Slashdot Mirror
FBI Offers $25K Reward For Andy Warhol Campbell's Soup Painting Heist (networkworld.com)
coondoggie quotes a report from Networkworld: The FBI today said it was offering a reward of up to $25,000 for information leading to the recovery of seven Andy Warhol paintings stolen from the Springfield Art Museum in Springfield, Missouri. The collection, which has been owned by the Springfield Art Museum since 1985, is set number 31 of the Campbell's Soup I collection and is valued at approximately $500,000. Each painting in the screen print collection measures 37 inches high by 24.5 inches wide and framed in white frames, the FBI stated. The FBI says that seven of 10 Andy Warhol paintings Campbell's Soup I collection, made in 1968, were taken. Since its inception, the FBI's Art Crime Team has recovered more than 2,650 items valued at over $150 million.
where does the FBI think it has 25K to offer up?? I mean yes its a shame, but shouldnt reward money be paid for by the victim, not the taxpayer???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
That way everyone can enjoy it and no one can steal it.
Should of replaced it with the fake one you painted
...or is that a Russian ATM?
Anyone else seeing â(TM) where you'd espect an apostrophe? Which is broken, the site or the editors?
I saw Exit through the gift shop... I know how easy it is to create this type of "art"
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
The editor really should have stripped those out, it makes it read like a press release.
Check that, the editor really should have checked to see if this was a press release, and if so, bin-spammed it.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Or just a high resolution picture of the painting itself really...
How much of the estimated value do paintings like these sell for on the black market?
I didn't touch my anus with it.
I'll give you a buck fitty...
Given that it happened in Springfield, may I suggest investigating one C. Montgomery Burns, and possibly "Fat Tony" D'Amico?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
crunchy frames, too.
And the FBI implores the public to allow them access to their iPhones and to disable disk encryption to assist them in finding these terroristic painting thieves before more innocent lives are lost!
We can't budge on this people! Encrypt your phone and owners of campbell's soup paintings will starve dead in the streets!
Seems to me that if the FBI has $25k to offer in reward money, it would be better spent on recovering the stolen cars of people who can barely make ends meet and needed their cars to get to work.
Or is that not how these things work?
Thomas Crown was not available for comment.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
11 years, 16 agents and they've only recovered $150mm? $850k per year per agent sounds like abysmal performance.
A high school dropout repo man still recovers 300 vehicles per year worth more.
If I run across them while dumpster diving, I'll give them a call...
It's curious you'd mention Pollock, because some of his works look like cans of paint randomly thrown onto a canvas. Not all of them, but some certainly do.
I agree with you completely. There's a Pollock at the museum in Omaha that looks for anything like a cat puked on the canvas.
OTOH, a famous Pollock painting will draw you in, and have a sort of fundamental emotional appeal that keeps you wondering why the painting is so engaging.
Scientific American once did an analysis of some of Polluck's paintings, along with other painters who painted in the same style but which aren't as successful as Pollock.
The analysis found that Pollock's paintings have a fractal quality that other painters (in the same style) don't have, leading to the conjecture that it's this quality that makes his paintings so engaging.
There's a Picasso at the Currier Gallery of Art which I think is awful and completely pointless, yet I can stare at Guernica all day.
And finally, if you ever go to the Detroit Institute of Art you'll find Fuseli's The Nightmare, which is completely and totally ho-hum in any reproduction, including images on the internet, but which is captivating when seen in person.
(And I was astonished when I saw my first real Rembrandt portrait (the one at Omaha). These are also ho-hum from a distance and through the internet, but to see one in person... wow!
Many people don't get why art is so pleasing. I suspect it's because they only have 2nd hand exposure, through reproductions, the internet, TV, and so on.
So in summary, I agree with you completely, but note that "art is where you find it". Not every work of every master is a masterpiece, and if you dig in the dirt you'll eventually uncover a few treasures.
