Mystery of missing RI paintings puzzles art world<\/p>\n
By Amir Sidharta<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The Indonesian art world was shocked by the news
\nof the alleged theft of six paintings from Jakarta's National
\nMuseum. Even more shocking was the fact that at least two of the
\nallegedly stolen paintings, A Nude (Metamorphosis) by Basoeki
\nAbdullah and Portrait of a Dutch Governor Wearing the Willems
\nOrder by Raden Saleh, may have been included in the catalog of
\nthe upcoming Christie's auction in early October 1996.<\/p>\n
A cartoon by GM Sudarta published in last Friday's Kompas
\nshowed a Christie's employee auctioning the Bronze elephant which
\nsymbolizes the National Museum, also popularly known as Gedung
\nGajah or \"Elephant Building\". It clearly implied that the 230-
\nyear-old auction house was in the business of auctioning off
\nIndonesia's national treasures.<\/p>\n
In fact, the alleged theft would have probably not been
\nrevealed if it were not for the publication of the auction
\ncatalog. Members of the Basoeki Abdullah estate recognized lot
\n319 in the catalog, A Nude, as Metamorphosis, one of the
\npaintings that was in the custody of the National Museum.
\nMeanwhile, lot 363 bore great resemblance to a painting
\nreproduced in a catalog published by the Directorate of Culture
\nof the Ministry of Education and Culture, in preparation for the
\nNational Art Gallery in 1988. The pictures in the catalog were
\nalmost identical. There was a green stain on the figure's
\ntrousers, and damage was seen in the same location on both
\nreproductions. The only difference was that in the later
\npublication (the Christie's catalog), to the right of the
\nfigure's face, the painting had been torn and poorly restored.<\/p>\n
Although auction houses mainly facilitate the sale of
\nartworks at the highest possible prices according to the market
\ncondition in a certain region, they also become centers of
\ndocumentation. \"That is why we need Christie's. It records much
\nof the changing of hands in the world of art,\" said Sudarmadji
\nDamais, head of the Jakarta History Museum at Taman Fatahilah
\nafter hearing about the alleged theft last week.<\/p>\n
\"Christie's often helps locate stolen art,\" someone in the
\nfield of art auctions explained. Perhaps it has in other parts of
\nthe world. But in this case, we can only hope that the paintings
\nwill be returned.<\/p>\n
The reappearance of allegedly stolen Indonesian paintings in
\nChristie's auction of Southeast Asian paintings has happened
\npreviously. One of Ida Bagus Made's 14 paintings, which was
\nstolen a while ago, and a Basoeki Abdullah's from the collection
\nof former president Sukarno were offered at the Christie's
\nauction in March 1995. However, because of insufficient evidence,
\nno investigation was pursued. Neither Ida Bagus Made nor Guruh
\nSoekarnoputra, the youngest son of the late president Sukarno,
\nfiled police reports when the paintings were stolen or found
\nmissing. The inclusion of the painting in the album entitled
\nPaintings in the Collection of President Sukarno, compiled by
\nDullah, apparently was not sufficient proof of theft.
\n\"It is Christie's policy not to reveal the identity of either the
\nseller or the buyer of the artworks in their auctions,\" explained
\nart writer Agus Dermawan, who is an avid observer of Indonesian
\nauction trends. Therefore, the alleged theft could not be traced.<\/p>\n
Whether or not Christie's can be required by law to reveal
\nthe identity of the seller in the case of the two paintings
\nallegedly stolen from Indonesia's National Museum will depend on
\nthe laws in Singapore. Laws concerning stolen goods differ from
\ncountry to country. According to a prominent Japanese art dealer,
\nin Japan, when a stolen painting has been sold, it becomes the
\nlegal right of the buyer, and the original owners have to buy the
\npainting back from the new owner. In other countries, legal
\nownership depends on whether the purchase was made before or
\nafter the official report of theft was reported to the police.<\/p>\n
Time<\/p>\n
At this point, we can only predict the time of the alleged
\ntheft and the characteristics of the alleged thief. It might be
\nhelpful to try to analyze the mystery. Considering that it takes
\nat least three months before artworks can be included of artworks
\nin a Christie's auction, Art observer Agus Dermawan T. estimates
\nthat the paintings were allegedly stolen before June.<\/p>\n
Taking into account the fact that the estimated prices of the
\npaintings were still quite reasonable, it seems that the
\npaintings were probably stolen before the sale of Raden Saleh's
\nDeer Hunt in late March of this year. If the alleged theft took
\nplace after the news of this landmark sale, the alleged thieves
\nwould certainly expect rather high prices, at least for the Raden
\nSaleh, and therefore would have increased the expected reserve
\nprice in the auction.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the reserves for the pieces remain
\nconfidential. However, it seems that the price of portrait still
\nwithin reasonable limits and is therefore considered suitable for
\nauction.<\/p>\n
It seems that the theft also may have occurred after the
\npublication of the Christie's catalog of the March auction. The
\ncatalog revealed the high estimate of the piece to parties
\ninterested in Indonesian art. High prices for Indonesian art may
\nhave seduced the alleged culprits to steal the Raden Saleh which
\nthey knew was in the neglected possession of the National Museum.
