Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics

Dutch Museum Says Van Gogh Painting Stolen In Overnight Raid (artnet.com) 53

Posted by BeauHD from the opportunistic-thieves dept.
The Singer Laren museum in Laren, east of Amsterdam, says thieves have made off with a prize Vincent van Gogh painting while the institution was closed to the public. artnet News reports: The break-in at the museum happened in the early hours of Monday morning, at around 3:15 a.m. The thieves smashed a large glass door at the front of the museum to access the building. Police reached the scene after the museum's alarm was triggered, but the perpetrators had vanished by the time they arrived, according to a statement from the local authorities. To add insult to injury, [the Dutch master's The Parsonage Garden at Nuenen in Spring (1884) painting] does not even belong to the museum -- it was on loan from the Groninger Museum in Groningen, the Netherlands, according to the police. The 1884 work was the only painting by Van Gogh in the Groninger Museum's collection. It was painted when Van Gogh was living in Neunen, where his father was a pastor, between 1883 and 1885, and depicts the ruins of the village church, which the artist could see from his father's house. (The date of the theft also happens to be the artist's birthday: he was born on March 30, 1853.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dutch Museum Says Van Gogh Painting Stolen In Overnight Raid More

Dutch Museum Says Van Gogh Painting Stolen In Overnight Raid

Comments Filter:

  • the rich still have an market for stolen art (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Monday March 30, 2020 @10:24PM (#59891004)

    the rich still have an market for stolen art

  • I was at the museum last night and coughed on the painting. Now in quarantine..

  • The Parsonage Garden... attacked by weeds.

  • I'm sure the boys in blue have their ears to the ground searching for clues

    • Unlikely to yield anything. Art like this has a buyer already lined up. There is no fencing after the fact. Someone has a very nice private location where this piece will stay. If it is in open view they would claim it is a reproduction.

      • Unlikely to yield anything. Art like this has a buyer already lined up. There is no fencing after the fact. Someone has a very nice private location where this piece will stay. If it is in open view they would claim it is a reproduction.

        Anecdotally stolen art is sometimes used as collateral in drug deals. Afaik art like this is seldom recovered from art lovers, but rather found at raids of small time criminals or sold back to insurance companies.

  • Oh dear. (Score:3)

    by LenKagetsu ( 6196102 ) on Monday March 30, 2020 @10:50PM (#59891052)

    Snoopy is going to be really upset when he hears this.

  • I always wondered about this, but does this really matter?

    There is a _lot_ more art being produced. There are more than likely tons of artists on the level of Van Gogh. I'm reminded of a scene in Dune where one of the badasses from the previous books, Duncan Idaho, is brought back to life after a 1000 years and decides to attack a government bureaucrat.

    The bureaucrat effortlessly dodges him. He's the product of 1000 years of selective breeding and enhancements, so even an office worker can outmatch

    • Re:Does it really matter? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Monday March 30, 2020 @11:02PM (#59891078) Journal

      To bring up something a bit more real I once asked my guitarist brother why there aren't amazing new musicians like Bach and the like in this day and age. He said there were plenty, but they were mostly unknown and that unless you were yourself a hard core musician you wouldn't notice them

      I think it's the signal-to-noise ratio. Back then there were X number of artists (musicians, painters, etc) per capita, now it's probably 10 or 20 times that, but there are also a kabillion more people. Even with a corresponding increase the good ones get drowned out by all the mediocre ones.

      There are almost certainly loads and loads of truly fantastic musicians, painters, sculptors, etc out there but they're just lost in the crowd. And that's not even counting the desensitization factor.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        I think it's the signal-to-noise ratio. Back then there were X number of artists (musicians, painters, etc) per capita, now it's probably 10 or 20 times that, but there are also a kabillion more people. Even with a corresponding increase the good ones get drowned out by all the mediocre ones.

        There's that, but there's also the problem that these days, the style in which most music is written doesn't require a lot of musical theory understanding. The number of musicians who can compose something that passes

      • in WWI. We didn't stop doing that until we figured out they could make bombs.

        It's not just that there are more people, it's that we learned the value of genius.
      • I agree that there are many great musicians out there that aren't easily found, and those who are easily found are often not much better than mediocre. I think that the presentation and marketing, alongside the business aspects and strategies are to blame.

        On the other hand, after a challenge of a classical music fan I dove a bit deeper into information about Mozart and his genius, to the point where I realize there's no strong argument to believe there has been a second one. Feel free to disagree, though.

      • To bring up something a bit more real I once asked my guitarist brother why there aren't amazing new musicians like Bach and the like in this day and age. He said there were plenty, but they were mostly unknown and that unless you were yourself a hard core musician you wouldn't notice them

        I think it's the signal-to-noise ratio. Back then there were X number of artists (musicians, painters, etc) per capita, now it's probably 10 or 20 times that, but there are also a kabillion more people. Even with a corresponding increase the good ones get drowned out by all the mediocre ones.

        There are almost certainly loads and loads of truly fantastic musicians, painters, sculptors, etc out there but they're just lost in the crowd. And that's not even counting the desensitization factor.

        Yes and no... probably depends on the discipline. Look at the great classical painters and then look at all the modern "art" that succeeded them. The new guys realized that they could never match the old masters so they invented a new way of doing "art" where nothing matters and there are no objective standards of skill or beauty. This is why we have some ass-clown drawing two lines on a blank canvas being called art today, and there are so many worse examples than that.

        Likewise, modern architecture is

        • The new guys realized that they could never match the old masters so they invented a new way of doing "art" where nothing matters and there are no objective standards of skill or beauty.

          Define "art".

