The Illicit Art Market

Artist Pablo Picasso

Art theft has been a practice since the beginning of intellectual property.  it takes on many names and has many faces, only one of which is the robbery of physical objects.  Art theft also comes in the forms of forgeries, copycats, fraudulent claims of author- or ownership, illegal publications, and confiscation.  It is shocking to learn that it is the 4th most prominent economic crime below drugs, arms, and money (the crimes normally associated with criminal cartels, gangs, corrupt governments).  Perhaps this comes as news to us because the focus of criminal actions that do direct economic and bodily harm come to the forefront of media reports on the subject.  Yet, it would seem, despite art theft's ranking in the criminal world, it is actually a very inefficient way to make vast sums of money.  Since many of the world's most highly valued pieces of art are to be found in museums, they are easily recognizable and their theft is well publicized.  This makes finding a buyer for the work a difficult and even dangerous task.  Even when a buyer can be found, they are often not willing to pay more than a few percent of the real value of the painting because of the nature of the black-market sale.  
 Maya with Doll, 1938

In February of 2007, two Picasso oil paintings were stolen.  This theft did not take place from a museum, as museums are often well guarded, barred, and installed with complex anti-theft technology.  Instead the thieves targeted the granddaughter of Picasso himself who had inherited a number of his works.  The Picassos were cut from their frames after the thieves, there are reported to have been 3, broke into the house.  Without the sounding of the alarm or the breaking of the front door, Ms. Diana Widmaier Picasso believes that the men must have been professionals with the keys to the house or the code to the alarm system.  The loot is reported to have been anywhere between 34 million Euros and 66 million Euros, depending upon the source cited.  It is difficult to know the exact value of the works on the market as they have never been sold at auction (the norm for evaluating an artwork's liquidity).

 
Portrait of Jacqueline, 1961
 

The two paintings "Maya with Doll" and "Portrait of Jacqueline" were recovered several months later by French police in Paris.  The police were said to have received a tip which lead them to follow a group thought to be holding the paintings and awaiting the opportunity for a sale.  The group was apprehended on August 7, 2007 with the rolled canvases in tow and three men were arrested for the robbery.  The artworks in question were part of a large family collection, but were still well known in the art community and so it is assumed that the paintings were destined for the black market had the police not intervened.  An article on the robbery quotes 444 missing Picassos on the London Art Loss Register and cites an active community in the production of Picasso forgeries.  

If the thieves had been able to sell the work on the open market, it is no doubt that they would have gained a fortune.  Not only because these works were of a special quality but also because they had previously been owned by Picasso's granddaughter, an art historian herself.  Yet this would have been an impossibility and the works would most likely have sold for only a fraction of the price on the underground market.  Therefore the value of stolen works decreases significantly by economic standards, but the value of recovered pieces increases due to the drama and highlighting of the historical importance of the pieces (done by media coverage).  The pieces recovered are then not only valuable art pieces but valuable works ensconced in historic significance and modern mystery.  The implications are that the historical and cultural value of the work increases because of the threat that the work could have been lost forever.  In fact, one owner of a recovered Picasso decided not to sell the work, even after its worth tripled, because of the increase in foot traffic into his gallery brought on by the display of the piece.  The cultural value has increased so much that the symbolic value of the work outweighs any monetary gain to the owner.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/news/28iht-pablo.4756042.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-02-28-picasso-stolen_x.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-07-france-picasso_N.htm

http://artlaw.foxrothschild.com/2011/11/articles/art-recoverytheft-1/stolen-picasso-no-longer-for-sale/

http://www.artexpertswebsite.com/pages/artists/picasso-mysteries.php

During World War Two the Nazi’s plundered hundreds of thousands of works of art from families in many of the countries they invaded. After the war, some works of art were recovered while some, to this day, have unknown whereabouts. One piece that was lost is a painting created by Vincent van Gogh titled Painter on the Road to Tarascon. When Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, one of the first goals he accomplished was to rid the German people of “degenerate art”---modern artistic works that were created by any artist, past or present, who was not of Aryan blood and thus regarded as degenerate. Artists who fell into this category had works stolen and some destroyed. Those whose works were not destroyed were collected into a museum only showcasing degenerate art. Works included pieces from Alexander Archipenko, Marc Chagail, James Ensor, Henri Matisse, Pablo Picasso, and Vincent van Gogh. Van Gogh’s Painter on the Road of Tarascon, was one of the most famous paintings burned during World War II. It is believed that it was burned when Allied forces bombed Magdeburg, setting fire to the Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, which contained stolen art.

