March 26, 2001
CONTENTS:
- Online Art Fraud
- Blair rules out return of Parthenon sculptures
- Britain still won't give Elgin Marbles to Greece
- Group angry museum won't display battle flag
- Re: CCTV and Gallery lighting (Lean Haslip)
- RE: Lights on in Galleries and Securty's Failures (Steve Keller)
- Re: Lights in Galleries (Steve Keller)
Online Art Fraud
Con artists are using the Internet to take advantage of art lovers around the world by selling forged paintings online. Could you be their next target? Find out what to look for when buying art online. By Jack Karp Return to Regular View
Michael Robbins bought more than 20 paintings on eBay from someone called sambuca914@aol.com. The paintings were advertised as lost masterpieces signed by famous artists. But after Robbins had spent approximately $60,000, he found out that the treasures he had bought were all fakes.
At first, it's easy to wonder just how could someone who supposedly knows something about art be taken in so easily? But it's simpler than you might think to disguise fakery online. Take a look at the phonies below. Can you tell they're not real? New York Attorney General Ken Dreifach, who handled the art fraud case, illustrates how you can spot that they're frauds. And, be sure to play the videos above to hear art gallery owner Richard York explain the differences between real and fake art. "Sometimes the colors and the whole scheme look better on camera or in a photo than they do in person. I can tell you that in person, this doesn't look like a terribly impressive work of art. The brush strokes, the technique does not look like the sort of thing that would have been done by a great master artist like Kokoschka."
full story plus photographs:
http://www.techtv.com/cybercrime/internetfraud/story/0,23008,3317451,00.html
Blair rules out return of Parthenon sculptures
ATHENS (AP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair on today rejected long-standing demands by Greece for the return of ancient sculptures removed from the Parthenon 200 years ago. Commonly known as the Elgin Marbles, the sculptures that decorated the Parthenon were taken by Lord Elgin, Britain's ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, and are now housed in the British Museum. ''The marbles belong to the British Museum . . . which does not intend to return any part of the collection to its country of origin,'' Blair said in an interview published Sunday in the Athens daily To Vima. The collection has been the subject of a decades-long diplomatic dispute between Britain and Greece. Athens is pressing for their return by 2004, when the city will host the Olympic Games, and is planning to build a museum in the centre of the capital to house them. Blair held talks in London with Greek Premier Costas Simitis on Tuesday. ''I know my reply will disappoint many of your readers,'' Blair told To Vima. ''But one should consider the fact that six million people visit the British Museum every year and they can appreciate the beauty of the Parthenon Sculptures and Greece's special contribution to world civilization.''
http://www.thestar.com/
Britain still won't give Elgin Marbles to Greece
Associated Press
ATHENS, Greece -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair today rejected demands by Greece for the return of ancient sculptures removed from the Parthenon 200 years ago. Commonly known as the Elgin Marbles, the sculptures that decorated the Parthenon were taken by Lord Elgin, Britain's ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, and are housed in the British Museum.
"The marbles belong to the British Museum ... which does not intend to return any part of the collection to its country of origin," Blair said in an interview published Saturday in the Athens daily To Vima. Athens is pressing for their return by 2004, when the city will host the Olympic Games, and is planning to build a museum in the center of the capital to house them. The collection has been the subject of a decades-long diplomatic dispute between Britain and Greece. British government officials have repeatedly rejected Athens' demands but have rarely explained their position directly to a Greek audience. "I know my reply will disappoint many of your readers," Blair told To Vima. "But one should consider the fact that 6 million people visit the British Museum every year and they can appreciate the beauty of the Parthenon Sculptures and Greece's special contribution to world civilization." Blair held talks in London on Tuesday with Greek Premier Costas Simitis. Officials visiting Athens, including Turkish Foreign Minister Ismail Cem and former President Clinton, have expressed support for the Greek cause. Greece disputes the British Museum's claim that the 2,500-year-old marbles are well looked after in London, arguing that the artifacts were damaged in the 1930s when they were scrubbed clean. Officials in Blair's governing Labor Party have also been frequently reminded of their past pledge to return the Elgin Marbles -- a promise made before Labor's victory in Britain's 1997 general election.
