Essay on Defending the Canvas: Analyzing Motives and Security Measures in Preventing Public Art Vandalism

Art vandalism experts and art professionals always struggle when determining effective methods of reducing or preventing victimization by art criminals (Salomon 2). Although there are many accounts of this kind of vandalism, there are few empirical studies, which focus on the care and security of art collections (Salomon 2). One of the major reasons why public art keeps being stolen is because most of them are being made of metal. With the rising value of scrap metal, the theft of public art has increased (Salomon 2). For instance, the BBC reported that in the United Kingdom, most metal public arts are put in storage, and fiberglass copies are replaced with them (Salomon 2). The measure is good since the scrap metal worth of the sculpture is less as compared to that of the art.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The intentions for committing art theft, while they have similarities with the intentions behind other forms of theft, are unique in some way (Salomon 3). Some argue that those who steal public art are mentally unstable. For instance, in 1987, Robert Cambridge who was an ex-soldier walked into London’s national gallery and shot Leonardo Da Vinci’s art, St. John the Baptist and the Virgin and Child with St. Ann (Salomon 2). The explanation that Cambridge gave to the police was that he intended to express his frustrations with the social, economic, and political conditions in Britain.

Although he gave a concrete explanation, the authorities did not accept his explanation and committed him to a psychiatrist. The essay seeks to analyze ways in which public art can be protected and the reduction of victimization of art vandals by evaluating the various intentions that they might have.

On the intentions of vandalizing public art, others have argued that it is done out of envy, for the sake of destruction, protesting against sexual imagery, or as a medium of performance art (Scott 30). Scott argues that there are four major reasons for public art vandalism; religious convictions, political agitation, publicity-seeking, and the belief that a particular work is not art (Scott 30).

In analyzing the four main reasons suggested by Scott, the discussion shall be divided into three categories; attributes of the vandal, attributes of the art, and the interaction of the vandal and the art.

To start with, the natural interaction of the offender and the art may inform the vandalism. According to Freedberg, such acts of vandalism are an expression of the offender’s ‘need to suspend the hold’ put by the art on him/her and it might be a result of confusion at the time of the attack (Stewart 4). It happens in states of florid psychotic and there are cases in which confusion can be in those who are mentally ill at the time of the vandalism.

An example of this section is the vandalism of the famous Michelangelo’s sculpture, the pieta, in St Peter’s Rome. In the process of the attack, the assailant asserted: ‘I am Christ’ One example of this category of art vandalism is the destruction of Michelangelo's famous sculpture, the Pietà, in St Peter's, Rome (1972). During his frenzied attack, the 33-year-old assailant asserted: 'I am Jesus Christ!’ (Stewart 4).

Predictably, there are many other attacks, that do not fall in this category. Alternatively, they may be under the category of ‘willful’ or normal actions (Stewart 4). An example on point is an assailant of the poussin’s adoration of the Golden Calf. When his intentions were questioned, he said: ‘It was pleasing to do it.’ Later however it was established that the man suffered from schizophrenia (Stewart 4).

The attributes of the art can also contribute to the vandalism of that work. Particularly there is the susceptibility of religious and political art, of representations of nude and pictures of idealized womanhood, especially that of the virgin Mary (Stewart 4). The work of art can also be conceived as a reflection of original acts of iconoclasm with a religious or political purpose. Even though the connection might be termed tenuous, it can serve as a political gesture. An example on point is the destruction of Velasquez’s Rokeby Venus in 1914.

The vandal stated: ‘I have attempted to demolish the image of the most beautiful woman in history protest against the government.’ Another example is the destruction of the Bryan Organ portrait of the Princess of Wales. In this case, the attacker stated: ‘I sympathize with Northern Ireland, I did it for Northern Ireland.’ Other destruction incidents have been directed at representations of eyes in art such as the Matteo di Giovanni’s Massacre of the Innocents or any other significant body parts like a female breast.

Attributes of the assailant can also contribute to art vandalism. Public art attracts vandalistic acts because of its appearance, especially to those who are mentally unstable and those who are envious (Stewart 4). Since art is a commodity, for both private collections and public institutions. Harris and Meltzer have stated: ‘The encounter of viewing art is extremely hazardous and taxing (Stewart 5).

Freedberg argues that attention-seeking can be one of the reasons for the attack on public art. For instance, the person who vandalized Rembrandt’s Nightwatch was quoted saying: ‘I wanted to do a spectacular thing that could make my message appear on TV.’ In this instance, the attacker had delusion beliefs that he was Christ and the Lord had commanded him (Stewart 5). He destroyed the painting and committed suicide later. Consistent with this desire, as reported in our findings, the contemporary vandal of major artworks rarely seeks to avoid detection; more usually he or she will wait by the object defiled to be apprehended.

