Dutch museum says van Gogh painting stolen in overnight raid • Hacker News Board

Re: Dutch museum says van Gogh painting stolen in overnight raid

#221

Post by comex » Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 7:32 AM UTC

elorant wrote: post #194

travisoneill1 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you going to find a specialized consultant expert enough to judge if its fake who also doesn't know that the painting he is looking at was recently stolen from a museum?

I don't think it's that hard to buy discretion if you're willing to pay a hefty fee. Besides how could anyone prove that you actually own the painting? I hire you, I fly you half the way around the world to a remote place where you're to examine the painting for a couple of weeks, you're paid and bye-bye. I'm not saying that I know for a fact that this is how it's happening, but it doesn't seem far-fetched. What I do…

The consultant doesn't need to prove it. The prosecutor does, if it gets to that point – but first there would be a police investigation, and the police have a variety of investigative techniques at their disposal.

Re: Dutch museum says van Gogh painting stolen in overnight raid

#222

Post by goto11 » Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 7:33 AM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #208

iandanforth wrote: post #127

I fully approve of art theft. There should be honor among thieves of course. You shouldn't damage art. But if a painting isn't stolen now and then, well it wasn't worth painting in the first place. Really, what is art for but to enliven the doldrums of the rich? A moment or three of aesthetic pleasure, bragging at parties, but really most days it's just so much wallpaper. No, the true purpose of art is to be stolen.…

I'm not saying you're right, but, humorously, the fame of the Mona Lisa is rooted in the fact that it was stolen at some point. Before that, it was an obscure and unimportant piece that most people had never heard of. Theft: almost as good for the reputation of art as the death of the artist. https://www.historicmysteries.com/theft-of-the-mona-lisa/

Leonardo da Vinci was considered one of the greatest geniuses of history long before the painting was stolen from the Louvre, so Mona Lisa was not "an obscure and unimportant piece". After all, there was a reason it was stolen in the first place.

It might be the theft which made it generally known and iconic even among people who don't care about art.

Re: Dutch museum says van Gogh painting stolen in overnight raid

#223

Post by jdietrich » Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 7:51 AM UTC

hash872 wrote: post #13

What is the end goal for the thieves? Seeing as you obviously can't sell stolen artwork on the open market- how many insanely wealthy private collectors can there be out there, who are willing to risk substantial prison time to own a stolen painting? I think many or most people who have that much money probably made it legally and don't have that kind of risk tolerance. And I doubt many mob boss/Tony Soprano types re…

>Seeing as you obviously can't sell stolen artwork on the open market- how many insanely wealthy private collectors can there be out there, who are willing to risk substantial prison time to own a stolen painting?

There's zero risk involved if you're a Russian oligarch - the Russian constitution absolutely prohibits extradition and the Russian state has no interest in prosecuting wealthy, powerful and well-connected men for crimes that don't meaningfully harm and arguably benefit the Russian state. Much the same can be said for a number of Middle Eastern and Latin American jurisdictions.

Re: Dutch museum says van Gogh painting stolen in overnight raid

#224

Post by mrslave » Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 8:30 AM UTC

iandanforth wrote: post #127

I fully approve of art theft. There should be honor among thieves of course. You shouldn't damage art. But if a painting isn't stolen now and then, well it wasn't worth painting in the first place. Really, what is art for but to enliven the doldrums of the rich? A moment or three of aesthetic pleasure, bragging at parties, but really most days it's just so much wallpaper. No, the true purpose of art is to be stolen.…

Your comment brought a much needed smile to my face. Thank you.

To this, and to the greater question touched upon by others in this thread - what is art for? - I recommend a film titled The Art of the Steal.

Re: Dutch museum says van Gogh painting stolen in overnight raid

#225

Post by rwmj » Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 9:04 AM UTC

bravoetch wrote: post #156

rwmj wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well people pay large sums for prints of the Great Wave, of which many thousands were made and are still being made. (Of course the trick is to know which prints are the earliest ones)

The trick is convincing people that earlier prints should be somehow worth more.

I think there's a genuine reason for them to be worth more since they are closer to the original painting. There's a fantastic (and long) series on Youtube about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhiMCSvtCc

Re: Dutch museum says van Gogh painting stolen in overnight raid

#226

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 10:41 AM UTC

friendlybus wrote: post #213

brownbat wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dick's version of the Man in the High Castle has a good meditation on forgeries. Mostly when people buy art, they're buying provenance, proof that a celebrity artist in history touched this particular object. Forgers have gotten incredibly sophisticated, finding ways to duplicate the texture of historical paints and style of brush strokes of masters. I think we'd do a lot of good for the world by commissioning as ind…

The value of art is not just the ‘celebrity’ of an artist like he were an actor pimping out a cash-in film. Making a cultural contribution to the arts is a part of carrying your civilisation forward. The artist is valuable because they were the nexus point for many values and inspirations that speak highly to the culture that produced them. Cavemen don’t make the Mona Lisa or michaenglo’s David. These works (among ma…

Disagree. I think GP is correct: most of the market value of paintings is in provenance of the physical object.

