Museum Security

Ulrich Boser writes in the Wall Street Journal about security and art theft at museums. After the Paris theft, security at many national and international museums have been under review, as it seems far too easy to steal priceless pieces of art. The Washington Post also ran a story on museum security. The Post story notes that given the newer museums in the US, and the imposing security in DC, theft is less of an issue in American Museums, although it does exist.

Boser makes several important points. One that sufficient security is expensive, and given the current economic climate, many cultural institutions do not have excess funds for added security. Also, part of the issue is that museums wish to be open and inviting, and therefore having an open atmosphere, which of course runs counter to stronger security. Both the WSJ and the Washington Post articles present interesting views on museum security. I recommend appraisers read both.

Boser states ibn the WSJ

To be sure, security is expensive. A full roster of guards can eat up half of a museum's operating budget—and that doesn't include the cost of high-tech motion detectors and electronic keys. A small institution can spend more than $1 million a year on security services. The Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. pays out almost $70 million annually to protect its collection, and even that might not be enough. A 2007 government report found that the Smithsonian did not have enough guards to respond to alarms, and someone had managed to sneak some mammalian fossils out of one of the galleries.

Museums also suffer from an art-security Catch-22: By making it easy for the public to experience great art, they make it easier for crooks to steal it. And when institutions don't provide an intimate, nose-to-the-canvas environment, visitors complain. When thieves pilfered Edvard Munch's masterwork "The Scream," they left behind a note that said "Thanks for the poor security." After the heist, the Munch Museum in Oslo turned their institution into an art-world Fort Knox, with metal detectors and an X-ray machine. The press dubbed the building Fortress Munch, and some art-lovers grumbled, saying that they couldn't appreciate the masterpieces because of the thick, protective glass.

But for all the theft, it's not easy to make money on art crime. It's nearly impossible to reintroduce stolen works into the legitimate market; almost every major auction house uses international databases to make sure that they don't sell hot canvases. Nor will a crook find much success selling the stolen art to a Dr. No or Mr. Big. It's a familiar trope: a painting-obsessed collector who snatches up stolen works to display in his secret hideaway. But it's also a myth. While art-lovers will occasionally purchase items with weak provenance—and a crook might put a looted Hopper on his wall to impress his buddies—law enforcement has never found any evidence of a dedicated collector buying looted paintings. It's not worth the risk.

There are nevertheless ways to profit from art theft. Some organized-crime syndicates will use looted paintings as collateral in underworld drug deals. Others attempt to turn the canvases into political pawns, trading works for prisoners or peace deals. One professional art thief managed to convert an Old Master into a judicial bargaining chip: In 1974, Myles Connor filched a Rembrandt from a museum and arranged for its return a year later in exchange for a reduced sentence for a different art crime.

The Washington Post reported

The Art Loss Register, a recovery operation and private international database for stolen art, receives requests from Washington museums, galleries and private collectors every few months, according to its general counsel and executive director, Christopher A. Marinello.

"Washington does get their share of art heists -- you just don't hear about them," Marinello says. "Just last year I dealt with an art gallery in Washington that had a Chagall that was stolen [worth about $45,000]. There was also a Picasso drawing taken [and then sold for $58,000]. We resolved it amicably and quietly and you didn't hear about it. . . . I easily could say 75 percent of the cases that we handle -- especially the higher-end ones -- get settled discreetly because you have lawyers crawling out of woodwork and the first words out of their mouths are: 'This has to be confidential.' "

Marinello could not elaborate on specific cases.

Cracks in Washington's armor showed up in a 2007 report by the Government Accountability Office, which found that the Smithsonian's security force was understaffed, its directors were lacking information on key security measures, and the number of security officers had decreased as the institution's square footage increased between 2003 and 2007. After the report, the Smithsonian hired about 40 guards and increased salaries to cultivate a more experienced security staff. By the end of this year, it plans to add 110 new security personnel.

To read the WSJ article, click HERE, to read the Washington Post article, click HERE.