The theft the Painter on the Road to Tarascon, left a lasting impression. It remains one of the “most cherished pieces of art that was lost in the war”. The painting was a great influence on artist Francis Bacon, who described it as “a haunting image of van Gogh, showing him as an alienated outsider”. Vincent van Gogh was quoted as saying “Real painters do not paint things as they are…They paint them as they themselves feel them to be”. The painting was valued greatly because it was created by world-renowned artist van Gogh, and because it was a terrible casualty during the war. Van Gogh portrayed art as he saw it and such genuineness was appreciated and regarded highly by the art world.

When the Nazi’s stole works of art, the theft represented much more than art worth millions lost---it represented the theft of a people’s culture, heritage, peace of mind, identity, and existence. Throughout the war, Hitler and his men tried to eradicate the existence of degenerate and inferior races from Europe. He burned historical architecture, churches, castles, and looted artwork, furniture, and more to remove that nation from existence. When the art was returned it served as a mechanism of reinstatement. It reinstated a nation, showing the world that they were still in existence and that they had survived. These lost pieces were highly coveted. The value on the art market had increased exponentially because the pieces were victims and some were survivors of war. People valued these treasures as pieces that withstood Hitler’s barbarity. The theft of Painter on the Road to Tarascon, like many other works of art, represented the attempt to erase a culture. However, despite its physical loss, the memory and impact is not lost. It will remain an influential piece of art, that later influenced another artist to create his own works of art.

 

Painter on the Road to Tarascon by Vincent van Gogh 

References:

http://www.toptenz.net/10-famous-pieces-of-art-stolen-by-the-nazis.php

http://movies.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=70079691&trkid=2450709

This is a very interesting side of World War II to see. In all my history classes, I had only heard of the holocaust and how the Nazi’s terrorized countries, and the Jewish non-Aryan population. I hadn’t heard about the art plundered. Another thing I founding interesting was that many of the cities that were attacked, had art that Hitler either coveted or hated and wanted destroyed. This list was created even before the cities were attacked so it’s very interesting to see that aspect of why Hitler attacked regions he attacked.

Interesting Links:

http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/records-and-research/documenting-nazi-plunder-of-european-art.html

http://www.museum-security.org/ww2/

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Art-Stolen-by-Hitler-Found-at-SMU-Meadows-Museum-93695214.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/27/sunday/main3755983.shtml

Not many paintings have been stolen once, let alone twice.  Yet, Edvard Munch’s The Scream is a painting that has two thefts in its history, which add to its iconic status in the art world.  The Scream was first stolen from The National Gallery of Norway in Oslo on February 22, 1994.
Four men broke into the gallery and stole the painting, leaving behind a note saying “thanks for the poor security.”  The theft received a good deal of media attention as the Winter Olympics were taking place in Norway at the time.  The painting was recovered later that year with help from British agents.  Another version of the painting was stolen again from the Munch Museum in Oslo on August 22, 2004.  It was taken along with The Madonna, another work by Munch.  A photo of the theft is pictured below.
The theft of The Scream from a museum is not unusual given the extensive amount of European museums which have been victimized by thefts.
After The Scream was recovered in 2006, it was put on public display.  During the 5-day exhibition, 5,500 people visited to see the recovered painting, even though it had a lot of damage.  It’s interesting, as noted by Robertson, that someone would steal something other than the original version.  But whatever the reason behind the theft, it certainly added to the intrigue, controversy, and overall notoriety of the The Scream.  As was written in the Smithsonian magazine in 2006, Munch’s The Scream, is “an icon of modern art, a Mona Lisa for our time."  The face depicted in the work is considered to be the most famous face in Norway according to The Guardian.

