dug up antiquities. They constructed elaborate provenances and disguised the antiquities for Schultz to sell in his Manhattan gallery. They weren’t raiders, they were dealers and middlemen.

Beam talks about the various international agreements relevant to the illicit trade, most notable the 1970 UNESCO Convention. He says these agreements make tomb raiding “very difficult”. I think that may be giving a bit too much deference to these international instruments. The most important impact these international conventions have had on the illicit trade is in terms of raising the profile of the problem, and encouraging Nations to take action. The UNESCO Convention does not return objects. Rather it is the individual Nations implementing structures that dictate their return.

So, though “Tomb Raiding 101” may be an entertaining read, if you are considering a foray into the illicit antiquities trade, I’d consider a more thorough introduction. The sad reality is that becoming a tomb raider may be far easier then you would think.

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

Lithographs Stolen in San Francisco


The San Jose Mercury News reports that a number of lithographs have been stolen from a rental car in a shopping mall parking lot. The 12 lithographs might be valued as high as $250,000. One of the lithographs is a reproduction of one of Andy Warhol’s depictions of Marilyn Monroe, like this one. Police speculate that thieves may have followed the dealer across a series of art galleries, and then broken into the rental car while he was in the shopping mall, just outside a Macy’s. The story hints that that appraisal may be a bit high, but isn’t that a lot of valueable art to have sitting in a rental car?

I’m no expert on lithographs, and it seems these must be quite valuable. However, should we consider them important cultural property, or just pretty reproductions? I’m not sure I have an answer.

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

Public Art Thefts (UPDATE)


Publicly displayed art is at risk as well it seems. In Austin, Texas thieves dismantled the base of this 10 foot Gibson guitar called “Sharp Axe”, and carted it off. I’m not sure how you don’t get spotted carrying a 10 foot fiberglass Gibson guitar. Were some Austin revellers having a bit too much fun on Sixth street perhaps? It’s one of a number of sculptures around Austin as part of a GuitarTown public art project. It was found later in a local restaurant. I guess if something looks good enough, somebody is always going to want to take it.

A similar situation occurred in New Zealand. Today it was reported that at the New Zealand Fringe Festival, artist Mat Hunkin had his public art stolen in broad daylight, the first day it was installed. It was the first day of a 5 day massive comic strip, so things don’t bode well for the other 4 days. He didn’t sound too depressed though, “Sure, it’s not Edvard Munch’s ‘The Scream’ or anything like that, but I’m kind-of stoked that someone liked it so much that they would nick it in broad daylight. Who knows? It might end up in Sotheby’s art auctions one day.” Indeed, perhaps it will. They’ll have to wait until the statute of limitations has expired and or they manage to scrounge up a good faith purchaser though. Curiously, for an up-and-coming artist, a theft may be a great way to raise your profile.

UPDATE:

It seems that this was not a theft at all. As Victor Engel commented, “‘Sharp Axe’ was never stolen. It apparently fell off its weak mount onto its face, breaking the neck of the guitar. Another Elephant Room customer and I moved it into the entryway to the Elephant Room at around midnight Sunday for safekeeping and notified the bartender.”

That story makes much more sense of course, but labelling something an art theft makes it much more newsworthy.

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

Radio and TV Interview, BBC Scotland (UPDATE)


If everything goes as planned, you should be able to hear an interview with me on TV and on the Radio here in Scotland on Tuesday. You can hear the interview on BBC Radio Scotland tomorrow on the Good Morning Scotland show sometime between 6 and 9 . There will be a TV segment as well on BBC Scotland’s Reporting Scotland at 18.30. Streaming video of the whole newscast should be available here.

A few weeks ago I had the great pleasure in being interviewed by a reporter for the BBC, David Marsland, here in Scotland at the Aberdeen Art Gallery. I talked about my research, why I decided to study here in Scotland, and the current state of protection for Scottish art museums and historic houses. 

UPDATE:

To listen to the radio segment, click here.

It seems the TV segment has been preempted, but I’ve been assured it will air in the near future. I’ll post more here when I know more.

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