In November the ARCA Blog covered a Germany forgery scandal which has been accused of falsifying provenance and paintings. Today, two other online news sources, Spiegel Online (German Art Forgery Scandal Reaches Hollywood), and Art Info (A Wild and Crazy Art Scame) updated readers on the scandal which has now reached Hollywood in the collection of comedian and author Steve Martin. No mention of a movie deal, though, yet.

by Catherine Schofield Sezgin, ARCA Blog Editor-in-chief

ARCA Blog: What is your academic background and how did you come to commit to a summer in Umbria studying art crime?

ARCA Blog: The program culminates in the writing of a publishable article. What area of art crime or cultural protection would you like to research?

ARCA Blog: Do you have a current fascination with an artist or period of art?

ARCA Blog: Have you traveled or lived in Italy and what would you like to do there when you are not attending lectures?

Steep Hellenistic amphitheatre at Pergamun sat 10,000 people/Photo credit: Catherine Schofield Sezgin

by Catherine Schofield Sezgin, ARCA Blog Editor-in-Chief

Last summer I met with Özgen Acar, a journalist based in Ankara, who has been covering the looting of archaeological sites and the sale of illicit antiquities from Turkey for decades (See "Troubled Waters" by Acar in Archaeology and "Chasing the Lydian Hoard" by Sharon Waxman at Smithsonian.com). He's incredibly busy but made time to hear about the Association for Research into Crimes against Art (ARCA). A few minutes into our meeting, he answered the telephone and after a few moments, told that caller that he would be available to talk in about an hour. "That was Peg Goldberg," he told us. "I haven't spoken to her in years and I'm wondering why she is calling now."

He thought it might have to do with a book she was writing, but I never did find out why the defendant in AUTOCEPHALOUS GREEK-ORTHODOX CHURCH OF CYPRUS and THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs.GOLDBERG AND FELDMAN FINE ARTS, INC., and PEG GOLDBERG, Defendants-Appellants contacted Acar, but occasionally Acar sends out emails and this one is a request to sign the petition to restore AORC funding:

Getty Goddess now home/ Chasing Aphrodite

Jason: We were thrilled to be able to attend the inauguration of the Getty goddess in her new home in Aidone, Sicily. For both Ralph and me, the trip -- which coincided with the release of Chasing Aphrodite -- really brought a feeling of closure to our own "chase," which began more than six years ago. Seeing the goddess -- can't really call her Aphrodite anymore -- in Sicily brought up some bittersweet feelings. The archaeological museum there sees about 17,000 visitors a year, far fewer than the 400,000 than visit the Getty Villa. Sicilian officials are hoping the goddess' return will change that, but certainly fewer people will see her now, and LA has lost an important masterpiece. That said, it was VERY powerful to see the statue in her new context, a stone's throw from Morgantina, the Greek ruins from where she was looted in the late 1970s. Surrounded by eerily similar figures depicting the fertility goddesses Persephone and Demeter, the statue takes on a startling new meaning.

Jason: The Getty made a very curious choice with Jim Cuno. On the one hand, he's an obvious candidate and a widely respected figure in the museum world. But on the issue he is most passionate and outspoken about, he is on the opposite end of the reformed Getty, which really has been leading reform efforts on the antiquities issue. In recent years, particularly after Phillip de Montebello stepped down at the Met, Cuno has been the leading voice for a position that has fewer and fewer supporters. Why would the progressive Getty chose such a regressive leader? From speaking with Cuno and several board members involved in the decision, it sounds like he was selected for everything except his views on antiquities collecting. Neil Rudenstein, who as President of Harvard was Cuno's boss for a time, said he personally disagrees with Cuno on that issue but thinks he'll nevertheless make a good chief executive of the Trust. Cuno himself has said he'll honor (and keep) the Getty's acquisition policy, which bars acquisitions of antiquities unless they have clear provenance dating to 1970. So we'll have to wait and see. Will the Italians curb the generosity of their loans? Will the Getty find ways to wiggle around its strict policy? Or by hiring Cuno, has the Getty cleverly "co-opted" one of the biggest opponents to to reform in this area? Time will tell. Meantime, I'd watch closely to see who Cuno chooses as the Getty's new museum director...and who that person chooses as the museum's antiquities curator.

