Picasso Hoarders Indicted For Possession Of Stolen Property

In November, we told you about a 'treasure trove' of never-before-seen Pablo Picasso works revealed in the possession of a retired electrician.

Pierre Le Guennec, who installed alarm systems for Picasso in the last years of the Spanish painter's life, said the 271 pieces, which included collages, gouaches and lithographs, were gifts. French authorities, however, were not convinced, and have indicted Le Guennec and his wife Danielle for "concealing," France's classification for possession of stolen property.

Picasso's son Claude, who doubts Le Guennec's claims, has said that the couple's story does not match up with his father's usual gift-giving practices. Despite being extremely prolific, Picasso was not known to give away unsigned or undated works like the ones in Le Guennec's collection. Moreover, investigators say the works may have come from one of Picasso's other residences, in which Le Guennec had not worked.

Still, the Daily Mail quotes a source close to the investigation, who said: "It’s a tricky case because it’s effectively one side’s word against the other."

French newspaper Le Monde, reported the perspective of one investigator, who said: "The facts were present for almost forty years. All the contemporary witnesses are dead."

The plot thickened with the addition of a document from 1983 provided by the Picasso Administration, ten years after the supposed "gifts," which proved that Picasso's wife Jacqueline had given 540,000 francs (about 150,000 EUR today) to Le Guennec. The Le Guennecs had not disclosed this gift to investigators when it was discovered.

In addition, authorities have expanded their investigation of Le Guennec's late cousin Maurice Bresnu, Picasso's last driver, who himself had possessed over a hundred of his employer's works. Police seized several works from a recent sale of Bresnu's collection in early June. Le Monde reports that authorities have found "no link" between the cases so far, but notes the unusual connection.

A hearing for the Le Guennecs' case will likely take place in late June.

Comments

[SitandStay]

02:53 AM on 06/22/2011

It states when they found a document from 1983 concerning the work he did for Picasso, however it stated that Pierre Le Guennec's work took place in Picasso's last years of life. Picasso died in 1973.
With more elderly people, there will be more and more puzzles. Puzzles to everyone.

[leftyirishwoman]

10:31 PM on 06/17/2011

Picasso was an established artist, and just giving away unsigned works is not how they operate. Especially 300 of them.

[contrail]

07:05 AM on 06/18/2011

It's estimated Picasso produced more than 200,000 works. Imagine how many sketches he made along the way. I doubt he signed every little notation and scrap of an idea he ever had. More likely, as a established artist he signed what he thought best represented him at the time, and wanted to be remembered for.
Given the time frame of years and number of works in this 'theft', and if Picasso so jealously guarded his works, isn't it possible the artist might have figured out the electrician was stealing from him?

[fratricide08]

07:58 PM on 06/17/2011

You know the couple's story has happened in my own family. My mother in law had finished a painting and a guy had come to the house to install a water heater. The guy fell in love with the painting and said he'd give her a free water heater and install it in exchange for the painting. The deal was taken and everyone was happy. Stuff like this happens and Picasso was so prolific that it's very possible for him or his wife to have given away this number.

[thudula]

04:28 AM on 06/17/2011

France is full of Arabs. This couple should be set free. Can you please help them?

[ColoradoCool]

05:24 AM on 06/17/2011

HUH???

[sugarcreekchile]

04:15 AM on 06/17/2011

This just shows how low the quality of art today has sunk when galleries don't care if the works they're displaying are made by a man or a monkey. No one in Michaelangelo's or Monet's day would dip their chickens' feet in paint, have them walk across a canvas and hang it on the wall as art. Art is " the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects". These animals aren't creating art. They've just been taught a trick to do with paint.

[sugarcreekchile]

04:17 AM on 06/17/2011

Sorry, this accidentally posted on wrong article.

[Adam Schrader]

05:03 AM on 06/16/2011

As for why they didn't sell it: perhaps they just loved the paintings more than the money they would and could have received. The paintings, and NOT the money, were the gifts after all.

[ColoradoCool]

05:24 AM on 06/17/2011

Naive much?

[Adam Schrader]

06:38 AM on 06/17/2011

That's not naive. I wouldn't sell those paintings. It's Picasso, and a friend. Money isn't everything. And the world doesn't have to be a cold and calculating place. Don't assume that because the news has an article featuring the authorities and Picasso's son that they are correct. There is a big difference between naivety and optimism.

[krayonc]

12:55 PM on 06/15/2011

Unsigned & undated? Picasso might have considered them worthless.

I imagine something like this...

Pierre: "These are great, why do you have them all piled up like this?"

Picasso: "Those? No...those are garbage..not worth anything"

Pierre: "Well I think they're beautiful"

Picasso: "Eh...want them? Take them. They're just cluttering up the room."

