Protected: Basquiat $8m Hannibal: Art secrecy is ‘custom made for embezzling’
May 15, 2013 – 08:25Kwame Opoku – ETHNOLOGY MUSEUM, VIENNA CHANGES NAME TO WORLD MUSEUM, VIENNA: WHAT IS IN A NAME?
May 12, 2013 – 12:05WHAT IS IN A NAME
http://www.museum-security.org/kwame_opoku/ethnology_museum_vienna_changes_name_to_world_museum.html
May 12, 2013
ETHNOLOGY MUSEUM, VIENNA CHANGES NAME TO WORLD MUSEUM, VIENNA: WHAT IS IN A NAME?
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet.”
Shakespeare (1), Romeo and Juliet
Völkerkundemuseum, Vienna, now renamed World Museum, Vienna.
As has been reported in various Austrian newspapers and other media, the Ethnology Museum (“
Völkerkundemuseum”
), Vienna, has changed its name to “World Museum” (“
Weltmuseum”). (2)
We learn that the new museum has a new logo and a new homepage
and that there will be more attention given to the needs of children by reserving halls for the
ZOOM Kindermuseum im Weltmuseum Wien.
The new premises or the renovated premises would have a new coffee bar.
According to reports, the World Museum, which is still undergoing structural changes, will be completed in 2016. The African Section which holds the famous Benin bronzes has been closed to the public since 2000 and so would be open after a closure of 16 years.
From the reports, we get no full explanation or clarification about the reasons or motives for this change of designation although an article in
Der Standard
hinted that there may be ideological reasons, without explaining further what those ideological reasons might be. The director of the museum is reported to have said at the press conference where the new museum was presented that:
“
World Museum is a trade mark. The legal name remains Völkerkundemuseum, but please call us by the name that we now prefer
.” (3) He saw the world museum as a place of meeting of peoples and cultures where values and enthusiasm for cultural diversity are experienced and transmitted
.
The director hopes to make the museum one of the most liked and well-known buildings in Vienna, a place for transmitting enthusiasm and meeting on basis of equality. An important factor is that in the course of 500 years many beautiful treasures of the world have been brought to Austria which are unique in the world.(4)
The Green Party has already criticised the “new concept” of “World Museum” as an example of “worst practice” of Austrian culture practice. The Green speaker on cultural affairs in the Austrian Parliament, Wolfgang Zinggl considered the new name as political substitute action instead of a truly new museological concept. He also criticised the continued dependence of the museum on its association with the
Kunsthistorisches Museum
, namely the absence of planning and financial autonomy. The Austrian right-wing party, FPO, has criticised the change of name as an act in the dead of night. (“
Nacht und Nebel Tat”).
Usually, when a person or an institution changes name, this reflects change in status or functions. From what we gather, there is no change in status; the old/new institution retains legally its old name and status. Moreover, the museum remains subordinate to the Art History Museum in planning and financial matters.
We turned to a paper prepared by the museum and presented at the press conference of 17 April 2013 to see if we could find more enlightenment
. (5)
The first impression of the new director of the
Völkerkundemuseum who is now director of the Weltmuseum
when he first visited the museum was his surprise at seeing the enormous collection of historic-ethnographical objects there that had somehow found their way to Vienna (“
auf irgendeinem Wege irgendwann nach Österreich gelangt sind”)
. The director believes he can after a year’s intensive work now present his vision and his concept of a museum as a meeting place of peoples and cultures.
The new “positioning” of the museum is presented in five points;
1. See more and hear more (“Mehr sehen und mehr hören“)
The collections reflect world-wide cultural diversity and so not only the scholarly work of the museum should be presented but also diverse perspectives. The decisive actors should be not only persons from Vienna but also persons from the source countries of the objects in the collection.
2. Share more (“Stärker teilen”)
The museum has become exceptional through the relationship of Austria to the rest of the world. The objects in the museum are the cultural heritage of both Austria and the source countries. New relationships and cooperation with those countries should therefore be on the basis of sharing. This aspect should be made more visible for the public.
(“
Sie sollen für das Publikum auch verstärkt inszeniert werden.
”) (6)
3. Intensify dialogue (“Den Dialog vertiefen“)
The museum has the competence for non-European
cultures and should in addition
to public projects, devote attention to basic research. Cooperation with museums and other institutions should be supported and intercultural dialogue intensified.
4. Develop enthusiasm (“Begeisterung entfachen”)
The museum has unutilized space in a unique building which is not easily perceived as a unit. An impressive new architecture would create an atmosphere that is inviting and exciting and in which visitors feel good and welcome.
5. Increase number of visitors
(“Besucherzahlen erhöhen”)
The number of visitors to the museum should be increased through exhibitions and events. For cultural tourists, the museum should become a “must” mentioned in travel guides.
The museum’s mission statement is formulated as follows:
“
The World Museum, Vienna, is a meeting place for peoples and cultures where appreciation of values and enthusiasm for cultural diversity is practised and transmitted
”. (7)
According to the statement, with the new name, “World Museum”, the museum wants to put world openness and the meeting of peoples and cultures on basis of equality at the centre; meeting between peoples, between cultures, between Vienna and the whole world. The concept of “World” is then said to be inseparable from the identity of the new museum.
When one reads what the museum has produced, one cannot fail to recognize that a public relations person has been at work on the paper. The language used is largely infused with public relations strategy presentations. Many of the points made, for example, increase the number of visitors to the museum or cooperate with museums and other institutions from non-European countries, reserve halls for children’s interests, have been practised by many museums all over the world that do not call themselves world museums. Moreover, the idea of the museum as a place of encounter between peoples and cultures has been discussed and used by many museum directors such as Neil MacGregor, British Museum, London and James Cuno, formerly director of the Institute o Art, Chicago and now Chief Executive Officer of the Paul Getty Museum of Art. (8)
None of the newspapers and other media reports, as well as the statement issued by the museum, explains why the
Völkerkundemuseum has decided to name itself Weltmuseum
. As admitted by the director of the museum, the legal name
Völkerkundemuseum
remains. The museum has not gained any more powers than it previously had and remains subordinate to the
Kunsthistorisches Museum
whose Director-General has oversight over the new museum and co-presented the new museum with the director. So what is in a name?
As in many Western museums, the desire to change a name is bound up with the desire of many to break with the past and to throw away as far as possible, the discredited links and associations with Ethnology.
Ethnology which was undoubtedly a colonial science, born in colonialism
and the museums that arose from the conjunction of colonialism and Ethnology have come under heavy criticism in the last 60 or so years. There is therefore a clear desire by many to distance themselves from this problematic ancestry.
Neil MacGregor, Director, British Museum, has expressed the view that there is a need for a new history and has emphasized the unique qualifications of the British Museum to tell the history or stories of others.
(9)
Apart from calls for a new history, many ethnologists have demonstrated beyond doubt their desire and intention to break away from colonialist and racist ideas as well as from past ethnological practices. For example, the exhibition
Fetish and Modernity (10) shown at the Völkerkundemuseum,
Vienna, was an undoubted demonstration of the determination of many ethnologists to abandon the traditional Western assumptions that only Western societies experience modernity whereas the rest of the world remains static and has no idea or experience of modernity and advancement; a relic from Darwinian theories.
But even accepting as established, a strong desire to break with ethnological practices, why the designation “world museum” and no other name? Here we come to the crux of the matter and the apparent change of name which leaves the old designation,
Völkerkundemuseum
still in existence as the director of the museum stressed.
