
Dutch museum says van Gogh painting stolen in overnight raid - danso
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/thieves-stolen-van-gogh-masterpiece-dutch-museum-1819743
======
iandanforth
I fully approve of art theft. There should be honor among thieves of course.
You shouldn't _damage_ art. But if a painting isn't stolen now and then, well
it wasn't worth painting in the first place. Really, what is art _for_ but to
enliven the doldrums of the rich?

A moment or three of aesthetic pleasure, bragging at parties, but really most
days it's just so much wallpaper. No, the true purpose of art is to be stolen.
Then the chase begins, the drama, the mystery, the appreciation of the craft
of skullduggery.

Eventually you track down the blighter who nabbed the splotchy-whatsit, buy
him a beer and throw him back in the clink. That's where he'll meet his next
crew, plan the next heist, and start the whole glorious affair over again.

So cheers to the cheeky beggars who grabbed the Gogh, let the fun begin!

~~~
grawprog
Or the painting gets sold to someone shady overseas for a private collection
and it's never seen again. It's not like in movies, there's no romance or
drama to it. Stolen art doesn't benefit the common good.

~~~
FPGAhacker
Stolen art opens up the market for forgeries.

~~~
brownbat
Dick's version of the Man in the High Castle has a good meditation on
forgeries.

Mostly when people buy art, they're buying provenance, proof that a celebrity
artist in history touched this particular object.

Forgers have gotten incredibly sophisticated, finding ways to duplicate the
texture of historical paints and style of brush strokes of masters.

I think we'd do a lot of good for the world by commissioning as
indistinguishable fakes as possible for all famous works, putting them in a
room where the originals are all shuffled in, then sending them out into the
world so any museum or private collector can have one, with some chance it's
actually the real thing, but mostly the value would collapse to however
sublime it is to actually look at the work.

~~~
friendlybus
The value of art is not just the ‘celebrity’ of an artist like he were an
actor pimping out a cash-in film. Making a cultural contribution to the arts
is a part of carrying your civilisation forward. The artist is valuable
because they were the nexus point for many values and inspirations that speak
highly to the culture that produced them. Cavemen don’t make the Mona Lisa or
michaenglo’s David. These works (among many) stand as monuments to a time and
place that produced a peak of artistic, scientific, technological and cultural
success. Owning and safeguarding those art pieces connects you to the products
of the success of that passed civilisation, you carry the memory and product
of many people and imply a bright future for the sons and daughters of that
culture by holding up their successes above the ravages of war and nature.

Making copies defeats the point and is basically copying someone else’s
homework and handing it in as your own. You stripped the point of doing the
work to begin with for the sake of ‘spreading the wealth’. You didn’t make
better artists that will produce new valuable works, you empowered lazy
forgers who should be conservators of the past at best with that skill set.

The aesthetic value is only part of what took and a lot structure and skill to
create. Art is not about appearance.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Disagree. I think GP is correct: most of the market value of paintings is in
provenance of the physical object.

The "nexus point for many values and inspirations that speak highly to the
culture that produced them" is fully encoded in the information content of the
painting. With sufficiently good copying techniques, a physical painting can
be copied or digitized while preserving all this. After all, whenever
discussing "values and inspirations", you're usually not staring at an
original, but at a cheap photocopy in some book or on a webpage - and yet the
"values and inspirations" get communicated and discussed.

The aesthetic value is indeed only the part of a work - but again, contained
within the information content. This includes provenance _of the information_.
E.g. you derive joy from knowing this image was painted by Picasso, even
though you're looking at a compressed digitization of a copy of a copy of the
original painting.