The "nexus point for many values and inspirations that speak highly to the culture that produced them" is fully encoded in the information content of the painting. With sufficiently good copying techniques, a physical painting can be copied or digitized while preserving all this. After all, whenever discussing "values and inspirations", you're usually not staring at an original, but at a cheap photocopy in some book or on a webpage - and yet the "values and inspirations" get communicated and discussed.

The aesthetic value is indeed only the part of a work - but again, contained within the information content. This includes provenance of the information. E.g. you derive joy from knowing this image was painted by Picasso, even though you're looking at a compressed digitization of a copy of a copy of the original painting.

GP's proposal would crash the art value to aesthetics + "values and inspirations", letting the culture partake in it better, and cutting out the scarcity.

Re: Dutch museum says van Gogh painting stolen in overnight raid

#227

Post by martopix » Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 10:44 AM UTC

goto11 wrote: post #222

DoreenMichele wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying you're right, but, humorously, the fame of the Mona Lisa is rooted in the fact that it was stolen at some point. Before that, it was an obscure and unimportant piece that most people had never heard of. Theft: almost as good for the reputation of art as the death of the artist. https://www.historicmysteries.com/theft-of-the-mona-lisa/

Leonardo da Vinci was considered one of the greatest geniuses of history long before the painting was stolen from the Louvre, so Mona Lisa was not "an obscure and unimportant piece". After all, there was a reason it was stolen in the first place. It might be the theft which made it generally known and iconic even among people who don't care about art.

I guess the previous poster meant obscure and unimportant _relative_ to Leonardo's production.

Re: Dutch museum says van Gogh painting stolen in overnight raid

#228

Post by KarlKemp » Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 11:11 AM UTC

abiogenesis wrote: post #174

grecy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and it's never seen again ... until it's stolen again and the cycle repeats. Sure, it might take a few generations, but it will come around again.

Governments should finance teams of thieves to steal those back from private collections and place them back to public museums.

I can’t decide if I want to be on that team, or just play the character in the inevitable movie.

Re: Dutch museum says van Gogh painting stolen in overnight raid

#229

Post by zhte415 » Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 11:32 AM UTC

grawprog wrote: post #134

iandanforth wrote: post #127

I fully approve of art theft. There should be honor among thieves of course. You shouldn't damage art. But if a painting isn't stolen now and then, well it wasn't worth painting in the first place. Really, what is art for but to enliven the doldrums of the rich? A moment or three of aesthetic pleasure, bragging at parties, but really most days it's just so much wallpaper. No, the true purpose of art is to be stolen.…

Or the painting gets sold to someone shady overseas for a private collection and it's never seen again. It's not like in movies, there's no romance or drama to it. Stolen art doesn't benefit the common good.

A bit of a tangent, however mentioning 'private collection' reminds me of a 'private collection' that is today open to the public, a place that sat on my doorstep for years but I was unaware of. Free entry of course, like all museums, is relatively unknown in terms of galleries (certainly off the typical tourist trail), and well worth a few hours: Wallace Collection [1] [2].

If anyone's in London after the lock-down is over then it's well worth a few hours.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Collection

[2] http://www.wallacecollection.org/

Re: Dutch museum says van Gogh painting stolen in overnight raid

#230

Post by friendlybus » Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 11:55 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #226

friendlybus wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The value of art is not just the ‘celebrity’ of an artist like he were an actor pimping out a cash-in film. Making a cultural contribution to the arts is a part of carrying your civilisation forward. The artist is valuable because they were the nexus point for many values and inspirations that speak highly to the culture that produced them. Cavemen don’t make the Mona Lisa or michaenglo’s David. These works (among ma…

Disagree. I think GP is correct: most of the market value of paintings is in provenance of the physical object. The "nexus point for many values and inspirations that speak highly to the culture that produced them" is fully encoded in the information content of the painting. With sufficiently good copying techniques, a physical painting can be copied or digitized while preserving all this. After all, whenever discuss…

If your criteria for appreciating art is merely looking at the image, the market is already "crashed". Google images has reproductions of nearly all paintings and art pieces ready to go. That hasn't happened.

There is more information in an artwork than what is presented as the final result. The techniques that go into constructing a painting are not reverse-engineer-able in every instance. You may produce the same brush strokes and end picture, but how you got there will be a different method, you won't be using the construction lines or dynamic symmetry of the masters that's passed down usually via oral tradition. Preserving those techniques enhances appreciation of the art and is a perspective worth preserving for it's own practical benefits.

Hatsheput's (female ancient egypt pharoah) funerary tomb was the first building to have outward facing columns that you could walk through. That style of outward facing columns became the standard style of ancient greek buildings, with steps leading up to outward facing columns. Columns you could walk through used to be confined to courtyards due to inferior architectural ability. None of that could be inferred simply by looking at the picture without prior education. The provenance of who built that or ordered it to be built in that manner is completely unknown to me, and does not change the fact that it is obviously a valuable building and an intriguing place to learn about what made the leap in architectural technology possible, how that culture was ahead of the game, how those people lived to make such a thing possible and to study the value of having outward facing colonnades among other ideas. All without knowing the author.