Blog Subscription via Follow.it

August 23, 2011

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - ,,,,,, No comments

Part One: An Interview with Sandy Nairne on his book, "Art Theft and the Case of the Stolen Turners"

Art Theft and the Case of the Stolen Turners
Sandy Nairne
Reaktion Press/ University of Chicago 2011

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

An exceptional book on art theft has been published by a museum director who has received permission from his art institution to openly discuss the eight year quest to obtain the return of two stolen paintings. Sandy Nairne, now director of the National Portrait Gallery, has written "Art Theft and the Case of the Stolen Turners" and risked considerable criticism for his transparency. The ARCA blog will spend this week on a series of posts discussing the book in-depth.

In 1994, London's Tate Gallery loaned two paintings by J. M. W. Turner to a Frankfurt public gallery, the Schirn Kunsthalle to be included in an exhibition on "Goethe and the Visual Arts". The 1843 paintings, "Shade and Darkness - The Evening of the Deluge" and "Light and Colour (Goethe's Theory) - The Morning after the Deluge - Moses Writing the Book of Genesis", had been stolen on July 29 with a third painting, Caspar David Friedrich's "Waft of Mist" (1819, on loan from the Hamburg Kunsthalle).
Turner's "Shade and Darkness"

Mr. Nairne, the Tate's director of programs and a trusted associate of Nicholas Serota, the Director of the Tate, oversaw the expenditure of almost 3.5 million pounds to recover the insured paintings. Martin Bailey of The Art Newspaper provided an excellent synopsis of the events in his online article dated August 9, 2011 ("My life as an undercover negotiator").

Turner's "Light and Colour"
ARCA Blog: You have publicly discussed how the Tate negotiated the return of the two Turner paintings even though it has generated criticism about whether or not museums are encouraging art theft by paying money to recovery stolen art. The irony here, of course, according to Martin Bailey in The Art Newspaper, is that it was also a savvy financial deal -- the Tate received the insurance proceeds from the stolen paintings, repurchased the paintings from the insurance company at a lower amount, reinvested the money, and then recovered the paintings values of which have dramatically increased. The museum is more transparent than most about talking about art theft and you may be the first senior museum official to write about the long negotiations involved in recovering paintings. How did you come to break so many taboos? What would you say motivated you and the Tate to go to such lengths? What was it about these paintings that made them so important to the Tate's collection?
Sandy Nairne: These two paintings are part of what is known as the Turner Bequest, and had been selected by the artist as ones that should be specially valued by the nation. It felt like a clear duty for us at the Tate to do everything we could – as long as it was legal and approved by the right authorities – to get them back. 
The insurance payments worked out successfully after the paintings had been recovered, but that might not have happened. It is only possible, of course, with hindsight to see it as a success. 
In writing the book, I was not thinking of ‘breaking taboos’ but simply trying to set out the facts. The narrative from my perspective needed to set right quite a few things that had been mis-recorded in the newspapers in Britain. It became an additional matter to then analyse the wider questions around high value art theft.
ARCA Blog: Three thieves had remained in the gallery after closing time (this kind of theft is known as a 'stay-behind'); attacked and "held the guard, tied up, in a cleaning cupboard"; then used the guard's keys to unlock the back door and take the paintings (then worth 24 million Sterling pounds) out through the loading dock. You write:
This might have been fairly straightforward, but crucially, it was possible only with knowledge of the security system and the internal layout to execute the operation swiftly. While removing the paintings, the three men (two thieves and the waiting driver as it later emerged) would have been listening to the guard's radio, connected to Eufinger's headquarters [private security firm].
An alert was received at the security office 41 minutes after the city museum's front doors were locked. When you arrived in Frankfurt within hours of the theft, how puzzled were you and the rest of the security staff that only three paintings had been taken? Did you wonder why these three particular paintings had been chosen? And from the very beginning did you suspect that the paintings had been taken because the thieves knew they had been insured for the exhibit and that they had a possibility of receiving a ransom for the paintings return?