I can possibly see the objection to art by living artists (or a single generation dead) who in theory make money off it, but art by artists dead 2, 3, 4+ generations? It makes no sense. Especially when its held by museums who publicly display it -- or worse, have it in their collection and *don't* display it because they haven't the wall space.
I got sad news for 99% of the museums out there, me viewing or even printing life-size versions of their collections isn't going to be why I don't ever pay the admission fee to their museum, buy a snack in their snack bar or shop in their gift shop.
I once read an interesting piece by an economist about art museums that said that most of them should sell a lot more art -- especially what they don't display, and even a good chunk of what they do display to generate capital. IIRC, he thinks the reasons they don't boils down to ego (museums and curators are judged by acquisitions and size of holdings), a certain amount of collusion with art dealers (who fear falling prices) and their own fear that once a lot of pieces start being sold their paper capital will collapse.
Seems to me that if the FBI has $25k to offer in reward money, it would be better spent on recovering the stolen cars of people who can barely make ends meet and needed their cars to get to work.
Or is that not how these things work?
No, it isn't how these things work,
The most basic distinctions between state and federal jurisdiction escape the geek --- and he never learns and better. The FBI becomes involved on crimes that have a plausible interstate and foreign dimension.
The clunker car you've been driving to work is probably worth more dead than alive.
So you drown it in the lake or set it on fire and file a claim for the insurance. It's a crime, but not a federal case.
If a little lady get shot in the ghetto there are no news reports, if rich man arts and treasures wanders off there is something terrible happening.
Whoever can pay $500k for a painting has ill-begotten money. FBI are their do-boys.
I bet a facsimile of the original will be just as appreciated by the art lovers.
Of all people Ice-T explained the myth of non-violent crime. He explained when he was a teenager, he became a (de facto) emancipated minor. He made money selling weed, as he put it. Then he got a small apartment.
So, marijuana/weed is the epitomy of a non-violent crime. But then he hears of some gang bangers going around ripping other people off for their weed, sometimes using beatings or shootings to make it happen.
So, here he was, just selling weed, and pretty soon he has to consider getting a gun to protect himself and his weed. Cause he, like, can't call the cops.
So, you start off trying really hard to be a pacifist art thief, stealing paintings worth 1/2 million. I can think of a lot of scenarios where someone ends up getting killed.
BTW, I want to believe in victim-less and non-violent crimes, I want to be soft of criminals. But masturbation has already been mostly decriminalized, and there's not much truely non-violent crime left.
And, here we go, Godwin's Law Alert, the biggest art thieves in history were the Nazis.
The whole concept of [rewards] has gotta be the most wildly optimistic crime-fighting idea. I mean, so how does it work? Okay. I'm on line at the post office. I see [a poster of the stolen item]. I check [around]. If it's not [there], that's pretty much all I can do. Okay? It's not that I don't want to help.
It's weird - why didn't they take all 10?
For.
I'm not telling them where I have the paintings for less than $50k.
Try harder.
That way everyone can enjoy it and no one can steal it.
It is enormously difficult to capture a sense of depth and texture in a scan. It is no coincidence that Jackson Pollack began as a muralist. The 23" 16:9 screen doesn't do him justice.
To not turn anyone in so the world is protected from the ugly thing that masquarades as "art."
From the article:
"Last year, nine original Warhol prints worth an estimated $350,000 from the late artist's "Endangered Species" series were quietly stolen from a Los Angeles movie business and replaced with color copies, in an art heist that went undetected for years."
So, we're looking for someone either in a phone booth or a 1980s sports car if we want that cool $25k?
Anyone but you, right?
Hey, let's forget that the $25,000 reward may help prevent other such thefts.
Hey, let's forget how much will be spent, per year, to house the caught thief, or to prosecute him or her, and how little that reward is in comparison to the overall total.
Nah, let's whine about "the taxpayer's burden" in daring to have a functional society.
Fuck off
Soup... yum.
Has anyone done Progresso yet?
(naked) Maude Lebowksi: - Vagina !
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]