If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Dutch News)   Seven paintings stolen last fall from Dutch art museum worth €18 million were likely burned by the thieves. What a load of Pollocks   (dutchnews.nl) divider line 58
    More: Followup, Dutch, Kunsthal, Dutch art, museums  
•       •       •

3674 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jul 2013 at 10:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-17 06:32:58 AM
The world is now less a Picasso, a Monet, and a Matisse among others.  I really hate people sometimes, or in this case incompetent Romanian art thieves.
 
2013-07-17 06:38:16 AM
Hmm...you steal priceless paintings...burn a bunch of crap paintings...the detectives now assume that the priceless paintings are gone forever...the investigation suddenly gets kicked to the back burner.
 
2013-07-17 08:01:55 AM
If this is true, this case deserves to be a death penalty case.
 
2013-07-17 08:07:26 AM
Never mind the Pollocks
 
2013-07-17 09:12:01 AM

Elvis_Bogart: the investigation suddenly gets kicked to the back burner.


Except the men connected with the theft are going on trial...
 
2013-07-17 09:16:42 AM
Museum art director now rudderless.
 
2013-07-17 09:47:44 AM
www.ebsqart.com
NOOOOOOOOoooooooo!
 
2013-07-17 09:59:16 AM
Frowns on your shenanigans:
img.comc.com

 
2013-07-17 10:02:01 AM
I think it would be a lot more fun to sneak them into some highschool art competition and see if anyone notices.  Or if they win.
 
2013-07-17 10:40:17 AM
Pollocks?

Oh good, I thought something of value had been lost.
 
2013-07-17 10:42:23 AM
images2.wikia.nocookie.net

Knows just how they feel . . .
 
2013-07-17 10:44:14 AM
So someone didn't think their cunning plan all the way through?
 
2013-07-17 10:46:18 AM
userserve-ak.last.fm

"you farking burnt them?"
 
2013-07-17 10:47:34 AM

EvilEgg: So someone didn't think their cunning plan all the way through?


My thought exactly.
 
2013-07-17 10:49:42 AM
Nail the thieves to the museums wall in place of the paintings.
 
2013-07-17 10:49:48 AM
Are drug raid cops now setting the value of paintings? What they're insured for doesn't mean that they'd sell for that much.
 
2013-07-17 10:50:47 AM

EvilEgg: So someone didn't think their cunning plan all the way through?


I'm totally not saying this happened, because it didn't. But you could hire some guys to destroy some paintings, and as you already own several paintings by that artist, and art is rare enough, the value of your paintings would go up slightly as a result.
 
2013-07-17 10:51:44 AM
Maybe it was this guy
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-17 10:52:16 AM
If the paintings were really worth €18 million they'd have been far better protected.
 
2013-07-17 10:52:49 AM
Stealing art can be extremely lucrative, probably the most lucrative of major crimes for the amount you have to steal for what it is worth.  But, it is only lucrative if you can sell it, and unless you already have a client lined up before you steal it then chances are pretty much nil that you will be able to steal it.  So go steal some diamonds instead, OK?  And if you steal some rare artwork and cannot sell it then do not destroy it!  Go leave it someplace where someone will find it.  Why destroy some valuable works of art just because you are too farking stupid to succeed at being a criminal?
 
2013-07-17 10:55:13 AM

Mock26: Stealing art can be extremely lucrative, probably the most lucrative of major crimes for the amount you have to steal for what it is worth.  But, it is only lucrative if you can sell it, and unless you already have a client lined up before you steal it then chances are pretty much nil that you will be able to steal it.  So go steal some diamonds instead, OK?  And if you steal some rare artwork and cannot sell it then do not destroy it!  Go leave it someplace where someone will find it.  Why destroy some valuable works of art just because you are too farking stupid to succeed at being a criminal?


I would guess you would destroy it because there is a chance the police will go all CSI on the art and catch you, if they find it.
 
2013-07-17 11:03:08 AM

BizarreMan: If this is true, this case deserves to be a death penalty case.


That was a very interesting thing I learned in law school.  The general common law rule for centuries (now modified by places like FLA and TX sadly)  was that use of deadly force, solely to protect property was never justified.  However there was a legal consensus that the exception to that rule MIGHT be when defending an item of great historical or cultural significance in danger of destruction.
 
2013-07-17 11:03:15 AM

Russ1642: If the paintings were really worth €18 million they'd have been far better protected.


Art is a bit odd in that the blackmarket for it is really hard. They could be worth €18 million if auctioned legitimately, but not worth the trouble to fence when they are stolen property and impossible to display publicly (or even brag much about privately).
 
2013-07-17 11:07:24 AM
if the mother of one of them did in fact burn the paintings she should be put so deeply in jail she never sees the sun again.
 
2013-07-17 11:07:28 AM
o.onionstatic.com
8. These Guys
 
2013-07-17 11:08:11 AM
Normally I'm not one for long sentances for properity crime, but I hope they all rot away in prison forever.

uploads5.wikipaintings.org

www.abc.net.au
www.picasso-pablo.ru

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org


Well, I am kinda glad they burned the Picasso, that is some ugly crap.
 