Since the end of the so-called last world war in 1945 and the creation of the United Nations Organization, with its subsidiary organizations such as UNESCO and the independence of States such as India and Pakistan 1947 and above all, since the Independence of the African States in the 1960’s, Western scholars have been very busy: they have been busy developing theories and concepts such as “universal museums
”,
(11), “travelling exhibitions” (12)
“
world museum” and “museum serving the world
”. (13)
Western scholars have been busy developing theories that would justify the continued detention in Western museums of artefacts from Africa, Asia and Latin America. These artefacts, mostly looted, stolen, acquired through use of violence or under unclarified circumstances, should have been returned to the former colonies at the latest on Independence. Instead of advising museums to do the right and moral thing of returning illegally acquired artefacts, Western scholars have spent time, resources and energy in trying to justify what is plainly unjustifiable. These attempts at justification take mainly the form of arguing that certain museums serve the whole world and therefore there is no need to ask for or insist on the return of the looted cultural objects. Unfortunately for the West, since Independence the demands for the return of cultural artefacts have become loud, strong and difficult to ignore.
The United Nations, UNESCO, ICOM and several international conferences have called for their return. (14)
Strenuous attempts to convince the world, against all factual and historic evidence, that these museums serve the world have failed. But some museums have nevertheless adopted the name-chnging strategy. It is therefore no surprise that the management of the
Völkerkundemuseum decided to change its name to Weltmuseum
. The Vienna museum thus joins a certain number of self-styled “world museums”. These museums, at Frankfurt, Liverpool, Rotterdam are mostly characterised by being former Ethnology museums with large numbers of looted cultural artefacts from Africa, Asia and Latin America which they refuse to return despite constant demands by the legitimate owners.
In a similar situation are other museums that do not call themselves “world museum” but pretend to serve the world such as the Louvre, Musée du Quai Branly, British Museum, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston and the Museums at the Museums Island, Berlin. These later museums tend to describe themselves as “universal museums.” (15)
The notion of “world museum” as applied by many is obviously more than problematic for these museums are all national museums and the designation is very misleading. (16) A truly world museum would have to be established by several States that would also set up representative governing bodies, finance the museum and appoint its director and senior officials. One State, however powerful and important, cannot set up a world museum. One cannot have a truly world museum that is financed by one government or that is subordinate to other national museums or institutions such as the Vienna museum. Nor will a truly world museum be manned by staff of one nationality. The World Museum at Liverpool is part of the National Museums at Liverpool.
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/wml/index.aspx
The truth is that the notion “world museum” has been found convenient by ethnology museums that want to shed the ethnological mantel but still retain the ethnological objects illegally and illegitimately acquired in the past. Similar objections have been raised against the so-called “universal museums” that are in fact national museums such as the British Museum
.
It may be no accident that there are no world museums in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Museums there do not have looted/stolen Western artefacts that require justification and defence. (17)
It should be noticed that any attempt to establish a truly ” world museum” or “universal museum” would meet with the fiercest resistance from the very museums that are now very keen to use those names. For this would imply that every people and State would be free to make their contribution of cultural objects to the world institution and there would be no acceptance of one State or people hijacking the cultural objects of another. There would be a requirement to return artefacts acquired under dubious circumstances. Western States and museums are not yet ready for such general or specific restitution. This has been stated several times and most recently by museums such as
Völkerkundemuseum,
Vienna, in a recent meeting in Benin City, Nigeria. The Western representatives made it clear it was not their intention to return any of the Benin Bronzes to Nigeria. Somehow some people in Nigeria read those statements to mean a chance for restitution. (18)
A fundamental objection to the concept of “world museum”, as used at present, is that it does not cover world cultures in an adequate way. “World” is used here as synonym for “non-European”. It is very similar to the other nebulous concept of “world music”. Whereas Nigerian, Tibetan, Chilenian and Indian music are included in “world music” European music, such as European classical music is not included. Europeans such as Mozart, Beethoven, Sibelius, Mendelssohn-Bartholdy and Chopin are not considered as “world musicians” or “world composers”. Can anyone explain why some of the finest products of European culture are not included in “world culture”?
Similarly, whilst the culture of African, Asian and Latin-America are classified as part of “world culture”, Austrian, German, French and British cultures do not fall into this category. A world culture without the Europeans? It is obvious that this concept of world culture is another way of describing “non-European culture. We are also reminded that there is the subject of
Volkskunde
which deals only with European peoples and their cultures. Vienna has a
Volkskundemuseum
where there are no African objects. If one is unable to overcome this racist distinction between
Volkskunde and Völkerkunde
, can one be ripe for a “world culture”?
This kind of arbitrary classification and the vague concepts fit perfectly into the Western scheme of values. Benin artefacts, as stated by the director of the new museum, are part of the common cultural heritage of Austria and the source country, Nigeria. But Picasso, Klimt, Rembrandt, Nitsch, Hrdlicka are not part of this common heritage. These artists are part of Western heritage. The underlying principle of classification that exposes the selfishness, greed and racism of much Western scholarship can be summarized as follows; what is yours is ours; what is mine is mine
. (19)
Throughout the presentation of the concept of the new
Weltmuseum
, it was obvious that the whole concept is based on the existence of Europeans and Non-Europeans, Austrians and Non-Austrians, they and us, insiders and outsiders. But surely in a truly “world museum” there would be no need for such binary distinctions. The museum would belong to all of us, Austrians and Non-Austrians. The presentation comes close to such an idea but only as a rhetorical device, a set phrase, when it deals with the relations of Austria and the source countries. The right of ownership of the objects by the Africans and Asians is thus denied while confirming the actual possession by Austrians. The histories of the objects are partially distorted.
Interior of World Museum,Vienna
.
In the presentation of the new museum, a lot of emphasis was put on persons and persons from the source countries of the objects meeting in the museum. These persons from the source countries will be mainly Africans and Asians. How does one imagine these persons will come to the museum when all Western governments, have now strict rules regarding the granting of visa and are doing everything to discourage Africans and Asians from coming to Europe?
Indeed, Europeans have set up special military and navy forces to prevent such an entry into European Union territory, Frontex.
As I have often written, no Western country will be prepared to grant visa to a young African who gives as ground for requesting visa, his intention to see African artefacts in the museums.
Europeans are keeping African and Asian cultural objects but are not keen to let Africans and Asians come to Europe. How then does the new museum envisage these meetings taking place, except perhaps with museum officials from those countries? Aminata Traoré, sociologist and former Minister of Culture, Mali, pointed out this fundamental paradox when the French opened in 2006 the
Musée du Quai Branly,
which contains most of the cultural objects the French looted/stole from their colonies:
“
In our opinion, the Musée du Quai Branly is built on a deep and painful paradox since almost the totality of the Africans, Amerindians, the Australian Aborigines whose talents and creativity are being celebrated, will never cross the doorstep of the museum in view of the so-called selective immigration. It is true that measures have been taken to ensure that we can consult the archives via Internet. Thus our works of art have a right of residence at a place where we are forbidden to stay.
(20)
By its structure, finances and history, the new museum cannot become a truly world museum. The establishment of a truly “world museum” has so far not been attempted by existing States owing to national selfishness and greed even among those who pretend to serve the world. The
Weltmuseum Wien
will join the band of museums such as those in Frankfurt, Rotterdam and Liverpool (21)
that present themselves as “world museum”, or “museum of world cultures“ while keeping illegal and illegitimate acquisitions of the cultural artefacts of others; they are not even willing to return a few items to Africa, Asia and Latin America.