          Either everything is "art" or nothing is "art". It is what it is. Whether or not you like it is another story, but I can't think of any objective standard to be able to tell "good" art from "bad" art.

          I've seen some very simplistic "art" that I really liked, and other similar stuff I thought was barf. It really is in the eye of the beholder.

          Shitting on a white paper plate and kicking it against the wall is art. And so is Van Gogh. So are 10,000 marbles whirling in a blender.

          I'm not concerned wit

          • The new guys realized that they could never match the old masters so they invented a new way of doing "art" where nothing matters and there are no objective standards of skill or beauty.

            Define "art".

            Either everything is "art" or nothing is "art". It is what it is. Whether or not you like it is another story, but I can't think of any objective standard to be able to tell "good" art from "bad" art.

            I've seen some very simplistic "art" that I really liked, and other similar stuff I thought was barf. It really is in the eye of the beholder.

            Shitting on a white paper plate and kicking it against the wall is art. And so is Van Gogh. So are 10,000 marbles whirling in a blender.

            I'm not concerned with what other people think is good or better, all that matters to me is what matters to me. Everyone else is welcome to their own opinion.

            That is post-modernist bullshit. There are objective standards of beauty for art.

            • That is post-modernist bullshit. There are objective standards of beauty for art.

              Name them.

              • And as I thought....a deafening silence.

                You said, "That is post-modernist bullshit. There are objective standards of beauty for art."

                I said, "Name them."

                And you said.......nothing. Sp apparently there are no "objective standards of beauty for art".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by King_TJ ( 85913 )

      I'm sure you're right about there being plenty of artists just as good or better, out there. But these things have much more to do with the name recognition and fame the artist earned over time than how "good" the piece of art itself really is.

      There's also the problem that there's "nothing new under the sun" anymore. The more time passes, the harder it gets for an artist or musician of any kind to produce work that people don't immediately identify as derivative from some previous artist they're more fami

    • Modern and postmodern art is difficult to digest. Artists like Van Gogh are more approachable. They also broke ground. An imitator today can produce "equal" or "better" work, but what is the significance of impressionist work today? It has already been done. "Serious" artists wouldn't spend much time on the form.

      • I'm talking about legitimate geniuses. Yeah, there not as common as we would like, but it's hard to believe there are so few in a world of 7 billion people. We just don't notice them as much because the leap to Van Gogh (or to Einstien) is a lot bigger because they were starting from "scratch" as it were.

    • There are more than likely tons of artists on the level of Van Gogh

      Not many. The intensity of his strokes is incredible.

      To bring up something a bit more real I once asked my guitarist brother why there aren't amazing new musicians like Bach and the like in this day and age.

      Again, not many. I can't name any modern composer I would put on the level of Bach, and I know a lot of modern musicians. Great musicians are both musicians and philosophers. Beethoven, Bach, and Mahler had something to say besides just entertaining notes. So while I could name musicians who perhaps have deeper understanding of harmony, or maybe can improvise for hours like Bach did, I can't name any who have the complete package.

    • There is a _lot_ more art being produced.

      There is a_lot_more shit being produced.

      I fixed that for you.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tsa ( 15680 )

        It being shit is your opinion. But then again, I also don't really get when a creative work is art.

    • I'm not a professional musician or musical historian, but if you're looking for what I'd call a generational modern musician, check out Buckethead. He's released 307 total albums and is one of the best guitarists out there. In my low-value opinion, he's probably one of the analogues you're looking for.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rho ( 6063 )

      It does matter. The prices these old paintings fetch is what makes the news, but for artists it's the access to the works that matters.

      People think of "Starry Night" or his self portraits when they think of Van Gogh, but it's just as important to see his progression from his early works. You get a feel for what he was thinking in how his style changes from year to year. When you're given a chance to make close inspection of the work, you may pick up a detail, or a brushstroke that you will incorporate in yo

  • And then, additionally to the art theft, they'll get a fine of 150 Euros because 'art theft' is not a valid excuse to violate the StayTheFuck@home regulation.

  • Does anyone find it interesting that today, when the painting was stolen, was his birthday?

    • You get used to such co-incidences (not "coincidences") after a while, when you're theist...

      • That's "coinkydinks" not "coincidences".

        • You'll have to demonstrate one of those for me. Assuming you have the necessary control over all causal factors across all of reality, or the ability to predestine such events from the beginning of time.

          Your choice, naturally. I'll know it when I see it.

  • and opportunity. It's a shame that the work will never, ever be observed by the public but it's obvious it wasn't a "smash and grab". Regardless of the criminal action, one does have to respect the professionality and talent needed to execute such an action. 10 to 1 it will never be seen again.

    "the date of the theft also happens to be the artist's birthday"

    • one does have to respect the professionality and talent needed to execute such an action. 10 to 1 it will never be seen again.

      Seems like [wikipedia.org] it happens [wikipedia.org] from time to time [wikipedia.org]. Libraries were targets for a while too, because they kept their rare books on the shelves without guards. Now most libraries keep their rare books under protection in some way.

  • Already caught (Score:5, Funny)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @04:26AM (#59891628)

    Police caught the thieves stuck on the side of the A12. When asked why they were caught so easily the thieves replied they didn't have the Monet to buy Degas to make the Van Gogh.

    I'll see myself out.

  • How is that a Van Gogh when it doesn't look like a 7 year old drew it?

  • Everyone knows that van Gogh traded his ear for immortality and faked his death. Clearly, he was feeling nostalgic and wanted to reclaim memories of his youth, so he hired some thieves to give him a present.

  • The painting was not stolen. It was just temporarily added to the "National Emergency Library".

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close