The Frankfurt police officer initially assigned to the case, Herr Bernd Paul, was a specialist in blackmail and ransom work and immediately began making inquiries in the "Frankfurt underworld" to find out who planned this. Herr Paul began his investigation with the idea that the pictures had been taken "hostage." Do you think this outlook from the beginning set up for a successful recovery of the art? At the same time, you were very concerned that everyone should understand that the paintings were irreplaceable and that not enough resources could be applied.
Sandy Nairne: I think the thieves may have been interrupted and that they had intended to take more than the three paintings. There was a very valuable Raphael painting nearby, though it was large and very heavy, while these three were relatively portable. I am not certain that these three were ‘targeted’ although later I did hear some talk of the police having recovered a list of works from one of the suspect thieves. 
I had no idea initially why the Turners had been stolen. It seemed that it could have been a political matter or a protest of some kind, as much as an act organised by gangsters of some kind. It was only later when I learned much more about art theft that I began to understand how dominant is the financial motive. 
Herr Paul’s reaction was logical, but there was never any ransom note from the thieves or those who had organised the theft. There was never any ghastly ‘pay or the paintings burn’ type of threat. Mostly it was other people trying to cash in on the theft. Criminality breeds criminality.
ARCA Blog: An image of one of the stolen paintings had been used to publicize the exhibition. This indicates that the thieves may have known nothing about the quality of the work and just took what they thought was important and valuable to the museum?
Sandy Nairne: This is possible – the poster may have been an additional point in the thieves mind as to which paintings they went for first.
ARCA Blog: You write that Mark Dalrymple, employed by the insurers to track the operation, is one of the most experienced of specialist loss adjusters in the insurance field. What do you think he did differently in handling this case that maybe someone with less training would have missed?
Sandy Nairne: Mark was always careful to remain very close to the police and ensure that they were informed appropriately, while also seeking independent information and contacts. There had to be trust on both sides. He is very experienced, and that experience counted a lot at the time, later on, when the Tate Trustees’ sub-committee was having to decide what was or was not appropriate by way of any ‘payment for information, leading to the recovery of the paintings’.
ARCA Blog: You alerted Scotland Yard's Art and Antiquities Squad three days after the theft when someone called the Tate looking for "someone in charge" about the stolen paintings. Detective Inspector Jill McTigue and then another senior officer, Dick Ellis, arrived with cameras and recording devices as they were being filmed for a documentary about the Art and Antiquities Squad for the BBC. You had two discussions with a man representing himself as the holder of the paintings which were now allegedly in London and would be 'auctioned' by the thieves unless he was paid 30,000 pounds for information leading to the pictures whereabouts. How nervous were you and how did you manage all of this commotion?
Sandy Nairne: I was very nervous, and it was confusing as I wanted this man ‘Rothstein’ to be real. But of course it emerged fairly soon that he was a confidence trickster only trying to make money by pretending that he had access to the stolen paintings. He was certainly very clever at spinning a yarn. I was relieved when he and his accomplice were both caught – but saddened that it took us no nearer to the actual paintings.
ARCA Blog: In addition, you were assigned an undercover plainclothes specialist to join you as your 'curator.' One of the first things done was to train him as how to pick up and examine a painting. At the beginning, you must have had hope that the paintings would be recovered shortly and not in eight years. Is your book in any way a cautionary tale for other museum staff? After all, you had a job and a family that needed your attention just as much as these paintings did.
Sandy Nairne: I hope it is not a cautionary tale, but encouraging to everyone that it is possible to get important works back into the public domain. I did not stop and analyse – in the sense of a broad view - what I was doing, as I was more concerned to make sure that I was doing it in the most effective way.
ARCA Blog: Your first contact was apprehended and arrested in a police operation that had pretended to pay a reward for the return of the paintings. The suspect and his accomplice did not have the paintings -- which the police had suspected - but a record in deception and petty crime. The entire first week of the investigation in London turned out to be a 'diversion'. However, a year later, on the anniversary of the suspect's arrest, you received a middle-of-the night phone call instructing you to meet in Moscow Square although this was not a part of any ongoing investigation. You cover all of this in the first 50 pages of your book. How did you manage to write your manuscript while working in a high-profile job?
Sandy Nairne: My writing was spread out over many years. I had kept notes and journals from when I was travelling to and from Frankfurt. It was only much later, in 2007, when I had a visiting Fellowship at the Clark Art Institute that I could really do most of the work to sort out the narrative and also do the reading on the existing literature relating to high value thefts of this kind. I have always done some writing very early in the morning, and used parts of weekends.
Additional posts will continue the discussion of "Art Theft and the Case of the Stolen Turners."

