The thefts prompted a predictable round of finger-pointing over lax security at the world’s museums. The Times reported that a recent internal review at the Courtauld had strongly recommended moving the Van Gogh to a more secure location. The findings had been rejected, however, because the gallery’s director liked the painting exactly where it was. Not to be outdone, the Telegraph weighed in with an authoritative series on the financial woes affecting Britain’s great museums. It pointed out that the National Gallery and the Tate didn’t even bother to insure their collections, relying instead on security cameras and poorly paid guards to keep them safe. “We shouldn’t be asking ourselves how it is great works of art disappear from museum walls,” the renowned London art dealer Julian Isherwood told the newspaper. “Instead, we should be asking ourselves why it doesn’t happen more often. Little by little, our cultural heritage is being plundered.”

The handful of museums with the resources to increase security rapidly did so while those living hand to mouth could only bar their doors and pray they were not next on the thieves’ list. But when September passed without another robbery, the art world breathed a collective sigh of relief and blithely reassured itself the worst had passed. As for the world of mere mortals, it had already moved on to weightier matters. With wars still raging in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the global economy still teetering on the edge of the abyss, few could muster a great deal of moral outrage over the loss of four rectangles of canvas covered in paint. The head of one international-aid organization estimated that the combined value of the missing works could feed the hungry in Africa for years to come. Would it not be better, she asked, if the rich did something more useful with their excess millions than line their walls and fill their secret bank vaults with art?