A van Gogh Masterpiece in RomeI stood inside the nearly empty
href=http://www.gnam.arti.beniculturali.it/gnamco.htm target=_NEW>Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Moderna on a rainy October afternoon in Rome. I was looking at Vincent van Gogh’s Portrait of a Young Peasant. His portrait of L'Arlesienne (Madame Ginoux) hung beside it. Both canvases were painted during Vincent’s yearlong stay at the asylum in Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, France, between May 1889 and May 1890.
For several minutes, I stood before the two paintings, the only two van Goghs publicly displayed in Italy. Both are striking to see in person. Together, they exemplify the simple workman’s life and happy home Vincent desperately sought but never realized.
Jan Hulsker, perhaps the world’s foremost authority on van Gogh and his art, writes that Portrait of a Young Peasant "… is one of countless paintings of van Gogh’s that one must see firsthand--or at least in color reproduction--in order to appreciate them fully. It is a delightful painting that in its freshness and simplicity, radiates health and joy in living, although the expression of the eyes and mouth characterizes the farmer as a difficult fellow."
Nearly 2 months after I’d returned from Rome, I discovered this difficult fellow had quite a story to tell.
An Obscure Law, and the Sale of a Masterpiece
The story begins on January 8, 1954. Italy’s Ministry of National Education, which, at the time, had authority over such matters, officially declared the painting to be a work "of historical and artistic interest" as was allowed under a statute of Italian law. In essence, the law granted the state the right to cut in front of a potential buyer and purchase any work of art classified as such at the price the buyer would have paid. Twelve days later, the order was served on the painting’s owner, an art collector in Rome by the name of Verusio.
On July 28, 1977, nearly 90 years after Portrait of a Young Peasant had been painted, an art dealer named Ernst Beyeler agreed to purchase the canvas for ITL600,000,000 (roughly €310,000) through an intermediary, a Rome antiques dealer named Pierangeli. In essence, Beyeler, a Swiss national, hid behind Pierangeli in order to obtain the best possible price. Operating behind his intermediary, Beyeler would remain hidden for many years, cleverly avoiding any risk of a pre-emption order. It was an obscure statute, but one that was universally known in the art world.
Days later, Verusio filed the necessary paperwork with the Ministry of Cultural Heritage as the aforementioned law required. His was the only signature on the document, which named Pierangeli as the other party and made no mention of Beyeler. The law’s 2-month time limit passed without the Ministry exercising its right of pre-emption.
Beyeler’s Identity Emerges
On December 1, 1983, Pierangeli filed papers with the Ministry stating that he had indeed purchased the painting on Beyeler’s behalf. The following day, Pierangeli and Beyeler informed the Ministry that the Peggy Guggenheim Collection in Venice agreed to purchase the painting for US$2.1 million, reiterating that the 1977 transaction had been made on Beyeler’s behalf, and asked the Ministry if it intended to exercise its right of pre-emption under the same law.
In January 1984, the Ministry notified Pierangeli and Beyeler that it was unable to exercise its right of pre-emption since, in its view, Pierangeli was the owner. Therefore, there was no contract to sell and a mere unilateral declaration was insufficient. Pierangeli’s subsequent attempts to export the painting were denied on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the national cultural heritage. The dispute would linger on for the next 5 years. Beyeler would continue to shield his identity to some degree, dealing with the Ministry either with or through Pierangeli.
In light of the confusion over the true owner and the Peggy Guggenheim Collection’s failure to comply with its undertakings, the Ministry expressed concerns over the conditions in which the painting was being kept, and on April 23, 1986, ordered the painting moved to Rome for safekeeping at the Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Moderna.
Meanwhile, due to the rapid acceleration in fine art prices at the time, the painting's price had skyrocketed to US$8.5 million. Not to be outdone, Beyeler brazenly asked the Ministry for US$11 million to exercise its right of pre-emption.
