1.Did the author of “Moving Pictures” fail to show both sides of the argument? The author mentioned his previous article on this matter to show that his opinion was different before he saw the new home of Barnes’ collection which seems like an attempt to convince the reader or himself that he is not biased and tried to see both sides. But he clearly ignores Barnes’ reasons for keeping the paintings strictly for educational purposes in this article and simply suggested his wishes were conserved in better condition.
2.Peter Schjeldahl, author of “Moving Pictures”, suggested that Barnes developed hatred for “Main Line oligarchy and nearly all credentialed art authorities”. He argued that this could be the main reason why Barnes didn’t want to “share” his collection by implying that Barnes’ view that art should be an experience for the viewer, was conserved in the new museum with minor changes. Would the author support any dissolution of personal wish and property if it is argued that the owner’s reason for not sharing the property is hatred for the other party or an institution?
3. “Victory!” by Martin Filler is shamelessly supportive of the move of the Barnes’ private collection and asserts that the intervention to move the collection against the wish of its owner is a civic attempt to rescue a “shared inheritance”. That raises a question: how can Martin Filler declare that a collection of paintings, sold without force and bought with one person’s fortune, is the property of everybody against the will of the person who actually paid for it?
These questions also struck me as I was reading. The author of “Moving Pictures” did in fact have a very one-sided article. It seems as if between 2004 and 2012, Schjeldahl had lost sight of a major issue: Barnes’ rights to his own property. He simply describes how well the art fits in its new location. The allusion he makes to his older article only includes how he thought the integrity of the art would change without Barnes’ genius design. He says very little about Barnes’ rights being violated besides that Barnes would not be happy with the move. Even so, he debases Barnes’ feelings by implying that they were simply built on pride over a power struggle with “the man,” or Philadelphia’s elite. I do not believe that he would have the same position in any other case where there was dissent based on hatred for another institution because it seems that he doesn’t even care about Barnes’ stance. He only seems concerned with the art.
“Victory!” was also extremely one-sided. Martin Filler portrayed Barnes as a crazy old man who was determined to hoard away that which the public is entitled to. What both Filler and Schjeldahl seem to forget is that no matter how great and culturally rich Barnes’ collection is, it was still his own. That art is Barnes’ private property and he can do what he pleases with it. The public is no more entitled to have access to Barnes’ collection than it is to have access to my wardrobe.
It is very interesting to have seen both sides of the story of Albert Barnes’ art collection. We saw the viewpoint of Barnes’ supporters who opposed the move from a documentary titled The Art of the Steal, directed by Don Argott. Many students, upon watching this film were enraged about the move: proving that it was indeed a very persuasive argument and very “one-sided” as many students put it. On the other hand, we also saw the positive outcomes of the move from Martin Filler’s “Victory!” and from Peter Schjeldahl’s “Moving Pictures.” While Schjeldahl gave us a brief history and an inside look into Barnes’ collection, Filler made his readers think “well hey, I guess the move wasn’t all too bad.” For example, the interior of the museum was kept consistent due to a court ruling that it remain that way (this includes the structure of the rooms and the placement of the paintings and the metalwork at Barnes had originally placed them). The only painting that was moved was Matisse’s The Joy of Life, although, as many students pointed out, it was moved to a place where more light would be placed on it. Light source was a major enhancement that came with the move of the Barnes collection.
Many students also brought up that the original intention of Barnes’ collection to encourage art education was ruined when the move was made. This opinion was shared with the people featured in Don Argott’s documentary as well. They believed that the move was made to increase tourist visitation to Philadelphia and hence bring in an obscene amount of money, which is all true. However, it was stated in the articles that we read that Barnes’ aim to keep art education going was also kept during the move with the incorporation of classrooms and auditoriums in the new location.
However, Evgenia and Ahmed make a great point when they refer to the violation of Barnes’ will. When it came down to private ownership versus public interest in the courtroom, public interest won. It is quite unsettling and disturbing to know that our private property is at risk after death, even though under the law we are promised protection of it. This shows that even though Barnes’ saw ahead of his time when he hired the best lawyers in America, the power of the state and the power of wealth can overcome a dead man’s wish.