With the help of public relations and advertising experts, the museum will no doubt be able to get public acceptance of the designation of “world museum”. With excellent and interesting exhibitions such as those presented at the
Völkerkundemuseum, for example,
Benin Kings and Rituals: Court Arts from Nigeria,
it will gain more visitors and supporters.(22) If the plans to make the museum building more inviting to the public are implemented, many more will be attracted. Hopefully, the museum management will not remove the forbidding and impressive iron gates that discourage both visitors and unwanted guests. The later see an impregnable defence which is not to be underestimated in our age of daily robbery of art objects.
It is undoubtedly wise for the new museum to put emphasis on persons visiting the museum rather than the objects there. However, these visitors come to the museum to see the objects and will certainly want to know more about the objects. They would want to know for instance, where the Benin artefacts came from and whether they were purchased or donated as gift from the Benin people or the Nigerian government. Children, who will be coming more frequently, will with certainty want to know about the source of these “strange objects”. Some of these modern children might even want to know whether the objects can be purchased online. Hopefully, the museum will tell them the true history: the Benin artefacts were looted by the British in 1897 during an attack on Benin City where they killed people and burnt their houses; after their “heroic” deed, they sold some of the artefacts to the Austrians, Germans and others in the same invasion year, the buyers knowing fully well that these were stolen/looted objects. Indeed, the sellers always informed the buyers that the artefacts were fresh from the recent invasion.
As children will now become an important group among the visitors to the new museum, we should recall that these European children and their parents will be
enjoying a privilege which is denied to African children and their parents, namely, the possibility to see African sculptures and other artefacts in the museum. We should remember that most of the African objects, such as the Benin bronzes have been in the museum for decades and have not been returned to their countries of origin. Indeed, most of the Benin bronzes have not been seen by the Benin people since they were looted in the nefarious British invasion of 1897. The Benin royal delegation that attended the opening of the exhibition
Benin Kings and Rituals: Court Arts from Nigeria
emphasised that they were seeing these for the first time. Thus children in Vienna have a privilege which even the Benin Royal Family does not have: to see some of the Benin bronzes looted in 1897. Surely, there is something wrong here. The new museum could make a very valuable contribution to cultural understanding and co-operation if it returned a few of the 165 Benin bronzes it is holding. Do Austrians really need so many Benin bronzes for their cultural activities and survival?
The issue of the unlawful and illegitimate detention of the cultural artefacts of others will remain and will become more acute as Africa, Asia and Latin-America wake up and assess the true dimensions of the deprivation of cultural artefacts that are in Western museums and depots, including those of the new museum and its predecessor,
Völkerkundemuseum, Wien.
“
As you put this past on show today, it is our prayer that the people and the government of Austria will show humanness and magnanimity and return to us some of these objects which found their way to your country.”
Oba of Benin, Omo N’Oba Erediauwa CFR
. (23)
Kwame Opoku, 12 May, 2013.
NOTES
1. Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
2. Der Standard, 18 April, 2013
Kurier,
18 April, 2013. The museum informed visitors that it has changed its name as of 16 April, 2013; the new name and concept was presented to the public at a press conference on April, 2013.
3. “
Weltmuseum Wien“ sei „ein Markenname“, sagte Direktor Engelsman. „Der gesetzliche Name bleibt Völkerkundemuseum, aber bitte nennen Sie uns künftig bei dem Namen, den wir jetzt am liebsten haben.“ Er sehe das Weltmuseum Wien als „Treffpunkt für Menschen und Kulturen, wo Wertschätzung und Begeisterung für kulturelle Vielfalt gelebt und vermittelt werden
“.
http://wien.orf.at/news/stories/2580401/
4.“
Eine ganz wichtige Qualität ist und bleibt, dass im Laufe von 500 Jahren die schönsten Kulturschätze der Welt nach Österreich gebracht wurden. Es ist einzigartig, wie da die ganze Welt reflektiert ist
.“
5. Pressekonferenz am 17.4.2013
AUS DEM MUSEUM FÜR VÖLKERKUNDE WIRD DAS WELTMUSEUM WIEN; EIN WELTMUSEUM FÜR DIE WELTSTADT WIEN.
6. “Inszeniert
“ can also mean play acting, without sincere commitment.
7.
“Das Weltmuseum Wien ist ein Treffpunkt für Menschen und Kulturen, wo Wertschätzung und Begeisterung für kulturelle Vielfalt gelebt und vermittelt werden
“.
8. Neil MacGregor “The whole world in our hands”,
James Cuno,
Museums Matter: In Praise of the Encyclopedic Museum
, University of Chicago Press, London and Chicago, 2011.
See our comments on Cunos’s book in K. Opoku, Affirmations and Declarations: Review of James Cuno’s
Museums Matter”,
9.
MacGregor’s vision for the British Museum
K. Opoku, “When Will Everybody Finally Accept that the British Museum is a British Institution? Comments on a Lecture by Neil MacGregor”.
Neil MacGregor’s claims that the Elgin Marbles will not return
10. Fetish Modernity, Museum fur Völkerkunde, Vienna,
21November 2012 – 4 March 2013. The exhibition indicates the determination of contemporary ethnologists to break away from the racist ideas of their predecessors. The catalogue of the exhibition, edited by Anne-Marie Bouttiaux and Anne Seiderer,
contains language that would have surprised the old ethnologists
11. K.Opoku, ”
Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums: Singular Failure of an Arrogant Imperialist Project
”,
13. K. Opoku, “When will everybody finally accept that the British Museum is a British Institution? Comments on a Lecture by Neil MacGregor,”
14. See
General Assembly resolution, A/RES/67/80, titled “Return or restitution of cultural property to the country of origin.”
https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/PV.53
Athens International Conference on the “Return of Cultural Objects to their Countries of Origin”
www.unesco.org/culture/laws/pdf/Conclusions_Athens_en.p.
.
15. See Tom Flynn,
The Universal Museum A valid model for the 21st century?
2010,
16. K, Opoku, “Is
Nationalism as such a Dangerous Phenomenon for Culture and Stolen/Looted Cultural Property?
17. It should be noted that none of those museums that constantly declare they share a common heritage with African peoples has thought it necessary to send any European painting or artefacts to an African museum.
18. K. Opoku, “Benin Plan of Action for “Restitution”: Will this Ensure the Return of the Looted Benin Artefacts?”
What We Understand by “Restitution”
19. K. Opoku,”Mine Is Mine but Yours is Ours: Comments on a Suggestion to Take Culture out of Cultural Property
,“
http://www.museum-security.org
20. Aminata Traoré «
Nouveau millénaire, Défis libertaires
»
http://1libertaire.free.fr/ArtPremierInterditSejour.html
Those who can read French are encouraged to read the full statement issued by Aminata Traoré, a great intellectual of our times, on the occasion of the opening of the Musée du Quai Branly.
This text “
Musée du Quai Branly et Immigration choisie: droit de cité”
has been published at many places.
On the Musée du Quai Branly
.Paris,the reader may wish to read, K. Opoku,”
“Benin to Quai Branly:
A Museum for the Arts of the Others or for the Stolen Arts of the Others?”