Early in 1988, confused negotiations took place. But on November 24, 1988, the Ministry exercised its right of pre-emption in respect of the 1977 sale, and Beyeler was served on December 22, 1988. The painting was now the property of Italy, Beyeler was awarded the €310,000 he paid in 1977, and his handsome profit had vaporized before his very eyes. The battle would rage on in the courts.
The wheels of justice creaked slowly. After 1988, legal wrangling would drag on for 14 more years. In 1996, Beyeler filed suit against Italy in a European court seeking more than $14.5 million in damages. But in 1998, the story would take a dramatic turn.
The Unthinkable
On May 19, 1998, three armed men hid inside the Moderna at closing time. They donned masks, removed their shoes to reduce noise, and quickly set to work, binding and gagging three guards and disabling the alarms. Within minutes they’d pulled off one of the biggest art heists in recent memory, snaring Portrait of a Young Peasant, L'Arlesienne (Madame Ginoux), and Paul Cézanne’s unfinished Le Cabanon de Jourdan. All told, the three paintings were worth an estimated US$30,000,000. The selection of three of the museum’s most valuable pieces, coupled with the apparent ease with which the crime was perpetrated, led authorities to believe that they were dealing with professional art thieves.
They were wrong. The gang quickly discovered the stolen paintings were impossible to unload. Their best course of action would have been to dump them immediately, or failing that, sit on them for a while and keep their pie holes shut. They did neither. They first stashed the paintings in a Turin apartment, although Portrait of a Young Peasant and the Cézanne were later brought back to Rome when they believed they had a buyer. Meanwhile, police and carbinieri tapped dozens of phones and, within 2 weeks, had honed in on their suspects.
Deciding which phones to tap had been easy. The heist screamed inside job. The thieves had far too much knowledge of the museum’s inner workings: they knew the video surveillance system wasn’t working and knew their way down to the night guard’s post in the basement. And inexplicably, no one had bothered to hook up the museum's alarm system to police headquarters prior to the robbery.
Suspicion quickly gathered around a museum guard named Stefania Viglongo. Although she had an untarnished reputation at work, her husband, Claudio Trevisan, "didn’t seem to do anything for a living." He had no criminal record, but he was put under surveillance, and it was discovered that he was friends with a man named Eneo Ximenes, who had served time in Belgium on robbery and murder charges.
In addition to tapping phones, police tracked the suspects’ movements by their cell phones and bugged Ximenes’ Volkswagen Golf. Soon, the thieves’ apartments in Turin and Rome were located. On July 5, 1998, authorities raided the two apartments. Portrait of a Young Peasant and the Cézanne were recovered in Rome, the van Gogh hidden under a bed, and the Cézanne wrapped in a blanket atop an armoire. The Turin apartment yielded L'Arlesienne. The paintings were returned to the museum within days, and police arrested eight suspects. All were Italian.
The Judgment
Finally, on May 28, 2002, a European court handed down its ruling, awarding Beyeler €1.355 million in damages. Was justice served? Should Italy’s Ministry of Cultural Heritage have chosen higher moral ground rather than take advantage of an obscure statute to acquire a painting at a ridiculously low price? Or was Beyeler’s own greed, which led him to game the 1977 transaction to his best possible advantage, at fault?
It seems obvious Beyeler was acutely aware of the law he appeared to be circumventing. Nothing prevented him from disclosing his identity between July 1977 and December 1983. On the other hand, between December 1983 and December 1988, the Ministry of Cultural Heritage acted on numerous occasions as though Beyeler was the true owner of the painting. Nonetheless, the courts through which Beyeler sought remedy prior to the 2002 judgment consistently ruled against him.
* * *
One hundred and fifteen years ago, a young man who worked the land in the south of France sat for his artist acquaintance, certainly for no longer than an hour or two. He remains forever nameless. One wonders what he’d think, not only of the lofty status the man with whom he briefly crossed paths would achieve as one of the most brilliant artists in history, but of millionaire art collectors, Ministries of Cultural Heritage, a 19-year legal battle, a gang of bungling thieves and the enormous resources expended to apprehend them, all over his likeness on a piece of cloth. There’s little doubt he’d wonder what all the fuss was about.