Posted on 08/23/2004 10:25:45 AM PDT by knighthawk
OSLO (AFP) - Two masterpieces by the Norwegian artist Edvard Munch stolen from an Oslo museum at the weekend were not insured against theft, officials said.
"The Scream", one of the most famous images ever painted, and "Madonna" were grabbed Sunday morning by armed and hooded thieves who burst into the Munch Museum in the Norwegian capital, threatening a member of staff with a gun.
"The pictures were insured in case of fire or damage from water but not for theft or burglary," said John Oeyaas of Oslo Forsikring, which is responsible for insuring the assets of the city of Oslo.
"They are irreplaceable works and it makes no sense to insure them against theft," he told AFP.
Some experts had speculated on Sunday that as the works should be impossible to sell owing to their fame it was possible the thieves had stolen them with the aim of blackmailing insurance companies.
The collection of the Munch Museum, which comprises 1,100 paintings, 3,000 drawings and 18,000 etchings is insured for 60.45 million euros (74.3 million dollars) but experts believe that "The Scream" alone is worth that amount.
Munch (1863-1944) painted four versions of the work, of which the Munch Museum held two -- the one stolen on Sunday and another in reserve. A private collector owns a third.
Ping
As a commodity they should be insured, but as art--can art be stolen?
If the paintings were not insured for theft..how can the theives "blackmail" the insurance companies as speculated in the article? Doesnt make sense...
If they were stolen to sell to private collector..whats the point? They would have to remain hidden and where is the joy in owning art you have to hide away?
You don't insure property you can't or wouldn't replace. Some insurance sales men may disagree.
I would imagine that the real reason they were not insured is that the premiums would be prohibitive.
They could be selling those paintings to a private collector who will never be showing them and will turn up several years later. Who knows.
There are probably a number of private collectors who have works of art gotten under dubious circumstances and they will never show these things it's a matter of they own it for their own selfish purposes.
While the paintings are unique in the artistic sense, they could be replaced by others of similar size and color and market value.
Then why insure them against fire?
I'd imagine these were 'stolen to order'.
I wonder how much the thieves will be paid for the hoist?
Personally, I wouldn't give ye ten dollars for The Scream. I always thought it was a kinda creepy painting.
Evidently, it made no sense to guard them either.
There are egomaniac collectors who don't want anybody but themselves to possess and enjoy world-class works of art. They consider other eyes alighting on one of their canvasses as an act of rape.
The most famous art theif of the 19th century was like this. He stole "The Duchess of Devonshire," a priceless Gainsborough that JP Morgan had just successfully bid a fantastic sum for. So what did he do with it? Did he arrange to sell it back to Morgan? Nope.
He slept with it. For years.
They were interviewing the lady in charge of this museum and they asked her if guards tried to stop these theives. She replied "No, they didn't because the theives were armed." Then she was asked why the museum guards weren't armed and she actually gasped at the suggestion and said, "No museum guards in Norway are ever armed!"
Real art here: ARC International
It is my opinion that the painting is "good" because it is famous, and not that it is famous because it is good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.