http://www.chron.com/
more:
http://www.museum-security.org/elginmarbles.html
Group angry museum won't display battle flag
SUFFOLK, Va. -- A 19th-century museum's decision not to display a 94-year-old Confederate flag has angered a Civil War group. Museum officials said they did not want to offend black residents.
more:
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/032401/new_0324010014.shtml
From: Leon Haslip lhaslip@dusablemuseum.org
Subject: Re: CCTV and Gallery lighting
"Brand, Ross" RBrand@royalbcmuseum.bc.ca Mr. Ross, I am greatly interested in the simple application of the motion sensors that you installed during the De Vinci exhibit. Is it possible to share specification and product information? I am reviewing our current and past energy cost and lighting effects on exhibits. It would be very insightful to evaluate the possibilities of your approach and the technology that was used.
Thank you for any assistance.
lhaslip@dusablemuseum.org
From: IntlArtCop@aol.com
Subject: RE: Lights on in Galleries and Securty's Failures
In a message dated 3/22/01 2:03:02 PM, David tremain writes regarding lights being left on at night in galleries:
If this is the case, then it makes a mockery of trying to make
recommendations for the safe display of light-sensitive artifacts during an
average 8 hour day
All due respects, Dave, and forgive the tone of my email as this is not personal, but I have been involved with hundreds of museums over 20 years and have always recommended a training program for guards. I recommend a 30 minute roll call program where daily instruction can be given to keep them updated. Above all, I recommend that at least once per week a "museum professional' such as a Conservator, Curator or Registrar visit the roll call and teach about the art and about their discipline so the guard can eventually begin to think like a museum professional. It always amazes me that the curator, conservator or registrar seem to find something more important to do so often and don't take this training obligation seriously in some institutions--if the roll call program is even funded in the first place.
Do you really think these minimum wage guards and cleaners are born with a PhD in conservation? You expect them to take the initiative and do what they have to do to get things done. Have you tried to dust or clean in the dark? Have you tried to watch CCTV monitors in the dark? Maybe the solution is black felt covers for the vitrines so that the realities of cleaning a building can prevail. That is something for you as a conservator to recommend if it is needed, not something security should recommend. But just as we are not trained as conservators, you are not trained as a facility manager and were not aware that low light levels do not permit adequate cleaning. Perhaps you should spend more time in the building at night observing.
If a theft occurred and it was later discovered that the guard had been sitting in his room watching blank CCTV monitors, you'd have a fit. Why didn't he take the initiative and do something? Well, apparently he did. And so did the cleaners. They didn't do the right thing but the right thing wasn't all that cut and dried. (Now you will pass this failure on to your museum management and they will call a meeting of conservation, the director, and the security department. They will include the Collections Manager. Together these people with a total of 58 years of collective education will make a decision that you expected a custodian and a guard, each with (hopefully) 12 years of education and no follow up training to make. Should we tell the guard not to use CCTV at night? Cover the vitrines? Should we close the gallery and clean during the day? Clean in the dark and exempt the cleaner from retribution if he fails to clean well enough?
This is not a security problem, this is a management problem.
I talk myself blue in the face trying to get museum management to recognize the big picture with regard to security. One of the most frequently asked questions of me as a consultant by museum directors is "Why don't my guards do what is right?" Well, the most frequent answer is that they aren't trained--and re-trained, and re-re-trained. Dave, you aren't hiring rocket scientists here. You have to tell them WHY they can't turn on the lights. It IS logical that if you can't see, you should turn on the lights. It is NOT logical to sit in the dark and look at blank screens. Be pleased that your guards did this much.
When I develop a big picture approach to security for a client I always recommend basic training, ongoing training, and roll call training and I always recommend inclusion of the professional staff in that training. Half the time the professional staff regards this as unimportant, failing to see that this is their opportunity to pass on to the security force some of their conceptual knowledge so that in a situation like this a guard just might make the connection between light levels and conservation of works on paper and ask for guidance.
It also amazes me how so many museum employees never come in after hours, either. Their job stops at 5 pm. Security is expected to handle everything after 5 pm and know how to handle anything. What's wrong with a conservator making a round at night occasionally? The works of art exist 24 hours per day and are exposed to many environmental hazards. Conservation is not a 9 to 5 issue. That's the alternative if you don't hire guards who are capable or trained to look out for your interests in your absence.
