Project #1.8: Art of the Steal - the film

This film looks at the controversy surrounding the art collection of Dr. Albert C. Barnes, a millionaire who amassed a remarkable selection of significant works during the early 20th century. Barnes sought to keep his priceless pieces together as part of his foundation even after his death, but the involvement of numerous parties led to the scattering of his collection. This documentary sheds light on how his wishes were violated by a handful of opportunistic individuals.

Release date: September 12, 2009

Director, Don Argott, Producer Sheena M. Joyce

Direct your response papers to the following:

1. Why was the Barnes Foundation established?  By whom? Date?  What population did the Barnes' collection educate? The reasons behind this?
2. What was the contrevserory surrounding the Barnes Foundation?
3. Why did the City of Philidelphia want to take over the Barnes? Specify 4 areas thoroughly
4. Why did the individuals who were associated with the Barnes not want it to move?  What did they do?
5. Give four valid points why the Barnes should stay.
6. Give four valid points why the Barnes should move.
7. Taking away the knowledge of the course material presented throughout the semester, what do you think?

Your talking points worth 10% each.

10% Mechanics of writing

10% Directed to thoroughness and investment in your response

Your answers should be thorough and completed response paper to be a minimum of 500 words.
----------------------------------------------------------
STUDENT RESPONSES #1.8

        As this course has proved, museums are an essential part of American culture. However, the mysterious, darker side of museum work and collecting gradually unfolded throughout the course of the documentary The Art of the Steal under the direction of Don Argott. This essentially documented the shocking legal maneuvers of various Pennsylvanian entities to strip down a legal document in pursuit of profit. The convoluted tale truly begins in 1922 when Dr. Albert Barnes and his wife Laura purchased their Merion property and hired architect Paul Cret to design a gallery space (“About”). After the rejection of Dr. Barnes’ collection of Post-Impressionist artworks in 1923 by the Philadelphia intelligentsia, Dr. Barnes established the Barnes Foundation and the school within that to allow only students of the arts to access his collection (The Art…). The Foundation was also incorporated to educate any who genuinely sought knowledge of the arts, and the Barnes Collection served as the vehicle for this appreciation: the Barnes Foundation was focused on serving the underserved and underprivileged like the lower-to-middle classes and the local communities of color (The Art…).

The controversy began with the death of Dr. Barnes in 1951 and the fact that while his wishes were very clearly stipulated, the chain of who inherited the Barnes legacy was clouded. Violette de Mazia as one of his “right-hand educators” took on the position of President and during her lifetime the Foundation experienced stability and clarity (The Art…). Upon her death, the succession was murky and therefore the future of the Barnes Collection and the likelihood Barnes’ will would be upheld was grim.

The City of Philadelphia wanted to take over the Barnes for four particular claims: first, that the Barnes Foundation building was in dire need of repairs and therefore no longer suitable to house the Collection; second, that the general public should be able to access the Collection with more ease; third, that it would provide a stream of tourist-sponsored revenue; and fourth, due to the lack of a successor the Barnes Foundation was clearly in need of guidance and support (The Art…). Those who identified themselves as Friends of the Barnes Foundation or were former teachers, like Harry Sefarbi and Nick Tinari, simply did not want the Barnes Collection to move because it was stipulated as such in Dr. Barnes’ trust (The Art…). They believed they were honoring his last wishes and were willing to go to extreme legal lengths, like petitioning the Pennsylvania court system to reopen hearings in 2011 (The Art…). On top of legal action, the Friends also staged protests and rallies.

The subject of the move remains extremely controversial. There are valid reasons in the argument supporting both moving and staying, equally complex. To my mind, the four most valid reasons the Barnes Collection should stay is because first and foremost, it was laid out in the Barnes’ trust that it should remain in Merion and it is a legally binding document. The second reason is that Dr. Barnes’ teaching foundation relied upon the collection to educate its students, which bolstered an appreciation of the arts in the community. A third reason is that the Barnes Collection was curated and designed in a specific layout -- including the original Matisse mural The Dance that should never have been tampered with let alone removed. My fourth and final reason is that Merion -- not Philadelphia -- deserved their cultural heritage and the significant draw the Barnes Collection provided to the area. Tourism and money are far from the most important aspects of the Barnes Foundation but they are cultural realities of the modern era.

