art theft in paris

[roachboy]

there's something about a well-planned and executed art theft that makes me happy.
i don't know why exactly. maybe it's my inner anarchist, the same sensibility that leads me to see something still interesting in the definition of surrealism that involves random discharge of a pistol on a city street....or maybe i like the idea that the "thief" was a patsy and that the paintings themselves organized all this---so it's a kind of jailbreak.

i like to think of a picasso, a matisse and a leger which have hung out together for a long time going camping in the pine barrens of new jersey then hitting atlantic city.

The French job – Paris art theft carried out by lone robber

Missing works may be worth up to €500m, with paintings by Picasso and Matisse among stellar haul

* Lizzy Davies in Paris
* guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 May 2010 19.55 BST

In the dead of Wednesday night, as the Eiffel Tower cast its golden beam from across the Seine, a man emerged from the shadows to break into the Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris. Dressed in black and with a mask covering his face, he cut a padlock on the gate and smashed a window to get inside. Once there, he set to work.

By the time museum guards noticed something amiss, shortly before 7am, the lone thief was long gone – and with him a stunningly valuable haul of artworks worth hundreds of millions of euros.

Today, as French police began their effort to find both the robber and the loot, the break-in at the museum in western Paris was being described as one of the biggest art heists in recent history.

Five paintings, including Pablo Picasso's Le Pigeon aux Petits-Pois and La Pastorale by Henri Matisse, were taken from the galley's permanent collection, located in one of the richest parts of the capital, just south of the Champs-Elysées.

Those two works alone are estimated as being worth ¤23m (£20m) and ¤15m (£13m) respectively, and, while the museum itself has suggested that the stolen paintings are worth about ¤100m (£86m), the Paris prosecutor's office has said the total value could be five times as much.

"This is a serious attack on the heritage of humanity," said Christophe Girard, deputy culture secretary at Paris city hall, standing on the steps of the museum amid a swarm of television cameras. Listing works by Georges Braque, Amedeo Modigliani and Fernard Léger, Bertrand Delanoe, the city's mayor, urged that everything be done "to recover these masterpieces".

Girard said it remained unclear whether the thief, who removed the paintings from their frames and rolled them up to so that they could be carried away easily, had been acting alone or with a team.

Sources pointed out that if the thief had had people waiting for him, he would have been able to make a speedy getaway, thanks to the museum's proximity to the fast-moving traffic of roads running along the side of the Seine.

What rapidly became clear after the theft was that the museum's security system had failed catastrophically. Although the intruder was caught on camera by the CCTV network, the break-in triggered no alarm. The three watchmen on night duty had "seen nothing and therefore did not react" until they noticed the broken window at 6.50am, said Girard.

Heaping further embarrassment on the museum, Delanoe's office confirmed tonight that a "technical malfunction" had been detected in the alarm system – and that, although it had first been reported on 30 March, it had not been fixed adequately.

The mayor said he had ordered an administrative inquiry to establish whether "technical or human deficiencies" contributed to the theft.

The BRB, the organised crime unit of the Parisian police, has been put in charge of the investigation, which today saw officers cordon off the scene of the crime as they searched for clues. And, as the prestigious modern art museum struggled to come to terms with the audacious heist, speculation mounted about the motivations of the thief or thieves.

"Every time this happens, we wonder why they do it, because it is so difficult for them to sell [the paintings]," said Stéphane Thefo, a specialist in stolen art at Interpol, the global police body based in Lyon.

He said the instigators of big art thefts often panicked after realising how incriminating it was to have such famous and expensive works in their possession. "They have works on their hands that are burning their fingers," he said. "Can you imagine carrying a Picasso around?"

Of the various hypotheses swirling around the tree-lined boulevards of the chic western 16th arrondissement, the most headline-grabbing was that of a "made-to-order" theft for an unknown collector.

However, Thefo said he believed that was unlikely. "Experience has shown that the theory of a private collector is usually fantasy," he said.

Jean-Marie Baron, an art critic, said it was possible that the thieves were seeking to exploit sale opportunities in parts of the world which were less likely to snub stolen goods. Some commentators hinted at darker motives, pointing out that art thefts committed from the inside are not unheard of.