GP's proposal would crash the art value to aesthetics + "values and
inspirations", letting the culture partake in it better, and cutting out the
scarcity.

~~~
friendlybus
If your criteria for appreciating art is merely looking at the image, the
market is already "crashed". Google images has reproductions of nearly all
paintings and art pieces ready to go. That hasn't happened.

There is more information in an artwork than what is presented as the final
result. The techniques that go into constructing a painting are not reverse-
engineer-able in every instance. You may produce the same brush strokes and
end picture, but how you got there will be a different method, you won't be
using the construction lines or dynamic symmetry of the masters that's passed
down usually via oral tradition. Preserving those techniques enhances
appreciation of the art and is a perspective worth preserving for it's own
practical benefits.

Hatsheput's (female ancient egypt pharoah) funerary tomb was the first
building to have outward facing columns that you could walk through. That
style of outward facing columns became the standard style of ancient greek
buildings, with steps leading up to outward facing columns. Columns you could
walk through used to be confined to courtyards due to inferior architectural
ability. None of that could be inferred simply by looking at the picture
without prior education. The provenance of who built that or ordered it to be
built in that manner is completely unknown to me, and does not change the fact
that it is obviously a valuable building and an intriguing place to learn
about what made the leap in architectural technology possible, how that
culture was ahead of the game, how those people lived to make such a thing
possible and to study the value of having outward facing colonnades among
other ideas. All without knowing the author.

------
hash872
What is the end goal for the thieves? Seeing as you obviously can't sell
stolen artwork on the open market- how many insanely wealthy private
collectors can there be out there, who are willing to risk substantial prison
time to own a stolen painting? I think many or most people who have that much
money probably made it legally and don't have that kind of risk tolerance. And
I doubt many mob boss/Tony Soprano types really have an appreciation for fine
art.... So what's the market like?

(And if there is a market for shady wealthy stolen art buyers, how do you get
connected with them? Seems like every node in a web of underground connections
is someone the police can potentially arrest & flip, etc.)

~~~
crazygringo
From what I've read it's stolen to order.

Super rich person really wants that particular painting to hang in a private
room where they can enjoy it.

And they go through a couple connections for plausible deniability -- buying
it from some kind of "dealer" they can "assume" is "legit", and the "dealer"
then connects with actual criminals to steal it.

If ever caught (unlikely), the thieves and "dealer" take the fall, not the
rich person. Also the rich person may be halfway around the world in a country
where there's literally zero chance of being caught/extradited.

But the thieves and dealer are going to make a helluva lot of money,
obviously, for the risk they're taking.

~~~
joncalhoun
I don't think plausible deniability works on one-of-a-kind artwork. Even if
you assume your dealer is legit, any cursory research will tell you it was
stolen. It would be like buying the secret formula for Coca-Cola and claiming
you didn't know it was stolen because it went through multiple middlemen.

~~~
OrangeMango
You can always claim to have purchased a "professional-quality" reproduction
from a "reputable" dealer.

~~~
black_puppydog
happens all the time that you ask for a replica and the dealer secretly plants
a multi million dollar artwork in your bedroom. Seems legit. :D

~~~
frandroid
And you've just decided that the "replica" was so good that you paid stolen-
art-on-the-black-market money for it, not "good replica painter" money for
it...

~~~
asdff
The thing is your books say "good replica money" and only your crypto wallet
or offshore account or shell company slush fund or pile of gold have the
'stolen-art-on-the-black-market' money removed from the balance sheet. Smart
accountants are payed a lot of money to figure out exactly how to hide this
from overworked and underpaid auditors.

------
dannykwells
For anyone wanting to have a wonderful 90s flashback featuring the theft of
high-end art, you can't do worse during shelter in place than to watch the
Thomas Crown Affair:
[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0155267/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0155267/)

~~~
macintux
Thanks for the reminder. Rented it tonight via iTunes.

It really is an excellent movie.

~~~
dannykwells
Yeah we just watched it a few nights ago. Truly is excellent.

And so, so 90s.

------
LeonM
The value (in terms of money) of art has always been confusing to me.

Art has monetary value because:

1 it is a famous, one-of-a-kind piece

2 it can be used for money laundering and/or illegal transactions

Pieces in museums are always in the #1 category. Any other piece with high
monetary value is clearly in the #2 category.

This stolen van Gogh will probably end up in a private collection, but really,
what's the point? Since it is now a known stolen piece it now has no value in
both category #1 and #2.

I have a hard time believing that the new 'owner' had it stolen for the
artistic value. Really, if he/she wanted to look at it, he/she could have just
gone to the museum. (Well, not right now due to COVID19, but you get the
point).

