Truck and Barter: Vicious Circles and 'The Scream'

August 23, 2004

Vicious Circles and 'The Scream'

By Ian

Big news in the art world over the weekend: Edvard Munch's 'The Scream' was stolen. (N.B. Oddly, this isn't the first time major art pieces have taken a walk during the Olympics. And this is not the first theft of 'The Scream'.)

During the radio story I was listening to about the theft, I heard something I later thought couldn't possibly be true. Looking through a few news stories, I discovered it was: the painting wasn't insured against theft. What's more, this should not have been surprising. Major works of art regularly go without theft insurance.

The premiums, it seems, are just too high. Flood and fire, on the other hand, are well protected against since the monthly bill isn't that bad. Or at least comparatively. Rather than fork over the cash for the insurance, the above BBC article says, museums and galleries rely on sophisticated security systems. A couple of things spring to mind. First, the premiums really must be very high if the upfront and maintenance costs of state-of-the-art security systems as well as guards is easier to swallow now to protect against the possibility of theft than the yearly cost of gaining surety of financial reimbursement on the event of theft. And second, it's not working terribly well.

This second issue is, of course, likely due to the fact that not every gallery can afford the same level of security. Add to that the fact that the premiums aren't adjusted for the size of the gallery.

Unfortunately, I can't find any statistics on the rate of art crime around the world (one article says it's "on the rise", but that's simply one reporter; here are some stats on the characteristics of art theft and recovery from the Art Loss Register). Knowing, however, that insurance against an act will generally increase with the likelihood of the act, art theft must be common enough to warrant the extremely high premiums.

What I don't quite get is the sentiment from the above article that "it just doesn't make sense" to insure against theft, simply because of the price of the premiums. It would seem useful, at least, to have the financial resources of an insurance company on hand to deal with the theft, possibly through offering a reward for piece, even as bait to bring the thief back in. (Bounties for theives, anyone?) Additionally, the money from the insurance could go to better protection for the remaining pieces. Bulletproof guard stations in Olso, for instance.

If art theft is on the rise, then insurance premiums would be as well, putting them further out of reach for more institutions, who in turn end up relying on uncertain security systems.

Of course, were I completely cynical, I would mention the fact that private ownership spreads the risk out to people who can afford not only the security, but probably the insurance as well. Not to mention the fact that the works would be a lot harder to find, and most likely as well taken care of as in any institution. Though, I should say that among the things not included in the paltry stats linked above is information on the kinds of items stolen in each location. Is more furniture stolen from domestic dwellings? What range of value are the items stolen from each location?

Good thing I'm not that cynical, though.

UPDATE: In an angle I honestly hadn't thought of, this Wash Times article brings up the suggestion that the theives of 'The Scream' might have been motivated by reward money put up by an insurance agency. Since the pieces weren't insured, that won't happen. Whether or not the theives knew they were uninsured is another matter entirely. In fact, it sounds plausible enough, and somewhat akin to kindnapping plans in Mexico and elsewhere. My only objection to this is that I can't imagine that, in the case of art, that an insurance company would hand over money and not attempt an arrest of the thieves. Ultimately, it makes me wonder about the usefulness of a pseudo K&R policy for cultural/artistic works.

Posted at August 23, 2004 09:20 AM

Comments