AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

Partly to credit for the grand scale of success in the art world is the international art market and its ability to place a price tag on art and antiquities, which are otherwise difficult to confer a value onto. Art crimes, particularly art theft, affect the art market in several ways. Examples of this are the continually thriving illicit art industries, the increase and decrease of the value of art and antiquities pertaining to particular thefts, and the process by which illicit art and antiquities make their way on to the licit market. Alongside the legitimate art market is the illegitimate art market where stolen, forged, or fake art and antiquities contribute to an equally profitable, yet unlawful, industry. Both the licit and illicit art markets cater to elite, wealthy 'players' who as art dealers must show a high decree of financial awareness when trading works that will often fetch above millions.[1]

The art market is vulnerable to art crime because of the high demand of art, the staggering profitability of art, the ease of sale following some thefts and, in cases of looting in times of conflict, the level of local government corruption.[2] There have been many instances of art theft which have had an influence on the art market. Included among those are the notoriously famous thefts of Hubert and Jan van Eycks 1432 masterpiece The Ghent Altarpiece, (Fig 1.) the unlikely but just as famous pillaging of the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, the theft of a Charles Goldie portrait (Fig 3.) from the University of Auckland, the politically motivated theft of Colin McCahon's Urewera Mural, (Fig 4.) and the stealing of a Dancing Shiva (Fig 5.) statue by an international antiques smuggler. The relationship between art theft and the art market is an ambiguous one, but there is no doubt that art theft can and does have a huge influence over the international art market.

Throughout history the plunders of war have always been plentiful in terms of art and antiquities, particularly after Napoleon's conquests.[3] During the French Revolution the scale of art theft was unprecedented. The looting of art and antiquities during the French Revolution changed the social attitudes of Europeans towards art as citizens overthrew the monarchy and took these symbols of aristocracy as bounty.[4] This change of ownership would influence the art market for many years to come as the revolutionary scale of art theft resulted in previous royal belongings saturating the art market and providing a means of funds for military endeavours.[5] The French Revolution transferred the power, not only of France but also of its thriving art market, from the aristocracy to the commoners.[6] When Napoleon came to power he stole the Ghent Altarpiece to put on display as a symbol of Paris as the centre of the arts and looted other works to continue the financial upkeep of the imperial army.[7] Napoleon's looting changed the ownership of works from one nation to another and caused debate about where the work ought to reside and riddled the art market with lawsuits, causing strife amongst art dealers who became reluctant to deal in works with questionable provenance.[8]

Like Napoleon, Hitler looted art extensively all throughout Europe but the masses of works he stole were much harder to retrieve and the collections he took much more difficult to restore.[9] Hitler also destroyed multitudes of contemporary art, or what he called 'degenerate art.'[10] Among the plunders of war for both Napoleon and Hitler was Hubert and Jan van Eyck's Ghent Altarpiece, also known as The Adoration of the Mystical lamb, which was taken first by Napoleon's men during the French Revolution and again under Hitler's regime in 1942 during the invasion of Belgium. The Ghent Altarpiece was recovered from a salt mine which was nearly blown up by Nazi's out of fear of the artworks falling into American hands. Had the operation gone through, the entire world, and particularly the art market, would have suffered a major loss financially and historically.[11] The painting was the first of the works housed in the mine to be returned to its owners, presumably because of its importance and extremely high value.[12] The thefts of an estimated 20.5 billion dollars worth of artwork during the Nazi regime de-stabilised the international art market as many works that had been looted were eventually sold on, leading to a later seizure of these illicitly acquired works and putting the unsuspecting new owner at a financial and cultural loss.[13]

