Stolen coins, burgled artwork and forgeries all share a common trait — they result from crime. Venturing one step further, one might ask: What compels an individual to commit art theft or forgery? While the motive is not completely understood, it is known that these events have occurred in the past and continue to occur.

The recent theft of the “Big Maple Leaf,” a 221-pound Canadian pure gold coin, from Berlin’s Bode Museum might suggest that it is related to money. The coin is valued at $4.5 million at current market prices for gold, according to a March 27 New York Times article. Too recognizable to sell, experts worry that the thieves might melt the gold, thus destroying a timeless work of art.

Such occurrences of theft, despite increasingly tightening museum security, have been witnessed throughout history. In 1990, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston was robbed of its works by Johannes Vermeer, Rembrandt, Edouard Manet and Edgar Degas in just one night, according to a Jan. 31, 2013 article in the Guardian. To this day, they have not been recovered.

In 2016, two works by Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh were recovered in Italy after they were stolen from the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, Netherlands in 2002, according to a Sept. 30, 2016 article in the New York Times.

Then, in the world of forgery, forgers cleverly study the old masterpieces and replicate the form, subject, colors and even material to capture the most complete painting. All this leads to the question: Is stealing and forging art an artform in itself? In other words, does the theft or the forging of art contribute to its network?

From the start, both stealing and forgery are crimes. They are both extremely lucrative and are almost always committed for profit. In fact, art theft is one of the most profitable crimes. However, some argue that thieves cannot make enough money because it is hard to profit from the stolen artwork if they do not have authenticity, provenance or the legal title, according to a Nov. 22, 2012 BBC article.

Although crime in general should be discouraged, these crimes are popularized in mainstream culture, through literature — such as Noah Charney’s “The Art Thief” — and films or television shows like USA Network’s “White Collar.” The art thief and the forger carry a romantic aura; it is almost as if their professions are as popular as the art they steal or imitate.

There might indeed be some truth to this thought. Han van Meegeren, a 20th-century Dutch forger, is considered the most “original of fakers;” he was a master at copying original paintings, particularly those of Vermeer, according to an Oct. 27, 2008 article in The New Yorker.

Van Meegeren made around today’s equivalent of $30 million from his forgeries before his paintings were deemed fake. He sold them to the Nazis, and during his trial, he became a Dutch hero after purportedly saying, “How could a person demonstrate his patriotism, his love of Holland more than I did by conning the great enemy of the Dutch people?” according to a July 12, 2008 NPR article.

Indeed, how? That is, how could a forger become a hero? His forgeries became art and part of Vermeer’s image — part of the Netherlands’ national heritage. Van Meegeren may not have actually tampered with the original work, but today, when thinking of Vermeer and the Dutch masters, one might remember the forger as well. He painted himself into the provenance and the history of ownership of the piece and of the artwork itself.

If forgers might have a chance to become heroes, then what of thieves? Thieves, having stolen the artwork or coin, also have a potential. They can do it by etching their name on the provenance of an artwork.

This is not a theft. However, the story suggests that even years after an artwork has been completed, it can be affected — by changing the provenance, for instance. That is, artwork is constantly affected by the events surrounding the work. Therefore, if a theft takes place, the artwork would forever be attached to that event. It is almost as if the artwork is still in development and has a life of its own — adding to its legacy.

Of course, art theft is a much more serious business. In Italy, the mafia is particularly active in stealing paintings and in using them for money laundering, according to a Dec. 23, 2013 BBC article. This was the case for the Renaissance Italian artist Michelangelo Caravaggio, whose stolen masterpiece, “Nativity with St. Francis and St. Lawrence,” was replaced by a duplicate only recently in 2015. Such a scale of theft is damaging to the art world because stolen works are not always recovered, and then they are used in money laundering.

In all, art in recent times has gone hand in hand with forgery and theft. Despite the criminal element, one must respect the level of skill that is needed to recreate a timeless work of art. When forgers recreate masterpieces by the masters, they then imbibe the spirit of the work. When masterpieces are stolen, the media frantically discusses the story. Then, people ask questions, such as: Where is the stolen artwork? Who stole the piece and why? Finally, the media add their own story to art theft and forgery by romanticizing them through books, movies and T.V. shows.

Forging, similarly, a crime no less, has taken on its own form. It is as if the forger recreates the masterpiece out of passion for art. Yet, there is an incentive of making very large sums of money. Can one really say, then, stealing and forging art will be formally accepted as their own art forms? Realistically, no. There is a motivation of money. However, like literature, films or television, they could be fantasized.