Art Vandalism and Guardianship in US Art Institutions

Katharine Salomon,Ryan Schroeder,Peter Morrin,David Roelfs,John Begley

doi:10.3390/arts7030023

Abstract

Art crime scholars and art world professionals constantly grapple with determining the most effective methods by which to reduce and prevent victimization by 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 vandalism using questionnaire data collected from 111 American art museums and art galleries. The results indicate an overwhelming lack of association between the majority of the guardianship measures and 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.

Highlights

IntroductionUkraine, several artworks in the politically charged exhibit surrounding the Ukrainian 2014 Maiden
During the evening of 8 February 2017 around 6 p.m., at the Visual Culture Research Center inKiev, Ukraine, several artworks in the politically charged exhibit surrounding the Ukrainian 2014 MaidenRevolution were brutally attacked, along with a security guard
The present study explores the relationship between social and physical guardianship practices in American art museums and art galleries and the prevalence of art vandalism

Summary

Introduction

Ukraine, several artworks in the politically charged exhibit surrounding the Ukrainian 2014 Maiden. Revolution were brutally attacked, along with a security guard. Two women and twelve masked men “hammered holes in the walls, stole four artworks and damaged others, threw brochures on the ground, and spray-painted on the walls such slogans and symbols as “Glory to Ukraine” and a trident—part of the country’s coat of arms—shaped like a Celtic cross, which the center’s website identifies as a neo-Nazi symbol. A security camera captured harrowing footage of the vandalism” (Steinhauer 2017). The center remained open in its vandalized condition, in order to stimulate an intellectual discussion about preserving the right to free speech (Steinhauer 2017)

Methods

Results

Conclusion