Why would you steal unsigned & undated, knowing that you'd have to authenticate them and explain where you got them in order to profit?

[Bellara]

11:42 PM on 06/16/2011

My thoughts exactly! If they were stolen, they would have sold it in the black market long ago to rid themselves of the stolen goods! Picasso's son and relatives are simply working with the authority to gain this property back so they can sell it at record high and retire right away. BRAVO for getting your statement across in such a detailed and matured manner!

[krayonc]

12:44 PM on 06/17/2011

Kind of simplistic (I thought) but I've been in a similar situation so it's easy to imagine. Personally, I can't sell anything an artist has given to me. They'll have to wait till I'm dead to get it. (That's how I feel now....might be different when I'm 80)

[Robert Langham]

01:17 AM on 06/17/2011

That is a most remarkable explanation, as stated unsigned and undated! Must have picked them up just to have a keepsake as in hey I used to work for picasso ya right these are his work? Hey that's bull there's no name or date on any of them , you trying to copy his work. That's a great job you tried to do but if it was his it would of been signed at least and you surly would of sold some by now!!

[krayonc]

01:59 PM on 06/17/2011

lol...seriously. Picasso gives you almost 300 pieces and you're suppose to ask him to sign them all before accepting? Who would do that to a person?

[f0rTyLeGz]

08:29 PM on 06/14/2011

My 2 ¢s. If the art works were actually gifts then they would have sold some long ago.

And, "Picasso was not known to give away unsigned or undated works like the ones in Le Guennec's collection." Usually a well known artist, who gives art for services, will sign the work mentioning the person's name, who the work is gifted to.

[Adam Schrader]

04:58 AM on 06/16/2011

Not if the paintings were important or held memories to them. I personally wouldn't sell something I loved just because I needed some extra money. There was another article posted today about how art elicits a similar feeling as love. Also, just because the art was gifted doesn't mean that it has to be signed or anything. Especially if it was viewed as garbage by the creator, which this may have been. If you were a famous photographer, painter, or sculptor, would you sign your work even if you were just giving it to a friend/family/co-worker?

[f0rTyLeGz]

03:48 PM on 06/16/2011

Yes I would sign it, and mention my friend's name, and date also.

[BinghamLofts]

04:49 PM on 06/14/2011

never ever reveal anything that you think the government will come and take...

[ColoradoCool]

05:27 AM on 06/17/2011

In other words, if you've gotten away with a crime, keep your mouth shut about it. Nice set of ethics you've got there Bingham.

[burningviolin]

02:23 PM on 06/14/2011

French law presumes the accused is innocent. It will be interesting to see what evidence the Picasso estate has to justify its claim the works were stolen. At this point, it's easier to believe Le Guennec than Picasso's heirs.

[Edward Joseph Wagner]

01:38 PM on 06/17/2011

Under French Law/Napoleanic Code, you are guilty until proved innocent, n'est-ce pas?

[dave6686]

02:15 PM on 06/14/2011

These People are innocent. The big money folks want to rip them off. Just like here in America, the top 5% hordes all the money... why hasn't there been one single indictment yet?

[geo999]

02:13 PM on 06/14/2011

When the state wants your stuff, the state gets your stuff.

[RMinIL]

01:14 PM on 06/14/2011

"The plot thickened with the addition of a document from 1983 provided by the Picasso Administration, ten years after the supposed "gifts," which proved that Picasso's wife Jacqueline had given 540,000 francs (about 150,000 EUR today) to Le Guennec."

That would seem to lend creedance to the claim that the art was a gift since even Picasso's wife was extravagant in her gifting to Le Guennec.

[bi-poplar]

01:04 PM on 06/14/2011

So they just kept them. For forty years. Sounds to me like they WERE gifts, or payments. If the couple was bent on getting rich, wouldn't they have sold them off by now instead of stashing them in a barn? The whole thing (on the "authority's" and Claude's side) sounds shady.

[Mekales]

09:33 PM on 06/14/2011

" wouldn't they have sold them off by now..."

Not if they had something to hide and didn't want anyone questioning their ownership.

[JtownesquireAgain]

12:57 PM on 06/14/2011

So...Picasso's relatives want to make sure they squeak and squeeze every dime they can from his work....thereby not ever having to do any themselves. But, I'm sure they need the money these works will bring...they are obviously on the brink of being destitute....and need to raise cash.

*note sarcasm*.

[31cup]

01:20 PM on 06/14/2011

property is property, dude...doesn't matter your opinion of the owner- if their property is stolen, they have the law on their side.

[RedRoux]

02:16 PM on 06/14/2011

both of you are working under assumptions that most likely, will never be adequately proven.