Michael Finkel

I have bookmarked so many passages on my Kindle while reading this book. It's incredible that Breitweiser was able to steal so many masterpieces in such a short period. After finishing the book I realize he must have some mental issue that makes him continue down a path of destruction, not only for the loss of his own freedom but at the expense of his mother and his beloved girlfriend, Anne-Catherine. He is completely different from other art thieves as he never sought to sell the items. He show more needed to surround himself with the beauty.

At first I felt sorry for Anne-Catherine when she gave him the ultimatum of choosing art or her....he paused and had to think about that. But did she walk away then knowing she would always hold second place to his art obsession? She did not. Then the lies she told in court dissolved any sympathy I had for her. As for his mother, I won't give spoilers but wow.....zero sympathy for her. Her revenge was despicable.

It was stated that when museums had more financial resources where they could beef up security they chose to buy more art instead. I think I understand that because if you already have security it's more important to acquire more art for ALL people to enjoy. More art draws larger crowds. That certainly changed after Breitweiser's crimes were revealed.

Reading this true crime narrative educated me on security systems as as well as art detectives. I didn't know so many detectives were employed solely to investigate art thefts. Italy has the largest number of detectives boasting 300, Swittzerland has a handful, France has 30 and the United States employs roughly 20 detectives and produces their own Ten Most Wanted list for missing art. Tese figures are from the date of publication here so I imagine there are more now. show less

When I love a work of art I buy a postcard or a print or snap a photo. That’s how I ‘own’ it.

But Stéphane Breitwieser had an irresistible urge to steal the art that captured his heart. And he stole hundreds of works of art, filling his attic rooms in his mother’s house with more art that it could hold. Art by by Dutch masters including Cranach, Durer, and Brueghel, silverwork including chalices and a ship, a bugle gifted to Wagner, and even a tapestry were stashed in his crowded show more rooms.

Breitwieser mostly targeted small museums, and with the aid of his look-out girlfriend, quickly dismantled display cases or removed art from its frame, stashed them under his coat or in a duffle bag, and walked out of the museum, calmly greeting the guards a good bye.

The more successful he was, the greater risks he took. His girlfriend pleaded for it to end. His mother pretended she didn’t know. Breitwieser was caught one day before he even entered a museum he had stolen from before.

I was fascinated by this story. Finkel’s research and interviews offer great detail and insight into Breitweiser’s motivation and personality and motivation. It’s a must-read for those who love true crime stories as well as art lovers.

I received a free ebook from the publisher through NetGalley. My review is fair and unbiased. show less

Perhaps the world’s most active art thief, Stephane Breitwieser, maniacally lifted all types of art from 1994 to 2001 in Europe. An amoral thief, Breitwieser claimed to be motivated solely by his love of the works. And, in fact, until the very end of his “career” he didn’t sell any of them. I have really mixed feelings about this book because, although I didn’t buy it (I checked it out of our local library),I almost feel complicit in Michael Finkel’s profiteering from show more Breitwieser’s escapades. As I progressed in the book, I told my wife (who didn’t read the book) about the story. Her reaction was, “Why would you read that thing?” And I have to admit, I do feel a little guilty giving Breitwieser the time of day, much less the several hours it took to read “The Art Thief.” Believe me, if you decide to read “The Art Thief,” whatever sympathy you might have for the pathological kleptomaniac in the earlier parts of the book will dissipate quickly. show less

Michael Finkel was a respected and up and coming staff writer for the New York Times when he violated one of the major rules of journalism: He made something up. While reporting on a story about child warriors in Africa, he created a "composite" character as the focal point of the story. When the malfeasance was discovered, he was fired "for passing off as true a story that was, instead, a deceptive blend of fact and fiction."

He was out west licking his wounds, humiliated and wondering what show more to do next when he was contacted by a reporter. He thought he was being contacted about his firing, but the reporter wanted to know what he thought about Chris Longo. He learned that a man named Chris Longo had just been arrested in Mexico, where he had fled after murdering his wife and three young children. While in Mexico, Longo had adopted the identity of and passed himself off as New York Times writer Michael Finkel. Intrigued by this connection, Finkel contacted Longo, and began a correspondence with him, and a friendship of sorts developed. Over the next several years, Finkel interviewed Longo on a number of occasions, and when Longo was tried for the murders, Finkel followed the trial. This book resulted.

It consists of alternating chapters describing his relationship with Longo (as well as the story of how he, Finkel, came to falsify his reporting) and the story of Longo's life and how he came to murder his wife and children.

I mostly enjoyed this, but in undercurrents I occasionally got the feeling that Finkel doesn't really believe that what he did was really so bad that he deserved to be fired. Of course, he was fairly young, and also somewhat arrogant, with a dream job, and maybe a little bit power-mad. To me, he occasionally seems to try to justify himself, with quotes like this:

"I'd cheated on the quotes, but I had captured the correct story. My article was true in spirit--it was a higher truth than that bound by mere facts and figures--and I was able to delude myself that this was all that mattered."

And again, "I knew what I had done was against the rules. I hid my actions from my editor of the Times, though I believed I could wheedle my way out of it in the unlikely chance I was caught."

So while he admits that he knew he was doing wrong, he nevertheless deluded himself into thinking it was really not that bad, and if he got caught he could wheedle his way out of it. So I'm not really sure we can believe he has learned his lesson, and that we can trust that in the future his reporting will always be faithfully true, including this book. So I found myself sometimes taking what he writes with a grain of salt. Maybe it's a case of the man doth protest too much: the opening line of the book is: "This is a true story." And the last line is: "He won't be pleased, he said, unless everything in this book is absolutely, unassailable true."

2 1/2 stars. show less