\n\tBy MARTY LEVINE<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tWhen a Picasso painting on loan to Pitt for display at the William Pitt Union was stolen in 1961, the University offered a $100 reward for information leading to its recovery, and Pitt officials went looking for it among 2,500 pieces of local high-school student art at Kaufmann\u2019s department store downtown, which was about to mount its annual scholastic art exhibit.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201c\u2018We have some [art] just as weird,\u2019\u201d a Kaufmann\u2019s rep said of the paintings local kids had contributed \u2013 but no Picassos were found among the bunch.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tToday the Guggenheim Foundation says it has finally located the missing painting, and it is suing a Massachusetts couple for allegedly buying the work in 1999 from a New York art gallery and not returning it to the Guggenheim Museum.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tThe painting (\u201cFigure \u2013 1918,\u201d a Cubist portrait of Picasso\u2019s first wife on their honeymoon) depicts \u201ca dark-haired woman with a lopsided face, hands the size of boxing gloves, and attired in a bright yellow, green and orange dress,\u201d explained the Pittsburgh Press at the time of the theft \u2013 in case anyone noticed a neighbor with something new and different hanging above their sofa. It was only 11 by 14 inches and had been displayed in the Marble Lounge of the Union with nearly a dozen other Guggenheim paintings, as part of a program the museum undertook for universities throughout the U.S. This particular exhibit had arrived at Pitt on August 15, 1960, and was just about to be returned when the Picasso disappeared.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tThe painting had been padlocked to a thin metal chain and attached to the wall by wires that were apparently easily cut. The Marble Lounge was patrolled by a police officer whose duties also included guarding the other four floors of the building; the room was locked from 11 p.m. until 8 a.m. each day, but still accessible via elevator from the student dormitory rooms above it.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tYet the only open exit from the Union at those hours was onto Fifth Avenue \u2013 had no one noticed a late-night heist?<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tThe year 1961, when Picassos went out in public mostly unguarded, was a world away from today. A Pitt News report on the theft shared front-page space with the proposal of a new \u201cUniversity code for Men and Women\u2019s dress on campus \u2026 drawn up by representatives from Associated Women Students, Student Union Board, Men\u2019s Council and Student Senate.\u201d In classrooms and the Tuck Shop, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., the new rules called for \u201ccollared shirts tucked in, dress or khaki pants for men, and sweaters, blouses, skirts, or dresses for women.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cPin curls are not permitted at any time,\u201d it warned.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tThe day\u2019s other news included the date for Pitt\u2019s Annual Military Ball, with a jazz band and \u201cthe Top Hats, the professional Air Force group, and also various acts from the Pittsburgh Variety Club,\u201d as well as a tea and a queen selection by Army and Air Force officers. The Union was set to host an \u201cIntercollegiate Dance featuring The Collegians, a dance band made up of 15 members of the University\u2019s marching band,\u201d and Student Government elections were heated between the Allied Collegiate Party and the Interest Deserves Energetic Action Party \u2013 until they merged, only to face off against Students for Progressive Action.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tOn its editorial page, The Pitt News was quick to blame University officials for the crime \u2013 the first for a Guggenheim exhibit, it noted. The student paper criticized the security choices all around, from the small chain to the single police officer. \u201cWe point out that many a bank has been robbed with more than one policeman in the vicinity,\u201d it said, adding that another painting on a University site \u2013 a mere copy, but still costly \u2013 had already gone missing, and that the University had suffered from a rash of thefts lately: \u201cThese crimes range from pilfering in the dormitories and the Student Union to the $150 extraction from the bookstore\u201d over the previous month. \u201cUniversity administrators fear that if the [Picasso] thief was an amateur, he will burn it. We join them in asking the culprit, if he is a member of the University, to place the painting discreetly in a conspicuous place, rather than panic and destroy one of Picasso\u2019s best. If the person does not want to leave it somewhere, mail it to us\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tBut apparently the year 1961 was a banner one for art theft. As the lawsuit notes, on May 27, 2016, over 50 years after the theft, ARTnews published an article titled \u2018The Art-Theft Fad: Stolen Paintings by Goya, Matisse, Picasso, C\u00e9zanne, and More, in 1961,\u2019\u201d highlighting the Pittsburgh crime.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tThe head of Pitt\u2019s fine arts department in 1961 told local newspapers that Picassos were valued up to $40,000, and this one might be worth $10,000, although, as the Post-Gazette cautioned: \u201cYesterday, Thomas M. Messer, director of the Guggenheim Museum \u2026 said that the only way one could actually determine its monetary worth would be to offer it for sale and see what price it would bring. He did not say how or at what price, the museum acquired it.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tA Pittsburgh Police detective was put on the case, noting that \u201cnews of the theft \u2026 was not made public [immediately] because it might be a student prank and \u2026 the painting might be returned.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tIt was not. The FBI was soon brought in. Interviews with people who had been in the building the night before the art heist narrowed the time of the crime to the 12 hours before its discovery, since a Union visitor \u2013 a young woman attending a glee club concert there \u2013 said she saw the painting on display the night before. The Guggenheim flooded commercial galleries and museums across North America with notices, asking them to be on the lookout for the painting.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tBut Pittsburgh police soon admitted the case was \u201cat a standstill.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tIf you\u2019d ever like to see the painting for yourself, you might root for the Guggenheim Foundation to win its case. The couple who have owned it since 1999 were trying to sell it at Christie\u2019s auction house when the Guggenheim claim stopped them. The two parties have been in negotiations for the past three years, the lawsuit says, without an agreement.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tMarty Levine is a staff writer for the University Times. Reach him at martyl@pitt.edu or 412-758-4859.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\tHave a story idea or news to share? Share it <\/a>with the University Times.<\/p>\n \n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n