Let's solve the art mystery

[Rain Man]

I missed this story when if first broke a few months ago, but that's good as other events have transpired that add to the story.

We start our mystery in 1997, when the Ricci Oddi modern art gallery in Piacenza, Italy, was being renovated. This painting by Gustav Klimt, valued at between $60 million and $90 million today, disappeared. Only a few months earlier, it had been confirmed as a "double Klimt" because it was painted over an earlier Klimt that had long been assumed to be missing. An 18 year-old art student had noticed the resemblance and an x-ray confirmed her theory.

This was a big deal, so the city was planning to do a big Klimt exhibition, and as a result the gallery was being renovated.



https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...imt-180973757/

According to this article, the theory at the time was that thieves had opened a skylight, hooked the painting on the wall with fishing line, and lifted it out. Apparently the frame was found on the roof, and the painting had been removed. (If you're suspecting a fisherman, recall that this was long before Hog's Gone Fishing bought his boat.)

However, there was a problem with that theory. The frame was too large to fit through the skylight. So was it planted there to throw people off? Some people suspected an inside job. (Note: the frame was found in pieced according to another article, so that could explain it.)

https://www.travelandleisure.com/cul...i-oddi-gallery

https://www.thecollector.com/stolen-klimt-found/

The painting is missing for over 20 years, and in 2016 a known art thief that the police had used as an expert to investigate the crime came forward. He claimed that he had actually stolen the painting, but not in the way that was suspected. He had stolen it months earlier with the help of a gallery employee and had replaced it with a forgery, which had gone unnoticed. But the painting was about to be loaned out for a large Klimt exhibit and he thought that forgery would be seen, so he staged the second theft to steal the forgery.

https://hermoments.com/famous-painti...ery/?nogdprc=1

Okay, this makes no sense. Why take that risk? You're covering up a theft by staging a theft of the thing you stole? But interestingly, he claimed that the real painting would be found within a year.

Now we fast forward to December of 2019. The gardener at the gallery is doing some maintenance, and he notices a metal door in an exterior wall behind some ivy. He pulls off the ivy, estimated to be about a foot thick, opens the door, then goes into the gallery, and says, "There's a painting in a garbage bag out inside the wall."



As it turns out, the painting is the missing the Klimt. Experts came in and confirmed it, per this link.

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/kl...cli/index.html

So now the question is, did the painting ever leave the building? Who stole it, and why was it hidden there?

Well, a potential answer presented itself. Two serial burglars and thieves came forward relatively quickly and claimed that they stole it. They say that they had hidden it in a safe place, and then they put into the wall after the 20-year statute of limitations had expired. According to the thieves, they were going to use the location as a bartering chip to get a lower sentence on some other burglaries. They claim that the painting had been in the wall for three to four years, waiting for them to need it. They said that the gardener foiled their plan by finding it. (I don't think either of these guys is the thief referenced earlier, but I'm not sure.)

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/kl...allery-1757958

The curiosity here is that it was underneath a lot of dense ivy. Now, the ivy could have grown in four years, but was it always there? If it was there before they would've had to cut it out to put the painting in, which would be noticeable. If it wasn't there, the door would have been obvious. But conservators say that the painting was in such good shape that it's unlikely that it would have been in the wall the entire time.

So those dudes have been sentenced to prison, but are not being charged in the theft of the Klimt because there's no evidence that they did it.

But now another mystery has emerged.

https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/20...-owners-widow/

Apparently the director of the gallery wrote in his diary that he was considering staging a theft of that very painting, in order to build up public interest for an upcoming Klimt exhibition. The gallery director died long ago, but now his widow is under investigation for the theft.

This is what he wrote:

“I wondered what could be done to give the exhibition some notoriety, to ensure an audience success like never before. And the idea that came to me was to organize, from the inside, theft of the Klimt, just before the show (exactly, my God, what happened), for the work to then be rediscovered after the show began.”

Later he wrote: “But now The Lady has gone for good, and damned be the day I even thought of such a foolish and childish thing.”

https://www.thecollector.com/stolen-klimt-found/

https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/20...-owners-widow/

So that produces two new theories.

First, was it stolen to create buzz, and then when things got ugly they decided that it was a bad idea and hid it in a place where they knew it would eventually be found?

Or second, is it possible that the gallery owner conspired with the first thief to steal the painting before the "Double Klimt" status was discovered (which then led to the exhibit), and the gallery director then got nervous about the exhibit coming up and stole the forgery to cover it up?

What do we think, Chiefsplanet detectives?

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by wazu

The two guys claiming they stashed it sounds most legitimate since seemingly nobody profited from this caper. Keeping it sealed away for 20 years to get past statute of limitations makes some sense. My guess is they initially thought it could be instant retirement if they found a buyer, but then as they screwed up other jobs it became more of a lifeline.

It kind of makes sense, but at the same time I think they could just be normal burglars who decided on the spur of the moment to claim this, hoping it would help them somehow. Since they weren't charged, it makes me think they couldn't back it up.

I can see the art thief being involved, because when he told them that the painting would reappear soon, the timeline kind of matched up with when the painting was likely placed in the wall. It seems like he might have known. Maybe he had the two burglars working for him, but it doesn't seem like they would be necessary.

One thing that just occurred to me is that the painting was x-rayed and the second painting was found underneath, just a few months before the exhibit was planned. So if the art thief (or the burglars for that matter) stole the original and replaced it with a forgery, then he would have had to steal after the x-ray and before the exhibit planning. That's a small window and it seems stupid to steal the painting right after the news of the double painting broke. And then breaking in to steal the forgery makes no sense at all.

I'm thinking that the gallery director had to be involved. I remember reading about some other theft where a museum person stole the painting and just displayed it in their home for years because they appreciated art. That could be the case here, but the return of the painting after the gallery director died makes no sense.

I'm liking the theory that the gallery director wanted to create buzz by having it stolen, and then maybe he got screwed over. Maybe he had the art thief take it, and then the art thief wouldn't give it back. After 20+ years, maybe the art thief knew he couldn't sell it, so he liked art and decided to give it back.

[Shiver Me Timbers]

Originally Posted by scho63

Maybe it's the same gang who stole that dude's pool water?

[mr. tegu]

The real mystery here is the value of it being around $60 million dollars.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

The real mystery here is the value of it being around $60 million dollars.

Yeah, even aside from this individual picture, I really don't understand those ultra-high art values. I'm a big fan of art and I appreciate art, but I have no idea why they fetch such prices. Supply and demand, I guess, and it's good that rich people and organizations preserve and protect it.

[Beef Supreme]

This story has made me double verklimpt.