August 22, 2004

• Man, this sucks. I don't see what can be done, short of locking these paintings behind 3-inch bulletproof glass, with a sniper perched nearby 24/7. I kid, of course... but when you are dealing with priceless works of art, one would assume that more radical steps would be taken in the course of their protection. Even in Belgium. (I have no idea what I meant by that last sentence) Then again, the thieves in question came in while there were museum patrons present and used force... not much to be done there. Question for the art patrons here (I'm not one, not really): What would the disadvantages of locking paintings behind glass be? Are there concerns with the painting becoming faded or something?
• So, which version are these? There are suposed to be several versions of "The Scream" - the one that visited Toronto some years back was an earlier one to the famous version. That said, I really like Munch's work, but prefer many other pieces to "The Scream". What is it that makes paintings like that so iconic?
• "What would the disadvantages of locking paintings behind glass be?" Basically, glare and smudging of the glass. Most cognoscenti want to appreciate the surface texture, the colour and the detail without a sheet of glass in the way. Glass also gathers dust, and, in some cases can promote mold on the painting surface, or accelerate decay. There are several versions of The Scream. It's been years since I did my degree in art history, and quite honestly its full of so much sycophancy that I've deliberately forgotten most of it, so I can't remember how many. But this would be *the* main one, I'm thinking. What is it about this particular work that makes it so iconic? Hmmm, probably because Munch captured a 20th century form of psychic despair, what Nietzsche termed life's nausea, that no one else seemed to adequately define up til that point. It really does capture that .. depth of despair and horror that usually only those who have endured deep depression can relate to. The whole fucking landscape echoes the horror felt by the individual. Plus it appeals to really self-involved pretentious twats (that's a personal opinion - and perhaps I'm one of them). It's a great painting, though. Munch rivals Van Gogh, IMHO, for the expressiveness of his brushstrokes. I actually prefer 'Madonna' though, again I think there are a few versions of it, but the face of the Oslo one is fantastic. Sculptural, almost, or like a gauzy photograph in a way. The lips are .. uh.. gosh.
• To answer the question posed by the_bone: All this is from somewhat fading memory, back when I was in high school and diligently studying to head off to art school. So, please forgive me if you find later I'm misremembering something from the discussion I had with my teacher back then. Oil paintings actually aren't damaged by putting them behind glass. They are traditionally framed and hung without the glass, because they have a protective layer of varnish over the paint. It's generally light that people are more concerned with, since too much of it can fade paintings. Generally, the objection that most, museums and galleries in particular, have to putting the works of the masters behind glass is that of distorting the image that the eye sees, making it less defined and losing some of the crispness of line and form, visually smoothing out the brush strokes that are otherwise visible in thick oil paint, etc. There's also the possibility of glare from gallery lighting obscuring part of the image, though that is less of a concern since they've perfected several types of glareless glass. So galleries and museums primarily avoid using glass on the works of the old masters on the theory that everyone should have the most unobstructed view possible, so they can see the works as the artists intended. It seems to outweigh even concerns for security.
• Errrr, yeah. What Nostril said. Remind me to look beyond just proofing the typos on preview next time I answer a question to find out if I even need to. ;)
• upon initially seeing your post i was horrified to think that someone would steal your Skrik
• There's a special place in hell reserved for people who steal artwork.
• Nostril and Christophine: Thank you so much. Always wondered about that.
• Christophine put it so much better than me. /bows
• "There's a special place in hell reserved for people who steal artwork." I remember when some motherfucker attacked the sketch of Virgin and Child with Saint Anne in London (if memory serves) with a shotgun. Now why in hell would anyone do such a thing? Bloody outrageous. 'Course it was some nutter. Thankfully the restoration was superb; I saw it at the National Gallery after the repairs were finished and you couldn't tell it had been damaged. Luckily this was one work that *had* been behind glass, and shock-resistant stuff at that. Still, the damage was nasty. I've stood in front of these kinds of works, and, sure, I despise the pretention of a lot of the art world, but these pictures are like a message sent thru time. Seeing them in the flesh is definitely worth the effort, imho. Prints never do justice to them.
• --- 8-0 ---
• Heh. Self-pretentious twats of the world, Unite!
• scartol: Actually, it's not quite that simple. I agree this is a perfect example of shitbags stealing art for even bigger shitbags (because professional thieves aren't usually stealing for themselves, but some selfish cunt who gets a perverse pleasure in taking something away from the rest of us). But: many cultural artefacts we have today are stolen art. And many of them only survive because they're stolen art. Right into the 1950s and 1960s, for example, Egypt was busily destroying it's ancient heritage, with whole cities demolished. The bits of history stolen by the French, Italians, and English are the main reason we actually know anything about ancient Egypt beyond what we get from Roman and Greek writing. Similarly, while the Elegian marbles were, again, nicked from Greece (along with many an artefact), it's not like the Greeks were doing much of a job of caring for many of their ancient sites until recently. Countless parts of our cultural history have been destroyed by religious revolutionaries - what's survived of Rome did so in spite of the first few hundred years of Christianity obliterating everything they could get their hands on, and I wish someone had stolen more Mayan and Aztec artefacts to keep them away from the Catholics. It goes on and on, down the Taliban destroying everything Buddhist they could get their hands on in Afghanistan. So yeah, in general I agree with you. But sometimes the theives have done good.
• Self-pretentious twats of the world, Unite! what should we wear?
• Black, pete. Black polo neck sweaters. Because nothing says self-pretentious twat like dressing as Andy Warhol.
• I'm sure there's someone in a big, multi-million seaside villa, wanking off in front of that painting, right now. What else is money good for?
• I agree wholeheartedly with everything Nostrildamus said. And no, it's not because I have a crush on him.....
• *smooch*
• *often wears a black polo neck, fails egregiously to give a fuck about bathetic slur on honest hipsters and ironists everywhere*
• Elgin. (they're really pretty though). Looting loses it's moral integrity when it is conducted under cover of night (how romantic), and the artefacts sold to private collectors (not that that is more or less problematic than public museums buying stolen goods). The whole industry raises some interesting questions about collective property rights in cultural identities though. um. I think, anyway. Why is looting a crime? (Not that I don't think it should be, but worthwhile to question why some things buried in the ground are treated as a special kind of property not subject to 'finders keepers' type laws). /going back to do less interesting things now...
• But, ilyadeux, now that Greece wants its treasures back, and seems to understand that they're pretty interesting, and the Turks no longer rule them, they and have well established museums that could hold them, should they get them? I'm surprised that the "Elgin" link didn't include pictures from the Acropolis museum. Many of the pieces were left behind, and you can see them there. This link gives you only a tiny look at what they have. I do love ancient Greek art. If I could, I'd hit all the museums that have important "borrowed" pieces. That would include most of Europe and a bit of the US.
• As reported by The London News Review. “They knew exactly where the paintings were.” Yup, this is a fair assumption. The first clue the robbers picked up on was the name of the gallery: the Munch Museum. As good a place as any to go looking for Edvard Munch paintings.