\nIt is also possible that the pieces were stolen even earlier,
\nperhaps after the announcement of the auction of the Deer Hunt
\nlate last year or earlier this year.
\nProfile<\/p>\n
In terms of the profile of the alleged thief\/thieves, we can
\nalmost be sure that the seller of the paintings was not involved
\nin the alleged theft, unless he\/she were completely naive. As
\nthis case has proven, the inclusion of stolen items in auctions
\ntends to reveal cases of alleged theft.<\/p>\n
It seems safe to say that the paintings have changed hands
\nat least twice before the paintings reach the seller. We can
\nassume that the alleged theft was masterminded by someone who had
\nreasonable knowledge of art, and even knew that there was a Raden
\nSaleh in the National Museum's collection placed in its storage
\narea.<\/p>\n
If there had been any indication of forced entry into the
\nmuseum's storage space, the theft would have been revealed
\nimmediately. It is almost certain that no sign of forced entry to
\nthe storage facility was traced, because the theft which, based
\non reliable sources, happened at least three months ago, was only
\nrevealed two weeks ago. This suggests the involvement of
\ninsiders.<\/p>\n
Worth<\/p>\n
Basoeki Abudllah's A Nude has been estimated as being worth
\nbetween S$8,000 to S$12,000. Was it worth stealing? If the piece
\nwas expected to sell at around Rp 20 million, then, minus
\ncommissions and other expenses, the seller would have bought it
\nfor Rp 12 million at most. Therefore, we can assume that the
\npersons behind the alleged theft paid less than Rp 2.5 million
\nfor the job.<\/p>\n
Then we can almost be sure that the six paintings were stolen
\nas a lot, and later sold to the seller as a lot as well. The
\nRaden Saleh is estimated between S$100,000 to S$150,000. If the
\npainting were to be sold (which I doubt, because of its poor
\ncondition), I think it would only reach the low end of the
\nestimate. At Rp 165 million, minus commissions and expenses, the
\nseller would have bought it for around Rp 100 million. For this
\npainting, the alleged culprits behind the theft may have paid Rp
\n20 million for the job. Coupled with the other paintings in the
\nlot, the value of the job may have reached Rp 30 million. This
\namount would presumably be divided among two to three persons.
\nAlthough the sum, averaging Rp 10 million, might not seem large,
\nit is actually still quite substantial, considering the wages of
\ngovernment employees in this country.<\/p>\n
If the involvement of insiders is revealed, then punishment
\nis of course necessary. However, we should not treat the involved
\ninsiders as having sold national treasures, even though they are
\nin the National Museum's collection. It should be taken into
\naccount that the paintings most likely had been neglected in the
\nmuseum's storage space and treated as insignificant pieces.<\/p>\n
Of more crucial importance is to reveal the masterminds of
\nthis alleged theft. It should be stressed that the masterminds
\nhave significant knowledge about art, including Indonesian art,
\nand the existence of important paintings in certain collections
\nin the government. They also seem to know that some key paintings
\nare kept in storage spaces of certain museums, although
\ncooperation with insiders may lead them to this kind of
\ninformation. Certainly, there is possibility that it is the work
\nof a syndicate, which may also be involved in other art crimes,
\nincluding art forgery, which is also rapidly developing in the
\ncountry.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/mystery-of-missing-ri-paintings-puzzles-art-world-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}