Thieves Steal Fake Paintings

Huh... More Munch thefts, even if it wasn't the real thing.. Given that one of the versions* of 'The Scream' got swiped a while back, I wonder if it's a trend..

*(there's apparently a few different ones, go fig.)

I think you're to pessimistic here. I don't think musea are a hoax!

Well Alex, real paintings at least have the 3-d effect, because they have real paint and not just little ink circles. Plus you have to consider that this was a hotel, not a museum. I'm not buying stock in your pet theory.

Hee hee. Munch.

Citizen, you're assuming that fake paintings are photo-reproductions. But if you have enough money to own a multi-million dollar painting, then you also have enough money to commission an artist to paint a duplicate.

There comes a point when an item passes the value of priceless and on to worthless - that is the point when something is declared to be so valuable that is becomes invisible to even the owner. Where is the value in an item that even the owner of it is afraid to view it for fear of it becoming damaged or stolen. When it comes to 'priceless' items, I'll stick with the replicas. They are a LOT cheaper and MUCH more enjoyable. When it comes to the point of reproduction being so good where even the 'pros' can't tell difference without extensive study, what difference (besides price) does it REALLY make what you are looking at anyhow...

CP, I used to work in a semi-high end retail furnishings store, and we had several copies of famous paintings. The thing with the copies we had, is that they are made with the original texture of the painting. For example, you could see each brush stroke, in 3D, etc.
I'm not an art expert, but I felt they were very good at capturing some of the texture and essence of the originals. So, even to normal consumers, a copy that just isn't flat and boring, is available.

I seem think believe something similar to Alex. I mean, if they left the paintings out, eventually they'd be ruined. Although, if they're not out, they're not doing anyone any good. Just like Christopher mentioned...It's not worth anything if everyone is looking at fakes.

Well, I was just saying that the real Mona Lisa, or a professional fake, looks a lot better that a postcard photograph. And I would think that a high-profile museum would rather risk losing the paintings than being exposed as a faker. I'm willing to bet you saw the real Mona Lisa.

Ah, but have you ever seen the Mona Lisa on display? It can't actually be 'seen', per se. It's hidden behind inch-thick glass that the light glares off of. And the crowds have to maintain a distance of about six feet. So the postcards of it in the gift shop really do provide a better viewing of it than you can get by seeing it hanging in the gallery, whether or not what's hanging in the gallery is real or not.

Anyway, it's long been rumored that the real Mona Lisa was lost to thieves decades ago. Here's a picture that I took of it when I visited the Louvre last year:

I wonder... does it really matter if the one on display is a fake? After all, isn't art about the complete image and the idea expressed within rather than the precise positioning of individual brushstrokes?

"does it really matter if the one on display is a fake?"

It does to me--it'd technically be fraud wouldn't it? The exhibitors are passing off a fake as the genuine article. I don't want to be misled into thinking something's real if it's not.

Hmmmm... I think the 'pet theory' is not very convincing, since if it were true the three Munchs (among which a version of 'The Scream') that were taken out of a museum in the middle of the day, a year ago, would also have been copies...

And I think it does matter whether you are looking at the original or at a copy. Part of the charm (for me anyway) is also to really seem something that was physically created centuries ago by one of the great and famous painters. That does add something extra to the painting by itself, I think.

As an engineer who has worked with architects designing museums, I can tell you they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on environmental controls and UV light control in exhibit spaces to protect the valuable artwork from deterioration. Noone would spend that kind of cash to protect a forgery, no matter how good the forgery.

True... though I work as a picture-framer, and you'd be surprised what people will put Museum-quality anti-UV glass on. The stuff is dreadfully expensive, but people have money. By the same course, we framed a Chagall sketch behind bog-standard glass. Of course, pencil doesn't fade much, but still.

Well, I have seen the originals of numerous famous paintings (at least, I'm convinced they were the originals), and of the ones I was able to see in decent lighting, I'd say no copy does them justice at all. That's why they're masterpieces, not just of design but also of painting technique.

By the way, the ones in museums are usually much better guarded than ones in other locations, such as public buildings or churches.

Close to thirty years ago I was on a package tour in Paris and looked at the Mona Lisa. The tour was running late, so I didn't get all the time I wanted to look at the art but I spent twenty minutes looking at the ML trying to decide if it was really that good or if it was just the hype. And Alex, the case it was in then was very different from the one in your picture, or else my memory is shot. My decision was that it was interesting. Liberty Leading the People was hanging on the wall in the corridor and I got a good look at it. Just as interesting as the ML. Flash photos were forbidden all though the museum in order to preserve the paintings. I think the air was filtered and controled also, different from just air conditioning. If a museum hung a copy for public viewing, that would be fraud. A hotel hanging a copy (hopefully identified as such)is just a sensible precaution. On some detective show some years ago art theft was the subject and it was mentioned that there are lots of people who "own" stolen art just so they can look at it and go one up on their friends.