2013-07-17 11:09:26 AM

EvilEgg: Mock26: Stealing art can be extremely lucrative, probably the most lucrative of major crimes for the amount you have to steal for what it is worth.  But, it is only lucrative if you can sell it, and unless you already have a client lined up before you steal it then chances are pretty much nil that you will be able to steal it.  So go steal some diamonds instead, OK?  And if you steal some rare artwork and cannot sell it then do not destroy it!  Go leave it someplace where someone will find it.  Why destroy some valuable works of art just because you are too farking stupid to succeed at being a criminal?

I would guess you would destroy it because there is a chance the police will go all CSI on the art and catch you, if they find it.


If they can prove that it was destroyed I imagine the punishment would be much more severe than if they just stole it.
 
2013-07-17 11:12:07 AM
So the remaining picassos, matisses and monets all just instantly became more valuable?
 
2013-07-17 11:14:58 AM

This text is now purple: Pollocks?  Oh good, I thought something of value had been lost.



This!  If it had been the debris produced (not created) by The Splatterer, that would be just fine.
 
2013-07-17 11:20:43 AM

potterydove: So the remaining picassos, matisses and monets all just instantly became more valuable?


Goldfinger!!
 
2013-07-17 11:20:48 AM
As a lover of good art, I can live with those particular pieces disappearing off the face of the Earth.
 
2013-07-17 11:26:29 AM
"Mom? Those paintings I brought home? You know, the ones that are rolled up? Where'd they go?"

"Honey, I burned them! I didn't want you to get into any trouble."

"WHAT? Moooooom!"
 
2013-07-17 11:27:04 AM
Lars The Canadian Viking

Well, I am kinda glad they burned the Picasso, that is some ugly crap.

No kidding. I did a better job on my 77 GMC van. I got the mostly nekkid chick painted perfectly. Told, like three chicks that I needed a Polaroid of them in a bikini so I could immortalize them on my van. Got two photos and a cock punch from Vicky's older brother. So Julie's and Sarah's faces kinda got mixed up there on Loni Anderson's body. Didn't hear a complaint from either of them about the body. I think they both thought they had a rack like that. Julie got a little miffed because she posed in a red bikini and the girl on the van wore a white one. I told her I was running low on red and she bought it. Sarah told me it was nice and I should consider a career as a van painter. But then she also told me that she wanted her photo back. I took it with me in to the Army and lost it in a poker game. Kinda of an early internet.

The unicorn was kinda chunky. Never claimed to be a horse/unicorn painter. Should have made it a lion but I was actually pretty low on red paint. Plus the garage wasn't well ventilated so things got loopy.

I'll bet Picasso never painted a van in a single car garage but if he did, it would explain things.
 
2013-07-17 11:28:31 AM

Surpheon: Russ1642: If the paintings were really worth €18 million they'd have been far better protected.

Art is a bit odd in that the blackmarket for it is really hard. They could be worth €18 million if auctioned legitimately, but not worth the trouble to fence when they are stolen property and impossible to display publicly (or even brag much about privately).


I've been told by someone who might have reason to know that nearly all art theft is either a) an insurance scam or b) "stolen to order"  basically you have the buyer lined up before you steal the work.  Otherwise you end up in a situation like this.   Which makes sense really.  The painting may be "worth" $4 million, but to get even half of that for it you have to find a combination of A) someone who has that much money B) someone who is that rich who is willing to risk thier wealth and position by doing something illegal and C) Someone who meets criteria A&B  and also loves art enough to sink millions into an object they can not only never re-sell, but frankly can't even exhibit except to a select few peple
 
2013-07-17 11:32:47 AM

Russ1642: If the paintings were really worth €18 million they'd have been far better protected.


Not true at all. Most museums/institutions which own this sort of art received it years ago and don't have the endowment to pay for the sort of security they should have.  One of the best collections of Postimpressionists paintings in the world had no security protection until the mid-1990s, and was finally moved into a brand-new building last year.  The new museum cost $250 million to build, but the collection is worth $3 billion, easily.

potterydove: So the remaining picassos, matisses and monets all just instantly became more valuable?


No. Rarity doesn't increase value for artists as prolific as these three.
 
2013-07-17 11:34:22 AM
I would think that maybe you give an amnesty. Drop the paintings on the museum door step no questions asked. It would be shiatty to let art thieves go but at least you may get your art back a rather than have those one a kinds burnt in an oven when the thieves destroyed the evidence.
 
2013-07-17 11:35:38 AM
Craigslist Ad:

got some art stuff to sekll. cant tell you where i gots it but i want to seell quick. got picture of guy, nother girl and some other stuff. sell everything together. i gots the lowdown that this shiats worht 18 million euros. will sell for a lot less if you got the cash! no scammers. no cops. READ THIS COPS! NO COPS!
 
2013-07-17 11:37:12 AM
Im ok with this.
 
2013-07-17 11:39:01 AM

Dwight_Yeast: Russ1642: If the paintings were really worth €18 million they'd have been far better protected.