~~~
defertoreptar
I can't find the source, but I remember reading about how there's a lifecycle
to stolen art. The thief sells it to a sketchy art dealer at a huge discount.
The sketchy art dealer then sells it to a more legitimate dealer at less of a
discount. Then, it either goes to a legitimate private collector or museum.
The length of time between each step can span decades, but it becomes more
valuable at each transition.

~~~
wmkn
For a van Gogh that would never work. No legitimate art dealer would touch it.
Regardless of the amount of time in between.

~~~
retrac
Give it enough time, and will anyone even know who the rightful owner is
supposed to be? I have a feeling van Gogh's fame will probably outlast the
Netherlands, let alone a claim of legal ownership by one museum.

~~~
notahacker
I don't think many people acquire stuff on the basis it might be easily
resellable to people who aren't criminals around the point the Netherlands and
its national museums cease to exist.

------
nickthegreek
Photo of the artwork is missing from apnews. You can find one here -
[https://news.artnet.com/art-world/thieves-stolen-van-gogh-
ma...](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/thieves-stolen-van-gogh-masterpiece-
dutch-museum-1819743)

~~~
w-m
The muted greenish brown colouring, the strange wide aspect ratio, the
generally dark tone and setting: if you'd try to sell this to me as a Van Gogh
painting, I would have probably laughed at you. I'm far from being an art
historian, but it looks quite out of character for a Van Gogh.

~~~
grey-area
One of his most famous paintings matches 2 out of 3 of your criticisms, he
only went wild with colour later. I agree the style change can seem abrupt but
it happened over years.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Potato_Eaters](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Potato_Eaters)

~~~
w-m
If you put "Van Gogh painting" in Google images, you have to scroll quite a
bit to find anything in a similar style, except for a couple hits from current
news pieces.

~~~
grey-area
This is one of his best known early works, it is in no way obscure, neither is
his change in style.

------
csomar
> The thieves smashed a large glass door at the front of the museum to access
> the building.

So let me get this straight. A fairly sized museum that holds, possibly,
millions worth of art has absolutely no 24/7 security guards at the _front
door_. Not even a single guard.

Come on.

~~~
sgustard
Same reaction here. My company's unoccupied office has a glass door and I lie
awake thinking about someone stealing the 10-year old PC off the
receptionist's desk.

------
herodotus
> Thieves have taken advantage of the distraction provided by the public
> health situation to steal a prize Vincent van Gogh painting from a museum in
> the Netherlands

Here is the opposite effect: The number of spam phone calls I have received
has dropped from two or three most days to zero! Looks like the spammers
cannot work remotely, which is really odd!

------
songshuu
The gang leader was seen wearing a red hat and red trench coat...

Hit it Rockapella!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1EIUP8tvbE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1EIUP8tvbE)

------
tartoran
I'm surprised that, at this point, there are still originals in museums,
especially for very desirable works as some replicas are hard to tell apart
from the original. It can be done. If they hire professional 'replicators',
this type of museum theft could be completely eradicated.

Another possibility is that maybe in this case a replica was stolen and the
museum doesn't want to divulge that.

And want to add that this stolen work is almost un-sellable, everybody knows
is missing and if it ever resurfaces it will be claimed back, thus nobody
would want to own it. But what do I know..

~~~
ModernMech
One of the draws of going to a museum is to see the originals. If you know
it's a fake then it takes away from the mystique.

~~~
umvi
> If you know it's a fake then it takes away from the mystique.

On the other hand, if you can only tell the difference between the real and
the fake with a microscope, then "mystique" seems to be a simple placebo
effect.

It's about time we stopped holding original-yet-mediocre works like the Mona
Lisa on such a high pedestal just to create some kind of "mental high" that
people are deriving from the placebo effect.

~~~
jedimastert
What do you think art is? It's all in the head. Otherwise it's just paint on a
canvas. It's not like there's some sort of objective truth to it.

