Stealing Photos? Now This is Bulls**t.

Stealing digital photos has long been a pasttime for some web junkies, and we as photographers have always dealt with it. Sign of the times. But this week’s theft of Jason Lee’s Polaroid portrait of actor Dennis Hopper is straight-up bull shittake.

The art collective ThisLosAngeles last week reported that, after a gallery opening called These Friends, they agreed to let a patron use the restroom just before closing. Turns out that this particular patron visited the toilet, but also paid a visit to the incredibly valuable (and beautiful) one-of-a-kind-polaroid-portrait of Dennis Hopper (shot by artist/actor Jason Lee) in the back of the gallery…and he swiped it. Pulled the art off the wall and walked out.

G’head and blame the gallery, blame the collective, blame the attendant who let the guy take a leak, blame whomever. The point is that I’m blaming the perpetrator and you should too. Stealing is bad, stealing one of a kind art is worse, and that the thief is amongst us…

Now–after several days and a $25,000 reward–Lee’s Polaroid is still missing. The gallery is facing the prospect of going out of business, the cops have little resources to sink resources into finding the culprit and recovering the loss. Wouldn’t it be nice if we in the photo, art, design, pop culture community could track this photo (and this criminal) down?

Citizens arrest. Call Jeremy Weiss at 323-747-5301 or this@thislosangeles.com if you have any tips.

(via Fraction Magazine. More details here from ThisLosAngeles.)

Related Posts

Making Art for Art’s Sake
How to Differentiate Your Work
Creative Acts for Curious People with Sarah Stein Greenberg
Design + Creativity Lecture with Renowned Designer Paula Scher
Brené Brown: The Quest For True Belonging
You Are Not Your Art

63 replies on:
Stealing Photos? Now This is Bulls**t.

  1. This is sad. But is that photo really worth 25k?
    Yes I know Dennis Hopper was a great actor who passed away last year.

    But something is fundamentally wrong with society when we place a Polaroid’s worth at 25k.

    One of a kind or not, it is a photo, and of a highly documented individual. Meanwhile 25k could feed homeless within the immediate surrounding Los Angeles area. Perhaps, a portion of that reward, can be donated in the name of the photographer, the studio and heck even Dennis Hopper to better serve a inflated value of a 3.5 x 4.25 piece of paper.

    I know there will be flack from this that I am missing the point… but am I really?

    1. Ah, yes,
      and that Van Gogh hack – I mean seriously who who pay so much money for a bit of paint and cloth.
      You have a point to be taken, but for people to value you and your opinion, don’t undervalue theirs. (For the record, I don’t think you’re “fundamentally wrong” 🙂 but I can also appreciate value in a superior piece of art)

    2. And couldn’t you, who are preaching to us, be spending your time more productively? Rather than posting multiple replies and trying to ruffle some feathers on a photo blog, shouldn’t you be out pounding the pavement trying to feed those homeless? Get over yourself.

      1. I volunteer 3 nights a week at a shelter locally in NY.

        There is no unfit place to discuss the issues of society, especially in an increasingly ‘social network’ online.

        Thanks for the advice.

        1. ka0s has a very valid point. He’s not undervaluing anything as much as exposing the absurd stance some people are willing to go over some piece they probably never knew existed, never cared for or even never (financially) valued.

          At worst, the gallery is insured. At best, they catch him and all can sleep well at night.

          Now if we can just shift our attention to more pressing matters, like the current debt based economic system that has been swallowing up and crushing worldwide masses for the past couple of generations.

    3. It’s not about the medium (piece of paper) but it’s what’s on it. Some people are willing to pay that much to get it back, and also make an example that stealing is not acceptable.

  2. “The gallery is facing the prospect of going out of business”. Yes, stealing is bad, but, why would they go out of business? Did the gallery not have insurance? If so, that’s just irresponsible, and frankly very odd.

  4. An interesting case… and a one of a kind picture…. BUT… come on… don`t appel to the people for that… There are murderers out there and you waste your time on an art thief?

    Nico

Comments are closed.