While the thefts of The Scream paintings may not have the same cultural/political ramifications as say, Klimt’s Portrait of Bloch-Bower that was stolen by the Nazis, it is still well known for its controversy.   I think it’s also considered culturally important as reflected by the Google search engine putting a photo of the Scream on its home page to celebrate his birthday.  It is so associated with Western culture, that Munch’s works were the first of any western artist to be displayed in the National Gallery of Beijing.  The thefts of The Scream have only added “posthumous misfortune and notoriety to a life filled with both” for Munch.

Although always popular, it seems like The Scream gained cultural popularity and iconic status after the thefts.  It added a mystique to the painting’s history.  It has been used on TV shows and in advertising.  It was even featured on the TV show Doctor Who.  I think that it is definitely true that the value of the work (any version or in print) has increased as a result of the thefts.

Here is an interesting article that provides several links to information on the black market for art:

http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/bizart/2006/08/the_black_market_the_other_bus.html

As long as the stolen art remains in good condition its value increases enormously once it has been recovered.  The story of the art theft adds excitement, mystery, and intrigue to its provenance. Whether the piece is stolen, confiscated, of looted does not seem to make a difference, any of these will do for raising its value. Stolen art is many times difficult to sell and has a lower value, but the motive can also be political or personal rather than monetary, or the piece can be used to trade with other criminals.  If the reason for a theft is solely monetary, the art is sometimes returned after the criminal realizes how hard and risky it will be to sell, such as was the case in the theft of a Rembrandt drawing in California this past summer.  Some of the even more recent art thefts in California may prove to be more lucrative as stolen sculptures made of metals such as bronze can be melted down and the metal sold.

There are many high profile cases of art theft, some of which are listed on the FBI’s art theft website. A famous case of art theft occurred in 2002 when two thieves broke in through the roof of the Vincent Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam and stole two paintings. The suspects were later arrested but the works have not been recovered. The paintings are early works by Van Gogh and are valued at $30 million.  If the works are recovered surely their value will increase, but if they are not, it will be a loss of very important cultural and historical property for the Netherlands and the world.  The cultural or political ramifications of art theft are many times very significant as in the case of the Nazi looting and destruction of art from different countries in Europe during WWII. Countries or individuals’ identities and histories are tied to their art and the loss of this can be very damaging to a nation, culture, or individual.  Art theft or looting can also have damaging political effects especially when there is a conflict over the patrimony of a work, or when it used as part of a political agenda as it was by Hitler.

It was interesting to see in the reading that the investigators are certain of who was behind the theft of art from the Isabella Gardner Museum but have been unable to recover the art or arrest the culprit.  The suspect, Boston organized crime boss “Whitey” Bulger, who was on the list of the FBI’s most wanted, was recently found and arrested after having disappeared in 1994.  There has been no mention of the art as far as I know but I wonder if they have managed to get any information from him regarding the Isabella Stewart Gardner incident.

These are the works that were stolen from the Vincent Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, "View of the Sea at Scheveningen" and "Congregation Leaving the Reformed Church in Nuenen":

I was surprised to find out that illegal art trafficking is, in fact, the fourth largest economic crime worldwide (202). Shamefully, many people kept to the so-called “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy until only much later people and countries began to come clean and return unjustly acquired works to their rightful owner or their heirs (202). Another form of art theft is wartime looting, for which Napoleon and Hitler are notorious and to which the theft of the most famous painting in the world is linked.

In 1911, the Mona Lisa was stolen from the Louvre by a man named Vincenzo Peruggia who had worked on the glass case that was placed over the painting to protect it (NPR). The painting remained hidden for more than two years until Peruggia tried to sell it to an art dealer in Florence, who turned him over to the police (Lacayo). When arrested, Peruggia claimed that he took the painting from the Louvre only to “repatriate” it to Italy and “exact revenge for Napoleon's massive theft of artworks all across Europe” (Lacayo). Contrary to his belief that the Mona Lisa was looted by Napoleon, the truth is that, although Leonardo Da Vinci started the painting in Florence, the artist himself brought the painting with him to France when he became a court painter to Francois I (Lacayo).

This theft was apparently a “mark of shame” for France because the Louvre only discovered that the painting was missing a day after the theft and because it failed to retrieve the painting for the next two years during which it remained in France (NPR).