August 22, 2011

Monday, August 22, 2011 - ,,,, No comments

The Journal of Art Crime, Spring 2011: John Daab on "The Case of the Questionable Jeffersonian Lafites: Forensic Applications in Detecting Wine Fraud"

In the fifth issue of The Journal of Art Crime (Spring 2011), John Daab, a Certified Fraud Examiner specializing in art and forgery research, has written on "The Case of the Questionable Jeffersonian Lafites: Forensic Applications in Detecting Wine Fraud". Mr. Daab writes in the article’s abstract:
Keys noted that the earliest manufacture of wine took place around 8000 BC. Robinson (2006) said that Pliny the Elder remarked that wine adulteration had reached a point in 1st century Rome that wine was no longer worth drinking. Although the tinkering with the grape has been with us since early Rome, wine fraud cases have seen an upsurge due to increases in demand not only for wine for the family table wine, but for historic collectibles found in the cellars of the wine connoisseur (Robinson, 2006). Wine fakers cost consumers, suppliers, and collectible connoisseurs millions of dollars a year. They use humidification; blending and stretching; substitution of low quality for expensive quality; and many other forms of fakery. This fakery is not only costly to the consumer but has led to cases of serious injury and death (Henry, 1986). This article addresses the fakes, how they are processed, and forensic applications used to detect and indentify the bogus mix.
Dr. John Daab is a Certified Fraud Examiner specializing in art and forgery research with Association of Certified Fraud Examiners and a Certified Forensics Consultant, Accredited Forensic Counselor and a Registered Investigator with the American College of Forensic Examiners International. John holds Diplomate status (DABFE) with the American Board of Forensic Examiners and holds Certified Homeland Security I (CHS-1) and Certified Intelligence Analyst (IAC) member status with the American Board of Certification in Homeland Security.

An academic with various undergraduate and graduate degrees from philosophy to business with a focus on art authentication, John is a sculptor who works can be seen on the Fine Art Registry (his works can be seen in his FAR online portfolio). He has published more than 100 articles and recently authored, "The Art Fraud Protection Handbook" (Kindle Edition). He has a credential from New York University in Fine and Decorative Arts Appraisal. He completed the docent program at Princeton. His second book is "Forensic Application in Detecting Fine, Decorative, and Collectible Art Fakes" (Kindle Edition). He is developing a third book on the "Business of Art."

August 21, 2011

Sunday, August 21, 2011 - ,,,,, No comments

"The thefts of the Mona Lisa: On Stealing the World's Most Famous Painting" by Noah Charney

One the 100th anniversary of the theft of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa from the Louvre, ARCA and Noah Charney have published a new book, "The thefts of the Mona Lisa: on stealing the world's most famous painting". You may find more information about the theft and the book on ARTCOM.info "100th Anniversary of the Mona Lisa Theft" and in a piece written by Noah in The Los Angeles Times.

Update: Marking the 50th anniversary of the theft of Goya's "The Duke of Wellington", you may find Noah Charney's article on the front page of ARTINFO.com here.  Mark Durney, author of the blog Art Theft Central, provides a historical review of thefts from the Louvre, some of which you may not have heard about!

August 20, 2011

Saturday, August 20, 2011 - ,,,, 1 comment

Anthony Amore, co-Author of "Stealing Rembrandts", on interviewing art thieves and whether or not James "Whitey" Bulger knows the whereabouts of the paintings stolen from the Isabella Stewart Gardener Museum in 1990

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

Anthony Amore, head of security of the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, is one the Board of Trustees of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art and taught a course in Museum Security for the ARCA program in International Art Crime Studies in 2009. He co-authored "Stealing Rembrandts" with Tom Mashberg, an award-winning investigative reporter and the former Sunday Editor for the Boston Herald.

Thirteen works of art, including three Rembrandts, were stolen from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston on March 18, 1990. Both Amore and Mashberg spent years studying all aspects of the world's largest unsolved art theft.

