Skip to main content

The Billion Dollar Art Hunt – Much Ado about Nothing

 

Watching The Billion Dollar Art Hunt (BBC iPlayer) is a hugely frustrating way to spend an hour.

At the end of an IKEA assembly puzzle of equal length, you have a piece of furniture. At the end of this documentary, all you have are the same questions that were posed at the beginning: Where are the bloody paintings, and who took them?

The show, led by veteran art journalist, John Wilson, examines the case of the most spectacular art heist in history: the theft of fourteen pictures from the Isabella Steward Gardner Museum, in Boston, in 1990. Estimates are that the paintings are now worth nearly a billion dollars. Of course, these are sensationalised prices. The major paintings were cut from their frames, and probably rolled, possibly even folded. The prints and watercolours may have fared better, but the major paintings are damaged goods and have probably not been looked after in the intervening thirty years.

The circumstances of the robbery are well-documented, so I am not going into that here. I will, however, declare a personal interest in the escapade as, growing up not far from Boston, I knew the ISG Museum from an early age and well remember seeing the stolen paintings several times. [This was so long ago that there was still the odd attendant who knew Mrs Gardner, who died in 1924.]I have also visited the empty frames, and as was noted in the documentary, it was like visiting a grave.

The problem with the whole documentary is that it’s something of a shaggy dog story. Wilson teams up with a retired detective from the Metropolitan Police Art Squad, Charley Hill, who claims to have received strong information from well-known Irish gangsters with IRA connections (one is described as the person who has been “shot more times than anyone else in the Republic” and later as a “sieve” due to the number of bullet holes).

Both Wilson and Hill have impressive records. Hill succeeded in recovering a version of Munch’s “The Scream” as well as a Vermeer.

For most of the hour, attempts are made to contact the lead suspect both directly and through various underground links.

Back in the United States, there is a $10 million reward for the recovery of the paintings and the extraordinary provision that the criminal’s lawyers can handle the exchange. The Americans (Boston police and FBI) believe the theft was the work of a Italian mob an that the paintings are still stateside. Wilson and Hill believe in the Irish connection.

Ultimately, there is an interview with a “contact” who is both anonymous and unseen. He says he doesn’t know where the pictures are, who really has them, and states that if they are hidden in the walls of a house in a Dublin suburb, then they will be there for many more years.

The informant continues to say that there is one hope that someone seeing the documentary will be moved to release some information, and, of course, Wilson and Hill endorse that wish.

Wait a minute!

Did I just catch a whiff of fish?

A TV crew meanders across the Atlantic shooting film of anything they can think of, follow “promising leads” and try to piece together actual information from handfuls of nothing, but finally find someone who is content to say this documentary presents a shred of hope?

As a sleight of hand, this is only a gerbil coming out of the hat, but it will have to do for now, and it goes some way to justify spending the time and money on the production.

But maybe only for half an hour.

                                                                                                     *    

Thirty years is a long time for a collection of artworks to be missing. None of them has been found; been reported to have been seen; or appear to have changed hands. The statute of limitations on theft has expired.

There is a strong suspicion that these pictures were stolen to order and are in a private vault or secure art warehouse (hopefully not the one where Saatchi lost so much).

No doubt they will surface again one day, and it is good that people like Wilson and Hill follow every possibility. This just wasn’t very entertaining or informative.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: Humphrey and Jack by Ian Thomson

It’s almost impossible to write about Humphrey and Jack without giving spoiler alerts every two sentences, so closely are plot, character and theme woven. So, after this, there are no further alerts. The plot is deceptively simple: an embittered retired lecturer befriends a semi-delinquent youth and both are redeemed. However, the character and social shading of the book are remarkable, and readers are treated to 300+ pages of Thomson’s elegant writing. And here lies part of the skill of the novel: the characters reveal themselves and evolve through action and dialogue, not through the author’s narrative and commentary on the psychological aspects of what is going on. This makes the reader think about what he is reading, which many readers will find too great an effort – but then, they don’t deserve the rewards. Readers are seduced into cosy cynicism with the early encounters with “the Evangelists” a group of grumpy old men who meet in a pub and have ritual rants abou

Was Scrooge Conned?

It would be interesting to trace the tradition of the Christmas ghost story beyond the superficial (see below). I am sure it is related to the darkness and cold of the year and people huddled around a fire for comfort and warmth, but the association with Christmas and ghosts is incongruous - or is it? Yes, there were pagan mid-winter feasts, but it's hard to see why they would emerge in the 18th and 19th centuries when ghost stories rose in popularity. Dickens is, of course, associated with the genre and wrote the quintessential Christmas ghost story. Ironically, given its Christmas theme, God barely gets a look in in A Christmas Carol . There are only a dozen mentions of God - mostly in passing "God bless you"s or the singing of God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen. There is no mention of Christ, Jesus, or Saviour, and no one is seen going to church. So, what we have is a ghost story trading on a secular commercial Christmas so that Dickens and his publisher can sell a few

Repetition, Repetition

I heard the hymn "Love Divine All Love's Excelling" the other day and, once again, the genius of the line in the final verse struck me: "Changed from glory into glory. . . ." The meaning of this repetition is neither readily apparent nor easily understood, yet it makes immediate impact. Why? I have thought about this on and off for a number of years and the best reasons I can come up with are: 1. It's unexpected 2. It presents us with a mystery And that's the point. The line is alluding to something we cannot begin to comprehend. The glories we can imagine in our human forms do not come close to those we will experience on admission to Heaven. It will be a transfiguration that is total, and unknowable to us as mortals. This interpretation fits with the concept of a Divine love that excels all others. I suspect the individual words themselves had more power in the days before hyperbole was literally overused. [That's an example of irony,