Sociological aspect of crime in relation to art theft
Sociological aspect of crime in relation to art theft
Earlier this month, 19 important paintings were stolen from
the home studio-gallery of the late Sudjana Kerton in Bandung.
Several other art thefts took place last year, including 25 works
of the nation's most valuable treasures stolen from the National
Museum. In the first of two articles, Dr. Astri Wright examines
the sociological aspects of crime and the state of the art world
in Indonesia.
VICTORIA, Canada (JP): "Crime does not pay," the old saying
goes. That is an adage that must now be qualified.
When intelligence, careful planning and networks of loyalty
and silence are wedded with wide-ranging resources -- such as
technology, funding and information -- crime can indeed be
successful, at least in the short run and when measured in purely
material terms. This is true for crime in general, but it appears
to be less true in the case of art thefts.
In general, crimes committed by members of the elite "succeed"
more often than those committed by the less educated and less
well connected. However, due to the way legal institutions
operate -- police, lawyers, courts of law -- it is the less
advantaged criminals that are normally caught, tried and
punished. From such a scenario one can deduce that the saying
"crime does not pay" may only be true if one is not an
upperclass criminal.
Even if crime pays in the short run, criminal actions twist
the soul and handicap the mind in the long run. If the criminal
is Christian or Moslem, he or she knows in the back of their
minds that they will go to hell. If the criminals are Hindu,
Buddhist or Kejawen/Kebatinan (Javanese Mysticism), they know
they are destroying their chances for a good rebirth. They are
ruining their karma, which will cause them to suffer for
lifetimes to come.
Even if the criminal is an atheist, with no belief in any
power or truth higher than him or herself, dishonesty leads to a
twisting of the soul which usually ends up making him or her
unhappy in this lifetime.
Reasons
Crimes occur for many reasons. Those living in poverty may
turn to crime out of economic desperation. Many crimes could be
prevented if the problems of unemployment, poverty, low education
levels and proper housing were addressed by the government.
Sociological studies and statistics demonstrate a clear
connection between crime, violence and the unequal distribution
of resources in modern and modernizing societies. Hence, in
legislation and law enforcement, and particularly in crime
prevention, one would ideally need to make a distinction between
the crimes committed by society's victims and the crimes
committed by people who have access to power and resources.
For criminals who are somewhat well-off, but not talented or
focused enough to develop a successful career, criminal actions
may reflect a failing of the individual's imagination and
intelligence. For criminals from the top echelons of society,
crime happens because of the activation of some or all of the
psychosocial qualities which can be traced to boredom, a thirst
for power and selfish desires, among other things.
Like addictions to alcohol, drugs and sex, both power and
money can trigger addictive behavior, which leads to the
abandonment of reason and sound moral judgment.
One central question, for this article, is: Who steals art --
poor people who desperately need money? Or wealthy people who
want more wealth? An even more basic question is: Why steal art?
Art vs "art"
Art originates outside of the economically productive sectors
of society, in the hidden depths of an individual's imagination
and spirit or in a particular social group's inherited vocational
traditions. Excellent art is produced with little thought for its
marketability, price, or the artist's fame -- either because the
artist is well supported from a constant, reliable source (such
as an enlightened ruler or individual, wealthy patron) or because
the artist has the ability to liberate her- or himself from the
thought of money, even while working independently and with no
financial guarantees.
The true creative process is wedded to deep individual and
cultural concerns and is connected only in the remotest possible
way, if at all, to ideas of financial survival. The fact is that
all artists have to make a living. But the facts also show that
the greatest artists of our century, to limit our discussion to
the modern period (whether in Indonesia, China, France or the
USA), did not in any prominent way bring their material needs
into their mental and artistic space when they created their art.
Of course there are people who call themselves "artists" who
paint (paintings are the easiest form of art to sell) for the
sake of selling, and who paint for a broad general market. This
is not art, it is merely "art", a product of clever artistry.
Such "art" will never bring major fame to the "artist" or the
nation, nor will it bring high prices on the art market --
certainly not in the long run. It never has enough interest or
lasting value to communicate, either form- or content-wise.
Jakarta's galleries, hotels, and banks are full of such "art", as
are galleries in New York, Santa Fe, Singapore or Venice. In art
historical literature, such objects are referred to as airport
art, lobby art, schlock or kitsch.
Such "art" mainly tells us about how the lowest common
denominator of the culture at hand is marketed visually by
entrepreneurs. And even if entrepreneurs have become the heroes
of international corporate cultures at the end of the 20th
century, art has celebrated very different kinds of heroes and
heroic visions for the past 10,000 years. So far, no art of
lasting value that I can think of celebrates society's money-
makers as the kinds of visionaries or creative geniuses that
contribute fundamentally to the progress of humankind.
Add to this situation the confusion about procedure that
reigns around art market events. In regard to the "how to behave"
etiquette in the market place, Indonesian art professionals and
public have yet to develop clear contractual habits. Otherwise,
how could speculators put "sold" tags on as many as 30 paintings
at a recent important exhibition, without being asked to sign any
agreements or place any deposits, and then withdraw their
intention to buy three weeks later because the artist's managers
refused to agree to a 30 percent reduction in price?
This absurd and unprofessional situation kept 30 art works out
of the hands of other interested collectors, who in the end could
not purchase their chosen works. Furthermore, the artist's family
lost out on selling works which would have helped them recoup
some of the considerable costs incurred for mounting the
exhibition and producing the fancy catalog.
Furthermore, if the rule is that it is illegal to photograph
in galleries without first obtaining formal permission from the
people in charge, why are people allowed to photograph works and
installation conditions freely? The lack of clear rules for
curators and gallery managers contributes to the general
confusion which allows criminals to plan and carry out their
designs.
Clearly, in-depth knowledge about art and general rules
governing the art world remain a minority phenomenon. It is still
a kind of elite pursuit. But one need not be wealthy to
understand and evaluate art. What one must have is that special,
rare talent of "sight-insight" coupled with a good deal of art
experience and aesthetic training. This is often produced in the
pursuit of higher university degrees, not in marketing or
business, but in history, philosophy, aesthetic, formal and
cultural analysis.
Indeed, it has been documented throughout the history of
humankind that an eye and a mind trained by the close study of
art and aesthetics, and the characteristics of individual
artists, are able to distinguish works of art which originate
from an integral creative drive from works of "art" which
originate from the desire to sell.
Dr. Astri Wright, PhD is associate professor of South and
Southeast Asian Art at the University of Victoria.