Theft of "The Scream" Simply a Diversion?

The Guardian raises the interesting possibility that the theft of Edvard Munch's "The Scream" last year may have been part of a larger heist. The timeline of events are all laid out in the article, but of particular importance is a robbery which took place at Norsk Kontantservice (Nokas), a cash transport service in the basement of Norway's central bank in Stavanger, three months before the Munch Museum theft. Kris Hollington reports that there is reason to believe that the theft of "The Scream" may have been an attempt to redirect the attention of national police and investigators away from the bank heist, in which thieves made out with 5 million GBP (approx. $9 million+ USD). Although the painting is worth significantly more, it has no market value and would never realize a price even close to its estimated value.

As a side bar to the whole story, the Guardian mentions art thief Paal Enger, whose main target is none other than Edvard Munch. Enger has been convicted and jailed twice for stealing Munch paintings, first in 1988 for "The Vampire" and again shortly after his release in 1996 for stealing...you guessed it, "The Scream." In 1999, he successfully escaped from prison but was nabbed by police 12 days later. Apparently without additional time added for his flight, Enger was released in 2000. I find several things quite amazing about Enger's theft record. Despite his ability to penetrate museum security (albeit rather insufficient security, but security nontheless), he invariably gets caught. The only thing more ridiculous than Norway's lenient treatment and sentencing of this repeat offender is their inability to keep tabs on him and prevent, or at least minimize the likelihood of, yet another crime. Although taken into custody for his suspected role in "The Scream" theft, Enger has denied any involvement. Another astounding point to this whole story is the lack of any additional security on or around "The Scream" despite several attempts in the recent past, some successful, to steal either this version or other versions of the work.

The Guardian's case is compelling and it certainly explains why the works were handled so roughly after the thieves removed them from the museum (and in broad daylight). No commissioned or self-interested thief/thieves displays the kind of disregard for the object's care that was demonstrated with "The Scream" heist, suggesting that the painting was really not of primary interest afterall. The theft of anything less than Norway's most prized art object would not have diverted national authorities' attention away from the other string of thefts as effectively. However, I do find it a little odd that the museum robbery occurred four months after the bank robbery. If the theft of "The Scream" was to divert attention away from the previous heist, why wait so long?

In any event, the sad part of the whole story is that in all likelihood "The Scream" (and the other painting stolen at the same time, "The Madonna") will not be recovered any time soon, and certainly not in very good condition if it ever is returned.

Spiral Jetty to Disappear Without Intervention. What Exactly is the Problem?

The history of the great earthwork's creation, submergence, re-emergence and possible re-submergence is all here. I'm curious as to whether creator/artist Robert Smithson is watching from some post-mortal dimension and what his thoughts on this would be. According to the story, the spiral will soon recede back into the Great Salt Lake if more rocks are not added to the work. The question is whether such an act would be in accordance with what the artist wanted/intended for the the work. One could make the argument that adding more rocks to the spiral is akin to the restoration of a painting or sculpture, that is, attempting to restore the work to its initial, natural form. However, as the artist is deceased, we do not know for certain whether Smithson would have wanted the work to remain constantly visible or simply endure the ordinary events of nature. This is probably what the Dia Art Foundation is contemplating, however a spokesperson provided the following:

"Bob spoke a few times about adding some more rocks, making this a possibility in the future. He wanted the work to be strong enough and visible enough to go through many natural changes."

I would say that the Dia could fairly easily justify adding rocks in order to simply provide stability to the work and maintain its integrity, however, if by the comment above they are suggesting that Smithson wanted the work to be continually visible and in order to achieve such an end more rocks should be added, I think they're mistaken. "Strong enough and visible enough to go through many natural changes" sounds an awful lot like withstanding submergence and re-emergence. This is supported by Smithson's delight when during the first year of the work's existence it disappeared briefly and resurfaced encrusted in salt.

I don't know for sure what Smithson's real intentions were when he created Spiral Jetty, although I would imagine that the logic was not all that dissimilar from that normally applied when designing and constructing most other earthworks. Typically there is an understanding that the work is as permanent as the earth itself on or from which the work was created and one assumes that the work will either withstand or succumb to evoluationary and natural changes that might occur in its environment. This runs rather incongruently with the the typical failure of humans to accept and appreciate change, loss, or other transformations of things they presuppose are static and permanent, which is why some people may make an effort to maintain the spiral's visibility. However, just as with any ephemeral work of art, we capture it in photographs and, once we have lost the original work forever, they serve as a reminder of what the work looked like and elicit the memory of what it was to experience it. (One could argue that the photographs themselves are art, however that is for another discussion). Unless it is explicitly stated, I believe that adding rocks to make the work visible despite rising water levels would alter the work's true nature and original purpose, effectually undermining the essense of the work itself. Fortunately, the Dia has no immediate plans for maintenance or alteration of the work, however if the waters continue to rise the issue will become all the more pressing so expect this story to resurface (pun intended, sorry).

Calvin's Insight on Art

The link is here. I don't remember coming across this strip in all of my readings of Calvin and Hobbes but it really is quite funny. It was originally posted on Modern Kicks, May 30th 2005.

Lee Friedlander at MoMA

Here is the New York Times article on the exhibition. The show is the largest exhibition ever held for a single photographer at MoMA and includes over 600 works by the artist. Moving in a fairly chronological order, the photos are grouped by subject. The only real critique Gefter has about the show is that it may be TOO big. However, despite the large number of works in the show, the arrangement and hanging actually creates a sense of intimacy and organization that makes the experience less overwhelming. The gallery is divided into smaller sections and the hanging of works in relation to one another varies dramatically from space to space. In all, I think the exhibition successfully demonstrates Friedlander's strength as a modern photographer and, more generally, an important artist of twentieth century.

Although a good many other people should be congratulated for their time and effort, my personal congratulations go to curator Peter Galassi and registrar Seth Fogelman for their success on this show.

The show opens June 5th and is located on the sixth floor of the museum. My own personal advice: Wait a few weeks until "Pioneering Modern Painting: Cezanne and Pissarro 1865-1885" goes up on June 26th in order to save a few bucks.

UPDATE: I realized that some people may not be familiar with Friedlander's work so here is a link to some photos and biographical info.