Indigenous? Non-Western? Primitive? The Paris Museum Controversy
www.antropologi.info/…/indigenous_non_western
Benin in Paris: Triumph of the Aesthetic over the Ethnological?
www.modernghana.com
21. www.wereldmuseum.nl/ The Wereld Museum, Rotterdam announced its
intention of selling its African artefacts in order to make up for financial shortages caused by reduction of government subsidies. Thus it would remain a “world museum” without an African Section. See K. Opoku, “Dutch Museum to sell African Collection”.
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/wml/index.aspx
The Swedes have an interesting structure as far as “World Culture” is concerned;
The four museums are situated in the two biggest cities in Sweden. The Museum of Ethnography, the Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities and the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities are located in Stockholm, while the Museum of World Culture is located in Göteborg. The museums reach out to national and international audiences through travelling exhibitions and cooperative projects”.
22. See the catalogue of the exhibition edited by
Barbara Plankensteiner,
Benin Kings and Rituals: Court Arts from Nigeria,
Snoeck, 2007.
23. Plankensteiner, Ibid
. p.3. In the Introductory Note to the above-mentioned catalogue of the exhibition, after emphasizing how important the Benin works are as records of Benin history and objects of religious importance the Oba of Benin makes a plea to the Austrians for the return of some of the Benin bronzes. What else must a king of a people whose cultural objects have been robbed with violence by the British under well-known circumstances do? The answer of the then director of the
Völkerkundemuseum
was a flat denial of any possibility of restitution.
See K.Opoku, “Opening of the exhibition Benin-Kings and Ritual Arts from Nigeria”
www.culture-and-development.info/…/
K,Opoku, ”
Benin to Berlin Ethnologisches Museum: Are Benin Bronzes made in Berlin?”
Protected: Vietnam – domestic market is flooded with fakes.
May 12, 2013 – 09:59Protected: Sixth Suit Filed by Client Against Former Knoedler Gallery – NYTimes.com
May 10, 2013 – 05:54Protected: Mobster eyed in Gardner heist seeks mercy from judge | Boston Herald
May 6, 2013 – 08:09Protected: RAT AND RABBIT SCULPTURES RETURNED TO CHINA BY OWNER OF CHRISTIE’S
May 6, 2013 – 08:04Protected: In Praise of the Fake
May 4, 2013 – 10:41Protected: Highlights Of Selected Criminal Cases Involving Art
April 30, 2013 – 12:12Mask of Ka Nefer Nefer settlement talks fail, appeal back on the docket – Lexology
April 29, 2013 – 18:44Mask of Ka Nefer Nefer settlement talks fail, appeal back on the docket
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4fec8f75-6fd2-4911-807f-b115b7013d18
April 29, 2013
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.
RegisterIf you have any questions about the service please contact customerservices@lexology.com or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
- Sullivan & Worcester LLP
- USA
- April 18 2013
Author page »After a report from the United States that settlement talks in the civil forfeiture case against the Mask of Ka Nefer Nefer at the St. Louis Art Museum were sufficiently promise to suspend the briefing schedule in the Court of Appeals, the government has advised the court that those talks have failed. The government’s appellate brief is now due June 3, 2013.
As quick recap, the Mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer is a funerary mask of an ancient Egyptian noblewoman. After the museum purchased it from a dealer in 1998, the United States later began to seek its seizure, arguing that it was stolen property. The United States brought a civil forfeiture action under U.S. customs laws. The government argued that because the Mask had gone missing in Egypt by 1973 and then surfaced in a sale in the United States decades later, it could not have been imported legally. In such cases, the government need only establish probable cause, whereas the claimant assumes a burden to prove the object was not stolen. They are typically, in metaphorical terms, a layup.
The District Court, however, came to a scathing conclusion of the government’s allegations. The court stated “the claimant cannot even be sure of the who, what, when or where of the alleged events surrounding the alleged ‘stealing,’ nor can the Museum ascertain if the Government is pursuing of the Mask based on alleged theft or a unlawful import/export, or both.” Harsher still, the court held that “the Government has been completely remiss in addressing the law under which the Mask would be considered stolen.”
The government’s efforts to amend the claim fared no better (and, we noted, arguably missed the deadline it requested to do so). Echoing that very timeliness point, the court noted that the government had previously requested more time to move for permission to amend the complaint (in various filings the government had essentially asked for leniency to plead more specific facts to support the allegations of customs violations).
At that point the case went up on appeal. In January, the government advised that a three-way meeting was in the works between the U.S., Egypt, and the museum in late February. That has apparently run its course. Briefing will consume the next few months, with an oral argument possibly in the late fall.
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at ateague@lexology.com.Mask of Ka Nefer Nefer settlement talks fail, appeal back on the docket – Lexology.
Michel van Rijn – ‘Als je de boel verneukt, doe het dan op niveau’
April 29, 2013 – 18:13‘Als je de boel verneukt, doe het dan op niveau’
Begin deze maand raakte bekend dat 173 kunststukken van onschatbare waarde terugkeren naar Cyprus. Daar werden ze tijdens de Turkse bezetting in 1974 in bulk buitengesmokkeld. We zochten de Nederlander Michel van Rijn op: als gewezen kunstdief smokkelde hij de kunst uit Cyprus buiten, als informant hielp hij ze er nadien opnieuw in.
Geert Sels; De Standaard, Belgie, april 2013
Bij ons haalde het bericht de kranten niet. In Duitsland wel. In München is het hoogste gerecht na een slopende procedure van vijftien jaar eindelijk tot een uitspraak gekomen. Het heeft beslist dat de Turk Aydin Dikmen, 75 inmiddels, 173 religieuze iconen en mozaïeken moet teruggeven aan Cyprus. Van vijftig bijkomende stukken wordt eerlang hetzelfde verwacht. Op de markt zijn ze miljoenen waard.
‘De archeoloog’ werd Dikmen genoemd, en hij was beste maatjes met de Turkse officiers die in 1974 het noordelijk deel van Cyprus bezetten. Aan de orthodox-christelijke symbolen hadden die een broertje dood. Kerken en kloosters werden onteerd en opgeblazen. Verhuld door het puinstof en onder bescherming van de Turkse troepen roofden kunstdieven de religieuze schatten het land uit. Fresco’s werden twintig centimeter diep uitgeboord, per heiligentafereel kwamen er vaak wel tot twintig ‘kopjes’ vrij. Krat per krat werden mozaïeken en iconen het eiland af gesmokkeld. Aan de hand van foto’s werden ze nadien tegen grof geld op de westerse kunstmarkt aangeboden.
Zo deed Aydin Dikmen. Met in zijn kielzog de Nederlander Michel van Rijn, die mee tussen de checkpoints laveerde en zich een vrije doorgang naar het allerheiligste kocht. Van Rijn was een geducht kunstsmokkelaar, die vanuit Beiroet, Parijs en Rome zaken deed, iconen over de Russische grens smokkelde en Japanners dure vervalsingen verpatste. Over hem zou Dick Ellis, rechercheur bij Scotland Yard, later zeggen dat hij verantwoordelijk was voor negentig percent van de kunstmisdrijven ter wereld, en ‘voor die andere tien percent zou hij ook wel willen tekenen.’ Een opzienbarende credit, en als het niet waar is, klinkt het alleszins goed.
