theft.art

November 20th, 2005

Seems like our local art thief is major art world news. It’s not everyday an $11+ million painting waltez out with no security cameras watching (official word is they weren’t working. unofficial word is, they never existed. They’ve got one camera, it’s connected to a monitor, and there’s no recording capabilities. whoops).

On the other hand, the much vaunted $11 million pricetag may be a bit spurious. Part of the inflated price is that the painting has never been photographed (except, uh, for the photograph in the paper; yeah, I know — that doesn’t count. That’s not art-world put-in-in-a-book documentary photography), never been existed prior to the Everhart in the past 3 years, and is not included in the Pollock catalog raisonne.

In other words, it’s not an authenticated Pollock. I’d like to see the insurance company shell out the cash on this one without a fight.

And the Warhol is barely worth mentioning. Okay, $15K. For me, that’s a lot of cash. But it’s nothing compared to the maybe-its-a-Pollock, and it’s nothing for a good Warhol.

There were three stories in the Times-Tribune today:

  1. Art theft could be biggest heist in city history — yeah, well, I can guarantee you that there has never ben a larger art theft in the cities history.
  2. Museum heist the buzz of the ball — the Museum’s big fund-raiser was the next night (Saturday). There’s speculation that the preparation traffic and the tent both played a role in the theft. Snide comment — the Everhart made about as much money with their $100/person fund-raiser as the Afa Gallery did with their $25/person art-auction the same night. And fewer painting were stolen from Afa.
  3. Everhart names new executive — poor thing. Plain bad timing.

The new curator is also profiled, but as the paper points out online:

Anonda Bell, the new curator of the Everhart Museum, is profiled on the cover of People (Section F) inside The Sunday Times today. The section was printed prior to Friday’s break-in at the museum and therefore has no reference to the theft of two major paintings


  1. Keeper of the Collection; Everhart Museum continues year of transition
    — yep. that’s an awkard headline, all right.

2 comments

  1. pingback by interference patterns » Blog Archive » alarm.art on Monday, Nov 21st, 2005 12:21 pm

    […] interference patterns like a delicate tracery of veins on a vaccum-tube « theft.art […]

  2. comment by Curator on Wednesday, Nov 23rd, 2005 9:36 am

    Why did the Everhart take a loaned object with no appraisal? How could their insurance co. pay for loss when there’s no way to determine the painting’s value? Here’s why. The previous staff had their heads in a certain body crevice.

comments RSS trackBack identifier URI

leave a comment

  • syndicate

    • Add to MyMSN
    • Add to MyYahoo
    • Add to Google Reader
    • Add to Bloglines
    • Add to Newsgator
    • Add to NewsIsFree