Here's a paragraph from a review:
Miles has no serious doubts that Verres was more or less guilty as charged. But in her new study of his plundering of works of art (which includes a lengthy retrospective on the origins of art collecting in the Graeco-Roman world, and a fascinating discussion of the impact of the case on later issues of cultural property) she does tease out some of the complexities that underlie Cicero’s invective. In broad terms, we can detect a development in the ancient world from the idea of art as essentially a public or religious medium to the idea of art as the object of private collecting and connoisseurship. The late second and early first century BC in Italy was a particularly loaded moment in that transition, as the Romans came increasingly in contact with the artistic traditions of the Greek world, and works of art flowed to Rome from the eastern Mediterranean as the prize of conquest. Intensely debated were the role of Greek art within the “native” traditions of Roman culture, the legitimacy of the private ownership of luxury arts, and how far it was appropriate for an elite Roman to fashion himself as a “lover of art”.You can find the rest of the review here. A review with a more legal bent is here.