Jason: Frankly, I never found the goddess to be the most beautiful of the objects at the Getty. In my view, she is far more important than she is beautiful, and that importance was largely squandered during her 22 years at the Getty -- she was almost entirely ignored by the scholarly community, thanks in large part to her scandalous past. Now that she's back in Sicily, I hope to see a new wave of scholarship that tries to restore her context and meaning. I feel more wistful about some of the other masterpieces the Getty returned -- the amazing griffons that adorn the cover of our book, the golden funerary wreath that may have rested on the head of a relative of Alexander the Great. Those are objects I'll miss seeing regularly. 

Reception in Aidone, Italy

Jason: Yes, there is plenty of irony here. In effect, the goddess has been returned to those who looted her, broke her into pieces and smuggled her out of the country for profit. Aidone is a very small town, and I was told that several of the locals who attended the ceremonies used to be clandestini -- the Sicilian term for looters. In reporting the book, we were able to recreate some of the illicit journey the goddess took from Morgantina to the Getty -- where it was found; how it was broken and smuggled out of the country to Chiasso, Switzerland; how it was shopped around (for a far lower price!) before the Getty bought it for $18 million in 1988. But much of that account is based on whispers and confidential law enforcement sources. There are conflicting aspects of the account, and the full story remains to be told. I'm hoping more details will emerge now that the statue is back home and the statute of limitations has expired on any criminal charges. In particular, it would be very important to know the precise find spot, which could then be formally excavated. But secrets have a way of staying secret in Sicily. We may never know the full truth.

Jason Felch will be signing the non-fiction book he co-authored with Ralph Frammolino, "Chasing Aphrodite, The Hunt for Looted Antiquities at the World's Richest Museum", at 7 p.m. on May 31 at Book Soup in Los Angeles.

You may read more about the trip home for the Getty goddess here on the website of Chasing Aphrodite.

Monica Di Stefano, a native of Amelia, teaches Italian language courses to ARCA students and conducts historical tours of Amelia, Narni and other adjacent Umbrian towns. She is a graduate in Foreign Languages and Literatures at the University of Perugia. She is the President of the Association 'I Poligonali', the group that manages the important archaeological site of the Roman Cisterns and works to present the historical and cultural riches of Amelia to visitors. Her family also owns a terrific clothing boutique in Amelia, BEPI 1976, on Via Rimembranze Nr. 49, that offers current Italian fashion.

ARCA Blog: Will you be teaching an Italian language course this summer to the ARCA students?

Monica: I will be teaching Italian again this summer with a book called 'Percorso Italia'.

ARCA BLOG: Monica, you have lived most of your life in Amelia so I must ask you, what is your favorite pizza from La Misticanza and Porcelli's? Or do you have a favorite pizza from another place in Amelia?

Monica: When I go to Johnny's La Misticanza I usually prefer tasting something else than pizza. His pizza is great but I know he feels offended if you don't choose one of his innovative food creations! If I want pizza I go to Porcelli or to Parco degli Ulivi, an other nice place which is just outside the city. We went there for the farewell dinner last summer.

ARCA Blog: You give historical tours of Amelia. What place do you find most interesting?

Monica: The historical place that I prefer in Amelia is The Roman Cistern: an amazing piece of engineering made by the Romans around the second century BC for the collection of water. It is incredible how this building is still here and could still work while many things that engineers do now just last for a short time!

ARCA blog: How would you describe the relationship between ARCA students and the people of Amelia? Do they watch us as much as we watch them?

Monica: The presence of ARCA students is very much appreciated and enjoyed by people of Amelia. The town is small and we know each other so when some new faces appear around we cannot avoid watching them and be happy to see someone else! So probably we watch you more! Also because Amelia, and probably Italy in general, is quite different from the States: people and habits here are much more relaxed and 'slow'. I believe this is why everyone falls in love with the peace and quiet of Amelia.

In the sixth chapter entitled “Le vol du musée des beaux-arts” (“The theft of the Museum Fine Arts”) in his biography of retired art police officer, Alain Lacoursière: Le Colombo de l’art, journalist Sylvain Larocque speculates about the fate of the 17 stolen paintings from the 1972 theft in Montreal.

