Both Peter Schjeldah, the author of “Moving Pictures” and Martin Filler, the author of “Victory!” seem to agree with the relocation of the Barnes Collection. Although, both very thoroughly describe the new location, neither delve into the legal/political obstacles faced by the state in having the collection moved.
- Why have the authors decided to leave this information out?Would the readers of these articles view the situation differently if presented with such information or would it not make a difference?
Although it is clear that Barnes’ will was violated by having the collection moved from its original home in Merion county to Philadelphia’s museum mile, both authors argue that strict stipulations have preserved Barnes’ aesthetic as much as possible. They also mention that the collection is still being used for educational purposes as was desired by Barnes.
- Could one argue that although the collection was moved, Barnes’ wishes are still being respected?
- To what extent is it significant that the collection has been relocated if the experience has been preserved?
I think the authors decided to leave the legal obstacles faced by the state in having the collection moved because the readers would see how unnecessary it was to move the paintings to Philadelphia and how Barnes will was violated. The readers of these articles would view the situations differently if presented with such information. While watching ” Art of steal” I felt that the state should not have allowed the move because it was so disrespectful to Barnes’ and all his hard work and that the people of Philadelphia museum took advantage of the weak financial state of the foundation and took over it. However, while reading these articles it feels as though the move was a better choice for both the artworks and the public viewers.
One could argue that although the collection was moved, Barnes’ wishes are still being respected. The collection was relocated because of the lack of funds in the Barnes foundation not to disrespect Barnes. Both Schjeldahl and Filler mention that most of his wishes are being respected. As the articles state the art works remained unlabelled except for the artists name, admission is somewhat limited and there is also no loaning of the artwork to respect Barnes’ principle for art appreciation. Educational services are also provided to students. Schjeldahl also mentions ” I couldn’t imagine that the integrity of the collection would survive. But it does, magnificently’. Although the movement of the Barnes’ collection was against Barnes’ will it still does respect his principles.
Why have the authors decided to leave this information out? Would the readers of these articles view the situation differently if presented with such information or would it not make a difference?
In the article “Moving Pictures,” Peter Schjeldahl does not mention anything about The Art of Stealing. In the article “Victory,” Martin Filler does mention The Art of Stealing. Schjeldal tries to explain that the Barnes collection was moved to a new and more technologically advanced location. His article does not deal with the topic of the art collection, aside from mentioning that it was moved. In Filler’s article, Barnes is described as a greedy old man who wanted to hide his collection from the world. Barnes became rich by using “a more technically adept colleague” and then subsequently ”bought him out.” This led him to be rich. Filler also paints Barnes as a egotist by saying that the reason that Barnes started collecting art was so that he would assemble a “far more significant collection,“ than his friend Peter Widener. Barnes bitter character is seen by the fact that he “spitefully barred” critics from the gallery, but allowed “Cub Scout packs and odd working Joes” to “roam the galleries.”
It would make a difference to the arguments of the articles if the information was presented in a positive light. In The Art of Stealing, we see that Barnes had good reasons for keeping the collection for students and not allowing everyone else access.
Could one argue that although the collection was moved, Barnes’ wishes are still being respected? To what extent is it significant that the collection has been relocated if the experience has been preserved?
In every respect, it seems that Barnes’s wishes were not fulfilled. The Barnes foundation was meant to be an educational institution. These pieces of art were only supposed to be seen by the young students of the Barnes foundation, because Barnes despised the pretentiousness of the art critics and collectors of his day, particularly the way that they scoffed at his taste in art. While those who moved the collection would like to argue that the experience of the Barnes collection and its order was preserved, the collection was intended for the few that Barnes deemed worthy to access the artwork that he owned, such as the students of the Barnes Foundation. It therefore does not make a difference, nor is it significant, if the collection was preserved in its order or manner of display, if the audience it was intended for was not maintained.
The fact that nothing about the will was ever mentioned in both articles seems rather suspicious. When people read an article and think about it they obviously use information that they know from that article itself. For that reason someone who knows nothing about the moving of the Barnes might be biased and deem the move as necessary and right. Considering this, doesn’t it seem strange that both Schjeldahl and Filler withheld any information regarding the will. The will, it seems, is the most vital component of the argument against the move. The Friends of the Barnes, the group against the move of the Barnes, use the fact that a man’s will was completely disregarded as the main reason why the move was wrong. Both Sonam and Shimon offered valid points in their feedback. Sonam is right in the sense that Barnes’ will was respected “to an extent.” All those points are correct and things like education being offered and limited access and some more were indeed followed. Now the issue I see is that Barnes’ major goal was to make his collection very different from the other museums in terms of arrangement or rather the lack of it and the dim lighting. The disorganized way in Barnes’ collection was placed for a reason. Barnes wanted everything to just reach the visitors in that chaotic, overwhelming way. He believed that was true art. The lighting was also set up in a dim way to support the works of art he had and to bring out the true meaning behind the works. That was his essential desire for his collection and if that was disobeyed and disrespected does anything else really matter? Shimon is also right about the audience not being maintained. The audience also played a big role in Barnes’ dreams and wishes regarding his collection. The most important points in Barnes’ were not followed and that defies the whole purpose behind the way he made the collection and why he made it.