The impact of the theft seems to have been enormous. To the common misconception that the Mona Lisa have always been the most famous painting in the world, it seems to have been not as famous before the theft made it a topic of national interest. According to the Time, “the huge publicity surrounding the theft helped to launch Leonardo's great painting into the stratosphere of fame” (Lacayo). As we have already seen in the Mona Lisa Curse, the celebrity status of the Mona Lisa is worldwide and its cultural impact tremendous. R.A. Scotti writes, "Mona Lisa left the Louvre a work of art…She returned an icon” (Lacayo).

*Fun fact: J.P. Morgan and Picasso were suspected for the theft and Picasso was actually questioned then set free!

Mona Lisa (left) and its empty spot in the Louvre (right)

https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTsK-x1YyzR9qQmazQuKGaotTsYcQly9_sceWOGweIvORxSsdtL8A

 
A New York Times headline from August 24, 1911, reported the investigation into the disappearance of the "Mona Lisa.”

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/07/28/article-.jpg?t=1312440019&s=2

.

 The Washington Post published this picture as the Mona Lisa in 1911. (Proof that the Mona Lisa was not well-known worldwide in 1911)

http://www.monalisamissing.com/The_Missing_Piece/Blog/Media/t_WP.jpg

Another interesting theft story is that of Magritte’s nude painting of his wife, Olympia, housed in the artist’s terrace home, which had been turned into an appointment-only museum (Guardian). The painting was stolen by three armed men in September of 2009 and recently returned to its owner in early January this year (Telegraph)! The bandits returned the painting because they were unable to sell it in the black market (Telegraph).

A stolen artwork’s monetary value temporarily plummets because it now has to be sold in the black market, where artworks can be sold at 3-10% of its estimated value (CBC). So if a painting that’s worth $1 million goes to the black market, it would be worth anywhere between $30,000 to $100,000. However, if returned, the work recovers its value, if it’s not priced even higher than it was before the theft.

I thought it was really interesting and ironic at the same time that the painting could not be of any value to the bandits because it was too famous. One would think that the more famous an artwork is, the more valuable it would be everywhere. Fortunately for Magritte and his fans, the opposite was true in the black market and the painting was able to return to its original location undamaged.

At the time of its robbery, Olympia was estimated to be worth £2.75 million. I’m not sure if its market value has actually changed because of the theft, but it was covered in many newspapers and magazines, including the NY Times, the Guardian, and the Telegraph, so I would guess that its value would have gone up. The more exposure an artwork gets, the more popular and thus more expensive it is likely to become. Also, once stolen, a work of art is more desired than before.


René Magritte. Olympia. 1948.

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRyxRFoF3NGagMA0dlQGjGEHbjjGctaK2DNFWr_mD2D8moC9D-gvQ

.

René Magritte’s Olympia in its original location

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDG457u2a7MwQh_d3aVYHe4W3K5HTOSu59d_A6ha06zb3S8xTa

If you guys want to listen to an art theft detective talk about how he tracked down the stolen Munch, The Scream, here’s the link: http://www.cbc.ca/day6/blog/2012/01/13/chasing-hot-art/

Works Cited

Chrisafis, Angelique. "Magritte Painting Stolen at Gunpoint." The Guardian. 24 Sept. 2009. Web. 15 Jan. 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/sep/24/magritte-painting-stolen-brussels-olympia>.

Ellis, Richard. Chasing Hot Art. Inside the World of International Art Theft. CBC Radio, 13 Jan. 2012. Web. 14 Jan. 2012. <http://www.cbc.ca/day6/blog/2012/01/13/chasing-hot-art/>.

Lacayo, Richard. "Art's Great Whodunit: The Mona Lisa Theft of 1911." TIME.com. 27 Apr. 2009. Web. 14 Jan. 2012. <http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1894006,00.html>.

McNair, Carissa, and Charles Hill. "Art and Crime." The Art Business. By Iain Robertson and Derrick Chong. London: Routledge, 2008. 197-210. Print.

"The Theft That Made The 'Mona Lisa' A Masterpiece." NPR : National Public Radio. 30 July 2011. Web. 14 Jan. 2012. <http://www.npr.org/2011/07/30/138800110/the-theft-that-made-the-mona-lisa-a-masterpiece>.