Larocque echoes what Lacoursière told me in November 2009, that some people believe that the thieves were unable to sell the works and afraid of being caught, destroyed the evidence by throwing the paintings into the St. Lawrence River. However, Larocque writes, that is hard to image as the paintings could be worth $50 million today and few instances of thieves destroying the art has been known to have happened. Larocque writes that most experts expect that the paintings will reappear some day. Lacoursière has said to both Larocque and I that he believes that the paintings are still in the hands of the people who planned or sponsored the theft and that they are aware that due to the notoriety of the theft cannot sell the paintings in the legitimate market. Possibly, Larocque writes, the heirs to those paintings will donate the works back to the museum.

Larocque writes that governments could help solve the crime by granting immunity to anyone who would be able to recover one or more of the paintings stolen in 1972. While such an offer would preclude punishment of the perpetrators of the burglar, Larocque writes, is that really a concern almost four decades later? Even if the criminals were convicted, there is no guarantee that the paintings would be returned, Larocque writes.

According to Larocque, the Civil Code in Quebec says that after three years a buyer who acquired a painting in good faith may keep the stolen work. Only works from the National Museum of Fine Arts of Quebec, the Museum of Civilization and the Musé d’art contemporain de Montréal are exempt since those are national museums.

In 1989, when Alain Lacoursière was finishing his degree in art history, according to his biographer, he proposed to that the Government of Quebec duplicate the policies of France and Italy that would require anyone who acquired an artwork, whether in good faith or bad, would be forced to return the object to its rightful owner, regardless of how long it has been. ‘Aprés tout, personne ne peut contester que ces oeuvres appartiennent au patrimoine’/’After ll, no one can deny that these works belong to the collective heritage,’ Larocque writes.

Yet, Lacoursière’s proposal was not well received and he abandoned the idea in 2002.

Larocque retells the story of the 1990 theft of the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, then tells readers that some stolen artworks have been recovered 50 to 80 years after their disappearance.

Then Larocque tells the story of the May 2, 1965 theft of what is now the National Museum of Fine Arts of Quebec on the Plains of Abraham. Around 9 p.m. two guards on duty settled in the boiler room to watch an episode of the television series Perry Mason. A bell rang at the door. One guard went to see what was happening and saw a hand holding out a card on which he could read the name of a museum curator. He opened the door and saw a masked man who pushed him back inside. Two other assailants burst in and the trio tied up the two guards, evening though one of them had been a professional wrestler. The thieves escaped with 28 paintings worth $800,000, including works by Pierre-August Renoir, Krieghoff, Suzor-Coté, Horatio Walker and Frederick Simpson Coburn. Most of the paintings had been in the collection of the former Premier of Quebec, Maurice Duplessis, who had been in office in the 1930s and from 1944 to 1959. Four years later, the wife of Eric Kierans, a native of Montreal and a member of Canada’s House of Commons, contacted the police because a stranger had tried to sell to the couple a few of the paintings that had belonged to Duplessis.

According to Larocque, the theft of the paintings from the Duplessis collection had been committed to finance the Christian Nationalist Party that advocated “the sovereignty of the French-Canadian Catholics” and demanded the departure of Jews from Quebec. The 28 stolen paintings were found in a large bin at the home of one of the thieves, Leo Tremblay, who was found guilty of receiving stolen goods, a verdict that would be appealed two yeas later.

You may read more about Canada's largest art theft on the blog "Unsolved '72 Theft of Montreal Museum of Fine Arts."

Sylvain Larocque, an economic journalist with La Presse Canadienne, wrote a book about my favorite retired Quebec art cop: Alain Lacoursière: “le Columbo de l’art” (Flammarion Quebec, 2010). His sixth chapter is titled “Le vol du Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal” (The theft of the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts).

With patience, I used Google Translate to read the chapter as I have written on the 1972 unsolved theft (to be published in the upcoming Journal of Art Crime).

Three burglars entered through the unsecured skylight of the Montreal museum on Labor Day in 1972 and selected 35 paintings to steal. However, when one of the thieves inadvertently tripped a security alarm in the garage housing the museum's van that they planned to use as their getaway car, the three men grabbed only 18 of the paintings and ran down out of the museum and down Sherbrooke Street in the early morning hours. Sherbrooke Street is a main east-west thoroughfare that stretches through metropolitan Montreal in some of the most exclusive real estate so I have always found this an amazing sight to picture as three thieves carry $2 million worth of paintings by Rembrandt, Gustave Courbet, Jean-Baptiste Camille Corot, Peter Paul Rubens, Honoré Daumier, Jan Davidszoon de Heem, Jean Bruegel the Elder, Eugene Delacroix, Thomas Gainsborough, and Jean-François Millet.