On the other hand, I can also understand some of the rationales behind moving the Barnes Collection. The first reason is that it is a fact that the Foundation building had fallen into -- minor! -- disrepair due to financial mismanagement, and could have potentially lead to damage to some of the artworks. The second reason that I sympathize with is the accessibility of the location of the Collection in Philadelphia: I believe the Collection should be public and it certainly is easier for those using public transportation or carpools to get to it (however, I do agree with Dr. Barnes’ original intentions over this option). The third valid point is that the City of Philadelphia by virtue of its size could raise sizable amounts of funding to support the Barnes Foundation. As I argued above, tourism and financial concerns are unfortunate economic realities for most large cities so the fourth and final reason is that the Barnes Collection would provide a significant income for the city.

Using the context of this course so far, from the films and articles we have analyzed, I think that the Barnes Collection was a travesty of justice. It is a very simple fact that Dr. Barnes left a legal document guiding his intentions and it was completely manipulated. In every way, the people Dr. Barnes intended to support and serve with his Foundation -- students, minority communities, the working class -- were taken advantage of or bluntly ignored. It also serves as an unfortunate warning for all small collections to leave legal provisions that are even more ironclad than the Barnes’ Trust was. His vision was an exemplar of curatorial practices and it is a shame that others sought to sacrifice this for political and financial gain.

Works Cited

"About." Barnes Foundation, edited by Shelley Bernstein, Area 17, 

www.barnesfoundation.org/about. Accessed 17 Apr. 2019. 

The Art of the Steal. Directed by Don Argott, Maj Productions, 2009.

----------------------------------------------------------

The Barnes Foundation was founded by Dr. Albert C. Barnes. He established this foundation to get the collection away from the interests of people of downtown Philly. Other museums were insulting him, saying that the pieces he had were not art. He didn’t want the pieces he collected to be used as a random decoration in someone’s home. Barnes mainly let people of the lower class see his collection because he wanted to give them a chance to see and study art. He also wanted to stick it to the rich people by not letting them get a chance to see it. Of course, there have been some people in the art museum world who believed that the collection should be shown to the public. 
In 1922, Barnes formed a school with his collection since he wanted the collection to also be used as an educational base. Barnes bought works of art not just because of who painted them, but because the pieces themselves were aesthetically beautiful. He saw some works as ugly but significant saw others as beautiful and insignificant, and others as both ugly and insignificant. The collection was to be used to educate the students at the Barnes foundation. In his will, Barnes said that it may be open two or three days a week to the public for revenue, but the rest of the week was open only to the student body. Against his will the collection went all over the world and displayed in a way he would have never agreed to. Then it went into the hands of the people he said he didn’t want to have it. They made a mockery of this man and insulted his work, then stole from him.

I believe the controversy behind the Barnes foundation was that the members of the board had ways of funding the foundation. It was shown that they had the resources to raise money to help keep the foundation where it was. It was thought that they wanted to move the collection close to the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Those who were teachers or students of the Barnes foundation didn’t want to move the Barnes Collection. Barnes stated in his will that it was to remain where it was, in Merion county.  It wasn’t to be lent and the paintings were never to be sold. Everything that Barnes did not want, Richard made happen. The collection ended up moving to the city of Philadelphia.

The city of Philadelphia wanted the Barnes collection because they felt the collection was to be shown to the public. The founder of the art museum hated Barnes because of what he said about his farther and wanted to screw him over for a while. Everyone associated with the Barnes collection did not want to move the collection because it was stated in his will that it should stay. The collection was displayed in a certain way that Barnes had in his mind. He thought of everything from the paint, groups of work shown together, metal pieces around them and the architecture of the building. It cost the foundation more money to move the collection then it would’ve if they stayed.

The building needed a lot of work to be done to it. It had leaky roofs and really needed to be updated. The move was supposed to raise money for the “renovation” but it ended costing more than it should’ve. Its great the public gets to see it now but at what cost?

As a lover of the arts, being able to see the works would’ve been amazing. However, I believe the way Barnes had it should have been how it should have stayed. To let his students and a special few go in, keeping it as a place for learning. It was his collection and even though it would’ve been great to see, I respect his decision to do what he wanted with displaying it. Saying this, I also believe that a few years ago I wouldn’t have cared much about his will. I would have  just wanted to see it, but I am glad that I know better now.
-------------------------------------------------------