Toen de netten van de opsporingsbrigades zich eind jaren ’80 om Van Rijn sloten en voormalige handelspartners prijzen op zijn hoofd zetten, bekeerde hij zich tot het andere kamp. In ruil voor bescherming tipte hij de politie. Zo bood hij zich in 1997 als kandidaat-koper bij Dikmen aan, met een razzia op diens appartementen tot gevolg en een spectaculaire inbeslagname van kunststukken. Het Beiers gerecht heeft er tot nu over gedaan om de zaak af te sluiten.
Michel van Rijn is nog steeds op vrije voeten. Zou hij contacteerbaar zijn?
Enkele jaren geleden had hij een website waarop hij onthullingen uit de kunstmarkt openbaarde. Grote veilinghuizen en handelaars moesten het daar ontgelden. De site is opgedoekt. Langs die weg vinden we hem niet. Naar verluidt heeft hij de jongste jaren enkele boeken geschreven. Op het internet vinden we thrillers als Cuba Libre en Het Mekka Manuscript, die zich afspelen in de (onder)wereld van de kunst. Bingo! Een paar dagen na de bemiddeling van de uitgeverij gaat de telefoon: ‘Met Michel van Rijn’.
Daarop volgt een intens mailverkeer, waaruit zijn talent blijkt om mensen voor zich in te nemen. Hij houdt van de Belgen, nergens is de volksaard zo bourgondisch en de spijskaart zo uitlezen. Als gewezen smokkelaar weet hij dat het er aangenaam zakendoen is. Alles kan. Er is amper controle. Zijn rabauwenverleden steekt hij niet weg. Integendeel, één van zijn mails sluit hij af met de Ballade des pendus van de dichter-vagebond François Villon, waarin gehangenen aan de galg hun lot bewenen. De kunsthandel is keihard, maar er mag gelachen geworden.
Dan zien we elkaar. In een restaurant in de Brusselse Zavelbuurt. Het lijkt een vloek in een biechtstoel. Volgens een voormalig kunstrechercheur hadden allegaleristen in de buurt ooit zijn foto in hun lade liggen. ‘Van Rijn heeft hier ooit een heksenjacht ontketend’, zegt de rechercheur, ‘om illegale Nok-beelden uit Nigeria op te sporen.’ Nu zit hij rustig op het terras te roken. Hij is niet meer de getrainde atleet. Of de man in het elegante pak, die ik op foto’s heb gezien, met een smal snorretje en het haar achteruit in wetlook.
‘Het maakt niet uit’, zegt hij. ‘Geld is maar een middel. Ik hou van luxe, maar ik kan net zo goed op een veldbedje slapen. Chichi, ach, ik heb het allemaal gehad. Ik heb me te pletter verdiend. Champagne, parties, mooie meiden, dure hotels, een privé-jet… allemaal meegemaakt. Ik maak me er geen zorgen over. Mijn devies is dat geld uit het raam naar buiten vliegt, maar dat het altijd wel weer langs de deur naar binnen komt.’
Michel van Rijn (62) werd geboren in Parijs, en groeide op in Amsterdam in de buurt van het dierenpark Artis. Zijn vader was een bemiddeld tandarts en verzamelaar van primitieve kunst. Zijn moeder was joods-Frans en gegrepen door het schilderen. Leden van de Cobragroep, zoals Constant en Jan Sierhuis, waren er vriend des huizes. Schoollopen was niet zijn uitverkoren bezigheid. Terwijl zijn klasgenoten zich voorbereidden op hun eindexamen, trok hij met zijn vriend naar de bazar van Istanboel. Hij kocht er de jasjes van omgekeerd schapenvel die toen het uniform van de hippies waren. Hij kocht ze in Istanboel voor 100 gulden en verkocht ze in Amsterdam voor 125 gulden. Een lucratief handeltje. Tot hij op zekere dag een antiek wierookvat kocht. Toen dat dertig keer meer bleek op te leveren dan een hele minibus schapenjasjes kreeg hij een idee.
Sindsdien takte Van Rijn twee circuits op elkaar aan: het clandestiene en het openbare. Via een Turks contact begon hij iconen te smokkelen. Die bracht hij in een nette kunstgalerij aan de Amsterdamse Prinsengracht aan de man. De Nederlandse omroep wijdde in een uitzending een item aan de jonge twintiger die zich specialiseerde in zeldzame iconen. Een informant introduceerde hem in het smokkelcircuit in Armenië, langswaar prachtige stukken uit Russische collecties naar buiten sijpelden. Toen zijn eerste kist iconen in Amsterdam werd afgeleverd, overviel hem een duizeling. Hij wist: ik ben schatrijk nu.
Terwijl hij het vertelt, bestelt hij zijn volgende dubbele vodka. Het zou me niet verbazen als hij een personage van Tsjechov onder tafel kon drinken. ‘In Rusland heb ik leren drinken’, zegt hij. ‘Als je niet met hen drinkt, vertrouwen ze je niet. Een afspraak werd er afgerond met handjeklap. Kwam je in hun systeem, dan was je familie. Die verlink je niet. Tijdens het USSR-regime hadden ze je geld nodig. Er was een zwarte markt en voor hen was ik de schakel om alles in het westen te slijten. De mooiste iconen hebben we daar uit de kelders van de musea gehaald.’
Hij kocht een stek in Beiroet, toen een cosmopolitische stad waar de beau monde samentroepte, en een handige uitvalsbasis om Armenië, Turkije, Griekenland en Cyprus te bespelen. Zijn iconenhandel floreerde als nooit tevoren. De smokkelroutes waren solide. Leden van de douane zaten mee in de trafiek en het kostte weinig moeite (wel geld) om de vereiste stempels te krijgen voor de koopwaar. Terwijl hij al in het vliegtuig zat, werd er voor zijn lading gezorgd. ‘Ik zag ze op het vliegtuig laden terwijl ik aan boord zat’, zegt hij. ‘Het was amper te geloven. Je ziet je eigen bagage op het vliegtuig geladen worden, gevolgd door drie kisten gestolen kunst.’
In die tijd lukte het nog om stapels dollars in een jaszoom te naaien. Van Rijn verwisselde regelmatig van look en had verschillende paspoorten. ‘Ik had ooit een échte identiteitskaart nodig in Amsterdam. Die kostte negentig euro. Nou, was dat even een meevaller. Ik was gewend dat de kostprijs van die spullen veel hoger lag.’ (buldert)
Kunst smokkelen ging na verloop van tijd naadloos over in kunst vervalsen. ‘Toen er nog volop in Pompeji gegraven werd, zetten we er soms valse spullen neer. Dan vloog ik klanten over uit Amsterdam. Het zag er allemaal heel authentiek uit. Dan werd er rechtstreeks uit de sleuf verkocht. Ik vind: als je de boel dan toch verneukt, doe het dan op niveau.’
Een interessante markt ging voor hem open toen Japan in de jaren ’70 kunst nodig hadden om hun nieuwe musea te stofferen. Op een expositie in Delft werd hij benaderd door Mister Nakatumi, die een wel zeer preciese bestelling plaatste: vijftig iconen van 30 op 40 centimeter. ‘Ze waren vooral geïnteresseerd in afbeeldingen van ‘’moeder met kind’’. Dan heb ik tegen de deadline alles opgekocht wat ik kon vinden van ‘’moeder met kind’’. Ik ben ginder een lezing gaan geven. Daarin legde ik uit dat iconen zeer divers kunnen zijn, en dat de groottes erg kunnen variëren. Warm applaus. En dan komt de voorzitter van de club zeggen dat hij het zou waarderen als die iconen tóch allemaal 30 op 40 centimeter zijn. Tja, als dat echt moet, dan kunnen ze die krijgen, natuurlijk.’