The theft of art, particularly when it is work of a high profile, is highly publicised and therefore gains a lot of attention not only in the art world circuits but also in the general public. However, museum thefts are not common in the world of art crime so the case of the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum has captivated the public who are often bemused by the staggeringly high values of stolen works.[14] In 1990, thieves posing as police officers took twelve paintings from Boston's Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, including Rembrandt's only known seascape, (Fig 2.) that were estimated to be worth a combined value of US$300 million.[15] It is widely hypothesised that major art thefts result in increased value and sales for works by the same artist.[16] The theft of a work makes the rest of the artist's oeuvre more rare, and therefore, more valuable while the missing status of Rembrandt's only known seascape means that the demand for the return of that particular work is ever increasing.  However, the works, to date, are still missing so their whereabouts are curious considering most of these works are too highly recognizable to be sold to any honest buyer, suggesting that these went straight into a private collection. High profile thefts such as these create a high risk for criminals because the works are recognizable on the art market and therefore less marketable and less profitable.[17]

Some incidents of art theft closer to home have also shared a relationship with and influenced the art market. In 2006, Charles Goldie's portrait Hori Pokai: Planning Revenge was taken from the general library at the University of Auckland along with a rare unbound bible and several other items.[18] Charles Goldie is renowned as being one of New Zealand's most successful artists in terms of attention from patrons worldwide, the market value of his works, and his high number of sales.[19] At the height of his popularity, Goldie's works were a prime attraction for tourists to New Zealand who wanted to gain an insight into Maori culture.[20] It is suspected that the oil painting, among the other items, were stolen to order because of their high cultural significance in New Zealand's small art market which would make them almost impossible to sell, and they are also very niche items.[21] The fear of these items being taken overseas to be sold was very real and meant that it was possible for New Zealand to lose a very significant part of its cultural heritage forever, causing a destructive blow to the local art market which would have lost an important part of New Zealand's artistic and cultural history.[22]

New Zealand artists and their works have been the subject of art thefts for many years. Some of these cases, while still low profile in comparison to the theft at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum for example, have achieved more legendary status than others. One of these cases is the theft of Colin McCahon's Urewera Mural in 1997 from the Te Urewera National Park in the North Island.[23] The painting was said to be stolen as a form of peaceful protest by Maori who felt misinterpreted by the artist's own historical misunderstandings which he had incorporated into the work.[24] The theft of the painting gave it more attention than ever before, once it was returned it was put on display at the Auckland Art Gallery with information emphasising how the theft changed the view of the painting for New Zealanders.[25] The artwork now describes a changed culture that's represents several of New Zealand's cultural identities. The theft encouraged a new perception to be held of the painting and re-established its value as a piece of our cultural heritage.[26]

Without proof of provenance, stolen antiquities are deemed invaluable because knowledge cannot be gathered from an object that has been placed out of its cultural and historical context.[27] Because of this, criminals often get away without being punished for their crimes and instead the art market is at a loss due to having a piece of cultural heritage stripped of its importance and value.[28] Illicit objects that are looted from archaeological sites mostly go undocumented so make their way onto the licit market for sale easily.[29] This turns the antiquities market into a 'grey' market because of the difficulty in distinguishing the licit or illicit provenance of antiquities, which, in turn, discourages buyers who do not want to be victims of art fraud.[30]

New York dealer Subhash Kapoor smuggled antiquities, including a 900-year-old bronze statue of a deity the Dancing Shiva, out of India and sold as many as twenty-two illicit antiquities to The National Gallery of Australia.[31] How the Shiva ended up on the art market and further ended up in the hands of a National Gallery curator is not only a display of the dealers dishonesty and disrespect for the religious culture and art of India but also a display of the gallery's lack of due diligence.[32]  The theft of an antiquity as an item of cultural heritage is hugely negative in terms of the financial impact it has on the art market. A theft can cause a countries income to suffer due to a decrease in museum attendance and a decrease in tourism and publicity for that cultures particular artworks and antiquities.[33] In some ways, the art market itself can be seen as a driving force behind the theft of antiquities because of the growing commercialization surrounding cultural heritage objects which labels them as economically desirable in the elite art world.[34] 

