Art Thieves and NY Times Photo Editors: What Are They Thinking?

The Bührle-inspired speculation on why thieves steal art from museums continues today, with an article by Randy Kennedy in the NY Times "Week in Review" section that is informed by some real reporting.

But before we discuss Kennedy's Profiles in (Criminal) Courage, let's get to what's really entertaining about this article---the decision of the Times' photo editors, once again, to illustrate a story with someone not mentioned in the article itself. This time, they dug into the newspaper's archives for Myles J. Connor Jr.

Now where have I seen that familiar image before? Let's go to the CultureGrrl archives.

Ah, here it is:

It accompanies this Jan. 13, 1998 article that called Connor an "erudite burglar...and the likeliest key" to the return of the paintings taken in 1990 robbery of the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston. That heist (but not Connor's possible connection) was mentioned today by Kennedy as "the biggest art theft in American history, with a value estimated as high as $300 million."

The caption for Connor's mug today says nothing about Gardner but describes his having said that "he arranged the theft---and return---of Rembrandt's 'Portrait of a Girl Wearing a Gold-Trimmed Cloak' to avoid prison time in another art theft."

That would be the painting below, now on long-term loan to the Getty Museum from a New York private collection:

Rembrandt, "Portrait of a Girl Wearing a Gold-Trimmed Cloak," 1632, private collection, New York

The Getty's press release, of course, makes no mention of this Rembrandt's colorful past---stolen in a 1975 armed robbery from the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, which had it on loan from the descendants of Robert Treat Paine II, a signer of the Declaration of Independence (described last November in another story by Kennedy, here). That painting was recovered in 1976.

But back to today's "Week in Review" article: After interviewing law enforcement officials and art crime experts, Kennedy arrived at this analysis of art thievery:

Most art theft experts say that the idea of such an evil connoisseurs' black market is largely a myth, and that many art thefts are committed with insurance company shakedowns in mind....The mundane reality is that many art thieves are simply not the sharpest grappling hooks in the toolbag; the smart ones choose to steal things that can be much more easily converted into money---or just money itself.

He also makes mentions of a blogger (a rare event in NY Times arts reporting): Derek Fincham of the Illicit Cultural Property blog is quoted on the "Dr. No" theory of theft-to-order.

As for the question of possible "insurance company shakedowns," paying ransom for stolen art is a very controversial practice in the museum world, because of the obvious incentive it can create for future art thievery.