"It will be interesting to find out how much the paintings are insured for: if they were not properly insured, it would be a very bad surprise for the museum," said Baron.

Today, as the museum's ornate bronze doors remained firmly shut and written notices informed visitors that "technical reasons" were to blame, the sense of disbelief was palpable among the institution's staff and devotees. Patricia Schneider, a New Yorker on holiday in Paris, who said she had been to the museum many times, said she was "a little stunned and shocked".

"It feels intrusive when any great art work is stolen," she said. Her mother, Mimi, added: "That it can happen in this day and age, with all the security measures that are taken, is appalling."

The French job ? Paris art theft carried out by lone robber | Art and design | The Guardian

here are the paintings in case you see them somewhere:
Art theft in Paris | Art and design | guardian.co.uk

of course there's some lingering side of me that says harumph harumph these are amazing pieces and should be protected....
but mostly this makes me happy.

what do you think?

[snowy]

I'm listening to a piece about this right now on the BBC's NewsHour.

What do I think? I think it's hilarious, especially considering that the alarm system had been broken since March.

One of the curious things that the NewsHour piece pointed out was that if this had happened in London, the actions of the thief post-heist would have been captured on the CCTV system there, but Paris does not have the complex camera system that London has.

[flat5]

It's not the first time for this in France.
On my few visits I have noticed a general lack of security.
Often a key will open many doors.
Lots of people use very cheap locks on expensive bikes.

[Baraka_Guru]

I've always wanted to be a part of a heist.....

heist

heist

This thing in Paris, however, makes it all seem rather anticlimactic.

[snowy]

Yes, there is a certain inelegance to the whole thing, isn't there. The alarm was broken, and the thief apparently only had to break a window to get in. Lame.

[ring]

Art thefts from the inside.
That set me to chuckling.

I picture the ghost of Picasso stealing away into the night,
encouraging Matisse to follow.

Wouldn't it be fab if the paintings ended up in yard sale,
eventually finding themselves hanging out and next to
the bullfighters on velvet.

[Charlatan]

My favourite film sub-genre is the heist film and my favourite sub-sub-genre is the art heist. John Woo's Once a Thief springs to mind... especially the scene where they steal the painting from the moving van while it's in motion.

I am always happy to hear about art theft. It has a romantic feel to it (that I am sure has no bearing on the reality).

And I love the idea of the paintings staging a jailbreak.

And this quote from the article: "This is a serious attack on the heritage of humanity," is so French.

[Daniel_]

The museum is totally at fault.

To only find out that you've been robbed by coming to work and finding broken windows (as seems to be the case here) is ridiculous. The sad thing is that the thief will almost certainly not be able to sell them for the sums that are being talked about, he'd be lucky to sell them at all, unless they were stolen to order.

[guy44]

I know everyone gets a kick out of thinking this was the Italian Job or something, but art thefts always really piss me off. Stealing someone's TV or purse is awful, but the harm is confined to the victim. Art theft means depriving the entire world of one of its unique pleasures. It feels like an insult.

[roachboy]

i suppose part of it is the heist film trappings with which my imagination was more than willing to fill in details of this story....but some of it is also a deep ambivalence about museyrooms. on the one hand, they make available for various forms of bourgeois aesthetic contemplation by the public (as over against, say, private collectors). on the other, they do this in the form of a kind of art zoo. on the one hand, they are at the center of a valuation process that enables art to be converted into commodity form. on the other hand, art is not a commodity. not really. on the one hand, this valuation enables (some) artists to make a living. on the other, it really enables auction houses and other intermediaries to make livings because most of the artists whose work is Really Pricey are dead. that's why their work is Really Pricey. they can't do the de chirico thing and take a 10 year detour making new versions of their earlier work. on the one hand, i like going to museums. on the other, art heists make me happy.

it's like that.

[snowy]

Originally Posted by roachboy

i suppose part of it is the heist film trappings with which my imagination was more than willing to fill in details of this story....but some of it is also a deep ambivalence about museyrooms. on the one hand, they make available for various forms of bourgeois aesthetic contemplation by the public (as over against, say, private collectors). on the other, they do this in the form of a kind of art zoo. on the one hand, they are at the center of a valuation process that enables art to be converted into commodity form. on the other hand, art is not a commodity. not really. on the one hand, this valuation enables (some) artists to make a living. on the other, it really enables auction houses and other intermediaries to make livings because most of the artists whose work is Really Pricey are dead. that's why their work is Really Pricey. they can't do the de chirico thing and take a 10 year detour making new versions of their earlier work. on the one hand, i like going to museums. on the other, art heists make me happy.

it's like that.

