University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Electronic Theses and Dissertations 8-2018 Art theft, art vandalism, and guardianship in U.S. art institutions. Katharine L. Salomon University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd Part of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons, and the Fine Arts Commons Recommended Citation Salomon, Katharine L., "Art theft, art vandalism, and guardianship in U.S. art institutions." (2018). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3028. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/3028 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ART THEFT, ART VANDALISM, AND GUARDIANSHIP IN U.S. ART INSTITUTIONS By Katharine L. Salomon B.A, Transylvania University, 1990 M.S., University of Louisville, 2008 A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Interdisciplinary and Graduate Studies of the University of Louisville in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Interdisciplinary Studies School of Interdisciplinary and Graduate Studies University of Louisville Louisville, KY August 2018 Copyright 2018 by Katharine L. Salomon ART THEFT, ART VANDALISM, AND GUARDIANSHIP IN U.S. ART INSTITUTIONS By Katharine L. Salomon B.A., Transylvania University, 1990 M.S., University of Louisville, 2001 A Dissertation Approved on June 29, 2018 By the following Dissertation Committee: Dissertation Director (Ryan Schroeder) Peter Morrin John Begley David Roelfs ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Eleanor Roosevelt wisely said, “You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You’re able to say to yourself, ‘I’ve lived through this horror, I can take the next thing that comes along.’” This quote aptly captures the essence of my doctoral studies journey. More important than absorbing the finer points of multivariate statistics, critically thinking about theoretical constructs, or even adopting a scholarly prose, I learned the importance of resilience. This skill supersedes any subject taught within a course curriculum or degree proffered by academic success. There are many people to acknowledge and thank who have been a part of this tumultuous path to the completion of my dissertation. First and foremost, I would like to thank John Begley and Peter Morrin for sticking by my side the past ten years and for their never-ending wisdom and comfort. I learned more about the art world and museology from them than I could from any book. I am also extremely grateful to my Chair, Dr. Ryan Schroeder, for taking on this unique project with enthusiasm, donating precious time reading my long-winded chapters/emails, and having the utmost patience for a high-strung doctoral student. Additionally, this dissertation would not be complete without the brilliance of Dr. David Roelfs. He jumped right in at the twelfth hour numerous times with academic passion, a smile, and kind words. The remaining member of my “dissertation team” is Dr. Paul DeMarco. This entire process never would have iii ever transpired if he had not taken a chance on a non-traditional student with off-beat project ideas. His flexibility allowed for many calamities to be either avoided or remedied. Outside of the immediate dissertation unit are a host of others who played a significant role in this journey. It began with Dr. Deborah Keeling, who I truly am grateful for all that she sacrificed and contributed to my success for many, many years. I also thank Dr. Kristin Swartz for helping me become conversant in all things “Cohen and Felson.” Dr. Blythe Bowman Balestrieri, thank you for guiding me through the art crime world and keeping me on your team all these years. I also thank Dr. Bonnie Magness- Gardner for all of her knowledge and valuable information about the FBI’s art crime team. Amy Elam-Krizan and John Enochs, you guys are my best buds from college who cheered me on from the side sidelines, offered advice and a shoulder to whine on, as well as a stiff drink when needed. Dr. Ida Dickie, I cannot thank you enough for everything— your unconditional friendship, kindness, expertise, and willingness to join in on all my outrageous adventures and projects over the years. Jennifer Hancock, you are always there in a crisis and up for a concert. Dr. Maggie Stone, you have been there as a friend, advocate, and scholar extraordinaire; especially in the last few months when I needed your presence most. I am honored to be your friend. Lastly, I thank my parents and Ying Kit Chan for their support and love over the past decade. We made it—no more school! In closing, without