Countering

Guy Tubiana
Museum Security and Risk Assessment in French Museums:
An Overview
Museums present creations that, admired as they are for their timeless beauty, are also
coveted. How then, can museums be preserved from theft, yet allow their collections to
remain accessible to the public? The work of museum security experts is based, precisely,
on that paradox: displays must allow objects to be visible, somewhat within reach, but
unremittingly protected.
More accessibility, less vulnerability: in a nutshell, the conundrum illustrates the
challenges museums and security experts currently face. To prevent all risks of theft,
should works of art be secluded at all costs, to the point of depriving the public from the
enjoyment of original pieces? The Rotterdam Kunsthal Museum art heist in October 2012
exemplifies, in many ways, the tragic consequences of security failings: seven valuable
paintings were pilfered and allegedly destroyed in the aftermath. Human presence alone
can vouch for immediate response in case of intrusion, and many were the flaws that
forebode impending trespass: the premises were left unprotected at closing hours with
no security guards in attendance at night and obsolete cameras did the work instead (the
alarm did go off).
Theft is not the only threat museum collections face; another ongoing problem is willful
damage. Vandalism, essentially in the form of wanton destruction or disfigurement, is
all too frequent. Most acts of vandalism are opportunistic, carried out by visitors, and
there are countless reasons for deliberate damage of works of art. How can such damage
be prevented? Should these unique pieces be protected in glass exhibit cases or – in
the case of paintings – locked away in climate-controlled and secured showcases, and
copies presented in their stead? When, in early February 2013, a visitor defaced (albeit
ever so slightly) the celebrated Delacroix masterpiece, ‘Liberty Guiding the People’ (La
Liberté guidant le peuple) then held by the Louvre-Lens, was apprehended by a security
officer, taken to police and put in custody, we went on-site for inspection and observed
no anomaly. How can museum security officers possibly prevent visitors from carrying
pens or markers? Glass protection, in the case of the iconic Delacroix, was impossible
because of the canvas’s size and weight.
Art heist is the result of many dysfunctions that altogether create a propitious
situation for thieves, e.g. dwindling personnel, obsolete technology, and weak mechanical
protection. On-site police investigation is systematically required to study the exact
conditions of the theft insofar as it allows security protocols to be redefined – the only
way to prevent future theft. It has been observed that, in France, most thefts occur during
daytime. This highlights the insufficient numbers of museum staff in direct contact with
visitors, receptionists and security personnel alike. There can be no doubt that human
presence is the foremost dissuasion against malicious acts even as psychological acumen
and physical training are, more and more, required. The unsolved 1990 Gardner Museum
burglary, whereby a pair of thieves dressed up as Boston police officers were permitted to
enter through the museum’s security door on a fateful error, neutralized the night guards
on duty, and roamed the galleries stealing 13 priceless works of art, illustrates the near
irreversible loss provoked by lax museum security.
Investigators and museum security experts are confronted with the urgency of
175