3 ms·

Sadly one thing most art thieves don't understand is that even if a painting is worth millions to a gallery or collector on the legitimate market, it's black-ma

Sadly one thing most art thieves don't understand is that even if a painting is worth millions to a gallery or collector on the legitimate market, it's black-market resale value is basically zero. (Turns out, not many people want to buy famous paintings for enormous sums of money that they'll never be able to show off.) And even if there were some Bond villain waiting to get his hands on a Picasso for his mountain lair, the smash-and-grab art thieves suddenly realize they don't have the connections to find such people. It would probably help if there were less insane hype about art prices in the culture generally, but at this point the ever-increasing valuations of these works is what keeps certain segments of the secondary market alive (and on significantly thinner margins than most people imagine).

paulpauper 8y ago
It would probably help if there were less insane hype about art prices in the culture generally, but at this point the ever-increasing valuations of these works is what keeps certain segments of the secondary market alive (and on significantly thinner margins than most people imagine). Seems sorta like blaming the victims. "If only art wern't so valuable, ppl wouldn't be so tempted to steal it"
- _petronius 8y ago
  Hmmm, that's kind of a stretch. You can hypothesise about motivating factors in people's behaviour without endorsing bad behaviour. I sort of took it as read that people who break into museums and steal the collective cultural heritage of society are doing bad stuff and I disapprove of them. I also wanted to make the point the crazy-high valuations aren't really a good, or useful, or socially valuable aspect of the (especially secondary) art market, and they create a false sense of the transferability of that value. That was mainly as a response to the idea of the tradeoffs between security and accessibility that the parent comment was highlighting. It would be sad if a bunch of "security" was added to art museums, and as a culture we could let go of the idea that for something to be important it has to also have a millions-of-currency pricetag attached to it. None of that alters the fact that if you tell people something is worth a life-changing amount of money, and put it within their reach, you have to accept that somebody is gonna try to make off with it every once in a while, especially in a society that closes off lots of more reasonable paths out of poverty or hardship.
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    The bigger stretch is thinking you can keep the value of art a closely-guarded secret.
faramarz 8y ago
In the article, it talks about one way for art thieves to get liquid with stolen art is to contact the insurance company and get paid ransom money. Insurer would rather pay 1/8th ransom than insured value.
- C4stor 8y ago
  I think it's still not exactly easy to call up basically admitting you've stolen the pieces, and end up with the money and not in jail. Even though I suppose there's more anonymous preserving ways to transfer money now than ever, so it should help.
  - readhn 8y ago
    whats wrong with sending anonymous email along with a bitcoin address? at least they could have saved the paintings.
    - C4stor 8y ago
      I highly doubt an insurance company would give any money prior to recovering the art and without a solid reason to think they'll recover them, but that's just a gut feeling.
ikeboy 8y ago
Is it good for the industry that art thefts happen? After all, it validates that these things are actually valuable
- mannykannot 8y ago
  Not as much as the auction price does.
  - ikeboy 8y ago
    But the media only reports auction prices when they're obscenely high, like in hundred million ranges. Art thefts can get widespread coverage even when they're only worth a measly 18 million
    - mannykannot 8y ago
      You have a point, but if the 18 million is a reference to this case, it seems the then-current value was several times greater than they were insured for. The fact that the paintings were burned also raised its profile considerably.
Terr_ 8y ago
> It would probably help if there were less insane hype about art prices in the culture generally One theory is that it's not just due irrational hype, but also how art can be useful for money-laundering schemes.

paulpauper 8y ago

It would probably help if there were less insane hype about art prices in the culture generally, but at this point the ever-increasing valuations of these works is what keeps certain segments of the secondary market alive (and on significantly thinner margins than most people imagine). Seems sorta like blaming the victims. "If only art wern't so valuable, ppl wouldn't be so tempted to steal it"

_petronius 8y ago
Hmmm, that's kind of a stretch. You can hypothesise about motivating factors in people's behaviour without endorsing bad behaviour. I sort of took it as read that people who break into museums and steal the collective cultural heritage of society are doing bad stuff and I disapprove of them. I also wanted to make the point the crazy-high valuations aren't really a good, or useful, or socially valuable aspect of the (especially secondary) art market, and they create a false sense of the transferability of that value. That was mainly as a response to the idea of the tradeoffs between security and accessibility that the parent comment was highlighting. It would be sad if a bunch of "security" was added to art museums, and as a culture we could let go of the idea that for something to be important it has to also have a millions-of-currency pricetag attached to it. None of that alters the fact that if you tell people something is worth a life-changing amount of money, and put it within their reach, you have to accept that somebody is gonna try to make off with it every once in a while, especially in a society that closes off lots of more reasonable paths out of poverty or hardship.
- mannykannot 8y ago
  The bigger stretch is thinking you can keep the value of art a closely-guarded secret.

faramarz 8y ago

In the article, it talks about one way for art thieves to get liquid with stolen art is to contact the insurance company and get paid ransom money. Insurer would rather pay 1/8th ransom than insured value.

C4stor 8y ago
I think it's still not exactly easy to call up basically admitting you've stolen the pieces, and end up with the money and not in jail. Even though I suppose there's more anonymous preserving ways to transfer money now than ever, so it should help.
- readhn 8y ago
  whats wrong with sending anonymous email along with a bitcoin address? at least they could have saved the paintings.
  - C4stor 8y ago
    I highly doubt an insurance company would give any money prior to recovering the art and without a solid reason to think they'll recover them, but that's just a gut feeling.

ikeboy 8y ago

Is it good for the industry that art thefts happen? After all, it validates that these things are actually valuable

mannykannot 8y ago
Not as much as the auction price does.
- ikeboy 8y ago
  But the media only reports auction prices when they're obscenely high, like in hundred million ranges. Art thefts can get widespread coverage even when they're only worth a measly 18 million
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    You have a point, but if the 18 million is a reference to this case, it seems the then-current value was several times greater than they were insured for. The fact that the paintings were burned also raised its profile considerably.

Terr_ 8y ago

> It would probably help if there were less insane hype about art prices in the culture generally One theory is that it's not just due irrational hype, but also how art can be useful for money-laundering schemes.