When art is stolen, the loss to the art market, and the world, is not only material but also intellectual.[35] The loss of an artwork is not merely materialistic as with it goes its cultural value and symbolic significance pertaining to where it came from and the artist who made it. The nature of the international art market is rather inconsistent and can be described as opaque, unregulated, and illiquid.[36] The art market is the system in which the value of works are determined so is very closely linked to the world of art crime in the sense that criminals seek out artworks because of their value because they are wanting to make a reasonably low risk profit. The art market also shares a relationship with art theft in the sense that the art industry is the perfect place for money launderers to hide their illegal gains by purchasing paintings which are difficult to determine the value of.[37]

Criminal on goings within the art market are constant due to the international art markets fluid nature and the amount of wealth involved in the art industries. Often criminals seek out art theft as an easier form of theft that assists them in funding other criminal or trafficking endeavours because a piece of art, particularly an antiquity, has a trail that is easily erased from public knowledge. Art theft is transnational, just as the art market is and efforts to stem the trade in stolen art have proved very costly.[38] Stolen works are easily lost once they become transnational, making them harder to recover and effecting the art market immensely by putting it at a loss of a work that could potentially be a well sought after multi million dollar piece. The relationship between the art market and art theft is definitely a tumultuous one, where lines between what is and isn't illicit are hard to distinguish and values are difficult to determine and maintain.

Bibliography

Bell, Leonard. "The Colonial Paintings of Charles Frederick Goldie in the 1990's: The Postcolonial Goldie and the Rewriting of History," Cultural Studies 9, no.1 (1995): Accessed May 5, 2014.

Binney, Judith Encircled Lands: Te Urewera 1820-1921. New Zealand: Bridget Williams Books Limited, 2009.

Charney, Noah. Stealing the Mystic Lamb: The True Story of The Worlds Most  Coveted Masterpiece. United States: Public Affairs, 2010.

Choi, Sue. "The Legal Landscape of the International Art Market after Republic of Austria v.Altmann," Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 26, no. 1 (2005-2006): Accessed May 7, 2014, http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1620&context=njilb&

Coomber, Jarrett. The Economic Impact of Art Theft: A Quantitative Study of the  Economic Effects of Art Theft on Art Prices and Returns. Netherlands: Erasmus University, 2013. sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2F.

Durney, Mark and Blythe Prouxl, "Art Crime: A Brief Introduction," Crime Law Soc Exchange 56 (2011).

Gibson, Anne and Elizabeth Binning, "Art Thieves Snatch Goldie, McCahons in Library Raid," The New Zealand Herald, January 6, 2007.

Greenfield, Jeanette. "Art Theft and the Art Market," in The Return of Cultural Treasures, ed Jeanette Greenfield. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Hamlin, Gladys E. "European Art Collections and the War," College Art Journal 5, 2014. 3 (1946): Accessed May 7, 2014.

James, Marianne. "Art Crime," Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2000.

Kisluck, Anna. "Stolen Art and the Art Loss Register." Paper presented at the Art Crime Protecting Art, Protecting Artists and Protecting Consumers Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology, Sydney, 2-3 December 1999.

Kleinman, Rachel and Amrit Dhillon, "Dancing Into Trouble," The Age, March 18, 2014.

Mackenzie, Simon. "The Market as Criminal and Criminals in the Market: Reducing Opportunities for Organised Crime in the International Antiquities Market," in Crime in the Art and Antiquities World, Illegal Trafficking in Cultural Property, ed Stefano Manacorda and Duncan Chappell. UK: University of Glasgow, 2011.

McIntosh, Isabel "The Urewera Mural: Becoming Gift and the Hau of Disappearance," Cultural Studies Review 10, no.1 (2004): Accessed May 5, 2014.

Robertson, Iain. Understanding International Art Markets and Management. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Taylor, Andrew "Gallery's Statue Return 'Should Include Gift of Goodwill," The  Sydney Morning Herald, April 2, 2014.