According to Larocque, the fleeing thieves fled on foot presumably to join a car parked nearby although no witnesses, according to journalists reporting at the time, commented on any such reports. It does not make that assumption incorrect, only that it could be speculation. The newspapers at the time did not write about how the thieves might have left the scene. The police records are not available to the public.

A few weeks after the theft, the museum received a request for $500,000 and a polaroid of all the stolen art before lowering the ransom to $250,000. Subsequently, one painting was returned and another negotiated ransom failed, ending all contact with the thieves. The insurance companies paid almost $2 million in restitution to the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. With those proceeds, in 1975 the museum purchased what they hoped would be the largest Rubens to be held in a Canadian collection, The Leopards. However, in the 1990s, Marie-Claude Corbeil of the Canadian Conservation Institute established that The Leopards was a copy. According to Larocque, Corbeil's analysis revealed that the red pigments found in the painting were invented in 1687, almost four decades after the death of Rubens. The museum now attributes this work to the Studio of Peter Paul Rubens.

In subsequent years, Larocque writes, a $10,000 paid reward in 1973 failed to produce the paintings; an FBI tip that the works were possibly in South America resulted in no recoveries; and in 1982 an offered reward of $250,000 was also unsuccessful.

Lacoursière, then a police officer in Montreal, decided in 1984 to review the file on the museum theft which he requested from the department's archives where the file had languished for years. "In fact," Larocque writes and I translate, "the documents were not far from the shredder./En fait, les documents n'étaient pas loin de la deechiqueteuse."

Five years later, Larocque writes, Lacoursière was contacted by an officer with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who told him that a drug addict said that the paintings were buried in the backyard of the residence of a lawyer but the lead was useless as the would-be informant could not say precisely where the lawyer lived.

In 2002, Larocque writes, Lacoursière attended an opening at the Maison de la culture Frontenac in Montreal East and met an art collector and manufacturer of wooden boxes from a community located about one-hour's drive by automobile outside of Montreal. Larocque does name the man, the community and the municipality, however, when I was writing my article on the museum theft, Alain Lacoursière asked that I not reveal the man's identity.  I do not know about the agreement between Larocque and Lacoursière for the book, however, I shall honor the original agreement with Lacoursière until he notifies me otherwise.  In addition, the man has not to my knowledge been arrested or officially questioned in connection with the museum theft.  In the biography, Larocque writes:

Lacoursière told me in November 2009 that the reason the art students were regularly expelled from the art gallery was that the staff kicked them out to enjoy their afternoon tea.

According to Larocque (and what Lacoursière told me two years ago), Lacoursière was intrigued by his encounter with "Smith" because he knew that after the theft that the police had followed and photographed student from UQAM (I was given the institutional name of École des beaux-arts) in connection with its investigation. He then led "Smith" to believe that approaching the 30th anniversary of the theft that there might be a million dollar reward to anyone who could provide information to retrieve the stolen paintings.

In 2003, Larocque writes, Lacoursière, a Detective Sergeant with the Montreal police, went to visit "Smith" at his home. Although "Smith" gave him a tour of his studio and his property, he did not say anything more about the museum theft.

Over the years, Larocque writes, Lacoursière kept in contact with "Smith" 'juste au cas' (just in case) and in 2007, while filming a documentary, le Colombo de l'art, Lacoursière filmed a visit to "Smith's" home and this time offered a "two million dollar" check as a reward for information leading to the recovery of the paintings but with the camera filming, "Smith" remained silent and did not react. "Smith" denied that he had even been watched or questioned by the police investigating the museum theft in 1972. Larocque writes:

À l'été 2010, au cours d'un entretien téléphonique, [Smith] a toutefois réfuté avoir joué quelque rôle que ce soit dans l'affaire du Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal. Selon lui, le vol a été perpétré par des employés de l'UQAM, possiblement des professeurs et des appariteurs qui avaient été soupçonnés d'avoir effectué un important cambriolage à l'université, quelques semaines auparavant./In the summer of 2010, during a telephone interview, [Smith], however denied having played any role whatsoever in the case of the Museum of Fine Arts in Montreal. He said the theft was perpetrated by employees of UQAM, possibly professors and porters who were suspected of having carried out a major robbery at the university, a few weeks previously.

