Last evening in British TV there was a fascinating programme which was about the world's most expensive art robberies and it was reseached by a top art journalist, Alistaire Stooke.

His journey took him from the UK to Boston USA to Europe and The Mafia.

He interviewed both thieves and detectives and his findings?......................

It looks more than likely that most paintings were not stolen for a hidden art fanatic BUT that most paintings are used as underworld currency.

In Dutch law, as an example, even if a thief is caught and punished, after thirty years the property becomes their property. Long wait but huge profit.

It is quite possible that many works have been damaged and disposed of because their worth could not be realised. After all, if a painting was given as payment for an underworld favour and that favour was not returned then the owner at that time may find it hard to move on.

It is more than likely that a painting may pay for huge drug payments and continue to move around. Many thefts from museums seem to lack careful choice. Often the most expensive paintings are left where a much inferior painting by the same artists might be stolen. It would appear that any old Piccasso might be good enough. This points to uneducated theives who know that THEIR share for the actual theft is not going to be huge but underword wages.

I am sure that the programme will be available to many via iPlayer.

You could TRY this link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03n2yzh/The_Worlds_Most_Expensive_Stolen_Paintings/

You are so right Mike.

It's one of those things that makes art so fascinating.

There is a body of opinion that considers accurate realism to be the most accomplished but let's be honest, it takes incredible observation, amazingly controlled motor skills and a very good eye for colour etc., but the creation of the picture is limited to choosing the best angle or composition.

When photography came along artists were forced to re-think so added things to a scene or removed them or found a way of looking at all sides at once (cubism) but then photography developed to a point where this could be done by trick photography or developing techniques, SO, artist found ways of playing with colour effects or suggesting something without showing anything etc.

As things change, artists find ways of using new materials or colours or light etc.

This is why the first cubist paintings like this one are important and therefore expensive

where a later, and better painted image might be dismissed as inferior.

As you said Mike, the ARTISTIC THOUGHT and application is what counts.

We all know of modern art that seems to be rubbish to us both it wins a prize. Somebody sees or understands something important?

Returning to the subject, it appears that often, when a major theft takes place the paintings stolen are not always THE MOST EXPENSIVE. As far as the thief is concerned he tends to go for something seen in a catalogue or book and recogniseable and worth LOTS of money.

As long as he can move it on for a profit he doesn't care.

Thanks for encouraging me to write this.

Roger