Helemaal hilarisch is de verkoop van een portret van Rembrandt aan een Japans museum. Van Rijn diste het verhaal op dat hij een afstammeling was van Rembrandt van Rijn, en dat hij trots was dat hij het kunstwerk driehonderd jaar in de familie had kunnen houden. Via een smoes praatte hij zich binnen in het historisch patriciërshuis Amstelrust, dat te koop stond. De kandidaat-kopers gingen er van uit dat ze het schilderij bekeken in het kasteel van zijn voorouders. ‘Ze waren zo naïef,’, zegt hij, ‘soms liep je in Japanse musea en hing de sticker met ‘’vendu’’ nog op het schilderij.’
Van Rijn kan vertellen. Hij is flamboyant en kleurrijk. Stel me geen vragen, dan kan ik geen leugens vertellen, is één van zijn motto’s. Eén van zijn manieren om in het leven te staan, is de mensen steeds maar de helft te laten zien. Welke helft, dat is nooit zeker.
Zo bijvoorbeeld over de periode waarin niet alleen kunsttransacties, maar ook onderlinge afrekeningen een drijfveer worden. Omdat Sotheby’s hem ooit gerold had, zette Van Rijn een val voor hen op. ‘In Athene had ik het vertrouwen gewonnen van een topvervalser. Goedkope gouden en zilveren munten smolt hij om tot een Avarenschat. Sotheby’s liet ze onderzoeken en ze kwamen uit in de zesde eeuw. Toen hebben ze een knoert van een catalogus laten drukken, met een fenomenaal verhaal erbij. De Fabels van Lafontaine waren er niets bij. Na het eerste lot heb ik ze gebeld, en gezegd dat ik van elke fase van het productieproces foto’s had. Als ze niet stopten, zou het de dag daarna in de Herald Tribune staan. De veiling is stopgezet. (anticiperende pauze) Nu ja, het stond de dag nadien evengoed in de Herald.’
In documentaires over hem, zoals The artworld dodger, wordt gezegd dat hij mails bijhoudt, foto’s maakt, gesprekken opneemt en dat hij niet aarzelt om dat materiaal te gebruiken. Organisaties onder druk zetten en chanteren hoort bij het spel. Toch circuleert van het verhaal van Sotheby’s een andere versie. Een oud-medewerker van hem zei ooit aan de Volkskrant dat Van Rijn een schat wou maken en die ten gelde maken. En dat hij daarbij door het ijs gezakt is. ‘Larrie’, zegt Van Rijn, ‘dat is jaloezie van een assistent.’
\
Nog voor zijn veertigste stapte Van Rijn eruit. ‘Op een gegeven moment was de wereld te klein voor mij. Alles wat fout ging, werd aan me toegeschreven. Toen ben ik uit de kast gekomen. Ik schreef het boek Hot art cold cash, waarin de mechanismen van de kunsthandel werden blootgelegd. Daardoor was de weg terug voor mij afgesloten. Dan moet je op een gegeven moment durven zeggen ‘’ok, hier ben ik.’’ Als je op je veertigste nog denkt zoals op je vijfentwintigste, ben je geen meter opgeschoven. Ik heb milities zien binnenvallen in galeries in Beiroet, kinderen zien afknallen, ben zelf een paar keer beschoten.’
‘En weet je, ik haat dat huichelachtige sfeertje in de kunstwereld. In een galerie zie je onder het genot van een glas champagne de schoonheid, maar daarachter loopt een spoor van bloed. Het is een linke boel. Die echtheidscertificaten, dat slaat toch nergens op? Ze hebben niet meer om het lijf dan een waarmerk van de huisvrouwenraad. Als je vrienden hebt in het circuit, en je gaat lekker eten en drinken, dan kun je toch elk label krijgen dat je maar wil?’
Hier en daar hoor je dat hij dubbel spel speelt. Dat hij onder dekking van de politie toch nog zaakjes regelt. ‘Ik ben geen dubbelspeler. Als je werkt met Scotland Yard, de Italianen of de Fransen, dan besodemieter je die niet. Want dan zat ik hier niet. Kijk, als free agent kan ik dingen doen die de politie niet kan. Ik weet veel en heb veel relaties. Ze respecteren me. Ze weten ook wel dat ik geen tasjesdief ben. Zo is het ook met die Cypriotische iconen gegaan. Tazoula Hadjitofi, die jaren geijverd heeft voor de terugkeer van die stukken, heeft me vertrouwd. Ze heeft een bedrag van een half miljoen dollar ter beschikking gesteld om bij Dikmente kopen.’
Dat ziet Hadjitofi toch anders. ‘We hadden geen keuze’, zegt ze aan de telefoon uit Den Haag. ‘Rechtszaken duurden te lang. Dus hebben we ten einde raad gekozen voor een informant. Eigenlijk vertrouwden we Michel van Rijn niet. Het kon zijn dat hij met het geld zou verdwijnen. Of dat hij vervalste iconen aanbood. Dus hebben we een half miljoen dollar gegeven, zodat hij het crimineel circuit kon blootleggen. Hij liet de actie filmen door Channel 4 om te bewijzen dat hij de iconen van iemand anders gekocht had.’
Heeft Van Rijn zich met dat half miljoen laten betalen? Van Rijn: ‘Nee, er was geen commissieloon. Als ik geen ontzettend goede dief was, had ik er niets aan verdiend. Ik heb hier grote risico’s voor gelopen, dat doe ik niet voor de kat zijn kut.’
Dus heeft hij het duurste stuk van de collectie, het Andreasmozaïek, maar voor zich gehouden? Hadjitofi: ‘Van Rijn zegt dat hij de sleutel van de kluis heeft. Waar die kluis is, houdt hij geheim. I’m not finished with you yet, zegt hij.’
Van Rijn: ‘Ik laat in het midden of ik nog kunst uit Cyprus bezit. Het stoort me dat de teruggekeerde kunst niet verder dan het Nationaal Museum en het Aartsbisschoppelijk Paleis geraakt, en niet naar de kerkjes waar ze vandaan komt. Het Turks en Grieks gedeelte van Cyprus blijft maar in verdeeldheid. Als daar ooit iets zou veranderen, sluit ik niet uit dat er nog wel eens iets terugkeert. (pauzeert) Áls ik in de mogelijkheid verkeer om iets terug te geven.’
Hoe komt het dat hij op vrije voet is? ‘Ik ben 62. Dat ben ik niet geworden omdat ik zo’n lieve jongen ben. Ik pretendeer niet de moral highground. Links en rechts heb ik ook wel wat tikken uitgedeeld. Er zijn mensen uit de onderwereld en de bovenwereld die me beschermen. Wat Cyprus betreft, is er gezegd dat het verleden voorbij is. Dat is bezegeld door aartsbisschop Chrysostomos. Daar heb ik dispensatie voor gekregen.’ (schatert)
‘Maar weet je, over een paar jaar ben ik er niet meer. En de kunst wel. Die zal er altijd zijn.’
.