Anthony writes in his foreword to the book:
 "One of the more intriguing characteristics of the Gardner heist is that two of the stolen paintings, "The Storm on the Sea of Galilee" (1633) and "A Lady and Gentleman in Black" (1633), both by Rembrandt, were cut from their frames."
Amore puts forth the question as to why the two thieves, who spent a leisurely 81 minutes in the museum, risked damaging the paintings by slicing the two Rembrandt canvases from their stretchers:
"Were they so unschooled as to imagine they could manhandle the canvases without wreaking destruction on the paintings? That alone is a key insight into the culprits. Thieves schooled in art would have done no such thing. Moreover, the robbers anticipated that they were going to cut some paintings from their frames. Why else would they have brought along an instrument that was sharp and sturdy enough to slice through stiff, varnished paint and linen canvas? Two other major art thefts in Massachusetts (both involving Rembrandts, as the following chapters will show) were pulled off more than 15 years before the Gardner crime without anyone resorting to cutting canvases. Why do so now? Had these thieves learned their lessons in theft outside Massachusetts? Was this their first art crime?"
Anthony Amore's obsession with studying the ISGM theft and finding the paintings led him and co-author Mashberg to write about comparable thefts in this 245-page manuscript just perfect for summer reading in the hammock, on the beach, or in an airport. The language is accessible and the narrative strong, even when describing when and why Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn (1606-1669) painted the artworks that are the subject of these thefts. The authors answer the question as to why anyone would care that these paintings have been stolen, remain missing, or how they were recovered.

ARCA Blog: The book tells of a heist at the Worcester Art Museum in Massachusetts in 1972, orchestrated by Florian "Al" Monday, a man now in his seventies who was involved in art theft more than four decades ago.  Anthony, how did you contact Florian "Al" Monday and what was your experience interviewing him? Does he speculate about the whereabouts of the ISGM paintings?
Anthony Amore: I reached out to Al years ago to have a conversation about art theft. He still lives in Massachusetts and we know many of the same people so it was an interesting conversation. Al has been on the hunt for the stolen Gardner art for many years and can speak more knowledgably about the crime figures who do not have the art than he can about who does. Despite his criminal history and proclivity towards taking paintings that don’t belong to him, we’re friends and I quite enjoy talking to him.
ARCA Blog: Myles J. Connor Jr., an art thief, has authored a book about his adventures, including the theft of a Rembrandt painting on loan to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. What characteristics do you think Connor and Monday share as art thieves?
Anthony Amore: Myles and Al share a unique characteristic that sets them apart from virtually all other art thieves, and that is that both of them appreciate fine art and are knowledgeable on the subject. While this sounds admirable, in many respects it makes their crimes all the more worse, since they have a better understanding of the cost to society than a common criminal. And make no mistake: though they art aficionados, they stole art strictly for profit, not to enjoy it.
ARCA Blog: Carl Earnest Horsley agreed to speak with you about a 1973 theft in Cincinnati. He was under surveillance when he collected the ransom and left two stolen art works. Anthony, why do you think he finally agreed to speak about his role in the theft? What do you think he had in common with Monday and Connor?
Anthony Amore: I believe that Carl saw an opportunity to get his story out but also to let the world know that he has turned his life around and is now a legitimate businessman. I see Carl as an exception to the rule that people never change. He seems to have made an earnest attempt to go straight.
ARCA Blog: After looking at all these thefts, do you feel any closer to creating a profile of the thieves who robbed the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in 1990?
Amore: Absolutely. I’ve felt that I have a clear picture of the sort of criminal who pulled off the Gardner heist.
ARCA Blog: Recently you were interviewed by John Wilson for BBC's "Front Row." On his blog, he speculates about the arrest of James "Whitey" Bulger and whether or not Boston's former crime boss has knowledge of the whereabouts of the paintings. Do you share Charley Hill's opinion (according to John Wilson) that the paintings have been in Ireland with some faction of the IRA?
Anthony Amore: I have the utmost respect for Charley Hill. His career is amazing, and, aside from being a wonderful guy, he is among the greatest art recovery agents in history. However (and Charley knows I feel this way), I do not share his belief regarding the IRA. I share the opinion of the Assistant US Attorney Brian Kelly that Bulger was not involved in the theft and has no information about it to share. We’re fortunate at the Gardner to have AUSA Kelly as the lead prosecutor for our case, as he is also the lead prosecutor in the Bulger case. He has put away all of Bulger’s cohorts, all of whom admitted to dozens of murders and other heinous crimes and have described all of Bulger’s exploits for juries and book readers alike. One would have to suspend an enormous amount of disbelief to think they wouldn’t admit to even the slightest knowledge about the Gardner theft. Add that to the fact that there’s not even the slightest bit of evidence pointing to an Irish connection, and I put that possibility very low on the list of likelihoods. Of course, all that being said, the paintings are still missing, so we cannot rule anything out. And if a person from Ireland shows up at our door with the art this afternoon, I’ll be very glad to admit that I was wrong!

