Picasso Theft in Australia
In 1986 one of the most infamous art heists in Australian history was carried out at the National Gallery in Melbourne. Now, 38 years later we have the painting back but we still don’t know whodunit.
Weeping Woman
First, some background. The painting in question today is Weeping Woman painted by Pablo Picasso in 1937. This painting is part of a series of companion pieces that Picasso created after painting his famous Guernica. He made several paintings of this one crying woman depicted in the original mural. The model he used for these works was his mistress at the time, Dora Maar.
In 1985 Weeping Woman was up for sale and the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne Australia purchased it for A$1.6 million. This was the most expensive art purchase the gallery had ever made, before this, the most that any prominent gallery in Australia had spent on a painting was the National Gallery of Australia (located in Canberra) spending A$1.3 million on Jackson Pollack’s Blue Poles in 1973. So already when this painting was purchased there was a buzz around it simply because of the huge price tag. Another important thing to note here when talking about money is that the painting wasn’t insured because those in power at the gallery considered insuring an artwork of this value a prohibitive cost. Make it make sense.
When commenting on the purchase of Weeping Woman, the Director of the National Gallery of Victoria, Patrick McCaughey said, “this face is going to haunt Melbourne for the next 100 years” (Judd, 2019). Little did he know how true this would become.
The Heist
So the painting was debuted and put on display at the gallery in December 1985 amidst celebrations. However, that wouldn’t last.
On Saturday, August 2, 1986, Weeping Woman was unscrewed from the wall and removed from her frame sometime after the gallery closed for the evening. The thieves left a calling card for whoever came across the blank space in the morning indicating that the painting had been removed for routine maintenance, signed by ACT (Australian Cultural Terrorists). The gallery thought this was so ridiculous that they didn’t report the theft for three days. THREE DAYS.
In his book, McCaughey said, “confronting the bare wall and the fake label, I was aghast. I excused myself from the committee meeting and began a search of the gallery, desperately hoping that it was a prank and that the painting had been hidden in the building" (Judd, 2019). The police were at a loss, they first thought this might have been an inside job and then they considered art smugglers but they really had nothing to go on.
Then the ransom letters started arriving. On August 5, 1986, the first letter was delivered through the local newspaper and addressed to the Victorian Arts Minister at the time, Race Matthews. It demanded that Matthews increase funding for the arts by 10% and establish an annual art prize worth $25,000 named The Picasso Ransom. The group stated that there would be no negotiation on their terms and at the end of the week if the demands hadn’t been met the painting would be destroyed.
However, Matthews responded quickly saying that he would not respond to blackmail. So the investigation was in a bit of a deadlock. Then, four days later on August 9, 1986, the second letter arrived. It read, in part, “Good luck with your huffing and puffing, Minister, you pompous fathead. If our demands are not met, you will begin the long process of carrying about you the smell of kerosene and burning canvas” (Judd, 2019). Finally, two days after that on August 11 a third letter was sent directly to Matthews’ office containing a burnt match and a note that said, “thank you for your support. Phase two begins shortly” (Judd, 2019).
At this point, the police were still searching and trying to figure out the identities of the people behind the ACT, to no avail. And, since their original seven-day deadline had long passed, the hope of ever getting the painting back was fading.
During this time, local Australian artists were getting annoyed that Weeping Woman was getting so much attention while their work was neglected. One artist, Juan Davila painted a copy of Weeping Woman and offered it to the gallery as a replacement. Davila’s piece went on display at the Tin Sheds Gallery at Sydney University where it was, interestingly enough, immediately stolen.
Then, almost three weeks after the heist took place, the police and press received an anonymous phone call. The person on the other end of the line told them to go to Spencer Street railway station and they would find Weeping Woman in locker 227. Sure enough, when they opened the locker there was the painting wrapped in brown paper, unharmed.
Matthews received one final letter in which the ACT said they were never looking to have their demands met. Likely just some backtracking to try and alleviate some embarrassment from not having their demands met but who knows.
But Who is the ACT?
So this is the big remaining question. The gallery now has the painting back, authenticated, and back on display but who stole it in the first place and why?
Police conducted a thorough investigation to try and uncover who these individuals might be and there’s even been a $50,000 reward since the heist for information about these people but nothing has come of it. The best police could do was say that they believe the ACT is composed of at least three, but maybe more, people who are either in the art world or on the fringes of it.
At least two women were spotted with brown paper-wrapped parcels around locker 227 in the days leading up to the painting being located but these women have never been identified. Also, the anonymous call pointing police to the locker was made by a man.
McCaughey has his own theory about the thief. Days before the painting was found he got a call from a Melbourne art dealer saying a young artist may have some information. When McCaughey arrived at this young artist’s studio there were newspaper clippings all over the walls. And, “I said deliberately, at least twice, that the people who had taken the work could deposit it in a luggage locker at Spencer Street railway station or at Tullamarine airport” (Judd, 2019). Within 48 hours of that visit and McCaughey saying those words, Weeping Woman turned up in a locker at Spencer Street railway station. It could be a coincidence but it does seem compelling.
For now, this case is officially closed so we may never know who was behind this heist and the ACT.
Works Cited
Fortescue, Elizabeth. “The Shocking Story of a Picasso Painting that was Brazenly Stolen and Held at Ransom by the ‘Australian Cultural Terrorists’”. The Art Newspaper. 2022. https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2022/06/09/the-shocking-story-of-a-picasso-painting-that-was-brazenly-stolen-and-held-at-ransom-by-the-australian-cultural-terrorists
Judd, Bridget. “A Picasso Painting was Stolen from a Melbourne Gallery - And We Still Don’t Know Who Did It”. RetroFocus. 2019. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-14/retrofocus-picasso-weeping-woman-famous-unsolved-art-heist/11498936