Protected: Forged Hitler diaries to become accessible to public – Channel NewsAsia
April 23, 2013 – 17:39Protected: Europol probe into crime gang linked to €500k rhino horn heist – Independent.ie
April 23, 2013 – 17:07Protected: Fatal Irony Of Audacious Robbery In Swords
April 23, 2013 – 16:22Protected: Philadelphia woman pleads guilty to $3M art theft
April 23, 2013 – 16:19Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire: Failed Negotiations Put Ka Nefer Nefer Forfeiture Case Back on the Docket
April 18, 2013 – 14:56Failed Negotiations Put Ka Nefer Nefer Forfeiture Case Back on the Docket
http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com/2013/04/failed-negotiations-put-ka-nefer-nefer.html
April 18, 2013
The U.S. Attorney in St. Louis today told the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals that negotiations have failed in the case of United States v. Mask of Ka Nefer Nefer. Federal authorities are attempting to seize and forfeit the mummy mask from the St. Louis Art Museum and hope to return it to Egypt.
The federal district court in St. Louis twice dismissed the case last year before prosecutors filed an appeal to the higher court. But prosecutors told the appeals court in a January 17, 2013 status report that negotiations might resolve the matter. “It is the hope of the parties that this meeting will result in the parties and the Republic of Egypt coming to terms that will settle this matter in its entirety, such that no further appellate proceedings will be required,” the report explained.
Today’s report, in contrast, closes the door on any negotiated settlement. It announces:
“In the interim between the United States’ last status report and the present date, the parties have continued to confer in good faith in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution of this case. Unfortunately, the parties’ attempts have so far been unsuccessful, and the United States no longer believes that a nonjudicial resolution of this case is likely in the foreseeable future.”
The case will be placed back on the court docket and proceed to litigation.
This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire atculturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com. Text copyrighted 2010-2013 by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC. Any unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of this post is prohibited. CONTACT:www.culturalheritagelawyer.com Photo credit woofwoof.
Protected: Mystery deepens over the ‘Renoir Girl’
April 18, 2013 – 02:31Does your museum have a media strategy for thefts? | Museums Association
April 18, 2013 – 02:28Does your museum have a media strategy for thefts?
April 17, 2013
Having a media strategy in place in case of theft is key to managing your museum’s reputation, and can help recover stolen items, according to the expert panel on the Museum Practice security webchat last week.William Brown, national security adviser at Arts Council England, recommended having a pre-prepared media strategy and reporting line ready in case of a theft.
“Be careful what is said publically, and ensure staff know who the nominated press liaison person is,” he added.
Clive Stevens, managing director of Euronova Ltd, also recommended communicating a pre-planned media response to lenders and trustees, and linking the response to a recovery strategy.
Simon Winiarski, director of Russell Scanlan, advised that some insurers utilise the services of specialist PR companies to manage the media following a loss, so it is worth checking with your insurance company to see if this applies to your museum.
There was also discussion over the merits of revealing the value of an object that had been stolen, the difficulties of insuring museums and collections, how to train staff to deal with suspicious behaviour, whether the Scrap Metal Bill will be effective in reducing theft, and what security technology museums should have.
Does your museum have a media strategy for thefts? | Museums Association.
Claiming that there is not enough budget to protect very valuable objects really is confession of guilt
April 16, 2013 – 12:50May 11, 2003, Benvenuto Cellini’s Saliera (salt cellar) was stolen from the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, which was covered byscaffolding at that time due to reconstruction works. In the press one could read: Vienna’s ‘Mona Lisa of sculptures’ stolen / Cellini’s‘Saliera,’ worth $57 million, taken from museum. And: “Climbing scaffolding and smashing a window early Sunday, thieves slipped intoVienna’s Art History Museum and — despite high-tech motion sensorsand round-the-clock guards — disappeared with a 16th-century gold-plated masterpiece sculpted by Benvenuto Cellini. The stealthy andstunning heist was one of the biggest art thefts in Europe in recentyears. The intricate, 10-inch-high sculpture, known is valued at about$57 million.”
Stealthy? Thieves?
The facts appeared to be quite different. A former Scotland Yard art detective, now a private consultant, claimed that a Serbian gang was involved in this theft. Why? Because “the guard who turned off the alarm system when it was activated had recently married a Serbian lady”. Talking about sound investigativework, and rather discriminatory as well.
September 2006, the real culprit Robert Mang was jailed four years for the theft of the Cellini Saliera, which Mang called a “prank”. And a prank it must have been. Mang hardly prepared his crime. Passing one evening, a bit plastered, he just climbed the scaffolding, smashed a window, and a display case and climbed down with the Saliera under his arm.
The burglary and theft took place in 56 seconds. In those days I wrote a Museum Security Network blog that the director, Wilfried Seipel, of the museum ought to be dismissed offhand. Either his museum employed an unqualified security manager – for which the general director is responsible – or the director of the museum did just swing away all advice a qualified security manager gave. In both cases the director has the final responsibility, and in my opinion should leave.
It is by no means acceptable that a € 30 million piece de resistance, the absolute highlight of this museum, could be stolen as easily as Robert Mang did.
My blog evoked an angry reaction by the very same imaginative former Scotland Yard art sleuth. I should not be that harsh on the victimized director. Shouldn’t I?
Almost ten years after Mang’s ‘simple comme bonjour’ theft from the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, the De Kunsthal experienced an almost similar burglary and theft. It took three small time Romanian criminals – a child’s play – two minutes to break into De Kunsthal, and get away with seven paintings.
Maybe a well prepared – too well for they visited De Kunsthal several times, and were easily traced via CCTV – burglary, and theft. However, with a ridiculous epilogue. After the theft they hid the paintings some two weeks in Rotterdam, just two blocks away from my apartment, and took them to Romania where they very clumsily started peddling the stolen paintings. The suspects have been arrested.
While writing this (April 15, 2013) the paintings are still missing.
Criminals may always be able to break in a museum through the outershell of the building, but it is absolutely inacceptable that they can steal millions worth of objects, even a highlight as Cellini’s Saliera, within a minute, or seven paintings within two minutes.
If that happens there is something fundamentally wrong. The awkward public presentation of the De Kunsthal director, Emily Ansenk, made matters even worse. After the theft she stated at a press conference that the security of De Kunsthal ‘is state of the art’.
An embarrassing blunder.
Seven valuable paintings stolen during a two minutes burglary, but the security is ‘state of the art’…
In both thefts there is a lesson to be learned. Intruder alarm systems have a very limited value when criminals are able to get in as easily as in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, and De Kunsthal in Rotterdam.
No alarm response organisation can cope with such a structural vulnerability. In another Dutch museum heist, Gouda March 21, 2012, thieves used explosives to force their way in. It is quite difficult to stop that. It can be done, but not easily, and not in all buildings. What can be done however is to prevent thieves from stealing highlights after they enter. At least not as quickly as in both mentioned museums.
Structural, burglar-proof shells must be similar to the peels of an onion. Every time one peel is removed there will be another one. These might be burglar resistant doors and roller shutters, but may also be high-end burglar-proof display cases.
Claiming that there is not enough budget to protect very valuable objects really is confession of guilt. It means that valuable objects
are displayed irresponsibly..
Ton Cremers
toncremers@museum-security.org
+31624224620
Protected: Unusual theft from Art Gallery of Ballarat
April 16, 2013 – 12:35The Professionalization of Library Theft
April 16, 2013 – 08:31The Professionalization of Library Theft
By Travis McDade
Travis McDade is Curator of Law Rare Books at the University of Illinois College of Law and author of the upcoming Thieves of Book Row: New York’s Most Notorious Rare Book Ring and the Man Who Stopped It. The book will published by Oxford University Press in May 2013. In this article Travis McDade, who also teaches a class called “Rare Books, Crime & Punishment”, writes about how stolen books can be identified and what book thieves do to prevent this.