Then there is the failure of museum management to see the big picture with regard to security on other issues. Just yesterday I had a conversation with an architect and museum director about CCTV. It was hard enough to convince them that cameras are needed. Money, as you know, is tight, except that the building they are building is millions over budget due to the glamour architect they hired and other systems that seem to always get the lion's share of funding. Once I convinced them they needed cameras, I had to convince them that they needed cameras, at least in the exhibit gallery, that were low light level. I failed in this regard. $150 more per camera was not the issue. What was important was that they selected the camera based on how they look, not how they perform. The architect didn't care that the camera he selected didn't have the lines of resolution or the light level capabilities, he only cared that it was shaped the way he wanted it to be and was small. Mind you, it was only an inch different from the one that really works!
In 20 years I have only been successful in convincing a small handful of client museums to fund a 30 minute guard roll call. A roll call trainign program resolves many issues and is about the best possible way any museum can spend its money. Similarly, I have rarely convinced a museum to provide a full time trainer for guards, then address issues like this day after day.
Don't expect guards not to think for themselves. They will. You need to give them the training they need to come to the conclusions you expect them to come to or their decisions will reflect their training and knowledge, not yours. I think that your comments reflect a serious misunderstanding that many people have about the complexity of a guard's job. You expect to pay them fifty cents per hour less than McDonalds (that's what one leading contract service pays in most markets) but you want them to be conservators, registrars, criminal investigators, technicians, EMT's, and police officers, and above all diplomats. Well, it isn't going to happen.
This comment is not for you because you are here on the security network sharing with the rest of us. But in many museums, the museum professional not only doesn't think it is necessary or important for guards to have knowledge about conservation or registration, etc., but they also oppose giving it to them, assuming their knowledge would be wasted on the guard. Too much knowledge they feel is dangerous. I see it all the time. It's like pulling teeth to get the curator to take the time to come to a roll call training program and talk about the art. But if the guard doesn't know why it is important, he won't protect it with the same enthusiasm as he would if he understood it.
I defy anyone to show me a single written training document prepared to date by a conservator that is a part of their museum's regular training program for guards (with the possible exception of the big four museums who also probably lack such a document). I'm referring to a document that outlines a comprehensive list of concepts regarding conservation and things a guard should look out for with regard to conservation. It would include the effect of lights and temperatures on various objects, vibrations, water issues, etc. For sure, very very few even have what I consider to be an adequate disaster plan, let alone something a museum professional took the time to prepare for guards.
You can't have it both ways. You can't have an underpaid security management staff consisting of individuals who are denied the funds to go to the Smithsonian Conference and AAM conferences where they can learn, then expect them to be able to teach conservation to their guards. These conferences regularly give us in security a chance to listen to conservators and others, but museums usually regard AAM as being only for "professionals" and not for security managers. AAM rarely attracks more than 20 museum secuity people and most are from the same well funded institutions or from institutions in the vicinity of the conference. Well, now you know why we have been asking to attend all these years! You can't hire minimum wage guards, deny funds to do a background check on them and to provide them with training, then expect them to understand the issue of light levels on works of art. It just isn't going to happen. And you can't have museum professionals who regard security as a necessary evil that hassles them when they come and go with a parcel but refuses to participate in their training on various issues.
The example you give of the guard and cleaners turning on lights is just one issue. We deal daily with the disabled, with the unique issues involving children, with the risks created by contractors in the building (carrying of materials, heat producing appliances, access controls, working over or near works of art), we deal with literally a hundred exceptions to the rules every day, and you expect us to be able to make decisions on our own that you can make only because you have an advanced degree in your highly scientific field plus extensive ongoing training.
My advice:
1. Listen to your security manager or consultant when he or she asks for resources. Maybe, just maybe, we know something. Maybe when we ask for more color, low light level, always-recorded cameras than you think we need, we actually might know what we are talking about.
2. Provide initial training and on-going training for guards including an all important daily roll call session of no less than 30 minutes per day. Don't expect any acceptable performance without a roll call training program.
3. Fund security supervisors who do nothing but supervise, never standing post themselves. How can even a trained supervisor catch problems of a complex nature if he is assigned to a post all day or night. A supervisor isn't a supervisor unless he is free to supervise. It's called management by walking around.