the above-mentioned kind souls, it never would have been possible for me to successfully complete this stage of my life and embrace the next one with resilience, courage, and hope. iv ABSTRACT ART THEFT, ART VANDALISM, AND GUARDIANSHIP IN U.S. ART INSTITUTIONS Katharine L. Salomon August 7, 2018 Art crime scholars and art world professionals constantly grapple with determining the most effective methods by which to reduce and prevent victimization by art thieves and art vandals. Despite the numerous accounts of this form of criminality, there is a dearth of empirical studies focused on the security and care of art collections. Using Routine Activities Theory to guide the research, the present study explores the relationship between social and physical guardianship practices and the prevalence of art theft and art vandalism using questionnaire data collected from 111 American art museums and art galleries. The results indicate an overwhelming lack of statistically significant association between the majority of the guardianship measures and art theft and art vandalism victimization, a pattern consistent with the possibility that social and physical guardianship practices are not implemented until after an act of vandalism has already occurred. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………... iii ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………. v LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………... x LIST OF FIGURES & GRAPHS……………………………………………………. xi CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………… 01 Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………. 01 Art Theft and Art Vandalism………………………………………………... 06 Museum Security……………………………………………………………. 09 Theoretical Framework – Guardianship………………………….…………. 12 The Present Study…………………………………………………………… 18 CHAPTER II: ART WORLD BUSINESS STRUCTURES………………………… 20 Structures of Art Museums and Galleries as Non-Profit Institutions……….. 20 For Profit Institutions………………………………………………………. 24 Hybridity of Art World Institutions………………………………………… 25 Art World Ethical Issues and Crime……………………………………….. 27 CHAPTER III: ART THEFT AND ART VANDALISM…………………………. 35 Part One – Art Theft………………………………………………………… 35 A Review of Art Theft………………………………………………………. 35 Art Theft Legislation and Criminal Statutes………………………………… 37 vi The Statistical Picture……………………………………………………….. 40 A History of Art Theft……………………………………………………… 48 The Art Industry……………………………………………………………. 49 Art as a Desirable and Accessible Target for Thieves………………………. 54 The Perpetrators of Art Crime……………………………………………… 58 Art Theft Strategies………………………………………………………… 63 Art Theft Motivations……………………………………………………….. 65 Art Theft and Money Laundering……………………………………………. 73 Some Global Approaches to Fighting Art Crime………………………….… 75 Part Two – Art Vandalism…………………………………………………... 82 Art Vandalism in Art Museums and Art Galleries………………………….. 82 Preventing Art Vandalism…………………………………………………….91 Chapter Conclusion…………………………………………………………...92 CHAPTER IV: GUARDIANSHIP……………………………………………..……...93 Art Museum and Art Gallery Security-Introduction………………………… 93 Museum and Gallery Security Forces……………………………………….. 97 Museum Security Hardware and Software Technologies.…………………... 103 Audits………………………………………………………………………... 107 Bag Inspection and ID Badges………………………………………………. 107 Theft from Storage Spaces and in Transit…………………………………… 108 Background Checks………………………………………………………….. 110 Security Issues Within Art Galleries………………………………………..…111 Securing University Collections……………………………………………... 113 Non-Security Personnel and Security………………………………………....117 CHAPTER V: THEORY………………………………………………………………120 vii Introduction to Routine Activities Theory…………………………………... 120 Defining and Measuring the Key Elements of Routine Activities Theory….. 121 Motivated Offenders…………………………………………………………..122 A Suitable/Attractive Target…………………………………………………..123. Lack of a Capable Guardian/Guardianship…………………………………...128. Empirical Effectiveness of Routine Activities Theory………………………. 142 Predictive Validity of Guardianship…………………………………………..162 Routine Activities Theory and Art Theft and Art Vandalism……………….. 164 CHAPTER VI: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…………………………………….167 Introduction…………………………………………………………………...167 Data Collection Methods…………………………………………………….. 168 Survey Construction………………………………………………………...…171 Measures……………………………………………………………….…….. 171 Dependent Variables……………………………………………………….…171. Independent Theoretical Variables…………………………………………... 173 Demographic/Control Variables…………………………………………….. 190 Non-Theoretical Variables……………………………………………….……191