Art Theft: An Exploratory Study of the Illegitimate Art Market in Australia
| Author | Lisette Aarons |
| Published date | 01 April 2001 |
| Date | 01 April 2001 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/000486580103400102 |
Art Theft: An Exploratory Study
of
the
Illegitimate Art Market
in
Australia
Lisette Aarons
The stolen
art
market
is a large and highly profitable illegitimate indus-
try. Despite
the
costs
of
art
theft
to
the
art
industry and
to
society
as a whole, little research has been
conducted
in this field.
The
present
study
gathered
information
about
the
prevalence, frequency and charac-
teristics
of
art
theft
inAustralia, as well as
the
types of people involved in
the
illegitimate
art
market; suppliers, distributors and purchasers.
Data
were
collected from 27 interviews with
art
market
and
other
profession-
als, including
representatives
from public
and
private galleries, auction
houses, insurance firms, private dealers and law enforcement. A
market
system model is
proposed
as a
framework
within which
art
thefts
that
occur
inAustralia can be considered.
Art
theft
is
not
a new
phenomenon.
As long as
there
have
been
wars,
the
triumphant
have
stolen
cultural
treasures from
the
defeated (Greenfield,
1995).
The
increasing accessibility of art
and
the
acceptance of contemporary art as
an investment have contributed to
the
trend in
the
last few decades of widespread
ownership of art. As demand for
art
has risen, so too have prices, particularly since
the
1960's (Middlemas, 1975).
With
market
expansion,
the
risks
inherent
in
collecting, buying
and
selling
art
have
increased (Burnham, 1978). Reports of
stolen art received by the International Foundation for
Art
Research (IFAR) have
more
than
tripled since
the
late 1970's (Stowell-Pearson, 1986). Combined with
the
quantity of anecdotal reports published in newspapers and law enforcement
and
art
journals, it appears
that
criminals have also found
art
to be
an
increasingly
useful avenue for profiteering.
Whilst many debates have centred around
the
concept of what constitutes art,
Conklin
(1994) limited art works to those objects typically found in museums of
fine arts.
The
International Foundation for
Art
Research (IFAR) defined
art
to
include paintings, drawings, photographs, prints and sculptures. Following
Conklin
(1994), artistic expression by a person
through
one
of these mediums will be
referred to as art throughout this paper.
The
trade in stolen art has been reported to be
the
third largest illegal interna-
tional market, behind drugs
and
arms dealing (Radcliffe, 1992).
The
recovery rate
for stolen art reported to
the
IFAR, Interpol
and
the
FBI has been estimated to be
Address for correspondence: Lisette Aarons, PO Box 10, Belconnen
ACT
2616, Australia.
THEAUSTRALIAN
AND
NEW
ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
VOLUME
34
NUMBER
1200I
PP.
17-37
17
18
LISETTE
AARONS
as low as
ten
per
cent
(Conklin, 1994; Stowell-Pearson, 1986) and conviction of
criminals is even lower. There have been only two such convictions in Australia,
both
involving prosecutions for theft of art from private collections'.
A single
art
theft
can
net
millions of dollars
and
stolen
art
can
circulate in
illegal markets for years
without
being
detected
(Sherman,
1991).
The
IFAR
estimates
that
there is currently billions of dollars worth of stolen art in circulation
world-wide (Lerner &Bresler, 1989).
One
incident, the 1990 theft of twelve paint-
ings, from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston has been estimated to
be valued at $300 million (Boston Police, 1997). Although Australian art is genet-
ally
not
as valuable, its theft
can
still impact
on
victims and insurers. In 1990,
ten
paintings by leading Australian painters were stolen from a Sydney gallery, with a
total value of $555,000. Considering
that
the
total value of art sales by Australian
commercial galleries in
1996~97
was estimated to be $131 million,
with
each
gallery selling an average of $287,000 worth of art (ABS, 1998), one such theft
can
have a significant financial impact
on
a gallery.
Art
theft has cultural ramifications when irreplaceable property is destroyed or
damaged, creating an additional loss
that
cannot
be measured in monetary terms
(Bator, 1981). As well, society pays the price of theft in the form of higher insur-
ance premiums and extra security costs. Indirectly, these costs are passed
on
to the
art viewing public with less work being displayed by galleries and works
on
show
becoming less accessible as they are placed
behind
more glass, barricades,
and
showcases.
Despite this cost, art theft has received little research attention to date, with
publicity focusing
on
anecdotal reports.
No
empirical studies have been conducted
which focus on art theft in Australia and there has only been one overseas attempt
to quantify art theft (Burnham, 1978).
Determining the prevalence of art theft can impact
on
the
deployment of law
enforcement resources and strategies employed by those within the art industry to
prevent such crimes. In London,
half
the
items stolen in burglaries are arts and
antiques, particularly paintings
and
ceramics (Anonymous, 1995). However, in
Australia, in terms of volume of reported targets of property crime,
the
trade in
stolen art appears to be relatively minor.
Art
is
not
listed amongst the items most
commonly reported stolen in any Australian state (jochelson, 1995; Mukherjee &
Jorgensen, 1985). According to police reports and other anecdotal information, art
thefts do occur in Australia, even if
not
on
the
same scale as overseas. Australia's
most highly publicised thefts have included
that
of Picasso's Weeping Woman from
the National Gallery of Victoria in 1986 and the theft of a collection of Heysen
paintings from the
Hamdorf
Academy in Adelaide in 1995. As well, there have
been thefts of multiple works valued between $400,000 and $3.35 million from
private collectors; Joseph Brown in 1978, the Smorgon family in 1988 and Mark
Stanley and Albert Tucker in 1998 (Maslen, 1998).
The
characteristics of art thefts have
not
been addressed empirically in past
research.
Conklin
(1994) theorised
that
art
thefts occur
when
three factors are
present.
The
art must be suitable for stealing, there must be an absence of effective
security measures
and
apresence of
motivated
offenders. Suitability for
theft
requires
that
a work of art be relatively easy to remove from display and desirable
THE
AUSTRALIAN
AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNALOF CRIMINOLOGY
To continue reading
Request your trial