Tijhuis, A.J.G. Transnational Crime and the Interface between Legal and Illegal Actors: The Case of  the Illicit Art and Antiquities Trade. Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2006.

[1] Iain Robertson, Understanding International Art Markets and Management (New York: Routledge, 2005), 13.

[2] Simon Mackenzie, "The Market as Criminal and Criminals in the Market: Reducing Opportunities for Organised Crime in the International Antiquities Market," in Crime in the Art and Antiquities World, Illegal Trafficking in Cultural Property, ed Stefano Manacorda and Duncan Chappell (UK: University of Glasgow, 2011)

[3] A.J.G Tijhuis, Transnational Crime and the Interface between Legal and Illegal Actors: The Case of the Illicit Art and Antiquities Trade (Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2006),1

[4] Noah Charney, Stealing the Mystic Lamb: The True Story of The Worlds Most Coveted Masterpiece (United States: Public Affairs, 2010), 80.

[5]Ibid, 83.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid, 89.

[8] Ibid, 108.

[9] Jeanette Greenfield, "Art Theft and the Art Market," in The Return of Cultural Treasures, ed Jeanette Greenfield (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 240.

[10] Sue Choi, "The Legal Landscape of the International Art Market after Republic of Austria v.Altmann," Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 26, no. 1 (2005-2006): 167, accessed May 7, 2014, http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1620&context=njilb&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2F.

[11] Gladys E. Hamlin, "European Art Collections and the War," College Art Journal 5, no. 3 (1946): 221, Accessed May 7, 2014.

[12] Ibid, 222.

[13] Choi, "The Legal Landscape of the International Art Market after Republic of Austria v.Altmann," 171.

[14] Mark Durney and Blythe Prouxl, "Art Crime: A Brief Introduction," Crime Law Soc Exchange 56 (2011): 121.

[15] Marianne James, "Art Crime," Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2000, 2.

[16] Jarrett Coomber, The Economic Impact of Art Theft: A Quantitative Study of the Economic Effects of Art Theft on Art Prices and Returns (Netherlands: Erasmus University, 2013), 31.

[17] Anna Kisluck, "Stolen Art and the Art Loss Register" (Paper presented at the Art Crime Protecting Art, Protecting Artists and Protecting Consumers Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology, Sydney, 2-3 December 1999), 4.

[18] Anne Gibson and Elizabeth Binning, "Art Thieves Snatch Goldie, McCahons in Library Raid," The New Zealand Herald, January 6, 2007.

[19] Leonard Bell, "The Colonial Paintings of Charles Frederick Goldie in the 1990's: The Postcolonial Goldie and the Rewriting of History," Cultural Studies 9, no.1 (1995):26, Accessed May 5, 2014.

[20] Ibid, 27.

[21] Gibson and Binning, "Art Thieves Snatch Goldie"

[22] Ibid.

[23] Isabel McIntosh, "The Urewera Mural: Becoming Gift and the Hau of Disappearance," Cultural Studies Review 10, no.1 (2004):42, Accessed May 5, 2014.

[24] Judith Binney, Encircled Lands: Te Urewera 1820-1921 (New Zealand: Bridget Williams Books Limited, 2009), 8.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Isabel McIntosh, "The Urewera Mural," 58.

[27] Durney and Prouxl, "Art Crime," 116.

[28] Ibid, 117.

[29] Ibid, 124.

[30] Ibid, 125.

[31] Andrew Taylor, "Gallery's Statue Return 'Should Include Gift of Goodwill," The Sydney Morning Herald, April 2, 2014.

[32] Rachel Kleinman and Amrit Dhillon, "Dancing Into Trouble," The Age, March 18, 2014.

[33] Durney and Prouxl, "Art Crime," 119.

[34] Ibid, 128.

[35] Ibid, 116.

[36] Ibid, 121.

[37] James, "Art Crime," 1.art

[38]Kisluck, "Stolen Art and The Art Loss Register," 2.