In protecting public art, guardianship is essential. Galleries and Museums safeguard, store, and give research opportunities; a function that is referred to as guardianship. Madero-Hernandez and Fischer have argued that guardianship can broadly refer to the capability of objects or persons to prevent crime (Salomon 2). However, despite the old notion that guardianship is solely a responsibility left to art institutions, these institutions are sometimes unsuccessful in their execution and implementation. The absent, substandard, or flawed protection mechanisms may make the artworks to be vulnerable to attacks.

The guardianship concept is derived from the Routine activities theory by Cohen and Felson (Salomon 2). In this theory, Cohen and Felson have argued that for a vandalistic attack to occur, three aspects should converge in space and time. They include an appropriate target, motivated offenders the absence of proper guardianship (Salomon 3).

In the criminological literal works, guardianship is classified into two: social guardianship and physical guardianship. Physical guardianship involves security elements such as locks, alarms, CCTV, and special lighting (Salomon 3). Social guardianship can be defined to be the human aspect of the prevention of crime like having a neighbor look after your house when you are not around.

In any art gallery, some visitors are potential guardians while others are vandals. It is expected that the number of guards in galleries and museums that have not been victimized should be high (Cordess et al. 95). Various reasons could be attributed to this. To start with, the availability of guards is not a guarantee that the facility is secure.

In most cases, the guards are not paid well and as such, they have their morale is low and there is a high turnover (Cordess et al. 95). Security guards who have served a particular facility for a longer period are considered better guardians because of the knowledge they have accumulated over the period.

Some studies have concluded that victimized museums have specified security posts and frequent surveillance. The first argument that explains this is the fact that a museum’s ability to afford a wide security option is equalized based on the fact that the facility could afford a bigger space (Cordess et al. 95).

In as much as institutions might be able to afford a larger number of roving securities, these guards have a larger space to cover. Furthermore, art vandalism is an act that occurs in a short period and therefore the security guards are expected to be alert and vigilant at all times. Another aspect that explains why victimized galleries and museums hire more staff is the response to an incident that had already occurred (Cordess et al. 95).

Based on the intentions of the attackers, various measures should be taken to enhance the safety of public art. Most of the non-victimized institutions do not carry out background checks because most of the volunteers are persons and students who have been assessed informally. Most of the volunteers are persons or students known to the gallery or museum staff and as such most of the institutions avoid background checks. Therefore, to enhance security in these institutions, background checks are necessary.

The use of target hardening mechanisms is another measure for the protection of public art. The victimized museums and galleries are expected to use motion detectors, window alarms, stanchions, and CCTV. In other studies that were carried out, the target hardening measures were considered to be insignificant (Hope 891). Moreover, some scholars have argued that target hardening measures increased victimization (Cohen et al. 588).

Contrary to this argument, in my opinion, target hardening measures do not increase victimization. It only happens when there are not enough persons to monitor them. Previous research concludes that target hardening measures reduce victimization (Welsh et al. 716).

The inspection of the package and bag is another measure that should be employed. It is a common practice that is normally seen in airports, concert venues, and sports stadiums. Museums should adopt bag and package inspection as a standard procedure. The reason why there are many vandalistic attacks is that such checks are not done consistently, they are only done in times of fear of attacks.

It is important to note that the lack of resources in any institution is irrelevant. When an attacker has the determination to attack, he will still attack (Welsh et al. 716). Having enough resources will not prevent the attacker from attacking. There are small objects that can cause vandalism such as an ink pen, knife, or even a pack of chewing gum. These are minute objects that can be sneaked in without the need for a bag (Welsh et al. 716). Therefore, all forms of guardianship are essential.

Conclusion

In summary, public art vandalism has become a major problem, and to prevent it, the various intentions of the vandals should be understood. Some do it due to mental incapacity, others do it for attention-seeking, and the attributes of the art contribute to its vandalism among other reasons. The proper measures that should be taken include target hardening measures such as window alarms and CCTV, security background checks, and bag and package checks.

Works Cited

Cohen, Lawrence E., and Marcus Felson. "Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach." American Sociological Review (2013): 588-608. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2094589

Cordess, Christopher, and Maja Turcan. "Art vandalism." The British Journal of Criminology 33.1 (1993): 95-102. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048293

Hope, Andrew. "CCTV, school surveillance, and social control." British Educational Research Journal 35.6 (2009): 891-907. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902834233

Salomon, Katharine, et al. "Art Vandalism and Guardianship in US Art Institutions." Arts. Vol. 7. No. 3. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts7030023

Scott, Helen E. "Wholly Uninteresting?: The Motives Behind Acts of Iconoclasm." Perspectives on Power: An Inter-Disciplinary Approach (2...