August 19, 2011

Friday, August 19, 2011 - , No comments

The Journal of Art Crime, Spring 2011: This issue is now available for sale

Illustration by Urska Charney
The fifth issue of The Journal of Art Crime, edited by Noah Charney, founder and President of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art, is now available.

"The Journal of Art Crime has undergone some changes, as we are now publishing the print edition in collaboration with Amazon, making the acquisition of back-issues easier, and speeding up the process," Mr. Charney writes in his Letter from the Editor in the Spring 2011 issue. "The next issue, Fall/Winter 2011 will come out earlier this year, as we reconfigure our publication dates. Fall/Winter issues will come out in November, and the Spring/Summer issues will come out April."

This issue includes four academic articles: "The Case of the Questionable Jeffersonian Lafites: Forensic Applications in Detecting Wine Fraud" by John Daab; "European Police Cooperation on Art Crime: A Comparative Overview" by Ludo Block; "Polaroids from the Medici Dossier: Continued Sightings on the Market" by David W. J. Gill and Christos Tsirogiannis; and "The Skylight Caper: The Unsolved 1972 Theft of the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts" by Catherine Schofield Sezgin.

The regular columns feature Donn Zaretsky's Art Law and Policy; Noah Charney's Lessons from the History of Art Crime on "Mona Lisa Myths: Dispelling the Valfierno Con"; and David Gill's Context Matters on "The Unresolved Case of the Minneapolis Krater."

Editorial essays include Danelle Augustin on "A Different View of Art Crime: An interview with the Sculptor Nicolas Lobo"; Noah Charney on "Freeze of BBC License Fee Continues Dream of Art Thief Who Stole Goya's "Portrait of the Duke of Wellington" from the National Gallery in 1961"; Christopher A. Marinello, Esq., Executive Director and General Counsel for the Art Loss Register, on The Art Loss Register's Recovery Update; Diane Joy Charney on "Another Look at the 210 ARCA Conference on the Study of Art Crime: Something for Everyone"; and Elena Franchi on "I viaggi dell'Assunta. La protezione del patrimonia artistico veneziano durante i conflitti mondiali".

Reviews by Noah Charney on "Exhibition Review: Jan Gossaert at the National Gallery, London 23 February-30 May 2011" and "Exhibition Review at the Mostra Palazzo Farnese"; Douglas L. Yearwood on "Henry Walters and Bernard Berenson: Collector and Connoisseur Stanley Mazaroff" and "Giuseppe Panza: Memories of a Collector".

Other contributions include Noah Charney's "Q&A" with Peter Watson and Alan Hirsch; Catherine Schofield Sezgin's "Q&A" with the LAPD Art Theft Detail and the Québec Art Crime Team; and Noah Charney on "The Art We Must Protect: Top Ten Must-See Artworks in New York City".

August 16, 2011

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - , No comments

Anthony Amore Comments on the Alleged Rembrandt Drawing "The Judgement" found in Encino

The stolen 'Rembrandt' (AP Photo/Gus Ruelas)
Anthony Amore posted on Facebook on August 16 that "The Judgement", the alleged drawing by Rembrandt stolen from a hotel in Marino del Rey on Saturday night, was found last night.  You may read more information here at this NBC link: "Rembrandt Lost and Found." Where was it found? Encino.

Update: The Los Angeles Times reports that the drawing was found in a church parking lot in Encino.

Another update on September 12, 2011: The Los Angeles County Sherriff's department is holding the alleged $250,000 Rembrandt drawing until the owners can prove that they have title to it, according to John Rogers reporting for the Associated Press "Case of LA's stolen Rembrandt intrigues art world".  If the owners cannot prove authenticity and title to the legal authorities in order to recover the artwork, how did they expect to sell it for one-quarter of a million dollars? Anthony Amore, security director for the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum and author of "Stealing Rembrandts" tries to put some perspective on the case.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - ,, No comments

ALR's Chris Marinello and ISGM's Anthony Amore Quoted About A Stolen Rembrandt Drawing from a California Hotel

Rembrandt's drawing "The Judgement"
 (The Linearis Institute)
Christopher Marinello, General Counsel for the Art Loss Register and a speaker at ARCA's International Art Crime Conference for two years, and ARCA Trustee Anthony Amore, Security Director for the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, are quoted in a few articles about the theft of a Rembrandt Drawing from a Ritz-Carlton hotel in Marina Del Rey in Los Angeles.

