August 25, 2004
Stolen Screams
I seem to remember Munch's Scream being stolen before, or am I confused?
Anyway, it is a fine statement of the sort of emotion that one should really grow out of, or maybe should become so accutely aware of that one finally does something about it, and not a bad painting, so it is sad that someone has taken this to who knows where.
I cannot really understand the point of stealing a painting like this. There can be no market for it. Even the shadiest dealer should have enough sense to realize that this one of those items where its value lies in its identity. It all brings to mind some underground complex, where the head of K.A.O.S. is sitting on some great stolen art collection.
"So, you see, Mr. Bond, with this painting I shall be able to complete my bid to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!"
Art theft seems like something that can only be done with the backing of an army and a sovereign state.
Posted by erik at August 25, 2004 1:20 PM | TrackBackhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1290231,00.html
Erik
Check this out "Its a Scream" ..Peter
I believe there were multiple "Screams", so this is the latest to be stolen. And if ransom is the motive, instead of resale, then you certainly don't need an army.
Of course, kidnapping a peice of canvas seems silly to me. I can see how someone might pay to get a relative back, but a glorified peice of sailcloth?
Posted by: Franklin Jennings at August 26, 2004 8:53 AM