~~~
umvi
There are many reasons people like art, but I think the principle reason is
(or should be) admiration of skill. It's the same reason we like watching
great athletes or musicians - we can recognize the amount of time and talent
required to produce the end result ("wow, I couldn't do that, even if I
tried!").

It's also the same reason many people have a visceral negative reaction to
"art" that seemingly requires little to no skill (4'33", Pollock, etc.) - why
admire something you could easily imitate with little-to-no training?

~~~
krageon
It's great that you have this view of art, but really figuring out a single
principal reason is not something you're going to succeed at because _people
are different_. Evidently even more different than you expected.

~~~
umvi
People are different, yes, but also, people are the same. If you polled 1000
people about their views on art, I would wager >50% of them hold my view.

------
tech-no-logical
directly from the source :

[https://www.singerlaren.nl/en/nieuws/460/burglary_at_singer_...](https://www.singerlaren.nl/en/nieuws/460/burglary_at_singer_laren/)

------
KingFelix
But, what if Jan Rudolph de Lorm, the museum director was actually moving it
to a safer location and accidentally destroyed it. Jans quick-thinking jumped
into play and he called up a few college historian friends and asked for some
help.

Jan was able to disable the alarm so her friends could come in and smash the
place up, leave evidence that it was stolen, then activated the alarm just at
the right time.

Jan had become good friends with Andreas Blühm, the director of the Groninger
Museum and finally convinced him to let the Singer Laren museum take it on
loan. Jan was so distraught there was no way he could could let himself be
seen as an incompetent museum director. He had to cover his tracks.

He convinced his old historian friends to keep quiet about the cover-up by
cutting up the remains of the painting and giving them each a piece. A story
to be kept in secrecy only handed down each generation.

But Jan forgot one thing.......

------
kyleblarson
For anyone who has time on their hands and wants a good read, The Goldfinch by
Donna Tartt is a wonderful book that tells a story set in the world of art
theft.

------
btrettel
COVID-19 is providing many opportunities for criminals. It's only a matter of
time before articles come out with titles like "How identity thieves took my
federal tax return AND coronabucks" given the delay in filing US tax returns
this year.

~~~
tech-no-logical
according to both the police and the museum, the security was as per usual.
yes, the museum is closed now, but the burglary was at night.

~~~
btrettel
Interesting. I had assumed that security was reduced.

------
stakkur
I could've told you, Vincent. This world was never meant for one as beautiful
as you.

~~~
adrianmonk
My gold lies in a foreign land, buried deep beneath the sand.

------
rurban
I will not be surprised when they were the same Lebanese gang from Berlin who
also stole the big gold coin in Berlin, and most likely the Dresden green
vault jewels. It's just too easy.

------
pvaldes
(Unrelated with Van Gogh but, as we are talking about lost dutch girls, I
wonder how vertex-four will be doing...)

------
peter_d_sherman
Warning: Really corny humor ahead...

So it could be said that the Van Gogh... Van Went... away... <g>

~~~
yesenadam
I take it from that that you pronounce "Gogh" like "go". A Dutchman once
explained to me that both g's are pronounced with a strongly guttural h sound,
like in _loch_ or _Bach_ , or like the Spanish _j_ but much stronger, like
you're clearing your throat. And a short "o", like non-USA English "top" \-
_not_ an "ah" sound. _CHhhoChhh_. Yes, pretty impossible for English-speakers,
but anything would be closer than rhyming it with "go".

~~~
eythian
Basically, it rhymes with "cock" , except the 'k' sounds at the start and end
are choking sounds from your throat, like that in _loch_.

Depending on your English dialect, people tend to take the _gh_ either from
_though_ making it "van go", or the _gh_ from _cough_ , making it "van gof".

Now, for extra points, try the local liquor chain "Gall & Gall" :)

(Not a native Dutch speaker, just lived here for a few years now and spent
quite some time trying to get my head and throat around the g sound.)

------
magwa101
So somebody is making money off this.

------
sabujp
needs update
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stolen_paintings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stolen_paintings)