4. Mandate that museum professionals participate in these rol call training sessions both for guards and for docents who also face similar issues.
5. Allow your security managers at various levels to participate in ASIS, AAM and the Smithsonian Conferences. Quit thinking of this as a battle for limited resources. Maybe that third string curator intern doesn't need that trip to Paris this year so that the security manager can go to the SI conference instead.
6. Mandate that every museum professional (conservator, registrar, curator, assistant director, director, administrator) work one night shift as a guard, making rounds and seeing exactly what a guard does. Thereafter, come in one night every six months and hang around after things close down. You'd be surprised what you might learn about everything from fire hazards to building systems and how they effect conservation. (I once recommended that the museum ban coffee makers in offices and replace them with a central coffee station on each floor in a safer setting. The prime opponent was the conservator of all people. He liked his coffee, but more important he liked the conveneince of not having to walk 50 feet to the community coffee station on his floor. All this in spite of the fact that guards in that building found coffee makers left on at night over 60 times per year!)
7. Every curator should spend at least one half day per year standing post with a guard in his or her galleries. do the rounds. Stand there bored. Don't talk. Just observe. Then share your observations and suggestions for improvement with the security manager.
I happen to know that Dave runs a tight ship and these criticisms don't apply to him any more than they apply to all of us. Don't be offended. But if Dave has these problems in his "tight ship", imagine the problems that exist with regard to this issue elsewhere.
It is my opinion that security managers can do more. We tend to get lazy. We fall into this trap of doing what we have always done and not reaching out to conservators and registrars and curators and getting their input. But , as they say, "you don't know what you don't know". If we don't know to ask about light levels and we have no evidence lights are being turned on when they are not supposed to be, we won't know to ask. The burden of bringing up important issues regardless of how likely they are to become problems rests with the conservaotr or other professionals. It's called contingency planning. We address many things that are not likely but we have to plan for just in case.
You are our teacher. We are your students. But if the learner hasn't learned, it's usually because the teacher hasn't taught.
Steve Keller
Museum Security Consultant
steve@stevekeller.com
From: IntlArtCop@aol.com
Subject: Re: Lights in Galleries
In a message dated 3/23/01 2:16:29 AM, Tom Dizon writes:
it seems to me better to rely on the motion detectors which, when sensing
an intruder, can then turn on the lights and thereby allow the cameras to
operate. Alternately, I like the i.r. capable cameras utilizing i.r.LED
illuminants.
The Suggested Guidelines for Museum Security say that when there is an alarm there must be a response to an alarm. This was specifically intended to eliminate on screen motion detection and similar CCTV based systems that enable a guard to receive an alarm, look to see if he needs to take a break from his newspaper, and respond to check it out. Similarly it was intended to restrict a guard from viewing CCTV and deciding not to respond to a possible problem even when there is no alarm system integral to the CCTV system. In reality, many museums have difficulty restricting after hour access. Security recommends that the building be vacant after hours but museums accomodate after hour work that often permits passing through the galleries. This means that the guard has two choices--turn off alarms or respond to every alarm--unless he can see that the alarm was caused by an employee moving around as part of his after hour work, going to the rest room, etc. So CCTV is important in this regard. It is not always an alarm response decision issue. IR illuminators are not a realistic choice. We can't get funds for the purchase and upkeep of all the cameras we need let alone IR illuminators that have a limited life and expensive upkeep and replacement costs. They work best with Black and White cameras thus precluding use of color cameras which are more effective and easier to watch and cost about the same as a black and white camera today. Unless the illuminator is built into the cameras (which gives it only about a 20 foot range) it requires a separate device on the ceiling. We have trouble getting approval for the aesthetic intrusion of a camera let alone an illuminator. The choice is clear--low light level color cameras or hybrid cameras that switch to low light level monochrome when light levels reach a minimum.
Or . . in museums that have a specific situation with which they must live and do not have the option of replacing their cameras, the installation crew or conservation crew could come down and throw a velvet cover over the vitrines and frames at night but that requires scheduling and discipline and effort and it is not going to happen in many institutions.
I say it again. This is not a security (or technology) problem. This is a management problem.
Steve Keller