Alistair Smith is the director of the Whitworth Art Gallery, the University of Manchester
Yes: Has the fact that the museum has shed its Victorian pater familias image resulted in the public being less in awe of the institution? My answer would be yes. But I can see no link with the increasing number of art thefts.
Rather, I would reason that our visitors are more informed and visually aware than ever before - thanks to the spread of visual culture via Sunday supplements, blockbuster exhibitions and Rolf Harris.
Unfortunately, so are at least some of the thieves who might reason that museums hold objects that were removed from owners, in former times, without their permission.
Thefts from museums come in all shapes and sizes. They are carried out for all sorts of different reasons by all sorts of different people. The simplest motive is profit and the press almost exclusively associate museums objects with their financial value.
Other thefts are carried out for more complex reasons, often recognising the cultural or symbolic significance of the objects. The perpetrator of this form of theft shares something with acts of vandalism.
For example, the thieves who, famously, entered the Nasjonalgalleri in Oslo in 1994 and removed Edvard Munch's Scream (the first of the two versions to be 'unlawfully removed') were intent on milking the publicity value of this famous painting for an anti-abortion campaign (in addition to asking for a million dollar ransom).
Art vandalism and art thefts attest to the power that art objects hold in the mind of the public, and the status of these objects depends, to a degree, on their presentation in the museum.
Dick Ellis is an art risk consultant
No: It does not, it shows the reverse. Figures recently reported in 2004 showed an increase in visitors - a reflection of the policy of free admission to national museums and the high level of interest generated by specialist exhibitions and innovative displays at galleries such as the Tate Modern.
Secondly, public donations made for acquisitions and the work of the Art Fund have both saved and highlighted unique items now on view in countless museums. The increase in reporting of finds under the Treasure Act also underlines the respect for museums in which such objects are displayed.
The downside to the good news is that museums are brought to the attention of criminals more interested in the monetary value of the objects than in the objects themselves. Similar items sold amid much publicity in the art market provide the stimulus for the thief, who can view the object and the security surrounding it at their leisure.
Museums lacking sufficient funding must economise, and as a result, necessary security reviews and updates have to be postponed. The recent thefts at the Victoria & Albert Museum were all from old-fashioned wooden display cases.
We should not confuse the theft of objects with a lack of respect for museums. On the contrary, coupled with increasing visitor numbers it shows new levels of interest in museums and respect for their collections.
Yes: Has the fact that the museum has shed its Victorian pater familias image resulted in the public being less in awe of the institution? My answer would be yes. But I can see no link with the increasing number of art thefts.
Rather, I would reason that our visitors are more informed and visually aware than ever before - thanks to the spread of visual culture via Sunday supplements, blockbuster exhibitions and Rolf Harris.
Unfortunately, so are at least some of the thieves who might reason that museums hold objects that were removed from owners, in former times, without their permission.
Thefts from museums come in all shapes and sizes. They are carried out for all sorts of different reasons by all sorts of different people. The simplest motive is profit and the press almost exclusively associate museums objects with their financial value.
Other thefts are carried out for more complex reasons, often recognising the cultural or symbolic significance of the objects. The perpetrator of this form of theft shares something with acts of vandalism.
For example, the thieves who, famously, entered the Nasjonalgalleri in Oslo in 1994 and removed Edvard Munch's Scream (the first of the two versions to be 'unlawfully removed') were intent on milking the publicity value of this famous painting for an anti-abortion campaign (in addition to asking for a million dollar ransom).
Art vandalism and art thefts attest to the power that art objects hold in the mind of the public, and the status of these objects depends, to a degree, on their presentation in the museum.
Dick Ellis is an art risk consultant
No: It does not, it shows the reverse. Figures recently reported in 2004 showed an increase in visitors - a reflection of the policy of free admission to national museums and the high level of interest generated by specialist exhibitions and innovative displays at galleries such as the Tate Modern.
Secondly, public donations made for acquisitions and the work of the Art Fund have both saved and highlighted unique items now on view in countless museums. The increase in reporting of finds under the Treasure Act also underlines the respect for museums in which such objects are displayed.
The downside to the good news is that museums are brought to the attention of criminals more interested in the monetary value of the objects than in the objects themselves. Similar items sold amid much publicity in the art market provide the stimulus for the thief, who can view the object and the security surrounding it at their leisure.
Museums lacking sufficient funding must economise, and as a result, necessary security reviews and updates have to be postponed. The recent thefts at the Victoria & Albert Museum were all from old-fashioned wooden display cases.
We should not confuse the theft of objects with a lack of respect for museums. On the contrary, coupled with increasing visitor numbers it shows new levels of interest in museums and respect for their collections.