Not true at all. Most museums/institutions which own this sort of art received it years ago and don't have the endowment to pay for the sort of security they should have.  One of the best collections of Postimpressionists paintings in the world had no security protection until the mid-1990s, and was finally moved into a brand-new building last year.  The new museum cost $250 million to build, but the collection is worth $3 billion, easily.

potterydove: So the remaining picassos, matisses and monets all just instantly became more valuable?

No. Rarity doesn't increase value for artists as prolific as these three.


Which museum?
 
2013-07-17 11:41:26 AM
crossfitfire.com

garkola: "Mom? Those paintings I brought home? You know, the ones that are rolled up? Where'd they go?"

"Honey, I burned them! I didn't want you to get into any trouble."

"WHAT? Moooooom!"


Stéphane Breitwieser's mother should be ashamed of herself...
 
2013-07-17 11:52:06 AM
Naturally the value of the remaining paintings will go up.

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-17 11:58:55 AM

highrye: Dwight_Yeast: Russ1642: If the paintings were really worth €18 million they'd have been far better protected.

Not true at all. Most museums/institutions which own this sort of art received it years ago and don't have the endowment to pay for the sort of security they should have.  One of the best collections of Postimpressionists paintings in the world had no security protection until the mid-1990s, and was finally moved into a brand-new building last year.  The new museum cost $250 million to build, but the collection is worth $3 billion, easily.

potterydove: So the remaining picassos, matisses and monets all just instantly became more valuable?

No. Rarity doesn't increase value for artists as prolific as these three.

Which museum?


Barnes Foundation here in Philly. Literally didn't have A/C or a security system until 1995. Moved into a brand-new (and very secure) building on the Parkway last year.

They own a Cezanne Card Players.  A lesser example sold to the Qatari royal family for $200 million last year, which is why I think $3 billion is conservative right now.  They have 170 Cezannes and 150 Renoirs.  Many aren't great, but there are a few masterpieces just among those two artists.
 
2013-07-17 11:59:05 AM

This text is now purple: Pollocks?

Oh good, I thought something of value had been lost.


You know who else liked to burn some Pollocks?
 
2013-07-17 12:08:42 PM

Mock26: Stealing art can be extremely lucrative, probably the most lucrative of major crimes for the amount you have to steal for what it is worth.  But, it is only lucrative if you can sell it, and unless you already have a client lined up before you steal it then chances are pretty much nil that you will be able to steal it.  So go steal some diamonds instead, OK?  And if you steal some rare artwork and cannot sell it then do not destroy it!  Go leave it someplace where someone will find it.  Why destroy some valuable works of art just because you are too farking stupid to succeed at being a criminal?


I saw on a documentary years ago about how drug lords liked trading drugs for art because 20 million in cash is a lot money to walk around with. So instead of cash they would use art.
 
2013-07-17 12:13:31 PM

groppet: I saw on a documentary years ago about how drug lords liked trading drugs for art because 20 million in cash is a lot money to walk around with. So instead of cash they would use art.


Art is great for money laundering.
 
2013-07-17 12:15:17 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Russ1642: If the paintings were really worth €18 million they'd have been far better protected.

Not true at all. Most museums/institutions which own this sort of art received it years ago and don't have the endowment to pay for the sort of security they should have.  One of the best collections of Postimpressionists paintings in the world had no security protection until the mid-1990s, and was finally moved into a brand-new building last year.  The new museum cost $250 million to build, but the collection is worth $3 billion, easily.

potterydove: So the remaining picassos, matisses and monets all just instantly became more valuable?

No. Rarity doesn't increase value for artists as prolific as these three.


Well, rarity would increase the value. You would just have to destroy a hell of a lot more than this to create sufficient rarity.

It if is a scam it would just be a simple insurance scam.
 
2013-07-17 12:17:22 PM
For those interested, I read a book once about stealing Rembrandts which stated contrary to popular myth there is no shadow world of super-rich who will risk everything to buy paintings illegally.  It literally started from James Bond because there was a famous painting stolen right before the filming of Dr. No, and they included it in the villain's gallery as a joke about what happened to it (actual thief was just an amateur).

As a result you have people who steal the paintings thinking they can sell them, and realizing it doesn't quite work like that.  Then are idiots and do something like this and burn them when the cops are closing in.

/funniest story from that book was how some guy liked the look of a Rembrandt so much that he just picked it off the gallery wall and took it home
//they caught him on the street with it though
 
2013-07-17 12:18:03 PM
Knows how he feels. Mom burned my porn mags.
 
2013-07-17 12:30:23 PM

Andromeda: The world is now less a Picasso, a Monet, and a Matisse among others.


Only the originals. We still have prints and JPGs, right?
 
2013-07-17 12:38:54 PM

Elvis_Bogart: Hmm...you steal priceless paintings...burn a bunch of crap paintings...the detectives now assume that the priceless paintings are gone forever...the investigation suddenly gets kicked to the back burner.


"I am an EXCEPTIONAL art thief!"
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report