By the way, I am not the Christopher who wrote earlier. That time on a Sunday morning I am, hopefully, sound asleep.

I suppose that as long as the person looking at the fake didn't realize that it was a fake, then they'd have the same experience as they would looking at the original. It would only be when they know that it's a fake that they'd feel cheated.

And I also remember the Mona Lisa being in a different case years ago.

Maybe they were only exhibiting the fakes because they were worried about the recent Munch thefts in other museums? All the same, I'd rather see the original than a fake no matter how good it is - aren't art fanatics always saying how real art comes from the artist's soul (meh..somethin like that)? Surely a copy wouldn't have that original spark in it that makes it such a great work of art

According to one BBC source, the Mona lisa in the Lovre is keep under guard to prevent the secret leaking out; Benetah the paint is the message "This Is A Fake" written in modern felt tip pen.

this was done on the six extra Mona Lisaa painted by Leonardo on commission to a time travellr who planned to steal the original and sell the semi-genuine ones to collector, making seven times as much money in order to perfect his time machine. A rival time travellor ruined dthe scheme in Leonardo's studio with the felt tip pen.

reference; Doctor Who, "City Of Death"

I wondered when someone was going to ring in that Doctor Who episode. It's a shame most of the earlier ones were lost, I still wonder what happened to the granddaughter and her friend. There are however, several "Mona Lisa"s floating around. I listened to the audio from the little headset I rented and the speaker spoke of, I think, six different Mona Lisas including on in Moscow - which the Russians claim is the original. So, which one would the thieves steal? Benny Hill did a skit on stealing the Mona Lisa and took just the frame. Smart, who'd miss the frame? Imagine having that hanging in your home - This was the frame for the Mona Lisa!

Many museums show copies of their important paintings and sculptures as well. The Albertina in Vienna hangs copies of Shiela drawings, the exact same excellent reproductions that can be purchased in their gift shop. In the Kunsthistorical Museum in Vienna the prehistoric statue

Christopher Cole, when were you in Paris? When I was at the louve in summer 2002 we were allowed to take all the pictures we wanted all over the museum.

Razela, it was the summer of '82 or maybe '83. I was stationed at Bitburg and took a tour. If I ever get the money I'd like to go back and complete a tour of the Louvre and maybe a couple of other places in Paris. For the rest of the city - forget it!

I hear ya Chris. The Louve is about one of the only really interesting things to see in Paris. I had a chance to go for a weekend a few weeks ago while I was staying in London, but chose to travel around the southern UK instead (bath, salisbury, stonehendge, etc). I'm just not that fond of paris, but then again, I could spend many full days exploring the louvre.

Rezela, who gives a rats ass where you vacationed and if you like the Louvre...grow up B!

Ummm, Choco, the idea was that Chris had used the fact that pictures were not allowed in the louvre as a bit of evidence of the paintings being real. I mentioned that when I was there in 2002, taking pictures was allowed in the louvre (thereby possibly giving some evidence that the pictures aren't cared about as much and maybe they are fakes).

Ok, then both me and Chris got a bit off topic, however, it wasn't like we were having a long drawn out discussion about personal things that have nothing to do with the topic. Anyways, even if we WERE, it doesn't give you any right to just come in and be rude about it. Just because you are typing anonymously on the internet doesn

Reeezala...the lot lizard...trying to pick up on line over a discussion about the mona... what do you know about art and the mona? Tell us all, tell the truth, you've never even been to paris and i doubt that you've ever been to london. People that travel don't brag about being holed up in london....too silly for words! I'm outta her....

??lot lizard?? Am I missing something? And why is this suddenly an attack on me?

I have a fake mona lisa and I love it. It is a lithograph thats been transferred to canvas, then glazed over....so it looks and feels amazing....even the frame is almost identical and the painting is the size of the origional. When guests come over it hangs right behind the tv. they spend more time watching it than is on the tv. even the fine cracks of the origional are very visible. people have told me that if this were hanging in what hangs as the mona in the museum that you would never know the differnce.

Funny I went to the Louvre, and was an ignorant 19-year-old, not knowing that it was the home of the Mona Lisa.

Never saw it there (not that I would have anyway if the theory here about fakes is correct.)