Pretty much.

"Art zoo"--I like that.

[guy44]

Originally Posted by roachboy

i suppose part of it is the heist film trappings with which my imagination was more than willing to fill in details of this story....but some of it is also a deep ambivalence about museyrooms. on the one hand, they make available for various forms of bourgeois aesthetic contemplation by the public (as over against, say, private collectors). on the other, they do this in the form of a kind of art zoo. on the one hand, they are at the center of a valuation process that enables art to be converted into commodity form. on the other hand, art is not a commodity. not really. on the one hand, this valuation enables (some) artists to make a living. on the other, it really enables auction houses and other intermediaries to make livings because most of the artists whose work is Really Pricey are dead. that's why their work is Really Pricey. they can't do the de chirico thing and take a 10 year detour making new versions of their earlier work. on the one hand, i like going to museums. on the other, art heists make me happy.

it's like that.

I get that. I do. But is it better to have some rich douchebag hang it on his wall and never tell anybody about it nor lend it to museums because it is stolen? And is there some other workable economic model you can think of for the public display and consumption of art?

[roachboy]

guy...if i had a single clear alternative in mind i wouldn't be ambivalent. i'd be arguing for the alternative. but i don't really have one. for contemporary art, sure...there are lots and lots of alternatives. but for materials that require conservation because of age/fragility/etc....i don't have much of one.

[ARTelevision]

Museums are crypts. Temporary art is better than permanent art. The whole idea of masterpieces and great art is a commodification and an elitist conceit. If the the world's canonical art "masterpieces" were destroyed, we'd discover a whole new group of great stuff that's being ignored, and so on. "Great art" is good, sure. But it's not all that good. We could live well without it, maybe better. Yeah, I think the world would be a better place without museums and masterpieces.

[KellyC]

ART, seriously? You'd have no problem with the Mona Lisa, or Michaelangelo's David being gone? They look nice, are thought provoking, and they also inspire other arts.

[Daniel_]

Originally Posted by KellyC

ART, seriously? You'd have no problem with the Mona Lisa, or Michaelangelo's David being gone? They look nice, are thought provoking, and they also inspire other arts.

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment - do we like them because we know them, or are they known because they're best?

In the entire history of human art, there are a few hundred artists that have public brand name recognition at most and these few vary from culture to culture - there are artist I'm sure in Asia or Arabia who are as famous to their area as Picasso is to Europeans.

My point is, if all the ones we know were burned, would we find others that sparked the same emotion and creativity?

[ARTelevision]

Kelly C. You got it. That's exactly what I meant. No problem as far as I'm concerned if that stuff all disappeared one day. Actually, I think it would be a better world if that stuff disappeared...

[Baraka_Guru]

Would you want to purge all of history as well?

[ARTelevision]

I'm not in favor of purging things. I would applaud their disappearance. That's different. History? If you mean the fictional self-justifying tale told by the elites to the huddled masses which serves to continue our subjugation to a phony narrative. I'd applaud its disappearance, yes.

[Baraka_Guru]

Well, neither art nor history have any real use value, so I'm not sure their disappearance would have much of an impact, really. People seem to respond more to things of material value.

[ring]

When they kidnap Mona Lisa,
they don't have to worry about feeding her or keeping her mouth duct taped shut.

Many ransoms have been paid for 'Art.'

[roachboy]

the mona lisa was made more interesting for me through the story of its kidnap by duchamp et al. it goes that they were in with an expert in period forgery, who was able to make an exact duplicate of the original, matching colors and paint and, of course, fade. then they put the moustache and l.h.o.o.q. (she has a hot ass) on one and returned the other. what makes it interesting is that the story goes that they didnt know which painting was which.