The indication that an ordinary string of rare book thefts has evolved into a terrifying string of rare book thefts often comes down to this: the presence of a man whose sole job it is to get rid of library ownership marks. No other single trait indicates as certainly that a theft ring has moved from the amateur to the professional ranks. So while it seems encouraging that five people involved in the Girolamini Library thefts have been sentenced for their crimes, it had better only be the beginning of people being prosecuted. One of the men charged two months ago with playing a part in the scheme was a Bologna bookbinder whose job was to scrub books of their marks — and his presence, like that of a single cockroach, signals a much larger problem.
Almost all library books are marked in some way by their owner institution, usually with one of three types of stamp: ink, emboss or perforation. There are also a host of secondary identification marks, including bookplates pasted inside the front cover and cataloguing information written on the title page or gutter. All of these must be destroyed for a professional thief to feel safe.
Solo thieves — the dreaded one-man-bands of the cultural heritage theft world — do this work themselves, the results of which are often poor. Because these guys have to spend a lot of time worrying about the thefts and the sales, they often give short shrift to the most tedious part of the job, making a hash of it with unsightly, value-killing blemishes — an easy thing to do when mixing bleaching agents and hot irons with paper that is often centuries old. So theft rings that grow to a certain size either develop from amidst their ranks men who have an aptitude for the task, or they simply hire people whose job it is to work with old books.
The American book theft ring I write about in Thieves of Book Row was very particular about scrubbing its books of library markings. It employed a small army of men to steal from America’s libraries to feed the Manhattan book trade, but warned these men against tinkering with book stamps. A botched field-scrub could ruin the value of book — and was, counter-intuitively, an even more tell-tale sign of theft than even the presence of a library stamp, which could often be explained away. Book cleaning was done by a few trusted individuals; in the case of particularly tricky marks, like perforated stamps, the work could be outsourced to England.
This is almost certainly what happened in Italy. A Bolognese bookbinder, who could be trusted both to work with old paper and to keep his mouth shut, would be a go-to guy for tough marks. He would know how to clean pages or, if needed, get rid of them altogether, replacing the marked leaves with either close copies from other editions or pages manufactured expressly for the purpose. This is an act known in the book world as “sophisticating,” and a really fine job of it requires the touch of a craftsman.
The worst news is, like any cottage industry that becomes successful enough to hire specialists, book theft rings that employ task-specific men soon need a guaranteed supply to justify their expense. It’s a feedback loop that all but guarantees that the Girolamini Library arrests and prosecutions have barely scratched the surface.
(This article originally appeared on the OUP Blog, it is presented here by permission of the author and of Oxford University Press. Thank you very much.)
Help to catch book thieves:
Protected: Los diez robos más famosos de la historia
April 16, 2013 – 08:28Protected: The repentant book thief of Lambeth Palace
April 15, 2013 – 15:51Protected: The Shroud of Turin – A true relic or a forgery?
April 15, 2013 – 09:53Protected: April brings art heist lecture and new exhibit to the Frost : FIUSM
April 14, 2013 – 12:03Protected: Book review: Lost, Stolen Or Shredded by Rick Gekoski – Features – Scotsman.com
April 14, 2013 – 12:01Sin pistas del robo al Museo Histórico
April 13, 2013 – 11:25Sin pistas del robo al Museo Histórico – Diario EL PAIS – Montevideo – Uruguay
http://www.elpais.com.uy/120109/pnacio-617475/nacional/sin-pistas-del-robo-al-museo-historico/
January 10, 2012
PAYSANDÚ | SANDRA KANOVICH
El intendente de Paysandú, Bertil Bentos, que ordenó una investigación interna para deslindar responsabilidades en el hurto de la pistola que perteneciera a Juan Antonio Lavalleja. Bentos informó que se reunió con las autoridades policiales y advirtió del compromiso de no dar información ni ampliar comentarios que pudieran entorpecer la investigación policial.
En la mañana de ayer comenzó la investigación interna junto al secretario general, directores generales y personal vinculado al museo. “Se escucharon explicaciones, se analizó la situación y continuará en el día de mañana (por hoy lunes) recabando más antecedentes, acumulando información para poder analizar responsabilidades”, expresó con el mismo hermetismo con el que manejó la información policial.
Bentos aseguró también que en la jornada de hoy se pondría en contacto con las autoridades del Colegio del Rosario. La pistola robada pertenecía al Museo Salesiano y fue entregada en custodia a la intendencia, para ser expuesta entre las piezas históricas del museo.
El intendente también respondió públicamente a la bancada de ediles del Frente Amplio, que el sábado emitió un comunicado de prensa con la resolución de llamarlo a sala para exigirle explicaciones sobre el hecho. “Estamos dispuestos a concurrir a la brevedad”, dijo en la conferencia de prensa convocada en la mañana de ayer, con la que el jefe comunal interrumpió su licencia anual.
Como se informara, desconocidos ingresaron el viernes al Museo Histórico Municipal, ubicado frente a una comisaría, y hurtaron cuatro cajas de monedas antiguas y una pistola de chispa que perteneció a Lavalleja y que se presume fue la que utilizó durante la Cruzada Libertadora.
Sin pistas del robo al Museo Histórico – Diario EL PAIS – Montevideo – Uruguay.
Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Paintings ‘Must Be Returned’ to Fenway, Says US Attorney
April 13, 2013 – 11:25Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Paintings ‘Must Be Returned’ to Fenway, Says US Attorney – Fenway-Kenmore, MA Patch
http://fenwaykenmore.patch.com/articles/isabella-stewart-gardner-museum-paintings-must-be-returned-to-fenway-says-fbi
March 19, 2013
FBI officials announced on Monday they know who committed one of the biggest art heists in history, but they still need the public’s help to locate the 13 missing pieces of art.
The announcement came on the 23rd anniversary of the heist at Fenway’s Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, where thieves posing as police officers lifted now-considered priceless pieces of art by Rembrandt, Vermeer and Govaert Flinck, among others.
Since 23 years have gone by, the statute of limitations on the original crime has passed, meaning officials can only press charges related to the theft, such as possession of stolen property charges against those currently harboring the paintings.
But the threat of an arrest or charges is tempered by a $5 million reward for a tip leading to the successful recovery of the paintings, or potential immunity from criminal prosecution.
Progress on tracking the works of art has ramped up over the last few years, officials said.
“The FBI believes with a high degree of confidence in the years after the theft the art was transported to Connecticut and the Philadelphia region and some of the art was taken to Philadelphia where it was offered for sale by those responsible for the theft,” said Richard DesLauriers, Special Agent in Charge of the Boston FBI office. “With that same confidence we have identified the thieves who are members of a criminal organization with a base in the mid-Atlantic states and New England.”
Officials believe the art was smuggled into Connecticut and eventually made its way into Philadelphia. At that point, the trail for the missing masterpieces goes cold. The FBI believes an organized-crime organization based in the mid-Atlantic states coordinated the crime.
To help keep the public in the process, the bureau launched a new Gardner heist website. The site features sketches of the thieves, images of the lost art, background on the crime and information for anyone who want to contact the FBI with new information about the crime.
“I have a great desire to get those paintings back, so that Mrs. Gardner’s wishes can be fulfilled,” said U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz.
.