Waterfield, Bruno. "£3.6 Million Stolen Magritte Painting Returned after Thieves Cannot Sell It on Black Market." Telegraph. 6 Jan. 2012. Web. 14 Jan. 2012. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/8998630/3.6-million-stolen-Magritte-painting-returned-after-thieves-cannot-sell-it-on-black-market.html>.

I found the theft of the Mona Lisa in 1911 to be of particular significance in terms of its impact on the symbolic value of the work and its resulting cultural and political ramifications.

On the morning of August 21, 1911, the Mona Lisa was stolen from the Louvre. The museum was shut down and the French border was closed to all attempting to enter or exit the country. The museum reopened nine days later. During this time thousands upon thousands of visitors came to see the empty spot where the painting had hung [1]. It is hard to imagine the empty wall space of any other painting drawing this much attention. Interestingly, the Mona Lisa had become even more famous in its absence.

Link to image of the missing painting: http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1680&bih=872&tbm=isch&tbnid=MpDQOLsYh1Pf4M:&imgrefurl=http://hastac.org/blogs/ernesto-priego/2011/08/19/famous-picture-stolen-paris-originality-absence&docid=gO9aTp3dGIte9M&imgurl=http://hastac.org/files/mona_lisa_stolen-1911.jpg&w=308&h=287&ei=fN4ST5iWHsrl0QG53pyfAw&zoom=1&iact=hc&dur=274&sig=107065817656893031348&page=1&tbnh=159&tbnw=174&start=0&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=141&ty=79&vpx=191&vpy=150&hovh=217&hovw=233

The theft of the painting originally caused such a stir that several significant figures were called into question, including Guillaume Apollinaire, the famous poet, and Pablo Picasso. [1] About two years later the actual thief was discovered, when an attempted sale was made to the Uffizi gallery in Florence. The thief turned out to be Louvre employee, Vincenzo Peruggia. He had apparently been able to steal the painting by hiding in a closet, removing it during after hours, and walking away with it tucked under his coat. Peruggia believed that the painting was rightful Italian property and should remain in his home country. [1]

Before its theft, the Mona Lisa was a well loved painting receiving daily fan mail, but afterward, its fame skyrocketed. R.A. Scotti puts it best in her book, Vanished Smile: The Mysterious Theft of the Mona Lisa, "Mona Lisa left the Louvre a work of art. She returned an icon." [2].

Link to image of the painting surrounded by a crowd: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sle/25395098/

In fact, the symbolic value and political significance of the Mona Lisa has increased to the point where it has been targeted in several attacks. In 1956, the painting was doused with acid. Later that year, a man threw a rock at it. The painting was eventually covered in bulletproof glass for protection. In 1974 a handicapped woman, upset by the museum's policies for the disabled, sprayed red paint at the painting while it was on loan at the Tokyo National Museum [6]. In 2009, a Russian woman hurled a ceramic mug at the painting, frustrated that she was unable to obtain French citizenship [3]. I cannot help but think back to Robert Hughes' comment in The Mona Lisa Curse, where he laments that the painting has become so famous it has lost meaning. Is the Mona Lisa forever fated to be a symbol?

On a personal note, I would like to mention that I had never before realized how small the actual painting is, and was especially surprised to hear that Peruggia was able to hide it under his coat. Seeing the picture in context next to a crowd of people you get a clear sense of its actual size. Perhaps it is because of all the attention that this painting has generated over the years, but I had always imagined it to be much larger.

Bibliography:

[1] http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1894006,00.html

[2] http://www.amazon.com/Vanished-Smile-Mysterious-Theft-Mona/dp/0307265803

[3] http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/mona-lisa-attacked-with-teacup/

[4] http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1680&bih=872&tbm=isch&tbnid=MpDQOLsYh1Pf4M:&imgrefurl=http://hastac.org/blogs/ernesto-priego/2011/08/19/famous-picture-stolen-paris-originality-absence&docid=gO9aTp3dGIte9M&imgurl=http://hastac.org/files/mona_lisa_stolen-1911.jpg&w=308&h=287&ei=fN4ST5iWHsrl0QG53pyfAw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=363&sig=107065817656893031348&page=1&tbnh=159&tbnw=174&start=0&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=107&ty=83