[Jetée]

I wanted to argue a point about great art being 'worthless', but that particular phrasing might have left me subject to vociferous recoil; instead, I'll state, that if a piece is so renowned the world over, with so much history and interpretation attached, it ceases being "worth" anything, as much as the name (read: artist) in which is attached to the platform is recognized.

I don't know if this makes a lick of good sense, but maybe I'm only applying this ponderance of mine on museum installations. The 'name' is what makes art any more valuable, or less so, rather than the particular technique, scenario or muse being portrayed (although these elements, too, are as indicative of the artist as his namesake).

[guy44]

I'm a little surprised at the level of acceptance for the loss of art on this board. Even if the "classics" are stifling appreciation of current art, even if they are greatly overvalued, I cannot understand how we can understand ourselves without understanding our past. I have been moved by Shakespeare and by Winged Victory and by Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you know? They all have their place and I would mourn the loss of any of them.

And certainly the way to change our understanding of art is not to simply disappear the pieces we tire of.

[ARTelevision]

It's important to think about these things in new ways. This is why iconoclasm has a place in intelligent discourse. To offer a radically iconoclastic view in order that those who have never considered the notions that the classics can be stifling and that they are overvalued and that they may oppress us as much or even more than they uplift us may inspire some to look at things aesthetic in a new way. This would be one useful aspect of the radically iconoclastic position I am taking here.

The actual reason I am taking it is that I do think what becomes known as "great art" is oppressive more than it is inspirational...because this is how it operates in human history.

[roachboy]

yeah, in this respect i'm towing a bit more conservative a line than art is...i agree that the past is largely dead weight and more oppressive than inspirational, particularly to the extent that it provides a repertoire of already assimilated objects and cliches based on them that functions to defang most newer work, enabling it to get pulled right past the phase(s) during which it might be able to shock or provoke or immerse or enable an experience of fashioning meanings in a space of emergence (as over against one dominated by objects, by the given, by the past)...

if you make new stuff, particularly if you make more radical new stuff (radical at the level of content, at the level of form, at the level of politics or aspirations or all that or at some other level i can't think of or dont know about) you're apt to have an antagonistic relation to if not the past if not the objects that populate the past as it is fashioned by historians and art-historians (who are particularly egregious in this respect--one damned thing after another) then at least to the bourgeois uses of the past as accumulation of objects. because they foreclose the space of the new, the experience of the new.

at the same time, both the ways of working and the capacity to process what those ways of working generate seem to presuppose a familiarity with the past, with traditions, with the objects that stand in for them.

so it's a bit of a bind for me. i'm entirely sympathetic to the burn-it-all approach. but i wonder about the degree to which that is conditioned by a saturation exposure to exactly the materials that burning it all would erase, and without which burning it all makes no sense as a gesture. know what i mean?

[ARTelevision]

Well put, roachboy. Yes. It's axiomatic that good art inspires and "great art" oppresses, I think. It's a useless concept, really. I enjoy a lot of good art. Great art is a pain in the ass. I'll say it again... We're better off without it.

[Baraka_Guru]

I think the problem lies in museums, galleries, and universities. I don't blame the art any more than I blame Christ and his disciples for the Crusades and the Catholic Church.

I think the idea of art being made dangerously commodified and materialistic to the point where it oppresses the artistic process is a defeatist position. That this process is caused by institutionalized bodies of history and art appreciation and curation and that it essentially and necessarily destroys art I think is a defeatist position and I refuse to take it.

I don't want to see Duchamp done away with any more than I'd like to see Michelangelo done away with. I get my value from them differently than do the institutions who would make celebrities out of the artist and canonize their work. I value appropriation in many respects, and this is one of them. How can we steal from the "great" works of art if they weren't around being worshiped by "patrons of the arts"?

[ARTelevision]

Defeatist, perhaps...if the problem is simply one of bourgeois uses of the past, elitism, commodification, and so forth but I think it's a deeper problem than simple designation. It's an aesthetic one. I don't actually think there is such a thing as "great" art. As I said, I see some good art...not a lot but some. I enjoy that. But as far as I'm concerned, that's as far as it goes. It's a qualitative issue with me. I do not believe in the possibility of canonical standards. The question of artistic quality is entirely subjective. Hence, no such thing as "great" art and no reason any of it should be enshrined in buildings or in anyone's mind.