The 1655 drawing, titled "The Judgement" and measuring 11 by 6 inches, is owned by the Linearis Institute of San Francisco. It was stolen Saturday evening with a diversion tactic: the curator was distracted by a potential sale while another person grabbed the quill ink-and-pencil drawing.

You may read a few of the articles here:




The latter article by Chris Reynolds for The Los Angeles Times describes more lucrative hotel robberies.

August 14, 2011

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - ,,, No comments

Codex Calixtinus is missing (English Translation)

Codex Calixtino
by Juan José Prieto Gutiérrez. Ph.D, Complutense University of Madrid.

[Translated from Spanish to English by Marc Balcells Magrans, ARCA Class 2011

The Codex Calixtinus, dating from the twelfth century, and considered a jewel of the Galician documentary and bibliographical heritage, disappeared mysteriously on the fifth of July from the Cathedral in Santiago de Compostela. This work, compiling the tradition of the peregrinations and the Jacobean route, was guarded in the Cathedral's archive.

The manuscript was part of a collection of sermons and liturgical texts, and served as a sort of guide for the worldwide famous Camino de Santiago, dating back to the middle ages.

The first inquiries point to the fact that there were no signs of any kind of violence (forced entry, maybe?), despite the Codex was located in a restricted, private area, with access limited both to the public and to researchers (only three persons had acces to the room where the manuscript custodiate: the dean, acting also as an archivist, and his two collaborators, each one working morning and afternoon shifts).

It is worth noting that the book was rarely exhibited. In fact, researchers work with a facsimile edition created years ago. The actual Codex could only be accessed under very punctual circumstances, and always in the presence of an archivist. The Codex had not been exhibited for 18 years.

Initially, one of the possible MO is related to vengeance, or the fact that the theft would reveal the lax security measures in archives and libraries in Spain.

A lack of security measures in Santiago

The first inquiries show big gaps in security: the key was on the lock of the door of the room where the codex was located; and CCTVs are only placed in the Cathedral's cloister, but not where the bibliographical treasures are located.

Facing these facts, the theory that this case should be treated as an insider theft is considered more strongly than others. At the moment, the cathedral has approximatedly a staff of seventy persons working there. The rule of thumb is that between sixty and seventy percent of disappearances of books in libraries and archives are caused by insiders or at least they may be involved.

The return of the stolen material was expected during the first week, all under secret of confession, if taken into account an anonymous phone call promising the devolution of the codex. However, this lead looses its credibility as days go by.

Social alarm usually lasts from ten to twenty days. In this period, security measures are revised, some insurances are bought or revised... After this period, everything goes back to normal, unluckily. Until the next disappearance.

Spanish legislation does not establish the particular security measures that should be in place in order to custody this line of cultural heritage. Taking into account that religious art is in high demand in the market, and that the bibliographical heritage is very easy to smuggle, international police cooperation is usually the preferred method.

Spain is one of the most victimized countries in the last years, when it refers to thefts from libraries. In 2007, the theft of more than 100 historical documents was discovered in the Library of the Foreign Affairs Ministry. One year later, César Gomez Rivero was arrested, as the author of the theft from the National Spanish Library. In summer 2009, Zslot Vamos is arrested, possessing 67 documents, while still 53 are missing.

Hence, and related to this sad incident, one must ask: When will security measures be taken seriously in spaces devoted to the custody of bibliographical and documentary heritage? When will librarians and archivists receive proper training? Will both national and international cooperation amongst different police forces bring any results?

August 13, 2011

Saturday, August 13, 2011 - ,, No comments

ARCA Trustee Anthony Amore Interviewed in PRI's The World: "Stealing Rembrandts: Why the Dutch Master is so popular with thieves"

Rembrandt's Jacob de Gheyn III, sometimes referred to as "the Takeaway"
PRI's The World, a one-hour weekday radio news show on the BBC, features ARCA Trustee Anthony Amore discussing the book he co-authored with journalist Tom Mashberg, "Stealing Rembrandts", on the date of publication release in the UK. You can hear the show here on their website.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)