[5] http://www.flickr.com/photos/sle/25395098/

After the Ottoman-Venetian war in the late 1500s, the Ottoman Empire gave the island of Cyprus (located off the coast of Turkey) to Britain, to control as one of its territories. As the island progressed, it became split between it's two major inhabitants, the Greeks and the Turks. In order to avoid a possible uprising and rebellion against the British forces, the British government of Cyprus would often pit one group against each other, thus creating strife between the two inhabitants, and too much division to ever revolt and gain independence against the British superpower. This succeeded alarmingly well, and the Turkish and Greek residents on Cyprus, began to wage war against each other, drawing in the help of their homeland governments. This lead to a Turkish invasion of Cyprus in the late 1960's and 1970's. The Turks desired to create a barrier on the island between the Greek inhabitants and their own Turkish people, out of nationalism and out of their differing opinions in religion. Through two invasions by the Turkish Army, they were able to create a boarder between the North and South of Cyprus, the Turkish people moving to the North, and the Greeks to the South. 

The invasions and subsequent wars in Cyprus created much unrest and turmoil throughout the country, thus allowing looters to rampage through the country, collecting valuable pieces of art. Many of the most famous, and most valuable of these art pieces were from Greek Orthodox Churches. These Churches had been built in the time of the Byzantine Empire, and thus contained very ancient and valuable frescos and mosaics dating back into the 6th, 12th and 15th centuries. The pieces that were rendered in the 6th century, were very important because they had survived an edict made by one of the Byzantine Emperors, stating that all renderings of religious figures should be wiped out and destroyed. 

examples of some mosaics stolen from Cyprus Churches:

These mosaics, worth $50million were stolen by Turkish inhabitants of Cyprus and have been found all over the world, the prior mosaics being found in Germany and Britain. One piece, stolen from Cyprus, was actually found in British musician, Boy George's house, after a TV program gave a tour of his house. According to Boy George, after the program aired, a representitive from Cyprus contacted him, asking him to return the piece to its rightful home. Boy George agreed enthusiastically, stating he had not known where the piece had originated from, or the means by which it was procured. 

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12228059]

Slowly, buy surely, the Cyprus Churches are getting their art returned to them from the various museums and private collections in which they have been housed. However, many of these art houses are not as willing as Boy George was to give up their historic pieces, and with it begins the never ending debate of who owns the art? According to the current owners of these pieces, they paid a great deal for the art, and thus it should be theirs now. However, according to the Churches in Cyprus, because they originated there, and were stolen from them, they are still to be considered theirs. Although in theory, it makes sense that if something was stolen from you, it should be returned, no matter who bought it, in practice it is much more difficult. Many museums who boast of having collections from every part of the world, have acquired these collections through the first archaeologists, stealing them from the countries, or from black markets. Thus, without stealing, one would be unable to go to the Metropolitan Museum in New York City and see anything but art from the United States. 

Doors from a Cyprus Church, found in Munich, now returning to Cyprus

Another problem arises with stolen art, and that is the issue of whether or not institutions should buy art that is sold on the black market. By not purchasing art that was acquired illegally, it could be lost forever, with no hopes of being restored to its proper homeland, however by dealing with these looters, institutions, such as museums, are encouraging the trade of selling art illegally. It seems to be a major catch-22 to which, I cannot see an end. With the Middle East in turmoil, more of civilizations greatest artifacts are being illegally acquired and sold, with no end in sight.

More information about stolen art of Cyprus:
[https://cypruslifeinpictures.wordpress.com/tag/turkish-invasion-1974/]
[http://www.cyprusexpat.co.uk/blog/read/id:398/cyprus-church-welcomes-return-of-two-stolen-frescoes]
[http://www.menil.org/ByzantineFrescoChapelNews.php]
[http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/cyprus/]

Frescos displayed in a Museum in Texas. These will be returned to Cyprus this year.

Art theft is and will be a part of the art world as long as value and power I placed on works of art. Over the years there have been many art theft cases with many major cases being resolved from the Mona Lisa to the vanishing Vermeer. People steal art for various reasons, for personal satisfaction, for their own private collections, to sell to other buyers and make money of it, and to others , just for the fun of it. I am going to take a slightly different root, and talk about stolen African Artifacts. Many years ago, thousands of priceless craft were looted and shipped overseas from Africa during colonial rules and war times. One important artifact with quite a controversial relation to the Sotheby is the Benin art corpus from Nigeria. The artifact is believed to have been stolen from Benin in 1897. It is a 16th century mask, once thought to have belonged to an ancient Benin king His Highness, Oba Erediauwa, great grandson of Oba Ovonramwen and the reigning kind of Benin. In the 1897’s there was a punitive expedition in southern Nigeria carried out by British forces in retaliation for a massacre of a previous British-led invasion force. Troops deposed the king and looted the city. Lt-Col Sir Henry Lionel Galway is known to have stolen or acquired the Benin Art corpus. In 2010, the Sotheby announced that there were going to auction the stolen Benin artifact which was going to be sold for between 3.5 to 4.5million and the money was going to go to the descendants of the known British thief and vandal Lt-Col Sir Henry Lionel Galway. The international community came in to protest against the idea of selling the stolen goods. The Internet was flooded with protest too as well as the social media. In December 2010, after a flurry of protests, Sotheby’s announced that the mask had been withdrawn from the auction.
The idea of stealing, looting and selling the cultural artifacts of others seems to have been a European invention, which was brought to Africa. The commodification of cultural objects seems to have developed with European capitalism for it was only when there was a market for the cultural object of others that stealing, looting, selling and purchase made sense. Despite United Nations and UNESCO resolutions as well as international conference conclusions and ICOM Code of Ethics, many Westerners, continue to write and argue as if nothing had changed in the world since 1879. The current Prince of Benin testified before the British House of Commons’ committee on Illegally Acquired Artifacts. He said “I told the committee that what the British looted was not just works of art but objects of worship and the instruments or medium for recording our history. Hence, taking them away was like tearing off chapters from our history book.”

Sotheby's cannot facilitate the sale of stolen goods or someone making a quick buck out of a sacred object. By what right did Sotheby’s have to sell this stolen artwork? and why are they not reprimanded in anyway for attempting that they very well knew was stolen? Will they have incurred any civil or criminal liability for auctioning the stolen artifacts? Also Can anyone ever hold legal claim to artworks that are known to have been stolen-and in this case the Galaways’.

According to Joshua Knelman’s novel Hot Art the value of stolen, looted or confiscated art is only worth roughly around 10% of the arts actual value. This is because the art is “hot” meaning no buyer, who is aware that the art is stolen, will pay full price due to the liability. One Rembrandt oil painting from 1632, a portrait of Jacob de Gheyn III, has been given the nickname the “takeaway Rembrandt” as it has been stolen four times since 1966- the most recorded of any painting.

Two friends Maurits Huygens and de Gheyn had commissioned Rembrandt to paint them in identical formats and he did so upon the same oak panel. The friends had agreed that the first of them to die would receive the painting owned by the other, as evidenced by inscriptions on the their reverse. They were reunited when de Gheyn died.

                                                            
                                         "Takeaway Rembrandt":  Rembrandt's Portrait of Jacob de Gheyn III, 1632                               Rembrandt's Portrait of Maurits Huygens, oil paint, 1632 

The painting of De Gheyn is smaller than most of Rembrandt's works, measuring only 29.9 by 24.9 centimetres (11.8 by 9.8 inches). Its size is one factor that has contributed to its numerous thefts.

The painting was first stolen in August 1981 from the Dulwich Picture Gallery and retrieved in September 1981 when police arrested four men who had the painting with them. Just under two years later a burglar smashed a skylight and broke into the gallery. Using a crowbar he removed the same portrait from the wall. The painting was missing for three years, eventually found in 1986 in a luggage rack at a train station in Munster, Germany.

The other two thefts: the painting was found once underneath a bend in a graveyard in Streatham, London, and once on the back of a bicycle. Each time the painting had been retuned anonymously with nobody ever being charged for its disappearance.

