Art Theft Statistics and the Study of Art Crime

Why research, analyze, and further develop art crime statistics? I posed this question to myself after retracting a convoluted post on Art Theft Central last week in which I attempted to compare art theft data from 2004 with that from 2008 as reported by the Art Loss Register (ALR data sources: "Rewarding Business fig. 3" from "The Art of the Steal" by David Shillingford in Foreign Policy, No. 147, April 2005 p 28-9. and "Thefts by Location as reported to the ALR" from Art Loss Register Data Dump by Marion Maneker on Art Market Monitor 23 April 2009). My original post's objective was to present a profound interpretation of the differences in the ALR's art theft by location data between the two years; however, during my research I realized the ALR's statistical data was not as compelling as I had initially suspected. Accordingly, I have begun to reexamine my intentions and motivations for developing art crime statistics and data.

In When Crime Waves, Vincent Sacco states, "The successful construction of a new social problem depends upon the ability of claims-makers to impress upon an audience of lawmakers, journalists, and the members of the general public that the problem is serious and deserving of attention. One of the ways this is accomplished is through statistical arguments that provide dramatic and compelling evidence that the problem is a sizable and growing one (65)." Admittedly, art crime is not a new phenomenon, but its recently discovered connection to other illicit trades (e.g. weapons, drugs) is in fact a new concern worth impressing upon the public. But, how does one go about this? While $6 billion is a number often quoted when discussing the size of the illicit art and antiquities trade it is a very problematic statistic because it is so large and abstract a value that it can contribute to a consumer's "number numbness (58)," and thus make it difficult for one to "appreciate the complexity or nuances of arguments about how much crime there is (59)."

As a numerate consumer I was disappointed to find after evaluating the ALR's art theft by location data that the statistics they had produced were ineffective at providing substantial information beyond where the art thefts reported to their database have occurred. The table below illustrates how the ALR's art theft by location data from 2004 and 2008 can be interpreted in two different ways (as percentages out of the entire database or out of the estimated 10,000 thefts reported annually to the ALR) and therefore lead to a variety of different conclusions.

It was refreshing to see the ALR release new art theft data; however, by presenting these numbers without a real sense of their context they revealed little compelling statistical evidence of how art theft has impacted residences, businesses, cultural institutions, and places of worship.

As the value of art continues to rise exponentially so to will the number of thefts. Although there are a number of organizations (SAFE, ARCA, ALR) working to create awareness of art crime's key issues there is still work to be done. It was disconcerting to hear the other day that a well-respected art history professor had never heard of the Gardner theft. As exemplified in this case, there is an urgent need to not only break up the art historian's and museum curator's insular worlds, but also to broadcast to the general public - from the museum enthusiast to the sightseer - how this problem is effecting society on both the micro and macro levels.

Art Theft Austin: 8 Picasso's, Toulouse-Lautrec, Klee, & Calder

The Austin American-Statesman reported that twelve works of art including eight Picasso's, a Toulouse-Lautrec, a Klee, and a Calder were stolen from a former gallery owner's West Lake Hills, TX home on June 23. Initially, the victim reported only the theft of a Picasso (a black and white circus scene from the artist's 347 Series pictured at right, worth between $15,000-$20,000), but this week she noticed that eleven other pieces were missing. According to the Statesman, a number works of art were on loan to her from galleries and dealers from New York and Los Angeles for a show at her home. Surprisingly, none of the art was insured. I would not expect such naiveté from a former gallery owner or her associates. Additionally, how has it taken two weeks for her to realize her colleagues' art is missing in action? One might presume if she were including the loaned works in a show at her private residence, then she (and her colleagues) would have been all the more eager to confirm whether or not they had been among the works stolen.

Restitution Controversies Continued...

A few days ago I reached out to Professor Julius H. Schoeps (pictured at left) to see if he could provide me with more details regarding his ongoing restitution legal battles. Unfortunately, all he could tell me was that on July 14 he will be releasing Das Erbe der Mendelssohn's, an intimate account of how his family "lost their collection in the Nazi-Era." Possibly, in his book he will reveal more details regarding the "secret" Holocaust agreement made with the MoMA and Guggenheim museums.

