A warm welcome to everyone who's clicked through from Randy Kennedy's excellent piece which appeared in yesterday's New York Times. He managed to add some analysis and even novelty to a subject which often gets the same treatment whenever a high-profile art theft takes place.
I think he contrasts nicely the idea of an alluring art thief with the reality that "art is an exceedingly dumb thing to steal." That certainly seems to be the conventional wisdom. But of course because "art museums are still relatively unguarded public spaces", these thieves will continue to have the opportunity to take objects. The ultimate tragedy would be if we had to run a gauntlet of airport-like security checks to view works of art. However if these thefts continue, that may be a step certain institutions may decide to take. I particularly like the comments he elicited from Thomas McShane, the former FBI agent whose memoirs I reviewed here.
The reason myself and others like to speculate about a "Dr. No" when an extremely valuable and well-known work is stolen can be traced to the very first bond film. Dr. No was of course the unwanted son of a German missionary and a Chinese girl, and a member of the Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion (SPECTRE). The film makers, in a throw away moment, capitalized on the theft in 1961 of of this work by Goya, Portrait of the Duke of Wellington. Bond does a double-take when he reaches the island home of Dr. Julius No. He sees the painting and remarks "So that's where that went".
Hugh McLeave's Rogues in the Gallery details the perhaps more bizarre reality. The real thief may have been a man named Kempton Bunton. He was a disabled British pensioner who confessed to committing the crime. Bunton was a retired bus driver. In 1961, Charles Wrightsman purchased the painting for £140,000. He wanted to take the work to the United States, but of course the UK's limited export restriction applied, and money was raised to purchase the work and it was displayed at the National Gallery. At this time a great deal of press attention was paid to the work, and Bunton, upset at the amount of money he had to pay for his TV license, may have decided to break into the museum early in the morning and steal the work.
After chatting up the security guards, Bunton allegedly learned the electronic security system would be turned off early in the morning. He used tape and paper to insure the door and a window in the toilet would be unlocked, and made his way around back early in the morning and took the painting. He later said "I raced back to the lodgings. Taking the picture from behind the wardrobe, I stood it on the bed with the frame leaning against the wall and looked at it in triumph. Wellington returned my stare with cold contempt and I swear I saw his lips move, with the imaginary voice that said: 'thou low-born wretch, I'll break thee for this.' And somehow I believed he would."
Bunton seemed to be after some notoriety and fame. Letters were soon sent to newspapers, one asked for donations to charity to allow the poor to pay for TV licenses.
In 1965, four years after the theft, Burton reportedly returned the painting via a left luggage office at the Birmingham New Street Station. Soon after he went to the police and confessed to the crime. The police initially rejected him as a suspect, as they didn't think a pudgy 61 year-old disabled man could have committed the crime. However charges were soon filed and the jury only convicted Bunton of the theft of the frame, which was not returned. Judge Aarvold explained to the jury that if they thought he meant to return the painting if a ransom bid failed, they must acquit him. If they felt he would keep it until he got the money, they would have to convict. The jury found Bunton not guilty of stealing the painting, but guilty of stealing the gilt frame, which was never returned. Bunton served only three months in prison.
The law was changed soon after as a direct result of this light sentence. A provision in the Theft Act 1968, sec. 11 makes it a crime to remove without authority any object displayed or kept for display to the public in a building to which the public have access. It does not require an intention to permanently deprive.
As for Bunton, there are some indications that he may have perhaps been innocent. In 1996 the National Gallery released an unsolicited and simple statement that he may have been innocent. What actually happened is still subject to some speculation.
4 comments:
because "art museums are still relatively unguarded public spaces"
I still don't understand why museum insurers tolerate this situation. Slate's "explainer" recently said that these small museums prefer to use their limited budgets on acquisitions rather than secuurity. OK, that is their preference. But why do their insurers go along, especially since they will be the ones paying ransom?
I think it's prohibitively expensive to insure works for starters. You have to remember many of these works that are ultra-valuable, or master works tend to lead insurers and others to focus primarily on getting a work back.
One might say we should just shut the thieves out, and never pay a ransom. However noble such an idea may be, museum directors still want their master works back. The best alternative is to hope that the thieves aren't too clever.
But if the museum doesn't have insurance, then it's less likely the thief will get ransom. Insurers are brokers for ransom, even though they don't like to talk about it. It usually takes a third party to do that, and that's what insurers generally offer.
I was under the impression that the Isabella Stuart was unusual in not having insurance. Unusual, at least, for the U.S.
And with a good security system, the insurance should not be prohibitively expensive. It just doesn't quite add up.
I've heard that all the offspring of Randy in these days use to visit Viagra Online it could explain why this man had a lot of problems with his women when he was young I think it's a genetic problem.
Post a Comment