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.