Recently, in other restitution news Pissarro's "Le Quai Malaquais et l'Institut" was pulled from Christie's Impressionist/Modern Art Evening Sale only an hour before the auction began. The Times London reported on how Itai Shoffman - Gisela Bermann-Fischer’s nephew, the great grandson of Samuel Fischer, the publisher, and the representative of family members who feel unfairly excluded from the glamour and wealth associated with the Fischer name - arrived in the eleventh hour to dispute the Pissarro's sale. Briefly, the article explains how the Shoffman half of the family has been unfairly excluded from the restitution process and the monetary gains from the painting's sale at auction.

At first glance, I should think that if Shoffman et. al. expect a 50-50 split of the Pissarro rather than the 20 percent they were initially offered, then they should be willing to compensate Fischer for the legal fees and research costs she has incurred in the lengthy restitution process.

More on Julius H. Schoeps

In addendum to my post discussing the recent secret settlement agreed upon between the MoMA, Guggenheim, and Julius Schoeps et. al., I wanted to provide some background on Schoeps as his name may have sounded familiar to a few readers. In 2004, Schoeps, a historian at the University of Potsdam, grabbed headlines when he began consulting lawyers to establish how his family - the descendants of the greatest pre-war Jewish art collectors, Paul von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy - lost ownership of a handful of masterpieces including Picasso's 1905 "Garçon à la Pipe." Then in early November 2006, Schoeps filed a lawsuit in Manhattan's state Supreme Court that said "the Mendelssohn-Bartholdy's Jewish family was subjected to Nazi intimidation that forced him to flee his mansion and sell prized paintings into a depressed art market in the 1930s." The filing of the lawsuit led to Christie's withdrawal of one painting in question, Picasso's 1903 portrait of friend Angel Fernandez de Soto, owned by the Andrew Lloyd Webber Foundation. In November 2007, Justice Rolando T. Acosta of the State Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit after upholding the Foundation's argument that Mr. Schoeps couldn’t sue for restitution because he wasn’t appointed to represent his relative’s estate.

In light of Schoeps's recent settlement, I am curious to know if he plans on once again pursuing the other works of art once owned by his great-uncle. Evidently, he now represents his relative's estate.

Secret Holocaust Art Agreement

Donn Zaretsky at The Art Law Blog offers some thought-provoking analysis of the Bloomberg story, "Judge Slams MoMA, Guggenheim on Secret Holocaust Art Agreement" published June 18. The headline refers to US District Judge Jed Rakoff's "lambasting" a secret settlement made between the museums and "a German historian named Julius H. Schoeps and his relatives on Feb. 2, the day a trial was to begin to determine the ownership of two Picasso paintings." The paintings in question were the 1906 "Boy Leading a Horse" now at the MoMA and the Guggenheim's 1900 "Le Moulin de la Galette." As Zaretsky points out, it's unclear why Judge Rakoff was so upset with the museums, or why, "despite the slamming, the Court left the confidentiality in place."

Regarding the settlement, the directors of the MoMA and Guggenheim in a joint statement said,

“Our provenance research made clear from the beginning that the museums are the proper owners of these works, and that the claims had no merit. It was a prudent decision -- we settled simply to avoid the costs of prolonged litigation, and to ensure the public continues to have access to these important paintings.”

When it comes to the reclaiming or the restitution of seized art from museums, the costs of "prolonged litigation" often result in the public's loss of access to many "important paintings." Suppose the museums' provenance research was not as thorough as they had thought and they lost to Schoeps et. al. at trial. Would the plaintiffs then have been able to afford the exorbitant legal fees that often come with art restitution cases? Additionally, if this was the outcome would they then have been forced to sell the paintings to pay the fees? It may be the secret settlement was a way to compensate Schoeps et. al. while also keeping the Picasso's on public view.

This discussion about art restitution legal fees comes on the eve of Christie's Impressionist/Modern Art Evening Sale in London. A highlight of the sale is Lot 7 - Pissarro's "Le Quai Malaquais et l'Institut," being sold on behalf of Gisela Bermann Fischer. According to Bloomberg, Fischer "recovered 'Le Quai Malaquais, Printemps' after a quest that pitched her into a battle of lawyers’ letters with Bruno Lohse, a Nazi art dealer appointed by Hermann Goering to loot treasures in occupied France, and finally led to a Zurich bank vault, where the picture was stashed in a safe." Fischer has decided to sell the painting because after having "invested such a tremendous amount over the past 13 years, so much energy and so much of [her] finances... it would be frivolous to keep it.” However, it should also be said that the protracted legal battle has cost her at least 500,000 Swiss francs ($466,000) in fees. For Fischer, 80, the proceeds from the auction will likely assist her paying off the legal fees (the painting is estimated to fetch $1,473,300 - $2,455,500).