HI I AM READING ABOUT THE MONA LISA NOW EVERY DAY AND AM VERY SURPRISED AT THE COMMON BULLSHIT BEING DISHED OUT TO THE PUBLIC! UNTIL THERE IS A COMPLEATE SCIENTIFIC EXAMINATION OF THE PAINTING THAT THEY SAID THE DID AND KEEPT AS A STATE SECRET. FOR EXAMPLE CARBON 14 DATING OF THE WOOD AND THE PAINT YES THEY CAN DO THE PAINT NOW!GET TO WITH IN 50 YEARS OF ITS MANUFACTURE AND A LEAD ISOTOPE DATING THAT CAN ESTABLISH THE DATE WITH IN 20 YEARS AND OF COURSE LE3ADWHITE TRACE ELEMENT WHICN CAN TELL WHERE THE LEAD WAS MINED AND IF IT IS EUROPEAN THAT IS BEFORE THE 19 CENTURY THE COMMENTS ARE ALL NONSENSE SOMEONE IS VERY UPSET ABOUT MY WRITINGS ON THE MONA LISA I DID ONE MONT AGO !WHY ALL THE FUSS NOW???see fakeartroadshow.com --crookedartbusiness.com --LEARN SOMETING ABOUT WHAT SCIENCE CAN DO TO DAY WE ARE NOT LIVING IN THE STONE AGE AS THE ART BUSINESS IS DOING! YES IT IS A BUSINESS A BIG ONE, AND CONTOLED BY LONDON --- UNTILL THEN THE MONA LISA HAS TO BE CONSIDERED A FAKE POSSIBLE WHEN IT WAS STOLEN IN 1911 AND WAS WITH TOP NOCH FAKERS FOR TWO YEARS. DID YOU THINK IT WAS THE REAL ONE THEY GOT BACK===
HANS BUHR

I'm interested in knowing how an artist sells multiple reproductions of an origional canvas painting. Does the artist commission other artists to reproduce copies of the origional. For example, How does Thomas Kinkade reproduce so many copies of one of his origionals? I've noticed that the price range, for the same painting, is significently different. Why is this?

Frank to answer some of these queries of yours, a lot of artists in earlier times had students who trained by copying the lead artist's works for that very reason to sell multiple copies as well as to become artists in their own right; the term " The School Of (Artists Name)" is used for the artists who did this.

Cheaper multiple copies were made of later artists, called lithographs, a form of printing using a stone plated engraved and painted like the original, and later with photographic techniques; These are cheaper than originals, but often can only be made in limited numbers ( Except for Dali's who churned out huge quantatites just to cheese people off:), and oftne have serieal numbers.

one minute left good by

I am intensely interested in the Mona Lisa and have been since I was 9 living in Europe and was able to see it at the Louvre. At that time it was high up on a wall with a plastic case around it. For some reason it did not feel special like many of the others in the museum did. Perhaps it was because it was the only one I recall that was behind something glass-like? Since then I have returned many times to the Louvre and to gaze at Mona. I have doubts about authenticity as well even if the "real one" is in a vault somewhere as people assume. There is a very cool book that shows an extensive research onslaught that was done in 06? I have the book but it is not at my house this moment or I would have better dates to give on the publishing. There were several points in the book that seemed fishy. The fact that the painting is on poplar panel which the book suggests that Leonardo was not known to have used poplar at any other time. The photos that predate the 1911 theft are very tiny and you really cannot compare them although the book claims they did as far as matching the fine cracks in the paint. The thief had the painting in a cupboard in his house for 2 years and absolutely nothing happened to its condition although now it must be completely housed in some special environment...how about a cupboard? The thief was the guy who was sent to put glass on the painting and then they found the frame sitting there ant the painting gone. It took two years to track down the guy that was sent to put glass on the painting. That is some super police work!! The craquelure on the Mona Lisa is said by the book to be unique in all of 16th century painting. Why is that I wonder? I found a very old, probably 1870's photograph of the Mona Lisa on ebay years ago. I did not win the auction but offered both the seller and the buyer $20 for a simple photocopy and did not get a reply. Was this the result of a cover-up? Probably not but it is fun to think that. I highly recommend that book on the Mona research. $50 should get it on Amazon if you care or maybe less by now.
Happy to talk with anyone on this subject as I hope to one day write a book that either makes or breaks the case of authenticity.
Thanks,
Scott

Mr. Hans Buhr.
I'm very interested in your comments. I would like to discuss it more. Could you please contact me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Thank You

how can you steal fake paintings 😊
unbelievable

Obildeer ( May I call you that? )< you steal a fake painting the same way you steal a real one - By going into the location that the painting is in, then taking it form there when you do not own it to soem other place. 😊

Seriously, if a painting is copied by a competent artist, it is hard to tell the difference form the original without testing and knowledge not available to a casual observer. Not every copy is obvious