Start with the story. An art thief swiped loads of paintings and sculptures and more. He got caught.
Now his mum goes and destroys it all. All of it! Priceless (okay, just very valuable) works of art, and she chucks it in a river!
I think if anyone does any jail time, hers should be 5 or 10 times longer than whatever the thief does. At least he just grabbed the stuff and hid it. But she destroyed it forever!
That makes me feel ill. . . that is very very bad. His mama needs a good beating.
why couldn’t he have just stolen Pre-Raphaelite stuff instead of Cranach and Bruegel?
(running before that Pre-Raph. fan-club-mafia makes it into this thread)
I listened to the story on the way home from work. Most of the treasures were recovered from the canal, but the mother chopped up the paintings and threw them out with her potato peelings.
IMO, the mother is guilty of the worse crime.
That story makes me ill. What a short-sighted neanderthal.
Here’s another gut check for you:
Or search google for “isabella stewart gardner theft”
I once touched a VanGogh! Long story, but I still remember it after 25 years.
I have to disagree about assigning the “worse crime” to the mother. What she did is certainly terrible, as an art fan myself, reading about her deeds made my stomach turn. What she did is a crime.
However, to say that her crime was worse than her sons leads to the assumption that his crime was “better” than hers, which doesn’t really work for me. I don’t think that an art thief should get some sort of credit for claiming “but I thought I was keeping the art in a safe place, how was I to know that my mother would destroy it?” Art thieves get no points for good intentions! If her crime was destroying stolen art, then his is twice as bad – first, stealing art, and second, thus allowing the art to be destroyed. Whether or not he knew his mother would do such a thing is not important.
Good point delphica. Presumably, if he’d not nicked it in the first place, she wouldn’t have been able to destroy it!
When sonny-boy swiped the art, he made it temporarily unavailable. When mama destroyed it, she made it perminantly unrecoverable. She wins the ‘worse crime’ contest, hands-down. I’d even go so far as to suggest that she has commited a crime against humanity: She willfully destroyed centuries of accumulated human heritage, stealing it from all mankind, forever. I rank her right up alongside the Taliban in terms of “Pillagers of Culture”.
Resurrect the pillory. I can easily get access to truckloads of rotten produce. Who wants to second in line…?
I’ll be there with a trebuchet!
Why was it temporarily unavailable? He didn’t borrow it for the weekend, he stole it. What if he stole it, and then accidentally burnt his house down when he was making waffles? One of the reasons why I find art thieves so nasty is that they willfully remove works of art from protected areas, and expose them to dangerous situations. Of course, even a museum is vulnerable to danger, extreme situations can damage art in museum collections as well. However, even I can figure out that a museum is a far safer place for art than my mom’s house!
I’m not trying to argue that the mother’s crime was in any way better, or not as serious. I’m just pointing out that the mother and son each committed a vile crime, and that the son’s theft led to the ultimate destruction of the artwork.
I heard about this story and it made me SICK. Stealing the art is terrible but that STUPID fucking mother trying to destroy the evidence but throwing it in the river??!! Her son would probably have gotton less time if she returned the treasures.
Doesn’t anyone remember the Japanese millionaire who bought a Van Gogh and then declared it was his intention to have it cremated with him when he died? He later recanted in the face of an overwhelming public outcry, but ominously he has since died and the painting is now missing. His estate claims they still have it but are unable to produce it.
Sure, but at that point it was still capable of being recovered. Yes, it was out of circulation, but it was still extant.
‘What if’, indeed. That would’ve been very serious, but still not deliberate (save for the fact that his theft made the accidental destruction possible). OTOH, his mother deliberately made the art unavailable for all time, malice aforethought. It is no longer merely “out of circulation”, it is gone. Forever. With no possible chance of recovery. It was Mama’s actions that brought us to this point.
That, and they remove it from public access. No argument from me, save that thieves aren’t motivated to destroy art, only to relocate it. Stolen work can, and does, return to public view all the time.
None of what ‘Mama’ destroyed will ever return to the public.
Sonny-boy’s crime was heinous. Mama’s was heinous and vile.
My take when I read this story was this:
Scenario 1: Boy is arrested, mama turns over all the stolen art. Light sentences all around.
Scenario 2: Boy is arrested, mama destroys a lot of the art. Heavy sentences all around.
She chose 2.
Criminals are idiots, if they had any brains they wouldn’t be criminals.
If they had any brains they’d be successful criminals.
Sonny-boy did avoid capture for years. I’d say he had a fairly good run, and was at least pretty shrewd, if not ‘smart’.
Sonny-boy and Momma should BOTH be “cut up into little pieces and thrown out with the rubbish”.
That would be an “artistic” counterpoint to Little Nemo’s Japanese millionaire. Instead of the artwork going out with the collector, the “collectors” could go out with the art work.
I’d suggest they be imprisoned until the paintings are recovered.
“But we destroyed the paintings.”
“Poor planning on your part then.”
I’d chuck them both in the canal, tied to a concrete block.
As part of their sentences, they should have to paint each other naked.
I was sickened by this, too, when I read the article in the Times. I kept telling myself, “now, now, with all the mass killings going on all over the world, this is pretty small potatoes in comparison.” But I still can’t tamp down my gut reaction: Mommy should be hanged in the public square, her head left on a pike as a warning to others.