In 2006 the relatives of Dutch-Jewish art dealer Jacques Goudstikker used the proceeds from the sales both privately and at auction of restituted art to pay off the millions of dollars worth of legal fees and expenses that had accumulated over the nine years it took to finalize their agreement with the Dutch government. As of April 2008, they had already sold two-thirds of the 200 Old Master paintings they reclaimed. It is highly unlikely that the same number of paintings that hung in museums around the Netherlands prior to their restitution are still hanging in museums or public spaces today.

Often law firms that specialize in restitution will defer the research costs and legal fees until after the trial. But, are they simply waiting to cash in on a painting's potential value at auction? In many cases, it would appear that the owners of reclaimed art have little choice, but to place the art up for sale. Restitution implies restoring something stolen to its proper owner. Clearly, restitution law is not advertised as pro bono work; however, it is ludicrous to work so diligently to recover an object with such sentimental value only to be forced to sell it to repay one's legal debts. Possibly, if they had the opportunity these individuals would rather donate or loan the art to a museum for the public's continued enjoyment?

Art Theft Central on Picasso

In June 2005, the Picasso Museum made headlines after purchasing "Odalisque," a 1951 pencil sketch on paper depicting Picasso's mistress reclining nude for $575,000 (over three times its estimated value). This sketch in addition to 19 others were auctioned off by the Spanish artist's former mistress, Genevieve Laporte. In total the sketches, many of which bared the intimate inscription "For Genevieve," fetched $1.87 million.

Recently, the Picasso Museum made headlines again after a red sketchbook containing 33 drawings and worth an estimated $11.2 million was stolen from a locked display case in one of its second-floor galleries. Its astonishing that given the desirability of works of art by Picasso and the tremendous sums of money the Picasso Museum has spent on sketches in the past that they would not have better security measures implemented protecting such a significant part of their collection. While sketches are not the most expensive works of art in collections (their values pail in comparison to paintings, such as Dora Maar au Chat), they do capture the artist's stylistic progress and any artistic nuances that may not be so apparent on canvas. Accordingly, these missing Picasso sketches are crucial to the curating of the galleries in the museum that bears his name.

After the sketchbook's theft, French Culture Minister Christine Albanel said, "It's difficult to sell, a notebook of pencil sketches made in the 1920s... Even the Picasso family said it has a scientific value... It seems bizarre, to say the least." Bizarre maybe, but I do not think the sketchbook would be as difficult to sell as many have been led to believe. Certainly, as a collection of sketches, the album might be able to fetch a few million, or only a fraction of its estimated value, on the black market. However, why has no one voiced any concern over the sketchbook's being dismantled and sold off piecemeal to a number of buyers? What if in order to separate and distinguish them from the contents of the stolen sketchbook the sketches are slightly altered by the thieves? Although this second scenario may be less plausible, there must still be some concern voiced for the safety of the sketchbook.

Madoff Victims Speak Out

Recently, the New York Times reported that more than 100 victims of the Bernard L. Madoff $65 billion Ponzi scheme filed emotional letters with the Federal District Court in Manhattan. Many of the letters asked Judge Denny Chin to impose the harshest sentence possible on Madoff while others expressed outrage over the SEC's inability to discover the fraud after being tipped off numerous times. Intriguingly, there was only one letter from a non-profit that lost big in the fraud. In his letter, David B. Spanier, Vice President and General Counsel for the Dextra Baldwin McGonagle Foundation, contributed some creative alternative sentences, such as if Mr. Madoff's jail cell could "consist entirely of mirrors so that he would have to face himself each day," or if his cell could "contain a continuous video reminding him of his ill-advised frauds which now reach far beyond theft to include assisting others in their efforts to commit tax fraud." In the past the Foundation has made donations to a number of Ivy League universities as well as a few cultural institutions.

Surprisingly, there was no letter from any representative for the Carl and Ruth Shapiro Family Foundation which lost $145 million in the Madoff fraud. Nevertheless, I'm certain that the Foundation's biggest grant recipients, which included Brandeis University, the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, among others, have seriously considered sending their own letters of dismay to the Honorable Judge Chin.