In this particular case of theft because the Rembrandt was stolen so many times it became quite notorious. These thefts made the painting quite famous which would have increased the value. I read an article online written by a former attendant at Dulwich Picture Gallery who said “Without doubt the most commonly asked question by visitors to Dulwich Picture Gallery while I was an attendant there was, “Which is the picture that is always getting stolen from here?” The value of this portrait would have increased due to its theft fame. There were little to no political ramifications of the theft due to the fact that it was in a museum and not owned by a private collector. The only cultural ramification would have been that the Dulwich Picture Gallery became famous for it's less than perfect security. Perhaps after the 3^rd theft, if the thief had tried to sell the painting, it would have been valued much higher due to its heisted notoriety.

Here is an interesting New York Times article from 1986 just after the painting was stolen for the second time.

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/09/arts/a-rembrandt-is-found-in-german-train-8station.html?scp=1&sq=Rembrandt%20de%20Gheyn%20II&st=cse

One still unresolved aspect of World War II is the still missing art which was looted by the Nazi’s from museums and Jewish collectors. Hitler had a distinct taste in classic artwork, and envisioned a massive museum in Germany with the finest collection in all of the world. On result of his taste was that all contemporary artists were seen as  “degenerate art” and was toured around Germany as examples of art which would harm your mind. 

One of the great tragedies to the world is Hitler’s cultural change policy for much of the countries he invaded. The main cultural aspects of these places ( art, furniture, architecture) were purposely destroyed, and instead German propaganda art was heavily promoted. Records show that in order to boost the market for this art, Hitler himself bought hundreds of Nazi art pieces every year. The world lost a massive amount of great art, but further many people lost their cultural identity, history and intellectual independence. Family’s in concentration camps had their photo albums burned, assets seized, and heirlooms plundered.

            In order to fill Hitler’s Fuhrermuseum, Nazi’s plundered art collections by prominent Jewish collectors and gallery owners. The Nazi’s took meticulous records regarding the art. Each piece was lettered and numbered by collector and location as to where/who they were taken from. This has been enormously helpful in recent years to help return them to the heirs to the rightful owners.

            The Meadows Museum on SMU’s campus is home to many great works of art, however in 2010 it was discovered that three of their most famous paintings were actually looted by the Nazi’s from a prominent Jewish collector.  The first painting found to be a looted piece was Saint Justa by Bartolome Esteban Murillo. Robert Edsel was doing research for his book when he came across the piece and recognized it. The proof of the looting was marked on the back of the painting. The code, “R1711” was written on the back of the paintings indicating that it was stolen from the Rothschild family’s collection. When they looked through the rest of the paintings in the museum, two other paintings had Nazi codes.

            The work was returned to the rightful owners, the decedents of the Rothschild family, now living in America.  In an era of mile high prices for art, and status snobbery, returning the art to the rightful owners is one of the honorable aspects of the art world. The Rothschild’s were Jews which fled their Vienna home to escape Nazi rule had an amazing art collection. The conditions of their escape were that they would have to turn over their art collection and much of their assets to the government. This was actually documented by their next door neighbor, William Shirer, an American correspondent for the war. He wrote, "I myself, from our apartment in Plosslgasse, watched squads of SS men carting off silver, tapestries, paintings and other loot from the palace." 
            Part of the issue with returning the art is that tracking down the heirs is difficult. And further, figuring out which pieces were stolen is getting more and more difficult as time goes on. The markings which the Nazi’s put on are often worn off. As such, many collectors and museums have no idea they have this plundered art work.

            I wonder how the value of the art which Hitler plundered will change after it is returned to the owner. In one respect, I could imagine it would raise the price because it has a large historical significance, however in another I could see it having a lower price because it is seen as having been in the hands of the Nazi’s.

            There are a lot of questions about antiques, and art regarding being returned to where they came from. In the case of Nazi’s it is clear that the plunders of Europe should be returned to the rightful owners. However, the treatment of  other artifacts is still a moral grey zone.  Things which are stolen should be returned. Yet, there is no simple answer for all antiques and art.  Should some Picasso’s be returned to Spain because of the artist’s Spanish decent?  In 2003, the British Library refused to return The Lindisfarne Gospels which were stolen from the Durham Cathedral in the 16^th century, will not be returned due to the fact the document is incredibly fragile, and the current location allows the world access.