You may read about this book here and more about the 1972 unsolved theft of the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts on my blog here.

Disputes over works of art and antiquities take many forms. Nations and individuals with claims to cultural objects pursue their claims in a number of areas; only seldom are these battles seen in courts of law. As a consequence many of the precedents set for party’s actions are seen outside the public view. This underscores the terrific resource which Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino have created with their new book, officially released this week.

Their terrific series of investigative reports for the Los Angeles Times served as the jumping off point for the work. That series of articles was a finalist for the 2006 Pulitzer Prize and helped me crystallize much of my thinking about the antiquities trade and the role of art museums. Those reports, though terrific, were limited by the length of a newspaper article, and the authors continued their reporting in the form of this work to allow the space to explore these issues. In so doing they have created what will stand as the definitive account of the troubled times at the Getty from its creation in the 1970s through 2007. The book takes the form of a straightforward and rigorous account of the events which led to first the creation of the wealthiest art-acquiring institution in the world, its unfortunate choices, and its painful public shaming.

The authors maintain their reporters tone, which serves the material well. I think partisans on both sides of the heritage debates will find much to admire in the consistent and accurate depiction of characters and events. One point for which the authors deserve high marks is their description of the laws at issue—they swiftly and accurately describe the complex network of U.S., Italian and International laws without letting it overwhelm the story they are telling. There are also references and notes for further readings. The book maintains a lively and direct style throughout. I was provided an electronic copy of the work, which had no page numbers, so I am unable to reference the quotations below.

WASHINGTON AND CAIRO – The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Egypt (representing the Egyptian side and acting as coordinator between parties) and the International Coalition to Protect Egyptian Antiquities (the Coalition) today announced they have reached mutual agreement to cooperate on a comprehensive plan to protect Egypt's archaeological and cultural heritage sites and artifacts, which will be a cornerstone in the basis for tourism revenue as Egypt builds a successful economy.

The Coalition, led by the George Washington University Capitol Archaeological Institute, the Archaeological Institute of America, the American Schools of Oriental Research, and the National Geographic Society, was in Cairo May 16-18 at the invitation of the Egyptian government for a series of meetings with senior Egyptian government officials, private sector and archaeological experts.

The Ministry and the Coalition formed a Public-Private Partnership, agreeing to develop a framework that commits resources to site protection, including protective walls at archaeological sites and increased training of law enforcement personnel; a nationwide satellite imagery analysis initiative; a complete database of Egypt's antiquities based on inventories of Egypt's museums and storage facilities; an education and awareness campaign; and longer term small business and green archaeological site programs.

"Egyptian antiquities and sites are among the most historically significant and important in the world. In times of political transition, ancient sites and artifacts are often targets of international crime and illicit activity," said Deborah Lehr, Capitol Archaeological Institute Chairman. "We commend the Government of Egypt for its efforts and are delighted to be working together to develop and implement short and long term solutions to ensure protection of Egypt's invaluable cultural heritage."

“The protection of monuments and sites by the Egyptian authorities during and after the revolution differs completely from other such situations like for example what took place in Iraq. We would like to develop and increase our capacity to protect those sites and monuments,” said Egyptian Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs Sherif Elkholi.

Ambassador Iman el Farr, Egyptian Deputy Assistant Minister for Cultural Agreement and Protocol Affairs, stressed the importance of finalizing the framework agreement to be signed by the two parties in order to begin delivering on agreed upon initiatives and raising the funds needed for implementation.

"This is a landmark agreement and establishes a new system for all of us to work on our mutual goal of protecting Egypt’s archaeological sites," said Peter Herdrich, Chief Executive Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America. "It's a great day for archaeology in Egypt."

Further information may be obtained by contacting Claire Buchan at claire@clairebuchan.com.

by Catherine Schofield Sezgin,
ARCA Blog Editor-in-Chief

Last March when I visited the Musée de'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, I found a copy of the museum catalogue in the gift shop and with my iPhone photographed the images of the stolen paintings. This book can also be found in libraries around the world, such as the copy I found in the Getty Center's library. If the paintings were selected by someone who hired the thief, and of course this is pure speculation as the police have released no current information about the theft, a visit to the museum is not mandatory.

Again, in the event you may come across one of these paintings, here's the list of the five stolen artworks and their full-page images as shown in the museum catalogue: