The art market boom has undoubtedly resulted in an increased level of art forgery and other fraudulent activities related to art which means that provenance (ownership history) has become an even more important factor for art investors and collectors. Some of the world's most reputable art dealers have unknowingly sold artworks to people that have later on proven to be fakes so buying from a reputable dealer does not mean that you are immune from art fraud. In my experience there is only one thing that you can do to help protect yourself from art fraud and that is to check and cross check the information you are provided with in relation to an artwork to ensure that what you are being told is correct. In an effort to help prevent art fraud - museums, galleries and other organisations around the world have set up searchable provenance databases and indexes that art collectors and investors can use to help confirm the provenance of works of art. Many of the provenance databases concentrate on the period 1933-45 (World War II) during which many artworks were looted by the nazis but they are still a useful resource for art collectors and investors.
Below is a list of some of the best provenance resources:

The Getty Provenance Index
http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/provenance_index/

The National Gallery of Art Provenance Search
http://www.nga.gov/collection/srchprov.shtm

The Metropolitan Museum of Art
http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/provenance/index.asp

Harvard University Provenance Research
http://www.artmuseums.harvard.edu/provenance/servlet/webpublisher.WebCommunication?ia=tr&ic=pt&t=xhtml&x=prov

Chinese Art - Research into Provenance
http://www.hatii.arts.gla.ac.uk/admn/php/carp/index.php

**Nicholas Forrest is an art market analyst, art critic and journalist based in Sydney, Australia. He is the founder of http://www.artmarketblog.com, writes the art column for the magazine Antiques and Collectibles for Pleasure and Profit and contributes to many other publications.

But in this most recent case, the work probably wasn't insured like the first time... since these last works were prints and can't compare to a trophy from Isabella, it's probably just local thieves who have the work in Brazil. Soon they are going to freak out, leave them in a bathroom stall and the prints will get water damaged and have to be repaired - it happens in France all the time

One of my favorite tales from France is of the Italian glazier who stole the Mona Lisa in 1911 while working at the Louvre fitting protective glass into frames. Though, I feel stoic act of repatriation, when he got the work back to Italy (feeling like a national hero) and tried to resell it 2 years later, everyone was like "Ummmm, Vincenzo, listen. We gotta talk. I kinda don't have a viable client for this..." (he was arrested and it was later returned.)

In other words, someone stole Marie's artwork and used it to win the contest. To top it off, it is not just any average contest where you can win something like an avatar. It's a contest where the winner can get real money, a scholarship of a few thousands of dollars.

You can visit the site to warn them of this fraud, or add Marie's news on DeviantART to your favorites.

Thought id give a bit of support to these guys by linking them so they can get as much exposure as possible. I am not usually the activist/protester type but I can feel their pain as my blog posts (which is not worth a cent but it's the principal that counts) get stolen from time to time by sploggers/scrappers. In this situation though, these guys are having their artwork stolen and sold on a book for a $100 bucks. Far out. Anyway hopefully something productive can be reached. In the meantime there needs to be some worldwide legal system damn it.. (Wait they already have that? Really? You don't say....) . Anyway check it out:

My illustrations, stolen and published in new book

Posted using ShareThis

Cheers!

Update: There has been two new developments on this situation described here and here. Glad that the event is working out!

I understand some people concern about art theft. Meaning someone stealing the images (Non Full Res) and use it for something. You know what people, you odd to feel pretty damn good about someone actually stealing your shit, you better be fucking good for people doing that to you. For example if its just scenery or nature, those kinda stuff. Now, its a little different when people steal shots of bands and celebrity.

But, you know what, let them fucking steal it and post it online. Sure you can stop people from stealing your stuff and post around, but look at it as a free advertisement, as long as they are not trying to sell it commercially. And get real, stealing a 600px wide image, what you gonna print out, a 4x6? Go for it because, You can't do shit about it. what you can say that make the preview resolution smaller. Do YOU know why, they need to make the preview resolution bigger? Its because a bunch of crappy photographer doesn't really know anything called quality yet. A photo can look very nice at 300px wide but not when u view it any bigger, you get the idea. And the funny thing is, lots of people talked about getting their shit copyrighted, their stuff ain't really that good anyways (i didn't say all of them are terrible but you know there are always better ones commercially available). And oh, watermark, they are junk, anyone got a little skill and time can take them out, and like i said if someone really wanna spend that kinda time on your shit, consider yourself, you're good.

Personally yes i don't like people stealing my stuff, i will share them, but not stealing them. If you let me know if i could use this image for this or for that site or homework or whatever wallpaper, go for it, just ask, of coz i won't give you my full res you are crazier than fuck if you think i will. My stuff ain't all that great but after all its still mine, the full resolution files that is. I think about people using my stuff as a compliment. of coz everyone wanna sell prints, figure out how many people actually got money and the room to put them? And if they wanna buy a print why buy from me but not someone better and probably for the same price if not cheaper?
Bottom line, if they wanna steal the small res of the photos, let it go and think of it as a compliment, doesn't matter if your stuff is copyrighted, because, what you gonna do, go sue everyone that link your image or got a 4x6 of your photo? Good luck on that and good luck making money of that. If anything, wait till you driving down I-80 and see your photo on a billboard, now that is the time to call a lawyer.

That doesn't mean i said hey everyone come steal my stuff, instead, just ask nicely, as i said before, i do share. If i can't sell anything anyways the least i can do is share, maybe someone will use it for their computer wall paper, a photo for their personal sites design, etc. Not a whole lot of people got money, i know that for a fact, coz, i don't.

Wait, before i end. i got something else to say. a while ago, i was going to put my photos on wikipedia. For example, i have the panoramas of Grand Rapids and Denver. I was just thinking, ok , no one can afford to buy or print them panoramas anyways, least i can do is show them to someone on wiki or, somewhere in general you know. So i looked it up. Funny thing is, wiki want me to put a CC license on the images i am going to Upload, basically it wants it to be, free to copy, but need to attribute the author/creator, allow commercial work etc, you know the drill. Now, they DID NOT tell you that, if the CC license only applies to the Smaller Resolution file i was going to upload, OR, one day, some ass hole with a court order come ask for my 18000px wide full resolution of those photos and going to sell them. I might be dumb but i am not THAT dumb.

SO yeah, if you're worrying that much about art theft on the net, don't put it on the internet then, and, who u should go after when u get fucked over, not some guy wearing a boxer sitting in front of his my space page, wait for the big fish.

Sadly for the unwitting nitwits, they have exposed themselves to more than unpleasant legal ramifications.

Taxidermy mounts in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century were soaked in arsenic and coated in DDT to prevent deterioration and insect infestation.

Both of these chemicals retain their toxicity for a very, very long time.

As ground rhino horns are prized for their alleged aphrodisiac qualities, these deadly horns could cause quite a bit of unexpected side effects for the consumer.

Hmmmm...is that a scent of almonds in the air?

so the other day i had my first instance of art theft, i suppose.

it wasnt really 'art' theft, more like 'idea' theft. which doesnt make it any better, you know.

so in my art class we make small ideas for bigger pictures, right. and we were doing a contest for the olympics. and i had this okay idea, it was really special. but i didnt use it because it's more for a 'poster' type thing than a real drawing.

well there's this girl, whe's about 10-13 ish, i dont remember. but anyway, she saw my idea and stuff and asked me if she could borrow it.

... umm, excuse me, what? how do you 'borrow' someone's idea? are you going to copy it and then add your own touch to it? does 'borrowing' it mean you dont have to fucking CREDIT me?

and because i'm stupid and i can't really say 'no' to anyone, i said, 'um... okay... ?' which translates into 'WTF?'

but of course they dont know that.

alright so after that contest is over there's another one, and we have to redo our ideas. so then she brings into class this gigantic picture, and, oh my god, i recognize it because, hello, IT'S MINE. :|

OKAY MAYBE IT WASN'T IDENTICAL BUT UM, ONLY STUPID PEOPLE DO THAT.

uh, needless to say i was kind of pissed.

and the saddest thing is that she's a really good artist, and you know, good artists arent the ones that steal ideas. good artists are the ones that make up their own fucking ideas. now i wonder if the reason her art is sometimes very good because she steals ideas? or, oh, excuse me, BORROWS them. (unfortunately this is not the first time this has happened)

GOD.

you know you never realize how serious art theft is until it happens to you. i mean, before i thought, 'oh, if they steal it it's cause they like it'.

but the truth is it's so much more.

because when you make art, it's YOURS. it's like your baby. you made it and you came up with it and you spent time on it and it is wholly and completely YOURS. isnt that what art is supposed to be? creating something that's YOURS? what's the point of stealing ideas? you're missing the point.

and really, wouldn you like it if somebody stole YOUR baby? your heart and your soul?

it's really effing annoying and people need to seriously understand. :|

i didnt think it would be this serious but it is and i was very pissed and i am still very pissed and oh my goddd. it was idea theft, it wasn't art theft. but if it was art theft i SWEAR i would have ripped her head off.

not that idea theft is any better, i was freaking DA;KGJD;AG;;;; JUST BECAUSE IT'S AN IDEA AND NOT FINALIZED YOU THINK YOU CAN TAKE IT, HUH? WELL JUST WAIT TILL I FUCKING COPY YOUR UM, ABSTRACT PIECE, ALRIGHT BITCH.

THIS IS WAR.

Lambang Barbur Purnomo, An Indonesian archaeologist, started to investigate and found that several of the collection's stone and bronze statues were in fact copies that had replaced the originals. Last month Lambang was found murdered. He had started to expose a scandal that involved the Indonesian royal family, political and business elites and international auction houses and collectors.

The breathtaking story is reported in Australian newspaper The Age.

The case raises interesting questions about what happens when state custodians and members of the ruling class want to flog off a nation's heritage. It also highlights yet again the complicity of international auction houses, in this case Christie's, in the looting and theft of antiquities. Hugo Kreijer, southeast Asian art advisor to Christie's, accompanied the museum's head and an antiquities broker, as they photographed objects that were earmarked for reproduction and transportation. He insists that the king gave permission and protests that "the idea was to preseve the statues so everybody could enjoy them, to bring them to a modern museum."

On the art theft front, everyone was so understanding during that time that I want to thank you all again. I haven't had any other stories pop up on any other sites. I've put the website, Locked Away and CM on hiatus. I'm trying to think of ways to use the site, I don't want it to go away completely. I had a thought the other night. I was in a group called SKoW, they have an interesting concept. Holding award rounds and giving out awards. I left them a while back, because it was quite obivious that it was meant for teens. Nothing wrong with that, just that I'm not into reading teen novels. It's hard to get into the stories when I can't relate to the characters any more. Sorry but reading about the highschool nerd falling for the highschool popular boy doesn't do it for me anymore. So I figured maybe doing an adult themed rewards, stories featuring people 20 and above. But to get up off the ground will take a lot. I would need some one fore graphics, some judges, a PR person to get the word out, in other words I would need a lot of committed volunteers. So maybe one day.

On the unsure reviews: Markus generated some comments on commanding men. Although there were no dislikes, it created buzz. I'm happy to have created buzz.

The writing challenge begins tomorrow, I'm not all that ready. I didn't outline the story, I'm just gonna write and hope for the best. I wrote Natalia in one weekend I'm confident I can do it again. as long as I don't crap out in the end. The story, A Season of Change, summary goes something like this. You have Jill, full figured and fabulously. She's just donated 10 inches of her hair to Locks of Love. Although her hair isn't a crew cut it's much more shorter than before, stopping just short of her chin. After having it styled she's ready to go shopping to celebrate her new look. With an eye on surprising her beau of 2 years, Marcellus, she hurries home to prepare their 2 year anniversary dinner. However the night doesn't go as planned. He hates her look and it's pissed that she would make such a change without talking to him first. Realizing what a mistake he's been her life, she packs up and heads to a friends. A week later she's goes with said friend to a birthday party. Although the birthday boy Noah, is Marcellus' friend, he welcomes Jill to the party. When Marcellus shows up with a new girlfriend, who happened to be a friend of Jill, everyone's uncomfortable, except Jill who plays it off. Until the two start making out in front of her. Noah steps in and plays the part of hero, he implies that Jill came to him for comfort and they slept together. Jill plays along, Marcellus becomes jealous. So much so he starts saying she stole from him, and threatens to take her to court. Now what's a girl to do?

Because of the writing challange I can't deliver a post to the writing series. I'll double up next week.

And in other news...a fellow writer and I are starting a collab. I can't tell much about it just yet, I'll fill in later. But I can leave you with a title Jar of Sins...can you make a guess?

The awfulness continues. Another of Lori Earley's drawings was stolen from Jonathan LeVine Gallery on Saturday, March 8th, one week after the first theft. They are offering a reward for their return -- contact (212) 243-3822 or info@jonathanlevinegallery if you have any information. Here's a pic of "Awaiting" --

As such, here's a post about my life ^_^...

The baby shower was yesterday. I didn't go, I just wasn't in the mood. And I'm semi glad I didn't. Apparently my aunt hired a event planner who was a friend. My said she wasn't impressed with the lady, so I'm inclined to say I would have been less impressed. She was over 45 minutes late arriving to the thing, then she didn't offer any explanantion. Then she preceded to show off the fact that she had money. When they were giving the presents, she made everyone stop and admire the gift she was giving, which was some plaque trimed in 25k with a poem or something on it. And as they started winding down, she start openly trying to network with the other guest. Not professional at all.

My sister caused drama as well. Apparently my cousin and his baby mama did thank you scrolls and signed their names. Well my mom was like she couldn't read my cousins signature, and everyone was like cause that's a guy's signature. Well then my sister was like he should have signed it C.L.A, and everyone was like why? She was like that's his name. And everyone was like no...it's CVA, well my sister doesn't like to be wrong. So she argued with everyone. My deal is how you gonna argue with the person who named the child? Really? Then she wouldn't shut up, she was being annoying. So much so that my grandmother told her to be quiet, well that still didn't work. And so my mom said her name, just her name. And then she got even more upset and left the table, like a big baby. She sulked the rest of the time and was short to my mom.

My sister and I haven't been talking since I laid her out about her treatment to my mom, she's a user and she's been using my mom for money for way to long. Needless to say I'm gettng really tired of my sister.

In other news, I was a victim of art theft. Only slightly, someone took something of mins and posted in on a site with their own name as the creator. I was able to get the peice taken down and the person's membership was revoked. So it be all good for now. But I've taken some different precautions to deal with it. That's why I didn't feel like going to the shower. I was dealing with that.

The baby blanket was received with warm receptions. Everyone loved it, and was really impressed. My cousin's friend wants me to make him a blanket. Apparently I unknowningly used my cousin's college colors. Now they want to go it monogrammed. My mom and aunt were like they HAD to treasure it cause it was handmade, and their daughter could pass it down to her kids and so on and so on. "That would be awesome," my history geek in me said.

And that's what's been happening.

I'll save the good news for last...so the bad news:

Earlier today I was made aware of the fact that one of my one shots had been published on a different writing archive site, renamed and given credit to someone else. They changed the names of the characters but that's all they changed. Needless to say I was angry and sadden by this. However I wasn't surprised, I was waiting for something like this to happen. I was able to contact the admin of the site, explain my situation and within the hour the story had been taken down. And the guilty party's membership had be revoked. I'm not going to say which site and the username, just to give them some respect, although they gave me none. But as I always say Karma is a bitch.

So what does this mean to my readers? Well for one Locked Away and Changing Metamorphosis updates will cease effective immediately. This suspension is open-ended. Until I can find a more effective way of protecting the documents. I'm not to worried about them because like I've said they are rough first draft chapters. There will be changes to them, when I start to get them ready for sending out to be published. I will still post one shots and various longer one shots. As far as the short stories from the poll go, I'm still going to post them on FictionPress, because I said I would.

I can't say what's going to happen to the site as of now. I honestly don't know if I want to keep it up and running. It's not as easy to update it as I would have like. And the whole point was to have a place to post draft updates. It sucks that this happened. I've only had the site for less than 5 months.

I thank the reader who brought this to my attention and if the guilty person is reading this then...shame on you.

And what about Jade. Well that's part of the good news. I finished it last night. I don't know what to do about posting it, I want to post the final chapter. Because it's an important thing for all of us. You guys have been with me for the most part of it. Four long years I've been working on it and 1 year I've been posting it. So that's some time invested on both sides.

So what happens now? Well I'm going to sit on Jade for about a month, then send it around the critiquing group before I start draft 2. During that time I'll continue to work on Locked Away and CM. But I'll also work on the short stories. I hope to keep in touch with you guys via here, email, and FictionPress. I've gotten a total of 20 more response to the new one shots and the short stories. Most of those responses are to a sequel for Natalia, which I've been working on all day, in between dealing with this mess. So look for it sometime tomorrow.

Again I want to extend my sincerest apology, when I figured out what how I'm going to get the last chapter of Jade out. I'll let everyone know.

-Juni Lyn

His voice carries farther than my row, but that's all the farther it needed to go, anyway.

"Naw," he chuckles, "you jest raight-click on the pichure and it'll save it." (Yes, this is how he talks. No, I'm not exaggerating. Much.) "'N' even if'n they's got it so's you cain't, you kin jest do a screenshot of it. That's what I do. 'S how I got my logo fer my team. Shit, I wa'n't gonna pay four damn bucks for a logo."

In my palms four crescent red welts appear: the artist/graphic designer's stigmata. We bleed every time an art thief gets away with it. I want to climb, Samara-style, backwards over the seat, disjointed as a spider, until I'm looming over him, my eyes pitch-black and demonic, and vomit up four dollars in his lap. Then scream in a banshee's unholy wail "IS FOUR DOLLARS TOO EXPENSIVE FOR YOU, YOU TIGHT-FISTED REDNECK FUCKTARD?" Unfortunately, I'm not hinged that way.

The thing is, it got me thinking again about how the arts are regarded in this country. It got me thinking about what a misnomer the word "talent" is, and how every day I hate it a little more. "Talent" denigrates artists of all kinds.

Think about this: if a ten year old kid likes to tinker with his bike, fixing the chain when it busts, installing new accessories on it, and such, although most of his friends wouldn't know a socket set from a screwdriver--do we call him talented? Or the computer whiz that figures out how write their own game, is he talented? Or the kid who can do all his math in his head without counting on his fingers, and who understands long division when everyone else is still on multiplication? What about the kid in science class who figures out what you can do with some sodium and a toilet?

Do we call those kids talented? No. Not usually. But they are.

The same as the kid who learns to play the piano early, or the little girl with the Christina Aguilera voice and ear for pitch, or the kid who draws star-spangled bunny rabbits on their preschool homework that actually look like bunny-rabbits.

The problem is that in ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years, our artists will still be "talented" and our mechanics and mathematicians, scientists and computer geeks will be "skilled." Their jobs will garner them respect because people *know* how difficult it is to be a mathematician or a mechanic or a computer genius. People know that it takes years of hard work and study to reach the skill level that allows you to make a living in those fields. More importantly: they most often get that respect from people who wouldn't want their job in a million years.

But artists, actors, musicians, writers, dancers... pfft. That's talent. It's easy, right? Easy to paint a picture, or sing a song, or act in a play, or write a book for that matter. Hell, deep down, everyone secretly suspects THEY could do it, too. If they just had the time, or a little more talent. They don't see that we go through the same growing process. That for us to be truly good at what we do, we have to acquire a rather advanced skill set as well. That it takes more than a natural inclination and a little imagination to do what we do.

The assumption that art is easy is one of the reasons why Arts Education budgets have been so severely cut across this country. Why should they spend money teaching kids something it's easy enough to learn on their own? Why should taxpayers pay to teach kids how to be artists or musicians or writers instead of how to get *real* jobs? Why teach them hobbies? We *need* more mechanics and doctors and computer experts and engineers... but we don't really need artists or musicians or actors. To that I say: imagine if you will a world where there was no art, no music, no design, no fiction or poetry or song or dance. Who would do the technical drawings in your anatomy textbooks? Or draw road maps? or design your cars or websites or merchandise? Who would write music that makes you remember someone you lost, or proud of your country, or angry at politicians? Who would design your clothes, or sew them? Who would make you laugh? Still think we're not necessary?

But I digress from my original point. Let's clarify something:

"Talent" is, really, a natural inclination towards a subject. It's what drives you to pick up that pencil or screwdriver in the first place. It's what allows you to see the true colors in clouds or the way program code works. It's what tells you that two notes will sound nice together or that you can divide that number by that one and get a whole number. It's what makes a class clown funny.

"Skill" is Talent plus Training. It's the years of study into human anatomy, whether you intend to apply it on paper in a drawing or in three dimensions on an operating table. It's the years of practice that allow you to hear the individual notes in a chord, or the difference between an engine running smoothly or with a cracked mount. Skill is in the hands of a doctor, or a writer or an artist or a musician. It's in the voice of the opera singer or the politician or the professional actor. In the timing of a professional athlete or a comedian or a marksman.

But until people start seeing that, we're still going to have to deal with people like my grammatically-challenged art thief, who won't shell out a few bucks for a logo. Because to him art doesn't represent anything he understands. In his peanut sized brain that logo probably magically sprang into being, straight from the artist's pen like in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Someone didn't have to come up with the idea, or figure out the best way to execute it, or try and find the right colors for it. It's not even worth less than the price of a Whopper. You can bet that same four bucks, though, that he wouldn't just walk in and steal a Whopper. Or a four dollar object from a store. He'd never ask a plumber to fix his busted toilet for free, or a mechanic to change his oil for nothing.

But his morals don't apply to art because it's just a hobby, a talent, something he doesn't even think about.

And hey... it's not like he's ever going to get caught. Who cares about a little piece of art anyway?

I believe there is a special circle of hell for people who steal art. If you've ever made anything, whether it was a pie or a painting, you know you've put a piece of yourself into it every single time (unless you're The Painter of Light), so when that thing gets stolen it's gut wrenching, it's like a kidnapping, you feel sick inside. Twice I've had work stolen right off the gallery walls. One came back, wrapped in a couple grocery bags, left on the gallery steps after a postering campaign around town (the posters started a whole censorship controversy in itself but that's another story for another time); one was never seen again.

On February 27th, one of Lori Earley's drawings was swiped right off the walls of Jonathan LeVine in NYC. You can see the whole show here.

"All reports confirm that the suspect in question is a white male, approximately 6’2” tall, in his mid-to-late thirties. He was seen wearing a blue baseball hat with a navy blue backpack, and he spoke with a very heavy New York accent. " If you or anyone you know has information as to who might have committed this theft or leads on possible location of the stolen drawing, please contact the gallery immediately at (212) 243-3822 or info@jonathanlevinegallery. They are offering a reward for its return.

And a special "reward" is waiting for that thief in the afterlife. (I think Bosch really nails it.)

On the subject of art thieves: I don't care who you are, how horrible or good of an artist you are. Stealing is wrong, and everyone knows this. It doesn't matter that what you are stealing is up on the net for anyone to look at. We put it up there. What matters is whether or not you acknowledge that artist as the originator. You can't say that a piece is yours if it isn't. You don't know what that picture means to the artist, how much time was spent completing it, how much pain and work and emotion went into creating any particular piece. It may be that the artist took five minutes to do something; it may be that it took them hours and hours. But even that doesn't matter. What matters is that they did it, not you. It's THEIR child, their progeny, a product of their mind and heart and imagination, and you have no right to step across the boundary into that world of theirs and rudely claim it as your own. I do not steal art. I also don't steal candy bars from the supermarket. I can only imagine that the former is worse, so if you do steal art, then I'm going to assume you don't really mind to steal things from stores, either. At least that's something that's easily replaceable; there are a million others of any given candy bar, and I doubt the maker cares if you possess one and claim it as your own (cuz it would be...if you bought it). A piece of artwork isn't something I can replace, and you get a copy, once you claim it as your own I will hunt you down. I put all my work on the internet with the assumption that if you wish to use it somewhere else, you will have the courtesy to link back. Or, if you lose my URL or whatever, at least have the courtesy to mention that it is NOT yours, and that you took it from somewhere but can't find where again.

And I say this in relation to people who DON'T do this kind of art as a living.  If this were their job, this would obviously be much more important yet.

That said: if I find you doing so to me, what my roommate says of him will pale in comparison to what I do to you. ^__^<3

Ok, rant over, go have fun listening to her story!!!

An editorial in The International Herald-Tribune notes (h/t The Marmot's Hole) that "From Russia," a new art show in London, will feature these lost masterpieces on the proviso that no action will be taken to return the art to its rightful owners. So how much is this art worth?

What is at stake is approximately 10 to 15 percent of the world's great art treasures that were well catalogued in 1939, but disappeared from sight at the conclusion of World War II.

That was the subject of a recent conference at the Harvard Law School, "Spoils of War vs. Cultural Heritage: The Russian Cultural Property Law in Historical Context." Experts who attended agree that Russia is hiding works valued at $10 billion to $15 billion, perhaps even more[.]

The Russians assert a right to possess the art as a "spoil of war," and have even passed a law to this effect, but according to the author, Allan Gerson, such claims are illegal:

But even assuming that Russia has a valid claim for restitution-in-kind on the grounds that what it possesses offsets the plunder of the Soviet Union by the Nazis during World War II, this argument cannot justify retention of private property.

The 1998 Russian law draws an exception for private property of victims of the Holocaust and those whose property was taken as part of the Nazi persecutions based on race, religion, or ethnic identity. But there have been no claims by Holocaust survivors or their families for the simple reason that Russia has not come forth with an accounting of what it possesses.

Moreover, beyond victims of the Holocaust, there is no justification - and the international law community is unanimous on this point - for confiscation of any privately held art property. Its continued retention is simply unlawful. Actions by museums that profit from exhibiting these works and countries that accept such exhibitions are complicit in enabling Russia to hold on to stolen art.

The immediate thought I had was that, in addition to the laws cited by Gerson, the legality of the art seizures could also be addressed in part by looking at the terms of German reparations following World War II. Was it legal at that time for the Soviets to take properties not specified as restitution or are the seizures extralegal according to terms agreed on by the Allies and defeated Axis powers?

A larger point looms in all of this. The loss of cultural treasures following conflict, and the need to reclaim them, seems more relevant today after the looting of Iraqi Museum and the secession of Kosovo, with the former an ongoing mission for archaeologists and international police alike, and the latter a new and pressing concern, as hundreds of important Serbian cultural sites face the prospect of annihilation or no hope of reconstruction* if the the new Kosovar government fails to restrain militants in the Albanian population.

In light of these situations, the Russian art dispute, as well as the Taliban's attempt to "cleanse" Afghanistan of of its Buddhist past, perhaps the world community should work together to add some legal teeth to UNESCO's mission to preserve our common cultural heritage. The WTO could similarly be involved, with allowances for trade-based punishments in cases of expropriated cultural treasures. For instance, if the Chinese discovered that, say, the French were holding on to Chinese artifacts, then China would be allowed to raise tariffs against France until the artifacts were returned.

* Consider this list of Orthodox churches destroyed or damaged in Kosovo since NATO's occupation began in 1999. Will they be lost forever?

Last year, I posted about the theft and return of Cellini's masterpiece in Thank Heavens for Cell Phones! From an article in the New York Times on the dim wittedness of art thieves:

Many of the most notorious art thefts in past decades bear him out and illuminate a strange disconnect between the enduring mystique of art theft and the reality of its perpetrators. The theft in Vienna in 2003 of a gold-plated saltcellar made by Benvenuto Cellini, valued at $60 million, was traced to a 50-year-old alarm-systems specialist with no criminal record. The police, who caught him after he tried to ransom the sculpture, called him a “funny guy” who had decided to take the Cellini more or less spontaneously. A divorcé who lived alone, he kept the sculpture under his bed for two years.

Who knew?  Apparently having armed security guards in the US is why there are no Thomas Crown Affairs on American soil.

OK, I'm being extreme, but here's an interesting article from Slate about art theft in Europe and why it's so easy.

Henry was relieved of his duties later in the evening, but there is no indication if he was fired because of his involvement with the heist or because he simply did a sloppy job of carrying out the heist. "They came in with guns blazing," Zurich police spokesman Marco Cortesi told the press today, "and screaming, 'Remember the Alamo!'".

Image URL: Paul Cezanne's painting "The Boy in the Red Vest", http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/02/11/PH2008021102650.jpg

But you would have been a day late if you were planning on communing with this exquisite painting - Blossoming Chestnut Branches (1890) by Mr. Van Gogh.

About 4:30 Sunday night shortly before closing time, three hoodlums wearing ski masks and bearing guns entered the Emile Buhrle Foundation, the biggest privately owned collection of French impressionist paintings in the world, and ordered staff and visitors to lie on the floor.

They removed a row of four paintings - the Van Gogh, Monet's Poppy Field at Vetheuil, Degas' Ludovic Lepic and His Daughter and Cezanne's Boy in the Red Waistcoat.

The thieves left in a white car, the truck open and the paintings visible within.

The total value of the heist is about $163 million.

 A reward of $90,000 was offered for information leading to the recovery of the paintings — Claude Monet's "Poppy field at Vetheuil," Edgar Degas' "Ludovic Lepic and his Daughter," Vincent van Gogh's "Blooming Chestnut Branches" and Paul Cezanne's "Boy in the Red Waistcoat."

 More information from NPR

Many pieces of art are stolen each year. Apparently it is a very proffitable thing, the trafficing and copying of famous paintings to sell. I hope the pieces are found, but I really doubt it; most just seem to vanish, as if they never were.

The New York Times has reported that "Three thieves, wearing dark clothes and ski masks, walked into the Emile Bührle Foundation, a private collection housed a couple of miles outside of Zurich’s city center on the shore of Lake Zurich, around 4:30 p.m. on Sunday, a short while before the museum was due to close. The collection is considered to be one of the biggest privately owned collections of French impressionists in the world."

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation puts losses from art and cultural property crime at $6 billion a year. The biggest U.S. art heist was of some $300 million of Rembrandts and other works stolen from Boston's Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, in 1990, according to the FBI Web site.

It is sad that the art has been stolen and taken out of the public forum and adding insult to injury it was for the investment they represent and not the artistic works they are that they were stolen. We can only hope the thieves and the art are found soon.

This time two Picasso oil paintings that were being exhibited in a museum in Pfaeffikon, Switzerland were stolen after the museum closed. Authorities were alerted to the crime when the thieves tripped an alarm on their way out. It is thought the criminals hid in the museum until closing and then left with the works, Verre et Pichet (1944) and Tete de Cheval (1962) which are valued at $4.5 million dollars.

The owner of the paintings, the Sprengel Museum in Germany, is offering a reward for the return of the works.

My question - why are Picasso paintings stolen in pairs?

This link goes to the Photobucket section of Polyvore. Polyvore is apparently a site that allows members to create their own collages from images and upload them. Although their site obvious states "use your own images" several members insist on borrowing / stealing art of others and ruining it in ugly tacky collages.

If you have photos or art at Photobucket and Deviantart , check out that site to be sure your photos and artwork haven't been stolen. They also seem to steal directly from people's websites too. It's pathetic how people think JUST because images are online, they must be free. At least ask permission to use something. If it's not your art... DON'T USE IT!!!

~L~